What Is Paul’s Subject and Central Argument in Romans 5:20–7:25?

Introduction

Along with the apostle Peter who wrote that Paul’s teachings were “hard to understand” (II Peter 3:16), many commentators have also noted the complexity of Paul’s writings. According to Fitzmyer, “Paul's attitude about the law is indeed complicated.”[1] Similarly, Longenecker states, “Paul's teaching regarding the Law is complex.”[2] The problem of “Paul and the Law” is a recurring topic among scholars, a seemingly unending Pandora’s box of conflicting notions on how to interpret his “negative” and “contradictory” statements about the Law of Moses. One persistent area of confusion pertains to the proper interpretation Rom 6:14, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” Many interpret Paul as saying that the Law has been abolished. For example, Vlachos states “that the law with its obligations and sanctions has been displaced as a moral guide.”[3] While Russell suggests that Christians “have moved from one covenant relationship (the Mosaic covenant) to another under Christ (the new covenant) by dying to the first.”[4]

Some authors, not willing to concede to a complete abrogation of the Law, interpret Rom 6:14 to mean that we are no longer under portions of the Law. For example, Moo writes: “But we cannot conclude from this verse that the believer has no obligation to any of the individual commandments of that law . . . Still less does this verse allow the conclusion that Christians are no longer subject to “law” or “commandments” at all—for nomos here means Mosaic law, not “law” as such.””[5] Still others reject the idea that Rom 6:14 can be interpreted that we as Christians are no longer under the Law, especially as a moral code. For example Cranfield views Rom 6:14 as stating that we “are not under God's condemnation pronounced by the law.”[6] Lastly, Stern interprets it as meaning that we are no longer under the law as a system of legalism:

You are not under legalism (Greek upo nomon; Sha'ul's use of this phrase discussed in depth at Gal 3:23). The word "nomos," literally "law" and often translated "Torah" in the Jewish New Testament (Mat 5:17), must here be rendered "legalism," which is defined in Rom 3:20 as perversion of the Torah into a system of rules for earning God's praise without trusting, loving or communing with God the Giver of the Torah.[7]

As you can see, even these small number of interpretations are quite divergent. In my quest to determine the proper interpretation of Rom 6:14, I have discovered that the two most important questions that need to be asked are, “What is Paul’s subject in the verses surrounding Rom 6:14, and what was his central argument about that subject?” The correct answer to these two questions is important because they establish the context for Paul’s statement in Rom 6:14. Obviously, Rom 6:14 was not mentioned in a vacuum, and I believe there’s much to gain in ascertaining the proper context of this enigmatic verse. Furthermore, I believe that an accurate understanding of the context of Paul’s statement in Rom 6:14 is the key to properly interpreting it. Therefore, my goal in this paper is to answer the questions, “What is Paul’s subject and what is his central argument in his discourse, which includes Rom 6:14?”

I. Establishing the Boundaries for the Context for Rom 6:14

A. Chiastic Analysis

While some authors approach a Biblical book linearly, it’s important to recognize that many Biblical passages are written chiastically, where themes in the first half of a passage are repeated in the second half in reverse order.

Myers comments on this tendency to analyze linearly instead of chiastically: “Nevertheless, the concern with determining the "logical development" of the reasoning in Romans has caused most interpreters to overlook the Apostle's tendency to reverse direction in his argumentation. The importance of reversal in Romans is illustrated by Paul's repeated use of chiasmus, a common rhetorical device in antiquity.” [8] Chiasms permeate Scripture and sometimes provide opportunities to study a passage from more enlightening perspectives that cannot be discerned by a linear trek through the passage. This method of study requires one to approach the Scriptures thematically, noting the repetition of similar words, themes, topics, events, situations and circumstances. For example, while reading Rom 6:1-11, I noticed six themes that were repeated in Rom 7:1-6 as follows:

1. Death of an individual

2. Freedom from an influence

3. Having knowledge

4. The experience of newness

5. Cause and effect statements demonstrating the effect of a death

6. Yeshua’s resurrection

For sake of brevity, only the connections between themes 3, 4 and 6 will be shown. However, the other themes have connections that are just as objective.

• The third theme, found in Rom 6:1–11 calls on believers to have knowledge.

  • This theme is captured in 6:6, “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him.”

  • 7:1–6 also contains a matching theme in v. 1, “Or do you not know, brethren.”

• The fourth theme found in Rom 6:1–11 pertains to the experience of newness.

  • This theme is captured in 6:4, “even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

  • 7:1–6 contains a similar theme, v. 6, “so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit.”

• The sixth theme found in Rom 6:1–11 pertains to passages specifically mentioning Yeshua’s resurrection.

  • This theme is captured in 6:4, 9, “that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. . . knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more.”

  • 7:1–6 contains a similar theme in v. 4 “that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead.”

Once we find thematic units, it’s a good idea to search for an overarching theme for each unit—a theme that captures the essence of the text. In other words, although Rom 6:1-11 and 7:1-6 share six themes, overall, is there some overarching theme that characterizes 6:1-11, and is there an overarching theme that characterizes 7:1-6? In fact, there is. The overall theme of 6:1-11 could be Our Death in Messiah Freeing Us from Sin. Likewise, the overall theme of 7:1-6 could be captured as The Death of the Husband in Marriage Freeing the Wife from Marriage. As you can see, these two portions of Scripture are definitely connected thematically, united by the idea that death causes freedom from something!

In Rom 6:12–13 Paul concluded that our identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua propelled us into a new reality where it's possible for us to no longer be slaves of sin. Similarly, in 6:15-23, Paul gave practical instructions on how to present ourselves as slaves of righteousness, since we are no longer slaves of sin (the new reality he mentioned in 6:12-13). A similar type of analysis, comparing similar words and phrases, reveals that 6:12-13 shares numerous thematic connections to 6:15-23! The connections are too numerous to mention in this short paper, but even a cursory comparison of 6:12–13 with 6:15–23 will yield many connecting words, phrases and themes, establishing their thematic connectivity. Looking for a theme for each one of these sections is relatively easy. The overall theme of 6:12-13 could be New Reality—We Are No Longer Slaves to Sin, and the overall theme of 6:15-23 could be Practical Living Instructions for Those Who Are No Longer Slaves to Sin.

The connections we’ve seen so far show matching themes on either side of Rom 6:14 and look like the structure below. Titles are used which summarize the overall theme of each thematic unit we’ve studied so far:

As you can see, the themes are aligning themselves along the lines of a classic chiastic structure. At this point we should move out further at both ends of our developing chiasm to see if we can find yet another matching theme. In Rom 5:20-21, Paul introduces us to a truly unusual function of the Law: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.” This verse should immediately cause us to ask, “Why would God give a Law that causes offenses/sins to abound?” After all, who gives laws with the intent that the forbidden behavior becomes worse? I have chosen to call this unusual function of the Law the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law. Amazingly, when we read beyond 7:6, we see a perfect complement to 5:20-21! Rom 7:7-25 seems to be a full-blown exposition of what Paul began explaining in 5:20-21! In other words, if we want to understand what Paul means by his statement in Rom 5:20, then we need look no further than Rom 7:7-25, which seems to give us a full description of the who, what, when, where, why and how of Rom 5:20. We can summarize Rom 5:20-21 as Introduction of the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law, and Rom 7:7-25 as The Stirring Up of Sin Effect Fully Explained and Dissected. Adding these two themes to our developing chiasm we get the following structure.

The Chiastic Arrangement of Rom 5:20–7:25

This chiasm teaches us the following: 1) Rom 5:20 is the beginning of one of Paul’s most important discourses which extends to Rom 7:25, and 2) Rom 5:20–7:25 is one complete thematic unit of thought and it sets the bounds for the context of Rom 6:14. In other words, if we want to understand Rom 6:14, we will need to do so within the bounds of the subject matter (context) discussed in Rom 5:20–7:25.

