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

II. What God has wrought in us.

1. Nothing is more clear than that Christ intends His people to be actually holy (Titus 2:11; Tit_3:3-6). Here, then, we see the double glory of the gospel over the law. It can do what the law cannot do, in that it can confer on us a full and sufficient pardon, and also save us from the continued dominion of sin, and cause us to walk in newness of life. If a man hate God and his neighbour, it can make him love them; if he be a drunkard, it can make him sober; if an idolater, it can turn him from his idols; if a liar, it will make him truthful, etc.

2. Let us, then, see how it is that God works this mighty change within us.

The Christian plan

I. The occasion of its introduction. The inefficiency of the law.

1. What could not the law do? That which man as a sinner required for his salvation. It could neither regenerate nor justify. Man wanted both the nature for and the title to heaven, and the law could give neither.

2. Why the law could not do this?

II. The history of its development. “God sending His own Son,” etc. Observe--

1. The mission of Jesus. “God sent” Him to do what the law could not do--regenerate and justify. Sovereign love is the primal spring.

2. The incarnation of Jesus. “In the likeness of sinful flesh.” Only the likeness. His humanity was necessary as an example and as an atonement.

3. The sacrifice of Jesus. For a “sin offering,” etc.

III. The design of its operation. He did not come to abrogate, relax, or supersede law, but to fulfil it, that “its righteousness might be fulfilled” in the sinner. The Christian plan does this by presenting law--

1. In its most attractive forms. In the life of Jesus.

2. In connection with the greatest motives to obedience. In Christ you see God’s infinite respect for law as well as His love for sinners.

3. In connection with the greatest helper--the Holy Spirit. “It is expedient for you that I go away,” etc., (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The state of Christianity today

1. The text is a distinct statement that Judaism had come to the end of its influence. It had educated them to a point where, while men had need of more, it had nothing more to give.

2. We hear men speak of the Christian religion like Paul spoke of the Jewish. It is patronisingly said, It has done a good work; but men are so far educated by it now that it is no longer able to meet the want of our times; but from some source we are to expect a latter-day glory, which will be to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism.

I. What are the evidences that Christianity is beginning to wane?

1. It is said that Churchism is wearing out.

2. It may be said that the thinking men, particularly in the direction of science, are less and less believers in revelation. And the statement has some truth in it. But in the history of the race we find that one element usually takes precedence of every other, and absorbs everything, cheating the other elements. In some ages it is the religious element; in others it is cold, hard thought; then this has given way to periods of enthusiastic and even superstitious devotion. Just now we are in a period of mere material investigations. But we shall certainly come to another period ere long. If now the spiritual elements are cheated, the time will soon come when these things will begin to balance themselves. So soon as that growth which seems to unsettle the old faith has adjusted itself, the religious wants of the soul reassert themselves, and ere long the old statements are overlaid with new religious developments, and with religious truth in new forms.

II. What are the evidences that Christianity is not on the wane?

1. Is faith giving place to indifference? On the contrary, probably never was there an age in which there was so deep a religious faith as now. What men call a want of faith is oftentimes only unwillingness to accept so little as hitherto has been included in the articles of faith. It is the reaching out of the soul in new aspirations. It is asking for more, not for less.

2. Is the devotional spirit decayed? It is changing and ought to change. As progress in intelligence raises men into a better conception of God, and their own place in creation, there will be a new mode of reverence, a new method of devotion. The element of love has greatly increased, so that there is now far more of the filial spirit. The devotional spirit, though far less ascetic than it was, is more prevalent; and in the community there is far more respect for religion than formerly.

3. Never was there such a spirit of propagation as now. Never were so much pains taken to rear men for teaching the faith. Never was there so large a demand for, and supply of its instruments, in the form of religious books and papers: and, above all, never was there such a spirit of building churches, and supplying them in waste and destitute places.

4. Is the family today less or more under the influence of a true spiritual Christianity than it formerly was? There never was a period when there were so many high-toned and pure Christian families as today.

5. Has the Christian religion shown any signs of failing as a reforming power in its application to the morals of the day? Is there less conscience, less hope, less desire to purify the individual and the community? Religion dying? What, then, mean the execrations of wicked men? The Church losing its power? Why, then, are men so complaining of its intrusion, telling us to stay at home and preach the gospel, and not to meddle with things that do not concern us? It is the light which streams from the gospel which wakes the owls and the bats.

