1 Timothy 1. I'll read the chapter and then our focus is on verses 8 to 11. So beginning in 1 Timothy 1 at verse 1,
Scripture Reading: 1 Timothy 1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ our hope, to Timothy, a true son in the faith, grace, mercy and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart. from a good conscience and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners. for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man, but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly and unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God, who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some, having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I deliver to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Amen.
Well, let us pray.
Opening Prayer
Our Father, we thank you again for this beautiful day. We thank you for the opportunity to gather in your house as your people on your day to worship and to glorify your great and holy name. We thank you, Father, for your mercies to us in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We thank you for the ministry of the Spirit of truth.
We pray that even now He would guide us and lead us as we consider this passage of scripture. Again, forgive us for all of our sins, all of our transgression. Cleanse us in that precious blood of the Lamb. And we ask this in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Introduction
Well last week we saw, two weeks ago we saw Paul's charge specifically directed to Timothy in chapter 1 at verses 3 to 7. And in that charge the Apostle Paul indicates that the false teachers desired to be teachers of the law. If you notice that at verse 7. Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
So the problem was not the law. And the problem wasn't even essentially that they desired to be teachers of the law. The problem was that they were ignorant and arrogant and thus heretical, so they didn't handle the law properly. As the NIV renders it, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
The exact kind of people you don't want to be teachers of the law. You want teachers of the law to understand the law, the lawful uses and the unlawful uses. You want the teachers of the law to be skilled to understand how the law works in harmony with the gospel, that they're not in conflict one with another, but as long as they're kept in their certain spaces, then they function beautifully together. So that they desired to teach the law indicates that there were those who had heard their teaching most likely, and so now in verses eight to 11, Paul wants to underscore the truth of the law, or at least clear away some of the confusion that had been brought by these false teachers.
So
Affirmation: The Law Is Good
we wanna look first at the affirmation concerning the law in verse eight, and then secondly, the explanation of a right use of the law in verses nine to 11. Now, Paul doesn't say everything in verses 9 to 11 that the Bible teaches concerning the law. He's not writing a chapter in a systematic theology book called How to Use the Law Properly. He is speaking specifically with reference to one use of the law, and we'll look at that as we go along.
But note first the affirmation in verse 8, but we know that the law is good. So there were those who desired to be teachers of the law, but they were ignorant, they were arrogant, they didn't know how to teach the law, they didn't understand the law, and so they butchered it, they messed it up, and they brought shame and disrepute upon the word of God that they sought to handle.
Testimony of Scripture to the Law's Goodness
Now this proposition shouldn't surprise anyone, but we know that the law is good. The Bible everywhere upholds that proposition. That there are those who have an antagonism to the law of God on some supposed grounds that the gospel frees us and liberates us from any concern whatsoever to the law of God are simply foolish and wrong-headed. The proposition is self-evident.
We know that the law is good. We have the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments. The law is good. The law is a revelation of God's nature.
In other words, if you ask God, what is it that pleases you relative to the creation that you have created in terms of men functioning toward you and toward one another? Will the Ten Commandments or the moral law or the Decalogue give us a great explanation of that? You're not supposed to have other gods. You're not supposed to worship the true God falsely.
You're not supposed to take his name in vain. You're not supposed to desecrate his Sabbath day. You're not supposed to be insubordinate to lawful authority over you. You're not supposed to murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, or covet.
This is a revelation of who God is, and therefore, definitionally, the law is good. We've got the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance, in Matthew 5, 17 to 20, the Sermon on the Mount, do not think that I came to abolish the law. I didn't come to abolish it, but to fulfill it.
Now, whatever he means in that particular section, he does not mean that the law is bad, and that I've come to destroy it, and that I've come to invalidate it, and I've come to send it away so that it has no binding or no bearing on any of God's creation. And then, of course, the testimony of the apostles, specifically Paul. In Romans 3.31, he says, do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not.
On the contrary, we establish the law. And then in Romans 7 at verse 12, therefore the law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good. And then in verse 16, if then I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. So, definitionally, this proposition in 1 Timothy 1, verse 8, we know that the law is good.
