Romans 7 Mini-Series Part 4

Romans 7 slaves to righteousness or slaves to sin?

In this episode I want to speak to two sides of the same coin when it comes to Romans seven – frequently discussed aspects of the passage that are interrelated where’s the godly fruit, and what does enslavement really mean in this passage?

 This is the fourth episode of a six-part miniseries where we are addressing the difficult passage of Romans 7 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 7 verse 7 through chapter 8 verse 4. In the last three episodes, we covered the background for the Romans book. And the first five of nine misconceptions that are commonly believed about Romans 7. if you have not listened to those episodes, I encourage you to do that before proceeding with this episode it will be important for you to have all the context for this discussion.

Paul’s struggle with sin

 In this episode, we will discuss two more misconceptions about Romans 7 that have to do with Paul’s fruit-bearing or lack thereof and his enslavement and imprisonment to sin. Let’s jump into the sixth misconception is there any good fruit to be found in Romans 7 that might show that he is speaking as a Christian. In other words, the misconception can be worded like this Romans 7 is a graphic portrayal of Christian life that evidence is sometimes good fruit and sometimes bad fruit.

Our struggle with sin

But this is a misconception, in fact, this is a miss reading of the text altogether today we often read Romans 7 envisioning our own struggles in the passage, and we assume that Paul is in the same battle against sin. And this makes sense because Christians legitimately and sometimes regularly struggle with sin even at times oh so fervently we know that the Christian life is a battle our daily defeats can scream loudly at us and discourage our progress. We fail miserably at times, but we see victory at other times too these victories encourage us that we are moving in the right direction. They remind us that God is working his good pleasure in us as Paul says in Philippians 2:13 this is the Christian experience failures and successes rotten deeds a and luscious fruit, and I resonate with both, and I trust you can too.

 But this may be a good time to carefully read Romans 7:7-25 again is that what Paul is experiencing in Romans 7 is he seeing both failures and victories is he producing both sin and fruit. I might suggest to you that this is one of the most misunderstood ideas about Romans 7 Paul’s experience in Romans 7 is not exactly the same experience that we know as Christians.

 This is simply because there is not an ounce of fruit that can be found in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 never once does Paul say or imply here that he has some victories or does anything good.

Good desire or good fruit?

This may be surprising to you and if it is read through the passage again and look for any external fruit that he produces. In reality, there is none we just read it into the text specifically we read it into his good desires. But as you might remember from the previous episode when we spoke about the Spirit’s absence in this passage, good desire without good fruit is not the definition of a new covenant Christian.

 But what Paul is describing in Romans 7 is strictly good desire without good fruit. Now if Paul is speaking as an Old Testament Saint before the coming of the new covenant and the Holy Spirit then his good desire makes sense he’s a believer but also his inability to bear fruit under the law also makes sense. He’s not a new covenant Christian empowered by the Spirit for fruit-bearing he’s left to his own abilities to fulfill the law. In fact, Paul not only avoids fruit in this passage he actually says “that he has no ability to do any good in this passage” just as he communicates in Romans7:18 “the willing is present me, but the doing of the good is not.”

the only good thing that Paul has going for him in Romans chapter 7 verses 14 through 25 is that he wants to do good and delights in the law that’s it it’s all downhill from there. In other words, anything good that Paul has going for him cannot get beyond an internal motivation. But I submit to you that’s not New Covenant Christianity because; Christians by definition bear fruit. certainly, I can understand why we relate with Paul’s struggle with sin in Romans seven, in as much as Old Testament believers felt great angst and their sin, so also we to feel the angst in our struggle with sin as Christians. they were true believers just as we are true believers the struggle can feel the same, but it is vital for us to realize that though the struggle can feel similar, that does not mean that it is the same struggle. Rather the striking difference between the Old Testament saints struggle and the Christian struggle is that the Old Testament saint lacked the ability to bear fruit leading to; frustration, dismay, and hopelessness just like what we find in Romans 7.

But the Christian is full of hope and free to produce good fruit and should already have some experience doing so. We must remember that as Christians, we have the New Covenant ministry of the Spirit and we are no longer enslaved under sin or the law like Old Testament Saints and unbelievers. Unlike Paul, who is unable to do good in Romans 7, we as Christians can regularly practice what is right because the Spirit dwells in us. That doesn’t mean we always do that, but we regularly can do that. so what Paul is describing in Romans 7 is simply not a new covenant Christian experience he is not describing a back and forth skirmish of good fruit and bad fruit like we might assume instead it is nothing more than a good desire and bad fruit situation.

In fact, this point leads to a critical observation that needs to be discussed. I want to walk through a few facts that we can observe in this passage. So follow along, and I trust that you will arrive at my conclusion as well.

 Fact number 1 Paul always wants to do what is right in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 he never expresses an evil desire.

 Fact number 2 Paul never does what is right in these same verses he always practices evil now as a caveat let me make clear that I’m not suggesting that Romans 7 is a complete picture of Paul’s life or any Old Testament believers life we know that Old Testament believers performed many courageous acts of faith that’s undeniable. but without getting too deep into another discussion it seems that Paul is limiting his focus in Romans 7 to the frustrating aspects of life under the law and ones attempt to fulfill it

 So let’s review fact one Paul always wants to do what is right, and fact 2 Paul never does what is right. Now fact 3 Paul insists that his wanting to do right and his doing of evil happen at the same time. The reason we can conclude this is because the only reason Paul can confess in Romans 7:17, 20 “so no longer am I the one doing it but sin which dwells in me” is because Paul wants to prove his innocence at the time of the crime. He must have an alibi for himself to prove that sin is the true culprit. obviously, we run into many issues here that I believe should be left for another discussion I’m convinced there are great answers here, but we will run into too many rabbit trails for our purposes.

 whatever view of Romans 7 you take you must be honest that what Paul is saying here is challenging because he seems to be blaming someone else sin for his behavior. This is not an issue that is specific to me in my view everyone has to tackle this issue independent of their view. also, whatever view of Romans 7 you come to the table with you should be able to agree with me that Paul’s good desires and his bad deeds in Romans 7 are necessarily simultaneous to prove to us that sin is the problem not his desires.

Be careful not to read your theology into the text at this point the text is clearly speaking this rationale if Paul is not saying this then his whole argument about sin imprisoning him and producing evil in him falls apart. So why is Paul doing this? He’s describing the struggle this way because his simultaneous wanting to do good and inability to do good is the only way to develop his theology of sin and its powerful almost lifelike influence over people.

 now let’s bring it together as Paul does fact number 1 Paul always wants to do what is right in this passage fact number 2 Paul never does what is right fact number 3 his good wants and his evil deeds are necessarily 00:08:48,900 –> 00:08:54,830 simultaneous to expose sin as the overlord residing in him. Therefore these three facts we must come to this conclusion Paul is unable to do what is right. Which confirms what he says in verse 18 if Paul’s godly desires are performed in unison with his evil-doing, then Paul has lost self-control. Think about it his good desires are not powerful enough to overrule sin his wanting is not strong enough to bear fruit, yet his wanting is the best thing he has going for him in this passage.

 It is ironic that the primary evidence that many people use to prove that he is a Christian in this passage which are his godly desires these are actually insufficient to produce good fruit for him how is that Christian? It’s not! evidently, Paul is proving he needs something more; he needs the Holy Spirit, he needs the New Covenant, he will always be unable to fulfill the righteousness of the law as long as he is left to his own godly motives without God’s help.

