Transcription
A lot of people read Romans 7 and think that Paul is talking about the Christian's personal struggle with sin. Look at this. "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing." Does this sound familiar?
But what if I told you that's not what Paul meant? Today, we're diving into why Romans 7 is not about the Christian life. And when you see what Paul is really doing in this chapter, you're going to jump out of your seat and praise the Lord. So, let's get right into it.
[Music]
Welcome back to Wise Disciple. My name is Nate and I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you are meant to be, which includes understanding difficult passages of the scripture. Make sure to like, sub, and share this one around if it blesses you or if it challenges you. Either one. You know what I mean?
So, the first time I heard Romans 7 preached, I was a new Christian and my pastor at the time was seeking to encourage the congregation because, hey, striving towards holiness is difficult, right? And even Paul struggled with it because he says in Romans 7, the evil he does not want to do is what he keeps on doing. This is what I heard from my pastor and it made total sense to me and I didn't really think much of it other than I was encouraged to strive towards holiness and continue to pray.
But years later, I was a pastor myself and I was taking a closer look at Romans for a teaching and something caught my eye. Look at this. "Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Hm, that's weird. So, this is about the Christian struggling with sin. Wait, is that how a Christian would speak, though? And that got me thinking.
But then I started noticing all these other verses that provide a picture of a particular type of person. Look at verse 23. "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." Now this verse is actually important and I'll come back to that later. But notice the wording here. Captive to the law of sin. That's slave language, friends. And this is supposed to be about Christians.
And by the way, that's not the only time that Paul says something like this. Look at this verse 14. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin." There's that slave language again, right? In other words, Paul says he was under the bondage of sin. And then Paul goes on to say this in verse 18, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
Wait a second. Wait a second. That can't be right, though. The Christian actually does have the ability to no longer sin. How do I know that? Well, because Paul literally said so in the chapter right before this one. Look at this. But now, this is chapter 6:22. "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God. The fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end eternal life." And again, look at the same concept in verse 14. "For sin will have no dominion over you since you are not under law but under grace."
So Paul literally just said that Christians are free from sin. Why? Well, because we've died to it. You know, Paul commands now that we've died to it, he commands that Christians control their sin. Look at this in verse 12. "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body to make you obey its passions." Hm. Again, why would he say such a thing if you do not have the ability to control your sin?
So, what the heck is going on here? Right? On the one hand, chapter 6 says we're no longer slaves of sin. And then in chapter 7, it says we are slaves of sin. Is Paul contradicting himself from one chapter to the next? I don't think he is.
Now, some scholars uh like Thomas Shriner, they propose that Paul is not talking about the believer at all in Romans chapter 7. He's talking about the unregenerate person. Now, that's a little confusing because if you read chapter 7, much of it uh is Paul using the word "I" to speak of what appears to be his own experience, you know, but what Shriner, and we're going to read that in a moment. What Shriner and others argue is that Paul uh what Paul is doing is he's recalling his past experiences as a Jew under the law, as a Jew seeking to obey the law without the work of the Holy Spirit in him. And he's failing miserably. I think Shriner's on to something. I think he's on to something, ladies and gentlemen.
As a matter of fact, I think Paul is doing something very Jewish here in Romans chapter 7. And it trades on using a well-known rhetorical device called *prosopopoeia*. Now, *prosopopoeia* is um not a Mexican dessert. Come on, guys. Come on. I had to. I'm a little hungry right now. Okay. *Prosopopoeia* is a a Greek term and it just refers to speaking through the voice of another. All right. Now there are various forms of *prosopopoeia* um in ancient rhetoric and it was totally normal actually to stage a speech using a fictional character to make a point. In the case of Romans chapter 7, I'm going to propose to you that Paul is utilizing *prosopopoeia* to speak about the unregenerate person's experience seeking to obey the law, even desiring to obey the law, but failing miserably because they are unregenerate and do not have the Holy Spirit.
