1 Corinthians 9:20-22

Vv. 20-22. “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, though myself not under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21. To them that are without law, as without law, being not without law to God, but under the law through Christ, that I might gain them that are without law; 22. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some.”

We might regard the Jews and those who are under the law as forming only one class of persons, under two different aspects: first in their national, and then in their religious relation. The first term would refer to their language, dress, etc.; the second, to their dependence on the law. But this distinction is somewhat far-fetched. Is it not better to understand by the first term those who were Jews by origin, and to include in the second, with those same Jews, all the proselytes of Gentile origin who accepted the yoke of the Mosaic law?

While, on the one hand, the apostle inflexibly refused every concession in favour of the law, to which an obligatory character could be attached (Galatians 2:3-5), he was, on the other hand, equally pliable and accommodating toward any one who might be scandalized by entire independence of legal observances. Thus are explained the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), the vow of Cenchrea (Acts 18:18), and the docility of the apostle in regard to the request of James relative to the Nazarite vow at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26). The absence of the article before ᾿Ιουδαίους arises from the fact that Paul wishes to designate not the individuals, but the category: Jews. The word νόμος, law, is without article, because what is expressed here, as Holsten says, is the notion of the genus or kind. The omission of the words: though not without law, in the Byz., arises probably from the mistake of a copyist whose eye passed on from the second ὑπὸ νόμον to the third. The proselytes to whom, as well as Jewish Christians, the second part of the verse relates, forms the transition to the Gentiles, ἄνομοι, without law (1 Corinthians 9:21).

Vv. 21. The term: them that are without law, is not taken in the sense: rebels to law, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Its meaning is simply privative: those who are not subject to a law. Paul has made himself like them by taking the freedom secured by Christ from all legal observances which do not come under the permanent moral law. But, while affirming this, he declares himself subject, in his inmost life, to the true law, the Divine will which has become through Christ his personal will. The T. R. reads with K L the datives θεῷ and Χριστῷ, while the Alex. and Greco-Lats. read the genitives θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ. By the dative, Paul says that he is not without law relatively to God in virtue of the inner law, according to which he lives by the fact of his union with Christ. The genitive rather indicates a relation of possession, which in this case cannot well apply to anything except to the law itself. “Not without feeling myself bound by a law of God, seeing that, on the contrary, as Christ's possession, I carry the law in me.” It must be confessed that the meaning of the first reading is much simpler and more normal. But to explain the two readings one might conjecture an intermediate one: θεοῦ in the first clause, Χριστῷ in the second. In any case, Paul distinguishes three moral states: a life without law, that of the Gentile; a life under the law, that of the Jew (Romans 7); and a life in the law, that of the believer (Romans 8). In the first state the will is given up to its natural tendencies; in the second, it is subject to a rule which controls it from without, and which it obeys only by constraint; in the third, the human will is identified by the Spirit of Christ with the Divine law; comp. Jeremiah 31:33.

For the absence of the article (if we reject τούς with the T. R.), see on 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Vv. 22. I think with most commentators, that the weak in this verse denotes Christians who are yet slenderly confirmed, such as those mentioned in chap. 8. No doubt the term gain does not apply to them in the same sense as to the Jews and Gentiles of whom Paul has been speaking; but the consequence of their weakness, if one should scandalize them, by making them return to their Gentile or Jewish life, might yet be to destroy them, as is shown by passages of the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews. Paul did not regard them as gained till they were secured against such relapses. Edwards rightly remarks, that we have here exactly the three categories of persons whom Paul mentions in concluding this part, 1 Corinthians 10:32: “Jews, Greeks, and the Church of God.”

The ὡς, as, before ἀσθενής, is probably an addition. The apostle may well say that he became weak when he adopted a line of conduct resting on scruples which he did not share.

The last words of the verse sum up the entire passage; they correspond to the first of 1 Corinthians 9:19. Not being able to cite all the particular subjects of accommodation, Paul comprehends them in a general expression: τὰ πάντα, all things. Here we have very certainly the neuter employed side by side with the masculine τοῖς πᾶσιν, to all, confirming our interpretation of the πάντων, 1 Corinthians 9:19. The words πάντως τινάς, absolutely some, signify: “in any case some at least of the mass,” that is to say, of the multitude of the unbelieving or indifferent whom he met in the capitals of the heathen world where he proclaimed the gospel. No observance appeared to him too irksome, no requirement too stupid, no prejudice too absurd, to prevent his dealing tenderly with it in the view of saving souls.

The word save, which he here substitutes for gain, clearly shows what he understood by this gain; the salvation of his brethren, this formed his riches!

Thus Paul's conduct was as far removed from the licence or insolent superiority of the liberals of Corinth as from the timorous servility of the weak Christians. Free in respect of everything, he made himself the slave of all from love. What firmness of principle, and at the same time delicacy of conduct, what a combination of strength and gentleness, elevation and humility! How had this fiery steed been tamed and trained by his skilful rider! While preserving his nobility and high spirit, he had acquired the most admirable adaptability. It seems to me difficult to believe that when thus describing his conduct, Paul had not in view the charge of versatility which his adversaries brought against him (2 Corinthians 1). As in the previous passage he had indirectly rectified the consequences which his adversaries drew from his refusal of payment, he wishes here to explain to the Church the alleged inconsistencies with which he was charged in his conduct as to Mosaic observances. It was no matter of inconstancy or guile (1 Corinthians 2:15 seq.), but of love.

Thus far the apostle has claimed of believers the renunciation of their rights from regard to the salvation of their neighbour. Now he presses the proud and intractable Corinthians more forcibly, by showing them that it is not their neighbour's salvation only that is at stake in this matter, but also their own. This new and more pressing consideration is developed on to 1 Corinthians 10:22.