Is Covenant Theology Replacement Theology? (3 of 3)

Is the Church a “Parenthesis” Not Foretold by the Prophets?

Christ’s resurrection, ascension to His throne, and the subsequent sending of the Holy Spirit is emphatically by the apostles explained to be a fulfillment of the prophecies which describe a restoration of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, as also foretold in Isaiah 11:13. It is not the building of a new thing at all. It is the building and restoration of a remnant of Israel according to the Spirit of grace that is inclusive of a remnant out of the Gentiles as well according to the same Spirit of grace. Clearly, it is not the creation of a separate body of believers. It is not a new Church or building program, but a building up of the old Church that grows and grows to become a holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:21). Isaiah foretold of these days of Israel’s small beginnings that would be enlarged upon, when he writes:

In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit. (27:6).

And again,

Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes. For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your descendants will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities (Isa. 54:2-3).

If you will notice, these immediate verses above in Isaiah 54:2-3 are in the same context that Paul quotes from in Galatians of there being more of the children of the barren woman (heavenly Jerusalem) than of her (earthly Jerusalem) who could physically bear children (cp. Gal. 4:27; Isa. 54:1). Need I say anymore? And get this, all of this takes us back to the Tabernacle of Moses with its rudimentary tent pegs and ropes which was all a type of Christ and His Church. And the allusion is again carried over even to the holy city of New Jerusalem from above mentioned in Isaiah 33:20-24:

Look upon Zion, the city of our festivals; your eyes will see Jerusalem, a peaceful abode, a tent that will not be moved; its stakes will never be pulled up, nor any of its ropes broken. There the LORD will be our Mighty One. It will be like a place of broad rivers and streams. No galley with oars will ride them, no mighty ship will sail them. For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; it is He who will save us. Your rigging hangs loose: The mast is not held secure, the sail is not spread. Then an abundance of spoils will be divided and even the lame will carry off plunder. No one living in Zion will say, “I am ill”; and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven.

Our bodies are the outer shell of the tabernacle in which we are offered up now to God as living sacrifices. Our soul is the Holy Place wherein our wills and emotions are enlightened. And our spirit is the Holy of Holies wherein the Spirit of God now dwells, with His Spirit testifying (or witnessing) with our spirit that we are the children of God.

The city of Jerusalem in Solomon’s day which housed, enshrined, and protected the temple of the Holy Place and Holy of Holies represents all of these same ideas, and whose “walls” are now said to be spiritually called “salvation” (or her deliverance) and her gates “praise” (Isa. 60:18; cp. also 26:1; 49:16; 56:5), and that “the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith" (Isa. 26:2). We, the Church, are now that holy nation that keeps faith (Isa. 62:12; Mat. 21:43; 1Pet. 2:9). And in Revelation, the Church (the bride and wife of the Lamb; cp. Rev. 21:2, 9), is now said to be both city and temple whose dimensions are square like that of the Holy of Holies (with the type again pointing to the antitype). And the author of Hebrews adds that we all have this hope “as an anchor to our souls” (like the tent pegs and ropes in the tabernacle of Moses) which is both sure and steadfast; immovable and unshakable. Without a doubt, we are both the city and temple in which all of this speaks of and represents. For even of Abraham it was said: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God,” and not built by man (cf. Heb. 11:10); and that we have now come[1] (not later) to the heavenly Mount Zion and Jerusalem, the city of the living God…to the Church of the firstborn-ones (cf. Heb. 12:22; lit. trans.); a city whose foundation stones are now the apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). And get this, what all started out as small beginnings with the Holy of Holies being 15 ft. x 15 ft. x 15 ft. in the Tabernacle of Moses, grew twice the size to 30 ft. x 30 ft. x 30 ft. in Solomon’s days, ten times that amount by 150 ft. x 150 ft. x 150 ft. in Ezekiel’s vision of the formation of the Church of Israel, to finally grow exponentially 528,000 times to 1,500 mi. x 1,500 mi. x 1,500 mi. (or, 7,920,000 ft.) in Revelation[2], going way beyond Israel’s natural borders. If all of this doesn’t take us back to the original 15 foot square dimensions of the Holy Holies in the Tabernacle of Moses, I don’t know what does. Clearly, of a truth, Paul by revelation had all of this in mind when he spoke of the height, depth and breadth of God’s love for all of His elect from both Jews and Gentiles, called His Church, called-out and gathered together as one assembly from all over the earth. The “Rock” (Christ) that struck the great image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which “became like chaff on a threshing floor,” has become “a huge mountain” that has “filled the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35). No wonder that Christ could say that no longer would God be worshiped at a literal mountain in Palestine; for He would be worshiped from a spiritual mountain that was to encompass the whole earth; from a heavenly city that was to light up the whole world; and from a spiritual temple made up of “living stones” not made with men’s hands, and who now receives “living sacrifices” from the whole earth in which “all nations will stream into” (Isa. 2:2) as a result of our “priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). The Apostles’ mandate by Christ to make disciples of all nations beyond Israel’s borders, as depicted in the size and magnitude of this spiritual city and temple that also extends beyond Israel’s borders, takes the concept of being fruitful and multiplying to a whole new level altogether.

It is Isaiah who also further declares of this ethereal and magnificent building or tent,

You have enlarged the nation, O LORD; you have enlarged the nation. You have gained glory for Yourself; You have extended all the borders of the land. (Isa. 26:15).

And again,

You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing plunder (Isa. 9:6).

And if all that were not enough, it is again Isaiah who says with regards to the “barren” woman mentioned above who is Jerusalem and the Israel of God from above:

“Lift up your eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come to you. As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride. Though you were ruined and made desolate and your land laid waste, now you will be too small for your people, and those who devoured you will be far away. The children born during your bereavement will yet say in your hearing, ‘This place is too small for us; give us more space to live in.’ Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who bore me these? I was bereaved and barren; I was exiled and rejected. Who brought these up? I was left all alone, but these—where have they come from?’ This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up My banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders” (50:19-22).

And again:

“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children. Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?” says the LORD. “Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?” says your God. “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her. For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance.” For this is what the LORD says: “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” When you see this, your heart will rejoice and you will flourish like grass; the hand of the LORD will be made known to his servants, but his fury will be shown to his foes (Isa. 66:7-14).

Jesus likewise said all these things by way of another similitude: “Say not, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” (Jhn. 4:35, KJ 2000 Bible).

In Acts 2:16-18, Peter speaks of the activities on Pentecost as being a fulfillment of what the prophet Joel had likewise stated with regards to God pouring out His Spirit upon His spiritual body, Israel. This citation by Peter of Joel’s prophecy stops short, but the prophet Joel actually goes on to say:

It will so happen that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the Lord has promised; the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call. For look! In those days and at that time I will return the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 2:32-3:1).

This goes hand in hand with the words of Amos where he spoke of Israel being shaken as a sieve and that not a pebble[3] (the remnant) will reach the ground except for the sinners among God’s people. This occurred in the days of Christ’s ministry in the saving of His remnant and sheep from the house of Israel and Judah; and, in the destruction of all the sinners among His people in 70 A.D. via the Roman armies, as foretold in Matthew 24.

Here, in Joel above, the pouring out upon all flesh is connected with what follows, the returning of the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem. Again, this is absolute and unequivocal evidence that the so-called building of a separate entity called “the Church” was really referring to the re-establishment, building and restoration of the exiled house of Israel. Not a new Church or assembly of called-out ones at all. Not a new body of believers. And not a new thing in the sense that God had never had a spiritual remnant of believers prior to the cross of Christ. But an “enlarging” of that which had in its initial formation a very small beginning. Noah and his family were just a glaring example of this.

Acts chapter three records the event immediately following Pentecost. Here Peter speaks of those events as what all the Prophets wrote about in the Law long ago:

But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.” Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, “Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.” When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways (Acts 3:18-26 ).

Peter’s first epistle describes the events of Pentecost as the beginning of the fulfillment of the restoration and building of the house and nation of Israel as "a royal priesthood" and "holy nation," and as that which was spoken of by “all” of the Law and the prophets. There is no longer any “mystery” here for those with the ears to hear it and the eyes to see it. It is only a "mystery" to those who are nearsighted and blind. And it is just such blind leaders and teachers as these who are leading God’s people to follow after the doctrines of devils and demons, which are really nothing more than natural Jewish myths and fables that have overthrown the houses of some.

As one can see, so far none of this that the prophets spoke about is sounding like a "new" Church at all, but really only a restoration and building-up of the old one that Stephen said had in days long ago wandered in the wilderness (albeit with wretched sinners in their midst who were really not God’s people at all, not unlike many who are in the Church today).

All of what occurred in Acts was simply the beginning of the restoration of Israel and Judah which had fallen down in disrepair. But Christ said He would restore it and build it up once again. And to this all the prophets agree. The prophets stated that their Messiah would rebuild Israel, not create something new; and that He would restore Israel, not scatter Israel. So, if Jesus said He is going to build a new Church, should the understanding of that not agree with the prophets and of what the Messiah was said to come and do? Indeed, Peter above has just claimed that what God was doing with present Israel and with the Gentiles was due to the fact that they were “heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers,” and that through Abraham’s seed (which we now all know is Christ) “all peoples on earth will be blessed.” Not with two separate and distinct groups of people, but with one. Not with them forming a Gentile nation, but with the Gentiles becoming citizens with Israel and forming one nation that is still called “Israel.” Israel doesn’t come into the Church. The true Israel of God according to the Spirit, has always been “the Church.” It is the Gentiles who come into Christ’s Church called “Israel” from of old, and who surname themselves with that same name via adoption. And, actually, if the truth were really known, even natural Jews who become spiritual Jews are so by way of “adoption”; for no one is of this Israel of God by natural descent (again, see Jhn. 1:13; Rom. 9:16). Even Jesus himself affirmed this of the "natural" Jews in His day in John 8:39-47 and Rev. 2:9; 3:9).

Again, for those who continue to insist that the apostles were describing a "new" thing that was created—i.e., the Church—surely this so-called "new" assembly of believers would never call themselves “sons (or heirs) of the prophets and of the covenant…of the fathers.” Yet this is precisely who Peter is speaking to. He’s speaking to the Israel according to the Spirit, and not to some alleged New Testament Church apart from this Israel of God. Therefore, Christ’s response to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:18 must be understood as describing the Messiah’s work that He came to do to build and restore the house of Israel (again, not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit) as foretold so many times by the prophets of old and as James declares, “known from the beginning of the world.” But, again, only “known” to those who have the eyes to see it and the ears to hear it of what it is the Spirit has been truly saying all along concerning them, and them alone.

