Our True Freedom from the Law—Part 8
Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25? A “Redeemed” St. Paul or Paul “The Sinner Before Salvation”?
Introduction
At this point I’d like to present my thoughts on a debate that has raged from time immemorial—is Romans 7:14-25 speaking of the Apostle Paul as a Christian struggling with his sin or is it speaking of him (or someone else) before the salvation experience, i.e., as an unregenerated sinner. Below you will find the text of Romans 7:1-25:
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But
I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. (NKJV)
Various views have been presented over the centuries concerning who the “I” is in Romans 7:14-25. Some propose that Paul was speaking as an unbeliever, while others believe he was speaking as a believer. For example, some think Paul is speaking as an unbelieving Jew under the Law. Others think he is describing a Gentile unbeliever. For those who suggest Paul is speaking as a believer, some surmise he is speaking as a new, carnal Christian, while others posit that he is speaking as a mature believer, simply expressing the struggles that all Christians battle with throughout their lives.
Not too surprisingly, Christian theologians, pastors, and teachers have taken both sides of this argument. For example, A. W. Pink thinks Paul is speaking as a believer in Romans 7:14-25:
This moan, ‘O wretched man that I am [v. 24],’ expresses the normal experience of the Christian, and any Christian who does not so moan is in an abnormal and unhealthy state spiritually. The man who does not utter this cry daily is either so out of communion with Christ, or so ignorant of the teaching of Scripture, or so deceived about his actual condition, that he knows not the corruptions of his own heart and the abject failure of his own life. The one who is truly in communion with Christ, will . . . emit this groan . . . daily and hourly.[1]
Whereas Adam Clark wrote thus on the subject:
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 . . . The strong expressions in this clause have led many to conclude that the apostle himself, in his regenerated state, is indisputably the person intended. 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]
As you can see, scholars have quite divergent views on the subject. Not only that, but both authors use words expressing incredulity that anyone would espouse the others’ point of view. I think the Scriptures indicate Paul was speaking as an unsaved man living under the Law of Moses. But before I present my reasoning, I’d like to provide you with some historical background. Besides delving into the text itself, a good place to start is go back in time and determine how the earliest Christian leaders and apologists interpreted the text. This is important because these men were closest to the apostles. And while not necessarily always true, one would hope their proximity to the original source would shine a special light on how to properly interpret Romans 7:14-25. At the onset, I want to say I do not agree with all the early Church Fathers taught. However, I do find their writings important as far as historical context is concerned. And whenever all voices from an era speak with consistency, it demonstrates the accepted point of view whether it be correct or not.
It is interesting to note that the early Church Fathers and Christian writers of the first three centuries concluded that Paul was not speaking of himself as a regenerated believer in Romans 7:14-25.
While the best way to interpret a passage will always be to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture there is also much to be gained by studying the ways that the early Christians who followed in the footsteps of the Apostles interpreted a passage . . . An extensive search of Christian literature up until the fifth century revealed that prior to the fourth century no known Christian writer interpreted Romans seven in a Calvinistic manner, rather it was always understood up until that time to be either an unbeliever or, in one case, to describe a Christian who had evil desires that he did not want to have but never evil actions . . . 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 415 AD, Pelagius (c.350c.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.[3] [Emphasis mine.]
This conclusion is also the view of Professor Daniel Steele, a nineteenth century Methodist Bible scholar and holiness advocate. In his book, Half Hours with St. Paul and Other Bible Readings, Chapter XIII, entitled “Stumbling Blocks Removed—Setting an Electric Light in the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,” Dr. Steele gives five reasons why Paul undoubtedly spoke as if he were an unregenerated man in Romans 7:14-25. Here is his fifth reason:
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 at first followed this interpretation, till in his collision with Pelagius he found verses 14 and 22 quoted by his opponent to prove that the natural man can appreciate the beauty of holiness. To cut him off from these proof-texts he deviated from the traditional exegesis, and championed the new theory that this chapter is delineation of the regenerate. Calvinian annotators have quite generally followed him, with notable modern exceptions, such as Moses Stuart and Calvin E. Stowe. The trend of modern scholars, whether Calvinian or Arminian, is now toward the view of the Greek Fathers. Among these are Meyer, Julius Muller, Neander, Tholuck, Ewald, Ernesti, Lepsius, Macknight, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Turner, Whedon. Beet, and Stevens of Yale.[4] [Emphasis mine.]
