Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (5 of 7)

Scriptural Harmony

In Romans 7:14ff (or even if starting as far back as verse 7), it is important to ask ourselves whether Paul is describing an experience that is consistent with either verses 4 and 6, or just with verse 5. In the foregoing, I will show how the regenerate view has to ignore—and even torture—the context in order to make it say what it just does not say about us as believers. As noted earlier, one such thing for some to say is that Paul did not actively sell himself as a slave to sin, therefore he could not have really done the things that he supposedly says that he actively and really could not do. This is simply remarkable to me, considering the fact that the passive verb “sold” has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Paul is being passive towards sin here. All that a passive verb denotes in the Greek is that Paul was passive in being “sold” as a slave to sin. In other words, he didn’t actively volunteer to be sold as a slave to sin, it was imposed upon him by someone else. And this is exactly what happens to people who are sold in a slave market: they are “passively” sold as slaves to the highest bidder, with no choice of their own in the matter to do otherwise. And the sin that Paul said he was passively sold to, is in fact the sin of Adam that Paul referred to earlier in Rom. 5:12 and 14-19 which plunged all of humanity under servitude to through no choice of their own. And when Paul and all unregenerate Jews “were in the flesh [or ‘fleshly’ as he states in v. 14], the sinful passions which were aroused by the Law were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death” (Rom. 7:5). Here, by using the word "our," Paul includes all Jews who use to be in the flesh and under the law; but in verse 23 he makes it all very personable when he says, “in MY members.” What was going on in all of the Jews collectively before being saved, Paul now elaborates on how this sin and the law that provoked it affected him personally in his own life as an unregenerate Jew. This is very important for us to see and realize here. Verses 7-25 expound upon the condition of all those who were initially being addressed in verse 5, not of those in verses 4 and 6. And Romans chapter 8 picks up where verses 4 and 6 leave off. Thus, verses 7 through 25 of chapter 7 are parenthetical, explaining the plight of the Jews who WERE (or use to be) in the flesh before being saved as denoted in verse 5. How anyone can't see this is beyond me!

One basic principle of biblical interpretation (or hermeneutics) is the Scriptural Harmony principle, which simply means: If a particular passage can be interpreted in several different ways, the only choice is to choose that interpretation which harmonizes with the totality of Scripture. Paul as a believer being, in context, a “practicing” sinner is just not one of them. But there's even more to be said here, so let's move on.

As we discuss a couple of ways in which Romans 7 can be interpreted, the Scriptural Harmony principle, according to not a few, quickly eliminates the unregenerate viewpoint. According to them, the unregenerate viewpoint actually does not fail to harmonize with the rest of Scriptures. But this premise faces a number of contradictions and considerations. I've just given you a couple of them above.

The first contradiction to be noted here is found in Rom. 7:5-6, which again reads:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. BUT NOW we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (NAS).

Remember, Paul is talking to those “who know the law” (v. 1; cp. also v. 14), but not necessarily to every believer at this moment and time. Some Gentiles, like the Galatians, had evidently come to know the law (through Jewish proselytizing), but not all Gentiles knew the law as such. And this is the case with those who are being addressed here in this chapter. In the book of Romans, Paul specifically talks to the Jews, then to the Gentiles, and then back to the Jews again. And at times he speaks to both. We see this being done often throughout this epistle. But here in chapter 7, Paul specifically has those “who know the Law” in mind. And what these verses in Rom. 7:5-6 are stating is the very same thing that Paul elaborates further upon in verses 7-24 and 25b, with verse 25a being a parenthetical thought or exultation in the realization that there is only One who can set the Jew (as well as anyone) free from the physical body of sin which bears fruit unto death.