Is There a Future For Natural Israel Here on Earth Apart From Spiritual Israel in Heaven?

Christ’s next statement in Mat. 16:19 to Peter, must be understood in the context
in which it is declared:

And I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever you bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (lit. trans.; see also YLT).

There is little debate on the crux of this statement. Jesus, the ruling and reigning Messiah at His ascension to His throne at the right hand of the Father (see Mk.16:19 and Rev. 3:21), is speaking of giving regal authority to Peter. Binding and loosening is a Hebrew idiom for exercising authority. In a round-about-way Jesus says the same thing in Rev. 3:7, “These are the words of Him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens no one can shut, and what He shuts no one can open.” So, when the angel said to Mary concerning the Messiah in Luke 1:32-33 that, “the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David and will reign over the house of Jacob forever,” and that “His kingdom will never end,” this is what Jesus is talking about here to Peter. Being a flesh and blood son of David gave Christ the legal right through both Joseph and Mary to reign and sit enthroned as king over David’s (or even Jacob’s) house forever. This “house” is the house of Israel born after the Spirit in which Christ’s heavenly kingdom, rule and reign will “never end.” If we were talking here about an earthly kingdom, rule, and reign, then, of course, that would naturally come to an end as all earthly kingdoms do. But this is not the nature of Christ’s kingdom, rule, and reign being spoken of here---which is very telling indeed. It is the kingdom that Christ told Pilate about that He said He was “King” over, that is “not of this world,” “from another place,” and which cannot be seen unless one is born-again (Jhn. 3:3). It is the day in which we are now living wherein “living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, both in summer and in winter,” wherein “the Lord will be King over the whole land” (cf. Zech. 14:8, 9). It is on this day that the Lord also says through Zechariah that He will be “one Lord” among His people “and His name the only name” for them (ibid). And it is at this time also “that the survivors [or remnant] from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem [that is Jerusalem from above; Gal. 4:26] will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16)---in the same manner that one is now said by Paul to “keep the Feast” of Passover in 1Cor. 5:8---no longer in a natural way, but in a spiritual way. Therefore, let us also“keep the feast [and all the feasts], not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but with bread without leaven—with the bread of sincerity and truth” (ibid).

For those who can receive it, even Isaiah foretold of these days that we are now living, wherein the Messiah would “stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to Him…He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, and Judah’s enemies will be cut-off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim. They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west; together they will plunder the people to the east. They will lay hands on Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be subject to them. The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind He will sweep His hand over the Euphrates River. He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals. There will be a highway for the remnant of His people that is left from Assyria, as there was for Israel when they came up from Egypt” (Isa. 11:10, 12-16).

“Seas” and “Rivers” in the prophets were often analogous to the ungodly people in the clutches of Satan who would hold God’s people at bay so that they could not worship the Lord as freely as they would like to.[4] But the Lord says in Isaiah that He will remove all such obstacles so that His people could cross over unhindered via His "highway" of "holiness" in Isaiah 35:8 from the kingdom of darkness in this world, into His glorious promised land and kingdom of light to worship Him freely with no restraints whatsoever. Truly, this is the day (for the most part) that we are living in right now. The knowledge of the Lord has been covering this earth, just as He said it would, as the waters cover the sea. And His kingdom that is not seen with the natural eye is as a “great mountain” that is “filling the whole earth” from Christ's first coming to His second coming, just as the prophet Daniel had alluded to (cf. Dan. 4:35; see also 1Cor. 15:25). A literal mountain here in Daniel (and even in Isaiah 2) is out of the question, for a singular literal mountain cannot fill the whole earth, and especially not a round earth. And it should not go without saying here that "mountains" in Scripture are typical of kings or kingdoms.

In the days that we are now living in, the Lord speaks through Isaiah of lowering lofty mountains, hills, trees and the like, with the Lord alone being exalted in that day:

The Lord Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled), for all the cedars of Lebanon, tall and lofty, and all the oaks of Bashan, for all the towering mountains and all the high hills, for every lofty tower and every fortified wall, for every trading ship and every stately vessel. The arrogance of man will be brought low and the pride of men humbled; the Lord alone will be exalted in that day (Isa. 2:12-17).

And it is John the Baptist who likewise cried out:

As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the WAY for the Lord, make straight paths for Him. Every valley shall be filled in [or raised], every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough WAYS smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation” (Lke. 3:5-6).

“Every mountain and hill will be brought low, and every valley filled in [or raised]” is speaking of the humbling and exalting process in the kingdom of God in the world with people right now, not sometime later literally in the future. Clearly, the Lord is not speaking about "literal" mountains being made low, nor of "literal" valleys being filled in (or raised up). He is talking about humbling the proud and lifting up the lowly, the humble, and the poor in spirit right now. The Lord's "mountain" or kingdom made up of His people is being "exalted," while all other "mountains" (or kingdoms of peoples) are being abased. And the "crooked roads" and "ways" (think of "HIGHways" again) are made straight for God's people to enter into all that God has for them.

So now, you tell me whose theology has really "replaced" whose here? Christ and His holy apostles and prophets knew of no other theology for Israel other than what has been described above. Indeed, “all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers.” Indeed, God said to Abraham, “Through your offspring [or seed, which is Christ] all peoples on earth will be blessed.”

Neither “circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any importance; but only a renewed nature” (Gal. 6:15, Weymouth trans.), which is the “new creation.” And Paul says that all who shall regulate their lives by this principle or rule—“peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16, NASB). There is an interesting thing to note here behind this statement of Paul’s. Paul was very much familiar with it. It is taken right from the natural Jew's Eighteen Benedictions where they also conclude: “Grant peace, goodness, blessing, grace, lovingkindness and mercy unto us and unto all Israel, Your  people.” Now, may I ask, are the Jews distinguishing between “unto us” and “and unto all Israel, Your people” in this prayer as referring to two different groups or classes of people by using the conjunction "and," as all dispensationalists would have us to believe in Gal. 6:16? The answer is quite obvious. Paul, who was well acquainted with this prayer, knew exactly what he was saying when repeating this blessing from God over His true people called "Israel," made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It was to “them” alone (or “unto us” in natural Israel’s case in their benediction) “and to the…Israel of God,” who are all of God’s chosen spiritual Jews in Christ from both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul reiterates this concept of who is actually inwardly a true “Jew” in Rom. 2:28-29. Gentiles and Jews become, in Christ, the true Jews and Israelites indeed in whom there is no guile. And it is no different from natural Jews proselytizing Gentiles with them likewise becoming Jews and Israelites. And just in case there is any who would doubt all of this, Jesus himself says of all natural Jews outside of Him and His Church: “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan [and not ‘of God’], who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your [our] feet and acknowledge that I have love you [not them]” (Rev. 3:9). Where have we heard this kind of language before? In “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3; Rom. 9:13). And regardless of how one defines “hated” here, Israel according the flesh is not loved, just like Esau, and thus “cast out” like Hagar and Ishmael, never to share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son” (Gal. 4:30). So, whose their “daddy” now? Not God! Again, Jesus said so in John 8:38, 41, 42, 44.

It is the Judaistic theology of dispensationalism that has truly “replaced” God’s true people for a people that really do not belong to God at all, but who are of their father the devil (cf. Jhn. 8:44), and not loved by God at all as He loves us. One never finds Jesus and His apostles praying for the “peace of God’s chosen people” with regards to all natural Jews who are born only according to the flesh. It was the furthest thing from their vocabulary.[5] But we do find Paul praying for “peace and mercy” upon those who are the true and bonafide “Israel of God.” What Jesus told His disciples upon entering a Jewish house in their day was that “Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Mat. 10:11-16). Who were these “wolves” and those who would not “welcome you or listen to your words” and for which “your peace is to return to you”? The same ones that Jesus describes in Mat. 7:15 concerning the Jewish scribes and Pharisees who were outwardly dressed in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly were ravening wolves and who spared not the flock of God like Saul of Tarsus. There is no “peace,” says the Lord, for the wicked (cf. Psm. 48:22). But we are to pray for peace upon the true Israel of God and the New Jerusalem from above. He that blesses us, blesses Christ. He who receives us, receives Christ (cp. Mat. 25:34-46). And “anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is My disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward” (Mat. 10:41-42).

"I will bless those who bless Abraham" does not mean I will bless those who bless faithless natural Israel or Jews according to the flesh. Such an idea is diametrically opposed to God’s (and I might add, Christ’s) will as delineated above, and in all of the four gospels—not to mention in all of the epistles. What Jeremiah and God had said to the sinners among His true people of faith in those days, still holds true even more so today: “But I said, alas, Sovereign Lord! The prophets keep telling them, ‘You will not see the sword or suffer famine. Indeed, I will give you lasting peace in this place’” (Jer. 14:13). And the Lord’s reply is: “They dress the wound of My people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say, when there is no peace.” (Jer. 8:11). And while people are saying, “Peace and safety, utter destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1Ths. 5:3). Like Israel’s false prophets of old, similar men in our day “have made men to hope that the word [which they are proclaiming] would be confirmed” (Ezk. 13:6, ASV). But it won’t!

The fact of the matter now remains that Israel according to the flesh is no longer in a binding covenantal relationship with the Lord as “My people.” That covenantal relationship ended with them at the cross. Anything that was to be “everlasting” was in the context of them being Abraham’s descendents through faith in Christ. And even their former old covenantal relationship with God didn’t guarantee them unequivocal “peace,” for it is again as God had said to them back then in sending forth the Babylonians: “Go through her vineyards and ravage them, but do not destroy them completely. Strip off her branches, for these people do not belong to the Lord” (Jer. 5:10). And again, “Among My people are wicked men” (v. 26). The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees in Jesus’ day were likewise a testament to this fact.

In conclusion, to all of “God’s holy people…, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ: Grace and peace to you from God our Father” (Col. 1:2). And to “all…who are loved by God and called to be His holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7). And it is also in these words of Christ that I now say unto you: Peace I leave with you, not as the world gives, give I unto you. And may “The God of peace be with you all. Amen” (Rom. 15:33). Now go therefore in this YOUR peace.


Footnotes:

[1] This verb “come” is a perfect active indicative, which really says that this began in the past with continuing results in the present.

