WE KNOW THAT the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
IN A PLAY on words, Paul says the law (nomos) must be used legitimately (nomimos). Proper use, of course, requires an understanding of its purpose. There has been much theological discussion on this matter and especially on the function of the law in the lives of those who have been saved by grace.
Paul speaks to this issue at length in more than one place, but reference may be most profitably made, besides the present passage, to Galatians 5:13–26. There the law is summarized “in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” This assumes, of course, the love of God as the “greatest” commandment (Matt. 22:37–38). The Galatians passage goes on to show that the “acts of the sinful nature” (lit., “flesh”) must be replaced by the “fruit of the Spirit [which] is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:22–23). Here in 1 Timothy 1 Paul describes those whose actions are contrary to that law, not now in personal debauchery as in Galatians 5:19–21, but in opposition to God (1 Tim. 1:9a) and in hostility to human beings (vv. 9b–10a). Such people love neither God nor neighbor.
Verse 9 establishes a principle that the law1 has been made2 not for the righteous but for “lawbreakers and rebels.” Those who resist doing what is right need to be confronted by a standard that clarifies what they are doing is wrong. Paul wrote, “I felt fine when I did not understand what the law demanded. But when I learned the truth, I realized I had broken the law and was a sinner, doomed to die” (Rom. 7:9, NLT). If Paul, who was already committed to that law, needed to be confronted in that manner, how much more those whose sins are listed in the following section.
It has often been pointed out that the list of sins in verses 9–10 not only recall the so-called “vice lists” found in ancient moralistic writings, but follow topics in the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6–21):3
| 1 Timothy 1:9–10 | 10 Commandments (Deut. 5:6–21) |
| lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious | You shall have no other gods before me |
| those who kill their fathers or mothers | Honor your father and your mother |
| for murderers | You shall not murder |
| for adulterers and perverts | You shall not commit adultery |
| for slave traders | You shall not steal |
| and liars and perjurers | You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor |
Most of the comparisons are self-explanatory. The description of those who do not honor God includes various aspects of disrespect. The word translated “adulterers” (1 Tim. 1:10) has a broad meaning and was understood (as was the seventh commandment) as applying to various acts of sexual immorality. Nevertheless the Hebrew n
ap in Deuteronomy 5:18 specifically meant adultery (another word, zana, was used for fornication in general), and at the time of the New Testament, although the Greek word porneia was broadly used for sexual immorality, it could (depending on the context) refer specifically to adultery. Pornoi, used here, is appropriately translated “adulterers” in the NIV. The NIV “perverts” is an interpretation of the Greek arsenokoi “; NLT “homosexuals”). Slave trading may seem to be an unusual example of stealing, but it was understandable and all too common in that society (see also Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7).
Verse 10 uses the rhetorical method of going from the particular to the general. After listing the sins that require judgment and correction by the law, Paul generalizes, “and whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.” There are several significant points in verses 10–11:
The expression “sound teaching” occurs only in the Pastoral Letters. “Sound” represents the participle of the verb hygiaino, “to be healthy,” used as an adjective.4 It is combined with “words,” “doctrine,” or “in the faith.” In each case, it is used to describe true belief. Usually the immediate context shows that it is true belief in contrast to false teaching. The verb alone, in its literal sense of being healthy, is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke and 3 John.
This is a vivid figurative expression, specially employed in the Pastoral Letters to describe teaching that is not “sick,” but wholesome and resistant to the disease of error.5 The false teachers, by contrast, had an “unhealthy [nosos, sick] interest” in quarrels (1 Tim. 6:4). The sins that counter the Ten Commandments, listed in 1:9–10, are “contrary to” this sound doctrine. To show that those sins are not merely lapses or mistakes, Paul chooses a word (antikeita, “set over against, opposed to, antithetical to”) that seems to be a play on the word keitai (“made or given”) in the phrase “the law is made” (v. 9).