6. Has the Christian spirit lost its power over government and public affairs? I think the conscience of our community never was so high as it is today. Everywhere is the gospel leavening public administrations, and raising up an intelligent Christian public sentiment which is itself as powerful upon governments as winds are upon the sails of ships. If these things be so, are we quite ready yet to assume the condition of mourning? On the contrary, of all periods of the world this would be the last that I should have chosen to lift up my hands in despair and say, Religion is dying out, and must yield to a new dispensation.

Conclusion:

1. We may expect some changes, but none other than to deepen religious life and faith in religious truth. There will be a better understanding of the human heart, and better modes of reaching it with religious truth. But no amount of change in these external instrumentalities will affect in the slightest degree the power of the religious element.

2. The instrumentalities of religion hereafter, we may believe, will be more various. Laws, and customs, and instruments, being filled with a religious spirit, will become means of grace to a degree that hitherto they have never done.

3. Many think that preaching is worn out: a great deal of preaching is worn out. Many think churches useless: a great many churches are useless. But would you judge the family in the same way? Would you say that fatherhood is worn out because there are a great many poor husbands and fathers?

4. There never was a time, young men, when you had so little occasion to be ashamed of Christ or of religion. If men all around you, with all manner of books and paper, are telling you glozing tales of the decadence of religion, say to them, “Let the dead bury their dead,” but follow thou Christ. It is a falsehood. The glory of religion never was so great. Its need was never more urgent. Its fruits were never more ample. Its ministers were never more inspired by God’s ministering angels than now. (H. Ward Beecher.)

God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin.--

God’s own Son

Emphatic to mark--

1. The greatness of His love.

2. The adequacy of the means for the salvation of men. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

Of Christ’s being the natural and eternal Son of God

1. Christ was God’s Son. Notice the several attestations of this great truth. That of John Baptist (John 1:34); of Nathaniel (John 1:49); Peter (Matthew 16:16); the Centurion (Matthew 27:54); the Eunuch (Acts 8:37); Martha (John 11:27); the devils themselves (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11). Christ often asserted His Sonship; and the Father in a most solemn and open manner attested it (Matthew 3:17; Mat_17:5).

2. But Christ is here said to be God’s “own Son.” In the original it is “the Son of Himself,” or His “proper Son” (as verse 32). God is Christ’s proper Father (John 5:18). He is not barely a son, but a son in a peculiar manner.

Consider Him--

I. Comparatively. And so He is thus styled to distinguish Him from all other sons. For God hath sons--

1. By creation, as e.g., the angels (Job 1:6; Job_38:7), and Adam (Luke 3:38).

2. By the grace of regeneration and adoption (John 1:12-13; James 1:18; Galatians 4:3; Ephesians 1:5).

3. By nature; one that is a son of another rank and order. In this respect God hath but one, namely, Christ. Upon which account He sometimes appropriates the paternal relation in God unto Himself (Luke 10:22; John 14:2). And elsewhere He distinguishes betwixt God as being His Father and being the Father of believers (John 20:17).

II. Absolutely, and abstractedly from all other sons, so He is God’s own proper Son. The expression points to His being eternally begotten, and to His being begotten in the Divine essence. As to the latter, the Son was begotten in that essence rather than out of it. And some tell us that here we are not to consider Christ essentially as He is God, but personally as the Divine essence subsists in Him as the second person. In the first consideration as He was God He had the Divine essence in and of Himself, and so He could not be begotten to it, for He was God “from Himself.” In the second notion, as He was God personally considered, or as He was the second person and the Son, so He was of the Father and not of Himself; for though He was God of Himself, yet He was not Son of Himself (see John 7:29; Psalms 2:7; Proverbs 7:22-27; Micah 5:2; John 1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1 John 4:9). There are three properties belonging to Christ in His Sonship which are incommunicable to any other.

1. He is a Son co-equal with His Father (John 5:18; Philippians 2:6).

2. He is a Son co-essential with the Father (John 10:30; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3).

3. He is the co-eternal Son of God the Father (Revelation 1:8; Rev_2:8; Hebrews 1:5; Heb_1:8).

Application:

1. Is Christ thus God’s own Son? I infer then--

2. Was Christ God’s own Son? Let me from hence urge a few things upon you.

(a) In all your inquiries be sure you keep within the bounds of sobriety (1 Corinthians 4:6). Do not pry too far into those secrets which God hath locked up from you; content yourselves with what He hath revealed in His Word and stay there.

(b) Join study and prayer together. He studies this mystery best who studies it most upon His knees. This is not savingly to be known without special and supernatural illumination from Christ through the Spirit (Matthew 16:16-17; John 1:18; 1 John 5:28).

(a) The honour of worship (Hebrews 1:6).