[2] The Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle of Moses was 15 ft. x 15 ft. x 15 ft. as determined by measuring the total length of the wooden sockets inlaid with silver in which the tent poles sat in (which was 10 cu. x 10 cu. x 10 cu.). In the Temple of Solomon everything was doubled, with the Holy of Holies now being 30 ft. x 30 ft. x 30 ft., or 20 cubits square (1Kin. 6:2; 2Chr. 3:8). And in Ezekiel’s temple the Holy of Holies is 150 ft. x 150 ft. x 150 ft., or 100 cubits square (Ezk. 41:13). In John’s vision, the 150 feet in Ezekiel’s vision is multiplied many times over to give us a temple/city which is: 7,920,000 ft. x 7,920,000 ft. x 7,920,000 ft. square (there is 5,280 feet to one mile; 12,000 stadia is 1,500 miles; so 1,500 miles x 5,280 feet = 7,920,000 ft.).

As stated, there is 5,280 feet to one mile. Divided by the 15 feet of the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle of Moses, this amount comes to 352 times that 15 feet can go into 5,280 feet. Now multiply this 352 that 15 feet can go into one mile, times 1,500 miles, and the number is 528,000 times that the perfect cube of the New Jerusalem has grown to since the Holy of Holies that is depicted in the Tabernacle of Moses.

[3] Also translated “grain” or “kernel” in many translations.

[4] For example, see particularly Isa. 8:7-8 mentioned just earlier concerning this “River,” and Isa. 5:30a; 17:12-13; Jer. 51:55; Ezk. 26:3, 19; and Rev. 17:15 concerning “seas.” Many more Scriptures could be cited as further examples of none of this to be taken literally. My book entitled: Jesus Concerning Israel, the Land, the Temple, and the City is also helpful in understanding a lot of this; as is my post called: Lions, Tigers and Bears---Oh My! on Isaiah 11.

[5] Psalm 122:6 is often quoted by naïve Christians that we must “pray for the peace of [natural] Jerusalem,” and that we must also claim “peace be upon Israel” as mentioned in Psalm 125:5 and 128:6. But is this what we are to do now? And how can we be so sure that natural Jerusalem and Israel are what David really had in mind? In fact, when we read the Psalms of David he seems to have things in mind that are more heavenly and ethereal in nature than of anything earthly. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is talking about the literal city of Jerusalem and Israel. Even if that were so, in David’s mind, I’m sure, he was thinking of Jerusalem and Israel when they were under the good graces of God and still under their old covenant in which all of this was still applicable. Such a prayer today over natural Jerusalem filled with the brood of vipers and snakes that are there today, and who flat-out deny having faith in Christ or God as David and many of his contemporaries had back then, becomes a no-brainer that such a prayer over present-day Jerusalem and Israel should not even be entertained by us (cp. Gal. 4:21-31). In fact, some Jews online who are more familiar with the Hebrew, claim that Psalm 122:6 isn’t even to be understood as a prayer at all, but as a petition of David to the people to inquire of Jerusalem’s present state or condition. And I quote:

"We pray for the land and for the ultimate peace, the salvation of the people of Israel. We pray for God to protect and enlarge the borders and that He would not allow the world to pressure Israel into giving up her land. But based on that one verse in Psalm 122, if you read it in Hebrew, even the Christians who have a heart for Israel are praying amiss! The problem lies exactly here. You see, reading the verse in Hebrew in which, of course, it was originally written, we see that the verse does not require us to pray that there will be peace in Jerusalem at all. Actually, when one reads the Biblical end time prophecies carefully, it becomes quite clear that peace in Jerusalem is entirely out of the picture at this time. If we’re not to pray for her peace, what does verse 6 tell us to do? A more accurate translation of this commandment is, “Ask how is Jerusalem doing.” The same phrase appears when Jeremiah describes the fatal situation in Jerusalem, and then stops and cries out, “Who will have pity on you, Jerusalem? Who will mourn for you? Who will stop to ask how you are?” (Jer. 15:5). This phrase, “Who will ask how you are?” is the same as the one in Ps. 122:6 which is wrongly translated as a command to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. This phrase does not ask us to pray automatically for peace, but to get involved, to express interest, to develop a relationship with the land and the people, so we can know how they are really doing. Then we will begin to see why there is no peace within her walls" (cited online, 2/25/14, at: http://sidroth.org/articles/pray-peace-jerusalem-0).

So the question now can be reasonably asked: “Did, or would, Jesus and His apostles pray for the peace of natural Jerusalem?” We know Paul desired that his kinsmen according to the flesh would be saved according to Rom. 10:1, admitting that they refused to “submit to God’s righteousness” (v. 3). And we also know that Jesus wept over the condition and state of Jerusalem who would not allow Him to gather her “chicks” (or children) unto Himself (Mat. 23:37). But nowhere do we find Jesus or His apostles pronouncing blessings or peace over them. In fact, Jesus said of them, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes” (Lke. 19:42). And it is upon this statement that He adds: “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you” (vv. 43-44). These are the ones that Jesus had said elsewhere were of their father the devil (Jhn. 8:44), and who were to be “cast out” in Mat. 8:12 and Lke. 13:28. And Paul said the same thing of them in Gal. 4:30 of whom he likened unto Hagar and Ishmael, and not unto Sarah and Isaac at all. We are called “children of promise” like Isaac in verse 28, not them.

Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (1 of 7)

Regardless of what one thinks about whether we can completely overcome our sins or not, we have got to start “not sinning.” We have got to stop sin dead in its tracks! And we have got to quit making excuses for the sins that we allow to continually occur and control our lives on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even on a yearly basis. For many Christians, Christ is nothing more than a revolving door or confessional booth, whereby we can go in one minute acknowledging our sins, and then go back out the next minute to continually commit the same sins; or worse yet, to commit even grosser sins than the ones before over and over again.

Romans 7 is often used by most Christians as a “proof text,” and even as an “excuse,” for the reason why they do the things that they allow themselves to continually do. Instead of instilling in the Christian a victorious attitude and life towards the world, the flesh and the Devil, a misunderstanding of this chapter has left more than one of us helpless, hopeless and hapless—resolved to just throw in the towel and say, “What’s the use, I am what I am and I won’t amount to anything more; sin dwells within me and makes me to continually do the things that I really do not want to do!”

Jon Zens, in his studies with regards to all of this, writes, “Historically, theological traditions that view Rom. 7 as a normal, inevitable Christian experience have produced people with essentially negative self concepts” (Baptist Reformation Review, vol. 10, #4. 1981). But just the opposite is true with regards to those who have not viewed these passages of Scripture as the normal, inevitable experience of the Christian’s life. Your guess is as good as mine as to which position produces more good fruit, and is, therefore, more biblical. A “good tree” is clearly known by its “good fruit” that it produces; a bad tree by its bad fruit.

More than one writer has noted that unsaved Greek and Roman philosophers have argued the very same things that Paul claims of one who is still under the law and still under the bondages and ravages of sin. Horace and Ovid are noted as saying: “I see and approve the better course, but I follow the worse one” (Ovid), or, “I pursue the things that have done me harm; I shun the things I believe will do me good” (Horace). Adam Clarke again quotes Ovid as saying, “What is lawful is insipid; the strongest propensity is excited towards that which is prohibited.” And again, “Vice is provoked by every strong restraint, sick men long most to drink, who know they mayn’t.” The same poet delivers the same sentiment in another place: “Being admonished, he [man] becomes the more obstinate; and his fierceness is irritated by restraints. Prohibitions become incentives to greater acts of vice” (op. cit.). You might have just as well of thought it was the apostle Paul speaking in these particular instances, and not some Greek philosophers or poets! So it is no new thing when Adam Clarke also affirms to us: “It is needless to multiply examples; this most wicked principle of a sinful, fallen nature, has been felt and acknowledged by ALL mankind….Thus we find that enlightened heathens, both among the Greeks and Romans, had that same kind of religious experience which some suppose to be, not only the experience of St. Paul in his best state, but to be even the standard of Christian attainments!" (Comm. on Romans, under 7:7, 15). I, for one, can attest to these very same struggles prior to believing in Christ. And it was exactly for these reasons that I attempted to take my very own life and, in which, Christ saved me. I was in absolute misery with myself, and for the likes of myself I just could not snap out of it! And it wasn’t too long ago on T.V., that I heard an unregenerate young girl exclaim: “I cannot do the good things that I am suppose to do.” That’s right! I kid you not! I personally saw and heard this unsaved person saying all of this with my very own eyes and ears. So don’t tell me the unregenerate never says such things. We have a plethora of testimonies to the contrary!

Such continual struggles in Romans 7 are not to be the struggles of the born-again saint! They are the struggles of the “ain’t,” if I may ever use such a word. It is the one who “ain’t” a saint! They are the struggles of one who is still a slave to sin—“sold as a slave to sin,” as Paul puts it in Rom. 7:14. They are the ones who “keep on doing” time and again the evil that they do not want to do (vv. 15-20, NIV; see also point 5 of my article: 18 Reasons Why the Romans 7 Man is Not Speaking of the Regenerate Christian).

Now, let me just say right from the start before going any further, that I, for one, am not perfect; and neither do I believe in “sinless perfectionism.” That is not what this article on Romans 7 is all about; nor is it in support of such an idea. The great and venerable Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones didn’t believe this either, yet with great zeal, compassion and concern for those who would believe otherwise, he was deeply troubled and concerned over how such a perversion of the truth has the tendency to cultivate in individuals more of a tendency to cuddle and coddle their sins, rather than promote holiness; not to say the least of all the insults that have been heaped upon the apostle Paul as a continual sinner. One notable reformed Pastor and speaker, out in Placentia, California, is even on record on a YouTube video stating that Paul led a more blameless life (according to Phil. 3:6) before he was saved, than afterwards! Wow! Paul had more power going for him as an unregenerate Jew under the Law, than he did as a born-again Christian under grace! This is simply remarkable to me! This is what a false presupposition about Romans 7, and even Php. 3:6, has led this person to conclude about Paul.

So, it is with much joy, and, in much fear, humility, and trepidation that I lead you to the liberating influences of the teaching below regarding what I, and many others believe, to be a proper and biblical understanding of Romans 7. And rather than promote an attitude of arrogance and self-righteousness, as some have improperly charged against those of us who hold to such a view, on the contrary, a proper biblical understanding of this text, and others like it, only helps us to further promote righteousness, holiness and true godly living (which is what we all want anyway, right?); and no longer giving ourselves anymore excuses for sinning, which is often based upon these very texts here in Romans 7. We do not need anything that lends further support for establishing what we “cannot” do, but for establishing what we “can” do through Christ who now strengthens us, such as: letting “not sin reign in your mortal bodies”; by putting “on the Lord Jesus Christ and making no provision for the flesh”; or, to “mortify the deeds of the body.” It is to be even as the old hymnal proclaims: “Stand up, stand up for Jesus.” In light of all this: Let us go on unto perfection—not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works!

