Acts 21 - Problems with the Conciliatory Theory - Part 2: “All Things to All Men”
Grace to you in the matchless name of Yeshua our Savior according to the Commandment of God and our hope,
In part 1, I introduced the Conciliatory theory which claims that Paul’s actions in Acts 21 need to be interpreted as a conciliatory act to the Jews. The Gentiles were to have a “Law-free” option and Paul’s Nazarite vow was simply to placate the sensitivities of the Jews who were still under Torah. Thus, Paul, according to this understanding, was simply being “all things to all men.” (1 Cor. 9:19-23). In part 1, I dealt with the notion of “unclean” gentile territory and its connections to Acts 10-11, then dealt with notion that the Gentiles were “Law-free,” as the Law and the Prophets were the only scriptures they had at the time. Now it is time for the final crux of the conciliatory theory, the notion that Paul was “being all things to all men.”
All Things to All Men and Under Law
The crux of the Conciliatory Theory really rests on the application of 1 Cor. 9:19-23, that Paul and James are simply being “all things to all men.”
Given what we covered so far about Act 21, how then are we to interpret Paul’s words here in 1 Cor. 9:15-22? We have already shown that Paul and James held the Torah as the eternal and immutable standard of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but it seems here that in 1 Corinthians, the Law is somehow culturally dependent and that Gentiles can take or leave it. Furthermore, Paul’s actions seem to indicate two separate gospels. Given that the gospel is to be obeyed in both word and deed (Rom 15:18), are we to understand that the deeds of one group are different than the deeds of another group?
Perhaps like James we should get to the bottom of what Paul is saying!
So what does the text in 1 Cor. 9:19-23 actually say?
(19) “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. (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; (21) to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (22) To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (23) I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
Context is King
What has been going on at the Church in Corinth?
Firstly, there are significant internal divisions that have happened at this church. Some follow Paul, some Apollos, other Cephas (1:32; 3:22).
Secondly, these divisions are exacerbated by the acceptance of some significant sexual sin. (Chap. 5)
Thirdly, the divisions are so bad that there have been lawsuits taken to the Pagan courts! Which obviously necessitates Pagan ritual - a violation of Acts 15 and Acts 21 (not to mention the Torah).
Fourthly, there are those within the Synagogue who are members of the Party of the Circumcision and Jews who do not believe in Messiah.
The immediate context of chapters 8-10 is Paul’s appeal to forfeit one’s freedoms (that are based on “knowledge”) if necessary to the ones who are “weak.” In v. 14-18 Paul shows that he gave up his right to be paid for his service so that he would be more effective in ministry.
If we notice the beginning of the text it begins with “for.”
Whenever you see a “for” or a “therefore” you need to ask, “What is it there for?”
This “for” connects the passage v. 1-18 to the current passage (19-23). Thus, Paul’s own example of forfeiting pay is directly linked to the example coming up. It is of the utmost importance that we realize that Paul is not speaking of things he is free to do, but the relinquishing of freedoms.
Tim Hegg has identified a very Hebraic rhetorical point, here in the passage, as it is formed in a chiastic structure with the opening and closing clauses repeating. (See his work “All things to all men: Paul and the Torah in 1 Cor 9:19-23).
(A) I made myself a slave to all in order that I might gain more (v. 19)
(B) I became to the Jews as a Jew, in order that I might gain Jews (v. 20a)
(B1) To those under the Torah as under the Torah…to gain those under the Torah (v. 20b)
(C) To those outside the Torah as outside of Torah…to gain those outside of Torah (v. 21)
(D) I became to the weak weak in order that I might gain the weak (v. 22a)
(A1) I have become all things to all, in order that I might in all circumstances save some of them. (v. 22b)
Besides the structure what can we notice?
Although Hegg has identified two groups, Instead of four groups (as is commonly assumed), I believe that Paul is actually interacting with three groups.
The first group is the Jews. We see this in line (B) and this group is further designated as those Jews who are “under Torah” (B1).
The group spoken of in line (C) are those “outside” of Torah.
The last group is further designated as “weak” (D).
Can Paul Become a Jew?
So the real question is this: how can Paul, who was already a Jew, become a Jew? We know that Paul never gave up his Jewishness, as evidenced by Acts 19:34, 21:39, 22:3, and Phil. 3:4-6. Thus, there is really no way that Paul can become a Jew because he already had that status.
So what are we to make of this nonsensical statement? How can a Jew become a Jew? (Of course, we already know that Paul is not insane, so there must be a good reason for his choice of words.)
