I'd like to speak this evening
on the subject, Using the Law Lawfully. I remember reading
a long time ago, some old theologian said that it's in the rightly
dividing of the law that one takes their final exam in the
theology of the scripture and of God. For it is sometimes a
complicated thing for us to understand. But, first 11 verses, And our
subject, using the law lawfully. Many entanglements about the
law in our society and in Christendom today. But let's look at the
text and you'll see that in verse 8. We'll read the first 11 verses.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God, our
Savior, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope, unto Timothy,
mine own son in the faith, grace, mercy, peace from God, our Father,
and Jesus Christ, our Lord. And I besought thee to abide
still in Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest
charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give
heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather
than godly edifying, which is in faith, so do. Now, the end
of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart and of good
conscience and of faith unfeigned, from which some, having swerved
aside, have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be
teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof
they affirm. But we know that the law is good
if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made
for a righteous man, but for the lawless disobedient, for
the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers
of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers,
for them that defy themselves with mankind, for men-stealers,
for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine according to the glorious gospel
of the blessed God which was committed unto my trust. Let's look at a couple of things
before we dive in. He said in verse six and verse
seven, from which some have swerved, having turned aside into vain
jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither
what they say nor whereof they affirm. On the other hand, the
law is good if a man use it lawfully. Now we have landed in our journey
upon one of those books that are called pastorial epistle. There are three of them, as you
know, in the New Testament, two to Timothy and one under Titus. And these men were close and
intimate associates and fellow workers with the Apostle Paul,
and he had left them in certain places that they might carry
on the work that God had begun through him in that place. And
he left them that they might stand upon sound doctrine, appoint
those leaders in the church that were qualified, and such like. And now Paul is writing back
to them, or at least writing back unto Timothy, and giving
him instruction that they stop the mouth of the heretic, that
they overcome the doctrines of heresy, that are brought among
them and such things. But to hurry on to our text today,
I think that in verse 5, we might find our first difficulty with
this passage, and it concerns the meaning of the word commandment. Now, the end of the commandment. But when we look, we see that
it is not the same word as, for example, Paul used in Romans
chapter 7, and there, in verse 8 through verse 13. referring
unto the law, or the injunction, or the precept, or the authoritative
prescription that God has given. But the word in 1 Timothy chapter
1 and verse 5, if I mistake not, means a charge, a mandate. It means to enjoin the word down,
and it is rendered charge again in the 18th verse of this first
chapter. Now, this word is five times
in the New Testament, none of them referring to the moral law
unless we find an exception here in 1 Timothy chapter 1 and verse
5. In Acts chapter 5 and 28, it
is rendered command, that is, when the officer said to the
apostle, did we not straightly command you that you should not
do this any longer? In Acts 16, And 24, it is used
of the jailer at Philippi having received such a charge. 1 Thessalonians 4 and verse 2. You know what commandment we
gave, that is, what charge it is that we left upon you. And
then the way that the word is used here in 1 Timothy chapter
1 verse 5, verse 18. This word is shown by the five
scriptures that we have just cited is strictly used of a charge
or of a command that is transmitted from a superior, that would be
Paul, unto a subordinate, and that would be Of course, Timothy
and Titus. Thus it refers to Paul's charge
that he laid upon Timothy to stand against the false gospel
and doctrine that so many were trying to bring among them. even
in this early time in the work. And it is intended, this goal
is intended to serve under Timothy, is one of charity and of love
and a pure heart, a good conscience, faith unfeigned, as we read earlier
in the passage of scripture. Coming here to verse 6 and verse
7, Timothy, mentor, and spiritual father, the apostle Paul, describes
the person and their eras as we read in verse 6 and verse
7. They have swerved aside from
the way that is right unto vain jingling, but they desire at
the same time to be teachers and instructors and professors
of the law, but they understand not what they're saying or the
things that they are affirming. And so that is the problem that
Paul would have Timothy to understand concerning the law. Missing aim,
they turned aside to nothing. missing the aim and driven off
of the course. They knew not what they were
saying. They were not teaching soundness and teaching truth.
