All right in Romans chapter 7
and number 3 as I said in our series on grace no license to
sin Now we're going to be dealing with a subject dead to the law
But then we're going to raise the question this morning and
look at it in some debt which law is Paul talking about here
in Romans chapter 7 or chapter 6 and 7 in that area and Which
law is it that is in the view of the apostle? First, however,
those verses, Romans 7 and 1 through 6. Know ye not, brethren, for
I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion
over a man so long as he is living. For the woman which hath a husband
is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband be dead, she
is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if while her
husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress. But if her husband be dead, she
is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though
she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also
are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should
be married to another. even to him who is raised from
the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh,
the motions of sin, watch this, which were by the law, the motions
of sin, which were by the law, that being dead wherein we were
held, that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit, not
in the oldness the letter I want to call something your attention
in verse 2 the word for in verse 3 so in verse 4 wherefore my
beloved brethren now let's rehearse our just a little bit, enough
to catch us up on our subject and get our flow of thought going
again. In Romans chapter 6 and chapter
7, Paul is describing the great work of sanctification as it
flows from or as it follows upon the heels of justification. In other words, he has taught
that free grace will not be an encouragement to sin. It will
not be a license to sin. And he is emphatic about that. Sin shall not lord it over you. For you are not under the law,
but under grace. He has given two strong reasons
here to support their not being overcome by sin and dominated
by it. One, we saw, They are dead unto
sin, chapter six and one through four and following. They died
unto sin, that is judicially, they died, they were crucified
with Christ when he died and bore their sins in his death. And then number two, they were
under grace and not under law. Sin shall not have dominion,
for you're dead to sin judicially by Christ, and sin shall not
have dominion over you, because you are not under the law. And twice we saw in chapter 6
verse 14 and verse 15 the apostle writes, that owing to the reign
of grace through the Lord's Christ you are not under the law. But he does not stop here or
take the time in chapter 6 where he is to explain exactly what
is involved in that and what he means by it or how they secured
their release from the law and are therefore free from it. So
it is the agreement of almost all sound expositors that I have
read that what we have marked off here as chapter 7 and verse
1 in our Bible, the apostle returns there to discuss again what he
had written in chapter 6 and verse 14. Sin shall not have
dominion over you for ye are not under the law. Now, this
calls for an explanation. This calls for more to be said
about it, lest he leave us hanging in the air without an explanation,
unless it appear to be some kind of an enigma or a mystery that
we're not able to understand. And unless it seemed to be irreconcilable
with the truth of God and the gospel, and therefore a contradiction. And some might think that it
is. Or consider, if you might, Paul has written this not once
but Twice, ye are not under the law, you are under grace. And he knows that this position
will be an offense under the Jew. He knows their mindset,
he knows how they think, because he once thought that way himself. And he knows that there are some
that will pervert that teaching. He knows that they will turn
it into something else. As he said back, in chapter 3
and verse 8, some charge that his teaching amounted to, let
us do evil in order that good may come. On the other hand,
he knows that there are those libertines that will welcome
his doctrine with great joy and will say, oh, the law has no
claim on us. Let us then live as we please. God sees no sin in us. For we're
not under the law, but under grace. There are that sort of
people in the world as well. So let us not lose sight of the
fact that the Roman epistle is written chiefly to Christian
professors, that these things are addressed to those who are
in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, in chapter 1 and
verse 6, it is addressed to the called of Jesus Christ, those
that have been called by Christ. And in verse 7 of chapter 1,
there he writes, to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called
to be sane. And in verse 8 of chapter 1,
whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world. Then in the
epistle, we notice that he uses such terms as you, and we, and
us all, and beloved, and brethren, and saints. Those are some of
the way that he describes the people that he is writing to.