The answer comes in line (B1): Paul adds a clarification regarding the group of Jews by the phrase, “those under the Torah.”
This phrase, “under Torah,” needs to be understood as those who are still UNDER THE CONDEMNATION of the Torah (Romans 7:13; 8:1). These are unbelieving Jews! Because they are UNDER the Torah.
That phrase “under Law” (Greek: hupo Nomon) is indicative of those who are reliant on the Law to bring about righteousness and salvation. They, like the Party of the Circumcision, thought that Jewish identity was what allowed them participation in the Kingdom of God.
THIS IS WHY PAUL ADDS THAT HE HIMSELF IS “NOT UNDER TORAH.” If one thing is clear, it’s that Paul NO LONGER RELIED on his ethnicity for his salvation.
And we know that Paul and James clearly understand that “forsaking Moses” was considered apostasy from the one true religion! (Acts 21:21), so it would be quite disingenuous for Paul to say that he is forsaking Moses to the church at Corinth, but then telling James that he didn’t forsake Moses in Acts 21. But we know that Paul is not a liar either!
So what does the text look like if we understand that hupo nomon means under the condemnation of the Torah?
To those under the condemnation of the Torah I became under the condemnation of the Torah,
Though not myself under the condemnation of the Torah,
So that I might win some under the condemnation of the Torah.
Admittedly, the writing here is certainly difficult to understand. How can a person put themselves back under the condemnation of the Torah, once they are freed from the Torah’s condemnation? If we consider being under the Torah’s condemnation to be equivalent to being not saved, then how can a not saved person actually save a not saved person? It would be like a lifeguard attempting to rescue a person in hazardous water by throwing himself into the water, instead of a life-preserver! In other words, a drowning person cannot save another drowning person!
But therein lies the rub…
It is Paul’s relinquishing of personal freedom and his sacrificial attitude that are on full display. If we take Rom. 9:3 at face value we find that Paul would consider himself accursed and separated from Christ (e.g. under the condemnation of the Law) in order to save his brethren.
If we look at Paul’s continued submission to the synagogue authorities UP TO THE POINT OF LASHINGS we understand what he meant! Paul was beaten five times (2 Cor. 11:24) so that he could win some! By submitting himself to their rules, he put himself under Torah, thereby relinquishing his freedoms in order to reach and win Jews who were still without Christ!
Paul would willingly sacrifice everything he had, and would even consider being put back under the condemnation of the Law, although he knows that is impossible, so that he could win those who are still under the condemnation of the Law!
Oh, that we would have the same sacrificial attitude!
The Other Groups
Remember when we talked about the “Party of the Circumcision” in the post about Acts 15? It’s important to understand the prevailing Jewish view of Gentiles in the Kingdom of Heaven, in order to understand verses 21 and why Paul uses two different words (anomos and ennomos).
1 Cor 9:(21) to those who are without (anomos) law, as without (anomos) law, though not being without (anomos) the law of God but under (ennomos) the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without (anomos) law.
Firstly, and most importantly, here is explicit instruction that Paul is not with out the Law of God, and that the Law of God is synonymous with the necessary, direct, and proper execution of that law, which is the Law of Christ (ennomos Christos).
Since Paul is not without the Law of God, any notion that Paul set aside the Torah should be put to rest.
This very phrase “without law” was in common usage within the traditional Synagogue, the LXX, and was later codified in the Talmudic writings that described the Gentiles as transgressors of the Law of God thus they are “without law.”
Paul even partially confirms this prevailing view of 1st Century Judaism in Eph. 2:11; 4:17-32, that unbelieving Gentiles are outside the covenants of God, as they are cut off and without hope and walk in a manner that is decidedly anomos.
So, it seems here that Paul is showing himself to fully lawful, while reaching out to those who are fully without Torah and are outside the covenants. The addition of ennomos Christos is to show that Paul is walking in a manner like Christ, which is the proper manifestation of the Law of God. This of course, stands in contrast to other laws and rulings, particularly of the rabbinic authorities who might have forbade association with the Gentiles who were in fact anomos and considered enemies of God.
So for example, Paul might have to enter the house of a pagan to share the Good News. Paul would go an associate while remaining fully Lawful and true to the Torah.
In other words,
Paul would not sin so that grace would abound to the Gentiles.
Does it really make sense that Paul would violate the Torah for Evangelistic success?
