For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me (Romans 7:15-17).
If you ‘re like me, many of the views that you hold are not the result of careful study, but rather the views that you have been taught by trusted teachers. That is good, because to do otherwise would require you to hole up in a library until you died.
I remember being taught in college (and maybe elsewhere along the way) that Romans 7 describes the internal conflict of the believer fighting against sin. It certainly seemed to fit my experience, as I often failed to do that which I desired to do. I also learned that Romans 6 describes justification (the moment of salvation), Romans 7 describes sanctification (the life of the believer), and Romans 8 describes glorification (our lives in heaven). This seemed reasonable to me.
I have now changed my view, however. This, of course, is a moment much dreaded by teachers when they see their students go to do graduate studies, particularly if the school is somewhat suspect. It might be appropriate to note, however, that while I expected my view to be that which all of the students and the professor of my Pauline Epistles seminar held, I was wrong. Not one of them does. I checked with two other profs (that I respect) at the school; neither of them holds to my (new) view either. So I was corrupted in my own study and not by the school. Before I launch into an explanation of what I believe, it might be worth noting who else does not hold to the view that I (now) do: Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Dunn, Murray, Barrett, Cranfield, Morris, Packer, Dunn, Toussaint, Piper (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and MacArthur. That should make it quite easy for you to dismiss my view without considering it carefully. Just so it’s clear, though, there are many who hold to the view that I do. As far as I can tell, my view is the majority view among scholars, but a minority view among evangelicals. It does not, as far as I can tell, in any way have to do with whether one is more or less conservative. It simply is a different assessment of the evidence.
In short, I believe that Paul is describing his life, as representative of other unsaved Jews, before he was saved. That means, specifically, that I, as a believer, cannot claim that his description here is true of me! I cannot say (or should not say), “Wretched man that I am” (7:24). It is not true of me to say, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin” (7:14). The passage is written from Paul’s view, as a Christian, looking back on his absolute failure before the Spirit indwelt him.
That last sentence contains two of the main ideas why I do not believe that this is Paul’s view of his struggle as a believer. First, the person struggling in Romans 7:7-25 has no success. Read the passage again – there is not one inkling of victory. Is this characteristic of the Christian life? It certainly should not be, based on what we know from tons of other passages. Second, the person struggling in Romans 7:7-25 makes no mention of the Spirit. Not even one. Contrast that with the believer in chapter 8 who mentions the Spirit 19 times. There is a decided contrast between the person of chapter 7 and the person of chapter 8 that is best accounted for by 7:24a and 8:1, that is, salvation (justification). Paul was a “wretched man,” until Christ delivered him from all condemnation.
Those are my two main reasons, but for advanced readers, here are a few more reasons why I am convinced. 3. Structurally, it seems very clear to me that Paul is making a contrast between an unbeliever (7:5) and a believer (7:6), and the terminology of 7:5 is carried out very strongly in 7:7-25, and and the terminology of 7:6 best matches the description of chapter 8. 4. Paul’s argument here is to show the futility of the law in producing anything but sin because of the flesh, and he makes this argument best by showing the effect of the law on an unbeliever. I agree that the same point could be made using a believer as an example, but I don’t think that is what he is doing here. I think he uses an unbeliever because of the strong contrast which thereby shows the law’s negative effect quite clearly.
The primary objection against my view are the positive references to the individual in the passage. For instance, Paul says that he “delights in the law of God,” and he clearly wants to do what is right. A theology prof I talked to cannot square that with his belief in the total depravity of man. I appreciate that. I believe, though, that Paul’s point here is not that man has something good in him, but that whatever good he has is irrelevant because of the overwhelming power of the flesh. The “good” only serves to highlight just how hopeless the struggle of the individual is. Is it possible that a Jewish person like Paul could look back on his pre-conversion experience and see that he really did strive to keep God’s law and love it on some level? I think so. I don’t think that denies Paul’s earlier teaching about man’s slavery to sin.
Along with the above objection is the problem of 7:9 where Paul writes that he was “alive” apart from the law, but when law came, he died. Some cannot accept that “alive” could apply to anyone except a born again believer. I understand that view. For me it is outweighed by other factors. One, for example, is the word “died.” How does a believer die in sin once he has been born again? So, you have to either understand “alive” in some sense other than regenerate faith, or you have to understand “die” in some sense other than spiritual death. More would agree that here (7:7-12) Paul is talking about his life as an unbeliever (but then hold when Paul switches to present tense in verse 14 that he is describing his life as a believer), which reflects the significant problems that one has in maintaining that 7:7-12 is describing a believer.
In my view, Paul is speaking throughout the entire passage for himself, but representative of national (unsaved) Israel. Thus Israel was “alive” until Mount Sinai when God gave specific commands that not only revealed their sin but caused them to sin. (For example, they only built a golden calf after God told them not to.) The “commandment that promised life” sounds a lot like the Mosaic law to me. So does Paul’s single example of a command of the law: Do not covet (the tenth commandment). I do not see how verses 7-12 can be understood to occur in the life of a believer (and again, most agree on that).
All of this does not mean that the believer does not struggle with sin; of course, he/she does. (And a good example that describes this struggle is Galatians 5:17, where the contrast is between the flesh and the Spirit.) It does mean, though, that Romans 7 does not describe this struggle.
It does mean that (should you accept this interpretation) you should not view your struggle with sin as desperate and futile (as Romans 7 seems to present it). It does mean that the glorious view presented in chapter 8 describes our blessings now (not once glorified in heaven)! Nearly all would agree that it also means that the Mosaic law is not your friend. Trying to keep it will only reveal your sin and prompt you to sin more (because of the weakness of your flesh). The law is good, but your flesh uses the law to destroy you. I believe that Romans 7 is very similar to Galatians 3:19-4:3.
I didn’t write this primarily to convince you of this interpretation (though if you were convinced, I certainly wouldn’t mind). I wrote it more to challenge you. Challenge you to study the Bible more. Challenge you to go back to some issues and work through them. Challenge you to put a greater priority on knowing God’s Word. Challenge you to put aside something else (a novel, a hobby, a TV show) for something that is more satisfying and longer lasting. I have been greatly blessed in this study, and I haven’t told you much.
If you want to pursue this a little more, see the ESV Study Bible notes (a very good one on this issue I am posting here). If you want to study it a lot more, a good Romans commentary will be helpful. Cranfield is a favorite who takes the view opposite to mine. I greatly benefited from Moo’s commentary, which takes essentially the same view that I do (though I had already come to this conclusion before picking up his commentary). I must ask your forgiveness that I will not be able to discuss this in comments or by email at this time. It’s all I can do to write this up, for today I start work on two large hermeneutics papers that are due in the next three weeks (that is, until you know who won the election, I ‘ll be going hard on these).
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2).
