Romans 7 Mini-Series Part 6

This is the sixth and last episode of our six-part mini-series, where we have addressed 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 miniseries has expanded the discussion from Romans 7 verse 7 through chapter 8 verse 4.

 In the last five episodes, we covered the background for the Romans book and 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.

 In this final episode, we will address one corollary issue that naturally spawns from this discussion that I believe is important enough to discuss then I will provide a brief summary of the past five episodes to give you a complete picture of the Romans 7 debate as presented in this miniseries. Then finally, I want to speak to several implications of Romans 7 and why it is important to get this passage right.

 However, first I want to draw your attention to one corollary issue that may be lingering in your mind as you have been listening to these episodes and it is this; did Old Testament believers possess the Holy Spirit? and that’s a good question, and before I answer it I must qualify something, this question is a big theological issue it falls outside of the immediate context in purview of Romans 7. even though Romans 7 describes a situation that is relevant to this question it is a much bigger scripture wide question it’s not so simple if I give a quick yes or no response no one will be content with that.

 Whatever view you take on Romans 7 Christian unbeliever Old Testament saint-like mine. There is no quick or easy answer this is simply the case because most evangelicals rightly understand that the New Covenant was not established until the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and even then the Holy Spirit was not given to his people under the New Covenant until Pentecost in acts 2.

 In other words, most everyone agrees there is a difference between Old Testament Saints and New Testament Christians. New Testament Christians have the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant Old Testament Saints didn’t so the issue here is whether Old Testament Saints had any interaction with the Holy Spirit at the level of sanctification. So while this is a valid question, it is taking us away from the text of Romans 7 and is forcing us to answer a bigger query and even a mystery that spans the entire scripture. Let’s not get too hung up here because this can become more of a red herring that distracts us from the clear meaning of Romans 7 and an excuse not to honestly see the text as I’ve presented it in the past five episodes. whatever view you take of Old Testament believers and their interaction with the spirit Romans 7 and it’s meaning does not rise and fall on that view.

 Since this is the case, I want to provide a word of caution as well as we explore this question, it inevitably distances us from the text and moves us into the arena of philosophical, theological debate. These questions sometimes are motivated by a desire for logical consistency rather than textual explanations. Can a believer under the Old Covenant obey without the spirit? Can a Jewish saint love God and not produce fruit? Are Old Testament Saints under the law sold into bondage to sin? Were Old Testament Saints regenerated in the same way that New Testament Saints were? Can someone have good desires and simultaneously not produce good fruit?

 These are big questions that naturally flow from the Old Testament believer view that I’ve advocated for in this miniseries. And they are important, but by asking these corollary questions, we can be tempted to answer them with our preconceived theology and logic. But I warn you as the listener to be careful that we do not bend scripture to our logic and pre-conceived theology rather than having our theology bend to Scripture. As we move into these bigger questions that evacuate us from the Roman seven texts.

 Let’s keep in mind that our theology may need some reshaping not fundamentally, but when it comes to a somewhat mysterious arena like Old Testament Saints and their abilities under the law. Our theology needs to be teachable to the text our theology derives from the text. We should never explain away the to fit our nice comfortable theology, and to do this, it requires a lot of humility and a willingness to see things from a fresh but valid perspective.

 So back to the question did Old Testament Saints have the Holy Spirit this is a big question that cannot be fully answered here because its scope is so broad, but I’ll do my best to give a brief answer as I believe that some of you may come away from this miniseries with this pestering question. as I noted most evangelicals know that the New Covenant has predicted in Deuteronomy 30 Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 and so forth is future telling this means that the New Covenant benefits of the spirit dwelling and his people for growth in righteous living was not something that would take place until some future time. we know that the generous pouring out of the Spirit began in Acts chapter 2 at Pentecost this is what begins what Paul says in Romans 8 verse 2 “for the law of the spirit of life which is the new covenant set you free from the law of sin and of death.” in some way the New Covenant will write God’s law on man’s heart as Jeremiah 31:33 says, and so their hearts will be circumcised as Deuteronomy 30:6 says.

