Romans 7:24 - “Wretched Man That I Am!”
Introduction
For over four hundred years the doctrine of predestination has been debated within the church between Arminians and Calvinists. While some may think that these are merely two theological camps which only differ on something which God did before the foundation of the world, how one understands this important issue will effect one’s understanding of the entire Bible in regard to man’s moral abilities. For, what lays at the root of the issue is the nature of the fall and the effect sin has on the human race. Did the fall merely influence man’s moral will or is the noetic effect of sin such that fallen man is morally unable to do any good deed in word, thought, and deed according to by faith, according to God’s Law and for His glory? Is being regenerate (“born again”) the result of faith or the necessary cause of faith? An example of how one’s position on election effects one’s understanding of the Bible is the various interpretations that have arisen on Romans chapter seven.
It was in 1591 A.D. while Jacob Arminius, a pastor within the Reformed Church, was preaching through the book of Romans that some of his sermons provoked opposition from the Reformed church. When Arminius came to Romans 7:14 he taught that Paul was remembering his previous, unregenerate state. However, it was the position of the Reformed church that Paul was speaking of a regenerate Christian’s struggle against sin. Arminius’ interpretation of the passage was influence by his denial of what would later be defined as “total depravity,” that the effect of the sin is such that fallen man’s moral will cannot choose to follow Christ. Left to his own man hates God and suppresses the knowledge of truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:20-21). Consequently regeneration precedes faith for unless man is first “born again” he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Therefore, since Arminius elevated the moral will of fallen man, he even more so the moral will of the Christian and therefore concluded that a Christian could not speak as Paul in Romans 7:14, “ For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.” Throughout the history of the church there have been those who have denied the total depravity of man, such as Erasmus, Arminius, John Wesley, Adam Clarke and Charles Finney, and have even gone further to teach that Christians can reach perfection within this life time.
The purpose of this paper is to examine as to who the Apostle Paul was referring to in the seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, particularly verses fourteen through twenty-five. First, I shall exegete the passage and in the process defend the proper understanding of Paul’s message. Following the exposition of the passage I shall discuss the implications that this passage has on our lives and our understanding of sin depending on one’s interpretation.
Although the focus of this paper shall be the theological implications of Romans 7, it is improper to discuss the passage without first discussing the previous chapters, at least in an over view fashion. While some may argue with this writer’s understanding of the first six chapters of Romans, which shall lay a foundation for the understanding of the seventh chapter, the purpose for chapters one through six is as following:
In the first chapter Paul demonstrates that those outside of the covenant who are without the Mosaic law, the Gentiles, are held accountable for the revelation they are given, however general, and are without excuse for their sin. In the second chapter he demonstrates that those with the law, the Jews, are as guilty as the Gentiles who hold up the Law as a banner of pride but do not follow it by faith, but by a means of obtaining righteousness. These Jews are merely hears and not doers of the law. In the third chapter Paul declares that neither those with or without the law shall be justified by the law and that the possession of the righteousness that God requires is acquired by faith. In the fourth chapter Paul defends his teaching with the examples of Abraham and David and states that the righteousness required is one that is acquired by grace through faith. In the fifth chapter Paul demonstrates that it is Christ, the second Adam, who is our righteousness and takes away the guilt and sinful state of the first Adam with whose guilt the entire race has been imputed. In the sixth chapter Paul asserts that the doctrine of justification by grace leads not to licentiousness, or antinomianism, but presents that it is the only certain means by which one may proceed to sanctification. The entire argument that Paul is making from chapter one through six is one of works of the law verses the free gift of grace of the gospel. That the Abraham was justified before he received the sign of circumcision and that the promise given to Abraham, that he would be a father of many nations (Gen. 17:5), is now being accomplished by the ushering in of the Gentiles by faith - apart from observing the distinctives of the Mosaic Covenant such as circumcision, observing feast days, and so forth. By faith the Christian has died to sin and made alive in Christ. However, the question then comes to, “What is the purpose for chapter seven?” In short, chapter seven is between chapter six which speaks of our first resurrection, “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11) and chapter eight which picks up the discussion from chapter six and talks about our second resurrection, which is of the body (8:11).
Romans Chapter 7
Paul begins the chapter seven by stating who he is addressing, “1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?” From the previous chapters we can see that Paul’s main address was primarily to the Jews at the church in Rome as he states in chapter two, “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law,” in chapter three, “What advantage has then a Jew?” and in chapter four, “What shall we say that Abraham our father...” and again he makes it clear in this chapter that he is referring to “those who know the law.”
