The Effect of the Law, Part 3

Romans chapter 7 is where we
find ourselves. I don’t hope to feed your pride
when I acknowledge that this is an exceptionally cerebral
intelligent strongly opinion and yet diverse body of Christians
in that you are not easy to lead. Some of you have a much better
certainly a more comfortable passage or handle on the passage
of the hand than I do and Many of you let me know that this
past week, and I’m OK with that. I have never wrestled with a
section of scripture so intensely as I have Romans 7 for weeks
and months, and I still don’t have it all figured out, and
I’m OK with that, too. The adage, let God be God, comes
to mind. A lot of times I get myself in
the In the mindset that I have to have it all figured out come
Sunday morning, I do many times force myself to take a position.
But this past, I’d say over the course of two weeks is probably
the most negative reaction to any sermon or set up sermons
I’ve ever preached. Which pretty much fulfilled the
forecast for this section. Remember one said that it’s a
section in respect to which there has been a radical difference
of opinion among the ablest commentators from very ancient times. Well
I’m comfortable being in that crowd. The other one said that whatever
one may whatever view one may take of this passage inevitably
leads to criticism and disagreement. And so in that sense I’m not
too surprised. We haven’t yet degenerated in
our discussion to what Lloyd-Jones points out is disputation and
argument. It really has just reached the
level of what I would call healthy discussion. But he closes with
this, there is no section certainly which has so frequently led to
debate and disputation and unfortunately even wrangling and we haven’t
gotten there yet either. Given the difficulty of the passage,
there is always a tendency to basically put yourself in the
stream and go with the majority, take the easy way out, cite what
the big three, there’s really three commentators that I always
would go to, maybe four, to go with what they say and just ride
the stream and meander through life and stay friends with everybody. Essentially, parroting the popular
position of any passage at hand. But that would be to abuse my
conscience and my calling many times in Scripture. There is always the temptation
to skip the passage. To just move on. To just feel
like we’ve done it the best we can and we’re going to move on.
To me, such would be to dishonor God’s Word and the text and my
calling. I contemplated opting not to
preach at all. Taking a long overdue break and
thus forcing one of the other men to fill in and such would
be to abuse them. Even as recently as last night
and again briefly this morning I considered postponing this
passage. But I just don’t have that luxury. And I don’t think
that there’s any need. I want to tell you about the
reason for my reluctance in adopting what I call the popular position,
the one that’s really easy, that lies on the surface. Years ago, I was in a church. And as part of what was supposed
to be the evening service, There was a very difficult meeting
that was held. It turns out that the pastor
had been arrested. And I have to use guarded language
to even describe. What for? He was arrested for
being with somebody who wasn’t his wife. And he walked in to the meeting.
And read quite coldly, I don’t know that he said anything else.
Read Romans 7. And my fear is that just as my
sense was that evening, many people use Romans 7 as an excuse,
and it’s not an excuse. It’s not an alibi. It is an explanation of what
transpires in our sinful Lies. I traced the cause of the I guess
the. The dialogue that has ensued.
