Harvesting the Kingdom (Matt. 13:44-52)

Continuing where we left off in this series, Jesus wraps up this private discourse with his disciples by talking about harvesting the kingdom. (The literary structure can be found here in layout #2.) Three parables are given in verses 44-48 (section A3 of layout #2), followed by explanations of what they mean in verses 49-50 (section C3). This section, as well as the entire discourse of parables in chapter 13, culminates with a somewhat enigmatic statement about understanding these parables in verses 51-52 (section B3):

"The Kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad."  (vv. 44-48)

"So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the evil men out of the midst of righteous men and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (vv. 49-50)

"Have you understood all these things?" They said to him, "Yes." And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been discipled for the kingdom of heaven is like a master-of-a-house, who throws out of his treasury new things and old things." (vv. 51-52)

It is particularly noteworthy to recognize what exactly the Kingdom of heaven is being compared with in these three parables. Jesus says it's comparable with "treasure hidden in a field, which a man found," a "merchant in search of fine pearls" who found one "of great value," and a "net that was thrown into the sea." At first glance, what these parables have in common might not be obvious. Upon closer examination, each of these parables does have a common theme though. The theme consists of a "man" (Greek: anthropos1) gathering "all" possessions together (vv. 44, 45, 47) and sorting all the good (Greek: kalos, "beautiful" or "attractive") from all the bad (Greek: sapros, "rotten" or "corrupt"). This is why the explanation of angels going out and separating evil men out from the midst of righteous men "at the end of the age" is comparable with fishing in a sea. In the Bible, both fish and sea are oftentimes associated with mankind (anthropos) and the world outside of the promised land. 

To understand these parables, it's important to remember that the "end of the age" was the end of the old covenant age, which ended in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple, its priesthood, and sacrificial cultus. When Jesus likened the kingdom of heaven to all these things, he was setting his audience up to recognize who the "good" and who the "bad" were. Whenever the net of his kingdom gets cast into the sea of mankind, a whole host of people are gathered together for sorting; except in these parables Jesus is referring primarily to the people of Israel in the midst of an ungodly kingdom within a Gentile (Roman) empire. The "good" are not Jews, but rather are the newly constituted Israel of God united to Jesus the Messiah. The "good" are those Jews and Gentiles who sell "all" to have Jesus. The "bad" (sapros) are the disciples of the Pharisees and other enemies of Jesus described this way earlier in Matthew's gospel (7:17-18).

Let's not forget that the kingdom is also likened unto a net. When the people of the kingdom were cast into the sea of mankind, sent out with the great commission of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20), God used them to gather together all men--beautiful and corrupt together--for Him to harvest. Whether it's more helpful to think of this as all sorts of fish harvested together from the sea or wheat and tares harvested together from the field, Jesus says that "angels" do the separating and sorting at harvest time, but it's the responsibility of God's saints to go throughout both land and sea to do the gathering. 

"Have you understood all these things?," Jesus asked his apostles. They responded as though they did understand everything. "Therefore," Jesus said, "every scribe who has been discipled (Greek: matheteuo) for the kingdom of heaven is like a master-of-a-house, who throws out of his treasury new things and old things." According to Jesus, every scribe of Israel who becomes his disciple is like a master-of-a-house. God has given him a house to care for and it's his own responsibility (as the master-of-the-house) to determine what "all" stays in his treasure-storage and what "all" goes from it. God entrusted Israel with an inheritance in His land, but Jesus came and spoke of soon-coming judgment upon the land of Israel and their consequent removal from it. At that time God would sort through and separate all the bad from the good from His own House, all the corrupt out of the midst of the beautiful of His own temple. 

If Jesus's disciples really understood all that he was saying, they would have understood that their mission as disciples of Jesus was to "clean house." Their great commission was to go and disciple (Greek: matheteuo) all nations so that a new treasury could be stored up in Christ and a new Israel gathered from both land and sea. 

1.  Verse 44 explicitly describes a "man" (ἄνθρωπος), and it's translated that way in all english versions. However, in the remaining verses it's a little more ambiguous. For example, the "merchant" of verse 45 is literally a "merchant-man" in Greek (ἀνθρώπῳ ἐμπόρῳ). In verse 52, when Jesus compares the disciple with a "master of a house," that word is literally "house-despot-man" (ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ). In a similar manner, with the parable of the net, evil men are being separated out of the midst of righteous men (τοὺς πονηροὺς ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων). 

