Before embarking on this fascinating study of the Romans 7 man, I would just like to first of all stop and say to all of my readers that I would like to suggest taking a look at the footnotes along the way, in order to further one’s understanding concerning some of the things being expressed here in these eighteen points below.
No subject is more important and vital to the Christian’s thinking, than in understanding who it is that we all are really now in Christ. No longer, says Paul, are we the “old man” with the old sinful and fleshly nature, but we are a “new man” created after God’s very own image and likeness according to Ephesians 4:24. We have, literally, in the Greek (in Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24 in the HCSB), “put off” and put to death in the past once-and-for-all our old man (or our old sinful nature) in our crucifixion with Christ, and we have “put on” the new man created in us by Christ.[1] As such, we now in our regenerated state and condition no longer know any Christian brother or sister after the flesh (cf. 2Cor. 5:16). And no longer are we to look upon ourselves as the wretched sinners that we once were who were sold under the servitude of sin through Adam’s fall before being saved; on the contrary, we are to look upon ourselves as a completely new creation in Christ of those who have been freed from such slavery to sin in order to be enslaved to another, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 6:6; Php. 1:1, HCSB). As such, we have now in the words of Paul “become slaves to righteousness” and “slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness...” (Rom. 6:18, 22). In Christ we have been circumcised from all of our former fleshly passions and desires, from the inside out; and thus a circumcision of the physical “body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11, NASB) has occurred that the Bible says has been made “without hands.”
If one were to skip all of the first seventeen points below, and go directly to the eighteenth point, there would be no further need for the first seventeen. The eighteenth point, in and of itself, refutes all gainsayers to the contrary that Paul in Romans 7 was addressing himself as a Christian believer. It's a funny thing about truth, it always a tendency to manifest itself (or pop-up) in the most unlikely places often overlooked by others; and such is the case with this eighteenth point (not so dissimilar to forensic evidence in a homicide case), making all of what I am about to say completely irrefutable to the contrary. This eighteenth point completely overthrows any false notions or ideas in the defense of what is truly in fact the truth. So let's get started.
Point 1. First of all, it should be clearly evident to all of us that Paul is not addressing Gentiles before they were saved in this portion of his letter to the believers in Rome, but to believing Jews who “knew” the Mosaic Law and who use to be “under the law” prior to being saved. For verse 1 says, “I am speaking to men who know the law;” verse 14 again saying, “we know that the law is spiritual”; and in Rom. 6:14, Paul also says, “you are not under the law.” Gentiles were never “under the law,” let alone did they “know the law.” For the most part, the Mosaic Law was foreign to the Gentiles. They were not under any of its condemning affects and judgments for lack of conformity, because they were not in a covenantal relationship with God to keep them. Of course, that which is considered immoral, such as coveting, lying, stealing, etc., was still binding upon Gentile consciences, but they did not know of any written code, per se, that told them that it was wrong to do such things. Even many of the non-practicing Jews in the days of the OT, with the law even in their midst, didn’t know certain aspects of the law that were binding upon them, until the law was actually read to them. They were “once alive without the law” (cf. Rom. 7:9). This was true in the days of Uzzah trying to steady the ark; under Josiah’s reforms (cf. 2Chr. 34); under Hezekiah’s reforms (cf. 2Chr. 29-31); and even in the days of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 8:13-18).
That Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law and not just the civil laws of the Roman state—or of any civil state for that matter—has been clear all along in this epistle. And the fact that he says in verse 7 that he would not have known what coveting was except for the Law saying, “Do not covet,” proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul has the Mosaic Law in mind. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just trying to avoid verses 1 and 14 which clearly reveal that Paul is addressing only those who “knew” the Mosaic Law. The reason for this is because such people who believe to the contrary only want to manipulate the text and establish their own a priori theological bias that Paul is addressing all believers in Christ and not just his Jewish constituents. In fact, this isn’t even the first time that Paul does this in this epistle. And anyone reading this epistle becomes fully aware that at times Paul is addressing his Jewish brethren in the faith, and at times addressing his Gentile brethren in the faith. In Romans 7, it is his “Jewish” brethren (or even former Gentile proselytes to the Jewish religion) that Paul has in mind. To argue otherwise that Paul has any and all laws in mind with regards to marriage in verses 2-3 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to disprove the obvious. It is the sleight-of-hand of the master magician, the Devil, who skillfully and artfully misdirects Christians from the truth in order to get them to fix their minds on things that are insignificant, irrelevant, and of no value whatsoever to the hearers. It is the “misdirection” of the enemy working at its best! And many who are teaching such a thing don't even realize that they too have been duped to believe a lie about themselves. Deception has a way of doing this with people. It is doing what it is intended to do―which is to deceive!
Additionally, in verse 4 of chapter 7, Paul says immediately after using the analogy of dying to law using the analogy of marriage, that all Jews have died to “the law” (Gk. to nomo) by the body of Christ. What “law” might we ask have the Jews died to? “The Law” of Moses, of course! He is not referring to all laws of the land with regards to marriage (both secular and religious), but to the Law of Moses which taught them about the laws of marriage. That which is said to have “authority” or to master or lord it over (Gk. kurios) the Jews in verse one is the same law that the body of Christ became dead to and that we also (or all Jews in particular here) died to in order for it to no longer be our (or the Jews) lord and master. All those Jews in Christ (and even us Gentiles for that matter) died to a husband or master (the Law of Moses) in order to serve under another husband and master, “our Lord” (v. 25a; Gk. kurios) Jesus Christ. For those who argue that “law” in verse one is without the definite article “the” in the Greek, and refers to just any and all laws, is a moot point. The entire context before and after verse one is referring to God's Law that everyone has died to as their lord and master, not just any or all laws both religious and secular. And besides, the word “law” without the definite article is used in Rom. 5:20 with regards to the Mosaic Law, not just any law, as it is also in Rom. 6:14 when Paul said we are “not under law, but under grace.” Which “law,” might I ask, are we no longer under? Need we really ask?
Paul repeatedly speaks of “law” without the definite article as a reference to the Mosaic law also in: Rom. 2:12, 13, 14, 17, 23a, 25; 3:20, 28, 31; 4:14, 15b; 5:13, 20; 6:15; 7:7a, 8, 9, 25b, et al. So it seems to me that when Paul has a singular commandment from the law of Moses in mind, he uses the term “law” (i.e., a law within the law); when he has the entire law of Moses in mind he refers to it as “the law.” Regardless, “law” without the article “the” in front of it is unmistakably used by Paul as denoting the law of Moses. Not once does he have secular laws in mind that Jews are no longer under, and he is not using secular laws to prove his point to them with regards to marriage either. How ridiculous is that! This is also clearly evident just a few verses later when he refers to a law in the Decalogue against coveting, as opposed to the law on marriage used just previously: “Yet I knew not sin [singular] except through law; for I knew not coveting except the law had said: ‘you shall not covet’” (Rom. 7:7; lit. trans.). Again, Paul is talking about Jews, not Gentiles, who “knew not coveting” except for the Law of Moses saying they were not to covet. Gentiles, for the most part, were oblivious to such a “knowing” about these laws.
As a Jew without Christ, Paul said he (as well as all Jews) served (or, literally, was a "slave" to) two masters in verse 25b: the Law in its binding covenantal relationship that was enforced upon the Jewish mind, and the flesh in its slavery and servitude to the law of sin. But the Christian has been released from serving under both as "lord," to now serving only under one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ; the very thing that Christ said one cannot faithfully do until coming out from under the servitude of two masters and serving only under the one, namely, Him. We are now obligated to neither the law of Moses or to sin, but only to Christ. And it is now "in Christ" that we fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, according to Rom. 8:4.
Point 2. Verse 5, which reads: “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death,” is without doubt addressing the very same thing that Paul further expounds upon in the following verses of 7-25. Verse 5, which literally reads, “in the members of us” (Gk., en tois melesin ehmown) is exactly the same thing that Paul reiterates in verse 23, “in the members of me” (Gk., en tois melesin mou) in which he expounds and elaborates upon what he meant in verse 5 as one who use to be “in the flesh,” and “under the law” as an unconverted Jew (and not of the Gentiles) who was not under the power of the Spirit nor under grace. Again, not just any law, but the Law of Moses. This is also the one whom Paul elaborates upon as “fleshly” and still “sold under sin” (v.14). His conscience delights in what is right (v. 22), but there is another law in his members waging war against God’s holy law and making him, what he had just said before in verse 14 and now reiterates again in verse 23, a “prisoner” of the law of sin (v. 23). There is no margin for error in misunderstanding what it is Paul is trying to tell us here. In fact, it is so clear that I don't even know how anyone can even miss the importance of the correlation between what Paul says in verse 5 of a Jew prior to being saved (as all would attest), and what verse 23 elaborates upon more fully when Paul WAS “in the flesh” (in v. 5) and under the Law as an unregenerate Jew; and even “fleshly” in verse 14 wherein the “sinful passions aroused by the law” (again in v. 5) were “when the commandment came, [and] sin sprang to life” (v. 11), working “in our members to bear fruit for death” (again in v. 5); or, working “in the members of my body...[and] making me a prisoner of sin at work within my members” (v. 23). And instead of saying “our body,” in verse 5, Paul now makes it very personable using the historic present tense "I am," and refers to it as in “my body” (v. 23) as one who was very personally acquainted with being “under the law.” Additionally, in being under the law, Paul says in verse 9, “sin sprang to life and ‘I’ died.” Again, this is the very same thing that he had just described for us in verse 5 of the one who was still under the law prior to being released from its restraints through Christ in verse 6, and thus becoming a “servant” (or lit., a slave) in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. This is not to say that all of us don’t have this other law (of sin) working in our members prior to being saved, but it is just that here, in this particular context, Paul is showing how that all Jews who were under the law of Moses were only aroused in their hearts to sin all the more and not do what the Law said that they should or shouldn’t do.
