I myself am not under the law

[Oldmantook]

It's not the thousands, it's Paul. He is missionally motivated (the thousands should be too but we don't know what they are thinking) and in Acts 21 "to a Jew he becomes a Jew..."

What's interesting about that line of "to the Jews I become a Jew" is that Paul was already a Jew yet he seems to have removed this identity only so he can step back in so that he may serve Jews. This is the strongest missional part revealing he has surrendered even his own identity to Christ but without hostility and steps back in as a minister among Jews as he is called to.

So there is no surprise that Paul immediately enters a Jewish identity to keep the peace, edify and encourage a Jewish community as this would be in line with his missional call he expounds upon in 1 Cor 9. Gentiles in Acts 21 don't seem to be under the same rules. The worry was that Paul was teachings Jews to forsake the law and not about what he was teaching Gentiles and Paul's subsequent actions and instructed upon him from the counsel in v23 "therefore do this what we tell you".

The verdict for Gentiles was "we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." But there is no mention of law. Paul, in his Paul way, puts his own flavour into this as we read in his epistles about food being sacrificed to idols essentially deconstructing the verdict then putting it back together again such as what we see in 1 Cor 8. He does so diplomatically and uniquely is able to stress the value of not eating food sacrifices to idols but at the same time valuing the Corinthians without insulting them.

Acts 21 doesn't tell us Paul's motivation for keeping law outside of that he was instructed to by the counsel, but 1 Cor 9 does so one may answer the other. It does seem apparent that believing Jews kept a different way than believing Gentiles and that Paul was reacting to the needs of the community he was serving into and he does so willingly and humbly. It would seem according to 1 Cor 9 Paul did not see himself as a Jew but rather he saw Jews as his mission and so become a Jew "all for the sake of the gospel"

I think you minimize the fact that Paul fulfilled a Nazirite vow which demonstrated that he still followed the Law. V.21 in fact makes it clear that the reason that Paul undertook the vow was to undermine the false notion being circulated among the Jews that "you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses,...." Paul in order to prove this rumor false underwent the vow. When the passage itself provides the reason, we need not search elsewhere for the reason unless you seek to eisegete the text by providing your own reason that he was missionally oriented.

Where in the Bible does it state that Paul "seems to have removed his identity?" Paul never removed his identity; instead he used his identity as a Jew to minister to his kinsmen. I myself am of mixed race and I am able to use my identity when I associate with one ethnic group and likewise I am able to also use my identity when I associate with another ethnic group that I belong to. I don't "remove my identity."

As far as the gentiles go, Paul's restrictions hail from the Mosaic law - not from Paul's way or his own flavor as you somehow claim. Hermeneutically, the law of first mention requires us to interpret 1 Cor 8 according to Acts 15:29 - not the other way around. Thus 1 Cor 8 cannot contradict Acts 15:29 and instead must be interpreted in light of it. Moreover, the restriction mentioned in Acts 15:29 decided upon by the counsel is based on Ex 34:15 - which is the Mosaic law. Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee himself was certainly familiar with the Law and the basis of the counsel's decision rooted in the law of Moses. Thus what was required of the Jews in terms of obedience was also required of the gentiles. Acts 15:9 states that there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jews and gentiles. Acts 15:21 which states "For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” The law of Moses was preached in every synagogue and as gentiles continued hear the law preached they would understand it in greater depth and be able to apply it to their lives. But in order for the gentiles to come to Christ in the first place, the counsel had to decide what was the minimum necessary for the gentiles to abstain from in order for them to come to saving faith. That is why James stated in v. 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

 

[Soyeong]

You have immediately associated God's law/Christ's law with the law of Moses and used this to define his previous comments as a different law however the text doesn't connect the dots this way.

God gave the Mosaic Law, so if it is not God's law, then whose law is it? In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so all of the Mosaic Law is God's law. Likewise, God's law and the Mosaic Law are equated in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In John 14:24, Christ said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he taught the same law.

The first time law is mentioned in this letter is earlier in this very chapter in v8 and in v9 Paul explicitly defines it as the law of Moses. Now in v20 he says "law" again but does not tell us explicitly which law it is. Because of the aforementioned context of the law of Moses if Paul is referencing another law he does so cryptically and arguably irresponsibly.

