Regardless of what one thinks about whether we can completely overcome our sins or not, we have got to start “not sinning.” We have got to stop sin dead in its tracks! And we have got to quit making excuses for the sins that we allow to continually occur and control our lives on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even on a yearly basis. For many Christians, Christ is nothing more than a revolving door or confessional booth, whereby we can go in one minute acknowledging our sins, and then go back out the next minute to continually commit the same sins; or worse yet, to commit even grosser sins than the ones before over and over again.
Romans 7 is often used by most Christians as a “proof text,” and even as an “excuse,” for the reason why they do the things that they allow themselves to continually do. Instead of instilling in the Christian a victorious attitude and life towards the world, the flesh and the Devil, a misunderstanding of this chapter has left more than one of us helpless, hopeless and hapless—resolved to just throw in the towel and say, “What’s the use, I am what I am and I won’t amount to anything more; sin dwells within me and makes me to continually do the things that I really do not want to do!”
Jon Zens, in his studies with regards to all of this, writes, “Historically, theological traditions that view Rom. 7 as a normal, inevitable Christian experience have produced people with essentially negative self concepts” (Baptist Reformation Review, vol. 10, #4. 1981). But just the opposite is true with regards to those who have not viewed these passages of Scripture as the normal, inevitable experience of the Christian’s life. Your guess is as good as mine as to which position produces more good fruit, and is, therefore, more biblical. A “good tree” is clearly known by its “good fruit” that it produces; a bad tree by its bad fruit.
More than one writer has noted that unsaved Greek and Roman philosophers have argued the very same things that Paul claims of one who is still under the law and still under the bondages and ravages of sin. Horace and Ovid are noted as saying: “I see and approve the better course, but I follow the worse one” (Ovid), or, “I pursue the things that have done me harm; I shun the things I believe will do me good” (Horace). Adam Clarke again quotes Ovid as saying, “What is lawful is insipid; the strongest propensity is excited towards that which is prohibited.” And again, “Vice is provoked by every strong restraint, sick men long most to drink, who know they mayn’t.” The same poet delivers the same sentiment in another place: “Being admonished, he [man] becomes the more obstinate; and his fierceness is irritated by restraints. Prohibitions become incentives to greater acts of vice” (op. cit.). You might have just as well of thought it was the apostle Paul speaking in these particular instances, and not some Greek philosophers or poets! So it is no new thing when Adam Clarke also affirms to us: “It is needless to multiply examples; this most wicked principle of a sinful, fallen nature, has been felt and acknowledged by ALL mankind….Thus we find that enlightened heathens, both among the Greeks and Romans, had that same kind of religious experience which some suppose to be, not only the experience of St. Paul in his best state, but to be even the standard of Christian attainments!" (Comm. on Romans, under 7:7, 15). I, for one, can attest to these very same struggles prior to believing in Christ. And it was exactly for these reasons that I attempted to take my very own life and, in which, Christ saved me. I was in absolute misery with myself, and for the likes of myself I just could not snap out of it! And it wasn’t too long ago on T.V., that I heard an unregenerate young girl exclaim: “I cannot do the good things that I am suppose to do.” That’s right! I kid you not! I personally saw and heard this unsaved person saying all of this with my very own eyes and ears. So don’t tell me the unregenerate never says such things. We have a plethora of testimonies to the contrary!
Such continual struggles in Romans 7 are not to be the struggles of the born-again saint! They are the struggles of the “ain’t,” if I may ever use such a word. It is the one who “ain’t” a saint! They are the struggles of one who is still a slave to sin—“sold as a slave to sin,” as Paul puts it in Rom. 7:14. They are the ones who “keep on doing” time and again the evil that they do not want to do (vv. 15-20, NIV; see also point 5 of my article: 18 Reasons Why the Romans 7 Man is Not Speaking of the Regenerate Christian).
Now, let me just say right from the start before going any further, that I, for one, am not perfect; and neither do I believe in “sinless perfectionism.” That is not what this article on Romans 7 is all about; nor is it in support of such an idea. The great and venerable Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones didn’t believe this either, yet with great zeal, compassion and concern for those who would believe otherwise, he was deeply troubled and concerned over how such a perversion of the truth has the tendency to cultivate in individuals more of a tendency to cuddle and coddle their sins, rather than promote holiness; not to say the least of all the insults that have been heaped upon the apostle Paul as a continual sinner. One notable reformed Pastor and speaker, out in Placentia, California, is even on record on a YouTube video stating that Paul led a more blameless life (according to Phil. 3:6) before he was saved, than afterwards! Wow! Paul had more power going for him as an unregenerate Jew under the Law, than he did as a born-again Christian under grace! This is simply remarkable to me! This is what a false presupposition about Romans 7, and even Php. 3:6, has led this person to conclude about Paul.
