Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The "Law" of Romans 7

When Peter described some of Paul's writings as "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:15-16), I'm sure he had the book of Romans in mind. Apart from Revelation, Romans may be the most difficult book of the New Testament. Nearly every chapter is controversial, or at least contains some controversial material. However, with careful study, we can understand the book of Romans (Eph. 3:4), and when the book is properly understand, it is a source of great encouragement to the children of God.

Within the book of Romans, one of the most difficult passages (for me, at least) is found in Romans 7:10-25.

Many religious people misunderstand this passage. There are those who use Paul's comments here to excuse sinful behavior, or even to argue that God doesn't hold Christians accountable for the sins they commit (i.e. "Once Saved, Always Saved"). Then there are others who walk away from Romans 7:10-25 thinking that law in and of itself is inherently burdensome, and that we, therefore, ought to emphasize, not law, but grace and liberty (more positive concepts). In this article, I'd like to address both misunderstandings while conveying to you what I believe to be the most logical and harmonious explanation of this great text.

First of all, it is vital that we interpret this text in light of the context

Regarding the first misinterpretation, Paul is NOT justifying or excusing sin, for he has spent much time in this book emphasizing the spiritual peril of the individual who chooses to sin. We are without excuse (Rom. 2:1). We will all be held accountable on the day of judgment for the choices we've made (Rom. 2:5-10). To continue in sin is to abuse God's grace (Rom. 6:1); we must not yield to sin, implying that it is indeed a choice (Rom. 6:12-17). A carnal mind separates us from God (Rom. 8:6-8). While it is true that there is a battle being waged within all of us between the flesh and Spirit (Gal. 5:17), Paul is not saying in Romans 7:10-25 that we can excuse or justify our sins on account that "we're all human."

Regarding the second misinterpretation (that Paul is describing all law is inherently burdensome), we must understand that, in context, Paul is not contrasting LAW and GRACE, but rather the Law of Moses and "the faith" or law, of Christ. 

Consider the cultural context. The early churches were heavily populated by former Jews, and all Bible students are well aware of the fact that there was a lot of pressure for these Jews to hold onto their Jewish roots, including their respect and even adherence to the Law of Moses (Ac. 15; Gal. 2; Titus 1:10). This was a very sensitive issue in the first century.

Also consider the textual context within Romans. In Romans 1, Paul addressed the sins of the Gentiles, but in Romans 2, he quickly turned his attention to the Jews, who, in their arrogance, viewed themselves as inherently MORE righteous than the Gentiles. This mindset had clearly pervaded the church. In Romans 3, Paul affirms that while the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles (being raised with knowledge of the Old Testament, 3:1-2), "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23). In Romans 4, Paul points out that the great patriarch Abraham was justified by his obedient faith apart from the Law of Moses, for he lived before the Law was implemented, and in Romans 5-6, the apostle explains how all people in all dispensations must seek salvation in Christ, not in the Law of Moses. Of course, all of Romans 11 is devoted to the contrast between "Israel" and the church, and these themes are more subtly addressed in almost every other chapter.

In a more immediate sense, read Romans 7:1-9. The word "law" is clearly used in reference, not to law generally, but to the Law of Moses specifically. Marriage is used to illustrate Paul's ultimate point. Prior to Christ, the Law of Moses is what governed the "marriage" between Israel and God. When Jesus died on the cross, the law came to an end. It was proper for the Jews to leave behind the Law of Moses and to "marry" Jesus (vs. 3). And yet many of the Jewish-Christians were serving Christ while simultaneously serving the Law of Moses, something that was akin to spiritual adultery. Paul, anticipating the question from Jewish Christians, points out that the Law of Moses was not inherently sinful, but had, in fact, taught them (the Jews) about the dangers and consequences of sin (vs. 7).

