Expositional Lectures

Faith and Law

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Doctrinal Studies

Lesson: 9-12

Genre: Speech

Track: 079

Dictation Name: RR121A1

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s - 1970’s

[Dr. Rushdoony] Romans 8:1-8. We have, the past three Sundays, been dealing with the significance of the cross, of Christ and His Resurrection. We shall conclude those studies this morning with Romans 8:1-8 and at the same time this will be a preparation for the studies we shall be beginning in a few weeks on the Law of God.

Romans 8:1-8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

St. Paul in his letter to the Romans devotes the book to dealing with the implications of justification by faith. To the meaning of our Lord’s death and resurrection for the believer. The meaning of salvation, in other words. Now the book of Romans has been a very often neglected book and very often a much misunderstood book. Expressions have been extracted from the book of Romans and made into generalizations to do away with other portions of it. Moreover, the book of Romans is today, unfortunately, again very much a closed book in many churches.

As much so as when Martin Luther began his work, and his teaching on Romans. In one church in Northern California, that claims to be a Bible believing fundamental church, an adult class teacher who began himself to study the book of Romans and decided it would be an excellent book for his adult class, was summarily removed from teaching the class and expelled from the church. Romans, when it is properly taught is again becoming a forbidden book. Even among those who claim to believe the Bible. But, because today the Church, in most segments that claim to be evangelical as well in those segments that are modernists, has become antinomian. Now, we know what anti means, it means against. Nomian comes from nomos, law. Against law. This is the meaning of antinomianist. It was once regarded in the Church as one of the greatest of heresies. One of the deadliest. But today of course we hear nothing said about it. A few will point the finger at the so called Christian hippies and call their ideas of total immorality and at {?} and situation ethics and say, well that is immoral. It is antinomian. But that of course is simply the last stage of antinomianism. Antinomianism saturates the Church very deeply. And yet it is hostile to the meaning of the Resurrection. Let us examine God’s purpose as it is revealed in Scripture, that we might understand what His purpose in Jesus Christ was. First of all, God created the earth, created it good, and established man in paradise and commanded him to exercise dominion, to subdue the earth, to develop it under God.

Man therefore had a creation mandate to develop this earth. Under God. That the kingdom of God might be established, a human society in full and happy obedience to God and His Word. But man fell. And sin and death entered the world. Now God therefore called out unto Himself a man, Abraham, and then a people, Israel, to whom He gave the law. And summoned them to stand in the righteousness of faith. Through the sin-bearer, the Lamb of God, who was to come. Who was typified in the sacrificial system. And by faith to walk in terms of obedience to the law of God. And the purpose of the law was to create a Christian society, a Christian state, a Christian church, a Christian education, Christian families, and we can call it Christian even though it was before Christ’s coming because it was all in terms of Him. It all rested on the foundation of sacrifice, of the Lamb of God slain upon the altar. And over and over again, throughout the whole of Scripture, we see the judgment of God upon His people for their failure to obey Him in this respect, and His summons through the prophets to walk by faith and in obedience, and to fulfill His purpose, the restoration of all things, restoration to subservience to God’s law, to fulfilling His purpose. Now {?} to believe then, that suddenly this whole purpose of God was set aside in the cross and in the resurrection. That somehow this nullified everything? In some churches, the worst thing you can do is to preach the Ten Commandments. It virtually blows the church apart. I know, because I’ve done it and it’s happened.

Why? Because these people who claim to be Bible believing, declare we are dead to the law. Indeed, this is a term from Scripture. We find it in both Romans and in Galatians, dead to the law. But how? We are dead to the law as an indictment against us. In other words, the law has a sentence of death against every man, apart from Christ. They are sinners. And God’s sentence against them is death. And so when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, and accept His substitutionary sacrifice, His vicarious atonement, Christ having taken the death penalty for us, we are legally dead in the person of Christ. So we are dead to the indictment. When a man is legally dead in terms of indictment, because the indictment has been carried out, sentence is passed, execution fulfilled, then he is dead to that law. But we are alive. We are alive now in Christ, called unto righteousness and everlasting life. And what is the purpose of our new life? Is it to live outside the law? To have other gods, to blaspheme, to dishonor father and mother, to commit adultery, to kill, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet? Or is it now to keep the law. Because the grace of God has given us a new heart and has empowered us to do so. Paul answers the question very plainly. First he says, there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. No condemnation. They are dead in Christ. There can be no condemnation again, no death sentence to those who are truly Christ’s own.

