Romans 7
Ro 7:1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
“You’ll never get out of the seventh of Romans while I’m your minister,” Alexander Whyte once told his Edinburgh congregation
‘Paul is not beginning a new topic but is further illustrating the theology of 6:14, “you are not under law, but under grace.” By this he does not mean that the believer is free from responsibility to fulfill the content of the law which, as we have seen, articulates God’s unchangeable will for humanity. Rather, freedom from the law means no longer to be under its condemnation or obligated to undertake the impossible task of fulfilling it on our own.’ (ECB)
‘The basic thought of the passage is founded on the legal maxim that death cancels all contracts. Paul begins with an illustration of this truth and wishes to use this picture as a symbol of what happens to the Christian. So long as a woman’s husband is alive, she cannot marry another without becoming an adulteress. But if her husband dies, the contract is, so to speak, cancelled, and she is free to marry anyone she likes.’ (DSB)
Although this chapter has been hotly debated in various schools of holiness teaching, Stott points out that we must force our way back into the historical, cultural and theological setting from which Paul wrote. Note, for example, that ‘the law’ (or similar terminology) has been referred to in every one of this chapter’s first 14 verses, and thirty-five times in 7:1-8:4. Paul’s account of the law so far has been a very negative one: the law reveals sin, 3:20; condemns the sinner, 3:19; defines sin, 4:15; 5:13; brings wrath, 4:15; was added to increase the trespass, 5:20. Accordingly, God’s righteousness has been revealed apart from the law, 1:17; 3:21, although the law bears witness to it, 1:2; 3:21. Sinners are justified, not by keeping the law but through faith in Christ, 3:27. Such faith upholds the law by assigning to it its proper function, 3:27. This principle is illustrated in the case of Abraham, 4:13f. All of this negative teaching about the law is summarised in 6:14f, when Paul states that ‘we are not under law, but under grace’. The present chapter begins with further emphasis on the fact that believers have been released from the law. All of this sounds like of denial of the central place of the law as celebrated in Psa 19 and 119 and elsewhere, and like a clear-cut permission for antinomianism.
There are those today who would claim that the category of ‘law’ has been abolished for believers. The only law remaining is the law of love. Such teachers claim Rom 6:14f (’you are not under law’) and 10:4 (’Christ is the end of the law’) in their favour. But it is clear that Paul is referring in these passages to the law as a way of salvation. God still expects his people to follow the law by living lives of love and righteousness, 8:4; 13:8,10. Paul’s teaching is neither legalistic (being bound by the law as means of becoming right with God) or antinomian (maintaining that the believer is freed from all the requirements of the law). Rather, he wants us to be ‘law-fulfilling free people’ (Stott), loving God’s law and seeking to fulfil it. In vv1-6 Paul teaches that the law no longer has authority over us: this is his message to legalists. In vv7-13 he nevertheless defends the law and says that it is good: this is his message to antinomians. In vv14-25 he describes ‘the inner conflict of those who are still living under the regime of the law. If left to ourselves in our fallenness we cannot keep God’s law, even though we delight in it. Nor can the law rescue us. But God has done what the law could not do, bu giving us his Spirit, 8:3f. This is the experience of those who find their freedom in fulfilling the law.’
The law has authority over a man only as long as he lives – This is a universal axiom: the law is for life; death annuls it.
Ro 7:2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
Marriage is, of course, ‘till death us do part’. The law binds her, but death frees her.
Ro 7:3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
‘The apostle is saying that the woman’s status as a wife has been abolished, completely done away. She is no longer a wife.’ (Morris)
Ro 7:4 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 to God.
As a wife is married to her husband and thus bound to him, they were ‘married’ to the law and bound to it. But as death terminates marriage and allows the wife to marry another, so they died to the law and were therefore free to belong to God
Our death to the law means that we are no longer under its curse and condemnation. It happened ‘through the body of Christ’, that is, by means of our union with Christ in his death on the cross.
