Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

brill.com/hbth

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the

Commandments: The Law in 1 Tim 1:8-11
and Rom 6-8
Dillon T. Thornton
Department of Theology and Religion, University of Otago,
po Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
dillont83@gmail.com

Abstract

For some, 1 Timothy contains essentially non-Pauline comments concerning the Mosaic
law. My general contention is that the concentrated assertions regarding the law that we
find in 1 Timothy are compatible with the scattered claims about the law that we find in
the undisputed Pauline letters. In this paper, I aim to demonstrate that the author of
1 Tim 1:8-11 and the author of Rom 6-8 are harmonious on at least three points: 1) the
goodness of the law, 2) the group for whom the law was instituted, and 3) the function
of the law within this intended group. From the outset, the author of 1 Tim 1:8-11 will
project his voice. Romans 6-8 will be a crescendo passage, gradually increasing in vol-
ume. By the end of the paper, we will discover that “Paul” and Paul are playing the same
torah tune.

Keywords

Law – Pastoral Epistles – Paul – Romans – Torah – 1 Timothy

Introduction

Many scholars argue, some rather ardently, that 1 Tim 1:8-11 contains essentially
non-Pauline comments concerning the law. Heikki Räisänen, for example,
writes: “There are no signs in the Pastorals of Paul’s view that the law convicts
humanity of sin, let alone of the views that it leads to sin or that it cannot be
fulfilled. Nor do we hear of any history-of-salvation role reserved for the law in

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/18712207-12341280

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 143

God’s plan.”1 J.M. Bassler adds: “The author [of 1 Timothy] presents as the only
legitimate use of the law its application as a moral restraint on the lawless. This
is far from Paul’s view (e.g., Rom 2:12-16; 3:20-31; 8:1-8; Gal 3:19-24) and the author
does not develop it carefully.”2 My general contention is that the concentrated
assertions regarding the law that we find in 1 Timothy are quite compatible
with the scattered claims about the law that we find in the undisputed Pauline
corpus. In this paper, I aim to demonstrate that the Paul3 of 1 Tim 1:8-11 and
the Paul of Rom 6-84 are in agreement on at least three points: 1) the goodness
of the law, 2) the group for whom the law was instituted, and 3) the function of
the law within this intended group. From the outset, the notes of 1 Tim 1:8-11
will be loud and (hopefully) clear. Romans 6-8 will be a crescendo passage,
gradually increasing in volume. By the end of the paper, we will discover that
“Paul” and Paul are playing the same torah tune.

1 The Law is Good, if . . . (1 Tim 1:8)

We should begin by noting that Paul discusses the law in 1 Timothy only
because his opponents were using the law. Paul indicates in 1 Tim 1:7 that, irre-
spective of their ignorance, the opponents clamor for a chair in the Mosaic
law (θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι). Paul’s comments in 1 Tim 1:8-11, therefore,
are reactionary, so we should expect him to be selective. There is no reason
to think that Paul intends in this pericope to provide his readers with a com-
prehensive account of the use of the law. Thus, Bassler errs in saying that “the

1  Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 206.
2  J.M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (antc; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 41, emphasis
added. For further objections to the author’s understanding of the law, see Martin Dibelius
and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972)
22; J.L. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles (pntc; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976) 53-54;
Frances Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994) 25-28; Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2009) 587.
3  Though the goal of this paper is to demonstrate some of the consistencies between the dis-
puted and the undisputed Paul, I will not at this time venture all the way onto the authorship
battlefield. Here, I simply refer to the author of 1 Timothy as “Paul” because this is what the
text claims.
4  It is not possible to engage the entire undisputed corpus in a single paper. I have opted to
compare 1 Tim 1:8-11 with Rom 6-8 because: 1) there is an obvious lexical link (σύμφημι τῷ
νόμῳ ὅτι καλός, Rom 7:16; Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι καλὸς ὁ νόμος, 1 Tim 1:8), and 2) both passages refer to
the Decalogue (Rom 7:7-8; 1 Tim 1:9b-10).

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

144 Thornton

author presents as the only legitimate use of the law its application as a moral
restraint on the lawless.”5 I suggest that 1 Tim 1:8-11 furnishes us with a prime
example of the opposition determining (at least partly) Paul’s phraseology.6
One of the points of contention in Ephesus appears to have been: for whom
was the Mosaic law given? Therefore, Paul’s argument centers on this question.
The pericope begins with a sharp contrast: the opponents are ignorant
of their subject matter (1:7: θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι, μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ
λέγουσιν μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται), but Paul and Timothy have accurately
grasped the content of contention (Οἴδαμεν). The verb οἶδα occurs over ninety
times in the Pauline corpus. Paul often combines the first-person plural perfect
form with ὅτι (undisputed: Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22, 28; 1 Cor 8:1, 4; 2 Cor 5:1;
disputed: 1 Tim 1:8). The general force of the formula is to indicate interpre-
tive agreement: the writer and the recipients concur (generally speaking) with
respect to a certain subject. Here, the subject of agreement is the law, and Paul
affirms that the common Christian understanding is that the law is good and
should be used properly. The formula does not signify that the insight would
have been fully understood by every reader in Ephesus,7 but it does clarify the
fact that the opponents are outside the mainstream. Two issues need to be
explored further. What is the precise referent of νόμος? What exactly does Paul
mean by καλός?

5  Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 41, emphasis added.

