《The Biblical Illustrator – Romans (Ch. 6b~8a)》

2. But in the newness of the spirit.

That we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.--

The old service and the new

I. Newness of spirit implies such principles, dispositions, and views, as the Spirit of God implants in hearts which He renews. Serving in the spirit is a service of filial obedience to Him who gave Himself for us, as constrained by His love, and in the enjoyment of all the privileges of the grace of the new covenant. Believers have thus, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, become capable of serving God with that new and Divine nature of which they partake, according to the spiritual meaning of the law, as His children, with cordial affection and gratitude. It is the service not of the hireling but of the son; not of the slave but of the friend; not with the view of being saved by the keeping of the law, but of rendering grateful obedience to their almighty Deliverer.

II. The oldness of the letter respects such service as the law, by its light, authority, and terror, can procure from one who is under it, and seeking life by it, without the Spirit of God and His sanctifying grace and influence. Much outward conformity to the law may in this way be attained from the pride of self-righteousness, without any principle better than that of a selfish, slavish, mercenary, carnal disposition, influenced only by fear of punishment and hope of reward. Serving, then, in the oldness of the letter, is serving in a cold, constrained, and wholly external manner. Such service is essentially defective, proceeding from a carnal, unrenewed heart, destitute of holiness. In this way Paul describes himself (Philippians 3:1-21) as having formerly served, when he had confidence in the “flesh,” as he there designates such outward service. Serving in newness of spirit and in oldness of the letter are here contrasted, as not only different, but as incompatible the one with the other. (R. Haldane.)

Believers serve in newness of spirit as they serve

1. According to the spirit of the law which is love.

2. With their spirit, instead of an outward formal service.

3. From a new and spiritual nature created in them.

4. By the grace of the Holy Spirit who dwells within (Romans 8:1-2; Rom_8:9; Rom_8:11).

5. With new means and in new ways. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

The true spirit of service

In the heroic days when Xerxes led his army in Greece, there was a remarkable contrast between the way in which the Persian soldiers and the Grecian warriors were urged to combat. The unwilling hosts of Persia were driven to the conflict by blows and stripes from their officers; they were either mercenaries or cowards, and they feared close contact with their opponents. They were driven to their duty as beasts are, with rods and goads. On the other side the armies of Greece were small, but each man was a patriot and a hero, and hence when they marched to the conflict it was with quick and joyous step, with a martial song upon their lips, and when they neared the foe they rushed upon his ranks with an enthusiasm and a fury which nothing could withstand. No whips were needed for the Spartan men at arms--like high-mettled chargers they would have resented the touch thereof; they were drawn to battle by the cords of a man, and by the bands of patriotic love they were bound to hold their posts at all hazards. “Spartans,” would their leaders say, “your fathers disdained to number the Persians with the dogs of their flock, and will you be their slaves? Say ye, is it not better to die as free men than to live as slaves? What if your foes be many, yet one lion can tear in pieces a far-reaching flock of sheep. Use well your weapons this day! Avenge your slaughtered sires, and till the courts of Shushan with confusion and lamentation!” Such were the many arguments which drew the Lacedaemonians and Athenians to the fight--not the whips so fit for beasts, nor the cords so suitable for cattle. This illustration may set forth the difference between the world’s service of bondage, and the Christian’s religion of love: the worldling is flogged to his duty under fear, and terror, and dread, but the Christian man is touched by motives which appeal to his highest nature; he is affected by motives so dignified as to be worthy of the sons of God; he is not driven as a beast, he is moved as a man. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Verses 7-25

Romans 7:7-25

To whom does the passage refer?

To the unregenerate.--

It has been much discussed whether this section describes a justified man, or a man still unforgiven. The latter view was held by Origen and the Greek fathers generally. The former was adopted by Augustine and the Latin fathers generally. It was received in the West during the Middle Ages; and by the Reformers. It is now held, I believe, by most Calvinists. Among Arminians the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of remark that this is the older opinion, and was theirs who spoke the language in which this Epistle was written. That this section describes Paul’s own experience before justification, I hold for the following reasons.

1. In the last section we saw a great change take place in Paul, a change from life to death. This change brought him into the state described in Romans 7:5. But in Romans 7:6, Paul says, and he never wearies to repeat it, that another change, as glorious as this was sad, had been wrought in him by the power of God. The completeness of this change has been frequently set before us (Romans 5:10; Rom_6:11; Rom_6:22; Rom_7:6). Paul is dead to sin, set free from its service, dead to the law which formerly bound him to a cruel master. This second change must be located between Romans 7:13, which gives the purpose of the first change, and Romans 8:1, which describes the state of those who enjoy the second. And since Romans 8:14-25 deal with one subject, we must put the second change either between Romans 8:13; Rom_14:1-23, or between chaps. 7 and 8. Now we have no hint whatever between Romans 8:13; Rom_14:1-23 of a change. But in Romans 8:1, the change is written in characters which no one can misunderstand. The words “made me free from the law of sin” proclaim in the clearest language that the bondage of Romans 8:23; Rom_8:25 has passed away.