In Rom. 7:9-10 Paul says that the Law brought death, which is exactly what he said it does of those still under the law prior to being saved in Rom. 7:5. What Paul had described theologically in Rom. 7:5, he testifies to having personally experienced it as a Jew under the law in Rom. 7:9-10―and even in the verses that follow; all of this showing the affects that the Law had upon an unregenerate Jew; not upon a Christian, and not on a Gentile, but only upon an unsaved Jew.
Point 3. “Under sin,” in verse 14, is again used twice elsewhere (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22) as the unfortunate condition of all who are “under sin” and its dominion and servitude as prisoners prior to being under grace and in Christ. Here, in Rom. 7:14, the Greek is upo ten hamartian, and literally translated reads: “under the sin.” In Rom. 3:9, the Greek is pantas up hamartian, and translated reads: “all under sin.” And in Gal. 3:22, the Greek is panta upo hamartian, and translated reads: “everyone under sin.” So as anyone can readily see with any unbiased thinking, all of these verses are addressing the very same thing of the one who is “under sin” prior to being saved. No one is “under” the authority and sway of sin when “under” grace and in Christ. The sin that Paul was describing himself “under” in Romans 7, is the sin of Adam in Rom. 5:14 that Paul said we were all once "passively" sold and enslaved to. Twice, in Romans 6:17 and 20 Paul says we were “slaves to sin.” And twice, in Romans 6:18 and 22 he says we have been “set free from sin.” So how is it that we can still be said to be “sold under sin” in Rom. 7:14? We can’t be! The NIV got it right when it says of verse 14: “sold as a slave to sin.” The word “sold” means to be sold as a slave in a slave market. Here, in Rom. 7:14, the Greek says we were passively “sold as a slave under sin,” and in Rom. 6:23, in the Greek, it also says we were passively “set free from sin” to become passively “slaves unto God”―not unto or under sin! Adam sold us under the sin; Christ bought us to be above the sin; the one leads to ever-increasing wickedness (6:19); the other leads to holiness (ibid). Therefore, we ought to walk even as Christ walked (1Jhn. 2:6); not as sinners, but as the "saints" to which we are called to be!
Point 4. Paul, as Saul, is saying that he answered to sin's every beck and call, as one who is “sold” as a slave to another must always do. Elsewhere Paul refers to this old sinful person passed down to us from Adam as the “old man” in Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24. Paul’s inner conscience held captive by this principle of sin that was ingrained in his and every unbeliever’s being, hated to do his bidding as most slaves tend to do, but he was obliged to do it nevertheless. Paul (as Saul) was sins “prisoner” (v. 23). And it was in his very bent and nature to comply to his every wish and whim. He was a captive audience so-to-speak. He was sin’s bondslave and sin was his master. And while God’s outward Law that was legally binding upon his conscience as an unrelenting Taskmaster was pulling him one way, his servitude to the sin through Adam’s fall as also his legal and rightful owner was pulling him the other way. He was in a conundrum! He was, in fact, a servant to two masters―the Law of God and the law of sin![1a] Something that Christ said we just cannot faithfully do until we come out from being under the servitude of one and being completely and unreservedly under the servitude of another. That “other” master is now being under the complete and absolute servitude of Christ and His laws. Those two former masters (of being under sin and being under the Law) have been taken completely out of the way for us by the fact of us having died to both, as Romans 7:1-4 depicts, so that we may now be free to be married to another and serve only one Lord and Master (or even husband), namely Christ. The Law, and the sin that was aroused by the law, is no longer the Christian’s master. And by being "in Christ," we have now become law-abiding citizens of His kingdom that we have been born to be.
The fourth century Christian writer, Ambrosiaster, wrote, “the one who is liberated from [the Mosaic Law] ‘dies’ and lives to God, becoming His slave, purchased by Christ,”[2] and Romans 7:2-6 has clearly illustrated this truth for us. And as Leon Morris describes for us in his commentary under Rom. 7:6,
We are delivered from the law because we have died to that by which we were held down. The imagery [of being “held down,” Gk. katecho, “to hold fast, bind, or restrain”][3] may suggest that we were captives to the law and could not escape (cf. GNB, “held us prisoners”). The result [of our being released from being under the servitude of the law] is a new way of service. Paul’s verb [Gk. douleuein, present act. inf.; lit., “to be enslaved”][4] takes us back to the imagery of slavery which he used so effectively at the end of the previous chapter [ch. 6]....To be free from the [slavery of the] law is to be free to render more wholehearted service [as slaves to God], service done in “newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter.”[5]Indeed, elsewhere, Paul actually calls the law a “yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1, Gk. zugo douleias; see also 4:3-9 for the same idea). And in Gal. 3:23, similar with Rom. 7:6 above of one being “held down” by the law, Paul again denotes, “before...faith came, we Jews were perpetual prisoners under the Law, living under restraints and limitations...” (WEY). Notice again how Paul also says “we Jews” and not Gentiles, even though the epistle of the Galatians is written primarily to Gentile believers. Of course, the word “Jews” is not in the original, but it is clearly implied as Weymouth denotes, as is also to be noted of Romans 7.
Throughout Scripture it says that the unregenerate man is in a continual state of bondage and servitude “under sin” until the Son of God sets us free. But in no part of the sacred writings does it ascribe such a bondage and servitude to the redeemed, born-again saint. If you are in such a state or condition, then you are not a “saint,” but an “ain’t.” You are still in your sins and a prisoner of sin! That’s what Jesus told the Pharisees, “Everyone who continually practices [present active part.] sin is the slave [doulos] of sin” (Jhn. 8:34, lit., trans.) and, “a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever” (v. 35). And this is exactly what Paul, as Saul, was saying he was continually practicing as a Pharisee under the law of sin in Romans 7:15-20, which brings us to our next point.
Point 5. In Romans 7:15-20, all the good that Paul, as Saul, mentions he could not do according to the law is in the present tense in Greek. The present tense in the Greek normally denotes something that is continually occurring, as Jesus noted above of those Pharisees who were the prisoners and slaves of sin. It was constantly going on in Paul’s (or Saul’s) life. It was not just an occasional thing occurring once in a while in his life, but it was "continually" going on in his life. This an important point that cannot be glossed over. To argue otherwise is not being consistent with this normal usage of the Greek “present” tense. Paul (as Saul) “keeps on doing” that which he really does not want to do, as verse 19 denotes in the NIV translation (and in many more translations as well). Strong’s Concordance notes especially of the Greek verb prasso, used in verses 15 and 19: “A primary verb; to “practice”, i.e. perform repeatedly or habitually (thus differing from poieo, which properly refers to a single act).” The Helps Word Studies, at Biblehub.com, likewise says concerning this Greek verb: “prássō – properly, the active process in performing (accomplishing) a deed, and implying what is done as a regular practice – i.e. a routine or habit (cf. R. Trench).” Paul's usage of the Greek verb "prasso" in two places here leaves us with no doubt that Paul (as Saul) was a "habitual" sinner. He says it was his "practice." Do you see that? These two Greek verbs buttress the idea that Paul is describing something that was ongoing in his life as an unregenerate sinner; and he uses it again of all such habitual sinners in Gal. 5:21b, which is translated "practice" in the NASB, ASV, HCSB, ISV, ERV, AMP, and WEB. Paul would not be giving a scathing rebuke to those in Gal. 5:19-21, if, as a believer, he was guilty of the same. And so, in light of all this, the Greek present tense verbs in verses 15-19 now make all the more sense, as denoted below in the Holman Christian Standard Bible's translation:
For I do not understand what I am doing [present middle indicative], because I do not practice [present active indicative] what I want to do, but I do [present active indicative] what I hate. And if I do [present active indicative] what I do not want to do [present active indicative], I agree with the law that it is good. So now I am no longer the one doing [present middle indicative] it, but it is sin living [present active participle] in me. For I know that nothing good lives [present active indicative] in me, that is, in my flesh. For the desire to do what is good is with me [present middle indicative], but there is no ability to do [present middle infinitive] it. For I do not do [present active indicative] the good that I want to do [present active indicative], but I practice [present active indicative] the evil that I do not want to do [present active indicative]. Now if I do [present active indicative] what I do not want [present active indicative], I am no longer the one doing [present middle indicative] it, but it is the sin that lives [present active participle] in me (Rom. 7:15-20, HCSB).Paul is not describing a hypothetical situation here. Nor is it just an occasional lapse or slip into sin. Again, Paul here (as Saul) is sin’s prisoner, and he answers to his every beck and call as one who is sold as a slave to another is exactly suppose to do. If the contrary could be proven here, the argument of the apostle would go to demonstrate the insufficiency (or the impotency) of the gospel to subdue sin in the believer’s life.
