TEXT. Romans Chapter 7
1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to
those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he
lives?
2. For the woman who has a husband is bound by
the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is
released from the law of her husband.
3. So then if, while her husband lives, she
marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies,
she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married
another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become
dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another,
even to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to
God.
5. For when we were in the flesh, the passions
of sins which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit
to death.
6. But now we have been delivered from the law,
having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of
the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin?
Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the
law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You
shall not covet.”
8. But sin, taking opportunity by the
commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law
sin was dead.
9. I was alive once without the law, but when
the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10. And
the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11. For
sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
12. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and
good.
13. Has
then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might
appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through
the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
14. For
we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. For
what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not
practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16. If,
then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17. But
now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18. For
I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is
present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19. For
the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I
practice.
20. Now
if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells
in me.
21. I
find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22. For
I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23. But
I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24. O
wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25. I
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve
the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Many
times, I have had the opportunity to refer to this chapter, and have read some
portions of it and made remarks. But I
have not been able to examine this chapter as fully as I wanted to, and
therefore I thought I would make it the subject of a separate message. In presenting my views, I will pursue the
following order:
I.
I will mention the different opinions that have prevailed in the church
concerning this passage.
II.
I will show the importance of understanding this portion of scripture
correctly, or of knowing which of these prevailing opinions is the true one.
III.
I will lay down several facts and principles that have a bearing on the
interpretation of this passage.
IV.
I will refer to some rules of interpretation that should always be observed in
interpreting either the scriptures or any other writing or testimony.
V.
Finally, I will give my own views of the real meaning of the passage, with
reasons for those views.
I
will confine myself chiefly to the last half of this chapter, since this is the
disputed portion of that chapter. You
see from the way in which I presented my outline, that I plan to simplify the
subject as much as possible, so it can be completed in a single lecture. Otherwise, I could spend many nights showing
the meaning of this chapter.
I.
I will show what are the principal opinions that have prevailed concerning the
application of this chapter.
1.
One opinion that has extensively prevailed and still prevails is that the
latter part of the chapter is a brief summary of the Christian experience.
Many
believe it describes the situation and exercises of a Christian, and designed
to demonstrate the Christian’s battle with indwelling sin. However, please notice that this is a
relatively modern opinion. No writer is
known to have held this view of the chapter for centuries after it was
written. According to Professor Stuart,
who has examined this subject more thoroughly than any other man in this
country, Augustine was the first writer that suggested this interpretation, and
he used it in his controversy with Pelagius.
2.
The only other interpretation given is that which prevailed in the first
centuries and which is still generally adopted on the continent of Europe as
well as by a considerable number of writers in England and in this country that
this passage describes the experience of a sinner under conviction, who was
acting under the motives of the law, and not yet brought into the experience of
the gospel. In this country, the most
prevalent opinion is that the 7th chapter of Romans outlines the experience of
a Christian.
II.
I will show the importance of a right understanding of this passage.
A
right understanding of this passage must be fundamental. If this passage in fact describes a sinner
under conviction, or a purely legal experience, and if a person, who believes
that it is a Christian experience, finds his own experience corresponds with
it, his mistake is a deadly one. It
must be a fatal error to think that his experience is the experience of a real
Christian because it corresponds with the 7th chapter of Romans if Paul is, in
fact, only giving the experience of a sinner under legal motives and
considerations.
III.
I will lay down some principles and facts that will be important when we
examine this subject.
1.
From the nature of our mind, we will usually act according to our preferences.
In
other words, our will governs our conduct.
We never act against our will.
Our will governs the motion of our bodies. Because we are voluntary beings, we cannot act contrary to our
will.
2.
Generally, people often desire what they do not choose.
People’s
desires and their will are often opposed to each other. People’s conduct is governed by their
choice, not by their desires. Their
desires may be inconsistent with their choice.
