Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (6 of 7)

Paul, the Apostle of Example

Paul told the Philippians: “Whatever you have learned or received or heard of me, put it into practice; and the God of peace will be with you" (4:9).

How could Paul have said that, if he was a carnal, unspiritual slave who was sold to sin, and who compulsively only did that which he hated to do? If that were the case, then I guess we would have to understand Paul to be lying when he said that he had fought the good fight. He would have been hypocritical when he told others to follow his example, and to not let sin reign in their mortal bodies, when he in fact was all the while still letting sin reign in his own mortal body.

The Zondervan Study Bible gives a summary of both sides of the debate here. And they give four reasons why some consider Romans seven to be describing a Christian experience. These are the most common objections against the stand that I, as well as all of the early church fathers, and even many of the church divines throughout history have taken:

1) Paul is speaking in the first person in the present tense. This argument is inconclusive, because speaking in the first person in the present tense is not uncommon when used as an illustration of oneself to others. “The first person (‘I’) was occasionally used in antiquity as a rhetorical device for expressing something applicable to others. It was so used somewhat by the Rabbis.”[1]

Adam Clarke likewise remarks:

Mr. Locke and Dr. Taylor have properly remarked the skill used by St. Paul in dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the giving offense to the Jews: and this is particularly evident in his use of the word I in this place. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he says YE; in the 4th verse he joins himself with them, and says WE; but here, and so to the end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin and the inability of the law to subdue it, he appears to leave them out, and speaks altogether in the first person, though it is plain he means all those who are under the law….Therefore by I here he cannot mean himself, nor any Christian believer: if the contrary could be proved, the argument of the apostle would go to demonstrate the insufficiency of the Gospel as well as the law. (Adam Clarke's Commentary, comments under 7:7, 14).

Robert Gundry, in his commentary on Romans, also writes with regards to this “present tense”:

Paul uses the present tense in Phil. 3:3-6 to describe his Judaistic past. This use has been overlooked because it occurs in ellipses. It is there, nonetheless: “For we are the circumcision who worship by God’s Spirit and boast in Christ Jesus and do not put confidence in flesh, even though I myself [am] having confidence even in flesh. If anyone else thinks it good to put confidence in flesh, I more [think it good to put confidence in flesh]: with respect to circumcision, [I am] and eight-dayer; [I am] from the stock of Israel; [I am] of the tribe of Benjamin; [I am] a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, [I am] a Pharisee; as to zeal, [I am] one who is persecuting the church; as to the righteousness in the law, [I am] one who has become blameless.” The expressed present in vv. 3-4 establishes the tense that needs supplying in the list of vv. 4-6. That we instinctively resist supplying the present in the last three items only shows how vivid was Paul’s recollection of his Judaistic past and therefore how easily the present tense in Rom. 7:14-25 may be taken as a similarly vivid recollection. In both passages Paul sustains the present tense at some length. In both he juxtaposes it with past tenses referring to his pre-Christian days (in Romans 7 past tenses precede in vv. 7-13; in Philippians 3 the imperfect follows in v. 7). In both, the present tense concerning Paul is triggered by a preceding present tense concerning another subject (“the law is Spiritual” [Rom. 7:14a]; “If anyone else think it good” [Phil. 3:4]). And in both, Paul uses the present tense in conjunction with ego, “I.”

The autobiographical character of the “I” in Phil. 3:4-6 brooks no questioning. The parallels between that passage and Rom. 7:14-25 therefore create a presumption that the “I” in Rom. 7:14-25 (and by association in 7:7-13) is also autobiographical. (p. 253).

Recall from our previous discussion in the beginning of this article, on historic present tense verbs, how that in general the historical present tense in a passage starts with a past tense event to establish its form. The writer then uses the present tense verb to bring a more vivid description of an event to the forefront. This mode of speech, relating a past incident using present tense verbs, makes the narrative more vivid by transporting the readers or listeners back in time to the event being described, as if it were really happening right now in the present. The historic present isn’t necessarily a present tense verb expressing a “past” action. It is a present tense verb to be understood as being used in a historical context or setting. The reference point is the historical event itself, NOT the time of writing or speaking.

In a similar manner, when Paul said, “To this world Messiah came, sinful people to reclaim. I am [Gk. verb: eimi; present active indicative, first person, sing.] the worst of them” (1Tim. 1:15ff, ISV), he was not speaking about his present condition or practice, but about his historical past. Look at v.13, he prefaces his being a chief sinner as, “In the past [Gk. to proteron onta] I was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent [Gk. ubristen] man” (and by the way, this doesn’t sound so “blameless,” as some suppose, of Paul’s prior life to me!). Verse 16 goes on to read, “But for that very reason I received [in the past, Gk. aorist passive indicative] mercy, so that in me, as the worst sinner, the Messiah Jesus might demonstrate all of His patience as an example for those who would [presently, Gk. present active indicative] believe in Him for eternal life.”

