--- By Richard C. Barcellos
originally published at www.rbtr.org - republished here with permission
In this essay, we will examine 1 Tim. 1:8-11 with the goal of determining if Paul’s list of sinners found there reflects both the content and order of the first nine commandments of the Decalogue. This is George W. Knight, III’s thesis in his The Pas-toral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The scope of Dr. Knight’s comments on this text was intentionally limited and suggestive due to space constraints. The goal of this essay is to build on his seminal work and to show that his basic thesis can be sup-ported from the text itself, as well as from other, broader considerations. Assuming the validity of Dr. Knight’s exegesis, this text supplies a strong argument for the perpetuity of the Decalogue (including the 4th commandment) under the New Covenant and for the function of the Decalogue as summarily containing the fundamental law of God applica-ble to all men (i.e., Moral Law). This has major implications for Christian ethics and ac-cords with historic Reformed theology as represented in The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689).
Concerning Dr. Knight’s thesis, John Stott recently said, “This reconstruction is certainly ingenious and may be correct although it has to be declared unproved.” This essay attempts to build on Dr. Knight’s work and, indeed, to prove its validity.
In 1 Tim. 1:8-11, we read:
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 kid-nappers, 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.
In considering this passage, six questions will form the outline for its exposition. 1. Why does Paul bring up the issue of the law? 2. What does Paul say about the law? 3. To whom is Paul referring in v. 9, when he says, “the law is not made for a righteous per-son”? 4. What law is Paul referring to in vv. 8-10? 5. Who are the first two types of sin-ners in Paul’s list, “the lawless and insubordinate”? 6. Why does Paul not refer to the 10th commandment?
1. Why does Paul bring up the issue of the law? He does so to combat the wrong use of the law and to exhibit its right use. In vv. 5-7, Paul mentions some who have strayed and turned aside to idle talk. They desire to be teachers of the law, claiming ex-pertise in the law’s meaning and use; but they are in fact ignorant of the law. In vv. 8-11, Paul contrasts their ignorant, erring use of the law and the proper use of the law. Because the law was being used unlawfully by some, Paul aims to present its lawful use.
2. What does Paul say about the law? He says, “we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (v. 8). The law is good and can be used legitimately. There is also an illegitimate use of the law. Those described in vv. 5-7 used the good law unlawfully. Paul here shows its lawful use. Commenting on what “we know” about the law, Knight says:
That which “we know” is “that the law is good” … The statement has striking similarities with several in Romans 7 (Rom. 7:14, 16 …). The point in 1 Tm. 1:8, as in Romans 7, is to affirm that the no,moj [law] is intrinsically good because it is given by God (cf. Romans 2; 7:22; 8:4) and is not to be considered bad, though it can be mishandled, with bad results, as the nomodida,skaloi [law-teachers] have done.
Paul here speaks of the intrinsic goodness of the law as it reveals proper, God-defined moral behavior.
3. To whom is Paul referring in v. 9, when he says, “the law is not made for a righteous person”? Some understand “a righteous person” to refer to the justified, the saved, the Christian without qualification. “This view acknowledges that the law func-tions to bring a person to Christ as a sinner, but then asserts that a saved person is not to be concerned with or directed by the law.” This common view is contradicted by many texts in Paul’s writings (e.g., Rom. 7:14, 16, 22, 25; 13:8-10; and especially 2 Tim. 3:16-17), other texts in the New Testament (Matt. 5:17-18; Jam. 2:8-11), and does not fit the context, as will become clear further on. It is simply and emphatically not true that the law has no place in the life of the Christian. What then does Paul mean? Knight offers the following explanation:
The meaning of di,kaioj [righteous] here would seem to be determined in large measure by its place preceding and contrasting with a list of terms concerned with moral behavior. Therefore, the point of this section is to emphasize, against the would-be nomodida,skaloi [law-teachers], that the law is given to deal with moral questions and not for speculation. The would-be nomodida,skaloi [law-teachers] are not Judaizers like those of Galatians, since the PE [Pastoral Epis-tles] give no evidence of that, but rather those who deal with God’s law from the perspective of myths, genealogies, and disputes about it (v. 4; see Tit. 3:9). Thus Paul is saying that the law is not given to apply in some mystical way to people who are already “righteous,” i.e., those already seeking to conform to the law. It is, rather, given to deal with people who are specifically violating its sanctions and to warn them against their specific sins (as the list in vv. 9b-10 goes on to do).
White, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, says that “dikaioj?[righteous] is used here in the popular sense, as in ‘I came not to call the righteous’.” The “righteous person” is anyone in external conformity to the law whether Christian or non-Christian. Fairbairn seems to agree, when he says:
By the latter expression [righteous] is to be understood, not one who in a worldly sense is just or upright (for the apostle is not here speaking of such), but who in the stricter sense is such, —one who, whether by nature or by grace, has the posi-tion and character of a righteous man. Why is the law not made for such? It can only be because he is of himself inclined to act in conformity with its require-ments.
The word di,kaioj [righteous] is used in this way elsewhere, i.e., of external con-formity to the law, to refer to non-Christians and Christians. For instance, Paul uses a form of it in Phil. 3:6, when he says that as an unconverted man, he was “concerning the righteousness [dikaiosu,nh] which is in the law, blameless.” Phil. 3:6 (cf. 3:9) is Paul’s description of his relationship to the Mosaic law as an unbeliever. A person can be, “con-cerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” and not be a Christian. On the other hand, in Jam. 5:16 we read, “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man [dikai,ou] avails much.” This verse views Elijah as a believer, as “a righteous person” (cf., Mt. 25:37, 46). A person can be “righteous” and be a Christian. According to this understanding, Paul is referring to the law in an ethical sense, as it defines proper behav-ior for man. In the sense that the law defines proper behavior and rebukes those not in conformity to it, it is not for “a righteous person,” because that person is already con-forming to it. Knight adds:
The “righteous” are, then, those living in conformity to the requirements of the law by the work of Christ wrought by the Spirit in them (cf. Rom. 8:4, …) But Paul does not use “righteous” here in an absolutistic way such that he himself would not have been inconsistent to refer to the law for the Christian (cf. Rom. 13:8-10), but in that less than absolute way which we see in Jesus—in a different situation and with a different nuance—but nonetheless in a nonabsolute way (Lk. 5:32: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance”).
The nuance of Lk. 5:32 is negative and the nuance of 1 Tim. 1:9 is positive. What about the person who does not conform to the standards of the law? He is not “a righteous per-son,” in the sense intended here by Paul.
The law, in this sense, is the standard for proper conduct as defined by God for all mankind, Christian or non-Christian. This lawful use of the law points out sin even in the Christian, defining sinful conduct as “contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glori-ous gospel.” In other words, lawless living is antithetical to sound gospel doctrine. If living like those listed in 1 Tim. 1:9-10 is sinful, “contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel,” then living antithetically to those listed is righteous and not “con-trary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel.” This shows that the law is for the Christian to fulfill (cf., Rom. 13:8, 10); and when he does so, he is living in confor-mity to “sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel.” Hendriksen says, “The sound doctrine demands that man must keep God’s law.” The gospel does not replace the law; it upholds the law. John Stott says:
It is particularly noteworthy that sins which contravene the law (as breaches of the Ten Commandments) are also contrary to the sound doctrine of the gospel. So the moral standards of the gospel do not differ from the moral standards of the law. We must not therefore imagine that, because we have embraced the gospel, we may now repudiate the law!
Knight agrees:
The “sound teaching” [doctrine] of the Christian faith has the same ethical per-spective as the law, and …that teaching also points out sins that are contrary to it. …By this Paul indicates that law and “sound teaching” [doctrine] are together in opposing these sins and therefore have a common ethical perspective.
Living like those listed in 1 Tim. 1:9-10 is sin for the Christian and non-Christian alike. Again, Hendriksen says, “The apostle now gives a summary of the law of the Ten Com-mandments. That summary shows clearly that there is no room for anyone (least of all for the Ephesian errorists) to sit at ease in Zion.”
In Calvin’s thought, the three-fold use of the law refers primarily to the Moral Law and its diverse functions with reference to unbelievers and believers. Francois Wendel comments:
In what more particularly concerns the moral law, as it is set down in the Deca-logue and in other passages of the Old Testament, he also accepts its division in to three functions or usages, such as those recognized by Melanchthon since 1530 and further accentuated by Bucer in his Commentaries. Like them, he makes the distinction between the pedagogic function of the Law considered as ‘the mirror of sins’, its political function in the wider sense, and thirdly, the per-manent part it is called upon to play among believers.
