Big Idea: Paul focuses on the Mosaic law’s relationship to new dominion in Christ. A stark contrast emerges: freedom from the law because of union with Christ versus enslavement to the law because of union with Adam. This relationship is paradoxical: union with Christ and with Adam both pertain to the Christian (7:13–25 will expound on this).
Understanding the Text
Romans 6:23 pronounces that the Christian is in union with Christ and therefore free from the law. This is illustrated in 7:1–6. But things are not so simple. Because this age is dominated by Adam’s sin, the law and death remain a present reality (7:7–12).
We may outline 7:1–6 as follows:
7:1-4a
Law: Bound to the old husband
Grace: United with the new husband
7:4b-5
Law: Fruit of death
Grace: Fruit of life
7:6
Law: Letter / old covenant
Grace: Spirit / new covenant
To outline 7:7–11 (v. 12 is a concluding statement qualifying vv. 1–11) I have chosen to use comparisons with the Adam narrative, especially Genesis 2–3. These comparisons are shown below.
Romans 7:7–11 and the Adam Narrative in Genesis 2–3
7:7 – “You shall not covet.”
3:1-6 – Adam and Eve desired to be like God and broke God’s commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
7:8 – Sin is personified
3:1-6 – The serpent personifies sin.
7:9a – “I was alive apart from the law.”
1:26—2:14 – Only Adam and Eve were alive before the advent of the law, God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree (2:17).
7:9b-10 – “I died.”
2:17 – God warns that if the couple eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they will die (which did happen).
7:11 – “Sin…deceived [exapatao] me” (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). (The verb exapatao is an intensive form of apatao).
3:13 LXX – “The serpent deceived [apatao] me [Eve].”
Historical and Cultural Background
The Jewish view of marriage differed from the Greco-Roman understanding of that institution. According to Jewish law, only the husband could divorce his wife (see Deut. 24:1), and therefore the woman was bound to her husband as long as he lived; in Roman law, either mate could initiate divorce.1It is clear that in the illustration used in Romans 7:1–6, the man holds all the cards in the marital relationship, as the woman is not free to remarry until her husband dies.
Interpretive Insights
7:1–4a the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives. The rabbis said that a person who has died is free from obligation to the Mosaic law (b. Shabb. 30a). Jews, of course, knew this, but former Gentile God-fearers, such as those who constituted the majority of the Roman house churches, likewise would have been aware of such teaching because prior to their conversion to Christ they worshiped in the synagogues. The “law,” then, to which Paul refers in 7:1 is the Torah. The specifics of Paul’s analogy of marriage are not quite clear. In 7:1–4a Paul talks about the husband dying, and then in 7:4b he talks about Christians dying. Most likely Paul has in mind the following identifications: law = first husband; wife = Christians; new husband = Christ. In any case, Paul’s point is clear: Christians died to the law when they died with Christ.
7:4b–5 fruit for God . . . fruit for death. Paul speaks about two different kinds of fruit, one that comes from being freed from the law, and one that comes from trying to obey the law. He says clearly that the law stirs up sin, which brings the fruit of death (cf. 3:20–21; 4:15; 5:12–14, 20). But union with Christ’s resurrection brings the fruit of righteousness and life to the believer (recall 6:15, 20–23).
7:6 we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. As many commentators note, this verse contrasts the ineffective law of the old covenant with the obedience that the Spirit engenders for those in the new covenant (cf. 2:29). Interestingly, back in verse 5 Paul uses the same word that he has used before relative to the negative side of the law: katarge? (“work” [compare 7:5 with 3:31; 4:14; 6:6]). Moreover, the unusual term Paul uses for the new covenant in 6:4, kainot?s (NIV: “new life”), also occurs here in 7:6 (NIV: “new way”).
7:7a Is the law sinful? Certainly not! In this verse and in 7:12 Paul offers a much-needed positive assessment of the law of Moses. Here he praises the law by making the point negatively. “Is the law sinful?” he asks. From everything that he has said about the law up until this point, one might expect him to answer yes. But Paul thunders forth with his emphatic m? genoito—absolutely not! Rather than being sin, the holy law of God exposes sin.
7:7b if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” Following Paul’s positive assessment of the law in 7:7a is an autobiography of his experience with the law, expressed in the first-person singular, in 7:7b–12. The identification of the “I” in these verses is debated (see sidebar), but we can say that in 7:7b Paul alludes to Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience of the Torah in its summarized form: “You shall not covet.” Thus, the big picture of 7:7–12 is that the believer is still influenced by Adam’s realm and therefore struggles with enslavement to the law.