 And so they will have a new heart and a new spirit within them as Ezekiel 36:26 says. Even a heart of flesh and God’s very spirit in them as verses 26 and 27 say all of this is in the context of an Old Testament Israel that was not experiencing these things yet. otherwise, if they had been experiencing these things, then the New Covenant is simply not new.

 So I’ll state my argument up front I don’t believe that Old Testament believers possess the Holy Spirit, in fact, there is no Old Testament text that says the Old Testament believers were afforded the spirit for their sanctification at all. The more we try to say that the Holy Spirit’s work in a sanctification way with his people in the Old Testament the more that we blend it with the New Covenant and nothing remains that is truly distinct about the New Covenant. In reality, there is no evidence that the Spirit worked in God’s people in the Old Testament for righteous fruit-bearing. but what about David he was anointed with the spirit and cried out in Psalm 51 verse 11 “do not take your Holy Spirit from me?” That’s true he possessed the spirit, but he was given a spirit of leadership among God’s people the spirit which can be taken away and a spirit that had nothing to do with his sanctification but his anointing for that leadership role.

 Even Saul was given the same spirit, but it was taken away from him this spirit had little to nothing to do with his personal growth in fact in that very same Psalm, Psalm 51:10 David also says in verse 10 “creating me a clean heart O God.” That is new covenant terminology David is not asking for his hands to be washed or his feet to be washed he needs a new heart he needs the washing of the heart from Ezekiel 36. He needs the new covenant he needs the Holy Spirit in sanctification not just in the leadership of Israel. So Psalm 51 is actually evidence that David did not have the spirit of sanctification in him.

Now it’s also true even the prophets were given the spirit, for instance, Daniel is said to have possessed an extraordinary spirit not only by the Babylonians in Daniel 5:12 but by scripture itself in Daniel 6:3 but again this spirit was given for the telling of mysteries future events dreams and riddles there’s no hint that the spirit was given to Daniel or any other prophet for his personal sanctification.

Even more so Daniels friends Shadrach Meshach and Abednego did not seem to possess this spirit even though they showed great loyalty to God even in the face of death. We must be careful to distinguish the New Covenant Ministry of the Spirit granted to all of God’s people after Pentecost as opposed to the unique dispensing of the spirit on a few individuals in the Old Testament for specific leadership and prophetic ministries or inspirational writing. otherwise, if they had the same spirit of sanctification the New Covenant is really not new we can call it new all we want, but it’s not really that different.

 But what about Abraham, Moses, Noah, Enoch, the good judges, the good prophets, the good Kings. Hebrews 11 shows us what great things they all did how could they have done these great things without the Spirit? Well here’s the distinction scripture always commends Old Testament Saints to us as examples of faith. Faith that was in all likelihood engendered in their hearts by God himself, but these same people are never committed in Scripture as obedient individuals under the law. that’s a really important distinction that we can easily miss they showed great faith under great adversity and because faith is a zero action so to speak which basically requires someone to trust in someone else it magnifies not really that person at all but God who is actively working on that person’s behalf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, prophet Isaiah, prophet Ezekiel, King Josiah, King Hezekiah, they obeyed at many points from their faith in God’s promises, and that’s what faith is it is believing that God will uphold His promise. He will do what he says, and true faith always results in action that testifies to that faith.

So these men and women of all did many unbelievable things in the face of great suffering loss or even death because they believed in God’s promises. But that’s different than their attempts under the law for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Enoch, and Melchizedek we do not have stories of them living under the law because the law had not been inaugurated to Israel. But for Moses, David, Daniel, and others they lived by faith and acted on that faith just like Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but they also were called to fulfill the law. Unlike Abraham Isaac and Jacob that’s different than their acts of faith fulfilling the law is not an act of faith because there’s no unfulfilled promise being made that can be believed. It’s a simple do what I say to be my people. All of Israel from Moses until Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 was under divine stipulations to fulfill the law for righteousness living. And that is what Paul is talking about in Romans 7.

