Facts Regarding the Law of Moses and the End of the Law According to Jesus Christ Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. I). LAW INSUFFICIENT Rom_3:19; Rom_8:3; Gal_2:19; Eph_2:15; Heb_7:19 A). Romans 3:19: But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God, Now we know - We all admit. It is a conceded plain point. What things soever - Whether given as precepts, or recorded as historical facts. Whatever things are found in the Law. “The law saith.” This means here evidently the Old Testament. From that the apostle had been drawing his arguments, and his train of thought requires us here to understand the whole of the Old Testament by this. The same principle applies, however, to all law, that it speaks only to those to whom it is expressly given. It saith to them ... - It speaks to them for whom it was expressly intended; to them for whom the Law was made. The apostle makes this remark in order to prevent the Jew from evading the force of his conclusion. He had brought proofs from their own acknowledged laws, from writings given expressly for them, and which recorded their own history, and which they admitted to be divinely inspired. These proofs, therefore, they could not evade. That every mouth may be stopped - This is perhaps, a proverbial expression, Job_5:15; Psa_107:42. It denotes that they would be thoroughly convinced; that the argument would be so conclusive as that they would have nothing to reply; that all objections would be silenced. Here it denotes that the argument for the depravity of the Jews from the Old Testament was so clear and satisfactory, that nothing could be alleged in reply. This may be regarded as the conclusion of his whole argument, and the expressions may refer not to the Jews only, but to all the world. Its meaning may, perhaps, be thus expressed, “The Gentiles are proved guilty by their own deeds, and by a violation of the laws of nature. They sin against their own conscience; and have thus been shown to be guilty before God Rom. 1). The Jews have also been shown to be guilty; all their objections have been silenced by an independent train of remark; by appeals to their own Law; by arguments drawn from the authority which they admit. Thus, the mouths of both are stopped. Thus, the whole world becomes guilty before God.” I regard, therefore, the word “that” here ἵνα hina as referring, not particularly to the argument from the Law of the Jews, but to the whole previous train of argument, embracing both Jews and Gentiles. His conclusion is thus general or universal, drawn from arguments adapted to the two great divisions of mankind. And all the world - Both Jews and Gentiles, for so the strain of the argument shows. That is, all by nature; all who are out of Christ; all who are not pardoned. All are guilty where there is not some scheme contemplating forgiveness, and which is not applied to purify them. The apostle in all this argument speaks of what man is, and ever would be, without some plan of justification appointed by God. May become - May “be.” They are not made guilty by the Law; but the argument from the Law, and from fact, proves that they are guilty. Guilty before God - ὑπόδικος τῷ Θεῷ hupodikos tō Theō. Margin, “subject to the judgment of God.” The phrase is taken from courts of justice. It is applied to a man who has not vindicated or defended himself; against whom therefore the charge or the indictment is found true; and who is in consequence subject to punishment. The idea is that of subjection to punishment; but always because the man personally deserves it, and because being unable to vindicate himself, he ought to be punished. It is never used to denote simply an obligation to punishment, but with reference to the fact that the punishment is personally deserved.” This word, rendered “guilty,” is not used elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint. The argument of the apostle here shows, (1) That in order to be guilty, there must be a law, either that of nature or by revelation Rom. 1; 2; 3; and, (2) That in order to have guilt, there must be a violation of that law which may be charged on them as individuals, and for which they are to be held personally responsible. B). Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; For what the law could not do - The Law of God, the moral law. It could not free from sin and condemnation. This the apostle had fully shown in Rom. 7. In that - Because. It was weak - It was feeble and inefficacious. It could not accomplish it. Through the flesh - In consequence of the strength of sin, and of the evil and corrupt desires of the unrenewed heart. The fault was not in the Law, which was good Rom_7:12, but it was owing to the strength of the natural passions and the sinfulness of the unrenewed heart; see Rom_7:7-11, where this influence is fully explained. God, sending his own Son - That is, God did, or accomplished, that, by sending his Son, which the Law could not do. The word did, or accomplished, it is necessary to understand here, in order to complete the sense. In the likeness of sinful flesh - That is, he so far resembled sinful flesh that he partook of flesh, or the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires. It was not human nature; not, as the Docetae taught, human nature in appearance only; but it was human nature Without any of its corruptions. And for sin - Margin, “By a sacrifice for sin.” The expression evidently means, by an Offering for sin, or that he was given as a Sacrifice on account of sin. His being given had respect to sin.Condemned sin in the flesh - The flesh is regarded as the source of sin; Note, Rom_7:18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I do not find. The flesh being the seat and origin of transgression, the atoning sacrifice was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that thus he might meet sin, as it were, on its own ground, and destroy it. He may be said to have condemned sin in this manner, (1) Because the fact that he was given for it, and died on its account, was a condemnation of it. If sin had been approved by God he would not have made an atonement to secure its destruction. The depth and intensity