Resurrection as Release from Prison

Jeremiah himself had been unjustly beaten and condemned to prison by Jerusalem’s king because he had prophesied that Jerusalem would fall to her enemies (Jer 37:14–18). So the king permitted Jeremiah to be cast into a well so that he might sink into the mire (Jer 38:6). But an Ethiopian eunuch interceded with the king and was given permission to take thirty men to rescue Jeremiah (Jer 38:7–10). So the prophet was lifted up out of the pit of death (Jer 38:11–13). He was then brought to the third entrance to the temple (Jer 38:14). And after Jeremiah was released, God commanded him to bring a word of good news to the Ethiopian eunuch, who was to be assured that God would reward him because he had trusted in the Lord (Jer 39:15–18). 

Likewise, in the fullness of time many would see Jesus as a new Jeremiah (Matt 16:14). For Jesus too would be beaten and condemned by Jerusalem to bonds. And for having prophesied that the city was to fall to her enemies (Matt 24:1–2; 27:40), Jesus would be killed and placed in a grave (Matt 27:62–66). But on the third day Christ was released from the grave and so raised the third temple (John 2:19). Afterwards Jesus sent a message of good news to an Ethiopian eunuch, that God would accept him because he had trusted in the Lord (Acts 8:26–39).1

1.  Gage, W. A. (2010). Theological Poetics: Typology, Symbol and the Christ. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Warren A. Gage.

Literary Structure of Matthew 16:13-17:27

Literary structure of Matthew 16:13 through 17:27

A) 16:13-23 -- "Simon", "Peter", "earth", "give", βασιλεία ("kingdom"), σκάνδαλον ("stumbling-block"), Jesus will "be killed" and "be raised on the third day"

        B) 16:24-28 -- Jesus speaks (εἶπον) to his disciples, "truly I say to you" / some here won’t die until the Son of Man comes in His kingdom

              C) 17:1-2 -- Ascending the high "mountain" / “He was transfigured before them”

                    D) 17:3-4 – Behold! Moses & Elijah appear / Peter speaks

                    D’) 17:5-8 – Behold! The Father appears / Jesus speaks

              C') 17:9-13 -- Descending the "mountain" / “Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

        B') 17:14-21 -- Disciples speak (εἶπον) to Jesus, and Jesus replies: "truly I say to you" / faith of a mustard seed moves this mountain

A') 17:22-27 -- "Simon", "Peter", "earth", "give", βασιλεύς ("kings"), σκανδαλίσωμεν (cause them to "stumble"), Jesus will "be killed" and "be raised on the third day"

Book Review: Tim Gallant, Paul's Travail: A Reintroduction to Galatians

Paul's Travail: A Reintroduction to Galatians by Tim Gallant

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In a previous review of Gallant's book, These are Two Covenants, I gave a critical review, highlighting all of the pros and cons of that booklet. I wasn't quite sure what to expect with this commentary considering that it builds off of the essays found in that booklet. Much to my surprise, Gallant's latest release, Paul's Travail: A Reintroduction to Galatians, not only clarified most of my concerns (see my review of These are Two Covenants), but he also presented a verse-by-verse pastoral approach through Galatians that is both scholarly, accessible, and unique. In this work, Gallant provides many valuable insights regarding this very important letter from Paul. He also provides many helpful user-friendly tools for the average reader, including a summary of the entire letter, a fresh translation of the entire letter, a chronological table of the events surrounding the letter, and a clear introduction to the hermeneutical method employed in this letter. In addition to all of this great material, Gallant also offers numerous articles in the appendices related to biblical theology and typology. Even though some people may consider the hermeneutics employed in this commentary as somewhat of a novelty, this is the kind of commentary which every pastor and teacher of Galatians should have because it is so thorough, scholarly, and accessible. It is definitely a relevant "reintroduction" to Galatians.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Roland Allen's "Spontaneous Expansion of the Church"

The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church: and the Causes which hinder it by Roland Allen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

“Many of our missionaries welcome spontaneous zeal, provided there is not too much of it for their restrictions… Such missionaries pray for the wind of the Spirit but not for a rushing mighty wind. I am writing because I believe a rushing mighty wind, and desire its presence at all costs to our restrictions.” These words of Roland Allen encapsulate the main thrust of The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church. Allen argues that modern missions and their highly organized methods and ethical restrictions have done much harm to the work of the gospel on foreign soil, and the appropriate reaction of the Church to such news should be to return to simpler methods of the apostolic age which encouraged spontaneous expansion. By “spontaneous expansion,” Allen means:

…[T]he expansion which follows the unexhorted and unorganized activity of individual members of the Church explaining to others the Gospel which they have found for themselves; I mean the expansion which follows the irresistible attraction of the Christian Church for men who see its ordered life, and are drawn to it by desire to discover the secret of a life which they instinctively desire to share; I mean also the expansion of the Church by the addition of new churches (p. 7).

