• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• CHAPTER 1. Perverting the Gospel - The Ultimate Sin Against Humanity
• CHAPTER 2. The Gospel of Salvation - Part I - Faith and Obedience
• CHAPTER 3. The Gospel of Salvation - Part II - A Righteous Life by Faith
• CHAPTER 4. Regeneration: God's Creation of the Righteous
• CHAPTER 5. Sanctification: Set Apart for Righteousness
• CHAPTER 6. The Neccesity of Coming Under the Lordship of Christ - Part I
• CHAPTER 7. The Neccesity of Coming Under the Lordship of Christ - Part II
• CHAPTER 8. We Walk By Faith - Part I - Every Believer Overcomes the World
• CHAPTER 9. We Walk By Faith - Part II - Every Believer Takes up Their Cross
• CHAPTER 10. The Fallacy of the "Carnal Christian"
• CHAPTER 11. Bear or Burn: The Fate of the Fruitless in the Parables of Christ
• CHAPTER 12. Righteousness vs. Self-righteousness
• CHAPTER 13. Saint or Sinner?
• CHAPTER 14. Can a Christian Backslide?
• CHAPTER 15. Sin and the Misinterpretation of Romans 7
• CHAPTER 16. Examine Yourselves as to Whether You Are in the Faith

Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross

Grk/Heb Fonts

Over 75 Online Commentaries

by James P. Shelly

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Sin and the Misinterpretation of Romans 7

When considering the topic of sin in the life of a Christian, Romans 7:14-25, interpreted as a believer, is the passage most often used to support its prevalence within the church. Without question, this interpretation of the passage has had a significant influence on the extent to which sin is accepted as normative in the life of the believer. Paul’s use of the present tense “I,” which we will address later in this chapter, has led many to assume that Paul is referring to himself in his present state as a Christian. He says in vv. 18-19, “For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (emphasis added). The NASB renders it “I practice the very evil that I do not want.” Many would argue then that if Paul, one of the most eminent and notable saints in the history of the church, is speaking of himself as a Christian, what more are we to expect from the so-called common and ordinary Christian? However, what if this interpretation is incorrect and Paul is not speaking of himself as a Christian? Where then do we look in Scripture to defend the prevalence of sin that Paul describes in the life of a believer? We would search in vain as we do not find it expressed or descriptive of the life of any of the redeemed in all of Scripture. What we do find is “that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning” (1 Jn. 5:18), which is in perfect agreement with what Paul taught when not using Romans 7:14-25 as an exception. God only knows how many thousands of professing Christians have used Paul’s words to defend the regularity of sin in their own life, the consequence of which should not be underestimated. Therefore, we would ask that the reader will take the time to seriously and prayerfully consider the arguments presented in this chapter, in coming to a correct understanding of this most important passage of Scripture as the implications can be of immense significance. As one has said, “The interpretation of Romans 7:14-24 is a watershed issue. If you have the conventional understanding of that passage you may use it to argue against the truth that it is possible for the true Christian to live a holy and obedient life…. The difference in understanding could mean salvation on the one hand or damnation on the other.”¹

That Christians struggle with sin, and that there are times of stumbling, few would disagree. We have examples in Scripture of even the godliest of saints falling into grievous sin. Most would identify to some degree with what Paul describes in Romans 7. There can be no doubt that a Christian feels a sense of his own wretchedness when he contrasts his own sin-stained flesh with that of a thrice holy God. Indeed, we are all, as Christians, engaged in a battle against fleshly lusts that war against the soul (1 Pet. 2:11). However, this is not the issue. The issue is, what is Paul describing in Romans 7:14-25? In answering that Paul is speaking of something other than what is to be the typical Christian experience in no way suggests, as some have implied, any kind of perfectionism.

It should be of interest to the reader that Romans 7 was never interpreted as a believer in the first 300 years of the Christian church. Adam Clarke, writes:

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the church, or prevailed there, that the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state. This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character…. That all that is said in this chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, no man can doubt: that what is here said can ever be with propriety applied to Paul the Apostle, who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here said would be monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous.²

Dr. Daniel Steele writes,

The best scholarship discredits this chapter as the photograph of a regenerated man. The Greek Fathers, during the first three hundred years of church history, unanimously interpreted this scripture as describing a thoughtful moralist endeavoring, without the grace of God, to realize his highest ideal of moral purity. Augustine, to rob his opponent Pelagius of the two proof-texts, originated the theory that the seventh of Romans delineated a regenerate man.³

Professor Tholuck says,

The more ancient teachers of the church had unanimously explained it of the man who has not yet become a Christian, nor is upheld in the struggle by the Spirit of Christ. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theodoret.⁴

Joseph Agar Beet writes,

Among those who reject this teaching [a regenerate man in vv. 14-25], the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of note that this is the earlier opinion, and was accepted by nearly all who spoke as their mother-tongue the language in which this epistle was written⁵(emphasis added).

Daniel R. Jennings states,

In analyzing the early Christian understanding of Romans 7 it has become very clear that the early church did not understand this passage to teach the necessity of sin in believers, usually attributing to it the interpretation that it was a man who was striving to please God under the Law of Moses. In fact this interpretation was so prevalent that when discussing this passage around 415AD, Pelagius (c.350-c.420?) could write in his now lost work entitled ‘In Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will,’ which is preserved by Augustine in ‘On The Grace Of Christ And On Original Sin’ [1:43] that ‘that which you wish us to understand of the apostle himself, all church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one who was still under the law’.... Augustine, in his attempt to refute this statement of Pelagius, was unable to offer any church writers who disagreed with Pelagius.⁶

In interpreting Romans 7, it is imperative that we appreciate the context and the way in which Paul constructs each of his arguments in Romans 6, and 7. When we lay out the systematic formula Paul uses in presenting his argument, which is often overlooked, we believe what Paul is seeking to communicate in this passage becomes self-explanatory. Walt Russell in the “Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society” gives an overview of the context as follows:

Within the struggle between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome…he made some statements that must have raised concern among his fellow Jewish Christians. In particular he asserted that the gospel (not Torah) is both the power of God and the righteousness of God that is presently being revealed (1:16-17; 3:21-23). He leveled the ground under both Jewish and Gentile peoples in 2:11-16 by emphasizing doing the Law, not just possessing it. He also asserted that by works of the Law would no flesh be justified (3:19-20). Paul also spoke of the Law bringing wrath (4:13-16) and being introduced so that transgression might increase (5:20). The most disturbing thing that Paul may have said, however, was that sin was master over his readers when they were under Torah, but that mastery had now been broken because they are now under grace, not Torah (6:14).... Romans 7 is, in fact, Paul’s clarification to the Jewish Christians in Rome about what role Torah is to play in the restraining of God’s people from sinning. This topic had been rhetorically introduced in Rom 6:1. The issue is ‘What restrains God’s people from sinning willfully?’⁷

For many of the Jews, their answer would be “the Law.” “The time had now arrived for Paul to address this issue of the present role of the Mosaic Law in the life of God’s people in a straightforward and systematic manner.”⁸ Paul presents four arguments in chapters 6 and 7 beginning each argument with a rhetorical question, followed by an emphatic denial, a short answer, and then a further explanation of the short answer.⁹ He repeats this exact pattern with each of his arguments. His use of the Greek words, ti oun and me genoito, as we will show later, have historical significance as well.

