it as a means of justification or sanctification, can nevertheless serve in the spirit of

that holy law, even though free from its dominion. This we shall se definitely stated in

Rom. 7: 4.

We might perhaps be pardoned for thinking that the way is now cleared for the theme

of Rom. 5: to be continued, and for the triumphant notes of Rom. 8: to sound out.

But it is not so. The apostle has been incisive regarding the utter failure of the flesh to

find in the law anything but condemnation and death; and he has not hesitated to link the

dominion of sin with the dominion of law, and to show that a common deliverance was

necessary from both. At this point some further explanation is necessary before the

apostle can conscientiously pass on to the triumphs of  Rom. 8:  There was the

possibility that, just as some might misunderstand the fullness of grace and think that it

excused sin, so some might think that the holiness of God was compromised, and that the

law by its inability to save or sanctify was at fault. This possible mistake the apostle now

seeks to rectify, and he does so by continuing the method of hypothetical questioning:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin?" (Rom. 7: 7). He repudiates the idea

immediately, and then by a series of arguments leads to the conclusion: "Wherefore the

law is holy" (Rom. 7: 12). The explanation which leads up to this conclusion deals

particularly with one of the great offices of law in its relation to sin. This particular

office of the law has already been emphasized in the sphere of justification: it must now

be restated in the sphere of sanctification:--

Further, the provoking effect of the law has already been expressed in Rom. 4: 15:

"The law worketh wrath: for where no law is there is no transgression." A glance at the

context will show the purpose of this statement. The argument of Rom. 4: is that the

promise is by grace, and that the law was not given to implement the promise, but to

reveal the utter need of the grace of God, so that the promise should be sure. If we could

conceive of a time when there was absolutely no law, then at that time there would have

been absolutely no transgression. There has always, however, been some law of God, as

Rom. 2: makes clear, and the fuller the law the greater the transgression. The teaching

of Rom. 7:, however, goes deeper than "transgression"; it uncovers unsuspected and

dormant sin. The link between the two aspects of truth--one presented in Rom. 4: 15,

and the other in Rom. 7: 7-25--is found in Rom. 5: 14:--

This passage does not state that "death reigned even over them that had not sinned",

for that would be a monstrous injustice. It speaks of a period and of an aspect--the

period "from Adam to Moses" before the giving of the law from Sinai; and that character

of sin that was not "after the similitude of Adam's transgression". It does not speak of

exemption from guilt, but of the degree of guilt. All have sinned; but not all have sinned

as Adam did, by transgressing a positive and revealed command. It is the relation of this

"law" and the more explicit "command", to "indwelling sin" and manifest transgression"