Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (4 of 7)

Gal. 5:16-24

Now, in Gal. 5:16-24 (another set of passages used to support a carnal disposition for the Christian), verses 19-21 are practically affirmed by almost every commentator that I know of as the normal or nominative lifestyle of the unbeliever—and not that of the saint—with verse 21 being the deciding factor of whether we are talking about the lifestyle of the believer, or of the unbeliever. The NASB, ASV, and WEB bibles all translate the word “live” (Gk. prassontes) in the phrase “those who live like this” (NIV), with the translation “practice.” As noted earlier in Rom. 7:15 and 19, the Greek verb prassontes ("prasso" in Rom. 7:15, 19) describes an individual who “habitually” practices these vices. Such individuals, Paul says, “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” And many Pelagians and Arminians build their doctrine around verses similar to this one, using them to justify the idea that unless one practices godly living they will lose their salvation. But the Calvinistic (and I might add, the "biblical") doctrine understands that anyone who is truly born of God will not "habitually" practice such ungodly vices, since God’s seed remains in them, and they cannot and will not continue to habitually live in sin. If they continually sin, then it shows that they were never saved to begin with. Again, the apostle John so adamantly asserts:

…everyone who practices [present active participle] righteousness has been born of Him….No one who abides in Him keeps on [present active indicative] sinning; no one who keeps on [present active participle] sinning has either seen Him or known Him….Whoever practices [present active participle] righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice [present active participle] of sinning is of the devil….No one born of God makes a practice [present active indicative] of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on [present middle indicative] sinning 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” (1Jhn. 2:29; 3:6-10, ESV).

Even the “abiding” is a “present active indicative,” which is something that continually occurs in the life of the believer, and which, as it turns out, is initially wrought and continually upheld by the hand and power of God. Jesus said no one is able to pluck us out of His hands. And John again likewise affirms: “Everyone who [habitually] believes [present active participle] that Jesus is the Christ is [or lit., “has been”; perfect passive indicative] born of God” (1Jhn. 5:1). We continually “believe” or abide in Christ due to the fact that we were first initially born of God. The “perfect passive indicative” denotes a past completed act by a power outside of ourselves (God), and our initial and continual “believing” in Christ is the result of that past completed act of being born by God. We believe because we have been spiritually resurrected (or born of God) from our dead state or condition; and thus the reason for John saying that a believer cannot sin because God’s “seed remains in him.” 1Jhn. 2:9 and 4:7 denote the same thing in the Greek concerning continually “loving” God and continually practicing “righteousness,” and that they are all the natural out-workings of the initial new birthing of God. This “Calvinistic” understanding is what is taught in the last letter of the acronym TULIP, and is known as the Perseverance of the Saints. We keep persevering in our believing in Christ because we have been born of God, and we therefore are not of those who “habitually” practice the vices that Paul speaks of in Gal. 5:19-21. Do you see that? All true saints (who are true believers) will inherit the kingdom of God. Not one of them will be lost or found wanting! But just the opposite is to be said of all "habitual" sinners.

Referring to Paul’s notations in Romans 7, the late William Hendriksen in his commentary says the following with regards to Gal. 5:16-18,

What a battle between the will and the deed! Paul, writing as a converted man (Rom. 7:14-25) and recording his present “state of grace” experiences (for proof see Rom. 7:22, 25), complains bitterly about the fact that he practices that in which his soul no longer takes delight; in fact, practices that which his regenerated self hates (Rom. 7:15).[1] (Bold italicized words mine for emphasis).

Remarkable! All these words of Hendriksen’s fly right smack in the face of what John says of those who are born of God—that they no longer “practice” such things! Yet Hendriksen affirms the very opposite for the apostle Paul! Was he listening to himself when he wrote these words about Paul? We can very well see how one’s presuppositions with regards to the meaning of Romans 7 and Gal. 5 can affect their understanding of how one ought to live out their lives before God, even to the point of claiming that such a person even as the Apostle Paul could be a “practicing” sinner and a “slave to sin,” rather than what Paul affirmed of all saints as being “slaves to righteousness” and “to God” (Rom. 6:18, 20, 22). It just makes no sense, otherwise, of the one who is truly “born of God.”

Which brings me now to the subject, or commentary, on Gal. 5:16-26; and more specifically on the last portion of verse 17, which reads: “…to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” Let us stop and take time to analyze this text for one moment. But before we do, let me just say that similar to Heb. 6:9, even though Paul speaks like this, he is persuaded of better things—things that accompany salvation and the practices that lead one to believe they are actually saved, as Gal. 5:18 clearly begins to demonstrate when Paul says that a believer is no longer “under the law.” Believers are no longer “under the law” that Paul had just a few moments earlier spoken to them about in chapter three, verse 23: “before faith came, we were held captive under the law, [and] imprisoned” (ESV). What were they held “captive” to and “imprisoned” to by being only "under the law" and not a people of faith? To the principle of the law of sin as slaves to sin in which the holy Law of God only incited them to do, just as Paul describes for us in Rom. 5:20; 7:5, 8, 10, 11, 21-23 and 8:2. Now as Christians, believers are no longer under the struggles of not being able to do what they want to do anymore, in which being “under the law” exactly produced in all unregenerate individuals being described in Gal. 5:17 and Rom. 7:15-20.

The NLT translates Heb. 6:9 noted above with the words: “even though we are talking this way, we really don’t believe it applies to you. We are confident that you are meant for better things, things that come with salvation.” The NIV says, “…better things in your case.” And the Bible in Basic English similarly writes, “…that you have better things in you.” So similar to those exhorted in the epistle to the Hebrews (or to the Jewish Christians), some of the Galatians were “in” and “led” by the Spirit, and not under the dictates of the flesh any longer, no longer “under the law.” But they just needed a little more encouragement and prodding to “keep in step” (see Gal. 5:25, NIV) with this idea of who they really now were living for, and to begin to reckon it as so. If they were truly Christians walking by the Spirit, as they were claiming themselves to be, then, just like in Romans 8, they would not be fulfilling the lusts of the flesh that lust (or war) against the Spirit of all those who are still “under the law,” but manifest just the opposite of the lusts of the flesh mentioned in verses 19-21 and exemplify the fruits of the Spirit that Paul describes for us in verse 22f. Galatians 5:16-26 in the NASB thus reads:

But I say, [continually, present act. imperative] walk by the Spirit, and you will not [Grk. double negative, "no never"] carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you [continually, present act. subjunctive] may not do the things you please. But if you are [continually, present passive indicative] led by the Spirit, you are not under the law [i.e., under the workings of the flesh or sinful nature]. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who [habitually practice, present active participle] practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those [the regenerate] who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified [in the past, aorist active indicative], the flesh with its passions and desires. If we [continually, present active indicative] live by the Spirit, let us also continually, present active subjunctive] walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another. [bracketed words, bold lettering and italics mine].

Verse 16 is a little misleading in many translations. As Charles Cousar notes in his commentary:

The RSV translation of verse 16 is a bit misleading. It treats the verbs in the verse as if they were both imperatives, parallel to one another ("Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh"). The latter clause, however, is an emphatic future negative, conditional on the previous clause. Paul is saying, "Walk by the Spirit, and then you will never gratify the desire of the flesh" (cf. NEB and JB). The way to thwart the self-indulgence and sinfulness constantly at hand is to live by [or “in”] the Spirit (Galatians, pp. 134-135).

Homer Kent in his commentary on this verse in Galatians concurs:

The negative is emphatic in the text. The two procedures are opposites. If one is controlled by the Holy Spirit, he will of a necessity be proceeding in a direction away from the sinful desires of the flesh (The Freedom of God’s Sons, p. 156).

And as Anthony Hoekema likewise notes:

The Revised Standard Version here is mistaken when it translates the second half of the verse as if it were a second command: “and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.” In the original Greek the second clause is not a prohibition but a strong negation; it really amounts to a promise: If you walk by the Spirit you shall not in any way fulfill the lusts of the flesh (The Christian Looks at Himself, pp. 50-51).

So, if one is “in Christ” they are walking in the Spirit and no longer walking in the flesh. Many Galatians were not “walking by the Spirit,” as denoted of all true believers in Romans chapter 8, but were still being led by and “under the law,” as denoted of all unbelievers in Romans 7. Indeed, some of them were the very Galatian antagonizers (the Judaizers) that Paul was addressing here, and who did not have the Spirit of Christ in them at all. What Paul is basically saying here to the Galatians is that if you are truly in Christ you will no longer fulfill the desires and passions of the sinful nature (something he reiterates further on just a few verses later in Gal. 5:24; cp. also w/Rom. 6:6).

So, to reiterate all of this again, Paul is saying: If you are “in Christ,” then this will happen; if you are out of Christ, then these other things will be manifest in your lives. If one is “under the law,” he is still in the flesh and being led by his sinful nature; if he is “under grace” he is being led by the Spirit of God and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit. The contrast here is being in Christ and "under grace," as opposed to not being in Christ and still "under law." The two are opposing principles, rendering an individual incapable of doing what they truly deep down inside want to do (the very same struggle described in Romans 7) until one comes out from being “under law.” In light of this, Paul’s exhortation in Gal. 5:18 now begins to make all the more sense when he says, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.” The tension being described in verse 17 is no longer the tension of the saint, but that of the unbeliever who is still under the law and still in the flesh. If this were not the case, then verse 18 would make no sense at all as to why Paul would make such a statement as this. To be not “under law” is tantamount to walking in the Spirit, being "under grace," and no longer walking in the flesh. The one outcome of no longer fulfilling the lusts of the flesh is the natural outworking of the one who is in Christ and walking after the Spirit. No wonder “not gratifying the desires of the flesh” in verse 16 is correctly understood as not an imperative (or, a command). This is because it is the natural outcome or progression of the one who is walking by the Spirit. Who needs a “command” when their bent is now naturally inclined to obey? This is why we really do not need laws, per se; our regenerated born-again hearts are now the law personified. As such we are “living epistles,” written by the finger of God, to be learned and read of all men.