(b) The honour of obedience (Matthew 17:5).

Christ’s mission

Before close handling this subject note--

1. This sending of Christ strongly implies His pre-existence. That which is not cannot be sent. And one would think the Scriptures are so clear in this that there should not be the least controversy about it. For they tell us that Christ was in Jacob’s time (Genesis 48:16); in Job’s time (Job 19:25); in the prophets’ time (1 Peter 1:11); in Abraham’s time, yea, long before it (John 8:56, etc.); in the Israelites’ time (1 Corinthians 10:9); Isaiah’s time (John 12:41). How fully and plainly is His pre-existence asserted in John 1:1-3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2; John 17:5; Philippians 2:6.

2. His personality, by which I mean He existed before He took flesh, not as a thing, quality, dispensation, or manifestation, but as a proper, personal subsistence. And He must be so, or else He could not be the subject of this sending. For He is sent to take the likeness of sinful flesh upon Him.

3. The distinction that is betwixt the Father and Christ. One sends and the other is sent. The Father and the Son are one in nature and essence, yet they are distinct persons. The apostle had spoken of the Spirit in the former verse; in this He speaks of the Father and of the Son, thus teaching the Trinity. I will endeavour now:--

I. To clear up the nature of the act.

1. Negatively. This sending of Christ was--

2. Affirmatively, this sending of Christ lies--

II. To answer an objection and remove a difficulty. That which hath been spoken seems to derogate from the greatness and glory of Christ’s person: for if God sent Him, then, argue some, He is inferior to the Father. But--

1. Sending doth not always imply inferiority or inequality; for persons who are equal upon mutual consent may send each the other. And thus it was between God the Father and Christ. When the master sends the servant, he goes because he must; but when the Father sends the Son He goes readily, because His will falls in with His Father’s will (John 10:36; cf. Joh_17:19; Romans 8:32, cf. Galatians 2:20).

2. We must distinguish of a two-fold inferiority, one in respect of nature, and one in respect of office, condition, or dispensation. As to the first, Christ neither was nor is in the least inferior to the Father. In respect of this He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. As to the second, Christ being considered as Mediator, it may be said of Him that He was inferior to the Father (Philippians 2:7-8; John 14:28).

III. To inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christ’s mission. In the general, some must be sent. Since neither the law, nor anything else, could operate to any purpose towards the advancing of God’s honour and the promoting of the sinner’s good, it was necessary that God Himself should interpose in some extraordinary way; which thereupon He accordingly did in the sending of Christ. But more particularly, suppose a necessity of sending, yet why did God pitch upon His Son? Might not some other person have been sent, or might not some other way have been found? I answer, No; Christ the Son must be the very person whom God will send. And Him He pitched upon because--

1. He was the person with whom the Father had covenanted about this very thing.

2. God saw that was the very best way which could be taken. He had great designs to carry on, as, e.g., to let the world see what an evil thing sin was, how impartial His justice was, what an ocean of love He had in His heart, and to lay a sure foundation for the righteousness and salvation of believers. Now there was no way for the accomplishing of these comparable to this of God’s sending His Son.

3. As this was the best and the fittest way, so He was the best and the fittest person to be employed. This appears from, and was grounded upon--

4. He was the only person that could be sent, for none but He could accomplish man’s redemption.

Practical improvement:

1. Was Christ sent? and did God thus send Him? What doth this great act of God call for from us?

(a) To be man.

(b) Into man. He that would hope for salvation by Christ must have the latter as well as the former sending.

2. It affords abundant matter of comfort to all sincere Christians. Did God send Christ?

(a) Against the weakness of the law. That which the law could not do, Christ did.

(b) Against the guilt of sin. Upon Christ’s sending presently you read of the condemning of sin. (T. Jacomb, D. D.)

Christ contemplated in His relation

I. To God.

1. He is God’s own Son.

2. Sent by God.

II. To the law.

1. He sustains.

2. Magnifies.

3. Fulfils it.

III. To man.

1. He visits him.

2. Assumes his nature.

3. Dies for him.

IV. To sin.

1. He atones for it.

2. Condemns it.

3. Destroys it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Condemned sin in the flesh.

How God condemned sin

1. Ever since man has fallen, two things have been desirable. The one, that he should be forgiven; the other, that he should be led to hate the sin into which he has fallen, and love the holiness from which he has become alienated. It were impossible to make a man happy unless both be equally realised. If his sins were forgiven, and yet he loved sin, his prospects were dark, If he ceased to love sin, and yet were lying under the guilt of it, his conscience would be tortured with remorse. By what process can man be both justified and sanctified?

