THE RULE OF LIFE

Blackheath, August 1875

My Beloved Friends,

Much discussion has been raised on the question, What is the rule of life for the believer? It is commonly said that the law is; and “Brethren” have incurred no little obloquy and misrepresentation by venturing to dissent from this statement. They dissent from it, because they maintain that the standard of God’s requirements from Israel in the flesh is not the standard which He sets before those who are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, as we saw in the last letter - because, in a word, they do not find it so represented in the word of God. It is sometimes said, because we do not accept the law as the rule of life, that we are Antinomians, desiring to free ourselves from all obligation and restraint. But, as I hope to show, in taking this ground we contend that the law is an inadequate expression of what God now expects from believers; that God has brought His people into far closer relationships than that would imply, and, therefore, under higher, deeper, and broader obligations. The law indeed finds its sphere of operation on the earth; but it cannot enter into those heavenly places in which we are seated in Christ.

We propose then to deal with the subject under two questions. Is the law the rule of life? and if not, What is the rule of life for the believer? In dealing with them, I feel compelled to remind you that they must be answered neither by human opinions, nor by theological teachings, but solely by the word of God.

Is the law the rule of life for the believer? To this question I will select three answers, out of many which are furnished by the scriptures. In the first place, I find that the apostle Paul represents, in the most emphatic manner, that we are brought out altogether from under the law. Turn with me to Rom 7: 4. There we read: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”. (Read the whole paragraph.) This is simple enough; for the question raised is this: Is the law our husband, or is Christ? It is perfectly impossible, from the contrast drawn, that it can mean that we are dead to the condemnation of the law, for the question is as to bringing forth fruit. The truth then insisted on is, that since we died in Christ our substitute, we died clean out from under the law, out indeed of the sphere of the flesh in which the law had its operation, and are united to Him in resurrection, where He is, as our only Lord. Some of you however may say, Read on; and does not the close of the chapter teach us another thing? My answer is, Read on still, out of the seventh into the eighth, and then you will see that we get exactly the same truth. But we will examine the matter a little more closely.

No one disputes the application of the first part of the apostle’s argument. The paragraph comprised in verses 7 to 12 describes the effect of the application of the law to man in the flesh. The apostle commences with the question, “Is the law sin?” (v 7); and he shows that, while by the law is the knowledge of sin, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good”, v 12. He then raises another question, “Was then that which is good made death unto me?”, v 13. And in answer to this question, he brings out the effect of the application of the law to a regenerate man (using the first person, it may be, as an illustration), who, as yet, was ignorant of full redemption in Christ. And what is the effect produced? Irreconcilable conflict - a conflict which reveals the presence of sin as still in the regenerate man (v 17); the utter corruption of the flesh (v 18); and his utter helplessness in himself, because of the two antagonistic natures ever at conflict within him, vv 18-20. Where then shall he find deliverance? For the misery to which he is reduced constrains him to cry, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”, v 24. Then comes the full and complete answer, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v 25); i.e. I thank God that I am delivered through Jesus Christ, etc.; and then, in chapter 8, follows the exposition of the blessed deliverance and liberty which we have in Christ, in the course of which the apostle teaches us that “ye are not in the flesh (i.e. before God) but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you”, v 9. The deliverance is therefore so full and entire, that the flesh is regarded by God as done away with in Christ, and this in virtue of the fact (as we are taught in another place) that the believer has been crucified with Christ, Gal 2: 20; see especially also Rom 6: 6.

A right conception then of Romans 7 teaches most unmistakably that we are not under law. I know that there are many who believe that it contains the proper experience of the Christian; but let me ask whether such an expression as this, “I am carnal, sold under sin” (v 14), or this again, already cited, “O wretched man that I am!” etc. (v 24), should be taken as the proper language of one who knows his full, perfect, and everlasting salvation in Christ? Or whether such expressions harmonise with the exultant cry of the apostle at the close of Romans 8: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”, v 35. The very supposition is monstrous, and can only proceed upon the most entire ignorance of the nature of redemption, and of the believer’s true standing through his death and resurrection in Christ.

One passage more shall be cited under this head, to substantiate the conclusion already reached. In describing how he became all things to all men, the apostle says that he became “to them that are under the law, as under the law”, and then adds (in a clause omitted from the received text, but acknowledged by all competent to form a judgment as genuine), “not being myself under law”⁶, an assertion which is implied in the next verse; for he proceeds, “To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)” - “under the law to Christ” being a very different phrase from the usual term “under the law”. It is, in fact, ennomos cristo; translated by some, “enlawed to Christ;” by others, “legitimately subject to Christ”, 1 Cor 9: 21. Be this as it may, it is very evident that the apostle here insists upon his entire freedom from the law; and that, if he were under the law as his rule of life, he could not have used the language we have discussed.