As Paul denoted earlier, perfection never came by being under the law, but by being under grace (3:3). He called such a law-works oriented lifestyle as tantamount to being made perfect “by the flesh” (ibid). Being “under the law” (or in the flesh) does not produce fruit unto life, but only death (see also Rom. 7:5-6 again). But once we walk in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, sin will never again have dominion over us to produce the desires and lusts of the flesh that war against the Spirit. He who is dead in Christ is freed from sin (Rom. 6:7). Again, sin (or sin in the flesh) “shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14, KJV).

Before moving on, I would just like to add that “walking in or by the Spirit” here in Galatians is not just some subjective, mystical experience that one is just to somehow “sense” what it is that they are to do. The command to “walk in the Spirit” is walking in the Word, just as “praying in the Spirit” is praying according to the Word. Walking and praying in the Spirit is walking and praying according to God’s Word or, His law, as is generally understood when we are talking about keeping His moral laws as a holy way of living for our lives. So, keeping “in step with the Spirit” in Galatians 5:25 is keeping in step with God’s Word (or His law), and it is the same thing as walking “in Christ.” Otherwise, how are we to know what “keeping in step” with the Spirit really is? It is not just a subjective experience in our lives; it is an objective one as well, not so dissimilar to Rom. 7:8-9, 11 which states: “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all manner of concupiscence…. when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died….For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me” (AKJV). This is very important for us to realize when we are discussing verse 17 in Galatians chapter 5. When Paul refers to the Spirit against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit, it is the struggle mainly between the unregenerate Jew in the flesh against the holy and spiritual Word or Law of God (or against the Spirit). When God spoke in Genesis 6:3 about His Spirit not always striving with man, this is what Paul is referring to in Gal. 5:17.[2] It is a striving of the natural man against what the Spirit of God is striving for, with man’s flesh keeping him from doing what he is suppose to be doing. This “striving” continued between God and all unregenerate Jews in the OT, until He would no longer strive with them anymore and eventually judged them like He did with those in the days of Noah.

Verse 17 in Galatians chapter 5 has been the main verse that has been the crucial point of contention for many. And let me just again state right from the beginning that Paul is stating a condition that is not in keeping or in accordance with those who are Christians. He is stating a conflict of interest between the Spirit (or the Word) and the one who is still in the flesh to “keep you from doing the things you want to do.” When such a person is “under the law,” and without Christ, they only keep on not doing that which they want to do. But by being released from “under” this taskmaster, called “the law,” they are now free to serve another who liberates them to walk in the righteous requirements of God’s holy law as delineated in Rom. 8:3. What Paul is stating in these verses in Galatians of the one walking in the Spirit as opposed to walking in the flesh, is the exact same thing that he is asserting in Romans 6 and 8, in opposition to the unregenerate person described in Romans 7, and whom Paul likewise states could not do what he wanted to do after also having shown that being “under the law” was synonymous with one still being under the control of the flesh. See also my article: Gal. 5:24--Those Who Belong to Christ Jesus HAVE Crucified the Flesh. It goes into more detail on verse 17, elaborating on the Greek "hina" clause as either the result of the flesh keeping unbelievers from not being able to do the good that they want to do, verses the purpose of both the flesh and Spirit struggling to vie for control over the believer's life. I argue for the former as "the result" of the flesh keeping unbelievers from doing the good that they want to do, until they come out from being in or of the flesh (or under the law) and under grace.

Like the struggle being described in Gal. 5:17, all that the law could do was only arouse one’s sinful nature (or the flesh) to be more sinful, when the Law was attempted to be obeyed without God’s Spirit within them. To be “under the law,” in this sense described above, was tantamount to still being under the power of sin and in the flesh, and not in the Spirit at all, just as Paul in Romans states to those Jews who use to live under the Laws of Moses:

And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound.... For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.... For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through [or aroused by] the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged [loosed or delivered] from the law, having died to that wherein we were held [restrained, retained]; so that we serve in newness of the spirit.... For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did], sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity [or hostile] against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. (Rom. 5:20; 6:14; 7:5-6; 8:3-10; ASV).

Paul says they died to the law so that they were no longer “under the law,” so that they could now serve God in newness of Spirit. And this analogy has been beautifully portrayed for us by Paul in Rom. 7:1-6 under the similitude of a marriage. When the Jew died in Christ they were freed from being “under the law” (who was their former husband) so that they might be free to serve under a new husband, namely Christ.