But in order to do that, I have to make the case that Paul would do something like that, that he actually would write in this way. And guess what? Paul already uses *prosopopoeia* in another form in Romans. Let me show you real quick. Now, you remember when Paul sets up a fictional interlocutor to engage and unpack his ideas in the earliest part of Paul's letter, right? So, in Romans 2:1, this is what he says. "Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges." Well, wait a second. Who's the man? Right? The man is the fictional interlocutor that Paul is seeking to engage in order to make his point here. As a matter of fact, look at all the uh the uses of the pronouns, right? "You," "yourself," "you" again, right? But oh, look. Oh, man. There it is again in verse two or excuse me, verse three. He's doing this repeatedly in order to engage this fictional interlocutor. That's *prosopopoeia*. But it's not that this character does not exist at all. That's that's not the point. It's that this character represents the type of person that Paul is engaging. All right, you tracking with me?
Now, in Romans chapter 3:1, Paul puts words into a fictional character in order to answer the question, "What advantage has the Jew?" So, he's doing it again. He's using *prosopopoeia*. Again, this is not Paul asking the question. This is an imagined interlocutor asking the question so that Paul can answer it in the rest of the pericope. Okay. "What advantage has the Jew? What is the value of circumcision?" Here comes Paul answering it, "Much in every way, to begin with." Then he goes on and on. Both of these examples, chapter 2, chapter 3, they're forms of *prosopopoeia*.
You have to understand this uh way of writing is a rhetorical performance of a sort, right? And while this was a known device in Greco-Roman rhetoric, it actually also connects to how Jews engaged their own scriptures. Okay, what do I mean by that? Well, bear with me because I'm going to show you. But I think what we have to do is we just have to start right at the top, okay? With Romans 7, verse 4. So, I'm going to walk through this with you and show you the thought process.
Verse four. "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
Okay. Now, believe it or not, uh Paul in this passage has already given us the key to understanding what he's going to say in the rest of chapter 7. So, when he starts talking about the struggles to do good, right, and the urge to do evil, he's given us the key to understanding all of this right here in verses 4 to 6. Notice in verse four, Paul says that Christians have died to the law, right? Through the body of Christ. You see that? Then in verse five, he says that while we were unsaved, while we were unregenerate, this is what he refers to as living in the flesh, our sinful passions were at work in our members. Now remember that particular phraseology, okay? Because it's going to show up again later. Our sinful passions were at work in our members and we were held captive. Okay? Now in verse six again, um we were held captive by these, you know, sinful passions, right? There's that slave language again, okay? Um, but then we died to that which held us captive so that we can serve the Holy Spirit. Okay. The question is at this point, when were we held captive? And the answer is when we were unregenerate, when we were living in the flesh. All right.
Now watch this. I've put this uh sort of uh side-by-side comparison for you to take a look. Okay. So you have on the left side, this is Romans 7:5. This is Paul saying or speaking of the unregenerate person. "For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions were at work in our members, having died to that which held us captive." Right? Then if you jump to 7:23, you see the same phraseology. "But I see in my members another law making me captive." Same phraseology. All right. But in verse 23, we're told that this is about the Christian struggle with sin. In verse 5, Paul is clearly talking about the unregenerate person who is a slave of sin. Why? Because their sinful passions are at work in their members.
Now, scholars like Thomas Shriner, Douglas Moo, but also D.A. Carson, um Craig Blomberg, all of them see Paul talking about the unregenerate person in verse 5. But like I said, Paul is using the same phraseology in verse 23 where we're supposed to understand Paul talking about regenerate people. Now, I don't think so. I think Paul is using personal pronouns, right? The use of "I" rhetorically to communicate the experience of the unregenerate person. But he's doing even more than that. Um, and I, I'll get to that in a moment. Okay.
Now, here's something else to note. Paul mentions the Holy Spirit in verse 6 again. "We are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Holy Spirit." And the Holy Spirit is meant to contrast the captivity to the desires of the flesh of the unregenerate person. That was verse 5. Right? So again, you have on the one hand, uh the Christian in verse 6 who serves the Holy Spirit, and you have the unregenerate person in verse 5 who is captive to the passions of the flesh. Right? You see that contrast?
