Grace Blogs

While there are issues that boil with passion there are others that simply simmer. For example, was Jesus the God-man? If you answer that question wrongly the result will be to have your soul damned. While there are relatively few who would make such a strong point about one subject in religion there are even fewer who would write that on a public blog! However, the gravity of this truth was hinted at in the Old Testament (Ps. 2:4-12) and screamed for in the New Testament (John 3:36; I John 4:1-3; 5:1). Our subject this week is a “simmer” subject – Who wrote Romans 7:14-25? When I say, “who” I mean, more exactly, who is the intended perspective in the writing of the Apostle Paul? Although we know Paul wrote this letter, it is unclear if he is representing a “lost” point of view or a “found” point of view. In using these terms, I am referring to a person still bound in sin (unregenerate) as being “lost.” While the person who has had his or her sin taken away through trusting in the work of Christ alone for forgiveness (regenerate); I will refer to as being “found.”

There are, in my estimation, four lines of argument that support a view that Paul is portraying the experience of a “lost” person:

1. The person found in the struggle is never comforted or guided by the Holy Spirit, but seems left alone to do battle. In contrast, Paul seems to go out of his way to show how the Holy Spirit helps us in times of suffering ( see chap. 8:26-27). If this were a Christian, why not relate the Holy Spirit to an individuals struggle with sin?

2. The perspective is written from the vantage point of being “ a slave to sin” something that Paul taught is not the posture of a “found” person – see 6:2,6,11,18-22. The posture that Paul presents here seems to be a posture of defeat by sin. Is this not a more negative view of being a Christian than the developed, Christ-exalted theology of Paul would allow in reference to a Christian?

3. The unsuccessful struggle of vv. 15-20 shows the individual as a “prisoner of the law of sin” (v.23). However, Rom. 8:2 clearly states that “found” people have been set free from the same “law of sin (and death).”

4. The person in this section seems bent on obeying the Law of Moses; yet Paul has already clearly stated the freedom of the believer (a “found” person) from the dictates of the Law (6:14; 7:4-6).

To those who may say, “Who cares, we can never know with absolute certainty.” Please consider that if Paul is speaking of a lost person, then you are not entitled to claim any of these perspectives for yourself. As a matter of fact to align yourself with these characterizations in life is to be lost yourself. However, if Paul is referring to a “found” person, where is the victory over sin? I mean is this the best I can hope for, a miserable struggle? While it is true that this is a secondary issue and not on par with the diety of Christ, it is nonetheless an important thing to consider. Remember, the Bible is how we can know who God is and who we are, therefore, it is vital to study it carefully (II Tim. 3:16).

Next, I will outline the reasons why this passage may be referring to the “found” person. Feel free to post questions you may encounter along the way or countering perspectives.

---

---

6 Comments

1. KEV : January 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am

   I think a better question is “who wrote all of Romans chapter 6 and 7″. If you cherry pick verses 14-25 out, you lose the context of Paul’s argument which gives way to the “lost” person reasoning.

2. Jason : January 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

   While it is important to read the larger context in order to understand Paul’s argument, Romans 7:13-25 should be treated as a sub-unit of the overall argument for the following reasons:

   1. Paul shifts from using past tense verbs in 7:7-13 to present tense verbs in 7:14-25, and back to past tense verbs in 8:1ff. The shift in verb tense marks out these verses as a distinct unit of thought.

   2. Romans 7:7 and 7:13 each pose a question, and the answer to each question is elaborated in the verses which follow each question. Thus Romans 7:14-25 is an elaboration of the answer to the question posed in 7:13.

   The question “Who wrote Romans 7:14-25?” is therefore legitimate in itself and cannot be answered simply by letting the larger context be read into this passage. Paul has marked off this passage as a sub-unit of thought.

   However, I would suggest that the proper boundaries of the passage should include 7:13. The “for” in 7:14 indicates that Paul is explaining his claim in 7:13.

3. Dan : January 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

   Well said Jason. The superstructure of the passage is governed by Paul trying to convey the relationship between the Law and the person in question. The issue of Law begins to be taken up strongly in 6:15 with, again, another question,

   “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?

   The grammatical cues set out by Jason do create units of thought that are the driving points to think Paul intentionally created a unique environment in 7:14-25. However, does he have the found person or the lost person in relation to the Law? I would also agree to Jason’s advice to not leave out the textual bridge of v.13. I would also add to that the general thought structure starts at 6:15. Although the Law is mentioned throughout the letter to the Romans with differing applications, I believe it is by starting in this section that we may find clues to the motivation of Paul in writing 7:14-25.