B. Observations by Others

I am not the only commentator who has perceived the continuity of Rom 5:20–7:25. Chris A. Vlachos noted the obvious connection between Rom 5:20-21 and Rom 6–7 noting: “That chapters 6–7 . . . arise in response to the statement regarding law and sin made at the end of chapter 5.”[9] Vlachos astutely observed that Paul’s discussions in Rom 6–7 were “prompted” by his bold declaration in Rom 5:20-21, that one of the purposes of the Law was to increase sin! Similar to my chiasm above, we see that Paul’s discussion in Rom 7 depends on his statement in Rom 5:20-21.

Charles T. Myers has also come to similar conclusions concerning the importance of Rom 5:20 in Paul’s discussion, and the unity of Rom 5:20–7:25. Myers connects Rom 5:20 to 6:1ff and 7:7ff using principles of discourse analysis, by examining the organization and structure of the text, including how different parts of the text relate to each other.:

Paul makes two radical assertions in 5:20, one about the law ("Law [nomos] slipped in to increase the trespass... 5:20a) and another about sin ("...but where sin [hamartia] increased, grace [charis] abounded all the more," 5:20b). These two claims result in the raising of two objections in the form of questions. The statement about sin in 5:20b raises the question, "Are we to continue in sin [hamartia] that grace [charis] may abound?" (6:1), while the statement about the law in 5:20a raises the question, "Is the law [nomos] sin [hamartia]?" (7:7a). In both cases Paul responds to the questions/objections in the subsequent verses, treating sin in 6:2 ff. and the law in 7:7b ff. [10]

Along with Vlachos’s observations, Myers’s analysis is further evidence supporting my position concerning the unity of Rom 5:20–7:25. Again, we can conclude that Rom 5:20–7:25 is one unit of thought.

II. What Is Paul’s Subject in Rom 5:20–7:25?

Having established that Rom 5:20–7:25 delineates the boundaries of Paul’s discussion, we are now in a position to determine the main subject of his discussion. The obvious place to start is Rom 5:20, where Paul introduced an enigmatic function of the Law of Moses: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.” Our next question should be, “Does Paul say anything else about this unusual function of the Law?” To our delight, he continued the exposition of his bold, puzzling statement introduced in Rom 5:20. In fact, Paul spends the remainder of chapters 6–7 specifically talking about this curious function of the Law. Since Rom 5:20 informs us that the Law causes offenses to abound in a person’s life, I call this the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law. Amazingly, Paul refers to this function of the Law often throughout 5:20–7:25; however, he uses different phrases when referring to it. I call these equivalent expressions—similar, but different phrases expressing the same idea. For example, the phrase “sinful passions which were aroused by the law” (7:5) is an equivalent expression for “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound” (5:20). Both passages express the same idea—the Law causes sin to increase. If we search for more of these equivalent expressions, we will find ten instances throughout 5:20–7:25:

The Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law—Equivalent Expressions in Romans 5–7

• Rom 5:20—Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.

• Rom 6:19—slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness

• Rom 7:5—the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

• Rom 7:7—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.”

• Rom 7:8a—But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire.

• Rom 7:8b—For apart from the law sin was dead.

• Rom 7:9—but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

• Rom 7:11—For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

• Rom 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.

• Rom 7:23—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.

We have now found our subject! These ten equivalent expressions, found throughout Rom 5:20–7:25, demonstrate Paul’s absolute laser focus on solely one subject, the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law. Having identified Paul’s subject, it’s now time to identify his central argument pertaining to the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law.

III. What Is Paul’s Central Argument Pertaining to the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law?

A. Understanding the Big Picture

In order to continue, we need to really think about the dilemma Rom 5:20-21 presents! According to Lev 18:5, “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD,” the primary purpose of the Law is to ensure/gain/attain a long life (not eternal life) by means of keeping the commandments! Although this understanding is difficult to perceive from the NKJV translation, other translations that hit the mark, conveying the meaning that Moses reiterated multiple times throughout his speeches to Israel in Deuteronomy, are listed below: [11]

• you will find life through them. I am the LORD. (NLT)

• If you obey them, you shall live. I am the Lord. (LB)

• You will have life through them. I am the Lord. (GWT)

• for those who follow them, shall have life; I am the Lord your God.) (WYC)

The primary function of the Law is also portrayed in the Psalms. The writer of Ps 119 understood how obedience to the Law brought life. Five times he spoke of receiving life from the Law of the Lord—Ps 119:25, 50, 93, 116, and 156. This life, attained by the obedient, is also fittingly captured in Psalm 1.

We also have the testimony of the OT saints who experienced the Law firsthand.[12] In their minds, the Law was a blessing, a source of life and greatly to be desired and extolled. Note how the Psalmist confidently states “I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts” (Ps 119:45). In other places we learn that obedience to the Law cleanses your way (v. 9), prevents you from sinning (v. 11), and leads to life (vv. 25, 37, 50, 93, 107, 116, 154, 156).

However, in Rom 5:20-21, Paul informed us that the commandments of the Law cause sin to increase! Obviously, there “seems” to be a huge contradiction here![13] How could the OT saints have possibly walked in holiness and life if the very commandments meant to sanctify them cause sin and death as Paul has suggested.[14] Furthermore, how could these two opposing functions of the Law operate simultaneously? It is this dilemma which provides the context or backdrop for Paul’s discussion in Rom 5:20–7:25. Rom 5:20–7:25 is Paul’s “thesis” on how the Law can fulfill its role of ensuring life, blessing and sanctification for the saints despite the fact that it causes sin to increase. For sake of brevity, I list Paul’s overall central argument here, filling in details as we progress.

1. One of the functions of the Law is to cause offenses/sins to abound/increase—the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law (Rom 5:20-21).

2. The Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law only occurs within the unregenerated![15]

3. The root cause of the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law is sin within the unregenerated.[16]

4. God’s remedy to free a person from the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law is regeneration, which causes the old man to die.[17]

5. The death of the old man frees him from the Law, i.e. the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law.[18]

B. The Utility of an Outline

We have already seen that Paul’s argument is arranged chiastically, but this does not preclude the possibility that his arguments are arranged linearly also. I like to analyze a passage linearly and chiastically if I see evidence for a chiasm. Here, I present what I’ve found by simply following Paul’s arguments linearly as he progresses through them. The following outline shows Paul’s flow of thought between Rom 5:20–6:14, which comprises one subunit of thought within the overall structure of Rom 5:20–7:25.[19]

An Outline of Rom 5:20–6:14

I. Romans 5:20-21—The Problem Defined

A. Romans 5:20-21—The Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law

II. Romans 6:1-11—The Solution to the Problem Explained and Implemented

A. Romans 6:1-2—We Cannot Continue in Sin Because of Our Death to Sin

B. Romans 6:3-4—We Identify with Yeshua’s Death and Life Through Baptism

C. Romans 6:5—Identification with Yeshua’s Death Ensures Identification with His Life

D. Romans 6:6-7—Death of the Old Man Ensures Freedom from Sin

E. Romans 6:8-11—Our Resurrection in Messiah Ensures Death to Sin and Life to God

III. Romans 6:12-14—A New Reality Resulting from Our Identification with Yeshua’s Death and Life

A. Romans 6:12-13—We Are No Longer Slaves to Sin

B. Romans 6:14—We are No Longer Under the Law = We are No Longer Under the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law

As noted earlier, Paul introduces his subject in I) Rom 5:20-21. In II) Rom 6:1-11, Paul instructs us about the corrective action (regeneration by identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua) for the root cause, which made us vulnerable to the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law. In III) Rom 6:12-14, Paul informs us of the new reality that we as believers walk in. Sin will no longer have dominion over us, precisely because we as believers have been regenerated and thus are 1) no longer under, 2) dead to, and 3) delivered from the Law (Rom 6:14; 7:4-6)—meaning, the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law! And this makes perfect sense because if the Law causes people to sin more, then they will be permanently under sin’s dominion. However, removal of the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law paves the way for sin to no longer have dominion!

Let’s also take note how the themes in Rom 5:20 and Rom 6:14 (the two bookends of our outline) are thematically connected. Three themes connect them:

• “grace abounded” and “so grace might reign” in 5:20-21 is matched by “under grace” in 6:14

• “the offense might abound,” “sin abounded,” and “sin reigned” in 5:20-21 is matched by “sin shall not have dominion over you” in 6:14

• “the law entered” in 5:20-21 is matched by “you are not under the law” in 6:14

It is so easy to see that Rom 5:20-21 introduces a problem, the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law, whereas Rom 6:14 demonstrates the resolution of the problem! It’s as if the bookends in our outline are specifically teaching us the following. The Law entered to cause sin to increase (5:20-21), but now sin shall not have dominion over you because you are not under the law, meaning you are not under the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law (6:14)! So, as you can see, Rom 6:14 is a direct solution to the problem introduced in Rom 5:20! It’s very specific. What was introduced in Rom 5:20? The Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law. What are we no longer under? The Law in its entirety? Of course not. We are no longer under the Law in that we are no longer under its Stirring Up of Sin Effect.

C. The Importance of the Central Axis of Rom 5:20–7:25

Now, let’s revisit the chiastic arrangement of Rom 5:20–7:25. Please review it and notice the central axis, element X (Rom 6:14), at the center of the structure. We can now understand and appreciate element X, the central axis of the chiastic arrangement of 5:20–7:25. Most of the time, the central axis functions as the highlight or the most important element in a chiasm. Thompson, referring to “Chiasmus as an Exegetical Tool,” explains:

The Role of the Centre. By the very fact of its being the 'turning point' of a chiasmus, ideas deployed there enjoy a special prominence, 137 and attention tends to focus on it. 138 As such, these ideas characteristically may have any of three functions: forming the climax of the argument, [emphasis mine]139 indicating its purpose, or acting as an apophthegmatic summary of its contents.[20]

Therefore, Rom 6:14 is the climax of Paul’s arguments, or the culminating conclusion of the totality of Paul’s discourse in this groundbreaking exposition on the subject of the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law (Rom 5:20–7:25)! The chiastic arrangement of his arguments puts the stunning climatic conclusion of his arguments at the center of the exposition, not the end! The point is clear. Paul’s thesis involved explaining how the Law could bring life even though it stirred up sin. What was his final conclusion? We, as regenerated believers, have been delivered from that function of the Law!

So, what does Paul mean when he says we’re not “under the Law”? Does he mean:

• Not under all of the Law of Moses as a standard of righteousness?

• Not under the ceremonial aspects of the Law?

• Not under legalistic perversion of the Law?

• Not under the condemnation of the Law?

• Not under the Law as an ethnic marker?

• Not under the Law as a means of remaining within the covenant?

• Not under the Law as a rule of life?[21]

It is utterly impossible for any of these answers to be correct. Why? This is easily determined by answering the following questions. Throughout Paul’s discussion in Rom 5:20–7:25, was he laser focused on the entire Law as a standard of righteousness, or on the ceremonial portions of the Law, or on the legalistic perversion of the Law, or on the condemnation of the Law, or on the Law as an ethnic marker, or on the Law as a means for a Jew to remain within the covenant, or as a rule of life? Were any of these the main focus of his arguments? No! He was laser focused on one issue, the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law, and therefore CONTEXT demands that the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law is what we are no longer under.

IV. Concluding Remarks

Scholars who interpret Rom 6:14 to mean that the entire Law was abolished have missed its subject and Paul’s central argument. Instead they have understood Paul’s thesis to be any number of topics. Walt Russell thinks “The issue that Paul addresses in Romans 7 is the Jewish issue of the authority of the Law (Torah) over a person now that the Messiah has come and died.”[22] He goes on to say “The time had now arrived for Paul to address this issue of the present role of the Mosaic Law in the life of God's people in a straightforward and systematic manner.”[23] Not recognizing Paul’s true central argument in Rom 7, Russell also states, “Romans 7 is, in fact, Paul's clarification to the Jewish Christians in Rome about what role Torah is to play in the restraining of God's people from sinning.” Besides not being Paul’s central argument, his suggestion is the exact opposite of everything Paul stated in Rom 6-7.[24] Paul’s thesis was how the Law increased sin, not how the Law restrained it! Thus, Russell’s statements are totally out of context with Paul’s thesis in Rom 5:20–7:25. What Paul was addressing in a “straightforward and systematic manner” was the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law.