It is important to note that the Decalogue did not exhaust the Moral Law in Calvin’s thought. The Decalogue contains a summary of the Moral Law, but not its whole. For Calvin, the Moral Law of the Old Testament includes the Decalogue and the general eq-uity of the Judicial Law of Israel. Wendel says, “And indeed, though the contingent provisions of the political laws concerned only the people of Israel, the substance of them–that is, ‘equity and righteousness’–is not affected by their abrogation.
The first use of the law is pedagogic, that is, it functions as a teacher. In Cal-vin‘s words, “while it shows God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone accept-able to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own un-righteousness.” Calvin alludes to various texts to support his position: Rom. 3:19-20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:7; and 2 Cor. 3:7. This use of the law applies to believers and unbelievers, though in different ways. In this sense, the law shows what God requires of us and con-demns or convicts us for not providing what God demands. On the one hand, unbelievers are brought to terror and despair by this use of the law. “It is true that in this way the wicked are terrified, but because of their obstinacy of heart.” Hesselink comments:
With unbelievers the only result is that they are thus deprived of any excuse be-fore God (Rom. 3:3). In this case the law is what Paul calls a ministry of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7). …Through the law we see hell wide open before us and God as an armed enemy standing before us. The function of the law in reference to sin is thus a killing one.
On the other hand, believers are reminded that they are utterly dependent on God and will find their rest only in Him through Christ alone. Calvin says:
For the children of God the knowledge of the law should have another purpose. …This means that, dismissing the stupid opinion of their own strength, they come to realize that they stand and are upheld by God’s hand alone; that, naked and empty-handed, they flee to his mercy, repose entirely in it, hide deep within it, and seize upon it alone for righteousness and merit.
The second use of the law is political, that is, it functions as a protector of civil order by restraining evil. “The second function of the Law is to hinder the wicked who will cease to do evil only from fear. Without doubt, ‘their heart is not touched’ and they obey only by compulsion.” Under this use of the Law, Calvin refers to our text, 1 Tim. 1:9-10. “He [Paul] shows in this that the law is like a halter to check the raging and oth-erwise limitlessly ranging lusts of the flesh.” External conformity to the law by unbe-lievers in no way makes them better in the sight of God. It merely works as a constraining force on public evil. Hesselink says, “The second use of the law thus applies primarily to unbelievers. They obey the laws of the community and state, but not because of a genuine love of justice and a concern for the welfare of their neighbors.” For believers, the po-litical use of the law is a way they express their love to their neighbors.
The third use of the law is as a pattern for life, that is, it functions as a guide for the sanctification of believers and, therefore, possesses normative value in Christian eth-ics. In Calvin’s thought, this is the principal use of the Moral Law. In his chapter on “Christian Freedom” in his Institutes, Calvin said:
[the law] does not stop teaching and exhorting and urging them [believers] to good, even though before God’s judgment seat it has no place in their con-sciences. For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification… Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal for holiness and innocence.
Calvin’s position was that Christians are still ‘under the law’ for sanctification, “but not in the same way as the Jews used to be.” Calvin asserts that Christians still profit by the law in two ways: first, the law reveals the nature of the Lord’s will and confirms them in the understanding of it; and second, by meditating on it, the law arouses to obedience and draws the believer “back from the slippery path of transgression. In this way the saints must press on; for however eagerly they may in accordance with the Spirit strive toward God’s righteousness, the listless flesh always so burdens them that they do not proceed with due readiness.” We need the law to remind us of our duty and to arouse us from sloth.
Having considered Calvin’s three-fold use of the law, it is apparent that all three uses may be present in 1 Tim. 1:9-11. The law points out sin in believers and unbelievers, restrains civil evil and promotes civil righteousness, and functions as the basic rule of life for believers. It should be remembered that these uses of the law are in complete agree-ment with “sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10b-11).