On the opposite side of the fence of Paul’s “continual” lifestyle as an unregenerate individual described above, St. John says, “Everyone who [continually] practices [present active indicative] what is right has been born of Him” (1Jhn. 2:29). And he further states, “No one who lives in Him KEEPS ON [present active participle] sinning,” and that “no one who continues [present active participle] to sin has either seen Him or known Him” (3:6). And, finally, he writes, “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are” (v. 10). Did you get that? “This is how we know!” Know what? The difference between an unregenerate and regenerate person. These verbs tenses describe the action whereby we can know the difference between the two. And this is just one more good reason why we know that Paul is talking about himself in Romans 7 prior to being saved. Before being saved, Paul was a practicing sinner, not a saint! Nothing could more plain and closer to the truth on this matter than this. Paul, as Saul, said he kept on doing that which he didn’t want to do. Just the opposite of the one whom St. John said was born of God. This is the only way that we are able to differentiate between those who are born of God as opposed to those who are born only of the flesh and of the Devil. Outwardly, Paul, as a Pharisee was garbed in sheep’s clothing. But inwardly he was a ravening wolf. He was all those things that Christ mentions of such scribes and Pharisees in the four gospels who were not born of God. Outwardly they appeared blameless (and they would argue so, even as Paul said of himself before being saved in Php. 3:6), but they were not blameless in God’s eyes. For all outward practical intents and purposes before men, yes; but before God, not on your life! To argue that Paul was claiming such a state of himself in Php. 3:6 before being saved is an admission from those who do not understand what is truly righteous and blameless before God. Theirs is a legalistic righteousness based upon the traditions and commandments of men which makes null and void the Word of God. Like Paul as Saul, they too are legalists and know only what appears to be spiritual and righteous, but really isn’t. It is only a “show” of righteousness. Inwardly they are rotten sinners and covetous to the core, thinking only on sinful thoughts and ways. This was the heart of Paul and all Pharisees before being saved. After being saved he could truthfully say as all born-again saints should rightfully claim, “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing” (Acts 20:33). Before being saved, Paul realized, according to Romans 7, that he could not say this in all honesty. The more the law said not to covet, the more and more he found himself coveting. If we cannot say what Paul is saying in Acts 20:33, and only identify more with the condition of the person he describes in Romans 7, then it is questionable whether such an individual is truly saved or not. So, either Paul is lying here in Acts 20:33 in contradiction to what he had said about himself in Romans 7, or he is now referring to himself as one who has truly been born of God and who really no longer covets other people’s possessions as he did before as sin’s prisoner. This is the only thing that makes sense of these two statements of Paul's. If you are still coveting after being supposedly born of God, then it is really questionable whether you were ever truly born of God. “This is how we know,” John said, who the children of God are from the children of the devil. To believe to the contrary, then one is deceived and knows not the truth. Such an individual’s heart has not been circumcised. John’s entire thoughts concerning all of this is worth quoting in full,
If you know that He is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices [present active participle] righteousness has been born of Him….No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning [present active indicative]; no one who keeps on sinning [present active participle] has either seen Him or known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices [present active participle] righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning [present active participle] is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning [present active indicative], for God’s seed abides [present active indicative] in him, and he cannot keep on sinning [present middle indicative] because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice [present active participle] righteousness is not of God….We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning [present active indicative], but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him (1Jhn. 2:29; 3:6-10; 5:18, ESV).Additionally, some have argued that when Paul said in Rom. 7:20 that “it is no longer I who does it, but sin that dwells within me,” that no unbeliever can truly say this! You've got to be kidding me! Many an unregenerate person has the inclination, or conscience, to do what is right, but they don't. For the likes of themselves they find this propensity to sin within themselves that drives them to do the opposite of what their conscience is really telling them not to do. Their conscience, or “I” (ego or self), is pulling them one way, but their sin-stained nature within them drives them with a bent to do otherwise. This is the paradox and conundrum of the unbeliever. And this is the exact reason that we are born-again: in order to be able to do that which our inner self truly wants to do. Granted, some unbelievers might not readily recognize as Paul did after being saved that “sin dwells within me” before being saved, but I have heard many sinners talk about the monster or beast that rages within them making them do what they would otherwise not do. Anyone who does not readily admit this of an unbeliever hasn’t been around enough unbelievers who really, and I mean REALLY, sin. When they are asked why they do the things they do, they may not know that it is the “sin that dwells within,” but they do know that it is extremely wrong and that they should not be doing it.
I too recall being in just such a state of not being able to do that which I wanted to do before being saved. I remember all too well how I wanted to be a better person than I really was, but I was so sinfully depraved that I just kept doing the opposite. And I attempted to end my life just before God saved me, because I could not for the likes of myself bring myself to be a better person than I really was. For all of us who had come to understand the depths of our depravity, our sin, we all too well knew what it was like to be driven to sin, even though we knew in our hearts, in our conscience, that it was wrong for us to do so. It wasn’t us doing it, but it was our old sin-stained nature within us that drove us to do what our conscience knew we really shouldn’t do. But with that tarnished old nature or heart removed from us in the crucifixion of our old man, we now have a new nature or heart in the resurrection of the new man created in Christ Jesus unto good works.
Not too long ago on TV, I was listening to an unbeliever who knew not the bible, nor Paul's words in Romans 7, and yet this person had verbally said on TV: “I cannot do that which I really want to do.” Remarkable! You would have almost thought that this person had read the words of the apostle Paul. But even the first century unregenerate Roman Greek poets, Ovid and Horace, voiced the same sentiments. For Ovid says: “I see and approve the better course, but I follow the worse one.” Horace likewise has said: “I pursue the things that have done me harm; I shun the things I believe will do me good.” Theologian, Albert Barnes, notes in his commentary under Romans 7 of a Persian called Xenophon Araspes, who in order to excuse his treasonable designs, says: “Certainly I must have two souls; for plainly it is not one and the same which is both evil and good; and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to do it. Plainly then, there are two souls; and when the good one prevails, then it does good; and when the evil one predominates, then it does evil.” Barnes also quotes Epictetus, who says: “He that sins does not do what he would, but what he would not, that he does.”
So don't tell me many a sinner does not say such things about themselves. To the contrary, myself, and many others, have done just that! Most likely the ones who could never say that of themselves were either pastor's kids or born into Christian families, and, as such, had never come to experience such a total depravity as that described above. They had come to recognize themselves as sinners, but they had not come to experience total depravity as some of us truly have. And, of course, those who have been forgiven much, love much; and they also appreciate and understand what it means to be one who could not do what they wanted to do, because it was “sin” dwelling within them...constantly riding piggy-back on their lives.
Point 6. To be “carnal” or “fleshly” (lit., Greek adjective “sarkinos”) in verse 14, and in the entire contexts of Romans 7 and 8, thematically refers to all of those who are born only “of the flesh” and walk in the flesh, as opposed to all those who are born “of the Spirit” and walk in the Spirit. This word is used one more time by Paul again in 1Cor. 3:1-3 to denote Christians at Corinth who were acting like (see NIV) “sarkinos” (worldly or fleshly) people (v. 2; sarkikos used twice, v. 3).[6] This is significant here. It is not that these Corinthians were “fleshly,” as Paul denotes of himself prior to being saved in Romans 7, but that they were acting like or mimicking the people of the world who are absolutely to the core, fleshly and worldly. They were to do an about face and walk in the light as God is in the light. They were, as new creatures in Christ, to cast off the works of darkness that all true believers are now able to do, and apprehend that for which they had been apprehended for of Christ to do. Most commentators realize this usage of the Greek word here in 1Corinthians as not really denoting the true condition and practice of those who are really born again, and yet they will acquiesce to its usage of Paul and all believers in Romans 7. For example, James Boice who is of this persuasion concerning Paul in Romans 7, but not of the Christians at Corinth, writes,
The Christians in Corinth were indeed acting badly, as Christians frequently do. In that area of their lives they were “worldly.” That is, they were acting as if they were not Christians, as “mere men,” unregenerate. But because they were not unregenerate but were actually Christians, they had to stop that bad behavior.[7]Isn’t this amazing! Boice readily admits that this word denotes an "unregenerate" person, yet in his commentary on Romans 7, he applies it to Paul as a believer with all of this actually going on inside of him. Many more commentators are of this same persuasion with regards to these passages in Romans and First Corinthians. This is quite remarkable to me. Either Paul as a believer, along with these Corinthians, are all “fleshly” to the core, or they’re not. These words “sarkinos” and “sarkikos” either mean one thing or the other, but not both ideas of both a Christian and an unbeliever. If that were the case, then we can never really understand what words mean and are only left to our own speculations and conjecture. Clearly, Paul is describing himself with this word of all those who are in an "unregenerate" state in Romans 7, and in 1Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul uses the word to describe these same type of individuals, but now only addressing those believers who were acting like the "unregenerate" of the world. In both cases, sarkinos and sarkikos denotes all those who are "unregenerate," but under two entirely different scenarios.
