Proper Understanding of Law in 1 Timothy 1:9

[JJF]

I'm currently reading The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man by Witsius, and thought it might be useful to interact with this verse; I did a search for 1 Timothy 1:9, and no results were found.

What would you say to someone who says that, because of 1 Timothy 1:9, there was no law in the Garden? I have a pretty good idea of what my argument would be, but what would you put forward to sustain or rebut this position?

Note:I realize that this post could be placed in the Covenant Theology Forum also, but, because it has the word "law" in it, I thought it best to put it here.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JJF
I'm currently reading The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man by Witsius,

That is an excellent book!

Originally posted by JJF
and thought it might be useful to interact with this verse; I did a search for 1 Timothy 1:9, and no results were found.

Here is a great article that uses this passage to demonstrate the continuing validity of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament:

First Timothy 1:8-11 and the Utility of the Decalogue - By Richard C. Barcellos

Originally posted by JJF
What would you say to someone who says that, because of 1 Timothy 1:9, there was no law in the Garden? I have a pretty good idea of what my argument would be, but what would you put forward to sustain or rebut this position?

First, I would note that God gave all kinds of explicit laws (commands) to man in the Garden of Eden:

Law #1) Family/Reproduction - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #2) Dominion/Rule - "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #3) Sabbath - "God blessed the seventh day and set it apart" (Gen. 2:3)

Law #4) Gardening/Farming - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Gen. 2:15)

Law #5) Dietary Obedience - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17)


There you have 5 explicit laws given to man *before* the fall. One of them later gets included in the Decalogue as the 4th commandment. And the 5th law is clearly a "thou shalt not" type of law with a specific curse attached to it as a penalty for disobedience. --- Thus, lawgiving clearly is NOT out of accord with unfallen man in the Garden of Eden.


So, what is going on in 1 Timothy 1:9? Well, in general, I think it's saying that it is not necessary to explicitly state most laws to holy people, because they already understand what is entailed in loving God and loving your neighbor. That's why no explicit "Thou shalt not kill" command was necessary in the Garden of Eden. (Nevertheless, in Genesis 4, it is clear that Cain sinned by committing murder. He knew better.) In other words, murder was definitely *wrong*, even in the Garden of Eden. Thus, in that sense, it was definitely part of God's moral law. But it was not necessary to explicitly *state* that particular law, because Adam was holy and implicitly understood most of God's moral law, which would later be "made" into the Decalogue.

In short, I think a distinction has to be made between something being an ontological part of God's moral law, and being a formally codified law that is explicitly given, as referenced by 1 Tim. 1:9. The Decalogue was a moral requirement for Adam, but Adam didn't need it stated. But Israel was so far fallen that they DID need it stated.

Those are my knee-jerk thoughts, anyway.






[Edited on 2-8-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by JJF
I'm currently reading The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man by Witsius.

That is an excellent book!

It's indeed a gem.

Originally posted by JJF
and thought it might be useful to interact with this verse; I did a search for 1 Timothy 1:9, and no results were found.

Here is a great article that uses this passage to demonstrate the continuing validity of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament:

First Timothy 1:8-11 and the Utility of the Decalogue - By Richard C. Barcellos

Thanks for the link. I'm so thankful that Mr. Barcellos is defending the validity of the Decalogue. I guess he's o.k. for a Reformed Baptist.

Originally posted by JJF
What would you say to someone who says that, because of 1 Timothy 1:9, there was no law in the Garden? I have a pretty good idea of what my argument would be, but what would you put forward to sustain or rebut this position?

First, I would note that God gave all kinds of explicit laws (commands) to man in the Garden of Eden:

Law #1) Family/Reproduction - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #2) Dominion/Rule - "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #3) Sabbath - "God blessed the seventh day and set it apart" (Gen. 2:3)

Law #4) Gardening/Farming - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Gen. 2:15)

Law #5) Dietary Obedience - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17)

I like how you broke these explicit commands down into this format. Nice job. Just one question though: If Adam broke one of the commands other than your Law #5, would he have been expelled from the Garden? I realize this question is a tad hypothetical, but, in my opinion, it's dying to be asked.

There you have 5 explicit laws given to man *before* the fall. One of them later gets included in the Decalogue as the 4th commandment. And the 5th law is clearly a "thou shalt not" type of law with a specific curse attached to it as a penalty for disobedience. --- Thus, lawgiving clearly is NOT out of accord with unfallen man in the Garden of Eden.