For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Now the law is here spoken of in a double sense. In one sense, the law bring condemnation. In another sense, it is the spirit of life. So to a man who is outside of Christ, the law means one thing, it means death. To the man in San {?} on the death row, the law means, or it should mean, unfortunately it is not meaning that today, it should mean death. So that the only way he can think of the law is as a death sentence. That that same law that means death to him means life to us, does it not? Or it should, in a godly society. Why? Because that law means that it is a protection round about us. To protect us from the thief and the murderer. From the man who would at any and every point violate the law of God. So it is a defense, it is life to us. Take away all protection of the law and say there is no law to safeguard us and it becomes outwardly, in reality, dead. Without law we would perish. And how much more so when the law is now a part of our very life and a principle of life in us, because the law is Jesus Christ, it is His nature, it is His righteousness expressed. For what the law could not do and that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. As long as the law was simply a hedge, a barrier round about man it was not sufficient. And man had, having sinned in Adam, become prey to sin and death. So that his only relationship to the law was now as a death sentence. And apart from Christ we were all, as it were, in death row, awaiting execution. And so God sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us. So that now we might have a new relationship to the law.

No longer on death row, but as it were, in Christ on millionaire’s row and having all the perfection and the blessing of being sons of God by adoption. And the recipients of His grace and blessing. Why? Why did Christ do this? Why was He made sin for us, that is, took our place and became the sin bearer? Paul states this very plainly and emphatically in the fourth verse. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, are we dead to the law then? Not at all. It is now a way of life to us. It is now the standard that protects us, it is now an expression of our own nature. Man on death row, the law in his members is sin and death. And the law that keeps him there is a law that means death to him. This is now what the law is to him, death. But to us who walk in Christ, and walk in obedience to the law of God and to the law of the State as He has ordained it, the law is protection to us. It is a thing we like, we cherish, we resent anything that infringes on the dignity of the law. On the keeping of the law, on the integrity of the law. And so the people of God today are rightfully concerned about the lawlessness. About the failure to keep the law. To abide by the death penalty, the disrespect for the police, the disrespect of the courts for the law. Because for us the law is righteousness and light. For they that are of the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are of the spirit, the things of the spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Now St. Paul has here drawn a very plain parallel between two kinds of people in relationship to the law.

On the one hand, those who are at enmity to God. What characterizes them? Moral-less ness in relationship to God, in relationship to the law. What law operates in them? The law of sin, hostility to God, hostility to the law. And the law of death. They destroy themselves, as Christ said, speaking His wisdom ages ago, all they that hate me love death. And what we are seeing around us socially is the law of sin and death in operation. Whether it’s in {?} or in Congress. It’s the law of sin and death in operation. It is enmity to God. And as a result whatever they do cannot please God. Now, these are not facts just of theology that you hold here, these are facts that begin, yes, with the doctrine of God and they extend to everything on the streets of this city and every city and on death row. It’s one reality, it’s a seamless rope. Thus on the one hand we have those who are in enmity to God, who are lawless therefore, in whom operates the law of sin and death, and who cannot therefore please God. On the other side, are those who are in Christ. And in them operates the law of the spirit of life. And they’re characterized by obedience to God, to the things of the spirit that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in them. And they are characterized by life and peace. Peace with God. And life, the principle of life unto immortality. And what do they do? They are subject to the laws of God. The scripture then is plain spoken, is it not? It makes the contrast very, very real. And it means then we cannot be antinomian without being anti-Christ. We cannot set aside the law of God without setting aside Christ. Because to set aside His law is to despise His person and His righteousness. What then is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, what then is the meaning of our salvation? Is it that having died in Christ we are judicially dead to the law as an indictment, but alive to it as people who, in Christ, follow the law of the spirit of life.

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. We are therefore, because we have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, by His atoning work, the people of the law.

Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto Thee that in Jesus Christ we have been separated from the law of sin and death, and made alive in the law of the spirit of life. We thank Thee that the law is now implanted upon the tables of our hearts, and we have been made a new people in Thee. Bless us therefore our Father, as in terms of Thy creation mandate we exercise dominion over this earth and seek to bring all things into dominion to Jesus Christ, to place them under His dominion. And grant, our Father, that speedily the kingdoms of this world might indeed become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. In Jesus name, Amen.