According to Allen, there is a necessary charm that accompanies one’s first reception of the Gospel, a charm which is only found among those who instinctively feel able and free to propagate their faith of their own initiative. No exhortation or organized method is given or needed to propagate such a faith. The Holy Spirit “converts the natural instinct into a longing for the conversion of others.” (p. 9). It is the simpler methods of the apostolic age which manage this spontaneous zeal the best. Instead of offering artificial programs with ready-made stereotyped answers, voluntary expression of one’s zealous faith is encouraged and directed by trained leaders with a kind of instruction that can be refused, so as to allow one’s zeal to share the Gospel to remain as genuine as possible. Instruction which cannot be refused by converts is likened to control, which detracts from spontaneous expansion. Along with the work of the Holy Spirit, the outcome of such missionary work, Allen contends, would be a self-supporting, self-extending, and self-governing church on foreign soil – a replica of the early apostolic mission.

     But according to Allen, this is not a common method among missionaries. Surely there was talk about, and hope for, such churches, but once organizations realized these expanding churches no longer needed their support, or that their organizations were no longer needed to maintain control, they “instinctively think of [this self-supportiveness]… as tending to disorder.” (p. 13). Allen argues that the “natural instinct” of all men “is not opposed to order,” nor is the Holy Spirit, and so any repression of this instinct for self-propagation, both individually and corporately, generates a “poisonous” stagnation of the true apostolic methodology of mission (p. 14).

     Two of the most serious aids in such repression are fear of endangering our doctrine (p. 43) and standard of morals (p. 60). Allen discusses the fear of our doctrine first. He argues that because there is always the potential of propagating heretical doctrine, new converts are discouraged from spontaneous activity and expected to maintain a certain standard of doctrine before teaching others about their faith. This fear, Allen argues, is more imperial than apostolic (p. 44) and generates a “terrible sterility” among converts (p. 47). Instead of teaching men to depend upon Christ as they understand his truth from their own spiritual relationship with Him, men are taught to depend upon men, i.e. trained teachers, and their doctrines. In the days of the early church, things were different, Allen says. The great heresies in the early Church did not arise from illiterate or untrained theologians spontaneously sharing and propagating their experience of faith, as is found with most converts on foreign mission fields; instead they arose from “the more highly educated and philosophically minded Christians” (p. 48). Such heresies grew out of intellectual theories of doctrine divorced from the type of experience which accompanies spontaneous expansion. “What we find it difficult to believe,” states Allen, “is that others can receive Christ and find salvation in Him unless they know, or at least in speech employ, our familiar doctrinal expressions” (p. 57). Allen does not deny that dangerously ignorant converts may accompany spontaneous expansion, or suggest that all fear of distorting sound doctrine is unreasonable fear. Rather, he contends that because the common conception of Christian doctrine is too intellectual, our fears of what may arise from spontaneous expansion are exaggerated (p. 53).

     When discussing the fear of endangering traditional morality, Allen presents a case that Christian missionaries impose definite rules of conduct (not just doctrinal belief) upon foreigners as though they were synonymous with the Christian standard of morality (p. 61). Allen focuses heavily on a real life concern that is common to missionary work in Central Africa (pp. 61-67): namely, imposing monogamy upon polygamous pagans as though monogamy was synonymous with Christianity. According to Allen, this imposition of a fixed moral standard of monogamous marriage is contrary to Scripture:

Unless we are prepared to accept the whole Jewish law in its entirety, there is no code of morals laid down in precise commands for Christians in the Bible as a whole, still less in the New Testament (p. 61). …Neither in the Gospels nor in any other part of the New Testament is any code of law laid down. That standard which we so often call the Christian standard of morals, simply does not exist in the New Testament” (p. 68).