The cause of the concern was essentially the label that I
had for the grocery list of difficult statements in Romans 7. Mind you, there were there probably
are some things that were implied in what I’ve said over the course
of two weeks, but not stated. I never implied that. It would be impossible for a
Christian to utter these things. I certainly never stated that
anyone who ever utters these things is not a Christian. What
I think some drew from is my label for the grocery list of
those difficult statements when I labeled it as things which
a Christian cannot continue to say. And even as I’m uncomfortable
with that, I’m still comfortable with that. That it ought to be
our call and our goal to move beyond that cesspool of life. What I mean by that statement
is that these things cannot Be muttered flippantly. With resignation,
almost. Wretched man that I am, nothing
good dwells in me. To me, that is defeatist. Even
if it’s realistic. In other words, if we were to
start our day with nothing good dwells in me, wretched man that
I am, that is to capitulate for me. That is to put myself in
a path of demise, spiritually speaking. In other words, if I say those
things about myself at the start of battle, I’m going to fulfill
them. And that’s what I’m guarding against. That said, these are
all sentiments. They’re all sentiments which
are often felt and expressed after battle. At the end of the
day. At the end of a gathering. Which saint among us hasn’t gone
home from a party or a dinner or a group setting and lamented
their mouth. These things are often expressed
after battle. And at the end of the day, but
they’re not an alibi. They’re not an excuse. Even if
they are a reality. Return, if you would, to Romans
chapter seven. Romans chapter seven, Paul. In
essence, dealt with the question, is the law nullified, is the
law dead? Beginning in verse one. Paul
said, Do you not know, brethren, for I am speaking to those who
know the law, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as
long as he lives. He’s dealing with the law. He’s
dealing with the law and the life of the Christian, the law
in its relationship to the Christian. There he spoke about the reach
or the durability of the law. Later on, he asks another question
in verse seven, the point of the law. What should we say then,
is the law sin? May it never be, says Paul, the
law is not the cause of sin. On the contrary, Paul says, I
would not have come to know sin except through the law, for I
would not have known about coveting if the law had not said you shall
not covet. The law, we saw, identifies and
reveals sin, even in the life of the Christians. But Paul,
being prepared by God and by his Holy Spirit, says, But sin,
taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting
of every kind. For apart from the law, sin is
dead. The law also exposed the death
wish in Paul. Where Paul says in verse 9, And
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment
came, sin became alive and I died. And this commandment, which was
to result in life, proved to result in death for me for sin,
taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and
through it killed me. It showed Paul that what he was
clinging to would kill him. And he was clinging to his sin. Finally, then, Paul states that
the law is also a reflection of God’s character. So then the
law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good,
and that is what opens. To Romans 713. That the law. Cannot be the cause of Paul’s
death. And that’s what Paul is dealing
with in verse 13. Read along with me as we course
all the way down through verse 25. Therefore, did that which
is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be. Rather, it was sin in order that
it might be shown to be sin by affecting my death through that
which is good. That through the commandment,
sin might become utterly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual,
but I am of the flesh sold into bondage to sin. For that which
I am doing, I do not understand, for I am not practicing what
I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with
the law confessing that it is good. So now no longer am I the
one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good
indwells me that is in my flesh, but the doing for the wishing
is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good
that I wish I do not do, but I practice the very evil that
I do not wish. But if I am doing the very thing
I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which
indwells me. I find then the principle that
evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good, for I
joyfully concur with the law of God and the inner man. But
I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war
against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law
of sin, which is in my members. Wretched man that I am. Who will
set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God
through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So then, on the one hand, I myself
with my mind and serving the law of God, but on the other
with my flesh, The law of sin. Now, we began on a course trying
to figure out a good context in which to place these verses.
I love these verses. I love the truths that they extol. I love even the difficult parts
of them. I love the tension that exists
there. But it must be explained, it
must be wrestled with, it must be placed in its proper context.
And I suggested to you last Lord’s Day that I believe that there
was a primary use for these words. If you recall. The image that
I used was of the backdrop of a pitch black night sky. Representing our sin and our
sinfulness. And that in that pitch black
night sky, utterly oppressive in its darkness, all of a sudden
there is a pinprick. And that, as I suggested, is
the moment of regeneration. And as I said, never more than
in that moment are those verses so acutely relevant. Never more in that moment. But
as the light continues to shine in our lives and continues to
illuminate every corner of our sinful lives, some of those sentiments
will continue to resonate. But no longer are we standing,
as I suggested last Lord’s Day, between two worlds. We are Christians. And what I presented to you last
week is these are the words of a Christian, a regenerate man.
But can we continue, can we start the day with these verses, as
I suggested? Here are some verses that I would
suggest would be great verses to start a battle, to enter into
battle. I was afraid that my brother
Dan was going to steal my thunder in stealing one of my verses.
Because in Romans 4, 17, he continues, Paul, and says, So this I say
and affirm together with the Lord that you walk no longer
just as the Gentiles walk. That’s how you start a battle. In the futility of their mind,
being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God
because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness
of their hearts, And they, having become callous, have given themselves
over to sensuality. But you did not learn Christ
in this way. We need to be steeled for battle. We need to be prepared for battle.