4. What law is Paul referring to in vv. 8-10? Some commentators believe that Paul is referring to law in general and not to the Mosaic Law. This view is inadequate. There are five reasons why Paul is not referring to “a law” in general in this text. First, when he details the lawful use of the law, he clearly refers to commands contained in the Law of Moses (see vv. 9-10 and the exposition below). Second, “The ethical list in vv. 9-10 is similar to the Decalogue and the application of it in Exodus 21.” Third, in vv. 5-7, where Paul brings up the would-be law-teachers, it seems clear that there is an assumed and well-known law. Fourth, in Tit. 3:9 the law is mentioned again in a way which as-sumes a well-known law. Fifth, it would be very difficult not to read these statements on the law in light of the rest of Paul’s letters which deal extensively with this very issue, i.e., the Mosaic law and its utility under the New Covenant (cf., Rom. 1, 2, 7, 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 6:2-3; and 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
To what law then is Paul referring?
In v. 8, Paul uses an article [o`] before the word no,moj [law]. “But we know that the law is good” [Oi;damen de, o[ti kalo,j o` no,moj]. This indicates that Paul is refer-ring to a definite body of law. The article o` [the], however, is not used before no,moj?[law] in v. 9. From this some may claim that Paul is shifting his meaning from “the law” in particular to “a law” in general. Daniel Wallace, however, asserts that “it is not necessary for a noun to have the article in order to be definite.” He says elsewhere, “There are at least ten ways [emphasis added] in which a noun in Greek can be definite without the article.” There is good reason to understand the anarthrous use of no,moj?[law] in v. 9 as definite. This understanding is based on the presence of the arti-cle with no,moj [law] in v. 8 and on the fact that Paul references specific commands from the Law of Moses in the rest of vv. 9 and 10. In this case, the function of the article carries over from v. 8 to v. 9. We conclude, therefore, that Paul is not moving from “the law” in particular to “a law” in general. In a way that agrees with the rules of Greek syn-tax, he is referring to the same law in both verses. Alford comments:
Not, ‘a law’ in general, . . . nor does the omission of the article furnish any ground for such a rendering, in the presence of numerous instances where nomos, anarthrous, is undeniably ‘the Law’ of Moses.
Elsewhere, Paul uses no,moj?[law] both with and without the article and in con-texts which include the Decalogue. Commenting on Rom. 2:14, Murray says:
The omission of the definite article before no,moj (law) on three occasions in verse 14 is an interesting example of the omission when the subject is specific and definite. On the first two occasions the law in mind is the specially revealed law as exemplified in Scripture. That it is definite is shown by the expression ta. tou/ no,mou (the things of the law). For this reason we should most reasonably take no,moj (law) in the concluding clause as definite—the Gentiles are not sim-ply a law to themselves but the law spoken of in the other clauses of the verse. This is confirmed by verse 15 where we have the expression to. e;rgon tou/ no,mou (the work of the law). The point is that it is not an entirely different law with which the Gentiles are confronted; the things of the law they do are not things of an entirely different law—it is essentially the same law. The difference resides in the different method of being confronted with it and, by implication, in the less detailed and perspicuous knowledge of its content.
This law is mentioned in vv. 12, 13, 14, and in several places in vv. 17-27. In vv. 21 and 22, Paul refers to commands contained in the Decalogue. Paul, therefore, is saying that the law the Jews possessed is the basic, fundamental law of the Old Covenant, the Deca-logue.
In Rom. 7:7, Paul asks the question: “Is the law [~o no,moj] sin?” He then says, “I would not have known sin except through the law [dia. no,mou].” Notice the presence of the article with no,moj and then its absence in the same verse. He then concludes, “For I would not have known covetousness unless the law [o` no,moj] had said, “You shall not covet.”” The law in this verse is the same throughout and contains a commandment that forbids coveting. Obviously, the law that forbids coveting is the 10th commandment of the Decalogue. The absence of the article, when referring to the law where the 10th commandment is contained, does not alter the identity of the law. “It is not necessary for a noun to have the article in order to be definite.” It is also important to note that in vv. 8-12 law is more inclusive than the 10th commandment. In vv. 14 [o` no,moj?(‘the law’)], 16 [tw/| no,mw| (‘the law’)], and 22 [tw/| no,mw| tou/ qeou/?(‘the law of God’)], law is used with the article (cf. also Rom. 8:4, 7) and in v. 25 [no,mw qeou/?(‘the law of God’)] without it, yet all these refer to the same law throughout (i.e., the law of God, which has as one of its commandments, “You shall not covet.”).