While we are all nevertheless former sinners who are saved by grace and have an Advocate with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, to pick us up when we stumble and fall, we also have the assurance that we can immediately get right back up on our feet and fight the good fight of faith to reclaim (and not continually lose) territory that was once lost to Satan. We can continually spoil him, instead of him continually spoiling us! We can live the victorious Christian life with a proper biblical theology and mindset. But we won’t if we continue to believe that Romans 7, and even Gal. 5:17-21, is the normal pattern of the Christian life (for more thoughts on these verses in Galatians above, please see my article: Created in God's Image, Not Adam's, part 3; also read my article: Gal. 5:24--Those Who Belong to Christ Jesus Have Crucified the Flesh).

For some, what will be said below with regards to Romans 7, and even about sin in general, might be a little “over the top” and surprising, but I would much rather steer someone in the direction of being more “over the top” for good in attempting to lead a sinless life, than for them to remain “under the heap” so-to-speak, and continue to do only evil.

David writes concerning just such a righteous lifestyle, “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin.” (2Sam. 22:24; cf. Psm. 18:23). That is the definition of one who is “blameless” before God. And though we know David did have some lapses in his faith, his predominate lifestyle was defined as one who stated: “I have kept myself from sin.” At least we know that when he did fall, that he didn’t resort to going back and doing the same things over and over again. He repented and went on.

Keeping oneself from sin was just such a state of Job’s lifestyle when God said of him: “There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you [Satan] incited Me against him to ruin him without any reason." Job had affirmed that same thing: “I am blameless....I am not guilty....righteous and blameless....an upright man....I will not deny my integrity. I will maintain my righteousness and never let go of it; my conscience will not reproach me as long as I live” (2:3; 9:21; 10:7; 12:4; 23:6-7; 27:5-6; cp. also 13:15-16 of a “godless man” to a “godly” man, which Job indeed was at this point and time in his life). The Bible in Basic English translates the word “blameless” above in Job 2:3: “…a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil.”

To understand more clearly about this truth behind the meaning of “blameless,” Lawrence O. Richards notes: “The word ‘blame’ in the OT of the NIV and the NAS is a translation of the Hebrew word for ‘sin’ [in two instances: Gen. 43:9; 44:32]. The thought in each passage is that the individual accepts responsibility for a shortcoming or for guilt.”[1] So it stands to reason, that to be without guilt or sin is to be “blameless,” ie., guiltless and sinless. So when the Scriptures affirm that God shows Himself “blameless to the blameless” (2Sam. 22:26), He is not charging (or blaming) someone as one who is “guilty” for some sin in their life; such an individual is without blame (or blameless). Such a person is without any sin that would justify him as being blameworthy! In a secular court of law, “guilt,” or being pronounced “guilty,” is not looked upon as one who “sins” or is pronounced a “sinner,” but in God’s court of law it is just the opposite; to be charged “guilty” is tantamount to being held liable as one who is a “sinner.” Psalm 32:5 exemplifies this idea beyond all doubt: “…You forgave the guilt of my sin…” (NASB).

Can Christians today affirm, as the OT and NT saints affirmed of themselves, that they are “not guilty” and “without sin”—i.e., that they are “blameless”? Most today would say, “No we can’t, we are all sinners through and through. We can never say that we are without sin. We can never say that we are not guilty.” And they quote 1Jhn. 1:8 to substantiate all of this. But saying we live blameless lives, without sin, is not what John has in mind. He has in mind those who are in fact walking in sin and who deny that they are even doing so; otherwise, 1Jhn. 2:1 would be superfluous, as would 2:29, 3:6-10 and 5:18. Sadly, this statement referred to above by many Christians is the common mantra in the Church today. And for most of them it is probably true! They cannot affirm they are “without sin” because they are in fact living a lifestyle of sin on a daily, weekly, monthly or even on a yearly basis. And they have used this excuse, and even an improper understanding of Romans 7 (as well as of 1Jhn. 1:8), as a cloak for their sin. One person I spoke to even said he was “blameless in Christ,” so there was no way of really knowing if he was actually living a blameless life or not. He was skirting around the issue by saying, “yeah, I’m blameless in Christ,” and was actually using this as a “cloak” for his sin. But this is not what the men described above in the Bible affirmed of themselves. They spoke of themselves as being “righteous,” not just positionally in Christ, but practically as well.[2] They affirmed that they were living “blameless” lives “without sin.”[3] If we do not affirm along with them that we are at some point and time in our lives “without sin,” then we would have to affirm that Job was a sinner and really got his just deserts—which is just what his friends were affirming of him, and which many today are still affirming of Job. They cannot believe a person can live his life without sin. But there was no sin in Job’s life to sanction such calamities. Satan had said to God that there were “reasons” to inflict Job, but God told him there was “no reason” in Job for his calamities (cf. 2:3). None, zilch, zip! If God cannot say that about us, then it is because it is true—there is some “reason” in us whereby we deserve the things that happened to Job; and so Satan has good reason to inflict us with pain and turmoil. In fact, many sinners do indeed get what came upon Job, due to the fact that they have sinned! Many Christians, and especially unbelievers, are not living “blameless” lives before God.

The Bible does not portray such an aberrant lifestyle noted above as the “normal” Christian life. In fact, to live like such a one on a continual basis, the Bible portrays such a person as most likely not belonging to Christ at all: “Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him,” says John (1Jhn. 2:29, ESV). Of course, the opposite of one not being “born of Him” naturally, and continually, practices unrighteousness. Again, John writes, “Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do [lit., keep practicing] what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous” (1Jhn. 3:7, NLT). This can’t be any more plainer to us here! Yet, on the opposite side of the fence, Paul describes one who “continually” practices sin: “Even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice [Gk. present active participle, lit., “continually practice”] such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21, WEB). Righteous people in Christ continually practice righteousness, whereas those not in Christ continually practice unrighteousness. As noted earlier, a tree is known by the fruit that it produces. A good tree brings forth good fruit, an evil tree brings forth bad fruit. It’s as simple as that!

Oswald Chambers, in his, My Utmost for His Highest, writes with regards to living a holy life as opposed to a life that is up one day and down the next:

Continually restate to yourself what the purpose of your life is. The destined end of man is not happiness, nor health, but holiness....The one thing that matters is whether a man will accept the God who will make him holy. At all costs a man must be rightly related to God….Do I believe I need to be holy? Do I believe God can come into me and make me holy? If by your preaching you convince me that I am unholy, I resent your preaching. The preaching of the gospel awakens an intense resentment because it must reveal that I am unholy; but it also awakens an intense craving. God has one destined end for mankind, viz., holiness….Never tolerate through sympathy with yourself or with others any practice that is not in keeping with a holy God. Holiness means unsullied walking with the feet, unsullied talking with the tongue, unsullied thinking with the mind - every detail of the life under the scrutiny of God. Holiness is not only what God gives me, but what I manifest that God has given me….Beware of saying—“Oh, I am longing to be sanctified.” You are not, stop longing and make it a matter of transaction…Sanctification is an impartation, not an imitation. Imitation is on a different line. In Jesus Christ is the perfection of everything, and the mystery of sanctification is that all the perfections of Jesus are at my disposal, and slowly and surely I begin to live a life of ineffable order and sanity and holiness: “Kept by the power of God” (July 23rd; Sept. 1st; Oct. 20th).

Before moving on, I would also defer my readers to Adam Clarke’s commentary on Romans 7, who again notes:

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character.

Please click here for part two.



Footnotes:

[1] Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 128.

[2] Col. 1:22; Eph. 1:4 and 5:27 seem to denote this “positional” aspect or understanding of one who is “blameless” before God. In other words, in Christ we have imputed righteous that puts us in right standing before God and justifies us, just as if we had never sinned. In such a condition or state “in Christ” we are forever “blameless” before God. On the other hand, in Php. 1:10; 2:12-15; 1Ths. 2:10; 3:13-14; 5:23 and 2Pet. 3:24, we have instances where being “blameless” before God is to be understood as the “practical” outworking and daily experience of the Christian’s life. We are to walk daily with God living “blameless” lives—lives without sin! If this was not a possibility, then it would not be something that we would be exhorted daily to do in the Scriptures. Many saints in the Bible sure believed it to be true of themselves; therefore, there is no reason that we should believe otherwise.

[3] Paul being “blameless” in Phil. 3:6 can only be understood as being superficial and external, not internal. He had a “show” of righteousness and blamelessness, as opposed to an inward righteousness and blamelessness. Paul knew what it was like to have such an outward appearance, when he told the Corinthians, “You are looking on things after an outward appearance” (2Cor. 10:7). Paul, and all Pharisees, were masters of disguise. In fact, here in Philippians, Paul reflects on how he perfectly kept the law “outwardly” as only a Pharisee could ever hope to do, in order to be seen of men (which he elaborates on extensively here). But with his increased post-salvific knowledge Paul became more aware that he was really not “blameless” as God understood what being blameless was all about—not even close! Paul says in verse 9 that it was “my own” righteousness, but not God’s righteousness. This is particularly understood by Paul in Romans 7, where the emphasis is placed on the command against coveting. Paul realized, he “coveted.” His heart “coveted” and was desperately wicked. Here in Phil. 3:19, Paul says of such Jewish idealists that their “god is their belly” and that “their mind is on earthly things.” Of such a disposition was the apostle Paul before being converted. But he paints an entirely different picture altogether of himself after being saved, saying that he "coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes" (Acts 20:33) and the like.

When Paul said, “not having a righteousness of my own” (v. 9), what did he mean by this? Of course, it means the idea of being positionally righteous in the righteousness of Christ—but it goes beyond just that! It meant having a righteousness that Jesus talked about in Matthew 5 that exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees! It is a righteousness that is wrought by being in Christ, and that acts or works out in practice the very things that Jesus describes for us should be acted out of such a person. The Seed that is initially deposited in us, is the Seed that bears fruit. Christ’s righteousness by faith is a righteousness that really works, and without which one could not enter the kingdom of heaven! (cf. Mat. 5:20; cp. Gal. 5:21; 1Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:14-15). Even as John says, “He who practices righteousness, is righteous, even as He is righteous” (1Jhn. 3:7). Paul's "own" righteousness was not this kind of righteousness! Such a righteousness can only come from God.

Notice how Paul says, “as touching the law a Pharisee” (v. 5). This assertion by him is significant in determining how Paul, as Saul, and as a Pharisee, viewed the law and its requirements and how it defined their idea of how one could be called “blameless” with regards to it. It defined also their zeal (or reason) for justifying the persecution and the murdering of Christ’s followers (v. 6) after the Pharisaical order. Paul (Saul) was a hypocritical zealot in his sect. And all these external performances were far short of the internal and perfect obedience that was required by Christ. So strict had Paul been in his outward observance of the law, as interpreted by the Pharisees, that only in this sense are we to understand what he meant when he said he was “blameless,” but only by human judgment. Judged by the righteous requirements of the law (and as interpreted by his peers), Paul was “blameless.” As “touching the law,” he was a “Pharisee,” as opposed to a Sadducee, Essene, or any other sect that interpreted and lived by that law as they understood it, considering themselves also to be righteous and “blameless.”

