Imperative Imposters?

Introduction

Some New Covenant Theology adherents want to insist that even in the new covenant, whilst

expounding vigorously that believers are not under the old covenant Law, nevertheless they ARE under a new kind of law. They would call this 'the Law of Christ', using Paul's phrase from Galatians 6. When asked how we are supposed to discover what, precisely, this law contains, various answers are given. A common one is to assert that 'the Law of Christ' is made up of all of the 'imperatives' of the New Testament - the command-style statements made through those writings. And that these are the new-law 'commandments' which we are supposed to be obeying. However, on closer examination, this definition proves to be woefully inadequate on various counts. And one problem is the Greek use of the imperative 'mood'. Here is a quick survey of Greek verbs:

"Ancient Greek verbs have four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative), three voices (active, middle and passive), as well as three persons (first, second and third) and three numbers (singular, dual and plural).

In the indicative mood there are seven tenses: present, imperfect, future, aorist (the equivalent of past simple), perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect. (The last two, especially the future perfect, are rarely used). In the subjunctive and imperative mood, however, there are only three tenses (present, aorist, and perfect). The optative mood, infinitives and participles are found in four tenses (present, aorist, perfect, and future) and all three voices. The distinction of the "tenses" in moods other than the indicative is predominantly one of aspect rather than time."

Greek, then, is much more precise than English, and sometimes our translators have struggled to adequately represent what is being said. They do a valiant job. Just, sometimes, we need to know a little more so that we do justice to all that the text is saying.

Imperatives have 'strength'

We must also see that all imperatives are not equal. They vary in ‘strength’. In other words, there are ‘levels’ of commanding, and this can be quite adequately seen in English. James L Boyer says:


“Much popular exegesis of the Greek imperative mood rests on unwarranted assumptions. Analysis of the actual usage of the imperative in the NT reveals that many common exegetical conclusions regarding the imperative are unfounded. For example, a prohibition with the present imperative does not necessarily mean "stop." And when it does, it is context, not some universal rule of the imperative, that determines the meaning. The imperative mood has a wide latitude of meanings from which the exegete must choose in light of contextual clues. The temptation to standardize the translation of the various imperatival usages should be resisted.”
Grace Theological Journal 8.1 (1987) 35-54.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/boyer-imperatives-gtj.pdf

Even in our own language, we can see that imperatives can be used in different ways. Let’s take a single-word imperative – “Go!” – and see if I can illustrate.

1. Encouragement – “Go for it” (implies ‘you CAN do it’)
2. Exhortation - “Go on – shoot!” (as my football team’s striker nears the goal)
3. Direction - “Go left at the next junction” (Satnav command)
4. Authoritative - “Go into all the world and preach the gospel”

There are probably others. What determines? Context, of course. Boyer, again:

"Commands include a broad spectrum of concepts--injunctions, orders, admonitions, exhortations--ranging from authoritarian dictates (a centurion ordering his soldier to go or come, Matt 8:9), to the act of teaching (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5:2, cf. 12ff.). Commands are distinguished from requests as "telling" is from "asking." The distinction, however, is not made by the mood used but by the situation, the context. They are used in the language of superiors to subordinates and of subordinates to superiors, and between equals."

To reiterate, Greek is far more ‘analytical’ than English. It has more tenses. And tenses have moods. As an example of this, there is a ‘mood’ in Greek called a ‘hortatory subjunctive’. It converts an imperative into an exhortation – usually translated ‘Let us’. But it is still an imperative. See, for example, Galatians 5 vs 26 

“Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another”. 

So what we might conceive of as New Testament ‘laws’ aren’t to be read indiscriminately as such, even if we take the view that the ‘law of Christ’ consists of all of its imperatives. For example, there are imperatives in what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. Are we, then, commanding God? Of course not.

Simply, imperatives are not always ‘imperative’! Read Boyer's article.

An Inadequate Definition

What I am seeking to demonstrate is that if this ‘law of Christ’ is going to be loosely defined as consisting of “all of the imperatives of the New Testament”, this is woefully inadequate. It does not give us enough basis for us to be able to decide what is ‘in’ and what is not. Which imperatives? How do we know? Second, we have no information about what the first church considered to be a part of it, and no way of deciding that. And what happens, without exception, with those who hold this is that they utterly fail to even attempt a definitive description. It is simply left as an extremely loose assertion, which is somehow expected to be convincing.

Paul's Use of "Ennomos" in 1 Corinthians 9

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes this intriguing statement:

" 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." (vs 21)

Elsewhere, he repeatedly and pointedly states that believers are not 'under law'. It might seem, therefore, that he contradicts himself. But if we have a consistent view of God's word, we know that this cannot be so. It is the Holy Spirit who is the author behind the author of every written part of our Bible, and it is inconceivable that He argues against himself. So, we who take this view must seek to understand what is going on here.


Some have taken this verse and, standing it alongside Galatians 6 vs 2, which speaks of believers 'fulfilling the law of Christ', have constructed a kind of 'believers' law' which stands in the new covenant where the Law of Moses stood in the old. But what of Paul's emphatic insistence that those who are in Christ are NOT under law?


Countering this argument, others have noted that the actual words used in 1 Corinthians 9 are not 'hupo nomos' - 'under law', but 'ennomos', which, strictly translated, means 'in-lawed' to Christ. Their opponents argue back that this is splitting Greek hairs, and that the two terms are virtually synonymous. I have considered this discussion for some time, and have recently come across something which may well throw all the light on it that we will ever need! But before I reveal this enlightenment, let me explain why I am not happy that this verse speaks of believers being 'under law'.

The Perspicuity of Paul

Historically, Protestants have argued for a doctrine known as 'the perspicuity(clarity) of Scripture'. This states that:

...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)

So, within this, we can also expect Paul to be plain in what he says. It would be no exaggeration to describe this learned, skilled Apostle as 'God's mastermind'. It is not for nothing that God used him to write 13 of the 29 documents which comprise our New Testament. Their contribution to our understanding of our faith is inestimable. And we can trust utterly his grasp, and his expression, of what God commissioned him to communicate - to the first church and to us. His extensive Jewish scholarly background, his understanding of the cultures of the churches he was writing to, and, not least of all, the enlightenment and Godly training of the risen Christ in his life had sharpened this finest of 'God's tools in the toolbox' to the nth degree and fit him for God's purpose. And yet he knows he writes to untrained men and women, non-scholars, in the various places in which God has used him to plant and nurture churches. So he, and the Spirit through him, ensures that his language is, as far as possible, plain and succinct. He writes to be understood!