And that brings us to the passage being considered in this article: Romans 7:10-25. Let's examine this passage piece by piece...
"And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me" (vs. 10-11).
The "commandment" is the Law of Moses, or at least the tenets of the Law of Moses. This is clearly the meaning in light of verses 7-9. The Law of Moses, unlike the civil laws of various societies throughout history, was a spiritual law intended to make a relationship with God possible (at least for those who adhered to the Law). And yet Paul says here - and he goes on to explain - that the Law of Moses was the source of incredible frustration. Instead of finding "life" in the keeping of the Law, he found death.
"Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedinly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin" (vs. 12-14).
As Paul just clarified in verse 7, the Law of Moses itself was holy. Knowing the Law had been an advantage that the Jews had over the Gentiles in the first century (3:1-2). So the Law itself wasn't sinful, but the Jews' efforts to perfectly keep the Law of Moses had proved to be pointless. The harder they tried to follow the Law of Moses, the more they realized how impossible it really was and how inadequate they were before God. This was a frustrating realization.
"For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not do do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good" (vs. 15-21).
Again, there is a struggle within all of us between the flesh and Spirit (Gal. 5:17), and so it may be that you can relate to some of Paul's comments. Perhaps you have had moments where you sinned even though you knew better, and it may be that in your efforts to draw closer to God, you have had moments of weakness and failure followed by feelings of self-loathing and disappointment. HOWEVER, even though we may be able to relate to some of these comments, we cannot assume that Paul is describing the Christian's struggle with religious law in general. Paul is still trying to get these Jewish-Christians to see the folly of hanging onto the Law of Moses. Why return to a Law that not only is outdated and imperfect, but extremely frustrating?
"For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members" (vs. 22-23).
This is where the text gets a little difficult for me, so by no means am I going to be contentious on this point. However, I would argue that this is where Paul begins to make a transition in the text; he begins to contrast the impossibility of the Law of Moses with the freedom of the New Testament law. The "law of God," I believe (which is a phrase that hasn't been used yet in this text) refers to the New Testament law. Paul rejoiced in this "law of liberty" as it's called in James 1:25. On the other hand, there was even a part of the apostle Paul that struggled to overcome his inner addiction to the Law of bondage. There must have been something very appealing about such a stict, overbearing system, for it was obviously very difficult for the Jews to let it go and to focus on the new covenant.
"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin" (7:24-25).
Christ delivered Paul and all the Jews from the Law of Moses which is here called a law of sin, as it was in verse 23. One might ask how Paul could call it a "law of sin" when he had already argued that the Law of Moses wasn't sinful (vs. 7). Please notice that there is a difference. Even earlier, when Paul argued that the Law of Moses wasn't sinful (vs. 7), he was very clear that the Law aroused sinful passions (vs. 5) and brought death (vs. 10-11). It wasn't a sinful law, but it was a "law of sin and death" (8:2).

One final thought: in the latter part of verse 25, Paul is not saying that he simultaneously obeyed the Law of God and the Law of sin (i.e. Law of Moses). He's saying that so long as he embraced the Spirit's influence in his life, he served the Law of God (the New Testament). However, when he (or any of the Jews) returned in thought or in action to the "law of sin" (Law of Moses), it was proof that they had exchanged, even if for only a moment, the Spirit's influence for the influence of the flesh. To further solidify this conclusion, quickly notice Romans 8:1-3...
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the SPirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin. He condemned sin in the flesh."
As you can see in this passage, we are bound to a law today. This law is radically different from the Law of Moses, but it is a law nonetheless. Sin still exists. Apostasy is still possible. But thankfully, as Paul explains in Romans 7:10-25, the law to which we are bound is not a law that produces only sin and death, frustration and self-loathing; rather, the law of Christ is far superior, leading to joy and freedom!

Lord willing, in my next article, I will explain the advantages of Christ's law more fully based on the implications of Romans 7:10-25. Click here to access the next article.

8 comments:

  1. Interesting take.

    However, I have a struggle with this take.

    Paul claims that the law of Moses is good, holy, and righteous (vs. 12). Doesn't it stand to reason that if a good, holy, and righteous law were dwelling in his members (vs. 23) and he was actually serving a good, holy, and righteous law (vs. 25), that he wouldn't be sinning and having death?