Now, if according to some, verse 25a which says, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” is a part of verse 25b, which says, “Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the Law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin,” (DRB), then this obviously cannot be something Paul would be exclaiming in his regenerate state. The reason being is that in having afterward thanked God for such a deliverance, is Paul really now stating upon such a wonderful deliverance that he “therefore” now joyfully serves the Law of God with his mind (or “spirit” as some would paraphrase it here) but now still serves the law of sin with his flesh? Come on! Is this what Paul is being thankful for? As one can very well see, such an idea is preposterous! Verse 25b can only be a continuation of what he had previously stated as an unregenerate Jew up until verse 24, with verse 25a being understood only as a parenthetical thought and a short pause for reflection, exclamation, exhilaration and exultation over the deliverance that Christ brings to just such an individual, but nothing more. In Romans 7:25b, Paul, as Saul, is still duty-bound in his covenantal relationship to the Mosaic Law as a servant or slave (Gk. douleuo) to that law with his mind, while at the same time still being in his body a servant or slave to the law of sin in his flesh. He is doing double-duty, something in which Christ said we just cannot do―which is to serve two masters at the same time! But in Romans 7:1-4, Paul says a saved Jew has died to his former master and husband, the law, as having “lordship” over him (see YLT), and has been joined to another (Christ) in order to completely and unreservedly serve Him now as “Lord” (v. 25a). And so, verse 5 of chapter 7 clearly affirms the former relationship that Paul expounds upon in verses 7-24 and 25b: “For when we were controlled by the sinful nature [the flesh], the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death” (NIV).

Robert Haldane, in his commentary on Romans, is the only one on the side of “the regenerate” viewpoint who honestly notes this dilemma in verse 25, and who ascribes the cry of Paul, “who shall (future tense in Greek) deliver me” as a deliverance that does not occur in this life, but in the life to come. He states, “Some suppose that this expresses thanks for the victory as already obtained. But this cannot be the meaning, as, in the same breath, the apostle speaks of his wretchedness because of the existence of the evil,” both before and after Paul's statement. Haldane’s honesty with the text is much appreciated, but the fact of the matter is that it just goes to show you how far someone will go when up against a wall, with such a verse that will not fit into their presuppositions of what a text is truly saying to us—that Paul is not talking about his experience as a believer, but his (and all those who “know the law,” v. 1, 14) experience as an unbeliever while still under the law.

Now, getting back to our subject at hand on establishing Scriptural harmony. Notice what Paul says in Rom. 7:5, PRIOR to being saved in v. 6: “the sinful passions, which were aroused by the law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit to death.” Again, these are the same struggles that Paul further elaborates upon just afterwards in verses 7-24. In verses 7-24 and 25b, the sinful passions of Paul's flesh were “aroused” by the law to sin all the more, before being saved—the exact same thing that he says was going on in all Jews (including himself) in verse 5. And he says it only bore fruit unto death! But look at what he says in verse 6 after a Jew is saved from being under the law: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” (NASB). Paul says believing Jews (or even us) no longer “serve” (or, literally, “are enslaved to”) the law that only incites sin anymore; we serve God in newness of our spirit! And this is the very thing that Paul just got through elaborating upon for us in Romans chapter 6. Hallelujah!

Notice how Romans 7:5-6 functions as the theme or subject for both Rom. 7:7-25 and Rom. 8:1-17: “For while we were in the flesh (cp. w/Rom. 7:14), the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death (cp. w/Rom. 7:7-25). But now (cp. also with the word ‘now’ in Rom. 8:1) we are released from the law of death, wherein we were bound or detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, (cp. w/Rom. 8:1-17) and not in the oldness of the letter (cp. w/Rom. 7:7-25).” A new life, as opposed to an old life, is definitively in view here, being succinctly described by Paul with an emphasis on “now” in Rom. 8:1, which echos the the same thought or turn of events as found in Rom. 7:6, with the believer no longer experiencing the condemnation being described for us in Rom. 7:10 and 13.

Anthony Hoekema, the reformed author of The Bible and the Future, likewise has this to say with regards to these verses here in Romans chapter 7:

The rest of chapter 7, beginning with the seventh verse, is an elaboration of the unregenerated condition pictured in verse 5. One could say, therefore, that 7:7-25 constitutes a kind of interlude, elaborating and vividly dramatizing the condition pictured in 7:5.…the condition described in verse 5 is precisely the condition reflected in Romans 7:13-25 (The Christian Looks at Himself, p. 63, 65).

So those who are saying that an unregenerate Jew cannot have these experiences with the Law prior to being saved, are in error. Paul just said they did in verse 5! Additionally, Paul and many unregenerate Jews delighted in the Law of God after the inward man (or their inner conscience) that Rom. 7:22 bespeaks of prior to being saved. Indeed, they were actually very “zealous” for the Law of God (cp. Rom. 10:2).

