In Both Sides, pp. 55–58, is a brief exposition of Rom. 7: 1–6, in reply to some articles published by Eld. P. in the Crisis in 1864, wherein he endeavored to show that Paul teaches in Rom. 7, that the Christian is released from all obligation to keep the moral law, or the ten commandments, as written by the finger of God on the tables of stone. In his so-called “Review of Both Sides” Eld. P. attempts a rejoinder to our argument, and a further exposition of that portion of scripture. We endeavored to arrive at an understanding of Paul’s language, by noticing particularly the parties he introduces in his illustration, showing what was represented by those parties, and drawing necessary conclusions from the premises given. To do less than this is to omit a portion of what Paul has taught. The apostle introduces four parties: the woman, the law, the first husband, and the second husband. In the application there must also be four corresponding parties. Three of these are directly named, so that there is no mistaking them. Paul is talking about the sinner, who, after conversion, is at liberty to be married to Christ. Hence, the sinner corresponds to the woman in the illustration, the moral law, to the law of marriage, Christ, to the second husband, and that to which the sinner is bound before conversion, to the first husband. These points are made plain in Both Sides, as above noted; and now if the reader would like to look at a specimen of no-law logic, we refer them to Eld. P.’s reply to these points. After quoting our argument he says:— “In order to make the more important points, in the foregoing extract, appear in their true light, we will prepare a few questions based upon the foregoing, and find the answers to them in the precise language of Both Sides, as quoted above.” “1. What does Paul represent under the figure of marriage?” “Ans.—‘The condition of a person before and after conversion.’” “2. How many things does the apostle refer to in this illustration?” “Ans.—‘Four. The woman, the law, the first husband, and the second husband.’” “3. In the case illustrated, how many things are there?” “Ans.—‘Four.’ (1) ‘The sinner represented by the woman; (2) the moral law, represented by the law of marriage; (3) something [?] to which the sinner is bound; (4) and Christ represented by the second husband.’” “4. When the first husband dies, what can the woman do?” “Ans.—‘She is free to marry another.’” “Ans.—‘In the case of the sinner, that also which is represented by the first husband.’” “6. But in answer to our third question, did you not say that ‘the sinner’ is ‘represented by the woman?’ and now in answer to the fifth, why do you say ‘the sinner’ is ‘represented by the first husband?’” It is no doubt very amusing to Eld. P. to put the matter in this light. Having asked us why we said what we never have said, it is well to put the answer in blank. There is another reason for his so doing; for if such an answer was inserted there as his course in this matter would justify, it would be complimentary neither to his head nor his heart. So far as its having any connection with our position is concerned, he might just as well have accused us of saying that the sinner is represented by “Jack the Giant Killer.” If the accusation was made in good faith, it betrays an obtuseness of understanding marvelous to behold; for we have ever been careful to guard against confounding the parties Paul introduces in his illustration one with another; and the attempt to make this confusion is what we protest against in all no-law expositions of Rom. 7. They contend that the law is that which dies, thus making no distinction between the husband and the law of marriage which regulates the union between man and wife. In this strain, Eld. P. continues, asking ten more false and absurd questions, to which he represents us as answering only with a long dash, followed by more or less exclamation points, according as his bewildered logic leads him to imagine he has made a more or less telling point. Into a particular exposure of these we do not intend to enter, as a mere mention is more notice than they justly merit. Then follows a professed exposition of Rom. 7. This exposition occupies not quite eight pages of his book. Of this, nearly two pages consist of a rambling paraphrase of Rom. 6. Coming to chap. 7, instead of taking up the first part of the chapter and explaining Paul’s language, he strikes in on verse 22, and quotes on down to the 5th verse of chapter 8, from Emphatic Diaglott. Then, after stating that “when Paul was nothing but a sinner he was under the influence of but one law—‘the law of sin.’ But when he is a Christian, he is under, or influenced by, two laws: ‘the law of sin’ which still remained on his ‘FLESH;’ and ‘the law of God’ which he had in his ‘MIND,’” he quotes again verses 22–25 of chapter 7 from the common version! Following this comes a proposition to show by paraphrasing the chapter that Paul is speaking of himself before and after conversion. And “this,” says Eld. P., “will help us out of all our difficulties about the seventh of Romans.” Then he devotes nearly two pages more, of his eight, to giving twenty-three translations of verse 6, and Dr. Clarke’s comments on that verse; and sixteen of these translations plainly say that it is “we,” the person, not the law, that dies; while seven only of them afford any chance for quibbling by speaking of that being dead wherein we were held. Then, carefully avoiding the first part of the chapter, he commences with verse six, and devotes two pages more to a quotation verse by verse of the remainder of the chapter, interspersed with occasional words and phrases by way of explanation; concluding the whole with these words: “So much for the seventh of Romans. Is it not plain?” Yes, it is plain that Eld. P. has tried to evade the reasoning of the apostle, and covering up and obscuring the real point of his argument, has tried to make it appear that we are released from obligation to keep the law, by emphasizing such expressions as “delivered from the law,” “freedom from the law,” &c. But what has he done towards explaining Paul’s illustration? Nothing at all; not even alluding to the first five verses of the chapter, but commencing with verse 6; because there he finds the expression. “We are delivered from the law.” Turning from this painful attempt at perversion, let us give our attention for a moment to a careful and candid EXAMINATION OF ROMANS SEVEN.
