The Christadelphian 1929 and 1930, John Carter

“The Letter to the Romans” 

An Analytical Study

IX.—The Revealed Righteousness of God in Relation to the Believer’s Life of Holiness. (Continued.)

“The Position of Law” (7:7–25)

It will have been observed that there is constant reference to law in the letter to the Romans. There is more than one reason for this. There is the fact that the Jew played such an important part in the early days of Christianity. The apostles were Jews and for many years all the disciples were Jews. The law of God was brought to bear upon the people of Israel in practically every phase of individual and national life. They could not avoid giving attention to it. And when Gentiles were accepted as fellow-heirs with the Jews it is easy to understand that nearly every influence would tend to make the Jew think that the Gentile must come under the law. And as a consequence the conflict arose which caused the letter to the Galatians to be written.

But apart from this immediate cause, it is difficult to see how the subject could be avoided in any comprehensive consideration of the relationship of man to God. At the beginning man was placed under God’s law. And God had given Israel a law. Was it by means of law that man was to attain to life? What was God’s purpose in giving Israel the law?

In this letter Paul had already made references to law which made a fuller treatment necessary. In 7:5 he had spoken of the motions of sins which were by the law, and in 5:20 he said that the law entered that the offence might abound. In view of this close connection between law and sin, the question arises, as it certainly might arise in the mind of a Jewish Christian, Is there something in the law itself that is sinful? But Paul puts it more emphatically than that—Is the law sin?

It is a monstrous supposition, since law is a revelation of God’s will. But what, then, was the basis of this apparently inevitable connection between law and sin? Whenever law is made known sin is manifested; law then has the effect of exhibiting the sinfulness of man. Paul supplies proof of this from his own experience. He gives us a bit of spiritual biography so searching, so going to the roots of things, that it also expresses the experience of all men who are exercised concerning the keeping of God’s law.

In all this chapter we must remember the personification which is employed. Paul, as it were, separates the individual from the impulses which belong to him, and speaks of the impulses as though they were a separate power.

“What shall we say them? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not know sin except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead” (verses 7, 8). Sin is there, but latent. A man might desire many things, but in the absence of prohibition the desire is not sinful. But sin found occasion, opportunity, “a base of operations,” with the coming of the commandment. The law shewed the rulership of sin over man in that the desire persisted after the prohibition was known. Without the law sin was dead; it was not manifested as sin; its resistance was evoked by the law.

The proof of this Paul finds in his own life. In childhood as a Jewish boy he lived a boy’s life, unconcerned about the law. But as he grew older at successive stages the law was borne in upon him, directing his actions. It was then that he realised that there were impulses within him which were contrary to law. Sin revived, or sprang to life. Its presence was recognised. And the conviction was produced in Paul that he was a sinner and death-doomed. In a curt but expressive way he says “I died.” He lived unconscious of transgression before he knew the commandment and sin was dead; but when sin sprang to life he died.

What was the result of this moral development. His instructors who taught him the law told him that its aim was life. But with a bitter awakening Paul found it ended in death. Remembering that we have in these verses Paul’s experiences of law during his developing years, we see that the words of verse 10—“the commandment which was unto life”—expresses the Jewish point of view to the law. Whether that was a correct view we leave for consideration to a later passage. But for a right understanding of the allusion here, the context must be kept in mind. It was found to be unto death for the reason that sin finding occasion through the commandment beguiled him, and through it slew him. “Deceived” or “beguiled”—the language is reminiscent of Eve’s explanation of her taking the forbidden fruit: “the serpent beguiled me and I did eat” (Gen. 3:13). But there it was the serpent, here it is sin. The beguiling influence then was without, now it is within.

What follows? The question asked in verse 7 was “Is the law sin?” In the light of his experience Paul finds that the law is not sin, but on the contrary the very antagonism of sin the law shews the law was holy. The commandment was holy, just and good. It was holy, having its source in God; just in the righteousness of its appointments; good in its beneficial objects in directing human life.

But could the law be good when such dire results followed from its operations? “Did then which is good become death unto me?” (verse 13). Was the responsibility for his condemnation to be placed on the law? No, Paul answers, it was sin that was to blame. And sin is shewn to be exceeding sinful in that it uses a good law for man’s destruction. It is thus seen in all its malignancy and awfulness.