7:8 But sin . . . produced in me every kind of coveting. Verse 8 depicts sin acting like a person and thereby distinctly brings to mind the personification of sin in the form of the serpent in Genesis 3:1–6. Just as the serpent pounced on God’s commandment to Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden tree, thus creating in them the opposite effect, so sin jumps at the opportunity to use God’s holy law to stir up in humans the opposite of holiness—every kind of evil desire.
7:9a Once I was alive apart from the law. The only persons in history who were alive before God’s law was introduced into the world were Adam and Eve, however short that period might have been. The first couple was created and placed in the garden to care for it (Gen. 1:26–2: 15). Only after that did God issue his commandment regarding the forbidden tree (Gen. 2:16–17). The Adamic background of 7:9a works better than the other major theory regarding the sentence “I was once alive apart from the law,” which is that it reflects the bar mitzvah of the Jewish male who, at the age of thirteen, was pronounced a “son of the Torah.” However, Jewish boys were instructed in the law from their earliest years (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.178; Philo, Embassy 115, 210), not just beginning at the age of thirteen.
7:9b–10 sin sprang to life and I died. The narrative of Genesis 2–3 continues to govern Paul’s thought in 7:9b–10. His words “I died” draw upon Genesis 2:17 and God’s warning to the first couple that if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would die. That indeed happened: Adam and Eve ate from the restricted tree, and they died spiritually on the spot (see Gen. 3:7–19). Later they died physically, setting mortality in motion for the human race. The paradox is striking: the divine commandment given to preserve their lives spiritually and physically became, in the hands of the serpent, the occasion for death. Moreover, Paul taps into Israel’s history: the law of Moses, which was supposed to bring life, actually resulted, when in the hands of sin, in death for that nation.
7:11 sin . . . deceived me. Paul uses an intensive form of the word “deceived” (exapata?), applying to himself a word used in Genesis 3:13 LXX (apata?) of Eve in the garden (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14), making it all the more likely that Genesis 2–3 continues to weigh heavily in Paul’s argument in 7:7–12. As he mentioned in 7:8, so the apostle repeats in 7:11 more intensely that the serpent/sin in the garden and sin in humanity perverted the holy law of God into disobedience. It is difficult to say precisely what Paul means by “sin . . . deceived me” by perverting the law into death and not life. For Adam and Eve, it meant that the serpent duped Eve into breaking the divine commandment in the hope that she and Adam could be like God. But that action in reality brought about their death. And Paul once thought (and Israel tragically still did) that one could obey God’s law and live. This for Paul was an attempt to be justified before God based on righteousness by works (cf. Rom. 9:3–10:4). But this is the deception of sin, since no one can be accepted before God on that basis.
7:12 the law is holy. Verse 12 is a concluding statement qualifying verses 1–11 and is reminiscent of verse 7. Here in verse 12, Paul reiterates that the law is not the culprit in bringing about disobedience to God; sin is the perpetrator of disobedience. Rather, the law (the entire law of God to Moses) or commandment (a summary command of that law) is holy, righteous, and good. The law originated from God’s holy character and prescribes just conduct, and it is good because it is applicable to all humanity, proceeding as it does from the ultimate good—God himself.
Theological Insights
Three theological insights surface in Romans 7:1–12. First, the Christian’s union with Christ produces a holy lifestyle, something that the law cannot do. Second, this age and the old covenant still tug at the believer’s heart. Therefore, the believer’s obedience to God will not be perfect in this life. Third, the law is holy because it is an expression of the character of God. The problem with the law is that sinful human nature perverts it into the instrument of death.
Teaching the Text
Two sermons emerge from Romans 7:1–12. The first one, based on 7:1–6, could be entitled “Freedom from the Law because of Union with Christ.” The three-point outline in the chart above (old husband versus new husband; fruit of death versus fruit of life; the letter of the old covenant versus the Spirit of the new covenant) would nicely guide that message. We might imagine the before-the-law and after-the-law relationships concerning the Christian as being like an abusive marriage. It is a well-known and tragic fact that women who are involved in abusive marriages often have great difficulty leaving the relationship. We might compare that to the believer who wants to go back to the suppressive relationship of living under the law. Only the fruit of death awaits that decision. But the Christian needs to see the potential for life in the new covenant in Christ in the way a downtrodden wife needs to see the hope for a better life apart from her abusive husband.