And I think what a pitiful, pathetic picture does Paul paint of them
here in this play, for desiring to be teachers of the law, but
unqualified to the last degree and in every part. But as Paul
said, They were in way over their head when they assumed under
themselves to be the teacher or the professor or the explainer
of the law, passing themselves off as they did. as able instructors
of the law, competent as if they are to be heard and to be obeyed. But as Paul said, they knew not
what they said nor understood their very own teaching. Now,
coming to the verse that is our text, our main text of the evening,
it is possible there that law teachers were crying up the law
against the gospel. It is very possible, perhaps
likely, that some had come and they were pitting the law, bringing
it to bear upon the people and against or in opposition unto
the gospel that Paul had delivered unto them. And that would be
the gospel of the free grace of God. By grace are you saved. And this is why Paul had such
harsh words for them as he writes unto Timothy. They know not how
to correlate the law and the gospel. They know not how to
bring them into harmony. They know not how to juxtapose
them or to contrast them one from another. Then again, Paul
here, having mentioned those ignorant of the nature and the
function of the law, and their false assertion based upon their
ignorance, will now make himself very clear. And his argument
with them and criticism of them is not against the law per se. His argument or criticism is
not of the law as it stands, but it is against their unlawful
use and application of the law, having been critical of some
law teachers He does not mean for them to understand that the
law is worthless. He does not mean for them to
understand that the law is bad. He would not leave them with
the impression nor leave them an occasion that they might accuse
him as being against the law and antinomian. So he closes
any occasion that an objector might raise against him as a
railer against the law of God, so that they could not truly
say, though they might falsely say it and put the word out,
Paul is antinomian. Paul is against the law. Paul is without law. Paul has
done away with the law. And the apostle discussing what
ignorant men, therefore, might make out of his words in verse
7, who falsely lead to the conclusion that they might draw, telling
everybody that Paul is against the law. I read the footnote
in the New Geneva Study Bible, King James Version, on verse
8 through 11, and it says this, Paul's comments about the false
teachers lead him into a digression on the purpose of the law, unquote. allows him the occasion to digress
and set forth the true use and purpose of the law. Now the first
thing that he said, verse 8, And in Romans 7, 12, Paul said
that the law is holy, it is just, it is good, even though It worked death in him, and even
though it stirs up motions of sin in some who hear it, Romans
7 and verse 5. It reveals sin, Galatians 3 and
verse 20, Romans 3 and verse 20, and it works death in those
who are under the power of the law. It curses, Galatians chapter
3 and verse 10, It works wrath, Romans 4 and verse 15. Yet Paul in this agrees with
the law teachers. The law is good. It is not evil. It is not bad. It is not unjust. But then Paul adds, A qualifying
phrase in the 8th verse I'll take. The law is good if a man
use it lawfully. If anyone uses it lawfully and
in a lawful manner. If it is used according to its
true nature. According to its true purpose
in the proper way the law indeed is good Linsky wrote the proof
of its quality lies in its proper use Unquote to use it lawfully
now these few words if a man use it Lawfully and our text
and our focal point, but we must give some attention I think to
verse 9 and verse 10 as well and especially the contrast verse
9 knowing this we know as knowing this that the law is not made
and the word made meaning I think laid down or exacted or established
not made for a righteous man but it is made in It is laid
down, it is enacted for the lawless and the disobedient, of which
he gives several examples of that class of lawless and disobedient. Notice what he said, impious
ones, sinners, unholy, profane, killers of fathers and of mothers,
homosexual, whoremongers, pervert, kidnappers, liars, perjurers,
and all other things contrary unto that sound doctrine and
against the gospel of Christ. So what does Paul mean here by
a righteous man? Now this is obviously a contrast
with the lawless and the disobedient. It is made for the lawless and
the disobedient, not for a righteous man. The righteous man does not
mean a perfect man, however, or a man without sin, for there
are none. But the justified one, having
the imputed righteousness of Christ and the worshipers of
God, according to the gospel of the grace of God. For such
a one is free from the law, under grace. This really worries some
religionists today to no end that Christians are freed from
the law yet it's righteousness is fulfilled in them and they
stand justified in the sight of God. I think this agrees with
Galatians chapter 3 in verse 19 where Paul asked, why was
the law given? It was added because of transgression. Now, the righteous man is the
one that God acquits by a forensic act of personal justification
by the vicarious death and atonement made by the Lord and Savior,
Jesus Christ, who bore away their sin so that they are forgiven. but then to come even closer
under our tech and the lawful and the unlawful use of the law. Or we might say the right and
the wrong use of the law. The law is good if a man use
it lawfully. Now this word lawfully is only
twice in the New Testament. as I traced it out and did some
research, both in the epistle unto Timothy. It's again in 2
Timothy 2 and verse 5. If anyone strives or contends
or wrestles in the game, for the mastery to try to win a crown
or a prize. He is not crowned, says Paul,
except he strived, except he do it lawfully. He must contend
lawfully in order to receive the crown. But now the question,
number one, What way is the law used unlawfully? How does one
use it unlawfully? And then secondly, what is the
lawful or right use of the law? First, how can it be used unlawfully? That statement may ring in our
mind. Use it lawfully, if the law is
used lawfully, contrary to what is right, in a wrong way and
to a wrong purpose. Because if a teacher does not
do this, as Patrick Fairbairn said in his commentary on Timothy,
quote, he cannot possibly handle the law rightly, We say, as did
Paul, it is an unlawful use of the law to make it an instrument
of justification. That is a wrong use of the law. In such cases, it is not used