I think part of the issue is that the people to whom Paul was writing had a context to understand what he was saying that we are lacking. It hard to say how responsible he could be for how people would interpret him 2,000 years later, but I do think that he could have been clearer on some point. However, Paul did speak about multiple different categories of law and often switched between which law he was speaking about, we need to be careful to correctly interpret which law he was speaking about in order to avoid making the mistake of interpreting him as speaking against obeying God as if he had the authority to countermand God.

Paul also does not say the law of God or the law of Christ. He says literally he is not "lawless" to God but is "lawful" to Christ. He uses adjectives not like the previous "under law" which are separate words and uses "law" as a noun. What's the difference? Paul is not explicitly calling out a "law" in reference to God/Christ and he refers not being lawless to God but lawful to Christ. So Paul is being careful with his words so as not to invoke the noun "law"

I see there more cause in the context to view v20's "law" as the law of Moses than to infer it's something else simply because you cannot separate that being lawful to Christ means the law of Moses which the text never says. Let's get our conclusions from what the text tells us, not what you want the text to say.

In this passage, Paul was speaking about giving up his rights and following the customs of the people that he was with in order to meet people where they were at for the sake of the Gospel. Sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law (1 John 3:4), so he was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners for the sake of the Gospel because that would have completely undermined the Gospel. In the 1st century, there existed a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, and a lot of what is said about laws in the NT is in regard to this body of laws, so Paul was speaking about following Jewish traditionary laws when he was with Jews for the sake of the Gospel.

If there were any of God's laws that Paul wasn't obeying, then he wouldn't have been lawless to God, so "not lawless to God" would have been at the very least inclusive of the Mosaic Law. Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent form our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to the nations before the end (Matthew 24:12-14). Christ also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and Paul said that we are to follow his example as he followed the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), so what else could "being lawful to Christ" refer to if not the Mosaic Law that Christ taught by word and by example?

 

[Soyeong]

Being raised in church, I used to look to written commandments and strive to obey them. Whether this was the ten commandments or Jesus teaching. I would focus on them and greatly desire to obey them, but if I am honest, those commands in truth showed me how guilty I was of so often failing to obey them. It made me very miserable much of the time, due to my faliures.
A few years ago, my mother whom I dearly loved was told by doctors she was dying of cancer. My wife and I went to look after her in her home for a while before the illness got too bad. During that time, I laid aside my own wants and desires, my joy was seeing my mother happy in the time she had left to live. Nothing was too much trouble to do for her. I loved taking her to see her friends, and bringing them to see her, I was so happy to see how much this meant to her. Taking her out to places she loved to go to made me as happy as it made her. If I had to carry anything for her, it would not bother me if I carried it one mile or two. I did not covet what was my mothers, I did not bear false witness against her, I did not want to murder her, steal from her and I honoured her. One evening I was standing outside her home, and it suddenly hit me that I was closer to the biblical ideal of how to live my life than I had ever previously done. I was obeying the moral law of the ten commandments where my mother was concerned, and obeying Christ's commands too. Why was I obeying the law? Did I look to the ten commandments and Christ's teaching and strive to obey them all concerning my mother? No! I never once thought of any of them where she was concerned. So why was I obeying them? Because I loved my mother greatly. Love really does fulfil the law.

Thank you for sharing, I am happy to hear that you were able to have that type of relationship with your mother before she passed.

Love fulfills the Mosaic law because love is essentially what it is about how to do and because all of its laws are examples of what it looks like to correctly love God and our neighbor. The relationship aspect is key. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the law without have a focus on his relationship with Christ, so he had been missing the whole point of obeying the law and counted it all as rubbish. So if we just focus on trying to obey a list of rules while missing that it is about having a similar sort relationship with Christ that you had with your mother, then we have the wrong narrative and wrong motivation, so it is going to be a struggle to obey.

David said repeatedly throughout the Psalms that he loved the Mosaic Law and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express view of God's law, then we will share it, as Paul also did (Romans 7:22), and will consider anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying God's law to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night. We can't affirm the truth of these verses while not allowing them to affect how we live our lives.

 

[klutedavid]

We can determine what Paul meant by what he himself practiced. Paul observed the Sabbath which of course is of the Law:
Acts 13:14 "on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down"
Acts 13:44 "And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God."
Acts 16:13 "And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled."
Acts 17:2 "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures."
Acts 18:4,11 "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath." ... "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."

