Chapter # 7 Paragraph # 3 Study # 1
March 13, 2007
Lincolnton, N.C.
(297)
1769 Translation:
13 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 exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
1901 ASV Translation:
13 Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
- I. The Third Major Question of Romans 7.
- A. Do you not know that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (7:1).
- B. Is the Law sin? (7:7).
- C. Was then that which is good made death unto me? (7:13).
- II. The Lingering Problem...
- A. The Law stands very tall and has a commanding presence in the minds of all who subscribe to the God of Israel.
- B. For Paul to even suggest that there is a "problem" with it puts everyone on their guard.
- 1. When a people are steeped in their traditions, they question them reluctantly.
- 2. When those traditions have roots in "religion", they are even more entrenched.
- 3. When there is a suggestion that the "book" upon which their "religion" is based has some kind of a flaw, there had better be a really good argument on the way or the one bringing it will be cast aside rather quickly.
- C. Is the problem really with the Law?
- 1. No.
- 2. Paul says the Law is holy, righteous, and good.
- D. So, what is the problem?
- 1. The problem, in a nutshell, is this: there is a fundamental mis-match between human beings and the Law of God (7:14).
- 2. There is nothing "wrong" with the Law.
- a. It is holy, righteous, and good.
- b. It, however, was designed to bring Sin out into the open; it was not designed to give man a means to life.
- 3. Thus, the "problem" is that men have taken the Law and applied it to a situation for which it was not designed and, therefore, cannot effectively function.
- a. How, then, do we understand the "theocracy" in Israel? The "Law" clearly laid the foundation for "national function". How do we say that it was not intended for "regulation" when it clearly was intended to give the judges of Israel the basis for their treatment of men brought before them because of the evil they had created?
- 1) Clearly there are differences between man in his relationships with men and man in his relationship to God.
- a) First, there is a significant amount of "distance" in a man's "life-integration" with other men. I can buy vegetables from a farmer with whom I have an almost complete "relational distance". No man "is an island unto himself" in a final sense, but no man's life is really dependent upon every other man's activities either. Adam and Eve initially had no other human beings to make their lives possible. Noah only had seven other human beings to make life possible.
- b) Second, the focus of man's life with other men is fundamentally physical. We recognize that no man is really "dead" until his body ceases to function. There are issues of the quality of a man's life that go beyond the physical, but the bottom line is physical functional capacity.
- c) But, with God, there is no "life" where there is "distance". If God puts any distance between Himself and a man, the man is instantly "dead". Man cannot sustain himself at any "energy level" without an immediate and immanent presence of God's power. Likewise, there can be no emotional life without God's immediate presence; nor can there be any spiritual life in a vacuum where God does not have an immediate presence.
- 2) In the relationships of men with men, external conformity is "enough" to provide for an acceptable level of "community harmony". But, there can be no "harmony" with God at a merely external level. Harmony with God is not the same issue as "community harmony". The difference is this: men can function with men even when there is antagonism between them because men do not have a physical/emotional/spiritual unity with each other. They can "get away" from each other -- generate distance to permit the existence of antagonism without producing murder.
- b. Men, when they seek to apply the Law to the problem of man's evil behavior, invariably do so in these two distinct realms.
- 1) Israel, as a theocracy, had no jails or prisons. All "law" was underpinned by the exercise of the "sword": i.e., capital punishment.
- a) There were capital crimes without appeal.
- b) All other crimes became capital crimes if the perpetrator of them refused the "lesser" consequences. If a man robbed his neighbor, he was assigned a certain level of restitution. But what made him "restore"? Only the threat of death.
- c) In addition, there were crimes against men and crimes against God, but there were few "penalties" imposed by men when the crime was against God. If a man robbed his neighbor and then recompensed his neighbor according to the laws of restitution, that was the end of it -- even if he never took a sacrifice to the priest for his sin. No man forced him to obey the divine commands that had only to do with his relationship with God.
- 2) There were some crimes against God that had "human" penalties, but, for the most part, these were only of the highest order of violation.
- a) Ostracism was commanded for a certain few "crimes against God".
- b) Death was commanded for a certain few "crimes against God".
- c) But, for the most part, a person could live a godless life in the midst of Israel and no one but God would ever act against him.