Romans 6:1

1st Rhetorical question - What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Strong denial - By no means! (Me genoito):
Short answer - How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
Further explanation - Romans 6:3-14

Romans 6:15

2nd Rhetorical question - What then (ti oun)? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
Emphatic denial - By no means! (Me ‎‎genoito)
Short answer - Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Further explanation - Romans 6:17-7:6

Romans 7:7

3rd Rhetorical question - What shall we say then? Is the law sin?
Emphatic denial - By no means! (Me ‎‎genoito)
Short answer - Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Further explanation - Romans 7:8-12

Romans 7:13

4th Rhetorical question - Did that which is good, then, bring death to me?
Emphatic denial - By no means! (Me ‎‎genoito)
Short answer - It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
Further explanation - Romans 7:14-25

Paul does indeed give a further explanation in Romans 7:14-25 of the short answer he gives in verse 13, by demonstrating how sin produces death through the holy, good, and just law, and how through the law or commandment it becomes sinful beyond measure. The purpose of which is to lead one to Christ. If we read the passage with this in mind, we think it becomes clear.

[Rhetorical question:] Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! [Short answer] It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. [Further explanation of short answer] ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ¹⁷ So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ²¹ So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²² For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ²³ but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

It is important to note that v. 14 begins with the conjunction “for” (gar) which should leave no doubt, considering Paul’s systematic method, that what follows is a continuation of, and response to, the question in v. 13. The only thought in Paul’s mind in vv. 14-25 is in answering the question, “Has then what is good become death to me?” giving a further explanation of his short answer, “It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” Paul uses a rhetorical device, which we will address shortly, which personifies his short answer. In other words, he gives a practical illustration in vv. 14-25, of how the law was intended for the purpose that sin might be shown to be sin, to lay bare the wretched condition of the heart, the consequent death, and the desperate need of a Savior whereby we receive a new heart indwelt by the Spirit that we might “serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” which he expounds in Romans 8.

In the beginning of this same chapter, verse 5, Paul gives us a one-sentence description of precisely what he expresses in extended form in vv. 14-25; “For while we were living in the flesh (compare v. 14), our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members (vv. 15-23) to bear fruit for death (v. 25).” That is a condensed version of what is described of the man in vv. 14-25 is it not? Yet, it is agreed by all that verse 5 is referring to the unregenerate. Then in verse 6, we read, “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code,” which is a condensed version of what is further expounded in Chapter 8 v.2-5, “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death,” etc. Romans 7:14-25 is a practical depiction of the law of sin and death in operation. Paul is describing a man “of the flesh” confronted with the task of having to keep a spiritual law, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.” He is “of the flesh,” under a spiritual law and therefore finds that he does not have “the ability to carry it out” and consequently “cannot please God.” As he says in Romans 8:8, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” which is precisely what Romans 7:14-25 portrays. The only remedy being that of a spiritual birth (Jn. 3:7). Robertson’s Word Pictures comments;

This helpless state of the unregenerate man Paul has shown above apart from Christ [vv. 14-24]. Hope lies in Christ (Rom 7:25) and the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2). Cannot please God - Because of the handicap of the lower self in bondage to sin. This does not mean that the sinner has no responsibility and cannot be saved. He is responsible and can be saved by the change of heart through the Holy Spirit.¹⁰

It is evident in vv. 14-25 that the Apostle is not describing periodic episodes of failure in this struggle with sin, but of one who is entirely defeated by it and finds that he has no ability to overcome it. But, in Romans 8, we find that God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do… in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:3, 4). As one has said,

“To run and work the law commands
Yet gives me neither feet nor hands; (Romans 7)
But better news the gospel brings;
It bids me fly and gives me wings” (Romans 8)

Now in Christ, we are “in the Spirit,” being “led by the Spirit,” “no longer under the [Mosaic] Law” (Gal. 5:18), but “the law of the Spirit” (Rom, 8:2) written on the heart. Thus, being born of the Spirit, we do indeed have the ability to carry out obedience to the Spiritual law and do those things which are pleasing to God (1 John 3:22, Heb. 13:21, 2 Cor. 5:9). For the “law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly” (1 Tim. 1:9). The law is not made for the righteous in that they are now governed by a faith that works through love. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). For, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10). “And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments” (2 Jn. 1:6). “Whoever does not love abides in death” (1 Jn. 3:14). The one who loves has no need of a law telling him not to cheat his neighbor, steal from him, or commit adultery with his wife, for these are contrary to love. If a person desires to lie, cheat, steal, kill, lust, covet, etc., and only restrains these evil impulses in fear of the criminal or social consequences of breaking the law, would we consider that person righteous? No, they are evil, regardless of the extent to which they might restrain such inclinations. Therefore, God says, “wash your heart from evil, that you may be saved” (Jer. 4:14), “not merely abstain outwardly from wickedness, but renounce the evil desires of the heart,”¹¹ and again, Christ says, “First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean” (Matt. 23:26). The hidden person of the heart is who a person is, and although the law has the ability to expose the heart, it has no power to reform it. On the other hand, the Spirit not only exposes it but does indeed reform it “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). In 1 Timothy 1:9, Paul is saying in essence, the law is not made for the regenerate who have a “faith activated and energized and expressed and working through love” (Gal. 5:6, amplified), but for the unloving, selfish, self-centered person, still in the flesh, who needs the written law to restrain the evil inclinations of their sin prone hearts. In Romans 7 he is describing how the law was to function in exposing the latter that it might lead to the former. Luther wrote;

There is a law, of course, but it does not apply to those who bear these fruits of the Spirit. The Law is not given for the righteous man. A true Christian conducts himself in such a way that he does not need any law to warn or to restrain him. He obeys the Law without compulsion. The Law does not concern him. As far as he is concerned there would not have to be any Law.¹²

Luther nevertheless interpreted Romans 7 as a regenerate man, which would seem to contradict this statement at almost every point.