Here are two quotes from early Christian writers as examples of their thoughts concerning Paul’s point of view of Romans 7:14-25. None interpreted this passage as referring to the apostle Paul struggling in his present state as an apostle!
Someone will possibly say that the Apostle, because up to this point he has spoken not as himself but under the assumed persona of another, now, as if indicating a change of persona, says, "I myself," so as to show that what is needful to be said pertains to himself, that is, to the Apostle. . . . Yet it seems to me that whoever assumes that these things have been spoken under the persona of the Apostle smites every soul with hopelessness. For there would then be absolutely no one who does not sin in the flesh.[5] [Emphasis mine.]
Wherefore he went on to say, “but I am carnal;” giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law . . . And observe the wisdom of Paul. For after praising the Law, he hastens immediately to the earlier period, that he may show the state of our race, both then and at the time it received the Law, and make it plain how necessary the presence of grace was, a thing he labored on every occasion to prove. For when he says, “sold under sin,” he means it not of those who were under the Law only, but of those who had lived before the Law also, and of men from the very first. Next he mentions the way in which they were sold and made over.[6] [Emphasis mine.]
Finally, Daniel R. Jennings:
Paulinus of Nola (c.353-431) indicating his belief that Romans 7 was a picture of a man in his pre-Christian days stated “For now the old war, in which the law of sin struggled with the law of God, is wiped out in Christ, for the spirit which serves God governs by faith the soul subjected to it, and the flesh in turn becomes the servant of the soul, accompanying it, as it serves God, in every duty of obedience” [Letter 12:6]. He would later write that the phrase “sold under sin” refers to an individual who has not been redeemed by Christ [Letter20:5].[7] [Emphasis mine.]
These are a few examples demonstrating the early Christian belief that Paul was not speaking as a regenerated believer in Romans 7:14-25. It appears that Augustine and Jerome were strong proponents of the idea that this passage was speaking of believers. Apparently, Augustine (354-430 AD) initially taught that Romans 7:14-25 referred to unbelievers, but eventually he changed his mind, surmising that it applied to believers as well.
And it had once appeared to me also that the apostle was in this argument of his describing a man under the law. But afterwards I was constrained to give up the idea by those words where he says, Now, then, it is no more I that do it. For to this belongs what he says subsequently also: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. And because 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.[8]
Jerome (347-420 AD), who wrote the Latin Vulgate, also championed the idea that Romans 7:14-25 pertained to a normal Christian experience. In his letter to Ctesiphon, Jerome, commenting on Romans 7:23, sees Paul as speaking of himself as an apostle, and therefore asks who can be without sin if even the apostle Paul does what he doesn’t want to do?
So likewise the apostle: I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity; Romans 7:23 and again, The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do. Now if Paul does what he wills not, what becomes of the assertion that a man may be without sin if he will? Given the will, how is it to have its way when the apostle tells us that he has no power to do what he wishes? Moreover if we ask them who the persons are whom they regard as sinless they seek to veil the truth by a new subterfuge. They do not, they say, profess that men are or have been without sin; all that they maintain is that it is possible for them to be so. Remarkable teachers truly, who maintain that a thing may be which on their own showing, never has been; whereas the scripture says:—The thing which shall be, it is that which has been already of old time.[9] [Emphasis mine.]
Arguments such as these from Augustine and Jerome seemed to open the theological door for many others to see Romans 7:14-25 as pertaining specifically to the apostle Paul as a believer and to all believers in general. Others who saw Romans 7:14-25 as referring to believers include Martin Luther, John Calvin and Philipp Melanchthon.
In order to understand Paul’s point of view in Romans 7:14-25, I will propose a number of different approaches, each one dependent on close analysis of the thematic context of Romans 7:14-25.
Approach #1—Reliance Upon Our Seven Foundational Truths
As we progressed through this series of articles, I periodically introduced foundational truths in order to clarify what I believe the Scripture is teaching us. These foundational truths will help us answer difficult questions about the text. With that in mind, here are the seven foundational truths:
Foundations for Understanding the True Meanings of Paul’s
Statements Suggesting We Are No Longer Under the Law
#1—What is the Correct Biblical Worldview of the Tanakh (Old Testament)?—The Law is good and perfect. The Law is Adonai’s good, perfect, holy and eternal written revelation, given as a blessing and a heritage to the nation of Israel. It was originally written on stone tablets as part of the Mosaic covenant, whose primary message teaches us to love Adonai with all our heart, mind, body, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, and whose primary purpose is to be a source of life, blessing, and goodness to His people. It was faithfully taught, lived, and heralded by the apostles of Yeshua, and is the basis of the New Covenant, which consists of Adonai’s Law written upon the hearts of His people.