You may desire to be somewhere else tonight, and yet you choose to
remain here. Perhaps you really want to
be somewhere else, and yet you choose to remain in this meeting. Let’s say that someone wants to go on a
journey somewhere. Perhaps he desires
it strongly. It may be very important
to his business or his ambition. But
his family is sick, or some other reason requires him to stay at home, and so
he chooses to stay home. In every
situation, your conduct follows your actual choice.
3.
Regeneration, or conversion, is a change of choice.
Regeneration
is a change in the supreme controlling choice of your mind. The regenerated or converted person prefers
God’s glory to everything else. He
chooses God’s glory as the supreme object of his affection. This is a change of heart. Before, he chose his own interest or
happiness as his supreme goal in life.
Now he chooses God’s service in preference to his own interest. When a person is truly born again, his
choice is habitually right, and, as a result, his conduct is also right.
The
force of temptation may produce an occasional wrong choice, or even a series of
wrong choices, but his habitual course of action is right. The will, or choice, of a converted person
is habitually right, and, because of this, his conduct will also be habitually
right. If this is not true, then how
does the converted person differ from the unconverted person? If it is not the character of the converted
person to habitually obey the commandments of God, then what is his
character? But, I presume what I have
just said will not be disputed by anyone who believes in the doctrine of
regeneration.
4.
Moral agents are so constituted that they naturally and necessarily approve of
what is right.
A
moral agent is one who possesses an understanding, a will, and a
conscience. Conscience is the power of
discerning the difference between what is right and what is wrong. I don’t think anyone will argue that a moral
agent can be led to see the difference between right and wrong, so that his
moral nature approves of what is right.
Otherwise, a sinner could never be brought under conviction. If a sinner has no moral nature to see and
highly approve of the law of God and justify the penalty that is assessed to
that law, he cannot be convicted. For
conviction is seeing the goodness of the law that one has broken and the justice
of the penalty he has incurred. But in
fact, there is not one moral agent, in heaven, earth, or hell, that cannot be
made to see that the law of God is right, and whose conscience does not approve
of the law.
5.
People may not only approve that the law is right, but they may often, when they
view the law abstractly and without reference to its bearing on themselves,
take real pleasure in thinking about it.
Here
is one great source of self-deception.
People view the law of God in the abstract, and they love it. When there is no selfish reason to oppose
it, they take pleasure in looking at and admiring God’s law. They abstractly approve of what is right and
they condemn wickedness. Everyone does
this when there is no selfish reason not to.
Who ever found someone so wicked that he or she approved of evil in the
abstract? Can you find a moral being
that approves of the character of the devil, or approves of other wicked men
who have nothing to do with him? How often
do you even hear wicked men abhor and detest enormous wickedness in others? If their passions are not enlisted in favor
of error or of wrong, people always stand up for what is right. And this simple constitutional approval of
what is right may even be delightful when that right doesn’t interfere in any
way with their own selfishness.
6.
This constitutional approval of truth and the law of God, and the delight,
which naturally arises from it, have no virtue.
It
is only what belongs to our moral nature.
It comes naturally from the constitution of our mind. Our mind is constitutionally capable of
seeing the beauty of virtue. Not only
is this approval far from having any virtue in it, but it is also a clearer
proof of the strength of our depravity, than when we know what is right and see
how excellent the law is, but we do not obey it. Unrepentant sinners do not have anything holy in them. In fact, we see that their wickedness in sin
is that much greater because their wickedness is proportional to the light that
they enjoy. And, when we find that
people may not only see the excellence of the law of God, but they also even
strongly approve of it and take delight in it, and yet they do not obey it, it
shows how desperately wicked they are, and makes their sin appear even worse.
7.
It is common for people to say, “I would do this or that, but I can’t”, when
all they mean is that they desire to do this or that, but they don’t choose to
do it. And so they say, “I could not do
it,” when they only mean that they were not willing to do it. But they could do it if they choose to do
it.
