Romans 7

In the study of Romans 7, which is part of Paul’s great Treaty on the subject of sanctification, and therefore the most important part of the Bible for believers, who have already had an encounter with the living God, it is important to keep Peter’s dire warning in mind that, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16.

Looking back to Romans 6, according to the interpretation that excludes both ideas that a) Paul is speaking as a non believer, and b) he is describing the normal Christian life as in Calvinism, he is speaking to those who are genuine believers who were ignorant of (and so, failing to live in) the spiritual truth he described. He is giving attention to sanctification as in Galatians 5:17, "for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and they are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things you would”. This interpretation is freely found in the early Patristic period and during periods of genuine revival as in the Great Awakenings.

We see the same method used in 1John where he uses the A-B, A-B, A-B system to juxtipose those who walk with God versus those who walk in sin and darkness, which is another great passage that is ‘wrest’. Those who wish to read chapter 7 as Paul speaking about his unconverted days as a devout Pharisee, must explain it when he says of himself in Philipians 3:6, "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” Both scriptures cannot both be describing Paul under grace.

Chapter 7, where Paul uses a well known literally tactic called IDENTIFICATION, to define carnality in order to win the carnal believer to Christ and he becomes weak in order to gain the weak 1 Cor. 9:22. Romans 7:23 says he is held captive, by the power of sin, yet, Romans 6:6 tells us that he is set free from sin. Ephesians 4:24 tells us that "and that you put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and TRUE holiness”. He says in verse 14 that he is carnal and yet, if he was truly carnal, he would not have been penning Holy Scripture and instructing others to ‘copy him’.

Romans 7 depicts a person desiring holiness of life and can only be a believer, for the unconverted person does not long for God but is hostile towards Him. We see that the answer comes at the end of the chapter as we go on in chapter 8 of the man who has learned how to walk in the Spirit. This interpretation was partly rejected by Augustine of Hippo during his famous debate with Pelagius, who was challenging Augustine’s claim that it was the unconverted Paul, as this was not the belief of the early church. However Augustine rejected the idea that the man could go on to holiness and remained a slave to the flesh.

So he brought a new interpretation into the church, which was more in line with Augustine’s former Manichean philosophy
Those that say ‘but Paul said he was ‘chief of sinners’ forget that he himself required overseers to be blameless (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:7). Living in sin is far from blameless, so he would disqualify himself. He could not even be a deacon 1Tim 3:10.

Paul’s view of himself is quite contrary to this idea as he viewed himself as holy and blameless. 1 Thess 2:10 says "You are witnesses and God also, how devoutly justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe”. So why did Paul say ‘I am’ rather than ‘I was’? Again, Greek authors used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of the occurrence. So Paul is saying that he formerly led a life of terrible sin, referring to his involvement in the stoning of Steven and saying that God could even save such as these.

Let me explain why I think Paul has to be talking about his attempts at self righteousness under the law, and not talking about anything a Christian ecperiences today. I understand fully that there is some debate about this among different teachers. Just to let you know where I am coming from and why I see it this way.

Some passages out of Romans 7 that set up Paul's discussion. Remember that the entirety of the book of Romans to this point has been the contrast between the law and the new covenant.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

It is at this point that Paul then goes into the discussion of the things he wanted to do he found himself not doing, etc..

At the end he asks, "Who is going to save me from this body of death?" The body of death was the body of sin mentioned in Romans 6. It is the old man, dead in sin and condemned by the law. Paul says it is Jesus who will save him. Then in chapter 8 he says that in Christ there is therefore now no condemnation (damning sentence). Death under the law. No more death when he is in Christ.

Just a perspective to consider, but I believe a solid one.

I think when Paul says he was blameless, he is not saying sinless. He is saying that, among the Pharisees, he kept the details of the law so closely that they would have found no blame in him. That self-righteousness was earning him great honour among the Jews. But it earned him nothing with Christ. He counted it, along with everthing else, as loss, as dung, that he might have Christ.