This is a problematic and much discussed passage. I’ve been discussing it in another forum, and have decided to move it here and present some very preliminary observations about it.
One large question is this: Who is the speaker here and what is his situation? Traditionally, the speaker is seen to be Paul and the situation is the trials of believers as they wrestle with indwelling sin. There are reasons why this traditional view has come into question, primarily that throughout this part of Romans Paul is discussing the coming of the New Creation and the end, in some sense, of the Torah-Law. That’s the point of Romans 7:1-6.
Hence, some have argued that the “I” in Romans 7:7-27 is not Paul himself but Israel, or the typical Israelite living under Torah and yearning for the New Creation. Yet, the problem with this is that the man in Romans 7 includes in his arguments that he has been raised from the Deathbody of Adam/Israel in union with Jesus Christ our Lord. He seems, thus, to be someone in the New Creation already.
My suggestion is that the man in Romans 7 is Paul Himself, but Paul putting himself in the position of Israel, and behind that, of the corporate Adam of the human race. Death entered through Adam, and humanity lived in an unresurrected Deathbody from then on. Death includes division,and Adam and Eve divided from each other right away, putting a fig-leaf barrier between themselves. God enhanced this division at Babel, and again by dividing humanity into circumcised and uncircumcised (Genesis 17). Further divisions, and symbolic forms of the Deathbody were introduced at Sinai, with priests alone allowed near to God, and various forms of symbolic uncleanness (death) linked to bodily functions (the flesh). The division within the human person is manifested here in Romans 7.
Torah-law, with its divisions and its Deathbody manifestations, arises from the original death-law, “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge or you will die.” The things that have to do with extending human dominion are marked with death: eating all animals, having children, glorious white skin, and rivers flowing from the center of the body (Lev. 11-15). Humanity is not resurrected, so all this glory is marked with death. This Deathbody and its problems is in view in Romans 7:13-25. The passage exists with an introduction and a three-fold argument, which cycles through four phases three times. Paul says, normatively, that he agrees with Torah (v. 16); dispositionally,that it is he himself who wishes to do Torah (v. 19), and situationally, that Jesus Christ has resurrected him from the Deathbody and its contradictions.
So we may ask, is this “Paul” Paul himself, or is he simply speaking of the experience of Adam, as matured into Israel? I submit that Paul’s use of “I” throughout means that he is using himself and his biography as an example of what he is talking about. I argue this for three reasons:
- The use of “I.” Paul is perfectly capable of discussing historical changes brought in by the New Creation objectively. He does so in most of his epistles. When he speaks of Israel/Jews, he writes “we.” His use of “I” here pushes me, as it has most exegetes, to think that there is some personal relationship between this argument and Paul himself.
- I believe that the preceding paragraph, Romans 7:7-12, links nicely with Paul’s own biography. It seems, to me, to describe his fall at the stoning of Stephen, his being killed by the Law, and imply his baptismal resurrection. In my mind, it sets up Romans 7:13-25 as an argument that Paul had with himself after he became a Christian. That argument is offered here as something for all Old Creation believers to learn from.
- In my opinion, Paul sets forth his own experiences here as a prelude to his discussion in Romans 11. What he went through is something “all Israel” is shortly to go through, so that like him, “all Israel” will be saved before the end of Israel in AD 70. I’ve discussed this in The Future of Israel Reconsidered, a monograph available from Biblical Horizons. (See the catalogue at www.biblicalhorizons.com
So now, Paul’s biography. I’m leaning a bit on insights from N.T. Wright, but with one departure. Wright sees Saul or Tarsus as somewhat of a political revolutionary from the start. I do not. He was a disciple of the peaceable Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He did not join in stoning Stephen, but followed Gamaliel’s advice to wait and see (Acts 5:34ff.) At this point I suggest that the kind of envy and wrath so ably discussed in the writings of Rene Girard too over. Wright points out that Stephen claimed to see heaven opened, the desire of every superfaithful Jew. Saul had not seen that, and Stephen’s claim provoked him to envy and superwrath (orgee). Suddenly Saul was motivated to murder all Christians, all the new kingly Davids, and began doing so.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin [is] dead. 9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10 and the commandment, which [was] unto life, this I found [to be] unto death: 11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. 12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.
