Romans 7 Part 3

Romans 7 Mini-Series Part 3

I want to talk more about that in this episode this is the third episode of a six-part mini-series where we are addressing the difficult passage of Romans seven and whether Paul is speaking as a Christian. The center of hot debate is found in verses 14 through 25, but our analysis in this mini-series will expand from Romans chapter 7 verses 7 through chapter eight, verse four.

 In the last two episodes, we covered the background for the Romans book and the first three of nine misconceptions that are commonly believed about Romans 7. If you have not listened to those episodes, I encourage you to do so before proceeding with this episode, it will be important for you to have all the context of this discussion.

Misconception number 4

In this episode, we will discuss two more misconceptions about Romans 7 that have to do with why Paul is speaking in the present tense in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 and also where is the Holy Spirit in this passage. Let’s jump into the fourth misconception why is Paul speaking in the present tense in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25. The misconception is this Paul speaks almost exclusively with the present tense in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25, so that means Paul is speaking about his present experience as a Christian as he writes the letter of Romans. but this is a misconception yes Paul almost exclusively speaks with the present tense in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25, but that doesn’t mean that he is necessarily speaking about his own current experience. Similar to Paul’s rhetorical use of the first-person singular that we spoke about in the previous episode it is hard for our modern Western minds to conceive of Paul not speaking about his present moment when using the present tense.

Since we as modern English speakers use the present tense to speak about current things

 It is hard for us to imagine Paul speaking about anything else but his own current situation. but there are four important things to consider that explain why this is a misconception; first, it is easy to foist a modern English definition present tense on the New Testament Greek present tense, they both share the same name, so it makes sense in our minds to assign the exact same meaning to both. And certainly there is a lot of commonality between the present tense of modern English and the present tense of New Testament Greek, but there are differences.

most scholars today are convinced that ancient Greek tenses did not have as much time embedded into them as we do in modern English. what I mean is that we express time best with our verbs in English “he is singing” is a present tense verb for us English speakers we would assume that this is happening in the moment. “He sang” is a past tense verb it means that this happened in the past. “He will sing” is a future tense verb; it means that this will happen in the future.

 So we are comfortable with our verbs giving away the time of the action, but ancient studies have shown that Greek verbs don’t carry as much time as English verbs do. It is true the Greek present tense can often mean that something is happening in the present also the Greek future tense can often mean that something will happen in the future. But scholars have found that the Greek context is actually a better determiner of time than the verbs themselves. this is getting a little deep into a complicated subject called verbal aspect theory, but I think to keep it simple I would like to prove the point by providing a few examples.

First of all your English translation may not reveal this but the Gospels are written mostly in the present tense. Often New Testament writers wrote narrative stories like this one in Matthew 3:1 “now in those days John the Baptist is arriving preaching in the wilderness of Judea.” now it was kind of awkward for me to say is arriving in that sentence but that is what the Greek literally says our English translations change it to a past tense because we are not used to reading like this. But that is how most of the Gospels are written it is an evocative way to catapult the reader into the immediate moment almost as if the event is happening as the reader is reading the story, and I’ll talk more about that in a moment.

 So we must be careful when we assume that Paul is speaking about his current Christian experience in Romans 7 just because he uses intense verbs there’s a lot more to the grammar in context than we may originally think. But you may be wondering “Romans 7 is not a narrative it’s not one of the Gospels so are there other examples in the epistles where the authors use the present tense to describe a past event?” to answer this let me give you a couple of examples for instance in Philippians 3:4,6 Paul uses the present tense to describe his past life and Judaism by saying “having confidence in the flesh” and “persecuting the church.” Many translations may say “might have confidence in the flesh”, and “persecutor of the church.” but actually Paul uses present tense verbs in each of these verses to illustrate something that happened in the past, but an even better example is 2nd Corinthians 1:15-17 there Paul literally says “and in this I was formerly purposing to come to you with confidence.”