#2—Does the Law Have Only One Function /Role /Purpose?—The Law has more than one function/role/purpose. In fact, it has many functions/roles/purposes, and the Scriptures specifically and carefully define these different functions/roles/purposes. Context will determine the function/role/purpose of which the writer is speaking.
#3—What is the Primary Function of the Law—The primary function of the Law is to ensure that those who faithfully obey its commands live a long life on the earth.
#4—Which Function/Role/Purpose of the Law is Paul Referring to in Romans 5:20–7:25?—Romans 5:20–7:25 pertains to one function of the Law. Throughout Romans 5–7 Paul is specifically dealing with ONE limited function of the Law, its ability to stir up sin in a person’s heart (The Stirring up of Sin Effect).
#5—When is the Stirring up of Sin Effect Active in a Person’s Life?—The Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law is only operational in a person’s life when they are unsaved and in the unregenerated state.
#6—What is the Root Cause for the Stirring up of Sin Effect (the Law of Sin and Death)?—The Law stirs up sin in a person’s life because of the sin in their life. But for the sin in a person’s life, the Law would not stir up sin. Thus, the root cause for the Stirring up of Sin Effect (the law of sin and death) is SIN, not the Law!
#7—What is the Proper Corrective Action to Prevent the Law from Stirring up Sin in a Person’s Heart?—The solution to the problem of the Law stirring up sin is to remove the root cause, which is sin in the heart of the sinner. Adonai does this through the process of regeneration, where our old man dies through our identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua.
In order to know which perspective Paul is speaking from in Romans 7:14-25, we must start in Romans 7:7-13. In Romans 7:7 Paul asks the question, “Is the law sin?” He concludes that the Law is not sin, i.e., the Law is not the problem. Then he explains what is the root cause of the problem—“sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.” Having identified the root cause as sin, he concludes that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” However, even though Paul correctly identifies the root cause, it is obvious the Law does play a role in this process. So Paul anticipated that someone would still blame the Law, thinking along the lines of, “Yes, the Law may not be sin itself, but the Law became death to you!” Anticipating this, Paul asks the rhetorical question in Romans 7:13a, “Has then what is good become death to me?” In Romans 7:13b, he answers the question stating, “Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.” Then, in Romans 7:14-25, he explains step by step how the answer in Romans 7:13b occurs. Because of the interconnectedness of all I just mentioned above, it is imperative that in order to understand Romans 7:14-25 we must start in Romans 7:7! Basically, in Romans 7:7-13 Paul is absolving the Law of any and all culpability and laying the blame squarely at the feet of the sin in the person.
Now that we see the interconnectedness of Romans 7:7-25, we can better answer questions about Romans 7:14-25. The first question is this—what type of sin is Paul talking about in Romans 7:7-25? The answer is easy. He tells us in Romans 7:8-9!
But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Obviously, he’s talking about sin that has been caused or augmented by the commandments of the Law of Moses! Have we seen this type of sin talked about before? Yes, we certainly have. Each portion above that is in bold, italicized type is simply an equivalent expression for Romans 5:20!
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more
The type of sin being dealt with in Romans 7:7-25 is the type of sin Paul introduced in Romans 5:20. And what did we learn about the type of sin mentioned in Romans 5:20? Well, if we simply review our foundational truths, we learned the following:
Throughout Romans 5–7 Paul is specifically dealing with ONE limited function of the Law, its ability to stir up sin in a person’s heart.
The Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law is only operational in a person’s life when they are unsaved and in the unregenerated state.
Thus, we’ve just learned that Paul is simply continuing his teaching on the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law within the hearts and mind of unbelievers, before regeneration. Therefore, the “I” in Romans 7:14-25 has to be Paul speaking as an unregenerated man under the influence of the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law. It’s as simple as that. The bottom line is that ALL of Romans 5:20–7:25 is about one topic—how the Law causes sin to increase in an unregenerated person’s life, and Adonai’s remedy for that situation, which is to regenerate the person by removing the old man. What sense would it make to insert a discussion about how a regenerated Christian struggles with his sin when the entire context of Romans 5:20–7:25 pertains to how the Law affects the unregenerated?
