Main Idea
The main idea in Romans 7:7-25 is that the Law provides structure and clarity to what God expects of those who follow its teaching. In Paul’s letter to the Roman believers, he illustrates the Law’s frailty in that though it provides this clarity, it also is ineffective because of humanity’s inability to fulfill the entirety of the Law. As a result, the internal struggle rages between what the individual desires to do according to God’s Law and what he accomplishes. Paul is explicit in that the Law is righteous and sound, yet it failed to bridge God and humanity’s gap. He closes out the passage by alluding to the source of our victory in the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Exegetical Outline – Romans 7:7-25
- Sin’s Advantage through the Law (vs. 7-12)
- The Ineffectiveness of the Law (vs. 13-14)
- The Internal Conflict of the Believer (vs. 15-23)
- The Advantage of Christ (vs. 24-25)
Introduction
From the beginning of human history, the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil existed. Within the Genesis account, Adam and Eve, the first humans, encountered the serpent’s deception and disobeyed their Creator by eating the forbidden fruit. This one act of disobedience created a spiraling chain-reaction of events that plummeted humankind into a state of active rebellion against their Creator God with devastating results. Throughout the ancient Hebrew texts, this cosmic battle raged, and humankind slipped farther away from the state of purity found in the Edenic garden.
The Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Law instituted a new way to engage with the Creator and provided relief for sin’s ravages. However, it was ineffective and ultimately led to the Jewish people’s failure to live up to the Law’s requirements. Against this backdrop, the Apostle Paul writes to the believers in Rome to expose the Law’s weakness and explain humankind’s desperate, sinful state and the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The thesis of this paper posits that in practice, the Mosaic Law was weak and ineffective in eradicating sins effect on humanity; this weakness under Law resulted in an internal conflict within the nature of humankind resolved only through the power of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Historical-Literary Context
To properly understand the Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament canon, it is vital to extrapolate a correct view of the historical context in which the letter derives. The authenticity of the authorship of Paul is primarily undisputed within modern scholarship. Paul was first a foremost a Jew and precisely one with a Pharisaic background whose conversion on the Damascus Road propelled him to be the foremost missionary to the Gentiles. In his commentary, James D.G. Dunn states, “The basic point for our understanding of the letter, however, is that his Jewish and Pharisaic background became and remained an integral part of Paul.”[1] The importance of the depth of Paul’s background within Judaism helps the reader exegete appropriate meaning from the dualism that Paul represents. Paul is a Jew that grapples with the divergences between the Mosaic law and the new covenant initiated by Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The reader sees an almost internal dialogue transpiring in Paul flowing outward into the public discourse with the Roman believers. Dunn goes on to connect Paul’s authorial background to the rhetorical dialogue we see consistently in Romans, “His self-identity as a Jew and his concern with the heritage of his people provide one side of the dialogue which continues throughout the whole letter, the warp which runs back and forward throughout the whole pattern.”[2]
Paul composed Romans between 55-58 BC in the city of Corinth in Asia Minor just before his journey to Jerusalem to deliver the Gentile collection to the Jewish believers. In his commentary work, John Murray states, “The evidence would indicate, therefore, the epistle was written from Corinth or its vicinity towards the end of Paul’s three months’ stay in Greece at the close of his third missionary journey.”[3] The authenticity of the text itself is considered accurate with some disputation concerning the conclusion of chapter sixteen of the letter. Werner George Kümmel states in his work Introduction to the New Testament, “The presupposition of the hypothesis, which is affirmed by a great majority of scholars, is that 16:25-27 is either a fragment of another Pauline letter, or a non-Pauline supplement.”[4] In totality, however, Romans’ textual criticism is that it is the text written by Paul to the church in the Imperial city of Rome.
The Roman church traces its origination most likely to the return of the Jewish diaspora who encountered the Holy Spirits’ initiation of the church at Pentecost in Jerusalem. These early Jewish believers then spread this new εύαγγἐλιον to the Gentile communities in Rome. By the time of writing this letter in the mid-first century, the makeup of the Roman church consisted of a diverse body of Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers. Regarding this composition, Kümmel states, “Rom manifests a double character: it is essentially a debate between the Pauline gospel and Judaism, so the conclusion seems obvious that the readers were Jewish Christians,” yet Paul makes specific statements in the text to Gentile-Christians, lending credence to the diversity of composition.[5]
The literary context of Romans falls within the standard New Testament letter category with the various elements present. This contextual element elevates the importance of understanding the occasion, authorship, and recipients of the letter. Nevertheless, at a deeper level to understand the contextual meaning of Romans, the reader must consider the use of Greco-Roman rhetoric by Paul in advancing his argument for the ineffectiveness of the law and the superiority of the gospel of Jesus Christ in dealing with the issue of man’s sinfulness. In his book The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, Neil Elliott posits the contention that “the prevailing explanations of the letter’s double character are too often purchased at the cost of the letter’s rhetorical integrity.”[6] The resolution of the double character issue raised by Kümmel is best addressed by evaluating the epistolary text from a rhetorical-criticism perspective. Specifically, when the reader evaluates Paul’s use of diatribe in chapter seven of Romans, the Pauline contention with the law is revealed accordingly. In his article, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” Krister Stendahl states, “Paul here is involved in an argument about the Law; he is not primarily concerned about man’s or his own cloven ego or predicament.”[7] Divorcing modern western understanding of the internal conscience and its imposition on the individual as a director of proper action helps in the reading of Pauline texts as an overarching argument between law and the new covenant and not as an interpersonal debate with a flawed conscience.
Paul’s argument between law and this new covenantal relationship through Christ is paramount to understanding Romans’ flow of thought. In essence, chapters 6-8 form a rhetorical unit with an “extensive argumentative progression.”[8] According to Elliott, “the terse Christological formulations of Romans 5 have given way now to a discussion of the ‘theological basis of the Christian’s moral obligation’ in 6.1-23, which requires further explanation in 7.1-6, 7.7-25, and 8.1-13.”[9] Viewing these chapters as a rhetorical unit clarifies the ancient text with chapter six, illustrating the contrast between the old and new life and chapter eight contrasting life according to the flesh and the Spirit. With Romans 7 forming “an argumentive apex with chs. 6-8, reflecting the core of the rhetorical exigence within this argumentative unit.”[10] In regards to the specific arguments of Paul in his rhetorical analysis in Romans 7, Douglas Moo states a two-fold purpose, “to vindicate the law from any suggestion that it is, in itself, ‘sinful’ or evil; and to show how, despite this, the law has come to be a negative force in the history of salvation.”[11]
Exegesis
From the precipice of the overarching thematic progression of the rhetorical unit of Romans chapters 6-8, the focus narrows to the apex argument in chapter 7.7-25. Paul begins with an emphatic rhetorical question in verse 7, “What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet” (Rom. 7:7, NRSV).[12] From the outset, Paul establishes the idea that though the law was flawed in its effectiveness in eradicating humanity’s sin conundrum, he stakes his rhetorical propositio firmly in this opening verse that the law was vindicated because it clarified the reality and harm caused by sin. He then explains to the believers in Rome that the law’s failure was not in the law itself but in the craftiness of sin in its usage of the law to defile.
In verse 8, Paul explains, “But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead” (Rom. 7:8). The real villain for Paul then is the sin resident within humanity. Moo illustrates this interrelationship between the law and Sin, “Between these, Paul cares for his other main purpose. He admits that, though the law is not “sin,” it does have a close relationship to sin. For the law brings recognition of sin and even stimulates sinning (vv. 7b– 8).”[13] With an element of irony, Paul then explains the interplay of the law, sin, and death by stating that the “commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” (Rom. 7:12) and, in essence, established a “bridgehead” in his life resulting in spiritual death.[14] This first paragraph wraps up by reinforcing the rightness of the law, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom. 7-12). Moo posits that “This paragraph has two purposes: to exonerate the law from the charge that it is sinful and to delineate more carefully the true relationship among sin, the law, and death.”[15]
The next paragraph in Paul’s diatribe shakes the foundational precepts of humanity built within religion’s confines. Again, by using the rhetorical question, Paul draws out the desperate situation that precludes from the laws’ goodness. Paul states, “Did what is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure” (Rom. 7:13). Paul points the finger of guilt precisely at the feet of “sin.” Karl Barth in The Epistle to the Romans posits, “Do we now at least recognize what sin is and how impossible it is for us to escape from it? So deeply, does it penetrate every human capacity. That the attempt to eluded by taking up with religion entangles us more surely in its guilt and plunges us into the destiny of death.”[16] Paul focuses the Roman believer on the purpose of the law to show the desperate human condition within the context of the deception of sin.
With the foundational vindication of the law in Paul’s rhetorical analysis, the text flows into a debated section Romans 7:15-23 concerning the internal human conflict initiated by the law’s goodness yet its ineffective remedy of the desperate human sin condition. The debate in this section of the text revolves around whether Paul speaks of the regenerated believer’s struggle with sin or the unregenerate human. In his commentary on Romans, Grant R. Osborne posits that the logical conclusion is that Paul is referring to the regenerated believer that relies on the flesh instead of the Holy Spirit in his conflict with the sinful nature. He states, “it is more likely that the contrast between life under the flesh in 7:14-25 and life under the Spirit in 8:1-17 is a comparison not of the unsaved and the saved but of the Christian trusting the flesh and the Christian living in the Spirit.”[17] The opposing viewpoint, according to Thomas R. Schreiner in his Romans commentary, is held by Kümmel, “For many years, research on Rom. 7 has been dominated by Kümmel’s monograph, in which he argued that “I” is rhetorical, not autobiographical. Kümmel (1974: 118– 32) himself maintains that the “I” refers to every person in general, and any specific reference to Paul, Adam, or Israel should be rejected.”[18] Whether Paul refers to himself by using the Greek word ἐγώ or whether he utilized it in a rhetorical sense to refer to humanities condition. The fact remains that the internal conflict described in verses 14-25 relates to humankind’s condition and the need for a bridge to cross the divide between a holy God and rebellious humanity.
Paul begins this section by establishing the vast difference that exists between humanity and the law. He states, “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Rom. 7:14-15). The flesh or physical self that Paul describes is the source of our passions outside of God and produces all manner of covetousness within us. The frustration is evident in Paul’s writing of the constant struggle between the fleshly passions and the law’s righteousness. He goes on to say that this impulse within humanity to do evil derives from the internal dwelling of sin and becomes the overriding principle with which a person acts, “But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Rom. 7:17). Paul’s view of the flesh most likely derives from the Jewish doctrine of the two “natures.” Osborne states,
This negative view of the flesh may stem from the Greek repugnance toward the flesh but more likely is connected to the Jewish doctrine of the two “natures” or yetzerim. The Jews believed every person has an impulse or inclination to do good (yetzer tob) and an impulse to do evil (yetzer hara‘) and that every decision was made on the basis of interaction between these two forces.[19]
For the remainder of this section, the deep internal struggle is reflected in Paul’s use of interplay to show the dichotomy of his desire. The core of his understanding of the law and his desire to fulfill it fails him, resulting in sin prevailing through his flesh. The section culminates with the imagery of the complete subjugation of the ἐγώ to the impulses of sin, “But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Rom. 7:20).
Finally, Paul moves the reader to the final stage of his rhetorical argument concerning the law by equating the struggle with sin as another law working within his members warring against the “righteous law”. Not only does sin subjugate humanity, but its roots also run deep, creating an alternate law within the confines of the physical self. This alternate law actively resists the law of God even though a person delights in that “righteous law.” The picture that unfolds is one of a spiritual struggle taking place within the confines of human frailty to no avail. Herein lies the Mosaic law’s ineffectiveness, in that though intrinsically spiritual, it relegated to the sphere of the physical realm, results in the elevation of sin and, ultimately, death for the individual. Paul’s use of hyperbole in verse twenty-four shocks the reader to his senses at the utter failure of the law and the flesh to eradicate sin, “Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24)? Dunn describes it well, “The one who cries for help so piteously cries from within the contradiction; he longs for deliverance from the endless war and frequent defeat. “The body of this death” is Paul in his belonging to this age, and to that extent still under the domination of sin and death.”[20] The cry of Paul is one suspended between two ages, the death of Christ and the fulfillment of his complete deliverance that is to come. In essence, Paul describes the tension in the “inaugurated eschatology” that the Roman believer finds himself within. The cosmic battle between good and evil taking place within the confines of the “self.” Dunn goes on to posit that,
Paul’s cry is not a cry of despair, so much as a cry of frustration; not of despair, because Paul is certainly confident that the full deliverance will come (cf. 5:9— 10; 6:8; 11:26), but of frustration— the frustration of trying to walk in newness of life (6:4) while still a man of flesh, the frustration of seeking to serve in newness of Spirit (7:6) through this body of death.[21]
The depths of the frustration bursts forth from Paul’s usage of the Greek word ταλαιπωρος. In his article, “The ‘I’ Who Laments: Echoes of Old Testament Lament in Romans 7:7-25 and the Identity of the ἐγώ” Channing Crisler posits that “the cry ταλαιπωρος in Rom 7:24 echoes the image of enemies and/or of God, which places the lamenter in a miserable location of abandonment/death.”[22] Paul is possibly lamenting the death that he sees working within his members, and reaching the point of feeling abandoned by God cries out for salvation. In response to his lament, Paul answers his question with confidence that the solution to his dilemma will come through Jesus Christ, “‘Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25). In his commentary, Frank J. Matera states, “Although this is the desperate cry of the conflicted self, Paul makes this cry in light of his own redemption in Christ. Aware that Christ has already rescued him from this situation,”[23] He goes on to posit that within this declaration of thanksgiving, Paul “recalls the victory” described in Romans chapter 5 and “anticipates his discussion of life in the Spirit” that will be unpacked in chapter 8.[24]
