Skip to main content

1 Timothy 3:5

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."  After a little study I realized that I missed an aspect of what this verse was saying.  In the ESV it reads, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."  The subtle choice of the word "charge" instead of "commandment" totally changes the meaning of the verse.  I searched versions to see which word seemed to be closer to the truth, and the majority of the versions, including very literal translations, render it "commandment".  The ESV translates it as if Paul is speaking of the charge that he is giving Timothy, or perhaps, the charge that they were given by God.  However, both Matthew Henry and John Calvin take it to mean the law of God.  Read in the context of the passage, this makes much sense.  Verse 7 says that some want to be teachers of the law but are ignorant of its true meaning.  They were using the law to divide and promote speculations, rather than stewardship of God which is by faith. 

    So, what does this verse mean?  Well, firstly, Paul is declaring the real intent of the giving of the law and of faithful preaching of the law, and the result of practicing the opposite.  Apparently there were those who dwelt on genealogies and myths.  These people apparently placed their confidence of redemption in aspects of descent and tradition instead of in the Word of God by faith.  Paul declares that the intent of the law was "love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."  If our study and teaching of God's Word results in contention, then right of the bat we are completely missing the point of that which we claim to teach and explain.  Paul is making sure Timothy understands that the law and the Gospel are two sides of the same coin, as when he tells him "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully."  Both the law and the Gospel were intended to bring love, a good conscience, and faith. 

    "Love from a pure heart"--Keeping in mind that love is, as Christ said, not merely an emotion but a motivation to obedience, we must see that Paul is here describing obedience.  The Law was given to produce in us love for God and love for men from a heart pure of self-advancement.  Love is not a feeling.  It is a method of behavior prescribed by God, and made possible by God's regenerating grace.  Love does not save us.  Love is a result of our salvation.  It is the greatest commandment.

    "A good conscience"--I take this to mean that through the Law God provided a way of peace with Himself.  The same is true of the Gospel, as the Gospel is the fulfillment and power of the Law.  The Law provided a right standing before God.  This does not mean that those who kept it perfectly were holy before God, for no one could or did.  No, the New Covenant is merely the Old Covenant fulfilled.  The Law was accompanied by the weak redepemptive plan of animal sacrifices that were merely shadows.  The Law is now accompanied by a fulfilled and powerful sacrifice that was once for all.  A good conscience was provided by atonement for sin.  In the Old Testament economy, this was provided by an anticipatory system of sacrifices that pictured Christ's Atonement.  Keeping of the Law never provided a good conscience.  That was never its purpose.  In the New Testament we are provided with a new conscience by looking back to Christ's perfect sacrifice.  The Law serves the same purpose now as then.  It drove the Israelites to the Messiah to come.  It drives us to the Messiah that came.  

   "Sincere faith"--This needs little commentary.  The Law was given to ensure us of who God is and so that we may love and worship Him.  The word "sincere" being present ensures us that God never sought cold, lifeless obedience, but an obedience generated by fear and love for Him.  Both the Law and the Gospel are given to bring those to God who will obey in spirit and in truth.

    That's it for this time.  My next post will examine the rest of this section of 1 Timothy 1 to see just what Paul means when he tells us to use the law "lawfully". 

   

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...