So, it is with much joy, and, in much fear, humility, and trepidation that I lead you to the liberating influences of the teaching below regarding what I, and many others believe, to be a proper and biblical understanding of Romans 7. And rather than promote an attitude of arrogance and self-righteousness, as some have improperly charged against those of us who hold to such a view, on the contrary, a proper biblical understanding of this text, and others like it, only helps us to further promote righteousness, holiness and true godly living (which is what we all want anyway, right?); and no longer giving ourselves anymore excuses for sinning, which is often based upon these very texts here in Romans 7. We do not need anything that lends further support for establishing what we “cannot” do, but for establishing what we “can” do through Christ who now strengthens us, such as: letting “not sin reign in your mortal bodies”; by putting “on the Lord Jesus Christ and making no provision for the flesh”; or, to “mortify the deeds of the body.” It is to be even as the old hymnal proclaims: “Stand up, stand up for Jesus.” In light of all this: Let us go on unto perfection—not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works!
While we are all nevertheless former sinners who are saved by grace and have an Advocate with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, to pick us up when we stumble and fall, we also have the assurance that we can immediately get right back up on our feet and fight the good fight of faith to reclaim (and not continually lose) territory that was once lost to Satan. We can continually spoil him, instead of him continually spoiling us! We can live the victorious Christian life with a proper biblical theology and mindset. But we won’t if we continue to believe that Romans 7, and even Gal. 5:17-21, is the normal pattern of the Christian life (for more thoughts on these verses in Galatians above, please see my article: Created in God's Image, Not Adam's, part 3; also read my article: Gal. 5:24--Those Who Belong to Christ Jesus Have Crucified the Flesh).
For some, what will be said below with regards to Romans 7, and even about sin in general, might be a little “over the top” and surprising, but I would much rather steer someone in the direction of being more “over the top” for good in attempting to lead a sinless life, than for them to remain “under the heap” so-to-speak, and continue to do only evil.
David writes concerning just such a righteous lifestyle, “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin.” (2Sam. 22:24; cf. Psm. 18:23). That is the definition of one who is “blameless” before God. And though we know David did have some lapses in his faith, his predominate lifestyle was defined as one who stated: “I have kept myself from sin.” At least we know that when he did fall, that he didn’t resort to going back and doing the same things over and over again. He repented and went on.
Keeping oneself from sin was just such a state of Job’s lifestyle when God said of him: “There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you [Satan] incited Me against him to ruin him without any reason." Job had affirmed that same thing: “I am blameless....I am not guilty....righteous and blameless....an upright man....I will not deny my integrity. I will maintain my righteousness and never let go of it; my conscience will not reproach me as long as I live” (2:3; 9:21; 10:7; 12:4; 23:6-7; 27:5-6; cp. also 13:15-16 of a “godless man” to a “godly” man, which Job indeed was at this point and time in his life). The Bible in Basic English translates the word “blameless” above in Job 2:3: “…a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil.”
To understand more clearly about this truth behind the meaning of “blameless,” Lawrence O. Richards notes: “The word ‘blame’ in the OT of the NIV and the NAS is a translation of the Hebrew word for ‘sin’ [in two instances: Gen. 43:9; 44:32]. The thought in each passage is that the individual accepts responsibility for a shortcoming or for guilt.”[1] So it stands to reason, that to be without guilt or sin is to be “blameless,” ie., guiltless and sinless. So when the Scriptures affirm that God shows Himself “blameless to the blameless” (2Sam. 22:26), He is not charging (or blaming) someone as one who is “guilty” for some sin in their life; such an individual is without blame (or blameless). Such a person is without any sin that would justify him as being blameworthy! In a secular court of law, “guilt,” or being pronounced “guilty,” is not looked upon as one who “sins” or is pronounced a “sinner,” but in God’s court of law it is just the opposite; to be charged “guilty” is tantamount to being held liable as one who is a “sinner.” Psalm 32:5 exemplifies this idea beyond all doubt: “…You forgave the guilt of my sin…” (NASB).
Can Christians today affirm, as the OT and NT saints affirmed of themselves, that they are “not guilty” and “without sin”—i.e., that they are “blameless”? Most today would say, “No we can’t, we are all sinners through and through. We can never say that we are without sin. We can never say that we are not guilty.” And they quote 1Jhn. 1:8 to substantiate all of this. But saying we live blameless lives, without sin, is not what John has in mind. He has in mind those who are in fact walking in sin and who deny that they are even doing so; otherwise, 1Jhn. 2:1 would be superfluous, as would 2:29, 3:6-10 and 5:18. Sadly, this statement referred to above by many Christians is the common mantra in the Church today. And for most of them it is probably true! They cannot affirm they are “without sin” because they are in fact living a lifestyle of sin on a daily, weekly, monthly or even on a yearly basis. And they have used this excuse, and even an improper understanding of Romans 7 (as well as of 1Jhn. 1:8), as a cloak for their sin. One person I spoke to even said he was “blameless in Christ,” so there was no way of really knowing if he was actually living a blameless life or not. He was skirting around the issue by saying, “yeah, I’m blameless in Christ,” and was actually using this as a “cloak” for his sin. But this is not what the men described above in the Bible affirmed of themselves. They spoke of themselves as being “righteous,” not just positionally in Christ, but practically as well.[2] They affirmed that they were living “blameless” lives “without sin.”[3] If we do not affirm along with them that we are at some point and time in our lives “without sin,” then we would have to affirm that Job was a sinner and really got his just deserts—which is just what his friends were affirming of him, and which many today are still affirming of Job. They cannot believe a person can live his life without sin. But there was no sin in Job’s life to sanction such calamities. Satan had said to God that there were “reasons” to inflict Job, but God told him there was “no reason” in Job for his calamities (cf. 2:3). None, zilch, zip! If God cannot say that about us, then it is because it is true—there is some “reason” in us whereby we deserve the things that happened to Job; and so Satan has good reason to inflict us with pain and turmoil. In fact, many sinners do indeed get what came upon Job, due to the fact that they have sinned! Many Christians, and especially unbelievers, are not living “blameless” lives before God.
The Bible does not portray such an aberrant lifestyle noted above as the “normal” Christian life. In fact, to live like such a one on a continual basis, the Bible portrays such a person as most likely not belonging to Christ at all: “Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him,” says John (1Jhn. 2:29, ESV). Of course, the opposite of one not being “born of Him” naturally, and continually, practices unrighteousness. Again, John writes, “Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do [lit., keep practicing] what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous” (1Jhn. 3:7, NLT). This can’t be any more plainer to us here! Yet, on the opposite side of the fence, Paul describes one who “continually” practices sin: “Even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice [Gk. present active participle, lit., “continually practice”] such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21, WEB). Righteous people in Christ continually practice righteousness, whereas those not in Christ continually practice unrighteousness. As noted earlier, a tree is known by the fruit that it produces. A good tree brings forth good fruit, an evil tree brings forth bad fruit. It’s as simple as that!
Oswald Chambers, in his, My Utmost for His Highest, writes with regards to living a holy life as opposed to a life that is up one day and down the next:
Continually restate to yourself what the purpose of your life is. The destined end of man is not happiness, nor health, but holiness....The one thing that matters is whether a man will accept the God who will make him holy. At all costs a man must be rightly related to God….Do I believe I need to be holy? Do I believe God can come into me and make me holy? If by your preaching you convince me that I am unholy, I resent your preaching. The preaching of the gospel awakens an intense resentment because it must reveal that I am unholy; but it also awakens an intense craving. God has one destined end for mankind, viz., holiness….Never tolerate through sympathy with yourself or with others any practice that is not in keeping with a holy God. Holiness means unsullied walking with the feet, unsullied talking with the tongue, unsullied thinking with the mind - every detail of the life under the scrutiny of God. Holiness is not only what God gives me, but what I manifest that God has given me….Beware of saying—“Oh, I am longing to be sanctified.” You are not, stop longing and make it a matter of transaction…Sanctification is an impartation, not an imitation. Imitation is on a different line. In Jesus Christ is the perfection of everything, and the mystery of sanctification is that all the perfections of Jesus are at my disposal, and slowly and surely I begin to live a life of ineffable order and sanity and holiness: “Kept by the power of God” (July 23rd; Sept. 1st; Oct. 20th).Before moving on, I would also defer my readers to Adam Clarke’s commentary on Romans 7, who again notes:
It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character.Please click here for part two.
Footnotes:
[1] Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 128.