Here he uses an imperfect tense which often describes something in the past so far so good. but then in verse 17 he literally says “therefore when I am purposing this I was not then vacillating was I or what I am purposing am I purposing according to the flesh?” in other words, Paul changes from a past tense to a present tense when he talks about his former purpose. clearly he can talk about something that happened in the past as though it is happening in the present “so why did he do that in 2nd Corinthians 1 you might ask?” because he wanted the Corinthians to relive his ambivalence with him as though it was happening in the moment that’s exactly what Paul is doing in Romans 7:7-13 he uses aorist and imperfect tenses that typically describe past events to depict something that might have happened in the past because he may be alluding to the event at Sinai. which we don’t really have time to talk about in this miniseries but then in verses 14 through 25 he uses present tense verbs to continue the story he does this to place his Jewish audience in their old shoes as though they are reliving their own struggles with him. Related to, let me bring up now a second point.

 Despite what we might first assume it is not at all uncommon in English to speak about a situation in the present tense without the reality of that event actually taking place at the time that we are speaking about it. We often do this to communicate evocatively, for instance, there was, and there still is to a degree a standard of educational essays in the American school system to be written in the present tense. We might write a simple statement in an essay like this “Jane Austen continued her commentary on the English upper class when she related.” this sentence is written in the past tense, and it distances the reader from the scene that the writer is portraying. It communicates facts but not much feeling for some it can even be a little boring to read or listen to. but if we use the present tense it will be more evocative and interesting to listen to “Jane Austen continues her commentary on the English upper class when she relates.” by using the present tense the reader is placed into the situation as though it is happening in the moment as though Jane Austen is writing in that moment even though Jane Austen wrote her literature a long time ago. When we communicate as though she is writing it today, we are not just telling our readers that something happened, but we are including them into the story.

 so it is not appropriate for us to assume that using the present tense for evocative or vivid purposes is uncommon in our modern English writing let alone it is often a more appealing way to communicate to others. in fact there is scarcely a better way to enliven a story than to describe it as though it is happening right now. We as modern English speakers do this all the time even in casual conversation. We will often talk about past events as though they are happening in the moment this happens a lot when we relate an interesting story that happened to us we get into the storytelling mode. “So remember that other day when I was shopping at the grocery store this lady said her cart next to mine then all of a sudden she takes with my cart and continue shopping with it without realizing that it isn’t her cart I’m standing there and I can’t believe what is happening.” you see how I use the present tense in my story to communicate something evocatively it helped to place you in the moment and visual and maybe even feel what it is like to be in my shoes when the event took place.

 Now it shouldn’t be too hard for us to believe that biblical writers can speak like this too it is a shame how quickly we sometimes can limit what biblical writers can and can’t do when we do these things all the time. So where in Scripture might we suppose that an author might communicate in the present tense for vividness sake? Well, Romans, 7 could scarcely be a better opportunity to use the present tense in this way. Why? Because Paul is not communicating theological principles or benign data in Romans 7 he is relating a graphic, vivid heart-wrenching back and forth wrestling of an inner brooding of Jewish angst under the law. This isn’t just a valid time for him to be using the present tense evocatively it is a perfect time. so as Paul expresses these things in Romans 7 he uses one of the most appropriate techniques for storytelling in human communication he uses the present tense and by doing this, he steps into the shoes of a Jew struggling under the law and displays Jewish thoughts as though they are happening in the moment. In all of this, Paul does because he is reaching an emotional climax in Romans about the bondage and hopelessness of sin and the law.

 but this brings me to another point about the present tense have you ever wondered that we especially use the present tense in modern English when something is written theoretically hypothetically or rhetorically because we don’t have in mind a specific event when speaking about something theoretical we can convey the experience with the present tense without referring to any immediate occasion.

this helps our story apply better to everyone involved for instance when a teacher is giving an illustration he doesn’t have to use the past tense instead his story is better communicated if he says something like this “let’s say I’m driving on the freeway and I see a mattress tied to the top of a car and all of a sudden it falls off.” you can see how this theoretical scenario works best in the present tense because it’s not really something that happened to him at any point in time, it’s a clever way to help others relate with the story. Certainly, people may have experienced such a situation before a mattress flying off of a car, but the story is meant to be relatable, not actual. It doesn’t have to be real just believable.