We know that sin is resident within us. We know that we have
weaknesses. There are other good verses later
on in that same Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul. Says to them, finally, be strong
in the Lord and in the strength of his might, put on the full
armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against
the schemes of the devil. I’m not saying that Romans 7
doesn’t have its place. But for me, if I read Romans
7 in the morning, I’m doomed. Colossians 1, pardon me, Colossians
chapter 2 has a verse that prepares me for battle. Therefore, just
as you have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk in him, having
been firmly rooted and now being built up in him and established
in your faith, just as you were instructed and overflowing with
gratitude. There are other verses. The book
of James. Therefore, be patient, brethren,
until the coming of the Lord, the farmer waits for the precious
produce of the soil, being patient about it. You, too, be patient.
Strengthen your hearts for the coming of the Lord is near. And
James just is picking up steam just there. First Peter. Prepare your minds
for action. Keep sober in spirit. Fix your
hope completely on the grace to be brought to you. We know
that sin is there. We know what our proclivity is.
We know we are prone to wander. Lord, I feel it. Prone to leave
the God I love. We know that. But for me, Romans 7 doesn’t
prepare me for battle. It is a prayer at the end of
the day. And that’s why I said of Romans seven, that it’s never
more acutely felt than in that moment of regeneration. When
we can at the same time say that the law is spiritual, but I am
of the flesh sold into bondage and sin. We looked at a number of different
options, and the interesting thing is I I suggested to you
last Lord’s Day, and I still maintain that even with those
difficult statements, I do think that they’re spoken not only
of Paul, that they’re really spoken of all Christians. That Paul is essentially reflecting
on the life of the Christian, not just Paul as the Christian.
And that there is an element where Paul is looking back into
eternity past or back into his past not eternity past and he
is wrestling with those principles. And as we continue to look for
other options we finally landed on the one that I presented to
you last day last Lord’s Day rather. That is the primary significance
of this passage is that moment of regeneration. When Paul came
face to face with his own utter sinfulness, which was finally
revealed and placed in his lap by the very law of God, Paul
saw for the first time by way of the Holy Spirit, by the ministry
of the Holy Spirit in his life. This is not what you read about
in the book of Acts. This is not the road to Damascus
conversion version that you read in the book of Acts, but this
is the truth. This is what happened. This is
what happened before the conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul says, I would not have come
to no sin except through the law. The law did its work. The law did what it was designed
to do by God himself. And so this is a continuation,
really, of what Paul has been giving us since verse 7 that
his testimony. Paul finally had come to see
himself as a vile, hopeless sinner for the very first time. And
I believe that he’s bringing us back to that moment, but he
doesn’t park us there. He doesn’t say that no Christian
would ever utter these things. But the law had done his job
And in this moment of regeneration, Paul begins to play it out before
us. That the law is on the one hand
spiritual and that he, on the other hand, is of flesh. That
he’s practicing the very thing that he hates. And in so doing,
he agrees with the law that it is good. Sin indwells him, even
while the wishing for doing good is present in him. As well. As I closed last Lord’s Day.
I said this, please note, I am not saying that the sentiments
that Paul expresses are explicitly limited to the moment of regeneration. We understand, we know firsthand
that throughout the Christian’s life, our life will be a continued
spiritual battle. Several verses woven in there,
but most notably 1 Corinthians 9, 27. I discipline my body,
I make it my slave so that after I preach to others, I myself
will not be disqualified. Paul knew. Paul tells us that
he was engaged in an epic battle with his own flesh. Go, if you
would, to verse 13 of Romans 7. Where Paul asks a new question,
a new question in the series of questions, therefore, did
that which is good become a cause of death for me? What what he’s
pointing to that which is good, he’s pointing back to the law.
Shall we lay this all at the feet of the law? Did the law
bring about my death? In essence, he’s already answered
this question, hasn’t he? The law didn’t cause his death.