It is, objectively so. As Knight says, the point in 1 Timothy 1, 8, as in Romans 7, is to affirm that the law is intrinsically good because it is given by God and is not to be considered bad, though it can be mishandled with bad results as the false teachers have done. So again, Paul's not correcting this body of doctrine we call law, rather he is rebuking the ignorant and arrogant false teachers of the law and setting forth at least one particular use of that law in verses 9 to 11.
The Essential Qualification: Lawful Use
So he makes this statement, we know that the law is good but then note the qualification that is absolutely crucial if one uses it lawfully. Now obviously these verse 7 desiring to be teachers of the law guys were not using it lawfully. And it's tough to know exactly and precisely what it was that they were doing. If we look back previously in the context, notice that they, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
If they're studying the law and searching the law in order to give heed to fables and endless genealogies and that which is contrary to godly edification, again, that's bad, that's wrong, it's false. But with reference to the false teachers, they did not handle the law lawfully. They did not use it properly. And again, we know this in common life.
Hammers are great for hammering nails, but we don't butter toast with hammers. I mean, we wouldn't say, well, the hammer's bad. No, you're using it to do something that it wasn't intended by the hammer maker to do. And so the law is good, but the qualification is essential if one uses it lawfully.
There are a manifold ways or manifold ways of using the law unlawfully. Some of the most common is the problem of legalism. Legalism is an attempt to gain acceptance with God by our keeping of the law, whether in whole or in part. Legalism.
We might call it neonomianism, a new law-ism. And then there's antinomianism, and essentially what antinomianism says is the rejection of the use of the law for the believer in Christ. In other words, we as those who confirm or affirm the abiding perpetuity of the Ten Commandments, even the Fourth Commandment, might be accused of Judaizing, might be accused of legalism, because we're heaping up works in addition to faith in Christ. No, we're respecting the various categories in terms of the law, and we're respecting the uses of that law, and we're not saying that you must keep the Sabbath day in order for acceptance with God.
So antinomianism tries to address a particular problem by getting rid of the law altogether. And then, of course, perfectionism, the idea that complete obedience to the law can be obtained by the believer. This isn't quite as popular today. It was in the 1800s.
John Wesley and perfectionism and things like that are probably before the 1800s. But the idea being is that on this side of glory, we can obey that law perfectly. Again, that's problematic with reference to a right use of the law. And in terms of the specifics that are going on in Ephesus at the time that Paul writes to Timothy, Poole comments, it is very probable that these false teachers had been terrifying the Christians with the law, in opposition to whom the apostle says, the law was not made for a righteous man as to its condemning office.
It was never intended against a righteous man, but against men that committed and lived in gross sin and wickedness." Again, to try to unfold exactly and precisely, it is difficult to do. But moving on to the explanation of a right use of the law, before we get to that right use, let me just give you a bit of instruction in terms of the three uses of God's law. Now, when Paul says in verse 8, we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully. We can conclude that there are unlawful uses of the law.
Again, trying to put butter on toast with a hammer does not go well, doesn't mitigate the effectiveness of a hammer and nailing nails, but it does speak against using it to try to butter your toast. And so with reference to an unlawful use of the law, one that is obvious, one that is clear, one that is explicit, and one that is over and over again emphasized in Holy Scripture is the attempt to be justified by the law. the attempt to gain acceptance with God by our obedience, whether whole or in part. Whole meaning we do exactly and entirely and perpetually and personally everything that the law commands. Or in part, we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ plus we supplement that belief in Christ by our own good works, by our own contribution to our own faithfulness with reference to the life of acceptance with God.
So justification by law is an unlawful use of the law. 2nd London 19.6 says, although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified or condemned. Matthew Poole says it is good though not for justification. John Gill, For if it is used in order to obtain life, righteousness, and salvation by the works of it, or by obedience to it, it is used unlawfully. For the law does not give life, nor can righteousness come by it, nor are or can men be saved by the works of it.
