Calvary Road Baptist Church
“COME THE LAW”
Romans 7.7-12
How would you like for a man came into your life and tell you that things are different than you’d always thought they were, that your value system is obsolete and that even before it was obsolete, it wasn’t as central to God’s plan as you’d always thought it was? Would you become despondent? Would you be discouraged? At the very least you would challenge what the man said, would you not?
If you can imagine something like that happening to you, then you can relate, somewhat, to the Jewish Christians in Rome. For almost 2000 years they had lived as the chosen people of God, thinking that the Law that Moses had been given on Mount Sinai was to be the rule of life for their people forever. And a number of them even turned to Jesus Christ, realizing that He was God’s Messiah for Israel, the Savior of the world, but thinking that His role in their lives was alongside that of their precious Law.
But when Paul’s letter arrives from Cenchrea by this messenger woman named Phebe, they are told that their understanding of the Law has been completely wrong. God never intended that the Law have any role in a sinner’s salvation. Salvation was to be by faith, as it had been with Abraham.[1] Further, Paul shows conclusively that the Law of Moses has no authoritative role in the believer’s life after salvation, either, but that the believer’s allegiance is pledged exclusively and uniquely to the Lord Jesus Christ. Loyalty is to be first, foremost, and always, to Christ. The Law has been so misunderstood that instead of being helpful to people who wanted to live rightly before God, the Law resulted in greater wrong being done.
How did Paul’s audience react to those kinds of statements? You can imagine. Try to remove from people’s lives something as dear and familiar as the Law, something which defined their national identity in their own eyes, and you’re going to have a fight on your hands. Knowing that there would be strenuous objections to relegating the Law to obsolescence by accusing him of things he did not say and by overreacting to what he did say, Paul, anticipated the objections some of his readers might have had.
Remembering that he wrote in Romans 7.5 that “motions of sins” were by the Law, Paul knew from experience that some would undoubtedly accuse him of saying that the Law of Moses was not of divine origin, of saying that there was something wrong with the Law, of even saying that the Law was sin. But Paul never said there was anything wrong with the Law. What he said was that there was something wrong with people’s perceptions of the Law . . . what it was given for and how it had been used, or more properly misused and abused.
So, in our text for this message, Paul responds to those who would question his motives regarding the Law and who would misinterpret what he has said thus far by strongly asserting that although the Law has been closely associated by him with sin, the Law is not sin. In Romans 7.7-12 we see three ways in which Paul defends himself against those who would accuse him of denying the Law’s divine origin and noble character. Let’s stand and read that passage together:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
First, PAUL’S REPUDIATION (7.7)
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
His repudiation of the charges leveled against him, or of the charges he anticipated being brought against him if his experience is any guide, comes in two parts:
First, there is anticipation:
“What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? God forbid.”
It had no doubt occurred to Paul that people rarely react to the truth in a coldly objective fashion, especially when the truth was so far removed from their preconceived and errant notions about the Law. And probably because it had occurred so many times before in his ministry, Paul realized that his close association of the Law with sin would provoke a strong (and on some occasions violent) reaction. But that’s because folks had not realized God’s actual intentions with the Law. If sin is the transgression of a marked off boundary, going where you are not supposed to go, doing what you are not supposed to do, it’s pretty well impossible for the transgression of a boundary to occur unless there are boundaries. The Law was those boundaries. So it must be that the Law will be associated with sin. But associating the Law with sin is a far cry from saying that the Law is sinful. Paul never said the Law was sinful.
Next, there is an explanation. Notice the two kinds of explanations Paul presents: First, there is a general explanation:
“I had not known sin, but by the Law.”
