PMW 2023-084 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In 1 Corinthians 9:21 we read the following statement by Paul:

“to those who are without law, [I am] as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.”

The italicized phrases in this statement have presented material to anti-theonomists, suggesting that Paul here declares that in Christ — and, therefore, in the Christian era — a new law prevails, which he denominates: “the Law of Christ.” This new Law of Christ supplants the older Law of God as the ethical norm for Christian behavior.

THEONOMIC ISSUE RESOLVED

This statement by Paul is seriously misunderstood when raised against the theonomic system. Paul is not supplanting the “Law of God” with a new “Law of Christ.” Note the following exegetical and literary observations:

1. Christ’s Law and the internal consistency of Christ’s teaching

Any supposed “Law of Christ” must be internally consistent with Christ’s own teaching. And Christ most definitely stated that he had not come to abolish the Law, and that if anyone denied the least of the commandments he would be least in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:17-20). Consequently, any “Law of Christ” would be perfectly harmonious with and supportive of the original Law of God. Therefore, “the Law of Christ” would not be contrary to the Law of God, but actually would endorse it.

God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

2. God’s Law in Paul’s ethical system

Paul clearly states in his preceding argument (1 Co 9:19-20) that he does not keep the ceremonial strictures of the old covenant typological economy. That is, those Jewish-defining, ritual obligations demarcating Jews from the Gentiles. Then he quickly and immediately adds: “though not being without the law of God,” that is, “though I am not without the law of God.”

The phrase “though not being without the law of God” shows the abiding relevance of “the law of God” in Paul’s ethical system. He most definitely is not without God’s Law. He carefully adds to his previous statement that even though he is opposed to mandatory observation of ceremonial features of the Law, he is not thereby “without the law of God.” This insertion is necessary to protect Paul’s argument from suggesting he endorses anomia, “lawlessness,” the word he employs in his statement “without the law of God.”

Furthermore, this phrase harmonizes with his other observations on the continuing validity of God’s Law as an ethical (not ceremonial) obligation in Paul’s writings: Romans 3:31; 7:12; 8:3-4; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and so forth.

3. Paul’s point of contrast in his statement on law

Paul’s statement — “though not being without the law of God, but under the law of Christ” — must be carefully interpreted as written. He most definitely is not contrasting “the Law of God”with “the Law of Christ.” That is, he did not say: “I am not under law to God, but rather I am under law to Christ,” as if two, mutually-exclusive and competing ethical systems were juxtaposed against one another.

Note carefully the double-negative in Paul’s statement; double negatives can easily trip up the interpreter. Paul is not stating: “I am not under law to God”; rather he declares that he is “not without law to God.” A world of difference separates these two assertions. That is, he claims he is “not”in a state of being “without law to God.” Thus, he denies he is “without law to God” or that he is “apart from” the Law of God. Positively stated, therefore, he is actually affirming he is, in fact, “under law to God” by resolutely denying he is “without” law to God.

4. Paul’s liberty is in Christ, not against Christ

We must make several observations regarding the meaning of his tricky statement here:

First, when Paul refers to Christ’s “law” he appears to mean Christ’s “authority” (cp. Mt 28:18; Eph 1:21; Phil 2:9-10; Col 1:17-1) — not a new system of laws and obligations. Paul is under Christ’s lordship; he is Christ’s servant or slave (remember our exegesis of 9:16-17; note also 7:22). Paul’s fuller statement, then, asserts that his being “under law to God” is validated by being under Christ’s law or authority. Being a servant of Christ does not remove the obligation to God’s Law. Remember, the whole debate was engaged over the matter of Christian liberty (8:9; 9:1a, 19; cp. Gal 2:4); liberty in Christ. Here he is once again asserting that our liberty is not a wholesale, unbridled liberty, but one constrained by obligations to Christ himself.

In that Paul is highlighting the distinction between Jew and Gentile (9:19-21), he apparently assumes a distinction between being a servant of Moses (and under his ceremonial and ritual authority), as opposed to being a servant of Christ (with his superior authority, which fulfills those ceremonial obligations in himself). That is, he is under the new covenant in Christ rather than the old covenant administered by Moses. He is no longer obligated to Moses who was a “servant in God’s house,” but to Christ who is a “Son over the house” (Heb 3:2-6). The New Testament provides several examples of Christians’ being freed from ceremonial strictures because they are no longer “under Moses” but rather “under Christ.” For example, in Acts 6:14 we read: “we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” See also: Acts 13:38-39; 15:1, 5; 21:21.

Dispensational Distortions (3 downloadable mp3s)
by Ken Gentry
Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, consider the strong adversative alla (ἀλλᾴ) in the phrase “not being without the law of God but (alla) under the law of Christ. This is another corrective to any misunderstanding of Paul, as well as a slap against the abusers of liberty. Not only is he not without the Law of God, but (strong disjunctive) he is under the authority of Christ. His original reader cannot jump on his “without law” statement and use the term anomos (ἄνομος) as if it meant “lawless,” because he not only asserts he is not without God’s Law, but is, in fact, under the authoritative lordship of Christ. This agrees with his statement of liberty asserting his freedom from “all men” (1 Cor 9:19a), while maintaining the Christocentric obligations within truly Christian liberty. Paul, then, is simultaneously under the Law of God and the authority of Christ; the two are mutually compatible and co-extensive.

Third, Paul’s using the phrase ennomos (ἔννομος: “in lawed”) to refer to Christ’s “authority” rather than employing the more common word exousia (ἐξουσία) is for literary reasons. Note his repetition of “law” (using various derivations of anomos [ἄνομος]) :

tois hupo nomon hos hupo nomon (to the ones under law as under law)
me hon autos hupo nomon (not being myself under law)
hina tous hupo nomon kerdeso; (in order that the ones under law I might gain);
tois anomois hos anomos (to the ones without law as without law)
me hon anomos theou (not being without law of God)
all’ ennomos Christou (but in law to Christ)
hina kerdano tous anomous (in order that I might win the ones without law)

When he refers to Christ’s authority over his liberty by using a derivative of nomos, Paul maintains his literary cadence, driving home his point in style with this effective word-play.

Theonomic Issue Completed

Clearly then, a careful reading of this verse exposes the error of anti-theonomic exegesis. Rather than undermining God’s Law as a continuing ethical obligation, Paul here establishes the Law as such — just as he told us he would in Romans 3:31: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”