Commencing at verse 14 Paul develops proof of the holiness of the law and of the innate sinfulness of human nature, by an appeal to present experience. “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.” The law is spiritual in that it is of Divine origin, and partakes of the character of its Author. As an expression of God’s thoughts, it is higher than man’s thoughts. Man does not think God’s way because of what he is. Man is carnal, made of flesh, in which at present resides a principle contrary to God. It produces works which are the opposite of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19–24). Paul adds to the words “I am carnal” the further definition “sold under sin.” Sin has effected the purchase of all. Sin personified is represented as the owner of the human race. All are his slaves to do his bidding. While on the part of the believer there is not now the voluntary surrender to sin, yet so long as the flesh in its present constitution continues so long will sin exercise its influence. Because of this, provision is made for the forgiveness of sins. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:8–10). “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (2:1).

The figure of slavery in the words “sold under sin” governs the sentences which follow. There is a constant repetition of the word “I” and also of the word “do”. The latter is a translation of three words which are discriminated in the R.V. The particular “I” must be determined by the qualifications made and the context. For while Paul is the “I,” yet in this analysis of Paul’s actions, and the analysis is representative of all in a similar position to Paul, there is brought to light conflicting elements. Paul and all believers are each one a kind of duality. There is the old man of the flesh and the new man in Christ Jesus. The development of the new man by the word of the gospel does not at once eradicate the old. There is, indeed, a repudiation of the old, but who does not know that it still exists and asserts its power. Who would not wish that it were indeed eliminated entirely? But those who most earnestly so wish are the ones who recognise the truth of Paul’s statements.

Verse 15 opens with “For,” confirming that man “is sold under sin.” “For that which I work, or carry out, I know not; for not what I would that do I practise; but what I hate that I do.” As the slave performs his task, blindly unquestioning, not having regard to why the task is set and what the object is, but simply in response to command of the owner, so there is a surrender to sin’s service. It is a service which is not the voluntary act of a righteous man, but an act he really repudiates. There is a failure to perform the good intention, and a doing of the thing which is hated. But this doing of what he would not, of what he hated, this disapproval, is a consent that the law is good (verse 16). But if there is the mental acknowledgement that the law is good, why the failure to perform? Because Paul was, as it were, two persons. It was not Paul the disciple of Christ, the son of God. that carried out the act, but sin that dwelt in him. Sin is a tyrant in residence, antagonistic to and thwarting the new and better desires.

Is it correct to describe it that way? Does sin inhabit man thus? Everyone who sincerely tries knows that it is so, for there is failure to suppress sin either in one way or another, and also failure to achieve the new desire. “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh (defining the “me”), dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me” (verses 18–20).

The situation is summed up in the words of verses 21–23. “I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.” Some attempt has been made, as, for example, in the margin of the R.V. to make “the law” of verse 21 a reference to the law of Moses. But Paul is speaking of the law in himself, the evil present with him. And it is the existence of this principle in him that causes the cry of anguish that immediately follows. Because of it he explains that while he delights in the law of God after the inward man, this other law overcomes his wishes.

Oppressed by the contemplation of this, he exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (verse 24). There is a deliverer, and with obvious relief Paul adds “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” and concludes, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

In these verses we have a series of synonymous phrases, and the list might be supplemented from other parts of Scripture. “This new mode of thinking and feeling created in a true believer by the divine law and testimony, is variously designated in scripture. It is styled ‘a clean heart and right spirit’; ‘a new spirit’ and a ‘heart of flesh’; ‘the inward man’; ‘new creature’; ‘the new man created in righteousness and true holines’; and ‘renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him’; the ‘hidden man of the heart’ and so forth.”—Elpis Israel, p. 141.

Contrasted with these expressions we find “sin that dwelleth in me”; “the law, that evil is present with me”; “me, that is my flesh”; “a different law in my members”; “the law of sin in my members”; and “the flesh.” The recognition of this variety of expression to describe the duality that exists consequent upon the reception of the Truth will help to a correct understanding of chapter 8.

An extended treatment of the difficulties which some have found in an apostle writing concerning himself such words as Paul uses may be found in an article by brother Roberts, entitled “The Seventh Chapter of Romans,” in The Christadelphian, September, 1906.