One of the primary reasons for misinterpreting Roman 7:14-25 is the presupposition that Paul is speaking of himself, in his present state as a Christian, because of his use of the present tense “I” throughout that passage. However, there is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that this is not the case. In “Paul’s letter to the Romans: a socio-rhetorical commentary” the author comments on Paul’s use of rhetoric in Romans;

Paul uses diatribal form especially in Rom. 2.1-6.17-24; 3.1-9. 3:27-4.25; 9.19-21; 10.14-21; 11.17-24; 14.4, 10¹³ Among characteristic element of diatribe we see in Romans are dramatic exclamations such as me genoito (certainly not!) (3.4, 6.31; 6.2, 15; 7.7, 13; 9.14; 11.1, 11)¹⁴ and the language of drawing inferences - for example, ti oun, ‘what then?’ (3.1. 9; 4.1; 6.1, 15; 7.7; 8.31; 9.14, 30; 11.7)…The careful and competent use of rhetoric and the diatribal style is part of his means to establish his authority and ethos in relationship to an audience that lives in a rhetoric-saturated environment and so persuade them on a whole variety of things ranging from his gospel to his mission to the collection, and also in regard to their own beliefs and behavior¹⁵…. Furthermore, by the use of this distancing technique, Paul could more successfully critique his audience and their flaws in reason and praxis. Thus Paul can set about the business of ‘discriminating undesirable attitudes or sentiments through a fictive device, without directly confronting (and possibly alienating) the real audience.¹⁶ Failure to recognize that Paul is using such rhetorical techniques in Romans has led to all sorts of false conclusions, for example, that he is combating actual Jewish or Judaizing opponents in his audience¹⁷ or that he is describing himself and his struggles as a Christian in ch. 7.¹⁸

In his book “Paul and Epictetus on Law,”¹⁹ Niko Huttunen “displays Paul’s interpretation of the Torah with Stoic methods (1 Cor. 7-9), asserts that in some passages (Rom. 1-2 and Rom. 7) Paul’s thinking is Stoic, not Platonic and demonstrates that Paul’s famous “I” passage (Rom. 7:7-25) owes much to Stoic anthropology and psychology. Where the latter is concerned Huttunen suggests that Epictetus’ use of the first person presents a good analogy for Paul’s employment of “I” as a rhetorical device.”²⁰

“It has been recognized at least since the time of Origen and Chrysostom that Paul uses a variety of rhetorical figures and techniques in this discourse, including dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor (in diatribal format) as has been amply demonstrated by S. Stowers, “A rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles.”²¹ Quintilian, a younger Roman contemporary of Paul was a prominent Roman professor of rhetoric and is known for teaching his students “impersonation” or “character making” (prosopopoiia)²² “Given ancient reading and writing practices, Paul’s education level, and the nature of Graeco-Roman education and rhetoric, it is almost certain that Paul received instruction in and employed prosopopoiia.”²³

In the Discourses of Epictetus,²⁴ AD 55-AD 135, we can see the similarities with that of Paul’s rhetorical style in Romans,

What then (Ti oun)? Do I take away these faculties which you possess? By no means (me genoito)!; for neither do I take away the faculty of seeing. But if you ask me what is good of man, I cannot mention to you anything else than it is a certain disposition of the will with respect to appearances. 1.8

What then (Ti oun), is freedom madness? Certainly not (me genoito): for madness and freedom do not consist. ‘But,’ you say, ‘I would have everything result just as I like, and in whatever way I like.’ You are mad, you are beside yourself. Do you not know that freedom is a noble and valuable thing? 1.12. What thenis the nature of God? Flesh? Certainly not. An estate in land? By no means. 2.8

What then (Ti oun)? am I such a man? Certainly not (me genoito). And are you such a man as can listen to the truth? I wish you were. 3.1

But the other thing is something, to study how a man can rid his life of lamentation and groaning, and saying, ‘Woe to me,’ and ‘wretched that I am,’ and to rid it also of misfortune and disappointment and to learn what death…1.4

“Learning to modulate between prose and poetry and actual or archetypal characters was critical to the student of elementary Greek.”²⁵ “Paul’s general level of Greek education was equivalent to a student with a primary education in grammaticus, or ‘teacher of letters.’”²⁶ “The instructor of letters would assist the student in composing a letter by means of asking what questions an imaginary sophist might ask the student. This rhetorical device is called speech-in-character ‘because it involves the creation of speech that fits the character of some legendary, historical or type of a person’”²⁷

In the book “Paul in His Hellenistic Context” it states,

Speech-in-character (prosopopoiia) is a rhetorical and literary technique in which the speaker or writer produces speech that represents not himself or herself but another person or type of character.... Paul employs this technique in Romans 7.7-25.... I arrived at my conclusion that 7.7-25 was an example of prosopopoiia after studying the ancient rhetororical and grammatical sources. I subsequently discovered that Origen had already reached the same conclusion in the third century. Origen’s discussion both provides evidence for 7.7-25 as speech-in-character and illuminates the development of an orthodox Christian reading of the passage.²⁸

It is stated in “Paul and the Wretched Man” that, J. I. Packer “dismisses the rhetorical argument of the historical present.”²⁹ Yet, he fails to address prosopopoiia. Packer, Dunn et. al. appear to object primarily on the grounds that Paul speaks so personally and with such angst. Yet, this is the very feature that makes this rhetorical device work with its readers.³⁰ It is provocative, interesting and easily grabs the reader’s attention. Even though Paul has stated that it is the gospel that is the power of God for salvation, he never-the-less uses rhetoric that appeals to his Gentile and Jewish readers.”³¹ The Believers church Bible Commentary states,

The diatribe in 7:7-25 personifies the abstract — Adam/Israel, law, Sin — to explain the law’s inability to overcome Sin…The change of tenses between vv. 7-12 and 14-25 does not argue against such an interpretation. Verb tenses can indicate time, but also aspect or condition. Verses 7-12 narrate an event in the past; vv. 14-25 describe a condition or state…such descriptions of both event and ongoing state are not unusual in Jewish prayer and confessional literature (e.g., Isa. 63:5-12; Jer. 3:22b-25; Ezra 9:5-15; Jos. Asen. 12:1-13; Tob. 3:1-6; Bar. 1:15-3:8; 1QH 1:21-27; 3:19-29; 11:9-10).³²