6  Contra C.J.A. Hickling, “Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church
History?,” znw 66 (1975) 284-287. Hickling claims that the Pauline epistles should not be read
as if Paul’s opponents dictated his subjects and phraseology: the interpreter must not assume
that each word Paul uses in a polemical piece has been plucked from the jargon of the oppo-
nents. Hickling severely limits the legitimate lexical hints that help identify opponents, and
concludes: “It may be, then, that we must be content to remain largely in ignorance of the
doctrinal position or tendencies of Paul’s rivals” (287). While many of Hickling’s warnings are
warranted, he appears to go a bit too far when he claims that opponents do not dictate Paul’s
subjects or themes. If we are dealing with situational documents, and if the situation of a
Christian community clearly involved opposition, then it is right to presume that the content
of the epistle would have been at least partially determined by the turmoil in the community.
It may not be legitimate to think that Paul often employed the precise language of his oppo-
nents. However, it is perfectly reasonable, knowing what we do about Paul and his calling, to
conclude that he would not allow opponents in the Christian community to go unaddressed.
At least some themes of the letter must be understood as a response to the opponents.
7  I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (icc; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) 364, along with
seeing the formula as an appeal to authoritative tradition, allows for it to be used as a means
of teaching by giving the benefit of the doubt. In this latter case, the English equivalent
would be something like, “We agree on this interpretation, do we not?”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 145

First, what is the meaning of νόμος in 1:8? In the undisputed Pauline let-
ters, νόμος is used most often and most basically of the Mosaic law.8 Since this
entire section (1 Tim 1:8-11) is a response to the opponents, who likely used
parts of the Pentateuch as a source for their deviant doctrine and extreme
practices (e.g., 1 Tim 1:3-7; 4:1-5), there is no good reason to reject the notion
that these, the only two occurrences of νόμος in the pe, are references to the
law of Moses.9 More specifically, the Sinaitic legislation—the sum of divine
requirements given to Israel through Moses—is likely the precise referent of
νόμος.10 When Paul argues in v. 9a that the law is not for the righteous, he can-
not mean the Pentateuch or the ot as Holy Scripture, since in the same letter
he calls for devotion to the public reading of Scripture (4:13) and he finds gen-
eral principles from the ot that are still relevant for the Christian community
(e.g., the use of Deut 25:4 in 1 Tim 5:18).
Second, what exactly does Paul mean when he says that the Mosaic law is
good (καλὸς ὁ νόμος)? Similar affirmations are found in Romans: “So the law
is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (ὥστε ὁ μὲν νόμος
ἅγιος καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή, 7:12), and “I agree that the law is
good” (σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι καλός, 7:16). To say here in 1 Tim 1:8 that the law
is “good” is to put it in the same category as Paul and Timothy’s “fight” (e.g.,
1 Tim 1:18; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7) and the believer’s “deeds” (e.g., 1 Tim 5:10, 25; 6:18;
Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14), which are deemed “good” because of affiliation with God
himself. The battle Paul and Timothy fight is a “good” battle because God is the

8  See, for example, the discussions of Douglas J. Moo, “ ‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and
Legalism in Paul,” wtj 45 (1983) 80; Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A
Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) 39; James D.G. Dunn, “Paul and
the Torah: The Role and Function of the Law in the Theology of Paul the Apostle,” in The
New Perspective on Paul, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008) 447-467: “By
nomos Paul almost always means the law per se, Israel’s Torah. But the reference can be
narrow, to a particular commandment; or it can be broader—to scripture at large, or the
will and wisdom of God expressed through scripture” (460-461, emphasis original).
9  With the majority of commentators, including Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe.
Erste Folge. Kommentar zum Ersten Timotheusbrief (htknt; Freiburg: Herder, 1994) 24;
Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 375; Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First
and Second Letters to Timothy (ecc; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000) 92. Neil
J. McEleney, “The Vice-Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” cbq 36 (1974) 204n7 states: “Both
context and content of the vice list show that here not law in general but the Mosaic Law
is meant.”
10  Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004) 297, concludes: “Paul sometimes uses ‘law’
(νόμος) to mean the Old Testament Scriptures, or more specifically the Pentateuch. But
according to his most frequent usage, ‘law’ refers to the Sinaitic legislation.”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

146 Thornton

one who has enlisted them; thus, they struggle for God’s purposes. Likewise,
“good” works flow only from the one whom God has inwardly transformed.
The regenerate community has been rendered capable of pleasing God with
their works (see especially 1 Tim 1:5; Titus 2:14; 3:8).11 But 1:8 is unique in that
the affirmation of “goodness” is accompanied by a conditional clause (ἐάν τις
αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται). Because of this, we may conclude that the emphasis here
is not precisely the same as in Rom 7:12, for there the point seems to be that the
law is inherently good due to its divine origin.12 This is not to say that 1 Timothy
denies the point made in Romans. Paul affirms in 1 Tim 4:4 that every creation
of God, which would certainly include the law, is good. But it is to say that here
in 1:8 the stress falls on the conditional statement: “goodness,” in this instance,
is directly related to the application of the law.13
The law, Paul contends, is good “if one uses it lawfully” (ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως
χρῆται). The use of ἐάν with the subjunctive mood (χρῆται) can be classified as
a third class condition, otherwise known as a present general condition. The
clause simply sets a logical limit on how the law is good: “it is good, provided
that . . . ” The verb χράομαι occurs in the Pauline corpus only in the letters to the
Corinthians and in the first letter to Timothy (1 Cor 7:21, 31; 9:12, 15; 2 Cor 1:17;
3:12; 13:10; 1 Tim 1:8; 5:23). The verb means “to employ” or “to make use.”14 Crucial
for Paul is the “lawful” (νομίμως) use of the law (νόμος). The adverb νομίμως
occurs only once in the lxx (4 Macc 6:18)15 and once more in the nt. In 2 Tim
2:5 the term is used of an athlete who competes according to the regulations
of the contest (ὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις, οὐ στεφανοῦται ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ). Here
in 1:8, then, the word refers to application of the law that is in accordance with