In Rom. 13:8-10, Paul uses no,moj?[law] without the article and immediately references the Decalogue. Consider these two observations. First, Paul does not hesitate to illustrate what he means by no,moj?[law] in v. 8 by quoting part of the Decalogue in v. 9. In v. 8, he uses the anarthrous accusative, no,mon, because it is the object of the verb “has fulfilled”. In v. 10, he uses the anarthrous genitive, no,mou, because it is modi-fying and explaining “fulfillment.” Both are anarthrous in a context clearly referring to at least part of the Decalogue. This phenomenon of the New Testament referencing the Decalogue in the context of Christian ethics, and where no,moj [law] is used, suggests that the New Testament finds in the Decalogue a convenient summary of Moral Law (See Matt. 19:18-19; Rom. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 6:2-3; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; and Jam. 2:8-11 where the Decalogue is referenced in both evangelistic and didactic contexts.). Comment-ing on Romans 13:8-10, Murray says, “But what I wish especially to stress is, first, that these four he enumerates are four of the well-known ten commandments. It is in the decalogue that Paul finds the epitome of Moral Law.” Second, Paul teaches us that all legitimate commandments for Christians may be summed up. Paul refers to five of the Ten Commandments as illustrations of the law that love fulfills. Loving your neighbor summarizes the five commandments of the Decalogue just referred to and shows us that all Moral Law can be reduced to its bare essentials. Murray’s comments on 1 Cor. 6:9-11 apply to Rom. 13:8-10 as well, when he says:
He [Paul] has not exhausted the list of sins; elsewhere he mentions others not specifically mentioned here. But he has enumerated enough to evince to us that the underlying presupposition of his thought is, that summarily, at least, the deca-logue is the norm by which sin is to be known, as it is also the norm of that right-eousness which characterizes the kingdom of God and those who belong to it. He says in effect what the apostle John says, that ‘sin is the transgression of the law.’
These examples support the conclusion that the absence of the article in 1 Tim. 1:9 does not change the content of the law being referenced by Paul.
Returning now to our text, it is clear from vv. 9b and 10 that Paul had in mind at least the 5th through the 9th commandments of the Decalogue. Knight says, “from ‘strik-ers of father and mother’ onward the order of the second part of the Decalogue is fol-lowed …” The terms patrolw,|aij?[murderers of fathers] and mhtrolw,|aij [murderers of mothers] refer to violators of the 5th commandment. The term avndrofonoi/j [man-slayers] refers to violators of the 6th commandment. The terms po,rnoij [fornicators] and avresenkoi,taij [sodomites] refer to violators of the 7th commandment. The term avndrapodistai/j [kidnappers] refers to violators of the 8th commandment. The terms yeu,staij [liars] and evpio,rkoij [perjurers] refer to violators of the 9th commandment. Paul’s list clearly reflects both the content and order of the second part of the Deca-logue.
There is also evidence for the 1st through the 4th commandments in v. 9a. What part of the Mosaic Law do the sinners listed there reflect? If the sins referred to in vv. 9b-10 reflect both the content and order of the Decalogue, should we expect the sins in v. 9a to do so as well? In other words, since vv. 9b-10 reflect the content and order of the sec-ond part of the Decalogue, does v. 9a reflect the content and order of the first part? Geof-frey Wilson says:
In a characteristic enumeration Paul sets forth the positive function of the law. The list follows the order of the Ten Commandments. The first three pairs cover offenses against God, while the vices mentioned are all violations of the second table of the law.
Homer Kent says, “the list of sins that appears in verses 9 and 10 seems clearly to follow the order of the Ten Commandments.” This also is suggested in The MacArthur Study Bible, which says, “These first 6 characteristics, expressed in three couplets, delineate sins from the first half [emphasis added] of the Ten Commandments, which deal with a person’s relationship to God.”
Notice first MacArthur’s claim that 1 Tim. 1:9 contains three couplets, i.e., pairs of synonyms joined by kai, [and]. Assuming that this is the case, some may argue as fol-lows: Since there are three couplets, only three of the commandments of the first part of the Decalogue are referenced. This is one way to exclude one of the first four command-ments from the list. Michael Griffiths does this very thing, excluding the 2nd command-ment. This, however, seems incorrect for the following reasons.