He then goes on to use an allegorical interpretation of the covenant of marriage to demonstrate their relationship to the law, “2 For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.” The question here is what is signified by the married woman, the husband, and the law? Or, does each part of the allegory have an individual meaning? When one reads parabolic or allegorical literature one must look for the central theme or message in the passage. For example, when considering the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10 the central message is the concept of who our neighbor is and how we are to treat him. One is not to take each individual part of the parable and ask what the donkey, oil, wine, priest, or two silver coins represent. William Hendriksen gives the following example as how not to interpret this passage:
“The man who is on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho represents Adam, the head of the human race. He left the heavenly city and is traveling down to the city of earth, the profane city. But, having turned his desires toward the earth, he falls into the hands of robbers; that is, he is overpowered by Satan and his evil angels. These robbers strip him of the garment of original righteousness. They also beat him, leaving him full of wounds, half-dead (half-dead in sins and trespasses!) The priest and the Levite represent the law and the sacrifices. They cannot save the sinner. They are powerless to help. But the good Samaritan, namely, Jesus Christ, is traveling that way and helps the poor sinner. This good Samaritan dresses his wounds with the oil of the Holy Spirit and with wine, namely, the blood of His passion. He then puts the poor man on his own mule, that is, on the merits of His own righteousness. He takes the poor man to an inn, that is, to church. The next day, the good Samaritan gives the host two shillings, that is, the Word and the Sacraments, in order that with these he may provide for the spiritual needs of the poor sinner. Then this good Samaritan departs but promises to return later.” [1]
Thus, in Paul’s analogy of the marriage the point that he is trying to get across is concerning the relationship between the fullness of the gospel in the New Covenant and the law of the Mosaic Covenant. When interpreting this passage we are not to see the husband as differentiated from the Law of Moses, but that it is the husband. F. F. Bruce demonstrates, in his interpretation, that Paul’s explanation of the relationship between the law and the gospel in the allegory of a marriage breaks down at a certain point:
“The believer in Christ is compared to the wife, and the law to the husband, but whereas in the illustration it was the husband that died, in the application it is not the law that has died, but the believer; the believer has died with Christ- and yet it is still the believer who, no longer bound to the law, is free to be united with Christ.” [2]
However, if one tries to hold a strict one to one correspondence between each element within this allegory and the subject being discussed, one finds that they cannot be held consistently. The problem is that of mixed metaphors, for example:
(1) Verse one states that the law is over a man as long as he lives.
(2) Verse two states that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
Conclusion: The law is the woman and the man is the husband.
While this one to one correspondence between each element of the allegory seems logical one finds two problems in the next two verses:
(1) Verse three speaks of the woman being bound to the law. If the above premise is correct, that is that the woman is the Law, can the law be bound to the law?
(2) Verse four states that “you my brethren” have become dead to the law, therefore again we establish that the woman must be the law and the Christian is the husband who dies.
So we see that one must look for the central theme or message in this passage and not take each individual part of the allegory and try and hold a strict meaning to that element. Thus, from the central theme of Paul’s message, that is the relationship between the New and the Old Covenant, we can conclude with F. F. Bruce the meaning of the allegory:
“If, however, the matter is put in simpler terms, Paul’s meaning can be expressed easily enough: as death breaks the bond between a husband and wife, so death- the believer’s death-with-Christ - breaks the bond which formerly yoked him to the law, and now he is free to enter into union with Christ.” [3]
In Paul’s allegory there are three elements; The wife, the husband, and the word “law.” However, the focus is the covenant relationship between the wife and the husband and their being bound together. The usage of the word “law” in this allegory is merely the covenant between the husband and wife which is the binding element in a marriage. For the sake of the analogy the term law (nomos) is ambiguous and merely helps the analogy make sense. [4] In parables there are many elements that merely help the picture being given hold together and do not have any particular meaning in and of themselves. Thus, we are not to see the word “law” to refer to the Law of Moses or the husband as being the flesh but as the Old Covenant.
Paul goes on to say, “ So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.” The problem that Paul is addressing is not that of licentiousness but an attempt to remain “married” to the Mosaic Covenant, in keeping the aspects of the Law which have been abrogated, while at the same time trying to be “married” to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, if we are still bound to the husband, that is the Mosaic Law in the form of a covenant, and then try and join ourselves to the gospel of Jesus Christ we are a spiritual adulteress. Many have noted the similarities between Paul’s epistle to the Romans and Galatians in his struggle to get across to the Jewish Christians who were trying to hold on to the Old Covenant aspects of the Law that they were no longer to be bound by the Law as he states, “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the law” (Galatians 5:4).
He then concludes, “4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made alive to die to the law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Paul goes from speaking in the past tense “you were made alive” which took place at conversion and “we were in the flesh” which was before conversion, and then he speaks in the present tense, “But now we have been released from the Law.” However, the change that has taken place between then and now is that the law caused us to bear fruit for death whereas now we are no longer under the penalty of the law. But, has our fleshly reaction to the letter of the law changed? Is what provoked sin in the past now a means of sanctification? Is there any power in the law for sanctification? Or is Paul making the point that so long as you depend on the law for any means your reaction will be negative? Therefore we are to “serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” This is the central point to this chapter which is then expounded on in Romans 8:2, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” The “law of the Spirit” is what Paul refers to as a new law which shall be discussed later.