Paul observed the Feast days which are also of the Law:
Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of the Unleavened Bread, and within five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
Acts 20:16 For Paul had decided to sail by Ephesus, so that it might not come upon him to spend time in Asia; for he was hastened, if it was possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

The phrase "I myself am not under the law" is a parenthetical statement found in the Alexandrian text but not found in the Majority text.

Paul was not in a rush to get to the temple on the day of Pentecost. Paul was in a rush to get to Jerusalem to be with the other Jewish Christians on the day of Pentecost.

Romans 4:15
For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Trying to obey the letter of the law triggers the wrath of God.

 

[klutedavid]

The word Law as used by Paul in the verse.

1 Cor. 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

LAW:
G3551
νόμος
nomos
nom'-os
From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): - law.

In this verse Paul did not say "He was not under the Law"

What Bible translation are you using? Your quotation from Corinthians is different to the same verse(1 Corinthians 9:20) in the NASB.

1 Cor. 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

 

[klutedavid]

I just covered this topic here: UNDER THE LAW!

"Under the law"

Paul is the only one in the Bible who uses this phrase.

It's found 11 times in his writings.

Romans 3:19
(CLV) Ro 3:19
Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law, that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God,

Let's look at this very carefully. The law speaks to those under the law.

The law speaks so that every mouth in the entire world may become subject to YHWH's judgement.

As all are subject to YHWH's verdict; it appears that we have two groups here. One group is already subject to YHWH's judgement. The other would not be subject to YHWH's judgement in absence of his Torah.

The preceding verse serves to further define the behavior of those who are under the law:

(CLV) Ro 3:18
There is not fear of God in front of their eyes.

Why would we fear or loving Abba?

(CLV) Ex 20:20
Then Moses said to the people: Do not fear, for in order to probe you the One, Elohim has come, and in order that the fear of Him should come over your faces, that you may not sin.

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

==================================================
(CLV) Ro 6:14
For Sin shall not be lording it over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

Which law?

Paul mentions at least 8 of them in this letter:

The Law of Faith (Ch 3)
A Different Law (Ch 7)
The Law of My Mind (Ch 7)
The Law of Sin (Sin's Law) (Ch 7)
God's Law (Ch 7)
The Spirit's Law of Life (Ch 8)
The Law of Sin and Death (Ch 8)
The Law of Righteousness (Ch 9)

I suppose that if sin is lording over you; then you are under The Law of Sin.

(CLV) Ro 6:15
What then? Should we be sinning, seeing that we are not under law, but under grace? May it not be coming to that!

Paul is telling us in no uncertain terms that we may not sin.

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

(CLV) Ro 7:7
What, then, shall we declare? That the law is sin? May it not be coming to that! But sin I knew not except through law. For besides, I had not been aware of coveting except the law said, "You shall not be coveting."

Surely The Law of Sin doesn't prohibit coveting.

The Law of YHWH does.
==================================================
(CLV) 1Co 9:20
And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I should be gaining Jews; to those under (υπο) law (νομονas) under (υπο)law (νομονas) (not being myself under (υπο) law (νομονas) ), that I should be gaining those under (υπο) law (νομονas) ;


The Judaeans we're well familiar with YHWH's Law (Torah), but they were also practicing Works of Law.

I don't see "Works of Law" mentioned in the Torah. I don't see any mention of it by Yahshua. Where is Paul getting this?

It is mentioned 1 time in Romans and 6 times in Galatians.

It is also mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Q394 (4QMMTa) 4QHalakhic Letter
Dead Sea Scrolls Project: 4QMMT

Definition of halacha
: the body of Jewish law supplementing the scriptural law and forming especially the legal part of the Talmud
Definition of HALACHA

Yahshua rebuked putting the traditions of men over the Torah.



(CLV) 1Co 9:21
to those without law as without law (not being without God's law, but legally (εννομος) Christ's), that I should be gaining those without law.

"Not being without," is a double negative. Paul is with YHWH's Law.


(CLV) 1Co 9:22
I became as weak to the weak, that I should be gaining the weak. To all have I become all, that I should undoubtedly be saving some.

Apart from the Judaeans the nations didn't even have the Torah
That said, just a few verses prior in this letter; Paul makes mention of the Torah:

Some misunderstand this passage.Paul was not a lawless crowd pleaser.