In Song’s “Reading Romans as a Diatribe” he says,

One needs to be very careful not to rush to interpret ‘I’ as Paul himself. In this regard, the characteristic rhetorical mode of chapter 7 should be fully appreciated; that is, a distinct diatribe marker, the me genoito formula, is key. The two me genoito formula cover quite an extensive amount of the argumentation in chapter 7. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to read the chapter in question in the fully diatribe mode, accepting the ‘I’ as a representative ‘I.’³³

“If we review the use of ‘flesh’ language in Qumran, for instance, we find a possible link to Paul’s ‘I’ style in Romans 7.³⁴ In Qumran, ‘flesh’ language is indicative of the creatureliness of humanity, and has the negative connotations which are apparent in Paul’s use of the term savrx (sarx, flesh) in Romans 7.7-9. The frustrating effect of ‘fleshliness’ is vividly portrayed in Qumran literature in a manner that closely parallels Paul’s conviction of the inadequacy of the flesh.³⁵ Kuhn notes that ‘In the Qumran setting, the ‘I’ represents the human existence as ‘flesh’ in the sense of man’s belonging to the sphere of the power of the ungodly’”³⁶

So then, there is extensive evidence to show that the “I” of Romans 7:14-25 does not require, and is certainly not limited to, the interpretation that Paul is speaking of his own person in the present. It is clear as well that in the early church the acceptance of this understanding of the non-personal use of the “I” was, evidently, not met with any opposition in regards to it being a grammatically valid interpretation. Even Augustine, in his dispute with Pelagius, apparently never used a grammatical argument regarding the present tense use of the “I” in Romans 7 to drive home his point. Therefore, it is the context of the passage that becomes the primary factor in determining the identity of the “I.”

It would seem entirely out of place in the context of Paul’s argument in Ch. 6 and 7, to enter into a discussion about his own personal struggle with sin as a Christian, as one under the law. For it seems rather apparent that he is arguing just the opposite. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” By no means! Paul says we shall not continue in sin. “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” He says we are not under law. Vv. 14-25 is a man under law! “What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” V. 16, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Would it not seem strange that Paul would then follow with a personal testimony in essence saying, “That said; now let me tell you about my own experience as a Christian as I continue in sin, as a slave to sin, sold under sin, under the law. How confusing would this be to his readers, after making these declarations, to affirm that his own Christian experience is in direct opposition to them? Furthermore, why, when addressing the question, “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me?” as has been shown, would he answer with a diatribe concerning a Christian’s struggle with sin under the law which does not answer the question? It would be entirely out of context. Russell writes,

Is it really likely that Paul can be describing the experience of Christians when he describes the person of 7:14 as being ‘of flesh, sold into bondage to sin’? This is particularly difficult to accept following the robust declaration of the opposite in Romans 6: Christians are freed from sin’s bondage (6:2, 4, 6-7, 11, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22). Additionally, Paul follows the morose description of spiritual bondage and impotence in 7:7-25 with an equally antithetical statement of the Christians ‘freedom from sin’s bondage in Romans 8 (e.g. vv. 2 - 4 , 9, 11, 12-13). Is the apostle swinging schizophrenically between contradictory descriptions of the spiritual state of Christians? Is he ‘nuancing’ the freedom from sin that he asserts Christians possess in Romans 6 and 8 by stating that they really do not possess such freedom at all in Romans 7? I find such explanations both untenable and unconvincing.³⁷

The NIV translates Romans 7:14 as, “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin,” which makes it clearly evident that Paul is not describing his own experience as a Christian. However, it is equally apparent that he is not describing his own experience typical of a pharisaical Jew under the law. For he says of himself, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, that he was blameless (Phil. 3:6). The Pulpit Commentary states,

He was not only a Pharisee, but an energetic, zealous Pharisee; he carried out the principles of his sect, thinking that he did God service by persecuting those whom he counted as heretics. Touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless. As far as ‘the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees’ went, the righteousness which is ‘in Law,’ which consists, that is, in the observance of formal rules; or which is ‘of Law’ (ver. 9), which springs, that is, from such observance, St. Paul was found blameless.³⁸

Paul says in Romans 10:1-3,

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

So then, the experience of the man in Romans 7 was not typical of the generality of the Jews under the law. In their ignorance of the righteousness of God in the law, they perceived themselves as righteous; not defeated and condemned, as the man in Romans 7.

Therefore, it is apparent that the “I” in Romans 7:14-25 is representative of those under the Law, however, with the qualification that the “I” is viewing the Law through the lens of the gospel. With a spiritually enlightened understanding of its true function and purpose; “that sin might be shown to be sin” — “through the law comes knowledge of sin” — “living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death” — “our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian (Gal. 3:21-25).

The word “guardian” or “tutor” in this passage is an often-misunderstood word. The word in the Greek is paidagwgov “pedagogue.” William Hendriksen explains its meaning as follows:

In the figure here used the ‘pedagogue’ is the man — generally a slave — in whose custody the slave-owners boys were placed, in order that this trusted servant might conduct them to and from school, and might, in fact, watch over their conduct throughout the day. He was, accordingly, an escort or attendant, and also at the same time a disciplinarian. The discipline which he exercised was often of a severe character, so that those placed under his guardianship would yearn for the day of freedom. And, as has been shown, that was exactly the function which the law had performed. It had been of a preparatory and disciplinary nature, readying the hearts of those under its tutelage for the eager acceptance of the gospel of justification by faith in Christ.³⁹

In an article entitled, “Is the Law Our Tutor that Leads Us to Christ?” Tom Eckman, after quoting Hendriksen’s explanation above writes,

From this explanation, two of the more salient features of ‘pedagogue’ have been brought out: (1) the fact that this servant was in charge of discipline and punishment, and (2) that the relationship between the servant and the child was of a temporary nature. The relationship would continue until the child came to the point where he was considered a ‘son,’ and then the relationship was brought to an end as the son was brought into direct relationship with his father.... Paul makes it clear that the condition for entrance into this ‘sonship’ was faith.... These two components of ‘pedagogue’ are consistent with what has been seen in the other terms or concepts given for Law...the Law is seen as essentially negative from the perspective of the recipient, as well as temporary, until something better was established…. This term has as a component (because of the nature of a servant in a household) the concept of inferiority.40Put another way, the father is seen as superior to the ‘pedagogue.’ The father is the one who has the final authority over the situation, including the ‘pedagogue.’ The father is the one who enlists the services of the pedagogue until the father pronounces the child a ‘son’…. From these features, it can be seen through metaphor that Paul’s theology concerning the Law was that the Mosaic Law was: 1. essentially negative (in keeping with the context), 2. temporary (has an end), and 3. a hindrance to a direct relationship with the father.... Many today would object to saying that once a person becomes a believer, they no longer have any relationship to the Law. Would this not result in disobedience and possibly even anarchy? The same question could be asked of the new son, who has ended his relationship to his ‘pedagogue’ in order to enter into a direct relationship with his father. The newfound joy of communion with the father would make the ‘pedagogue’ not only unnecessary, but also a hindrance. Which one truly serves as the better motivation for holiness? Paul expected his readers to make a choice!⁴¹