There would have been no realization of what sin was had there not been the Law to define and to describe sin. So, the Law served a very useful purpose. And to make his point clear he provides a specific explanation:
“For I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Please note here that the word “lust,” “covet,” and “concupiscence” in verse 8, are noun and verb forms of the same word, epithumia, referring to a strong or passionate desire. In this context a wrong desire. So, Paul’s first thrust of self-defense against potential accusers is a strong repudiation of the charges by anticipation and then by explanation. Is it not also obvious that here, as well as on other occasions, we observe Paul responding to his critics? Contrary to the bad advice that some Gospel ministers offer about silence in the face of your accusers and in response to accusations, the Apostle Paul always answered his critics. So answering your critics is not unchristian behavior. “But pastor, the Lord Jesus Christ did not answer His critics.” Oh, but He did most of the time. It was only to fulfill prophecy, Isaiah 53.7, that He was silent before His accusers who sought His crucifixion.[2]
Next, AFTER PAUL’S REPUDIATION COMES PAUL’S RECOGNITION
It’s not enough to simply deny that the Law is sinful. So Paul takes his readers forward in their understanding by bringing them to proper recognition of the interaction that takes place between sin and the Law of Moses:
As to opportunity:
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
In verse 8 Paul describes the interplay between sin and the Law. Notice, if you will, that when there is the Law; that is, when there are definite boundaries and markers to define right and wrong, sin has an opportunity, an occasion, a beachhead of operations the word alludes to, that had the effect of working in the sinner all manner of concupiscence, all kinds of lusts. Conversely, verse 8 goes on to assert, when there is no Law sin is dead. This does not mean that hearts were pure before the giving of the Mosaic Law, just as it does not mean hearts are pure when no speeding signs are posted. It simply means that sin has no expression without Law. You can’t illegally speed when a sign has not been posted. Sin must have Law to express itself. It is the wickedness of sin that provokes it to react against boundaries. In verse 9 Paul describes the relationship between the Law and life. This is the verse on which a proper understanding of the word “I” in Romans chapter 7 hangs. Please remember that Paul’s letter is literature. It’s inspired literature, but it’s still literature. That understood, recognizing that there was never a time in Paul’s life when he was not under the Law, by his testimony in other letters, we must understand that this word “I” in Romans 7 may not refer exclusively to Paul and only Paul. There are many different theories seeking to explain what Paul is doing in this chapter. But the simplest and most workable may be the notion that “I” refers not to Paul alone, but Paul in solidarity with the nation of Israel. Then certain things seem to become far simpler to understand and to interpret. In this verse 9, for example, sense can be made when “I” is understood to refer to the nation of Israel. Was there ever a time when Paul was without the Law before his conversion? No. But there was a time when Israel was without the Law. Not referring to spiritual life here, the nation of Israel existed and was animated before she received the Law of Moses. But when the Law was given sin had renewed opportunity to transgress boundaries. And when that occurred, death followed. And the death was not only the separation that was the effect of sin but also the loss of life that was the consequence of sin’s punishment. So you see, Paul sought for his readers to recognize that sin had always found in the Law an opportunity to express itself, and that when sin expressed itself death followed. Is that saying that the Law is sin? No. But it recognizes that the Law and sin are closely related.
As to observation:
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
There are two observations made by Paul here: First, regarding the commandment:
“And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.”
Notice the difference between Paul’s/Israel’s conclusions about the commandment and Paul’s/Israel’s observations about the commandment. It was concluded that the Law was given for life. But it was observed that the Law resulted in death. Second, regarding the cause. What caused the disparity between their conclusions and their observations? How could they have been so wrong?
“For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.”
The reason the nation of Israel was so wrong about how sin used the Law was that sin is deceitful. They were fooled. They were tricked. And the result is, they were slain. Rather than join them to God, sin operated by the Law to separate them from God. Again, it can be asked, did Paul call the Law sin? No, he did not. What he did do, however, was recognize how sin used the Law as an opportunity to manifest itself, and he used the Jew’s observations to bring them to a recognition of the close relationship between sin and the Law.
REPUDIATION. RECOGNITION. AND NOW, FINALLY, REAFFIRMATION (7.12)
“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
Based on his repudiation of the false charges leveled against him, as well as his recognition of the observable relationship between the Law and sin, Paul now re-affirms what he had earlier implied in Romans about the Law:
First, about the Law:
“Wherefore the Law is holy.”