As Paul seems to discuss the Mosaic law in a negative tone he again anticipates a possible hostile reaction, as he did in Romans 6:1, as states in verse seven, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?” Paul in this epistle, as well as in his epistle to the Galatians, makes it clear that the Jews had a wrong concept of the purpose of the law. In Galatians 3:24 he states that the Mosaic Law, which was a covenant with Moses and the people of Israel, was never meant in itself to be a means of salvation. Rather it was to be a paidagogos, a tutor or student-trainer, that would guide us to Christ for salvation. But how does the Mosaic Covenant perform this role? By making us feel bad when we see that we can’t keep all the moral precepts of the Law to perfection? To drive us to existential despair? No, for it was already clear in the Mosaic Covenant in its provision of the sacrificial system that we cannot keep the moral precepts perfectly, thus the Law itself provided a means of atoning for sin through the sacrifice. Rather, it was the constant shedding of blood in the sacrificial system, as well as the other laws which we often classify as “ceremonial,” which acted as a tutor to bring us to Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was the great parenthesis between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant with Christ. It was a guardian for the nation of Israel, to keep it separate from the ways of the Gentiles. It was the sacrificial system and the bloody sign of circumcision which guarded Israel from the gentile culture and pointed forward to the final prophet, priest, and king of Israel. Once He came there would no longer be any need for the tutor (Hebrews 8:10-13).
But what is the current status of the Christian? If we have been made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) why do we still war against sin? Is there now power in the Law, the moral law, for sanctification? In verse eight Paul states, “8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.” This is what many people today refer to as the “Adam and Eve” syndrome. That is, if you tell someone not to do something their first reaction is to want to do that very thing. Thus, with this understanding of human nature people often employ “reverse psychology,” that is, if you want someone not to do something you tell them to do it and if you want some to do something you tell them not to do it. Of course this usually only works with persons who do not think through such commands, for example little children being told to eat their vegetables and not the desert. However, it does demonstrate the problem within man. That is, that the law rather than producing righteousness produces sinful actions for our flesh’s natural reaction is to rebel. However, without the written law or command the awareness of that sin does not exist, although we still sin as Paul asserted in Romans chapter one. So, when Paul states that, “... apart from the Law sin is dead” he merely asserts that we are not aware of our sinful condition.
When Paul states in verse nine , “And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died” he is not asserting that he was born in a sinless condition. Nor is he teaching that at his bar mitzvah he came to his “age of accountability.” Rather, he is asserting that apart from the law he or any other person thinks that they, in their own estimation, are morally good. But once they hear and understand the law, which may be at one’s bar mitzvah, they can no longer hold this inflated opinion of themselves.
He then goes on to say, “…and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.” The law says to man “do this and you shall live” but if you try to keep it by the power of the flesh, rather than by the Spirit through faith, once you come to know the full requirements of the law you see that this impossible, “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10). Thus what was thought to be a means of life, after an honest and thorough assessment, resulted only in death. This righteousness that was required was not merely an external observance but inward as well (Matt. 5:27-28). This is why Paul uses the commandment which states, “You shall not covet.” Covetousness is not an external sin but internal sinful desire which leads to external actions and finally death as in James 1:13-15 we read, “... but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, gives birth to death.”
Paul then concludes, “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to me to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” (vv. 12-13)
Paul is making it clear that the problem with our reaction to the law is not within the law, but within us. The law is God’s holy standard, but in order for sin to be truly recognized for what it is requires us to be given a command and be required to obey that command even though we do not have the power to do so on our own. The flesh can accomplish nothing. Apart from Christ, through the Spirit, we can do nothing (John 15:5).
A common error which is repeated time and time again is that of Pelagians and Arminians today, such as George E. (Jed) Smock, who assume that obligation necessitates ability, “The Bible is a call to holiness from Genesis to Revelation. Would a just God command a man to obey, but at the same time teach that complete obedience is impossible?” [5] This humanistic rationale leads one to believe that because man is required to keep the law of God (or believe in the gospel) that he must have the moral ability to do so. It is no wonder that Smock aligns himself with a such list of historical supporters such as Erasmus (a Roman Catholic who was Martin Luther’s foe) Arminius, Wesley, Adam Clarke and Charles Finney, a Pelagian heretic who denied original sin as well as Christ’s atoning work on the cross. [6] It is because we are required to keep the law but don’t have the ability to do so that we are forced to cry out, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” and are justified when doing so (Luke 18:13).
It is now that we come to the most disputed portion of the text verses 14-25. Paul states, “For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.”
There are several views as to who Paul is referring to when he uses the first person pronoun "I" , two of which are as follows:
(1) Paul is describing the unregenerate person or the Jew in particular from the standpoint of the gospel. The reason for this argument is because the statement “...but I am of flesh (carnal) sold into bondage to sin.” This argument holds that Paul can not be referring to his current status, or that of any Christian, because it would contradict what he states later in Romans 8:6, “To be carnally minded is death” and in Romans 6:17-18, “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” Thus, a Christian cannot be said to be both “sold into bondage to sin” and “set free from sin.” [7]
(2) Paul is describing himself and Christians generally who, although in Christ and free from the condemnation of the law, do not yet perfectly fulfill the requirements of the law. The reason for this argument is that Paul is speaking in the present tense both in Romans 7:14-25 and Romans 8:1 when he states, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” In addition he also states in verse 22, “For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man..” Can it be said that an unregenerate person, whether Jew or Gentile, rejoices in the Law when he sees that it condemns him? Or is it because this person is not condemned by the law, because of Christ, that he can rejoice? It is this author’s intention to defend this second position and answer common objections held by those to opt for the first position.