In order that we might bear fruit to God – Some commentators think that this is a continuation of the marriage metaphor, and the ‘fruit’ is offspring, in the form of holiness. But, if that were the case, Paul could have easily said, ‘offspring’.
‘This fruit-bearing is the unexpected sequel to our severance from the law that confounds all legalists, who think that the relinquishing of law is fatal to the production of good works.’ (Wilson)
At the end of ch 6 we were faced with the question: ‘Whose slave are you?’ Now, a similar question is posed: ‘To whom are you married – to the law or to God?’
Ro 7:5 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.
The sinful nature – ‘sarx’ – ‘flesh’. ‘When Paul speaks about “being in the flesh” throughout his writings, he is not talking about our physical nature as such, about physical passions and desires, but about a way of life, an orientation of life, a life lived apart from God’s purposes for us.’ (HSB)
The sinful passions aroused by the law – ‘The Flagship Hotel in Houston, Texas, is built right next to the water. Large plate-glass windows adorn the dining room, which is on the lowest floor. However, the windows kept getting broken by guests fishing from the balconies above. Heavy sinkers had to be used to cast to the water, but the lines were often too short and so would crash against the windows below. Finally the management removed the “NO FISHING FROM BALCONY” signs from the rooms. The windows were safe at last.’ (Illustrations for Biblical Preaching)
Ro 7:6 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, and not in the old way of the written code.
We serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code – The distinction here ‘is between the old covenant which was one of “letter” (gramma), and external code written on stone tablets, and the new covenant which is ont of “Spirit” (pneuma), for the new age is essentially the age of the Spirit, in which the Holy Spirit writes God’s law in our hearts.’ (Stott)
‘The “newness” of this service consists in the life, power, and effectiveness which it derives from its Author, the Holy Spirit.’ (Wilson)
No longer are believing Jews like Paul in bondage to rules, regulations and rituals to please God, based on their own self-effort. No longer must he and they be anxious whether their efforts will be sufficient to please God, knowing that his standards are absolute. Now in Christ they are forgiven everything. Now they are free from the otherwise inevitable kingship of Sin reigning in Death over them. God is no longer their judge in a hearing whose outcome they fear. Rather, God is their Father because Christ is their Saviour and Lord. The judgement of God has been passed and it has been passed on Christ, in their place. They are now free, “discharged” from that prison of fear.
Subjection to the Law is for Paul and for them in the past – or should be. But this appears to be the very reason Paul is writing. Some Jews among the believers in Rome appear to want to be under Law and, most likely, to subject Gentiles also to the Law. Paul, too, as a lifelong Jew may also have found himself drifting back into old ways of thinking.’ (Barnett)
Ro 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! 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.”
Most of Paul’s references to the law so far have been negative. The opening of the present chapter celebrates our discharge from the law, in order that we might be bound to Christ. All this could easily lead to the charge of antinomianism against Paul. But to the question, “Paul, do you repudiate the law?” the resounding answer is, “Certainly not!”
Paul has already dealt with an aspect of this question, by rejecting the notion that grace encourages sin, 6:1,15. Now he deals with the same kind of problem from the perspective of the law. ‘In Rom 6 he has argued that grace does not encourage sin’ on the contrary, it renders sin inadmissible, even inconceivable. In Rom 7 he now argues that the law does not create sin and death; on the contrary, it is our fallen human nature which is to blame for them.’ (Stott)
The apostle actually has a ambivalent attitude towards the law. On the one hand, he defends it as a revelation of a righteous God, vv7-13. On the other hand, he is acutely aware of its weakness, in that it is impotent to save, vv14-25.
The key to the interpretation of this difficult passage is the identification of “I” Is Paul speaking of himself in his pre-conversion experience? Or is he speaking of himself more particularly as a Pharisee? Or is he thinking of sin’s first manfiestation in Adam (note the sequence, innocence, command, transgression, death)? Or is he speaking of Israel (bearing in mind that the apparent refeences to the Mosaic law would be anachronisitc if the reference were to Adam? Perhaps (suggests Stott) Paul is both telling his own story and universalising it: his own experience is everbody’s experience – Adam’s, Israel’s, our own.