Which brings me also to the contention around the phrase, “inner man.” At first glance, the emphasis on the “inmost self” or “inner person” of Rom. 7:22 and 25b, seems to indicate to some a regenerate condition (cf. 2Cor. 4:16). But as A. Andrew Das notes, along with Robert Gundry and others, in his studies concerning all of this:

…in his [Gundry’s] study of Pauline anthropology, [he] explained that the “inner man” should not be equated with [the] “new man” (Eph. 2:15; 4:24; Col. 3:10). “New man” and “old man” are always hamartiological in usage signifying the presence or absence of regeneration….As the “outer man” refers to the body, the “inner man” of Rom. 7:22 is associated with the “mind” and stands opposite the “members,” “flesh,” and “body.” Likewise, the “inner man” of Eph. 3:16 strengthened by the Spirit is parallel to the “hearts” indwelt by Christ. Paul is contrasting in Rom. 7 the inner mental functions with the outer bodily. In this context, it is much more likely that the “inner person” has its well-attested anthropological meaning than a questionable soteriological meaning (Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 211-21).

It is also to be carefully noted here that the “inner” and “outer” man are not two distinct persons or entities, but two different parts of the same individual which make up the whole person. The “inner man” (spirit, heart, or conscience) of a person outside of Christ is tainted with sin and controlled by the flesh, bringing them into captivity against what their spirit (or conscience) desires to the contrary. Even as believers, we are not two persons or entities within; with one part of us still being the old man with a sinful nature pulling us one way, and one part of us being a new man with a new nature pulling us the other way. And neither is our physical body and our spirit strictly co-coordinate with one another just because we are saved. In Rom. 13:14 Paul says we have to “put on” the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh; and again, we are "to put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light" (v. 12); thus, our response to the Holy Spirit is not automatic. We still have a human spirit or conscience that is warring with our flesh. But unlike before without Christ, we can now overcome our flesh because our nature or spirit has been re-created with a new nature. Before God's Spirit was placed within us, we only kept on doing what we didn’t really want to do (I know I did); whereas now we actually do the good that we want to do. As Adrian Warnock succinctly notes, “While it is true that without the Spirit we can have the will to do good [many do], but lack the ability to do it, with the Spirit it is no longer true that we cannot carry out good. Paul seems to almost yell at us in Romans 8—you CAN do it!” (Disagreeing with Piper Over the Man in Romans 7; June, 2008). And in Gal. 2:20 Paul even affirms of himself now as a believer: “with Christ I have been crucified, and live no more do I…Christ doth live in me; and that which I now live in the flesh—in the faith I live of the Son of God, who did love me and did give himself for me” (Young‘s Literal Trans.). It is “no more do I” do what I cannot do, but Christ doing in me that which I formerly could not do—living in the faith of the Son of God! Hallelujah!

In Rom. 7:22-23 and 25b, the “inner man” or “mind” with which the law of God is served, is the mind that responds to the voice of conscience (but not necessarily to the Spirit-renewed mind of Rom. 12:1); whereas, the flesh, which does the bidding of the law to only sin, invokes just the opposite. Thus, as noted before, the unregenerate or carnal man, and the spiritual Law of God, “are contrary to one another,” so that one “keeps on not doing that which he wants to do” (Rom. 7:15-19; Gal. 5:17). Again, this is the same tension that Paul reiterates for us here in Rom. 7:22-23 and 25b. Without the Spirit of God ruling and reigning over one’s heart and life, such a person is “serving two Masters,” the very thing Christ says we cannot do; and by doing so, according to the example of marriage given by Paul in Rom. 7:1-3, such a person is committing spiritual “adultery” when they do. Which is what all unregenerate Jews were actually guilty of---spiritual adultery! The OT prophets are replete with such pronouncements concerning them. Yet the regenerated individual, according to Romans 6, has been freed from the Law which only incites sin (6:14), in order to freely “serve” only One Master; and to be married to only One husband, the Lord Jesus Christ. Before being in Christ, Paul and all Jews who were not “in Christ” were only serving God hypocritically, as Jesus claimed of them. They were slaves to the law of God that was commanded—and even demanded of them to serve—and they were slaves to their sinful fleshy nature as well. So, in essence, they were in fact slaves to “two” Masters yanking on their heart strings to pull them in two different ways. And, clearly, one of these "masters" was not the Lord, but being under the law and sold as a slave under the sin.