When it comes to him using a different word from the usual and expected one in the context of 1 Corinthians 9, then, my suspicions are aroused. Why does he not just say,

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."

... using 'huper nomos' as would be perfectly reasonable? Surely, if he wanted to make that point abundantly clear, beyond the realms of conjecture, he could so easily have done so. But what he does is to state,

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but in-lawed to Christ."

Notice that what has happened is that the object of the sentence is different to the way most of our translations present it - Paul's object is Christ, not law. I don't think that is accidental. 'In-lawed' at least, here, becomes descriptive of the way he, as a believer, is related 'to Christ' - he is not 'under ...', he is 'in-lawed'. Whatever else is going on, that at least, is significant, and I don't think we can reasonably just shrug shoulders and say "but he meant 'under the law ...'"

And then again, if the maxim of believers yet being 'under law' is so important, why is it not everywhere and all through his letters, employing this word freely and liberally? Why only once, and only to Corinth?

All Greek To Me

So here is the shaft of bright sunlight! I am indebted to a very thorough study by Fred Naiden in his book titled "Ancient Supplication". It gets a bit technical, but I will try to keep my explanation simple.


First, note that Paul is writing to the church at Corinth - a Greek church. For many years, that great city functioned almost as the capital. Their society had inherited the full complement of the Greek pantheon of gods, and now, added to all of them, were the extra Roman ones. Temples abounded, and the practice of the worship of their gods was 'sewn in' to their society - extremely deeply embedded.


When we examine the way that their religious system operated, we will immediately notice that for both Greeks and Romans, there was no distinction between 'politics' and 'religion'. In other words, the two were intertwined, and the ruling authorities legislated in matters of worship. As a member of that society, the plan was first to choose the right god for the right cause, the right occasion. You then had to gain their attention somehow, and present your particular request for their benevolence, in whatever way you needed it. This was a complex business. If you got it wrong - by presenting the wrong oblation, on the wrong altar, at the wrong time - you could incur wrath and blight instead of the favour you sought. And ... not only for you, but for anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity at the time your displeased deity was visiting his/her wrath on you (think Jonah in his storm-beleaguered ship). So it was expedient for the government to do whatever they could to make sure that only those who 'qualified' could actually even get to the altar. They had to 'apply', and they were called 'suppliants'.


Here is what Naiden has to say:

Supplication incorporates divine sanctions against perjury and against the expulsion of the innocent from altars and divine injunctions to allow a suppliant to approach and have his request heard.

… it also incorporates numerous regulations passed by the assembly of any given community, notably Athens. For their part, the gods endorse sanctions, injunctions and regulations. For its part, the assembly addresses every part of the practice. Besides regulating how citizens deal with one another and with the community, it regulates how the community deals with the gods."

Their application was duly considered by a Council, or an Assembly. And if they were found to be ok - guess what

- their 'supplication' was said to be 'ennoma', and they were said to be 'ennomos'! Naiden again (he is taking specific examples from Greek literature to illustrate his point):

No matter what the suppliant’s station and request, the supplication that he or she makes must be ennoma, or the suppliant must be ennomos – the Samian formulation. The moral side of these terms appears in the assertion that Dioscurides is worthy. But the legal side is larger and more complex. In regard to the first two steps, ennoma or ennomos means that the suppliant is eligible to supplicate and has done so at the right time. Ennomos in the Samian inscription supplies the first meaning, “eligible to supplicate”, and ennoma in the Attic inscriptions supplies the second meaning, which is presenting oneself at the right time. In regard to the last two steps, ennoma complements hiketeuin as a verb of speaking and means that the suppliant has made a lawful request. Finally, since the lawful request has led to the passage of a decree granting honours, annoma also means that the supplication has proved “valid”, a sense of ennoma in other legislative contexts."

Thus, we see that the word 'ennomos' has specific meaning for Paul's hearers, within the Graeco-Roman religious culture of the day. It is in common usage, and it is transparently understood.

1 Corinthians 9 vs 21 in New Light

Paul loves playing on words. And he is not averse to 'borrowing' a word or two from the current climate and making it work for him. He does it in Galatians with the Roman practice of 'paedagogue'. And it is my persuasion that he does it here too. This also explains why

a) It is done specifically with the Greek-backgrounded church of Corinth

b) He never uses this rather loaded term again elsewhere. Perhaps he can get away with it once, because these people knew what he was referring to (and now, we do!). But doesn't want to make it major.

So what is Paul doing with this word in this verse?

First we see, that this use is as an illustration of his main point, which is all about Christians foregoing their 'rights' out of love for one another. He says to the Corinthians, "and this is what I have done in my preaching of the gospel - I have 'become all things to all men'". Then follows the Jew/Gentile/weak elaboration. And he wants to emphasise that becoming like a Jew does NOT mean coming again under law. And then, that becoming like a Gentile does not mean being 'outside (the meaning of the old English word 'without') God's law'. Rather in respect of God's law, he is 'ennomos' - he has been granted 'licence', or 'legitimate status' to supplicate to Christ - to present worship and prayer to Christ. Here, then, is as much of 'law' as Paul is wanting to make claim to, and what it gives him is the right of approach; of full access. And not just to a god who is no god, but to the risen Christ.

Thus we can see that even though it makes reference to both 'law' and to 'Christ', this verse, in all probability, has nothing to do with what Paul speaks of in Galatians 6, and that to 'patch' those two verses together actually makes something of nothing.

Denominations and Differences – Design or Disaster?

It is not uncommon to hear Christians voicing deep concern and regret about today’s world-wide church scene. The proliferation of denominations is seen as a gross indication of the failure of Christianity to maintain her unity through the ages. One parody of a well-known hymn, which I heard in the late sixties went like this:

Like a mighty tortoise
Moves the church of God.Brothers, we are treadingWhere we’ve always trod.We are all divided,Many bodies, we,Strong in faith and doctrine,Weak in charity!




