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

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, l...

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, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...