Paul was human and he knew the difficulties of life. His apostleship did not exempt him from any conflict that is the common lot of all. His early efforts to keep the law of Moses, combined with his later knowledge of God’s purpose, must have given him a fearless and honest power of introspection. While it is one Paul, he yet recognises that he is under two influences. In Galatians he says “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” Here he says, speaking of failure to do as he would have liked, “it is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me.” There is a danger of these words being used to get rid of personal responsibility. They will always remain true when every effort has been made to follow righteousness, but should only be used when that effort has been made, when the words from Galatians can also be used. To follow a way of sin and excuse it by putting the blame on “sin that dwelleth in me” is as far removed as possible from Paul’s position. In fact, it would seem that those only can rightly use his words who are trying most to be followers of Paul as he was of Christ.

To set the Lord always before one’s face, to love enemies, to pray for those who act despitefully towards us, to think on the things that are just, lovely, and of good report, and on those alone, is a mode of life that will test the ability of the best to serve God. What a fullness of service is asked by Jesus when he says we must love God with heart, soul, mind and strength. At the end of day, has God ever been out of sight? Has ill-treatment or abuse or neglect evoked no bitter thought? Has no unfair, unlovely, unrighteous or unkind thought been entertained? Why, with the best of intentions, have other things found an entrance into the mind? Is not Paul right when he speaks as he does in this analysis of human action? You say in despair that the position, then, is hopeless. Not so. There is deliverance in Christ Jesus. There is provision in him for forgiveness and help. We are exhorted to make a habit of drawing near to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy for past sins, and grace to help in present needs.

X.—The Revealed Righteousness of God in Relation to the Believer’s Life of Holiness—continued

The Deliverance in Christ Jesus (8:1–4).

IN the eighth chapter of Romans we come to a variety of difficulties. The opening verses in particular have caused considerable discussion in connection with the subject of the sacrifice of Christ. We need to get a right grasp of the meaning of the words used. We must ever keep the context in mind, and take account of other passages which deal with the same subject.

It might be well to review the argument of the letter up to this point. The universal failure of man to attain to righteousness was first proved, and then God’s provision for man being accounted righteousness was demonstrated. That provision was through the work of Jesus, by which God arranged for the forgiveness of sins. There was acceptance in Christ by union with him. He was a new federal head raised up by God. In Christ, with sins forgiven, there is peace with God and an assured prospect of eternal life.

These things established, Paul deals with the life of the believer in his present state of justification. The particular form of his statement is influenced by objections brought against his doctrine. The voluntary adoption of a sinful life was shewn to be inconsistent with the profession of the believer and the purpose of God. The Jew in particular was instructed that in Christ Jesus he is not under the Law, yet not therefore free to sin, but he is united to Christ to serve in a new life which does not consist of external ordinances, but of a full surrender of their own selves to the will of God.

By law sin was made manifest. From his own experience Paul illustrates this, for he found within him impulses which assert themselves in opposition to the will of God. These tendencies persist in the believer, and considering their influence, Paul groans in wretchedness. But he turns his downcast soul towards God. There is hope in Him and in His purpose. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” there is deliverance from this body of death.

It is of this deliverance, the means for the accomplishment of which he has before considered, that he speaks in 8:1–4. It is the deliverance which the Law could not effect but which God has effected. It is in one word—Salvation.

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” The “therefore” expresses an inference from the statement that there is a deliverance from this body of death in Christ. Since the Redeemer has come and the believer is “in Christ,” “now” there is no condemnation. This word “condemnation” occurs again only in chapter 5:16, where Paul says that Adam’s sin in its outworking involved all in condemnation. Not, be it observed, condemnation for Adam’s sin, but as Paul shewed in v. 12, “all sinned” through Adam’s sin, and therefore condemnation came upon all. But in Christ, as the result of sins being forgiven, there is acquittal. Man is reckoned “Not Guilty”—there is no condemnation. We create difficulties when we try to read in to the words of scripture the particular meaning which the same words may have acquired through religious controversy. And this is the happy state of the believer, although his life is such as Paul has described in the seventh chapter, although the clogging effects of human nature hinder the full expression of the life the believer now tries to live. In this grace and law stand in marked contrast. There was condemnation under the Law—Paul calls it elsewhere a ministration of condemnation. But since grace pardons, the believer is acquitted.