Are there any questions now? Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] They would be indignant, yes. They would be very angry. But, their quarrel is not with us, it’s with the Scriptures. It is with the Scriptures. Because they are setting aside the Scriptures when they set aside God’s law.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. This is again a question with respect to the law. Now, in Noah’s prophecy, first of all, there’s a curse on Ham. A declaration that Jacob shall be enlarged by the dwelling in the tents of Shem. What is the meaning of this prophecy? First of all, the tents of Shem has reference to Christ. Shem means name. In other words, the Messiah. This was a term for the Messiah. So that when Jacob dwells in the tents of Shem he shall be blessed. Now, the significance of this is, first of all, that very definitely the Canaanites were cursed. The curse was specifically upon Canaan, the son of Ham. The Canaanites were cursed and they were destroyed, they were removed from the Promised Land, first from possession and then by death. So that it had a literal fulfillment in them. But it had also a typical fulfillment in that all those who embody the spirit of Ham, and of Canaan, that is of insubordination, of rebellion against godly authority, are under the curse. All those who dwell in the tents of Shem are therefore under blessing. Now, I assume that this person, by using this prophecy, had reference to the Negroes. Right. Let us see what the place of the Negroes is in this prophecy. First of all, it had reference to the Canaanites. Not to the Negroes. But, in its typical sense it had reference to the Negroes, to the Asiatics, to the Europeans, to the Indians, to all people who are not under God. And the curse of God has been upon all of them and it has been upon the Negroes. Now the Negroes, in the last century or so as they have, in this county and elsewhere, moved away from disobedience to God to faith and obedience, have been progressively blessed. And today as they are departing from that obedience, they are moving under the curse again.

And we must say that the white men in the United States are also moving out of the tents of Shem into the curse of Canaan. Because they’re moving out from under the blessing, away from faith, that is, the tents of Shem, dwelling in Christ, or, more literally, in the Messiah, because that was the meaning of the word. Therefore, they’re going to be cursed too. So you can tell this person indeed, in so far as the Negroes have departed from Christ, they are again under the curse. And in so far as the white man is departing from Christ, he is also under the curse, and you’re going to see the curse fulfilled upon him very shortly. It is already in process of fulfillment everywhere.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, that’s a question a lot of people have debated very, very extensively about. What are we? Now, when God created man out of the dust of the earth, he breathed into him and man became a living soul. So that there the entire being of man, what we would say body and soul, is called a living soul. So that man, in his entirety was a living soul, as a unity. This is how he is spoken of. And other times the {?} the spirit of man is used. And this has a reference to that aspect of man which will survive the death of his body and go to Heaven. So that when we die we shall be, in a sense, not corporeal, but none the less real, as individuals, be in heaven. At the resurrection we shall be again united, we would say body and soul, but spirit and body. And live a physical life in the glorious resurrection body. But literally, the term soul as it is used in the Scripture, is applied to the unity of the spirit and the body. Man is a living soul, because of this union of spirit and flesh.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] I didn’t know that fact, I don’t know what to say to that.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Of course, the term soul in different cultures has different meanings, so that you will find in some of these older encyclopedias they will give you a variety of definitions of it.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. When the humanists use the terms spirit of man, they have reference to the tendency, the intellectual current or ethos of an age or of man.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. The right hand is an ancient symbol used all over the world of a position of favor. And the reason for it is this, and this was true, for example, even in this country up to the last century. Supposing you were a man on the frontier, and a stranger came up to you. You would keep him on your left hand as far as possible, until you knew that he was somebody that you could trust. Why? Because if he were on your right hand, you would not be able to protect yourself as readily. Because whether it was drawing a knife or your gun, your right hand, you see, to move around and confront him would mean that you would the loser of any battle.

So that to put a man on your right hand was to put him in the position of trust. That was the meaning of it. And as a result, the left hand was the position of distrust, of suspicion. You kept a man on your left because then you could confront him immediately. So everywhere in the world this was the rule. And this is why left-handers were so distrusted, because in ancient times, the man who was a lefty kept it a secret. Because it gave him a tremendous advantage, and you remember in one case in the book of Judges, the Israelite who went into the king when an oppressor ruled him, and the guards checked his left side to see if there were any knives or weapons there and of course, he was free of them, he was acting like a right-hander, and he went in there and when he was talking, supposed confidentially, with the king, out he came, using his left hand, with a knife that was on this side, and buried it past the shaft into the man. And delivered the country, because he then walked out quietly as though he’d finished his business and they waited for the king to come out and waited and waited and he never came out. By the time they found out it was too late, and an organized resistance was moving against them. This is why left-handers were regarded as suspicious characters, in fact the word sinister means, literally, left-handed. I’m a lefty by the way.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] What book was this?

