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)

Comments

  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.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat