Romans 7
With Paul as a Consistent Thinker
R.L. Faber ~2008,2022

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most amazing news for mankind. The first 8 chapters of Romans explain the Gospel in beautiful detail. This Gospel foundation sets the stage for the practical instructions in Christian living in Romans 12-16.

Unfortunately, some Christians get confused by Romans 7. I'd like to help you understand it with the help of some good teachers. I agree with the view explained by Doug Moo and Bible.org which is currently the minority view in my Reformed circles. I think the view that Luther and Calvin took is misleading and dangerous.

Before reading my thoughts (a bit wordy), we suggest you review this YouTube video found by a friend (The best would be to discuss this over a cup of coffee, with enough time, but sadly that may not be possible). This is such a confusing topic these days. We quickly viewed this video and it seems good. At least it is good material for discussion.

Youtube @JBible Romans 7 - Doug @CrossToCrownMin

We have also started a collection of Romans 7 YouTube videos on our Romans 7 playlist (these are the more agreeable videos). Youtube @JBible Romans 7 playlist (We also have a couple Romans 7 playlists with less agreeable videos)

When I was about 8 years old, I started reading my Bible during a noon time "quiet time" while at a boarding school in Africa. Around this time, when I was around 9, I noticed the interesting section of Romans 6-8 (and 7:14-25) at the center of the apostle Paul's presentation of the Gospel. I slowed down, as I noticed Paul writing some things that were a little more complicated. I re-read chapter 6, 7 and 8 repeatedly, until it started to make sense. I realized that Paul was probably using "I" as a writer's technique and I wanted to know what he meant. As a young reader, I felt this was a bit complicated of Paul, but I had been reading the NT for a while and was getting familiar with his style. I had grown to love his committment to God and knew he was often a bit complicated in some of his writings. I became convinced that the "I" in Romans 7:14 was connected with a long flow of Paul-like logic so that I could not simply assume he was talking about his present Christian experience. The simple view of the "I" being his present condition did not fit with the context or the broader context of Paul in his other writings. I had spent many hours studying Paul before and after this experience of trying to figure out what Paul meant in Romans 7:14-25.

Much later in my Christian life, I started to notice that my understanding of Paul in Romans 7 was the minority view. As an 8 and 9 year old, I had discovered the soverignty of God (e.g. Ephesians, Romans 9), but I was also dealing with myself, learning to follow Christ, and always finding myself in a struggle with sin. I wanted to know God because I knew I was accountable to him. I read the Bible quite regularly. I knew I was a sinner and I wanted to know what God thought of sinners like me. I really wanted peace with God. The more I read, the more I found encouragement that God is wise, loving, kind and serious. When I was very young, the preachers in my life presented God in very legal way (confess your sin, 1 John 1:9, or else...). The preachers were probably doing a good job, but as a young person, I needed to know directly from God's Word. I did find peace with God as I read. I found encouragement and godly heros in the Apostles. My favorite Apostle was the Apostle Paul, because he wrote so much and in a very interesting way. I was impressed by his devotion to Christ. I was encouraged by his thinking. He was my primary hero (besides Jesus of course). This mostly happened at elementary boarding school in Africa and years later in high school.

Later on I started to discover that many Christians (perhaps most), think Paul was speaking of a fleshly struggle in his Christian life. "I am of the flesh, sold under sin." (Romans 7:14)   This was a shock to hear, because although I knew there was a little bit of complexity in Paul's style, I thought the passage was sufficiently clear to be understood. Yes, I was a little confused by a verse at the end of chapter 7, but I was pretty sure that was just Paul summarizing. I was sure, because of the strong consistency and connections between chapter 6, 7 and 8. The beginning of Romans 7 was also quite clear. I was convinced Paul had to be speaking of the "I" as being when he was under the law. I was sure Paul was extending his experience in the past to connect with his fellow Jews that he wanted to win to Christ. I understood that it had to be Paul referring to the man who is wretched, because he is under the Law. Also, I knew from chapter 2, that Paul was quite focused on the Jews. His audience was people who knew the Law well. I knew this was an important audience of Paul. It made the most sense that he was speaking to them, and trying to help them feel the frustrations they felt, unable to keep the Law properly and needing Christ.