 in this way when we communicate like this, we are communicating in a timeless manner, and the present tense that we are using has no bearing on when the event took place because this is not a particular event that ever took place it’s hypothetical it’s rhetorical. In the same way Paul not only has the freedom to use the present tense for dramatic effect, but he does so in Romans 7 because he is in a rhetorical discussion. This is a make-or-break issue! if you as a listener are convinced by the previous episode that Paul is speaking in Romans 7 for someone else, not himself then his present tense verbs can mean absolutely nothing when it comes to time there can be no serious evaluation on when this situation is happening because it’s theoretical and a representative experience there is no timestamp on a story in Romans 7 because it’s not his story it’s hypothetical it’s certainly a real situation that many Jews have faced, but if Paul is representing how others have felt under the law then this situation is timeless and replies to all Jews who have lived under the law. He is not referring to a current situation or an occasion related to a specific person location or time even his own it could be any believing Jewish situation at any time before Christ.

 And that leads me to my last point about the present tense the theoretical use of the present tense is why the present tense, especially in Greek, can sometimes be a very poor indicator of the author’s immediate time. Because authors like Paul often use the present tense to convey situations or experiences for the sake of vividness or rhetorical strategy or both especially in rhetorical discussions like Romans. so the best and really hard sure grammatical way to know the time of Paul situation in Romans 7 is not to nitpick at the verb tenses in the passage, but it is to see if there are any adverbs that are giving away the time. when we study the passage carefully in Romans 7 there are two adverbs that give us some anchor points for Paul’s immediate moment but they are not found in chapter 7 verses 7 through 25 which is our passage at hand instead they occur in the two verses that book in verses 7 through 25 in Romans 7:6 Paul uses the term “now” then in Romans 8:1 he uses that same word “now” again. Both of these in context have a temporal idea, in other words, they are telling us Paul’s and his audience’s immediate moment. It would be like saying this in verse 6 “today now Paul and his audience are released from the law.” and then in chapter 8 verses 1 “today now there is no condemnation for them.”

But every verse between these two verses in chapter 7 verses 7 through 25 there are no “time” adverbs. That should tell us that this section is likely timeless and there are no sure reasons for us to conclude that Paul is speaking about his current situation, let alone his situation at all. now for those who know the passage well it might be good for me to mention that there is one adverb in Chapter 7 verse 17 where Paul says now which sounds like an adverb communicating his immediate moment but as many commentators have made sure to point out Paul is clearly using that word now in verse 17 as a logical transition not as a word that is giving away his current situation.

 Now we do this all the time in modern English. in fact in the previous sentence I just used that word now as a logical transition, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. to sum it all up there are no time adverbs in chapter 7 verses 7 through 25 none but Paul bookends Romans 7 verses 7 through 25 with the same adverb now to indicate that he is speaking about his current situation in those verses, but everything else in between has no respect for Paul’s moment in time.

 next, I want to move into our second misconception in this episode that has to do with the Holy Spirit, and it is this the Holy Spirit can be found in Romans 7 verse 18 and in the godly desires that Paul expresses in the Romans 7 passage, but this is a big misconception. In fact, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned once in Chapter 7 verses 7 to 25, which is strange because, at the height of Paul’s turmoil with sin, the Holy Spirit is not there. This is actually one of the most compelling as to why Paul doesn’t appear to be a Christian in this passage at all. So where is the Spirit in Paul struggle, why does Paul seem completely oblivious to the Spirits indwelling presence in his struggle with sin? He communicates to struggle in Romans seven in such a despairing tone that it doesn’t even seem that he knows that the New Covenant has begun and the Spirit has come to dwell in God’s people for the bearing of good fruit.