First, in v. 9b, the terms patrolw,|aij [murderers of fathers] and mhtrolw,|aij [murderers of mothers], which both refer to the 5th commandment and are joined by kai, [and], do not function as a couplet. A couplet, as defined above, contains two synonyms. These terms, however, are not synonyms. Instead, this two-term structure is necessary to reflect the two-fold nature of the 5th commandment. “Honor your father and your mother.” The fifth commandment has a compound object.
Second, Paul does not use couplets, as defined above, to refer to single commands of the Decalogue elsewhere.
Third, there is good reason to believe that Paul is not using the rhetorical device of couplet, as defined above, in this passage at all. Both Blass and Debrunner and Robert-son suggest that Paul is using polysyndeton and asyndeton. Polysyndeton is a rhetorical device that repeats the word kai, in a list of words. Asyndeton is a rhetorical device that omits the word kai, in a list of words. Blass and Debrunner say:
Asyndeton appears naturally in lengthy enumerations, if only for the sake of con-venience; there is an inclination, however, to combine pairs in the interests of clarity …up to the point where this becomes burdensome (1 T 1:10). If a series is not strictly a summary but merely an enumeration, asyndeton may even be neces-sary.
Elsewhere, they say that sometimes kai may “form pairs which are asyndetic among themselves.” Among the examples given are Acts 1:13 and 1 Tim. 1:9. Robertson says, “Perhaps, as Blass suggests, polysyndeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any par-ticular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14:21. …Sometimes the connective is used with part of the list (pairs) and not with the rest, for the sake of variety, as in 1 Tm. 1:9f.”
Our premise is that a plausible case can be made which shows that Paul reduces nine of the Ten Commandments, including the 4th, to single words (in the Greek text) in terms of their violation. Fairbairn says:
Law so considered, unless the context plainly determines otherwise, always bears pointed reference to the decalogue; for this was the law in the more emphatic sense—the heart and essence of the whole economy of law; hence alone depos-ited in the ark of the covenant. And that this here also is more especially in the eye of the apostle, is evident from the different sorts of character presently after mentioned as intended to be checked and restrained by the law: they admit of be-ing all ranged under the precepts of the two tables.
He goes on to say:
In regard to those for whom, he says, the law is made,—those, that is, who need the check and restraint of its discipline,—the apostle gives first a general descrip-tion … Then he branches out into particulars, the earlier portion of which have respect to offences against God, the latter to offences against one’s fellow-men.
Listen to Knight again.
Once it is recognized that from “strikers of father and mother” onward the order of the second part of the Decalogue is followed, then the question naturally arises whether the preceding part of the list in v. 9 corresponds to the earlier part of the Decalogue. An interesting correlation may well exist, especially if it is borne in mind that single words are used in the latter part of the list to refer to violators of a specific commandment, and therefore single words could also be used in the former part to characterize violators of the earlier commandments.
Alfred Plummer adds:
In rehearsing the various kinds of sinners for who law exists, and who are found to be (he hints) among these false teachers, he goes roughly through the Deca-logue. The four commandments of the First Table are indicated in general and comprehensive terms; the first five commandments of the Second Table are taken one by one, flagrant violators being specified in each case.
Let us take a closer look at v. 9 by going backward from Paul’s reference to the 5th commandment at the end of the verse. The first sin category going backward from “murderers of fathers and mothers” is bebh,loij [the profane]. The noun form of “pro-fane” [be,bhloj] is used of persons in the New Testament only twice—here and in Heb. 12:16 (of Esau). The verb form bebhlo,w also is used of persons twice in the New Tes-tament—at Acts 24:6 (of profaning the temple) and at Matt. 12:5 (of profaning the Sab-bath). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that the verb form means “to desecrate,” i.e., to profane that which is holy.