There is a further implication in the vocabulary of verses 10–11. The unsound, sick, and false doctrine has a formidable opponent, the “glorious gospel of the blessed God.” The noun “glory” (used here adjectivally in the genitive case) appears also in 1:17 (where honor and glory are ascribed to God); in 3:16 (Christ was “taken up in glory”); in 2 Timothy 2:10 (regarding obtaining “salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory”); in 4:18 (where glory is again ascribed to God); and in Titus 2:13 (the “glorious appearing [or manifestation of the glory, NRSV] of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”). In discussing whether the phrase here should be understood as (1) “the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (which follows the Semitic idiom familiar to the writer), or (2) “the gospel of the [or, which tells the] glory of the blessed God,” Knight rightly consults 1 Corinthians 4:4, where parallel wording appears, usually translated “the gospel of the glory of Christ.”6 Rendering (2) is therefore appropriate here.7
CHRISTIANS AND THE Old Testament law. Theologians have long argued over the function of the Old Testament law for New Testament believers. Is it to be discarded as inappropriate for this dispensation? Is it only useful insofar as it shows human sinfulness? Should it be taught as a standard for Christian life? Should Christians seek to bring society into conformation with that law?8
This paragraph does not rule out any one of these uses and so does not answer those questions directly, but it does provide some essential principles. Verses 8–11 make three points. (1) They contrast the knowledge that “well informed Christians”9 have (“we know,” v. 8) with the ignorance of the false teachers, who misuse the law. (2) They teach that although Timothy has to oppose those who want to be teachers of the law, the law itself must be affirmed, for it is good (v. 8; cf. Rom. 7:12). (3) They provide important insights for the readers as to the proper objects of the law’s teachings (1 Tim. 1:9–10).
The immediate concern of this passage is not the same as those we have today, such as the possible role of the Old Testament law in the realm of secular society, the extent to which that law should function as a basis of Christian life in the present age, or the function of the law in salvation history. There is instead a particular concern, a problem that these letters are addressing. Apparently the heretics were making a stringent application of the law to achieve their own purposes in the church. In ways we no longer fully understand, they were applying the law to the “righteous” by trying to force it into a doctrinal or ethical role it was not intended to have. The same apostle (assuming Pauline authorship) who wrote that love is the fulfillment of the law in a context that urges giving respect, honor, and revenue to those who deserve them (Rom. 13:7–8), could hardly now be ruling out such an application as one of its proper functions.
There must be a specific reason, though unclear to us, why Paul not only says that the law is for sinners but identifies by category the particular sinners who need to be exposed to its condemning light. The law apparently functions as a kind of vice list familiar to the Ephesian believers and to the false teachers. This suggests that one legitimate use of the law is to point out sin in whatever form it may take in a given culture. What arrests the reader is that after mentioning slave traders, liars, and other such sinners as those against whom the law should be directed, he then brings it to bear on the teachings of those very people who were misusing it (“and whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine”). The false teachers found that their gun had been turned around to point at themselves.
The standard of truth. Sometimes otherwise logical persons have difficulty in drawing obvious logical conclusions and acting on them. The standard of truth in this passage is “sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel” (italics added). Any teaching that does not conform to the “glorious gospel” is clearly not sound doctrine and should be abandoned. Otherwise, for what may be personal, political, or sentimental reasons, we allow the nose of heresy to slip under the tent flap of our study class, youth program, or the church itself. The reason why one might choose to overlook that a teaching does not “conform” to the gospel may be deliberate, or it may be lack of good teaching, in which case the leadership of the church is to blame. Paul implies that any teaching, not only about the law but about any basic element of doctrine, that does not clearly conform with the essential gospel should be declared false.
THE OLD TESTAMENT law today. Few Christians today will be involved in deep discussions of the Old Testament law. There are two ways, however, in which the circumstances of this paragraph may bear strongly on typical experiences of Christians today. (1) Christians may, perhaps without realizing it, be criticized for behavior or actions on the basis of an overzealous application of the law. This is not necessarily legalism in the sense of the Judaizing activities of Paul’s day, but it is a legalism that forgets the law of love. This happens when there is a focus on one or another detail of behavior or of a theological opinion10 while ignoring certain whole principles. Jesus spoke of those who “give a tenth of your spices…but you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23). This obviously is not antinomian, but it is a revision of perspective.
(2) The other way in which this passage has relevance for today’s Christian concerns the failure to discern what does and does not conform or correspond to the truth of the gospel. Over the past decades the opening lines used by cult representatives as they do their missionary work from door to door have changed. These lines are more likely now to appeal to the religious consciousness of the person being visited or to commonly accepted “family values” (much as the old door-to-door salesman would get the people to say “yes” as often as possible before coming to the sales pitch itself). It is becoming harder and harder to discern what does and what does not conform to the gospel.
On distinguishing truth from error. As noted earlier, some Christians may be unprepared to discern the difference because of insufficient biblical and doctrinal teaching in many churches today. If one makes a comparison between two radically different church cultures—that, for example, of the 1930s with that of the 1990s—the situation may become more clear. In the earlier period, religious literacy was high. Those who were won to Christ in the various evangelistic meetings both in and out of church were often already well aware of the truth of the gospel even before their conversion. They knew more of the Bible than most people do today and they knew something of doctrine. The fact that people today who have not been previously educated in Christian theology and Bible are coming to Christ is, of course, a matter for thanksgiving. The fact that they have been so ill taught is not.