Paul is not saying that Old Testament believers never did anything good Paul is not saying that Old Testament believers didn’t keep the law at many points even the saw says in chapter 119 verse 67 “before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word.” Old Testament believers worked hard at keeping the Old Covenant, but they did so without the new covenant heart, you must factor that into your theology. They did so with a desire to do good and learned ways to keep the law as best as they could, but a Jewish Old Testament believer always knew that his heart was not fully there.

 It was to a degree an external ritual not hypocritical but lacking the full ability to obey with all of one’s heart soul mind and strength. In this way, the law was not being kept to the fullest they needed new hearts to keep the fullest of the law; they needed a new covenant. And that’s where the New Covenant comes in. it gives God’s people the ability to love God with all of one’s heart soul mind and strength. and that doesn’t mean we do this all the time and that we will be perfect in this life, but we now have the spirit so that when we walk in the spirit, we can perfectly avoid the desires of the flesh as Galatians 5:16 says.

 And so we fulfill the true intent of the law from the inside out when we walk in the spirit and this is something which Old Testament believers could not fully do. Take for instance Jesus’s disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew 26:41 Jesus commands them to watch and pray, but he warns them “the Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” it is evident, and many scholars agree that Jesus is not speaking about the Holy Spirit here but each disciple’s individual spirit. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not only produce willingness in them but the ability to overcome the weakness of the flesh.

 Now we can call these disciples as believers under the Old Covenant because the New Covenant had not begun at the cross and the pouring out of the spirit had not been granted until Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. So these disciples are operating under their own strength with their individual spirits which are willing to obey because they’re believers, but they’re finding it often that it’s too weak of a motivation to obey and overcome the weakness of the flesh. These terms willingness of the spirit and weakness of the flesh correlate well with Romans seven as we witness this Old Testament believer that Paul is roleplaying wanting to do good but finding himself overwhelmed by the flesh.

 I cannot find a better analysis of the frustrating condition of the Old Testament saints. That correlates well with Romans 7 than what we find in Matthew chapter 26, and the other gospel accounts their similarities with Romans 7 should not be ignored. Matthew 26 and Romans 7 are depicting the same person the Old Testament believer under the law who wants to do what is right but finds himself unable to overcome the weakness of his flesh.

 once again to reiterate Romans 7 is not a commentary on the entire Jewish life of faith and works Old Testament believers showed great divinely enabled faith for thousands of years from that faith they performed many deeds that magnified their great God but for those under the law their attempts to fulfill the law were always met with frustration and enslavement to sin because they could never fully obey the law from the inside out. That’s the struggle we are reading about in Romans 7 life under the law frustrating, debilitating, enslaving, hopeless.

 That is why even Old Testament Saints needed the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit because, without it, they could not be all that God wanted his people to be. Praise the Lord for the New Covenant! I’m sure more can be said on the topic, but I trust that this was clarifying and leaving you with less mystery on the subject because we need to move on and briefly summarize this miniseries.

 In episode 1 I introduced the Romans background which is essential to understanding the rhetorical strategy Paul uses in the book you might remember that Jews were banned from Rome in AD 49, but we’re allowed to return in AD 54. And as those non-Christian Jews were especially returning to their synagogues Paul wanted to supply a fully authentic apostolic Gospel argument to solidify the mostly Gentile Church in their faith in the gospel. So that they would know how to argue with the Jewish skeptic.

 To do this Paul employs something like 30 or more rhetorical questions speaking from the vantage of his Jewish opponent between chapters three and eleven. This brought us to our first misconception that Romans one through eleven is a strict chronological walkthrough of sin justification, sanctification, and glorification. In reality, the rhetorical questions plot where Paul is going and sometimes he backtracks to a time before Christ as he does in chapter 7 verses 7 through 12. In this way, Paul is not automatically speaking as a Christian in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 because he’s not forced to a sanctification section even though he is speaking about sanctification implications in Romans 7.