Now the reason I bring this up um is to point out that Paul is not going to mention the Holy Spirit again in the midst of the struggle in sin uh that we're told is about Christians in the rest of chapter 7 here. He's not going to mention the Holy Spirit again. The same Holy Spirit that is inside every single Christian. As a matter of fact, he doesn't mention the Holy Spirit again until chapter 8 when he starts talking about salvation again. Okay.
So, what's going on particularly in this pericope about the law and sin? Let's read it. Verse 7. "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means. Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law. But when the commandment came, sin came alive, and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me."
Hm. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good then bring death to me? By no means. It was sin producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing that I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing."
Now if I do not—now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. "For I delight in the law of God in my inner being." H. Notice that now, right? The Holy Spirit is not in the inner being. What is in this person's inner being? The law of God, right? Isn't that interesting? We'll come back to this.
Verse 23. "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Right? So you got to picture this. Okay? Paul is giving us a picture of someone who desires to obey the law because the law is in his inner being. But also there's another law that wages war against the law of God in the inner being, and that's the law of sin that is holding this person captive as a slave. Okay. Again, no mention of the Holy Spirit anywhere in this scenario. You still tracking with me?
Something else to notice. Um, just about the whole time it appears that Paul is talking about himself, right? We talked about this, the use of personal pronouns. "I." Right? It appears that Paul's talking about himself, but I propose to you that he's using *prosopopoeia* to communicate something different. So who is the "I" then in Romans 7? Well, uh, there's one more piece here that you need to consider.
The ancient Israelites, when they would recite the stories of what happened in their history, and they used to do this on a very consistent basis. You know, Jews still do this today, as far as I understand. But when the ancient Israelites would recite the events of the past, they didn't just read their scriptures as stories that happened to their ancestors in the past. They believed those stories were, in a very real sense, their own personal stories. At Passover, the ones reciting the story of the Exodus would not simply say, "Well, you know, God delivered our ancestors from Egypt." They would say, "God delivered us from Egypt." In other words, they didn't merely remember history. They placed themselves in history to participate in it. This was an expression of covenant identity, and it was an expression of a participatory style of remembering things that happened in the past.
Take a look at this. Exodus 13:8. "You shall tell your son on that day, 'It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.'" This is the Lord's instructions to the Israelites that the fathers would continue to tell their sons, which, by the way, this perpetuates generation after generation, right? Imagine fathers telling their sons this over and over again for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, right? They should all say the same words. And notice who's coming out of Egypt. It's not our ancestors. It's me, right? Look at verse 10. "You shall therefore keep this statute at its appointed time from year to year. And when in time to come your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.'" This is the corporate identity and the participatory attitude that the Israelites had.
All right, here it is again in Joshua. Look at this. Chapter 24:6. "Then I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea. H And the Egyptians pursued your fathers with chariots and horsemen to the Red Sea. And when they cried to the Lord, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians and made the sea come upon them and cover them. And your eyes saw what I did in Egypt. And you lived in the wilderness a long time." Are you seeing the pattern? It happened to their fathers originally, before they were even born, but also it happened to them. Why? Because of the participatory remembrance of the Israelites.
Now, this same sentiment of of personalizing history is what I'm proposing Paul is doing in Romans 7. And he's using a literary style called *prosopopoeia*. He, he's saying "I" to speak through the voice of another, which should have been well known for his audience. Um, and I think the Jewish mindset would also have made this connection, this this idea of speaking on behalf of those who came before him. Right? Uh, so for example, when Paul says this, look at verse 9. "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive, and I died."
Hold on a second. Think about that for a moment. Is Paul talking about himself? If so, how can that be? If Paul's talking about himself, that doesn't make any sense. Paul was born into an already well-established law. The law was established well before his great-great ancestors were even born. Right? So, how can Paul say this? If Paul is utilizing *prosopopoeia*, he can say this. Why? Because he's speaking in the voice of another. In this case, he's speaking through the voice of Adam himself. Think about Adam for a second. Adam was alive before the commandment. Then God gave a command to Adam, right? Don't eat from the tree. Then sin seized the opportunity in the Garden of Eden, right? Deception happened with the serpent, right? And then death followed. You with me?
