This will be number five in our
series, Grace, No License to Sin. And Paul, this morning,
will give us his experience with the law. I might call it Paul's
encounter with the law, and we look at that along our way. So,
Romans chapter 7, verse 7, through verse 13. Look at that as I read. There's a reason why Paul opens
this verse with a question. We'll settle that in a bit. 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, or
desire, or covetousness, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law, sin was
dead." Now, I hope you'll pay attention to Paul's statements
right here in the next few verses. Look at that. Well, without the
law, sin was dead. For I was alive without the law
once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. and the commandment which was
to life I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore, the
law is holy, the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made
death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it
might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good,
that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. I have to tell you that I felt
conflicted about this text and about this passage of the scripture
and adding it to these short series. whether to end with our
last study that we had last Sunday morning, for we have cleared
grace of any charge that it leads to licentiousness and that it
will promote antinomianism, and that if people believe in the
free grace of God, they will live a life of sin rather than
holy unto God. Paul's answer to that is his
standard one. God forbid. In no way, not at
all, will grace be a license to sin. Or, I was conflicted
whether to continue with verse 7 and beyond this wonderful passage
of the scripture where Paul here in verse 7 through verse 11 that
we have read as Haldane put it and I'm quoting illustrates the
effect of the law on himself unquote and Paul is doing that
in the text that we read this morning. He gives a sort of a
personal testimony of his own experience with sin and with
the law. He describes an encounter that
he had with the law and which revealed in him sin that he was
not aware of before. The law came, came in its spirituality
and in its power and in its true nature. There was able to stir
up sin in Paul that he was not aware of before. And verse 9,
The commandment came, he said, and we'll be looking at that.
Needless it is to say, this is a controversial passage of the
scripture and has been debated back and forth for years and
for years. The point of controversy usually
focuses on this question, whether Paul is describing himself as
an unconverted man or as a Christian in the last part of chapter 7. And so whether verse 14 through
verse 25 are applied to one who is a child of God, and is seeking
to serve him whether such feelings and whether such contrary inclinings
that pop up in the children of God and whether such a warfare
as Paul is describing here can be the actual experience of a
believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, these are points, as I say,
that have long been debated. Arminian's taking one position,
and Calvin is taking another position. Now, we launched our
vessel in this great sea of truth this morning in verse 7. And the first thing we read is,
one of Paul's patented saying, What shall we say then? He often
uses that in the book of Romans. In other words, what then, in
light of these things, shall we say? At least seven times
we meet this question from Paul in the Roman epistle. Here are
some, we won't turn to them. Chapter 3, verse 5. Chapter 4
and verse 1. 6 and 1. 7 and 7, 8 and 31, and
9 and 14 concerning the justice of God in election. And then chapter 9 and verse
30 of the Gentiles obtaining righteousness without seeking
after it. Now this very expressive question. What shall we say then? In verse 7, has been defined
by one author in this way, quote, a formula of meditation on a
difficulty, a problem from which there is the risk of drawing
a false conclusion, unquote. Paul knows that this can be taken
the wrong way, and he knows that some will bring a particular
objection against it. Paul was an expert at realizing
the objection and the wrong conclusion and wrong application that an
unbeliever might make of some of the things that he has said.
So here in verse 7, the issue is what must we conclude from
what or something that Paul has said, that the law is sin. Is that what we're saying? Is
that the truth of the matter, that the law is sin? Is the law
the cause of sin? Is the law to be blamed for sin
and is it to be attributed unto the law? Probably the nearest
reason for raising this question is what he had said or written
back in verse 5 about the law stirring up the motion, literally,
the passion of sin. Can we read it again just to
establish the connection and the flow of thought? So if you
look at verse 5 again, he said, when we were in the flesh, that
is, when we were unregenerate, unconverted, and unsaved, when
we were in the flesh, the motions of sin, which were by the law,
did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Now that
requires some explaining and some explanation. And so in verse
7, when we were in the flesh, verse 5, the law brought to bear
upon us When the law came in its power and its nature, it
stirred up and it caused strong resentment to surface and to
bubble up in us as it did in Paul. It caused resentment When
we heard, the law required more of us than we ever imagined and
more than we had ever given. Picture in your mind, just as
an example and an illustration, a puddle of water standing for
quite a while and undisturbed, it appears to be settled. It
appears to be clear. You can see all the way to the
bottom. Yet, if it's stirred about, it
becomes dirty, muddy, and ugly. Now, in a sense, the law, to
some degree, is lack of conscience in an individual. If both are
led to lie quietly, the person lapses into a false sense of
his state before God. But if brought to bear the law
or the conscience in a fuller strength, it stirs up adverse
reaction, brings conviction or whatever, as when we were in
the flesh, when we were unregenerate. We found the law stirring up
motions of sin in us and bringing forth fruit unto death, as Paul
said there in verse 5. Now rather than make us holy,
rather than the law make us holy and purify us of sin, it actually
aroused sin and it found more sin in us than we ever had imagined. Now it is this that raises the
question in verse seven of our text today. What shall we say? What are we to conclude from
this? What opinion are we to form of
this activity of the law? What are we to deduce by the
fact that in the flesh the law stirred up motions of sin in
us? reading after some people that
are supposed to know. Lord knows I don't. And the Greek
seems to have it as a question. And the question is, the law,
sin? Or we might put it in the English. Is the law, therefore, sin? Because it stirs up the motions
of sin, Paul quickly rejects any notion as that. God forbid. In fact, soon he will tell us
In verse 12 of the text that we've read today, that the law
is holy, it is just, and it is good. In no sense of the word
are we to surmise that the law is sin. And in verse 14 he tells
us that the law is spiritual. It is holy, it is just, it is
good, and it is spiritual. Now, in the last tithe of verse
7, the apostle uses himself in order to illustrate one aspect
of the relation of sin and the law, taking both of them in his
view. He had written way back in chapter
3 and verse 20 that no justification comes by the deed of the law. There shall no flesh be justified
by the deeds of the law. By the law, he said, is the knowledge
of sin. Romans 3 and verse 20. Now he writes, chapter 7 and
verse 7, I had not known sin but or except by the law. That it was the law that convicted
me and that convinced him that he was a sinner. It was the law
that caused him to see that he had sin in him that he knew not
of. And notice again, I had not known
sin but by the law. And then he adds a very particular
example for us. I had not known lust, that is,
I had not known covetousness, I had not known desire, I had
not known concupiscent, except it was written down in the law,
thou shalt not covet. Now we will look at this again
on our way, but first of all, Let's scan down to verse 13,
in order that we might see the connection that Paul makes between
sin and the law. To confirm and even to expand
upon this premise in verse 5, that when we were in the flesh,
the motions of sin, which were by the law, did work in our members
to bring forth fruit unto death. Especially, if you would, note
the last words of verse 5, to bring forth fruit unto death. The law stirred up motions of
sin to bring forth fruit unto death. John Brown, one of my
favorite commentators on the book of Romans, wrote this, and
I took it down. Quote, the law has no tendency
to excite sinful propensity in innocent holy creatures, unquote. You could bring the law to bear
upon an unfallen holy creature, and they would find delight in
it and praise God for it. they being holy and without sin
would delight in the law of God. But Paul is speaking of fallen
unregenerate person who in hearing the strictness of the law and
its sanctions and penalties against sin and against sinners, well,
their reaction is as described here. They fret against its author,
God, and form harsh thoughts of the inflexible, justed, and
immaculate purity which are essential elements of the divine law. And that's a quote. It is a reflection
on the holiness and the righteousness of God. His encounter with the
law, Paul described, by which he came to know sin. I had not
known it, he said, except by the law. And by that, he realized
that sin was in him and that he stood guilty and condemned
before God because of the revelation made in the law. Now, I would
like for us to scan ahead in the passages and the connection
Paul makes between sin and the law. And that will be that we
read again some of the verses that we have taken. Look with
me again at verse 8, if you would. But sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, for
without the law, sin was dead. Then look at verse 9 again. I was alive without the law once,
or at one time, but when the commandment came, sin revived
and I died. Now look at verse 10, and the
commandment which was ordained to life I found it unto death. Verse 11, for sin taking occasion
by the commandment deceived me and by it slew me. Now verse 13 again, was then
that which is good made death unto me? God forbid, but sin,
that it might appear sin, Working death in me by that which is
good that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly Sinful
now, let's remember something that Paul wrote to the church
at Philippi You'll find it in Philippians 3 verse 1 through
6, but I'm not going to turn there and read it Paul was a
practitioner of Phariseeism and very proud of that distinction,
for it was the strictest of all of the Jewish sects of that day. It was the most separatist of
that day, and these people had every manner of don't do, taste
not, touch not, handle not, don't do or do. And Paul was very proud
that he had been a Pharisee in that time. Philippians 3, 5.