He had a death wish. He didn’t want to let go of his
sin. If the law is good, and it is,
and yet there was a death, can we blame the law for the death? It doesn’t make any sense. Paul, no wonder, says, may it
never be. He doesn’t even entertain the question. May it never be. Rather, it was sin. It was sin
that works death. Why do you say that, Paul? in
order that so that it might be shown to be sin. You see, what
God wanted us to know is the utter sinfulness of sin. There
is no salvation apart from that. There is no salvation until the
individual comes face to face, not only with the concept of
sin, the concept of wrongdoing, but with his utter sinfulness
personally. With his absolute need of a Savior. In his need of a redeemer who
had paid a penalty on the cross. God wanted us. To see and to
know firsthand the utter sinfulness of sin. How did this transpire,
Paul says it. He says that it was by affecting
my death. By slaying me, that’s how I knew
how serious sin was. Paul knew, like Isaiah, he was
undone. Paul knew that he was a dead
man before God. Paul knew that the sin that he
was so blind to had, in effect, killed him. That he stood before
a holy God, a dead man. Rather, it was sin, Paul says,
in order that it might be shown to be sin by affecting my death
through that which was good, the law, the law innocently stands
there silently testifying to all of our natures, silently
telling us about the nature of God, about the holiness of God. So the only thing that we can
conclude about these is that the good thing certainly couldn’t
be responsible for Paul’s death, for our death, but that sin. Sin made use of that good thing,
sin, once it was exposed, as we saw with regards to covening,
it just began to run rampant through Paul’s life and yours
and mine. As one said, this is the end.
That sin might be shown to be sin, that is that its true character
might be exposed. You see, Paul knew sin as a concept,
and I shared with you last Lord’s Day, I believe that I knew of
sin as a concept, but it wasn’t until I drank it down and considered
it. And that’s exactly what Paul’s
saying here. It wasn’t until he had looked
at it in light of God’s law. and have the illumination of
the Holy Spirit, not only on God’s law, but on his life. And
he saw sin for the first time, what it really was. And he saw
that he owned it. It was him. It was not only resident
within him. It had permeated his entire being. As I said last Lord’s Day. For
me. I knew for the first time after
reading that sermon that I was the sinner in God’s angry hand. That’s exactly what Paul’s saying
here. That it’s true character might be exposed by the fact
that it works death through the thing that is good. It’s perversity
is demonstrated because it turns that which is holy and just and
good into an instrument of death. To what purpose? What purpose
is there to expose sin? Look at the final portion of
that verse, whether it was sin in order that it might be shown
to be sin by affecting my death through that which is good, that
through the commandments sin might become utterly sinful.
God wanted us to hate it. God wanted us to detest our very
sinful selves. God wanted us to know how sinful
sin was. God wanted us to know it and
feel it and believe it. As one pastor said, the law exposes
sin and convicts of it. The law becomes the occasion
of sin that the depravity residing in us is therefore thereby aroused
to activity. The law aggravates sin. It is the instrument through
which sin is aggravated. God wanted us to have every feeling
That sin and its sinfulness can provoke within us an utter hatred
of it. And that is the moment of regeneration.
I mean, this is where I got this. Idea. And of all the. thousands or
hundreds anyway of ideas out there on Roman seven. This was
is at least plausible as it’s derived from the passage itself.
As we said it’s certainly not talking about the unregenerate.
It’s not talking about an unsaved man. It is a Christian. But I’m telling you at that moment
of regeneration this is the sentiment of the Christian. Still another. Pardon me, still
another said that sin, as it were, surpasses itself. That
it’s not just sin, but sin begins to grow and magnify, multiply. Sin, as it were, surpasses itself
when it takes occasion from pure law to awaken the soul’s resistance
to the blessed lawgiver. That sin might become utterly
sinful, not merely might appear. Sin, as it were, surpasses itself
when it takes occasion from the pure law. Thus, it becomes exceedingly
sinful through the commandment and thus its development is overruled
to its effectual detection, which is the leading thought here.