of the woes of Christ on its account show the degree of abhorrence with which it is regarded by God. (2) The word “condemn” may be used in the sense of destroying, overcoming, or subduing; 2Pe_2:6, “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow.” In this sense the sacrifice of Christ has no; only condemned sin as being evil, but has weakened its power and destroyed its influence, and will finally annihilate its existence in all who are saved by that death. (By the sacrifice of Christ, God indeed showed his abhorrence of sin, and secured its final overthrow. It is not, however, of the sanctifying influence of this sacrifice, that the apostle seems here to speak, but of its justifying power. The sense, therefore, is that God passed a judicial sentence on sin, in the person of Christ, on account of which, that has been effected which the Law could not effect, (justification namely). Sin being condemned in the human nature of Christ, cannot be condemned and punished in the persons of those represented by him. They must be justified. This view gives consistency to the whole passage, from the first verse to the fourth inclusive. The apostle clearly begins with the subject of justification, when, in the first verse, he affirms, that to them who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. If the question be put, Why is this? the second verse gives for answer, that believers are delivered from the Law as a covenant of works. (See the foregoing supplementary note). If the question again be put, Whence this deliverance? the third verse points to the sacrifice of Christ, which, the fourth verse assures us, was offered with the very design “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” This clause, according to the principle of interpretation laid down above, does not relate to the believer’s obedience to the righteous requirements of the Law. The apostle has in view a more immediate design of the sacrifice of Christ. The right or demand of the Law δικαίωμα dikaiōma was satisfaction to its injured honor. Its penalty must be borne, as well as its precept obeyed. The sacrifice of Christ answered every claim. And as believers are one with him, the righteousness of the Law has been “fulfilled in them.” The whole passage is thus consistently explained of justification.) C). Gal 2:19; For through the Law I died to the law, that I might live to God. For I through the law - On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase “am dead to the law,” the Law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification. He acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the Law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God; see the note at Rom_6:2. * “Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? God forbid - By no means. Greek, It may not be; see Rom_3:4. The expression is a strong denial of what is implied in the objection in Rom_6:1. How shall we? ... - This contains a reason of the implied statement of the apostle, that we should not continue in sin. The reason is drawn from the fact that we are dead in fact to sin. It is impossible for these who are dead to act as if they were alive. It is just as absurd to suppose that a Christian should desire to live in sin as that a dead man should put forth the actions of life. That are dead to sin - That is, all Christians. To be dead to a thing is a strong expression denoting that it has no influence over us. A man that is dead is uninfluenced and unaffected by the affairs of this life. He is insensible to sounds, and tastes, and pleasures; to the hum of business, to the voice of friendship, and to all the scenes of commerce, gaiety, and ambition. When it is said, therefore, that a Christian is dead to sin, the sense is, that it has lost its influence over him; he is not subject to it; he is in regard to that, as the man in the grave is to the busy scenes and cares of this life. The expression is not infrequent in the New Testament; Gal_2:19, “For I ...am dead to the law;” Col_3:3, “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;” 1Pe_2:24, “Who ...bare our sins ...that we, being dead to sin,” etc. The apostle does not here attempt to prove that Christians are thus dead, nor to state in what way they become so. He assumes the fact without argument. All Christians are thus in fact dead to sin. They do not live to sin; nor has sin dominion over them. The expression used here by the apostle is common in all languages. We familiarly speak of a man’s being dead to sensual pleasures, to ambition, etc., to denote that they have lost their influence over him. Live any longer therein - How shall we, who have become sensible of the evil of sin, and who have renounced it by solemn profession, continue to practice it? It is therefore abhorrent to the very nature of the Christian profession. It is remarkable that the apostle did not attempt to argue the question on metaphysical principles. He did not attempt to show by abstruse argument that this consequence did not follow; but he appeals at once to Christian feeling, and shows that the supposition is abhorrent to that. To convince the great mass of people, such an appeal is far better than labored metaphysical argumentation. All Christians can understand that; but few would comprehend an abstruse speculation. The best way to silence objections is, sometimes, to show that they violate the feelings of all Christians, and that therefore the objection must be wrong. (Considerable difficulty exists in regard to the meaning of the expression “dead to sin? Certainly the most obvious interpretation is that given above in the Commentary, namely, that Christians are insensible to sin, as dead persons to the charms and pleasures of life. It has, however, been objected to this view, that it is inconsistent with fact, since Christians, so far from being insensible to sin, are represented in the next chapter as carrying on a perpetual struggle with it. The corrupt nature, though weakened, is not eradicated, and too frequently occasions such mournful falls, as leave little doubt concerning its existence and power. Mr. Scott seems to have felt this difficulty, for, having explained the phrase of “separation from iniquity, as a dead man ceases from the actions of life,” he immediately adds, “not only ought this to be the believer’s character, but in a measure it actually is so.” It is not probable. however, that the apostle meant by the strong expression under discussion, that believers were not altogether “dead to sin,” but only in a measure. Perhaps we shall arrive at a more satisfactory meaning of the words by looking at the analogous expression in the context, used in reference to Christ himself. He also, in the 10th verse, is said to have “died unto sin,” and the believer, in virtue of union with Christ, is regarded as” dead with him,” Rom_6:8; and, in consequence of this death with Christ, is moreover freed, or rather justified, δεδίκαιωται dedikaiōtai from sin, Rom_6:7. Now it cannot be said of Christ that he died unto sin, in the sense of becoming dead to its charms. for it was never otherwise with him. The believer, therefore, cannot be dead with Christ in this way; nor on this ground, can he be justified from sin, since justification proceeds upon something very different from our insensibility to sinful pleasures. What then is the meaning of the language when applied to Christ? Sin is here supposed to be possessed of certain power. That power or strength the apostle tells us elsewhere is derived from the Law. “The strength of sin is the law,” which demands satisfaction to its injured honor, and insists on the infliction of its penalty. Though then Jesus had no sin of his own, yet when he voluntarily stood in the room of sinners, sin, or its strength, namely, the Law, had power over him, until he died, and thus paid the penalty. His death cancelled every obligation. Henceforth, sin had no more power to exact anything at his hands. Now Christians are one with Christ. When he died unto sin, they are regarded as having died unto it also, and are therefore, equally with their covenant head, justified from it. Sin, or its strength, the Law, has from the moment of the saint’s union with Christ, no more power to condemn him, than human laws have to condemn one over again who had already died to answer the demands of justice. “The law has dominion over a man so long only as he lives.” On the whole, then, the expression “dead to sin,” is to be regarded as entirely parallel with that other expression in the seventh chapter, “dead to the law,” that is, completely delivered from its authority as a covenant of works, and more especially from its power to condemn. This view exercises a decided influence and the believer’s sanctification. “How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” The two things are incompatible. If in virtue of union with Christ, we are dead with him, and freed from the penalty of sin, shall not the same union secure our deliverance from its dominion? “If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” *End of Note The whole argument, from the 1st to the 11th verse, proceeds upon the fact of the saint’s union with Christ.)” But on the meaning of the phrase “through the law” (διὰ νόμου dia nomou) there has been a great variety of opinion. Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others suppose that he means the Christian religion, and that the meaning is, “by one law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;” that is, the Christian doctrine has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke, Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the Law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true character of the Law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul had formerly expected to be justified by the Law. He had endeavored to obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions in order to be saved by it; Phi_3:4-6. But all this while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of justification by it died, and he became dead to it. That I might live unto God - That I might be truly alive, and might be found engaged in his service. He was dead to the Law, but not to everything. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service; see Rom_6:11 D). Eph 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them; Having abolished - Having brought to naught, or put an end to it - καταργήσας katargēsas. In his flesh - By the sacrifice of his body on the cross. It was not by instruction merely; it was not by communicating the knowledge of God; it was not as a teacher; it was not by the mere exertion of power; it was by his flesh - his human nature - and this can mean only that he did it by his sacrifice of himself. It is such language as is appropriate to the doctrine of the atonement - not indeed teaching it directly - but still such as one would use who believed that doctrine, and such as no other one would employ. Who would now say of a moral teacher that he accomplished an important result by “his flesh?” Who would say of a man that was instrumental in reconciling his contending neighbors, that he did it “by his flesh?” Who would say of Dr. Priestley that he established Unitarianism “in his flesh?” No man would have ever used this language who did not believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin. The enmity - Between the Jew and the Gentile. Tyndale renders this, “the cause of hatred, that is to say, the law of commandments contained in the law written.” This is expressive of the true sense. The idea is, that the ceremonial law of the Jews, on which they so much prided themselves, was the cause of the hostility existing between them. That made them different people, and laid the foundation for the alienation which existed between them. They had different laws; different institutions; a different religion. The Jews looked upon themselves as the favorites of heaven, and as in possession of the knowledge of the only way of salvation; the Gentiles regarded their laws with contempt, and looked upon the unique institutions with scorn. When Christ came and abolished by his death their special ceremonial laws, of course the cause of this alienation ceased. Even the law of commandments - The law of positive commandments. This does not refer to the “moral” law, which