Critical and mournful statements galore abound. In the view of those who speak thus, the church has fragmented and splintered, and has moved away from the original intention of the Saviour. They cite His prayer in John17 – 

“… that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” (John 17 vs 21)

If you heed the doomsayers, since the New Testament church, it has and is all going devastatingly wrong, with so many denominations arguing with each other and not enough emphasis being placed on ditching the differences and pitching in to evangelising the world. So what the world sees when it looks at ‘the church’ is a feuding, squabbling collection of argumentative factions, all convinced that their group is ‘most right’ and all the others are wrong. Some go further and say that this will only be remedied when ‘the church’ discovers its unity once more and stops messing about!

I don’t buy it!

And the major reason I will not accept that that is the conclusion we ought to reach is that I wholely believe that God knows what he is doing. Are we really to accept that the history of the church, through the centuries, has completely run away from Him, and become something He never intended? Or do we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is as much the head of His body, the church, today as ever He was when He first founded her through His Apostles? Are we to think that His declared aim for His bride, which is:

"… to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5 vs 27)

 … on the final Day, will be thwarted? Or do we trust that He is yet working towards that end with all the work, within the saints, of the Spirit He fills them with, and that the gates of hell will, indeed, not prevail? It seems to me that those who are being so negative, and are so ready to widely criticise the church in the world are actually lacking faith in the promises of Christ, however ‘non-visible’ it would appear that they are actually being fulfilled. We should yet assert, boldly, that

“ … I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.” (2 Timothy 1 vs 12)

You see that the strength of this promise lies not in the ‘entrusting’ but in the ‘keeping’. Who does that? God does; the One in whom we have believed – not us. He persuades us that HE is able. It’s His work to do that, not ours. Will He do it? Of course He will. He is God! After all, whose church are we? We are Christ’s church, from first to last, and He IS building us. And who can destroy what He builds?

If we have such a ‘down’ on the church and on our age, we are doubting God’s control of history, and the plan He has to bring everything into subjection, to place it at the feet of His Son. We may now see how He is achieving this, but we must believe that He is. At the end of time, the verdict will not be that He saved His children in spite of history. It will be that all history served Him to save them.

Of Motives and Mistakes

I am not saying that the church through the ages has not made mistakes, and has not ofttimes behaved abominably towards fellow-believers who have not held their particular viewpoint on one thing or another. I am not saying that some of the things over which there has been bitter division have not been trivial incidentals over which mature men and women of God ought to have known better and behaved in a more Christ-like manner. And we need to bear in mind that future saints of God may look at the differences we hold as majorly important, in retrospect, and judge these in the same way. But someone has said that wisdom in hindsight is as good as giving a bald man a comb! Too late, we cry! It all seems so vital when we are actually in the midst of the argument. And demonstrates our deep desire to be doing the truths of our God justice, and to be living consistently with them and by them. Let us not quickly dismiss the passion of those hearts of Christians in the past who have done what they could to defend God’s word. We bear them witness that they had a zeal for God – and Christ – however unenlightened we might now see that it was in some respects, at least.

But let us say more about that passion. Is it not precisely that desire to see the Biblical tenets vindicated that have also protected the core-church of Christ from so many heresies? Is it not true that brave souls have withstood the fiery breath of hell in its endeavour to burn out saving grace and silence the saving gospel? If there had not been men and women of that spirit, surely the great Christian truths of salvation and grace would have been buried long ago under the amassed doctrines of heresy. What of the Reformation? Even if they did not ‘get it all right’, and reformation needs to be ongoing, when they stood against the vast might of Pope and priests, nailing theses to doors, resisting scathing criticisms, political pressures, and even outright persecution, were they not displaying something as noble as the three, in Daniel’s day, who refused to bow the knee to Babylon’s king, choosing to trust God ‘even though He slay them’? Do we so easily demean such faith? Is it not by such as these that Almighty God has preserved His people for Himself through the ages? 

Surely, there is nothing wrong with this. We must not downplay it. We must look to the direction in which it is aimed. It is the target at which the arrow is pointed which must be determined properly, not the force behind it which should be weakened. Such passion, I say, is essential to the church’s ongoing existence, and it derives from hearts on fire with love for God and concern for the things of Christ. Who would want to extinguish that fire?

Branching, not Fragmentation

So let us do a little examination of the church ‘family tree’, as it has grown through the years. And this by way of some general observations, in a positive light, rather than looking at specifics. It may help us to see how we have ‘evolved’ to become so diverse, even amongst those congregations who would deem themselves ‘orthodox, conservative evangelicals’ (and I make no attempt to define what that means here). How, then, have these divisions come about?

The departure of the antichrists

“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2 vs 19)

John describes these as ‘mini antichrists’. There will be one, great Antichrist before Jesus returns. But before he comes, his like will be amongst the churches, and will reveal themselves in this way. They may begin within the church proper, but they will not remain. Unable to tolerate sound doctrine, and the Spirit of Christ, they move on. But we must ask what becomes of them? What do they ‘go out’ to? To disappear forever? To vanish into the air? Well, maybe some do. But others will form their own gatherings, collected around their errors. They will become cults and sects – even entire other religions – in their own right, pseudo-Christian and deficient, but with the appearance, to the undiscerning, of that from which they came – the true church. Their doctrine will be deadly, and they will not show forth the fruit of Christ, of His Spirit, in their lifestyle. Indeed, it is against such as these that John writes his first letter. Rapidly after the birth of the church on the Day of Pentecost, as Paul predicts at Ephesus:

“ I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard.”(Acts 20 vs 29, 30)

Two sources, then, of these disruptive influences – both from without and within. As the hymn ‘The church’s one foundation’ puts it:

“… with a scornful wonder the world see her oppressed,by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,”

Their aim? To draw away disciples after them’ – to gain a following at the expense of the real church of Christ. Their method? They will ‘distort the truth’. These, then, are predicted by your Bible. They are now, in our world, fully-fledged, fully grown organisations and religions in their own right. You see them, don’t you?