Romans 7:14-25 provides us with an illustration of how God’s spiritual law is intended to function in the heart of fallen man — to expose his weakness, incapacity, and helplessness — stripping him of all self-reliance and self-righteousness (those seeking to establish their own righteousness) — overcoming his ignorance of the righteousness of God in the law — bringing him under conviction of sin and into utter despair over his inability to overcome it “in the flesh,” resulting in the desperate cry, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (NASB). It is as the publican who “would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” (Luke 18:13). But thanks be to God, for although he who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34) (the “I” in vv. 14-25), whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36, Rom. 6:7 and Rom. 8:2). They are then born of the Spirit, walk according to the Spirit, and bear the fruit of the Spirit (Romans 8). And now, being led by the Spirit, they are no longer under the law (unlike the “I” in Romans 7), for the Law’s function as a “pedagogue” and guide to prepare them for the reception of Christ is realized and is now therefore no longer necessary in that role. In other words, Paul is affirming that God’s loving and merciful purpose in introducing his holy, just, and good law, was not as a means of justification in itself, but rather the means of leading men to an understanding of their need and reception of the true means of justification and sanctification, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, Paul vindicates his seemingly negative statements in reference to the Law by demonstrating that far from being that which only leads to sin and death, it was, in its intended function, that which leads, ultimately, to life and peace in the Spirit. As it is written, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Therefore, Paul makes known the power and sufficiency of God’s Law in its ability to expose and convict of sin, while at the same time he shows its insufficiency in that it has no power inherent in itself to enable one to overcome it. In other words, apart from the Spirit, the law is a dead letter. The law written on stone can reveal to us what love and reverence consist of, instructing us “to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Rom. 7:18). As someone has said, “A mirror can show us how dirty we are but we don’t then try to wash off the dirt with the mirror.” For, “by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:16). The law must be written on our hearts by God Himself, creating that love and reverence within, born anew of His Spirit, that we might serve and worship Him in Spirit and truth, with His enabling power “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). Until that great transformation takes place, we can serve the law of God with the mind, but with the flesh we will serve the law of sin. In short, Romans 7 and 8 demonstrate the truth found in 2 Corinthians 3:6, “the letter kills” (Rom. 7), “but the Spirit gives life” (Rom. 8). Russell writes,

To heighten the contrast between life in the flesh/under the Mosaic covenant (7:5/7:7-25) and life in the Spirit/under the new covenant (7:6/8:1-17), Paul scrupulously avoids any mention of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in 7:7-25. It is not that the Spirit was not involved in the life of God’s people during the whole Mosaic Law era. Reading the OT testifies to his presence and ministry in the life of Israel. But the old-covenant era is not characterized by the work of the Holy Spirit like the new-covenant era is (e.g. Ezek 36:24-27). Rather, by contrast, the old-covenant era is characterized by Paul as an era of bodily frailty and weakness. The tandem term to ‘Law’ that Paul uses to express this frailty is ‘flesh’ (sarx). The Law era was the flesh era, and Paul uses these two terms interchangeably throughout these types of discussion (e.g. Rom 8:3-4; cf. Gal 5:16-18). Therefore to be under the Mosaic Law was to be ‘in the flesh.’ The believer in Jesus Christ has been delivered from both the authority of the Law and from the frailty of the sphere of the flesh.... In contexts such as Romans 7-8 and Galatians 3-6, which center on the classification of the contrast between the old and new covenants for Jewish Christians, ‘flesh/Law’ and ‘Spirit’ are representative of these respective covenants/eras. This is why Paul can definitively state in Rom 8:9 that Christians have their identity in the sphere or era of the Spirit, not in the sphere or era of the flesh. One cannot have it both ways…Our lives are not to be characterized primarily by human frailty but by divine enablement. These are classic Pauline distinctions, and he is remarkably consistent in his usage of this antithesis between flesh and Spirit. This is why Paul’s statement in 7:14b (‘but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin’) cannot possibly be true of the new-covenant believer.⁴²

Another argument put forth in favor of the view that Paul is speaking of a regenerate man in Romans 7:14-25 is found in v. 22,

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being.

Many have argued that the term “inner being”, “inward man” in the NKJV, in v. 22, could only be in reference to a Christian. They mistakenly equate “inward man” with “new man.” It says in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.” However, this passage does not imply that the unbeliever does not have an “inward man” but rather the distinction is that the believer’s “inward man” is being renewed day by day whereas in the unbeliever it remains corrupt. Even as Romans 12:2, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (NASB), does not suggest that the unbeliever does not have a ‘mind,’ but only that, apart from the Spirit, there is no transformation and renewal. In Eph 3:16 it shows that the inward man is that part of the believer wherein he receives power through God’s Holy Spirit. Again, it says nothing to imply that the unbeliever does not have an inward man. A. Andrew Das in Solving the Romans Debate, writes,

Robert Gundry, in his study of Pauline anthropology, explained that “‘inner man’ should not be equated with ‘new man’ (Eph. 2:15, 4:24; Col. 3:10) and ‘outer man’ should not be equated with ‘old man’ (Rom. 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col. 3:9)⁴³… “The ‘outer man’ is an ‘earthly tent’ that is subject to weakness and decay. The ‘outer man’ will be destroyed and replaced by a ‘building from God’ (2 Cor. 5:1-2). Even as the ‘outer man’ refers to the body, the ‘inner man’ of Romans 7:22 is associated with the ‘mind’ and stands opposite the ‘members,’ ‘flesh,’ and ‘body.’”⁴⁴