11  This is consistent with the undisputed Paul’s comments. He claims in Rom 8:8, for exam-
ple: “and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God” (οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ
ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται). Of course, this does not mean that regenerate man always pleases
God, but it does mean that the one who is in Christ (Rom 6:11-14) or in the Spirit (Rom
8:9-13) is able to please the Father.
12  See Brendan Byrne, S.J., Romans (sp; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996) 220; Douglas J.
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (nicnt; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996) 440-
441; Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 453.
13  With Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 375; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second
Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ab; New York:
Doubleday, 2001) 167.
14  bdag, s.v. χράομαι.
15  Eleazor cries out: “For it would be irrational if having lived in accordance with truth up to
old age, and having rightly (νομίμως) guarded the reputation of such a life, we should now
change our course . . . ”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 147

the purposes of the divine lawgiver.16 Why the law was given and for whom it
was given indicate the “lawful” use. Paul goes on to show that the opponents
have not heeded the divine directions; therefore, they are guilty of a criminal
use of the law.
We need now to ponder briefly the Pauline development: from “the law is
good” (Rom 7:12, 16) to “the law is good, if . . . ” (1 Tim 1:8). In my view, the hostile
context best accounts for the shift to the conditional statement. Nothing in
1 Timothy leads us to think that the opponents were antinomians, arguing for
emancipation from the law. Quite to the contrary, the opponents were vehe-
mently concerned with the proclamation of their competing doctrine, for
which they found support in the law (1 Tim 1:3-7). Thus, καλὸς ὁ νόμος prob-
ably is not an assertion with which the opponents would have taken issue. The
problem was not with the opponents’ view of the law, but with their handling
of it. It is justifiable to say that in 1 Timothy Paul implicitly affirms the inherent
goodness of the law by declaring that all of creation is good (1 Tim 4:4). But this
is not the explicit emphasis of 1 Tim 1:8. Like the rest of God’s good creation,
Scripture can be squandered. Such squandering does not in any way alter the
inherent goodness of the law, which Paul clearly affirms in Rom 7. But since
the opponents in Ephesus endorsed the law, Paul needed to restate his asser-
tion from Romans, not denying or contradicting anything he said previously,17
but now placing the emphasis on the goodness of the law as it is rightly inter-
preted and applied.18 When Paul calls the law “good” in 1 Tim 1:8, he has in mind
the good results that come only when the law is used as God intends. Thus, I
conclude that the Paul of 1 Timothy and the undisputed Paul are in general
agreement with respect to the goodness of the law.

16  Stephen Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1.3-11),” st 36 (1982) 82, suggests
we might render νομίμως “in line with its intended purpose.”
17  Contra A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (ncb; London: Marshall Pickering, 1982) 58-59,
who claims that the qualification is a divergence from the authentic Paul; also Räisänen,
Paul and the Law, 206, who suggests that in 1 Tim 1:8 “the view of the character of the law
is quite different.”
18  Stanley E. Porter, “Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They Opposing?,”
in Paul and His Opponents (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 149-168, concludes that the level of conflict
Paul had with antagonists in Rome was much less than in other cities. It is perhaps for this
reason that his unqualified affirmation of the law was sufficient in Romans. In 1 Timothy,
the qualification was probably necessary because of the level of hostility and the type of
disagreement.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

148 Thornton

2 The Law is Not for the Righteous (1 Tim 1:9a)

The participial phrase εἰδὼς τοῦτο qualifies the indefinite pronoun in v. 8 and
introduces the legitimate use of the law Paul here has in mind. The way to use
the law properly is by knowing that it was “not given for the righteous” (δικαίῳ
νόμος οὐ κεῖται). The undisputed Paul uses the verb κεῖμαι four times (1 Cor 3:11;
2 Cor 3:15; Phil 1:16; 1 Thess 3:3). It has as its most basic meaning “to lie” or “to be
laid”19 (Homer, Od. 11.557) but later came to mean “to be situated” (Herodotus,
Persian War 5.49). The verb can also be used specifically for the establishment
of laws (Aristophanes, Plut. 914; Euripides, Hec. 292; Xenophon, Mem. 4.4.21).20
Paul employs the verb with the most basic meaning in 1 Cor 3:11—“no one can
lay a foundation other than that which is laid (κεῖμαι), which is Jesus Christ”—
and in 2 Cor 3:15—“a veil lies (κεῖμαι) over their hearts.” But since here in 1 Tim
1:9a the term is linked with the “law” it likely refers to institution. δικαίῳ is best
classified as a dative of interest. According to Paul, the Mosaic law was not
instituted in the interest of the δίκαιος. But who exactly is the δίκαιος?
The term δίκαιος occurs frequently in the Pauline letters (undisputed: Rom
1:17; 2:13; 3:10, 26; 5:7, 19; 7:12; Gal 3:11; Phil 1:7; 4:8; disputed: Eph 6:1; Col 4:1;
2 Thess 1:5; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 4:8; Titus 1:8). The usage of δίκαιος and its cognates
elsewhere in the pe suggests that one’s way of living rather than one’s standing
before God is intended in 1:9 (δικαιοσύνη is a virtue among others in 1 Tim 6:11;
2 Tim 2:22). Paul does not appear to use the term here with the pregnant theo-
logical sense it often bears; the general meaning, then, is “righteous,” “upright,”
or “innocent.”21 But we can venture a bit further and say that, though justifi-
cation by faith is not directly in view here, Paul has in mind “the Christian as
right-living person.”22 This is made clear by the close of the vice list in vv. 10-11.
The law is not given for the δίκαιος (v. 9a), but the law is given for those who
oppose the healthy doctrine, which is “in accordance with the gospel” (κατὰ
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, v. 11). Therefore, δίκαιος, in this context, must allude to the sort
of living that is in accordance with the gospel. Paul’s assertion in v. 9a seems