Today, many years later, I am still surprised at the resistance to the simple understanding that is most consistent with the context in Romans 1-8. The very simplistic view that Paul is speaking of his current Christian life, was clearly not accurate... I could see that as a young 8-9 year old. There is Romans 6 that speaks about not being under the law and 3 times speaks about being free from sin (Romans 6:7,18,22). Then there is Romans 8:9 that says "you, however, are not in the flesh". How could Paul say that before and after... and in the middle say, "I am of the flesh, sold to sin". No, the simple understanding, with the context in view, is that Paul was not referring to his current Christian life. In addition to this, it is not hard to see Paul beginning to connect with how things were in the days of Adam and when the law came. The section 7:14-24 focuses on the man under the Law, not the Christian who is in Christ. So as a young reader, I saw God as holy, and his apostles promoting holy living. Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ". I felt encouraged to be holy, not a legal burden to be holy like the preachers seemed to say. As I read my Bible, I was encouraged to godliness, not perfectionism. I felt comfort from a God who was gentle and loving. Today, however, hearing so many people speak of the struggling Paul view, and knowing it to be wrong,

I am saddened by the bad theology and the picture of a Paul "sold to sin". That is so strange. If you get to know Paul, that is strange. That is not consistent with the Bible. Sorry Calvin, sorry Luther, you guys are wrong. I'm sure you were distracted with other things and confused from your Catholic background (Luther). So I am sad when I read about Paul as a stuggling Christian. But I am glad to read some who are read the text of Paul more carefully. I am convinced that Paul had a highly intellectual mind (Acts 26:24, etc) that would not be so quickly forgetful of what he had just written in chapter 6. I am quite sure Paul is not so confusingly inconsistent that he would proceed to write "you are not in the flesh" (Romans 8:9), when he had just said "I am of the flesh, sold under sin". Instead, the "I" was simply a writer's technique. Even Peter thought Paul's words were hard to understand at times (2 Peter 3:15-16). But God allowed a variety of authors to write scripture.

Today I am glad that Doug Moo is defending the correct view of Romans 7. I am sad that so many on the Reformed view have taken the view that Paul is a struggling Christian, who leads us by his struggles. They say he was so spiritual, that he had such deep struggles. I am not going to write about my true feelings about that view... But I know it is wrong.

I am also disappointed in Thomas R. Schreiner being so easily swayed by the latest heavy theological article by Will N. Timmins. Schriener had a rather nice article on TGC expressing the right view, but then changed his mind in his 2018 commentary on Romans. Very sad. That shows he really never did have a solid understanding of Paul. I am amazed people write commentaries and teach when they don't know what they believe. Richard N. Longenecker has the right view, but I am not fully supportive of the referring to speach patterns as the main argument. To me, and I like the fact that it is more simple than that... to me, it is so plain in the very text of Paul. The context. This is what Moo explains well. I have tried to refrain from reading Moo's argument because I discovered this view by simple reading as an 8 and 9 year old without anyone telling me to read the Bible. I had no pastor or sermons in those days, in fact, the pastors were the ones who were confusing me. I had 100x more clarity by just reading the Bible on my own. I am so thankful for Moo writing from the right perspective. So I am almost guarding from being too much into him, but avoiding reading his Romans commentary, even though I have both the 1st and 2nd edition. There is also Colin G. Kruse. Blessing on him, he also has the right view. Finally, I have recently, listened to D. Martin LLoyd-Jones on Romans 7 and find his view quite fine. He wrote in the days before the internet, so I forgive some of his technicalities not being quite as careful as Moo. But he basically preserves the character of Paul and basically has an acceptable view.

Personally, I respect those on the wrong side of the view when they are very clear about the debate and are gracious about it. I may be very bothered that they are preaching wrong views about something so central to the Gospel and Christian living, but I am at least a bit more at peace with people like John Piper, who make it very clear that the passage is a bit complex and there are differing views.

The worst thing are people who get nasty against the right view and those who constantly refer to the struggling Christian in Romans 7 (the wrong view of Paul's meaning) and they work it into endless other sermons. This goes for books, sunday schools, informal Bible studies, and sermons.... anyone who just assumes the wrong view and carries on as if it is no big deal to be making Paul into a highly inconsistent writer.

Paul does not have amnesia!

Paul does not have dyslexia!

Paul was a serious problem to the church (in his former life). But Paul was also a serious godly leader without the a life of struggle as some people wrongly attribute to him.

I think God has allowed Paul's deep writings to be easily taken the wrong way, because God uses even these things to test Christians! Will we divide over this? Will we be proud of our understanding? Will we get obsessed over our true understanding? Will we exclude Christians? Will we break into groups and clicks and sub-church entities? The unbelievers look at the Christians today and see massive division. There are many sad things in the church today.