In Paul’s inner being or conscience, God's Divine Law was welcomed and brought delight, but that which manifested itself in the bodily members (what is often referred to as the “outer man”) was the law or principal of sin and death. In Rom. 25b, the expression “I myself” serve the Law is in sharp contrast to the deliverance that is to be wrought by and through the Lord Jesus Christ in v. 25a. The former was done in the Jews own strength and flesh; the latter by the power of the Spirit (see also Rom. 8:2).

Albert Barnes notes in his commentary on Romans here that, “of no impenitent sinner could it ever be affirmed that with his mind he served the Law of God” (p. 165). But, au contraire! Paul, and many a Jew, did just that prior to being saved; and some did it more than others. But nevertheless, they were serving God with their minds in order to maintain an outward legal righteousness and right-standing before God that was only according to outward works, and not by a faith which works by love from within.

In understanding Rom. 7:5-6 as the theme for what is being explained by Paul in the rest of this chapter, another important aspect with regards to understanding all of this is to be found in the structure in which Paul carries out his explanation, in preparation for entering into the redemptive experience that is to be described in Romans chapter 8. Bobby Lynch, in an exegesis on Romans chapter 7, writes :

As theologians have struggled with [these] passages, many theories as to the identity of the “I” have been proposed. In performing a contextual exegesis of these Scriptures, the questions as "to whom this passage is addressed?" and "what this passage is addressing?" must be asked. In analyzing the first two words of the passage [in 7:14] oidamen gar (for we know), significant clues appear. The Greek word gar (for) carries a strong emphasis of continuation which would indicate that 7:14 continues the train of thought established in 7:13. If this thought were not built upon, it would at least be held in the forefront of the writer’s mind. As is typical of Paul, his continuation of thought is not just one verse deep. This is seen in the oun (therefore) at the beginning of verses 7:7 and 7:13. The Greek oun (therefore) normally indicates a summary of the preceding facts or conclusion of the preceding argument. Paul is digging deeper and deeper into this subject with the use of oun (therefore) and gar (for). In chapter seven, 7:13 is a summary of the argument presented in 7:7-12 and the oun in 7:7 shows that 7:7-12 is connected to 7:1-6. Suffice it to say that all of chapter seven is held together as a overarching whole [by these conjunctions] against whatever the independent intricacies of 7:7-25 seem to say (online Exegetical Paper on Romans 7:14-25, pp. 9-10, bold and italics mine).

Again, the reformed author Anthony Hoekema buttresses Lynch’s position with similar annotations:

…the condition described in verse 5 is precisely the condition reflected in Romans 7:13-25. Verse 13 sums up the situation pictured in verse 5: “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working 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.” Verse 14, which follows, begins with the word “for” (unfortunately omitted in the Revised Standard Version): “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” It is important to also observe that the Greek text of the next verse contains two “for”s, only one of which is reproduced in the Revised Standard Version: “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” It is important to also observe that the Greek text of the next verse contains two “for”s, only one of which is reproduced in the Revised Standard Version [in the 2nd part of the following verse, and which literally reads]: “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” By means of these “for”s Paul is tying in what follows with what he has said before. The rest of chapter 7 is thus an elaboration of the condition described in verse 5. It will be recalled that the condition described in verse 5 is a state prior to conversion, when the people pictured in that verse were still “living in the flesh” (ibid, p. 63, italics, bold and words in brackets mine).

So what Lynch and Hoekema are saying here is that there is no disconnect of Paul’s train of thought, as some suppose, between verses 1-6 as referring to the unregenerate, and verses 7-25 as referring to the regenerate. And this is in total agreement and support of the facts described above regarding verses 5-6, which were shown to form the theme or backdrop for the entire chapters of Romans 7 and 8. Chapter seven is not disjointed, speaking of one group of people in verses 1-6 prior to being saved, and then another group of people in verses 7-25 after being saved. It is the one and selfsame group of people who “know the law” in v. 1, and those “who know the law” in v. 14, whether they be Jews and/or a small minority of Gentiles who were formerly proselytes.

And so, instead of being negative about the Jewish Law, Paul draws on his (as well as their) experience, allowing him (and them) to be positive about God’s Law, while at the same time insisting on the need for a Deliverer who could redeem them. Such an individual is in a conundrum and in need of a Deliver who comes along in verse 7:25a, in order to remove the condemnation which is declared, in Romans 8.