So, what is going on in 1 Timothy 1:9? Well, in general, I think it's saying that it is not necessary to explicitly state most laws to holy people, because they already understand what is entailed in loving God and loving your neighbor. That's why no explicit "Thou shalt not kill" command was necessary in the Garden of Eden. (Nevertheless, in Genesis 4, it is clear that Cain sinned by committing murder. He knew better.) In other words, murder was definitely *wrong*, even in the Garden of Eden. Thus, in that sense, it was definitely part of God's moral law. But it was not necessary to explicitly *state* that particular law, because Adam was holy and implicitly understood most of God's moral law, which would later be "made" into the Decalogue.

If Adam was perfect, then why would he need some laws necessarily stated? In other words, why weren't those laws (the five you mentioned) implicitly clear to Adam?

In short, I think a distinction has to be made between something being an ontological part of God's moral law, and being a formally codified law that is explicitly given, as referenced by 1 Tim. 1:9. The Decalogue was a moral requirement for Adam, but Adam didn't need it stated. But Israel was so far fallen that they DID need it stated.

Again, why did Adam need some laws stated, if he was perfect? Just because explicit laws are stated, doesn't mean that a human (e.g. Adam) who receives explicit law is fallen (I know you said this in your post above; I gave it a ). Christ is another example of this point, who although being perfect, was instructed explicitly by the law. I do understand that Christ is somewhat of a different case than Adam, because he was conceived in the postlapsarian era. Nonetheless Adam, like Christ, was under the Covenant of Works.

To be fair, I'll try to answer my own questions. It's sometimes easier to ask questions than it is to answer them. I'll post what I think is a solution to the problem above. If more sophisticated theologians find fault with my post, then please flog my ignorance as I'm sure you'll do. I think that the idea of explicit law is inherent in the concept of covenant. When entering into covenant with man, God requires that there be a command to be met, which automatically results in law. I, just like you, would say that the moral law (the Decalogue) was essentially in the Garden, but it wasn't codified. It would be unnecessary to codify the law in a prelapsarian covenant, as you have nicely pointed out. I'm still unsure how to answer the question of Adam breaking laws other than that of the "dietary law."

Those are my knee-jerk thoughts, anyway.

This is pretty good for a knee-jerk post; my post took hours. Let me know if I need to clarify or rewrite some of my questions or my explanation. I'm always prayerfully wanting my posts to be clear, but sometimes God doesn't see fit to answer my request.

 

[Puritanhead]

I need to read it one day.

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I need to read it one day.

What do you need to read one day? Do you have any thoughts on these posts?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JJF

Originally posted by JJF
What would you say to someone who says that, because of 1 Timothy 1:9, there was no law in the Garden? I have a pretty good idea of what my argument would be, but what would you put forward to sustain or rebut this position?

First, I would note that God gave all kinds of explicit laws (commands) to man in the Garden of Eden:

Law #1) Family/Reproduction - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #2) Dominion/Rule - "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #3) Sabbath - "God blessed the seventh day and set it apart" (Gen. 2:3)

Law #4) Gardening/Farming - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Gen. 2:15)

Law #5) Dietary Obedience - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17)

I like how you broke these explicit commands down into this format. Nice job. Just one question though: If Adam broke one of the commands other than your Law #5, would he have been expelled from the Garden? I realize this question is a tad hypothetical, but, in my opinion, it's dying to be asked.

A) Yes, I believe any sin is an eternally punishable offense against God, and thus I would argue that any sin would have brought about Adam's expulsion from the Garden. Rom. 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. The wages of ANY sin is death, not just forbidden-fruit-eating.

I do think it is important to point out that Adam's sin isn't actually what expelled him from the Garden. Rather, it is God's grace that expelled him from the Garden. Had there been no grace, Adam would have died physically that day, as well as spiritually, and would have gone straight to hell . . . eternal death. And had God left him in the Garden and permitted him to partake of the tree of life, Adam would have been confirmed in eternal physical life while separated from God in sin, thus likewise confirming Adam to eternal death (separation from God). --- Thus, the fact that Adam lived another 900+ years, and the fact that He did so OUT of the Garden (away from the Tree of Life) is a testimony to God's grace.