Not
long ago, I asked a minister to preach for me on the following Sunday. He answered, “I can’t”. I found out later that he could if he really
wanted to. I asked a merchant to accept
a certain price for something I was buying.
He said, “I can’t do it”. What
did he mean? That he wasn’t physically
able to accept such a price? Not at
all! He could if he wanted to, but he
did not choose to do it. You will see
the importance of these remarks when I come to read the chapter.
IV.
Let me present several rules of interpretation that apply to the
interpretation, not only of the Bible, but also of everything that has been
written, and to all evidence whatever.
There
are certain rules of evidence, which all men are required to apply in
determining the meaning of the testimony of witnesses, and of everything
written.
1.
Always put that construction on language that is required by the nature of the
subject.
We
must understand a person’s language as it applies to the subject that he or she
is talking about. Much of today’s
common language can be twisted into anything you want if you lose sight of the
subject and take the liberty to interpret it without reference to what the
author or speaker is talking about.
Interpreting separate scriptural passages and single expressions in
violation of this principle has done a lot of damage. It is mainly by overlooking this simple rule that the scriptures
have been twisted into supporting innumerable errors and absurd contradictions. This rule applies to all statements. Courts of justice would never allow such
perversions as have been committed on the Bible.
2.
If a person’s language allows, we must explain it so that it makes him
consistent with himself.
Unless
you observe this rule, you can hardly talk five minutes with an individual on
any subject and not make him contradict himself. If you do not hold to this rule, how can one man ever communicate
his ideas so that another man will understand him? How can a witness ever make known the facts to the jury if his
language is to be twisted at will, without the restraints of this rule?
3.
In interpreting a person’s language, we must keep in view the point that he is
talking about.
We
must understand the scope of his argument, the object he has in view, and the
point to which he is speaking.
Otherwise, we won’t understand what he is saying. Suppose I picked up a book, any book. If I don’t keep my eye on the object the
writer had in view in writing it, and the point to which he is aiming, I can
never understand that book. It is easy
to see how endless errors have grown out of a practice of interpreting the
scriptures while disregarding the first principles of interpretation.
4.
When you understand the point that the person is talking about, you understand
that he is talking about that point; and don’t change what he says to make it
mean something that is unconnected with his purpose, or inconsistent with it.
By
losing sight of this rule, you can turn anything into nonsense. You must always interpret what is said or
written in the light of the subject that the writer or speaker is focusing
on.
V.
Now that I have laid down these rules and principles, let me proceed in the
light of them to give my own view of the meaning of this passage, with the
reasons for this meaning. But first, I
have three remarks to make.
First
remark. Whether the apostle Paul was
speaking about himself in this passage, or whether he is giving an example, is
not material to the right interpretation of this passage.
Many
believe that because Paul speaks in the first person, he is referring to
himself. But it is a common practice,
when we are discussing general principles or arguing a point, to give an
example in order to illustrate, or to establish a point. And it is very natural to state this example
in the first person without intending to be understood, and in fact without
ever being understood, that you are saying that this was either an actual
occurrence or an experience of our own.
Here, the apostle Paul was trying to establish a point, and he attempts
to establish this point simply by way of illustration. And here, it really doesn’t matter whether
it is his own actual experience, or merely using an example to illustrate his
point.
If
Paul is speaking about himself, or if he is speaking about another person, or
if he is using an example, he does it with the purpose of showing a general
principle of conduct, and that all people under similar circumstances would do
the same. Whether he is speaking about
a Christian, or about an unrepentant sinner, he lays down a general principle.
The
apostle James, in the 3d chapter of his epistle, speaks in the first person
when administering reproof. “My
brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a
stricter judgment.” (James 3:1)
“With
it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in
the similitude of God. (James 3:9)
The
apostle Paul often says “I,” and uses the first person when discussing and
illustrating general principles: “All
things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not
be brought under the power of any.” (I
Cor 6:12) And again, “Conscience, I
say, not your own, but that of the other.