So he is writing to those who are in Christ, who had been called
by Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, as to their flesh or nationality. John Gill put it this way, the
persons to whom the epistle was sent were Roman saints, both
Jew and Gentile, inhabitants of the city of Rome," unquote. And that, I believe, sums it
up. Gill also wrote in his introduction
unto this Roman epistle that the chief design of it is to
set the doctrine of justification in a clear and a proper light,
showing the Jew that justification was not by the law. They could
never be justified by the law that was given by God unto them
through Moses. nor could they be justified by
the light of nature that was in the Gentile heart, chapter
2, verse 14 and 15. But let's get back to our flow
of thought again and what is said in the first part of chapter
7 here of the book of Romans. It is a defense, it is an explanation
of what was said principally in chapter 6 verse 14 and 15
that believers were and they are under grace, and they're
not under law. And because of that, sin shall
not have dominion over them. It shall not dominate them. It
shall not lord it over them. And this Paul illustrates unto
them by a couple of undeniable examples that we have here. Number
one, that law, verse one, holds sway over a person only so long
as they are alive. Death ends the rule of law over
a person or an individual. What can the law exact from a
deceased one? What is it that the law can demand
of one that has been deceased? What can a deceased one render
unto the law, or be under it, or obey it? This is a premise
of the Apostle Paul. The law has dominion over one
only so long as they are living. Or literally, the law has dominion
only over the living. This is just an example of how
many have you heard of and how many have actually taken their
own life when they were cornered and about to be brought to justice
for their crime or for their deed. So you can't put a corpse
in jail, you can't put him on trial, you can't impose capital
punishment upon one who is dead. Now the second principle is,
he draws the illustration here from the institution of marriage. He says that a wife is bound
by the law of her husband so long as that husband continues
alive, but upon the account or the occasion of his death, not
hers, but the death of her husband, she is then free from the rule
and the dominion and the law of her husband, She is discharged
from the bond of marriage, and it is ended, and the union is
dissolved by the death of her husband. It cannot continue if
one of them pass away, and she is free, free from the law of
marriage and her husband to become the wife of another man without
any sin or charge being brought against her. That will come before
us later, perhaps in our next study. But before we take up
these verses here, in chapter 7, looking at how we became free
from the law, There is something else I think that we would be
worthwhile, sir, to consider. And that is at the heart of this
matter that we're discussing concerning being dead or free
from the law. And I think that now might be
the right time for us to take it up, even if it causes us to
extend our study by another number, which, of course, It will. And
the issue that I'm speaking of is Paul's use of the word law,
L-A-W. You ought to make a study, particularly
in Romans, very interesting, at how Paul uses the word law. The word law, I counted from
the concordance, is some 75 times in the Roman epistle. Some 75
times Paul uses the word law in this crown and jewel epistle
of Romans. And so we want to consider two
things as we make our digression this morning. Number one, we
want to just look very quickly at some different ways that Paul
uses the word law, not always referring to the moral law or
the Ten Commandments, not always referring to the ceremonial law. For example, if you jump over
to chapter 8 and verse 2, you will see what I mean. He speaks
of both the law of the spirit of life and the law of evil,
sin, and death. There he uses the word law in
that context. In Romans chapter 7 and verse
21, Paul says, I find then a law that when I would do good, evil
is present. There the word law refers not
to any of those that we might first imagine our mind again
in Romans 7 and verse 23 He uses the word law three times in this
verse. Let's look at them quickly a
another law in my members and then be the law of my mind and
then see the law of sin and we do a double take and say the
law of sin indeed. Now all of these are from one
and the same Greek word, and they have the meaning of a prescribed
regulation. They literally mean to partial
out, to partial something out apart here and apart there, and
when used figuratively, used of a principle or of a rule. that law is a principle or a
rule, particularly as used in chapter 8 and verse 2. So in
these places, the word law can refer both to a legislative principle
authority given by the Lord and a ruling or a governing power. The law of the spirit of life,
the law of sin and death, that is, the rule or the principle
or the power of each one of them that acts with the authority
of a law, whether of sin or whether of grace, each acting with such
regularity that it is called by Paul a law. So we best be
careful when we move along in Romans and are dealing with these
various uses of the word law. For we see how many different
ways Paul uses them. not to get bogged down or waste
time, but the same is true with two other words that people mess
up all of the time. That is the word flesh in the
scripture and the word world. To suppose that they are used
each and every time in one and only the same way is an error
in approaching their use in the scripture. Now, the second thing
that we are to consider in this section of the book of Romans,
such as chapter 6, verse 14 and 15, under law. And then in chapter
7 and verse 4, dead to the law by the body of Christ. Chapter
8 and verse 3, what the law could not do in that it was weak through
the flesh, God did in sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh. Now, here's the
question. What law does Paul have in mind? You're not under the law, but
under grace. You are free from the law. You're
dead to the law by the body of Christ. What righteousness of
the law is fulfilled in them? And particularly in Romans 3
and verse 19, what law makes the whole world guilty before
God and subject to the judgment and the wrath of God, that all
the world may become guilty. For what the law says, it says
to them that are under the law. So the law of nature, is that
which one he mean? Written in the heart. Is it the
law of civil government that Paul is talking about? Is it
the ceremonial law that for years was in place in Israel? And it regulated the ordinances
and the life and the worship of Israel. Such things as the
sacrifice and the Sabbath and the feast and the days, and the
time, and the season, the temple worship, circumcision in which
they place such value, or does Paul mean the marvel law as we
sometimes call it? Which law are we dead to by the
body of Christ? Now before we seek to answer
that, let's again go to Romans 3 and verse 19. Now, we know,
that is, everybody knows that what the law says, it says to
them that are under law, or we might say of or in law, that
every mouth may be stopped and all the world become guilty before
God. All under law. All the world
guilty before God. Now, that implies that all transgressions
are against the law that God has given. What law can it mean? What law must we understand? Is it the Jewish ceremonial law
that had all of these ordinances that were to be kept and all
of the do's and all of the don'ts that they celebrated? Or is it
the moral law? Or is it the five books of Moses
that are sometimes called the law of Moses? John 8 and verse
5, Acts 28, 23, 1 Corinthians 9 and 9. The law, Moses in the
law, meaning the first five books of the Old Testament. Now, all
are included, every mouth, all of the world, Jew and Gentile. But it cannot be the ceremonial
law that is in view in that place, as such was imposed upon the
Jew only. The ceremonial law, sometimes
called the Mosaic law, was imposed upon the Jew only, and the Gentiles
were never under it unless they became a proselyte and therefore
put themselves in that position. Now make this point only, this
distinction, because it has long been the contention of some in
dealing with deadness to the law in this particular passage
of the scripture that Christians who would like to keep and bind
the law upon believers as the rule of life seek to justify
that position along in here by saying, that Paul is saying that
the Mosaic Law is abolished and that it is ended as far as the
Jew is concerned, and thus saying, such sayings of Paul as, you're
not under the law, you're dead to the law by the body of Christ,
are directed toward the Jew, and that they speak only of the
ceremonial law that was abolished and brought to an end in the
death of Christ, as indeed it was as the scriptures teach us. But this is not the law that
Paul had in his mind in instructing the saints which were at Rome. You're not under the law. You're
dead to the law. You're dead to it by the body
of Christ. He is not referring to the ceremonial
law when he writes in Romans 3 and verse 20 Therefore by the
deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight and
soon thereafter down in verse 28 Therefore, we conclude that
a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Now, to
repeat, these are not references to the ceremonial law, but to
that law that makes knowledge of sin, Romans 3 and verse 20. He's referring to the law that
worketh wrath. in Romans 4 and verse 15. He's referring to that law that
is the strength of sin in 1 Corinthians 15 and verse 56 that aids sin
on the death, the law. that we must have the right law. Therefore, in chapter 6 and chapter
7, yea, in the whole Roman epistle, we must understand the right