In other words. We might see sin. With a small
s. What God wanted us to see. is sin in all its utter horror. He wanted us to see sin for what
it was. Sin as God sees it. That’s the purpose. That’s the
purpose of the law. God wanted us to see Not just
the nature of sin, but he wanted us to see the consequences where
this would lead. The results of where that left
us in our standing with God. That not only were we not on
neutral ground anymore, not only could we not commend ourselves
to God through some kind of personal reform, we were utterly and completely
undone. And that’s the sentiment expressed
in Romans 7, 13. And you say, prove it, and that’s
precisely what Paul begins to do in verses 14 through 20. He’s going to prove it. Look at verse 14. For we know
that the law is spiritual. But I am a flesh sold into bondage
in sin. label spiritual points is really
to a description of this great conflict that is within us. The
law is utterly and purely spiritual. But we in our fleshly humanness
cannot even we cannot even really welcome or appreciate the law
And so this struggle between our own flesh and against the
law ensues. As one said in this struggle
law is on the side of spirit but only as a standard and revelation
of right not only as a spiritual not as a spiritual power strengthening
our will. So in other words the law is
perfect for being able to expose the sin. It does nothing to help
us. There’s nothing to equip us to
fight against it. That sin that it exposes. The
law is spiritual because it comes from God, who is spirit. The law is spiritual because
it’s God’s law. The law is pure. The law is holy,
as we’ve already seen, that our natures are fleshly. There’s
something in us, even after we’ve been regenerated, which bristles
at God telling us what to do, bristles at the Holy Spirit convicting
us of what the law testifies to. All of those things we object
to. We bristle, we want to be independent
of God even still. So Paul says, The law is spiritual,
the law. There’s nothing wrong with the
law. The law is perfect. But I am a flesh. Now, of all
the discussions. Of all the commentaries, of all
the verses of Romans seven, this is the one where there is the
most divergence and the most creativity, which is always to
be guarded. That I am a flesh. As one identified, there are
two Greek adjectives essentially that mean the same thing or relatively
so. Both are derived from the Greek
noun pointing to the flesh. And they are different only by
a single letter. Are you ready? One is Sarkinos. The other is Sarkikos. Sarkinos
and Sarkikos And the meanings are relatively similar. This
by. Forecast is where the greatest
amount of wrestling and wrangling that takes place. Still another
said. It is not strange that words
so nearly alike in form should sometimes be confounded with
each other in manuscripts. So you remember when I said several
weeks ago that there is great cause for entering into this
discussion with great humility. Because even the manuscripts,
the Greek manuscripts, disagree as to which word was even used. Says that about of a dozen places
where one or the other occurs, there are five places where the
readings of different manuscripts are divided between the two,
and there is only one place where all the manuscripts unite on
the former of the two words. In the passage now before us,
while the text used by our translators had the latter of these two words,
the best critical editions follow the older manuscripts now have
the former. In other words, it’s almost a
jump ball of which of these two words to even use before we even
begin to get into a discussion of what they mean. They are similar. There is some diversity. But
the manuscript evidence isn’t even clear on which one is used. The adjective there’s as I said
they’re both adjectives. Sarkinos really means to be composed
of the flesh and it’s a very common word. This is why so many
commentators bristle or stand back when they say I am of the
flesh. Not anymore I’m not. To be composed of the flesh made
of that very thing. Fleshly, it makes that it rather
refers to the substance or the component part of the substance.
So, in other words, it says that’s who you are. That’s what you
are. Whereas Sarkikos is a more common
word for Paul, and it essentially means to be determined by the
flesh. partaking of the quality or dipping
back in to that quality. This is the one that marks character. No. Sarkinos is used in 2nd Corinthians
3 3 in this way and you’ll immediately see that it’s not as I mean you
come to Romans 7. I am of the flesh. Come to Romans
7 and that’s just stomach turning that just is that’s just stark
language. Second Corinthians 3 3 says.