As William Hendriksen says with regards to being “under the law” in Gal. 5:18, “Being under the law spells defeat, bondage, the curse, spiritual impotence, for the law cannot save” (Galatians, p. 215). Philip Graham Ryken adds here a quotation from another gentleman in his commentary: “Here is the paradox again in its fullness: We are set free from the law in order to produce a righteousness that corresponds to the righteousness that the law demanded” (Galatians, op. cit., p. 225). John MacArthur concurs: “To live under the Law is to live by the flesh, even when one is not actually committing sin, because that is the only avenue available to the legalist. The flesh is powerless to fulfill the Law, and the Law is powerless to conquer the flesh” (Galatians, p. 157). Adam Clarke likewise adds here: “you will not feel those evil propensities [by being under the law] which now disgrace and torment you.” John Wesley also adds here: “Not under the curse or bondage of it; not under the guilt or the power of sin.” Matthew Henry also asserts: “those who desire thus to give themselves up to be led by the Holy Spirit, are not under the law as a covenant of works, nor exposed to its awful curse. Their hatred of sin, and desires after holiness, show that they have a part in the salvation of the gospel.” A. T. Robertson additionally notes here under Gal. 5:18 how that “under the law“ is used “instead of [or in place of] ‘under the flesh’ as one might expect….The flesh made the law weak….They are one and the same in result.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown also remark of how that the Christian is “not working the works of the flesh…which bring one under the law.” And finally, Martyn Lloyd Jones remarks how that “the oldness of the letter is characteristic of being 'under the law,' which is the same as being 'in the flesh.' A man who is 'in the flesh' is 'under the law'" So there you have it! Being "in the flesh" is tantamount to still being "under the law." And in Gal. 5:13, the Galatians were exhorted to not use their new-found freedom in Christ as an occasion (or beachhead) for remaining "under the law," which was tantamount to still being "in the flesh." If they continued to keep the mandates of the Law (such as physical circumcision), Christ was of no value to them; they had fallen from grace revealing that they were never saved in the first place (see my footnote below for more on this idea [3]).

Now before moving on, let me just pause with one more final thought on Gal. 5:17-18, with special attention to be given to verse 18 again. It is worth repeating that in Rom. 6:14, Paul says, “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law, but under grace” (ESV). What Paul is saying here is exactly in line or in agreement with what he has been saying all along in Gal. 5:18. The struggles depicted in Gal. 5:17, and in the parallel passages in Rom. 7:15-20, are no longer ours to contend with when one is no longer “under the law.” Listen to Paul’s words again, in an expanded translation of Gal. 5:18: “But, if you are being [passively] guided, led, impelled and urged by the Spirit, you are not under law.” The one being described here by Paul is not lusting against the Spirit anymore, nor is the Spirit any longer against him; he is being passively “guided, led, impelled and urged” by God to keep in-step with the Spirit. And also notice the bold conjunction “but” here. It could also read: “Except, save, or on the contrary, if you are being led by Spirit, you are not under law.” Any online dictionary will note this understanding of this conjunction “but.” It’s synonyms are also: although, however, nevertheless, on the other hand, or yet. So put any of these words at the beginning of this sentence in Gal. 5:18, and they will show a change of thought of the ones who have just been previously described as being contrary to the Spirit, “but” who are now being led by the Spirit.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones had noted this fact in his commentary on Romans 7 that Rom. 6:14 and Gal. 5:18 are addressing the very same issue at hand, but he had not caught on to the fact that Rom. 6:14 is clearly affirming what Gal. 5:18 does not so “clearly” on the surface affirm: that the dominion and struggle that sin has over the individual described in Gal. 5:17 is no longer the struggle of the one who is now “under grace” and no longer "under law." Dr. Jones understood this with regards to Romans 6-8, but he had not caught on to this fact in Gal. 5:17-18, due to the fact that the word “Spirit” is now introduced into the picture in Galatians, whereas in Romans 7, the Spirit is not, per se; and which has been a conundrum for many. But this obstacle is overcome when one realizes that walking in “the Spirit” in Galatians and the “spiritual Law” (or the Word of God) in Romans are one and the same, but just being described in different ways as I just talked about earlier above. “For what the flesh wants is opposed to the Spirit [i.e., the Spiritual Law, Christ, or the Word], and what the Spirit [the spiritual Law, Christ, or the Word] wants is opposed to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so you do not do what you want to do” (ISV trans., words in brackets mine). Now with a proper biblical understanding of the correlation between Gal. 5:18 and verse 17 (as is the case with Rom. 6:14 and Rom. 7:15-20) we can now begin to see how we can do some of those things that we formerly could not do without the help of God’s regenerating influences upon us by His Holy Spirit. We are now passively “led” in Gal. 5:18 (Gk. verb “led” in passive voice) by a power outside of ourselves to do those things that we could not do before we were saved. It is even as the epistle to the Philippians declares: “He which began a good work in you will carry it on to completion….For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose” (1:6; 2:13). Hallelujah! Are you getting this brethren? Oh, I hope that you are. If you do, then you will be swimming against an overwhelming tide of criticism from those who would take issue with you and say that verse 17 (or even Rom. 7:15-20) is the lifestyle of the saint. But it isn’t! What kind of “saint” is that? It is the lifestyle and struggle of the one who is still “under law,” as verse 18 subtly describes and alludes to for us. This is the gospel of good news brethren! These are glad tidings of great joy. In Christ we can now do the good that we want to do.

Before being in Christ, the text here in Galatians 5:17 says that the Spirit of God and the person wholly in the flesh are “opposed” to one another. The KJV uses the English word to denote that which is “contrary” to one another with the Greek verb antikeimai, which is also sometimes used of Satan as an “adversary”—of one who is opposed to another (see LXX on Zech. 3:1). Interestingly, in Col. 2:14, the KJV again speaks of the Mosaic Law as that which is also “contrary” to us with the Greek adjective hupenantios, and it too is translated in the KJV in Heb. 10:27 as “adversaries” (a cursory reading of Vine’s Expos. Dict. will reveal all this).