The only standard which a person must meet to be considered a Christian and welcomed into the Christian Church is Jesus’ command to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself (p. 68). What that looks like is another matter altogether, for Jesus’ mission was “not to direct their conduct by external admonitions, but to inspire and to raise them by the presence and power of His Spirit given to them” (p. 68). By imposing fixed standards of morality upon foreigners as though obedience to such standards involves purification of the heart and soul, it is not possible for spontaneous growth to occur. Only stagnation will result (p. 73-74).

     Like the apostles of old, present-day missionaries should equip converts and set them free to expand the church without further complications such as discouraging oversight and restrictions (p. 144). New Christians must be left to learn what they can only learn for themselves, without actually being abandoned (p. 150). Indeed, to “watch and assist spontaneous progress is certainly not to abandon coverts to their own devices” (p. 154).

     If a bishop is seeking such spontaneous expansion, there are five activities which must be utilized to equip converts properly: (1) delivering the “tradition” which is represented in the Apostles Creed, (2) delivering the Gospel in such a way that men revere it and know it, (3) delivering the sacraments to the church, (4) ordaining ministers, and (5) making sure that new converts “understand the use of the Apostle’s Creed, the Gospels, the Sacraments and the Ministry, and then send word to the bishop.” (p. 150). According to Allen, it is this kind of leadership that is absolutely essential to the spontaneous expansion of the Church. With such unique qualities of apostolic leadership, spontaneous expansion can be maintained among the most illiterate converts and the poorest communities.

     In light of all this, I think there are as many positive aspects to Allen’s work as there are negatives. His insights concerning the natural instinct of men are profound, particularly those regarding illiterate people on foreign mission fields and their instinctive zeal to freely express their newly enlivened faith in Christ to others. There is no good reason to presume, from the outset, that illiterate people cannot or often will not bring a profound spiritual knowledge to others or contribute practically to the many important discussions concerning faithful Christian living. His insights regarding the church’s fear of endangering doctrine and its tendency to lord doctrinal traditions over disciples as a means of protecting others from falsehood are also profound. Leaders within a given Christian community frequently adhere to long-standing doctrinal traditions, and expect future disciples to adhere to them as well in order to be treated as a Christian and welcomed into their church; but such traditions cannot be what Allen calls “the Catholic doctrine,” which is the doctrine of all ages, the doctrine “of the primitive Christians as well as of us who live in this last age.” (p. 45). The Scriptures speak against such attempts to lord doctrine over other disciples, and leaders among the Christian community would be wise to heed such warnings (Matt. 20:20-28; 2 Cor. 1:23-24). If it is true that spontaneous expansion proceeds by an expression of experience more so than by mere intellectual assent to doctrinal traditions, many Christians traditions, including Allen’s Anglican ones, can learn a lot from Allen’s insights.

     However, I’m not convinced that Allen’s insights about Christian standards of morality are helpful or even accurate. For example, Allen repeatedly addresses his concerns about Christian standards of morality as being uniquely “western” (pp. 65, 66, 74), and all examples not explicitly labeled that way are still implied as “western” because they are countered with illustrations from eastern civilizations (Africa, Asia, etc.). But all the standards of Christian morality that he uses as illustrations are Judeo-Christian, not “western” in the historical sense of the term. Historically, western civilization ditched its “western” standards of pagan morality and adopted Judeo-Christian standards in its place. Allen’s critical label upon “western” standards of morality turns out to be more than a bit cliché. Furthermore, Allen argues that the Law of Moses is entirely inadequate to derive a Christian standard of morality. For example, Allen maintains that the apostle Paul “based his exhortation to the Corinthians to excommunicate the man who had taken his father’s wife” on the ground that such sexual habits were naturally and “universally recognized as evil” (p. 64). Yet, Paul repeatedly references and alludes to Torah throughout his letters; appeals to “universally recognized” conventions do not appear to be the basis for Paul’s exhortation. Rather, the statements of Yahweh in Leviticus 18:8 and Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 seem to provide sufficient instruction for Paul to ground his decision. Although it is true that social and economic ramifications ought to be taken into account before imposing traditional moral standards upon pagan converts (precisely because Christian traditions might actually be unwise), Allen seems to have overlooked the need to distinguish between lowering traditional standards of morality and lowering God’s standards of morality. The thrust of his arguments against a “universally recognized” standard of God’s morality leads me to suspect that he would disagree that such a distinction is possible. But if such suspicions of mine are indeed correct, I would then wonder what makes him privy to the universal convention that he claims Paul used to recognize “evil” among the Corinthians.