 He may be a true believer an Old Testament believer, but he’s not a New Testament believer because he doesn’t have God’s help in the Holy Spirit. this is the definition of enslavement if sin always has the upper hand keeping Paul’s goodness hidden away in the chambers of his soul as desires only then Paul is a prisoner just as he says in Romans 7:23 he is enslaved as he says in verse 25 B he is sold under sin as he says in Romans 7:14 he is unable to do good as he says in Romans 7:18. This is enslavement to sin, and it leads me to our second misconception, and it is this Paul’s godly desires in Romans 7 are proof that he is not enslaved to sin, but this is a misconception, in fact, this misconception defies definitive statements that Paul speaks about himself. In the passage and we have already noted many of these in this episode in Romans 7:14 Paul claims that he is in bondage to sin “for we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh having been sold under sin.”

The terminology used here is undeniably depicting a master/slave relationship the kind of slavery that involves total ownership. But even more so notice that Paul is contrasting what is spiritual and what is fleshly he is actually implying here that he has no Holy Spirit in him. The law is spiritual, but he is not but if he is describing a Christian experience here in verse 14 then contrasting flesh and spirit so definitively makes little sense if he is a Christian then he also is spiritual similar to how the law is spiritual.

 But Paul goes out of his way to make a striking contrast between the spiritual law and his fleshly self to communicate that he and the law are different species different breeds and that is why he has no ability to fulfill a spiritual law because he is not spiritual.

 Without saying it in so many words, Paul is drawing our attention to the obvious hole in his spiritual walk as an Old Testament Saint, I need the Holy Spirit to fulfill a spiritual law. He’s setting us up nicely for the glorious reality of the Spirit in the New Covenant in chapter 8. But this statement in verse 14 the law is spiritual, but he is not setting the tone for the rest of the passage it is a propositional claim that defines his status with sin that he is literally under its Dominion.

 Be careful not to soften his words he is not saying here that he “feels and bondage to sin” the grammar won’t support that idea we must be honest with what he is saying he is categorically and definitively unspiritual and fleshly and sold in bondage to sin just as the law is categorically and definitively spiritual.

 It is not a statement of feeling it is a statement of fact. the law has a spiritual nature, and he has a fleshly nature this statement in verse 14 stands in direct contrast to Paul’s words about the Christian he just spoke about in verse 6 “but now we have been released or literally nullified from the law dying to what we were held captive by so that we might serve in newness of the Spirit and not an illness of the letter.” But if Paul is speaking as a Christian in verse 14 then how can a Christian be both in bondage to sin and unspiritual and at the same time in verse 6 be free from the law and serving God in the spirit. That’s not a paradox that’s a contradiction Paul is not speaking as a Christian in verse 4 he is speaking as an Old Testament Saint under the Old Covenant law, and so the contradiction is avoided.

 there are a few other phrases in this passage they’re worth noting as well in verse 18 we have already seen that Paul is unable to do any good “for the willingness present in me, but the doing of the good is not.”

In other words, Paul is declaring his inability under the law he not only struggles to do what is good he cannot do what is good at least when we consider his attempts to fulfill the Old Covenant law. These words stand antithetical to his proclamation to Christians in Romans 8:4 “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.”

The purpose of the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit is to give God’s people the ability to fulfill the true intent of the law. But if Paul is speaking as a Christian in verse 18, then he would be claiming that Christians are unable to do good, and at the same time able to do good. That’s not a paradox that’s a contradiction!

 But you might wonder “but maybe Paul is saying that Christians in verse 18 are unable to do good as long as they aren’t walking in the spirit.” and I agree that is true for Christians we need the spirit for godly fruit-bearing it’s impossible without him. But the question remains is Paul not walking in the spirit in verse 18 or does he have the spirit at all by definition of verse 14 he is unspiritual so likely he doesn’t have the Spirit.