19  See H. Hübner, ednt, s.v. κεῖμαι.

20  Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 168, is quite informative with respect to
semantic development.
21  bdag, s.v. δίκαιος. See also Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach
(Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 1994) 233; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 377. Compare
tlnt, s.v. δίκαιος; Ceslas Spicq, Saint Paul, Les Épitres Pastorales (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda,
1969) 1:332.
22  Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1.3-11),” 84, emphasis original. See also
Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles (icc; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924) 11, who says that the
righteous person is the one in whom the love of God has been created.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 149

to be that the Mosaic law (the Sinaitic legislation) was not instituted for the
one who has been transferred from the realm of sin and now lives in the realm
of righteousness.
This assertion is congruous with the teaching of Paul contained in his undis-
puted letters, as even an abridged rehearsal of the relevant points from Rom
6-8 will reveal.23 In Rom 6:17, Paul thanks God that, though his readers once
were “slaves to sin,” they have now “become obedient from the heart” (χάρις
δὲ τῷ θεῷ ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας). Paul’s language
echoes Jer 24 and Ezek 36. The prophets predicted that after God’s people
experienced punishment for their rebellion, God would restore them by giving
them “a new heart” (Jer 24:7 lxx: καὶ δώσω αὐτοῖς καρδίαν τοῦ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς ἐμὲ;
Ezek 36:26 lxx: καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν καρδίαν καινὴν καὶ πνεῦμα καινὸν δώσω ἐν ὑμῖν).
Prophetic texts view Israel’s recalcitrance as so deeply rooted that only a divine
transformation of Israel’s heart could render the people obedient.24 In Rom
6:15-23, then, Paul is most likely arguing that the era of restoration spoken of
by the prophets—the period in which the divine heart transplant becomes a
reality—had begun with the death and resurrection of Christ.
Paul goes on to say that the “holy,” “righteous,” and “good” law (Rom 7:12)
provides a clear definition of sin (Rom 7:7). But sin uses the law to seize the
self and lead it to do precisely what the law forbids (Rom 7:8).25 Mark Seifrid
probably has the right solution for the age-old dilemma of Rom 7:7-25: “The
usual question put to the text, whether it reflects the preconversion or post-
conversion Paul, misses the decisive element of Paul’s use of ἐγώ. He here
portrays himself according to the pattern found in early Jewish penitential
prayer and confession, from the limited perspective of his intrinsic soterio-
logical resources.”26 The point of the passage seems to be to locate evil in the
ἐγώ: radically sinful humanity is incapable of satisfying the law’s demand and

23  In this rehearsal I follow the lead of Thielman, Paul and the Law, 194-202; idem, From
Solution to Plight: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians
and Romans (NovTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 101-111.
24  See Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 420.
25  Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1975) 144, says of Rom 7:7ff.: “It is not the law itself, therefore, which is sin. But sin avails
itself of the law as its starting point, that is to say, sin—here thought of as a personified
power—gets its opportunity through the law. For the law forbids sin. Consequently, when
the law comes on man with its prohibition, sin springs into action and awakens in man the
desire for what is forbidden by the commandment ” (emphasis added).
26  Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline
Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 233.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

150 Thornton

therefore inescapably under the sentence of death.27 The law does not hold the
solution to human plight; it is the stimulus to sinful desires (Rom 7:7-8). Thus,
without compromising his affirmation of the goodness of the law, Paul can
maintain that death to the law through identification with Christ is entirely
necessary (καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Rom 7:4).
In using the language of release, the apostle is not merely affirming that
believers in Christ Jesus are free from the curse of the law, nor is he simply
saying that Christians are liberated from the obligation to observe ritual
demands. Paul contends that the Mosaic law has ceased to exercise authority
over believers and theirs is a whole new way of life and mode of service.28
This theme is further developed in Rom 8:1-11. Paul affirms that God has
done for believers what the law could not do (Rom 8:3). Those who are in
Christ Jesus have been removed from the sphere where the law, sin, and death
hold sway. Believers, having been restored by grace to a right relationship with
God and granted the gift of the Spirit to empower their living, express the real-
ity of their new life in suitable behavior (Rom 8:8-9).29 In sum, the believer
is now a “slave of righteousness” (Rom 6:18) who “serves in the new way of
the Spirit” (Rom 7:6) and is “obedient from the heart” (Rom 6:17). Thus, I con-
clude that when Paul states in 1 Tim 1:9a that the Mosaic law is not meant for
believers—those who have been transferred from the realm where the law, sin,
and death exercise dominion to the realm of righteousness—he is in keeping
with what the undisputed Paul says elsewhere.