Second, a message entitled “Romans 7:7–12 and the Hijacking of the Law by Sin” could be preached by rehearsing Paul’s argument regarding those verses. The main point to make is that the serpent/sin turned the holy law of God into the occasion for Adam and Eve’s sin. And so it is today: the sin principle in all humans distorts the good laws of God into disobedience, even the idolatry of trusting in our own good efforts to commend us to God. Thus it is sin that is the culprit, not the law.
Illustrating the Text
We are free from the law because we have been joined with Christ.
Spiritual Biography: The story of the life of British cleric and poet John Newton (1725–1807) powerfully illustrates the liberty found in Christ, as do the words of his ever-popular hymn “Amazing Grace.”
The early life of George Müller (1805–98) is probably less well known than his later life, when he established orphanages in England. He is often thought of as the “man who got things from God,” as he experienced many answers to prayer while opening and maintaining those orphanages. However, his story is far more complex than those dramatic accounts. Müller spent many of his early years living a sinful lifestyle, undeterred even by his mother’s death. Invited one evening to a Christian meeting at a friend’s house, he experienced something that he said he had been seeking his whole life. That was the beginning of Müller’s freedom from the bondage of sin.
Sin (this age and the old covenant) tugs at the heart.
Church Fathers: Augustine’s Confessions provides a classic illustration of prohibitions awakening in humans the desire to transgress those very laws. Augustine tells about a time as a boy when he joined his friends in stealing pears, not because they wanted them to feed the pigs, but because they wanted the pleasure of disobeying the law.
Literature: “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg,” by Mark Twain. This parabolic tale (1899) tells the story of a town whose motto has been “Lead us not into temptation.” The people in Hadleyburg live smugly, sure of their virtue and their spiritual standing. One night a stranger, seeking revenge for an offense by the town, drops off a sack at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Richards, claiming that it is filled with gold. He directs that the sack be given to the man who purportedly gave him some good advice and twenty dollars in a time of need. Anyone claiming to know what that advice was should write it down, he tells the couple, and hand it to Reverend Burgess, who will open the sack at a public meeting and find the actual words of advice inside along with the gold. The gold will be given to the person who knows the right answer. The temptation that comes upon this town proves irresistible, and what ensues is proof, in the author’s thinking, that everyone can be bought. A short version of a PBS film based on the story was released on DVD in 2004.
Hymn Text: “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” by Robert Robinson. Robinson (1735–90) writes, with what could be read as muted desperation, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it; Prone to leave the God I love.” In light of that reality, he cries, “Here’s my heart, O take and seal it; Seal it for the courts above.”
“Wretched Man That I Am”: Battle of the Two Ages within the Christian
Big Idea: Paul shares how the battle of the two ages rages within him. The good law of God exposes sin, only for that sin to drive him to disobey the law, which results in death. He documents his struggle between wanting to obey the law and being unable to do so because his sinful nature drives him to disobedience.
Understanding the Text
Before outlining Romans 7:13–25, I must summarize the hermeneutical debate regarding these verses. This enigmatic passage has generated at least three major interpretations: (1) it speaks of Paul’s, and all Christians’, present engagement with sin;1(2) it refers to Paul’s past life as a rabbi, one checkered by frustration with the law;2or, it points back to Paul’s preconversion days of discontent with the law, as seen through his Christian eyes;3(3) it draws on life under the law as experienced by the unregenerate.4 I will briefly address these in reverse order.
The third view has against it the undeniable fact that the present tense is consistently used throughout 7:14–25 (in contrast to the past tenses in 7:7–13), thus pointing to Paul’s present Christian experience, not to his bygone preconversion days. Moreover, this interpretation stumbles on 7:25b, “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin,” a poignant description of Paul’s contemporary experience.
The second interpretation is also contradicted by the sustained usage of the present tense in 7:14–25, not to mention Paul’s positive assessment elsewhere of his preconversion ability to keep the law (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:6b).
That leaves us with the first view. The only substantial disagreement that can be voiced against this understanding of the passage is that it seems to paint too negative a picture of the Christian life, especially when it is compared with the victorious presence of the Spirit in the Christian as recorded in Romans 8:1–16. However, this criticism is more apparent than real. Actually, 7:14–25 portrays a bad side and a good side to a Christian, and their admixture is the result of the overlapping of the two ages. This produces within Christians a deep-seated struggle between obedience and disobedience to God. Stated another way, the eschatological tension resident within Christians is evidence that they are genuinely saved. This also explains the divided “I” that is pervasive in 7:14–25: it is not anthropological dualism (the sinful body versus the mind) but rather eschatological dualism that informs Paul’s and every Christian’s struggle. The believer is caught between the two ages, between wanting to obey God (the age to come) and not in fact doing so (this age).