 In episode 2, we addressed two more misconceptions and learned that starting in chapter 7 verse 1, Paul focuses on the cross section of his audience that experientially knows the law in chapter 7.

 We learned that Paul actually jumps into the shoes of a Jew under the law from chapter 7 verses 7 through 25. It is clear that he does this because no characteristic can be traced exclusively back to him in this section. also, his rhetorical questions set up for his rhetorical use of “I, me, and my” in this section.

 in fact, Paul shows us that he is speaking rhetorically because he jumps out of character in verse 25 a and also bookends the passage with singular “you’s” which are evidently rhetorical as well.

In episode three, we answer the question as to why Paul speaks in the present tense if he is not speaking from his current experience. Actually Greek does not speak about time, and its verb tenses as much as English does. But even so, Paul’s rhetorical strategy shows us that this is not his experience anyways but someone else’s experience. Which means that the present tense has no bearing on actual time in this section in this way it becomes an evocative way to express the thoughts of Jewish frustration under the law in a timeless representative way.

 instead of being Paul’s immediate moment and experience actually, Paul bookends the passage with the temporal adverb “now” in Chapter 7 verse 6 and chapter 8 verse 1 to signal when he is speaking about the current Christian experience. Everything else in between is missing adverbs like this and is not speaking about the Christian experience or any current experience for Paul or his original audience.

In this episode, we also looked at the fact that the Holy Spirit is not present Romans 7 verses 7 to 25 but bookends the passage in verse 6 and in chapter 8 verse 2 that’s not a coincidence Paul intentionally leaves out the Spirit because he’s not talking about the Christian experience.

 in the fourth episode we addressed two more misconceptions, and we learned that Paul is not speaking about the common Christian situation where sometimes I sin and sometimes I’m victorious instead 00:18:09,830 –> 00:18:14,149 he is always defeated never bearing fruit in this passage also the terminology that he uses in the passage is definitively not Christian characteristics such as; being unspiritual, and sold into bondage to sin in verse 14, unable to do good in verse 18, a prisoner to sin in verse 23, an enslaved to sin in verse 25. If he was speaking as a Christian in this passage these terms would contradict other Christian characteristics in the immediate context of chapter 6 verses 18 20 and 22 and chapter 7 verses 4 and 6 and chapter 8 verses 1 through 4. In fact, Romans 7 verses 4 through 6 give us a template of where Paul was coming from in chapter 6 and where he is heading in chapter 7 and 8 and verse 5 correlates grammatically with chapter 7 which is the life under the law before the new covenant.

 and finally in the fifth episode we recognize that Paul is not living for the gospel, or Christ but for the law he speaks nothing of Christian terms like repentance grace forgiveness gospel faith and so forth instead Paul is living for the law because he’s speaking as someone who is still under the law that is because Romans 7 is all about the Old Covenant and Romans 8 is all about the New Covenant.

 This clear distinction is missed or often downplayed if we read our Christian experience into Romans 7.

 With that summary in mind, I want to bring up several very important implications that you need to hear before concluding this miniseries. One thing is for certain your view of Romans 7 will greatly impact how you view your sanctification and how you walk in it.

Let me provide six takeaways from this mini-series on Romans 7 and why an accurate view of the passage is important for us as Christians today.

first, those who believe that Paul was speaking for Christians in Romans 7 must conclude that the Christian abides in an awkward tension between chapters 7 and chapter 8 even though chapter 8 verse 2 has already proclaimed freedom. The Christian aspires to chapter 8, but regrettably, he will remain in chapter 7 for the rest of his life. so a contradiction is created he is imprisoned and enslaved like chapter 7 verses 23 and 25 say, but he is also free like chapter 6 verses 18 and 22 in chapter 8 verse to declare.

He is unable to bear fruit according to chapter 7 verse 18, and yet he is somehow able to bear fruit according to chapter 7 verse 6 and chapter 8 verse 4. But for those who believe that Paul is speaking for the Old Testament Saint, they completely avoid this contradiction.