I would not have know what sin was except through the law – The law is not sinful; on the contrary, it reveals sin.
Suppose a paperboy has a habit of cutting corners as he delivers his papers. There is one particular home where he has ridden his bicycle across the lawn so often that he has worn a narrow trail across it. But he doesn’t think anything of it. Then one day, as he is about to ride across this particular lawn, he notices that a sign has been put up: “KEEP OFF THE GRASS. NO BIKES.” But he rode straight across the grass, following his well-worn trail, right up to the feet of the waiting home-owner. A few few homes truths were shared with the boy. The point is this: before, his transgression was not fully seen or realised. But now, it was. And that, according to this verse, is the function of the law.
Ro 7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment – There is a military allusion. The law provided sin with an ‘operational’ base from which to launch its attacks.
‘This provocative power of sin is a matter of everyday experience. Ever since Adam and Eve, human beings have always been enticed by forbidden fruit…In all such cases the real culprit is not the law but sin which is hostile to God’s law, 8:7. Sin twists the function of the law from revealing, exposing and condemning sin into encouraging and even provoking it. We cannot blame the law for proclaiming God’s will.’ (Stott)
Ro 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
Once I was alive apart from the law – Alive, that is, in his own esteem.
When the commandment came – Some think that this is a reference to his initiation as a ‘son of commandment’ (bar mitzvah) at the age of 13.
Ro 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
‘How vain theefore is it to expect salvation from the law, since all the law dies, in its operation on the unrenewed heart, is to condemn and to awaken opposition! It cannot change the nature of man.’ (Hodge)
Ro 7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
Sin…deceived me – This recalls Eve’s deception by Satan, Ge 3:1-13.
‘Here, then, are the three devastating effects of the law in relation to sin. It exposes, provokes and condemns sin…But the law is not in itself sinful, nor is it responsible for sin. Instead, it is sin itself, our sinful nature, which uses the law to cause us to sin and so to die.’ (Stott)
Ro 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good – ‘As “holy” the commandment reflects the transcendence and purity of God and demands of us the correspondent consecration and purity; as “righteous” it reflects the equity of God and exacts of us in tis demand and sanction nothing bu tht at which is equitable; as “good” it promotes man’s highest well-being and thus expresses the goodness of God.’ (Murray)
Ro 7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! 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.
That which is good – the law. The question is, ‘is the law responsible for bringing death?’ The answer is another strong negative. It is our sin that causes our death, not the law.
‘Take a criminal today. A man is caught red-handed breaking the law. He is arrested, brought to trial, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. He cannot blame the law for his imprisonment. True, it is the law which convicted and sentenced him. But he has no-one to blame but himself and his own criminal behaviour.’ (Stott)
Ro 7:14 we know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Unspiritual – sarkikos, ‘pertaining to the flesh’.
Paul has just vindicated the law, in vv7-13. However, he will now show that although the law is good, it is weak. It is good, and yet powerless to make us holy. It provides moral guidance, but lacks transforming power.
But to whom is Paul referring? Is he talking about someone who is regenerate or unregenerate? Could a person ‘in Christ’, as he himself was, really experience such struggles? Some scholars follow Origen in thinking that Paul cannot be referring to a saved person. In support, they quote Ovid: ‘I see and approve the better things, but I pursue the worse.’ Others, following Augustine, believe that Paul is referring to true believers such as himself. In support of this view, it is to be noted that Paul is still writing in the 1st person, that he does speak favourably of the law (which an unregenerate person would not do), and he does express longing for final deliverance (which, again, an unregenerate person would not do). ‘Such a person, deploring evil in his fallen nature, delighting himself in God’s law, and longing for the promised full and final salvation, seems to provide ample evidence of being regenerate and even mature.’ (Stott) Similarly, Cranfield states that these verses ‘depict vividly the inner conflict characteristic of the true Christian, a conflict such as is possible only in the man in whom the Holy Spirit is active, and whose mind is being renewed under the discipline of the gospel.’