The Distinctives of Difference

So we see that competing with the churches who hold to the truth – the ‘orthodox’ – we will have alongside us those so-called churches who do not. This is anticipated by God’s word – no surprises. But also, we have these distinct ‘movements’ who, for all their differences, hold to the God of the word and the word of God. The differences between them are over what are often termed ‘secondary doctrines’, that is to say aspects of faith which do not damage or destroy the Gospel. And it is these that the saints so often sigh over. ‘Would that it were not so’, say many. ‘Oh that we were combined and united in our agreement of what the Scriptures teach’. Well, I am going to argue that although ‘we’ might have done it differently, this is all in the plan of God – is necessary to that plan for the development and perfection of the bride of Christ in preparation for His coming. My reason? Just that otherwise, it would not be so, it would not be happening.

Another trait we can trace through history is that as new truth is rediscovered from God’s word (after so much was lost in the institutionalising of the faith which became the Roman Catholic church), so new movements emerge to maintain them. It works something like this:

• The ‘mainline church’ (Group A)  has a body of doctrine which it holds as valid
• Something is discovered in the Scriptures that shows that that body of doctrine is in some way deficient.
• A group is formed (Group B) of those who hold to the ‘difference’ – and they make much noise about it
• Group A disagrees and wants to maintain its assertions, its status quo
• Group B splits off in order to establish and preserve their new-found truth and awareness of the Scriptures

Let’s be clear that we are not here speaking of the emergence of error, but the emergence of truth. This ‘truth’ could be one of two types:

• A difference of doctrine – what is believed
• A difference of practice – what is done, or how it is done

So we now have two streams, one ‘old school’ and one ‘new school’. Both hold to the basic Biblical doctrines regarded as essential for salvation. But in faith and practice, perhaps both, there is now not only disagreement, but segregation between Group A and Group B. I would argue that this process is inevitable. It is also necessary in order to keep the discovered truth, else it would be ‘reabsorbed’ and buried again. And each new group has the ‘potential’ to divide again. History has demonstrated it time and time again. I suggest that this is not ‘fragmenting’ – it is ‘branching’. As long as the ‘branches’ are connected to the true vine, they are legitimate.

The Practice of Preference

Some of the differences between church and church are purely practical. If one group prefers to worship in a certain way, why should they be made to conform? Is this not just the freedom we are given? After all, it doesn’t destroy ‘oneness in Christ’, it just displays diversity. If you are more comfortable standing to pray and sitting to sing, and I the other way around, why should either of us insist on making the others do it the other way? Sometimes these differences can be accommodated without problem within the same fellowship. And it is important that we accept we must not legislate where the Bible doesn't. But with some things – the form of church leadership, for example – they are ‘structural’ and it is impossible for a single fellowship to be both. A decision has to be made. And if it is your choice that ‘my’ shape of fellowship is not to your taste, and you are happier elsewhere, so be it. The one who eats meat must not look down on the one who only eats vegetables, or vice-versa. Sometimes, it is hard to know which one IS the ‘weaker brother’.

Tim Keller is on record as saying that tolerance is not a question of not drawing lines – we all do; it is impossible not to. Rather, it is a question of how we treat those the other side of the lines we draw. That’s very useful, isn’t it? And with ‘one another’ – in whatever ’groupings’ we find ourselves, we have Christ’s direct command to that end. We are to love as He has loved us.

The Importance of Inspiration

What is important for all believers, in whatever denomination they are, is that they are persuaded to what they hold as true from Scripture. It may be more comfortable for me if everyone agrees with me and does things my way. But if their hearts are not where their professions are, what a terrible price to pay for that superficial unity. It is nothing more than uniformity. We must not dream that we will solve all our problems by painting a veneer of ‘sameness’ over the top, of simply wallpapering over cracks. The insistence of one person, or one group’s convictions, over all is nothing less than tyrannical. Our faith depends upon inner conviction, persuasion to, not imposition of, the truth. I simply do not want you to ‘believe’ what I believe because I believe it – I want you to believe it because you believe it. Else I am your authority, not God, and you have submitted to me, not to Him. That just produces plastic faith – a mere substitute for the real thing.

The Impetus of Inertia!

So, I implore you, stay in your denomination. And let us, as brothers and sisters, who will one day share eternity together, explore how to look at God’s word together, bringing our distinct views under its sound and its rule. Let us both have the openness of mind and of heart to ask the Spirit to reveal to each of us what we do not yet know, as well as what we think we know, but have not got quite right. Let us hold our ‘doctrines’ in an open hand and not grasp them tightly in unremitting fingers. That way, if God needs to add or remove anything, He doesn’t have to prise open our clenched fists in order to do so. We must remain teachable as well as fully persuaded.

In Summary

In conclusion, then:

1. Denominations are with us to stay. Nothing you or I can do is going to change that. So we have to learn to live with them, and make them do what glorifies Christ. They don’t have to be viewed as the church’s great failure. Let’s look to see what God is doing.
2. Let’s treat each other with all the love of Christ and respect.
3. Let’s be transparent and clear, not only about what we believe, but why. Exposing our hermeneutic helps others to see how we got to what we believe.
4. Let’s not take difference over doctrine personally. We don’t have to be aggressive in the assertion of ours, or defensive when others assert theirs. It’s God’s truth, not ‘mine’. It will stand if it is true. Whether I ‘defend’ it or not.
5. Let’s be prepared to change. Intractability is not a virtue, although steadfastness is. We need to know the difference.
6. Let’s get back to God’s word with absolutely everything. The Berean spirit prevails.
7. Let’s look for opportunities for unity. Fellowship. Rejoicing in our vast ‘common ground’ rather than retreating to the disputed edges.

The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
she is his new creation by water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.

Elect from every nation, yet one o’er all the earth;
her charter of salvation: one Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses, partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses, with every grace endued.

Though with a scornful wonder the world see her oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping; their cry goes up: “How long?”
and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

Mid toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation of peace forevermore,
till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious shall be the church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly, may live eternally. 

"This is That" - A quick look at Acts 2 and the 'family' gift of prophecy

Prophecy – the gift of the new covenant

It is generally stated that what happened on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the first disciples, was that as an immediate result of the outpouring, they all ‘spoke in(with) tongues’. Certainly, this phenomena was what struck the gathered crowd so forcibly. But I think we need to look again at the text. I think that this first evidenced gift was not only ‘tongues’, but, more importantly, it was prophecy. And I think that prophecy today is misunderstood within the churches - that it should regain its rightful place as THE 'family' gift of all believers.  Let’s see.

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.”

