I'm going to read the first three
verses, and our subject here is the impotence of the law,
and I think you'll see that in verse three. There is therefore
now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law
of sin and death. For what the law could not do,
in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh. Now in the third verse, look
at that. For what the law could not do. And why it could not,
in that it was weak through the flesh. And that's the part of
the text that we want to give emphasis to this evening, what
the law could not do. Now to that I'd like to add a
few other texts that speak along basically the same line. For example, there is Hebrews
7, And verse 19, it says, the law made nothing perfect. Then there's Acts 13 and 39,
from which you could not be justified by the works of the law. Now,
we have taken a phrase from Paul as our text, and it concerns
a specific or a particular statement concerning an inability that
Paul speaks about on the part of the law, what the law Could
it not do? Now, one of my interlinears that
I check has it like this. The impossible thing of the law. That'd be Marshall's interlinear. Another one has it like this.
For the law being powerless, unable to do a certain thing. In other words, all these texts
that we have cited or referred to speaks of the inability of
the law, but the inability of the law in a certain area only. And this is the key, I believe,
for us to get the right understanding in regard to the impotence of
the law that we wish to speak about this evening. Because this
inability of the law is confirmed by this number of texts that
we have read, it's inability to do or perform a certain thing. It is something specific and
it is spelled out that the law cannot accomplish. Now this might
raise in our mind the question, does this suppose some defect
in the law? Is the law defective in some
way in that there is something that it cannot do? Has it some
great failing? Yet it is the law, it is the
perfect law, it is the law that God has given. But is it a deficiency
in the law that makes it powerless to do the certain thing that
Paul mentioned? If so, why then would Paul eulogize
the law in such a way as he did in Romans chapter 7 and verse
12, where he called it holy and just and good? Then its impotency
is anything that is traceable to any defect that we might find
or deficiency in the law. Now, before we consider our text
stating what the law cannot do, perhaps it would serve our interest
a little better if we first distinguish what the law can do and what
the law cannot do. For though there is an area where
the law is completely powerless, has a total inability, yet there
are others where the law exerts a powerful, powerful, and a successful
work on the children of men. First, what the law can do. Let's look at that aspect of
it first. It can curse sinners. We find that in Galatians 3 verse
10 through 13. It can condemn sin. It works wrath, we find. in Romans 4 and verse 15. It gives the knowledge of sin
in Romans chapter 3 and verse 20. It can work death in the
most moral person that we might find in the world. It did that
in Paul as described by him in Romans chapter 7. It can condemn
the whole family. It acted as a very stern pedagogue
to the Jew and it shut them up and it held them under until
faith in Christ. Now these things could afford
us many hours of profitable study and of spiritual food for our
edification. But our present concern is what
is it that the law cannot do, for our text breaches the subject
when it says for what the law could not do. Now what the thing
that that which is impossible for the law to do or to perform. Now we edge ever closer to opening
the question, what is it, Paul, that the law is not able to do? by looking at the contract. Number one, what the law could
not do. Number two, what God did and
how he did it. And he did it by sending his
son into the world in the likeness of sinful flesh, Then what God
did, He condemned sin in the flesh. You have that in verse
3. So, two questions. Number one,
what is it that the law could not do? What is the thing that
it could not perform that it was impotent to do absolutely? And the second question is, why
could it, why could it not perform this particular thing? Wherein
lay the inability of the law to perform a certain thing? First of all, we notice what
it is that the law could not do. In the narrow confines of
Romans chapter 8 and verse 3, that which the law could not
do is contrasted with what God did in sending His Son into the
world. So watch very carefully in the
third verse. What the law could not do, God
did. That is, God in Christ did what
the law could not do. The question being, what one
thing could the law not do? What one thing other than others
could it not do. Now, the thing is emphasized. Here's what it could not do.