[2] Col. 1:22; Eph. 1:4 and 5:27 seem to denote this “positional” aspect or understanding of one who is “blameless” before God. In other words, in Christ we have imputed righteous that puts us in right standing before God and justifies us, just as if we had never sinned. In such a condition or state “in Christ” we are forever “blameless” before God. On the other hand, in Php. 1:10; 2:12-15; 1Ths. 2:10; 3:13-14; 5:23 and 2Pet. 3:24, we have instances where being “blameless” before God is to be understood as the “practical” outworking and daily experience of the Christian’s life. We are to walk daily with God living “blameless” lives—lives without sin! If this was not a possibility, then it would not be something that we would be exhorted daily to do in the Scriptures. Many saints in the Bible sure believed it to be true of themselves; therefore, there is no reason that we should believe otherwise.
[3] Paul being “blameless” in Phil. 3:6 can only be understood as being superficial and external, not internal. He had a “show” of righteousness and blamelessness, as opposed to an inward righteousness and blamelessness. Paul knew what it was like to have such an outward appearance, when he told the Corinthians, “You are looking on things after an outward appearance” (2Cor. 10:7). Paul, and all Pharisees, were masters of disguise. In fact, here in Philippians, Paul reflects on how he perfectly kept the law “outwardly” as only a Pharisee could ever hope to do, in order to be seen of men (which he elaborates on extensively here). But with his increased post-salvific knowledge Paul became more aware that he was really not “blameless” as God understood what being blameless was all about—not even close! Paul says in verse 9 that it was “my own” righteousness, but not God’s righteousness. This is particularly understood by Paul in Romans 7, where the emphasis is placed on the command against coveting. Paul realized, he “coveted.” His heart “coveted” and was desperately wicked. Here in Phil. 3:19, Paul says of such Jewish idealists that their “god is their belly” and that “their mind is on earthly things.” Of such a disposition was the apostle Paul before being converted. But he paints an entirely different picture altogether of himself after being saved, saying that he "coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes" (Acts 20:33) and the like.
When Paul said, “not having a righteousness of my own” (v. 9), what did he mean by this? Of course, it means the idea of being positionally righteous in the righteousness of Christ—but it goes beyond just that! It meant having a righteousness that Jesus talked about in Matthew 5 that exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees! It is a righteousness that is wrought by being in Christ, and that acts or works out in practice the very things that Jesus describes for us should be acted out of such a person. The Seed that is initially deposited in us, is the Seed that bears fruit. Christ’s righteousness by faith is a righteousness that really works, and without which one could not enter the kingdom of heaven! (cf. Mat. 5:20; cp. Gal. 5:21; 1Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:14-15). Even as John says, “He who practices righteousness, is righteous, even as He is righteous” (1Jhn. 3:7). Paul's "own" righteousness was not this kind of righteousness! Such a righteousness can only come from God.
Notice how Paul says, “as touching the law a Pharisee” (v. 5). This assertion by him is significant in determining how Paul, as Saul, and as a Pharisee, viewed the law and its requirements and how it defined their idea of how one could be called “blameless” with regards to it. It defined also their zeal (or reason) for justifying the persecution and the murdering of Christ’s followers (v. 6) after the Pharisaical order. Paul (Saul) was a hypocritical zealot in his sect. And all these external performances were far short of the internal and perfect obedience that was required by Christ. So strict had Paul been in his outward observance of the law, as interpreted by the Pharisees, that only in this sense are we to understand what he meant when he said he was “blameless,” but only by human judgment. Judged by the righteous requirements of the law (and as interpreted by his peers), Paul was “blameless.” As “touching the law,” he was a “Pharisee,” as opposed to a Sadducee, Essene, or any other sect that interpreted and lived by that law as they understood it, considering themselves also to be righteous and “blameless.”
As John Gill notes, “with respect to the interpretation and observance of the law, which was according to the traditions of the elders, and not the literal and genuine sense of it, he [Paul] followed; and was of the sect of the Pharisees, which was the strictest sect among the Jews, and in the greatest esteem among the people: and though they had put many false glosses on the Scripture, and held many erroneous principles…” (notes on Philippians).
So, Paul’s blamelessness that he describes could only be that which was before men and not before God. If it was, God would have been accepting of him just as He was of Job and all the other holy men and women of God who were "blameless" as Job. Similar to Job, the blameless conduct also mentioned of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Lke. 1:6 is that they were “upright in the sight of God.” Paul was in no way, shape, manner or form “blameless” or “upright” in the sight of God as Job and all who were like him.