In verse 5 we saw that the law was the indirect cause of sin, not faulting the law but the hearer of it, that is, the sinner. Thus, although it is “holy and righteous and good” it cannot destroy the power of sin. Here in verse 14 Paul again asserts that the fault in us, “For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh.” The Law is said to be spiritual not because is was inspired by the Holy Spirit nor because it pertains to our spirit but because it partakes of the Divine nature which is not to be confused with the Divine substance. In contrast Paul says that he is carnal, that is under the power of the flesh, the effects of the fall. This is not to say merely sinful appetites, but that no matter how much we have matured in sanctification we still suffer the effects of the fall. This is why he states to the believers at Corinth, “And I brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.” Note that he calls them “brethren” and “babes in Christ” yet he says that they are carnal, which is to say that they are in need of maturing, “I fed you with milk and not solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and still you are not able; for you are still carnal” (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Carnality, therefore, is not a state in which you are in or out of, but one in which you are more or less of, and all Christians are in the process of growing out of carnality until we are completely sanctified in Christ. When the Arminian, or any person who holds to option 1, argues that this can not be referring to a Christian because Romans 8:6 says, “To be carnally minded is death” one must keep in mind that in 7:14 Paul says “ I am carnal” but 8:6 he referring to being “carnally minded.” One is of substantial nature they other is one of will. This is why Paul goes on to say in verse twenty-three, “ …but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.” The contrast is that between the renewed mind of the inner man and the fleshly nature of the outer man. Or to put it another way, we have received the first resurrection (rebirth) but still suffer from not yet having received the second, that of a resurrected body. To have the old mind that is unspiritual and unrenewed is death (8:6), yet though we are Christian, we are still in carnal dominated bodies (7:14) though we have Spirit dominated minds. Thus, sin in the life of the Christian ought to be the exception rather than the rule. However, we ought to be careful and not fall into a dualistic notion of man, or even worse, a Gnostic notion in which we think of ourselves as “spirits living in a material world” (as Sting would say) or we that our spirits are trapped in material bodies (as Chuck Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa has stated). The problem that we have is not dualistic (spirit vs. a physical body) but holistic, we have not yet completely received the full benefits of Christ. Thus, the problem is, as the bumper sticker states, “...God ain’t finished with me yet.” This is why Paul goes on to further discuss the coming bodily resurrection in chapter 8.
There has been much debate as to the constitutional nature of the regenerate person, the central issue revolving around the nature of a Christian. Does the Christian have two natures, one fleshly the other spiritual with which he battles between the two in his process of sanctification? Or does he have one nature, that being the new nature which is spiritual but is still in the process of growing? While this issue alone is worthy of an entire paper, I shall not digress on the subject more than to set forth the two positions and declare that which this author holds.
The first problem is this issue revolves around the very word “nature” and how it is used in various ways. In the Bible at least one Hebrew word and three Greek words are translated “nature.” 1. “Phusikos” is used to describe that which is produced by nature (Romans 1:26, 27), or governed by mere natural instincts (2 Peter 2:12). 2. “Psychikos” is used to describe the soul (as the lower part of the immaterial in man) in contrast to the that which is spiritual (pneumatikos). This is the natural, physical, and describes man in Adam (1 Corinthians 2:14; 15:44, 46) and James uses it to pertain to the sensual, or in accordance with the wisdom of corrupt desires and affections (James 3:15). 3. “Phusis”, which is from “phuo”, refers to the natural powers or constitution of a thing or that which comes from the natural order of things (Romans 2:27, Ephesians 2:3, James 3:7). [8]
In addition there are two words translated carnal or flesh: 1. “Sarkikos”, from “sarx”, signifies having the nature of the flesh governed by human nature rather than by the Spirit of God or having its seat in the animal or physical nature (1 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Peter 2:11, Romans 15:27). 2. “Sarkinos” is that which consists of the flesh, pertaining to the natural transient life of the body. However, at times “sarkinos” is difficult to distinguish from “sarkikos” as Paul uses these terms in Romans 7:14 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. [9]
It is apparent that the early church fathers, such as Ambrose (340-397 A.D.) and Augustine (354-430 A.D.), taught that Christians have two distinct natures which warred against each other in this lifetime. Augustine, who did not refer to two natures but the flesh, in his “Confessions” compared Romans 7:14-25 with his own struggles:
“In vain did I ‘delight in Thy law after the inner man.’ when ‘another law in my members warred against the law of my mind, and brought me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.’ For the law of sin is the violence of custom, whereby the mind is drawn and held, even against its will; deserving to be so held in that it so willingly falls into it. ‘O, wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death’ but Thy grace only, through Jesus Christ our Lord?” [8]
In addition, throughout the history of the church Christians continued to discuss the concept of two natures and the Protestant Reformers seemed to follow Augustine. While Martin Luther comments on the battle between the two natures in his commentary on Romans he best describes it in his commentary on Galatians 5:15:
“True it is that we ought to fulfill the law, but sin hinders us. Indeed the law prescribes and commands that we should love God with all our heart, and that we should love our neighbor as ourselves; but there is not one man to be found upon the whole earth who loves God and his neighbor as the law requires. But in the life to come, where we shall be thoroughly cleansed from all vices and sins and shall be righteous through perfect love. But in this life that purity is hindered by the flesh; for as long as we live, sin remains in our flesh. Why? Because the corrupt love of ourselves is so mighty that it far surmounts the love of God and of our neighbor. In the mean time, that we may be righteous in this life also, we have Christ the mercy-seat and throne of grace, and because we believe in Him, sin is not imputed to us...If we were pure from all sin, and were inflamed with perfect love both towards God and our neighbor, then should we indeed be righteous and holy through love, and God would require no more of us. This is not done in this present life, but is deferred until the life to come...But now man’s nature is so corrupt and drowned in sin that it cannot have any right sense of God. It loves not God, but hates Him. Wherefore as John says: ‘We love not God, but He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4: 10).... We, being redeemed and justified by this Son, begin to love, according to the eighth chapter of Romans: ‘That which was impossible to the law...God sending his own Son...condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us’; that is, might begin to be fulfilled. So Paul shows us by these words: ‘Walk in the Spirit,’ how we would have that verse to be understood where he said: ‘Serve ye one another through love,’ and again: ‘Love is the fulfilling of the law.’ As he should say: When I bid you love one another, this is what I require of you, that you walk in the Spirit. For I know that you shall not fulfill the law, because sin dwells in you as long as you live; therefore, it is impossible that you should fulfill the law. In the meanwhile, walk in the Spirit, that is, wrestle in the Spirit against the flesh.’” [9]
Some argue that Christians have two distinct natures: a sin nature which John Walvoord describes as “a complex of human attributes that demonstrate a desire and predisposition to sin” and a new nature which is a “complex of attributes having a desire and predisposition to righteousness.” [10] However, it must be made clear that there are not (contrary to dispensational, Keswickian, or Wesleyan views) two types of Christians (i.e. carnal and spiritual). Those in the forenamed camps might offer a third view of Romans 7:14-25, which due to the time and length that would be required I am not discussing, that Paul is describing a Christian in an unnatural and unhealthy spiritual condition, one failing to draw on the indwelling Spirit’s resources. Rather, all Christians are to some extent carnal and spiritual and are on the path to being perfected in Christ. Some Christians may be further along in their maturity than others and in fact some have stunted growth and should be further along than they are (Hebrews 5:12-14), but we are all in the process of sanctification. There are not two classes of Christians. [11]
Earlier I gave a summary of the purpose for the first six chapters of Romans and concluded that chapters one though five the Apostle Paul shows that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. The question then comes to in chapter seven, “If I died and have been raised in Christ, as Paul asserts in chapter 6, then why do I sin?” In addition, “Does the Law have the power to sanctify us?” Justification and reconciliation is a declared status at the moment that one by grace has faith in Christ Jesus unto salvation. However, the work is not complete as sanctification is an on going process which begun in the Spirit and in which we cooperate by yielding to the Spirit of God who dwells with in us. Thus while the law is the standard by which we may measure our level of sanctification, it does not have the power to sanctify us. That power is found only in the gospel and the means of grace which proclaim it.
The problem therefore, is that we have a “born again” spirit in an “unborn again” body. Paul refers to “the inner man” which is the new creation which dwells in the old body of flesh. The renewed spirit is better than the old flesh, not that Paul is speaking in terms of a Gnostic, for they held that anything material was evil, but that we still await a new spirit dominated body that is not subject to the effects of the fall. This contrast between the inner and outer man can be seen in 2 Corinthians 4:16 when Paul states, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.” In his epistle to the Ephesians he states that he prays for the brethren, “that He [God the Father] would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man” (Ephesians 3:16).
As for now our body is not dominated by the Spirit but is in conflict with it. Thus when Paul states, “For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good” he is speaking of the struggle between his new nature, the inner man, and the flesh, the outer man. Those who hold that Paul is referring to his preconversion state reject that this could be the testimony of a Christian. However, we must bear in mind that there is no evidence that Paul ever suffered from an uneasy conscience before his conversion. In fact, in his preconversion state he would have boasted that he was, “...circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee...concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:5-6). In fact, his transformation was not the result of a struggle in which he cried out, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?” but rather a physical and supernatural encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus while doing what he thought was right (Acts 9:1-6).