    It seems to me the whole point is that he can't seem to serve the Law of Moses and it isn't dwelling in him. That's the problem. Thus, I find it really hard to accept that the law of sin and death in this context is the Law of Moses.

    What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comments, Edwin. I tried to address your objection in the article. While the law itself was holy and good, it was a law of sin and death because of the ensuing struggle in the mind of the faithful Jew. Again, the law aroused "sinful passions" that bore fruit unto death (vs. 5). Sin used the law to produce in Paul and the other Jews "all manner of evil desire" (vs. 8). The "commandment" revived sin (vs. 10). So while the law was holy and good, it was overbearing, frustrating, impossible to keep perfectly (which is partly why God had to overlook the times of ignorance, Ac. 17:30), and did nothing but confine the people under sin (Gal. 3:22).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Casey,

    I must not be making my point very clearly. What you have addressed is the fact that in some sense it is possible to describe the Law of Moses as a law of sin or a law of sin and death. I don't have a bit of problem conceding and admitting that.

    But that is not where my question and struggle lies with your interpretation. To make my question clear I am going to, for the sake of the argument, concede that in Roman 7:23, 25 that the law of sin and the law of sin and death refer to the Law of Moses. If that were the case, then the text could be read:

    "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of Moses that dwells in my members" (Romans 7:22-23).
    "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of Moses" (Romans 7:25).

    So, Paul says in these verses that the law of Moses actually dwelt in his members and that he actually served it with his flesh. That contradicts what he said earlier since the whole point of the rest of the chapter is that he didn't serve the Law of Moses but violated it. Since the Law is holy, good, and righteous, if it actually dwelt in him and if he actually served it, he would be holy, righteous, and good.

    But that is the problem. The whole reason why the Law of Moses can be called a law of sin and death in some context is because no one keeps it (except Jesus). If the Law of Moses actually dwelt in Paul's members and if he actually served it, it wouldn't be a law of sin and death for him. The problem is he didn't serve it, it didn't dwell in him. That is why he is in such despair. Try as he might to serve the Law with his flesh, he doesn't. So how then can we say that the law of sin he is serving is the Law of Moses?

    Yes, if you want to demonstrate that in some context the Law of Moses can also be called a law of sin or a law of sin and death, you can do that. And I would agree with you. That is what you did in your article and in your first response to me. The problem is that I'm not asking if in some context the law of Moses can be called that. I'm asking if in Romans 7:23 and 25 the phrase "law of sin" is really referring to the Law of Moses? Right now, my answer is no. Because in those verse, Paul said he was serving whatever law he was talking about in his flesh and the rest of the context proves that he was not serving the law of Moses with his flesh but violating it. Therefore, i don't see how "law of sin" in these verses can be the law of Moses.

    I hope that clarifies my point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand what you're saying, but perhaps you're focusing on the wrong word in verse 25. It seems to me that Paul is not so much emphasizing "serve" as he is emphasizing "flesh." In other words, the Jewish-Christians, or the Jews, or even Paul - if and when they subjected themselves to the Law of Moses, they did so to satisfy the flesh, rather than the Spirit. The Law of Moses, in it's proper place and context, was a God-ordained law, and was therefore holy, just and good (vs. 12) - but by serving it (which they couldn't/wouldn't perfectly do; again, it only led to frustration), it became to them - speaking in practical terms - a "law of sin." That's my thought, anyways. Just out of curiosity, at which point does Paul shift from the "Law of Moses" to the "law of sin?" And how would you define the "law of sin," especially in light of the fact that sin cannot exist apart from an ordained law from God (sin itself isn't a law, it is the result of violating the law)?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great question, Casey. First, I don't really think he stops talking about the law of Moses. I simply think in vs. 22, the law of God is a reference to the law given by God through Moses that said, "You shall not covet."