The Promise

This, of course, is in fulfilment of the promise of Jesus. If we flick back one chapter, we will see that during the forty days He was with them after the resurrection, He ‘spoke to them about the kingdom of God’. And it was in one of these sessions, during a shared meal, that He commanded them to wait in Jerusalem for ‘the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about’ - which Jesus calls ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’. This special dispensing of the Spirit would give them power and was to be essential and fundamental in their being His witnesses ‘to the ends of the earth’. (Acts 1 vs 3 – 8). So this provision of the Spirit of God:

• Is a gift
• Is the Father’s promise, spoken of by Jesus
• Is a baptism’ ‘– and John’s baptism in water is a picture of it. They would be ‘immersed’ in Him
• Would ‘come upon’ them
• Would provide them with power to be witnesses to Jesus

And we understand this event to be the founding of Christ’s new covenant church, to be His representation on earth until He comes.

The Outpouring

On the great day of the Feast of Pentecost, seven weeks after the Passover, this astounding event takes place. Passover was two things to the Jew:

• The celebration of the new harvest – the bringing of the firstfruits of the field to the Temple, in thanksgiving
• The occasion when they celebrated the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, 49 days (50 including the actual day of Passover). After the exodus from Egypt.

We must see the significance of this. 50 days after the death of Christ on the cross (our ‘exodus’), The Spirit of God is poured out upon ‘all flesh’. As the Law was the spine of the old covenant, so the Spirit is the ‘spine’ of the new. The whole of that former covenant was administered through the Law of Moses. So the structure and shape of the Christ-instituted new covenant, in His blood, is to be God’s own living, vital and vibrant Spirit, not laws engraved on stone. There, God gave those laws by writing them with His own finger. Here, He pours out His heart. The symbol of the former is stone. The symbol of the new is fire. Then, it was ‘dead letter’. Now it is white-hot holiness, the symbol of the very presence of God in His new Temple, the church, and its composite believers. The shadow is replaced by the substance. God brings about what the Law, great as it was, could only point to. And the lesser Law of Moses must give way to the greater glory of the Spirit of God Himself.

Tongues of Fire

• What they heard – was the sound of a mighty, rushing wind – the ‘ruach’ (breath) of God, which filled the whole house.
• What they saw – was the appearance of a great fire, with licking flames, descending, then dividing so that individual ‘tongues’ of fire separated and came to rest on each one.
• What they experienced – was this great in-filling, which prompted them to pour out their hearts in inspired praise and worship to God, and in languages they had not learned, the Spirit Himself providing the words and sentences in these unknown (to them) tongues. What are they saying? We are told a little later – they are ‘declaring the wonders of God’ (vs 11).

And this was the fulfilment of what Jesus had told them. This was what they had had to wait for. This was the beginning of the vast expansion which flows the gospel out to the waiting world, and becomes the source of salvation to all who hear. This is the fountainhead. Some of the descriptions used:

The Spirit ‘comes upon’ them (Acts 1 vs 8). He descends. He was not there (at least in this abundant, new way) before, and then, he is there. Where does He come from? From the place where the Father and the Son are. He is the gift of the Father, sent by both the Father and the Son. He is the Advocate Jesus has promised to be with them in His place – and this is now possible for a world of believers, throughout the ages. The Lamb of God has entered into the true Holy of Holies, bearing His own blood. Our great High Priest has gone where He now remains, and He has sat down – the role of atonement is finished.

"God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear." (vs 32, 33)

And so the promised Spirit is now ‘delivered’ –the postman has done his job!

And note this – He comes on them individually. He appears as a ‘fireplace’ with a burning conflagration. But the flames themselves draw apart and each believing disciple receives his own personal tongue of flame, resting upon him. Thus God indicates that this new people of His are dealt with as individuals joined in the one Spirit, but nevertheless treated and dealt with distinctly.

The Spirit comes around them. He fills the house. There is accompanying noise and sound, to convince the senses of all that He is coming – and has come. Just as on Sinai, the mighty presence of God was announced in such a way that no observer could be in any doubt – and they trembled with fear. So it is now. But oh, what a difference! What greater glory is this! Not mere angels, but the very being of God descend this ladder, and will never depart until the Sender returns. What overflowing joy He brings.

And thus, they are baptised in Him. John had baptised in water. It was the ‘medium in which his disciples had been immersed – completely submerged. Mirroring the Jewish practice of mikvah – the ceremonial bath which was a requirement for cleansing before Temple worship – every last hair of the head had to go beneath. But this deep cleansing effected now by this ‘washing in God’ did everything that immersion in water could only promise. This is reality. That was just shadow.

The Spirit comes into them. They are not only immersed, they are invaded. This baptism is internal as well as external – they are filled with Him. Every crevice of their being is in contact with Him. Nothing remains unsaturated. They are Spirit-soaked. If ever you have gotten really wet in a torrential downpour of rain, you’ll know what that is. This is internal God-saturation.

But then, not only filled, but overflowed. Flooded. God’s gift is given, pressed down, shaken together and overflowing. My picture is of an open-top jar or cup standing under a running tap, until the flowing stream of water fills – more, more, more – but then there is no more space to fill and the water streams down the outside of the cup. Now, no part of either the inside or the outside of the vessel is not in contact with water. It runs into, over and around all of the cup’s surfaces.

The Spirit remains with them – He comes to rest on them (Acts 2 vs 4). Jesus has promised this Spirit to be with them forever. He will not depart, even though Jesus has had to – and He has told them that if He had not gone, the Spirit would not come. But now He is here, He is here, in each believer’s heart, for eternity – AND YOURS!

Oh, my brothers and sisters, how little we think on this. This is what happened with YOU when you believed in Christ. This is what god did in –to – your life. Is it any wonder that in that precious moment, you were changed forever? You may not even have been aware of it. Perhaps you cannot place a date and time on it. But God’s word tells you that as sure as you are His, you are His because this happened to you.

Spirit Speech

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? … "

—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2 vs 5 – 12)

But now, let us pause, for a while, at that phrase ‘declaring the wonders of God’. We must consider not only the phenomena – the ‘speaking with other languages – we must also look beyond and ask ‘what is actually being said here?’

