Skip to main content

10 Reasons Why Paul is not Referring to His Struggle with Sin in Romans 7:7-25

In my review of Keener's Romans commentary I mentioned the helpfulness of a chart in the discussion of Romans 7 (found on p. 92) where Keener showed the problems with a common way of interpreting Romans 7:7-25. Many believe that Paul is talking about his own, current struggle with sin in that section. However, if we were to accept that reading, we have the problem of Paul contradicting what he says elsewhere. Danny asked me to reproduce the chart, so here it is below:

Rom 7:7-25 Believers in the context
Law, sin, and death (7:7-13) Freed from law (7:4, 6;8:2), sin (6:18, 20, 22) and death (5:21; 6:25; 8:2)
I am fleshly (7:14) You are not in the (sphere of) flesh, if Christ lives in you (8:9); no longer in the flesh (7:5)
I have been sold under (as a slave to) sin (7:14; cf. 7:23) Believers have been freed from enslavement to sin (6:18, 20, 22); they are "redeemed" (3:24)
Knowing right (in the law) without the ability to do right (7:15-23) Power to live righteously (8:4), not conferred by external law (8:3); contrast 2:17-24
Sin dwells in (and rules) me (7:17, 20) The Spirit dwells in believers (8:9, 11)
Nothing good dwells in me (i.e., in me as flesh; 7:18) The Spirit dwells in believers (8:9, 11)
The law of sin dominates his bodily embers (7:23) Believers are freed from the law of sin (8:2)
Sin wins the war and captures "me" as a prisoner (7:23) (Believers should win the spiritual war, cf. 2 Cor 10:3-5)
I want freedom from this "body of death" (body destined for death; 7:24) Believers who do not live for their own bodily desres (8:10-13) are freed from the way of death (8:2), in contract to those who follow the flesh (8:6, 13)
A slave to the law of sin in his flesh, vs. his mind (7:25) Believers are freed from the law of sin (8:2, cf. 6:18, 20, 22); the mental persepctive either belongs to the Spirit or the flesh (8:5-9)


  1. Thanks for posting this. I didn't need to be convinced, but this would do it if I did.

    The pastoral implications of this have the potential to be quite important, in my opinion.

  2. I agree with you. The pastoral implications are significant, especially in the often morally lax American church.

  3. great chart, thanks for posting

  4. It boils down to whether or not "sin" still lives in our flesh. Sin is death, Sin is the reason our bodies are dying as well as the whole of the universe. I have the Spirit but yet I will still die because of sin. This is a bodily death i.e. my flesh. It will be resurrected and regenerated into a perfect body because of the Spirit. The corruptible will be raised incorruptible. So, I live daily fighting a war against my flesh and it's evil desires. But the power of the Spirit is greater than my body or the material universe so I don't have to obey sin's evil desires. Sometimes I do however obey my old slave master even though I have been freed. The emancipation proclamation freed African-american slaves but it took generations for some to walk more freely in the freedom. They were free indeed legally but still living in intimidation and sometimes following any white mans directives based on habit and fear. We are the same. We are free but don't live like it a lot of the time. Thank God that I grow day by day into a better understanding of my freedom and my savior. HE that began a good work in me will complete it.

  5. I understand what you're saying. I don't think that Keener means that we don't battle sin in any sense anymore. However, some of the things Paul says in chapter 7 lead me to believe that he's not talking about Christian experience. We are not enslaved to sin anymore. I don't think Paul would ever say that we were. Jesus work of redemption is primarily a work of liberation from the power of sin, the devil, and death. Even though we will die we have been already transferred out of that realm.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…