Skip to main content

1 Timothy 1:8-11

    "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

    Now for our final installment from 1 Timothy 1.  Here Paul officially settles the debate between modern day "legalists" and "licentiousists" (I made that last one up).  The law is good, if used lawfully.  This is a little bit of a play on words.  It's almost as if Paul is saying, "Well, of course the law is good, if we use it the way it was meant to be used."  Throughout the history of the Church (both the Old and New Testament Church), the people of God have misused and/or abused the Law of God, using it improperly, or disregarding it completely.  They have chosen parts they like and disregarded other parts.  As Paul's letters make clear, the Law is not to be used to obtain righteousness.  Portions of the Law clearly foreshadowing Christ have been fulfilled and would be blasphemous to maintain.  And yet, Paul maintains in II Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture (the Old Testament was the only Scripture then in existence) is useful to teach us and correct us.  So, putting this all together, what is the complete picture we get of how to use the Law properly? 

    Firstly, Paul makes it clear through Romans that the Law is not to be replaced by license.  That is, once we are saved we are not free to act any old way we please.  Perhaps that is to put it incorrectly.  If we want to use salvation as a means of freedom from God's Law, then we probably don't have the Spirit.  I say this allowing for differences of opinion theologically about the Law, but I hold firmly that if anyone does not want to obey God, they are not a Christian at all. 

    Secondly, Paul says that the Law is not for the righteous, but for the wicked.  Remembering that Jesus came not to save the righteous, but sinners, lets interpret this accordingly.  What does Paul mean?  Paul means what he said just a few verses ago.  The Law is to produce love, a good conscience, and sincere faith.  The Law gives us the standard that we cannot meet.  Note how Paul says "in accordance with the gospel..."  The Law results in the Gospel.  The two work together.  The Law drives sinners to the Gospel.  It shows them God's character and what He requires.  The Gospel shows man how he can be saved despite his sin.  This is the proper use of the Law. 

    So, once we're Christians, we don't need the Law, right?  Well, if we were instantly perfected, that would be the case.  The Law must continually drive us to the Gospel throughout our lives because we will never be perfect until we die.  The Law continues to show us the light of God and the darkness of humanity.  Until we are in God's presence and purified thereby, we need the Law.  The Law is good...if a man uses it lawfully.  We must never seek to derive righteousness or acceptance from God through the Law.  We must continually admit our weakness and incapability to please God through the Law.  As Paul said in Romans, the Law is weak through the flesh.  If there were a Law that could save, he continues, it would be God's Law.  The Law is a perfect reflection of God's holy character.  That could save us if we could keep it.  But we can't.  So, we need the Gospel.  But this does not mean that we do not strive to meet the unreachable standard.  We must try to imitate Christ, who kept the law perfectly.  In Romans, again, Paul tells us that God foreordained for us to be conformed to the image of Christ.  We will fail, but we must nonetheless attempt to be like God.

    The Bible is all about balance.  We need the Law and the Gospel.  Neither is a one time thing, however.  We do not need the Gospel only once.  We do not need the Law only once.  We continually need both. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Forgive Them"

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Forgiveness is hard.  Forgiveness is really, really hard. It’s difficult to forgive others who have genuinely harmed or offended us.   It’s easy to say , “I forgive you,” but it’s extremely difficult to feel it–to make peace in our hearts with the injustices that others have perpetrated against us. It just doesn’t feel right.  Sin should be punished!  Wrongs should be righted!  Right?! It’s difficult to forgive others when they ask for it.  It’s even more difficult to forgive them when they haven’t asked for it–when they don’t even recognize what they’ve done to hurt us. As our Savior hung upon His Cross, He asked the Father to forgive those nearby–those who were unwittingly contributing to the greatest injustice in the history of the world. These thieves, soldiers, and standers-by had no idea what was happening.  They had no idea that the jealousy of the Jews had placed Christ on that Cross...

5 Reasons I Want my Wife to Start Wearing a Head Covering during Corporate Worship

    Of late, the issue of head coverings has come up in my circle.  Okay...my cousin and I have been discussing it, but the point is, the issue has been bouncing around my head for the past few days.  It is a topic that I have avoided for some time.  Every time I read through 1 Corinthians, I would tell myself, "We'll get around to that."  The reality is that I didn't want to be "that guy"...that guy who people view as a chauvinistic jerk who wants to make sure everyone--especially his wife--remembers that he's the head of his home.  I think I'm beginning to respect "that guy"--those men who have cared enough to stand for what they believe.     Let me be clear that I am referring to head coverings for women (those old enough to leave them on...)  DURING CORPORATE WORSHIP.  I am not advocating head coverings at all times.  Though I see nothing necessarily wrong that practice, I don't see any command for it either.   ...

Paedocommunion: Consistent Covenantalism or Anti-Confessionalism?

    Being raised as a paedocommunionist (that means our kids get to eat Jesus, too), I have always been amazed by how passionately credocommunionists (that means their kids don't get to eat Jesus until they articulate a "credible" profession of faith) dislike the practice.  I would think that they could look at paedocommunion and at least respect it as an attempt to live out Covenant Theology in a consistent way.  Instead, paedocommunionists have been widely viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe (yes, that far) of Reformed Theology.  I like to think that I have been able to agree-to-disagree in an amicable way with my credocommunionist friends.  However, I will admit that being discounted as "unconfessional" (trust me, I've been called worse) has made many paedocommunionists (you'd have to ask my friends whether or not that applies to me) act in a manner that lacks Christian grace.     So, the question remains, is paedocommunion a view hel...