The 'Law of Christ' debate revisited

Introduction

It got quite heated! 

Amongst those who regard themselves as holding the position of New-Covenant Theology, some few years ago there was vigorous debate between two variants of the approach to God's word.

Briefly, for those not conversant, New-Covenant Theology (NCT) outlines how the 'system' of theology which is the framework of God's revelation through his word is the series and progression of God's covenants. And that all of them are fulfilled by the final Christ-covenant, instituted by the Son of God and  intiated at the Acts 2 Day of Pentecost, when the crucified-risen-ascended Christ poured out the promised Holy Spirit. Most significantly, NCT argues that it is the process of covenant which determines sections of history, not 'Dispensations' which external thought has imposed upon the Bible. Further, NCT proclaims that the Bible should define and determine its own terminology. Thus we cannot impose upon the word 'covenant' what a systematic theology - such as Covenant Theology - requires.

A summary of this straight approach to God's word might be stated in two sentences:

1. Let the Bible be its own system, and
2. Let the Bible determine its own dictionary

Thus far so good! But what derived from this common base was a consideration of the 'mechanics' of life in Christ. Under grace, not Law (the old covenant Law of Moses). Living in the Spirit. But did that mean that no 'law' at all was to be regarded as applying to believers? Some said "in the new covenant, we are under the 'law of Christ'". Others argued that even this did not adequately grasp the degree of freedom which walking in the Spirit brings; that Paul argues clearly that the new covenant is not a law covenant at all. Accusations of 'anti-nomianism' were levelled. If following Christ was not regulated by given commands, how was the believer to know anything about how to please God? Appeal was made to the one verse in the New Testament - Galations 6:2 - where Paul speaks of 'the law of Christ'. Oh, and the other verse in 1 Corinthians where he says in 9:21 that he is not without law, but is (as many translations have it) 'under the law of Christ'.

This debate I have covered in other posts on this blog. But subsequent to that, we are now in the age of AI - a massively powerful tool, which, if used wisely, can very quickly accomplish research which would take us far longer, and can draw from sources we might not have been aware of. As an avid user of Logos Bible Software, I make regular use of their own AI, knowing that the parameters are already there to confine sources to Biblical and Christian ones. So I decided to see what additional light might be thrown on this old debate.

'Ennomos' in 1 Corinthians 9

In this post, I'm going to be looking at the 1 Corinthians verse. I am increasingly aware of the importance of understanding what we have written in our Bibles in terms of the minds of its writers and its audience. WHO wrote this particular passage? And to WHOM? WHY did they write specifically 'that' in the way it was written? Purpose drives it. And must be understood if we are to accurately hear what the Holy Spirit had it recorded for us. We seek the:

Them - There -Then purpose

in order to grasp the

Us - Here - Now purpose

So let's remind ourselves of Paul's context. Here is the passage:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

• To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.
• To those under the law I became as one under the law
  (though not being myself under the law)
  that I might win those under the law.
• To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (
  not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)
  that I might win those outside the law.
• To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. 

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. "
(1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

I have addressed Paul's primary purpose in this passage (not insisting on his 'rights' and freedom in Christ) in other posts. Thus the reference to his position with regards 'law' is illustrative - secondary. It is not a major doctrinal assertion. If we are looking for that, we must look elsewhere.

Today, I want to look at the phrase 'under the law of Christ'. It translates the Greek which says that he is 'ennomos' to Christ - the words 'under the law' come from our translator's efforts. And noble though they undoubtedly are, I think it misrepresents something quite powerful. The Corinthians would have got it because they were living in the Roman world. This is where I got AI involved. What follows is what it returned in response to specific questioning, and I think it completely lifts the lid off that mysterious phrase. The first question helps us understand the background against which the church was living, and from which many of those now Christ's had been saved.

***

Tell me about the religio in the Roman world

Roman religio fundamentally meant aligning one’s thoughts and actions with conventional prudence, emphasizing practices over beliefs. This wasn’t primarily about personal conviction. For most Roman citizens, religion functioned as an expression of ethnic and geographical identity rather than private faith. 