Point 7. What Paul, as Saul, was “unable” to do as one only in the flesh in Romans 7:18, is what he says of all those who are still in the flesh as opposed to those of us who are now in the Spirit in Romans 8:8. The Holman Christian Standard Bible on Romans 7:18 reads of all those who are only in the flesh as having, “no ability” of doing the good that they would; and in Romans 8:8 Paul again repeats that they are “unable to do so.” It is the same plight of all those born only of the flesh, as opposed to those who are born of the Spirit. To the one now “in Christ,” in Romans 8, they are absolutely able to please God; whereas, before, they were “unable” to do so. Do you see this? The ones who are “fleshly” and "unable" to please God in Romans 7 are the same ones whom Paul says are “of the flesh” and "unable" to please God in Romans 8. In Romans 8:8, in the ESV, the wording is rendered of the mind of the one who is entirely in the flesh, that, “Indeed, it cannot” please God. In the NASB it is rendered, “it is not even able to do so.” In Romans 7:18, in the ESV, it says about this same “fleshly” person that he has “not the ability to carry it out” (i.e., God’s Law); and the NASB reads: “the doing of the good is not.” So the person that Paul just got through talking about in Romans 7, is again referred to in Romans 8 as the one who is in the “flesh” and who “cannot” submit to God’s law. In chapter eight he is now placed in juxtaposition to the saint in whom God’s Spirit now indwells in Rom. 8:9 and verse 11 (contra the “indwelling sin” of the carnal fleshly man in Rom. 7:18 and verse 20).
Point 8. The wording “I am” in Romans 7 can be called what is commonly understood in all grammars as a historic present tense. And it is also important for us to realize here that Paul had already just used this first person, singular, personal pronoun in the present tense in chapter three, verse seven, where he again had stated in a context with regards to Jews who were being judged with regards to those who knew the law, “Why am I also (Gk., kaigo [8]) still being judged (present passive indicative) as a sinner?” (NASB). He wasn’t stating this as a continual fact any longer concerning himself as a sinner and an unregenerate Jew, but only using it to recall his own experience in history past as one who was personally and intimately acquainted with what it meant to be under the condemning affects of the law. And notice that he even qualifies his statement by saying, “I am using a human argument.” Clearly, Paul is including himself here to make it more relatable and pertinent to his Jewish readers.
In Rom. 7:7, Paul begins by saying, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” And in order to avoid as much as possible in giving any offense towards the Jews, he starts out by including himself as one who was very well acquainted with the law. Clearly, this is particularly evident in his use of the personal pronoun “I” in this particular case. In the beginning of this chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he says, “ye”; in verse 4 he joins himself with them, saying, “we”; but here in verse 7, and on towards the end of this chapter, he leaves them out entirely and speaks in the first person, though it is clear that he still has all those who use to be under the law in mind.
It is worth repeating: In Rom. 3:7, and in chapter 7, Paul has the entire body of the Jews in mind, using himself with the personal pronoun “I” and the present passive or active indicatives to illustrate his (as well as their) experience in history past as those who were under the judging or condemning affects of the law. Under grace, Paul in Rom. 3:7 was no longer being “judged” as such a “sinner” any longer.[9] There is to be no doubt whatsoever that this entire third chapter in Romans is depicting all such people before ever being saved (cf. vv. 9-18), as is the case with Romans chapter 7, with Paul using the Greek historic present tense to make it all more personable.
And even though Matthew Poole believes Paul is talking about himself in his regenerate state in Romans 7, in his commentary under chapter 3, verse 7, he affirms that Paul is using himself as an example by using the first person historic present tense. Poole notes: “The apostle does plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent amongst all authors.”[10]
Again, Paul uses this present tense, first person, singular usage in 1Cor. 13:1-2 where he says, “If I speak in tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal....If I have prophetic powers of prophecy...If I have all faith” (ESV), etc., etc. It is impossible to hold a view here that Paul meant for these words to apply only to himself, or even necessarily in the present situation. Clearly, he is referring to something that is true of anyone who exercises these gifts (whether it was in the past, present, or future; for the present tense does not denote that which is necessarily just in the present), and so he makes his words here pointedly more vivid by using the present tense “If I speak...If I have” as if he were the one who was actually doing it. We know elsewhere that he did indeed speak in tongues, but this is not the point that Paul is trying to make here, as anyone can readily understand. Surely Paul didn’t have “all” faith, did he? So, in using himself for illustrative purposes, he was speaking for all of the rest of us.
When Paul (or anyone else for that matter) is speaking like this, he is talking as if it were true of himself in the present, but is in fact really stating something that has already occurred in the past, which is exactly what this usage of the historic present tense is suppose to convey. The historic present tense, by definition, “refers to the employment of the present tense when narrating past events.”[11] Linguists have sometimes suggested that the historic present makes stories more vivid primarily by bringing past events into the immediate present as though they were happening even now to the one who is speaking. As Dana and Mantey note on the “Historic Present” in their manual on Greek grammar: “The present tense is thus employed when a past event is viewed with the vividness of a present occurrence.”[12] In essence it transports the reader into the past and makes the experience more vivid and more real to the listeners, placing them in the shoes of the one who is speaking. And though rare indeed among Paul’s writings, this first person present tense usage used as a historic present tense has clearly been substantiated in the extra-biblical Greek literature of those times, though used primarily in the third person as “we,” “us,” and “our.” A cursory search online will establish this definition and usage everywhere.
Here is some Bible trivia that not too many Christians are aware of. It has been estimated that there are over 500 usages of this “third person” historic present tense used in the gospels and the book of Acts alone (especially in the book of Mark).[13] And it must be admitted that very rarely, if at all (except for the two cases cited above (three, if we include Romans 7), is it used in the first person singular in the Bible, and thus one of the reasons for its strong denial that it was being used this way by Paul in Romans 7. But Greek scholars have long recognized the frequent occurrence of the first, second, and third person historical present in both classical and first-century Greek narratives.[14]
Most English translations of the Bible have often hidden or obscured over 150 of Mark’s usages of the “third person” historical present tense in the original Greek, and translate it simply (and I might add, “correctly” in many of these instances) with the past tense. As previously noted, the Greek “present tense” does not denote necessarily what is presently occurring in time. Unlike our English, all it denotes is a continuous action, whether past (Jhn. 1:15, “John bore witness,” present active indicative, ESV and older NASB[15]), present (it’s usual occurrence in the Greek), or sometimes even in the future (Mat. 26:2b, “will be delivered,” present passive indicative, ESV). So it is left up to the translator to decide according the context how it is to be understood. And so, “Jesus comes,” becomes “Jesus came;” “he says,” becomes “he said;” “he speaks” becomes “he spoke,” and so on and so forth.
Here is another little bit of translation trivia that not too many Christians are aware of. In The New American Standard Bible, the third person historic present tense verbs are normally marked with an asterisk (*), where the translators deemed it fit to translate them as past tense actions. Isn’t this interesting? The editors explain:
In some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence. [The translators] felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents into English past tenses.[16]An example from the New Testament where one group of translators of the NASB decided to change a present active indicative Greek verb to the past tense, and another group (the NIV translators) decided not to change it is in John 1:15. The older NASB (and newer ESV) renders the verse as: “John bore witness of Him, and cried out…,” whereas the NIV translates it: “John testifies concerning him. He cries out…” As one can clearly see, the NASB and ESV chose to change this present active indicative verb to a “historic present,” or past tense event, and the NIV just chose to leave it in the present tense. Of course, John the Baptist was no longer testifying concerning Christ when John wrote his gospel, so the NASB and ESV just chose to translate this as a past tense action. In my copy of the NASB it occurs 16 times this way in this chapter alone, as noted with the asterisk (*), and all with the third person present active indicative. Sometimes it really does pay to take note of every jot and tittle.