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] Luke 24.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Well of course the laws of Moses were clearly the laws of God.

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes, yes. And He said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled that were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. Concerning Himself in that He became the sin-bearer that they may find atonement for their sins.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Except that there are to many passages like the one in Romans that speak of the validity of the law. And then when you read through, for example, the epistles of Paul. The questions that the churches raise is with respect to the law. For example, in First Corinthians 7. They write a question with respect to mixed marriages. What should a believer do whose husband or wife is not a believer? Why did they ask that question? Because they took the law seriously. The law said that mixed marriages were forbidden. They could not be contracted. Nehemiah in fact when some of the returning exiles contracted such marriages, men who were believers and dignitaries in church and state, ordered that the marriages be dissolved. So, these people, in obedience, you see, to the law, said, I’m converted but my husband or my wife is not converted, should I secure a divorce from them? And Paul said, no, this is different. This is different. You did not, as a believer, contract the marriage. You were already in this marriage at the time of your conversion. And the principle is let every man remain in the condition in which he was, we are called to peace, not to discord. But, if the unbelieving partner depart, let him depart. So that if, as a result of your conversion, the other partner, the unbeliever, wants to break it, then you are free. Then it’s a valid divorce, but not otherwise. You are not permitted to break up the marriage, because this is not the same as a believer contracting one. Now the whole point of that discussion of course is, that the whole of the Mosaic Law was still valid. Now, what Christ did fulfill and end in the law was the ceremonial aspects, the sacrificial aspects, in that He was the Lamb of God, and therefore the sacrifices were finished in their validity. He was the great High Priest, therefore the priesthood was finished, you see.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] He is here referring to those things concerning His person, yes.

And of course, in Hebrews it is spelled out specifically what has happened to the whole of worship. Now worship is on a different basis, it’s not in terms of the sacrificial system and a priesthood, because the great High Priest, Jesus Christ, is come and all this is done away with. But we’re never told that the rest of the law is done away with.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, we have come more into the significance of the tablets of stone, but all the law is a part of the Ten Commandments. Every law that is given to Moses, and it is all given to Moses who gave it to the people, and Moses makes this clear and the Bible makes it clear, Moses was simply the person who reported on this, who transcribed it to the people. Now, all of it can be subsumed under one or another of the Ten Commandments. Every bit of it. So that you can through the law, as we shall, and we’ll study all the laws that have relationship to the First Commandment, to the Second, to the Fifth, to the Tenth, every one of the Mosaic Laws is under one or another of the Ten Commandments. And some, with respect to worship and to the person of Christ, are fulfilled, the rest still stand. Now the form of the law is sometimes varied and changed by the New Testament. For example, the penalty in the Old Testament for adultery was death. It is changed in the New Testament to divorce. So there are changes made, but the changes have to be made by the New Testament, or else the Old Testament form stands.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Well, Paul of course had tried to be a law keeper outside of Christ, and what it had led to was not law keeping but Phariseeism. And the unforgivable sin has always been defined as calling evil good and good evil. In other words, it is not any single act but it is that frame of mind which perverses the whole law order.

Thus, a man may commit murder or adultery or theft or blasphemy or any other act, but as long as he knows he is a sinner, as long as he is self-consciously a lawbreaker it is one thing. But the person who deliberately says, evil is good and good is for me evil, who makes this a self-conscious thing, has committed the unforgivable sin. Thus these theologians who teach that faithfulness is really a sin and adultery can be a higher and a holier way, and I’ve heard a canon{?} give such a sermon to two thousand college students.

[Audience] Where was that?

[Dr. Rushdoony] It was at a campus of a major university, private university, in the West. Now such a man has committed the unforgivable sin. He has made the devil his god, and God, the God of Scripture, his devil.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes, but of course when you do that you’re setting up another law, if you deny that God is sovereign systemically and consistently and follow it to its logical presupposition, then you end up in making God, as it were, the great enemy and the devil. So, what of course, David is praying here in Psalm 19:19, Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins, let them not have dominion over me. A presumptuous sin is one that begins by presuming on God’s mercy. Then presuming that your way is the right way. And it leads to the great transgression. Which is of course to reverse the whole moral order and to make your will God’s will and to make God’s will Satanic.