law. For those mentioned earlier contended
that Paul is seeking to convince them only that the ceremonial
law is abolished and that they are as Jews no longer under it
because and by the death of Christ. I have a book given to me by
Brother Craig James Frazier wrote a grand exposition from chapter
6 verse 1 to chapter 8 in verse 4 of the book of Romans, published
first in 1774. And he spent an entire chapter
on this very question or matter that we're dealing about this
morning. And he went to great lengths
in order that he might establish this conclusion, quote, when
I observe every place in the epistle in which the law is mentioned,
I do not see cause to think that the ceremonial law is meant by
any of them or that the apostle in reasoning has respect Unto
it unquote and he offers some proof the Gentile sins in chapter
1 were sins against the moral law of Almighty God yes, they
were laws of idolatry and immoral lust and such like were transgressions
of the moral law that he lays to the charge of the Gentile
in chapter 2 of the Roman epistle against the Jew in chapter 2
verse 21 through verse 24, those that he charges them with were
violations of the moral law. Theft, adultery, idol worship,
and such like. Transgressions of the moral law. In that wonderful passage in
chapter 3, verse 10 through 18, of both Jew and Gentile, they
are violations of the moral law that Paul is charging against
all without exception. In chapter 7 and verse 7 through
11, Saul's realization that he was a sinner in the sight of
Almighty God came not by or through the ceremonial law, but by the
moral law. When he read it, thou shalt not
covet a part of the moral law, for by it is the knowledge of
sin. Now Paul is clear, being under
the law would cause them to be under sin and for sin to have
dominion over them. They therefore must be free from
the law in order that they might legally and freely be married
or joined unto the Lord Jesus Christ. They must die to the
law that they might live under God. That's a premise of the
apostle. It is by dying to the law that
they may live under God. In other words, death to the
law in Paul's doctrine is absolutely necessary to salvation and comes
only by and through Christ. But if this be the ceremonial
law, the law of diet and days and things like that, if this
be the ceremonial law, then two things there are that must be
considered. Number one, then the apostles
must have strongly and frequently and again and again urged the
Jew to be done with the ceremonial law and that for good and immediately,
that they could not be saved by the practice of the ceremonial
law and that being under them Under it gave an advantage under
sin so if the ceremonial law be in Paul's eye in this particular
place as the one they must die to in order to bring forth fruit
unto God then the body of the Apostle ought to denounce it
with vigor and call upon the Jew in every place that believe
upon Christ and To be done with it and that forever. And to end
their association with the temple. Ignore the Jewish priests going
about making their sacrifice. And put away all their reference
for the special day. and exchanged the Jewish Sabbath
for the Lord's Day, or the first day, upon which the Christians
met later in the book of Acts. Did the apostles go about preaching
and urging this upon the Jew? As Fraser wrote in his book on
the question, in the Apostle's Sermon, when you look at the
very closely tracing them out in the book of Acts, We find
that their words to the Jew were not primary and insistence that
they put away the ceremonial law or perish, for they preached
to them that Jesus that was crucified in Jerusalem is the Messiah. He is the one promised of old,
that Christ is that Messiah. He's the one that Moses spoke
about. He's the one that David foretold. He's the one whose day Abraham
saw and was glad and rejoiced. He's the suffering one that Isaiah
wrote up in the prophecy in the 53rd chapter. He's the one even
virgin-born that was talked about. He's the one so often set forth
in types and in shadows in the Old Testament. The message of
the apostles, if you read in the book of Acts, was principally
after this manner. Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Messiah. He that died and that God raised
up again is the Messiah. And the opening of the Scripture
that they might prove that Jesus fit and followed after the Scripture. Showing out of the Scripture
that Jesus was the Christ like in Acts 18 and verse 28 and other
places. Now, the second thing that we
want to note is in the acts of the apostle. I mean, the apostles'
conduct and their acts themselves in their preaching. What did
they do? Did they completely and right
then cease all connection with the ceremonial law or the Mosaic
law? I'm gonna give you a few instances
of their behavior. after the death of Christ, after
his resurrection, after his ascension, and even after the coming of