If you don't really know what Romans 7 means, why not refrain from teaching it? Please don't just follow Luther and Calvin because you follow the Reformed "tradition". There are smart men on both sides of the debate within the Reformed tradition. You need to know God's Word without depending on commentaries if you are a teacher! James warns about the teacher who teaches what is wrong. As time goes on, I am increasingly tempted to declare myself a teacher of what Paul is saying here. But in actuality I am not a teacher and I'm not sure anyone reads this post. This website is not a teaching, but is about testing. We listen, read, and test what we hear. Our warning is...

Beware of reading commentaries or just following theological systems. Read God's Word long and hard on its own. Look at the views of others only after you are sure on your own by comparing scripture with scripture. Don't be too easily swayed by the "experts" if you know what is true. If you are not sure of what you believe, we don't blame you as much, but you should not consider teaching if you are not very sure! If you are teaching, we do blame you if you hold the Paul as an inconsistent thinker view (the wrong view).

Our final warning is to ourself. What good is it to know what God's Word says, but be proud about it? We grant that that is a possible response. We have a clear conscience about our understanding of God's Word on this topic. But we need to be careful to not be wrongly annoyed by others who have a different understanding. We do wish to explain, but we should not be upset.

We believe Galatians is a real key for understanding Romans 5-8. We think Galatians clearly supports the idea that Paul is not a struggling Christian. Read it on your own. We enjoyed memorized Galatians 5 at one point. Don't just read the little tiny section of Galatians 5:17 out of context. Focusing on this little part of what Paul is saying can easily lead to a misunderstanding of Galatians and Romans 6-8. If you get to know Paul, he is not a struggling Christian who is "sold to sin". Galatians is very supportive of Paul as solid, godly, consistent thinker. He is an Apostle with high goals for us in our Christian living. Christians are postitionally secure in Christ, as both views would say, but Christians who are struggling with sin would be encouraged to repent of their sin and not look at Paul as fellow struggling Christian who is "sold to sin". That is not what Paul was saying!

We did a little assesment to find the best commentaries on Romans. We will show Ligonier's "Best Commentaries" as an example but also looked at other "best commentaries on Romans" lists.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/top-5-commentaries-romans

  1. Doug Moo: (Yes, we agree it is the best)
  2. Frank Thielman: We think he has a good view of Romans 7:14-25, but we have not purchased it because we don't like the publisher format. (And each commentary costs a bit too)
  3. Thomas R. Schreiner: He had the correct view, but then changed his mind after reading the 2018 article by Will Timmons. We don't respect his quick to change view. His commentary has a lot of good information, but we cannot recommend it, as he end up with the wrong view and it seems a bit confusing.
  4. Richard N. Longenecker: His view is correct, we agree with what he says in the main. But we think he does not present the textual basis as the main reason for the correct view. He goes to Paul using speech patterns and focuses most of his reasoning on this. This is ok as an auxially commentary, but not as good as Moo an Kruse.
  5. Colin Kruse: This is easier to read, well written, and has the correct view. We do recommend this commentary.
https://www.challies.com/resources/best-commentaries-on-romans/ Tim Challies has Doug Moo as #1 and John Murray as #2, so we do not respect that listing... it seems slightly biased and a bit outdated (Not listing the newer 2018+ highly rated commentaries). Cranfield is listed, but both Cranfield and Murray are older and we don't think this list is up to date with the current best commentaries on Romans.





Below are our old notes on Romans 7 from 2008.





............. OLD .................................................................. Romans 7 is one of the most highly debated parts of the NT scriptures, yet has one of the most significant presentations of the gospel. If you are already familiar with some of the popular interpretations of Romans 6-8, please first listen to D.A. Carson's "The Spirit Overcomes Death" on Romans 8 as an introduction to this article. He explains the basics of Romans 8 very well, which provides a good foundation for an understanding Romans 6-8. If you have avoided listening to others explaining the meaning of Romans 7 then you can probably skip this introduction. If you don't like complicated thoughts, then skip this article as reading the Romans 6-7-8 text will be more than enough complexity. Our favorite resource is Douglas Moo in his Romans presenation: (See Douglass Moo - Romans 7:13-25 biblicaltraining.org) and his Romans commentary.

If you notice anyone unkind in their interpreting of Romans 7, do not listen to their arguments. There are plenty other interpreters like John Piper who would differ with D.A. Carson and Doug Moo, but at least they are gracious about it.