To use the law for such purposes is to abuse it, as the false teachers did, and make that which is good in itself, and in its proper use, to do what is evil. Namely, to obscure and frustrate the grace of God and make null and void the sufferings and death of Christ. Remember Paul's statement in Galatians 2.21, I do not set aside or set apart or nullify the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
So the idea being that we can gain acceptance with God via the law is to do great disservice and throw great reproach upon the very gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I can achieve heaven, either whole or in part, by my efforts, by my labors, by what I bring, Well, then why did Christ go to the cross? Why did Christ engage in active obedience? Why did Christ do what God, the Father, had given Him to do?
If righteousness comes to the law, then Christ died in vain. And so the unlawful use, I hope everybody would admit, is seeking justification by the law. But
The Three Uses of the Law
in terms of the lawful uses of the law, in Reformed theology, we identify three uses of the law. And interestingly, they predate reformed theology. They go back into the history of the church.
The Civil Use of the Law
There is first the civil use of the law. The civil use of the law. And that simply means that God, in his moral order, has instituted law in order to restrain the godlessness of man. In its most basic function and principle, it is to restrain lawless behavior.
It's to put a 50, you know, kilometer an hour sign on Wellington Avenue. The civil use is such that there is a law out there that we know we ought not to break, and that's the most general function of the law, and I think that's what Paul is dealing with in verses 9 to 10, but we'll see that hopefully in a bit. Moeller defines it as the political or civil use according to which the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force for the restraint of sin. Again, it doesn't have the magic power to stop people from sinning, it doesn't have the magic power to convert people so that they'll never sin, but it is that restraining influence that God has instituted in the created order such as it operates in a way as to restrain, abject, utter anarchy, and lawlessness.
The Pedagogical Use of the Law
The second is what we call the pedagogical use of the law. That simply means child tutor. And under the child tutor function of the law, basically we bring the law of God to bear upon unbelievers such that they will see their sin and cry out to Jesus for relief. How do you know your sin and misery?
The law of God tells me so. And so Romans 3.20, I think, highlights this particular use of the law in a beautiful way. The law of God shows the sinner his need for the Savior. Pedagogy, pedagogical, it is the child tutor function of the law.
The Normative Use of the Law
And then the third is the normative use of the law. Muller again, pertains to believers in Christ who have been saved through faith apart from works. In the regenerate life, the law no longer functions to condemn, since it no longer stands over against man as the unreachable basis for salvation, but acts as a norm of conduct. So if you're following, the civil use of the law restrains the creature from being as vile and wretched and reprehensible as he could possibly be.
The pedagogical use comes along and shows man, the sinner, the fact that he has broken and transgressed God's law and that he needs someone outside of him to avail for his salvation. to put it in the context of the Psalter. Psalm 14 shows us our waywardness. Psalm 14 shows us our lawlessness. Psalm 14 shows us our corruption and Psalm 15 shows us the redeemer, that one who ascends the holy hill of Zion through his own life of perfect obedience.
That one who, according to Psalm 22, suffers the wrath and fury and judgment of God Most High on the cross, so that through His blood we have forgiveness, through His acts of obedience we have a righteousness imputed to us and received by faith alone. So the pedagogical use shows us our need for Christ. We, by God's grace, come to Christ believing. We lay the hand of faith upon the surety of a better covenant and we receive redemptive benefit.
Once we are in Christ, once we are saved, Christ then points us to the law of God, the moral law, not for our justification, but as a consequence of our justification in the life of sanctification. We wanna know what pleases God. We have a new heart. We have a new principle.
We have a new orientation. We have a new desire. And we have the onboard ministry of the spirit of truth himself, because Jesus does not leave us as orphans, but he gives us the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit by, through, with, and in the word shows us what conformity to Christ looks like.
And in that normative use, we seek to obey the Lord. Again, not in order to be saved, but because by God's grace we have been saved. In fact, Turretin points out the connection between the pedagogical and the normative use of the law. He says, before it, before it, or the law, was an instrument of the spirit of bondage to throw down and bruise man.
But afterwards, it becomes the instrument of the spirit of adoption to promote sanctification. Thus, the law leads to Christ, and Christ leads us back to the law. It leads to Christ as the Redeemer and Christ leads to the law as the leader and director of life. Brethren, that's just good biblical sense.
I think that the reformed three uses of the law rightly interprets a category that has been wrongly interpreted for millennia in the context of the professing people of God. I think it's one of the most valuable contributions that reformed theology makes. How do we deal with the category of law? Well, the three uses of the law.