A second contradiction created by the regenerate viewpoint appears with regards to Rom. 7:14, where Paul states: “I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (NIV). In Romans 6 verses 6, 16, 22 and 8:12-13, Paul states that the Christian is no longer a slave to sin. A slave has no rights—he is owned by his master and does only his bidding. But this former state of slavery to sin is absolutely not the state of the Christian any longer! The Christian, Paul says, is a “slave to righteousness” (6:18). And again, Paul says, “You have been set free from sin and become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness…” (6:22). Does this sound like someone who cannot do the things that he wants to do anymore as a slave to sin? Au contraire!

Some who object, also claim that such a contradiction disappears if we understand that positionally we are freed from sin, but that practically we are still slaves to sin. Those who hold this view say that Romans six describes this truth “positionally,” while Romans 7 describes it “practically.” But "practically" this makes no sense whatsoever, pun intended. It is clearly apparent from reading Romans 6, 7, and 8 that all of these chapters are meant to be understood as “practical” applications or results of either being under the law or under grace; of being in or of the flesh verses being in or of the Spirit.

The “positional” argument continues to state that in Romans 6, those of us who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death; and that because of Christ's death we are now freed from sin (v.7), but only “positionally” speaking. "Positionally," one is dead to sin and should now believe it (i.e., “count yourself dead to sin but alive to God,” v. 11). But how can someone count themselves dead to sin practically, if they have not died to sin internally?

The “practical” view, on the other hand, states that after Paul had stated the truth of the believers’ position in Christ earlier in chapters 4 and 5, that he now goes on to say that this should have a practical effect in our lives, by the fact that we personally and INTERNALLY died to sin in Romans 6. Practically, Paul now says in Romans 6:12, “do not let sin reign in your mortal body”; and again, “offer the parts of your body to God as instruments of righteousness” (v. 13). The “positional” view creates only confusion and contradictions here. And similar to the idea that understands the conflicts spoken about in Romans 7 as applicable only to the believer, the "positional" viewpoint in Romans 6 belittles the mandate that we are to fight the good fight of faith and practically become slaves to righteousness, in contradistinction to being one who is still carnal and sold as slave to sin. Again, this is what being internally dead to sin (or our old man having personally died in v. 6) produces. Our "position" in Christ does not in itself produce this, our internal personal state of being in union with Christ as a new man with a new heart produces this.

The third disharmony created by the regenerate viewpoint relates to Rom. 7:19, where Paul says “I have the desire to do good but can’t carry it out.” If you understand that Paul is illustrating the dilemma people experience when they try to be sanctified by the Law, then there is no contradiction—there is no misunderstanding the ramifications of what he is actually saying to us here! He has just said in verse one that he was speaking to those “who know the Law.” What could be more clearer to us here than this? If it was otherwise, it would be completely inconsistent with Paul’s statements elsewhere where he says: “I have fought the good fight, I have kept the faith.” Here he states not only that he was capable of doing good—of having “fought the good fight”— but that he actually did the good that he so desperately fought for. He “kept the faith” instead of “keeping on sinning.” In addition to that, he also told the Corinthians, “I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved” (1 Cor 10:33). It was Paul’s good deeds before men that caused them to glorify God and be saved. Additionally, consider also the fact that in Rom. 8:8 Paul says that “those controlled by the sinful nature [the “unregenerate,” as pretty much affirmed by all] cannot please [aresai ou dunantai] God.” Those in the flesh here, who “cannot please” God or submit to His Law, are the same individuals that Paul just earlier described (using himself as an example) prior to being saved in Rom. 7:18, and who “cannot carry it out [to kolon ou ou]” and who “bear fruit for death” (Rom. 7:5), as opposed to those who are “controlled by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:9) and “bear fruit to God” (Rom. 7:4). The parallel to be seen here between Rom. 8:8 and Rom. 7:18 is striking and to the point, with no ambiguity whatsoever. Just compare these verses with all of the various translations, and you will begin to see what I am saying (or, I should say, what Paul is saying).