It is manifest that you are a letter of Christ cared for by us, not
written with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not
on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts, flesh, that’s
what’s the word. Sarkinkos, on the other hand,
is used in Romans 15, 27 and First Corinthians 9, 1. Romans
15, 27 says this. Yes, they were pleased to do
so. They were indebted to them. He’s talking about ministry and
giving and supporting the work of ministry. For if the Gentiles
had shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to
minister to them in material fleshly things. And so the the
evil sense of flesh begins to drop off flesh isn’t inherently
evil. It is after all the bodies in
which we exist that are supposed to carry us to. And through our
lives and ultimately to our deaths. First Corinthians 9 11. Uses
the word again when it says, if we sowed spiritual things
in you, is it too much if we reap material things, fleshly
things from you? Not evil, not bad. Literally, the verse reads like
this, if we to you sowed spiritual, is it too great if we of you
harvest the fleshly? Now, it seems odd that Paul would
use either of those words in either of those places. Of a
good thing, if this is an inherently evil quality about us. One. Attempting to bring clarity,
said a spiritual man may be Sarkinos, but he cannot be Sarkikos. Here,
the word is precise. His nature has in it a fleshly
element. If this dominates the spirit,
then the man is fleshly. This is where the whole idea
of the carnal Christian comes from. And I know that I’ve lost
half of you and I’ll pick you back up in a minute. If the spirit
controls it, the man is spiritual. Flesh describes the man in his
natural state. And that’s, I think, the wisest
thing that he says. You’re in your body. You’re in
the flesh. As a result, you’re going to
have some natural battles to face in this life, your appetites,
your desires, your feelings, your fatigue. Now, a lot of people, this was
disturbing and a lot of people brought this up, even in the
course of the last couple of weeks, a lot of commentators,
a lot of people, a lot of people want to toy with the pronoun
in question. Am I in the flesh? Or am I being
controlled by the flesh or am I of the flesh? The pronoun is totally absent
in the Greek, there is no pronoun. It just says that we are fleshly. Paul here is describing the Christian
as being in a body, fleshly. And he’s pointing to the idea
that as long as he continues to live in that mortal life in
that body that’s carrying through that mortal life, it’s going
to have these oppositions. It’s going to have these moments
that are contrary to God. It’s going to put us in those
predicaments, those touch points, if you will, that put us in conflict
with God and with his law. It’s just natural. One pastor said it well when
he said believers are no longer bound by and enslaved to the
sinfulness of the flesh. As they once were, you see, you
throw up your hands at the end of a sinful episode and say,
I’m of the flesh that is to abuse this passage. But given the nature of this
word, you can even start your day now with this passage, I
am of the flesh. I better be watchful. I know
that if I drive I-25 in the flesh, I’m going to have an issue, right? Believers are no longer bound
by and enslaved by the sinfulness of the flesh as they once were.
Every well-taught and honest Christian is aware that his life
falls far short of God’s perfect standard. And that he falls back
into sin with disturbing frequency, he still is subject to sin’s
deceit and still attracted by many of its allurements. Yet
the Christian cannot be happy with his sin. Because it is contrary
to his new nature, because he knows that it grieves his Lord
as well as his own conscience. See, Paul. Is standing. In this contrast
with God’s spiritual law. That he sees himself falling
as he does he sees himself fleshly as he is. As one faithful brother said
that the records of Christian experience and particularly of
the experience of the saints who have been especially schooled
in spiritual conflict confirms the natural view of the passage.
The language of the present passage is indeed strong, but the strength
of profound spiritual insight is there. The man who here does
what he hates is one who has so felt the absolute sanctity
of God and of his law as to see sin in the slightest deviations
of his will and affections from its standard. Such penitence
for sin is not only possible in the life of a Christian, But
it may be said to be a natural element in it. We continue, we
will continue as long as we are in the flesh to have these tensions. But we must be growing in grace. Now, if the commentator spilled
a lot of ink on that whole idea of being in flesh or fleshly,
sold into bondage in sin. Now there’s some light fare for
next Lord’s Day. Let’s pray. Our merciful King, we humble
ourselves before you and thank you and praise you. But despite
ourselves, despite our sinfulness and our sin-sickfulness, You
set your love upon us and you brought us to repentance. Father,
we thank you for that glimpse. Of what we first grasped in that
moment of regeneration. And Lord, we know that we will
echo these sentiments until the day that we die. Because we are
in these bodies. These bodies that lean in the
direction of sin and pull and would pull us down with it if
they could. God, grant us the grace. Grant
us the grace to go out this week in the strength of Christ, in
the grace which He alone supplies. Help us to be watchful for our
weakness and our sinful tendencies. And by Your grace, to put those
aside, to overcome them, to rise above, Lord God, we thank You for Your
grace and for Your goodness in our lives. It’s in Jesus’ name
that we pray, Amen.