We also need to know something of the threefold division of the law, but that's another sermon. But with reference to this particular situation, I think that Paul is applying the civil use of the law in verses 9 and 10.
Right Use of the Law in Verses 9–11
So again, notice in verse 8, we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person. The false teachers could have said that very thing. The law is made for a righteous person. And you must obey that law in order to maintain that righteousness or God will cut you off.
And so Paul goes to the civil use of the law. Again, the limitation of the text. This isn't, you know, a systematic theology book. This isn't, you know, chapter, you know, Volume 8 in the Apostles Summa Theologia.
It's just not. It's not Turretin's Volume 2 that deals in great length with the law. It's a bit, a couple of verses in one book where Paul is arguing contrary to these false teachers. You see Paul's appeal to the law in various contexts and what it highlights is that these three uses are there.
We see the civil use of the law, I'm gonna argue in just a moment, in this text. You see the pedagogical there in Romans 3. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight. For by the law is what?
It's the knowledge of sin. I'd argue as well other places in Romans, Romans chapter 7. Some would say Galatians 3, that the law is our tutor to lead us to Christ. Certainly that makes your case, Butler.
I think he's talking about the Old Covenant as a whole, not specifically the moral law, but in principle the idea is that the Old Covenant functioned pedagogically to bring the covenant people to that telos or that purpose or that end or that terminus, the Lord Jesus Christ. So you've got pedagogical use all over the place. And then normative? How does Paul define love to the Romans in Romans 13?
Just however you feel led, just let it ooze out on your neighbor. Take them out for coffee, because that's the way you show love. Husbands, don't come home empty-handed on Mother's Day. Better on Saturday or Monday.
You don't want to break the Sabbath by picking up flowers. But you've got to just love in however it floats your boat. No. Romans 13, 8 to 10.
How do we know that we have love for one another? We don't kill each other. I love Paul. He takes all the guesswork out of it.
In its broadest possible application, you know I love you because I don't kill you. I know you love me because you don't kill me. It's a beautiful thing. How do we know we love each other?
We don't commit adultery with each other's partners or spouses. Don't say partner, that's weird. How do we know that we love each other? What is love objectively considered?
It's obedience to the second table of the law. So if we think that these three uses were devised by the Westminster divines and imposed upon the scripture, we're wrong. They were right because they didn't impose it on the Scripture. They saw that the Scripture clearly delineates these three uses of the law.
The civil use to restrain the godlessness of man, pedagogical to show man his need for Jesus, and the normative. Jesus shows man the pattern for sanctification and takes the guesswork out of it. Again, I bless God for that. We don't have to try to figure out what the life of sanctification should look like.
Well, does it mean I have to shimmy up Mount Shem and spend 40 days there fasting? Is that what sanctification looks like? Do I have to read my Bible for four hours every month? No, no.
You've got to obey the law. Again, not unto salvation, but because you've been saved, you've got the Spirit at work in you, both to will and to do that according to God's good pleasure. If you love me, Jesus says, you will keep my commandments. The commandments of God, John tells us, they're not burdensome.
They're not grievous. They're not something that God hits us over the head with. No, we say with the psalmist, oh, how I love your law. It is my meditation day and night.
That's the normative use of the law. We love it. The only thing we lament is that we don't keep it as we ought. We'd love to be better at it.
We find ourselves in that Romans 7, 14 to 25 dynamic. The good that I wish to do, I don't do. The evil I don't want to do, I find myself doing. We cry with Paul, wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?
And we bless God for the provision of the Son of His love to forgive us and to cleanse us. Or we have that Galatians 5.17, the spirit lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit, and these are contrary to one another, so that you don't do the things that you want. So that's the tension. It's not the law.
The law's good. Remember Paul said that? As long as we use it lawfully. So back to 1 Timothy 1, notice in verses 9, So we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, this is something Paul knew, this is something Timothy knew, this is something that we should know, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person.
Again, brethren, he's not comprehending every possible and potential use of the law. Turn with me to Romans 8, just so you can see. Love is spelled out in concrete, objective obedience to the law. Not our feelings or not whatever the prevailing social media gurus tell us today on how we show love for one another.
It's not saying you can't bring flowers to your bride. It's not saying you can't have coffee with people. But it is saying you better not murder them and you better not commit adultery with their spouse. So notice in 13.8. owe no one anything except to love one another.
For he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment are all summed up in this saying, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Now my point and purpose here is to tell you this, Paul's writing to righteous people Paul's writing to God-blessed, righteous people. Notice in chapter 12, verse one, I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, wholly acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. So in verse eight, chapter 13, owe no one anything except to love one another. He's talking to righteous people. What's the point? there is a use of the law for righteous people.
Everybody get that? You see that, right? There is a use of the law for righteous people. These are righteous Romans, not because they're Romans, but because they're believers in Jesus.
They're a righteous people. God points them to the righteous law in a good use of it, the normative use, to spell out for them what blood-bought children who have the Holy Spirit do relative to their love for one another. So it is for a righteous person in that regard. Now back to 1 Timothy 1 verse 9 when he says, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person.
So there could be a combination of the second use and the first use, the pedagogical. But I think it's shadowed or it's there, but it's primarily the civil use. So the righteous person is a believer. But the law is made for the believer in terms of the normative use.
Now, when he says that the law is not made for a righteous person, the righteous person in this context, in terms of the civil use of the law, is anyone living in external conformity to that law? Believer or unbeliever, okay? Anybody that is living in conformity to that law, whether they're a believer or an unbeliever, the law defines proper behavior and rebukes those not in conformity with it. So therefore, it isn't for the righteous person because the righteous person is already doing it.
Again, that's how the civil use of the law functions. It's like locks on your door. They're not made for us, unless you've got a secret life that I don't know about. I doubt you're the kind of dirtbag that wanders around neighborhoods and checks to see if there's a door unlocked so you can go in and pilfer goods.
Locks aren't made for people that are honest, that aren't thieves. They're made for thieves. They're made for unrighteous. That's the civil use of the law.
It's not made for the righteous man, because he already does it. I always use the laws against counterfeiting. And again, you may have a secret life, you may have a secret laundry room somewhere stashed away in your house that I've never seen. Maybe don't have me over to that nook or cranny, but counterfeit laws aren't written for most of us.
I mean, brethren, I'm not wholly harmless and undefiled, but if there's one sin or crime that I have never had the inkling to try and pursue, it's counterfeiting. It just doesn't appeal to me at any level whatsoever. And I would suspect that most of you are in that category. Again, there might be the odd one.
Brother, I'm really struggling with this desire to counterfeit. You'd be my first one. In fact, come and see me on Thursday. Let's talk about this.
I'm just intrigued, genuinely. The law isn't made in terms of the civil function or civil use for the righteous because the righteous already are doing it. They're not counterfeiting. They don't need locks because they're not proclivities to go and check your door, to go and steal from you or burglar your home.
The civil use of the law. I think it's illustrated as well in Paul's statement concerning the magistrate in Romans 13. Romans 13. Verse 1, we know, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. Verse 3, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good.
And you'll have praise from the same. In other words, do what you're supposed to do in terms of the realm of use of civil law, and in this context, in terms of civil government. Do what you're supposed to do. And in 7 out of 10 body politics, that should mean you're not messed with.
You just do what you're supposed to do. You don't color outside the lines. You don't commit criminal activity. You should just be left alone.
So the civil use is what I think Paul has in mind in this particular situation. And again, he's not giving exhaustive treatment on the three uses of the law. Now,
The Decalogue Applied: Tables One and Two
when he goes to prove this, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, he gives a general statement, but for the lawless and insubordinate, and then he goes through the Ten Commandments. be interesting if the law was bad. You'd expect that if the law was bad, there'd be no positive appeal by the Apostle Paul to it. And I'm confining discussion of law with reference to the moral law, the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments in this particular context. It's that which restrains mankind.
The ceremonial law in the Old Covenant didn't restrain the Gentiles, didn't restrain the pagans, didn't restrain the nations outside of Israel. It informed the children of Israel relative to their worship of God what the mind of God was specifically to that worship. But if you look again, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person but for the lawless and insubordinate, I think that's a general statement. This is the problem with sinners.
They're lawless and they're insubordinate. He gives then the first four commandments, or the first table of the law, and then the latter five. He doesn't give the tenth, and I think there's a reason for that. But notice the first table of the law.
He says, for the ungodly. What's the first commandment? You shall have no other gods before me. What's the pinnacle expression of that is idolatry.
And what do we call somebody that's an idolater? They're ungodly. They're absolutely contrary to the living and true God. Notice then, secondly, he says sinners.
Now, sinners gets a lot of play in scripture. I'm going to lean on Knight here. He says it is often used in the New Testament with the broad meaning sinner as it is in 1st Timothy 1.15. At times, however, it is used in the New Testament more specifically of those who fail to keep the Mosaic Law, particularly Gentiles, especially because of their idolatry. irreligious, unobservant people, those who did not observe the law in detail.
This usage is found also in Paul in Galatians 2.15. Thus, one who violates the prohibition or making and worshipping idols might well be designated a sinner in this specific sense. So you see what he's saying? The Ten Commandments function normatively for righteous people by the power of the Holy Spirit upon the blood-bought child of God to live in a manner that is consistent with what Yahweh calls us to.
Pedagogically, the Ten Commandments help us to understand our sin, our misery, our transgression, and our need for the Savior. But in terms of civil use, the law functions to condemn practices that are contrary to God. The third commandment, notice, for the unholy, those who take the name of the Lord God in vain. Again, not all commentators see this, but the best ones do.
They see that what Paul appeals to here is the Decalogue. It's the Ten Commandments. In a context where those who desire to be teachers of the law thrust themselves upon the poor slobs in Ephesus and distorted and twisted and got to the place where they were demonstrating their ignorance and their arrogance and propagating heresy, the apostle comes and says, you know what, this is the proper way to use the law relative to the civil use. And then the fourth commandment, the profane. the unholy and profane.
Again, interpreters spend time to show and demonstrate this is probably a profanation of the Lord's day. Profanation with reference to the fourth commandment. So the first table of the law is summarized here, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane. And then notice the second table of the law.
He says, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers. That's the fifth commandment, gone hog wild. He seems to go with extreme positions with reference to the second table. He does that here, and he does that as well with reference to kidnapping.
But notice this. He says, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers. That's obviously a breach of the fifth commandment. Again, with a certain degree of vengeance.
And what seems to be behind this is not only the moral imperative, honor your father and your mother, but the specific case law or judicial law drawn out in Exodus 21, 15. And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. It was a capital offense to strike a parent in Old Covenant Israel. Why was that?
Well, I think it probably went something like this. If you couldn't be trusted not to smack your parents, you probably can't be trusted in broader society as a whole. If you've got issues in the nursery, you may have issues at Walmart. Again, brethren, this is what Paul is saying.
The moral law functions to restrain. Notice the 6th commandment. Man slayers. Murderers.
Again, the 6th commandment. You shall not murder. The judicial application in Exodus chapter 20, 21 rather, book of Deuteronomy, difference between accidental homicide and specific acts of murder. Notice the seventh commandment for fornicators, for sodomites.
Again, the seventh commandment, you shall not commit adultery, comprehends all sexual sin. That's how the commandments function. They're general principles and then we draw from those general principles along with the rest of the Old Testament books, the specific concrete applications of those. And so fornicators and sodomites, again, the idea today that homosexuality is okay as long as it's monogamous.
The Bible does not teach that. The Bible simply condemns it. The Bible calls it unnatural. The Bible says that it is a vile sin committed against the nature.
That doesn't mean we go out on a campaign and beat up homosexuals, but we call them to repentance, we call them to faith in our Lord Jesus, trusting the power of the Christian message that Paul says to the Corinthians, and such were some of you. Coddling them and saying that it was in their DNA, coddling them and saying that's the way God made you, coddling them and saying, well, it's okay as long as you're monogamous, or it's okay as long as you don't act upon it. Coddling never brings a sinner to face God with reference to a broken law. It is to do disservice, not to condemn sin, just like it is to not condemn heterosexual fornication.
It is wrong. It is unlawful. It is prohibited. It is forbidden.
The Apostle Paul says that whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13, 4. Notice the 8th commandment, kidnappers. Again, you shall not steal, specifically applicatory here with reference to kidnapping.
Now, this is probably not, I'm going to throw this kid in my trunk, call his folks, I know they've got lots of money, and demand a pickup at the docks, seems to be the place, and I'll get my money and they can get their kid. It's probably man stealing for the purpose of slavery. It was a capital offense, you weren't supposed to do that. To steal a man's freedom is absolute ungodly behavior.
You don't do that. You don't strip a man of what God has given him intrinsically and inherently in terms of freedom and liberty. And then the ninth commandment. Notice, for liars, for perjurers.
Again, various categories comprehended in the ninth commandment. Why not the tenth? Because the tenth is a sin specifically. Not a crime.
Civil state shouldn't punish covetousness. The civil state should stay out of your brain. It should stay out of your heart. It should stay out of your mind.
It should stay in the pages of 1984. It shouldn't be the case that the civil state punishes thought crime. And so covetousness is a sin to be sure, but not a crime. What Paul is dealing with in terms of the civil use of the law that is made not for a righteous person because the righteous person isn't kidnapping, the righteous person isn't manslaying, the righteous person isn't coveting or isn't engaging in killing their parents.
The righteous person is an external conformity unto it. With reference to covetousness, most likely it's not there, not because it's not part of the Decalogue, but because it doesn't function in that context of punishment of crime. So Knight just kind of summarizes, by using these aggravated forms from Exodus 21, the aggravated form being killing, murdering your parents, the kidnapping. He says, by using these aggravated forms from Exodus 21, Paul may be showing the false teachers in the church, showing the false teachers in the church that when the Old Testament applied and worked out the principles of the law, it did so in this very specific way of dealing with people's sins.
The list would therefore carry with it then a double-edged thrust. Its ethical application of the Decalogue echoes the Old Testament itself and thus gives both an example of how the law is to function and a refutation of the would-be law teachers." Again, so whatever their specific crime in handling or mishandling the law was, whatever Paul is doing here, it is refuting them. and it is upholding the use of the law.
The Law and the Glorious Gospel
And then notice in verse 10 at the end, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, the law of God is good. It is not contrary to sound doctrine. In fact, it is foundational and axiomatic for what sound doctrine is. And then that brings us in conclusion to verse 11, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
You mean we can have a right appreciation of the law knowing that it's good if one uses it lawfully and that can be harmonized with a free offer, preach Christ to every creature, view of the gospel? Yeah, exactly. We sure can and we must. And so the desires to be the teachers of the law had messed that up.
They had messed it up. And so Paul says, with reference to a proper understanding of the law, it is according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. So the unlawful use is at odds with the gospel. If you use the law unlawfully, well then, you're going to come up against the gospel.
The lawful use is in harmony with the gospel. The civil use, again, it's most general framework, just a function as a fence around the animals. Probably as easy as I can say it. The pedagogical functions perfectly in harmony with the gospel because it shows sinners their sin and their need for the gospel.
The normative use, absolutely positively in harmony with the gospel. Why? Because I'm conquered by sovereign grace, I'm cleansed in the blood of Jesus, I have the spirit of the living God, and the spirit of the living God operates according to the truth written by the spirit of the living God, such that he informs me, guides me, leads me in a normative use, that means a normal appropriation of that law for my day-to-day obligations with reference to God. Calvin says in this clause he maintains that his gospel is so far from being opposed to the law that it is a powerful confirmation of it.
Machen says the gospel does not abrogate God's law, but it makes men love it with their hearts. 19.7 in our confession. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God revealed in the law requires to be done." There's no problem with law and gospel. The problem is, is when you mess up either. That's the problem.
Paul does not condemn the use of the law. Paul does not condemn that it's somehow not harmonious with the gospel. He condemns heretics. And then notice the end bit where he says, which was committed to my trust.
The apostle Paul, contra the false teachers. Remember verse 1? Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ our hope. He's not one who desires to be a teacher of the law, who happens to be ignorant and arrogant.