It could not condemn sin in the flesh. The law could not condemn
sin in the flesh, it could not put it away, it could not take
it away, it could not save and justify from sin. But God did do that by sending
his son in the likeness of sinful flesh and Paul concentrates or
lumps it all into one sum, he condemns sin in the flesh. Now before we go further here
in Romans 8 and verse 3, let's consider other texts that we
read such as Hebrews 7 and verse 19. The law made nothing perfect. and we read in Acts 13 that it
could not justify one from their sin. So let's stay here a while
and consider these verses in their context. Paul is preaching
to the Jews at Antioch in Acts chapter 13 The premise being
that the one that was crucified yonder on the cross in Jerusalem
is the same one predicted by the prophet, by David and by
Isaiah, He is the long promised one. He is the one the scripture
said would come. But he makes another contrast
between justification by Christ and the inability of the law
to bring a man to justification. By him or through him, he said,
is preached unto you forgiveness of sin and such as believe are
justified from all things by which they could not be justified
by the law. Please note that there are correlated
expressions there in that passage in Acts 13, by Him and then by
the law. In Him, in the law. In Him, yes. In the law, no. There is no justification. And the essence of the 39th verse
of Acts 13, from all things from which He could not be justified
by the law of Moses. This means that everyone believing,
All of them, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified in Christ, which
they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Now, does anyone
say, well, what then about Romans 2 and verse 13? The one that does the law shall
be justified in his sight. Romans 10 and 5 repeats the same
thing. Galatians 3 and 12, the man that
does them shall live by them. Well, there is no contradiction
for this is a true principle that anyone who would keep the
law perfectly and keep it perpetually will be just. But, as Murray
notes, this never comes into play because everyone is a sinner
and fallen in Adam And therefore there is no possibility of any
man that is a sinner being justified by the law of God. Therefore,
if none can, none will or do keep the law, then none will
be justified by that law in the sight of God. Therefore, law
keeping can never be the cause of justification, because it
must be kept both perfectly and perpetually. Not at one time,
not for a short time, not in a few things, but in all and
that continually. So those who therefore seek to
be justified by the law have not heard the law and what it
said, Paul said, nor have they experienced the law coming into
them in the sense that it did in Paul. But still the Jew sought
to be justified by the works and by the deeds of the law. Now returning to Romans chapter
8, and our point of focus, what the law could not do. Now, a point to file away and
keep in our heart, our mind, and in our memory about the inability
of the law. Number one, it cannot justify. It can neither make nor pronounce
a sinful man to be a justified man in the sight of God. Number two, it cannot sanctify
a sinner or even a saint in the sight of God. It cannot make
a justified man more personally holy or increase his sanctification. In fact, Paul makes a very startling
statement. I've always thought this was
a startling statement. In 1 Corinthians 15 and verse
16 when he writes, the strength of sin is the law. Think about that. My, what a
statement from the apostle. The strength of sin is the law. By that he said that sin actually
finds an ally in the law. Sin gets its strength to reign
over us and to do us hurt, even unto death, by and from the law. The law falls out, if I may say
it this way, on the side of sin. So that as long as one is under
the law, so long as he is under that law or has put himself under
that law, he also will be under the dominion of sin. Or in Romans 8, 1 through 3,
the passage is much more complex than might first appear unto
our mind, as he has been explaining the expository talk in regard
to the passage that we might define that phrase, condemned
sin in the flesh. Look at that in the third verse. What does it refer to? How are
we to take these words, ah Paul, that sin has been condemned in
the flesh? and to like question in this
context what is it that the law cannot do, what is it that the
law cannot do but that has been done by God sending his son in
the likeness of sinful flesh. We cannot ignore that several
times there are mentioned a contrast here between one and the other. The contrast is between walking
in the flesh and walking in the spirit, verses 1 through 3. The second verse, the law of
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the law of sin and of
death. Then further on down in the same
chapter, in verse 6, to be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually
minded is life and peace. So a legitimate question to raise,
does Paul speak of justification or does he speak of sanctification
that is here in the first part of the 8th chapter of Romans,
which frames the question this way. Does Paul say the law cannot
justify or does Paul say It cannot destroy and overcome the dominion
of sin in the life of an elect. But which, in turn, is done by
the death of Christ by dying upon the cross. that Christ has
done what the law could not and never will be able to do. First,
let's notice something in verse 1. That is, that Paul, as he
has done in the last half of chapter 7, still is speaking
in the first person in chapter 8, me, which answers to the many
eyes in chapter 7. Though he uses us in verse 4,
then we. But also note that the same sentiment
carries over into chapter 7, verse 24 and 25, that we might
read where Paul includes himself in the second verse of chapter
8, for the law of sin and death. Then note the connecting phrases
that we also have here, therefore in verse 1, for in verse 2, for
in verse 3, and that in verse 4, so that there is a flowing
connection a flow of thought from one verse on down. First of all, there's no condemnation
to them in Christ. Second, for the law of the Spirit
has freed me from the law of sin and death. Thirdly, for what
the law could not do, God has done. And fourthly, that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Then, if
you will, notice a unique phrase in verse 3 concerning the incarnation
of Christ in flesh. I say unique, for this is the
only place where these actual terms are used in relation to
the incarnation of the Son of God. And those words are, in
the likeness of sinful flesh." Let's say it again, in the likeness
of sinful flesh. Be ever so careful, he does not
say in sinful flesh, but he says in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and not righteous, but sinful flesh did our Lord appear in. Neither the likeness of sinful
flesh and not sinful flesh itself. Neither Paul or any other author
ever uses, I don't think, such terminology in connection with
the incarnation of our blessed Lord. John 1.14, the Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us. In Romans 1 and verse 3, made