In contradistinction to Paul’s “blamelessness” that he mentions above, in Romans chapter seven he gives us the true picture of the internal struggles and warfare that was really raging within him, and which brought him to reflect only after one who had been eventually saved and could now look back and exclaim, “O wretched man that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death?” (v. 24). If this is not how all this is to be understood of him, then we would have to say that he actually led a more “blameless” before he was saved than he did after he was saved, which some naïve Christians actually believe was just the case. They believe Paul kept the entire law “blamelessly” before he was saved, yet was a “carnal” Christian “sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14) and doing the things he did “not want to do” and “cannot carry out” and “kept on doing” (vv. 16, 18, 19). Such are the exact same sentiments of Kim Riddlebarger, the Pastor of The Christ Reformed Church in Placentia, Ca., who on Lance’s Youtube video online has the audacity to say of Paul, that he was actually affirming in Phil. 3:6 that he really thought himself to be blameless according to the Law before being saved, and that prior to salvation “he’s not a guy struggling with the guilt of his sin. He’s not a person under condemnation,” and that he was “a person who didn’t have a struggle with sin until he became a Christian”* because, according to Riddlebarger, Romans 7 affirms this to be the struggle of only the believer! Riddlebarger even goes on to say how Paul must have been thinking to himself once he was saved, “I thought I was doing just fine, until converted.” Being “blameless” for Paul "under the law" was a piece of cake! A walk in the park! But being so "under grace" is a struggle?
Amazing! Prior to being saved Paul had no struggle “with the guilt of his sin,” and he was “a person under no condemnation.” I guess the law wasn’t doing the job it was suppose to do in his case, which is to make us “become conscience of our sin” (Rom. 3:20), “increasing our trespasses” (Rom. 5:20), and stir up our sinful passions “aroused by the law…so that we bore fruit unto death” (Rom. 7:5). And Paul didn’t actually begin to struggle with his sins until he was delivered from “under the law” and placed “under grace”? Are we to actually believe that “under the law” Paul was able to produce more fruit or righteousness than he did while under grace? That he could actually do “under the law,” what he most assuredly says he could not do as a supposed “believer” in Romans 7 and under grace? Such a notion is just the opposite of what Paul said in Rom. 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace” (AKJV). Sin has dominion over a person who is under the Law, not under grace. The ability “to do” the good that we would (true righteousness in the sight of God) comes from being “under grace,” not from being “under the law,” the exact opposite of the individual being described in Romans 7 who is still “under the law.”
Note also how Paul in a sermon to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, affirms that the forgiveness of sins and the deliverance from guilt which they could not obtain by obeying the law of Moses, could be obtained only through Christ: “And through Him everyone who has faith is made free from all those things, from which the law of Moses was not able to make you free” (13:39, BBE). Instead of “free,” some translations have “justified,” which means to be regarded and treated as “not guilty” just-as-if-we-never-sinned. It is a forensic term used of a judge who announces an acquittal whereby the individual is treated as if they had not committed an offense. Thus, the “all things” for which a man is justified or made “free” from includes, by default, the guilt and penalty of all such offenses. As one who use to be under the condemning affects of the law, Paul could relate to his brethren according to the flesh from his own personal experiences his “struggles” with sin and “the sinful passions aroused by the law” (Rom. 7:5) prior to being saved and affirm that “they too” could be freed from it.
Consider also the fact that Paul said in Ephesians 2:3 and 5, “All of us also lived among them [the disobedient, v. 2] at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath….we were dead in transgressions.” According to the Pharisaical traditions, and their interpretation of the law, Paul could say he was “blameless.” But here in these previous verses he admittedly says that he was not “free,” that he “gratified the cravings of the sinful nature,” followed “its desires and thoughts,” and was “dead in transgressions.” I don’t know about you, but the last time I looked up the meaning of “transgressions” it meant to violate or step across the bounds of a commandment or a law. And in verses 1 and 2, Paul says, “As for you, you [and clearly himself in vv. 3-5] were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you use to live…” John Murray remarks on this portion of Scripture, “Just as the expression ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1) intimates our helpless enslavement in the service of sin, so death to sin expresses our emancipation from this servitude” (Principles of Conduct, p. 204). ). Let us have no doubt about it, before being saved Paul was carnal, sold as a slave to sin.
Again, Paul says in the epistle of Titus concerning his former life as a Pharisee, and even of all those before being in Christ, “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (3:3, ESV). This is what this so-called “blameless” Pharisee had to say with regards to his life prior to being in Christ. So, whatever may be understood by many today of Paul being “blameless” in Php. 3:6, as if he meant to say he was not a slave to any kind of sin whatsoever while “under the law,” Paul himself did not understand it to mean that he was void of any of these above sins and offenses. Need we really say any more?