He mentions it again in Acts 26 and verse 5. Not only so,
but Paul in Philippians 3 and verse 6, and you need to get
there. He once thought himself blameless
before the law. He describes the conditions that
he had that he might glory in the flesh as much as anybody
because he stood blameless before the law. His words are these,
touching the righteousness of the law blameless. He at that
time believed that his external observances of the law, those
things that he did, made him acceptable unto God and with
God. He, like all Jews and Pharisees,
thought that the external things and duties that he performed
made him acceptable with God in external form. Not out of
the heart, but in external form, he and others considered his
obedience to be exemplary and that it was sufficient to justify
him before God. All of this, his Jewish breeding,
his circumcision, his Phariseeism, his zeal, his persecution of
the church. Then he came to count as dung
that he might win or that he might know Christ. He came to
count it as junk, as garbage, as refuge, that he might know
Christ. All of those things that he once
gloried in, he counted as dung for the mercy of Christ. And then the law that he sought
to so rigorously observe came to him in the likeness of a roaring
lion pouncing upon him. And instead of assuring him that
he was in conformity and in compliance with the law, and that all was
well between he and God and the law, it found sin in him. Not only sin, but he said all
manner of sin. Every concupius since then bubbled
up within him. What is Paul speaking of? the
ceremonial law, the law of nature, the civil law? Nay. He speaks
of the moral law or the Ten Commandments, therein is contained thou shalt
not covet. What part of that law was it
that slew him and that worked death in him. Paul was not an
idolater. He was not a Sabbath desecrator. He was not a thief or an adulterer
or a murderer, nor did he revere idols, temples, and such like. He did not disrespect his parents. Still, the law found sin Him
and that part of the law that said thou shalt not covet You'll
find that in the law in Exodus chapter 20 and verse 17 Listen
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house nor his wife nor his manservant
nor his maidservant nor his animal nor anything that is thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet. But Paul,
in Romans 7 and 7, does not single out or specify any particular
one of these objects of coveting. He only said the law forbids
to covet, that is, to desire, to lust, or to crave, or to want. But he says the law saying thou
shalt not covet worked in him, stirred up in him, discovered
to him all manner of sin and all manner of over-desire, illicit
desire of all kind and of each kind, showed him sin in himself,
I'll say again, that he had not considered to be sin and that
he was not aware of. This confirms, I believe, what
many have said, that the Jews, that is most of them, those without
grace, considered only outward acts and action to be seen against
the Ten Commandments. They considered only those outward
things actually done in the flesh to be seen against the commandment. They considered not inward thoughts,
not the heart or the desire. This is confirmed in Matthew
chapter 5, 21, 22, again in verse 27 and verse 28, that the law
not only forbids outward acts, but even the desire and the intent
and the motion of the heart. For example, the Lord said, whosoever,
or rather the Pharisees said, And thou shalt not commit adultery,
the act. But the Lord said, whosoever
shall look upon a woman to lust after her in his heart has committed
adultery. Again, the Jews said, thou shalt
not kill. But Jesus said, I say, whosoever
is angry at his brother without a cause has broken that commandment. So they said, as long as you
avoid the actual act of murder and adultery, you are in compliance
and you have not broken the 6th and the 7th Commandments. Now
you no doubt have heard people say something like this. Listen up, I think you might.
Such perverted theology as people say, I've heard it a lot. It's
not a sin if you think it. It's only a sin if you do it. It is not a sin to be tempted. It is only a sin if you yield. Or it's not a sin if you didn't
know that it was against the Lord's law. Now all of those
are wrong as we study the scripture. Paul shows that the law not only
forbids and condemns the actual act but it even forbids and condemns
the first motion while it is yet in the embryo stage in the
heart and the mind. The law says not, you shall not
take your neighbor's wife, not take your neighbor's wife or
take your manservant, but you shall not covet your neighbor's
wife or manservant or maidservant and such like. not even covet
them. For as Solomon wrote in Proverbs
24 9, the thought of foolishness is sin. Even the thought of foolishness
needs forgiving. Acts chapter 8 and verse 2. Now we must try to understand
the mind of a Pharisee like the Apostle Paul in regard to the
law, as they put all of the emphasis on the external and were full
of self-conceit concerning themselves and the keeping of the law. Remember two Pharisees In Luke
chapter 18, one who prayed in verse 11 and 12, extolling his
outward behavior, Lord, I'm not this, I'm not that, I've never
done this. And the other one, in verses
18 through verse 23, claiming compliance with the commandments
requiring no adultery, no murder, or theft, or lying, or dishonor
of parent. But the Lord got him with the
law thou shalt not covet. That was the rich man who said
to the Lord, well, I've kept all of these from a youth up.