Notice how Paul is clearly referring to his past state or condition with the present tense verb “I am” (Gk. eimi ego), and clearly referring to such a state or condition using the historic present tense usage of this verb here. Paul was no longer stating a present condition, state, or practice about himself as a chief sinner, but speaking about his past: “In the past…I was…a blasphemer…a persecutor…and a violent man.” In essence, he was saying, “In the past, in such a state, I am the chief of sinners!” In such a state, in his past before being in Christ, Paul was a continual practicing sinner—and the chief of them! Now we can further see how the “first person present active indicative” verb being understood in this way as a "historic present" really works. And Paul continues that it was “for that very reason I received [at a time in the past, passively], mercy.” And it was in order that he no longer exemplify the actions of the chiefest of sinners, but in order that Christ “might demonstrate all of His patience [in me] as an example for those who would believe” (v. 16). Paul was no longer a sinner, but a saint. And not just positionally, but practically as well.

So, in like manner is Paul in Romans 7 describing his past state before being saved with these present active indicative first person singular verbs accompanying the “I” (or ego); but in this particular case as well, these “continuing” results at some point and time ceased to be, because sin was (literally) stopped dead in its tracks at Paul's conversion when he says in Rom. 6:2, “we died to sin.” Thus, here, as well as in 1Tim. 1:15, the singular possessive pronoun “ego” (“I”) accompanied with the verb “am,” as a “continuing” action, can only be understood as a past state or condition which at one time had continuing results. As such, they become prime examples and candidates for the first, person, singular “historic present tense” usage. Paul no longer “blasphemes,” no longer “persecutes,” and no longer becomes “violent” (the very thing Paul said an “elder” should not be doing; cf. 1Tim. 3:3). And, in addition, contrary to the man that he use to be in Romans 7, he is no longer “covetous” (cp. Rom. 7:8 with Acts 20:33 in which his epistle to the Romans was just written about three or four months earlier in Acts 20:3. When writing that epistle, Paul said he was covetous, but when he arrived to meet the Elders at Miletus just three or four months later, he wasn’t. And he said that they "knew" this about him; not in just the three or four months that it took for him to get to Miletus, but over time they had come to know this about Paul, the Apostle of example! Rather than desiring and wanting what others had, Paul gave to them in order to meet their needs. “You know,” said Paul, “that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive;’” verses 34-35).

For the most part, commentators see 1Tim. 1:15 as Paul speaking of his former life, and not of his present state or practice. And many even believe that Paul was only stating such a thing of himself out of humility. But how can a “present active indicative” be understood in such a way as that of just a past tense reality? It can’t! It can’t, unless of course it is only to be understood as referring to his continual sin in his past life as a sinner—not as a saint; and, in this light, be understood as a "historic present tense" verb in the first person present active indicative that is common to all grammars. The only other places that I am aware of where Paul uses the words “I am,” are in 1Cor. 15:9 and Eph. 3:8. But in neither of these two occurrences is Paul referring to a past-tense experience. He is currently comparing himself with other saints, not with sinners, in either the past or present; not so dissimilar on how I just used it of myself when I just said, “that I am aware of.” Sometimes the present active indicative is speaking of something that is currently happening, and not being used as a historic present tense at all—and to this all would agree! The context is always key here in deciding one way or the other.

The words noted earlier by Austin in part two are worth repeating here at this conjuncture: “The first person singular present indicative active may be used in a way similar to the ‘historic’ present. It may be used to describe my own performances elsewhere or elsewhen” (ibid). Need we really say anymore with regards to all of this? This is TRUTH! And may it, by God’s grace, set us all free!