A fourth contradiction is to be seen with regards to Romans 7:23, where Paul states: “I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (NASB). Whereas in Romans 8:2, Paul says that through Christ Jesus, the “law of the spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” It is quite obvious that one cannot be “a prisoner to the law of sin” and “set free from the law of sin” at the same time! And this is true whether you believe Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law, or the law as understood as a power or principle which I understand it to be (see note [1] below). Paul was either a prisoner of this law, or free from being a prisoner of this law, but not both! It is unfortunate that proponents of the regenerate view seem to only be able to relate to all of us as just prisoners of the sin practically speaking, with no inclination whatsoever of us having ever been set free from the sin practically speaking, but only justified from it. This is how they get around all of this. Paul was still sin's prisoner, while at the same time just justified. But on the contrary, under Law, and not under grace, Paul was a prisoner of the law (or principle) of the sin as one who was still in and of the flesh; but under grace he was practically set free from the law (or principle) of the sin as one who is in and of the Spirit. The former clearly speaks of his life as an unbeliever, the latter of his life as a believer; the one as a prisoner of sin, the other as the Lord's free man; the one as a slave to sin, the other as free to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law and walk even as Christ walked. There is no margin for error here. The two are placed in juxtaposition to one another. Paul is not taking about a revolving door of a life imprisoned by sin one day, and then a life free from it the next day. He is talking about a life that was formerly under the Law and which incited him to sin all the more, verses a life no longer under the law but under grace and which incites him to live holy all the more.

In reading chapters 6 through 8, we find that all which has been said above now begins to make more sense to us, if we understand verses 14-24 (and even verses 7-13) as illustrating the principle that Paul has laid out for us in verse 5. In doing so, we have a complete and unadulterated Scriptural Harmony. If this is not the case, then we only have a continual prison, without the key, whereby we only “keep on doing” that which we deep down inside do not really want to do anymore. I know that was true of my life before I was saved. And I tried to take my life before coming to the Lord just for this reason: I could not do anymore that which in my heart I really wanted to do. Seriously, I was a prisoner of my sins, and I knew it! I was at the lowest point of my life, and I could not change that which I truly wanted to change. I had thrown in the towel and said, “what’s the use?” But thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ my Lord, who rescued me from those deep deprivations of my sin! He who is forgiven much, loves much!

Please click here for part six.


footnotes:

[1] In Romans 7, we see the Law demanding and condemning but unable to free us from such condemnation; while in Romans 8, we are now free to fulfill the righteousness requirements of the Law (v. 4) through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (v. 2), by the fact that the ability to continue in sin has been crucified in us in Christ (v. 3; cp. also w/Gal. 5:24 and Rom. 6:6). If this isn't sanctification, then I don't know what is! Far be this from just speaking about our justification. And in verse 8 Paul says that the one still in the flesh with the mind of the flesh has no ability to keep the law, whereas just the opposite is now the case for us in verses 9-11. Again, the context here is all about our sanctification, not our justification. The word for "righteousness" here in Rom. 8:3, again in the words of Greek expositor Henry Alford, "is not precisely the word so often used in this Epistle to denote 'the righteousness which justifies' (Rom. 1:17; 3:21; 4:5, 6; 5:17, 18, 21), but another form of the same word, intended to express the enactment of the law, meaning here, we believe, the practical obedience which the law calls for" (Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary, accessed online at: biblehub.com). The fulfilling of the law here in verse 3 is the antithesis to no ability to keep the law in verse 7. And so this surely, "by no means conveys the idea of a merely outward [judicial or forensic] action, but includes also the inner morality accordant with the law" (Meyer's NT Comm., accessed online at: biblehub.com).

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown couldn't agree more. And they note here on Rom. 8:1 in their commentary how that this is, “a difficult and much controverted verse. But it is clearly, we think, the law’s inability to free us from the dominion of sin [cp. Heb. 7:19] that the apostle has in view; as has partly appeared already…, and will more fully appear presently. The law could irritate our sinful nature into more virulent action, as we have seen in Ro 7:5, but it could not secure its own fulfillment. How that is accomplished comes now to be shown." (accessed online at: biblehub.com)

Everett Harrison goes on to even further claim in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, how that,

The construction of vv. 2-4 carries us beyond the thought of freedom from condemnation in the sense of guilt. What is developed is the application of the redeeming work of Christ by the Spirit to the believer’s life in such a way that the dominion of sin is broken and the reign of godliness assured. The noun “condemnation” has its counterpart in the verb “condemned” (v. 3), which is followed immediately, not by a statement about the standing of the believer, but by one concerning his manner of life (v. 4). (Vol. 10, p. 86)