To be “adverse” or an “adversary” to someone or something is synonymous to being in “opposition” or “contrary” to them. Gal. 5:17 is not so much describing a battle that is within believers, as it is a battle that is without and of unbelievers who have not the Spirit of Christ within them to help them to do what they should do. This is very important for us to realize if we are to understand this text correctly. This struggle being described by Paul here, according to verse 18, is of those who are still “under the law” and not walking by the Spirit at all—a law-struggle which he now says we are no longer “under.” In verse 18, he says if we are led by the Spirit of God we are not under such an “adverse” conflict that comes from being “under the law,” which takes us back to his original thought in verse 16: “If you are walking in the Spirit, you will never ever fulfill the lusts of the sinful nature (or the flesh)”—its been crucified—as depicted in verse 24! As Hoekema had said with regards to verse 16, it’s “a promise” that arises out of a condition that has been fully met of walking in the Spirit that is only realized of the one who is truly in Christ, just as Romans 8 describes of all such persons. If we are “in Christ,” as opposed to being “under the law,” we will be those who “walk in the Spirit” and will NOT fulfill the desires of the flesh (or the sinful nature); for the sinful nature is no longer privy to us! It is even as Rom. 6:6 now affirms, “We know that our old natures were crucified with Him so that our sin-laden bodies might be rendered powerless and we might no longer be slaves to sin” (ISV). And again, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:2, KJV). In Christ all of the “opposition” and “contrariness” to God’s Law has been removed from us. “He who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7).

Online dictionary, Dictionary.com, in its Thesaurus, lends to us some keen insights as to this outward (rather than inward) conflict that I have just described above. It denotes how that “aversion is something that originates from within, whereas adversity is something that originates from without; adverse is usually applied to situations, while averse is used to describe a person’s attitude. Averse means reluctant or disinclined; adverse means hostile and antagonistic.” One has more to do with an inclination that comes from within; the other with conduct that manifests itself without; and this is exemplified in the lifestyles of those who are unregenerate in Paul’s list of vices that are manifest in such a person in Gal. 5:19-21. This is not to say that the unbeliever does not also struggle internally, but only that this opposition being described here is one that is manifested or evidenced externally in how the unbeliever acts and conducts themselves in this opposition towards God. This is why Paul stated, “the acts of the sinful nature are obvious” (v. 19, NIV), or “manifest” in the KJV, ASV, ERV and YLT.

As I said just a little while ago, the Spirit and the Mosaic Law (or the Word) are all one and the same; and they are “contrary” or “adverse” to the one who is not born of God. In Colossians Paul says that Christ nailed this “opposition” or contrariness (this “accuser” if we may) to the cross, taking it out of the way, so that we now serve God and His law in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter, or strictly by the written code. If one is no longer “under law” (under that adverse “contrariness” that the law instilled upon the Jew, or even upon Gentile proselytes) as Paul affirms of those in Gal. 5:18, then they are no longer under the constant conflict of “not” being able to do what they want to do that Gal. 5:17 describes. Again, sin “has no dominion over you, for you are no longer under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Through the Holy Spirit who is now in us we can do what we, and God, want us to do! Wow, now that’s a novel idea these days? I bet I got your attention on that one, didn’t I? And you are probably by now coming around and thinking, “Yeah, that is the apostles’ doctrine! How could I have missed that?” I will tell you why: It is because wrong deceptive teaching only produces wrong thinking. It does what it is suppose to do, deceive you! It bewitches you into believing that the lie being held out to you is the truth! Such incorrect thinking about these verses brethren only tears us down and doesn’t build us up, causing us to think that we are nothing more than a bunch of has-beens and have-nots that will never amount to anything this side of heaven.

The teaching that I, and I believe the apostles are teaching here, is only meant to lift you higher and cause you to reach for the stars—to reach out for that high and holy calling which our thrice holy God has called us to: “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” According to the holy apostles’ teachings everywhere, the continual sins of the flesh that we once use to always do no longer have dominion over us. The key here is “continual” and habitual sins, not occasional sinning that we all sometimes succumb to from time to time, even like David. Yet even his example of failure is not the example that we are to follow, but on the contrary, we are to only follow those as they follow Christ. This is what is called: “reaching for the stars.” If someone is not in step with Christ, then step beside them and move on to the higher calling: “Become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe” (Php. 2:15). It should be even as Paul and his entourage confessed: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10). And so God similarly affirms: “My eyes will be on the faithful in the land, that they may dwell with Me; he whose walk is blameless will minister to me” (Psm. 101:6). Let His (God’s) Word be the last word on all of this. You are the “light” of the world, therefore walk as “children of light” even as He is “in the light.” There is no “flesh” here; no darkness! Just light! Reckon it so and walk in it! And you can take that to the bank! Credit this to your account of faith! Credit such a faith as this to your account!