And so, except for Paul speaking in the first person, isn’t it interesting that this third person is also used in the Greek present active indicative and no differently than how Paul used it with the “first” person in Romans 7:14, when he said, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” and as used also elsewhere throughout this chapter. All this evidence overwhelming points to Paul in his unregenerate state before becoming a Christian. And as Charles Leiter notes in his book Justification and Regeneration (after the manner in which I have been presenting above), “Notice that the transition to the present tense takes place quite naturally since Paul could hardly say, ‘We know that the Law was spiritual.’”[17]
And as one writer also notes:
Paul had introduced the present tense in v. 14, referring to the Law: “For we know (οἴδαμεν – present tense!) that the Law is (ἐστιν – present tense!) spiritual.” That is true. It is still true! That is stating a timeless principle! But, that was just the first half of a contrast. The rest is, “but I am of flesh.” It would have been grammatically unacceptable for Paul to switch tenses in the middle of that contrast, to say, “For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I was of flesh.” So Paul, having started the use of the present tense, with the statement of the universal truth, was grammatically bound to continue to use the present tense, at least through the rest of the contrast. And, in fact, he did continue it through the rest of the section, possibly for dramatic effect, as discussed above.[18]Point 9. “Sold” under sin in verse 14 is akin to one who is passively sold as a slave, as all slaves are. That Paul didn’t voluntarily sell himself to such sinning, as some would try to point out to justify the idea that Paul was a believer who was still struggling with sin, but not really wanting to do it, is an argument not based upon any facts with regards to the Greek "passive" voice. Paul (as Saul) was sin’s prisoner, bound to please his master (or sin) regardless of what his conscience wanted him to do or not. It was inbred in his nature to bring forth bad fruit, as all bad-natured trees are prone to doing.
As everyone knows, those who are bought and sold in slave markets do not sell themselves to their owners. They are entirely passive in this transaction. As noted, the Greek here is literally in the “passive” voice, meaning that Paul didn’t volunteer for this but was placed into this position by someone or something other than himself. Clearly, there can be no denying that the Bible says that we were all “passively” sold and placed under the authority and servitude to sin through no fault of our own, but through the fall of Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-20). This is what the "passive" voice denotes in the Greek, and not that a person is not prone to doing sin in and of himself. And in contradistinction to what Adam did to all of us, the Bible also says we are passively “bought” (cf. 1Cor. 6:20; 7:23) as “slaves to God” (cf. Rom. 6:22) by the price that was paid by Christ to redeem us, no longer as slaves to sin or to men, but as slaves unto God and to righteousness that leads unto holiness---just as Paul got through expressing for us in the last few verses Romans chapter 6, before elaborating further in the foregoing verses of chapter 7 of what it exactly meant to be a prisoner and a slave to sin. And Romans 8 elaborates on this same condition and plight of the one who is in the flesh, before being in Christ, as opposed to the one who is born of God and now walking in the Spirit. The unregenerate soul’s mind is “controlled” by the flesh while the regenerate soul’s mind is “controlled” by the Spirit (vv. 5-10). This is the progressive theme of chapters six, seven and eight of walking out from underneath the bondages and ravages of sin, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
The word translated “sold” in Rom. 7:14 is also in the perfect tense, which indicates a state or condition that had begun in the past with continuing results in the present. And this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 6:17 and 20 was the state or condition of believers prior to being saved. Twice here Paul says they were “slaves of sin” using the same Greek perfect tense as found in Rom. 7:14. But in Romans 6:18 and 22, Paul also says twice that the believer has been “freed from sin.” It is hard to understand how one who has been “freed from sin,” in chapter 6, could now be said by Paul to still be “sold under sin” in chapter 7. So, the only way to make sense out of all this is to understand that Paul must be describing his condition as an unbelieving Jew, while still under the law, and “a slave under sin,” before being under grace and passively freed from the sin.
Point 10. So, what about the placement of the last sentence in Rom. 7:25 being after the exclamation of victory through Jesus Christ? Doesn’t that argue that this is Paul’s Christian experience? David Kummer answers this forthright:
NO! The last sentence is introduced by the compound Greek particles, “ἄρα οὐν.” When I took Greek syntax from Bill Barrick, I wrote in my copy of Dana and Mantey, “ἄρα οὐν introduces a conclusion of a whole preceding argument” (At p. 241).In verse 25b, this individual that Paul is describing is whom James referred to in his epistle as a double-minded, or literally, in the Greek, a “two-souled” person,[20] and whom Paul says is serving two masters: the Law and sin. In verse 25, Paul (as Saul) reflects: “Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (NIV). In the conundrum that Paul, as Saul, found himself in before being saved in Romans 7:7-24, he stops momentarily to give pause and reflection on how one can be delivered from such a plight, and then continues with his previous narrative to state that such a Jew under the law, and without Christ, is both a servant (or, lit., “slave”) to the Law and a servant (or “slave”) to sin. But “in Christ” (8:1) there is now no condemnation of the Law as the Jewish Christian’s former husband and Taskmaster. The New Living Translation really conveys this idea very well concerning what I have just described above. Under verse 25, it reads: “Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God's law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.” Paul, as Saul, was a slave to sin that was exasperated by the law, because he still had the old man or sinful fleshly nature residing in him at that time. Who was it that passively delivered or bought him from being sold passively as a slave to sin, in order to be a slave to righteousness and unto holiness? I thank God, through Jesus Christ my Lord, says Paul! Hallelujah! He whom the Son sets free, is free indeed! And it is for freedom from sin that Christ has set us free. This is the good news! It is NOT being sold as a slave under the servitude of sin anymore.
Dr. Margaret Thrall, in Greek Particles in the New Testament, writes, “It ["ἄρα οὐν"] is several times used by Paul to sum up the argument of a whole section (rather than merely indicating the logical consequence of the immediately preceding sentences considered in isolation), Rom. v 18; vii 25; viii 12; xiv 19; Gal. vi 10.” (P. 11).
(Note: The Greek participles in brackets, ["ἄρα οὐν"] were added by me, but they are what Thrall is referring to in her comment; AND...she cites Romans 7:25 as one of the instances of this as, “summing up the argument of a whole section”).[19]
Point 11. One should also be aware of how verses 7 and 13 begin in the Greek text with the conjunction, “oun” (translated “therefore” in NAS; in the HCSB, in v. 13)—not apparent in most translations—showing that they all flow from a continuation of one connecting thought stemming from verses 5-6 (and esp. v. 5; cp. also Rom. 6:1 w/ 5:20-21 for a similar pattern[21]), and even from as far back as the first of the two statements mentioned earlier which began this whole discussion by Paul in the first place in Rom. 5:20.
Notice also how verse 13, in turn, is similarly followed in verse 14 with the Greek conjunction “gar” (“for”), and used twice in verse 15 (in ESV, NAS, YLT), which again connect and continue the same leading thought: to show the intent and purpose of the law prior to one being saved.
Many (such as John MacArthur) attempt to separate verses 7-13 from verses 14-25, stating that verses 7-13 have to do with the life of the unregenerate, while verses 14-25 have to do with the life of the regenerate. But these connecting “therefore’s” and “for’s”―referred to as “conjunctions,”[22] which connect preceding thoughts―will not allow for such a separation of thought. This is extremely important to realize, and not a few bible expositors have come to realize this and make use of this when these words are used elsewhere in various contexts throughout the Scriptures with regards to what has just been previously stated before, in order to give a further description and elaboration of what had just been previously stated. But here, in Romans 7, these governing conjunctions are thrown completely out the window and entirely overlooked in favor of one’s own private interpretation.
Some (such as Charles Hodge), on the other hand, do see these “connecting” conjunctions between verses 13 and 14, and then affirm that verses 7-25 are all referring to the regenerate Christian. But such individuals as Hodge have also failed to see the connection of the Greek “oun” (or, “therefore”) in verse 7 that takes us back even further to the thought in verse 5 which provoked all of these further questions and answers starting in verses 7 and 13 to begin with. Clearly, Paul’s theme here is about the purpose and the nature of the law prior to one being saved, verse 5 being the continuing springboard (and even from as far back as chapter five, verse 20) from which this question and answer format has continued throughout chapter 7.
So, we can readily see that this is the setting in which verses 14-25, in chapter 7, are to be framed in. Verses 14-25 do not begin an entirely new theme or subject matter, as some have wrongly deduced, but just the opposite. They continue exactly upon the same theme that Paul started out with in elaborating on the law’s function in showing one to be the dreadful sinner that they are, and in need of a Deliverer.[23]
Point 12. Paul says in Romans 8:3 that what the law could not do, or was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh (the same flesh that could not do what the spiritual law wanted him to do in Romans 7), God did, through Jesus, in order that the righteous spiritual requirements of the law “might be fulfilled in us,” who no longer live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. What couldn’t be done when we were only in the flesh before being saved in Romans 7, we can now do. This is the argument of Paul in Romans 8.
