1 Timothy 1:8-11
There is a proper use for the law: it is not for the righteous but for anything that is contrary to the sound doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I often don't really know what my relationship should be to the law. Paul reminds me over and over that we are not under the law but under grace but Jesus made it clear that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (what does that mean?). Paul's teaching would make it seem that the law is at least not as good as the gospel and yet here he makes it clear that the law has a role to play and in Romans 7 that the law was meant to bring life (sin used the opportunity of the law to bring death instead).
Paul makes an assertion that the law is not for the righteous. In conjunction with the teaching in Romans 7, I think Paul is saying that the law is useful for those who are living apart from Christ to show them that they have failed to meet the standard of holiness that God has and to open their eyes to the fact that they are dead apart from Christ. The law is good in that it makes us aware of the sin in our lives and, hopefully, drives us to Christ to find life. The evangelism program "The Way of the Master" effectively uses this approach (although it also teaches that the unique shape of a banana proves that evolution is wrong... I'm sure that stands up really well in biology class!).
Does Paul mean that we shouldn't use the law on Christians? That there is something greater that we can appeal to in encouraging each other to continue in the faith and righteousness? If so, what is it that we appeal to? Or does it mean that when a Christian falls into sin and is now living contrary to sound doctrine that the law has a role to play (implying that the sinning Christian is no longer "righteous")?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
hey Jeremy...don't actually know you but i'm a close friend of Scott's.
when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it, the english can confuse our understanding of this passage.
the word "abolish" as used in the Jewish context of the day meant "misinterpret" or "misrepresent." therefore, those, like the Pharisees and the like, were misinterpreting or misrepesenting the law...for God gave the law as a gift to his people after salvation (exodus account).
to "fulill" the law was to correctly interpret and/or live it fully to how God intended. Jesus did that...the pharisees did not.
so when Jesus would say "You have heard it said...but i say to you," he was essentially saying, "you have interpreted it to mean such-and-such, but the real meaning/principle here is..." for example, "you have heard it said that you should not murder, but i tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judment."
Jesus was also referring to what are called "light" and "heavy" commandments. Jesus wanted to the people to understand that if your heart wanted to do even the lightest command (like not taking the eggs from under a bird in its nest. Deut somewhere), then you would likely not commit a heavier commandment. in other words, if you don't get angry with your brother, you're much less likely to kill him too. however, if you think that the law only says that you shouldn't kill your brother, then getting angry with him is ok...but may lead to a greater sin.
so, the law is good and has not been replaced by grace, but rather, Jesus fulfillled, or rather lived-fully the law through a life of grace.
for what it's worth...
Dude,I too struggle with my relationship to the law. Maybe because I find it hard to know how to engage it, I tend to ignore it...at least when it comes to the Old Testament, primarily the 10 commandments I would assume, but even there I am not sure of the relationship between the 10 commandments and the rest of the "laws" found in the Old Testament. I'm still leaning towards the reality that it shows us our sin (seems obvious) which should show us our inability to fulfill it and move us to the grace of Christ. However, (and you challenged me on this and I appreciate it), once we get to Christ, does it play any role for us anymore? Hey Scott's friend, (sorry, I forgot your name in the middle of my comment), if you read this, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
hey Sid...paul here...a few thougths off the cuff...
as far as the application of law after we come to Christ, it is, in my opinion, still valid. Jesus said in Matt. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter (a jot), not the least stroke of a pen (a tittle), will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
everything is not yet accomplished and so the Law is still in play. however, of the 600 and some odd laws that were given to Israel specifically, they are a sitz em leben (context) thing.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not only in that he actually lived it out, but that he came to correctly interpret it.
for example, the accusations of him healing/working on the sabbath. there were many rules from oral tradition/law (Mishna) which Jesus questioned and confronted because they went against the true meaning of the written law (Torah).
on the one hand, to work on the sabbath was prohibited. but, on the other hand, the sabbath was made for man, and if a man was going to die, or needed healing, then what is better for that man on the sabbath: to not work, or to be healed and live fully?
Jesus came to not only fulfill the law by living it correctly, but also came to help us understand the principle which the law was pointing to...that people were more important than man made rules.
if you're looking for an incredible resource regarding the hebrew context of Jesus' life and ministry within the first century/second temple period, then look at: Dwight A Pryor's "Behold the Man" a 12 session DVD...for around $100 US. highly recommend it...it was a real eye opener for me.
Wow! I'm commenting on my own post! Never done that before! Paul's relationship with the law would seem to indicate (from all his writings) that it was useful for making us aware of sin. It seems like the law caused him unending frustration - the things I want to do, etc. In the end only Christ could save him.
I don't think the whole law still applies to us (for example: circumcision) but then how do we decide what does or does not? I think it is more than just context.
Stephen Westerholm's "Israel's Law and the Church's Faith" is an insightful read as is NT Wrigth's "What Saint Paul Really Said".
Post a Comment