B) We may not have to say "what if" about all 5 of the commands. Adam & Eve broke more commands than just #5. Consider this:

1) They broke command #1. *Death* was the curse promised for sinning against God. "In the day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die." And with this knowledge in mind, Adam & Eve should have known that death would obviously preclude them from procreation. Had they physically died the day they sinned, they never could have fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, they would have automatically been guilty of this sin as well. God had mercy on them, and let them live for several more centuries, but we have no reason to believe that Adam & Eve would have known that ahead of time.

2) They broke command #2. They did not exercise dominion over the snake. God had said, "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28) --- Had Adam exercised dominion over the snake, instead of passively letting the serpent deceive Eve, then the fall wouldn't have occurred (at least not that day).

3) A.W. Pink argues that Adam and Eve fell on the Sabbath. One reason he argues this is so that Jesus "in all things . . . may have the preeminence . . ." (Col. 1:18) i.e. Jesus is the only person to ever keep the Sabbath perfectly. Without going into a great amount of detail, I think we do have some reasons to believe that Adam and Eve fell on the first Sabbath, and thereby broke the Sabbath law.

4) The Gardening/Farming law is the only one of the 5 that really may not have been broken in Eden. However, I do wonder . . . why were they just standing around talking to the snake? If they had been working the Garden like they were supposed to, would they have even been anywhere near the Tree of Knowledge? We cannot know for sure at this time. But it does have a nice parallelism with some other sins in Scripture. Just for example, consider King David's sin with Bathsheba. He sinned during the time of year "when kings go off to war". But King David himself wasn't doing his job. He wasn't leading his army. He was staying at home, out of danger, shirking his responsibility. If he had been doing what he was supposed to do, he wouldn't have been tempted by Bathsheba in the first place! Of course, I'm just speculating at this point, but it would be easy for me to believe that Adam's sin came about similarly. Perhaps, if he and Eve had been obeying command #4 and heartily tending to the garden, they wouldn't have even run into the snake that day.

5) Obviously, we all know that Adam & Eve broke this command. They ate the fruit they were commanded not to eat.


In sum, I don't know that it's all that hypothetical to consider Adam and Eve breaking multiple Edenic commands . . . not just the fruit-eating command.


Those are just my .








[Edited on 2-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by JJF

Originally posted by JJF
What would you say to someone who says that, because of 1 Timothy 1:9, there was no law in the Garden? I have a pretty good idea of what my argument would be, but what would you put forward to sustain or rebut this position?

First, I would note that God gave all kinds of explicit laws (commands) to man in the Garden of Eden:

Law #1) Family/Reproduction - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #2) Dominion/Rule - "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

Law #3) Sabbath - "God blessed the seventh day and set it apart" (Gen. 2:3)

Law #4) Gardening/Farming - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Gen. 2:15)

Law #5) Dietary Obedience - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17)

I like how you broke these explicit commands down into this format. Nice job. Just one question though: If Adam broke one of the commands other than your Law #5, would he have been expelled from the Garden? I realize this question is a tad hypothetical, but, in my opinion, it's dying to be asked.

A) Yes, I believe any sin is an eternally punishable offense against God, and thus I would argue that any sin would have brought about Adam's expulsion from the Garden. Rom. 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. The wages of ANY sin is death, not just forbidden-fruit-eating.

I do think it is important to point out that Adam's sin isn't actually what expelled him from the Garden. Rather, it is God's grace that expelled him from the Garden. Had there been no grace, Adam would have died physically that day, as well as spiritually, and would have gone straight to hell . . . eternal death. And had God left him in the Garden and permitted him to partake of the tree of life, Adam would have been confirmed in eternal physical life while separated from God in sin, thus likewise confirming Adam to eternal death (separation from God). --- Thus, the fact that Adam lived another 900+ years, and the fact that He did so OUT of the Garden (away from the Tree of Life) is a testimony to God's grace.

My understanding is that it was Adam's sin that exiled him from the Garden. Adam was under a 'works' covenant, right? To say he wasn't is to confuse law and grace. All the other things you spoke of flow from God's grace. However, I would argue, the fact that Adam was expelled from the Garden is a testimony to his law (justice).

