Again, “the law entered that the offence might abound” (not that the sin might abound: God could not do anything that “sin” might abound), that is, that the sin already in man’s nature might become positively and definitely “transgression.” The law did not produce sin, but only manifested it. Let us look at what the apostle says in Romans 7. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained unto life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good.” Again, we read in another place (I merely quote it now as regards its application to this part of the subject), “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:5656The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. (1 Corinthians 15:56)). Directly the law bent down on the conscience, it proved man to be altogether wrong. Every thought that man had was detected, and, the will refusing to submit, its acts became transgression, so that sin by the commandment became “exceeding sinful.” It produced moreover a great deal more lust in the heart than there was before.
We all know this to be the case. There is a familiar illustration of it constantly seen in our own houses. Request your children not to do a certain thing: let it be only not to look into a box (no matter what). Do you not find that they all long to look into it? So it is with grown-up persons; they will perversely wish for the forbidden thing, and, what is more, though they may be ashamed of it—ashamed of the expression of it before men, the inclination is so great, that, if they could but do it and not be seen, they would not be satisfied until they had. It is just so with the law.
And now, beloved friends, if that is what the law is, if all who are “of the works of the law are under the curse,” is that the law for me, to have any righteousness through, in the sight of God? Never; because the law acts on a nature which is already evil; and therefore it can do nothing but lead to the righteous judgment of God against all that is brought out, in and from that nature.
What more could God do? (it is not the subject of this chapter, but I would just advert to it)—what more than give right directions, a revelation—of what He required from man? There is another thing that He has done. He sent light into the world. This is something added, as it were, to the requirements of the law. The law cursed; but here (in Christ) was Life showing light to all around, and this man hated, because it proved his deeds to be evil. It was the adaptation of light to every possible state in which man's nature could move. I am not speaking of communicating life; but take man in any condition, and he is without excuse.
Well, beloved, this is the effect of the law as revealed from God. It took up fallen man with the knowledge of good and evil, and did not touch the power he had to meet its requirements, and therefore, necessarily, it brought the curse. The apostle reasons, “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin” (ver. 21, 22). Mark that word “all:” it leaves out none. It might be said, “If you go and take a man without the ordinances of God, and put him under the law, the effect is known: but there are helps and ordinances—put a man with them under the law, and he can get life.” This was precisely Israel's case. It pleased God (God in Israel) to test whether man could get the promises, if under the law with ordinances. It has been proved to the contrary. God says (Ex. 19), “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself.” It was not until He had ransomed them out of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness as His “people,” that He gave them the law—not until He had brought them unto Himself. Then He says by Moses the mediator, “Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed,” &c. (ver. 5). And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord, “All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do.” The law was given on this ground. Then commenced the trial. And what was the consequence? Failure.
“The scripture hath concluded all under sin.” And this is what the gospel more fully brought out. The gospel supposes it. Man, no matter what you call him, a heathen, a Jew, or a Christian, with every ordinance you please, is man, and the law deals to man the “curse.” Man should be what man is not. And therefore that is what the law of God must do, and did. If God gives a law, can He give the law to suit sinners, or Himself? Is God to come down to give its requirements such as would suit the sinner as a sinner? and, if so, what sinner? where would you draw the line? to a heathen, who is corrupt in all his thoughts? to a Jew, who looks merely to outward things? where can I find a man to whom I might adapt the law, if it is not to be what God requires? If God gives a law to sinners, He must give the full demand of His holiness. This is what the conscience of man recognizes as fitting. There, can be no intercourse between God and the sinner on the ground of what God requires, without His either sanctioning or condemning sin. Sanction it He cannot; therefore, and necessarily, all He has to do is to condemn. Law can never go beyond that. No matter what man is called, God deals with man as he really is. And now, what does the apostle put here in the stead of law? “Promise.” There he rests the hope of the soul. “Promise” was long before the law. All hangs upon the faithfulness of God. This is the reasoning. A mediator supposes two parties, God and man, and therefore failure, as it depends on the stability of both. Not so promise, as it depends on the stability of God only: “God is one.”
If to-day, I make you an unconditional promise, a simple promise, I have no right to say on the morrow, “Oh! you did not do so and so, and therefore the promise is nullified.” Certainly not. No! you would reply, you promised me the thing unconditionally, not if I behaved well or ill; and therefore it is mine.
These “promises” were made after sin came in, but before the giving of the law. Sin came in before ever “promise” was heard of. When Adam had failed in the garden, before anything was said to Adam of the foulest sin in his mind, after he had said, “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” (he had not only committed sin in disobeying God's command, but he had dared to reproach God)—before anything was said of that as soon as the evil was traced up to its source, God, in pronouncing sentence on the serpent as the author of it, gave “promise.” But He did not give “promise” to Adam in sin—to man in that condition (now the law was given to man in that condition), but in the Second man Before there was the slightest dealing on the ground of responsibility, “promise” was made in Christ, as the last Adam, the “Seed of the woman.” Not a word of it was spoken to Adam personally, yet it was that on which his soul might rest, on which faith could lay hold.
Well, before the Second man came, before He was revealed, the law was given to show the effect and consequence of man's being under responsibility. “The law was added (came in by the bye) because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to Whom the promise was made.”
“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman (the Seed come), made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
But there was another step, then, which was this:the promises made to Abraham and his seed (iii. 17) were confirmed of God to Christ. When Isaac had been offered up (in figure) and raised (in figure), God spake and said, “By myself have I sworn, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22). Now Isaac was not the true “Seed.” Christ, the true “Seed,” was typified by Isaac, in whose offering the promise was confirmed. “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (ver. 16). The promises were settled on Isaac, after (in figure) he had died and risen again from the dead; and that is what the grace of God has done for us in Christ. Christ came here and lived, accomplishing, in the face of Satan, all that the spiritual man could offer to God in his life. But “except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Though Christ Himself, as man, might have had the promises, yet He could not have taken anything with us except through death in resurrection. He could not have had connection with man in the old Adam. Well, He dies, and (having accomplished the work of redemption, done everything, set aside the consequences of responsibility for man, as risen from the dead in the power of a new and endless life— “the Seed” to whom the promises were made) He takes up these promises.
As men, we were under responsibility, and therefore, under the curse, for we had sinned. Yes, though through grace, able to say that we are “heirs according to the promise,” we had sinned. There was no difference in this respect between ourselves and any poor Jew or Gentile, we were all “by nature children of wrath, even as others,” “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. 2:33Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:3)). The state of soul was the same. Perverseness of will was there—the determination to do our own will, and the pleasure of doing it, instead of the will of God.
Christ took all this upon Himself He charged Himself with responsibility, instead of putting man under it. He underwent, to the full, the last effect of sin, as the result of the wrath of God, and of the power of Satan, as well as of the weakness of man. He bore the curse. He went down into the grave. But He was still the “holy One,” and (though He might imputatively take sin) it was not possible that He could be holden of the cords of death. Therefore He rose again—Head of a new family of men, of a new world, of a new creation—Heir, according to the purposes of God, of all the promises, and Heir forever.
He has accomplished everything—all that was needed for the remission of our sins, and besides, He has broken the power of Satan under which man lay, in the very seat of that power. Through death He has “destroyed him that had the power of death” (Heb. 2). Most blessed truth! Christ has put Himself into the condition of man in death, the last stronghold in which Satan held man captive, by the judgment and under the sentence of God Himself. He rose out of it, and became the source of life, and heir for us of all the promises. Grace has found its way into death, and “out of the eater” has brought forth sweetness.
(Continued from page 74.)