Now I supply an outline of Romans 7:13–25:
1. The thesis statement: The good law of God brings sin to light only to have that sin drive Paul / the Christian to disobey the law of Moses (7:13)
2. The development of the thesis (7:14–24)
a. The “divided I” (7:14–20)
b. The two laws, a summary of vv. 14–20 (7:21–24)
3. The transition statement (7:25)
a. Anticipation of Romans 8 and the victory over sin (7:25a)
b. Summary of Romans 7 and the struggle with sin (7:25b)
Romans 7:14–20 compares the already and the not yet as laid out in table 1.
The reader may also notice that 7:14–17 parallels 7:18–20:
The good law versus sinful Paul (7:14 // 7:18)
Paul wants to do the good but does not do it (7:15–16 // 7:19)
Sin drives Paul to do the bad (7:17 // 7:20)
The following parallels between the two laws can be seen in 7:21–25:
The age to come has dawned – the good law of God (7:21a)
This age is still in effect – the principle (power) of sin (7:23a)
I want to do the good (7:21b)
Another law is at work (7:23a)
My inner being delights in God’s law (7:22)
Sin within me wages war against the good and drives me to sin (7:23b)
The law of my mind (7:23b)
The body of death (7:25b)
Historical and Cultural Background
The main information in Romans 7:13–25 that finds parallels approximate to Paul’s day is the internal struggle to do good, only to capitulate to evil. Judaism had its duel of the two impulses (see, e.g., 4 Ezra). So did the Greco-Roman writers. Thus Ovid wrote, “I see and approve the better course, but I follow the worse” (Metam. 7.21). And Epictetus wrote, “Every sin involves a contradiction. For since he who sins does not wish to sin, but to be right, it is clear that he is not doing what he wishes” (Disc. 2.26.1–2; cf. 2.26.4–5). Much further removed from Paul’s understanding is the Platonic notion of soma-sema: the body is the prison of the soul because the two are at war with each other.
Interpretive Insights
7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Verse 13 states the thesis of 7:13–25: the law of Moses is not culpable for bringing death to the human race. Rather, the law exposed sin, only for sin to use the law to bring about transgression and death. Sin’s perversion of the good law of God is thereby shown to be the real culprit behind death.
7:14–20 the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual . . . I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. The thesis of 7:13 is developed in 7:14–23, which divides into two parts: the divided “I” (vv. 14–20) and the two laws (vv. 21–23). Because verses 14–20 contain parallels (see the outline above), we may conveniently treat the paired verses together (vv. 14, 18; vv. 15–16, 19; vv. 17, 20).
Verse 14 states that the law is spiritual, meaning that its origin is the Holy Spirit (cf. Ps. 19:7–11; t. Yad. 2.14; see Str-B 3:238). But Paul is “fleshly” (sarkinos [NIV: “unspiritual”]), which means that Paul/everyone is sinful (for the same use of sarkinos, see 1 Cor. 3:1). Verse 18 essentially repeats the sentiments of 7:14, where Paul contrasts the good (law) with his sinful nature.
Verses 15–16, 19 focus on Paul as the divided “I,” wanting to do right (obey the law) but doing wrong. I understand these verses to reflect the Christian struggle between good and evil as born out of the overlapping of the two ages within the believer. Christians want to obey God because they are citizens of the age to come, the kingdom of God. But because Christians still live in this present age of sin, they oftentimes do wrong.
Verses 17, 20 focus on the culpability of sin in the Christian’s inner battle: it is sin that drives Paul and all Christians to do wrong. In saying this, Paul is not avoiding the personal responsibility that all believers have to resist sin and do right; he is simply saying that in and of themselves, humans are no match for sin (but the Spirit is, as Rom. 8 will explain).
7:21–23 I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me. Verses 21–23 summarize 7:13–20 by rooting the divided “I” in the two laws that govern the spiritual realm: the law of Moses (God) and the law or power/principle of sin. Before spelling out the distinctive actions associated with those two laws, I first must mention that biblical interpreters are divided over whether the second law (that of sin) is the Mosaic law or in this case nomos should be translated as “principle” or “power.” James Dunn, for example, says that nomos is the Mosaic law throughout 7:13–25.5He takes the law of God (Moses) to be now freed from this age, and Israel’s misuse of it to create social barriers.