All I can say is, this all flies in the face of what Kim Riddlebarger has said earlier! To argue, as he does, that Paul experienced no struggles with the guilt of his sin, is to argue that for Paul, and others like him, that they had no “guilt” and therefore no need to be justified or freed from any such sin. Why preach “forgiveness of sins” when there is no guilt of sin to be forgiven of? When such logic is carried forward to its logical conclusion, it just makes no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense to say that Paul did not struggle with the guilt of his sin prior to being saved. Paul, admittedly, did not believe this to be the case.
Reformed theologian, Anthony Hoekema, whose interests as a pastor are in both psychology and theology, takes note that: “though some contemporary theologians affirm that modern man is no longer troubled by feelings of guilt, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists know better. For the problem of unresolved guilt-feelings is one of the most common problems with which they must deal….It remains true that enough people are troubled by guilt-feelings in today’s world so that this continues to be a significant problem” (The Christian Looks at Himself, p. 32).
Paul argued that the law was the strength of sin (1Cor. 15:56), not the strength of producing true righteousness, holiness and blamelessness before God. And as Herman Ridderbos notes: “Victory over sin can be gained, not by the strength of ‘thou shalt’ of the law, but only under the operation of grace, i.e., of the Spirit…” (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 145). The Law does not restrain sin, but on the contrary causes it to awaken; it does not reduce sin, but rather makes it increase all the more. This is made more evident by Paul in his introductory remarks in Romans 7, where indirectly in verse 5, prior to his becoming a saved individual in verse 6, he notes how “when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law, were at work in our bodies.” This thought here of his then becomes more fully developed and elaborated upon in his sequel that follows in verses 7-25. Clearly, the continual struggle with sin that Paul describes in Romans 7 is before one is saved, when “under the law,” and not afterwards when “under grace.” For Paul says, “Anyone who has died to the law has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7). That’s the gospel! That’s the good news! We have “been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18 ), that we “might bear fruit unto God” (7:4) and unto “holiness” (6:22), and all “under grace”; not, and I repeat, not “under the law.” Kim Riddlebarger has got it all wrong! He has turned the whole argument upside down upon its head.
Contrary to Riddlebarger, this is not the apostle Paul of the letters he wrote. Where in fact just the opposite is the case. Paul wrote as one who was “holy” and leading a “blameless” life, only this time completely “in the sight of God”: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10); “Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace” (2Cor. 1:12).
As one recalls, in Phil. 3:6, Paul said he was considered “blameless” according to the Law. If this meant he lived the law perfectly and blamelessly before God, then there would have been no need for God to pronounce him “guilty,” which is just what He basically did on the road to Damascus when He said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” (Acts 9:4). Paul was murdering Christ’s followers! And in persecuting and murdering Christ’s body, the Church, Paul (Saul) was murdering and persecuting Christ. But Paul was only justifying himself in the eyes of men with these actions, not before God!
So, when Paul said he was “blameless” according to the righteousness of the Law, who or what was considering him “blameless”? The Law condemned such actions: “Thou shalt not kill (i.e., “murder”)!” So the Law wasn’t acknowledging him to be blameless. He was guilty as charged of murder! So was this Paul’s own self-estimation of himself before being saved? Or, was this the evaluation given to him from his peers? Surely, Paul was not saying here in Php. 3:6 that he was “blameless” in God’s sight, otherwise Jesus would not have reprimanded him on the road to Damascus; nor would Jesus have given such a scathing rebuke in the gospels of all such Pharisees who were “under the law,” such as Paul and who did not know Christ. Paul’s so-called blameless and self-righteous conduct was not God’s righteousness which flows from faith, and which exceeds that of the righteousness of all of the scribes and Pharisees.
Why is it that many who believe that Romans 7 speaks of Paul as the believer, defend the idea that Paul was somehow more “blameless” before being saved, and therefore Romans 7 could not be Paul in his pre-conversion state? He “murdered” Christians before being converted by Christ! And he says in 1Tim. 1:13 that before becoming a believer he was a blasphemer of God, a persecutor, and a violent man. Does this sound like a man who was “blameless” in God’s sight? Not on your life!
It is only when you see the Pharisees' reaction to the Son of God that you really get to know the Pharisee. They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! Look at their bitterness, their hatred; see their subtlety and their cleverness; watch them as they whisper together and conspire and weave a plot, and try to trip up Christ and to trap Him by putting their catch questions and their leading questions before Him. They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! What evil and sin there was inside the Pharisee! They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! But we would never have known it if the Lord had not come and spoken to them. He drew it out, as it were, he convicted them of their sin; it is their reaction to Him that shows what they really were made of. Clearly, they were not “blameless” in God’s sight! Once they came up against Him, all this suddenly came to light. You could now see it in their faces, and in their whole demeanor and behavior. Again, they were not “blameless” in God’s sight!
