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

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary