Jesus Christ is Superior to Aaron as God’s High Priest (4:14–10:18): Part 7 of 7

The Weakness of the Law

“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4, NKJV).

The law (vv. 1, 8) is the Law of Moses (10:28), the basis of “the first covenant” with Israel (cf. 8:4–9:1; 9:18, 19, 20, 22), merely a shadow of good things to come, not the form or substance (10:1a; cf. 8:5; 9:9, 23-24). Its sacrificial system cannot make a person “perfect” or completely right with God (10:1b; cf. 7:19; 9:9), with animal sacrifices offered continually year by year (10:1b; cf. 7:27; 9:7, 25-26). There is a constant reminder of sins and no complete removal of guilt (10:2-3; cf. 9:9). Animal blood cannot take away sin (10:4; cf. 9:12-14).

Christ Has Replaced the Old Law with Something Better

“Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, “Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—To do Your will, O God.”’ Previously saying, ‘Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them’ (which are offered according to the law), then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’” (Hebrews 10:5-10).

Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX 39:6-8) is quoted and applied to Christ (10:5-9; cf. 1 Sam. 15:22). The law’s sacrifices were merely a stopgap measure until the time was right for Christ to make the ultimate provision for sin, requiring his incarnation and physical “body” (vv. 5, 10; cf. 2:14; 5:7).

Jesus fulfilled God’s will (10:9a; cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4; 19:30; Luke 22:42). “He takes away the first that He may establish the second” (10:9b). The first covenant is therefore changed (7:12), annulled, weak, unprofitable (7:18), obsolete (8:13), merely a shadow of the good things to come (10:1), taken away (10:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:14, 16), wiped out, canceled, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and we are no longer under it (Gal. 3:24-25). By that will (of God, vv. 7, 9) we have been sanctified/set apart/made holy (cf. v. 14, 29; 2:11; 13:12; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:13) through the offering of Christ’s body once for all (10:10; cf. 7:27; 9:28).

The One Sacrifice of Jesus is Sufficient

“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,’ then He adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’ Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:11-18).

Note the monotony and futility of the old-covenant system (10:11):

o   Every priest – many over the years (cf. 7:23), all of whom were needed.

o   Stands ministering (present tense) – his work is never done; always more to do.

o   Daily – no time off; incessant.

o   Offering repeatedly (time after time) – the same rituals, over and over and over.

o   The same sacrifices – same animals offered in the same way at the same time in the same place.

o   Which can never take away sins – futility, no permanent benefit (cf. v. 4).

Note the contrast with respect to the new-covenant system (10:12-14), under Christ’s priesthood:

o   Only one high priest (10:12a).

o   Just one sacrifice for sins (cf. v. 10, 14; 7:27; 9:12, 28).

o   Forever (cf. 5:9; 6:2; 7:25; 9:12, 15).

o   He has sat down at the right hand of God (cf. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 12:2) until his enemies are made his footstool (quote Psa. 110:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-26).

o   For by one offering (cf. v. 10, 12) he has perfected¹ (made completely right with God) forever (cf. v. 12; 5:9; 9:12, 15) those who are being sanctified (cf. v. 10, 29; 2:11).

The Holy Spirit gives testimony (10:15-18) as he bears witness through scripture (cf. 3:7),² and Jeremiah 31:33-34 is again quoted (cf. 8:10-12). No more offerings are needed because Jesus has made the once-for-all-time provision for the forgiveness of sins (10:18).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The Greek verb teleióō means to complete, finish, fulfill, perfect (5:9; 7:19, 28; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23); teleíōsis is fulfillment, perfection (7:11); teleiōtēs is perfecter, consummator (12:2); teleutáō means to come to an end, to die (11:22); télos means the end (3:6, 14; 6:8, 11; 7:3).

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Are You Listening to the Holy Spirit,” Moore Perspective (2 Sept. 2015), <Link>.

Related Posts: Heb 9:1-28

 

Image credit: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50474/why-did-the-temple-in-ezekiel-have-stairs-leading-up-to-the-altar 

The Law: a Harbinger of Death or Holy, Righteous and Good? (Romans 7:7-14)

“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (Romans 7:7-11, ESV). 

In these verses Paul resumes the instructional method of question-answer in the first person, “What then shall we say?” (cf. 3:5-9, 27-31; 4:1, 9; 6:1-4, 15), switching from the plural (“we”) to the singular (“I”), with which the chapter began (vv. 1-4). Having forsaken the way of life “in the flesh” by dying to the law in order to serve “in newness of spirit” (vv. 4-6), the rest of the chapter addresses the struggle between “the spirit” wanting to do good and “the flesh” yearning to sin in both the past (vv. 7-13) and the present (vv. 14-25).

The Problem is Sin, Not the Law

Lest anyone gets the misguided impression that Paul is anti-law, he offers clarification here. The law, in revealing and enhancing “knowledge of sin” (3:19-20), was a gracious gift to Israel for guidance and protection (2:18; 7:12, 14; 9:4). Seeing that sin and death were realities long before the law made its appearance in history (5:12-14), the human predicament cannot legitimately be blamed on the law. “But sin seizes the opportunity provided by the law to what humankind’s curiosity as to what the commandment may be forbidding. In this way desire for the forbidden is stirred up and becomes an insatiable force, whose final outworking is death.”¹

Paul notes in particular the Decalogue’s tenth commandment, “You shall not covet” (Ex. 20:17), probably because the basis of all sin has long been recognized as illicit desire (cf. Jas. 1:15). It is “the commandment,” which was meant to regulate righteous living, that became a channel of “death” (cf. v. 5). But the responsibility lies, not with the commandment itself or the One who gave it, but with sin and the human appetite to pursue it. 

When Paul says, “I was once alive apart from the law,” contextually (vv. 1, 7) and thematically (2:12, 18, 20; 3:20) this would be applicable to knowledge of the law. There was a time in his life when he was without this knowledge, i.e., in his infancy and early childhood (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20).² One is not conscience of any sinful inclination until one’s obedience is tested. As his learning capacity developed and he was “instructed from the law” (2:18), “sin came alive” and he “died” spiritually.

The Law is Good

“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:12-14). 

Even though the Mosaic law was not designed as a means of justifying sinners (3:20), during the centuries it was in force provisions were made for atonement and forgiveness,³ salvation was attainable,⁴ and one could even be counted “blameless.”⁵  Faith, love, and mercy were essential components,⁶ and it was beneficial to all who submitted to it.⁷ Therefore, Paul can readily describe the law as “holy and righteous and good” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8), as well as “spiritual.” After all, it has emanated from God and is therefore a reflection of his holy, righteous, good character, “the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (2:20). 

Conclusion

The problem is “sin” and the weakness of human “flesh,” as the law openly exposes the true nature of sin. Any apparent negativity toward the law is in response to its misappropriation and abuse (vv. 10-11; 2:17-27; 8:3, 7; 9:31-32).⁸

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 99.

     ² See Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:16; 8:4; 28:9; Neh. 8:2-3; Ezek. 28:15.

     ³ Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:13, 16, 18.

     ⁴ 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:51; 1 Chron. 16:23; Psa. 3:8; 13:5.

     ⁵ Luke 1:6; Phil. 3:6; cf. Acts 22:3; 26:4-5; Gal. 1:14. “Israel’s problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the law; it was with their choosing not to do so” (G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth [4th ed.]: 175, emp. in the text).

     ⁶ Deut. 6:4-9; 10:12-21; Mic. 6:8; Hab. 2:4; Matt. 23:23.

     ⁷ Deut. 6:24-25; 10:13; 12:28; cf. Psa. 78:1-7.

     ⁸ Cf. Matt. 5:20-48; 23:1-39; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2-5, 10-13; 5:4.

Related Posts: No Law, No Transgression (Rom 4:15), From Law to Christ (Rom 7:1-6), Struggle with Sin (Rom 7:15-25)

Image credit: https://firmisrael.org/learn/discovering-jesus-in-the-torah-law-of-moses/

From Law to Christ (Romans 7:1-6)

“Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:1-3, ESV). 

Following the rhetorical “do you not know,” the seventh chapter of Romans opens with an address to those “knowing law,” which may be an allusion to the basic legal principle rather than to a specific law,¹ although the Law of Moses appears to be the focus in vv. 4 ff. Paul has been tracing the Christian’s spiritual journey from a sinful past characterized by “death” (cut off from God) to a new life in Christ, illustrating the point with images of slavery and now marriage. Each situation has intrinsic obligations, and transitioning into a different status does not negate binding expectations but implements new ones. 

The Marriage Analogy

Marriage is a lifelong commitment.² The death of a spouse severs the marriage bond and frees the widowed spouse to enter another union with an eligible marriage partner. Otherwise, if a woman is joined to another man while her husband is still living, “she will be called an adulteress.” Adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.³ But if the husband is dead, adultery is not committed in a second marriage.⁴ The illustration is intended to convey the same truth as the previous example of a freed slave committed to another master, from an old life to a new life.

Released from One and Joined to Another 

“Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom. 7:4-6).

The “death” analogy continues from 5:12–7:3, as Paul speaks of dying to “the law” (vv. 4-6) and contrasts “life in the flesh” under the law (v. 5) with serving “in newness of spirit” (v. 6, ASV, KJV). The law itself is holy and intended for good, but fallible human distortion has made it an agent of sin (vv. 7-12). Paul and his Christian brethren had “died to the law” (vv. 4, 6), severing reliant ties so completely in Christ that there could be no return. The aorist ἐθανατώθητε (“you … died”) “is fixed by reference” to 6:3-6. “The aorist refers to the definite time at which in their baptism the old life (and with it all its legal obligations) came to an end.”⁵ This “death” is “through the body of Christ,” a probable allusion to his crucified and resurrected body, although perhaps inclusive of his emblematic body, the church.⁶

Flesh Vs. Spirit

In the first four verses of this chapter Paul contrasts himself (first person singular) with his reading audience (second person plural), but in vv. 4b-6 both are joined together with seven inclusive first person plurals. The pre-Christian experience is described as “living in the flesh.” The antithesis between “flesh” [σάρξ] and “spirit” [πνεῦμα] (7:5–8:18) has particular application to two mutually exclusive ways of living (cf. 8:4-5). Although there is a sense in which “flesh” and “spirit” can each be corrupted (2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3), the term “flesh” is typically used to categorize a selfish or worldly disposition estranged from God, while “spirit” generally conveys a spiritual disposition focused on the divine will. 

The problem of “sinful passions, aroused by the law” does not implicate God’s law, rather the weakness of the flesh informed and instructed by the law yet choosing to defy God anyway. People would not even know what “the passions of sins” were without the law (cf. v. 7). Paul continues from the previous chapter the terminology of “members” (cf. 6:12) and bearing “fruit for death” (cf. 6:21-22).

In contrast to “serving (as slaves)” [δουλεύειν] “the old way of the written code,” lit. the “oldness of [the] letter” [παλαιότητι γράμματος] (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), we serve as slaves “in newness of spirit” [ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος] (cf. 8:4), which is not necessarily “the new way of the Spirit” (ESV). The πνεῦμα (“spirit”) of v. 6 is synonymous with τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον (“inner being”) of v. 22 and νοῦς (“mind” or “will”) of vv. 22-25, whereby one is able to θέλω (“determine,” “wish,” “desire”), a verb used seven times in vv. 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21. The contrast here is between the external “letter” [γράμμα] or written law-code and the internal “spirit” [πνεῦμα], fulfilling the long-anticipated new-covenant promise (cf. Jer. 31:31-34). 

Conclusion

The regulative principle that was supplied by the external law-code of the Jews has been superseded by something much better. Jesus Christ and his new covenant system are now available for all people, irrespective of race, nationality, social status, or gender (cf. Gal. 3:26-27; Heb. 8:6-13). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Whether Paul specifically has in mind Roman law (J. B. Lightfoot, Notes 300) or Jewish law (C. K. Barrett, Romans 135; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1:359) “is a question impossible to answer” (C. H. Dodd, Romans 100).   

     ² Marriage is the lawful union of a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:2), ordained by God (Matt. 19:4-6) and consummated according to the legal system to which the couple is amenable, as long as it does not conflict with the divine will (Rom. 13:1-5; cf. Acts 5:29). But not all “marriages” are sanctioned by God, even if recognized by civil law (e.g., Mark 6:17-18; 10:11-12).

     ³ The noun μοιχεία (John 8:3), the verb μοιχάω (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12), and the verb μοιχεύω (Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Rom. 2:22) are all related. The secondary sense, used figuratively of spiritual adultery, is applied to the relationship between God and his erring people (cf. Jer. 3:6-9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 3:1; 4:12; Jas. 4:4), but when used with reference to a man and a woman, it refers to illegitimate sexual intercourse (cf. Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 2,” Moore Perspective (7 May 2015), <Link>, and Part 3 (14 May 2015), <Link>.

     ⁵ J. Denney, “Romans” 637-38.

     ⁶ Since this statement immediately follows the marriage analogy, it is not without significance that Paul uses a similar comparison in Eph. 5:22-33. Note also Matt. 9:15; John 3:29; Rev. 21:2-9; 22:17. 

Related Posts: Free from Sin (Rom 6:15-23), The Law: Holy, Righteous, Good (Rom 7:7-14)

Image credit: https://www.onlinemphdegree.net/public-health-attorney/

Where there is No Law there is No Transgression (Romans 4:15b)

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:13-15, ESV).

Some have concluded from the above text that if there is no law against a practice, then the practice is divinely sanctioned (e.g., infant baptism, mechanical instruments in Christian worship, et al.). However, careful attention to Paul’s argument in the context in which it was given provides a clearer understanding of what is affirmed and what is not affirmed.  

The Law Brings Wrath

The “law” that Paul has consistently been referencing in his letter to the Romans is the old Jewish Mosaic legal system, which Christians are not amenable to (Rom. 3:19; 6:14-15) and therefore cannot transgress. “For the law brings wrath” (cf. 1:18; 2:5-12; 5:9), because when the Mosaic law was in force and was violated, it could not extend grace or forgiveness or provide justification. So what does Paul mean when he observes, “where there is no law there is no transgression”? 

The term “transgression” [parábasis] (cf. 2:23; 5:14) means “overstepping” (BAGD 611), implying a set standard already in place that can be contravened. There cannot be “transgression” in the technical sense without “law.” Nevertheless, there can certainly be sinful (ungodly, unrighteous) attitudes and behaviors contrary to the divine will and subject to God’s wrath (cf. 1:18-32; 2:12; 3:9, 20, 23; etc.). Comparable expressions include “sin” [hamartía] (cf. 3:9) and its verbal form (cf. 2:12b), “lawless” [anómōs] (cf. 2:12a), and “trespass” [paráptōma] (4:25; 5:15, 16, 17, 18, 20; 11:11-12).

Conclusion:

What does “law” mean if it does not refer to either a positive affirmation or a negative condemnation of a practice? Paul is merely informing the Christians in Rome that they cannot be guilty of transgressing the old Jewish law because Christians are not amenable to it. But since all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), it follows that Rom. 4:15b is a simple concession that everyone is amenable to divine law (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21; note also John 15:22-24).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Instruments in Worship, Abraham Believed God (Rom 4:3)

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_law#/media/File:Made-up-medical-law-symbol-rod-plus-scales.svg

“Think not that I came to nullify the law or the prophets …”

The Text

“Think not that I came to nullify the law or the prophets; I came not to nullify but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one pen stroke by no means will pass away from the law, until all things come to pass. If anyone therefore subverts one of the least of these commands and thus teaches others, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But if anyone does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20, author’s own translation).

Commentary

As a small portion of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke the words recorded in Matthew 5:17-20 early in his ministry, at least two years before his new covenant was ratified. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic law, it was necessary to address the fallacies of the hypocritical Jewish leaders and prepare the way for the approaching kingdom. Jesus contrasts the traditional misinterpretations of the law with the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. 

The Lord assures his Jewish listeners that his purpose was not to nullify the law or the prophets. Jesus himself was an Israelite who was amenable to the Jewish law (Galatians 4:4; cf. Matthew 8:4), and he kept it perfectly. Rather, his purpose was to fulfill [plēroō = to fill up or make full] all that the law and the prophets had said concerning the promised Messiah. In fact, one of the primary aims of Matthew’s Gospel is to establish the fact that Jesus and all that was accomplished in his ministry were in fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures (Matthew 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35). Accordingly, these things were not to remain unfulfilled for millennia after the Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Once Jesus accomplished his mission on earth, the role that the law and the prophets had served for centuries was complete (see Galatians 3:16-25; Hebrews 8:6-13). In other words, when the intended purpose was fulfilled, that purpose then became obsolete.

Implications

Contrary to what many have inferred, the Lord did not say that the Mosaic law was to remain binding until the end of time. Twice in this passage Jesus uses the expression heōs an (“until”). From the standpoint of his contemporary Jewish audience, heaven and earth could pass away at any time. Yet the Lord affirms “until” that happens (whenever it might be), nothing will fail from the law or the prophets “until” all things come to pass. It is a statement of assurance, i.e., the law will unquestionably be vindicated and will have served its purpose when Jesus has completed his personal mission on earth (cf. John 4:34; 5:36; 17:4; 19:30).

In the meantime, the Lord’s Jewish disciples were expected to be faithful and to avoid the lax attitudes of their hypocritical leaders toward the moral issues discussed in the verses that follow. Thereafter, for citizens of the heavenly kingdom, righteousness is still equated with obeying and teaching the truth, not according to the old law of the Jews but according to Christ’s new covenant.

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Related Posts: Old Covenant and New Covenant

 

Image credit: https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/is-old-testament-as-important-as-new-testament/

The Law is Good if Used Lawfully

“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” (1 Timothy 1:8-11, ESV).  

The section of 1 Timothy chap. 1 marked at vv. 8-17 is an explanatory digression, as the discussion of vv. 3-7 resumes at vv. 18-20. In contrast to the mishandling of the law by certain ones just noted, Paul explains its rightful purpose and proper use.¹ While the word “law” [nómos] is applied with some flexibility in the NT, it normally relates to the old-covenant law of Moses. Notwithstanding the occasional exception to this general observation (e.g. Rom. 2:13, 14; Gal. 3:21b), the context normally clarifies the usage.

The Goodness of the Law

Since the term “law” in v. 9 is without the article in the Greek text (cf. ASV, NASB, NET), it has been suggested that the reference here may be to law in general, not strictly the Mosaic law. However, the article is appended in v. 8 (“the law”), and God’s law, as law, is generally true of all just laws. It is “good” [kalós] but only if used “lawfully” [nomímōs]. Its goodness is “because it truly does reflect God’s will…. related to its being used properly, that is, treated as law (intended for the lawless, v. 9) and not used ‘illegitimately’ as a source for myths and endless genealogies, or for ascetic practices.”²

During the fifteen centuries the Mosaic law was in force, provisions were made for atonement and forgiveness (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:13, 16, 18), salvation was attainable (1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:51; 1 Chron. 16:23; Psa. 3:8; etc.), and one could even be counted “blameless” (Luke 1:6; Phil. 3:6). Faith, love, and mercy were essential components (Deut. 6:4-9; 10:12-21; Mic. 6:8; Hab. 2:4; Matt. 23:23; etc.), and it was beneficial to all who submitted to it (Deut. 6:24; 10:13; cf. Psa. 78:1-7; etc.).³

Foreshadowing the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (Rom. 3:25-26; Gal. 4:4-5; Heb. 9:15, 26), persons were saved under the old Jewish covenantal law by God’s grace through faith (Rom. 4:3-16; cf. 3:25; 9:31-32), i.e., a faith that submitted to the divine will in humble obedience. Despite the fact that a number of 1st-century legalistic Jews misconstrued the law’s intended purpose (Luke 11:37-42; Rom. 2:23; 10:3), it was never meant to be a cold-hearted structure of meritorious works. While the old-covenant system was not faultless (Heb. 8:7), it successfully functioned as a temporary measure to keep faith alive until the advent of the promised Messiah and the establishment of his superior new-covenant system (cf. Gal. 3:16–4:7; Heb. 8:6-13).

The Necessity of the Law

The necessity of the law is explained with three pairs of descriptors. While they could be regarded as synonymous, the expression “lawless” [ánomos], lit. “without law,” applies here to “those who know the laws of right and wrong and break them open-eyed.”⁴ The “disobedient” [anupótaktos], more precisely “undisciplined,” “insubordinate,” or “rebellious,” refers to “those who will not come into subjection.”⁵ The word “ungodly” [asebēs] describes one who is “destitute of reverential awe towards God, impious,”⁶ while “sinners” [adj. hamartōlós], i.e., not free from sin or preeminently sinful, basically applies to “one who deviates from the path of virtue”;⁷ cp. vv. 6, 19. The ungodly are inwardly irreverent, whereas the sinful are outwardly disobedient. The terms “unholy” [anósios, cf. 2 Tim. 3:2], or “wicked” (BAGD 72), and “profane” [bébēlos, cf. 4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16], “godless” or “irreligious” (BAGD 138), are descriptive of persons who reject sacred things. All these generically portray human rebellion against God.

The Prohibitions of the Law

More specifically, the designated sins that follow correspond to the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12-16). God did not give his law for frivolous conjecture and pointless dialogue, but as “law” it prohibits the types of transgressions now listed. Such a vice list is not uncommon and stands in stark contrast to the virtue lists of 3:1-13; 5:9-10. Similar vice lists occur in Rom. 1:26-31; 1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:2-4, none of which is intended to be exhaustive.

Regarding “those who strike their fathers and mothers,” two descriptive terms are employed here, patrolōas (“patricide,” or “father killer”) and mētralōas (“matricide,” or “mother killer”). Seeing that the literal sense would be included in the next expression, “murderers” (androphónos, lit. “manslayer”), parallel to the Decalogue’s sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13), it seems allusion to the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12) is intended here, thus the unnatural treatment of mothers and fathers, applicable to those “who refuse all reverence, even all kindly treatment, to their parents”⁸ (cf. 5:3-16). “The words describe sons or daughters who are lost to gratitude, lost to respect and lost to shame. And it must ever be remembered that this most cruel of blows can be one, not upon the body, but upon the heart.”⁹ See also Prov. 28:24; Mark 7:10-13; Rom. 1:30; Eph. 6:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:2.

The “sexually immoral,” from the Greek pórnos (lit. a male prostitute), refers to anyone engaging in illicit sexual intercourse, i.e., a fornicator. The noun porneía applies to any type of illicit sexual intercourse or fornication, namely sex that is not within the context of a divinely approved marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4). More particularly, “men who practice homosexuality.” The expression here is arsenokoítai (see also 1 Cor. 6:9), a combination of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”).⁹ This is a sexual term descriptive of homosexual behavior (ASV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, ISB, NASB, NIV, N/KJV, NRSV, etc.), pertaining to women as well (Rom. 1:26-27).

Next is “enslavers” [andrapodistēs]. Christianity entered a world where slavery was already an established element of society and regarded as an economic necessity, though not necessarily comparable to harsher forms in other times and societies (cf. 6:1-2). The condition of slavery was typically the result of prisoners of war, criminal conviction, debt, abandoned children, or birth to a slave mother. What Paul mentions here is a more sinister means, i.e., slave-dealers, kidnappers, or those who steal and sell another’s slaves. In principle this would include all who exploit fellow humans for selfish gain. 

The itemizing concludes with “liars” (from pseústēs) and “perjurers” (from epíorkos), those who intentionally twist the truth and affirm falsehoods for their own perceived advantage (cf. John 8:44; 1 John 1:6; 2:4, 22; 4:20; Rom. 1:25; Col. 3:9; Rev. 3:9). Although a comprehensive list is not necessary to make the point, the concluding statement is all encompassing: “and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (cf. Rom. 1:32; Gal. 5:21; 6:1; 2 Tim. 3:5). 

The Divine Standard

The divine standard is “doctrine” (didaskalía, “teaching,” “instruction”) being “sound” [hugiaínō], a verbal for being in good health (Luke 5:31; 7:10; 3 John 2) or safe and sound (Luke 15:27), used by Paul only in his letters to Timothy and Titus with reference to what is taught and the accompanying faith (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Tit. 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2). In contrast to “the law” (vv. 7-9), misappropriated and misunderstood by the disruptors, the message advanced by the apostle and his associates is “the gospel” [tó euaggélion], lit. “the good news” or “the glad tidings.” Anything different is unsound and spiritually unhealthy (v. 3; 6:3; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6, 7). 

The gospel message with which Paul has been “entrusted” (verbal pisteúō, cf. vv. 1, 12; 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4) reflects God’s “glory” [dóxa], a revelation of himself in which recipients of the message are invited to share (Rom. 5:2; 9:23; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6). “Both the Law and the gospel are against sin. Both reveal the glory of God. The gospel does not tolerate sin any more than the Law.”¹¹ The difference is, the law condemns but cannot save, while the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17; 7:1–8:8; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-29).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Contrary to what is commonly assumed, Paul was not anti-law. He concedes faith’s reinforcement of the law (Rom. 3:31), the holiness and righteousness of the law (Rom. 7:7, 12), the spirituality of the law (Rom. 7:14), and the advantages of Judaism (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:4). Paul does not contradict himself in passages like Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16 and 3:11. His emphasis is consistently on the importance of understanding the law in terms of faith rather than dependence on meritorious observances (cf. Rom. 3:27-31; 9:30-32).

     ² Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988): 45.

     ³ Paul continued to be in favor of the law and its precepts with respect to those for whom it was an important part of their cultural heritage (i.e., within the context of ethnic Judaism), as long as it was not at variance with the Christian faith (cf. Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 21:20-26; 1 Cor. 9:20; also Rom. 15:4). On the other hand, he was vehemently opposed to the enforcement of the law’s ritualistic ordinances on those for whom these practices had no relevance (i.e., non-Jewish Christians), especially if the imposition of such created division in the church and supplanted the “faith of Christ.”

     ⁴ William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians DBSS (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975): 37.

     5 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the NT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985): 4:207.

     6 Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies: The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek NT for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980): 31.

     7 Harold K. Moulton, ed. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1978): 17.

     ⁸ H. D. M. Spence, “The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in NT Commentary for English Readers, ed. C. J. Ellicott (London: Cassell Petter and Galpin, 1884): 3:180.

     9 W. Barclay, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon 38.

     ¹⁰ The words arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) appear together six times in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT), four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).

     ¹¹ W. E. Vine, Exposition of the Epistles to Timothy (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1925): 14.

 

Related Posts: Fulfilling the Law, Is the Law of Moses Still Binding

 

Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:041A.Moses_Breaks_the_Tables_of_the_Law.jpg