Like sacrificing his personal freedom for the Jews, Paul likewise, sacrificed his status to reach those who were without the Torah at all. He became like a Gentile, without violating the Law of God, so that he could win Gentiles.
Is not the point of evangelism to bring those living outside of the word of God into alignment with the word of God? This is what Paul is doing. He is doing all Lawful things to win the Gentiles, in the same way the Christ did.
Being “Weak”
The theme of being “weak” is actually very prevalent in the book of Corinthians. Especially in 1 Cor. 8 and 10.
Paul is identifying with the group that are labeled “weak” because if the context is about relinquishing freedom, Paul would gladly relinquish his liberty so that even the weak might be strengthened.
The context in the surrounding chapters is about the controversy over eat clean meats that might have been the product of pagan sacrifice.
There obviously was a group of people at Corinth those who considered any meats purchased near the pagan temples to be unclean. In fact, Paul says that if one knows that they are sacrificed to idols, “Do not eat.” (1 Cor. 10:28).
We know that eating of a pagan sacrifice is a violation of the Torah and of the 1st Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
There were some “weak” people in Corinth who would refrain from any marketplace meats, considering them unclean totally.
Paul makes the injunction that if one is ignorant of the status, to not ask of the status, so that one’s conscience can remain clean. (1 Cor. 10:25).
But the point is, keeping with the theme, if there is one who is weak in conscience, Paul, although not actually being weak in faith or conscience, would gladly relinquish freedom to help support those who were weaker. In other words, just because it is lawful to eat a clean marketplace meat, does not mean that it is profitable to the whole community (1 Cor. 10:23)
In this way, Paul can truly say that he became as weak, fully identifying with that group, although the text shows that Paul is definitely not weak in conscience. To the contrary, the relinquishing of freedom shows monumental strength of character.
"All things to All men”
To conclude this series of verses Paul says that
(22b)…I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (23) I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
Using his own life as the example (imitate him as he imitates Christ), Paul underscores the very sacrificial love of Messiah. He not only submits himself to the authorities of the synagogue, but would also go amongst the nations to win some.
In short, he sacrificed his very freedom for the sake of the gospel.
This is what the Conciliatory Theory should be. The passage was never about the continuity of the Mosaic Law at all, but rather Paul’s radical obedience to the Law and the Great Commission as taught by Messiah (ennomos Christos).
The Jews who rejected the Messiah are still under the condemnation of the Torah. Their reliance on the status of the flesh rendered them lost, just like the unbelieving Gentile. To that end, it seems that if the Law is the standard of righteousness and the defining standard of sin, and that Paul walks orderly keeping the Torah (Acts 21), there is no way that Paul would commit a sin (violating the Torah) so that “grace can abound” to the Gentiles.
But this is exactly how the majority interpret this text.
In other words, Paul is not free to eat swine in the presence of a Gentile for evangelistic success. The bottom line is that if Paul is violating the Torah to win Gentiles, he would be sinning so that grace would abound to the Gentiles. This is nothing short of apostasy, and would necessitate a third Jerusalem Council to finally convict Paul of apostasy.
Is not the goal of the nation of Israel as a whole, and Paul in particular, to bring the nations into alignment with the established Word of God, not bring the Word of God into alignment with the lawless Gentiles? (Rom. 15:18.)
Therefore, it is quite unlikely that this text is speaking to bilateral orthopraxy, violating the Torah for evangelism, or the notion that Paul is merely performing his Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 as a conciliatory act.
In fact, Paul’s actions at Corinth are more indicative of reconciliation as opposed to conciliatory. Paul is desperately, up to the point of death, trying to bring Jew and Gentile together and to build up the body in Messiah. Conciliation means changing doctrine to accommodate, whereas reconciliation is joining together under a single banner.
What does this do to the Conciliatory Theory?
Well, it destroys it.
Paul never, at any time, taught the Jews or the Gentiles to forsake Moses. The Nazarite Vow was not a conciliatory gesture; it was to show his adherence to the Law. “"Being all things to all men” is simply a rhetorical device that Paul used to show his willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of Christ. In no way does it preach the forsaking of Moses, but rather, underscores Paul’s desire to see both Jew and Greek become partakers of the Covenants of Promise, through faith in Messiah!
There is no distinction between Jew and Greek and there is One Law for you and the sojourner among you. (Numbers 15:16; Isaiah 56:6-7; Acts 15:9; Romans 3:22; 10:12; Colossians 3:11)
Adonai bless you and keep you
Adonai make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you.
Adonai lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.
-Scott McKenzie