If you have time to read or listen to Romans with lots of time and the context of surrounding books (e.g. Bible.is) you know how wonderful and deep and powerful the book of Romans is! Romans 6-8 is an amazing presentation of the Gospel by a hero of the Christian faith. Romans 6-8 is one of the central teachings on the Gospel and is both interesting and challenging. I first struggled to understand it at about 9 year old (~1976), but lately, I have had the joy and responsibility to teach God's Word to my family. It has been rather surprising to me to find out how some other Christians view it. Certainly, we all agree that the main goal is to understand what the text says, rather than what best fits our personal "experience".

So many connections in Romans 5,6,7 and 8


As we read Romans 5, 6, 7 and 8 we find so many connections not even counting all the connections to Paul's other similar writings in Colossions 3, Ephesians 4 and Galatians 5. The text must be carefully studied in the immeditate context (esp Chapter 6,7,8), "remembering that his letters contain some things that are hard to understand..." (2 Peter 3:16).

Some of the key phrases in Romans 6, 7 and 8 are: Chap6: "walking in newness of life", "old man crucified", "no longer enslaved to sin", "free from sin", "slave/master" terminology to help us understand, "consider yourself free from sin", Chap7: "the law", the purpose of the law to show sin, "of the flesh, sold under sin", "captive to sin", Chap8: "not in the flesh", "according to the Spirit", "mind set on the Spirit". (Reading carefully, one should notice Paul is a very consistent thinker)

One of the fundamental things to keep in mind is the flow of Paul's discussion of the Law. It is important to know when he is speaking of the man under the Law, and when he is speaking of the man not under the law, but rather under grace. If we miss it, we miss the very foundational context of Paul's logic.

Chapter 6 and 8 are filled with critical connections to Chapter 7. The Chapter 6, "positional"--"free from sin", must be fully believed, before Chapter 7 will make any sense. Chapter 7 has about 2 mini introductions to the more confusing ending part. Chapter 8 is the climatic conclusion to all the "wretchedness" of Chapter 7. For the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin 8:2.

The old man trying in vain to follow the law

Chapter 7:14-20 is the old man trying in vain to follow the law. It is speaking of the man under the law, "the old man", before being rescued, and the futility of trying to keep the law. This is pretty clear in 7:4-12, right before the more confusing part 7:13-23. Rom 7:14 is a key when it says, "I am in the flesh, sold under sin". The Jews who Paul was speaking to would not have been very impressed if Paul really meant his current live in Christ, walking in "newness of life", "walking in the Spirit", etc. Nor does it fit with the Paul who repeats the encouragement to "imitate me as I imitate Christ". No, Rom 7:14 is actually the third escalation of what Paul is leading up to with 7:5 and 7:9 describing the man under the law without Christ.

Christians still do struggle with sin

As Christians, we do find ourself still in a struggle with sin. But that is a big discussion relating to many other texts in the Bible, including Romans 8:13 "put to death the deeds of the body", because there is an active ongoing battle. (The battle with sin; The war; The armor; The devil prowling; "Take heed lest you fall"; Galatians, Ephesians, "We are more than conquerers"; "BEING made holy"; etc.)

Chapter 7:13-23 is not the normal Christian life. (walking "in newness", "in the Spirit") Chapter 6 and 8 "should" more characterize the Christian (walking "in newness", "in the Spirit") Chapter 6 and 8 describes the rescued Christian. We are more than conquerers through Christ by the Spirit. Some paint Chapter 7 as the normal Christian's day. No! Chapter 7 is the wretched man before being rescued by the cross! We may feel the frustration described in Chapter 7 and struggle many times, even though we are enlightened by Chapter 6 and 8. We may see ourself putting ourself under the "master" called "sin". We may find ourself roaming into his house... But Paul reminds us we are not obligated to this master... we are in fact "free" from this old master. In Chapter 7, Paul is describing the old man's attempt to follow God's law before being rescued by Christ. Notice all the references to "the law" in Chapter 7. Paul may have kept much of the law outwardly, but keeping it inwardly was another matter. Remember, Paul lived in complete ignorance of the good news of Chapter 6 and 8 for much of his life. As Christians, we have the positional situation of having been crucified with Christ (6:7,8). We don't always feel fully rescued, while we are "putting to death" by the Spirit ("struggling with sin"), but we are in fact declared free from sin (6:7) (or "rescued").

The purpose of the law

The purpose of the law is to expose sin and show the extent of sin in the natural man. But the old man is unable to satisfy the requirements of the law and it leads up to, "who will rescue me from this body of death?". This is the miserable state of affairs with the man trying to obey the law without Christ. Of course many will think, "I know Chapter 8 and I believe it", but I still struggle with sin!". Well, that is true of all of us. But Paul is pointing out a significant change from being totally frustrated with the old man trying to follow the law in vain and the new man rescued by Christ.