"So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells in me.” (v. 17) Here Paul makes it abundantly clear that he is speaking as a Christian as he says “so now.” He is contrasting his current state with that of having been under the law. But he speaks not only for himself, for the “I” is the experience of every Christian. The issue for the Christian is, which shall we allow to dominate? Shall we allow every desire of our body to dictate our behavior? Shall we commit fornication just because our flesh desires it? Shall we eat like a glutton and get drunk? Or shall we instead be filled with, and dominated by, the Spirit? (Ephesians 5:18) Which shall have dominion?
It is here that spiritual disciplines have their place in sanctification, such as fasting. Fasting is not merely a pragmatic practice to lose weight, nor is it merely that fasting will give us more time to pray or the funds for food to be given to the poor. Though these may be some side benefits. While eastern religions may practice fasting in order to obtain an altered state of consciousness, this is not the purpose of fasting in the Christian life. Rather, fasting is a spiritual discipline in which we learn to have dominion over our bodily desires, that our spirit as instructed by Scripture dictates how we shall live. Using the means of grace, we grow in sanctification and learn to not walk according to the dictates of the flesh, but by the Spirit and by Him produce fruit (Galatians 5:16-26).
In Romans 7:6 we saw that the theme of this chapter was that we are to serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter and in the next verse Paul makes in clear why, “18 For I know nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing is not.” Again, the question be answered in chapter seven is, “Does the law have the power for sanctification?” Although our new mind, or nature, has the “wishing” or desire to do good, the flesh does not have the ability, or power, to do so. When Paul states that there is nothing good dwelling within him in the full sense as a Christian this could not be said for a regenerated person has the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, he clarifies his statement by adding “that is, in my flesh.” [12]
This is why Paul becomes amazed by the Galatian believers who are attempting to add the economy of the Mosaic law to the Gospel, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit [justification], are you now being made perfect [sanctified] by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3). It is absolutely absurd to think that by the power of the flesh we can complete in obedience to the law what God has begun and will complete in us by the power of the Holy Spirit as Paul wrote to the believers at Philippi, “being confident of this very thing, that He who has began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1: 6).
In addition to verse fourteen, one of the main verses cited as evidence that Paul can not be speaking as a Christian is verse nineteen which states, “For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.” They say that a Christian can not say, “but I practice the very evil that I do not wish” because John in his first epistle states, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9). However, I believe a closer examination of these passages in the Greek text will show a distinction between the usage of the English word “practice(s)” in these two verses.
When we read of John using the word “practice” it is because of the tense of Greek word which we translate “sin” (hamartia). John, is his first epistle, uses it in three ways. First, in 3:6a, “No one who abide in Him sins” (hamartane) is in the present tense, indicating a settled character like that of ‘the devil’ who ‘has been sinning from the beginning.’ Confer this with 3:6b which states, “no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him” (hamartanon), which is a present participle and is different than in 2:1 where both are aorists. The second, is in his statement that those who have been born of God will not continue in sin (hamartian ou poiei). Here it is not an isolated act of sin but an on going habitual act as indicated by the verb “poiein”, to do or practice, used in verses 4a, 8 and 9a, of lawlessness and in 4b, 2:29; 3:7; 10a of righteousness. Third, John uses the expression in terms of a Christian, that he can not go on sinning (ou dunatai hamartanein). Here, it is in a present, not aorist, infinitive. If John had used the aorist he would have been conveying that it is impossible for a Christian from the moment of conversion to ever commit a sin. However, because he uses the present infinitive he is not conveying the idea that a Christian can not sin at all, but can not continue in sin habitually. [13]
Whereas the apostle John uses “hamartanei”, which is a nonceasing on going action of sin, when we see Paul using the word “practice” in Romans 7:19 he uses the word “prasso” which means “to get beyond,” “to press through,” “to execute,” or “to do.” Thus we see that Paul, while admitting the use of volition, he is not implying a habitual act. [14] All that Paul is trying to convey is that he is unable, in his own power, able to live up to the purpose he desires. There is no doubt that he desired to love God with all his heart, and at all times, but his love was less operative than what the law demands. [15]
Paul reiterates his statement of verse seventeen in the next verse but one must ask if a non-Christian could say, “20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me” could they be held accountable for their actions? They would be able to say that it isn’t their will or desire to sin but that they desire to do good and even obey God. However, Paul previously made it clear that this is not the character of the unregenerate person “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; and there is no one who does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10-12). In addition Jeremiah made it clear that man left to his own is only evil, “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
However, if this statement is made by a Christian then the fact that this person ultimately does not desire to sin is an evidence that the person is regenerate. Only a regenerate Christian truly has any inkling of a desire to do any real good for the only good which God accepts is that which is done in faith (Hebrews 11:6).
Paul then states, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.” (v. 21)The word translated “principle,” by the those who translated the New American Standard Bible, is the same as the word translated “law” (nomos) in other passages of this version or the same passage by other versions such as the New King James Bible, “I find then a law, that evil is present in me, the who wills to do good.” The question here is whether or not “law” here refers to the law of Moses.