Now, for a proper biblical understanding of how God evaluated the Pharisees (including Paul), let us just stop for a minute and consider Christ’s very own words with regards to these scribes’ and Pharisees’ so-called “blameless” and “righteous” conduct. In Matthew 23, Jesus says with regards to all of these scribes and Pharisees such as Paul:
1. Do not practice what they preach (v. 1). Evidently they were not “practicing” what they preached.
2. They do not lift a finger to lift other’s burdens (v. 4). They are selfish and self-serving.
3. Everything they do is done for men to see, not God (v. 5). Not just some things—but everything!
4. They love places of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues (v. 6). No humility.
5. They loved attention; to be greeted in the marketplaces and to be called “Rabbi,” or “Master” (vv. 7-8), just like the Papacy whose rings on his fingers he loves to have the people kiss.
6. They are hypocrites over and over again (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29).
7. They make converts twice the sons of hell as they are (v. 15).
8. They are blind guides (v. 16). They are the blind leading the blind, with both falling into the ditch.
9. They neglect to do the more important matters of the law: Justice, mercy and faithfulness (v. 23).
10. They clean the outside of the cup, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence (v. 25; cp. Phil. 3:19 “mind earthly things”).
11. They are white-washed tombs, looking okay on the outside, but inwardly full of dead-men’s bones and every unclean thing (v. 27). Notice “every” unclean thing!
12. They appear to people (men) as righteous, but inside they are full of hypocrisy and evil (v. 28). Is this not the same as appearing to men as being blameless?
13. They are descendants of those who murdered the prophets and they would “fill up” the measure of their fathers in murdering Christ and His followers. They would “kill,” “crucify,” and “flog” (vv. 31-32).
In Rev. 2:9, Christ said they said they were Jews, but they were not and were of the synagogue of Satan! They say they are righteous and blameless according to the Law and their traditions, but they are not!
Consider also Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 for a moment:
1. Except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (v. 20). Paul’s so-called blamelessness as a Pharisee under the law kept him out of the kingdom of heaven, not in it! He had a form of godliness, but in reality, his attitude and character spoke volumes, denying any power thereof.
2. The scribes and Pharisees were not poor in spirit (v. 3), but haughty and prideful.
3. They did not mourn as one should rightfully mourn for themselves and for others (v. 4).
4. They were not meek (v. 5), but led undisciplined lives as loose canons.
5. They did not hunger and thirst after the righteousness that God approves of (v. 6).
6. They were not pure in heart (v. 8), but had impure motives and desires.
7. They were not peacemakers (v. 9), but irreconcilable.
8. They were not the persecuted, but the persecutors (v. 10).
9. They were false witnesses or liars (v. 11), breaking the 9th commandment.
10. Murder is bad, but they were even given to anger and fits of rage (v. 21).
11. They would not become reconciled to others (v. 23). If they did, it was for show.
12. Adultery is bad, but as married men they lusted after other women with their eyes, committing adultery in their hearts (v. 27). It was their intention (or inclination) to carry these these through.
13. They divorced for all reasons, but were allowed, according to Jesus, to do it only in the case of marital infidelity (v. 32).
14. They exacted revenge when they shouldn’t have and loved only their brothers, hating the ungodly (vv. 38, 46).
15. They greeted only their brothers, avoiding the Gentiles or ungodly altogether (v. 47).
16. In Mat. 6:1, Jesus continues: “Do not do things to be seen of men.” This includes:
a. in giving (v. 2).17. They also harbored unforgiveness in their hearts (6:14).
b. in praying (v. 5).
c. in fasting (v. 16).
18. They stored up for themselves treasures on earth (v. 19), were not rich towards God.
19. They served two Masters, God (the Law) and Money (greed); v. 24. And they still seem bent on this to this day!
In conclusion, Paul was in all likelihood, a Pharisee who excelled in all of these things listed above. He himself acknowledged that he was a “murderer,” beating and consenting unto the deaths of many unjustly (Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 22:4, 19; 26:11, et al), just as the Pharisees are said to have crucified, or “murdered” Christ in Acts 2:23b and 7:52, even though they may not have physically done the actual crucifying themselves. Paul also acknowledged that he was a “blasphemer” (1Tim. 1:13), and a “violent” man (ibid); and one who stood by false witnesses against those whom he persecuted, acknowledging their lies and therefore making himself also a liar and a breaker of the 9th commandment. And of course, in Romans 7, he acknowledges “covetousness,” which broke the 10th commandment (and which as a believer in Acts 20:33 he no longer did). Paul had a show of righteousness alright, but in all actuality he was guilty as charged and not “blameless” in God’ sight. As I recall Paul saying, he referred to his former way of life as a “Chief of Sinners.” This hardly sounds “blameless,” as some of have understood and defined this word with regards to Paul.