First, we will see, first, that the significance of this is that whereas in those former days, God had only ever spoke, by His Spirit, through the Old Testament prophets, in the language of the Hebrews, now he speaks in all the languages of the world. Indeed, it is for this purpose that He has established Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple in their midst. So that on this day, there would be gathered together peoples from ‘every nation under heaven’. So that, at last, here, in this God-chosen location, at last, they could hear this message – of all the wonders of God in the sending of His Son into their very midst, and all that had happened, and that he had subsequently done. This is incidence, not coincidence, His design all along has been aimed at this day, in this place – to bring the ambassadors of the nations together, to prime them all by speaking to them in their own tongues, then to send them back, like fired arrows, to their own places bearing this gospel, this news of salvation. These, then, would be the forerunners of the Apostles of the first church, taking the news of this day back and spreading it throughout the word.

What an astounding strategist is this God of ours. All the world is His, and He uses it just as He will, for His glory. At every turn it serves His purpose, and will glorify the Son and bring honour to Him – whether it likes and owns Him or not. He is unstoppable. Believer, do not doubt it – this is your God!

Second, we will note that the miracle here is in the speaking, not the hearing. This is very clear, although some have wondered. Each foreigner hears in his own language what one (at least) of these Galileeans is saying – the hearer understands the speech as he would normally. The surprise is that these are untutored Galileeans (you can almost hear the sneer behind the word). And the ‘enabling’, we are told, is of the Spirit-empowered speaker. Here is the first and primary indication to these disciples that they would indeed be Jesus’ witnesses ‘to the end of the earth’. Different tongues would be no barrier – God would overcome that in an instant, even though they had never been to language school.

Third. And then, we will see that the content of this astounding outpouring of supernatural speech is that they are declaring the wonders of God. All that he has been doing in Jerusalem and Judaea in and through the Christ. The one who had been so rejected, scorned, tortured, murdered, but who is demonstrated, in true glory, to be the image of the invisible God. Their hearts are full. So must their mouths be too.

Now, it strikes me that this is the very essence of prophecy – to be declaring the wonders of God. And we will see that this is the way this same Spirit prompts Peter to expound what is happening on this day of true glory.

Joel’s Prophecy

Peter stands to explain. How does he know what has happened in this last hour? Well, of course, the Spirit will provide that. So what does God say about this?
Peter says this is a direct fulfilment of a very old prophecy – from Joel:

“In the last days, God says,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your young men will see visions,
    your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
    and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2 vs 17, 18)

Let us examine that.

1. The Spirit will be poured out on all people
2. Sons and daughters will prophesy – a Spirit-succession to subsequent generations
3. Young men will see visions
4. Old men will dream dreams
5. Even the least and the lowest in society will be recipients and will also prophesy
6. There will be signs
7. There will be salvation for all who call on the name of the Lord (Christ)

So this prophecy of Joel is a promise that has heavily to do with prophecy. The great blessing of this outpouring will be that ALL will prophesy, and/or experience prophetic insight (dreams and visions). This is what these disciples are doing on the street in Jerusalem, at 9 in the morning – they are prophesying in fulfilment of god’s promise through Joel. And here is God’s wonderful promise as to who may be included in all this:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Not for Apostles alone, then. For ALL whom He will call. For generations to come. The prophetic promise of God for each believer – they will prophesy. This is the ‘norm’ for the Christian. Brother, sister, when you ‘declare the wonders of God’, that is what you are doing – you are prophesying. When you say things to other believers or to the unsaved, speaking b the Spirit who fills your heart – you are prophesying. You are ‘inspired by the Spirit’ and you are speaking forth words from Him into your world. Too often, we think of prophecy in old covenant terms. We see it as what it was, as recorded in the pages of our Old Testament. Here was this man or that, who had been called by God to bring his words to a nation who were far from Him, or even to a king who needed rebuke for his sins. Or there, a word of encouragement and promise to a destitute and desperate people. Or occasionally, some foresight as well as insight as to what God would do in the days to come. But all that ever was, all that we see there is ‘shadow’, not the reality itself.

Why should we imagine, then, that new covenant prophecy would be precisely the same? Should we not expect it to be more – much more, now that the Son is revealed? We should not ‘trim it back’ so that it looks like our expectation, with a ‘thus saith the Lord’ style announcement to waiting ears. That will be to make it less than the fullness God now gives, now that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh for all time. We should see the shadow in the substance, but not confine the substance to the shadow.

"What do these things mean?"

Here is the practical outworking of this.
First, freedom for the ‘speaker’, the ‘prophet’. When we speak to each other, we can joyfully and eagerly expect God, the Spirit, to be bringing His truth, His encouragement, His comfort through our shared words. That is ‘prophetic living’, if you like – and it is what this new life in Christ should lead us to expect. But we have no need to voice it as if God is speaking directly through our mouths. WE are doing the speaking. We can say to each other, ‘I think’, or ‘I sense the Lord wants to say to you…’ without feeling that our ‘prophecy’ loses authority because of that. Indeed, that is being honest.

Second, freedom for the ‘hearer’. This leaves the hearer with choices. They are not placed in the insidious position of thinking ‘is this God speaking to me direct? If I disobey, am I disobeying God?’ No, it is left to the hearer to ‘weigh what is said’ as Paul says to the Corinthians is the way that prophecy should be heard. We must take it back to God’s word, not be forced to decide if we ‘believe in’ and trust the authority of the speaker. We must allow that the ‘prophet’ just might have misjudged or got it wrong. And this will not then be fatal to us. We will not have to decide whether or not we ‘stone the false prophet’, as they did under Mosaic Law.

I wonder whether you might have experienced those times when something that has been said to you, in a particular time of need of some kind, or something that you said to another brother in that position has somehow ‘rang true’, or, as we say, ‘resonated’ with them. You may not have thought it them, or think it now. But I believe that’s prophecy. God using human mouths to bring His words to the hearts of His children. Jesus speaking. Mercy and grace. Strength in times of need.

You might have heard the story of the little one, who, in the course of growing up, went through a time of being afraid of the dark. So Mum said to her, as a good Christian Mum, that her Lord Jesus was looking after her, even though she could not see Him; that he was in the night with her and would not leave her. So the next night, the little one’s voice calls “Mummy, Mummy. I’m frightened.” Mum replies, “Now, you know what we said about Jesus looking after you, don’t you?” And the little girl calls back, “yes, Mummy, I believe that. But I need someone with skin on.”