James Dunn translates verse 21 literally as, “I find then the law, for me who wishes to do the good, that for me the evil lies ready to hand.” [16] In his section on “Form and Structure” of Romans 7:7-25 he states the following concerning translating this verse, “The usual rendering of nomon in vv. 21, 23 as ‘general rule’ or ‘principle’ ...not only obscures the point but actually distorts and abandons one of Paul’s major concerns, namely, to show that there is a function of the law in which it is the tool of sin and death, but that the law as the law of God is exempt from that charge.” Thus, he points out that in addition to Paul showing the fallacy of depending on the law for justification one ought not to consign the law to sin, to be redeemed from, and so without positive reference for the believer. [17] To assist the reader he gives the following outline to help clarify Paul’s defense of the law:
vv 7-13 first defense of the law: sin is the real culprit
vv 14-17 second defense of the law: blame is shifted from the law to the self and then again to sin.
vv 18-20 an explanation of how sin works (i) through the divided “I”
vv 21-23 and (ii) through the divided law.
In light of the above understanding of verse 21 we see that it does indeed refer to the law of Moses and that Paul’s point is that he wishes to do good but the law makes it clear to him that evil is not far away but waits to be aroused within him.
Because a Christian knows that he is not justified by the law but by the imputed righteousness of Christ he can say, “For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man,” (v. 22) whereas the unregenerate would curse God for requiring perfect obedience. But the Christian is not smug in his confidence of his new position in Christ for the work of sanctification is not done for he says, “…but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.” (v. 23) He desires to be obedient to Christ but there is another “law” which fights against him. This law is not “another,” in that it is numerically an additional law (allos nomos), but that it is a different kind of law (heteron nomos). This “different law” is not the Law of Moses but is the “law of sin.” Martin Luther, in his commentary on Romans, states that “the law of my mind” is love which is the spiritual law or spiritual nature which wars against the “law in my members” (the corruption of the flesh):
“That is to say, the evil desires war against the good desires. So there are two active laws (principles, or powers) that struggle in man for life and death. The Apostle speaks of himself as a warrior (divided) between two laws. But he is not defeated (by the evil lusts), as long as he does not surrender to them, as the carnal man does. Indeed the Apostle here shows that he (as a spiritual man) serves only one Law, while he resists the other.” [18]
Many see Paul’s epistle to the Romans as a sister epistle to the Galatians, both of which put a strong emphasis on justification by grace through faith apart from the works of the law. However, whereas Romans is primarily a doctrinal statement without any exhortations until chapter twelve, Galatians is a problem epistle dealing with the Judaizers who sought to undermine the Gospel of grace which Paul spelled out so clearly to the church at Rome. Many of the passages in Romans can be heard echoing in Galatians and chapter seven is no different as Paul’s writes in Galatians 5:17, “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.”
But how long will this war go on? Is there any hope of peace within this life? It is for this reason that Paul cries out, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?” (v. 24) Even though we have the imputed righteousness of Christ and are positionally in a right standing before God, when we look to the law of God we are convicted of our sin and in our desperation we desire to be free from our fallen bodies as they decay like a corpse just as Isaiah declared when he was confronted by the LORD, “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the LORD of host” (Isaiah 6:5). Paul goes on to say in Romans 8:22-23 that not only do we desire to be free from this body of death, but so does all of creation, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” We have the “first fruits of the Spirit,” the new inner man, but we await a new outer man, “the redemption of our bodies.”
The hope of the Christian is not that he will obtain perfection within this lifetime, nor is it in separation from the body in death as the Greek philosophers thought, but rather it is in the hope of glory, that is the resurrection of the body. It is this reason Paul declares, “ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.” (v. 25) This final statement settles this issue as to whether Paul is speaking as a Christian or a person in a preconverted state, whether as himself, a Jew, a Gentile, or humanity as a whole. How could an unregenerate person be giving thanks to Jesus Christ who says he is on one hand “serving the law of God, [which he can’t be doing] but on the other, with [his] flesh the law of sin?” This is why Luther declared that we are “simul justus et peccator” - simultaneously justified and yet sinful and that we remain in this tension until death.
Conclusion
What are the implications of chapter seven if we hold that it speaks of our current condition as Christians? Do we then therefore declare that to strive for perfection, that is sanctification, is futile since we can not actually be totally perfect? One of the problems with us is that we want everything in the here and now and are more concerned with arriving at the end than we are with the process. However, for God this is not so. He is long-suffering and is just as concerned with the means as He is with the end. Otherwise we would have created us in heaven already complete. However, if we go through life with trials, tribulations, and temptations then we learn obedience, as Christ did, and depend on Him rather than our own efforts.