Adam Clarke writes,

To say that the ‘inward man’ means the regenerate part of the soul is supportable by no argument. Ho esoo anthroopos [the inner man], and ho entos anthroopos [inward man] especially the latter, are expressions frequently in use among the purest Greek ethic writers, to signify the soul or rational part of man, in opposition to the body of flesh. See the quotations in Wetstein from Plato and Plotinus. The Jews have the same form of expression; so in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 10, 3, it is said: ‘The flesh is the inward garment of the man; but the SPIRIT is the INWARD man, the garment of which is the ‘body’; and Paul uses the phrase in precisely the same sense in 2 Cor 4:16, and in Eph 3:16. If it be said that it is impossible for an unregenerate man to delight in the law of God, the experience of millions contradicts the assertion.’⁴⁸

He further states,

The following observations of a pious and sensible writer on this subject cannot be unacceptable: ‘The inward man always signifies the mind; which either may, or may not, be the subject of grace. That which is asserted of either the inward or outward man is often performed by one member or power, and not with the whole. If any member of the body perform an action, we are said to do it with the body, although the other members be not employed. In like manner, if any power or faculty of the mind be employed about any action, the soul is said to act. This expression, therefore, I delight in the law of God after the inward man, can mean no more than this, that there are some inward faculties in the soul which delight in the law of God. This expression is particularly adapted to the principles of the Pharisees, of whom Paul was one before his conversion. They received the law as the oracles of God, and confessed that it deserved the most serious regard. Their veneration was inspired by a sense of its original, and a full conviction that it was true. To some parts of it they paid the most superstitious regard. They had it written upon their phylacteries, which they carried about with them at all times. It was often read and expounded in their synagogues: and they took delight in studying its precepts. On that account, both the prophets and our Lord agree in saying that they delighted in the law of God, though they regarded not its chief and most essential precepts.⁴⁹

A pious Jew would certainly speak of the law in terms of it being “spiritual” and would express a zeal and delight in it according to their own mind and reason. They knew His will, and approved the things that are excellent. This is true in Orthodox Judaism to this day. We can see this in their own creeds as expressed in the following:

Orthodox Judaism is characterized by belief that the Torah and its laws are Divine [the law is spiritual], were transmitted by Hashem (God) to Moses, are eternal, and are unalterable.⁵⁰

If we observe the Torah with joy [delight], we are promised that all obstacles to its observance will be removed; we will receive all the good things of this world and be supported to observe it without having to occupy all our days with our bodily needs. But if we abandon the Torah evil will come upon us and will prevent us from observing it, as it says ‘Since you did not serve Ha-Shem your G-d in joy and goodness of heart from an abundance of everything, you will serve your enemies that Ha-Shem will send against you’. One should not say ‘I will fulfill the commandments of the Torah in order to receive all the blessings that are written in it or in order to earn life in the world to come; and I will abstain from transgressions in order to be saved from all the curses that are written in the Torah or in order not to be cut off from life in the world to come’. This is serving Ha-Shem out of fear; but when one’s understanding has grown he can serve out of love⁵¹ (emphasis added).

So here, the modern Jewish perspective concerning the Torah is that one is to joyfully serve God out of love and not fear. Interestingly, Augustine, when changing his opinion about Paul’s state in this passage, denied the possibility that the unregenerate would have the will to joyfully serve God out of love and not fear. He says,

I do not see how a man under the law should say, ‘I delight in the law of God after the inward man;’ since this very delight in good, by which, moreover, he does not consent to evil, not from fear of penalty, but from love of righteousness (for this is meant by ‘delighting’), can only be attributed to grace.⁵²

He stated in his argument before changing his view, “The man described here is under the Law, prior to grace; sin overcomes him when by his own strength he attempts to live righteously without the aid of God’s liberating grace.”⁵³

King Shlomo writes in Mishlei (28:14),

Ashrei adam / Praiseworthy is the man who always fears, but he who is stubborn of heart will fall into misfortune. …Why does the verse refer to such a person as ‘adam’ rather than ‘ish’? Rabbeinu Bachya explains that ‘adam’ comes from ‘adamah’ / earth, and refers to a person’s baser, less spiritual nature. Praiseworthy is the man who conquers the adam aspect of his nature.⁵⁴

Again, Epictetus, a contemporary of Paul, wrote,

For since he who is in error [amartanwn] does not wish to err, but to be right, it is clear that he is not doing what he wishes [qelei].... He, then, who can show...and clearly bring home to him how he is not doing what he wishes, and is doing what he does not wish’ (Diatr. 2.26.1-4 [Oldfather, LCL])

Xenophon of Athens (c. 430 – 354 BC) writes,

I have evidently two souls… for if I had only one, it would not be at the same time good and bad; nor would it desire at the same time both honourable and dishonourable works, nor would it at the same time both wish and not wish to do the same things. But it is evident that there are two souls; and that when the good one is in power the honourable things are practised; but, when the bad, the dishonourable things are attempted.⁵⁵

IVP Bible Background Commentary states,

Philosophers spoke of an internal conflict between the reason and the passions; Jewish teachers spoke of a conflict between the good and evil impulse. Either could identify with Paul’s contrast between his mind or reason — knowing what was right — and his members in which passions or the evil impulse worked.⁵⁶

Adam Clarke comments,

The sentiment in this verse may be illustrated by quotations from the ancient pagans; many of whom felt themselves in precisely the same state (and expressed it in nearly the same language), which some most monstrously tell us was the state of this heavenly apostle, when vindicating the claims of the gospel against those of the Jewish ritual! Thus, OVID describes the conduct of a depraved man:

My reason this, my passion that persuades;
I see the right, and I approve it too;
Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.
OVID, Met. lib. vii. verse 19

For, truly, he who sins does not will sin, but wishes to walk uprightly: yet it is manifest that what he wills he doth not; and what he wills not he doth. ARIAN, Epist. ii. 26.
But I am overcome by sin,
And I well understand the evil which I presume to commit. Which is the cause of the greatest evils to mortal men. EURIPIDES, Med. v. 1077

Thus, we find that enlightened pagans, both among the Greeks and Romans, had that same kind of religious experience which some suppose to be, not only the experience of Paul in his best state, but to be even the standard of Christian attainments!⁵⁷

When Paul says, “For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing,” though he speaking from a Jewish perspective, are common expressions derived from a God-given inner moral conscience which all men possess. If this were not the case, the concept of a seared conscience, a conscience that has become desensitized to good and evil, would have no meaning. Likewise, if there were no innate approval of the good in the unregenerate, how are we to explain the commonality of a guilty conscience, which acts to mitigate the practice of the evil impulses of the heart and mind. It is only the unnatural and debased mind that has not this inborn sense of moral culpability as we find in Romans 1.

