#54. Romans 7:7 - A Mini Education on the Law: A Broad Scope (Conciliation Series, Part XXXI)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

What, then, shall we declare? That the law is sin?

Of course this has to be asked.

Grace is lord over us – through righteousness, mind you, per Rom. 5:21, and per 6:15-23, not the law. Paul has thoroughly proven this, but it means that now we have to sit down and go, “Oh, well, if law and sin are so closely correlated like this, does this mean that the law is sin? The law is not righteous?”

This is a very, very sneaky question. Obviously, if Paul answers ‘yes,’ then God, Whom Paul speaks for, is a liar, because He Himself has clarified time and time again that the law is just (Ps. 19:7-9, Matt. 5:17.) The answer must be no, because if the law is sin, then it cannot recognize sin, as that would be redundant, and blur his previous argument. The law can only recognize sin if it is just by nature.

Remember that the ‘objector’ presented in these chapters is of the Jewish faith. The Jew is seeking to trip Paul up on anything, here, but the more correct answers Paul gives, the harder the man of the Jewish faith must work to object without directly exposing his doubts about his God. This was unheard of for the Jew at the time, the notion that you could be exempt from the law that your people have been told to herald for over a thousand years!

See, Christ came to fulfill law. If He came to fulfill law, and yet did not sin (2 Cor. 5:21,) then law is certifiably not sin, as Christ would not fulfill sin.

That said – though the law is indeed good, it is not there to present truth. It’s God’s moral flashlight, not a revelation of His secrets. This is evident in the way John contrasts between the law and Jesus Christ, in John 1:17–

For the law through Moses was given; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Grace and truth are contrasted with the law. This unequivocally shoots down the Jewish perception of the law – to the objector, the law is in the form of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth,’ per Rom. 2:20. While it is true that the law gives us a perfect understanding of a moral righteousness, it does not present you with the truth behind the law, being God’s heart. His nature is revealed, yes – but His motive is not.

This gets even stickier when you consider the hidden emotion in the objector, by this point. Honestly, my heart goes out to them (as does Paul’s, per Rom. 9:1-3.) Paul had to make it clear earlier that God has given the Jew a prerogative, but by releasing some from the power of Mosaic law (which is what’s in focus, here,) the Jew must feel… emasculated, I guess. Many have come to doubt their faith because of the difficulty of their history, thanks to their being set aside for their transgression against every law, as well as the murder of God’s Son.

The reason my heart goes out to the objector here is because, well, the rug has literally been pulled out from under them! They could agree, I’m sure, that ‘dying to Sin’ is a good thing. A kind Pharisee may have even made this claim out of naivety at Paul’s direction (“Maybe he’s not all bad,” they must have thought. “He just needs to feel heard. Maybe then we can show him the righteous law and he’ll snap out of this!”) Yet Paul’s claim in 6:14 shoots that good will to the ground. Come on, free from Sin, sure, but why would you want to be free from law? The law is righteous! God said so! King David proclaimed it, too! If Paul is saying we’re exempt from the law, then he must be saying that the law is sinful! Why else would he be pushing freedom from the law so badly??

As a gentile, this side of the story has long been unknown to me. I never would have understood it if I hadn’t read exhortations from Rogers, Knoch, James G. Poole, Hough, and others. Nowadays, the unsuspecting Bible student may not have considered just how radical this was to the Jews and their traditions. As a gentile, a group of people to whom the Bible is now freely scrutinized, this indignation from the Jews toward God may not be fully considered. Yet it is present throughout Paul’s doctrinal teachings as an intimate side of the story.

As for us, we never received this side of the story. We never experienced it ourselves, because the Mosaic law never stirred up the passions of sins in us. Unless you’ve gone to a church that attempts to mix law and grace, or put you under law entirely, you may not initially care about this question at all, beyond its mere historical value (I know I certainly perceived it this way, until very recently.) That said, especially considering Paul’s elaboration on the ‘newness of spirit’ that will come in the next chapter, it would do well to study the objections in the ‘oldness of letter’ here in chapter 7, that the revelations in Romans 8 become more apparent to us.

*   *   *

And this, dear brothers and sisters, is where I am going to break down one of the most complicated concepts for me personally to apprehend. There’s going to be a lot of information I’m going to throw your way. Much of it will be necessary, but other parts, I admit, are just for those who want to go the extra mile in seeking to apprehend the depths of the subject we are now considering.

First, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, there’s an immediate, rational issue with what Paul has been talking about for the past chapter. This issue, if you recall, is one that the Jewish objector had since Romans 6:1. It is difficult for one who has spent their entire life under law, under the feigned impression that they are fulfilling it, to believe that one can be exempt from a moral law without naturally being exempt from morality itself. If you go to a studious religious, sectarian man today, they may provide this objection.

We also have another issue that arises, in considering this objection; can you change the law?

No, no, that’s a silly question (if you’re studious in Scripture and understand the justness of the law, that is.) The law is presented by God, not man. I guess we’ll elaborate on this notion in a moment anyway, but a better question to ask may be, “Did God arbitrarily make law?” Was it made for funsies? Was it random? Are the declarations in the law only correct because God said so? If so, is that a good way to rule? Many men have ruled this way (and parents govern this way as well,) and they have failed miserably. Why, if we are asked to imitate God (Eph. 5:1,) would this teaching method fail?

Moreover, if the law is just, then would it be unjust for God to do away with the law? And are we, as saints, lawless now? If we are exempt from Mosaic law, then what takes its place in our hearts?

Lots and lots of questions, all of which demand an answer. Thankfully, you’ve come to the right place! Let’s go through and answer each of them by considering, and breaking down, the law in essence.

The law is nomos, in Greek. If a law exists, then, by definition, there must be a lawgiver. Someone with authority. We know, immediately, that Moses could not have rationally concocted the law itself, because commandment #6 states, “You shall not murder.” (Ex. 20:13.) Moses could not have created a just law by unjustly killing someone (Ex. 2:11-12.) Thus we know that he himself did not conjure up the ten commandments (or the 603 laws that followed.) Only a righteous One could have made such a perfect law – thus the law’s very existence naturally proves God, and thus His words take precedent.

This is not a principle that is limited to the morality of the Mosaic law, either. Scientists have named the principles of our earth’s environments and habitats “laws of nature.” These laws are natural. They are not included in the Mosaic law, but are observable. There is an order, a hierarchy, to every terrestrial element we see. Everything, from the macroscopic to the microscopic, has its place. The light, its color spectrum, its ability to travel, expand, bend, and reflect, is contrasted against the lack of light, the black sky. The water and its elements are definitively separated from the earth (Gen. 1:6.) Trees and shrubs flourish according to their kind (Gen. 1:11-12.) Birds and fish multiply according to their kind (Gen. 1:20-22.) There’s an order and hierarchy to the animal kingdom, from each domain, all the way down to each individual species. The laws of physics – gravity, friction, heat, velocity, and time – are all coordinated perfectly to join the fabric of our reality. These laws are natural, instituted, and cannot be changed. They can be pushed, but no man is currently ‘free’ from gravity, or ‘free’ from the earth’s exact rotation around the sun, or ‘free’ from the animal kingdom. Are they permanent? Considering our own expectation in Christ, in which our physical bodies are completely changed in order to conform to the celestial environment (1 Cor. 15:39-53,) I would argue that, until the stage itself becomes the ‘new earth,’ these laws are here to stay.

Now, Mosaic law is morality perfected, but ‘moral law’ is indeed its own thing (Rom. 2:14.) Moral law itself has been shifted, challenged, and ‘amended’ here on our side of things, for the past 6,000 years – which is why Paul says, concerning the individual being of the nations (who were not subject to Mosaic law,) that they are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts. This moral law is not based on ‘kindness’ or ‘love’ (Rom. 3:11-18,) but, like we’ve discussed, is enforced by penalty. These folk ‘don’t murder’ – not because they truly don’t want to murder, as those who are given authority to murder, in places of power, often do, but because they are trying to do ‘the right thing,’ to satisfy their conscience, and justify themselves. These folk cannot yet be justified by faith of Christ (Rom. 3:21-23,) because they are still focused on trying to do Christ’s work of justification on themselves.

This is an important distinction from Mosaic law, because the moral law has existed for a long time before the moment on Mount Sinai. From Adam to Moses, moral law reigned, and if you go back and reread Genesis, you’ll find this law evident in every speaker. They still clearly knew what good was, what evil was (Gen. 20:8-10, 15.) They knew of guilt (Gen. 50:15-16.) The conscience of man has always existed, and since eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we have known this distinction. It has been challenged more and more with modernist philosophy, but the distinction still exists, and had been accepted long before Mosaic law ever entered the picture. This was a revelation of the just laws of God, as He had not commented on the perfect morality until the incident on Sinai.

So, we’ve briefly covered natural and moral law – again, neither of which are in view here, and are thus extraneous info, given our current study. However, it’s well for us to keep in mind that all is of God (Rom. 9:16, 11:33-36, 1 Cor. 8:6, 2 Cor. 5:18,) and thus these two broader forms of ‘law’ should be considered. I’m not going to go into much more detail in this on the two, but if science and/or is your deal, I highly recommend diving further into either subject (with your feet firmly planted in the foundations of Paul’s letters here, of course, so that you are not swept away by the theories that are presented with each subject, such as Darwinian evolution or rebellious anarchist theology.)

Now let us consider the Mosaic law. This itself can be broken down into two different sub-groups. The first is the righteous moral requirements. These are broken down in the Ten Commandments, as well as interpersonal relationships. The second group consists of special ceremonies, sacrifices, observing the Sabbath, and so on. One of these groups recognizes a universal morality, and the second recognizes a relative sacrificial requirement, as Christ had not begun His earthly sojourn yet.