Approach #2—Paul’s Rhetorical Pattern Solves the Issue
In his book, Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross, author James P. Shelly provides us with an amazing breakdown on how to understand Paul’s point of view (whether “I” is a saint or sinner) in Romans 7:14-25! Mr. Shelly points out a stylistic pattern Paul uses and how this pattern can be used to unequivocally answer the question pertaining to whether Paul was speaking as a saint or sinner. Mr. Shelly notes how Paul made four arguments in a similar pattern:
Ask a Rhetorical Question
Make a Strong Denial
Give a Short Answer
Provide Further Explanation[10]
I have provided the four examples of this pattern below for your perusal adapted from Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross.
Romans 6:1-14
Ask a Rhetorical Question—Romans 6:1: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
Make a Strong Denial—Romans 6:2a: “Certainly not!”
Give a Short Answer—Romans 6:2b: “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”
Provide Further Explanation—Romans 6:3-14: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”
Romans 6:15–7:6
Ask a Rhetorical Question—Romans 6:15a: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?”
Make a Strong Denial—Romans 6:15b: “Certainly not!”
Give a Short Answer—Romans 6:16: “Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?”
Provide Further Explanation—Romans 6:17–7:6: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:7-12
Ask a Rhetorical Question—Romans 7:7a: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?”
Make a Strong Denial—Romans 7:7b: “Certainly not!”
Give a Short Answer—Romans 7:7c: “On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’ ”
Provide Further Explanation—Romans 7:8-11: “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”
Romans 7:13-25
Ask a Rhetorical Question—Romans 7:13a: “Has then what is good become death to me?”
Make a Strong Denial—Romans 7:13b: “Certainly not!”
Give a Short Answer—Romans 7:13c: “But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.”
Provide Further Explanation—Romans 7:14-25: “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
How James P. Shelley Uses the Rhetorical Pattern to Prove Romans 7:14-25 Refers to an Unregenerated Man, Not a Believer
Please compare each Further Explanation with each Short Answer and you will see that each Further Explanation is indeed a lengthier discussion of the Short Answer. With Romans 7:13-25 above in mind, please read Mr. Shelley’s analysis:
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 a 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 . . . In Romans 7:14-25, 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.”[11] [Emphasis mine.]
Notice how Mr. Shelley connects Romans 7:14-25 to Romans 7:5, “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.” in his analysis. He recognized that Romans 7:5 clearly refers to a person who is unregenerate. His reasoning is that since Romans 7:5 is “a condensed version of what is described of the man in vv. 14-25”[12] then the man in Romans 7:14-25 must also be unregenerate and thus, not the apostle Paul speaking as a believer! Of course, you’ll recognize that argument as one of the seven foundational principles I’ve already covered, that the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law is only operational in a person’s life when they are unsaved and in the unregenerated state.
Also, notice another significance to Mr. Shelly’s connection of Romans 7:14-25 to Romans 7:5. Romans 7:5 is one of the many equivalent expressions for Romans 5:20. So again, it is inescapable that Paul is using a rhetorical device to speak of, or personify himself, as an unregenerate under the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law, and not as a regenerated believer.
How I Use the Rhetorical Pattern to Prove Romans 7:14-25 Refers to an Unregenerated Man, Not a Believer
As I reviewed the pattern elucidated by James P. Shelley, I saw another method of analysis that again proves that Paul is referring to an unregenerated man in Romans 7:14-25. Remember, the rhetorical pattern makes use of a short answer followed by a longer explanation. The short answer corresponding to Romans 7:14-25 is Romans 7:13c, “But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.” Romans 7:13c is one of the five other equivalent expressions for Romans 5:20, “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.” We have already seen and proven that Romans 5:20 is the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law which is only operable in an unregenerated person living under the Law. Knowing that Romans 7:13c is the short answer for Romans 7:13a, “Has then what is good become death to me,” and knowing that Romans 7:13c is an equivalent expression for Romans 5:20, then it is obvious that Romans 7:14-25 refers to an unregenerated person living under the Law since it is a longer explanation of Romans 7:13c. Pure logic tells us that whatever is true of the short answer, Romans 7:13c, must also be true of the long answer, Romans 7:14-25!
Approach #3—The Chiastic Connection
As I discussed earlier, the entire book of Romans is written chiastically. Therefore, I suggest we view all portions of the book of Romans that bear thematically on Romans 7:14-25.