As John Gill notes, “with respect to the interpretation and observance of the law, which was according to the traditions of the elders, and not the literal and genuine sense of it, he [Paul] followed; and was of the sect of the Pharisees, which was the strictest sect among the Jews, and in the greatest esteem among the people: and though they had put many false glosses on the Scripture, and held many erroneous principles…” (notes on Philippians).

So, Paul’s blamelessness that he describes could only be that which was before men and not before God. If it was, God would have been accepting of him just as He was of Job and all the other holy men and women of God who were "blameless" as Job. Similar to Job, the blameless conduct also mentioned of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Lke. 1:6 is that they were “upright in the sight of God.” Paul was in no way, shape, manner or form “blameless” or “upright” in the sight of God as Job and all who were like him.

In contradistinction to Paul’s “blamelessness” that he mentions above, in Romans chapter seven he gives us the true picture of the internal struggles and warfare that was really raging within him, and which brought him to reflect only after one who had been eventually saved and could now look back and exclaim, “O wretched man that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death?” (v. 24). If this is not how all this is to be understood of him, then we would have to say that he actually led a more “blameless” before he was saved than he did after he was saved, which some naïve Christians actually believe was just the case. They believe Paul kept the entire law “blamelessly” before he was saved, yet was a “carnal” Christian “sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14) and doing the things he did “not want to do” and “cannot carry out” and “kept on doing” (vv. 16, 18, 19). Such are the exact same sentiments of Kim Riddlebarger, the Pastor of The Christ Reformed Church in Placentia, Ca., who on Lance’s Youtube video online has the audacity to say of Paul, that he was actually affirming in Phil. 3:6 that he really thought himself to be blameless according to the Law before being saved, and that prior to salvation “he’s not a guy struggling with the guilt of his sin. He’s not a person under condemnation,” and that he was “a person who didn’t have a struggle with sin until he became a Christian”* because, according to Riddlebarger, Romans 7 affirms this to be the struggle of only the believer! Riddlebarger even goes on to say how Paul must have been thinking to himself once he was saved, “I thought I was doing just fine, until converted.” Being “blameless” for Paul "under the law" was a piece of cake! A walk in the park! But being so "under grace" is a struggle?

Amazing! Prior to being saved Paul had no struggle “with the guilt of his sin,” and he was “a person under no condemnation.” I guess the law wasn’t doing the job it was suppose to do in his case, which is to make us “become conscience of our sin” (Rom. 3:20), “increasing our trespasses” (Rom. 5:20), and stir up our sinful passions “aroused by the law…so that we bore fruit unto death” (Rom. 7:5). And Paul didn’t actually begin to struggle with his sins until he was delivered from “under the law” and placed “under grace”? Are we to actually believe that “under the law” Paul was able to produce more fruit or righteousness than he did while under grace? That he could actually do “under the law,” what he most assuredly says he could not do as a supposed “believer” in Romans 7 and under grace? Such a notion is just the opposite of what Paul said in Rom. 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace” (AKJV). Sin has dominion over a person who is under the Law, not under grace. The ability “to do” the good that we would (true righteousness in the sight of God) comes from being “under grace,” not from being “under the law,” the exact opposite of the individual being described in Romans 7 who is still “under the law.”

Note also how Paul in a sermon to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, affirms that the forgiveness of sins and the deliverance from guilt which they could not obtain by obeying the law of Moses, could be obtained only through Christ: “And through Him everyone who has faith is made free from all those things, from which the law of Moses was not able to make you free” (13:39, BBE). Instead of “free,” some translations have “justified,” which means to be regarded and treated as “not guilty” just-as-if-we-never-sinned. It is a forensic term used of a judge who announces an acquittal whereby the individual is treated as if they had not committed an offense. Thus, the “all things” for which a man is justified or made “free” from includes, by default, the guilt and penalty of all such offenses. As one who use to be under the condemning affects of the law, Paul could relate to his brethren according to the flesh from his own personal experiences his “struggles” with sin and “the sinful passions aroused by the law” (Rom. 7:5) prior to being saved and affirm that “they too” could be freed from it.

Consider also the fact that Paul said in Ephesians 2:3 and 5, “All of us also lived among them [the disobedient, v. 2] at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath….we were dead in transgressions.” According to the Pharisaical traditions, and their interpretation of the law, Paul could say he was “blameless.” But here in these previous verses he admittedly says that he was not “free,” that he “gratified the cravings of the sinful nature,” followed “its desires and thoughts,” and was “dead in transgressions.” I don’t know about you, but the last time I looked up the meaning of “transgressions” it meant to violate or step across the bounds of a commandment or a law. And in verses 1 and 2, Paul says, “As for you, you [and clearly himself in vv. 3-5] were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you use to live…” John Murray remarks on this portion of Scripture, “Just as the expression ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1) intimates our helpless enslavement in the service of sin, so death to sin expresses our emancipation from this servitude” (Principles of Conduct, p. 204). ). Let us have no doubt about it, before being saved Paul was carnal, sold as a slave to sin.

Again, Paul says in the epistle of Titus concerning his former life as a Pharisee, and even of all those before being in Christ, “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (3:3, ESV). This is what this so-called “blameless” Pharisee had to say with regards to his life prior to being in Christ. So, whatever may be understood by many today of Paul being “blameless” in Php. 3:6, as if he meant to say he was not a slave to any kind of sin whatsoever while “under the law,” Paul himself did not understand it to mean that he was void of any of these above sins and offenses. Need we really say any more?

All I can say is, this all flies in the face of what Kim Riddlebarger has said earlier! To argue, as he does, that Paul experienced no struggles with the guilt of his sin, is to argue that for Paul, and others like him, that they had no “guilt” and therefore no need to be justified or freed from any such sin. Why preach “forgiveness of sins” when there is no guilt of sin to be forgiven of? When such logic is carried forward to its logical conclusion, it just makes no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense to say that Paul did not struggle with the guilt of his sin prior to being saved. Paul, admittedly, did not believe this to be the case.

Reformed theologian, Anthony Hoekema, whose interests as a pastor are in both psychology and theology, takes note that: “though some contemporary theologians affirm that modern man is no longer troubled by feelings of guilt, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists know better. For the problem of unresolved guilt-feelings is one of the most common problems with which they must deal….It remains true that enough people are troubled by guilt-feelings in today’s world so that this continues to be a significant problem” (The Christian Looks at Himself, p. 32).

Paul argued that the law was the strength of sin (1Cor. 15:56), not the strength of producing true righteousness, holiness and blamelessness before God. And as Herman Ridderbos notes: “Victory over sin can be gained, not by the strength of ‘thou shalt’ of the law, but only under the operation of grace, i.e., of the Spirit…” (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 145). The Law does not restrain sin, but on the contrary causes it to awaken; it does not reduce sin, but rather makes it increase all the more. This is made more evident by Paul in his introductory remarks in Romans 7, where indirectly in verse 5, prior to his becoming a saved individual in verse 6, he notes how “when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law, were at work in our bodies.” This thought here of his then becomes more fully developed and elaborated upon in his sequel that follows in verses 7-25. Clearly, the continual struggle with sin that Paul describes in Romans 7 is before one is saved, when “under the law,” and not afterwards when “under grace.” For Paul says, “Anyone who has died to the law has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7). That’s the gospel! That’s the good news! We have “been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18 ), that we “might bear fruit unto God” (7:4) and unto “holiness” (6:22), and all “under grace”; not, and I repeat, not “under the law.” Kim Riddlebarger has got it all wrong! He has turned the whole argument upside down upon its head.

Contrary to Riddlebarger, this is not the apostle Paul of the letters he wrote. Where in fact just the opposite is the case. Paul wrote as one who was “holy” and leading a “blameless” life, only this time completely “in the sight of God”: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10); “Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace” (2Cor. 1:12).

As one recalls, in Phil. 3:6, Paul said he was considered “blameless” according to the Law. If this meant he lived the law perfectly and blamelessly before God, then there would have been no need for God to pronounce him “guilty,” which is just what He basically did on the road to Damascus when He said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” (Acts 9:4). Paul was murdering Christ’s followers! And in persecuting and murdering Christ’s body, the Church, Paul (Saul) was murdering and persecuting Christ. But Paul was only justifying himself in the eyes of men with these actions, not before God!

So, when Paul said he was “blameless” according to the righteousness of the Law, who or what was considering him “blameless”? The Law condemned such actions: “Thou shalt not kill (i.e., “murder”)!” So the Law wasn’t acknowledging him to be blameless. He was guilty as charged of murder! So was this Paul’s own self-estimation of himself before being saved? Or, was this the evaluation given to him from his peers? Surely, Paul was not saying here in Php. 3:6 that he was “blameless” in God’s sight, otherwise Jesus would not have reprimanded him on the road to Damascus; nor would Jesus have given such a scathing rebuke in the gospels of all such Pharisees who were “under the law,” such as Paul and who did not know Christ. Paul’s so-called blameless and self-righteous conduct was not God’s righteousness which flows from faith, and which exceeds that of the righteousness of all of the scribes and Pharisees.

Why is it that many who believe that Romans 7 speaks of Paul as the believer, defend the idea that Paul was somehow more “blameless” before being saved, and therefore Romans 7 could not be Paul in his pre-conversion state? He “murdered” Christians before being converted by Christ! And he says in 1Tim. 1:13 that before becoming a believer he was a blasphemer of God, a persecutor, and a violent man. Does this sound like a man who was “blameless” in God’s sight? Not on your life!

It is only when you see the Pharisees' reaction to the Son of God that you really get to know the Pharisee. They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! Look at their bitterness, their hatred; see their subtlety and their cleverness; watch them as they whisper together and conspire and weave a plot, and try to trip up Christ and to trap Him by putting their catch questions and their leading questions before Him. They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! What evil and sin there was inside the Pharisee! They were not “blameless” in God’s sight! But we would never have known it if the Lord had not come and spoken to them. He drew it out, as it were, he convicted them of their sin; it is their reaction to Him that shows what they really were made of. Clearly, they were not “blameless” in God’s sight! Once they came up against Him, all this suddenly came to light. You could now see it in their faces, and in their whole demeanor and behavior. Again, they were not “blameless” in God’s sight!