2. Again, this section contradicts all that Paul says about himself and the Christian life. He here calls himself a slave of sin, and groans beneath its bondage. He is a calamity-stricken man. But in the last chapter he describes his readers as dead to sin, and set free from its service. In what sense could a Roman Christian dare to reckon himself dead to sin, if this section were a picture of the liberty from sin enjoyed by an apostle? Paul here says that sin dwelling in his flesh is the true author of his actions. But in the next chapter he says that they who live after the flesh will die. He here declares that he works out that which is bad. But in Romans 2:9, he teaches that upon all who do so the anger of God will fall. If these words refer to a justified person, they stand absolutely alone in the New Testament.

3. It has been objected that the language of this section is inapplicable to men not yet justified. But we find similar language in the lips of pagans. “What is it that draws us in one direction while striving to go in another; and impels us towards that which we wish to avoid?” (Seneca). “We understand and know the good things, but we do not work them out” (Euripides). “I have evidently two souls for if I had only one it would not be at the same time good and bad; nor would it desire at the same time both honourable and dishonourable works, nor would it at the same time both wish and not wish to do the same things. But it is evident that there are two souls; and that when the good one is in power, the honourable things are practised; but when the bad, the dishonourable things are attempted” (Xenophon). “I know what sort of bad things I am going to do: but passion is stronger than my purposes. And this is to mortals a cause of very great evils” (Euripides). “I desire one thing: the mind persuades another. I see and approve better things: I follow worse things” (Ovid). These passages prove that in many cases men are carried along against their better judgment to do bad things, and that even in pagans there is an inward man which approves what God’s law approves.

4. What Paul says elsewhere about his religious state before justification confirms the description of himself here given. He was a man of blameless morality (Philippians 3:6); it was in ignorance that he persecuted the Church (1 Timothy 1:13); he was zealous for God (Acts 22:3); a Pharisee of the strictest sect (Acts 26:5); no doubt he sought to set up a righteousness of his own (Romans 10:3). Of such a man’s inner life we have a picture in this section. His conscience approves the law: he makes every effort to keep it: his efforts only prove his moral powerlessness, and reveal the presence of an enemy in whose firm grasp he lies: he seeks to conquer inward failure by strict outward observance, and perhaps by bloody loyalty to what he considers to be the cause of God. In the conscientious Pharisee we have a man who desires to do right, but actually does wrong. And the more earnestly a man strives to obtain the favour of God by doing right, the more painfully conscious will he be of his failure.

5. It has been objected to the view here advocated that all this is the experience of many justified persons. But this only proves that the change in us is not yet complete, and Paul makes this a matter of reproach (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). On the other hand, there are thousands who with deep gratitude acknowledge that, while this section describes their past, it by no means describes their present state. Day by day they are more than conquerors through Him that loved them.

6. Then why did Paul puzzle plain people by using the present tense instead of the past? Let the man who asks this question write out the section in the past tense. “I was a man of flesh: I saw another law fighting against me, and leading me captive: I cried, ‘Calamity-stricken man,’” etc. The life and reality of the section are gone. To realise past calamity, we must leave out of sight our deliverance from it. The language of the last section made it easy to do this. Paul’s description of his murder by the hand of sin was so sad and so real that he forgot the life which followed. Hence when he came to speak of the state in which that murder placed him, it was easy to use the present tense. Of this change of the point of view we have already had other examples. In Romans 3:7, Paul throws himself into the position of one guilty of falsehood, and sets up for himself an excuse. In Romans 4:24, he stands by the writer of Genesis, and looks upon the justification of himself and his readers as still future. In Romans 5:1, he urges them to claim peace with God through justification. In Romans 5:14, after contemplating the reign of death from Adam to Moses, he looks forward to the future incarnation of Christ. In Romans 6:5, he speaks in the same way of the resurrection life in Christ. We shall also find him, in Romans 8:30, throwing himself into the far future, and looking back upon the nearer future as if already past. This mode of speech is common in all languages. But it is a conspicuous feature of the language in which this Epistle was written.

7. I cannot agree with those who say that Paul refers in this section to the state of babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1); and in the next, to full salvation. The next chapter certainly describes Paul’s own experience, which was that of full salvation. And the language of this section is frequently used by those who are only in part saved from sin. But the least babe in Christ has experienced a resurrection from the dead (Colossians 2:13), and a deliverance purchased with the blood of Christ. Of such resurrection and deliverance there is no hint in this section, till the last verse of it proclaims the dawn of a brighter day.