(CLV) Ga 1:10
For, at present, am I persuading men or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I still pleased men, I were not a slave of Christ.

Acts 17:22-31 is an example of how Paul would put this behavior into practice.


(CLV) 1Co 9:
9 For in the law of Moses it is written: "You shall not muzzle the threshing ox.Not for oxen is the care of God!" 10 Or is He undoubtedly saying it because of us? Because of us, for it was written that the plower ought to be plowing in expectation, and the thresher to partake of his expectation."

HE'S SAYING THAT THE TORAH WAS WRITTEN BECAUSE OF US?


(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

==================================================

(CLV) Ga 3:19
What, then, is the law? On behalf of transgressions was it added, until the Seed should come to Whom He has promised, being prescribed through messengers in the hand of a mediator.

What law was added to what? Transgressions of what? Abraham had the law. The penal code for the land of Israel was added. Levitical priesthood was added. After the Seed (Yahshua) came; the Judaeans were exiled from the land, for rejecting YHWH's word in the flesh. The High Priesthood was transferred to Yahshua; as it is written.

(CLV) Ga 3:20
Now there is no Mediator of one. Yet God is One.

(CLV) Ga 3:21
Is the law, then, against the promises of God? May it not be coming to that! For if a law were given that is |able to vivify, really, righteousness were out of law.

YHWH's law is not against grace.

(CLV) Ga 3:22
But the scripture locks up all together under sin,

...because all have sinned.

The Law of Sin

that the promise out of Jesus Christ's faith may be given to those who are believing.

(CLV) Gn 15:6
Now Abram believed on Elohim, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected.

(CLV) Ja 2:23
And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

(CLV) Ja 2:24
You see that by works a man is being justified, and not by faith only.

Obedience to YHWH's Law is the fruit of faith.

(CLV) Ga 3:23
Now before the coming of faith we were garrisoned under law, being locked together for the faith about to be revealed.

If we actually believe Yahshua; we will follow his example of obedience.


(CLV) Ja 2:14
What is the benefit, my brethren, if anyone should be saying he has faith, yet may have no works? That faith can not save him.

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected
==================================================

(CLV) Ga 4:4
Now when the full time came, God delegates His Son, come of a woman, come under law,

(CLV) Ga 4:5
that He should be reclaiming those under law, that we may be getting the place of a son.

Reclaiming them from what?

Paul makes it clear that those who are under the law, are those who have broken the law:

(CLV) Ro 1:5
through Whom we obtained grace and apostleship for faith-obedience among all the nations, for His name's sake,

(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.
==================================================
(CLV) Ga 4:21
Tell me, you who want to be under law, are you not hearing the law?

Paul is asking why you would want to sin, knowing what YHWH's judgements will be.

(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.
==================================================

(CLV) Ga 5:18
Now, if you are led by spirit, you are not still under law.

How can you break YHWH's laws being led by the spirit?

Let's look at this verse in a little more context.

(CLV) Ga 5:16
Now I am saying, Walk in spirit, and you should under no circumstances be consummating the lust of the flesh.

What is the lust of the flesh?

Here are some examples:

(CLV) Ga 5:19
Now apparent are the works of the flesh, which are adultery, prostitution, uncleanness, wantonness,

(CLV) Ga 5:20
idolatry, enchantment, enmities, strife, jealousies, furies, factions, dissensions, sects,

(CLV) Ga 5:21
envies, murders, drunkennesses, revelries, and the like of these, which, I am predicting to you, according as I predicted also, that those committing such things shall not be enjoying the allotment of the kingdom of God.


Yahshua set an example of how for us to behave in a way that is in the father's will.

(CLV) Ro 8:29
that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren.

(CLV) Jn 16:7
"But I am telling you the truth. It is expedient for you that I may be coming away, for if I should not be coming away, the consoler will not be coming to you. Now if I should be gone, I will send him to you.

(CLV) Jn 16:8
And, coming, that will be exposing the world concerning sin and concerning
righteousness and concerning judging:

(CLV) Jn 16:9
concerning sin, indeed, seeing that they are not believing in Me;

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

This post is too long to read.

 

[JIMINZ]

What Bible translation are you using? Your quotation from Corinthians is different to the same verse(1 Corinthians 9:20) in the NASB.

1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Right from the day of my Rebirth into Christ some 52 yrs ago, I have used the KJV.