The “standing” of the believer is treated much later in this chapter once again in passing in verses 33-34, beginning in verse 28, but that is not the subject here in verses 1-27 (or in chapters 6 and 7). What is said of “the law of sin and death” in Rom. 8:2, has just been immediately treated previously in Rom. 7:23 (and also in v. 25) in Paul’s members to which he said he was a “prisoner” and a “slave” to prior to being saved, showing us that Paul still has the same subject matter in mind, and what also gives occasion for his inferential words, “therefore now,” in Rom. 8:1. The “law of sin and death” in Rom. 8:2 is the inward principle of sin in juxtaposition to “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (also in v. 2). These nouns back-to-back in both of these phrases are what is known in Greek grammar as subjective genitives, ruling out entirely the idea of the Mosaic Law being the Law of sin and death, though that idea is not without biblical precedent elsewhere. As such, verse 2 starts out by literally reading: the law OF THE SPIRIT, not the Spirit OF THE LAW, as anyone with no knowledge of the Greek can readily see. Clearly, it is the principle and regulating power of the Spirit. And the same goes for the law of, literally, "the sin and the death." Here as well it is not: the sin OF THE LAW or the death OF THE LAW, but the law OF THE SIN or the law OF THE DEATH. The New Living Translation helps us here, when it likewise denotes the phrase "the law of the Spirit" as: "the Spirit's law." And in Rom. 7:25, the Darby Bible Translation, the World English Bible, and The New Heart English Bible also help us as well, by saying, "sin's law," which is the same subjective genitive in the Greek. And we see this same subjective genitive being used in Rom. 3::27, where it likewise speaks of "law OF FAITH," verses "faith OF LAW." So what we are talking about here in all of these instances is the regulating principle or power of the Spirit, of the sin, of the death, and of faith. This "law" is the the product or the effect of these subject genitives, not the means of them, as the Mosaic Law would be if this "law" is referring to it.

With regards to this subjective genitive, William Mounce notes in his Basics of Biblical Greek how that it occurs with a head noun (in this case, "the law") that expresses a verbal idea. And the verbal idea of this head noun is seen above in the active principle or power which is the product of these subjects noted above respectively. As Mounce also notes here: "You can use the helping word 'produced' to help identify this usage," and he mentions Rom. 8:35 as an example, which says: "Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" Here Mounce notes that it is: "The love produced by Christ" (ibid, p. 52). No wonder that many commentators are referring to the verses in chapter 7:21, 23 and 25 as linking us to what Paul is actually talking about in Rom. 8:2. The truth is in the details. Meyer, in his in-depth analysis and commentary at biblehub.com, caught on to this. And I hope that many will now be able to do so as well. Thus, again, the New Living Translation comes to the rescue by translating Rom. 8:2 as: "And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death." This truly tells the story. And which, by the way, proves beyond all doubt that we are NOT talking about our justification here, but our inward sanctification and once-and-for-all freedom from the power of sin and death as expressed in Rom. 6:6.

As such, God's law or regulative principle and power behind the Spirit of life, “has freed you” (or "me," depending on what Greek texts one uses) from the regulative and enslaving power of that corrupt principle and law behind “the sin and the death” that use to be in all of us in Rom. 7:21, 23 and 25, until the new life in Christ took possession of us in our new inner man who has been created after God's very own image and likeness, according to Eph. 4:24. As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown succinctly note here: “the ‘strong man armed’ is overpowered by the ‘Stronger than he:’ the weaker principle is dethroned and expelled by the more powerful; the principle of spiritual life prevails against and brings into captivity the principle of spiritual death." (ibid). Again, Harrison continues here: “The powerlessness of the law because of the weakness of the sinful nature to which it [the law] commands are addressed is an obvious reminder of the major thrust of chapter 7. The law makes demands, and it condemns when those demands are not met, but it cannot overcome sin. This inability of the law required the personal action of God in Christ." (ibid).

With that said, all of this is no mere forensic or legal act; it is a union of life with Christ that actually frees us from the condemning effects of the law and of the principle of sin that use to be within us. And as one can plainly see from the immediate and preceding context, Christ is not condemning the principle of sin in our flesh to the pardon of it for our justification, but for the infliction of judicial vengeance upon it in order to condemn it so that it loosens its power over our lives; to release its iron grip upon us and to drive it from our inner human nature. Christ, in essence, made the power behind sin to forfeit its dominion over us, and to flee with its tail wagging between its legs.