3 The Law is for the Wicked (1 Tim 1:9b-11)

The Mosaic law was not instituted for the Christian who lives righteously;
rather, it was given for “sundry sorts of sinners,”30 which Paul makes explicit

27  Similarly, Jewett, Romans, 441-445 ( following Jan Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its
Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8 [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992]), argues
that Paul re-reads the past through the prism of faith. Paul is speaking autobiographically
in admitting that, notwithstanding his outward zeal for the law, his inner desires were not
without sinful covetousness. Jewett summarizes the interpretive options for Rom 7:7-25,
and provides ample bibliography.
28  See Thielman, Paul and the Law, 196-197, 295n11; Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on
Paul, 431; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 46-47: “They have been ‘destroyed’ as regards the
law, liberated from its bondage (v. 6). The ‘old situation’ of the ‘letter’ has been replaced
by the ‘new situation of the Spirit’ (v. 6) . . . God has done something ‘new’, and therefore
one ought not to cling to what is old.”
29  Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 431.
30  Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1.3-11),” 83.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 151

by crafting a vice list. Scholars agree that the form of the list is at least partially
determined by the Decalogue.31 George Knight has argued that the entire list
reflects the Decalogue.32 Knight’s theory is possible, though it is better to say
only that we find a precise connection from πατρολῴας forward. It is proper to
speak of a pattern of selectivity with respect to the Decalogue in the nt. When
Paul clearly echoes the Decalogue elsewhere he omits certain commands
(undisputed: Rom 2:21-23; 7:7; 13:9; disputed: Eph 6:1-3). In Rom 13:9, for exam-
ple, he mentions only the sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth commandments:
“You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You
shall not covet” (presumably following the order of Deut 5:6-21 lxx).33 Jesus’
list is also incomplete (e.g., Matt 19:18-19). These texts should cause us to balk at
the notion of comprehensiveness in the vice list of 1 Tim 1:9b-10. But given the
prominence of the Decalogue, to mention a few commandments was probably
to bring them all to mind. Here in 1 Timothy, Paul follows the mt (Exod 20:1-17;
Deut 5:6-21) and makes clear reference to the fifth through ninth command-
ments, as my discussion of the contents of the list will reveal. The entire list is
atypical for at least two reasons. First, it is not a list of vices as such, but a list of
vice-filled persons. Second, the list is characterized by extremity: many of the
individuals are guilty of actions of the most despicable sort (e.g., “those who
kill their father or mother”).
The list is compiled of four pairs of sinners, followed by six single designa-
tions. Rebellion is the common denominator of the first pair. The undisputed
Paul can use ἄνομος to refer to Gentiles as those “outside the law” (1 Cor 9:21), but
here the idea is behaving as if there were no law.34 ἀνυπότακτος is found only in
the pe (1 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:6, 10) and in Heb 2:8; it pertains to refusing submission

31  See, for example, McEleney, “The Vice-Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” 204-210; Reginald H.
Fuller, “The Decalogue in the New Testament,” Interpretation 43 (1989) 254; Oberlinner,
Die Pastoralbriefe. Erste Folge, 27; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 378-379; Johnson, The
First and Second Letters to Timothy, 168-169.
32  George W. Knight, iii, The Pastoral Epistles (nigtc; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1992) 84-85, takes the first two terms of the list (ἀνόμοις καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις) to be introduc-
tory and claims that the order of the Decalogue seems to give a satisfactory explanation of
the list from ἀσεβής forward. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 169, follows:
“The first two terms are, in effect, synonyms for not being controlled by moral norms. The
rest of the terms follow the basic lines of the Ten Commandments.”
33  On the differences between the lxx and the mt, see Gottfried Nebe, “The Decalogue
in Paul, Especially in His Letter to the Romans,” in The Decalogue in Jewish and
Christian Tradition (ed. Yair Hoffman and Henning Graf Reventlow; London: T&T Clark
International, 2011) 52-56. Nebe concludes: “The key point here is the apparent freedom
and fluidity in making use of the Decalogue material” (55).
34  See Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 379.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

