Deliverance from the dominion of sin was the subject of our studies in Romans 6 but, as we now move into chapter 7, the subject is deliverance from the demands of the law. Together, the two forms of deliverance provide the ground upon which the believer can live a sanctified life. Standing upon that foundation, Christians are granted the enabling power of the Holy Spirit (the subject of chapter 8) to live a victorious Christian life in anticipation of redemption, in all its fulness, when the Church is glorified together with Christ.
We have noted previously that Paul, in setting out the doctrine concerning the condemnation, salvation, justification, sanctification and glorification of sinners, whether they be Jew or Gentile, understood particularly the wrestling of the Jewish mind with certain elements of that truth. He anticipated the objections of his "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9.3), knowing all too well how he would have reacted to such doctrine in a former day. His method, you might recall, was to make a statement of doctrine, assume an objection on the part of his Jewish readers, meet that objection with the response "God forbid" ('far be the thought'), and then give a detailed explanation as to why the assumed objection had no basis. At the heart of his teaching on sanctification, Paul explained why it was preposterous to ask "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" (6.1), and concluded with the statement "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (v 14). That statement, however, would provoke further howls of protest, and Paul knew that perfectly well.
Those Christians in Rome who were from a Jewish background, may well have thought along these lines:
Paul has explained how the law contributed nothing to our salvation. It is clear that it could only expose our guilt and add to our condemnation. Salvation, we now understand, had to be by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. However, we have difficulty with his teaching that the law is equally excluded when it comes to our sanctification. In fairness, Paul anticipated our initial expression of horror that to discard the law would result in lawlessness and sinful living. His explanation that we died with Christ and have thus been delivered from the dominion of sin as a master, answered that question. But, having said that, for us to simply set aside the law that has been the central pillar of our lives up until now, and live henceforth as though we had never received it, seems as though we are betraying everything we grew up with.
The genuine perplexity that some of his readers would feel, touched the heart of the apostle as he wrote to them. Hence he addressed them as "brethren", and employed an illustration as he began to teach them the relationship of believers to the law. "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?" (Rom 7.1). There is a general principle in law that death terminates all contracts, including the contract of marriage. Some of Paul's readers may have felt they were being unfaithful to their heritage, and to the law, if they accepted his teaching. Using the illustration of marriage, therefore, Paul explained that a wife who marries another man while her husband is still alive, is an adulteress – an unfaithful sinner. But, if her husband dies, "she is loosed from the law of her husband" (v 2). Here, we should notice two important details: first, Paul did not press the analogy too far because, strictly, the law (represented by the husband) had not died. The point is, whether the husband or the wife is taken in death, the marriage contract has been terminated. Second, "she is loosed from the law of her husband" stresses the end of the relationship, rather than the end of her husband. She has died as a wife, as a consequence of her husband's decease. No longer being a wife, the woman is completely free to marry, and no sin, guilt or unfaithfulness is attached to her new union. So is the case, Paul taught, regarding the believer and the law. Death with Christ did not only bring deliverance from the dominion of sin, it also brought deliverance from the demands of the law. Evidently Paul also thought it necessary to show his Jewish readers that their deliverance from the law was a happy release. His inference is that the marriage bond between the Jew and the law was far from an idyllic one, and the fruit of the marriage was "unto death" (v 5). The law could not save, and it could not sanctify; it could only make demands, and those demands were for either total obedience, or death. It is a very unhappy marriage indeed where one of the couple is utterly dominant, demanding all and giving nothing! The believer's death with Christ has brought that unhappy, hopeless condition of things to an abrupt end, and the former 'wife' has been made free to marry another, Christ, "even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" (v 4).
In describing the seriously unhappy state of the Jews' marriage to the law, Paul was determined that his readers should not later pine for their former state. He explained the part the law had played in keeping them in bondage to sin. "For when we were in the flesh", (that is, in their unconverted condition), "the motions [impulses] of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (v 5). That particular statement gave rise to the question, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? (v 7). Is the law to blame for "our members" bringing forth "fruit unto death"? The familiar response rings out, "God forbid", for the notion of the God-given law being responsible for causing sin is abhorrent. So what part did the law play in their former bondage? In answering, Paul changed from the use of the first person plural ('we' and 'our') to the first person singular ('I' and 'my'). He thus reinforced his doctrine with an account of his own struggle with his relationship to the law. "I had not known sin, but by the law …" (v 7) is more fully explained by the statement "… that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (v 13). Paul was not saying he would have had no awareness of sin apart from the law but, rather, the law was the means by which he became properly aware of how dreadful sin is. The Jewish attitude to the law was largely one of external compliance with the Biblical commandments, but Paul had been greatly challenged by the commandment "Thou shalt not covet". This part of the law was not about externals, but about the innermost desires of the heart. Had the law never been given at Sinai, the Jews would still have had the law of nature and of conscience (2.14-15). But the law brought focus and definition to sin, and when Paul realised that the law had to do with desires before they manifested themselves as deeds, the spirituality of the law, and the carnality of the person, became intensely evident. "The commandment came" to Paul as never before and, as a consequence, "sin revived" ("for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (3.20)) and, he said, "I died". All his assumptions of righteousness by observance of external ritual were dashed, and he stood condemned. The commandment, which would have led to life if obeyed, searched his innermost being, exposed what was there, and led to death. The blame for that lay with sin, not with the commandment which is "holy, and just, and good" (v 12).
"Was then that which is good made death unto me?" (v 13). Once again, "God forbid". It is not the law, but the abuse of its commandments, that leads to death, and thus the exceeding sinfulness of sin is revealed, for it is sin that so abuses the law. The conclusion is clear: the law is holy (v 12), and "… in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing …" (v 18).
(Concluded.)