What follows on the heels of Gal. 5:18 are the vices depicted of the lifestyle of the unregenerate man, with verse 21b affirming, “Those [of the flesh and not of the Spirit] who do [habitually practice] such things will not inherit the kingdom of God [i.e., they are not saved].”[4] This agrees with the apostle John’s statements noted earlier, that are well worth repeating here below one more time. Keep reading these passages over and over again, until the brevity of what John is truly saying to us finally sinks in:

“If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him….Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning 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, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning 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 righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother” (1Jhn. 2:29; 3:4-10, ESV).

Now, don’t argue with me, take it up with the apostles! These are the cold, hard facts! Those who continue to sin are not born of God, but are “of the devil.” In a similar fashion to John, Paul is telling the Galatians that if they are “practicing” sinners they have no part or inheritance in the kingdom of God. They are not God’s children (cp. 1Cor. 6:9-11), but children of the Devil who are ruled by the sinful nature (or the flesh). “To inherit God’s kingdom is to come into its rightful possession by receiving the free gift of eternal life…People who perform [habitually] the acts of the sinful nature will not inherit eternal life” (Ryken on Galatians, p. 231) because their fruit manifests what kind of tree they are really made of.

Verses 22-23, in Galatians chapter 5, continue with the thought that Paul is trying to make: “But the fruit of the Spirit [of those passively led by God as noted earlier] is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law [no such strivings of the flesh against the Spirit].” And, “those [the regenerate] who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh [or the sinful nature] with it passions and desires [“lusts”, KJV], the very thing that Paul affirms of those in Romans chapter 6, making them no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness and to God so that we can now actually indeed do the things that we want to do, and not “keep on not doing” what we want to do. Elsewhere Paul affirms, “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God…” (Gal. 2:20, NIV). And again, “…we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:6-7).

Now, to state otherwise—that Romans 7:15-20 and Gal. 5:17 are depicting the actual lifestyle of the regenerate person—then one would have to affirm just the opposite of what these verses are stating: that such individuals actually keep on doing that which they really want to do, and don't do what they do not want to do. The reason why these words would have to be changed to read like this, is because such a holy lifestyle and conduct would be more in line with the rest of the Scriptures that affirm such a positive lifestyle and practice of all sincere and true believers. We need to ask ourselves this question: “Do we as Christians actually keep on “not” doing that which we really want to do as Galatians and Romans depicts?” Because that is what Romans 7:15-19 and Gal. 5:17 are affirming! The answer of course to this question is quite obvious: “Of course not!” A born-again Christian “cannot keep on sinning,” according to St. John.

Let me just summarize all this again for one moment: Galatians 5:16-18 mirrors Romans 6-8, but only in reverse and in a shorter outline form. Have you ever seen a reflection of an image in a mirror? It is the same reflection, but only in reverse. “Walking in the Spirit and not fulfilling the desires of the flesh (or the sinful nature)” in Gal. 5:16 mirrors Romans 8 (esp. vv. 4 and 9). “Continually not doing what you want to do” in Gal. 5:17 mirrors Romans 7 (esp. vv. 15-20). And, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law” mirrors Romans 6 (esp. v. 14); with the rest of Gal. 5:19-26 giving a more detailed and fuller report. The man of the flesh (the carnal, sold as a slave to sin, unregenerate man) habitually keeps on sinning (the Romans 7 man); whereas, the one walking in and by the Spirit (the regenerate Romans 6 and 8 man) bears fruit unto God. Clearly, Paul is stating the very same things to the Galatians that he is also saying to the Romans, but only in a condensed manner.

I am truly amazed at how many Christians spend more time thinking about who they aren’t in Christ, rather than on who they are in Christ. Watchman Nee’s treatise on Romans called, The Normal Christian Life, was written for this very purpose of instilling in us such a belief system of exactly who we are in Christ. Though not entirely perfect in his presentation (especially with regards to Romans 7), his book was one of the first books that I ever read after first believing in Christ that instilled within me this new-found heritage that belongs to all of God’s saints. It is high time that we arise to the occasion for which God has called us to, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Awake from the dead, thou that sleepest, and Christ shall give thee light! Just start to “reckon” it so, for our Bible tells us so! (Please click here for part five)



Footnotes:

[1] New Testament Commentary. Galatians, p. 215.

[2] Those commentators that would have anything substantial to say with regards to this passage in Genesis 6:3 are: 1) Albert Barnes: “To strive…to keep down, rule, judge, or strive with a man by moral force. From this passage we learn that the Lord by his Spirit strives with [the natural] man up to a certain point. In this little negative sentence streams out the bright light of God's free and tender mercy to the apostate race of man. He sends his Spirit to irradiate the darkened mind, to expostulate with the conscience, to prompt and strengthen holy resolve, and to bring back the heart, the confidence, the affection to God. He effects the blessed result of repentance toward God in some, who are thus proved to be born of God.” 2) Adam Clarke: “It is only by the influence of the Spirit of God that the carnal mind can be subdued and destroyed; but those who willfully resist and grieve that Spirit [similar to natural Israel] must be ultimately left to the hardness and blindness of their own hearts, if they do not repent and turn to God. God delights in mercy, and therefore a gracious warning is given.” 3) Keil and Del.: “Men, says God, have proved themselves by their erring and straying to be flesh, i.e., given up to the flesh, and incapable of being ruled by the Spirit of God and led back to the divine goal of their life.” 4) John Gill: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man;…this is to be understood of the Holy Spirit of God, as the Targum of Jonathan, which agrees with 1 Peter 3:18 and to be thus interpreted; that the Spirit of God, which had been litigating and reasoning the point, as men do in a court of judicature, as the word signifies, with these men in the court, and at the bar of their own consciences, by one providence or by one minister or another, particularly by Noah, a preacher of righteousness, in vain, and to no purpose; therefore, He determines to proceed no longer in this way, but pass and execute the sentence of condemnation on them. For that he also is flesh; not only carnal and corrupt, but sadly corrupted, and wholly given up to and immersed in sensual lusts and carnal pleasures, so as not to be restrained nor reformed…”