The Septuagint [LXX] uses these words frequently to refer to desecrating or pro-faning the Sabbath (cf., be,bhloj in Neh. 13:17; Isa. 56:2; Eze. 20:13; 22:26; bebhlo,w in Exo. 31:14; Isa. 56:2, 6; Eze. 20:16, 21, 24; 22:8; 23:38). At Isa. 56:2 and 56:6, the LXX uses the verb form in the context of the Sabbath being defiled (v. 2) and kept (v. 4). This is especially instructive since Isaiah’s prophecy concerns the interadvental days of the New Covenant. The word “profane” in these contexts refers to violators of the 4th com-mandment. It is probable that Paul had this use in mind when writing to Timothy. This understanding is supported by the fact that Paul was following the content and order of other commands of the Decalogue (at least the 5th-9th) and that he has reduced these other commands of the Decalogue to single words in a negative form. It is of interest to note that the 4th commandment is considered negatively (“defiling,” “profaning”) in Isa. 56:2, 6 and positively (“keep”) in Isa. 56:4. The Hebrew word “keep” in Isa. 56:4 means to watch or preserve, whereas the Hebrew word for “keep it holy” in Exo. 20:8 means to set apart or consecrate. The opposite of defiling or profaning the Sabbath is keeping or pre-serving the Sabbath. Paul could well have the LXX version of Isa. 56 in mind. Isaiah states the breaking of the 4th commandment in a single word in terms of its violation and the LXX uses the very word Paul does. A similar phenomenon occurs in the LXX version of Eze. 44:23-24. Knight concludes, “Since the keynote of the sabbath is to keep it holy (… Exo. 20:8) and since Paul’s list is in negative terms, the single term [profane], … might well characterize those who profane that day, putting the command negatively in terms of its violation.” These sinners are violating (i.e., profaning) the 4th command-ment of the Decalogue.
This understanding of 1 Tim. 1:9 finds the repetition of the 4th commandment in the New Testament in a most instructive context. First, it comes in a context dealing with the Mosaic Law. Second, it comes in a context that includes other commands of the Decalogue. Third, it comes in a context that follows the content and order of the Deca-logue. Fourth, it comes in a context where other commands of the Decalogue are reduced to single words in terms of their violation. Fifth, it comes in a context applicable to both believers and unbelievers. This answers the objection often brought against the perpetuity of the 4th commandment, which says that since it is not repeated, it is not binding, and the objection which says that it was unique to Israel as God’s Old Covenant nation. If the un-derstanding of this text offered above is correct, then the essence of the 4th commandment is both repeated in the New Testament and binding on all men. This would mean that be-lievers and unbelievers may be indicted as violators of the 4th commandment after the New Covenant has replaced the Old. This also means that the Mosaic Law and the 4th commandment both contain moral law.
The second sin category going backward from “murderers of fathers and mothers” is avnosi,oi [the unholy]. Knight says:
Likewise, those who take the Lord’s name in vain (Ex. 20:7) might well be des-ignated negatively by a single term as those who are “unholy”… This under-standing is strengthened if the language associated with this command has been influenced by the petition of the Lord’s Prayer that the Lord’s name be hallowed or regarded as holy (Mt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2).
These sinners are violating the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue.
The third sin category going backward from “murderers of fathers and mothers” is a`martwloi/ [sinners]. Knight comments:
a`marti,a [sinner] is often used in the NT with the broad meaning “sinner,” as it is in 1 Tim. 1:15, … At times, however, it is used in the NT more specifically of those who fail to keep the Mosaic law, particularly Gentiles, especially because of their idolatry … This usage is found also in Paul in Gal. 2:15 (cf. on idolatry Rom. 2:22). Thus one who violates the prohibition of making and worshipping idols (Ex. 20:4-6) might well be designated a “sinner” in the specific sense (so Ex. 20:5 LXX).
These sinners are violating the 2nd commandment of the Decalogue.
The fourth sin category going backward from “murderers of fathers and mothers” is avsebe,si [the ungodly]. “The first commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:3) prohib-its having other gods and abandoning God as the one and only true God.” The New Testament uses a positive form of the word that Paul uses in 1 Tim. 1:9 (i.e., ungodly) “of those who accepted the ethical monotheism of the OT (see Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7),” though they were not even Christians. In other words, they were not violat-ing the 1st commandment, at least externally, while those in 1 Tim. 1:9, “the ungodly,” were. These sinners are violating the 1st commandment of the Decalogue.
If this analysis is correct, then it seems clear that Paul follows both the content and order of the Decalogue from the 1st through the 9th commandments in this list of sin-ners who are living “contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel.” Knight concludes, and rightly so, “The order of the Decalogue seems, then, to give a satisfactory explanation of Paul’s list from [the ungodly] onward.”
