I believe that a great deal of the difficulty felt respecting the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, arises from a mistaken idea that the different chapters are descriptive of consecutive periods of the Christian life. Persons are supposed to be justified in the fifth, brought to a new life in the sixth, and to be living in perfect peace in the eighth, and thus the conflict of the seventh is thought to be out of place. But surely there is no such consecutiveness to be found in the passage.

Both the sixth and seventh chapters are an answer to the question in the first verse of the sixth, ‘Shall we continue in sin?’ And this answer is founded on the principle that we must not do so, because such conduct would be inconsistent with the great change that has taken place in us. This change is then described under three figures.(1.) A death unto sin through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ch. vi. 3–15.)

(2.) A change of service. (Ch. vi. 16–23.)

(3.) A release from the law, as a woman is loosed from the law of her husband when he dies (Ch. vii. 1–6); the result of which is that, therefore, we are now free from condemnation, etc. (Ch. viii. 1). The ‘therefore’ of this verse depends on the deliverance described in ch. vii. 6, and the intermediate passage (ver. 7–25) is a parenthesis. It is in the parenthesis that the difficulty is supposed to lie; and by the place which that parenthesis occupies in the argument that it must be explained.

In his argument the Apostle had connected sin with the law, which of course suggested the idea that the law was sinful; an idea which would have been shocking to Jewish minds, and was entirely contrary to his own. In accordance, therefore, with his usual style, he broke off from the direct line of his argument, in order to protect the truth against any such objection; and thus introduced the parenthesis.

This consists of two questions, with their respective answers.

The first is in the seventh verse: ‘What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid.’ This he answers by a reference to his own history, and by showing that the law, so far from being sin, had served to discover and develope it; and by doing so had slain him. (Ver. 7–12.) Thus far the passage is clearly historical, and the ‘I’ is his own historical self, as I believe it to be throughout.

But this answer suggested a further difficulty: viz., that a good thing had been the means of slaying him; and this led to the second question (ver. 13): ‘Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.’ To this the answer was that the fault was not in the law, but in himself; for even in his new condition, when he heartily loved the law, the old nature of the flesh was still so powerful that he could not fulfil it as he would. (Ver. 14–24.)

This explains the strong language of the fourteenth verse,—‘I am carnal, sold under sin,’—which people find it difficult to reconcile with the account of complete deliverance in the sixth verse.

For my own part I have no difficulty, for

(1.) The explanation is suggested by the account he gives of the ‘me’ in the eighteenth verse. ‘In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.’ It is clear that he is speaking there of his fallen human nature; and it is not unreasonable to believe that the explanation there given covers the fourteenth verse as well.

(2.) This is the only meaning that the words can bear in the context. He is showing that his death under the law was not the fault of the law, but of his own nature. And, therefore, he says, ‘The law is spiritual, but I am’ (by nature, that is) ‘carnal, sold under sin.’ He does not contradict his own words in ch. vi. 11, where he directs his readers to ‘reckon themselves alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord,’ for he is not speaking of his position in Christ Jesus, but asserting that by nature he was carnal; so that the law was not to blame for having been made death unto him. There is no difficulty in the use of the present tense if we bear in mind that the old nature is not eradicated by the new birth. He, so far as his nature was concerned, was as bad as ever to the last day of his life.

The remainder of the parenthesis is a proof of this corruption of his nature derived from his present experience. And the exclamation of the twenty-fourth verse is the cry of a holy man who, being regenerate, loved the law, and longed to be set free from that power of a fallen nature which kept him back from its complete fulfilment. He had been delivered from the law as a condemning power; but he delighted in it as a rule of life, and longed to be free from his evil nature, that so he might obey it without impediment.

Note B.—1 John, iii. 6.

Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not.

These words, if detached from their context and from the remainder of the Epistle, apparently teach the absolute and perfect sinlessness of all those who abide in the Lord Jesus Christ. And if the words, ‘sinneth not,’ describe an entire freedom from all sin, they clearly do so.

But this cannot possibly be their meaning; for if it were,

(1.) The remainder of the verse would teach us that if any person should ever sin in thought, word, or deed, he would be thereby proved never to have seen or known Christ. ‘He that sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.’

(2.) In the same manner the eighth and ninth verses would teach us that if any person ever did wrong in any way whatever, he would be of the devil, and not born of God. ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil.’ (Ver. 8.) ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.’ (Ver. 9.)

(3.) This passage would be in direct contradiction to the first chapter, in the seventh verse of which those who are walking in the light are described as being cleansed from sin; in the eighth, as having sin; in the ninth, as confessing it, and being forgiven; and in the tenth, as having sinned.

Some other meaning, therefore, must be sought for the expression, ‘sinneth not.’ What this meaning is may be gathered from the great object of the Epistle: which was to correct the leading heresies of the day. (See ch. ii. 26.) Of these heresies one of the most prominent was that of the Gnostics, who taught that if a man had the knowledge, or the light, he might live as he pleased in practical life. Against that corrupt notion this passage is directed; and its great object is to show that if there be the new birth, or a union with the Lord Jesus, there is certain to be a practical change of life and character. That this is the meaning is plain from the context. It is there proved that he is speaking of practical and habitual religion.

I. Of Practical Religion.

In the seventh verse he shows that all true religion is practical: ‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.’ Our Blessed Lord was practically righteous, so His people will be the same.

In the eighth verse he shows that the practice of sin is of the Devil: ‘He that committeth sin is of the Devil.’

