WE go farther. Take up Rom. 6, 7. 8., and what do we find? That the Spirit, having laid down the precious basis of resurrection in Christ, reasons upon it, applies it to the meeting of various difficulties, shows the fullness of the blessing into which the believer is brought by it: a blessing not only above all nature in its character, but also flowing out absolutely and without restriction to souls, wherever they might be in this world, absolutely ignoring the shades of earthly distinction. That is, it altogether leaves behind the limits of the law, and contemplates man as such apart from all else. The moment you have the race before you, mankind as they are, you are outside the necessary boundaries of the law, which dealt with none directly but Jews. Hence we never hear the Gentiles spoken of in their guilt as “transgressors,” because they were not under the law as the Jews were. We read of “sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15), because they were sinful men, of course, though not under the law (Rom. 2:14). On the other hand, when we have in view either Adam, who had a law (Rom. 5:14), or the Jews, who had the law (Hos. 6:7; Gal. 2:18), the word “transgressor” has its force and appropriateness, as we see in Scripture. And why? Because Israel, like Adam, were under the positive enactment of a known law, and were consequently if unfaithful more guilty than Gentiles. Hence both Jews and Greeks are said to be “all under sin” (Rom. 3:9), not exactly under transgression; and death is said to be the “wages” not merely of transgression but “of sin.”
But what are we to think of Rom. 5:19, so continually cited to prove Christ's fulfillment of the law as the ground of our justification? “As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Here the apostle is meeting the objection that the gospel of grace makes all turn on one man Christ Jesus, and on one accomplished righteousness. Hence he goes up to Adam. Could the Jew deny that this one man by his single act brought in sin and death? Why should not the grace of God reverse the tale? Was not the first man the type of the Second man, the last Adam? Thus, while the law is alluded to parenthetically, the whole scope of the argument necessarily mounts up before the law to Adam. It accordingly comprehends under the two heads their respective families, as involved in the ruin of the one and the redemption of the other. The express aim is to exclude the law, and to bring in, on the one hand, universal realities, on the other, special relations under Adam and Christ. “For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”
Observe that we ought in verse 18 to have “by one offense,” as in the margin; such is the right version. It is “one offense” here, but “the offense of one” in verse 17. The two verses are entirely distinct. “Therefore as by one offense the tendency is] toward all men unto condemnation, even so by one righteousness [the tendency is] toward all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” As not a few rest confidently on the passage, I ask, How is it you overlook that here the Holy Ghost is arguing upon the headships of Adam and Christ—not upon the narrower issue of the law, but in pointed contrast with it? He is comparing, not Moses, but Adam and Christ. Now Adam had nothing to do with the law of God given by Moses. If we think of the moral sum only of the second table, he would not even have understood it. How could he have been told to love his neighbor, for instance, in Paradise? Why, he might have looked over the world and would not have found a neighbor to love. Again, to take a particular command, where would have been the sense of telling an innocent man that he must not lust? “Lust!” he might have said, “I don't know what lust is.” He was a man made without a single failing; there was a total absence of evil, and therefore on this ground the propensities of the sinful heart which the law assumes did not even exist for Adam at first.
How then can men talk and reason as they do about Adam having the law? It is a mistake as to the fact, a moral contradiction as to principles, unscriptural and irrational. If they merely said that Adam had a law, it is admitted; but we must not confound a law with the law. Further, in Adam's case it was no question of doing the law to live, for he was sinless. Hence it was not such a trial as the law supposes. For the point in his case was not, “Do and live,” but rather “Do not, lest you die.” That is, it was in both its parts the exact opposite of the law, which supposes the state, and forbids the indulgence, of sin. Again the law supposes one not to have life, which it presents as the object to be gained. But this the sinner cannot do.
Hence the result, or at least the aim, of the law is to fix the consciousness in the heart of man, that as he does not, cannot, meet God's terms, he is a dead man in God's judgment. Now was this, in the least, the case with Adam unfallen? Unquestionably not. He was a living man; and it was not a question of doing to get life, but not doing what God forbade and Satan tempted him to do, in order that he might not die. Fallen, he brought in death to all his family, as Christ risen is life for His family. Therefore the apostle puts in contrast Christ and Adam, not Christ and Moses. Is not this the real point of contrast? Not Moses or the law (though both are incidentally glanced at), but Adam and Christ. However the case is really far stronger than this. The next verse does introduce the law, but it is as a distinct thing added to the foregoing and contradistinguished. One can have no hesitation therefore in concluding that the obedience of Christ here spoken of had nothing at all to do with the keeping of the law for us in any sense whatever. “Moreover” [or “now,” “but “], says he, “the law entered [by the by] that the offense might abound.” It is evident that the point insisted on is the value of tracing things to their sources. The law, which came in by Moses, and pressed man individually for what he was in himself, however important, was but incidental, and for special purposes.