This is something few of us experience quite as literally as Paul since he lived in ignorance of the knowledge of Christ's work, thinking the Jewish observance of the law was the ultimate achievement. Many of us, like our children, are raised being taught about Jesus and the Gospel in Romans, but they can easily connect with the struggle to please God related to parental laws. For children, "obey your parents", is quite impossible. But as they become enabled through Christ (Chapter 6 and 8), they are amazingly able to enjoy following parental guidance. Its wonderful to see.

Romans Chapter 8: The good news after Romans 7
Chapter 8 provides the essential conclusion to Chapter 7.
(For the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death 8:2)
Notice how at the end of 7 it says... "with my flesh I serve the law of sin".
That is the old man he just finished describing, who has been crucified in Christ! To understand this, one must accept what is said...rather than how one feels about ones current struggle with sin. Then, after seeing what is said, one feels joy. (The war remains...but there is more joy and peace and confidence) (There is also disgust at the old man who tries to live but who is declared to be dead... for those in Christ)

The Rescused New Man in Christ

The view that Romans 7 describes the new man, "Rescued by Christ", is far more confusing and makes Paul totally inconsistent!

The proper view of Romans 7 as the man under the law and Romans 6 and 8 as the new man, rescued in Christ, is totally at odds with "Perfectionism" teachings. It is very unbiblical to think Christians will never struggle, even similarly to the description in Chapter 7. But Romans 7 is not the normal christian life. The struggles with temptation in the Christian life is not being discussed in Romans 7, according to the text. We will "feel" connections with the stuggle described in Romans 7, but we do not believe it is what Paul is teaching us about the Christian life! Paul says, "who will rescue me? Thanks be to Christ!" Thankfully this somewhat confusing chapter is surrounded by Chapter 6 and Chapter 8 to help make things clear! So as a Christian we do fight! By the Spirit we "put to death the deeds of the body" 8:13. We are still at war. But Paul tells us to "aim for perfection". 1 John reminds us that we all do sin, but that as a Christian we should not sin. (John says it in the same way as Paul in these Chapters... there is a lot of consistency) Paul encourages us to be more than conquerers through the power of the Spirit... through Christ! As rescued men, free from sin (positionally) 6:7, we are empowered by God to conquer sin. It is a war... It doesn't happen in an instant. But we are encouraged by Christ to press on...

R.L. Faber

2007-06-13 (updated 2008-08-13, and updated a little more 2009-11-03)




2022-07-03 update

We recently reviewed Thomas R. Schreiner's commentary on Romans since we had read his article at TGC romans-7-does-not-describe-your-christian-experience/ from 2016. However, after reading his commentary published in 2018, we notice he has been massively swayed back to the opposite (or near opposite view) by Will Timmins. (romans-7-apostle-paul-confession/) But we see two major problems with Thomas Schreiner's change of view. 1. It is wrong. He understood it better previously. The fundamental problem seems to be that he is confused because he is not solid on the "Christian and the Law". His logic goes back to this is the Christian's experience because the Christian need and wants to obey the Law. But if he understood the Christians and the Law like Doug Moo does on page 246 of Doug Moo's commentary on Galatians (Copyright 2013), he would not be so quick to change his view. He shows himself to be very unsure of himself! In 2016 he presents one view on TGC website (correct view). Then after Will Timmins study in 2017, he is confused and changes his view... but the logic is so fundamentally wrong, being possibly influenced by "covenant theology", thinking the Christian is still under the Law... not realizing that the Christian has been released from that bondage by Christ! (See more on New Covenant Theology, for this very biblical idea, esp in presentations like "A Theology of Paul and His Letters, Doug Moo, copyright 2021).

So, we are sad to say, that Thomas R. Shreiner's commentary on Romans can not be recommended for two reasons. First, he has changed his view in just a matter of a few years. We expect a commentary writer to be more solid in his understanding of this important text. Second, although the first half of his presentation of Romans 7:14-25 is excellent, he gets very confused when he addresses the debate. His lack of understanding shows in a confusion of conflicting ideas and his understanding is not clear. We still value his commentary to some degree for having a lot of good scholarly content and some good research. But his views are not clear and he seems to be trying to make both sides of the debate someone satisfied. In the end, he looses respect for Paul as a consistent clear thinker/writer and also leaves the audience with conflicting thoughts on what Paul means. We are sad. We had hoped that his commentary would support his TGC article from 2016. But he was not solid... and waffled with Timmins' presentation. We are looking for more modern commentators that are clear and stable in their thinking. We are looking for writers who understand the apostle Paul as he really is... a deep, but very profound and consistent thinker, in chapter 6, 7 and 8, etc.