Notice that Paul does not refer to the total Torah here. It is only the 10th Word that is in view. It is this commandment that struck Saul/Paul, not the totality. Paul writes that when this commandment came home to him, “sin became alive and I died.” Now, this is what happened at Sinai. The arrival of Torah meant that uncleanness (symbolic death) was multiplied. Paul, however, seems to be talking about something existential: sin became alive and I died. Paul immediately says that the purpose of Torah was life, but for him it became death.
I suggest that Paul refers to his own experience here, as typical of Israel. He was enraged at the claims of the Christians to be the new Israel, the new Temple, the new people of God. He saw what they had, lusted for it, but hated them for having it. He “died” to his earlier believing life as a faithful Jew. He experienced the fall of Adam anew. After his conversion he had to work through what it meant to be delivered from “bondage” to Torah, because Torah was good. His series of arguments with himself is given in Romans 7:13-25 as an example for others.
But is this passage of no meaning for us? No, because Romans 3:31 says that by faith we “establish Torah.” When Christians go through times of conviction, Romans 7:13-25 is a good passage to work through.
Introduction:
13 Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; — that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.
Cycle 1: Normative Perspective: Objective goodness of Torah
A. Problem: Indwelling sin.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
B. Contradictory life of the believer.
15 For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.
C. Comfort in knowing one is on the right side.
16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good.
D. Isolation of sin from “me.”
17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
Cycle 2: Dispositional Perspective: “My” desires
A. Problem: Indwelling sin.
18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good [is] not.
B. Contradictory life of the believer.
19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice.
C & D. Comfort Isolation of sin.
20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
Cycle 3: Situational Perspective: What God has Done to Change Things
A. Problem : Indwelling sin.
21 I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.
B. Contradictory life of the believer.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
C. Comfort in deliverance.
24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this death-body? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
D. Isolation of sin.
So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
This post originally was open to comments. Below are a few responses from James Jordan.
Response from James Jordan
As I presently (NB) see the passage, SaulPaul is using himself to replicate the history of Adam. As a son of Gamaliel and a faithful believer, Saul was alive apart from Torah once (though, like Abraham, he had God’s torahs, ordinances, statues, etc. and loved and followed them).
At some point the sin of covetousness took possession of him and he replicated the fall of Adam. This, I agree, is analogous to the arrival of Torah at Sinai. For Saul himself it was his fall into wrath at the stoning of Stephen.
Historically, the arrival of Torah “officially” at Sinai is a glory, in that it fills out more fully the meaning of human life and rule under God; but at the same time it is killing because fleshly-man now has a more full revelation of God to rebel against. That is, the “the Law is Spiritual (of the glory-Spirit), but I am fleshly.”
Saul was grabbed by Jesus and brought to Himself, but that conversion did not process itself through all at once. Saul believed, while being blinded. He was baptized and his blindness removed. He then spent three years working through what the New Creation meant.
I am arguing that Romans 7:13ff. is SaulPaul’s working through these matters as a new believer during those three years. (continuation below)
Continuing, Tim wrote:
>Paul says “when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (7.9). This is directly parallel to 5.20: “Now nomos came in, in order to increase the trespass.” In context, the trespass is the occasion of death (5.12ff). Thus, Paul is saying exactly what he said in chapter 5: when Torah entered, death re-entered.<
Jim replies: Aha. Yes indeed. I agree, save for the word “exactly” in the last sentence. Why say exactly the same thing again, and more important (to me) why go into all the psychological and existential angst of the matter? Why? Because, I submit, Paul is specifying the general principle to himself, using himself as an exemplar to new Jewish converts.