 The reason it seems that Paul is oblivious to the Spirit in Romans seven is because Paul is not speaking from his current experience as a Christian at all but from the perspective of an Old Testament Saint before the coming of the new covenant and the Holy Spirit. now you as the listener might tell me, “but that’s technically an argument from Silence fallacy just because the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in Romans seven verses seven through twenty-five does not mean that he doesn’t exist there?” “and normally I agree with you” however it’s almost impossible to maintain an argument from Silence fallacy here. because Paul not only keeps the Holy Spirit completely out of his discussion in Romans seven verses seven to twenty-five, but he actually bookends this passage with the Holy Spirit. This is far beyond an argument from Silence issue Paul intentionally speaks about the Spirit as the agent of change in the Christians life in Romans 7 verse six and then he doesn’t mention him again until chapter eight verse two when he steps into the light of the New Covenant.

 It is one thing for the Spirit not to be mentioned in our passage it is another thing for Him to be the subject of discussion surrounding the passage but then completely absent in our text. That’s not a coincidence that’s intentional the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in our text because he’s not there. but as I mentioned at the beginning of this misconception many have argued that Romans 7:18 implies the Holy Spirit in this verse. Paul says “for I know that nothing good dwells in me that is in my flesh.” Many commentators have said that Paul is insisting here that nothing good dwells in his flesh, but something good dwells in the Holy Spirit that dwells in him. But the problem is Paul is not contrasting the flesh and the spirit here we just assume that that’s the case because flesh and spirit are contrasted a lot in the New Testament. But the very next statement in verse 18 tells us what Paul is contrasting with the flesh and sadly it is ignored by so many scholars who make this unfounded. Paul says at the end of verse 18, “for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” Paul is not contrasting flesh and spirit here as he does in Galatians 5 or other similar passages actually he’s contrasting his desires and his deeds. for further confirmation just read Romans 7:25 he is contrasting his mind in his flesh his internal and his external it is simply not proper to proof text the Holy Spirit in verse 18 this is a battle that Paul is fighting all on his own with his own will his own desires and his own strength but he cannot succeed because he has no access to the Spirit. And this makes sense under the New Covenant the battle is between the flesh and the spirit but under the Old Covenant which is what Romans 7 is really talking about the battle for the believing Jews is between the flesh and the mind without the spirit which always leads to defeat just like we find in Romans 7.

 Even if you could somehow proof-text the Holy Spirit into Paul’s words in verse 18, it would defy our understanding of the Spirit in every other New Testament passage. the Spirit is not the agent of good desire without good fruit as verse 18 saying rather the Spirit is always described in the New Testament as the agent of good fruit the Spirit was given to us so that we would be able to bear good fruit just read what Paul recently said in Romans 7:4,6.  If there’s no good fruit then there’s no evidence of the Spirit but if Paul is arguing in verse 18 that the Spirit is producing good desires in him with no ability to act on those good desires then it would contradict everything he is about to say in Chapter 8 that the Spirit was given to us so that we would bear good fruit.

 Conclusion

So let’s bring it all together we have learned that Paul uses the present tense but not to communicate his current situation location or Christian experience. Instead, he does what many have done in ancient Greek and what many do today he uses the present tense because he’s vividly communicating a timeless and theoretical situation of Jewish angst under the law. Rather than looking to the present tense to find Paul’s current situation we only need to look at the verse before and the verse after Romans 7 verses 7 through 25. it is there that we find the same word in each verse that tells us what is true for him and his readers today; now they are released from the law, now they have no condemnation, now they are freed from the law of sin and death

 also we learned that the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in Paul’s struggle with sin in Romans chapter 7 verses 7 through 25 not even in verse 18 instead Paul is contrasting the deeds of his flesh with the desire of his will he wants to do what is right, but he is unable. By definition of Romans 8 the New Covenant and the rest of the New Testament, this is not evidence of the Holy Spirit at all rather evidence of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant is always fruit-bearing not good desires divorced from good fruit.

 In fact, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in Romans 7 verses 7 through 25, but he appears right before the passage in verse 6 and then is the focus of discussion right after the passage all throughout chapter 8 coincidence? No that’s intentional! Romans 7 is written as a Jewish experience devoid of the spirit before the New Covenant.

In the next episode we will address two more misconceptions about Romans 7 by tackling these misconceptions we will answer two often asked questions about the passage 1 is there any Christian fruit to be found in Romans 7 and 2 is Paul really enslaved to sin in this passage more on that next time you