 But even so, let’s give the argument the benefit of the doubt for a second if Paul has the spirit in verses 14 through 25 then even his godly desires in the passage are unable to produce fruit. So in that sense, his godly desires must not be spirit driven; otherwise would they not produce good fruit? In other words, if we take the route that Paul is a Christian who was not walking in the spirit in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25, then we basically eliminate all the best evidence for the Christian view in this passage. This is because Paul’s good desires in Romans 7 cannot be spirit-driven because he’s not walking in the spirit so now we have little to no reason to believe that he is a Christian at all. Because the primaries that uphold the Christian view in Romans seven, which are basically Paul’s spirit-filled desires that unbelievers do not have these had been eliminated.

 It is simply not safe to conclude that Paul has the spirit in Romans seven but is simply not walking in the spirit in this passage he is too oblivious of the spirit he speaks to objectively about his unspiritual nature he makes it abundantly clear that he is unable to produce fruit even from the godliest of motives.

 It should be evident by now Paul is describing the Old Covenant life before the spirit, not the Christian life with the spirit. Moving down to Romans 7:23 Paul depicts the battle with sin as a war and finds himself not in a back-and-forth skirmish as we might presume but inevitably waving the white flag of surrender to his enemy which is sin. Even though he proclaimed altruistic delight in God’s law in verse 22, he steals the power of these words when he claims in the very next verse that his godly delight is imprisoned to sin stranglehold in his mind.

In fact, he uses prisoner-of-war language when he says “but I have seen a different law in the members of my body waging war with the law of my mind and making me a prisoner to the law of sin which is in my members.”

this imprisonment language is directly in opposition to his words to Christians in chapter 8 verse 2 when he announces that “the law of the spirit of life sets you free from the law of sin and of death.” this is often overlooked by many who take the Christian view the law of sin that Christians are free from in chapter 8 verse 2 is the same law of sin that takes Paul as prisoner in verse 23.

 Can Christians be both free and imprisoned to the law of sin at the same time?

 I’m not asking whether Christians can feel imprisoned by sin but be free from sins domain that’s different Christians can certainly feel imprisoned to sin and yet be free from its clutches. But Paul is propositionally saying that he is imprisoned by sin and verse 23 and needs the deliverance found in chapter 8 verse 2. We must be careful because the beautiful distinction that Paul intended between the imprisonment of Romans 7 and the freedom from sin in Romans eight loses all of its meaning we claim that he is speaking as a Christian in both passages.

 But let’s pretend he’s a Christian for a second if so hasn’t Christ already rescued him? Why does he need saving and freedom over and over again, didn’t the new covenant work? As Jesus said in John 8:36 speaking in the context of freedom from sin, “so if the son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

But if the imprisonment of Romans 7 verse 23 is the life of the Christian, then what hope is Romans chapter 8 verse 2 really giving us you’re free but not really. Finally, Paul’s words in verse 25 are important to mention as well, on the one hand, Paul serves God with his mind, but on the other hand, he serves sin with his flesh the word for serve means enslavement here. It is sometimes softened to advocate that someone can be a Christian and lowercase “s” “serve sin in the flesh” but to soften the words serve must go both ways if he is serving sin in the flesh with a lowercase s then he is also serving God in his mind with a lowercase “s”. This is one of those cases where we cannot have our cake and eat it too; it’s one or the other.

 So in this verse, Paul is enslaved to God with his mind, but he is also enslaved the same with this flesh in other words internally he is completely committed to God with his mind but externally he is entirely committed to sin with his deeds. So basically he’s a terrible example of bearing fruit this serving of sin stands in contrast to what he said about Christians in Chapter six. Using the same root word for service or slavery Paul says in Romans 6:20 “for when you were slaves of sin you were free in regard to righteousness.” then in Romans 6:22 “but now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God you derive your fruit.” but in Chapter 7 verse 25 Paul is not freed from sin he’s enslaved to it. And though he is enslaved to God in his mind, he is not bearing any fruit in his flesh as is requisite for Christians in chapter 6 verse 22.

 But if Paul is a Christian in chapter 7 verse 25, then how can the Christian be enslaved to sin in this first and also read from it as chapter 6 verses 20 and 22 claimed. That’s not a paradox that’s a contradiction!