This applied to them who “are in Christ Jesus.” The R.V. with all modern editors of the Greek text, omits the last phrase of verse 1, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.” The omission, if justified, throws greater emphasis upon the words “in Christ Jesus.” The words describe rather than define those who are of Christ. They are not used to express a condition of exemption, as though Paul said “if we walk not after the flesh,” but they tell us what manner of persons they are who are “in Christ Jesus” in the full and real sense in which Paul uses these words—they are such as walk after the spirit. Paul is not here contemplating the failure on the part of some to attain to the deliverance provided; they are not immediately in view. He has his mind on the certainties of God’s plan, and these cause his thankfulness. The words occur, without any doubt as to their genuineness, at the end of verse 4, and other aspects of their meaning must be considered there.

But how has it come about that there is no condemnation in Christ? The “for” of verse 2 introduces the explanation. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.” “The law of sin” has already been considered in connection with chapter 7. It is one of the many descriptions of the ruling impulses of human nature with its evil inclinations: “the law of sin which is in my members.” Now Paul calls this ruling principle “the law of sin and of death,” the added words shewing the issue of sin. This summarily describes the state of man, evilly inclined morally, mortal physically. Paul says he is “made free” from this. In what sense is he made free? It is evident that he does not mean an actual present freedom, for he has been bemoaning just before the continued existence of “the law—evil present with me.” He is, however, free from the condemnation that arises from the operation of the “law of sin in his members.” That is at present enjoyed. And a full deliverance will follow, when the “bodies of our humiliation will be conformed to the body of his glory.”

We can now examine the words which describe the agency by which the freedom has come. It is spoken of as “the law of the Spirit of life.” In the phrase “law of sin,” “law” has the meaning of operation, procedure, a principle of life or conduct. And in this other phrase, used in such close connection, “law” must have the same meaning. It is the law “of the Spirit.” It was by the Spirit that God revealed His purpose through the apostles and prophets. By it His will was made known. When the knowledge of that purpose and will of God finds an entrance into a person’s mind, the new mode of thinking—by metonomy (the cause being put for the effect)—might be called the spirit. Since the result of this reception of the truth of God is life, it is called “the law of the Spirit of Life.” In the words of Elpis Israel; page 89, “Where the truth has possession of the sentiments, setting them to work and so forming the thoughts, it becomes the law of God to them; which the apostle styles ‘the law of his mind’; and because it is written there through the hearing of ‘the law and testimony,’ which came to the prophets and apostles through the spirit, he terms it ‘the law of the spirit’ inscribed ‘on fleshly tables of the heart’; and ‘the law of the spirit of life, ’ because, while obeyed, it confers a right to eternal life.”

The words denote the gospel message received into a good heart and directing the life. It is closely akin to what is involved in the word “faith” as used by Paul in this letter, but it is expressed in such a way that the source and the end are brought to view. We must mark the repeated words “in Christ.” It is “in” him we are made free; not out of him, nor apart from him.

Verse 3 explains how “in Christ” there is this freedom. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God . . .” has done. God has done what the law could not do, and because of this there is the freedom of verse 2. What has God done? “’Sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, (He) condemned sin in the flesh.” The Law (of Moses) could not condemn sin; it condemned the sinner. Under its operation sin sprang to life, was stirred to activity. Not that the Law was unfriendly; it was “holy, just, and good.” But the flesh was weak, and the Law could not acquit. In a controversy between man and sin before the Law, the man is condemned. But how can God acquit? By doing what He has done, by condemning sin in a representative of the race, as we have seen in earlier chapters.

It was necessary for this that God should “send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Have we to infer from that word “likeness” that the flesh of Christ only resembled sinful flesh, and was not actually such? A similar phrase occurs in Phil. 2:7: “he was made in the likeness of men.” This likeness was identity; Jesus was a man. And that Jesus partook of the flesh common to men is decisively proved by Paul’s words in Heb. 2:14, where terms are added together to establish that Jesus shared the flesh and blood of the children whom he came to lead to salvation (verse 10). “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death.” To appreciate the emphasis of this language, the reader is recommended to read the passage through several times, omitting in turn the words “also,” “himself,” and “likewise,” and then with all three words omitted. It will then be apparent that their work is to emphasize the “sameness” of Christ’s nature and ours.