Yes, Paul before he was saved said he was “blameless,” but before what or who? Not before God! And neither could it have been according to all the righteous requirements of the Law, which included all these attributes listed above. So, when Paul said he was “blameless,” did he mean that his righteousness exceeded that of all of his Pharisaical brethren that Jesus denounced? Of course not. He was none the better. Theirs was a righteousness and blamelessness that was before men, to be seen of men.
Let’s just nail this coffin shut once-and-for-all, never to let such blasphemous ideas about Paul as a believer (that even he himself never acknowledge) rise to the surface again.
Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans 7, concludes with these thoughts on Phil. 3:6:
What, then, of the apparent conflict between the despairing struggle in this paragraph and the complacent self-satisfaction of Phil. 3:2-11? In Phil. 3, Paul is describing his status from a Jewish perspective [i.e., in their own eyes], in Rom. 7, his experience from a Christian perspective. With respect to the Pharisaic definition of righteousness, “the righteousness of the law,” Paul says in Phil. 3, I was “blameless”. But this “status” of righteousness by Jewish standards does not rule out some degree of frustration in not fulfilling the divine standard, particularly since in Rom. 7 Paul is to some extent looking back at this failure to meet God’s demands from his new, Christian understanding of those demands—much as a new convert will be able to look back at his pre-Christian existence and find there the inner conflict, frustration, and despair that perhaps were not as clear at the time.* http://www.youtube.com/user/LaneCh#p/search/1/5mULSr_gv7c.
[In his footnote on this same page, Moo adds at this junction]:
Reference in this respect has been made to the parallel with Luther’s differing description of his life as a monk. In 1533 he wrote: “I was a good monk, and kept strictly to my order….All my companions who knew me would bear witness to that” (cf. Phil. 3, “blameless with respect to the righteousness of the law”). In 1519 he said, “However irreproachable my life as a monk. I felt myself, in the presence of God, to be a sinner with a most unquiet conscience” (cf. Rom. 7:15-21).
[Moo goes on to say]:
Particularly in vv. 21-23 [of Romans 7], Paul is characterizing his pre-Christian situation from his present Christian perspective. While, therefore, there is no evidence that Paul’s frustration at failing to fulfill the law was excessive with respect to other Jews, or that this frustration was instrumental in his conversion, there seems to be every reason to believe that he would have sensed, as Peter did, that the law was a “yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10).
Paul’s characterization of the situation of Jews under the law [see v. 1, “them that know the law”] in this paragraph describes, in personal terms, the state that resulted from the event he has narrated in vv. 7-13.…Paul first narrates past events, then depicts the continuing status of those who were involved in those events….
As I have argued above, the conflict Paul depicts here, leading to defeat (v. 23) and despair (v. 24), is a conflict he experienced as a Jew under the Mosaic law. To what extent Paul was conscious of his conflict and his failure at the time of that conflict is difficult to ascertain.
Undoubtedly his perspective as a Christian enables him to see that conflict more clearly [as it has for all of us] and more radically than he did at the time. This helps explain why Paul can be so pessimistic about Jewish failure to keep the law. Surely Paul knew that he, along with other Jews, succeeded in keeping many of the commandments and infringed only a small percentage of the whole. It is this knowledge, coupled with his pre-Christian, Jewish interpretation of “righteousness,” that enables Paul to claim that he was “blameless according to the righteousness of the law” (Phil. 3:6). But, as a Christian, Paul has a new perspective on God’s law, when broken in any part, is broken in the whole. That which Paul “willed” to do was keep the law; and it is just this, in the light shed on God and his law by Christ, that he failed as a Jew to do. The fact that Paul is describing the experience of a Jew under the Mosaic law does not mean, of course, that the conflict described here is peculiar to the Jew. All non-Christians are in a similar situation, and many—probably most—Christians can find in this description of nagging failure to do what is good an all-too-accurate reflection of their own experience. But, without denying the similarity, I must say again that the conflict Paul describes here is indicative of a slavery to the power of sin as a way of life (v. 14b) that is not typical, nor even possible, for the Christian (The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 450-451, 455-456).