The trouble is that an unregenerate man can scarcely say, “I really want to do what is right,” whereas a regenerate man would not really say, “I cannot do it.”
The view of D.M Llyod-Jones was the Paul was speaking of that special conviction of sin that comes at a time of spiritual revival. But there is no evidence in the text of this.
James Dunn suggests that Paul is setting out the ‘eschatological tension’ between the two epochs of Adam and Christ, the ‘now’ and the ‘not yet’.
According to Stott, three things are clear:-
1. This man is regenerate. If the unregenerate mind is hostile to God’s law, 8:7, then someone who loves it is regenerate.
2. Although regenerate, his condition is not normal. This man still declares himself to be the slave of sin, v14,23.
3. This man appears to know nothing of the Holy Spirit. There is in this passage an ‘absolute and eloquent silence’ about the Holy Spirit (Handley Moule), which contrasts strikingly with ch8. Rom 7 is all about the law; Rom 8 is all about the Holy Spirit.
Stott concludes that the ‘I’ of this passage is an ‘Old Testament’ believer; one who loved the law but lacked the Spirit. They were born of the Spirit, but not indwelt by the Spirit. Paul ‘proclaims the impotence of the law by dramatizing it in the vivid terms of personal experience. He describes what happens to anybody who tries to live according to the law instead of the gospel, according to the flesh instead of the Spirit.’
‘Some church-goers today might be termed “Old Testament Christians.” The contradiction implied in this expression indicates what an anomaly they are. They show signs of new birth in their love for the church and the Bible, yet their religion is law, not gospel; flesh, not Spirit; the “oldness” of slavery to rules and regulations, not the “newness” of freedom through Jesus Christ. They are like Lazarus when he first emerged from the tomb, alive but still bound hand and foot. They need to add to tehir life liberty.’ (Stott)
Ro 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Note the change of tense from the past to the present.
Rom 7:16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
Rom 7:18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
Rom 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Ro 7:21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
Ro 7:22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;
In my inner being – ‘Deep inside’.
Ro 7:23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
I see another law at work – heteros, a different law. ‘This ‘law’ is the ‘force’ or ‘power’ of sin, which Paul sets in contrast to the law of God (see also Ro 3:27 8:2). Paul confesses himself to be a prisoner of this law of sin, a strong indication that he is describing his past experience as a Jew under the law (contrast Ro 8:2).’ (Moo, NBC)
In modern paraphrase, Paul is almost saying, “I know what to do in theory, but I keep getting it wrong in practice.”
Ro 7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? – This is a cry not so much of despair as of longing. It is consistent with ‘groaning’ of God’s people as they eagerly await their redemption, Ro 8:23.
It was the custom of ancient conquerors to prevent the escape of their prisoners by tying a dead body to their backs. With such gruesome burdens, these poor wretches could not run away. Paul may have had this in mind; so some think Ro 7:24 should read: “Oh, wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this dead body?”
Paul describes, in vv15-24, a high level of emotional turmoil. But who is this ‘wretched man’? Is it…
1. Paul, or someone else?
2. A regenerate, or unregenerate, person?
3. If regenerate, is this a normal, or an abnormal condition? Is this ‘defeated’ believer, or perhaps one experiencing conviction of sin at a time of unusual spiritual awakening?
‘The answer that makes best sense of this passage is that Paul under Law was the “wretched man.” Thus Paul is clinching the case he began to make back in Ro 5:12. Pure and simple his point is, that he and all people sinned in Adam and have died in Adam, including Jews like himself. Law does nothing to mitigate Sin or rescue its adherents from Death. But Paul is teaching this so that people understand that the age of grace has come expressed in the death of Christ and empowered by the innder presence of the Spirit.’ (Barnett)
Jas 1:15
Ro 7:25 Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Sinful nature – sarx, ‘flesh’.