In conclusion, Paul’s subject in Rom 5:20–7:25 was the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law and his central argument was that those who were regenerated were no longer under this function of the Law. Freedom from this function of the Law (which was available to the saints in the Tanakh also)[25] allows a believer to have victory over sin, grow in holiness, sustain a wonderful physical life full of Adonai’s blessings, and achieve sanctification by obedience to Adonai’s written revelation, which includes the Tanakh as well as the Apostolic writings.

---

[1] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 131.

[2] Richard N. Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1971), 93.

[3] Chris Alex Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good & Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Eugene, Or: Pickwick Publications, 2009), 242.

[4] Walt Russell, “Insights from Postmodernism’s Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7,” JETS 37(4) (1994): 520.

[5] Douglass J. Moo, Romans: The Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018) 390.

[6] C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1985), 142.

[7] David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), Romans 6:14, E-sword Version 14.1.0.

[8] Charles D. Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3-8,” Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 32 n. 1.

[9] Chris Alex Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good & Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Eugene, Or: Pickwick Publications, 2009), 238-239.

[10] Charles D. Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3-8,” Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 40 n. 1.

[11] Other passages teaching the same lesson about prolongment of life and the enjoyment of emotional well-being as a result of obeying the commandments include Exo 20:12; Lev 26:3-13; Deut 4:10; 5:33; 6:24; 8:1,3; 16:20; 30:15-20; 32:47.

[12] These saints are clearly people who had been regenerated by God’s Spirit and were walking in the Law of Moses, obeying its statutes and experiencing life in all its fulness.

[13] Rosner is typical of most scholars who see this contradiction and opt to accept Paul’s testimony at the expense of Moses’s testimony in Lev 18:5: “Paul’s conclusion in Romans 7:10 has obvious relevance to Leviticus 18:5: ‘the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.’ ”: Brian S. Rosner, “Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God,” in New Studies in Biblical Theology (ed. D. A. Carson; Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2013), Vol 31, 66.

[14] The idea that the Law causes sin and death is the main reason most scholars reject the testimony of the Tanakh concerning the function of the Law to provide life. This is based on their misunderstanding of Rom 7:10, “And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death,” which they take out of context, applying it to the regenerated and the unregenerated alike.

[15] See Rom 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” where Paul makes it clear that the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law only occurs in the unregenerated. “For when we were in the flesh” is an equivalent expression for the unregenerated state—see Ephesians 2:1-4.

[16] Paul clearly identified the root cause as “sin.” In Rom 7:13b he demonstrated that the root cause was “sin, that it might appear sin.” In 7:8a he informed us that it was “sin, taking opportunity by the commandment” to produce “all manner of sinful desire.” Lastly, in 7:11 he lamented how sin took “occasion by the commandment” and by the commandment killed him.

[17] Rom 6:1-11 is the corrective action for the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law! Regeneration sets us free from the Stirring Up of Sin Effect of the Law.

[18] Covered in detail below.

[19] Paul’s discussion in Rom 5:20–6:14 is also arranged chiastically!

[20] Ian H. Thompson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 43.

[21] These bullet points represent the majority of opinions on the interpretation of Rom 6:14.

[22] Russell W. Insights from Postmodernism’s Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 1994;37(4): 514.

[23] Russell, ibid., 520.

[24] Russell, ibid.

[25] All three verbs used in Rom 5:20, “νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα· οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις” share the same tense and aspect (Aorist active indicatives), indicating that the abounding of sin and the abounding of grace occurred concomitantly.