B) We may not have to say "what if" about all 5 of the commands. Adam & Eve broke more commands than just #5. Consider this:

1) They broke command #1. *Death* was the curse promised for sinning against God. "In the day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die." And with this knowledge in mind, Adam & Eve should have known that death would obviously preclude them from procreation. Had they physically died the day they sinned, they never could have fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, they would have automatically been guilty of this sin as well. God had mercy on them, and let them live for several more centuries, but we have no reason to believe that Adam & Eve would have known that ahead of time.

2) They broke command #2. They did not exercise dominion over the snake. God had said, "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28) --- Had Adam exercised dominion over the snake, instead of passively letting the serpent deceive Eve, then the fall wouldn't have occurred (at least not that day).

3) A.W. Pink argues that Adam and Eve fell on the Sabbath. One reason he argues this is so that Jesus "in all things . . . may have the preeminence . . ." (Col. 1:18) i.e. Jesus is the only person to ever keep the Sabbath perfectly. Without going into a great amount of detail, I think we do have some reasons to believe that Adam and Eve fell on the first Sabbath, and thereby broke the Sabbath law.

4) The Gardening/Farming law is the only one of the 5 that really may not have been broken in Eden. However, I do wonder . . . why were they just standing around talking to the snake? If they had been working the Garden like they were supposed to, would they have even been anywhere near the Tree of Knowledge? We cannot know for sure at this time. But it does have a nice parallelism with some other sins in Scripture. Just for example, consider King David's sin with Bathsheba. He sinned during the time of year "when kings go off to war". But King David himself wasn't doing his job. He wasn't leading his army. He was staying at home, out of danger, shirking his responsibility. If he had been doing what he was supposed to do, he wouldn't have been tempted by Bathsheba in the first place! Of course, I'm just speculating at this point, but it would be easy for me to believe that Adam's sin came about similarly. Perhaps, if he and Eve had been obeying command #4 and heartily tending to the garden, they wouldn't have even run into the snake that day.

5) Obviously, we all know that Adam & Eve broke this command. They ate the fruit they were commanded not to eat.


In sum, I don't know that it's all that hypothetical to consider Adam and Eve breaking multiple Edenic commands . . . not just the fruit-eating command.


Those are just my .








[Edited on 2-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]

O.k. I see how he broke all of those commands, when he ate of the fruit. Does Witsius make that point? I'm still not very far in the book.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JJF

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

I do think it is important to point out that Adam's sin isn't actually what expelled him from the Garden. Rather, it is God's grace that expelled him from the Garden. Had there been no grace, Adam would have died physically that day, as well as spiritually, and would have gone straight to hell . . . eternal death. And had God left him in the Garden and permitted him to partake of the tree of life, Adam would have been confirmed in eternal physical life while separated from God in sin, thus likewise confirming Adam to eternal death (separation from God). --- Thus, the fact that Adam lived another 900+ years, and the fact that He did so OUT of the Garden (away from the Tree of Life) is a testimony to God's grace.

My understanding is that it was Adam's sin that exiled him from the Garden. Adam was under a 'works' covenant, right? To say he wasn't is to confuse law and grace. All the other things you spoke of flow from God's grace. However, I would argue, the fact that Adam was expelled from the Garden is a testimony to his law (justice).

I apologize for not being clear.

Yes, Adam was under a works covenant, no doubt about it. If I were to mess up there, then I'd run into problems with all the rest of my theology.

The fact that Adam was punished is certainly a testimony to God's justice. Adam's sin definitely brought about his expulsion from the Garden.

My point was this: AFTER the fall (not before), if God had not exercised any grace at all, then Adam would still have been expelled from the Garden. But his expulsion would have been to Hell, not just merely to somewhere else on Earth. Thus, even in judgment, God was being gracious.

After the fall, the Covenant of Grace "kicked in", so to speak. God exercised grace immediately, even as He was handing out judgment to Adam, Eve, and the snake for the sin in the Garden. Note that Genesis 3:15 occurs directly in the middle of God's judgment handed out in retribution for their sin, right at the crucial point in the chiasm. The judgment certainly was doled out because of Adam's sin. But Gen. 3:15 is the crux of this very passage, and thus grace is at the forefront.