For now, Ligionier still ranks Doug Moo's commentary on Romans as the best and we agree. It is well written, scholarly, biblical, and Doug understands Paul as a consistent thinker in the flow of ideas in Romans 6, 7 and 8... We recommend Doug's commentary on Romans and his excellent commentary on Galatians. We also recommend Doug's work on Pauline Theology mentioned above. Meanwhile, we hope for more scholarly works to understand Paul.




References:

A good article in agreement by Jon Zens
There is a good article by Jon Zens which defies the norm and explains Rom 7 quite well. '"WHEN WE WERE IN THE FLESH": Should Rom. 7.7ff. Shape the Christians's Self Image?' (Fouth Quarter 1981 Vol 10 - Number 4) (We don't agree with some newer things Jon teaches about egaltarianism, but many things he says very well) searchingtogether.com

If you like Watchman Nee, you may find some help by reading chapter 1, 2, 3, 4 and especially chapter 9 of Watchman Nee's "The Normal Christian Life". (Nee explains how Chapter 6 speaks about freedom from sin and Chapter 7 speaks about the need for freedom from the law) His explanation has been helpful for some in understanding Romans 6-8.


Romans 6, 7 and 8 Explained in more Detail

(These are rough notes from a discussion ~2009-10-29 and in desperate need of cleanup)

6:7 When it says "Free from sin", it really means that! Paul is not just playing games.

7:14 "I am of the flesh, sold under sin." He is not mind-lessly talking like a confused person. He is a very deep thinker and he is consistent...

"The law is spiritual", in v.16, agrees that the law is good. v.22 "delights" in the law. v.7 His theme, the law shows his sin abd makes sin known.

v.8 introduces the "struggle", not talking about direct "I am", not talking present, using past tense - if he didn't talk about "I am" later in the passage, people wouldn't get confused, it's connected with v. 4 + 5 "While we were still living in the flesh.." In chapter 6 he talks about the "newness of life". In chapter 7 he explains the law. In chapter 8 he brings it all together, the newness and the failure of the flesh.

Chapter 7:13 - The law. Paul is trying to show that God's law is not purposeless, it is good, it makes sin known. He ilustrates it with the strugle of v.14-27 of the man in the flesh under the law which contrasts with 8:8-9. v.14 and 29 Contrasts "sold under sin" and "delivered". "But now I am set free from sin" 6:7,18,22. "Consider yourselves dead to sin". v.6 - old self sacrificed to sin. 6:14 Sin will have no dominion over you since you're no longer under the law... 6:17 past tense, "were slaves to sin"... have become obedient from the heart, contrasts with 7:14. 6:18 "having been set free from sin, slaves to righteouness, contrasts with 7:14- set free from slavery.

Paul is simplifying, he uses the slavery terminology to make it simpler for us in 6:19 past tense. 6:19b "just as you once presented your members as slaves to umpurity"... just another of the many verses constrasting with 7:14.

7:14 Connects back to v.8 and chapter 6 contrasts the law being good with me being sold under sin under the law from when the law was introduced in v.9

8:1 "So then there is now no condemnation..." transitions in time and event, breaking away from the wretchedness of sold under sin. v.2 "I am set free in Christ from the law of sin and death". When he says "set you free", it is strongly connectin to the "set free" of chapter 6. The law of sin is not the law of Moses.

8:3 The law of Moses could not save. It's purpose was to show sin. The law is holy (7:12), but it could not save because of the weak flesh (7:13) - it was sin. 8:3b Continues talking about Christ (7:24; 8:1-2). He came in the likeness of sinfull flesh... 7:14 "I am of the flesh". But Christ condemns the sin in the flesh. He is condemning the problem (7:13) where it says "it was sin". He did it in the flesh, that is the same as 7:13, except He was in the likeness of sinfull flesh (he is sinless) when he died. 6:6 and 6:8 We died with Him. 8:4 Agrees. Requirements of the law are fully met in us, that is why He died. Contrasts with 7 because it says that the requirements of the law are fulfilled in us, where 7 says "I am sold under sin"... "Who walk according to the flesh" means that the Christian does not walk according to the flesh- in us. 8:6 "To set the mind on the flesh is death", contrasts with 7:14 - "I am of the flesh".