Now we’ll begin covering the questions posed earlier, but we’ll cover them backwards. The last question I asked was, “Are we, as saints, lawless now? If we are exempt from Mosaic law, then what takes its place in our hearts?” The answer is that we are not lawless – we have faith’s law, which sustains the Mosaic law in our hearts. By considering the two groups that we’ve broken down here, we can see that the sacrificial side of law has been fulfilled by the ultimate Sacrifice, being Christ’s obedience unto the death of the cross. This means that, literally, the law is established in our hearts (Rom. 3:31,) so we are exempt from it (7:6.)

While He was on earth, our Lord’s disposition was perfected. He may have been in the form of God, but it was only through the earthly sojourn that He is claimed to have been ‘perfected’ in His sufferings (Heb. 2:10, 5:9, Luke 2:53,) now having experience to match the power, and being abled to employ reconciliation, which, per the established moral and natural precepts, He was previously unable to effect. So also, you are not lawless, but you have faith’s law (Rom. 3:28.) You are being perfected, in receiving the effects of this reconciliation process. You still have a law, but it is far more gracious than Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:21.)

The previous question was, “If the law is just, then would it be unjust for God to do away with the law?” This is a more layered question than you would initially believe. The objection (which I am rather proud of,) certainly falls in line with Romans 7:7, in that it presupposes that God would be unjust if the answer Paul gives is ‘no, the law is not sin,’ because then He is removing people from the potential to achieve righteousness. The question, however, also fails in that it presupposes that law is some relative kind of perfection, but doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. This question, then, concedes that one can be exempted from the law, but then claims God is unjust in doing so. This defeats the purpose of the question, for an unjust God cannot establish the just law.

That said, if God is the one that established the just law, the question becomes, “Well, is the law just simply because God said so?” (See how we’re working backwards here?) The answer is, “No.” He had His Son, His Image, descend to such an extremely low life (Eph. 4:8-10, Phil. 2:7-8,) desiring to crush Him under the weight of death (Is. 53:9-10.) In doing this, God killed the enmity in our flesh (Eph. 2:14-16.) This shows, conclusively, that He is the only One capable of removing the curse that He inflicted, and if He can establish and remove the penalty while sustaining law through His Image, then He can assuredly establish and/or remove the law, while sustaining it through His Image.

Let’s wrap this part up with a few tough statements. There are some things that God cannot do – not because He is literally incapable, but because it is not His character or nature to do so. It is not that God created the law and said, “This is just and good, so follow it!” His character is the morality of the Mosaic law. It is because of this that God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18.) He cannot disown Himself (2 Tim. 2:13.) Here’s the very law we’re discussing, Deut. 32:4–

The Rock – flawless are His deeds, For all His ways are right judgment. The El of faithfulness and without iniquity; Just and upright is He.

If He uses this story to create goodness or righteousness, then He can’t say He is flawless and righteousness, because that just means He decided what “is” good, being Himself, and then calls everything else “bad.” This is a tactic that many four-year-olds employ to prove themselves worthy of respect, so I would imagine that it is not the method that the Creator of the universe would employ in order to display His character, because that makes Him prideful. Moreover, it would be equivalent to Him saying, “Hey, I created Myself!”

The major objection I find to this claim can be found in Is. 45:7–

Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things.

“Maker of good” seems to blow up what I just said, right?

Not quite.

The term “good” is found in the Qumran text, or the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” This is how it is translated in the CLV. The Hebrew word used here, however, in the Masoretic text, says “shalom,” which is “peace,” not “good.” He indeed can be called the ‘Maker of peace.’ But ‘goodness’ is His innate character. He did not ‘create His own qualities,’ as He is the Creator, not the created.

In this, it becomes apparent that God, while capable of inflicting great and permanent evils, does not commit them, as His character, His nature, can be found in the laws He established. Established – not created. He presented them to Israel; but He did not create it in order for them to be presented to Israel.

This leads to yet another minor issue – is God subject to the law? There are a few Jewish expositors who will claim that the law came first, and God, Who is subject to the law, used said law to create the universe, and cites everything we’ve presented so far as the reasoning. This, of course, is like asking, “Are you subject to your own mind?” It’s not ‘subjectivity’ to the law, but identity. God is not ‘the law,’ but His nature is rooted in the law. Unlike the four-year-old, He presents the law to us, in infirm bodies, to show us what the opposite of Him feels like first.

The law is His form of government, but cleary, God Himself does not amount to ‘government.’ He is much more than that. I know the Christians speak often of ‘judgment,’ but of course they’re obsessed with judgment – they’re under law!! They presume that God’s judgment, thus the law by which He judges, is the greatest thing to herald concerning God. Yet, truthfully, God’s heart of love is the greatest aspect of Him, which is why He heralds it so often. Grace concerns His heart, whereas law concerns His character. This is why grace is greater than, but does not void the law. It’s not ‘useless’ now that grace is present – it is still ever necessary for any student of Scripture, simply because the law educates us on His morals, through our sin, just as grace educates us on His heart, through our lack therein apart from Him.

- GerudoKing