Now, for a proper biblical understanding of how God evaluated the Pharisees (including Paul), let us just stop for a minute and consider Christ’s very own words with regards to these scribes’ and Pharisees’ so-called “blameless” and “righteous” conduct. In Matthew 23, Jesus says with regards to all of these scribes and Pharisees such as Paul:

1. Do not practice what they preach (v. 1). Evidently they were not “practicing” what they preached.

2. They do not lift a finger to lift other’s burdens (v. 4). They are selfish and self-serving.

3. Everything they do is done for men to see, not God (v. 5). Not just some things—but everything!

4. They love places of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues (v. 6). No humility.

5. They loved attention; to be greeted in the marketplaces and to be called “Rabbi,” or “Master” (vv. 7-8), just like the Papacy whose rings on his fingers he loves to have the people kiss.

6. They are hypocrites over and over again (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29).

7. They make converts twice the sons of hell as they are (v. 15).

8. They are blind guides (v. 16). They are the blind leading the blind, with both falling into the ditch.

9. They neglect to do the more important matters of the law: Justice, mercy and faithfulness (v. 23).

10. They clean the outside of the cup, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence (v. 25; cp. Phil. 3:19 “mind earthly things”).

11. They are white-washed tombs, looking okay on the outside, but inwardly full of dead-men’s bones and every unclean thing (v. 27). Notice “every” unclean thing!

12. They appear to people (men) as righteous, but inside they are full of hypocrisy and evil (v. 28). Is this not the same as appearing to men as being blameless?

13. They are descendants of those who murdered the prophets and they would “fill up” the measure of their fathers in murdering Christ and His followers. They would “kill,” “crucify,” and “flog” (vv. 31-32).

In Rev. 2:9, Christ said they said they were Jews, but they were not and were of the synagogue of Satan! They say they are righteous and blameless according to the Law and their traditions, but they are not!

Consider also Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 for a moment:

1. Except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (v. 20). Paul’s so-called blamelessness as a Pharisee under the law kept him out of the kingdom of heaven, not in it! He had a form of godliness, but in reality, his attitude and character spoke volumes, denying any power thereof.

2. The scribes and Pharisees were not poor in spirit (v. 3), but haughty and prideful.

3. They did not mourn as one should rightfully mourn for themselves and for others (v. 4).

4. They were not meek (v. 5), but led undisciplined lives as loose canons.

5. They did not hunger and thirst after the righteousness that God approves of (v. 6).

6. They were not pure in heart (v. 8), but had impure motives and desires.

7. They were not peacemakers (v. 9), but irreconcilable.

8. They were not the persecuted, but the persecutors (v. 10).

9. They were false witnesses or liars (v. 11), breaking the 9th commandment.

10. Murder is bad, but they were even given to anger and fits of rage (v. 21).

11. They would not become reconciled to others (v. 23). If they did, it was for show.

12. Adultery is bad, but as married men they lusted after other women with their eyes, committing adultery in their hearts (v. 27). It was their intention (or inclination) to carry these these through.

13. They divorced for all reasons, but were allowed, according to Jesus, to do it only in the case of marital infidelity (v. 32).

14. They exacted revenge when they shouldn’t have and loved only their brothers, hating the ungodly (vv. 38, 46).

15. They greeted only their brothers, avoiding the Gentiles or ungodly altogether (v. 47).

16. In Mat. 6:1, Jesus continues: “Do not do things to be seen of men.” This includes:

a. in giving (v. 2).

b. in praying (v. 5).

c. in fasting (v. 16).

17. They also harbored unforgiveness in their hearts (6:14).

18. They stored up for themselves treasures on earth (v. 19), were not rich towards God.

19. They served two Masters, God (the Law) and Money (greed); v. 24. And they still seem bent on this to this day!

In conclusion, Paul was in all likelihood, a Pharisee who excelled in all of these things listed above. He himself acknowledged that he was a “murderer,” beating and consenting unto the deaths of many unjustly (Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 22:4, 19; 26:11, et al), just as the Pharisees are said to have crucified, or “murdered” Christ in Acts 2:23b and 7:52, even though they may not have physically done the actual crucifying themselves. Paul also acknowledged that he was a “blasphemer” (1Tim. 1:13), and a “violent” man (ibid); and one who stood by false witnesses against those whom he persecuted, acknowledging their lies and therefore making himself also a liar and a breaker of the 9th commandment. And of course, in Romans 7, he acknowledges “covetousness,” which broke the 10th commandment (and which as a believer in Acts 20:33 he no longer did). Paul had a show of righteousness alright, but in all actuality he was guilty as charged and not “blameless” in God’ sight. As I recall Paul saying, he referred to his former way of life as a “Chief of Sinners.” This hardly sounds “blameless,” as some of have understood and defined this word with regards to Paul.

Yes, Paul before he was saved said he was “blameless,” but before what or who? Not before God! And neither could it have been according to all the righteous requirements of the Law, which included all these attributes listed above. So, when Paul said he was “blameless,” did he mean that his righteousness exceeded that of all of his Pharisaical brethren that Jesus denounced? Of course not. He was none the better. Theirs was a righteousness and blamelessness that was before men, to be seen of men.

Let’s just nail this coffin shut once-and-for-all, never to let such blasphemous ideas about Paul as a believer (that even he himself never acknowledge) rise to the surface again.

Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans 7, concludes with these thoughts on Phil. 3:6:

What, then, of the apparent conflict between the despairing struggle in this paragraph and the complacent self-satisfaction of Phil. 3:2-11? In Phil. 3, Paul is describing his status from a Jewish perspective [i.e., in their own eyes], in Rom. 7, his experience from a Christian perspective. With respect to the Pharisaic definition of righteousness, “the righteousness of the law,” Paul says in Phil. 3, I was “blameless”. But this “status” of righteousness by Jewish standards does not rule out some degree of frustration in not fulfilling the divine standard, particularly since in Rom. 7 Paul is to some extent looking back at this failure to meet God’s demands from his new, Christian understanding of those demands—much as a new convert will be able to look back at his pre-Christian existence and find there the inner conflict, frustration, and despair that perhaps were not as clear at the time.

[In his footnote on this same page, Moo adds at this junction]:

Reference in this respect has been made to the parallel with Luther’s differing description of his life as a monk. In 1533 he wrote: “I was a good monk, and kept strictly to my order….All my companions who knew me would bear witness to that” (cf. Phil. 3, “blameless with respect to the righteousness of the law”). In 1519 he said, “However irreproachable my life as a monk. I felt myself, in the presence of God, to be a sinner with a most unquiet conscience” (cf. Rom. 7:15-21).

[Moo goes on to say]:

Particularly in vv. 21-23 [of Romans 7], Paul is characterizing his pre-Christian situation from his present Christian perspective. While, therefore, there is no evidence that Paul’s frustration at failing to fulfill the law was excessive with respect to other Jews, or that this frustration was instrumental in his conversion, there seems to be every reason to believe that he would have sensed, as Peter did, that the law was a “yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10).

Paul’s characterization of the situation of Jews under the law [see v. 1, “them that know the law”] in this paragraph describes, in personal terms, the state that resulted from the event he has narrated in vv. 7-13.…Paul first narrates past events, then depicts the continuing status of those who were involved in those events….

As I have argued above, the conflict Paul depicts here, leading to defeat (v. 23) and despair (v. 24), is a conflict he experienced as a Jew under the Mosaic law. To what extent Paul was conscious of his conflict and his failure at the time of that conflict is difficult to ascertain.

Undoubtedly his perspective as a Christian enables him to see that conflict more clearly [as it has for all of us] and more radically than he did at the time. This helps explain why Paul can be so pessimistic about Jewish failure to keep the law. Surely Paul knew that he, along with other Jews, succeeded in keeping many of the commandments and infringed only a small percentage of the whole. It is this knowledge, coupled with his pre-Christian, Jewish interpretation of “righteousness,” that enables Paul to claim that he was “blameless according to the righteousness of the law” (Phil. 3:6). But, as a Christian, Paul has a new perspective on God’s law, when broken in any part, is broken in the whole. That which Paul “willed” to do was keep the law; and it is just this, in the light shed on God and his law by Christ, that he failed as a Jew to do. The fact that Paul is describing the experience of a Jew under the Mosaic law does not mean, of course, that the conflict described here is peculiar to the Jew. All non-Christians are in a similar situation, and many—probably most—Christians can find in this description of nagging failure to do what is good an all-too-accurate reflection of their own experience. But, without denying the similarity, I must say again that the conflict Paul describes here is indicative of a slavery to the power of sin as a way of life (v. 14b) that is not typical, nor even possible, for the Christian (The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 450-451, 455-456).

* http://www.youtube.com/user/LaneCh#p/search/1/5mULSr_gv7c.

Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (2 of 7)

Analysis of Romans 7

Before embarking on an analysis of Romans 7, it would also be helpful for us to understand the cohesive structure and outline of chapters 5 and 6 that lead us up and into an understanding of chapter 7. At the end of chapter 5, Paul makes two comments with regards to the function of the Law that require further elaboration, and thus the reason for the subject matter in chapters 6 and 7 that is to follow. The first one is: “God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were” (v. 20, NLT); and, the second one is: “But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful grace became more abundant” (ibid). Paul realizes such statements can be misunderstood and twisted out of context to say something that he is not in any way affirming, so he begins to give a more detailed report and clarification with regards to these two statements, starting in chapters 6 through 7.

Romans 6 and 7 are simply two chapters structured around four questions with regards to these previous two statements, and followed by four answers beginning in Rom. 6:1 and 6:15, and then again in Rom. 7:7 and 7:13. Each round of questions with their accompanying answers follows closely along this pattern and subject matter. This is extremely important that we pay close attention to this. If not, one quickly loses sight of the purpose of these questions and why they were placed there to begin with (which were based upon the earlier statements by Paul in Romans 5), in order to focus on the purpose of the law in exposing the dreadful sin of the sinner, and not that of the saint. We need to remember this, and we need to remember it well!

In each round of questions, each misunderstanding about the purpose of the law is posed as a question. These, in turn, are followed by a strong denial; followed by a short, brief answer; and then again followed by a fuller treatment or explanation. So we have a question, followed by a strong denial, followed by a brief answer, followed by a fuller explanation. To compartmentalize and visualize this even further, we have: Question/Denial/Short Answer/Fuller Explanation. So let's get started.

1. The First Question: Rom. 6:1, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (v. 2). The brief answer: “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 3-14.

2. The Second Question: Rom. 6:15, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (ibid). The brief answer: “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (v. 16). Fuller explanation: Verses 17-23; 7:1-6.