7:9 Connects, introducing the struggle of 7:14 when it says "produced in me all kinds of coveteousness" and is talking about the introduction of the law and how sin came alive in 5:13-14.

There is a confusion because is says "I was once alive" in 7:9, but in 5:14 says "Death reigned" It could be 5:12-21 "As sin came into the world through Adam, death came.

There is an overarching truth through Adam, but a sub-elevating of sin through the law of Moses v.14. Yet, death reigned from Adam to Moses... "But sin was not counted where there was no law. But sin was not seen. So sin in seen more clearly through the law. 7:7, 7:13 The law was needed to show sin.

So when Paus says "I once was alive apart from the law", in Romans 7:9, "But when the law came sin became visible"... 7:7 Paul is not talking about himself literally. It was a time in history (when the law was introduced) even though he speaks in the first person. 7:10 The law introduced by Moses promised life, (Deut 6) "proved death to me". All Israel ended up taking on the curse - the sin in us could not follow the law. 7:12 Exposes his goal about the chapter, "so the law is holy" explains to the Jews (7:1). 7:13 Says that it is not the law's fault! No, it was sin's fault. God's purpose of the law was to make our wickedness visible.

8:8 "Those in the flesh cannot please God" - opposite of 7:14 "I am of the flesh". 8:9 "You are not in the flesh" - opposite of 7:14 "I am of the flesh". 8:10 Talks about about a Christian whose "body" is dead because of sin. This probably speaks of the death we get by being "according to" or "in the flesh" and "in Adam". But as we are "in Christ", the "body" is still dead (or as good as dead), but we are not supposed to worry about that because "the [S]spirit is life because of righteousness". Don't get confused by this and loose track of the previous version saying we are "not in the flesh but in the Spirit". So we have the "Spirit of Christ" if we are "in Christ" if we have "died with Christ" (Rom 6:6-8). We have to be careful to first connect with Paul's terminology. Once we understand his terminology we will perhaps understand how to relate to our physical bodies. v.11 Talks about our physical bodies being raised - "Christ will give life to your mortal bodies", as Christ died on the cross, we died with Him, as He raised we raised with Him (Eph 2). 8:13 " If you live according to the flesh you will die" - But he says "I am of the flesh" in 7:15. When a christian says "this is the present christian life", it makes me think Paul is massively confused. There are twenty conclusions that are broken. My Bible's notes says that Paul is a "moral ruin". They say, ("Christian though he is"). Yet Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 says, "imitate me as I imitate Christ", which contrasts sharply with "I am of the flesh, sold under sin" Rom 7:14.





Mini Studies: 2013-02-20 Reading Charles Hodge on Romans: Charles Hodge Romans 7:14-25. He says:

As, however, even in the renewed, this control of the Spirit is never perfect, as the flesh even in them retains much of its original power, they are forced to acknowledge that they too are carnal. There is no believer, however advanced in holiness, who cannot adopt the language here used by the apostle. In 1 Corinthians 3:3, in addressing believers, he says, "Are ye not carnal?" In the imperfection of human language the same word must be taken in different senses. Sometimes carnal means entirely or exclusively under the control of the flesh. It designates those in whom the flesh is the only principle of action. At other times it has a modified sense, and is applicable to those who, although under the dominion of the Spirit, are still polluted and influenced by the flesh. It is the same with all similar words. When we speak of 'saints and sinners' we do not mean that saints, such as they are in this world, are not sinners.
Here Hodge is misunderstanding Paul in the local context and trying to make some general truths which fight against the context and point that Paul is making and has stressed 3 times in the previous chapter, that we are "free from sin". It may be all true in general what Hodge is saying that we still "act carnal" as in the case of the Corinthinas that Paul is addressing. But Paul is setting himself against the Corinthians as an example to follow. Paul says, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Reading the context of these chapters, Romans 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 3 should make this pretty clear. This really looks like a theologian doing eisegisis to so badly miss the main point and core themes of Paul. Paul is not saying he is "sold to sin"! But that is exactly what Hodge tries to say of Paul...
The sense in which Paul says he was carnal, is explained by saying he was sold unto sin, i.e., sold so as to be under the power of sin. This, of course, is an ambiguous expression. To say that a 'man is sold unto sin' may mean, as in 1 Kings 21:20, and 2 Kings 17:17, that he is given up to its service. Sin is that which he has deliberately chosen for a master, and to which he is devoted. In this sense of the phrase it is equivalent to what is said of the unrenewed in the preceding chapter, that they are the δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the slaves of sin. From this kind of bondage believers are redeemed, Romans 6:22. But there is another kind of bondage. A man may be subject to a power which, of himself, he cannot effectually resist; against which he may and does struggle, and from which he earnestly desires to be free; but which, notwithstanding all his efforts, still asserts its authority.This is precisely the bondage to sin of which every believer is conscious. He feels that there is a law in his members bringing him into subjection to the law of sin; that his distrust of God, his hardness of heart, his love of the world and of self, his pride, in short his indwelling sin, is a real power from which he longs to be free, against which he struggles, but from which he cannot emancipate himself. This is the kind of bondage of which the apostle here speaks, as is plain from the following verses, as well as from the whole context and from the analogy of Scripture.
Here Hodge is addmitting the similarity of the expression of "sold to sin" in Chapter 6, but he somehow seems to think that Paul has just forgotten about that. Paul is actually much deeper than some seem to think. He tends to keep track of his thoughts for long multi-chapter discussions and is well aware of Chapter 6! His point is that we are set free from sin (because of Christ), so we should walk in the newness of the Spirit... and we are not "sold to sin"... we are "free from sin" (in the sense that Paul is speaking of... not in Hodge's imposed sense which Paul is not referring to). The Corinthians are being warned in 1 Cor 3 and Paul is putting himself as a model of being "free from sin" (1 Cor 11:1), totally the opposite of the "expert" Hodge, who should be a little more cautious in his explanation!