lawfully if it is put in for justification. This is not the
purpose or the function of the law to justify a sinner. It cannot be the source of his
justification. Yet how many multitudes they
are, then and now, who are repeating the fatal mistake of the carnal
Jew in seeking to be justified by the observance and by the
deed and by the works of the law. They are led to believe
that they will both please God and save their soul if they do
the works and the deeds of the law. Still, the law is used unlawfully
when one seeks justification from its hand or by its mean. This scripture is very clear. Romans 3, verse 20. By the deeds
of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in the sight of
God, for by the law is the knowledge You have it again in Romans chapter
3 and verse 28. We conclude that a man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law. Even self-righteous
Saul of Tarshish met death at the hands of the law. You find
that in Romans 7 through 13, that great passage wherein Paul
describes his encounter with the law. He thought himself perfect. He thought himself blameless
until he found out that the law forbids even the thoughts and
the intent and the motive of the heart. Galatians 3.11, but
that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident. Why? Because the scripture said,
the just shall live by faith. A man named Abraham Booth wrote,
in the 17th century. Quote, as many as are of the
works of the law are what? Are they blessed? Are they accepted? Are they forgiven? Are they saved? Nay. On the contrary, they are
under its curse. They are condemned. They are
in bondage on the sin unquote. Galatians 3 and verse 10. For as many as are of the works
of the law are under the curse for the simple reason that the
law curses all who fail to keep its every precept in its entirety. It is no surprise to hear that
open and vile sinners, such as those described here, are under
the curse of the law. But it startles many to hear
that those who sincerely desire attempt to perform the commands
of the law are also cursed alike with those great sinners. And
that any attempt to gain acceptance with God by the law is an unlawful
use of the law of God. What's more, The mixing of the
law with the gospel. Here's another cardinal sin of
so many, mangling legal hope with free grace, which is done
over and over. It is an unlawful use of the
law indeed. It is not a supplement unto grace,
or rather grace is not a supplement unto the law. What we lack in
the law grace makes up for is the attention of so many in our
day. It is not that grace finishes
what the law started or that grace gives what we do not give
unto the law. Furthermore, the law is used
unlawfully when Christians are bound or bind themselves to a
strict legalism such as touch not, taste not, handle not, as
many have done. When legalist teachers bind the
conscience to the law instead of to the grace of God in the
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This has the sad tendency of
making sin where there is no sin and accusing where there
is none, and worse, binding the conscience of that individual
unto legalism. Let's take another look at Paul's
words in 1 Timothy 1 and verse 9. Knowing this, that is, knowing
assuredly as a statement of fact, And it goes with what we've read
in verse 8. The law is good, and to use it
lawfully, one must acknowledge the first part of verse 9. Knowing
this, that the law is not made, is not laid down for a righteous
man, it is not enacted for a righteous man. John Gill says that the
words, for a just man laid down, can be rendered this way, quote,
The law does not lie upon a righteous man, unquote. It does not lie
or wait as a burden, a weight, and a curse upon him. The penalty does not lie against
a righteous man, but upon the disobedient and the rebellious
and all of those that are named here in verse 9 and in verse
10. Before we knew Christ, many of
us probably had the idea, well, if I keep the Ten Commandments,
if I obey the Golden Rule, that's kind of how a lot of people think
about it, I'll be all right. I'm a good neighbor. I'm honest.
I pay my bill. What is this but to expect salvation
upon the merit of their own works, which are putrid in the sight
of God? When Paul said, it was added
because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom
the promise was made. And so that the law came in between
the promise and between the fulfillment of it in the Lord and Savior,
Jesus Christ. Upon promise, not upon the law,
was it given unto Abraham. The promise was not resting upon
the law, it was a promise and the covenant stood not upon the
law but upon the very promises of God as Paul so well explains
there in the third chapter of that great and wonderful book
of Galatians. But the law was made subservient,
if I may use that word, unto the law, particularly in the
case and the situation of the Jew. It came later, after the
covenant and the promise with Abraham. And it acted upon the
Jew as what Paul calls a stern pedagogue, or a child trainer,
as he explains in Galatians chapter 4, 1 through 7. And it shut them
up unto faith, which should afterward be revealed. So that the law
was for some time a schoolmaster unto the Jew. That it might herd
them, that it might hold them, that it might bring them along
unto Christ in order that they might be justified by faith. Galatians 3 and verse 24. Now
in keeping with the image here of the law as a pedagogue or
a child trainer, the child under tutors and under governors is
released from such oversight at the time appointed by the
father. when he leaves his non-age and
reaches adulthood. This, for the Jew, was a right
understanding and using of the law. Well, then you might say
to me, what are Paul saying? I, through the law, am dead to
the law. Galatians 2 and verse 19. But
he goes on to say, by the law, I died unto the law. That gets rather complicated
as we move along in it. But let's make some application
in the closing. Ignorance of the law almost always
reflects in ignorance of the gospel. It just seems that those
things stand together, that both are perverted. For the law is
robbed of its curse and the gospel of its free grace when they're
mixed together in the wrong way. Can we not also say the gospel
must be used lawfully and used spiritually and not perverted
under hagworks and and half merit and half law and deed and such
like. The scripture must be used lawfully
as well. The scripture must be used spiritually
and they must be rightly divided in order that they are used well
and have the benefit intended under the people of God as they
live in this world. Well, yes, the law is good if
a man use it lawfully.