For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil
spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?” (I Cor 10:29-30) “For now
we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am
known. And now abide faith, hope, love,
these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (I Cor 13:12-13) So also,
“For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a
transgressor.” (Gal 2:18) In I Corinthians 4:6, Paul explains to us
why he uses the first person in these illustrations, “Now these things,
brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes,
that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you
may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”
Second
remark. Much of the language that the
apostle uses here can apply to the case of a backslider who has lost all but
the form of religion. The backslider
has left his first love and has, in fact, fallen under the influence of legal
motives of hope and fear, just like an impenitent sinner. If there is such a character as a real
backslider who has been a real convert, he is then motivated by the same
motives as the sinner, and the same language may equally apply to both. Therefore, the fact that some of the
language before us can apply to a Christian who has become a backslider does
not prove at all that the experience here described is the Christian
experience, but only that a backslider and a sinner are in many respects alike. I won’t hesitate to say that no one who was
aware that he was motivated by love for God could ever have thought of applying
this chapter to himself. If any one is
not exercising love for God, this describes his character; and whether he is
backslider or sinner, it is basically the same thing.
Third
remark. Some of the expressions used
here by Paul are supposed to describe the situation of a believer who is not a
habitual backslider, but who is overcome by temptation and passion for a while,
and speaks of himself as if he were all wrong.
The Bible says that a man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own
lusts, and enticed. (James 1:14) And in that state, no doubt, he might find
expressions here that would describe his own experience while under such
influence. But that proves nothing
about the purpose of this passage, for while he is in this state, he is under a
certain influence, and the impenitent sinner is always under the same
influence. The same language,
therefore, may apply to both without being inconsistent.
Although
some expressions may support this plausible construction, yet a view of the
entire passage makes it clear that it cannot be describing our Christian
experience. Therefore, my own opinion
is that Paul wanted to represent the experience of a strongly convicted and yet
unconverted sinner. The reasons are
these:
1.
Because Paul is clearly describing someone’s habitual character, who is
completely under the dominion of the flesh.
He is really not describing one who, under the power of present
temptation, is acting inconsistently with his general character. But, Paul is describing one who uniformly
falls into sin in spite of his approval of the law.
2.
It would have been entirely irrelevant to Paul’s purpose to state the
experience of a Christian as an illustration of his argument. That was not what he needed. Here, Paul is trying to refute the objection
that the law is not good. Paul was
vindicating the law of God concerning its influence on a carnal mind. In chapter 5, he states that justification
is only by faith, and not by works of law.
In chapter 7, he maintains not only that justification is by faith, but
also that sanctification is by faith. “Or
do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law
has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as
long as he lives. But if the husband
dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she
will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that
law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” (v.
1-3). What is the use of all this? Why, this, “Therefore, my brethren, you also
have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married
to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit
to God.” (v. 4) While you were under
the law, you were required to obey the law, and hold to the terms of the law
for justification. But now being made
free from the law as a rule of judgment, you are no longer influenced by legal
considerations of hope and fear, for Christ to whom you are married, has set aside
the penalty, that by faith you might be justified before God.
“For
when we were in the flesh”, that is, when we were in an unconverted state, “For
when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which were aroused by the law
were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what
we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not
in the oldness of the letter.” (v. 5-6)
Here Paul is describing the real condition of a Christian, that the Christian
serves in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Paul had found that the fruit of the law
only produced death, and through the gospel, he had been brought into true
subjection to Christ. What is the
objection to this? “What shall we say
then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the
law. For I would not have known
covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, taking opportunity by the
commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when
the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring
death.” (v. 7-10) The law was enacted so
that people could live by it, if they would perfectly obey it; but when we were
in the flesh, we found that the law led to death. “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by
it killed me. Therefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” (v. 11-12) Now Paul brings up the objection again. How can the law, which is good, be made
death unto you? “Has then what is good
become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was
producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment
might become exceedingly sinful.”