No, he's set apart by God, he's been instructed by God, he's been fitted and equipped by God, and he's been positioned by God in that apostolic office, and then to legitimize Timothy in verse 2, to Timothy a true son in the faith. So what Paul is saying is that these desires to be the teachers of the law in verse 7, Timothy, you need to shut them up. You need to refute them. You need to silence them.
Why? Because it's all about you, Timothy? No, it's all about the gospel. And when these guys run their mouths off, and when they cause great confusion amongst the people, when they obsess about Jewish fables, when they obsess about endless genealogies, when they put that which is contrary to edification, which is in faith, they are a danger and a menace to the church.
He's not dealing with ignorant people alone. He's not dealing with, you know, your normal guy that's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's not the problem. I mentioned that this morning.
It's not a sin to be dumb. It's a sin to be dumb and arrogant and arrogate to yourself a position of a teacher in a church. We've got to listen to James. Let not many of you become teachers.
Why? We shall receive a stricter judgment. The authority of Paul conjured the false teachers, the function of Paul in God's redemptive plan, and the determination of Paul in God's redemptive plan. He wants to instruct the saints, he wants to refute the heretics, and he wants to make sure things are done properly and within orderliness in the house of God, which is the pillar and the ground of the truth.
So in summary, the law is good, brethren, but you need to know how to use it lawfully. The law is good and harmonizes with the gospel. It sweetly complies with it. Again, know how to use it.
Application
Don't preach justification by law. Don't teach that somebody has the wherewithal, either in whole or in part, to gain their acceptance with God based on what it is that they do. No, don't do that. If you've got an unconverted friend, preach the law to them to show them their sin, to show them their misery.
You know, that old Ray Comfort approach. Again, I think it's formulaic, I think it's worn out, but I don't think it's altogether bad when he asks somebody, are you a good person? Yeah, I'm good. Most people say that, don't they?
The odd occasion you get somebody, no, I'm a miserable wretch. I'm a horrible, there's somebody that at least has come into contact with Calvinism at some point. Anybody who uses wretch has probably heard a Calvinistic sermon at some point in their, it's just not common parlance outside of our circles to say wretch. I mean, we sing about it.
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a what? A wretch like me. But Ray just asks people, are you righteous? Yeah, I'm great, honestly, I'm wonderful.
Well, have you ever stolen anything? Well, yeah, I've stolen something. Have you ever lusted? Yeah, yeah, I have lusted.
Have you ever lied? Yeah, you know, again, you push a little bit. Most people, while they say they're great, once you press them a little bit, okay, maybe I'm not that great. So then he brings it home.
He says, you know, by your own admission, you're a lying, adulterating thief. And yet on the other hand, you claim to be good. It's good use of the law, brethren. Again, it can be overused, it can be formulaic, but there's something of Jesus in this.
Remember the rich young ruler? What does Jesus do? Go, sell everything you have. Give it to the poor and follow me.
Brethren, Jesus is not teaching salvation by giving to the poor and following him. Jesus is teaching salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The rich young ruler had prided himself on fulfilling the second table commandments. He prided himself on, all these I've done from my youth.
Jesus takes the 10th word and says, what about this one? What happened to him? He went away sorrowful. Why?
Because he had many possessions. Jesus preached the law to him to show him his need, to show him his sin and misery, and to show him that the answer was outside of himself, namely, in the doing, dying, and rising of our Lord Jesus Christ. Understand the pedagogical use. And for all of us in terms of the normative use, how do I please God?
As a blood-bought child of God who has the indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit, I read his Bible, I delight in his law, and I seek by his grace to keep it. When I falter, when I sin, when I come up short, because I guarantee you will, you confess it and forsake it and find mercy from that blessed God. The law is good if one uses it lawfully and it harmonizes with the glory of the gospel. Well, let us pray.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the Apostle Paul's instruction to the church. We know ultimately this comes from the spirit of the living God and we thank you for this. And we pray that you would give us ears to hear and hearts to receive these things and have a proper understanding of the goodness of the law and the lawful uses of that law.
And we ask this in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. Well, let us stand and sing 570 as our doxology and praise to God. 570. Alleluia.
Praise to you, Lord, we have been lost. and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.