But why did not Paul say in Rom 8:3, “God sent His Son in sinful flesh”? Because he was stressing the sameness here also, with the additional fact that though like us in nature he was not like us in character. He was the sinless One.

The object is stated in the A.V.: “and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The R.V. substitutes “and as an offering for sin,” and puts “and for sin” in the margin. That the R.V. text is correct is evident, for “the idea is defined by the constant recurrence of the phrase in the Septuagint (more than 50 times in the Book of Leviticus alone) for a sin-offering.” the matter was discussed in The Christadelphian for December, 1913, by bro. W. J. Young, and reasons given in favour of the R.V. text as against the margin and the A.V. God, in sending Christ, was providing a sin-offering. This purpose had been the subject of revelation from the days of Eden, when God provided coverings of skins in the place of the humanly devised fig-leaf covering. When Abraham was approaching the place where he was going to offer Isaac, and was asked about the sacrifice, he answered “God will provide himself a lamb.” And Isaiah speaks of the arm of the Lord being bruised, suffering chastisement and stripes, that we might “be healed.” The climax of the suffering is expressed in the words “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53.). The offering was made that sins might be put away and remembered no more. To do this God condemned sin. Where? “In the flesh.” What flesh? The flesh of sin—the flesh of the human race that is “sold under sin,” and of which Christ was a sharer with all, as we have seen.

The obedience of Christ to the will of God was the condemning of sin. It was a conquest of sin. And when that obedience took him to the cross, for he was obedient unto death, “even the death of the cross,” as Paul says in another place, then sin received its death warrant: it was condemned in the very flesh over which it had held sway. Concerning the word “condemned,” it has been remarked that “the idea is not that of censuring, marking and branding as sinful, but that of sentencing to death, and leaving as a condemned criminal awaiting execution.”

Was it necessary for Christ to be a sin-offering that sin should be condemned? It evidently was. The ritual offerings of the law, unblemished physically, represented an offering with unstained moral character. A sinner would not do. No benefit of such a character as is involved in a sin-offering could accrue from the death of a sinner. Only the voluntary offering of a sinless member of the sin and death stricken race could exhibit God’s righteousness as the condition for the passing by of sins. But in the death of a sinner sin remains enthroned.

But now this happy result ensues. The Law could not condemn sin, but God has done it in Christ. “Through death he has destroyed that having the power of death.” Because this sin-offering has been provided, because sin has been condemned (verse 3), the believer is not condemned (verse 1).

What a wonderful issue here emerges in the apostle’s argument. He has been discussing the position of the Law in view of the Jewish difficulty that the Law appeared to be sinful since sin followed a knowledge of the Law. He has shewn that it is man that is sinful and that the Law is good. But the Law condemned man because he sinned, and Jewish trust in the Law was thus seen to be a vain hope. But Paul says, Although the Law cannot help us, yet there is deliverance. Christ is the deliverer God has raised up. While the Law condemns man, God has condemned sin, and has made Christ an offering for sin. Sin has been vanquished; sins can be forgiven; all the consequences of sin will surely be abolished. It is very easy for us, because of the chapter divisions in our Bibles, to miss the sweep of the argument.

The object aimed at is this: “that the righteousness (ordinance, requirement—R.V. marg.) of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit” (verse 4). The demand of the Law is obedience in love. This result will be reached in fulness when the redeemed family of God join the angelic hosts in doing His will, hearkening unto the voice of His word. But even now, says Paul, he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the Law (Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14)

The “us” in the case are those who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. The R.V. prints “spirit” with a small “s”; with good reason, we believe, for “flesh” and “spirit” are used antithetically. And this shews us that we must now add the word “spirit” to the list of descriptions of the “new mode of thinking” brought into existence by the truth received. The “flesh” is a name for the “old man”; the “spirit” for the “new man.” The fitness of this name can be seen by recalling the words of Jesus: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6); and also the words of James: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth” (Jas. 1:10). The existence of the word of truth is due to the agency of the Spirit of God which directed holy men of old to speak (write) as they were moved by it. And therefore that begotten by the Spirit-word can very fittingly be called “spirit.”   

John Carter.