On the contrary, Paul is not speaking as a Christian in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 at all, and therefore, all of these contradictions are avoided. If we understand that he is speaking as a Jew before Christ with the heart of a believer in the body of an Old Testament Saint, but he is missing the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant that Christians now have access to. So as to bear the good fruit that God’s people had always been longing for.

 So by describing life under the Old Covenant law in Romans 7 Paul provides a glorious contrast with life under the New Covenant in Chapter 8 and never looks back. in fact Paul had actually road mapped all of this for us earlier in Chapter 7. did you catch it in three short verses in Romans 7:4-6? Paul lays the blueprint for where he came from in chapter 6 and where he is going in chapters 7 & 8 chapters 7 verse 4 is a short summary of what he discussed in chapter 6 verses 1 through 23. this can be proved grammatically with terms and themes that he uses in Chapter 7 verse 4 that appear all throughout chapter 6 as well such as the themes and words like fruit resurrection body of death dying to the law and so forth then in Chapter 7 verse 5 Paul gives us a sneak peek into his discussion in chapter 7 verses 7 through 25 which is our passage a hand grammatical links between verse 5 and  the rest of chapter 7 include flesh passions sin law producing members of our body and bearing fruit for death basically almost every word in verse 5 has a grammatical connection to the themes in chapter 7 verses 7 through 25.

 And then finally in verse 6, Paul lays the groundwork for his new covenant discussion in chapter 8 he provides some grammatical clues there as well such as released from the law dying to the law serving God newness of the Spirit and so forth.

 So bringing it all together chapters 7 verse 4 tells us where we’ve come from in chapter 6 chapter 7 verse 5 tells us where we are going in the rest of chapter 7 as Paul discusses life under the Old Covenant. And chapter 7, verse 6, tells us where we are going in chapter 8 as Paul discusses life under the New Covenant.

 this is important for us because verse 5 correlates to the rest of chapter 7 which is the passage we are dressing in this miniseries and verse 5 reads this way “for while we were in the flesh the sinful passions which were aroused by the law we’re at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.” Clearly, verse 5 is life under the law in the Old Covenant; it is nowhere close to the Christian description, and nearly all scholars agree. So if chapter 7 verse 5 is a mini blueprint for the rest of chapter 7 then Paul is obviously not speaking about the New Covenant experience in Romans 7 it is the Old Covenant experience under the law.

 So let’s recap what we have discussed in this episode. We have addressed two sides of the same coin when it comes to Paul’s pursuit of godliness in Romans 7. this chapter mentions no fruit-bearing or godly action it is not the situation that we often envision it is sometimes doing good and sometimes doing bad. Instead, Paul is depicting a situation in which he is always desiring to do good but never able to.

 This is not a full picture of Paul’s life or anyone else’s life, but Paul narrows his focus to someone’s pursuit of godliness under the Old Covenant to magnify the Dominion that sin has over the person who remains under the law. Such a person has lost control of himself as sin lords over the members of his body, and his godly passions are imprisoned inside of him so that he is compelled to produce rotten fruit.

 This is why Paul uses terminology that describes the situation in Romans 7 as in bondage to sin, unable to do good, taken prisoner by sin, and enslaved to its will. These propositional statements declare an objective reality for Paul not just a subjective feeling about his situation and they standing in sharp contrast two glorious promises of freedom and fruit-bearing made the Christians in the immediate context in Chapter six seven and eight.

 In fact, these three chapters are blueprinted for us in chapter 7, verses four five and six, where each verse summarizes each corresponding chapter. By doing this Paul gives us a road map of where he came from in Chapter six and where he is going as he leads us through the mire of the Old Covenant and the power of sin in Chapter seven. And finally into the beautiful promises of the spirit of the New Covenant in Chapter eight. 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 why is Paul so ambitious for the law in Romans 7, and 2 is this passage really about whether Paul is a Christian or not more on that next time you