Therefore within this rhetorical unit, Paul culminates the center with his Christological exclamation of deliverance viewed as the metaphorical peak within the context of the unit of thought. Christ is the answer to the ineffective law and the internal conflict of the ἐγώ. Matera further undergirds this point, “The carnal egō recognizes God’s law with its intellect, but inasmuch as the unredeemed self is in the flesh, it serves the law of sin because it does not have the inner power to observe God’s law, the power of God’s Spirit, which Paul will describe in chapter 8.”[25] It is because of the law and the exacerbation of the sin problem that elevates the need for Christ to remediate. Stendahl states, “all men must come to Christ with consciences properly convicted by the Law and its insatiable requirements for righteousness.”[26]
Application
Paul establishes the rhetorical argument for the Roman believers that there is an inadequate response or efficacy to deal with sin or their separateness from a Holy God within the confines of their religious endeavors. Then burst forth and leads the charge for a better, effective remedy through the Holy Spirit’s sanctification in verse 25 and completed in chapter eight. The center of Paul’s arguments is that these new believers can be confident in the work of grace through Christ to bring about their complete sanctification and victory in the coming eschaton.
For the modern person living out their faith in the confines of a post-modern, antithetical environment opposed to God’s ideas and the fulfillment of his promises, they can also find assurance in the work of grace through Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit. The addict struggling with the traumatic pain of the past and the internal struggle to overcome the demons of addiction can be confident that through accepting Christ’s sacrificial gift of salvation, they will find freedom and peace. Paul instructs the believer not to put their confidence in religion or law-keeping for freedom because this mode only brings further exacerbation of sin; instead, they should fully trust in Christ to transform and empower them unto salvation. The Gospel of Christ is sufficient in accomplishing the needed remedies for the sinful nature within the modern believer.
Conclusion
Within Romans 7:7-25, Paul effectively argues that though the Mosaic law was spiritual and sound, it remained insufficient in its ability to remediate the curse of humanity’s sinfulness and that only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus could humankind find absolute freedom from sin. By utilizing Greco-Roman rhetoric and utilizing chapters 6-8 as a comprehensive rhetorical unit, Paul establishes his contrasting case in chapter six, reaching his argumentative apex in chapter seven and resolving and explaining his conclusion in chapter eight, leaving the reader with confidence in his conclusion that Christ is the center and solution for the sin conundrum of humanity. An understanding that no substitute can suffice, but that Christ is all in all the hope of humankind.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Crisler, Channing L. “The’ I’ Who Laments: Echoes of Old Testament Lament in Romans 7:7-25 and the Identity of the Έγώ.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 82, no. 1 (January 2020): 64–83. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiGW7191129000029&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Dunn, James D. G.. Romans 1-8, Volume 38A. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015. Accessed October 10, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans : Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 1990. Accessed October 3, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Kummel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. 17th ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1975.
Matera, Frank J.. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Accessed September 20, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977.
Osborne, Grant R.. Romans. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Schreiner, Thomas R.. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” The Harvard Theological Review 56, no. 3 (1963): 199-215. Accessed September 21, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1508631.
[1] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Volume 38a (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 42, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[2] Ibid.
[3] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, vol. 1, Chapters 1 to 8 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977), xvi.
[4] Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 17th ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1975), 316.
[5] Ibid, 309.
[6] Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 1990), 15, Accessed October 3, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[7] Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” The Harvard Theological Review 56, no. 3 (1963): 211, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1508631.
[8] Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans, 236.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid, 237.
[11] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 248, Accessed October 10, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[12] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ the New Revised Standard Version.
[13] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 253.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 256.
[17] Grant R. Osborne, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 182, Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[18] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 357, Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[19] Osborne, Romans, 186.
[20] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 483.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Channing L. Crisler, “The’ I’ Who Laments7-25 and the Identity of the έγώ.: Echoes of Old Testament Lament in Romans 7,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 82, no. 1 (January 2020): 77, https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiGW7191129000029&site=ehost-live&scope=site..
[23] Frank J. Matera, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 179, Accessed September 23, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul”, 207.
Restored 