No one, for the most part, that I am aware of, whether they believe that Romans 7 speaks of Paul in his regenerate state or unregenerate state, believes that the person being described here by Paul in the flesh in Romans 8 is a true, born-again believer. Everyone pretty much believes that this is the life of an unregenerate individual that Paul is describing. There are a few mis-guided Arminians who believe otherwise, based upon the fact that Paul is addressing “brothers” in verse 12. But Paul is telling his “brothers” (if indeed they be “brothers”) that “we have an obligation not to the flesh,” but to the Spirit (kind of like the same thing he told the Corinthians in 1Cor. 3). And that if we are those who live after the flesh, then we are not really Christ’s to begin with. True born-again “brothers,” Paul says, are “not controlled by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells within you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to Christ” (v. 9). So there you have it from Paul! Such a person is still in the “flesh,” has their mind set on what only the flesh desires, is hostile towards God, does not submit to God, nor can they do so (vv. 5-7). These are the same people that Paul just got through talking about who were under the law in Romans 7, using himself as an example of one who use to be under the law. Clearly, these who are in the flesh in Romans 8 likewise “cannot do” what the good law would have them to do---they are "unable" to submit to God's law, according to verse 7.
Point 13. The “lusts” (or “covetousness”) that Paul said the Law incited him to do all the more in Romans 7:8 before being saved, is the same “lust” (“passions,” NIV) that he said he and all unbelievers were serving (lit., “enslaved” to) in Tit. 3:3 before being saved. It is the same Greek word (Gk. verb, epithumia). And it is the same Greek word he used in Acts 20:33 when he told the Elders from Ephesus that he no longer as a Christian “coveted” anyone’s gold, silver, or clothing (Gk. noun, epithumeo). And in Gal. 5:24, Paul says, “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature [or "flesh"] with its passions and desires,” with the Greek word for “desires” here being the same word used above (and in many more places) for “lusts” or “covetousness.”
Point 14. In Php. 3:6, Paul did not perfectly keep the Law, as some erroneously contend that he did in order to buttress their idea that Paul could not be talking about his former way of life as an unbeliever in Romans 7. On the contrary, Paul observed the Law imperfectly, as only a Pharisee could ever hope to do so; and, according to the law, Paul said he was just that: “a Pharisee” (Php. 3:5)! He was not saying the Law supported the Pharisaical beliefs, but only that he observed the Law according to the traditions of the Pharisees, as opposed to how the Sadducees and Essenes observed the Law and viewed being “blameless.” Paul was “blameless” in respect to how a Pharisaical Jew understood righteousness and blamelessness. And so Paul was “blameless” before men, but not before God. As Douglas Moo points out in his commentary on Romans: “In Philippians he [Paul] is describing his ’official’ status…according to Jewish definitions. But in Romans he is describing his experience” as a Pharisee from a Christian perspective (see Moo's NIV Application Comm., p. 245).
Before being in Christ, Paul broke the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th commandments that we know of: (1) Paul says he was a “blasphemer” of God (1Tim. 1:13), thus he broke the 3rd command of using the Lord’s name in vain; (2) the traditions of the Pharisees that Paul said he was zealous for (Gal. 1:14; cp. Php. 3:6), Christ said they nullified the 5th commandment with in Mat. 15:1-9; (3) Paul, as Saul, stood by the false testimony and witness of others (Acts 6:11; 7:58), thereby he broke the 9th command of bearing false testimony; (4) Saul murdered Christ’s disciples, thus persecuting Christ (Acts 9:4-5) and was guilty as charged of breaking the 6th commandment against murder. If he was “blameless” (or “without reproach”) before God in having done all of this, then why did Jesus cast reproach upon him on the road to Damascus? (5) And, lastly, if Paul is referring to himself in Romans 7 with regards to his former way of life before being saved, then he also admittedly broke the 10th commandment against coveting. The idea that Paul was more righteous or blameless before God, before being saved, is an absolute misnomer. He was not only positionally unrighteous before God but practically as well, as only a Pharisee true-to-form could ever hope to be; otherwise, Paul could not have said to us that “all have sinned,” for Paul (as Saul) would have been the only one who didn’t. In Ephesians, Paul said, “all of us lived among them [the Gentiles] at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were objects of wrath” (2:3). And again, “At one time we were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved to all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.” (Tit. 3:3). Need we really say anymore? Paul (as Saul) was a wretched sinner through and through, and NOT blameless before God at all!
Point 15. In Php. 4:9, Paul says that what you have “heard” and “seen” in me, do! If Paul is a regenerate Christian in Romans 7 continually (Gk. present tense) in verses 15-20 not being able to do that which he really wanted to do, and that the Law against coveting was “producing” in him all manner of covetousness, as he says it was doing in verse 8, then is this something we are expected to mimic as “hearing” and “seeing” him do? Of course not! The only reason that Paul could say this was that he truly was not living a dual hypocritical lifestyle. And the reason why many can’t, is because they are living a hypocritical lifestyle. They eat, breath and live in the wretched sinner syndrome. They know no other lifestyle. They know not the great confession! And “they think it strange that you do not follow them after the same dissipation.”
So, you see, this cannot be Paul as a believer in Romans 7; otherwise, he would be telling us here in Philippians to follow his same conduct as outlined in Romans 7. Such a notion is ludicrous and an outright contradiction of how one's behavior is really suppose to be like.
In Php. 3:17 Paul says to follow his example. Is the example of one who continually sins, and the fact that they are a wretched sinner through and through, an example of what we are to follow? But just the opposite was Paul as a believer: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how HOLY, RIGHTEOUS and BLAMELESS we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10).
Point 16. With regards to Rom. 7:22 saying, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law,” some have a tendency to argue that only a regenerate person could say that they delight in God’s law in the inner man. But many unregenerate Jews (such as Paul as Saul for example) delighted in God’s law for their standard of living, and still delight in it to this day, as do many even in our court systems throughout the United States judicial system. They adorn the justice buildings with God’s ten commandments inscribed on their stone walls, columns and facades; as do the Jews who enshrine the Law of God in their elaborate and intricate scrolls. Some courts in the United States have even had the ten commandments encased in glass as you walk in their courts. Both Jews and Gentiles all know deep down inside that such laws are good, holy and just. With their minds and inner consciences they serve the Law of God (or at least attempt to do so), but with their flesh they are sold as slaves to the law of sin. The good that they really want to do deep down inside, they just cannot do for the likes of themselves. But now, in Christ, we are able to fulfill the Law (8:4), contrary to the one only in the flesh and who is not able to submit to it in Rom. 7:18 and in Rom. 8:7. Being only “fleshly” in Rom. 7:14, as one who is born only of the flesh, keeps them from faithfully fulfilling the holy Law of God. We, "however," says Paul, "are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells within you" (Rom. 8:9).
Point 17. In Romans 7:23, 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). But 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.” The words “the law of sin” are understood by most that Paul is talking about the principle of sin, and not the Mosaic Law. And it is quite obvious that one cannot be both “a prisoner to the law of sin” and “set free from the law of sin” at the same time! It is unfortunate that proponents of the regenerate view seem to only be able to relate to all of us as just prisoners of sin, with no inclination whatsoever of us having ever been set free from sin. Under the Law, and not under grace, Paul was a prisoner of the law of sin; but under grace he was set free from the law of sin. The former 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 a free man; the one as a slave to sin, the other as free to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law. There is no margin for error here. The two are placed in juxtaposition to one another. Paul is not taking about a life imprisoned to sin one day, and then free from sin the next day. He is talking about a life under the Law that incited him to sin all the more, verses a life no longer under the law, but under grace, and that now incites him to be holy all the more.
If these passages in Romans 7 are talking about the state and condition of the believer, then they would be demonstrating “not of the impotence of the law, but of that of the gospel,”[24] a notion that is not even to be entertained or tolerated for one second. Romans 7:23 demonstrates the impotency of the law to restrain sin, while Rom. 8:2 demonstrates the potency of the gospel under grace to do just the opposite.
Point 18. Last, but not least, the most important point and observation to consider in all of this, is the time when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. It is a point or argument that no one, that I am aware of to date, has ever considered or mentioned in this debate. And if nothing else were ever stated, except for this one argument alone, nothing else would need to be stated. It puts an end to all of the other arguments.
Every single commentator that I have ever read, along with those that I have in my library of some 45 years, believes that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans while in Cenchrea, in Greece, on his third missionary journey in Acts 20:1-3, around 57-58 AD. According to history, Paul died roughly ten years later around 67-68 AD under the persecution and martyrdom of Nero. So, no doubt, Paul of some 25 years now as a Christian was a mature believer at the time of writing his epistle to the Romans.
According to Acts 20:3, after having stayed in Greece for three months, and upon having written this epistle upon his stay there, Paul then returns back through the regions he had just visited on this third missionary journey, and eventually ends up in Miletus where he exhorts the Elders of Ephesus who had come down to greet him at Miletus. This trip to Miletus from Greece, according to the biblical record, took about a month. This is taking into account at least maybe one week at the most to go by land from Greece to Philippi, and then from the port of Philippi to Miletus. So, at the most, from the beginning of Paul's stay in Greece of three months, to the month it took him to get to Miletus, it was maybe about a total of four months. So Paul wrote his epistle either upon entering Greece, towards the middle of his stay there, or just prior to his departure from there.
Now notice something that it is extremely of importance here, as it pertains to this discussion. It must not, I repeat, must not to be overlooked! But sadly, for many, only to their own demise and destruction, it has been entirely overlooked. But truth has a way of manifesting itself in the most unlikely places. Notice how in Acts 20:33 Paul tells the Elders from Ephesus that he had coveted no ones gold, silver or clothing. And he also prefaces this by saying to them, “You know that with my own hands I have provided for my needs and the needs of those who traveled with me.” “You know this about me,” says Paul. So, let me put this question before you. Are we to suppose that from the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans and spoke of the law against covetousness “producing in me [or, lit., working out or bringing out of me] every kind of covetous desire” in Romans 7, to the time that he exhorted the Elders and confessed he did not covet, that he in some way, shape, manner or form had an epiphany on his way to Miletus that changed this disposition about himself? Or, was such a change of heart realized on the road to Damascus when God replaced Paul's cold, stony heart with a living heart of flesh? The latter, of course, by far, is to be preferred. Paul, as a mature believer now, was at the latter part or end of his ministry, before the Lord, a shining beacon or light before the Gentiles. He had run his course. And he was about to finish his race. In ten years time, it would be all over for Paul.
So, are we to believe that from the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, to the time he was to appear before the Elders, that Paul had a change of heart and repented of all covetousness, in order that when he actually appeared before the Elders he could truthfully say to them that he was not covetous and therefore not be hypocritical in doing so? Something tells me, “I don't think so!” And the same should ring true for all of us. Just consider what Paul told the Corinthians in 1Cor. 5:10 about no one fellowshipping with a believer who, among other things in his list, was "covetous." Would Paul be telling others to not associate with a covetous person if he himself was still covetous as an apostle? I rest my case. Paul was not referring to himself as a mature apostle and believer in Romans 7 wherein the Law “produced in him every kind of covetous desire” (v. 8). It only did this to him while he was still an unregenerate Jew “under the law,” which as an unrelenting taskmaster lent him no helping hand to deliver him whatsoever.
Once again, Paul says the Elders from Ephesus “knew” that he was not a covetous person. And they came to “know” this about him not based upon some epiphany between Greece and Miletus, but in his practical conduct and lifestyle throughout the years of his Christian life, and which spoke volumes to the fact that he was not a covetous man. Rather than coveting what others had, Paul denied himself the privileges of what many others actually enjoyed having. And he not only worked to provide for his own needs, but worked to provide for the needs of those who traveled with him as well. And he prefaces all of this by saying: “...remembering the word of the Lord Jesus himself saying, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive'” (v.35). Rather than wanting what others had, Paul gave that they might have! The Elders had come to "know" all of this about Paul, not in the one or maybe four months time between Greece and Melitus that it took for him to write his epistle to the Romans, but in his holy walk and lifestyle throughout his entire Christian life. Paul was not a “I cannot continually do” (Gk. present tense) man as described in Romans 7, but a “I can continually do (Gk. present tense) all things through Christ which strengthens (or empowers) me” (Php. 4:13); and that it is “no longer I (ego) who lives, but Christ lives continually (Gk. present tense) in me” (Gal. 2:20). Surely all of this includes much more than just enduring under the trials and hardships of life. It includes living a victorious life over the world, the flesh, sin and the Devil as well. We now believe in all things, endure in all things, and hope in all things through Christ which gives us strength. We are no longer overcome by sin, but we now overcome it! And this is the victory that overcomes the world: even our faith. The life Paul lived in the flesh, he now lived by faith in the Son of God who died and gave His life for him. Paul was no longer sold as a slave to the lusts of his flesh, as described in Romans 7 of one who was still under the law, but Paul was a slave to God and unto righteousness which leads to holiness, as outlined in Romans 6; as one who was no longer under the law, but now under grace (v. 14).
Footnotes:
[1] For more thoughts on all of this, please read my article: Created in God's Image, Not Adam's!
[1a] For the idea of being “slaves” to the law prior to being in Christ, see Rom. 7:1-6, 25; Gal. 4:3, 9, 24-25, 30-31; 5:1. For the idea of being “slaves” to sin prior to being in Christ, see Jhn. 8:34-35; Rom. 6:16-17, 19-20; 7:14, 23, 25; Tit. 3:3; 2Pet. 2:19.
[2] Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 81.3; 28.21-23, quoted in Eric Plumer’s critical notes on Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians, note 30, p. 153. Public domain.
[3] Translated “captive,” “bound,” “held” in the ESV, NAS, and KJV. Translated “enslaved” and “in bondage” in the ISV and WEY.
[4] Translated “serve” in most translations, but the Greek means the same as it does in Rom. 6:18-22. Having been freed from enslavery to the law and sin we are now enslaved to Christ as His slaves.
[5] Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 275. Words in brackets and bold for emphasis mine.
[6] Sarkinos and sarkikos, according to Vine’s Expos. Dictionary are adjectives which, “are contrasted with spiritual qualities in Rom. 7:14; 1Cor. 3:1, 3, 4; 2Cor. 1:12; Col. 2:18. Speaking broadly, the carnal [as expressed here in these two words] denotes the sinful element in man’s nature, by reason of descent from Adam; the spiritual is that which comes by the regenerating operation of the Holy Spirit.”(a) And as one can very well see, these two words are used interchangeably in 1Cor. 3, being considered almost synonymous to one another, with just a slight difference in meaning. BAGD lexicon notes how these “forms are interchanged in...tradition.”(b)
Kittel’s Theological Dict. of the NT even remarks of sarkinos/sarkikos, “In Rom. 7:14 Paul uses the term to describe his pre-Christian state....Sarkikos...is parallel to...sarkinos in 1Cor. 3:1ff.”(c)
A. T. Robertson also notes here on sarkinos under 1Cor. 3:1: “In Rom. 7:14 Paul says, ‘I am fleshen (sarkinos) sold under sin,’ as if sarkinos represented the extreme power of the sarx.”(d) And Robertson evidently says this by the fact that Paul (as Saul) was “under” it and “sold” over to it. But Robertson didn't view this word of bespeaking of Paul as a believer.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT also notes along with A. T. Robertson, “unless we decide that Paul used sarkiko and sarkino indiscriminately, we must suppose that sarkino [Paul’s usage in Rom. 7:14] expresses the idea of sarkiko with an emphasis: wholly given up to the flesh, rooted in the flesh as it were.”(e) In other words, Paul (as Saul) is not just “carnal” in Rom. 7:14, but really carnal! And Paul (as Saul) denotes this fact by additionally saying that he was, “sold under sin.”
Notes to immediate footnote above:[7] Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), vol. 2, p. 734.
(a) Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1981, vol. 2, p. 108.
(b) Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 742.
(c) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990; abridged in one volume, p. 1006.
(d) Word Pictures in the NT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1931), vol. 4, p. 92.
(e) Peabody: Hendrikson Pub., 2009, p. 569.
[8] Strong’s #2504, from kai and ego. Defined as: “I also,” “I too,” “but I.”
[9] This does not mean that Paul was antinomian, or, entirely without law. Elsewhere he tells us that he was not without law to God, but under law to Christ. It’s just that Paul was no longer under the previous covenantal laws, sanctions, conditions, and condemnations. Under our new covenant with Christ we are to obey all of the moral laws previously obeyed under the Mosaic covenant, but in a different light and under an entirely new and different administration. Ours is no longer just an outward obedience as a show, but a true and sincere inward obedience that comes from circumcised hearts. This is also why Paul could say to not use our liberty in Christ, of no longer being under the laws condemnation, as a cloak or cover for licentious living. All Christians who live ungodly lives will be judged severely by God.
[10] Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: MA, 2008; vol. 3, p. 487.
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present.
[12] A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, p. 185.
[13] Many references could be cited, but this one mentioned here will suffice for now: The Narrative Function and Verbal Aspect of the Historical Present in the Fourth Gospel, at: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-4/JETS%2051-4%20703-720%20Leung.pdf. See under footnote #2.
[14] Ibid. See under footnote #1.
[15] As William Mounce notes in his Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, “because the Greek verb system views time as secondary to aspect, it is possible for the Greek present tense to refer to an action that occurs in the past. This idea is to make the telling of the past event more vivid by using the present tense (historical, dramatic)” (p. 138; words in parenthesis his). This is also referred to by Greek scholars as the historic present usage of the present tense.
[16] New American Standard Bible, Reference Edition. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1973, p. x.
[17] Justification and Regeneration (Hannibal: Granted Ministries Press, 2009), p. 151.
[18] David Kummer, Views Regarding Rom. 7:13-25 (no date). Researched online.
[19] Ibid.