Originally posted by JJF

B) We may not have to say "what if" about all 5 of the commands. Adam & Eve broke more commands than just #5. Consider this:

1) They broke command #1. *Death* was the curse promised for sinning against God. "In the day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die." And with this knowledge in mind, Adam & Eve should have known that death would obviously preclude them from procreation. Had they physically died the day they sinned, they never could have fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, they would have automatically been guilty of this sin as well. God had mercy on them, and let them live for several more centuries, but we have no reason to believe that Adam & Eve would have known that ahead of time.

2) They broke command #2. They did not exercise dominion over the snake. God had said, "Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28) --- Had Adam exercised dominion over the snake, instead of passively letting the serpent deceive Eve, then the fall wouldn't have occurred (at least not that day).

3) A.W. Pink argues that Adam and Eve fell on the Sabbath. One reason he argues this is so that Jesus "in all things . . . may have the preeminence . . ." (Col. 1:18) i.e. Jesus is the only person to ever keep the Sabbath perfectly. Without going into a great amount of detail, I think we do have some reasons to believe that Adam and Eve fell on the first Sabbath, and thereby broke the Sabbath law.

4) The Gardening/Farming law is the only one of the 5 that really may not have been broken in Eden. However, I do wonder . . . why were they just standing around talking to the snake? If they had been working the Garden like they were supposed to, would they have even been anywhere near the Tree of Knowledge? We cannot know for sure at this time. But it does have a nice parallelism with some other sins in Scripture. Just for example, consider King David's sin with Bathsheba. He sinned during the time of year "when kings go off to war". But King David himself wasn't doing his job. He wasn't leading his army. He was staying at home, out of danger, shirking his responsibility. If he had been doing what he was supposed to do, he wouldn't have been tempted by Bathsheba in the first place! Of course, I'm just speculating at this point, but it would be easy for me to believe that Adam's sin came about similarly. Perhaps, if he and Eve had been obeying command #4 and heartily tending to the garden, they wouldn't have even run into the snake that day.

5) Obviously, we all know that Adam & Eve broke this command. They ate the fruit they were commanded not to eat.


In sum, I don't know that it's all that hypothetical to consider Adam and Eve breaking multiple Edenic commands . . . not just the fruit-eating command.


Those are just my .

O.k. I see how he broke all of those commands, when he ate of the fruit. Does Witsius make that point? I'm still not very far in the book.

No, I don't remember Witsius making any of those points.

However, please note that I credited A.W. Pink with point #3. It was during my reading of some of his works that I came across his arguments for Adam and Eve breaking the first Sabbath.

As for the other points I made above, I don't remember specifically reading them anywhere. But I doubt that I have said anything new.




[Edited on 2-9-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Peters]

If Adam was under a works covenant, does that mean that it was possible for him to put God into a position of obligation?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peters
If Adam was under a works covenant, does that mean that it was possible for him to put God into a position of obligation?

Adam did not put God into a position of obligation.

Rather, God put Himself into a position of obligation, by condescending to covenant with Adam.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
WRITTEN ABOVE:

"Without going into a great amount of detail, I think we do have some reasons to believe that Adam and Eve fell on the first Sabbath, and thereby broke the Sabbath law."


Please...go into detail. I am fascinated!!!

From A.W. Pink:

Personally we doubt if our first parents preserved their integrity for forty-eight hours, or even for twenty-four.

In the first place, they were told to "be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and had they complied with that injunction and the blessing of God had been on them, a sinless child would have been conceived, which, following the fall of Adam and Eve, would have been part of a depraved family"”a terrible anomaly, involving the utmost confusion.

Second, if those words concerning Christ are to be taken without qualification, "that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18), then He is the only One who kept the Sabbath perfectly on this earth, and consequently Adam fell before the seventh day ended.

Third, in Psalm 49:12, the Hebrew word for "man" is Adam-the same as in Genesis 2 and 3 and Job 31:33, while that for "abode" signifies "to stay or lodge for a night." Manton rendered it "Adam being in honour abideth not for a night." And Thomas Watson in his Body of Divinity said, "Adam, then, it seems, did not take up one night´s lodging in Paradise."

Fourth, the devil "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44)"”not from the beginning of time, for there was no man to slay during the first five days, but from the beginning of human history. In the morning man was holy; by night he was a sinner!


Source: The Total Depravity of Man - chapter 2 - by A.W. Pink

 

[Peters]

I think i'll start a new thread on this one, Joseph. Thanks for responding.