Now listen to how Paul says it in verse 11. "For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me." That sounds like Adam in Genesis chapter 3 speaking in the first person. Right? Now, why would Paul do this? Well, because in Jewish thought, Adam's story is Paul's personal story. Israel's story is Paul's personal story. And that's also why I think *prosopopoeia* makes sense here. Not just rhetorically, but also theologically. You know, the "I" in Romans 7 becomes a way of representing Adam and Israel, uh, and by extension, every human under the power of sin before the salvation that Jesus Christ offers. Paul in this pericope is dramatizing the universal human condition apart from Christ. And he's doing it uh from within Israel's own sacred story.
You know, notice this unregenerate person knows the law, right? Even delights in the law, right? Isn't that interesting? And the whole setup, you know, the "I" who tries to obey the law but keeps failing. It leads ultimately to the desperate cry in verse 24, right? "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" Well, the answer is chapter 8:1. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."
I think this makes sense. Um, it makes better sense of Paul's flow of thought. And I'm not the only one. I think this also makes sense of the last several chapters of Romans. Right? So if you zoom all the way out, right, you look at Romans 5, 6, 7, and 8. Notice how the big story tracks, you know? Romans 5 shows Adam's fall, right? Romans 6 shows the resurrection life that is offered in Christ. Then we go to Romans 7, which dramatizes the futility of life under the law. Right? And then we go to Romans 8, and it unveils the solution, which is life in the Spirit. Again, if Romans 6 says that you're dead to sin and Romans 8 says that you walk by the Spirit, why would Romans 7 suddenly describe normal Christian life as being enslaved to sin? I don't think that's what Paul is saying.
Now, uh, okay, let's talk some pushback now, right? There are some solid biblical scholars who, by the way, I agree with on just about everything. Okay? And they say, "Hey, look, because Paul uses the present tense, you know, 'I do not do what I want,' right? Instead of 'I did not do what I wanted,' that would be past tense." Well, then this must be autobiographical of Paul as a Christian right now as he's writing the letter, right? Here's the problem with that. In my opinion, the present tense can still be a part of the rhetorical move that Paul is making. In other words, if Paul is representing another person or a group in the past through *prosopopoeia*, well then the tense uh that he chooses could just be part and parcel of the *prosopopoeia*, right? And if you think about it, I mean, that's what's going on here. Of course, it makes sense that he would use present tense. I mean, if he's utilizing *prosopopoeia*, right? Because fitting in with this particular style of writing, Paul would be writing in the present tense to describe the plight of the unregenerate person. He's leading up to a very dramatic statement that this unregenerate person would make, right? And it's verse 24. It all, it all leads right here. "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" That's the memorable line that Paul wants them all to wrestle with. And that's what every unregenerate person who, who tries to rely on the law and good works says in their current state without Christ.
But someone, you know, they might also give some pushback by saying, "Well, you know, hold up, Nate, right? Would an unbeliever say, 'I delight in the law of God in my inner being?' No, that can't be. That, that, that has to be a Christian, right?" And I get it. And, you know, that's a, that's a fair point, right? Look at this. Uh, verse 22. "I delight in the law of God in my inner being." Sure, but we have to remember something here. Faithful Jews loved God's law too, right? That inner struggle was actually Israel's struggle before Christ, was it not? Before the regeneration made available by the work of the cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Isn't that every single Jew? These were people committed to the law of God, right? Just look at uh Psalm 1, right? "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers. But here it is, his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night." This is written at a time uh before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a reality. This is a faithful Jew who says that everybody should delight in the law of the Lord. Right? This is, in other words, this is not a foreign concept. Paul could be portraying a faithful Jew, uh, which was someone who loves God's law but still finds it powerless to conquer sin. That's why I said earlier, notice uh what's in this person's inner being. You know, it's the law. It's not the Holy Spirit. And that's exactly the, the setup for Romans uh 8:3. Look at this. "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. And for sin he condemned sin in the flesh."