In ver. 5–8 he teaches that to destroy the works of the Devil was the great object of the manifestation of our Blessed Redeemer: ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil.’

In the tenth verse he asserts that this practical righteousness is the distinguishing test between the children of God and the children of the Devil. It was clearly such conduct as was visible to other men, or the distinction would not have been manifest. ‘In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil.’

II. Of Habitual Religion.

The present tense, indicating a continued habit, is employed throughout the passage. So the word sometimes rendered ‘committeth,’ and sometimes ‘doeth,’ is used to express the habit. This may be seen from the use of it in these words of our Blessed Saviour (John, ix. 19): ‘None of you keepeth the law.’ If we adopt the rendering of that verse, and substitute ‘keepeth’ for ‘committeth’ in this passage there will be very little difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Apostle. The fourth verse would then be, ‘He that keepeth sin transgresseth also the law;’ and the eighth, ‘He that keepeth sin is of the Devil.’

The whole passage teaches us the great importance of being most earnest in urging the necessity of a practically consistent life on the children of God, and in showing that there must be a change in heart, in principle, and in habitual practice, whenever a person is born of God; but it has no reference whatever to the secret heart-struggles of the true believer in his earnest conflict with indwelling sin. They are not the subject of the passage. There are other Scriptures which speak of them, but this refers to practical and habitual conduct.

Note C.—On the Word ‘Perfect.’

The word t??e??? is of so frequent occurrence in Scripture that it requires our careful study.

Its original sense is ‘complete,’ and the corresponding verb te?e??? is to complete, or finish. The derived senses will vary with the subjects to which it applied.

(1.) In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, it stands for sincere, upright, undivided in heart.

‘Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.’ (Gen. vi. 9.)

Amaziah had a great deal of religion about him, but he was inconsistent; and, therefore, it says of him, ‘He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.’ (2 Chron. xxv. 2.)

(2.) In Matt. v. 48, it means complete, or comprehensive, as opposed to being limited and partial.

Our Lord is exhorting His disciples to love their enemies as well as their friends (verses 43, 44); and says, ‘That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’

He then goes on to show that there is no value in merely partial love (46, 47); and concludes with the words, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ That is, like Him; show your love to your opponents as well as to your brethren.

(3.) In Heb. v. 14, it is used of those who are ‘of full age,’ or complete in their growth, and therefore capable of strong meat; as contrasted with those who are babes, and therefore fed on milk. It is the same in Eph. iv. 13, 14; and 1 Cor. xiv. 20.

(4.) In 1 Cor. ii. 6, it means ‘fully initiated.’ A mystery was something not known to the world, but revealed to those who were initiated, and those who were initiated were called t??e???. So here St. Paul says, ‘We speak wisdom amongst them that are perfect,’ or the initiated: ‘yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.’

I am not sure whether Phil. iii. 15, expresses full initiation, or full manhood. I am inclined to think that it means initiation, as the verse speaks of a yet further manifestation of God’s will. ‘Let us therefore, as many as be perfect,’ or initiated, ‘be thus minded: and if in anything you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.’

At all events it is perfectly clear that it does not mean personal perfection, for St. Paul says, verse 12, ‘Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.’

(5.) In Heb. x. 1, it means the complete removal of the guilt of sin through the sprinkling of blood. The law by its sacrifices could never ‘make the comers thereunto perfect.’ If they could have done so those sacrifices would have ceased to be offered, ‘because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.’ It should be observed that the passage is not speaking of the purifying of the heart, but of the purging of the conscience. To purify the heart, is to render it so pure that it will love only pure things; to purge the conscience is to remove from it the guilt of which it is conscious in consequence of the impurity of the heart. Thanks be to God, this purifying is complete through the offering of the Lord Jesus Christ once for all; and the comers thereunto are through it perfect before God!

I know of no passage in which the word is applied to a present sinlessness, or a present perfect purifying of the heart.

Note D.—Temptation. Heb. iv. 15.

It is said of our Blessed Saviour, ‘For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.’ And it has been argued that because He was tempted, yet without sin, therefore there is no sin in temptation. I can scarcely imagine a more dangerous fallacy.

The meaning of the word, ‘to tempt,’ is to test, or to try. So ‘God tempted Abraham,’ or put him to the test. (Gen. xxii. 1.) Thus our Lord was in all points tried, or tested, like as we are: that is, by the sinless infirmities of the body; by the surrounding circumstances of life; by the influence of man, both friends and foes; by the Devil; and even, we may reverently say it, by God Himself, when He called Him to bear a burden much more heavy than that laid on Abraham. But He was never tempted by any corruption in His own heart or nature, for if He had been He would not have been ‘without sin,’ even though He had resisted it. There was clearly no sin in being thus tested, nor did He ever sin in yielding.

Temptation to evil must always be considered in its origin, as well as in its effect. In daily life we think worse of the author of the temptation than of the victim. But no temptation originated in the heart of our blessed Redeemer. According to this text He was ‘without sin;’ for not only did He never yield, but there was no evil in His heart in which sin could originate. We are not, therefore, justified in quoting the temptation of our sinless Saviour, that came upon Him from without, as proving that there is no sin in those temptations which arise out of the evil of our own hearts. There is certainly sin in such temptation as that described by our Lord Himself, when He said, ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,’ etc., (Matt. xv. 19); and in that condemned by St. James in the words, ‘Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.’ (James, i. 14.) In no such cases are we covered by our Lord’s example; for, even if we are preserved from falling, the temptation itself is sin, and the result of sin within the soul.