This is probably Paul’s summary comment about the entire Mosaic economy. This is what the Jews would call the Torah. By referring to it as holy, Paul is indicating it to be of divine origin, something given to the nation of Israel by God, which we know it was.
Then, about the Commandment:
“And the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
This might be a specific reference to the actual Ten Commandments given to Moses at the top of the mount, or to any of the direct commands contained in the Torah. By holy, Paul refers to their divine origin. By just, he refers to the rightness of their demands upon men. By good, he refers to the inherent moral quality they possess.
The great misunderstanding between Paul and those who reacted against him was their mistaken belief that Paul hated the Law of Moses, that he thought it was no good, that he despised it. How often do we see that in every area of life, that disagreement is felt by those with whom you disagree to be hatred when it is nothing of the sort?
One ancient heretic, named Marcion, hated the Law so much that he mutilated Scripture to excise from the Bible any and all references to the Law, in the New Testament as well as the Old.[3] That’s uncalled for. We must understand that Paul did not hate the Law of Moses. And those who likewise loved the Law had absolutely nothing to fear from Paul. They simply needed to understand that Paul’s understanding of the Law in God’s plan for the redemption of mankind was correct, and theirs was incorrect.
To be sure, the Law was misused by sin as an occasion for doing wrong and wreaking havoc among God’s people. But the Law did succeed in doing what it was designed by God to do. You see, the Law’s only failure was a failure to do what God had never destined or empowered it to do in the first place. So, in reality, the Law did not fail. The failure, brought on by sin’s deception, was in Israel’s complete and total misunderstanding of the role and function of the Law. And, too often, we fail in the same way.
State it any way you choose. Reduced down to its barest essentials, the Law has a single function: To give knowledge of sin. Romans 3.20. So, when someone comes along to a group of people who are all wrong about the Law and seeks to straighten them out, he does not do so by calling the Law sin. Paul did not call the Law sin. Christians, there is a great deal of legalism in the Christian world today. There are many who, even if it isn’t the Law of Moses, have some rule of law that they misuse in some way. And at the other end of the spiritual spectrum, there are those who are so antagonistic toward the Law or law of any kind, that they virtually make the mistake that Paul was accused of . . . thinking that the Law is sin.
Let us at Calvary Road take the balanced road along which truth can be found. We don’t seek to live under the Law of Moses. Why? Because we recognize that it’s obsolete. At the same time, we don’t hate the Law. We recognize that God gave the Law to the Jewish people and that it had a specific and divinely ordained function, though not the function they thought it had. By the Law, God has brought to our consciousness a genuine understanding of what sin is and how offensive it is to God’s holy nature. And that’s great. We walk the middle ground that is not dictated by emotional reactions to personalities or bad experiences of the past, but by the clear presentation of the truth that is found in the Word of God.
Are you a Law hater? Do you find yourself unreasonably antagonistic toward the Law or anything that smacks of legalism to you? Perhaps that’s an indication of a spiritual problem of anti-authoritarianism you need to address, a bitterness you need to deal with, or perhaps a person you need to reconcile with. Or maybe you are a legalist. As I understand legalism, it’s an inappropriate use of the Law of Moses (or any other rule) to achieve goals and objectives in your life that God wants to be achieved by other means. Too many legalists use their adherence to rules as a means of salvation or sanctification. Are you doing that? Only the Lord Jesus saves, my friend, not the Law of Moses. As well, understand that neither does the Lord Jesus sanctify believers using the Law of Moses.
__________
[1] Genesis 15.6
[2] Matthew 26.63; 27.12, 14; Mark 14.61; 15.5; Acts 8.32; 1 Peter 2.23
[3] Philip Schaff, editor, History Of The Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity, Volume 2, First Series, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., reprint of 1858 American edition), pages 483-487.
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Please contact him by clicking on the link below. Please do not change the subject within your email message. Thank you.
Pastor@CalvaryRoadBaptist.Church