And the Lord touched the one point Go sell what you have give
it to the poor and the man went away sorrowful Or he had great
possession that is he was covetous now the lord condemned the pharisee
for external righteousness while having internal filth in their
life and in their heart Matthew 23 25 through verse 28. He compares them to an unwashed
cup and whited supplicant. A cup cleaned outside, clean,
shiny, yet inside all manner of filth. And a sepulcher shined,
painted, kept outside, but inside full of dead men's bones. And then the Lord said, even
so you also outwardly, outwardly appear righteous unto men, but
inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Again, a perfect
example. So Paul at one time thought himself
blameless before the law of God, and that was when he was a Pharisee,
no doubt. But when the law came inwardly,
he discovered that sin that he had not been aware of. Then he
makes some amazing statement in our passage in relationship
to the law and sin, and especially the commandment forbidding coveting. Thou shalt not covet. Now here's a point to bear in
mind. That is that in this passage
that we read, in the English and in the King James Version,
there are three words here in verse 7 and in verse 8. They
are the word number one, lust, number two, covet, number three,
concupiscence, in the King James Word, in the King James Version,
three different words in our English, and yet, if I mistake
not, they are from one and the same Greek word, and all might
be translated by the same word, whether cust, whether covet,
or whether lust, or whether desire. Fall or pull. No, the law is
not sin, but I had not known sin, but for the law saying,
do not covet. The law is not sin, but sin taking
occasion, and then this word, is at least six times in the
New Testament with a meaning of a starting point. sin taking
a Starting point or some say that the secular Greek it would
be a base of operation Like in the army or the war or the military
you have the word in 2nd Corinthians 5 and 12 Galatians 5 verse 13
Paul uses it twice in Romans 7 and in verse 8 Taking occasion
that is a starting point a base of operation by the commandment
then you have it again in verse 11 sin taking occasion a starting
point by the commandment and in each verse see the Consequences
or the result of sin taking a starting point from the law taking its
starting point or base of operation from the law. Verse 8, look at
it again. Worked in me all manner of covetousness. Verse 11, deceived me and by
it slew me. It killed me. It put me to death. It made me like a dead man in
the sight of God. Having said in verse 9, When
the commandment came, sin revived and I died. Think of that classic
statement from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. verse 56. I brought it up a few times during
the course of our study, but it says something amazing. The
sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. The strength of sin is the law. Sin puts the sting in death,
and sin gets its strength by the law. We'll force Paul to
face a question then in verse 13 of Romans 7. Can that which
is good be the cause of my death? Can that which is good be that
which put me to death? Has the holy, just, spiritual,
good law of God been that which killed me? Here verse 10. The
commandment, which was to life, I found unto death. Paul applies this to himself,
that the coming of the commandment not only revived sin in him,
but it put him to death. It slew him in the sight of God. The sin of covetousness lay almost,
I think I could say, unnoticed in Paul until the law was brought
to bear against it. He didn't think of himself as
a covetous man or a covetous person until the law came saying
thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not have these desires and long
after these. What would most consider, most
would consider such a thing as an inward desire simply an unconsequential
thing in their life. In the heart of the mind, they
should not think of this to become a killing letter from God unto
them. The Pharisees were quick to say,
I'm no idolater, I'm no murderer, I'm no adulterer, I'm no thief,
I tithe all that I possess. But we never have one of them
record in the scripture saying I have not desired that which
was another man's. They all confess I've not done
these outward things. Now what does Paul mean saying
the commandment which to life? That needs to have some attention. What shall we make of this? Seeing
that Paul has already said, none are justified by the law in the
sight of God, Romans 3.20 and Galatians 2.16 and 3.11. By life, does Paul mean physical
life or spiritual life or Does he mean that he expected life
by the keeping of the law, but being a transgressor, found death
to be the lot instead? A rather literal rendering of
verse 10 would be something like this, and I'm quoting, the commandment
for life, this was found to me to death. Now, the words for
life call to mind such scripture as Leviticus chapter 18 and verse
5. You shall therefore keep my statutes
and my judgment, which if a man do, he shall live in them. I am the Lord. Leviticus 18 and
verse 5. Ezekiel chapter 20 and verse
11. I gave them my statutes and showed