The entire chiastic structure is shown below:
The thematically relevant portions are Romans 5:12–8:17, elements I through I'. What is most important for us to pay attention to are elements J and J'. Element J pertains to Romans 5:20-21, which is the first place where Paul specifically identified the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law. Amazingly, Romans 7:7-25 is thematically connected to Romans 5:20-21 through the chiastic structure. And what is the nature of the connection? It’s quite obvious. Romans 7:7-25 is probably one of the best descriptions of the Stirring up of Sin Effect in action! If, after reading Romans 5:20-21, you don’t quite understand what it means, you need not look any further than Romans 7:7-25. For it is there that we see a graphic display of how the Law stirs up sin. In a previous article I demonstrated one method for how to determine that Romans 5:20-21 pertained to the unregenerate person. Now let’s look at another. First, we need to review Romans 5:12-19:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.). 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
These verses describe how sin was the cause of death in all mankind (not just Israel) from the time of Adam until the giving of the Torah (Law). Now, notice what happens in Romans 5:20-21 when we read the phrase, “Moreover the law entered.” At this point, we have the entrance of the Law of Moses. Therefore, the discussion that follows is within the context of the effect the Law of Moses has on people living within its dictates. In other words, we are no longer talking about people living apart from the Law (as Paul did in Romans 5:12-19). So, as you can see, from the very first mention of the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law, the context is a special universe called The Nation of Israel. As for Paul’s doctrine in Romans 5, he did not discuss the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law in the context of Gentiles because they never lived under the Law of Moses. Thus, Paul’s continued discussion pertains to Israelites living as unredeemed people under the Law of Moses. Therefore, Romans 5:20 can only be analyzed in that context. Furthermore, all the other equivalent expressions for Romans 5:20,
Romans 5:20—Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound
Romans 7:5—the sinful passions which were aroused by the law
Romans 7:8a—by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire
Romans 7:8a—taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire
Romans 7:11—taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me
Romans 7:13—But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful
only pertain to Israelites under the Law. This is a special and unique universe within which Paul is making ALL his arguments. It doesn’t mean that the same things would not apply if the Law of Moses, or even portions of it, were governing a heathen nation. The point is that he’s talking about the Stirring up of Sin Effect within the special universe called the nation of Israel.
So, what we’ve learned is that Romans 5:20-21 pertains to the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law within the nation of Israel upon Israelites. Earlier we learned through our chiastic structure that Romans 5:20-21 is thematically connected through element J to Romans 7:7-14, element J'. Therefore, this again is further proof that Paul is speaking as though he were an unregenerated Israelite, exactly as the context of Romans 5:20-21 states, and not a redeemed Christian. Thus, the chiastic nature of Paul’s discussion is a powerful analysis tool to help us interpret what Paul intends in Romans 7:7-25!
Approach #4—Logical Thinking Unhindered by Tradition
Another way to approach the problem of how to interpret Paul is to use simple logic. However, the caveat is that you must be unencumbered by the erroneous teachings of men and girded with truth. In other words, once a person understands and believes the seven foundational truths I’ve presented, the answers obtained from simple logic will solve the conundrum concerning Paul.
The Man of Romans 7:14-25 Is Totally Defeated
Even a cursory perusal of Romans 7:14-25 demonstrates that the man spoken of in this passage is totally defeated and crushed by the weight of his sin. Whoever he is, he is totally overcome by sin and its burden. He’s not just having a struggle here and there; he is a complete victim of the sin dwelling within him. That being the case, how could it possibly refer to the Apostle Paul?
People who think Romans 7:14-25 refers to the Apostle Paul as a regenerated saint have not thought about how that notion contradicts what Paul said in Romans 6 and 8 about those who have crucified the old man and are no longer under the Law—obviously meaning no longer under the Stirring up of Sin Effect of the Law. John P. Shelley has noted this contradiction. In the quote below, when Shelley mentions not being under the Law, we must supply the meaning I’ve developed in this series of articles, that we’re not under the Stirring up of Sin effect of the Law!
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 instead, with a diatribe concerning a Christian's struggle with sin; A question which was never asked and which would be entirely out of context? [13]
Walt Russell has also noted this glaring contradiction.
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.[14]
Lastly, concerning logical arguments pertaining to Romans 7:14-25, again, I’d like to share thoughts from James P. Shelley.