That’s what you, and the Spirit’s voice in you is. Christ with skin on.

The Law of Christ debate - Part 5

A look at 1 Corinthians 9

The Law of Christ - the debate continues - a look at 1 Corinthians 9

"Free from everyone, slave to all"

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible."  (1 Corinthians 9 vs 19)

Introduction

One of the passages which is used by some to support their view that believers are under a new covenant 'system' of law, which they want to label 'The Law of Christ' is 1 Corinthians 9. This, even though that actual phrase does not appear in the passage, any more than the actual teaching that those in Christ are said to be 'under law' appears anywhere at all in the New Testament. Indeed, Paul's use of the phrase in Galatians 6 states boldly that believers live to FULFIL the law of Christ, rather than live 'under' it.

This passage in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth does say that he - Paul - is 'in-lawed to Christ'. We will see what he means by this strange term, used nowhere else in the New Testament, in its context. Although I greatly respect my brothers and sisters in Christ who affirm this, I must confess to a feeling of frustration. It seems to be a degree of almost desperation which takes one phrase from one verse - the only verse where it actually occurs in its 'virgin' form, marries it to a similar, though not exact, phrase from another verse, taken from a different letter entirely, and then constructs a complete view of how believers are to live in the new covenant.And it appears to me that this is done to support the presupposed assertion that 'all men are under law' in some form or other. By 'presupposed', I mean that it has been determined, somehow, before the passage is considered and thus a preconceived meaning has then been 'read back into' the text itself. I will try to explain here why I do not understand this passage to be stating that believers are 'under the law of Christ'. So my aim is not to disprove the whole idea that there IS an expansive 'Law of Christ' which believers are 'under' (I have attempted that elsewhere), but, more simply, that this verse cannot be used to support that view. Thus those who are going to assert it must look elsewhere for their Biblical warrant.

The Importance of Purpose

When we come to a portion of Scripture, the first question to be asked is, 'What is the purpose of this passage?' And the question must be asked in two time-frames:

1. What was the intention of the original author in writing this, in this way, to those he writes to (the 'then-there' purpose)?
2. What is God's purpose in placing this passage in our Bibles? What is the Holy Spirit saying to us - to me - today - in my life (the 'here-now' purpose)?

This identified purpose will determine our understanding of any sub-section and all of the content it uses. Every statement will serve the main purpose. In other words, we cannot just extract single verses, or parts of verses, and take them to mean something out of their context UNLESS that something is plainly stated elsewhere in Scripture - and then, we must understand those truths from their original context, and the way in which they are being integrated in the section we are examining. Otherwise, we end up with 'blackmail letter' style doctrine, where our statements of belief are 'patched' together with words and letters 'cut out' from anywhere we find them, irrespective of their original context. And if we do this, we can make the Bible say exactly what we want it to. My Bible College Principal used to quote a parody of a well-known hymn:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Some put there by you, and some put there by me."

This actually ends up making the Bible not God's word at all. It is no longer revelation. It has become conformed to the shape I want or expect it to be. Now, please understand that I am not accusing those who disagree with me of this. I am just trying to emphasise the vital importance of letting the Bible speak, without - and we have to make effort to do this - assuming that we know what it is going to say. I think we have to do this afresh every time we come to it anew. For it is all too easy for me to think I have my doctrine 'done and dusted', and not submit it to new light which the Holy Spirit may want to shine on it in my heart and head. Then, I become stagnant in my beliefs and unteachable, I have closed my mind to change, and if and where I am wrong, I am uncorrectable. And to that extent, I preach also to myself, and I invite comment and criticism, in love, on my understanding of God's word from my brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot afford to be one inch above contradiction, because the Lord uses fellowship - other believers - to correct us.

Defining 'Purpose'

When we look at a letter, such as 1 Corinthians, we can follow this question of 'purpose' into finer granularity, by asking our major questions at different levels. I am grateful to a series of preaching classes at study days which were titled 'Preparing the Message', ran and attended by my then-church in Bedford many years ago - but I have never forgotten the valuable tools they equipped me with. Thank the Lord for wise, Godly preachers who are willing and very able to pass on to the next 'generation' of preachers what they have learned. Much of this approach comes from the work of Jay Adams. I would do it like this:

Level 1: What is the purpose of the whole letter?
What is Paul's primary reason for writing to the church at Corinth?

Level 2: What identifiable sections are there within the letter?
This is what Adams calls a 'preaching portion', or a 'passage', and he defines it simply as 'a section with an identifiable purpose'. These may be found by looking for key phrases, like Paul's 'now concerning ...', or 'now about ...', as some translations have it (ch7 vs 1,25; ch 8 vs 1; ch 12 vs 1 et al). Then, we ask:

a) What are the sub-purposes of these sections?

b) How do these sub-purposes serve the main purpose?

Level 3: What identifiable points are being made in 'this' section?
How do these points each serve the purpose of the passage.

The Purpose of 1 Corinthians 9

The Portion containing the Purpose

When we come to 1 Corinthians ch9, then, let us first ask, 'what whole portion of the letter does this piece come in?'
My analysis would indicate that this section starts with ch 8 vs 1 - Paul's:

"Now about food sacrificed to idols:"

And pretty quickly, Paul has identified what is behind this practical issue at Corinth. It is the question of a Christian's 'rights'.

In ch 10 vs 23, he is still on track:

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others."

... and I would suggest (others may disagree) that his argument continues all the way through ch 10 - and I would also add that ch 11 vs 1 belongs to the end of ch 10, not the beginning of a new section:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

So the whole paragraph, at the end of the section, reads (from ch 10 vs 31, through ch11 vs 1):

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

I conclude, then, that in ch 9 vs 19 - 23, Paul is speaking about the believer and his 'rights'. And he is using himself as an example for these Corinthian Christians to follow. And I want to state emphatically here that therefore it is not Paul's purpose to teach us about the believer's relationship to 'new law', whether that be called 'the Law of Christ' or something else. It is not his primary purpose in these verses, which are an illustration of his main point. Or, for that matter, in the whole of this letter.