I do not see where is is necessary for my to hear Paul say he is not under the Law, it is irrelevant to the Verse as a whole.

It sounds more like someone added that to the Text in order to instruct (Teach) Doctrine.

To me, it's those little subtle things like that, that make me leery of the Newer Translations because they are just supposed to be easier to read.

For people to say they cannot read the Old English is a cop out, people just don't understand, all they have to do is ask, and they will be given the understanding, that is what I did in a Motel room when I got Saved because I didn't understand anything I was reading, and it wasn't because of the Old English either.

 

[klutedavid]

Right from the day of my Rebirth into Christ some 52 yrs ago, I have used the KJV.

So how do we know which translation to read because there is a marked difference between them.

 

[not under law]

Thank you for sharing, I am happy to hear that you were able to have that type of relationship with your mother before she passed.

Love fulfills the Mosaic law because love is essentially what it is about how to do and because all of its laws are examples of what it looks like to correctly love God and our neighbor. The relationship aspect is key. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the law without have a focus on his relationship with Christ, so he had been missing the whole point of obeying the law and counted it all as rubbish. So if we just focus on trying to obey a list of rules while missing that it is about having a similar sort relationship with Christ that you had with your mother, then we have the wrong narrative and wrong motivation, so it is going to be a struggle to obey.

David said repeatedly throughout the Psalms that he loved the Mosaic Law and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express view of God's law, then we will share it, as Paul also did (Romans 7:22), and will consider anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying God's law to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night. We can't affirm the truth of these verses while not allowing them to affect how we live our lives.

You do accept that under the new covenant the law God wants you to follow is written on your mind and placed on your heart by God Himself don't you? Jeremiah ch31, Heb 8&10
What is in your mind you in your mind must surely know, and what is in your heart you in your heart want to follow. I imagine you also accept that: Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20
Therefore, as I have no consciousness of sin in my heart or mind by not following Torah that only leaves two possibilities. Either that law is not written in my mind and placed on my heart or I cannot be a Christian.

 

[DamianWarS]

God gave the Mosaic Law, so if it is not God's law, then whose law is it? In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so all of the Mosaic Law is God's law. Likewise, God's law and the Mosaic Law are equated in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In John 14:24, Christ said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he taught the same law.

I went to college, and during college I had certain things I had to do in order to graduate, now that I've graduated I no longer need to do those things and if I do it doesn't contribute any more to my diploma. It's not that my time at college is worthless, it isn't and the diploma hangs on my wall, continues to give me credentials and I continue to value it. Laws can work the same way, they change and old systems don't need to be followed when a newer system is in place. Being lawful to Christ invokes not old systems but current systems. The old doesn't get thrown out but instead fulfilled which may have a similar result but is very different. Certainly the law of Moses was God's law but to be lawful to God today doesn't invoke this law and if it does we are doing it very wrong specially to the sacrifice. The letter of the law no longer speaks to us but the law instead points to Christ, as it always did but it is now revealed this way.

I think part of the issue is that the people to whom Paul was writing had a context to understand what he was saying that we are lacking. It hard to say how responsible he could be for how people would interpret him 2,000 years later, but I do think that he could have been clearer on some point. However, Paul did speak about multiple different categories of law and often switched between which law he was speaking about, we need to be careful to correctly interpret which law he was speaking about in order to avoid making the mistake of interpreting him as speaking against obeying God as if he had the authority to countermand God.

Paul did switch context of law lots, but he doesn't in this letter. Context is one of the best indicators of meaning and it's iresponsible just to sweep it under a rug. Where in Romans Paul's loved to talk about law to the Corinthians he didn't and it is brought up very little. We can't superimpose the culture and understanding Paul intends for one audience when he demonstrates restraint on this subject with another and that in itself demonstrates meaning. Corinthians is not Romans and we may cherry pick all kinds of context from Romans but have to accept this is not the context of Corinthians.

In this passage, Paul was speaking about giving up his rights and following the customs of the people that he was with in order to meet people where they were at for the sake of the Gospel. Sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law (1 John 3:4), so he was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners for the sake of the Gospel because that would have completely undermined the Gospel. In the 1st century, there existed a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, and a lot of what is said about laws in the NT is in regard to this body of laws, so Paul was speaking about following Jewish traditionary laws when he was with Jews for the sake of the Gospel.