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 true of 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?
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)[15]
Hopefully, you will agree with me, that if we assume Paul is speaking as a regenerated Christian in Romans 7:14-25, then that would be totally inconsistent with most of what Paul said is true of a regenerated Christian in Romans 6 and 8! The fact is, Paul is speaking rhetorically, or on behalf of an unredeemed man under the Law, not as a saint struggling with his sinful heart.
The Two Main Reasons Why People Believe Paul Is Speaking as a Mature Believer
The Shift to Present Tense in Romans 7:14
Romans 7:7-13 uses the aorist or past tense in the Greek. However, Paul abruptly switches to present tense beginning at Romans 7:14. This is taken as proof that Paul begins speaking as a mature believer, “I,” in verse fourteen. This appears to be a good argument until you weigh the bulk of evidence against it as I did in the previous portion of this article. If you assume Paul is speaking as a mature believer, then there are too many inconsistencies and outright contradictions between Romans 7:14-25 compared to Romans 6 and 8. These differences have Paul flirting with schizophrenia, and are so glaring they simply cannot be supported by logic, because the man of Romans 7:14-25 is doing everything Paul says (in Romans 6 and 8) a true believer has been set free from. It’s best to see Paul’s usage of “I” in the present tense as a rhetorical device to drive home the point of the greatness of Adonai’s grace to deliver such a one from the bondage of sin.
The Argument that the Unregenerate Do Not Delight in the Law of God
An argument offered by some who think Paul cannot be speaking as an unregenerate man in Romans 7:14-25 pertains to the statement Paul made in Romans 7:22, “For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” The argument is that unregenerated sinners do not “delight in the law of God,” therefore, Paul must be speaking as a believer. This view is espoused by Steven J. Cole as follows:
He says (7:22), “For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.” He is seeking to obey the law, not just outwardly, but with the “inner man” (7:15-20, 22). Unbelievers may put on an outward show of obedience, but their hearts are far from God (Matt. 23; Mark 7:6-13). Unbelievers do not seek after God (Rom. 3:11) or desire to please Him (8:8). His heartfelt cry, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” sounds like the cry of a man who yearns for God and the new resurrection body, which will be free from sin. The closer a man draws to God, the more he sees the corruption of his old nature and the more he desires to be free from all inclination to sin.[16]
This argument is easily overcome by recognizing what I call the special universe, which was the nation of Israel. Paul reminds us in Romans 3:1-2, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God,” that Israel was a unique nation because they were the stewards of Adonai’s revelation. This stewardship was not limited to just possessing Adonai’s eternal words. They were a nation governed by the words of the Holy One in that the Law of Moses was the law of the land!
He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. 20 He has not dealt thus with any nation; and as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise the LORD! (Psalm 147:19-20)
Hopefully, you remember how Adonai told Israel that other nations would surmise they were a wise nation because of the Law!
Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD
my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. 6 Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people” (Deuteronomy 4:5-6).
Therefore, it is not difficult to see how there could have been many Israelites who would “delight in the law of God” even though they were unsaved. The Torah, Prophets and Writings are full of praise for the Law of Moses. Are we to suppose that the Israelites ignored all the positive accolades spoken of in the Tanakh about the Law of Moses? Should we think they all had a negative view of the Law of Moses? Is it inconceivable that some within Israel would not delight in the Law of Moses, especially considering how the Tanakh praises the word of Adonai? It is not inconceivable that there would have been Israelites, unsaved unregenerated Israelites, who would have viewed the Law of Moses positively and desired to keep it, especially considering the promises it offered to those who kept it. We must remember that Israel was a special universe, where the Law of Moses was the law of the land. Every Israelite heard the Law from their youth onward and many probably heard it and delighted in it, even though they were unsaved.
One of the most probable candidates fitting the description of one delighting in the law of God while in a state of unregeneracy would have been a Pharisee, like Paul before he was saved! Didn’t he love the Law? During the time Paul persecuted the early believers in Yeshua, if you had asked him if he delighted in the Law, would he not have given an emphatic “Yes!” Did he not love the Law, and wasn’t he zealous for the Law? Yes! Was he regenerated? No. Then I suggest a Pharisee such as Paul is a perfect candidate for the “I” of Romans 7:14-25. Was Paul the Pharisee misguided when he persecuted the early believers? Yes, of course he was. But in his mind, no matter how perverted it was, he was doing it for the sake of the Law, as did all the other Pharisees who persecuted Yeshua.[17] Furthermore, there are any number of people in Israel who could have fit the description of someone who was unregenerated but delighted in the Law. A religious parent, a patriotic young man, a morally aware teenager, a thankful senior citizen—any of these people, while yet being unregenerated, could have loved the Law and therefore fit the profile of Romans 7:14-25.