(v.13) Here, Paul vindicates the law, by showing that it is not the
fault of the law, but the fault of sin, and that this very result immediately
shows the excellence of the law and the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Sin must be a horrible thing if it can work
such a perversion as to take the good law of God and make it the means of
death.
“For
we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.” (v. 14) Here is the hinge on which the whole
debate turns. Remember, that Paul is
vindicating the law against the objection that if the law is the means of death
to sinners, it cannot be good. Against
this objection, he goes on to show that all its action on the mind of the
sinner proves that the law is good.
Keeping his eye on this point, he argues that the law is good, and that
the evil comes from the motions of sin in our members. Now he comes to that part which is supposed
to describe the Christian experience, and which is the subject of our
controversy. Paul begins by saying,
“the law is spiritual, but I am carnal”.
Paul uses this word carnal ten more times in the epistles, but he uses
it once and only once in reference to Christians, and then it was in reference
to people who were in a very low state in religion. “For you are still carnal.
For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not
carnal and behaving like mere men?” (I
Cor 3:3) These Christians had
backslidden, and acted as if they were carnal, rather than converted
people. The term ‘carnal’ is generally
used to signify the worst of sinners.
This is the meaning of the word ‘carnal’ that Paul uses here in verse 14
when He says, “carnal, sold under sin”.
Knowing this, could you say that Paul was carnal at the time he wrote
this epistle? Was that his own
experience? Was Paul sold under
sin? Was that true of the great
apostle? No! Paul was vindicating the law, and he was using an illustration by
supposing a case. He goes on, “For what
I am doing, I do not understand. For
what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” (v.15)
Here
you see the application of the principles I have laid down. The phrase ‘will to do’ in the New King
James is rendered ‘would’ in the King James and the American Standard. The Greek phrase, ((D
Ô 2X8T) means ‘for what I desire’. So, in interpreting the word ‘would,’ we
must not mistakenly think that this word refers to an act of our will, but only
to a desire. Otherwise, the apostle
would contradict the fact, which everybody knows is true, that our will governs
our conduct. Professor Stuart has very
properly rendered the word as ‘desire’; “what I desire, I do not, but what I
disapprove of, that I do”. Then comes
the conclusion, “If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that
it is good”. (v.16) In other words, if I do what I disapprove
of, if I disapprove of my own conduct, if I condemn myself, I thereby bear
testimony that the law is good. Now,
keep your eye on the object that Paul has in view, and read the next verse, “But
now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”. (v.17)
Here Paul sounds like he is dividing himself against himself, or
speaking about himself as possessing two natures, or, as some of the heathen
philosophers taught, as having two souls, one which approves the good and
another which loves and chooses evil.
“Or I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to
will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.” (v.18)
Here, the phrase ‘to will’ means to approve, for if men really will to
do a thing, they do it. Everybody knows
this. Whenever the language allows it,
we must interpret the phrase “to will” to make it consistent with known
facts. If you take the phrase ‘to will’
literally, you involve the apostle in the absurdity of saying that he willed
what he did not do, and so acted contrary to his own will, which contradicts a
universal fact. The meaning of the
phrase “to will” must be ‘to desire’.
This is how it is rendered in the Greek (see ‘The Interlinear Bible’ –
Hendrickson Publishers also Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance). Then it coincides perfectly with the
experience of every convicted sinner.
The sinner knows what he should do and he strongly approves of it, but
he is not ready to do it. Suppose I
were to call on you to do something specific.
Suppose, for example, I were to call on those of you who are impenitent
to come forward and sit in this pew over here so that we might see who you are,
pray for you, and show you your sins and also show you that it is your duty to
submit to God. Some of you would
exclaim, “I know it is my duty, and really want to do it, but I can’t”. What do you mean by that? Why, simply, that, generally, the balance of
your will is on the other side.