We can then, rather than being frustrated, consider it all joy when we encounter various trials “knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance” (James 1:3-4) and that “No temptation has overtaken you but such is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10: 13). How is it that when we are confronted with temptation and sin that we are to escape and endure it? To escape something does not sound like we are sticking around to endure it. However, we are not delivered from temptation but we, if we learn to yield to the Spirit and allow the desires of the flesh to dominate, are given the power to over come it which we will do more and more until we are complete. But in the mean time we are not under the penalty of the law as the Apostle Paul concludes in chapter eight:
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did; sending His own Son in the likeness of the sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4)
Positionally it is as if we fulfilled the law, but Paul is now going to tell us how to live a sanctified life, not through the flesh which only leads to the frustration of chapter seven, but by the Spirit!
End Notes:
[1] Hendriksen, William “More Than Conquerors”. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House., 1967. p. 38
[2] Bruce, F.F. “The Letter of Paul to the Romans”. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1985. p. 137
[3 ] Ibid., p.137
[4] Kaseman, Ernst “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1980. p. 187
[5]Smock, George E. (Jed) “Walking in the Spirit: A Liberating Commentary on Romans 6, 7, and 8.” Newark, OH: The Campus Ministry U.S.A., 1992. pg. 1
[6] Finney, Charles “Finney’s Systematic Theology.” Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976. pg. 213
[7] Smock pg. 65
[8] Schaff, Philip (ed.) “A Select Library of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,” 14 Vols. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1979. 1:121.
[9] Luther, Martin “Commentary on Galatians.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. pg. 356- 58
[10] Walvoord, John “Five Views of Sanctification” (Chapter Five) Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. pg. 206.
[11] See Ernest C. Reisinger’s small booklet, “What Should We Think of ‘The Carnal Christian’?” The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992.
[12] Hodge, Charles “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. pg. 233.
[13] Stott, John R. W. “The Letters of John” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1988. pg. 130-31.
[14] Kittel, Gerhard. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Vol. VI.) Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1978. pg. 632.
[15] Hodge pg. 233.
[16] Dunn, James D. G. “Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8” (Vol. 38 A). Dallas: Word Books Pub., 1988. pg. 392.
[17] Ibid., pg. 376-77
[18] Luther, Martin, “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1976. pg. 114.
End Notes:
[1] Hendriksen, William “More Than Conquerors”. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House., 1967. p. 38
[2] Bruce, F.F. “The Letter of Paul to the Romans”. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1985. p. 137
[3 ] Ibid., p.137
[4] Kaseman, Ernst “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1980. p. 187
[5]Smock, George E. (Jed) “Walking in the Spirit: A Liberating Commentary on Romans 6, 7, and 8.” Newark, OH: The Campus Ministry U.S.A., 1992. pg. 1
[6] Finney, Charles “Finney’s Systematic Theology.” Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976. pg. 213
[7] Smock pg. 65
[8] Schaff, Philip (ed.) “A Select Library of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,” 14 Vols. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1979. 1:121.
[9] Luther, Martin “Commentary on Galatians.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. pg. 356- 58
[10] Walvoord, John “Five Views of Sanctification” (Chapter Five) Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. pg. 206.
[11] See Ernest C. Reisinger’s small booklet, “What Should We Think of ‘The Carnal Christian’?” The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992.
[12] Hodge, Charles “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. pg. 233.
[13] Stott, John R. W. “The Letters of John” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1988. pg. 130-31.
[14] Kittel, Gerhard. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Vol. VI.) Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1978. pg. 632.
[15] Hodge pg. 233.
[16] Dunn, James D. G. “Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8” (Vol. 38 A). Dallas: Word Books Pub., 1988. pg. 392.
[17] Ibid., pg. 376-77
[18] Luther, Martin, “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1976. pg. 114.
End Notes:
[1] Hendriksen, William “More Than Conquerors”. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House., 1967. p. 38
[2] Bruce, F.F. “The Letter of Paul to the Romans”. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1985. p. 137
[3 ] Ibid., p.137
[4] Kaseman, Ernst “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1980. p. 187
[5]Smock, George E. (Jed) “Walking in the Spirit: A Liberating Commentary on Romans 6, 7, and 8.” Newark, OH: The Campus Ministry U.S.A., 1992. pg. 1
[6] Finney, Charles “Finney’s Systematic Theology.” Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976. pg. 213
[7] Smock pg. 65
[8] Schaff, Philip (ed.) “A Select Library of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,” 14 Vols. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1979. 1:121.
[9] Luther, Martin “Commentary on Galatians.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. pg. 356- 58
[10] Walvoord, John “Five Views of Sanctification” (Chapter Five) Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. pg. 206.
[11] See Ernest C. Reisinger’s small booklet, “What Should We Think of ‘The Carnal Christian’?” The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992.
[12] Hodge, Charles “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. pg. 233.
[13] Stott, John R. W. “The Letters of John” Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1988. pg. 130-31.
[14] Kittel, Gerhard. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Vol. VI.) Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1978. pg. 632.
[15] Hodge pg. 233.
[16] Dunn, James D. G. “Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8” (Vol. 38 A). Dallas: Word Books Pub., 1988. pg. 392.
[17] Ibid., pg. 376-77
[18] Luther, Martin, “Commentary on Romans.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1976. pg. 114.