In my view, since Romans 3:27–31 records three different renderings of nomos (law of Moses, principle/power, and covenant), I see no reason why nomos could not be rendered in different ways in 7:21–23: the law of Moses and the principle/power of sin. Thus, 7:21–23 documents the contrasting two laws: the law of God, which Paul desires to serve in his inner being / mind, versus the law/principle of sin, which Paul actually serves in his body of sin/death (7:24). Paul’s dichotomy between inner being / mind and body of sin/death sounds Platonic, but as we noted above, it is more eschatological in orientation.
So the Christian’s struggle proceeds from the reality of living simultaneously in both worlds.
7:24 What a wretched man I am! The wretched status of Paul and the Christian is the state of being torn between the age to come and this age, between the new nature and the old nature.
7:25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! Verse 25 is a transitional statement: verse 25b summarizes the plight of the believer as spelled out in 7:13–24, while verse 25a anticipates the victory of the new nature in Christ by the power of the Spirit, as is beautifully explained in Romans 8.
Theological Insights
We meet with two theological truths in Romans 7:13–25. First, the law of Moses is not to blame for death. But, since in the order of salvation history the law still belongs to this age, it suffers from misuse by sin, resulting in death. Second, the struggle in the Christian life is normal. It means that the entrance of the new nature into the believer at conversion no longer allows sin to go unhindered.
Teaching the Text
A good sermon idea based on Romans 7:13–25 is to develop Martin Luther’s famous description of the Christian as simul justus et peccator—saint and sinner at the same time. The message could discuss the divided “I” in 7:14–20 and the two laws in 7:21–24. Regarding the former, three statements summarize Paul’s comments there. First, the law is good, but Paul (and all of humankind) is evil. Second, Paul nevertheless deeply desires to do the good. Third, he does the bad anyway because sin drives him to do so. The discussion of two laws in 7:21–24 registers a similar plight. Thus, because the age to come has dawned, Paul and all Christians are in Christ and possess the Spirit and therefore have a desire and a capacity to serve God. But because the age to come is not complete, the law of the sinful flesh still resides in the believer’s heart, hampering the attempt to obey God. But rather than bring the Christian to despair, such a struggle signals the good news that the believer is, after all, a citizen of the age to come, even though the kingdom of God is not yet complete. Moreover, in Romans 8 Paul asserts that the indwelling Spirit’s power can make the difference in the believer’s life for godliness. The Holy Spirit can succeed in leading Christians into a life of holiness in a way the Old Testament law could not. This too is a sign that the age to come has dawned in Jesus the Messiah.
Illustrating the Text
Christians have an appetite for holiness but a proneness to sin.
Poetry: “Holy Sonnet XIV,” by John Donne. One of the most articulate expressions of the Christian’s dilemma is this sonnet by the metaphysical poet Donne (1572–1631), who also became the dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1621. Donne led a conflicted early life, after which he was converted. The sonnet describes the believer’s struggle between the old and new natures:
Batter my heart, three-person’d God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp’d town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth’d unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.6
Film: The Passion of the Christ. This film (2004) is a powerful and graphic portrayal of the suffering and death of Jesus. In one scene, Jesus is praying in the garden of Gethsemane, clearly in great distress over his approaching death. At this moment, Satan appears in the form of a woman with a man’s voice and asks Jesus if he believes that one man can sustain the burden of the sin of all humankind. The question is not sincere, as Satan’s questions never are, and he proceeds to answer it himself by saying that no one can do it, for “the burden is too heavy.” Jesus is face down on the ground when a serpent slides out from under Satan’s robe and makes its way toward Jesus, touching his hand. Satan smiles, as if sure that Jesus has been defeated. But Jesus then rises from the ground and crushes the head of the serpent. He gains new resolve to do what he must: sacrifice himself for the sins of the world in obedience to his Father.
Film: The Apostle. In this film (1997), Euliss “Sonny” Dewey (played by Robert Duvall) is a married, charismatic preacher in Texas with a wandering eye and a number of other serious faults. Nevertheless, he keeps witnessing to the power of God, eventually moving to Louisiana, where he starts a church with a racially integrated congregation. He even succeeds in leading a violent racist to the Lord. Although Sonny is maddeningly flawed, there seems to be little question that in this film Duvall, who wrote and directed the film, is exploring the mixed nature of God’s children.