Rather than seeing 7:25 as an interjection out of context, I see it as the climax of the whole existential presentation. Paul has said that Torah is Spiritual, but apart from the Spirit it seems that Torah works death. (Galatians 4). Flesh defeats Torah. Of course, the Spirit was present in the Old Creation, uniting with Spiritual Torah to defeat flesh. But now, thanks be to Jesus Christ out Lord, Spirit has come fully and the Deathbody is slain and resurrected. As Paul has already said, this means Torah is “established” in a new context.
Summary: IMO, “Romans 7” recapitulates for us the arguments Saul had with himself after his conversion while he was rethinking the entirety of the Old Creation situation and revelation. This took some time. He presents it here as part of his argument about the coming of the new creation, and in particular as a way of addressing that Israel for which he would have been willling to give his life. Jewish converts need to think this through, following Paul, and not become “Judaizers.”
I hope this makes more sense, even if you still reject it. It was what I was trying to set forth in my original post.
A response from James Jordan
Mr. Kerr,
Have been away, and only now get to your question. Yes, I believe Saul was provoked to envious wrath by Stephen’s sermon and final vision. This was but a summary instance of the reality of the New Creation church. I suggest a comparison with a fantasy novella by Pushkin called “Mozart and Salieri,” which was made into an opera by Rimsky-Korsakov and into a film a few years back called “Amadeus.” In Pushkin’s tale, the young Mozart is gifted by God to be able to write effortlessly music that is better than what Salieri can write with much blood, sweat, and tears. Salieri is consumed with envy.
The 1st century Jews could see that the promises of God were being fulfilled. Elijah had come. The distinctive thing about Elijah and Elisha were that they raised people from the dead. Now this is happening again. Moreover, the promised speaking in other languages is taking place. Etc. Etc. The Christians were visibly and openly manifesting all kinds of things that the Jews expected to receive for themselves in the age to come. But it was not happening under their control. It was manifest among fishermen riffraff, Greek-Jews, and even Gentiles.
I do not accept the notion that Saul was a politicized follower of Shammai. He tells us he was of the “stay cool and wait and see” school of Gamaliel. It is clear that he did not take up a stone and join in the mob killing Stephen. The change that came over him is dramatic, and I personally think it is alluded to in Romans 7:7-11, as a prelude to his discussion Romans 11.
As I’ve written elsewhere, I don’t see how Romans 11 makes sense after the apostolic age. Post-Biblical Jews do not have the religion of the Old Testament, and hence are not angered by Christians using other languages, breaking bread and using musical instruments outside the Temple, mixing “Jews” and “Gentiles” together in the church, and claiming that the first century resurrections fulfilled the Old Testament predictions. The religion of Rabbinic Judaism is not about these things, so that there is nothing in Christian experience to provoke them to orgee wrath. Romans 11 only makes sense in the apostolic age, and it makes sense as the same kind of thing that Saul/Paul underwent.
A response from James Jordan
Dear Tim,
I’m sorry I’ve not been clear. So, here it is:
Romans 7:7-11 describes Saul’s experience of becoming enraged at Christians and falling into a love of death.
Romans 7:13-25 describes Galatians 1:15-18.
I do not believe that upon conversion Saul/Paul instantaneously and miraculously came to all the theology he expresses in his epistles. I believe he had a lot of stuff to work through, just like anyone else converted. And Saul was the Super-Israelite who understood better than anyone else in the history of the world exactly how the Torah system functioned. He was the perfect man for the job of working through what the New Creation meant for Torah-Man. That’s what he was doing in his early years, and it took time.
I submitted that Romans 7:14-25 is a three-fold explication of this working-through process. I provided an outline that shows to my present satisfaction that v. 25a is not an interjection but is parallel to the ends of the first two cycles. It is, of course, the climax of the whole argument and leads to Romans 8.
I believe that it was important for Paul, the Super-Israelite, so lay out these arguments for converted Jews in the apostolic age. In my opinion, this is exactly one of the things we should expect to find in the NT writings. Paul is helping other converted Jews to think though the problems of Torah and the meaning of the New Creation.
And, as I’ve written, I think that these kinds of arguments, this three-fold psychological cycle, can be helpful to Christians going through dark nights, etc.
I hope that makes clear how I’m seeing it.