152 Thornton

to authority.35 The second pair—ἀσεβής (“ungodly” or “godless”) and ἁμαρτωλός

(“sinner”)—denotes separation from God and therefore distance from sal-
vation.36 The crucifixion of the Son was required for the “ungodly” (ἀσεβής,
Rom 5:6) and the “sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός, Rom 5:8) to be reconciled to the Father.
The terms ἀνόσιος and βέβηλος are near synonyms for unholy behavior. ἀνόσιος
occurs in the nt only in the pe (1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 3:2), but it is used several times
in the lxx (2 Macc 7:34; 8:32; 3 Macc 2:2; 5:8; 4 Macc 12:11; Wis 12:4; Ezek 22:9).
The word pertains to being in opposition to God or what is sacred.37 βέβηλος is
best translated as “worldly” or “profane”38 (1 Tim 4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16).
We find in the final pair and the first single designation a precise connec-
tion to the Decalogue. The three nt hapaxes—πατρολῴας, μητρολῴας, and
ἀνδροφόνος—reflect the fifth and the sixth commandments, according to
the mt. πατρολῴας refers to one who slays his father (see the alternate spell-
ing, πατραλοίας, in Aristophanes, Nub. 911, 1327; Josephus, Ant. 16.356; Lucian,
Peregr. 21). μητρολῴας is the designation for one who kills his mother (Plato,
Leges, 881A; Phaed. 114A: πατραλοίας καὶ μητραλοίας). ἀνδροφόνος refers to the
murderer in general (2 Macc 9:28; also grouped with the first two terms in
Plato, Phaed. 114A). The next two designations reflect the seventh command-
ment. πόρνος occurs a number of times in the Pauline corpus (undisputed:
1 Cor 5:9-11; 6:9; disputed: Eph 5:5); it indicates the broad category of “sexual
immorality.”39 ἀρσενοκοίτης occurs in the nt only here and in 1 Cor 6:9 ( for the
verbal form, see Sibylline Oracles 2.73); it provides a specific example of sex-
ual sin. Paul moves to the eighth commandment with the dramatic example
of stealing another person’s freedom. The hapax ἀνδραποδιστής is best trans-
lated as “kidnapper” or “slave-dealer” (see, for example, Herodotus, Persian
War 1.151; Plato, Resp. 344B; Xenophon, Mem. 4.2.14). The final two terms of the
list parallel the ninth commandment. As he did when he made contact with
the seventh commandment, Paul provides a broad and a specific example. The
word ψεύστης (“liar”) appears in both the undisputed and the disputed Paul
(Rom 3:4; Titus 1:12). It also appears a number of times in John (1 John 1:10; 2:4,
22; 4:20; 5:10). ἐπίορκος (“false oath-taker”)40 is a nt hapax, though the term

35  bdag, s.v. ἀνυπότακτος.

36  Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus (sp; Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2007) 43.
37  bdag, s.v. ἀνόσιος.
38  See tlnt, s.v. βέβηλος.
39  bdag, s.v. πόρνος.
40  bdag, s.v. ἐπίορκος.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 153

appears in the lxx (Zech 5:3), and the verbal form appears in Matt 5:33. The
two closing terms call attention to the one who utters untruths.
Paul concludes the list with a catchall category: the law is given for “anything
else that opposes healthy teaching” (καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ
ἀντίκειται). He probably uses the verb ἀντίκειμαι (“to be opposed”)41 to associ-
ate the opponents with the individuals just enumerated.42 The false teachers
in Ephesus stand among the wicked, those for whom the law was given, those
who oppose “the healthy teaching” (τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ). The body of
apostolic teaching is invested with a quality generally reserved for the human
body—healthiness. The point of the personification is at least twofold: 1) the
apostolic doctrine is free from all pathogenic content, and 2) the opponents’
doctrine is contaminated. A third possible facet of the figure is that the effect
of the accepted apostolic teaching is healthy conduct.43 This “healthy teach-
ing” includes Paul’s interpretation of the Mosaic law.44 The entire body of
apostolic doctrine is “in accordance with” or “in conformity to” (κατά) the good
news of the person and work of Jesus Christ (εὐαγγέλιον).45 Though the con-
fusing string of genitives could be translated in a wide range of ways, it seems
best to translate the final part of v. 11: “the gospel concerning the glory of the
blessed God” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ).46 This translation fits
well with the apparent function of the law in the vice list (discussed below).

41  bdag, s.v. ἀντίκειμαι.

42  See McEleney, “The Vice-Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” 205; Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe.
Erste Folge, 27; B.J. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles, and the Opponents of Paul (Apostasy in the New
Testament Communities 2; Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012) 265.
43  Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)
123, states: “It is not said that sound teaching makes its recipient sound . . . ” But since
throughout 1 Timothy Paul emphasizes the connection between orthodoxy and ortho-
praxy, there is no good reason to try to sever the link between content and conduct here.
44  Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 102-103, define the “healthy
teaching” as the Pauline interpretation of the ot.
45  Even if the κατά phrase qualifies τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, the proper use of the law (vv.
8-10) is a tenet of the apostolic teaching (“healthy teaching,” v. 10) which is in accordance
with the gospel; thus, it is right to say that the prepositional phrase is connected gen-
erally to vv. 8-10. See the discussions in Spicq, Saint Paul, Les Épitres Pastorales, 1:336;
Jürgen Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus (ekknt; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/
Neukirchener, 1988) 79; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 382. By this time, εὐαγγέλιον had
become the standard term for the Christian message of salvation. See tlnt, s.v. εὐαγγέλιον.
46  See J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (bntc; London: A & C Black, 1963)
51; Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus, 79. A thorough treatment of the interpretive
options can be found in Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 382-383.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

154 Thornton

This gospel that unveils the glory of the transcendent47 God was entrusted to
Paul (ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ¿); he is responsible to preserve it in the face of error.48
Having identified the group for whom the law was instituted, we are now
ready to consider the function of the law within this intended group. But we
should heed the warning of Stephen Westerholm:

It is important to note what the text does, and what it does not, say.
Verses 9 and 10 are often read as though the Pastor here counters his
opponents’ use of the law with the argument that the law’s intended
function was simply to act as a guide to morals and a restraint on sin. But
such an argument must be read into the text, which states no more than
that law was not enacted for the ‘just man’ but rather for sinners. What
function the law performs among the latter is not stated; and though the
Pastor’s views on the subject may perhaps be inferred from what he says,
the thrust of his argument can hardly lie in something he does not say.49