[20] As noted, the Greek literally reads in James here, “di-psuchos,” or a two-souled person. Of course, no one has two souls and two hearts, so what this can only mean is that something is pulling one’s soul one way, while another thing is pulling them in the opposite direction. Such a person is uncontrollable and unmanageable when left to themselves without the Spirit of God to help them. Their “heart,” (conscience) as well as their “soul” (their will of choice) is bent on pursuing evil, with also a pull or tug on their hearts to do what is good.
This is exactly the same person that Paul describes of himself before being saved in Rom. 7:25b, where he says of the Jew under old covenantal law, “with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, [a slave] to the law of sin” (HCSB). Such a one is double-minded, serving double-duty under two masters―the spiritual law of God and the un-spiritual law of sin! Their flesh is pulling them one way while the conscience of their spirit is pulling them another way. And their will (or soul) is caught in the middle in trying to decide between the two, similar to Adam and Eve before they fell into sin. There is a desire in such a person’s conscience (or heart) and in their will (their soul) to keep God’s law and do what is right, but their flesh controlled by their old unregenerate man without the Spirit of God to enable them to do good, is keeping them under the bondage of continuing to do sin. These were those whom James was referring to among the true Jewish believers in Christ. They were those who claimed they had faith, but in works they denied it. They were not peacemakers, but cold-blooded killers and murderers of God’s saints who were masquerading as saints.
Even in James 4:2, it is questionable whether James is referring to true believers in the faith or not. These people he refers to, “fight,” “quarrel,” “kill,” and “covet;” and when they do ask God to do something it is based purely upon “wrong motives” (similar to the Jewish Pharisees). They are literally, before God, “adulterous” (v. 4) by these physical, and not “spiritual” actions as some commentators claim here of the usage of this word. Again, it is something that these Pharisees were exactly accustomed to doing. In fact, in James 5:6, they are again said to “condemn” and “murder” innocent men. In other words, they were condemning and murdering the true disciples of Christ (the Greek word for “innocent” here doesn’t denote just any secular worker in a literal field who was innocent of such treatment, but those who were “righteous” men or women of God). These “righteous” people are whom James refers to as “the workmen who mowed your fields” (v. 4). They are the “harvesters,” who “crying out against” these false brethren, who instead of receiving them with open arms, condemned and murder them. These are most definitely not true believers that James is referring to. Most commentators believe this to be just the case, especially with regards to those referred to here in chapter five, verses 1-6. But I do not think these “murders” here are to be understood any differently than those who are also said to continually “kill” in chapter 4, verse 2. Many attempt to downplay and weaken the force of the word “kill” here in chapter 4 to only mean that in a figurative sense these people had it in the hearts to kill, but never actually or literally. But I don’t buy it for one minute...just as many commentators don’t “buy it” when the same idea is referred to in chapter 5, verse 6.
The Greek word for “kill” (Strong’s: 5407; phoneuete) in 4:2, is a present active indicative. In other words, they are continually, actively, and absolutely doing this. It is their continual practice. This isn’t just doing it theoretically in their hearts on a continual basis, as some unwary theologians have proposed. In fact, the same Greek word is used in 5:6 (Strong’s: 5407; ephoneusate), but this time it is referring to having killed in the past (aorist active indicative). Clearly, James is not referring to the “murder” being done here as that which was done only theoretically or figuratively speaking in the past “in their hearts,” but to the fact that they really did kill those sent to them by Christ (the “harvesters who labored in your fields”). In other words, it was those who preached the gospel to them. They had killed many of those sent to them by God in the past, and they were still killing those sent by God to them now. Instead of being hospitable to these laborers of Christ---taking care of them and washing their feet---they withheld food, water and clothing from them, even casting some of them into prison (cp. Mat. 10:11-23; 25:34-46). And it is the blood of all such martyrs that cries out unto the Lord of sabaoth (v. 4; the Lord of armies), and who brings divine retribution for the mistreatment of all of His laborers in His field.
For those who can receive what I am about to say, it is to these people that James says, “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts you double-minded (i.e., all of you people standing among us with hearts of duplicity). Such “double-minded” people (unbelievers) with divided hearts shall not receive anything from the Lord, so says James. They are “unstable in all their ways” (Jam. 1:8). Not just in some of their ways, but in “all” of their ways! There is just nothing good at all in these supposed professors of the faith. They are not the good trees that Jesus talked about that only bring forth good fruit. From their hearts proceeds salt water as opposed to fresh water; instead of bearing figs, they bear thorns; or, instead of bearing grapes, they bear something entirely different (cf. Jam. 3:11-12). They are not true to that nature in which they claim to be born of. They claim to have faith but didn’t show it in their works, as James claims of them in chapter 2, verses 14-26. “They are blemishes at our love feasts...shepherds who feed only themselves...autumn trees without fruit...twice dead” (Jude 12). And so it is all such people as these that James refers to as: “double-minded.” Instead of one, undivided heart that God promised to give to those who truly believed in Him (Ezk. 11:19, NIV), they are divided in their hearts between what their consciences are telling them to do based upon God’s moral laws, and what their still ever-present sinful nature or flesh is dictating for them to do so that they cannot really do the good that they want (cf. Rom. 7:15-20).
It is clear that James, as with many of the apostles, is addressing professors in his epistle, as well as possessors of the faith. Now sometimes the lines of demarcation in being able to distinguish between the two become muddied and hard for us to decipher, but to the skilled interpreter who is trained in righteousness, these lines of demarcation in time become more clear and evident to all who have their senses exercised to distinguish between good and evil, between that which is applicable to the believer and that which is applicable to the unbeliever. We find this same dilemma in the book of Hebrews where the author is referring to the saints, as well as to those who are only professors and who turn back again to the weaker and beggarly elements of the first teachings about Christ, as depicted in the temple with all of its animal sacrifices. All such people “trample the Son of God underfoot,” treating “as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10: 29). And even though the author thus spoke like this, he was “persuaded of better things” in a believer's case—things that accompany salvation” (6:9, KJV). But on the opposite side of the fence he refers to those who bear thorns and thistles and who are ready to be rejected, cursed, and “whose end is to be burned” (v. 8); similar to James referring to those in our midst who have “salt water” coming from their midst, and, who instead of bearing the fruit that they were suppose to be bearing, they bear something altogether different.
The reason why so many Christians cannot tell the difference, is because many are living so much like the unbeliever that no one can really distinguish between who are the true Christians as opposed to who are the false brethren. They have not truly known the life of a regenerate individual. And so all those verses that denote the lifestyles of unbelievers, we mistakenly think that they are speaking directly to us; and maybe they are! Maybe you are an unbeliever after all, if godly works are not following your faith! “Examine yourselves,” says Paul, “and see whether you are in the faith or not!” (cf. 2Cor. 13:5).
[21] Regarding Rom. 5:20-21 with 6:1, Kenneth Wuest writes: “So Paul proposes the question, ‘What shall we say then?’―say then to what? We go back to 5:20 [not 5:21] for our answer…” (Wuest's Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, Romans; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub., 1953; Vol. 1, p. 90).
[22] A conjunction is a part of speech that connects two words, sentences, phrases or clauses together. They are used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation.
[23] In Romans 7:24, Paul in looking back on his pitiful state as one who was under the law of sin and death, declares, “What a wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (ESV). 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 is, is that after having thanked God for such a deliverance, is Paul really now stating upon such a wonderful deliverance that he “therefore” now joyfully serves (Gk. douleuo; lit., is a slave to) the Law of God with his mind (or “spirit” as some would understand it here), but now still serves (or is a slave to) the law of sin with his flesh? Come on! Is this what Paul is being thankful for? It would be odd for Paul as a Christian to be giving thanks for deliverance, and then immediately thereafter reiterate his still divided state. As one can very well see, such an idea is preposterous! Verse 25b can only be a continuation of his previous thoughts and experience as an unregenerate Jew up until verse 24, with v. 25a being understood only as a parenthetical thought and pause of reflection, exclamation, exhilaration and exultation over the deliverance that Christ brings to just such an individual in such a state. In Romans 7:25b, Paul, as Saul, is still duty-bound in his covenantal relationship to the Mosaic Law as a servant (or slave) 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. 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, the Jew has died to his former master (or Lord) and husband, the law, and has been joined to another (Christ) in order to completely and unreservedly serve Christ now as Lord. And so verses 5-6 affirm of this former relationship that Paul expounds upon later in verses 7-24 and 25b, “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members [or lit., ‘in the members,’ Gk. en tois melesin, as also used by Paul in v. 23] to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (vv. 5-6, ESV).
Reformed commentator, Robert Haldane, in his commentary on Romans 7 here, is the only one on the side of “the regenerate” view of Paul here as the Christian, who honestly notes this dilemma in verses 24-25, and so ascribes to the cry of Paul, “Who shall (Gk., future tense) 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.”(*) 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―that Paul is not talking about his Christian experience, but his (and all those who “know the law;” v. 1, 14) pre-Christian experience when a slave or servant “under the law” as opposed to being a slave or servant “under grace” and to Christ.
(*) Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1874), public domain.
[24] Godet, Commentary on Romans, p. 281.