We need to put extra effort into seeing that new Christians are given the background that they lack as quickly as possible, so that they will be able to tell the difference between “the gospel” and heresy and thereby successfully resist the latter. We need also to include enough biblical doctrine in our preaching (and worship) to provide a foundation for seekers on which to ground their faith when the time of their conversion arrives.
There may, however, also be parts of sermons, commentaries, articles, and even hymns within the truly Christian orbit that, while not heretical statements, do not conform to the gospel. Is it true that angels have wings and harps of gold? And is it true that “still through the cloven skies they come/With peaceful wings unfurled”? We sing that every Christmas in “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear.” I see no harm in it, if we sing it symbolically, but we should recognize its poetic embellishment.
I once heard a worship leader say that we “worship with (sic) the Father” and heard him pray that we might be “exalted above the Lord.” These were, I presume, merely slips of the tongue, but they illustrate the need for precision in public worship. In the hymn “Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee” we sing, “Thou the Father, Christ our Brother—all who live in love are Thine.” If we sing this with the context of Hebrews 2:11–12, 17 and 1 John 4:7 in mind, all is well; but there is no doubt that many have sung it with the presuppositions of liberal theology in mind, and thus with a meaning that did not conform to the gospel.
These observations may seem pedantic, but truth requires precision. We need to ask further, however, whether when we detect outright heresy, we should attack the motives or those who teach error. Paul did this openly in the Pastoral Letters. Perhaps we should distinguish between outright immorality and hostility to the gospel on the one hand and private thoughts on the other, which, while apparently improper, are best left to God to judge.
Often the choice reflects the personality of the person who makes the judgment—either reticent to speak out or aggressively censorious. In today’s climate the latter attitude quickly loses a respectful hearing. If the goal of the command is love and requires a pure heart (1:5), we need to examine our own motives when declaring the sins and errors of others. We also need to keep in mind that the moral judgments expressed in the Pastoral Letters have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore are accurate in their assessment of the motives of the heretics—something we cannot claim.
1. The word “law” (nomos) is anarthrous in the Greek text of verse 9. That is, it lacks the definite article “the.” This does not make the word indefinite, however, as though it referred to law in general. Even when the article does not occur, a context may make it clear that the law of Moses is in mind, as in Romans 2:14, where Paul says the Gentiles do not have “law,” and in Galatians 3:17, where he says “law” came four hundred years after Abraham. Usually when Paul refers to law he means the law of Moses.
2. “Made” (keitai) has a legal sense here. The word can also be rendered “given, exist, be valid” (BAGD, 426).
3. Young shows that this list reflects the Decalogue and also fits into the “Hellenistic- Jewish bridge culture” in the Pastorals (Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 24–28).
4. Occurrences of the verb in the Pastoral Letters in addition to 1:10 are 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1–2.
5. For an alternative viewpoint that draws on Greek and Hellenistic occurrences where the word means “rational” or “reasonable” rather than “sound” and is used to counter Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters, see Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 24–25. The problem with their presentation is their methodology, not the literary or linguistic resources they cite.
6. Peterson’s paraphrase in The Message gives the Corinthians wording a happy contemporary twist, “the Message that shines with Christ.” It is unfortunate, however, that in 1 Tim 1:11 the significant terminology about glory is obscured in that paraphrase by the mere word “great.” (In the previous verse the important key phrase “sound doctrine” does not appear at all, apparently spoken for by the word “truth” in a compressed summary of vv. 10–11.) This illustrates the difficulty one faces in the commendable attempt to contemporize biblical terms for those to whom they are unfamiliar.
7. In this connection, NRSV and NLT join in correcting NIV in Titus 2:13 from “glorious appearing” to “manifestation of the glory [of Christ]” and “wonderful event when the glory [of Christ] will be revealed,” respectively. The Message has “the glorious day when [Christ] appears,” applying the idea of glory to the time rather than to Christ. See my comments on that passage.
8. The Old Testament Law, the Torah, has been applied and misapplied in many ways, partly because of some exegetical uncertainties. Jesus addressed the matter of the law in the Sermon on the Mount, especially in Matt. 5:17–48 and in his examples “You have heard…but I tell you.” The exact significance of this is still debated. Paul said that Christ is the “end” of the law. “End” here represents the Greek telos, which can mean both goal and discontinuance, but which of these Paul means or emphasizes is also debated.
9. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 48.
10. I like to call these “doctoids,” on the analogy of unimportant “factoids.”