[3] Many, including myself, have often viewed Christians as being warned against giving place to their so-called “libertine” tendencies in Gal. 5:13. However, there is no absolute certainty that this is really what Paul is talking about here, since I am fully aware that this would be out of character with Paul’s theme of dealing with being under the Law/in the flesh, and not under grace. So shouldn’t we rather see Paul’s main focus in all these chapters as dealing with still being “under the Law” as taught by the Judaizers, and that verse 13 is only a short caveat on the abuses arising from these Judaizers against those who claim such a “freedom” from the Law? I tend to be just a little more inclined to favor this idea. And if this is the case, then the “libertine tendencies” idea will just have to take a back seat for now.

So maybe, just maybe, using our “freedom as an occasion to the flesh” could very well mean, in context, an occasion for still remaining “under the Law,” which, like I said, is tantamount to still being “in the flesh.” And to do so would be akin to one having “fallen from grace” (v. 4) and not really being saved in the first place, as most tend to agree here with regards to this verse. Being “in the flesh,” in verses 16-17, sure seems to include this idea of still being “under the Law” in verse 18, as mentioned already. And in Gal. 5:1, Paul just got through talking about “freedom” from being in a yoke of slavery, which no one doubts was servitude under the Law; so it could stand to reason (in context) that this is also what he is referring to in verse 13. It makes sense. In verse 13cff, it is through “love” that we “serve” (or are “enslaved”) to one another, not by being under the Law. Not that we are lawless, but being strictly under the Law (and not under grace) is not how we “serve” God or one another (cp. the Greek verb douleuo for serving as slaves in verse 13c through “love,” in juxtaposition to the Greek noun douleia for serving as slaves in verse 1 under the “yoke” of the Law). So, in context, being “in the flesh” is synonymous to being “under the law.” And being “under the Law” only “arouses the sinful passions” of the flesh (Rom. 7:5), it “takes opportunity through the commandment to produce sin” (Rom. 7:8, 11), and only incites us to sin (Rom. 7:8). And so when those of us who belong to Christ have crucified our “flesh” or “old man” on the cross with Christ (Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6), we have also died to the Law in order to “serve” another, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. And Paul also gives the analogy of us dying to the Law and to the flesh in the death of Christ in Rom. 7:1-6, in order that we might “serve (Gk. douleuo) in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter” (v. 6b).

[4] As A. T. Robertson notes: “The habit of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.”

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

Scriptural Harmony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please click here for part six.


footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Concluding Thoughts

Most who believe these passages in Romans refer to Paul’s experience as a Christian, will not take it at face value when he says, “I am sold as a slave to sin” and “I keep on doing” that which "I do not want to do." They twist, distort, and conform the text to their own experience, admitting that they CAN do many things, but that they just can't do some things, the very opposite of what Paul is asserting of himself in these verses in Rom. 7:15-20 of not continually being able to do that which he truly desired to do. Such a twisting and convolution of the Scriptures cannot be tolerated or allowed. Paul is stating here in unequivocal terms that he is a slave to sin, and who utterly lacks any power to do any good whatsoever until one turns to Christ as their Deliverer.

In Romans, chapters 6-8, we have a description of two types of people. One who is helplessly carnal and guilt laden with sin, until Christ gets a hold of him. Such a person has tried to be sanctified by the law, yet he is still duty-bound as a prisoner—as a slave—to the sin that one being under the Law can only incite them to do. In contrast, we have the new man and creature in Christ who has turned away from the world, the flesh and the devil. Unlike the previous individual described above in chapter 7, the believer has died to sin and is now alive unto God and unto righteousness which leads to holiness. He is now God’s slave. He is no longer a slave to sin. He who the Son sets free is truly free indeed! Free from what? Free from sin! Jesus told all such Pharisees as Paul, “I tell you the truth, everyone who [continually] sins is a slave to sin,” and that “a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever” (Jhn. 8:34-35; words in brackets show what the Greek is actually saying here). Are you a holy saint and son of God, or are you a slave to sin and the Devil? You are either one or the other, but not both. No one can serve two masters. For either you will hate the one and love the other; or hold to the one and despise the other. Pharisees were attempting to serve both God and mammon. And they didn’t even realize that in their unsaved condition they were attempting to serve God’s Law with their minds, but in their flesh they were actually serving the law of sin, just as Jesus described it of them. It took the apostle Paul, after his conversion, and as a former Pharisee, to explain in Romans just such a conundrum to all believing Jews who use to live under the Law. The freedom for which Christ said the Son sets us free from in Jhn. 8:36, is the freedom of all God’s sons that Paul talks about in Romans chapter 8, and even in chapter 6: “if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Not slaves to sin, but “sons” with a permanent place to live!