     In conclusion, I think Allen’s concern for seeing the spontaneous expansion of the Church through the work of the Holy Spirit, rather than the expensive and programmatic methods employed among modern organizations, are ideal and worth serious reflection. Allen’s regard for the church as a catholic entity, and his insistence upon leadership that equips, encourages, and assists spontaneous progress is extremely important, too, and well worth the price of the book. For the missional-minded Christian, my greatest caution in recommending this book is Allen’s casual disregard for “western” regulations and Torah regulations altogether.

View all my reviews

The Structure of 1st Timothy 1:3-11

Paul begins his first letter to Timothy by exhorting him to "charge" certain persons not to teach the Law "differently." Indeed, the different uses (abuses) of Law found among these teachers that are contrary to health-giving doctrine amount to bad management of God's house, and therefore may be worthy of discipline. They may need to be treated mercifully too. This is evident from the larger context (1:3-20) wherein Paul mentions his discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander a few verses later (vv. 19-20), who consciously rejected apostolic teaching; but Paul also mentions a contrasting example of the Lord's mercy toward his own ignorant and unfaithful use of the Law toward Christians (vv. 12-15).

According to Paul, the goal or aim (τέλος) of Timothy's "charge" to these "teachers-of-the-Law" is love which flows out of a clean heart, good conscience, and unhypocritical faith. Paul and Timothy both know that God's Law is attractive if it's used lawfully, for God did not lay it down for those who are just, law-abiding, and obedient. (What discipline could possibly be laid down for those who using the Law lawfully?) Even in the secular use of law, it is not laid down for law-abiding citizens; how much more then is it laid down for citizens of God's kingdom who abide by the law? The law is not laid down for law-keepers, but for those who are unjust, law-breaking, and disobedient: those who strike their fathers and mothers (Exod. 21:15; Deut. 21:18-21), murderers (Exod. 21:12), the sexually immoral (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13-30), homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), kidnappers (Exod. 21:16), liars (Exod. 23:1; Lev. 6:1-7), perjurers (Exod. 23:2-3; Deut. 19:16-19), and the like. The examples which Paul uses are unmistakably clear in at least one way: such behavior within the house of God--among God's covenant people--is in need of a serious charge to repent if discipline is to be mitigated. 

This opening charge of Paul to Timothy is arranged chiastically, making it a little easier to notice the conceptual and linguistic parallels:


A) As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge (παραγγείλῃς) certain persons not to teach any different doctrine (ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω), nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than management of the house of God that is by faith (θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει). 

     ^B) The aim of our charge (παραγγελίας) is love out of a clean heart and a good conscience and a unhypocritical faith. 

          ^C) Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers-of-the-Law (νομοδιδάσκαλοι), without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

     ^B') Now we know (Οἴδαμεν) that the law is attractive, if one uses it lawfully, 

^A') knowing (εἰδὼς) this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever different use is contrary to health-giving doctrine (εἰ τι ἕτερον διδασκαλίᾳ), in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (θεοῦ ὃ ἐγώ ἐπιστεύθην). 

The Law is not for the Righteous, but for the Unrighteous

My friend Jeff Wencel has offered an intriguing analysis of I Timothy 1:8-11 over on his blog. I read his comments with two thumbs up all the way to the end, but a comment he made in passing against "theonomistic types" of interpretation caused me to re-read his post. I was intrigued about why he thought his take on the subject differed so noticeably from "theonomistic types" of exegesis, so I commented on his Facebook page about this. He requested that I share my thoughts on my blog so we could interact publicly in the good old fashioned public iron sharpening sort of way. Below is a stab at my first response to Jeff's comments. The main comments of Jeff's that I am responding to (below) are found on our Facebook thread:

...it's clear at the very least from the text that a lawful use of the law is not one in which it is used for the righteous. That's what the text says. Theonomists or otherwise can try to make it say something else, but the text says what it says. "The law is good, IF one uses it lawfully." What does a lawful use of the law look like? Paul tells us: a lawful use of the law is to understand that it is not laid down for the righteous.

In his blog post, Jeff wrote this too: 

Those who live in line with the sound doctrine, the righteous, don't need the law. It's not laid down for them. Isn't this what the text is saying?