Some interpreters understand the function of the law in vv. 9-11, which is at best
implicit, to be the restraint of sin. This would seem to contradict the undisputed
Paul’s assertions that the law alerts one to (Rom 7:7) and even arouses sin (Rom
7:5, 8). How can the law both provoke and prevent sin? Thomas Schreiner con-
tends that, if an understanding of function is intended in 1 Tim 1:9-11, a separate
aspect of the law is in view. He argues that elsewhere (e.g., Rom 7:7-8) Paul refers
to the inability of the law to remove sinful desires. In 1 Tim 1:9-11, Paul has
another matter in mind. Here, for Schreiner, the point seems to be that where
there is law and strict punishment for lawbreakers, the law can be said to
have the ability to restrain people from carrying out the sinful desires in their
hearts.50 Paul makes a similar case (though without using the term νόμος)
in Rom 13:1-7.51 Thus, Schreiner concludes that the implicit function of the
Mosaic law in 1 Tim 1:9-11 appears to be that function it shares with any body of
law—regulation of action enforced by the imposition of penalties.52

47  This is the sense of μακάριος here, especially since the only other time it occurs in
1 Timothy it is linked with God’s supreme power and authority (1 Tim 6:15: ὁ μακάριος καὶ
μόνος δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων).
48  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 384.
49  Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1.3-11),” 83.
50  Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 86-87.
51  See the short discussion in Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 22.
52  Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 87. See also Thielman, Paul and the Law, 233, who
concludes: “[Paul] focuses not on the role of the law in salvation history but on a feature
it has in common with all law—the restraint of evil.”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 155

If we are to understand rightly the implicit function of the law in 1:9-11, we

must consider an important question: why does Paul employ this type of vice
list? In my view, scholars have not given due consideration to this matter. Three
points should be noted. First, the general effect of the extremity of the list
seems to be to evoke awe at the human capacity for evil.53 This is demonstrated
by the fact that, though the list itself contains quite a few severe and shock-
ing items, it does not provide a full inventory of wickedness. Paul concludes
the catalog with the phrase “and anything else” (καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον), as if to say
that there are many other atrocities of which sinful people are capable—were
every one of them to be written, the world itself could not contain the cata-
logs. Second, we should note that Paul often provides lists of wicked behav-
iors (undisputed: Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:19-21; disputed: Col 3:5, 8), so
the lineup of depraved individuals in 1 Tim 1:9b-10 could be interpretively sig-
nificant. Perhaps Paul’s intention here is to emphasize that the law was insti-
tuted for those who are internally corrupt—those who are not “obedient from
the heart” (Rom 6:17). Third, Paul appears to use the Decalogue here in 1 Tim
1:9b-10 in the same basic way he uses the tenth commandment in Rom 7:7-
8: “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 (διὰ
τῆς ἐντολῆς) produced in me all kinds of covetousness.” Paul rather brilliantly
employs a vice list that at least in part catalogs sinful individuals according
to the commandment they have violated, thereby clearly demonstrating that
they reside in the realm where the law, sin, and death exercise dominion.
Here, the Decalogue is the searching beam that can illumine sin and impli-
cate sinners, but that cannot heal hearts of stone. While the restraining func-
tion of the law that the Magisterial Reformers54 and those who follow their

53  This is also pointed out by Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 176; Quinn
and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 96-97.
54  Luther finds two functions here: “The Law is laid down for the lawless. This gives the Law
both its civil and spiritual functions: that wicked man is restrained and is led to a knowl-
edge of himself . . . It is the good use of the Law to restrain and to reveal sin; but its mis-
use thereof to say that it takes away sin” (lw 28.234, emphasis original). Calvin highlights
restraint: “The second function of the law is this: at least by fear of punishment to restrain
certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by
hearing the dire threats in the law . . . The apostle seems specially to have alluded to this
function of the law when he teaches that ‘the law is not laid down for the just but for the
unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for mur-
derers of parents, for manslayers, fornicators, perverts, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and
whatever else runs counter to sound doctrine’ [1 Tim. 1:9-10]. He shows in this that the

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

156 Thornton

interpretation55 find in this pericope is possible, it seems more likely that

the implicit function(s) of the law in 1 Tim 1:9b-10 is the same as the explicit
function(s) of the law that we find in Rom 7:7-8.56 Again, it should be stressed
that echoes of the Decalogue are not plentiful in the Pauline corpus (undis-
puted: Rom 2:21-23; 7:7; 13:9; disputed: Eph 6:1-3),57 but Paul certainly relies
on the tenth commandment in Rom 7:7-8, and he clearly does so to make the
point that the law functions as a catalyst for sin. We have good reason to believe,
then, that Paul uses the fifth through ninth commandments in 1 Tim 1:9b-10 to