In
the 20th verse, Paul repeats what he had said before, “Now if I do what I will
not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”. Is that the habitual character and
experience of a Christian? I admit that
a Christian may fall so low that this language may apply to him; but if this is
his general character, how does it differ from that of an impenitent
sinner? If this is the habitual
character of a Christian, there is not one word of truth in all those
scriptures that represent the saints as those who really obey God; for here is
one who is called a Christian of whom it is clearly said that he never obeys.
“I
find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present within me.” (v. 21)
Here Paul speaks of the action of the carnal tendencies, as being so
constant and so prevalent that he calls it a “law”. “For I delight in the law of God according to the inward
man.” Here is the great stumbling
block. Can it be said of an impenitent
sinner that he ‘delights’ in the law of God?
I answer, yes! I know the
expression is a strong one, but the apostle was using strong language all
along, on both sides. It is no stronger
language than the prophet Isaiah uses in chapter 58. Isaiah was describing as wicked and rebellious a generation as
ever lived. He says, “Cry aloud, spare
not; lift up your voice like a trumpet; tell My people their transgression, and
the house of Jacob their sins.” (Isaiah
58:1) Yet he goes on to say of these
same people, “Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways, as a
nation that did righteousness, and did not forsake the ordinance of their
God. They ask of Me the ordinances of
justice; they take delight in approaching God.” Here is an excellent example of impenitent
sinners clearly delighting in approaching God.
The same is true in Ezekiel 33:32.
“Indeed you are to them as a very lovely song of one who has a pleasant
voice and can play well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do
not do them.” The prophet had been
saying how wicked they were. “So they
come to you as people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your
words, but they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but
their hearts pursue their own gain.”
(v.31) Here were impenitent
sinners, and yet they loved to listen to the eloquent prophet. How often do ungodly sinners delight in
eloquent preaching or powerful reasoning by some able minister! It is to them an intellectual feast. And sometimes they are so pleased with it
that they really think they love the word of God. This is consistent with entire depravity of heart and enmity
against the true character of God. In
fact, it sets their depravity in a stronger light, because they know and
approve of what is right, and yet continue to do wrong.
So,
in spite of this delight in the law, Paul says, but I see another law in my
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! Who
will deliver me from this body of death?”
Here the phrase, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord”, is simply
an exclamation which breaks in on Paul’s train of thought. Then he sums up the whole matter, “So then,
with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of
sin”.
It
is as if he had said, “My better self, my unbiased judgment, my conscience,
approves the law of God; but the law in my members, my passions, have such a
control over me that I still disobey”.
Remember, Paul was describing the habitual character of one who was
completely under the dominion of sin.
It was irrelevant to his purpose to use the experience of a
Christian. He was vindicating the law,
and therefore it was necessary for him to take use the situation of one who was
under the law as his example. If Paul
is referring to the Christian experience, he was reasoning against himself, for
if that is the Christian experience, this would prove not only that the law is
incapable of subduing our passions and sanctifying men, but that the gospel is
also ineffective. Christians are under
grace, and so it is irrelevant when vindicating the law to use the experience
of those who are not under the law, but under grace.
Another
conclusive reason is, that in chapter 7, Paul actually states that the
situation of a believer is entirely different.
In verses 4 and 6, he mentions those who are not under law and not in
the flesh, that is, not carnal, but delivered from the law, and actually
serving, or obeying God in spirit.
Then,
in the beginning of the 8th chapter, he goes on to say, “There is therefore now
no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to
the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from
the law of sin and death”. (v.