4. Jason : January 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am

   I agree with Dan that 6:15 is part of the flow of logic which gives rise to 7:13-25. However, the “then” in 6:15 and the similarity of the wording of 6:15 to 6:14 suggest a close logical connection between 6:15 and the preceding paragraph, which starts with the question in 6:1. The similarity of the wording of the question in 6:1 to the wording of Paul’s claim in 5:20 suggests that the question in 6:1 arises from Paul’s claim in 5:20-21. I would therefore suggest that 5:20-21 (rather than 6:15) is a more appropriate “starting point” for understanding the flow of logic which leads to 7:13-25.

   In 5:20-21 Paul makes a controversial claim which would give rise to a number of questions in the minds of Paul’s readers (6:1,15; 7:7,13). Paul anticipates these questions and answers them in 6:1-7:25. Some of these questions (6:1, 7:7) arise directly from 5:20-21, and some of these questions arise indirectly (i.e., they are further questions which arise from Paul’s answers to the main questions.) These four questions or objections (and their answers) are neatly chain-linked together in a logical fashion. Following the chain backwards from 7:13 (the last link), we arrive at 5:20-21.

   Thus I understand 7:13-25 to fit into the larger argument in the following way:

   Claim: The Law came so that sin would increase, but where sin increased, grace super-increased… (5:20-21)
   [There are really two claims here:
   1. The Law came to increase sin.
   2. Where sin increased, grace abounded.
   Each of these two claims gives rise to one objection, as seen below.]

   Objection 1: Doesn’t 5:20-21 mean that we should sin so that grace will increase? (6:1)
   Paul’s answer: No… “for you are not under Law but under grace” (6:2-14)

   Objection to Paul’s answer: If we are not under the
   Law, then are we free to sin? (6:15)
   Paul’s answer: No… (6:15-7:6)

   Objection 2: Doesn’t 5:20-21 mean the Law is sin? (7:7)
   Paul’s Answer: No… the Law is good (7:7-12).

   Objection to Paul’s answer: If the Law is good, how
   could it bring about death? (7:13)
   Paul’s answer: Because of sin… (7:13-25)

   Supporting this analysis of the structure is the fact that the two main objections to 5:20-21 are the only two questions in 5:20-7:25 which are introduced by “What shall we say then?” (6:1, 7:7). Also, the fact that the perspective shifts to the first-person “I” in 7:7-25 suggests that 7:7-25 is a coherent unit of the argument, and that the questions in 7:7 and 7:13 are closely related.

   If this analysis of the structure of 5:20-7:25 is accurate, then Paul’s main point in 7:13-25 is to explain how it can be that the Law, which is good, can bring about death. We would expect the perspective to be that of someone who is under the Law or who is trying to live under the Law. We would expect the “I” in 7:13-25 to be describing what it is like to live under the Law. Paul is giving us this perspective in order to demonstrate how the Law can be good, and yet fail to bring life. The bottom line is that sin prevents the “I” from obeying the Law, which is good, and the result is death.

   I would thus suggest that in 7:13-25 Paul does not intend to distinguish neatly between the perspective of a lost person or a found person. For the purpose of Paul’s argument, the perspective is that of a person who is trying to live under the Law. Both the lost and the found in Paul’s original audience could have been seeking to live under the Law, since it was not as axiomatic in his day as it is today that followers of Christ are “not under law, but under grace” (6:14). Paul is describing what it is like to live under the Law based on his own pre-Christian experience (thus the “I” perspective), but he intends to target anyone who wrongly believes that living under the Law can bring anything but death, whether they are a follower of Christ or not. He is answering the question of how the Law, which is good, can bring about death.

   Of course, we still need to examine the passage itself (7:14-25) in more detail to see if this approach has merit. My conclusions above are tentative because they deal primarily with the context of the passage, not the passage itself.

5. Jason : January 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   In my last post, I should have given credit to Tom Schreiner’s commentary on Romans (BECNT) for first suggesting to me the possibility that “Paul does not intend to distinguish believers from unbelievers” in 7:13-25 (page 390). My suggestion of the structure of 5:20-7:25, however, differs from what is presented in his commentary.

6. Dan Miller : January 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

   Excellent points Jason, thanks for the input. Bring out the big contextual stick! I appreciate your contribution to this subject.

   I agree.

   The distinction I was making between 6:15 and the previous connectors [hence, "taken up strongly"] was that Paul moves to our new relationship to the Law in 6:15 vs. simply the relationship between the Law, grace and sin starting in 6:1.

   Also, I think your point (while channeling Dr. Schreiner) is compelling and flows well in Paul’s question/answer format. Regardless of a person’s spiritual condition (”lost” or “found”) the Law was not intended to produce righteousness. In regard to a unsaved person, the Law condemns such a person to judgment. However, to a saved person, the Law is a reminder of the holiness of God and our continual need/thankfulness that we have such a Savior as Christ who has satisfied the demands of the Law. I would lean that the latter point captures the spirit in which Paul’s writes this section.

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Message