If there were any of God's laws that Paul wasn't obeying, then he wouldn't have been lawless to God, so "not lawless to God" would have been at the very least inclusive of the Mosaic Law. Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent form our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to the nations before the end (Matthew 24:12-14). Christ also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and Paul said that we are to follow his example as he followed the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), so what else could "being lawful to Christ" refer to if not the Mosaic Law that Christ taught by word and by example?

Acts 15 there was a demand that gentiles were to follow the entire law of Moses, which concluded the that grace was by faith not law and there were imposed some restrictions but extremely little an no where close to the law of Moses. Who is ethnically Jewish today anyways? Since the 1st century Jewish diaspora I would suggest the race no longer exists. We are all gentile and law through inheritance is adopted and probably has nothing to do with blood. If we fail in one part we fail in it all, Paul was not Jewish, he was Christ's and Christ call us all to deny self to follow him, we should do the same, however Paul still was able to become a Jew to minister to Jews as he was called and it seems his call was for life.

 

[klutedavid]

Right from the day of my Rebirth into Christ some 52 yrs ago, I have used the KJV.

You have been a Christian for a very long time, 52 years.

I do not see where is is necessary for my to hear Paul say he is not under the Law, it is irrelevant to the Verse as a whole.

Actually the next verse is below.

1 Corinthians 9:21
To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ.

See that distinctive statement 'under the law of Christ', Paul is saying that he is not under the Torah but under the law of Christ.

It sounds more like someone added that to the Text in order to instruct (Teach) Doctrine.

Obviously using different sources for the text.

To me, it's those little subtle things like that, that make me leery of the Newer Translations because they are just supposed to be easier to read.

Many more manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was written. I would prefer the latest scholarship for the text.

For people to say they cannot read the Old English is a cop out, people just don't understand, all they have to do is ask, and they will be given the understanding, that is what I did in a Motel room when I got Saved because I didn't understand anything I was reading, and it wasn't because of the Old English either.

Why read a translation that is past it's use by date.

 

[JIMINZ]

So how do we know which translation to read because there is a marked difference between them.

OK, This is my personal opinion, I have never heard anyone ever say the same thing or even close to it, so here goes.

I believe what the Bible says, that it was written by Holy men as the Spirit of God gave them the knowledge, and Understanding, where Paul had special tutelage from Jesus Himself,...... anyway.

I believe God had the Bible written in Greek because it was the Universal Language of the known world of that time, and Greek would be used centuries to come.

When it came to the point the Bible was Translated into English, I believe, The King James Version was the one that God Chose to use in order to reach the English speaking peoples, my beliefs is it was the most comprehensive Direct Translation into English Word For Word.

The thing people seem to forget is that the Bible isn't a Book of Books, that relate Principals, Doctrines to the Believer, over and above that, it's a Book of WORDS.

It is amazing how The Holy Spirit can teach you things you cannot even imagine, and find it hard to describe everything He has taught you just by using a Bible and an Exhaustive Concordance, I have at times gone so deep into understanding, that I literally felt as though I would explode if I was shown anything else, and had to close the Bible, the Glory was so strong.
Just by using those two Books.

It is now much easier with a Computer and E- Sword, with a Concordance.

This part will explain in more detail just what I meant by my choice of Translation, even though I believe God Placed the KJV in my hands to begin with because that is what He wanted me to have.

Let me interject here for Clarification.
I was raised Catholic, went to School and all of the Sacraments Applied, but when I went into the Navy there wasn't a chance to go to Church because I was on a Destroyer and there was neither a Chaplin or a Lay Person at that time.

By the time I got out of the Navy 4 yrs later and I returned to Church it had changed so much, because of the Ecumenical Council of the Mid, 60s that everything I had been taught wasn't valid any more so I left the Church and didn't go to any Church for a couple more years.

Being a Catholic I was not allowed to read the Bible myself, but finally one night I tried to read on in my Motel room and I was really confused, it was just a bunch of stories that didn't sound like the ones I had been taught by the Catholic Church, and there were some that I was taught that didn't even exist in that Bible.

So I put it down on the Bed and for the first time in my life I truly Prayed to God out of my Heart, and I said, I believe this is your Book I want to know what is in this book so if you want me to read it, you better give me the understanding when I do read it, I picked it up and He gave me instant understanding of the Old English and He led me to the shortest books in the New Testament, not the Gospels, that night I devoured most of the New Testament, and The Holy Spirit still today does the same as he did that night, every time I pick it up..... That is the Back Story.