The following questions prove useful for bringing more clarity to Romans 7:14-25:

Do vv. 7:14-25 better fit the description of one who is, presenting the members of his body as instruments of unrighteousness to sin or, one who is presenting his members as instruments of righteousness to God? If we answer the former, then according to Romans 6:13 Paul cannot be speaking of his present condition.

Do vv. 7:14-25 better describe one who is “under the law” or “under grace”? If “under the law” he is unregenerate according to Romans 6:14.

Is Paul describing one who is a slave of sin resulting in death, or a slave of obedience resulting in righteousness? If the former he is unregenerate according to Romans 6:16.

Does he describe a man who has been freed from sin, and is now a slave of righteousness? If not, he is unregenerate according to Romans 6:18.

Does Paul describe a man who has presented his members as a slave to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness or, someone who has presented his members as a slave to righteousness, resulting in sanctification? If the former he is unregenerate according to Romans 6:19.

Does he describe a man who is a slave of sin, who is free in regard to righteousness, with an outcome of death or one who is freed from sin and enslaved to God, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life? If the former he is unregenerate according to Romans 6:20-22.

Do vv. 14-25 better fit the description of one who has died to the Law through the body of Christ….in order that he might bear fruit for God or one who is in the flesh, the sinful passions, aroused by the Law, at work in the members of his body to bear fruit for death? If the latter he is unregenerate according to Romans 7:4, 5.

Does Paul describe a man who is held captive to the law or one who has been “released from the law”? If “captive to the law” he is unregenerate according to Romans 7:6.

Does he describe one who is serving in the new way of the Spirit or serving in the old way of the written code. If we answer “in the old way of the written code” he is an unregenerate man according to Romans 7:6.

Do vv. 14-25 describe a slave to the law of sin and death or one who has been set free from the law of sin and death? If it is the former, he is unregenerate according to Romans 8:2.

Does Paul describe a man that is walking according to the flesh or a man walking according to the Spirit? If we answer “according to the flesh” then again, he is describing an unregenerate man.

Do vv. 14-25 better fit the expression, the mind set on the flesh is death, or the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace? If the former he is unregenerate according to Romans 8:6

Does Paul describe a man that is in the flesh or a man in the Spirit? If we answer “in the flesh” then he is describing an unregenerate man.

Paul says in Romans 7:23 that the “I” is captive to the law of sin but in Romans 8:3 he says that we, as Christians, are free from the law of sin. It is simply not possible that both statements can be trueof the Christian simultaneously.

If Paul was speaking of himself as a Christian, would not his readers be compelled to remind him of what the Scriptures say, many written by his own hand?

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3).

Paul, did you not just tell us “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions” (Romans 6:12). Why are you now obeying its passions?

If you “walk by the Spirit…you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires? If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:24, 25).

I urge you Paul, as an alien and stranger to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles (1 Pet. 2:11, 12, NASB).

Paul, you say “I practice the very evil that I do not want”(Rom. 7:19, NASB). Does this not contradict the Apostle John who writes:

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning (1 John 3:9).

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him (1 John 3:6).

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning (1 John 3:8).

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning (1 John 5:18).

Paul, Christ said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.” But “…if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (Jn. 8:34-36). Has the Son not set you free?

(Emphasis added in all the above).

Paul says to the Jews in Romans 2:17-25,

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth — you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’

If these same Jews were to hear Paul say “the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing,” would they not rightly say to him, “You accuse us when you do the same thing? You who teach us, do you not teach yourself? Do you dishonor God by breaking the law? Will not your disobedience to the law blaspheme the name of God among the Gentiles also? Tell us, Paul, if this is typical of the Christian experience, how is it superior to that of being a Jew under the law?” Adam Clarke comments on Romans 7:14,

I believe it is agreed, on all hands, that the apostle is here demonstrating the insufficiency of the law in opposition to the gospel. That by the former is the knowledge, by the latter the cure, of sin. Therefore, by ‘I’ here he cannot mean ‘himself,’ nor any Christian believer: If the contrary could be proved, the argument of the apostle would go to demonstrate the insufficiency of the gospel as well as the law.⁵⁸

Moses Stuart writes,

Now to what special end of the Apostle would it be here subservient, if we suppose him to be describing a state of grace in chapter 7. How does the contest in the breast of Christians against sin prove the inefficacy of the law to sanctify them? For to prove such an inefficacy, it must be admitted, is the general object of the present discourse. The fact is, that such statement would prove too much. It would show that grace is wanting in efficacy, as well as the law; for the Christian, being a subject of grace, and still keeping up such a contest, one might, of course, be tempted to say, ‘It appears, then, that grace is no more competent than law, to subdue sin and sanctify the heart.’ And, indeed, why might he not say this, if the ground of those who construe all this of the regenerate man be correct? For what is the real state of the whole matter as represented by the Apostle? It is, that in every contest here between the flesh and the spirit (the moral man) the former comes off victorious. And can this be a regenerate state? Is this the ‘victory which is of God, and overcometh the world’? ‘He that is born of God sinneth not’; those that love his law ‘do no iniquity’; he that loveth Christ, ‘keepeth his commandments’; i.e., a habitual and voluntary offender such an one is not; he gives not himself up to any course of sin; it is his habitual study and effort to subdue his passions and obey the commandments of God. But what of all this is there in the case which the Apostle represents in 7:14-25…Impossible. Light and darkness are not more diverse than these two cases.⁵⁹

The Apostle Peter addresses the Christian’s war or struggle with sin in 1 Peter 2:11-12,

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

When Peter tells his readers “to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul,” is it not safe to assume that Peter himself was abstaining from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul? Paul, in Romans 2:17, rebukes the Jews under the law, for “breaking the law,” with the concern that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Here, Peter exhorts his Jewish readers, no longer under the law but under grace, to abstain from fleshly lusts and that they keep their behavior excellent among the Gentiles, with the same concern that to do otherwise would bring dishonor to the Father. Both are very sensitive to the thought of lawbreaking and failure in the war against sin as that which dishonors God among the gentiles. Can we not presume then, that Peter’s common Christian experience was one of victory in this war? If not, then would his readers not say even as Paul’s, “You who teach us, do you not teach yourself? If we can assume that Peter was indeed winning this war against fleshly lusts, can we not also assume that Paul was experiencing this same victory? However, this is not what Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25. What we see in that passage is one who is losing the war against fleshy lusts with no victory in sight outside of Christ. It contradicts Paul’s own words to the Galatians, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). Is Romans 7:14-25 a portrayal of one who is walking in liberty and freedom from the yoke of the law? It would hardly seem the case.