them my judgment. which if a man do, he shall even
live in them." See also Luke chapter 10 and verse 28, Romans
10 and verse 5, and Galatians 3 and verse 12, that if a man
do them, he shall live. One said of this law, quote,
it represents an amiable scheme of holiness and a perfect system
of duty, unquote. That is the law of God, amiable
scheme of holiness a perfect system of duty is set forth in
the law. And so it does. But alas, alas,
human nature has fallen. Human nature is under a powerful
deprivation of their nature and unable to rise up to give the
law its just due. They're unable to keep the law. They're unable to not even have
a thought or a desire at variance with the law. They cannot keep
out of their mind and their thought and their heart desires that
are contrary and are violation of the law. Not one is able to
do that. They're constantly darting in
and out of the mind and of the thought. Now, verse 11 of our
text, explains verse 10 as to how the commandment became death
to Paul by sin taking its starting point from the law. Can we hear
once more 1 Corinthians 15 and verse 56? It has two halves if
we noted. The sting of death is sin. And secondly, the strength of
sin is the law. Now, of course, this is part
of that great long chapter on the subject of death and the
resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 is about death
and resurrection. But sin put the sting in death. Death entered by sin. Genesis
2 17 if you eat you die Romans 5 and 12 by one man sin entered
into the world and death by sin Were there no sin there would
be no death there was no death until there was sin and death
in the human family, and death reigns because all have sinned,
Romans chapter 5. Also, the strength of sin is
the law. In that, Romans 4 and verse 15,
where there is not law, neither is there transgression. Now think
about that. Where there is no law, there
is no transgression. And then another wonderful statement
from Paul. Romans 5 and verse 13. Sin is not imputed where there
is no law. Still what Paul says is true. The law is not sin. Even though
sin used the law to slay him, the law is righteous and would
not have slain him except for him being a transgressor and
having sin in him. Now, let's close our study today
with a look at verse 13, and especially the last half of that
verse. Sin, that it might appear sin,
working death in me, by that which is good, sin by the commandment,
might become exceedingly sinful. Now it is the law that shows
the true nature of sin. It exposes the real character
of sin while yet the law remains perfectly holy, just, good, and
spiritual. It is not the law. independent
of sin that was made death unto Paul, nor had it stirred any
motion of sin in him unless the nature was corrupted by an evil
principle of sin prior to the coming of the law. The corruption
of nature and not the law. is the first cause of the passions
and evil deeds, in verse 5, and even death, for the law would
not condemn an upright, holy, just creature. It is sin that
works death, while the law has no recourse but to slay sinners
for what they stand before it. And yet Paul traces our spiritual
death not to the law, except as incidental, but to sin. Our spiritual death is the result
of sin. Sin is the one. that is the perpetrator
of death. The law is the instrument because
of the nature of sin and the relation of the two. If you'd
hear verse 11 again, sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived
me and by it did slay me. Would you show one their sin?
Would you cause one to recognize himself to have sinned before
God? Then don't ask them if they ever
stole a dime out of mama's purse or told a little white lie. Who could say that they're innocent
before the law? For the whole world guilty before
the law. Romans chapter 3 and verse 20. Sin has the law. Not that the
law is sin, but when the law entered the offense abounded. Romans 5 20 and 21. Someone long
ago has said, perhaps it's true, that we wound with the law and
heal with the gospel. Use the law to show men that
they are a sinner, and then the good news of the gospel will
come into their heart as a welcome word. When they tremble under
the conviction of sin because the law has slain them, then
what good news is the gospel? Christ bore the sin of his people. Christ bore them in his own body
on the tree. This becomes good news. Good
news that he has redeemed us from the curse of the law. And
that not by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ have we believed
unto salvation. Yes, we need to keep straight
the work of the law, the nature of the law, and the place of
the law in God's dealing with a human family. Not to save a
sinner. It cannot. It can find sin. in the best man that ever stood
before it. It can find sin in the strongest,
most spiritual Christian that ever lived in the world. The
law can stir up sin, and grace can cover. The blood of Christ
can cleanse, and God forgive that sin. So which would you
rather be, under the reign of death or under the reign of sin? under the reign of death or under
the reign of grace, under sin or under grace, which is the
best place and the most welcome. Surely the grace of God in our
Lord Jesus Christ.