Grace Blogs

In part I of this blog we took up the question: Was Paul representing a “lost” point of view or a “found” point of view in Romans 7:14-25?

In part I, I posted four lines of argument that support the view that Paul is portraying the experience of a “lost” person. Now I will lay out four arguments that indicate Paul is representing a “found” view.

1. The shift from the past tenses of vv.7-13 to the present tense of vv.14-25 is best explained as representing a believer. Paul moves from a past reflective teaching point to a present conditional status. This would not make sense if Paul is trying to voice his condition prior to Christ.

2. Only Christian people can legitimately “delight in God’s Law” (v.22), have a desire to obey it (vv.15-20), and “serve” it (v.25). Paul has already been clear that a lost person does not seek after God (3:11) and cannot “submit to the law of God” (8:7).

3. Paul must be addressing a Christian since only a Christian possesses the “inner person.” Paul only uses this term in two other places (2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16) and in both places the usage relates to a Christian.

4. The passage concludes after Paul mentions the deliverance that is brought about by God in Christ, with echoing the struggle again (vv.24-25). It does not make sense to represent a lost person’s situation, resolve it in Christ, and then move back under unless that situation in the continual situation - the condition of a found person. Paul does not compartmentalize the view of a lost person strictly within the main section in question (vv.14-24), but extends it after clearly stating the victory we have through Christ (v.25). This would make no sense if the view in question was not a found person.

At the end of the day, I believe the evidence is stronger that Paul is representing his struggle (a found person) in wrestling with his flesh - the natural bent to trust oneself vs. trusting in God.

---

---

One Comment

1. Jason : January 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

   Dan, I very much appreciate this post. It has really spurred me to work through this passage. I have come to a different (but still tentative) conclusion, however…

   I now think that the perspective is that of a lost person, but more specifically that of a first-century Jew (or perhaps a God-fearing Gentile) who is trying to submit to the Mosaic Law “in the flesh,” i.e., without the Holy Spirit. The main point of the passage is that the Mosaic Law itself did not bring death, but rather the law of sin brought death. Nonetheless, the “I” is a slave to both the Mosaic Law and to the law of sin (v. 25). I think that the four arguments for the “lost” perspective which were posted in Part I are basically valid.

   Here is why I do not find the four arguments for a “found” perspective convincing:

   1. The shift from the past tense verbs of vv. 7-13 to the present tense verbs of vv. 14-25 does not represent a shift in the status of the “I” who is speaking. If this were the case, then we would expect the bridge verse (v. 13) to speak of or otherwise imply the salvation experience of the “I”. Rather, v. 13 speaks of the death of the “I,” asking whether the Law brought about this death, since it was the Law that awoke sin in the “I” according to vv. 7-12. Moreover, in v. 14 the “I” describes himself as being “of the flesh” and “sold (into slavery) under sin.” The textual clues of v. 13-14 not only give no indication of a salvation experience between v. 13 and v. 14, they tend to go against this interpretation. A simple shift in verb tenses is not enough to signal to the reader that a salvation experience has occurred between v. 13 and v. 14.

   Furthermore, if v. 14ff are in the present tense because the “I” is now a found person, how can a description of the struggle of a found person with the Law (vv. 14-25) answer the question posed in v. 13? If vv. 14ff are from Paul’s perspective as a believer, these verses cannot serve to answer the question of whether Paul’s attempt as an unbeliever to follow the Law (vv. 7-13) resulted in his death. The logical connection between v. 13 and v. 14 thus requires that the perspective be the same in both verses.

   How should we understand the shift in tenses between v. 13 and v. 14? I suggest the following. Verse 13 is in the past tense because it is asking about the past death of the “I” described in vv. 7-12. The answer to the past-tense question in v. 13a, “Therefore did what was good [=the Law] result in my death?,” is given in the present tense in vv. 14-25. Why answer this question about Paul’s past using the present tense? Why answer any question about someone’s past using the present tense? The reason is that the present tense can be used to describe general, timeless truths; this use of the present tense does not indicate that something is currently happening, but rather that something does happen. For example, I can say: “I run.” This statement indicates that running is something that I typically do; it gives no information about when I ran, or when I will run, or whether I am currently running, even though the tense of the verb is “present tense.” (This is called the gnomic present.) Furthermore, the present-tense statement “I run” adequately answers the past-tense question, “Why have I lost 10 pounds?” Since there is no hint in the text that a salvation experience occurred between v. 13 and v. 14, I would argue that Paul has shifted to the present tense because he wishes to describe general, timeless truths to answer his past-tense question in v. 13a. Paul continues to use the first-person “I” even though he is describing general, timeless truths because he is grounding his argument on his first-hand experience with life under the Law before he became a Christian. The “I” in vv. 14-25 is therefore both autobiographical (in the sense that the description is based on Paul’s past pre-Christian experience) and universal (in the sense that Paul is using the gnomic present tense to portray his past experience as the typical experience of anyone who tries to submit to the Law in the flesh.)

   Thus v. 13 (past-tense) relates to vv. 14-25 (present tense) in the following general way:
   Q: Did the Law cause my death? (past tense; v. 13)
   A: No, because the law of sin causes death… I do not do good, etc. (present tense; v. 14-25)

   2. If the perspective from which Paul is writing is that of a pious Jewish person who has not yet become a follower of Christ, such a person would indeed claim to “delight in God’s Law,” to have a desire to obey it, and to serve it (v. 22, 15-20, 25). I would suggest that such a person could and would experience a genuine desire to follow the Mosaic Law. However, a central point of 7:13-25 is that a desire to follow the Mosaic law is not enough – the “I” always or typically does evil instead of the Law. The overwhelming thrust of 7:13-25 is that the “I” claims to have a desire to follow the Law, but he obviously has a *greater* desire to submit to the desires of the flesh instead. He is ultimately ruled by sin, whatever he perceives his intentions to be. Let me clarify: By saying that a pious Jew can desire to follow the Mosaic Law, I am not denying total depravity. What I am saying is that even a Jew’s “desire” to follow the Mosaic Law is tainted by sin, such that sin is always the greater desire of the two. Thus in an ultimate, theological sense, I agree with Dan that only regenerate people can legitimately “delight in God’s Law,” etc. But the language of 7:13-25 is *experientially* describing the viewpoint of a person trying to submit to the Law in the flesh; it is not speaking in ultimate theological categories.

   3. I disagree that only a Christian possesses the “inner person.” Neither 2 Cor 4:16 nor Eph 3:16 uses this term in such a way that it must apply only to Christians. Paul only uses the term “outer person” of Christians (once in 2 Cor 4:16); are we to say that only Christians have an outer person? The term “inner person” most naturally refers to the soul, as opposed to the body. Lost people have souls.

   4. In verse 24, a future tense is used in the question: “Who will rescue me from this body of death?” The future tense indicates that the “I” is asking about a future reality from his current perspective – “who *will* save me?” Thus the “I” who is posing the question is asking about a future event – his salvation. The perspective from which the question is made, therefore, can be that of a lost person. The answer to the question (v. 25) does not indicate that the perspective of the “I” has changed between verse 24 and verse 25 from a lost person to a found person, but rather simply that the lost person recognizes that only Christ can rescue him from the endless cycle of not being able to do what he wants to do because of his “body of death.” The answer thus anticipates Romans 8, but it does not indicate that the person has become found. The rhetorical point of the question-answer in 7:24-25 is that apart from Christ there is no rescue from the endless cycle of sin. Christ is the only answer to the lost person’s question “Who will save me?” This leads into 7:25b: Since Christ is the only answer (v. 24-25a), but since “I” am not yet a follower of Christ (as is indicated by my inability to do good in v. 14-23), therefore “I” am still a slave both to the Mosaic law and to the law of sin (v. 25b).

   I hope this post spurs on some fruitful discussion. This passage is very challenging.

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Message