Paul says in Gal. 5:16-18,

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

And in Romans 8:14,

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

In other words, those alone, who are led by the Spirit, are Sons of God, i.e., Christians. Here again, Paul equates “walking in the flesh” with being “under the Law” which results in utter failure and death. Walking according to the flesh produces “the works of the flesh,” v. 19, which he says exempts one from any inheritance in the kingdom of God, v. 21. Saying in essence that those who do not gain victory over the flesh by walking in the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body, will forfeit life in the kingdom. “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13). The man in Romans 7:14-25 is a man under the Law, walking in the flesh, still entangled with a yoke of bondage.

D.A. Hayes, author of “Paul and his Epistles” says of Paul,

Never once does he express any penitence for wrongdoing of any sort. He was the chief of sinners before he was converted. He acknowledges that fact without any hesitation. After his conversion there is no acknowledgment of sin. On the contrary, in passage after passage he confidently affirms that he has been an example to all believers in purity of motive and integrity of life. He appeals to his converts again and again to testify to the holiness and unblamableness of his behavior among them at all times.⁶⁰

Paul says, For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord (1 Cor. 4:4). When we read Calvin’s commentary on this passage, we get a glimpse into the extent to which one’s interpretation of Romans 7 impacts the interpretation of other Scriptures. He says,

Let us observe that Paul speaks here not of his whole life, but simply of the office of apostleship. For if he had been altogether unconscious to himself of anything wrong, that would have been a groundless complaint which he makes in Romans 7:15, where he laments that the evil which he would not, that he does, and that he is by sin kept back from giving himself up entirely to God.⁶¹

The attempt to limit Paul’s statement to “the office of apostleship,” as many do, as opposed to “his whole life,” fails to recognize that the office of apostleship was “his whole life.” There was no separation of his life from his ministerial work. Even if there were such a separation, any failure in the one would reflect upon the other. He says in v. 16, “I urge you, then, be imitators of me…of my ways in Christ” which speaks of his whole manner of life and conduct. Paul is saying, “I am not conscious that I am guilty of any evil, or have neglected to fulfill faithfully the duty of a steward of Jesus Christ” – Adam Clarke. He says in Acts 24:16, “So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.” “The one law of his life was to keep his conscience clear from willful sin” – Ellicott. Moreover, to claim that “by sin he was kept back from giving himself up entirely to God” is without biblical warrant. If there were ever a man, other than Christ, that gave himself up entirely to God, it was this Apostle. No man without a clear conscience in his manner of life and conduct would dare be so bold as to say, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

Douglas Moo writes,

Decisive for me are two sets of contrasts. The first is between the description of the ego as ‘sold under sin’ (v. 14b) and Paul’s assertion that the believer, every believer — has been ‘set free from sin’ (6:18, 22). The second contrast is that between the state of the ego, ‘imprisoned by the law [or power] of sin’ (v. 23), and the believer, who has been ‘set free from the law of sin and death’ (8:2). Each of these expressions depicts an objective status, and it is difficult to see how they can all be applied to the same person in the same spiritual condition without doing violence to Paul’s language. In chaps. 6 and 8, respectively, Paul makes it clear that ‘being free from under sin’ and ‘being free from the law of sin and death’ are conditions that are true for every Christian. If one is a Christian, then these things are true; if one is not, then they are not true. This means that the situation depicted in vv. 14-25 cannot be that of the ‘normal’ Christian, nor of an immature Christian. Nor can it describe the condition of any person living by the law because the Christian who is mistakenly living according to the law is yet a Christian and is therefore not ‘under sin’ or a ‘prisoner of the law of sin.’ Other points are significant also — the lack of mention of the Spirit, the links with 7:5 and 6:14, and the connections between vv. 7-12 and 13-25 — but I think these arguments are the most important.⁶²

In the “Hard Sayings of the Bible” it is said,

If this passage and the verses that surround it are a description of what the Christian life is all about, then they stand in stark contrast to the joy and freedom and newness Paul describes in Rom 5, 6 and 8. Indeed, it would seem that the ‘good news’ of the gospel, expressed with such exuberance in Rom 5:1 and 11, has become the ‘bad news.’ For how can Paul say, in Rom 6:6, that ‘our old self was crucified with him’ so that ‘we should no longer be slaves to sin,’ and then go on to say, in Rom 7:25, that ‘in the sinful nature [I am] a slave to the law of sin’.... Yet, despite these difficulties, the most common understanding of this text is that Paul is here speaking about an internal tension between the Christian’s higher and lower selves. Some have even used this text as a biblical warrant for sinful behavior, as a cop-out from Christian responsibility…. As so often, it is important that both the immediate and the wider context of this text be grasped if we are to properly understand Paul’s meaning. When we do that, it becomes difficult to maintain the usual understanding of the text.⁶³

In summary, the perpetual defeat in the war against the flesh experienced in Romans 7:14-25 is not found in any believer anywhere else in the New Testament; not by Paul, the other Apostles, or in any of the redeemed (not even the Corinthians, see Chapter 10). The Christian life as described in Scripture is one characterized by righteousness, not sin; victory not defeat; unspeakable joy, not constant despair. Multitudes have used this passage to find comfort in their sin and yet never so much as one word of Holy Scripture was ever penned with that end in mind. Comfort in repentance and forgiveness, yes. Comfort in our sin, never. When our Lord says in Matthew 5:29, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you” we use Romans 7:14-25 as protective goggles. When we read in Galatians 5:24, “those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” we use vv. 14-25 as a resuscitator. It should be agreed by all, that looking to the Word of God to pacify us in our sin is to pervert the Scriptures, using them for a means contrary to the Spirit and mind of Christ. Would it not be wise then, when considering such a controversial and debated passage of Scripture, not to allow it too much sway in our view of sin and the Christian life? To construct a theological view of the Christian life on such a shaky foundation, with potentially dire eternal consequence, is high stakes gambling with less than acceptable odds. Romans 7 has been used as the first line of defense in arguing the case for sins prevalence in the Christian life. However, if it has been misinterpreted, which the evidence strongly suggests, it can no longer be used to that end. If the man in Romans 7 is indeed unregenerate, then clearly it is not describing what is to be typical of a Chrisitan’s experience. Rather, it is to be as John says; “everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning” (1 Jn. 5:18).

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Conclusion: Examine Yourselves as to Whether You Are in the Faith