The Man in Romans 7
In order to rightly understand what Paul taught in the
latter part of Romans 7, we need to understand how he described two groups of
people earlier in this epistle.
In Rom 3 & 4, Paul is teaching his kinsmen of the flesh
why being Jewish is not enough, how children of promise are true Jews. In Rom
5:1-5 he is teaching - again - how those Jewish Christians were reconciled to
God: righteous in faith, rejoicing in Christ and our afflictions, grounded in
love, and possessed by the Holy Spirit.
In what follows in chapter 5 is an ongoing contrast between
unconverted Jews and converted Jews, with an abbreviated history of sin -
contrasting the first and last Adams. Throughout this chapter, the redeemed are
described as righteous, justified, full of grace, saved from wrath, reconciled
to God, having eternal life. The unconverted are described as helpless,
ungodly, enemies of God, dead in sin, under judgment, condemned. Quite a
difference - worth noting.
Chapter 6 is a continuation of Paul's argument from the
previous chapters, where he encourages the redeemed Jews (this is still his
primary audience) are exhorted to walk in grace, not sin. These people are
called dead to sin, joined with Christ, crucified with Christ, free from sin,
alive to God, under grace, slaves of obedience and righteousness. He tells them
- and us - not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies, for, he says, "sin
will not rule over you because you are not under law but under grace."
(vs 14) We have new fruit resulting in sanctification and eternal life; we have
a new master, grace - no longer slaves to master sin.
The unconverted man in Romans 6 has everything in common
with his counterpart in chapter 5; he is in bondage and domination of sin, a
slave to sin, ruled by death, obedient to sin, unrighteous, and ruled by sin;
under law. This man is obedient to sin, under law not grace, a slave to sin -
leading to death, weak in the flesh, morally impure, lawless, producing the
fruit of death. Sin is his master, not grace.
The contrast between the unconverted sinner and the redeemed
sinner is striking and it's consistent: the one man is fleshly and full of sin,
under the law and breaking the law; the other man is full of the Holy Spirit,
rejoicing in all things, dead to sin and the law, producing good fruit unto
eternal life.
A couple of observations: contextually, Paul has been
describing his kinsmen of the flesh. The man in Romans 7 is a Jew, even though
all people can identify with the spiritual struggle portrayed. The pious Jew would see God's law, instructions, Scriptures
as good and holy even while he would be unable to comply with them.
When we then read about the man in Romans 7:13-24, who does
he sound like? Let's look at a list:
vs 13: dead, sinful
vs 14: of flesh, sold into sin's power
vs 15 & 16: double minded
vs 17: full of sin
vs 18: no ability to do good
vs 19 -21: captive to evil
vs 22: he agrees, he knows the law of God is good
vs 23: he is a prisoner of sin
vs 24: he is a wretched man
While you and I see some of our Christian life in what Paul
wrote about in this passage, it's clear that this man has nothing in common
with the redeemed man Paul described in chapter 5 & 6; but he has
everything in common with the unconverted man in those chapters. The context of the epistle indicates Paul is
describing a Jew, not a Gentile, and a Jew that is struggling under a law he
knows is good but without the ability to obey from the heart and produce good
fruit unto eternal life. The man in Romans 7 does not have the Holy Spirit, but
he is of the flesh, captive to evil, a slave to sin, producing fruit unto
death.
The change to present tense does not mandate the view that
Paul has changed course and began talking about himself as a Christian. It may
very well be nothing more than a literary device to make the plight of the man
all the more gripping. He is in a very dangerous condition! Present tense does
not mandate the view that this man is Paul as a Christian. The description of
the man and the larger context of the epistle provide a more sure guide to
interpret this passage.
As with all Scripture, we learn from this passage. But we
have no more reason to insert ourselves into this passage than we do with
Jeremiah 29:11.
If you disagree with this assessment, fine. I do not intend
to argue about it here.
