Verse 25
The solution to this dilemma is not escape from temptation but victory over it.
"The source of Paul’s wretchedness is clear. It is not a ’divided self’ [i.e., old nature versus new nature], but the fact that the last hope of mankind, religion, has proven to be a broken reed. Through sin it is no longer a comfort but an accusation. Man needs not a law but deliverance." [Note: Barrett, p. 151.]
The last part of this verse is another summary. "I myself" contrasts with "Jesus Christ." Apparently Paul wanted to state again the essence of the struggle that he had just described to prepare his readers for the grand deliverance that he expounded in the next chapter.
There are two problems involving the interpretation of chapter 7 that merit additional attention. The first is this. Was Paul relating his own unique experience, or was he offering his own struggle as an example of something everyone experiences? Our experience would lead us to prefer the latter alternative, and the text supports it. Certainly Paul must have undergone this struggle, since he said he did. However every human being does as well because we all possess some knowledge of the law of God, natural (general) revelation if not special revelation or the Mosaic Law, and a sinful human nature.
The second question is this. Does the struggle Paul described in Romans 7:14-25 picture the experience of an unsaved person or a Christian?
| Arguments for the unsaved view |
| Pro | Con | ||
| 1. | This was the most popular view among the early church fathers. | Other views held by the fathers have since proved false. | |
| 2. | The terminology "of flesh" or "unspiritual," and "sold into bondage to sin" or "sold as a slave to sin" (Romans 7:14) fits an unbeliever better than a Christian. | These are appropriate terms to use in describing the Christian’s relationship to his or her sinful human nature. | |
| 3. | If Romans 7:14-25 describes Christians, it conflicts with how Paul described them in Romans 6:3. | Two different relationships of the Christian are in view in these two passages. In chapter 6 our relationship to sin is in view, but in chapter 7 it is our relationship to our human nature. | |
| 4. | Romans 8:1 marks a change from dealing with the unsaved to the saved condition. | Romans 8:1 marks a transition from the domination of the sinful human nature to deliverance through Jesus Christ. | |
| 5. | The absence of references to the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, except in Romans 7:25, shows that an unsaved person is in view here. | Paul’s argument did not require these references since the conflict in view is between the law and the flesh (human nature). |
| Arguments for the saved view |
| Pro | Con | ||
| 1. | Augustine and the Reformers held this view. | Older support by the church fathers favors the other view. | |
| 2. | The change from past tense in Romans 7:7-13 to present tense in Romans 7:14-25 indicates that Romans 7:14-25 describe Paul’s post-conversion experience. | Paul used the present tense in Romans 7:14-25 for vividness of expression. | |
| 3. | If Paul described his pre-Christian life here, he contradicted what he said of it in Philippians 3:6. | In Philippians 3 Paul described his standing before other people, but here he described his relationship to God. | |
| 4. | The argument of the epistle proceeds from justification (chs. 3-5) to sanctification (chs. 6-8). | In chapter 6 Paul also referred to preconversion experience (Romans 6:6; Romans 6:8). | |
| 5. | The conflict is true to Christian experience. | It is only apparently characteristic of Christian experience since the Christian is dead to sin. | |
| 6. | The last part of Romans 7:25 implies that this conflict continues after one acknowledges that deliverance comes through Jesus Christ. | The end of Romans 7:25 is only a final summary statement. |
As mentioned previously, I believe the evidence for the saved view is stronger, as do many others. [Note: E.g., MacArthur, pp. 123-38; Cranfield, 1:365-70; Witmer, p. 467; and Bruce, pp. 140-47. Moo, pp. 442-51, has a good discussion of the problem, but he concluded that Paul was describing his own experience as a typical unregenerate Israelite. For another interpretation, see Walt Russell, "Insights from Postmodernism’s Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):511-27.]
The conflict described in Romans 7:13-25 is not the same one that Paul presented in Galatians 5:16-23. The opponent of the sinful human nature in Romans 7 is the whole Christian individual, but in Galatians 5 it is the Holy Spirit. The condition of the believer in Romans is under the Law, but in Galatians it is under Law or grace. The result of the conflict in Romans is inevitable defeat, but in Galatians it is defeat or victory. The nature of the conflict in Romans is abnormal Christian experience, but in Galatians it is normal Christian experience. [Note: See Stanley D. Toussaint, "The Contrast Between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5," Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14; and Bruce, p. 144.]
This chapter is very important for several reasons. It corrects the popular idea that our struggle with sin is only against specific sins and habits whereas it is also against our basic human nature. Second, it shows that human nature is not essentially good but bad. Third, it argues that progressive sanctification does not come by obeying laws, a form of legalism called nomism, but apart from law. It also proves that doing right requires more than just determining to do it. All these insights are necessary for us to appreciate what Paul proceeded to explain in chapter 8.
Related to the question of the believer’s relationship to the law is the subject of legalism.
"Legalism is that fleshly attitude which conforms to a code in order to glorify self. It is not the code itself. Neither is it participation or nonparticipation. It is the attitude with which we approach the standards of the code and ultimately the God who authored it." [Note: Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, p. 120.]
Legalism also involves judging the behavior of ourselves, or others, as acceptable or unacceptable to God by the standard of obedience to laws that we, rather than God, have imposed. Someone else has defined legalism (really nomism) as the belief that I can obtain justification and or sanctification simply by obeying rules.
| Some Results of Our Union with Christ in Romans 6, 7 |
| Chapter | Six | Seven |
| Subject | The believer’s relationship to sin | The believer’s relationship to the Law |
| Our former condition | Enslavement to sin(cf. Romans 6:1-11) | Obligation to the Law(cf. Romans 7:1-6) |
| Our present condition | No longer slaves of sin(cf. Romans 6:12-14) | No longer obligated to keep the Law (cf. Romans 7:7-12) |
| Our present danger | Becoming slaves to sin by yielding to it (cf. Romans 6:15-18) | Becoming incapable of overcoming the flesh by trying to keep the Law(cf. Romans 7:13-24) |
| Our present responsibility | Present ourselves to God and our members as His instruments (cf. Romans 6:19-23) | Trust and obey God who alone can enable us to overcome the flesh(cf. Romans 7:25 ff) |
Be the first to react on this!