Thus, in order to get an adequate view of the subject, we must go beyond Moses up to Adam and the beginning of this world's moral history. There man fell through disobedience. It was not a question of breaking the law; for of it he knew nothing. He violated the command which he was bound to obey. So here Jesus stands at the end of the ages. (Heb. 9) As Adam at the beginning, so Christ appeared at the consummation of the world; in the one case a disobedient man, and in the other the obedient One. The first exposes all to condemnation; the Second triumphs so as to open justifying to all. In effect the disobedience of the one constitutes his company sinners, as the obedience of the other constitutes His righteous. The one disobeyed and brought ruin on the mass of his dependents; the other obeyed, and the consequence is that the many dependent on Him are made righteous. Thus not an allusion is here made (ver. 19) to the keeping of the law. On the contrary (ver. 20) law entered by the way (not that the offense might be abolished, and that the ground of justification might be established), but quite simply and subordinately “that the offense might abound.” Why are not men content with God's word and wisdom? “Where sin abounded, grace [not bare law-fulfilling] did much more abound; that as sin reigned in death [it is not a question of law broken or transgression merely], even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” How infinitely beyond law-keeping!
In scripture then nothing can be more certain than that God's righteousness in this connection means His justice in justifying by virtue of Christ. We have seen in Christ, as the ground of justification, first, blood to put away the guilt of the old man before God; and next, resurrection, the spring of a new, more abundant, and holy life, where no condemnation can be. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” And what do men substitute for this? A mere patching up of the old man as living under the law. Are you prepared to follow them? Can you accept this traditional earthly scheme as Christianity? It is really no better than lowering Christ, and His work for our justification, to a making up of the flesh's deficiencies as responsible under the law. Is this true Christianity? You ought to know by experience the disastrous effects—uncertainty of soul, anxiety, doubt, fear, frequent if not habitual sense of bondage and condemnation before God, which is precisely and naturally the result for the conscientious mind. As long as the first covenant stood, it was the old man schooled and disciplined by the action of the law; and such was the external condition in which even the saints of God were held, whatever might be their faith and its fruits individually. (Gal. 4) “Through fear of death,” as we are told, “they were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Heb. 2) Alas, how very many are in this day of ours practically in the same condition! How many really abide as if they knew not whether the Holy Ghost were or not! as if they were not quite sure that Christ had died for them, or that He, risen from the dead, had procured them present and eternal nearness to God! Do you think this a calumny? The truth is, men are themselves too much under the darkening influence of the error to be competent judges. But even they ought not to be ignorant of the fact, that there are now in the world thousands and millions bearing the name of Christ who are still going on their legal round, just as if the glorious Deliverer had not yet come. How comes this to pass? Because they do not submit to nor understand the righteousness of God; because they pertinaciously cling to their bald thought of law-righteousness made up by Christ, which they have formed into a kind of party badge and banner under which to fight. In a measure God leaves even saints to taste the bitter fruit of their own folly. Hence it is that, though believers, they are kept from enjoyment of peace and joy in Christ.
Yet, where there is liveliness of faith and a hearty sense of the Savior's grace and glory, saints rise more or less above their false views. But the inevitable native effect of the doctrine, as far as it is carried out in, the soul, is to bring persons back into the condition in which saints were before Christ came to accomplish redemption. Beginning with Romanism, you will find that the language of such persons is founded on the Psalms misapplied, not on the truth and grace of God displayed in Christianity. And very naturally; for Popery (and not Popery alone) will tell you that Jerusalem and Zion are the church of God. Popery acts like Israel, commissioned to beat down the Canaanites &c. in the name of Jehovah “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us! Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” So now Popery is happy where it acquires power to renew the Inquisition, and punish recusants and heretics soundly. Such is the effect of grafting the law on their system. Would that it were confined to them only! Such flagrant error shows the issue, practically, of slipping outside the blessed region of life and light and liberty in resurrection, into which Christ has brought the saint now by virtue of His own redemption. Thus one loses sight of the new standing of grace, and returns at best to what could not but be before the cross, instead of following on through the cross into the presence of Christ on high, made the righteousness of God in Him.
(To be continued, D.V.).