The Consequences of a False View of These Verses in Romans 7

You do not have to look very far before finding the wounds inflicted in part at least by such a false understanding of Romans 7. As one person noted, a recent example was reported widely in the secular media that Sand Patti, one of the reigning queens of gospel music, was caught in adultery. In fact, she had been committing adultery for years during her ministry. If you had listened to her music, you might not have been surprised. On her Voyage Home CD, she sang a song reflecting Romans seven, but from her own perspective. While she sang, “but I do it, but I do it,” one couldn’t help but wonder what it was she was doing? It was obvious that she was secretly confessing the dominion that the lusts of her flesh had over her, and using Romans 7 to justify it. Not long after her marriage was destroyed, the tabloids proclaimed: “Number One Gospel Artist Caught Having An Affair!”

It is somewhat distressing that many others are able to relate to these passages in question in Romans 7 from the carnal, worldly perspective, and use it as an excuse for the reason for the sin that they do. Is it just possible, that they too, are silently confessing that they are really only carnal, sold as a slave to sin? Are they confessing that they desire to do good but find that they only continually practice evil, the very hallmarks of maybe one who is not really born of God at all? And worst yet, do they view this as the normal life for the believer? I hope not! But unfortunately many who take Paul’s experience here in Romans 7 as the normal Christian life are allowing themselves to succumb to that for which this chapter is just not asserting of the true believer who has been “born of God.” This I know—for my Bible tells me so—that such an individual “practices righteousness,” not unrighteousness. And I am afraid that it has become a strong deception that has given many only a further license or excuse for their sin.

As we noticed of the Romans 7 man, he affirmed: “I do not do….I cannot carry it out….this I keep doing…” (vv. 15-19); whereas, just the opposite is true of the Romans 6 and 8 man: “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life….You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature [or flesh] but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you…” (6:22; 8:9). Similarly, in Phil. 2:13 Paul writes: “For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (AKJV). And, again, in chapter 4:13, he concludes, “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me” (WEB). This isn’t to be restricted to just being able to live without things, though the context does refer to this; it is also about being able to no longer live and act like a person wholly of the flesh. There is nothing that we should not be able to do in Christ. This is why Paul could say that he now makes his body his “slave,” and not vice-versa (cf. 1Cor. 9:27).

As is very clear, the Romans 7 man is a description of one’s life as it use to be “under the law” and in bondage to sin. But by God’s Spirit enabling us to now “do of His good pleasure” as Paul describes for us in Philippians, we are meant to live the life of Enoch, Job, Daniel, and all those men and “holy women of old” (1Pet. 3:5) who “walked with God.” The contrast between the Romans 7 man, and those just noted who walk with God by His Spirit, exemplifies this glorious truth. The, "I cannot” before in the flesh, is now become in the Spirit, “I can.” And so, “I can” becomes the very experience in all that we do, described for us in Phil. 2:13 and 4:13. There is simply just nothing that we can do in and of ourselves, for “when I said, ‘my feet are slipping,’ your mercy, O LORD, continued to hold me up” (Psm. 94:18, GWT). “I cannot," now becomes…God can…and therefore…I can! I CAN [continually; present active indicative] do all things through Christ who strengthens [present active participle] me! It is no longer, “I continually cannot do,” but is, “I can continually do all things…through Christ who continually strengthens me! Believe it, receive it, and act upon it! Faithful is He who called you, and who also will do it (1Ths. 5:24).

As we await the day of the Lord, and if ever Peter’s last recorded exhortation below was ever applicable, it is now. As we await the day of the Lord, he cries:

Make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with Him. Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you might not be carried away by the error of lawless men, and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever, amen” (2Pet. 3:14b-18).

“His Divine Power
has given us everything
we need for life and godliness….
so that through them
you may participate in the Divine Nature
and escape the corruption
in the world caused by evil desires….
Add to your faith goodness…knowledge…self-control…perseverance…godliness…brotherly love….
they will keep you
from being ineffective and unproductive….
if anyone does not have them,
he is nearsighted and blind,
and has forgotten
that he has been cleansed
from his past sins”— 2Pet. 1:3-9

For further study and reading I would highly recommend Anthony Hoekema's The Christian Looks at Himself; Douglas Moo's commentary on The Epistle to the Romans; and also Adam Clarke's, Robert Gundry's, and Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones' verse by verse commentaries on Romans, chapter seven. Also of interest is my article on 18 reasons why Paul is not speaking of himself in his regenerate state in Romans 7. And my book, The Old Man in Adam vs. the New Man in Christ is also insightful. Please also click on this link for Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones' insightful comments on Romans 7, especially with regards to verses 14-25.