2. Human reason suggests that a law should be given to man which he should keep. This has been tried, and the law which was given was the best law that could be framed. If, therefore, that law should fail to make men what they should be, the fault will not be in the law, but in the man. As the text says, it was “weak through the flesh.” It could not do what God never intended it should do. The law cannot forgive sin, nor create a love of righteousness. It can execute the sentence, but it can do no more. Now, in the text we are told how God interposed to do by His grace what His law could not do.

I. What God did. He sent His Son.

II. What was the immediate result of this? God “condemned sin.”

1. The very fact that God was under necessity, if He would save men and yet not violate His justice, to send His Son, condemned sin.

2. The life of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth condemned sin. You can often condemn an evil best by putting side by side with it the palpable contrast. There was a condemnation of sin in Christ’s very look. The Pharisees and all sorts of men felt it. They could not fail to see through His life what crooked lives their own were.

3. God condemned sin by allowing it to condemn itself. Most men deny that their particular transgressions are at all heinous. But God seemed to say, “I will let sin do what it can; and men shall see henceforth what sin is from that sample.” And what did sin do? Sin murdered the perfect man, and thus convicted itself.

4. God condemned sin by suffering Christ to be put to death on account of sin. Its heinousness demanded no lesser expiation. “But why did not God exercise the sovereign prerogative of mercy, and at once forgive sin?” How, then, could God have condemned sin? “But if the righteous law be really so spiritual, and carnal man so weak, why not alter the law and adapt it to the exigency?” I reply again, because such a procedure would not condemn the sin. On the contrary, it would condemn the law.

III. How this does what the law could not do. There were two desirable things, you will remember, that I started with.

1. That the offender should be pardoned. You can clearly see how that is done. If Jesus did suffer in my stead, henceforth it becomes not only mercy that absolves me, but justice that seals my acquittal.

2. But how does this tend to make men pure and haters of sin? When the Holy Spirit comes with power into a man’s heart, and renews his nature, forthwith the impure are made chaste, the dishonest are made honest, and the ungodly are made to love God. And by the same means there comes into the heart an enmity against the sin which caused the suffering of Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Sin condemned in the flesh

“The law” here means that law of constraint, acting from without as precept and motive, which came to a head, in the dispensation of Moses. It is singular that this law--called “the ministration of condemnation”--could not condemn sin in the flesh, or secure the fulfilment of its own righteousness. This unfitted it to become an instrument of salvation. It could give us no help to get free from that very evil to which it was itself most opposed.

I. The great requirement. Condemnation of sin in the flesh signifies--

1. That the condemnation should pass from a mere threatening to an actual punishment in human nature. Condemnation can exist as a threatening, and if so, sin may be condemned in the law; but when sin is condemned in the flesh, there must be the actual infliction of punishment.

2. Such a condemnation as shall issue in the accomplishment of the righteousness of the law. The great problem is how to condemn sin effectually, and yet save the sinner.

II. The insufficient provision. The law was unable to do this. It could not condemn sin in the flesh through the weakness of the flesh. If terror could frighten man out of sin, the law has terror. If the relation of duty could secure the performance of duty, the law reveals duty. If the exhibition of holiness could allure to the law of holiness, the law exhibits that picture. But the corruption of the flesh is too strong for the law to conquer.

III. The perfect accomplishment. The gospel condemns sin in the flesh.

1. By the incarnation of Jesus. Sin cannot be adequately condemned (i.e., punished)
as an abstraction, but only in human nature, i.e., in the same nature in which it was committed, otherwise the threatening remains a dead letter.

2. By the sacrifice of Christ. “For sin” means “an offering for sin.” God laid on Christ the condemnation of the law. But how could Christ more effectively bear the punishment of the law than any other man?

The condemnation of sin in the flesh

How did God condemn sin in the flesh, i.e., in human nature generally?

1. By exhibiting in the person of His Incarnate Son the same flesh in substance but free from sin, He proved that sin was in the flesh only as an unnatural and usurping tyrant. Thus the manifestation of Christ in sinless humanity at once condemned sin in principle. For this sense of condemnation by contrast see Matthew 12:41-42; Hebrews 11:7. But--

2. God condemned sin practically and effectually by destroying its power and casting it out; and this is the sense especially required by the context. The law could condemn sin only in word, and could not make its condemnation effectual. Christ coming “for sin” not only made atonement for it by His death, but uniting man to Himself “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4) gave actual effect to the condemnation of sin by destroying its dominion in the flesh through the life-giving, sanctifying power of His Spirit. (Archdeacon Gifford.)