3. The Third Question: Rom. 7:7, “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin?” The strong denial: “Certainly not!” (ibid). The brief answer: “Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet’” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 8-12.

4. The Fourth Question: Rom. 7:13, “Did that which is good, then, become death to me?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (ibid). The brief answer: “But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 14-25.

One should be aware also of how verses 7 and 13 begin in the Greek text with the conjunction, “oun” (“therefore”, NAS in v. 13)—not apparent in most translations—showing that they all flow from a continuation of one connecting thought stemming from Rom. 7:5-6 (esp. v. 5; cp. 6:1 w/ 5:20-21 for a similar pattern [1]), and even from as far back as the first of the two statements mentioned earlier which began this whole discussion by Paul in Rom. 5:20 in the first place. Notice also how verse 13, in turn, is similarly followed in verse 14 with the Greek conjunction “gar” (“for”), and used twice in verse 15, which again connect and continue the same leading thought. And as will be noted later in this article, these little conjunctions are also very significant, because Paul is STILL addressing the same theme: which is the intent and purpose of the law prior to one being saved.

Many (such as John MacArthur) attempt to separate verses 7-13 from verses 14-25, stating that verses 7-13 have to do with the life of the unregenerate, while verses 14-25 have to do with the regenerate. But these connecting conjunctions of “therefore” and “for” will not allow for such a separation of thought.

Some (as Charles Hodge), on the other hand, do see the "connecting" thought between verses 13 and 14, and then say that verses 7-25 are all referring to the regenerate Christian. But they as well have failed to see the connection of the Greek “oun” (or, “therefore”) in verse 7, that takes us back even further to the thought in verse 5 which provoked all the questions and answers starting in verses 7 and 13 to begin with. Clearly, Paul’s theme here is about the purpose and the nature of the law prior to one being saved, verse 5 being the springboard from which this question and answer format has continued throughout chapter 7.

So, we can see that this is the setting in which verses 14-25 in chapter 7 are to be framed in. Verses 14-25 do not begin an entirely new theme, as some suppose, but just the opposite. They continue exactly upon the same theme that Paul started with, in elaborating on the law’s function in showing one to be a dreadful sinner that they are and the need for a Deliverer.

It is worth repeating: The controlling statement that ties all of verses 7-25 together in one cohesive pattern, is verse 5: “For when we WERE controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.” This, in turn, is immediately followed by the third and fourth questions which give rise to this statement. Paul thus begins to explain his statement that he had just made in verse 5, by referencing his own personal experience prior to conversion in verses 7-25. And as Charles Leiter notes in his book Justification and Regeneration, “Notice that the transition to the present tense takes place quite naturally since Paul could hardly say, ‘We know that the Law was spiritual’” (p. 151). The subject at hand is not the continual sinning of the saint, but that of the carnal, unregenerate sinner, sold as a slave to sin, and the entailing freedom of such a one “under the law” that can only be experienced in Christ! The man referred to in Romans 7 is not just fighting against sin, he is utterly overcome by it!

As we can very well see, Romans 7 is a crucial chapter as we consider how one views the walk of the normal Christian life. Many in quoting verses 14-25 believe that the apostle Paul was, as a mature believer, still “carnal, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14). So it would follow that if Paul as an apostle had found himself unable to do good and capable only of continually doing evil, as we have already shown that he affirmed of himself in this chapter in verses 15-19, certainly we ourselves should not expect to live any better! The question before us then remains: Is this evaluation of Paul, as a believer, true? Or, was Paul, by using his own life as an example prior to being saved, getting at the heart of the life of one who was still under the dominion and power of sin, and not led by the Spirit of God at all? In chapter eight, verse four, Paul speaks of “the righteous requirements of the law being fully met within us.” Yet in chapter seven, it is just the opposite: He says, “I am carnal, sold as a slave under sin” (v. 14) and “I keep on doing” evil (v. 19). So what gives?

I believe that it is undeniably clear that Paul was not admitting to moral lapses into sin and depravity in his Christian walk and life, but just the opposite was true of Paul. Just the opposite was the case in his life and in all his letters (see esp. 1Ths. 2:10). So, in what lies ahead, I will now begin to show what I believe is how we are to personally view verses 14-24. Then, by primarily using the context, even before and after Romans chapter 7, I will attempt to demonstrate the unwarranted fallacy that Paul was a “slave to sin.” But, before I do, the first question that has to be answered for clarity is: What is the sinful nature?

The Sinful Nature

The Greek word “sarx” in the KJV is usually translated “flesh,” whereas in the NIV it is often translated “the sinful nature,” but this isn’t necessarily always the meaning of the word, and the older 1984 NIV takes more liberties in translating it this way than it really should. The Greek sarx is actually used in a variety of ways in the NT. But for our study here, it is sometimes used in an ethical/moral sense with regards to a sinful nature, as in Rom. 7-8 and Gal. 5:16-24; and sometimes it is used just with regards to the lust of our physical fleshly bodies, as in Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:13; 1Pet. 4:2; 2Pet. 2:18; 1Jhn. 2:16 and Jude 23. The context, and who it is that is being addressed, often determines its meaning and usage and is often up for debate, especially with regards to Gal. 5:16-24, as you will soon discover later in this article. On a practical outward level though, it refers to one’s natural carnal desires, passions, and appetites. And people are either controlled (via a sinful nature) by their physical carnal natural desires, passions, and appetites; or they are controlled by the Spirit to suppress such physical carnal desires, passions, and appetites.

As such, the flesh (or a sinful nature or the old man) no longer dominates the Christian; for such a nature or "old man" is no longer existent in the believer, for it was put off and away from us (or crucified) in the person and work of Christ on the cross (see: Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24 in the Holman Christian Standard Bible or the Kenneth Wuest Expanded Translation; see also my article: Created In God's Image, Not Adam's!). I know that's a bold statement. A shocking statement for some! And I know I had previously said that some of this was going to sound like it was a little bit "over the top," but please bear with me as we study this subject in more detail. And be sure to read my article, noted above, before passing judgment. In short, Paul is clear in Rom. 6:6 that our "old man" (or sinful nature) has been, past tense, once-and-for-all crucified (or violently put to death) in our spiritual baptism into Christ's death, with the resulting resurrection of the new man, as also laid out for us in Colossians and Ephesians. I'm not saying this, Paul is. But many just refuse to take Paul at his word and attempt to re-define what he means by being crucified, as if it is a long drawn-out process. In the context of Romans 6, it denotes our violent once-and-for-all death to our old man in Christ's violent once-and-for-all death to the old man when He took our sin upon Himself and "became sin," according to 2Cor. 5:21, and even "flesh of sin" (or flesh with sin in it) in Rom. 8:3, and then crucified us and the sin in us in His person. Not a realm or regime---but a person! Christ crucified a man! The man (or person) we use to be in Adam with a nature born and prone to sin (see also my article: Christ Our Substitute and Identification, along with the footnotes).

According to Paul in Romans 8:5, there are only two contrary and possible mind sets: The mind which is set on the flesh (or the sinful nature), eagerly pleasing its desires; or the mind which is set on the Spirit with a heart entirely devoted to loving God. Which brings me to another point to be understood before moving on. Romans 6-8 speaks of only two groups of people, not three. One group is entirely “fleshly” and, according to the Greek, is passively sold as a slave to sin through the sin of Adam in Rom. 5:12-14 and 7:14; the other group is entirely of the Spirit and, also according to the Greek, is passively bought through the righteousness of Christ from the slave market of slavery to sin, in order to become God’s slave as a slave unto righteousness and holiness in Rom. 6:18, 22 and 1Cor. 6:20 and 7:23. In other words, the conflict being presented by Paul here in these chapters is that of the unregenerate lifestyle as opposed to the regenerate one. Paul is not adding a third lifestyle of a carnal, sinning Christian. Being in and ruled as a slave by “the flesh” means to be unregenerate; to be in and ruled as a slave by “the Spirit” means to be regenerate. It’s that simple!

Since the fall of Adam, people in their carnal, natural, and fleshly state relentlessly tend toward selfishness. Their minds are “set on” the flesh (or the sinful nature). The unregenerate individual is devoted to, controlled, and dominated by their flesh or the sinful nature. Their “flesh” or “sinful nature” can get excited to sin by virtually anything that is set before them; including, but not limited to: food, cars, clothing, and people, etc. Additionally, a person can desire power, attention, money, or even revenge; feelings of jealousy can incite slander; and feelings of rage can vent abuse, and so on and so forth.

Some people are so bent on satisfying their own desires that they will even behave in a charitable manner in order to deceitfully gain an entrance into one’s life. One such example is seen in the case when a man tells a woman that he loves her, not because he truly loves here, but because he merely wants her for ulterior and selfish reasons.

Desire

God created us with desires. But the person who makes their desires into a god, and serves them, has become entirely self-centered. It is only a matter of time before they reap the consequences of such self-centeredness. Deliberate selfishness is what the world practices, and its consequences are what they experience in life as a result. Such uncontrolled passions and desires can only lend themselves to a continual lack in one’s own personal life. How many of us have given ourselves completely over to our own fleshly desires, only to still be unsatisfied? “Look out for number one,” and “If it feels good, do it” are the common thought processes of the sinful, unregenerate person. Such people follow their feelings with no regard for objective truth; with no distinction for what is right verses what is wrong. Understanding just such a person controlled by the flesh is key to understanding the type of person Paul is describing in Romans 7. A person in such a state, according to Paul, just “keeps on doing” evil (v. 19, NIV; "practices" in NASB). And contrary to the individuals spoken of in Romans 8, the “righteous requirements of the law” (v. 4) are not “fully met” in such an individual being portrayed in Romans 7, as they are now in those of us who are saved.

Context, Context, Context!

To understand verses 14-25 in Romans 7, we need to understand the concepts which Paul is expressing in context. In verses 4-6, we have a summary of this entire section in a nutshell. This is the context in which verses 7-25 are to be framed, as well as chapter 8:

4 So my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code.

That’s it in a nutshell! In v. 5, Paul explained how the law effects a carnal and unregenerate person. The carnal, unregenerate person is controlled by the flesh (or the sinful nature), and his passions are only incited all the more by the demands or “arousals” of the law to live a more holy life—similar to what was described by Horace and Ovid earlier. In v. 6, Paul contrasts this with a life which is in Christ: “by dying to what once bound us…we serve in the new way of Spirit.” And in verses 7-12, he answers two objections regarding the goodness of the law, and explains further about the relationship between the holy law of God and the carnal, unregenerate person: “When the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died” (v. 9).