You still tracking with me? Now let me make sure that you hear me say this. Okay. I could be wrong about my read of this passage. Uh, I don't think I am. And also, I'm not the only one who sees the speaker of Romans 7 as unregenerate. You know, whether that's Paul's uh previous history that he's speaking about, um, or it's Paul speaking, utilizing *prosopopoeia*, speaking through Adam and Israel's history. But I could be wrong. And that's why you should go back to the scripture on your own and continue to study it. Right? Let this be an invitation to go back, read the passage of the scripture, then go talk about this with your pastors and with your brothers and sisters at church. Amen. That's what the Lord wants us to do. By the way, guys, I don't know if you knew that. However, okay, having acknowledged that, if I am right, here's why this matters. If you believe Romans 7 is the normal Christian life, then guess what follows from that? You're going to expect constant failure, constant burnout, persistent bondage, and frustration. Does that make sense? But Paul is careful to point out uh in Romans chapter 8, if you read Romans 8, there is now no condemnation. You know, the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus. Right? That's the true beat of the Christian life, ladies and gentlemen. Not a life of defeat, but one of victory through the Spirit. When you realize Romans 7 is the story of Adam and Israel, which, by the way, it was Paul's story. It's also your story before grace, right? Then it makes Romans 8 truly resonate and burst forth with resurrection. And that's the point. We're not meant to live stuck in the fall, ladies and gentlemen. The gospel gives us good news. We're meant to walk in freedom by the Holy Spirit. And we're meant to show others how to do the same thing.
All right. Now, let me answer a question somebody's wondering about. Okay. Does this mean, Nate, that Christians are sinless? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Paul never says that Christians are sinless. That's not what he's saying in chapter 7. And sinlessness is not something that we should expect in this life. What Paul says is that Christians are no longer enslaved to sin. Look at this. Romans 6:6. "We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing. Here it is. So that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." Right? And in Romans 8:13, he tells uh spirit-filled believers, you know, "If you live according to the flesh, you will die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." You do what? You put to death the deeds of the body. That means the struggle with sin still happens in your life as a Christian. Okay? This is, this is part of sanctification, you know, and you should expect that, right? But now we have the power of the Holy Spirit to fight it. And not only the power, but we have the command given to us from God's word to actually fight sin and put it to death. This is commensurate with other New Testament passages of the scripture. Right? Go take a look at Galatians 5:17. Go take a look at 1 John 1:8 or Hebrews 12:4. So don't hear me saying that Romans 7 teaches sinlessness. It doesn't. And the battle is real, but it's not hopeless, right? It's not slavery. Amen. The difference is, in Christ, you're no longer under the law. You're no longer bound by the flesh. You've been given the Holy Spirit, the new heart, and a new power to walk in holiness from the Holy Spirit. You're not sinless, but you're free to fight. And for the very first time, you can actually win.
All right, friends. Those are my thoughts on Romans 7. But now it's your turn. What do you think? What's your take on Romans 7? Let me know in the comments below. As always, if you enjoyed the insights here, you're going to love the Patreon community. I'm there every day doing a Bible study. You should join it up and take a look at it. I'm sure it'll bless you. You can also get exclusive access to videos like this before they make it to YouTube. You can jump on to exclusive live streams or one-on-ones with me. So, definitely go check me out over on the Patreon. Um, if you're into deep Bible study, you got to check out Logos. That's the Bible app that I use to read the Bible with you and do my own studies. Uh, go to logos.com/wisdisciple. Definitely grab a free version and just play around with it. I promise it's going to bless you. Also, if you're interested in learning biblical Greek or Hebrew, you got to check out Biblingo. I've partnered with both Logos and Biblingo because they are game changers for you. And if you want to learn the biblical languages, definitely click on the link below. You can use my special code wise disciple 10 at checkout. Hey, I will return soon with more videos, my friends. But in the meantime, I'll say bye for now.