the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 3 and verse 1,
you have Peter and John attending the temple at the hour of prayer. Look also at Acts chapter 2 and
verse 46. What's more, the apostles attended
the Jewish synagogue Sabbath day services. And remember, if
you will, that the Lord Jesus Christ, being a Jew after the
flesh, being born of a woman and made under the law, observed
himself, the ceremonial law, and was circumcised, kept the
Passover, and things of that nature. And by the way, when
the smitten Jews on the day of Pentecost cried out unto Peter
and the other apostles, Men, brethren, what shall we do? It is not recorded that his counsel
made reference to the ceremonial law or to flee from it. He said to them, believe, be
baptized, submit to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Now, I want to ask you a question
and think about it if you would. What are we to make of the action
of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 21? Now whether you want to turn
there or not is up to you. But in that chapter 21 of the
book of Acts in Jerusalem, as Paul was there, he heeded the
counsel of James to participate with four men in the rite of
purification the temple. These men were under a vow and
were going to shave their head and participate in the purification
in the temple. And James even suggested that
Paul pay their expensive that Paul, out of charity, paid for
their sacrifices and temple expenses, and Paul did that without a quibble
or without refusing. You can see that in verse 26
of that chapter. Now, not just paid their expenses,
but he himself participated in the rite of purification. a part
of the ceremonial law of Moses. Not a Christian practice, but
a Jewish practice under the ceremonial law. Now, let's get some background. You see, James knew something. James knew they all congregated
in Jerusalem and Jews from everywhere for the celebration of a Jewish
Holy Day and James knew he knew well that the presence of Paul
in Jerusalem among them at the feast would be a source of contention
and an offense under so many of the Jew that were there and
he knew that upon Two accounts. Number one, in verse 20, look
at it carefully. Thousands of Jews who believed
in Christ, says James, are also zealous of the law. How many
there be? How many myriads there be of
Jews that believe in Christ who are also zealous of the law? And of course, it means the ceremonial
law. that though they glorified God
for the salvation of the Gentiles in verse 20 of that chapter,
they remained zealots for the law, though they were or are
called believers in that verse of the scripture. Second thing,
second thing James knows, and he brings to Paul's attention,
they had been told They had heard it was rumored everywhere that
Paul was teaching the Jews, which were among the Gentiles, to apostatize
from Moses and to forego circumcising their sons and to ignore the
custom that they had practiced for centuries and were of long
standing. And yet another thing. Paul circumcised
Timothy. Acts 16 and verse 3. How does that fit into our theology? Even though he was a half-breed,
that is, Timothy was, his mother was a Jew and his father was
a Greek, and all the Jews in that area knew that. And the
reason why Paul said do I put Timothy under the knife in Acts
16 and verse 3 quote Because of the Jew which were in those
quarters unquote, or literally, in those parts or in those places. He circumcised Timothy on account
of the many Jews that were there. Paul refused the same thing to
Titus. He would have no part of Titus
a Greek going under the knife because he had no connection
with the Jew. But we must see what James tells
Paul here. in Acts chapter 21 and verse
24, especially the last half of the verse. Hear this and see
if your ears burn and whether you lose some respect for the
Apostle Paul. James, a leader among the Jerusalem
Jews, asked Paul in verse 24, take them, and purify thyself
with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave
heads, and all may know that the things that they were informed
of concerning you amount to nothing, but that you also walk orderly
and keep the law." Now put your eyes upon that, we have to place
that in. Remember also that Paul in Acts
18 and 18 shaved his head or he had a bow. Some dismiss this as being a
reference to Aquila, but I think it is best to understand it to
refer to Paul. There is no question in Acts
21 and verse 24 refers to Paul. And so how shall we reconcile
this with Paul's unyielding allegiance to the gospel truth and the word
of God and the principle of grace. How shall we account for Paul's
action in these matters? Well, I think there are only
two possible answers that we might come up with to explain
Paul's action and what he has done. Number one, we might say
and somehow that Paul erred and that Paul made a mistake and
that Paul compromised and that he was pressured here or let
himself be pressured into something that should not be done anymore