of the seed of David according unto the flesh. Hebrews 2 and
verse 14, He partook of flesh and blood. Romans 9 and verse
5, who as concerning the flesh Christ came, that is, out of
the Jew. First to Timothy 3 and verse
16, God was manifest in the flesh. Philippians 2 and verse 7, made
in the likeness of men. Now there are many more, but
in all of these, none of them uses that unique expression that
Paul uses in Romans 8 and verse 3. The point is repeatable. Only there does any author use
these unique terms in reference to Christ's coming in the likeness
of sinful flesh. Now, in this place, the word
likeness is all, if I may say it this way, is all that stands
between us and a peccable Christ. And it guards infallibly the
truth of Christ's impeccability. What if Paul had just inserted
the word likeness? God sending his son in sinful
flesh. What if he had left out likeness,
God sending his son in sinful flesh. Paul, it has been pointed
out, was under the necessity of using the word likeness because
he uses the term sinful flesh. That raises the question, why
is Paul led to use the word likeness of sinful flesh when it is imperative? It is absolutely necessary. It is a mandate to guard the
impeccability of Christ's humanity. So if Paul had a point to prove
his use of the word sinful flesh, then it requires him to use the
word likeness. in the likeness, but not in the
reality of sinful flesh. Not wearing sinful flesh did
he come, but wearing the likeness of sinful flesh. For remember,
Christ did not assume human nature as it originally existed in Adam
and Eve, but he assumed it with his infirmity. though he only
assumed the sinless infirmities of human nature. He came close
enough to be true man and have true humanity, but not to be
a sinful man with a sinful nature. He even wore the likeness of
sinful flesh and yet was not sinful at all. Some have described
these in these words and I quote, he was sent in a manner and a
form that brought him into the closest relation to sinful humanity
that it was possible for him to come without becoming himself
sinful." This was both sufficient and necessary. He came close
enough to take a real kin, but not close enough to be depraved
by sin, for this would disqualify him forever as a substitute for
other sinners. Now, as to the expression, what
the law could not do, but what has been done by Christ, being
sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, I read John Murray on
this passage. He wrote something that I'd like
to share with you. Quote, the unique combination
of terms in this instance must serve a specific purpose, unquote. Now soon thereafter, he added,
no other combination of terms could have served Paul's express
purpose Here, in the likeness of sinful flesh. We hang on to
every word and every phrase. Paul says, in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Christ only came in the likeness
of sinful flesh for one reason, and that was sin. To put away
sin, Hebrews 9 and verse 26, nothing else but that called
forth the incarnation of our Lord. But He condemned sin in
the flesh, which is the thing that the law could not do. Now what way are we therefore
to understand the word condemned sin in the flesh? Does Paul mean
that Christ assumed flesh and in that flesh that God gave sin
its just dessert when he died or when the Lord God delivered
up Christ to the death of the cross, sparing him not the suffering,
the agony, and the death of the cross. Of course, this is the
very truth and the very substance of the gospel that we love and
we preach, that Christ has endured the punishment of the sin of
his elect. He has taken their sin, been
punished for their sin, have been punished in Him. But the
question comes back, is this the truth of the text that we
have today? Condemned sin in the flesh. Again, remember, this is something
that the law could not do. And Paul assigns the reason why
it was powerless to condemn sin in the flesh, he said, owing
to the weakness of the flesh. Being sinful, human nature being
weak, in what sense it is used in other portions of the Scripture. The weakness of the flesh is
what prevented the law from making or doing the impossible thing
with it. The law cannot aid in the justification
of a sinner, for there is no redemptive quality and no redemptive
efficacy. to be found or to be had in the
law. Plus, we look at the word condemned
and it expresses a judicial sentence. The law cannot pass a judicial
sentence so to condemn sin. Rather, it condemns the sinner
for his sin. Having condemned the sinner and
cursed the sinner, it is then impossible for the law to turn
around and justify that same sinner. Or as Manton wrote, The
law promises no good to the sinner, but only to the innocent, for
it has no way of taking away past sin, but only of punishing. No way for one already a sinner. to recover himself, this is owing
to the weakness of the flesh, the inability of it to keep the
law, the words of man. It is the contention of John
Murray and others that Roman chapter 8 And our text here speaks
of the condemning of the sin in such a way as it breaks the
ruling power and dominion of sin in the life of an elect. It answers Paul's desire in Romans
7 and verse 24 to be delivered from this body of death. But Christ so condemned sin in
the flesh, which is reasonable to apply to the death that He
died upon the cross, because sin was punished its just and
full dues in the death of Him who bore it in His own body upon
the tree. God made Christ to be sin for
us, And by that transaction and death at the cross, God made
sin forfeit its dominion over the elect. He hath both condemned
sin as to its condemning power and also as to its polluting
power. This from its ability to rule
over the life of an individual. Hence the law cannot pass a condemning
sentence as against sin so as to destroy it either as to its
being or as to its power. The strength of sin is the law,
we have read again. Now, by the death of Christ,
God has condemned sin in the flesh. Not only is it a judicial
process, but it is also as to the rule of life of the children
of God. Thus, in two senses, in the death
of Christ, God has done what the law could not do. He has
justified us from all things, from which we cannot be justified
by the law, and he has by the law of the Spirit of Life sanctified
us and caused us to walk and live a sanctified life. Now the question is this, who
would, sinner or saint, who is there of either, that would want
to stand yonder before thundering, smoking, quaking Mount Sinai? There one finds neither justification
nor sanctification. But in the death of our blessed
Savior on the cross, death lost its reign. over the elect of
God, its power over the life of the elect is broken and sin
is condemned in the flesh. Yes. He had done what the law
could not do in that it was weak through the flesh. And praise
God for the provision that God made to do what the law never
could and what is not to be expected from it. The law could never
put down sin in the life of the child of God. Never could it
do that. And don't expect it. It never
can happen.