References:

Others on the subject

  • Douglass Moo (Friend of D.A. Carson), NICNT Commentary on Romans.
    Douglass Moo - Romans 7:13-25 biblicaltraining.org Douglass Moo - Romans biblicaltraining.org (Pretty sure I'm in strong agreement with Moo but I want to be unbiased so I have not read Moo's commentary... I have just skimmed it breifly to see if there was general agreement) (D.A. Carson seems to be of the same view also, based on hints in some mp3's, and because of notes in the D.A. Carson Zondervan NIV Study Bible, also known as the Biblical Theology Study Bible, by Zondervan)
  • Thomas Schreiner says it well in this Gospel Coalition Article
    Romans 7 does not describe your Christian Experience (But he is not recommended in general, because he is influenced by Timmins 2017 work, and changes his view in his 2018 commentary on Romans. Schreiner has some good things to say about Romans 7:14-25, but he is also confused by the "Christian and the law", and not nearly as clear as Doug Moo on this topic)
  • Clark's Commentary on Romans 7:14.
    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. It requires but little knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9:17.
    Clark's Commentary - godvine.com
    Clark's Commentary - godrules.net
  • Michael Pearl "Sin no more" and Romans (Audio mp3 Romans)
    (Agreement with somethings, but in disagreement with the perfectionism emphasis and KJV only of course) Seems too much into a "sinless" state being so "easy", But Michael Pearl seems to understand the basics of Rom 7 much better than most. Michael says; "You can read 30 commentaries and all of them will get it wrong." and, "Rom 7 is probably the most misunderstood chapter in all of the Bible." I didn't start buying commentaries on Romans until about 3 years ago. If would write on it...thought I'd read up on what others had said... Found some fine points... where I was not quite right... All 25 or 30 commentaries are basically in error.
  • John Piper (He wrongly interprets Rom 7 we believe, but he is pretty gracious about his views) (We really like John Piper's teaching, but think he's wrong in this case. But he's gracious about it)
  • Sam Storms: Sam Storms thoughts on Romans 7
  • ESV Study Bible (Lays out a list of points for each side of the 2 main views)
  • Brian Rosner - New Covenant Theology Lectures - 1999 Brian Rosner Lectures: Paul and the Law These lectures provide a basis of thinking that can help you be able to understand Romans 7. I have not finished listening to these audio presentations to know if Romans 7 is mentioned... but I believe the NCT thinking is foundational to helping understand Romans 7! (See Thomas Schriener notes above for how he gets confused by this from his 2016 TGC article, then confused by Timmins, then presents the confusion in his 2018 commentary on Romans. If he understood NTC like Moo, he would not be so easily confused by the role of the law for the Christian)
  • Charles Hodge - Romans 7



Google Search on the subject:
Google search in order 2008-01-05... "romans 7 meaning"
#3. Paul's Meaning in Romans 7:14-25 - Michael E. Brooks local Romans Text

More Google search hits... in order 2008-01-05...




This website is public domain.