5. Who are the first two types of sinners in Paul’s list, i.e., “the lawless and insubordinate”? It appears that this first pair of terms functions as a general introduction to the more specific and well-known list that follows. “These two terms bring into per-spective those for whom the law is given, namely, those who need its discipline and re-straint in their propensity for lawlessness and disobedience.”
It now becomes obvious that at 1 Tim. 1:8-11, Paul refers to the heart of the law of the Old and New Covenants (cf. Jer. 31:33). He refers to the basic, fundamental law of the Bible. He refers to the law common to believer and unbeliever alike. He refers to the law whose work is written on the hearts of all men by creation (Rom. 2:14-15). He refers to the Decalogue in its function of revealing God-defined, ethical norms for all men (i.e., the Moral Law). Knight’s concluding comments serve us well at this point in our study of this cru-cial text:
Paul has shown how the law may be used lawfully in accordance with its purpose as an ethical guide to warn against sin. He has demonstrated this by presenting a list that shows that the Decalogue is so understood in the OT. He has concluded by stating that this is also the ethical perspective of the truly healthy teaching based on the gospel, so that both it and a proper use of the law concur in terms of their concern for a righteous life and in their teaching against sin. Thus when the law is rightly applied as an ethical restraint against sin, it is in full accordance with the ethical norm given in the gospel as the standard for the redeemed life. A different use of the law, for example, in a mythological or genealogical applica-tion to the righteous, is thereby shown to be out of accord with the law’s given purpose and the gospel and its teaching.
6. Why does Paul not refer to the 10th commandment here? He does so in Rom. 13:9 in a context clearly applying to Christians and in 1 Cor. 6:10 in a context clearly applying to non-Christians. Alford offers the following explanation:
It is remarkable that he does not refer to that very commandment by which the law wrought on himself when he was alive without the law and sin was dead in him, viz. the tenth. Possibly this may be on account of its more spiritual nature, as he here wishes to bring out the grosser kinds of sin against which the moral law is pointedly enacted. The subsequent clause however seems as if he had it in his mind, and on that account added a concluding general and inclusive descrip-tion.
As Paul says, all legitimate commandments for Christians, including the commands of the Decalogue, can be summed up in the commandment to love. “He who loves another has fulfilled the law [anarthrous use of no,moj] . . . and if there is any other command-ment, [they] are all summed up in this saying, You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-10).
1 Tim. 1:8-11 is a vital text in the whole question surrounding the utility of the Decalogue. According to the exposition of this text, both Christians and non-Christians are held to the ethical standard that is reflected in the Decalogue. The utility of the Deca-logue transcends the Old Covenant. Paul assumes that the Decalogue contains the basic, fundamental law or body of ethical divinity applicable to all men. In Paul’s thought, the Decalogue has more usefulness than a temporary law governing the life of Israel under the Old Covenant. Indeed, the essence of the Decalogue is transcovenantal. This point is supported by considering that Paul was writing to Timothy, who was ministering in Asia Minor (Ephesus), where Jews and Gentiles lived after the Old Covenant had been abol-ished and replaced by the New Covenant. 1 Tim. 1:8-11 is one New Testament text which assumes the abiding validity of the Decalogue (as a unit) outside of the Old Covenant.
The goal of this essay was to assess 1 Tim. 1:8-11 in light of George W. Knight, III’s seminal work. The attempt has been made to build on his work and to show that his basic thesis stands, i.e., that Paul’s list of sinners reflects both the content and order of the Decalogue from the 1st through the 9th commandments.
This text functions as an ethical manifesto of Paul’s view of the utility of the De-calogue in Christian ethics. This interpretation is reflected in the Reformed view of the utility of the Decalogue as articulated by The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), which reads:
The moral law [Decalogue in context] doth for ever bind all, as well justified per-sons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation (19:5).
It is hoped that this essay will not only contribute to the literature on 1 Tim. 1:8-11, but be blessed of God to call Christians back to the ethical paths of many of our theo-logical forebears. Kalo.j o` no,moj [the law is good]. Soli Deo gloria!
* Pastor Barcellos included numerous helpful footnotes with this article. Some of them can be seen in a partial version of this article that is published here.
Want to read some excellent books on Covenant Theology? --- For a great easy-to-understand introduction, I recommend A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon. --- For a terrific, detailed, exegetical look at Covenant Theology, I highly recommend The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man by Herman Witsius.
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.