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that you notice Paul's point in stating that "the Law" is not one in which it is used for the righteous (emphasis is mine), but yet you think that necessarily disqualifies or runs counter to theonomic exegesis. I don't think that terminology does, at least not necessarily; certainly not according to the surrounding context of discipline. What you interpret "for the righteous" to mean and what a theonomist interprets that to mean may differ in how broadly it can be applied socially, but because I appreciated your thoughts on the passage I'm going to try and offer a theonomic exegesis that doesn't disqualify or run counter to what you think it means, i.e. that those who live in line with sound doctrine don't need the law. 

What a theonomist would question is what you mean by "needing the law" (as stated in your blog post). In a bold attempt to speak on behalf of most theonomists today, I don't believe they would equate the "lawful use of the Law" with "needing the law." They might associate the two, but it's more likely that they would equate the unlawful use of the Law with needing the Law; that is, needing the Law as a just standard to restrain "the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners" (I Tim. 1:9).

The second thing that came to my mind was your insertion of the concept: "a lawful use of the law is to understand that it is not laid down for the righteous." Your interpretation of that statement seems to be question begging. Paul does not say that the lawful use of "the Law" looks like understanding a thing. Rather, it seems that by understanding Paul's derivative list of Law-illustrations, that would have helped Timothy identify what unlawful uses of "the Law" look like. It looks like those unholy and profane, those who strike their father and mother, murderers, fornicators, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers (I Tim. 1:9-10). The illustrations listed by Paul are of those who are "unjust" and not using the law "lawfully." They all fall under moral condemnation as laid down in the Law itself, and are subject to civil and/or ecclesiastical penalties under the "the Law." This is extremely obvious for those who are familiar with the Torah and it's first century abuse by Jewish authorities.

Perhaps breaking down the sentence even further will help clarify where a theonomist is coming from (it helps me, at least): "Now we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully …in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." 

The "knowing/understanding" that "the Law is not laid down for the just, etc…" seems to imply that some people--like Timothy--recognize and value the just character of God's Law, and therefore can lead by a righteous example among others, not falling under the sanctions of God. Those who use the law lawfully, unlike murderers, kidnappers, homosexuals, etc…, are those who use the Law in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which Paul was entrusted.

As you mentioned in passing in your blog post, the context is about men teaching divergent doctrine. Timothy is receiving instructions of this sort from Paul because, according to the previous verse, "certain persons" have "swerved" from stewardship in the Word of God by using "the Law" unlawfully, "promoting speculations," "devoting themselves to myths and endless genealogies," having "wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." I may be reaching a bit in saying this, but the references to genealogies, myths, and teachers of "the Law" sounds a lot like certain Jewish "teachers." If that is correct, they were using the Law unlawfully, and therefore were worthy of God's sanctions. Timothy, of course, could only impose sanctions which were lawful within ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

Since Paul has the topic of just-treatment ("just use of the Law") in mind in the entire first chapter, he may want Timothy to recognize that his own treatment and response toward the law-abusers must be lawful. Not only does Paul argue as though his own sinful actions toward God and other Christian Jews deserved justice according to the Law, he highlights that God showed mercy according to the Law "because [he] acted ignorantly in unbelief" (I Tim. 1:13). The "certain persons" (i.e. Jewish teachers) described earlier in this same chapter need to be evaluated by Timothy in a similar light. Do they deserve justice or mercy according to God's Law? The Law teaches the holy character of God through both, and Timothy needs to use the law lawfully in his manner of discipline. 

This idea of "lawful use of the Law" continues to linger on in the background of chapter one. Paul exhorts Timothy to wage "good warfare." To a theonomist, that seems like an odd statement without Paul assuming God's Law as the standard for New Covenant ethics. Notice the adjective "good" with regard to the warfare Paul exhorts him to wage. It's not just "warfare" in the abstract, as though all means of warfare were always good and lawful. Timothy is to wage good warfare, which may, at some point in time, necessitate ecclesiastical discipline, like it did with Paul (i.e. handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan so they would learn not to blaspheme; I Tim. 1:18-20). But it also may need to be applied in the civil realm too. That would be a broader application of how all of this ties in with Christian sanctification and discipline, and that would also be outside Timothy's jurisdiction as an officer of the Church. 

Does this help clarify things at all Jeff?