... And the Purpose itself

So then, what IS the purpose of this particular portion in ch 9 (within the scope of the ch 8vs1 to 11 vs 1 passage)? Well, we can look within it for key phrases which will tell us. We must read what has gone before to see how Paul has arrived at this point. Why is he saying what he is saying, and why is he saying it just here? And I would answer that he is illustrating how the believer should consider his 'rights', in the freedom Christ brings, by looking at what Paul does in this specific respect - in the preaching of the Gospel.

There are clues:

1. This is a defence.
   Look at verse 3 - he states it plainly. There were those at Corinth who wanted to judge him.
2. This is about 'rights'. If there is one key phrase in this chapter, my vote would be for verse 12:
   
   "On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ."
   
   That is his thrust. That is what he is getting at.

His argument, logically presented, can be laid out like this:

1. Paul is a God-appointed Apostle and leader of the church, generally, and specifically in a personal way to the Corinthians
2. All those, who are leaders in the church, and in Christ, have rights.
3. Paul and his 'team' have refused to use these rights (vs 12, 15).
   (Interesting, by the way, that he considers that something that is 'commanded' by the Lord - vs 14 - can be waived by him)
4. He does so so that he cannot be accused of 'making a profit' from 'peddling' the Gospel. He wants it to be offered free of charge (vs18). You see, he is saying that even in this, he is a 'recruit', not a volunteer. He is 'compelled' to preach. He is 'discharging a trust'. He does not even profit in the self-satisfaction of a willing volunteer. He has been 'sommissioned' by God to preach it, and preach it he must.
5. (Implied and 'called' into his argument later) Paul is saying 'this is how I think and act. Follow my example'

When is 'freedom' not 'freedom'?

So here, then, he makes these statements. Christ has set him free, with no obligation to anyone. But he has gone on to make himself a slave. He has decided to behave as if he is not free, in the wonderful, supreme aim of winning many to Christ. He will use all means to get alongside the lost, Jew or Gentile, so that he can sound the message of salvation in their ear, with as little controversy caused by 'lifestyle' as possible. He will not compromise his faith. But he will give up everything else for the sake of the Gospel being heard. (Lord, may that be my heart too!). And now, he explains how he does so. But note. The primary purpose of this section is to explain why believers should not always be insisting on their 'rights'. They should be looking to live out love, even where it means sacrificing those rights.

When is freedom not freedom? When it is laid down at the feet of the risen Christ.

"Love one another as I have loved you."
"Greater love has no man than this - that he lays down his life for his friends."

Paul - Who do you think you're talking too?

"To the Jews" ...

First, to his own countrymen, to the Jews:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. "

Here is the logic, unpacked step by step.

1. Jews are under law (Mosaic law)
2. Paul is not under that law, but
3. He will take up the practices and the behaviour of the Jew in order to get alongside them and win them for Christ. So that the challenge of the Gospel is not a matter of 'Jewishness', but of Christ.

Then, to the Gentile:

"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."

The logic:

1. Gentiles do not have the law
2. Paul is not 'free from' law - he is overseen by God's law; he is 'in-lawed' ('within the jurisdiction of', as Thomas Schreiner says) to Christ, but
3. He will become as if he does not have the law in order to win those who are like this.

... and he goes on. he has become weak to win the weak etc...

So we see that this phrase 'in-lawed to Christ' comes in the midst of a passage with a purpose. The intent of that phrase is not to teach us about a law which believers are under - not in any sense. To make it say that tears it out of its context and gives it a meaning Paul never intended. To do so turns the phrase itself into its own purpose, when it is actually being used as an illustration to make another point - a point which serves the main message. Now, I am not saying that we cannot gain insights and information from these 'side-points'. Every verse of Scripture is to be 'mined' for its full content - all that it can and does reveal about Christ. But as a former college colleague of mine has put it many times, 'the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things'. And we do not take 'asides' and base fully-fledged doctrinal assertion on them. 

A Turn of Phrase

One of the problems with translating from one language to another is that subtlety is sometimes lost. Plays on words, which serve their purpose in the original, do not come over. Some assert that the use of the Greek 'ennomos' ('inlawed-to') instead of 'huponomos' ('under law') is a technicality, and that these are equivalent words. But it looks to me that on these statements, Paul is engaging his listeners with some interesting contrasts:

'To those UNDER the law,
I became like one UNDER the law,
though I myself am NOT UNDER the law.'

'To those OUTSIDE the law,
I became like one OUTSIDE the law,
though I am not free from God's law but am INSIDE Christ's law.'

... or more literally:
'To those UNLAWED ...
... I am INLAWED to Christ'

You get the idea.

And I think that neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided using the phrase 'under law', specifically so as not to confuse the readers (or us). Paul seems to go out of his way NOT to say that believers are under law - of any kind.

Conclusions

So to take this phrase from its context, when it has been used in a subsidiary way in Paul's argument and then to twin it with a similar - though not identical - phrase in a completely different context and a completely different letter, seems strange to me. To treat God's word in this way seems odd, unnatural, not logical. And likely to arrive at misdirected conclusions. And, finally, to summarise:

1. The main purpose of 1 Corinthians 9 is to argue that Christian believers should, from a heart of love, lay aside even their 'rights' in order to serve each other in Christ and to preach the Gospel to those who are not in Christ - NOT to teach about the relationship believers now have to some form or other of law.
2. Paul does not say that believers are 'under' Christ's law, he says that they are 'inside' it.
3. I think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) can be trusted in his use of words. he is, after all, a trained lawyer. Ever dealt with lawyers?

So, at the least - the very least - the use of this particular verse as a main 'pillar' to support a doctrine of 'the Law of Christ' is a dubious use of Scripture - a bad hermeneutic practice. I know little about house building, but I do know a little! In a house, there are two types of walls - load-bearing and non-load-bearing, or 'partition' walls. if you are building upstairs extensions onto your house, it is sheer folly to place all the weight of your new room, or whatever, on a non-load-bearing wall. The clue is in the name!. To build important doctrine on the interpretation, out of context, of verses or passages from Scripture is equally foolish.

And thus, I strongly submit for your consideration, as ‘sensible people’ (1 Corinthians ch 10 vs 15 ) that this verse will not bear the weight of the interpretation some are placing upon it. This verse does not 'preach to us' that there is a 'Law of Christ' that we, and all believers, are under.