8. If the above interpretation be correct, we have in this section the fullest description in the Bible of the natural state of man. Even in the immoral there is an inner man which approves the good and hates the bad. But this inner man is powerless against the enemy who is master of his body, and who thus dictates his conduct. In spite of his better self the man is carried along the path of sin. This is not contradicted, nor its force lessened, by Paul’s admission in Romans 2:26, that even pagans do sometimes what the law commands. Their obedience is only occasional and imperfect, whereas the law requires constant and complete obedience. A man who breaks the laws of his country is not saved from punishment by the occasional performance of noble and praiseworthy acts. Although men unforgiven sometimes perform that which deserves approbation, they are utterly powerless to rescue themselves from the power of sin, and to obtain by good works the favour of God. (Prof. J. A. Beet.)

The character described in the seventh chapter of Romans

Attend to--

I. The commencement of the struggle of sin in the very formation of the Christian character. In this process there are three features.

1. The rectification of our judgment on the subject of our relation to God. This is what is called conviction of sin. It arises from a perception of the meaning of the law of God, attention to the Scriptures. Things once deemed innocent are now seen to be evil, and sins once deemed trifling are now fell to be awful. The law appears with its avenging eye, and reiterating its demands. The mind is stripped of its vain hope of escaping Divine justice. This conviction may be produced gradually, or suddenly. It may be attended with terror, or it may be serene.

2. A strife on the part of the mind to get out of the state. That conviction of sin which has no influence on the conduct, is not a true conviction. Now the most painful part of the Christian life commences. The individual, from a perception of the holiness of God and the evil of sin, sets himself to avoid sin. But sin, indignant at the restraint, like a mighty torrent before a feeble barrier, collects all its strength, and bears all down before it. It makes him sensible of its strength by the vanity of his efforts to check it. Temptation takes him as easily as a whirlwind lifts a straw. He returns to renew his defeated resolutions, but only to have them defeated again. In what a state must this leave the mind!

3. A clear discovery of the gospel mode of deliverance, and the full application of the mind to it. Now commences the life of faith; for as that which is sown is not quickened except it die, so the faith that gives the mind up to Christ, to be saved by His merits and sanctified by His grace, arises out of the death of self-conflict. What is the consequence? Peace takes possession of the mind. There is a principle formed in the mind, and fixed there, directly opposed to sin, and getting the mastery over it. The struggle may be violent, but grace is sure to prevail, and every fresh victory leads to a further one; until the very habits and tastes of the mind become on the side of piety, and the man feels as in the firm grasp of the hand of his God. This is regeneration.

II. The illustration and confirmation of all this in the chapter before us.

1. The opinion of several eminent commentators is that Paul here refers to himself and men generally in an unconverted state, and under the law, and of that natural approbation which they have of what is good, though quite unable to follow it. They maintain that the language would not suit any other than an unconverted man, inasmuch as in the conflict sin is represented in every instance as getting the victory. But I think this opinion to be wrong, for--

2. There is another opinion totally adverse to this, viz., that the apostle is speaking in his state as a Christian at the time he wrote this Epistle. This opinion, however, I conceive to be equally wrong.

3. Then what is the alternative? Look at the person whom I described in the incipient stages of the formation of the Christian character. See if his case does not agree with every part of the representation and design of the apostle. There is one objection, however. Was he not Paul a Pharisee up to the time of his conversion? And did not that in one instant change him into a decided disciple of Jesus Christ? How then can the representations of this chapter be true of him in this point of view? Answer:

The moral history of the inner man illustrated by this passage

At the outset we observe two remarkable things.

1. Two distinct forces (verse 15), represented as if they were two Egos, the one hating what the other does, the one willing to do what the other strenuously refuses. What are these?

2. The development of these two powers in the same person. The language shows a kind of underlying personality in which these two selves live--“the wretched man” (verse 24); “the inner man,” the moral core of our nature--the man of the man. That there should be an opposition between the desire and the choice of different men is a remarkable fact. But that each man should be a self-divided kingdom, a self-created battleground on which heaven and hell fight their campaigns, is a fact as wonderful as it is evident. Here we have the inner man--

I. In absolute subjection to the flesh--thoroughly animalised. It is the state prior to the advent of the commandment (verse 10), when “sin was dead,” and the man fancied himself morally “alive.” The soul of infants, of course, is in this state. It is the creature of bodily appetites and desires. It seems wise and kind that the mind should for a time lie dormant in these frail organisations--that the muscles, limbs, and nerves might get strength. But the language is evidently intended to apply to adults. And are not millions walking after the flesh, and living to the flesh? the great question of their existence being--“What shall we eat, and what shall we drink, and wherewithal shall we be clothed?” The passage teaches that the state of the soul in this stage of its history is--

1. A state of unconscious sin. “Without the law sin was dead.” It produced no compunction. The soul was “dead in trespasses and sin.” There is no moral struggle against it. Still, though sin is not a matter of consciousness, it is sin.