was not the cause of the alienation, and which was not abolished by the death of Christ, but to the laws commanding sacrifices, festivals, fasts, etc., which constituted the uniqueness of the Jewish system. These were the occasion of the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, and these were abolished by the great sacrifice which the Redeemer made; and of course when that was made, the purpose for which these laws were instituted was accomplished, and they ceased to be of value and to be binding. Contained in ordinances - In the Mosaic commandments. The word “ordinance” means, decree, edict, law; Luk_2:1; Act_16:4; Act_17:7; Col_2:14. For to make in himself - By virtue of his death, or under him as the head. Of twain one new man - Of the two - Jews and Gentiles - one new spiritual person; that they might be united. The idea is, that as two persons who had been at enmity, might become reconciled and be one in aim and pursuit, so it was in the effect of the work of Christ on the Jews and Gentiles. When they were converted they would be united and harmonious. E). Heb 7:19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near to God. For the law made nothing perfect - The Levitical, ceremonial law. It did not produce a perfect state; it did not do what was desirable to be done for a sinner; see Heb_7:11. That Law, as such, did not reconcile man to God; it did not make an atonement: it did not put away guilt; in one word, “it did not restore things to the condition in which they were before the Law was broken and man became a sinner.” If man were saved under that system - as many undoubtedly were - it was not in virtue of any intrinsic efficacy which it possessed, but in virtue of that great sacrifice which it typified. But the bringing in of a better hope did - Margin, “But it was.” The correct rendering is, probably, “but there is the bringing in of a better hope, by which we have access to God.” The Law could not effect this. It left the conscience guilty, and sin expiated. But there is now the introduction of a better system by which we can approach a reconciled God. The “better hope” here refers to the more sure and certain expectation of heaven introduced by the gospel. There is a better foundation for hope; a more certain way of obtaining the divine favor than the Law could furnish. By the which - By which better hope; that is, by means of the ground of hope furnished by the gospel, to wit, that God is now reconciled. and that we can approach him with the assurance that he is ready to save us. We draw nigh unto God - We have access to him; notes, Rom_5:1-2. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore - οὖν oun Since we are thus justified, or as a consequence of being justified, we have peace. Being justified by faith - See Rom_1:17; Rom_3:24; Rom_4:5. We - That is, all who are justified. The apostle is evidently speaking of true Christians. Have peace with God - see the note at Joh_14:27. True religion is often represented as peace with God; see Act_10:36; Rom_8:6; Rom_10:15; Rom_14:17; Gal_5:22; see also Isa_32:17. Rom 5:2 Through Him we also have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice on the hope of the glory of God. We have access - See Joh_14:6, “I am the way,” etc. Doddridge renders it, “by whom we have been introduced,” etc. It means, “by whom we have the privilege of obtaining the favor of God which we enjoy when we are justified.” The word rendered “access” occurs but in two other places in the New Testament, Eph_2:18; Eph_3:12. By Jesus Christ the way is opened for us to obtain the favor of God. By faith - By means of faith, Rom_1:17. Into this grace - Into this favor of reconciliation with God. Wherein we stand - In which we now are in consequence of being justified. And rejoice - Religion is often represented as producing joy, Isa_12:3; Isa_35:10; Isa_52:9; Isa_61:3, Isa_61:7; Isa_65:14, Isa_65:18; Joh_16:22, Joh_16:24; Act_13:52; Rom_14:17; Gal_5:22; 1Pe_1:8. The sources or steps of this joy are these: (1) We are justified, or regarded by God as righteous. (2) We are admitted into his favor, and abide there. (3) We have the prospect of still higher and richer blessings in the fulness of his glory when we are admitted to heaven. In hope - In the earnest desire and expectation of obtaining that glory. Hope is a complex emotion made up of a desire for an object; and an expectation of obtaining it. Where either of these is lacking, there is not hope. Where they are mingled in improper proportions, there is not peace. But where the desire of obtaining an object is attended with an expectation of obtaining it, in proportion to that desire, there exists that peaceful, happy state of mind which we denominate hope And the apostle here implies that the Christian has an earnest desire for that glory; and that he has a confident expectation of obtaining it. The result of that he immediately states to be, that we are by it sustained in our afflictions. The glory of God - The glory that God will bestow on us. The word “glory” usually means splendor, magnificence, honor; and the apostle here refers to that honor and dignity which will be conferred on the redeemed when they are raised up to the full honors of redemption; when they shall triumph in the completion of the work: and be freed from sin, and pain, and tears, and permitted to participate in the full splendors that shall encompass the throne of God in the heavens; see Luk_2:9; compare Rev_21:22-24; Rev_22:5; Isa_60:19-20. Rom 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes. The Law Ends in Christ who fulfilled it by being the real sacrifice of which the Law sacrifices were merely typical. The law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and was added because of transgression until Christ should come (Gal. 3:19-25; Rom. 5:20; Heb. 9:10). It cannot save, but condemns, making the sinner realize his need for salvation. Christ is the end of the law of sacrifices, types, rituals, and outward religion which foreshadowed Him and the spiritual realities of the New Testament.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:39:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015