The subject upon which Paul is here treating is conversion and its relation to law. The problem to be solved is, how the sinner can be united to Christ, which is the end to be gained. Verse 4. The change which takes place in the sinner, and the parties between whom a change of relation is effected, is illustrated by the figure of marriage: A woman has a husband. So long as that husband lives, the law of marriage binds her to that one man; she is not at liberty to be married to any other man. Her husband dies. Now she is no longer bound to that husband; for he is taken out of the way. Now she can form a new union; and the same marriage law which held her to her first husband, now sanctions her union with the second, and holds her to him. Here then are four parties; the woman, the first husband, the law, and the second husband. In the application we must also have four corresponding parties: three of them are expressly mentioned: the subject of conversion, answering to the woman, the law of God, to the marriage law, and Christ, to the second husband. There must be something corresponding to the first husband; and with this first husband the person is united while in a state of sin; and this first husband must die, or be taken away, before the person can be united to Christ, the second husband, just as the woman’s first husband must die before she can lawfully form a union with the second. What, then, constitutes a person a sinner? And what change must take place in him, to enable him to form a union with Christ? These are easy questions; for they are fully answered in the word of God; and the answer shows us plainly what constitutes the first husband. A person is a sinner because he is united with the “carnal mind,” Rom. 8: 7, “the body of sin,” Rom. 6: 6, “the old man,” Rom. 6: 6; Eph. 4: 22; Col. 3: 9. And what must take place before the sinner can unite with Christ? This “old man,” this “body of sin,” this “carnal mind” must be slain, “crucified” and “put off;” Rom. 6: 6; Eph. 4: 22; Col. 3: 9; and then the “new man,” “Christ in you the hope of glory,” Col. 1: 27; can be “put on,” Eph. 4: 24; Col. 3: 10. And this putting off the old man, to be no longer the servant of sin, and putting on the new man, to occupy henceforth a new relation, and lead a new life, is the release from the first husband and the marriage to the second, which Paul designs to illustrate. Mark now the fitness and accuracy of Paul’s illustration: The woman is bound to a husband; the sinner is bound to the old man of sin: the woman’s husband must die before she can marry another; the old man of sin must be crucified before the sinner can become free from that relation: the woman’s husband being dead, she can marry another; the old man of sin being crucified, the sinner, now no longer a sinner, can unite with Christ: the law of marriage regulated the condition of the woman, both with the first and second husband: so the law of God, the moral law, determines the moral condition of a person, both before and after conversion; for while a person is a sinner, the law, by which is the knowledge of sin, holds him as a sinner so long as he continues his unholy life; but when the body of sin is destroyed in him, and he turns to a new life of service to Christ through whom he has obtained forgiveness of his past transgressions, the same law shows him to be a Christian, by showing his life to be in accordance with its requirements. For who is a Christian? A Christian is he in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled through the intervention of Christ. Take away the law, the standard of righteousness, and it would be impossible to show a person to be either a sinner, or a Christian. But how does this affect the law? Does it destroy it? Does it release us from obligation to obey it? By no means. But does not Paul say that we are delivered from the law? Yes; and what does he mean by it? Look at the illustration. Does he not say of the woman, when her husband is dead, that “she is free from that law?” Verse 3. But does any one suppose that she is then at liberty to disregard the marriage law from that time forward, and commit any of the crimes which it forbids, or take any number of husbands she may choose? No one in his right mind. In what sense then is she free from the law? Answer: The law no longer shows her to be a married woman, so prohibiting her from forming any other union. So when the sinner is converted, the law of God no longer holds him as a sinner, united to the old man of sin, but stands ready then to sanction his union with Christ. Does the law die? Our no-law opponents say, Yes. Then the law is the first husband; for it is the first husband which dies. Then Paul’s illustration should read like this: Verse 2. “The woman which hath a law, is bound by the law to her law, so long as the law liveth; but if the law be dead, she is loosed from the law of her law.” Or substituting the word husband for law, if the law is the husband, we have this beautiful picture of domestic felicity: “For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by her husband to her husband so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the husband of her husband.” There would seem to be no excuse for such folly as making the husband and the law mean the same thing. But does not Paul say, “That being dead wherein we were held?” So the common version reads. But in what were we held? Not in the law, but in sin. So this would not show that the law was dead. But what says the margin? “Being dead to that.” This puts the truth upon the brethren. And how reads the original? The expression “being dead” is a participle in the nominative plural, ἀποθάνοντες (apothanontes), agreeing with the pronoun “we,” not with the word “law.” This positively precludes the idea that it is the law which dies. We die, not the law. But it is the first husband which dies, and it may be asked, Do we then correspond to the first husband? Answer: Sin dying in us, and we dying to sin, are expressions which Paul uses to describe the same thing. This is shown by Rom. 6. Paul speaks in verse 6 of our old man (of sin) being crucified, and then we are “dead to sin,” as in verse 2. So our old man of sin being crucified or dying in us, and we dying to sin, are synonymous expressions. Rom. 7: 6, therefore, has the same meaning as if it read, But now are we delivered from the law, the old man of sin in us, the first husband to which we were held, having died. In the remainder of chapter 7, Paul describes the death struggles of this body of sin; and in the eighth chapter states the condition of a person when conversion is fully accomplished. Then the body of sin is destroyed, no condemnation remains; and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the individual through Christ. Thus the teaching of the apostle is so plain, that a poor wayfaring man, &c., has no excuse for erring therein.