Now what I was leading to.

I firmly believe, God had the King James Version, written for the English speaking peoples of the World.

I believe that God has had the Bible Translated into the Languages of if not all, then most of the different Languages of the Peoples of the world, I believe that they convey to those peoples, exactly what was written in the GREEK by the Apostles, Word for Word, no variations or contradictions with all of the specific nuances of each Language in particular to that Language just as it is in the KJV.

It's Gods words, I believe He is able to have those words reproduced into as many Languages as need be, and they will not lose any of the Subtleties of those Languages form Greek into their own Language, but I believe it is the first Edition of each Translation which will do this, just as the Greek did in the time it was Originally Written.

It is my belief that every other Translation out there is a little bit off in some ways, because they are different from each other not only the KJV, these subtle differences are what bother me the most, they have the potential (Power) to lead into deception.

When I come to a Word I am having difficulty understanding the context in which it is being used I look in the Exhaustive Concordance and I find how it was used and the many differences in how it was used.

What book or Concordance do you use to get a Definition for a word from the Greek, when you read the NASB.

I could write a lot more but, I hope that is sufficient for you to understand my position on which Bible to use and why.

If you have any questions about what I have said just ask.

 

[JIMINZ]

Actually the next verse is below.

1 Corinthians 9:21
To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ.

See that distinctive statement 'under the law of Christ', Paul is saying that he is not under the Torah but under the law of Christ.

KJV
1Co 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

It is marked as being added, not for Doctrinal Purposes but for more clarification from Greek to English.

When I read, I read it with the Bracketed words and also without them, I then see how Paul was actually speaking.

If I have any question as to a specific thing being said I also look in a
Greek - English Interlinear Bible to find the Greek way of saying things, and some times it just opens things up that you cannot gain from any English rendition, just by reading it the way the Greeks would say it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I understand Greek, I'm saying the words are still in English but arranged the way the Greeks would say it, which is mostly backwards.

It gives you a completely different perspective to read it that way.

Anyway, I was only pointing out they both say basically the same thing but the KJV puts those words in brackets for clarity, because they are not part of the Text.

 

[Oldmantook]

Paul was not in a rush to get to the temple on the day of Pentecost. Paul was in a rush to get to Jerusalem to be with the other Jewish Christians on the day of Pentecost.

I never wrote nor implied that he was in a rush to get to the temple. It is a pilgrimage requirement to be in Jerusalem.

Romans 4:15
For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Trying to obey the letter of the law triggers the wrath of God.

Indeed trying to obey the letter of the law is futile and incurs God's wrath. The law never saved anyone however that does not mean the law was abolished as Jesus himself stated that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt 5:17). Scripture states that the law is our tutor/guardian that points to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law (Gal 3:24). Paul wrote "Do we then make void the law through faith? No, in no wise, to the contrary we establish the law" (Rom 3:31). No one is justified by the law but through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20).
It is quite obvious by these verses that the law was not done away with. Think about it. If the law was abolished, then there would be no knowledge of what constitutes as sin (Rom 3:20) and how would sinners then repent if they did not know what to repent of?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I never wrote nor implied that he was in a rush to get to the temple. It is a pilgrimage requirement to be in Jerusalem.


Indeed trying to obey the letter of the law is futile and incurs God's wrath. The law never saved anyone however that does not mean the law was abolished as Jesus himself stated that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt 5:17). Scripture states that the law is our tutor/guardian that points to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law (Gal 3:24). Paul wrote "Do we then make void the law through faith? No, in no wise, to the contrary we establish the law" (Rom 3:31). No one is justified by the law but through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20).
It is quite obvious by these verses that the law was not done away with. Think about it. If the law was abolished, then there would be no knowledge of what constitutes as sin (Rom 3:20) and how would sinners then repent if they did not know what to repent of?

To be fair, Paul's Nazirite Vow experience was where his ship of extreme pragmatism ran aground. God was warning him in all kinds of ways to not go up to Jerusalem, but in his passion to convert his Jewish brethren he failed to heed the warnings (eg the Agabus episode). The last day of the ceremony would have required him to partake of animal sacrifices, and God had to step in to stop it, resulting in Paul's being shanghaied to Rome and his itinerant ministry scuttled.