The Roman system incorporated foreign cults within a syncretistic framework, requiring all religious practices to receive official state authorization1. Religions that rejected Rome’s law, order, and authority—or encouraged others to do so—faced violent suppression. 

The Romans understood religio broadly. Anything that called to mind one’s bonds and obligations—whether oaths, omens, laws, or traditions—could constitute a religio. The emotional dimension of religio encompassed fear, anxiety, and caution, as well as the guilt and shame resulting from breaking sacred bonds. 

A crucial distinction emerged between religio and superstitio. Religio was the official state cult binding the state to the gods, while superstitio referred to private faith that was tolerated unless it involved harmful actions or neglected official state religio. 

--- 

How did the idea of ennomos function in Roman religion, as authorised and licenced sacrifice to a god

The term ennomos means “legal” or “customary; within the law.” In the Roman religious context, this concept functioned as a crucial mechanism for legitimizing sacrifice and maintaining divine favor through proper procedure. 

Roman religious practice was characterized by an exacting legalism: ceremonies required precise execution according to exact prescriptions, and if errors occurred, the entire ritual had to restart from the beginning—a practice called instauratio—with these ceremonies recited from written texts. This procedural rigor meant that sacrifice operated within a framework of authorized, lawful practice. Only authorized cults could be practiced within Rome’s sacred boundary, the pomerium, and only there could the civil divinations be performed.

The authorization dimension was essential. Roman ancestors established fixed and customary ceremonies regulated by pontifical knowledge, with sacrifice functioning as a customary rite performed when proper authorization and procedure were observed. Sacrifice thus became a communication act—the worshiper appealed to the god through proper procedure and attitude—but only when conducted ennomos, within the legal and customary bounds established by state authority. 

Critically, the god’s acceptance remained unpredictable despite proper procedure; accepting sacrifice was a matter of divine choice, and sometimes the god declined to be gracious. Ennomos sacrifice thus represented the worshiper’s fulfillment of obligation—performing the legally prescribed ritual—but could not guarantee divine reciprocation. The term encapsulated Rome’s distinctive approach: religion as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to the divine order, rather than as a matter of personal conviction or assured divine response. 

How does this help our understanding of Paul's singular use of the word in 1 Corinthians where he describes himself as ennomos to Christ 

Paul’s use of ennomos Christou in 1 Corinthians 9:21 becomes strikingly innovative when read against the Roman religious background. Where Roman religio functioned as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to divine order—performed with exacting legalism and state sanction—Paul inverts the framework entirely. 

Paul appears to have created this term ennomos to describe his own position toward the law after his encounter with Jesus. Rather than positioning himself under Mosaic law or outside God’s jurisdiction altogether, Paul refuses to identify God’s law with the law of Moses, and more fundamentally, his obedience to God’s law occurs within the context of his relationship with Christ. 

The contrast illuminates Paul’s theological move. Roman religio demanded external compliance with prescribed forms—the correct words, the proper sequence, the authorized sacrifice. Yet Paul’s adherence to the law through Christ constitutes a spiritual experience of that law, avoiding both legalistic rigor and arbitrary anarchy through the internal action of the Holy Spirit. Where Rome’s ennomos meant “within legal bounds set by state authority,” Paul’s ennomos Christou means “bound to Christ’s authority”—a personal, relational constraint rather than an institutional one. 

If Paul is ennomos Christou, he is bound not only by certain teachings of Jesus but by all that Christ accomplished and represents, and within this submission to Christ’s law lies perfect freedom. This represents a radical recalibration: the procedural precision of Roman religion becomes the transformative relationship of Christian obedience. Paul is not bound by Mosaic jurisdiction but is bound to obey God as one living under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 ***

So 'ennomos', in Roman life, was the sanctioned activity by which a citizen would interact with whatever god they were appealing to. A kind of official licence, without which the act of worship or petition - including sacrifice - was not authorised. It was the permitted bond between the supplicant and the deity. Note that last paragraph. Paul is not declaring that he is 'under a law'. He is announcing the new relationship to his living Saviour.