2. A state of false life. “I was alive without the law once”--without the understanding of the law. In this fleshy stage of being, man is so destitute of all sense of responsibility, and all convictions of sin, that he fancies everything right. He lives, it is true. See him revelling in pleasure, or bustling in business. There is life, but it is a false life; not that of an intelligent moral being, made to act to the glory of God. It is the life of a dying man, who in his delirium fancies himself strong and hale; it is the life of a maniac who acts under the impression that he is a king. Such, then, is the state of man in the first stage of his soul’s history.

II. In violent battlings with the flesh (verses 9-24). In the first stage the conscience was asleep. Not so now. A new era has dawned--conscience is roused from her long slumbers, and a scene of terrible conflicts has commenced. This second stage--

1. Is introduced by a spiritual revelation of the Divine law. “The commandment came.” The law of God flashed on the conscience and revealed the true moral position. The bodily eye would never be developed without light. It would of course be a perfect organism, but it would not yield the sensation of sight. So with the conscience. It is a perfect organism, but without God’s law it will never see. Bring “the commandment” upon it, and it will give the man a new world. When the beams of morning play upon the eyeball, the slumbering tribes awake; so when the light of God’s law breaks on the conscience, the man awakes to his true condition. The revelation gives him three horrific feelings.

(a) In corporeal slavery the soul may rise on the wings of devotion, may revel in thought: but here the spiritual faculties are manacled.

(b) Death puts an end to physical and political slavery; but this spiritual slavery, death has no power to destroy.

2. Is characterised by a struggle to get deliverance by the law. In the first stage the law was disobeyed, but then there was no feeling about it; it was done mechanically. But now there is a struggle for a deliverance by the law.

III. In victorious sovereignty over the flesh. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

1. The deliverance comes not by the law. The law brought on the conflict. The law exposed the disease, but had no remedy; the slavery, but it could not emancipate; the danger, but it could not deliver.

2. As an illustration of the enormity of sin. It is sin that has reduced man to this state in which he cries out, “O wretched man that I am,” etc.

3. As a proof of the glory of the gospel. Science, education, law, the utmost human ingenuity and effort, none of these can deliver man. The gospel alone can do it, has done it, does it, and will do it. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Verses 7-13

Romans 7:7-13

What shall we say then?
Is the law sin? God forbid.

The law

I. Its nature--

1. Moral.

2. Spiritual.

3. Exemplified by the particular commandment quoted.

II. Its use--

1. To describe the nature.

2. Detect the presence.

3. Reveal the sinfulness of sin. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The law vindicated and commended

I. The law vindicated. The apostle had affirmed that the law constituted that to be sinful, that without the law could have had no such character--nay, that the law called forth sinful affections which, but for its provocation, might have lain dormant. And he seems now to feel as if this might attach the same sort of odiousness to the law that is attached to sin itself. This he repels with the utmost vehemence.

1. The law acts as a discoverer of sin (Romans 7:7). But it is no impeachment against the evenness of a ruler, that by its application you can discover what is crooked. On the contrary, its very power of doing so proves how straight it is in itself. The light may reveal an impurity which could not be recognised at night; yet who would ever think of ascribing to light any of that pollution which it reveals. It were indeed strange if the dissimilarity of two things should lead us to confound them. When one man stands before you full of moral worth, and another full of vice, the presence of the first may generate a keener repugnancy towards the second; and this not surely because they have anything in common, but because they have everything in wide and glaring opposition. And the same of sin and of the law.

2. The law aggravates this deformity by making sin more actively rebellious (Romans 7:8). The law not curing the desire of man’s heart towards any forbidden indulgence, this desire is thereby exasperated. The man who sins and thinks no more of it may never repeat it till its outward influences have again come about him, it may be, long after; but the man who is ever brooding under a sense of guilt has the image of allurement present to his thoughts during the whole time when they are not present to his senses. And thus the law turns out an occasional cause, why with him there should be both a more intense fermentation of the sinful appetites than with another, who is reckless of law and undisturbed by its accusing voice. And what adds to the helplessness of this calamity is, that while the law thus gives a new assailing force to his enemies, it affords no force of resistance to the man himself. Depriving him of the inspiring energy that is in hope, it gives him in its place the dread and the desperation of an outlaw. And yet the law here is not in fault. It is sin which is in fault, which, at sight of law, strengthened itself the more in its own character.