So it's probably a good example of what happens when you slip back into the law, and this is borne out in Hebrews 9, amongst others.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I never wrote nor implied that he was in a rush to get to the temple. It is a pilgrimage requirement to be in Jerusalem.


Indeed trying to obey the letter of the law is futile and incurs God's wrath. The law never saved anyone however that does not mean the law was abolished as Jesus himself stated that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt 5:17). Scripture states that the law is our tutor/guardian that points to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law (Gal 3:24). Paul wrote "Do we then make void the law through faith? No, in no wise, to the contrary we establish the law" (Rom 3:31). No one is justified by the law but through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20).
It is quite obvious by these verses that the law was not done away with. Think about it. If the law was abolished, then there would be no knowledge of what constitutes as sin (Rom 3:20) and how would sinners then repent if they did not know what to repent of?

The Holy Spirit.. Who's, btw, not once indicated to me anything about dietary laws, or pilgrimage laws, or sacrificial laws, circumcision laws etc.

My sacrifice is my life lived to Christ, my pilgrimage is prayer through the Spirit and worship of Him wherever I am in this earth, I fulfill all the laws I am under, the law of the Spirit, via love, love first to God, love second to man...

That doesn't include levitical law which Christ fulfilled. When you put yourself under the law, you announce to the world a worthless grace and a useless Christ hence it is written:

"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Galatians 5:6

We are to be the light of Christ to the world, not the best lawyers in it.

 

[DamianWarS]

so he equated the Law of Christ with the Mosaic Law

wait? Where did he say this?

 

[DamianWarS]

KJV
1Co 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

It is marked as being added, not for Doctrinal Purposes but for more clarification from Greek to English.

the parentheses punctuation is added but not the words. the originals didn't have any punctuation so commas or periods and what-have-you all has been added. The base greek test of the KJV called the TR vs what more modern translations are based on called the GNT have extremely minor differences for this verse. They are not whole words but rather grammatical nuances.

v20 is the more controversial the Alexandrian texts have more than the Byzantine texts noted in red below (which is also the title of the OP):

NASB
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

NKJV
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

with v21 both texts agree, if it uses parentheses or not is arbitrary and I think the same message is communicated that is absent from say the KJV in vs 20. later additions to the text is possible from over zealous scribes although I don't think this is the case if added we would have to consider the possibly it was a widely accepted view in the early church. Another possibility is that it was deliberately removed. Although it happens both deliberate addition and removal I hate to paint the church this way. A more neutral position, since there is a lot of repetition in the account, is that a scribe might have gotten confused and simply missed the line.

 

[fhansen]

Paul is quoted saying this in 1 Cor 9:20. My question is which law is he referring to? Torah/Mosaic law or something else?

Any law, really. Man was not made to have to go about observing every move he makes to see if he conforms to a law; man was made to be governed spontaneously by His Creator, within relationship or communion with Him.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

We are free moral agents who must yet assent to the wisdom and authority of God; we must obey. The catch: this is only possible in any meaningful way as we come to love God, to the extent that we love Him with our whole, heart, soul, mind, and strength. That's what Adam missed, and that's what this life here is; it's an "incubation process" for coming to know and love God, as we become willing. The two, knowledge of the true God and love of Him go hand in hand incidentally; they're mutually inclusive. Meanwhile the law serves it's purpose as a guide or teacher: to inform us of how we fail to live up to the demands of God's righteousness or justice, to reveal how we fail to love, to put it more succinctly, to help us come to see just how much we need God, something Adam missed at first glance in Eden.

 

[Oldmantook]

To be fair, Paul's Nazirite Vow experience was where his ship of extreme pragmatism ran aground. God was warning him in all kinds of ways to not go up to Jerusalem, but in his passion to convert his Jewish brethren he failed to heed the warnings (eg the Agabus episode). The last day of the ceremony would have required him to partake of animal sacrifices, and God had to step in to stop it, resulting in Paul's being shanghaied to Rome and his itinerant ministry scuttled.

So it's probably a good example of what happens when you slip back into the law, and this is borne out in Hebrews 9, amongst others.

I had explained why the law is still relevant based on the scriptures I cited but in response to my post it appears you are saying that it is irrelevant? Please explain and use scripture to buttress your explanation. As far as Heb 9 goes, I don't want to guess as to how you interpret that chapter so further elaboration is needed on your part.