1-2) Paul had alluded to this in verse
25 above, “I thank God…” “For what the
law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in
the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (v. 3-4)
Who is this that he is now talking about? If the person in the last chapter was one who was having a
Christian experience, then whose experience is this? Here is something completely different. The person in Chapter 7 was totally under the power of sin, and under
the law, and although he knew what his duty was, he never did it. But in the 8th chapter, we find one for
whom, what the law could not do through the power of passion, the gospel has
done, so that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, or what the law
requires is obeyed. “For those who live
according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those
who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to
be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to
the law of God, nor indeed can be. So
then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (v. 5-8) There you have
it. Those whom he had described in the
7th chapter as being carnal, cannot please God. “But you are not in the flesh
but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is
in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness.” (v. 9-10) But here is an individual whose body is
dead. Before, the body had control, and
dragged him away from his duty and from salvation; but now the power of passion
is subdued.
Now
let me summarize all of this:
(1.)
The strength of Paul’s language cannot decide this question, for Paul uses
strong language on both sides. If
someone objects, saying that the individual he is describing in chapter 7 is
said to “delight in the law”; well, that same person is also said to be
“carnal, sold under sin”. When a writer
uses strong language, you must understand it in such a way that you don’t make
it irrelevant or inconsistent.
(2.)
Whether Paul speaks about himself, or about some other person, or merely
supposes a case by way of illustration, is wholly immaterial to the question.
(3.)
It is clear that the point Paul wanted to illustrate was the vindication of the
law of God, as to its influence on a carnal mind.
(4.)
The point required by way of illustration is the situation of a convicted
sinner who saw the excellence of the law, but in whom his passions had control.
(5.)
If Paul is talking about Christian experience, what Paul says becomes not only
irrelevant, but also proves the opposite of what he intended. Paul intended to show that the law, though
good, could not break the power of passion.
But if this is Christian experience, then it proves that the gospel,
instead of the law, cannot subdue passion and sanctify men.
(6.)
The contrast between the state described in the 7th chapter, and that described
in the 8th chapter, proves that the experience in the 7th chapter is not the
experience of a Christian.
REMARKS.
I.
Those who find their own experience written in the 7th chapter
of Romans rather than in the 8th chapter, are not converted people. If that is their habitual character, they
are not regenerated; they are under conviction, but they are not Christians.
II.
You can see the great importance of using the law in dealing with sinners, to
make them prize the gospel, to lead them to justify God and condemn
themselves. Sinners are never made to
truly repent unless the law convicts them.
III.
At the same time, you see that the law is unable to convert men. The case of the devil illustrates the
tremendous power of the law in this respect.
IV.
You see the danger of mistaking simple desires for piety. Desire that does not result in right choice
has nothing good in it. The devil may
have such desires. The wickedest people
on earth may desire religion, and no doubt, they often do desire it, when they
see that it is necessary for their salvation or to control their passions.
V.
Christ and the gospel present the only motives that can sanctify the mind. The law only convicts and condemns.
VI.
Those who are truly converted and brought into the liberty of the gospel, find
deliverance from the bondage of their own corruptions.
They
find the power of the body over the mind broken. They may have conflicts and trials, many and severe; but as a
habitual thing, they are delivered from the realm of passion, get victory over
sin, and find it easy to serve God. His
commandments are not harsh or cruel to them.
His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.
VII.
The true convert also finds peace with God.
He feels that he has it. He
enjoys it. He has a sense of pardoned
sin, and a sense of victory over corruption.
VIII.
You can see from this subject, the true position of a vast many church
members. They are struggling under the
law all the time. They approve of the
law both in its precept and its penalty; they feel condemned, and desire
relief. Still, they are unhappy. They have no spirit of prayer, no communion
with God, no evidence of adoption. They
only refer to the 7th of Romans as their evidence. Such a person will say, “That is my exact experience.” Let me tell you, that if this is your experience,
you are yet in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. You feel that you are in the bonds of guilt,
and you are overcome by iniquity, and surely, you know that it is bitter as
gall. Now, don't cheat your soul by
supposing that with such an experience as this, you can go and sit down by the
side of the apostle Paul. You are yet
carnal, sold under sin, and unless you embrace the gospel, you will be damned.