2) Paul's humble opinion of himself (v. 18). This is no argument, in that it is common for the unconverted to esteem what is good; yet feel that they are unable to escape their bondage and walk accordingly, and yet thus still have a humble opinion about themselves. We clearly saw that in the comments of poets Horace and Ovid, didn’t we? Anyone, especially a Jew living at that time, could have written a pre-conversion experience in a similar manner; with my own personal experience being included. Pride is not the same as one’s conviction about the struggles they faced prior to conversion; pride is refusing to repent and trust in Christ for strength and salvation. Humility is recognizing our lowly and frail condition before being saved, which, by the way, many unbelievers often express, and how that in and of themselves they cannot do the things that they would, for sin is ever-present with them. In Romans 7 Paul is not talking about one who occasionally sins, stumbles, or falls; on the contrary, he is describing one who is in a condition or state who continually practices unrighteousness, who “keeps on doing” that which he does not want to do. Unsaved sinners will continue to do what they deep down in inside really do not want to do, until a higher power gets a hold of them and sets them free. And that higher power is Jesus. Anyone who says he is a believer, and continues to do those things that he doesn’t want to do, it is questionable whether or not such an individual is actually saved. This is what the Bible tells us. Comparing ourselves with ourselves is not wise. But comparing ourselves to the Scriptures, and how they say we should act, is what is to be recognized as truth; and not any supposed saints who are repeat offenders. As I have said before, these are not saints, but aint’s, who creep in secretly among us and spoil our love feasts.

There is nothing humble about sinning as a sinner, and claiming yourself as such. And this is what Paul in Romans 7 says he was doing constantly. It wasn’t just an objective “opinion” about himself, it was his practice as an unregenerate Jew. On the other hand, true humility is denying our sin and ourselves, picking up our cross, and following Christ. As Adam Clarke says here:

Pride is of the essence of sin... and the root whence all moral obliquity flows. How then can pride humble us?... The heart from which it [pride] is cast out has the humility, meekness and gentleness of Christ implanted in its stead.[2]

Adding further to the argument that a Christian is surely humbled by the sense of indwelling sin, again Clarke says:

I grant that they who see and feel and deplore their indwelling sin, are humbled. But is it the sin that humbles? No. It is the grace of God that shows and condemns the sin that humbles us.[3]

3) Paul’s high regard for God's Law (vv. 14,16). This is also an inconclusive argument, since it can also be true of unconverted people, especially of the unsaved Jew which Paul is clearly addressing specifically according to verse one. They were absolutely zealous for keeping God’s laws. And it is also important to note that Paul here might have consciously been thinking of some of the Greek philosophers who described similar experiences such as those of Ovid and Horace noted earlier. They might not have had the Mosaic Law, but “the requirements [or works] of the law were written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15.), and these two uncircumcised philosophers clearly identified themselves as having the very same struggles that Paul describes. So these statements of Paul are in no way exclusive to the Christian experience. Even many unsaved Gentiles give the law of God high regard by inscribing God’s ten laws on their justice buildings and encapsulating them in glass for those to see as one enters their buildings. So don’t tell me unbelievers do not delight in God’s law. They proudly display it on their buildings and uphold it in their courts of law.

4) The location of the passage in the section of Romans 6-8 where Paul is dealing with sanctification—The growth of the Christian in holiness. You could just as very well say that the Communist Manifesto describes how to grow in democracy, because the topic of the book deals with politics. On a similar note, the subject in Romans 6-8 is sanctification, but the passages in consideration in Rom. 7:14-24 (and even in verses 7-13) do not take us on into growth in holiness until verses 24 and 25a. Up until this point it describes the utter impossibility of growing in holiness under the Law and apart from Christ. Without the turning point in verse 24, what Paul says previously to this in verses 7 through 23 in no way, shape, manner or form can be considered as describing growth in holiness; in fact, it describes a complete lack of it.

As one can very well see, none of the four points above can be considered sufficient proof that Paul is describing his experience as a believer. Some commentaries on Romans suggest that Paul is describing the experience he had immediately after conversion as a new Christian, in an attempt to be sanctified by the law. This too is a misnomer. There is no evidence to this fact, and quite to the contrary we know that Paul’s gospel of one’s new life in Christ after being saved refutes such an idea. And besides, it is pretty much believed by all that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans as a mature believer on his third missionary journey while in Cenchrea in Acts 20:3, and who claimed just a couple of months later to the Elders at Miletus that he coveted no one’s gold, silver or apparel; something that he just got through writing about in Romans 7 that he said he did. So, which is it here in Romans 7? Paul as a believer or, Paul as unbeliever? You be the judge. Clearly, Paul as a born-again saint and believer no longer coveted. And he exhorted Christians in his other epistles to NOT covet, and to not associate with those believers who did. Paul would be a hypocrite if he was practicing what he told others not to do.

Please click here for part seven.



Footnotes:


[1] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Romans, by Everett Harrison; op. cit. of W. G. Kummel, p. 83).

[2] Adam Clarke’s Commentary online. Public domain.

[3] Ibid.