Secondly, the law cannot be the rule of life to the believer, because the obligations under which he is placed go beyond the requirements of law. The apostle John says: “Hereby perceive we the love” (not the love of God, as in our translation, but love in its true nature or character), “because He laid down His life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren”, 1 John 3: 16. Now the utmost the law requires of us is to love our neighbour as ourselves; and hence Paley justifies killing a man in self-defence; for, as he argues, if we allow him to kill us rather than kill him, we shall be loving him better than ourselves, and this is to go beyond, as he says, the divine command. Since therefore we have here the plain direction to lay down our lives for the brethren, if the need arises, and the law nowhere even by implication requires this from us, it is evident that the law is not a perfect rule for us, and hence cannot be the rule of life.

Last of all, I ask you to consider the nature of the law. It was, as we have before seen when dealing with justification, the standard of human righteousness, given to Israel after the flesh, i.e. to natural men. But if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, or rather, a new creation; he is not in the flesh, but in the Spirit before God (2 Cor 5: 17; Rom 8: 9); and as such he is responsible to walk before God according to the place in which he is set, according to his standing as a risen man in Christ, in the power of the Spirit, Rom 8: 14; Gal 5: 25. While therefore the law is a perfect standard of God’s requirements from men in the flesh, it is on this very account inapplicable to those who are regenerate, and indwelt by the Spirit of God. Like all God’s words and works, it is perfect - “holy, and just, and good”; but if applied to those for whom God did not intend it, you introduce confusion, and mar its perfectness, by seeking to enjoin it on those who have been brought out from under it through the death and resurrection of Christ.

2. What then, we ask, is the rule of life? The answer is contained in one word, It is Christ. This will be seen from the following passages: “He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked” (1 John 2: 6); “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2: 21); “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus” (not the Author and Finisher of our faith, but) the leader (the same word as that translated “Prince” in Acts 3: 15; 5: 31, and “Captain” in Heb 2: 10) and Completer of faith; i.e. looking unto Jesus as the Perfect Example of the life of faith from its commencement unto its completion.

These passages will suffice (although they might be largely multiplied) to show that Christ, and not the law, is our rule of life. And in saying this, it will be at once seen that we make far larger demands upon the believer than if we said he was under law; for Christ fulfilled every jot and tittle of the moral law, and went far beyond it in His death upon the cross. Hence we cannot slight a single moral precept, whether, as another has said, it be in the Ten Commandments or anywhere else; for we find all God’s expressed will fully and perfectly embodied in the life of the Lord Jesus. Hence, too, we find in the epistles the law frequently cited as an illustration of some branch of Christian obligation, but always in connection with Christ, see Rom 13: 14.

I might dilate upon the spiritual advantages of having Christ, rather than the law, as the rule of life; for thereby our eyes are ever directed to Him, that, in the power of the Spirit, we might copy His example, and walk as He walked. And thus we have but one object for the soul - Christ, Christ in glory - as that to which we are to be conformed, morally, in ever increasing measure now (2 Cor 3: 18), and absolutely when He returns to receive us unto Himself, Phil 3: 20, 21;1 John 3: 2. You will therefore see that, so far from lessening, we rather seek to enhance the obligations of the believer; and that we do this by placing him always in the presence of Christ, so that he may be fully and always under the constraining influence of His love, see 2 Cor 5: 14, 15.

I do not think that you will object to, nay, I believe that you will heartily receive, the doctrine as here propounded, that Christ is our rule of life. Still I want to point out, as an additional aid, how impossible it is to prove from the Scriptures that the law has this place for the Christian. To give you an instance of this, I will cite from an article which appeared in the Christian Armour for 1874. The article is written by a clergyman well known in evangelical circles, and also, I may add, by ‘Brethren’. He contends that the whole moral law is re-enacted in the gospel, and hence that it, and nothing else, is our rule of life. Take the following - quoted literally - as a specimen of his dealing with the word of God, and then judge the force of his reasonings. The commandment cited and placed first is, as you will perceive, the fourth; and in the second, you have the supposed proofs of its re-enactment in the New Testament.

1. THE LAW.

“Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy”, Ex. 20: 8) 2.

THE GOSPEL.

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, Rev 1: 10)

“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store”.
(1 Cor 16: 2)

“The same day at evening being the first day of the week”, John 20: 19)

“After eight days again came Jesus”, John 20: 26)

“Truce-breakers”, 2 Tim 3: 3)

“They returned, and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the
commandment”, Luke 23: 56)

Now, to say nothing of the confusion of the quotations, you will remark that four out of the six refer to the first day of the week and not to the Sabbath, or seventh day; that one refers to neither; and that the remaining one refers to the Sabbath, as kept by Jews before Pentecost. This is very sad, as illustrating the shifts to which even pious men are reduced when they seek to uphold a system instead of learning from the word of God. And I might ask, Did you ever meet with any one who even endeavoured to keep the Sabbath as enjoined upon the Jews? If not, who gave them liberty, if, as they contend, they are still under the law, to dispense with a single portion of God’s requirements? Either therefore they do not believe what they teach, or they are content with a bad conscience; and a bad conscience destroys communion, and where there is no communion with God there is no spiritual power. And be sure that the soul that does not feel the constraining love of Christ (and the power of that love will be felt just in proportion as the heart is occupied with Him) will never feel the obligation of the law. Let us therefore seek grace to say with the apostle, “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me”, Gal 2: 20.

Believe me, beloved friends,

Yours affectionately in Christ,

E. D.

____________________