A handful of commentators (such as John MacArthur) have understood this when it comes to verses 7-13, but when they get to verses 14 through 25, the story changes for them. And it all pretty much centers around Paul’s usage of the present tense, personal pronoun “I” in these verses, as opposed to him saying “we” in the earlier verses. Remarkable when you think about it, that a “pronoun” can make all the difference in the world as to one’s interpretation of these passages. But when this pronoun is understood of Paul using his own personal experiences of one who use to live “under the law,” then such an idea really becomes a moot point. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Romans 7, describes this personal pronoun used here by Paul as, “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.” Again, it is all those "who are under the law"! Paul was addressing his Jewish brethren in the faith who use to be under the Law (and not Gentile believers), by the fact that he starts out this chapter by saying, “I am speaking to men who know the Law” (Rom. 7:1). And this is buttressed by the fact that he later says: “we know that the Law is spiritual” or “I had not known coveting, except the Law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (vv. 7, 14). For the most part, Gentiles knew nothing of any “spiritual” laws or any law against coveting. These words are for Jews alone. Never once does Paul have any and all laws in mind in verse one, both secular and Jewish, in order to make his statements applicable to both Gentile and Jewish Christians. This alone is very telling indeed of who this exhortation in chapter 7 is actually addressed to. And the omission of the definite article “the” in the Greek in verse one before the word “law” was something that Paul often employed throughout the book of Romans with regards to God’s Law. Just earlier he told the Jews that they were not “under law, but under grace” without using the definite article “the” in the Greek (6:14). Which “law” were the Jews no longer under? Why, the Law of Moses, of course! Gentiles were never “under” this law. Again, this exhortation was to the Jews who were familiar with the Law, and to none other.

Clearly, Paul is appealing to his, as well as to his Jewish Christian brethren’s historical past, by bringing to the remembrance of those “who know the law” and who were once “under the law,” but now under grace (vv. 5-6; cp. 6:14) in order to remind them of the Law’s function in exposing their sin (and not the Gentile’s sin). In light of this, Paul was tactfully and respectfully using what is commonly understood in all languages as the “historic” (or ‘dramatical’ or ‘narrative’) present tense verb ("I am") as one who personally understood what he was talking about and, in all honesty, making it very real and personable with regards to both himself and his Jewish brethren. And he just got through using it in Rom. 3:7, so his readers were already prepared for his usage of it again here in Romans 7. So, if anyone knew the affects of the Law upon the unregenerate Jew and sinner, it was Paul; and he expresses this in no uncertain terms with the Law against coveting in Rom. 7:7ff.

In general, it is commonly understood that the “historic present tense” in a statement starts to express itself in the past tense to establish its foundation, or as a springboard for what is about to be said, as here in the case of Rom. 7:1-5. Once this is established, the writer then uses the historical present tense to create a more vivid, real and personable description of the event. This mode of speech, relating a past incident by using present tense verbs, makes the narrative more vivid and real by transporting the listener or reader back to the time of when they were acting as such, and thus recalling it to their minds as if it were actually happening in the present. Or, it could also be said that the incident being described is transported to the actual time of the narration or writing. By this means, the speaker (or writer) recreates the incident as if it were happening at that moment. He puts the scene before himself and his audience so that they can personally imagine the events unfolding before their eyes. They begin to imagine themselves as being in the midst of the time of the action. Like I said, Paul just got through using it this way in Rom. 3:7, and CLEARY not referring to himself as STILL being judged as a sinner. Many commentators make note of this fact here in Rom. 3:7 (such as Matthew Poole, Charles Hodge, and John Stott), but deny it in Romans 7.

Another example of all of this can be seen in Romans 7:9-11, where Paul says, “For I was alive without the law once [past tense]: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me…” Once establishing this pretext for what Paul is about to say, he then proceeds to write using the historic present tense to give his readers a more vivid picture of the torment in the life of an actual hypocrite that both he and they were when under the Law. And what better person to relate to the Jews in all of this, than Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees?

In literature there are times when the historic present tense is used where English also uses a past tense verb. In the New American Standard Bible, historical present tense verbs are marked with an asterisk (*). The editors explain:

In some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence. [The translators] felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents into English past tenses. (New American Standard Bible, Reference Edition. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1973, p. x.).

Whether or not to change to the past tense is up to the individual translators. Based upon current English language being used, the translators decide whether or not to change the verb tenses. An example from the New Testament where one group (NASB) decided to change it, and another group (NIV) decided not to change it, is in John 1:15. The NASB renders the verse as: “John bore witness of Him, and cried out,…” whereas the NIV translates it: “John testifies concerning him. He cries out,…” As one can clearly see, the NASB chose to change the historical present to past tense, and the NIV chose to leave it in the present tense. Notice also that John the Baptist was not presently testifying when the apostle John wrote his gospel. It was a past event, yet St. John wrote this in the present tense as if John was still “testifying” as of John’s writing. Maybe St. John believed that in a sense John the Baptist’s voice was still speaking, similar to that of Abel’s life being a testimony that “still speaks” (Heb. 11:4). I don’t know. But what we do know is that this form of writing is replete throughout the gospels, so not every case can be explained away as easily as this one might be. And this is probably not even how we are to explain this text away either. But, anyway, there you have it! The cold, hard facts are there staring at us right in the face: “John testifies” (present tense). In such a shocking illustration the historical present now makes all the more sense as being translated as a "past tense" by the NASB. So why treat Paul in Romans any differently? Is it because his voice is not in the third person? Come on! Is this what we have reduced deducing correct doctrine to? The absence of a third person voice?

It has been estimated that there are over 400 historic present tense verbs used in the gospels and in the book of Acts alone, all most notably in the third person, whereas here in Romans 7 Paul speaks in the first person. But, again, I believe that by doing this Paul just brings home that which was very real both to himself and to his readers. And keep in mind the fact also noted earlier that for Paul to say that the Law “was” spiritual just wouldn’t make any sense. The Law “is” (presently) spiritual; always has been and always will be! So by this admission alone Paul could not have spoken in the past tense even if he wanted to. And for him to argue that the Law “is” (present tense) spiritual but that he “was” (past tense) carnal, would not only make for bad grammar, but would also make it sound like his carnal condition preceded the spirituality of the Law, when just the opposite is true! God’s spiritual Law or Word was around long before the carnality of man ever came into being.

Now, first-person singular historic presents are not without precedent or support. Twentieth-century philosopher and grammarian John Langshaw Austin, with no bone to pick concerning Romans 7, in his book How To Do Things With Words, says: “The first person singular present indicative active [our usage in Romans 7] may be used in a way similar to the ‘historic’ present. It may be used to describe my own performances elsewhere or elsewhen” (p. 64).

Ted Hildebrandt, in his Greek text book, Mastering New Testament Greek, adds: “Greek will often use the present tense to reference an event that actually happened in the past. The historical present is used to add vividness or dramatic effect to the narrative…It often occurs in narrative in the third person” (pp. 31, 204). He then gives the present active indicative paradigm in the first, second, and third person singular/plural.

Another author online, adept in the Greek, noted with regards to the historical present: “The purpose is to lend a sense of immediacy to the narrative. Sometimes if you’re telling about something you’ve experienced, you’ll use the present tense, like it is happening while you are telling it, to put the hearer right in the situation” (http://kcusers.com/faithassembly/GreekFiles/Lessons/ Greek102-51.pdf).

In The Intelligent Persons Guide to Greek, William Harris writes: “The Greek Present has a great deal of flexibility, it can be used as a Historical Present….Present is just like the conventional English present schoolbook notion. In the following paradigm, the singular and plural will be given on the same line…” (http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekGrammar.html). Harris then gives the paradigm in first-person singular/plural; second-person singular/plural; and third person singular/plural.

Just the fact that such a possibility exists in a narrative for the presence of a historic present in the first-person, singular, present active indicative should give us cause to pause with concern before denying that Paul himself could have ever spoken in such a manner. In fact, in Phil. 3:3-6, Robert Gundry sees just such a usage by Paul which we will come back to in a little while. And I believe that just such a usage is evident again when Paul recalls his former life as a “chief sinner” in 1Tim. 1:15. I will address this incident along with Gundry’s when we wrap all this up towards the end. And it should not go without saying again here that Paul used this historic present tense in the first person, present active indicative, in Rom. 3:7. Once again he is talking to the Jews here, and says, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Paul was no longer being “condemned as a sinner”; yet for dramatization he puts himself in the position of his Jewish brethren according to the flesh who would argue as such against what Paul was teaching them. And even though Matthew Poole does not acknowledge this usage of the historic present by Paul in Romans 7, he takes note of this usage by Paul in Rom. 3:7. He writes: “The apostle does plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent amongst all authors” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: MA, 2008; vol. 3, p. 487). Many more commentators (such as Charles Hodge and John Stott, to name just a couple) agree with Matthew Poole's analysis here.

Now, to reason otherwise, as I have laid out with regards to all of this, Paul would be affirming that as a believer he is still “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14), and even affirming “I do not do” (v. 15), or “I do what I do not want to do” (v. 16), I “cannot carry out” (v. 18), and I “keep on doing” the “evil that I do not want to do” (v. 19b). And with verses 15, 16 and 19 all being present active indicatives, they mean just how the NIV translates them: “I KEEP ON doing.” Paul continually keeps on doing (or "practicing," NASB) that which is evil. Does this sound like the apostle Paul as a believer who said elsewhere: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how HOLY, RIGHTEOUS and BLAMELESS we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10)? Not on your life! If you believe that Paul as a believer kept on doing (or better, "practicing") the evil that he didn’t want to do, then, seriously, you have a screw missing in your head! You are not in the light; you are in darkness. And such a deception has blinded you with regards to what is truth.

The problem of inadvertently missing the historical present tense in Romans 7 is an important one to take note of, because accurately translating the verbs here are important for right thinking with regards to our obedience and, with regards to our sanctification before God. The question may arise concerning the extended and continuous usage of the historical present by Paul in Romans 7; and accepting for the fact that no historical presents are used in the writings of the poet and Greek philosopher Homer, there seems to be no limits on its usage elsewhere in other Greek literature of the day, as delineated earlier by those mentioned on the internet. In fact, the reality seems to be that the historical present tense is often used with no restrictions at all with regards to first, second, and third person usage. So this would, of necessity, surely include an extended use of it as such in the first person to be found in Romans 7; and in "the present active indicative" at that, as noted by Langshaw above!

Please click here for part three.



Footnotes:

[1] Regarding Rom. 5:2-21 with 6:1, Kenneth Wuest writes: “So Paul proposes the question, ‘What shall we say then?’—say then to what? We go back to 5:20 [not 5:21] for our answer…” (Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, Romans. Vol. 1, p. 90).