    This is the law Paul is talking about serving and delighting in. It is the law that is good, holy, righteous (vs. 12), spiritual (vs. 14), and is not sin (vs. 7). Further, it is not the law of Moses that actually brought death. Paul explains that in vs. 13. Rather, sin used the good law to its advantage and produced sin and death in me.

    Notice vs. 21. After having talked so much about the law of Moses and then in multiple verses explaining that sin was dwelling in him. He says, "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand." Is that the law of Moses? I don't see it as such. But Paul calls it a law. That is, it is something that is governing him. Then he explains how this law is working in his life in vss. 22-23. Even though he is delighting in God's law in his mind, he sees another law waging war against the law in his mind. That law takes him captive to the law of sin in his members. Thus, the term law is used in this context accommodatively. It is not a prescribed law, but rather a governing force that Paul is saying no matter how much he delights in God's will, this law takes over. This ties in to what was said in Romans 6:16. If you submit to sin to obey it, you'll become a slave to it. That is, it will become a governing master. The sad thing about the slavery of sin is once you submit to it, you can't get away from it...except through Jesus Christ.

    Further, in Romans 8:2-3 seems to demonstrate this same point to me. In that text it says that the "law of the Spirit of life" sets us free from the law of sin and death. Then it goes on to say that God has accomplished what the law could not. That to me throws a wrench in the works. It seems to me "the law" in vs. 3 is the law of Moses. Moses' law could not do what the Spirit's law can. But what can the Spirit's law do? It can set us free from the law of sin and death. So, the law of Moses cannot do that. It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that the text is telling us the law of Moses can't set us free from the law of Moses. Obviously, that is a tautology, but it just makes no sense. Rather, there is a law that is holding us captive. That is the law of sin and death. We are sinners. Having submitted to the rule of sin, we have become slaves of sin, and we have lost the power to throw off our new master. So, we might turn to the Law of Moses. The problem is that sin is lawlessness. Can we really treat sin by simply throwing more legal code at it? No. That would be like tossing a bucket of water on top of a drowning man. But "the law of the Spirit of life" can set us free from the law of sin. Of course, while I believe the New Covenant contains law, I think law in this phrase is used accommodatively as well. That is, instead of submitting to the governing power of sin, we submit to the governing power of the Spirit (btw: I do believe that governing power is brought to us through the Word, though I am perfectly willing to allow that the Spirit might be doing other work as well, I just don't know what it is and I know that my only way to know what the Spirit has directed is through the revealed Word).

    Anyway, this went longer than I intended, but maybe it helps clear up what I see in the text.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can see what you're saying, but I don't agree. I think, however, that in the end we reach the same basic conclusions.

    Having said that, I don't understand what you mean in the 4th paragraph of your last post when you say, "It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that the text is telling us the law of Moses can't set us free from the law of Moses." If you're referring to verse 23, it seems to me that the "law" that was in Paul's members was trying to turn Paul's attention from the "law of [his] mind" back to itself. I don't think that Paul is identifying three laws there (i.e. the law in his members, the law of his mind, and the law of sin). The law of sin, Paul says, IS the law in his members.

    Hey, maybe we can discuss this more at camp. I'd enjoy that. In fact, I know a few others who would really enjoy that, too. Anyways, feel free to respond. We can continue this conversation here. I'm enjoying this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, and if I don't respond quickly, it's because I don't get notifications that comments have been made. I just have to manually check to see if anyone has commented. I know...archaic, right? Blogspot needs to get with the times! Haha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Casey,

    I agree, the law of sin is the law in his members, which was one of the reasons I don't believe the law of sin here refers to the law of Moses. If that law was really in his members, dwelling in him, governing him, he wouldn't be having all this trauma.

    I'm actually referring to Romans 8:2-3. I do think there are three "laws" in those verses. There is the "law of the Spirit of life." There is "the law," which I think refers to the law of Moses. There is the "law of sin and death," which I believe refers back to the law mentioned in 7:21: "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand."

    The law of Moses cannot set us free from the law of sin and death, but the law of the Spirit of life can and does. That is why I choose Jesus over Moses.

    ReplyDelete