The primary reason Christians have a difficult time comprehending the examples I just gave above is because of their anti-Law (antinomian) of Moses mindset that has pervaded the church for centuries. This anti-Law viewpoint has caused most within Christianity to only see the Law in light of Paul’s introduction of the seemingly negative aspects of the Law—Romans 5:20, 7:5, 7:8a, 7:11 and 7:13. I have already discussed this unfortunate state of affairs in my second article in this series, where I looked at the typical perception of the Law maintained by many believers. That worldview is totally devoid of the grand and glorious perspective of the Law endorsed by the Law itself! It is unfortunate that Christians view the Torah of Moses as a handicap and a burden instead of the gift it truly is. In summary, there were probably many Israelites who, even though they were not regenerated, delighted in the Law, having believed Moses and the testimony of the prophets concerning the blessedness of the man who would keep its precepts.
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you
shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success (Joshua 1:8).Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever he does shall prosper (Psalm 1:1-3).
It is within these people the Law functioned to stir up sin according to Romans 5:20, 7:5, 7:8a, 7:11 and 13 and Romans 7:14-25, and therefore they are all prime candidates to fit the description of Romans 7:22. The reason Christians think it’s impossible for an unregenerated person to “delight in the law of God” is precisely because they fail to recognize the special universe within which every Israelite lived, when they lived under the Law of Moses as the law of the land.
[1] Pink, Arthur W. “The Christian in Romans 7:14-25.” Philadelphia Baptist Church Decatur, Alabama, www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/AWPink/Romans7.htm. Accessed 9 July 2024.
[2] Clark, Adam. “Adam Clark’s Commentary of the Bible (Romans 7:14).” BIBLEEXPLORE.com, www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom7.htm. Accessed 9 July 2024.
[3] Jennings, Daniel J. “The Patristic Interpretation of Romans 7:14-25.” danieljennings.org, www.danielrjennings.org/ThePatristicInterpretationOfRomans7_14_25.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2024.
[4] Steele, Daniel. “Half Hours with St. Paul and Other Bible Readings,” Chapter XIII. Commonplace Holiness, www.craigladams.com/Steele/page138/page152/. Accessed 18 July 2024.
[5] “The Fathers of the Church: Origen, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, Books 6-10.” Google Books, Google, Thomas P. Scheck, translator, p. 44, www.google.com/books/edition/_/3E9VjfiXWz0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&kptab=getbook.
[6] Chrysostom, John. “Homilies on Romans,” Homily XIII. orthodoxchurchfathers.com, www.orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf111/npnf1186.html. Accessed 15 July 2024.
[7] Jennings, Daniel R. “The Arminian Interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 Part 1, the Early Christian Witness to the Arminian Interpretation.” Wasco Free Will Baptist Church, 4 Dec 2009, www.wfwbc.org/the-arminian-interpretation-of-romans-714-25-part-1-the-early-christian-witness-to-the-arminian-interpretation/.
[8]“Church Fathers: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapter 22, (Augustine).” newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/15091.htm. Accessed 19 July 2024.
[9]“Church Fathers: Letter 133: A Letter to Ctesiphon (Jerome), 133:2. newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001133.htm. Accessed 19 July 2024.
[10] Shelly, James P. Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross, Chapter 15—“Sin and the Misinterpretation of Romans 7.” E-book ed., copyright 2012 by the author. Truthaccordingtoscripture.com, www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/books/counterfeit-cross/romans-7.php.
[11] Shelly, Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross, Chapter 15.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Russell, Walt. “Insights from Postmodernism's Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7.” Jets 36/4 (December 1993) 531-563, 1994, p. 524, etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/files_JETS-PDFs_36_36-4_36-4-pp531-563_JETS.pdf.
[15] Shelly, James P. Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross, Chapter 15.
[16] Cole, Steven J. “Lesson 39: Who is This Wretched Man? (Romans 7:14-25, Overview).” Bible.org, copyright 2011 by the author. https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-39-who-wretched-man-romans-714-25-overview.
[17] John 19:5-7—Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!” Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”