or that he did it out of fear of the Jew because he was there
among many of them or because he was persuaded by another apostle,
even James. Please note, in verse 25 of Acts
21, James acknowledges that the Gentiles were not obliged to
keep the ceremonial law. James acknowledges that matter
had been settled, and settled in Acts chapter So the Gentiles
are not obliged to be put under the yoke of the ceremonial law. And he speaks here only of the
Jews who were believers, both believers and zealots for the
ceremonial law. And for their sake, Paul is entreated
to do this by the fellow apostle James. Now that's one possibility. Some are satisfied with it. But
there is another, and that is that Paul considered such things
at that time yet to be indifferent for a Jew so long as they did
not, so long as they did not, A, make them necessary for salvation,
so long as they did not say this is a necessary element of salvation,
and B, so long as they did not seek to impose them upon the
neck of the Gentile. And yet we know that they did
both. The Jews who were not spiritually
enlightened tried to do both. I was reading F.F. Bruce in the
book of Acts and he wrote something interesting. Paul is not chargeable
with compromising his gospel and principle, but as acting
in accordance with his stated practice." Now, how could that
be? One of which was in verse 20
to verse 23. If you want to flip with me to
1 Corinthians chapter 9, I want to read a few verses here. It's
1 Corinthians chapter 9. and verse 20 through 23. Let's
read something that he writes here. You need to understand
while you're turning there that chapter 9 is a lengthy discussion
of how Paul conducted his ministry, how he acted as a minister, how
he treated and how he reacted and did this with that one and
with the other. But now, in 1 Corinthians chapter
9 and verse 20. Well, let's start with verse
19, please. 1 Corinthians 9, 19. For though
I be free from all, yet have I made myself servant unto all,
that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as
a Jew, that I might gain the Jew. To them that are under the
law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the
law. To them that are without law, as without law, being not
without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might
gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak,
that I might gain the weak, I made all things to all men, that I
might by all means save some, and this I do for the gospel's
sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." So in every
instant, He acted with regard to the spiritual welfare of others,
such as the Jew, the Gentile, the weak, those under law, and
those that are without law, being all things unto all. Now Paul's
not becoming a politician here who tell this crowd what they
want to hear and that crowd what they want to hear, what politicians
do. That's not Paul's intent or purpose
at all. Conclusion I think that we must
draw is that it is not the ceremonial law that is meant in our text
in chapter 6 and chapter 7 of the book of Romans. Yea, it is
abolished. It died with the death of Christ. Yes, it was nailed under the
cross. And yet for a time, it was still
practiced by the Jew, even by some of those who believed on
Christ. But it met its final end. in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem,
the demolishing of the temple, the slaughter of the Jewish priest,
and the scattering of the Jew in every direction, and the mass
calling of the Gentile into the salvation of grace. And preparation
was laid when by God's inspiration, the book of Hebrews, oh yes,
my brother and my sister, the book of Hebrews opened this matter
perfectly and spiritually for us. And with the city of Jerusalem
in ruins. the temple thrown down as the
Lord foretold that it would be in Matthew chapter 24 and verse
2. Their genealogies destroyed and
no longer available to celebrate, therefore it became impossible,
impossible to celebrate the chief ordinances of the ceremonial
law any longer. So humanly speaking, it is unlikely
that the Jew would ever have ceased the practice and the veneration
of the ceremonial law except, number one, by a spiritual revelation
and enlightenment. Paul had that. Paul had no problem
with putting them away when he was converted. And number two,
they be utterly and irrecoverably destroyed so that they can never
stand again. So to repeat, this is why the
Hebrew epistle is the most important book in the New Testament with
regard to this particular subject and issue. Oh, yeah, we have
glimpses of it in Ephesians 3 and Colossians chapter 2. To those
churches Paul hints that they are done away and are no more. And next we will consider in
our next study the manner of our dying since we have identified
the law that Paul is not discussing. And we know which one is in his
mind. Well, thank you for that digression. I think it might put things in
a proper perspective for us if we see that and understand it.