So, this verse is a very important one in terms of the unforgivable sin, because David sees the sequence here. Presumption leads, step by step, to this fact.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Well of course there is a great deal of this increasingly in all your churches, they are falling into the unforgivable sin, they’re making blasphemy the routine thing from the pulpit, a very fine young man, Catholic, came to see me a couple of days ago, and handed me a sheaf of literature that he had picked up, and he said, this is the kind of thing you find in most churches today. And it is titled, ‘Which Way: a Discussion of Racial Tension’ by Bayard Rustin{?}, and Daniel Patrick {?}. But imagine, literature by a man like Bayard {?} Rustin{?} in churches, in churches. And this is the kind of thing that is wickedness.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes! Now, the essence of sin is, as Satan himself put it in the Temptation, Genesis 3:5, ye shall be as God, every man his own god, knowing (that is determining) good and evil for yourself. So first you set up your own moral order in opposition to God and His moral order. Then the next step becomes, gradually, to say, God’s order is evil and wicked and mine is the good one. This is the end result, you see, of sin. In which you not only set yourself up in opposition to God, but you condemn God’s order as totally evil. Totally wicked. And you say, mine is righteous, mine is true, and His is Satanic. And this is the unforgivable sin.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] That life is something which you have total control over and that you can set up the conditions of life, because you are in effect your own god.

You begin to play god totally in every domain. And of course with {?} he said, the right to kill is a privilege of man. So he was for murder. He felt any order that prohibited it was immoral. And of course, we’re beginning to see this presumption increasingly. This last week there was this item in the Valley News {?} Green Sheet, ‘Suggest automatic removal of vital organs after death, {?} urged to insure transplant supply’. in other words, they’re going to play god and have the right to take from your body as you are dying, because it has to be before the point of death, whatever they want. They’re playing god. And you see it now increasingly in every publication. Along those lines, the kind of presumption we’re seeing is really incredible. Sometimes it’s almost amusing. In the April 1968 ‘Psychology Today’, there is an article that, it is really funny, because it illustrates the insanity of these men. The title, and it is by Henry Block and Herbert Ginsberg, is ‘The Psychology of Robots’. The Psychology of Robots. And it deals with the possibility, now here are the aspects of psychology that it discusses. Fatigue and rest, hunger, food search, nightfall return home, danger and flight, quiet and sleep, competitor fight, lover sex, boredom exploration, {?} build nest, food eat, and so on. And it actually deals with these things with a straight face and absolute seriousness and…

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, no, they actually believe that they are going to create this kind of world. Let me read the last paragraph. ‘Human behavior on the other hand is often motivated internally as well as external stimuli. Clearly if robots are to be self sufficient they will have to possess drives such as ambition and need for esteem in eyes of other robots, a super ego prohibiting the destruction of other robots, or at least those of its own socio economic grouping. Of course robot human relationships also have to be carefully considered. I don’t know what that means unless it’s integration or segregation, for robots to be self sufficient as a species they will have to reproduce themselves. While there is nothing against this in principle, as shown by John Van Newman{?}, in his theory of self reproducing automata, the instrumentation seems impractical at the present time. Of course, by using reproduction, natural selection and evolution, we can solve many of our design problems. Since the species that will evolve will be the one best adapted to its environment. This probably will take a long time unless the evolutionary process could be stimulated on a computer at high speed. Other means for speeding up the evolutionary rate would the use of tri or multi-sexual robots. Eventually psychologists and engineers will have to face these problems head on. But since this is a family periodical, we shall not go into {?} here.’

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] They are talking about robots as well as people. And this is the kind of planning and thinking they are indulging in. You see, since they see no god except themselves, they are ready to imagine anything is possible for man to create. And so they do not see this as absurd, they are going to go into everything, explore it, and master it. They are the god. So for them nothing is impossible. So that’s the reality of our world.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, this is someone entirely different. Well, with all of that let’s close on a very much milder and better note, this is from Smidgeons{?} a comic strip, and you all know, I enjoy the comics. The husband is saying, man this Vietnam mess is really bogged down. How can we win when the Department of Defense keeps putting restrictions on everything we do? And so his wife says, but don’t we have a Department of Offense?

Well with that we stand adjourned.