law is like a halter to check the raging and otherwise limitlessly ranging lusts of the flesh”
(Inst. 2.7.10).
55  Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 86-87; Thielman, Paul and the Law, 233.
56  It could be argued that there are two separate but related functions here: alerting (Rom
7:7) and arousing (Rom 7:8). When I refer to the law as a “catalyst,” I include both of these
ideas.
57  The way the Decalogue is used in the Pauline corpus seems to confirm my interpretation
of 1 Tim 1:8-11. When the undisputed Paul uses the Decalogue in Rom 2:21-23, he empha-
sizes the breaking of the law (διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις, v. 23). The
point is somewhat similar, then, to the point of Rom 7:7-8: the commandments do not
prevent sin; they provoke sinners. When the apostle employs the Decalogue in Rom 13:9-
10, he states that the commandments are summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιόω) in the call to love;
therefore, loving one’s neighbor fulfills the law (πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη; see also Gal
5:14). This does not mean, however, that Christians are obligated to observe the Mosaic
law. For Paul, there has been a “conversion” of the Mosaic law, so that the Sinaitic legisla-
tion as such is no longer valid for the believing community. The behavior Paul expects of
believers corresponds in content to the moral demands of the Mosaic law, but this point
cannot be used to argue for the abiding validity of the Sinaitic legislation. The disputed
Paul demonstrates this quite clearly when he uses the Decalogue in Eph 6:1-3. A cursory
reading of the text might yield the conclusion that Paul applies, in a very simple and
straightforward way, the fifth commandment to his readers. But a closer examination
reveals that Paul has not imported the full wording of the commandment. He writes:
“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it
may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” The lxx (Exod 20:12; Deut
5:16) includes a qualification: “and that you may live long in the land that the Lord your
God is giving to you” (ἧς κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι). Paul drops the further definition of
the land, thereby converting a commandment that was once pertinent only to the nation
of Israel into a precept by which the church should live. The Mosaic law has reached its
divinely appointed end; those who are in Christ are dead with respect to this law and have
been discharged from it (e.g., Rom 7:4, 6; Gal 3:23-29). This does not mean, however, that
Paul excludes law in principle from his exhortation; the believer stands under obligation
to another law, “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). Parts of the Mosaic law have been
absorbed into “the law of Christ,” though they have been altered to make them universal
in nature. Thus, Paul can say in 1 Tim 1:8-11 that the Mosaic law is not for the Christian.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments 157

imply the same point.58 Here, as elsewhere, Paul looks at people through the
lens of the Decalogue, and he does so to demonstrate that the law provokes all
its prisoners.59 But where the Mosaic law reveals sin (1 Tim 1:9b-10), the apos-
tolic gospel makes known the wonder of God’s grace and mercy expressed in
the Christ-event (1 Tim 1:11).

Conclusion

Throughout this paper, I have tried to allow the author of 1 Timothy to project
his voice. By comparison, we have heard only the faint utterances of the Paul
of Romans. But perhaps we have heard enough to realize that, with respect to
the Mosaic law, they sing with one accord. I will summarize the three points of
agreement in closing.
First, I have proposed that, because the opponents used the law, they would
have agreed with the Pauline assertion: “the law is good.” Perhaps they argued,
“We are not following human traditions or human interpretations. We estab-
lish our idea on Scripture.”60 Since the opponents in Ephesus endorsed the law,
Paul, without denying or contradicting anything he said previously, needed to
shift the emphasis from the inherent goodness of the law (e.g., Rom 7:12) to the
goodness of the law as it is rightly interpreted and applied (1 Tim 1:8). Second,
a clear point of contention in Ephesus was: for whom was the Mosaic law insti-
tuted? In 1 Tim 1:9-11, Paul indicates that the law is not meant for believers,
because believers have been transferred from the realm where the law, sin, and
death exercise dominion to the realm of righteousness. I have attempted to
demonstrate that this is consistent with Paul’s understanding of the law as it

58  This is consistent with Jeffrey A.D. Weima, “The Function of the Law in Relation to Sin:
An Evaluation of the View of H. Räisänen,” NovT 32 (1990) 222. Weima concludes that, in
terms of the relationship between the law and sin, Paul consistently presents the law as
possessing a negative function, though he articulated this function differently depending
on the context. The passages in which the law and sin are linked can be understood as
expressing one of three functions: 1) a cognitive function, i.e., the law reveals to man his
true sinful condition; 2) a converting function, i.e., the law changes sin into more serious
and clearly defined acts of transgression; and 3) a causative function, i.e., the law brings
about sin.
59  Westerholm hinted at this some thirty years ago, but to my knowledge his comment has
gone largely unnoticed. See Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1.3-11),” 95n45:
“If no more is meant than that law serves to bring to such wrong-doers as are listed the
knowledge of sin and the law’s condemnation, then, of course, the point is quite Pauline.”
60  lw 28.229.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158

158 Thornton

is expressed in Rom 6-8. Finally, I have argued that the implicit function of
the law in 1 Tim 1:9-11 is likely the same as the explicit function of the law in
Rom 7:7-8: the law is a catalyst for sin. In Rom 7:7-8, Paul uses coveting as an
example, and he speaks of “sin seizing an opportunity through the command-
ment.” In 1 Tim 1:9b-10, Paul employs a vice list that partly catalogs sinful indi-
viduals according to the commandment they have violated, which appears to
be a significant construction. Broken commandments are embedded in the
designations, and this seems to be an implicit reiteration of the point from
Romans: sin seizing an opportunity through the commandments. Therefore,
I conclude that on these three points—the goodness of the law, the group for
whom the law was instituted, and the function of the law within this intended
group—the Paul of 1 Timothy and the Paul of Romans are harmonious.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 36 (2014) 142-158