 Second this is not true for everyone, but often Paul, not Christ becomes the standard of godliness for those who believe he is speaking as the everyday Christian in Romans 7 – often many Christians find solace in the fact that someone is godly as Paul struggled so vehemently with sin as he does in Romans 7 verses 14 through 25 rather than being an impetus to righteous living this notion actually makes Christians more comfortable in their sin.

So the person may feel better because he’s in good company with Paul, but the situation before God hasn’t changed sin has not been addressed in fact it is often not dealt with as quickly or effectively because Paul evidently had a hard time himself dealing with his own sin quickly and effectively.

 Instead of aspiring to holiness the Christian almost unconsciously reduces the standard from Christ to Paul again I realize that not everyone treats Romans 7 this way, but it is a primary way in which many Christians view this passage. You don’t need to travel far before you hear a Christian speaking about how encouraging Romans 7 is because Paul mightily struggles with sin. But that’s the opposite of sanctification anytime we become more comfortable in our sin because we see someone else that we deem more spiritual than us struggling with his sin we are going the wrong direction.

 third, if we adopt the position that Romans 7 is about the everyday Christian experience, then there is a subtle lie that the holy spirit can only aid in victory over some sins not all and this becomes the humdrum tune of the Christian life. So we as Christians neglect the power promise found in Galatians 5:16 which insists that when God’s people “walk by the spirit, you will never carry out the desire of the flesh.” Or in 2 Peter 1:10 says “for by practicing these things you will never stumble.” in both of those passages I translated the word “never” because Paul and Peter used double Greek negative words to reinforce how impossible it is for Christians to walk and sin when they are walking in obedience by the Spirit. Just like Romans 8 says the spirit was given so that Christians never have to walk in the flesh again. It is vital that the church proclaims this truth to His people; otherwise, they will always settle for a lesser standard of righteousness that is not worthy of the calling they have been called to.

 Forth if Romans 7 is not the Christian experience but the Old Covenant experience under the law, then the onus resides on the Christian today to start walking in righteousness now because he has all the resources given to him to start walking in the spirit and resists the flesh immediately. certainly to maintain a life of walking in the spirit is not easy and requires discipline training diligence and perseverance sinful habits are hard to break because we have conditioned ourselves to give in to temptation but because we have the spirit we always have the freedom to choose what is pleasing to God right now, and we will spend the rest of our lives learning how to sustain a walk in the spirit without breaking stride. and that is why 1 John 1:8,10 insist that we will not be perfect in this life because as Galatians 5 verse 25 implies the Christians process of sanctification is a lifelong lesson of keeping in step with the spirit through the unique trials and temptations that we all face. Yet we always have the unhindered choice and ability to do what is right because the Spirit always dwells within us. And we can never use Romans 7 as an excuse and say well inevitably, I will be defeated or enslaved by sin from time to time. Anytime that the New Testament believer concedes this excuse, he denies that he always has a conscious choice to start walking in the spirit and thus avoid the flesh. he subtly denies that he is responsible for his choice to sin he ignores that God has granted to him immediate ability to resist temptation today as second Peter chapter 1 verses 3 and 4 promised.

 in other words, if you get anything out of this fourth point it is this it is never inevitable to sin when you have the Spirit never I’m convinced that this truth is not taught enough today in our churches.

 Fifth, the Christian view of Romans seven defines a Christian according to desire, not an action. That can be very dangerous because it promotes the idea that godly fruit is not a necessary byproduct of being a Christian only desire is.

 there is a massive movement taking place in churches today that insists that having strong affections and feelings forgot is all that Christians really need to be Christian obedience is semi-optional at best or often it is regarded as hard-nosed legalism and – behavior focused. For those in this camp Romans, seven is one of the primary proof texts for this kind of thinking. if Paul is a Christian in Romans seven then the best we can say about Christians from this passage is that “they have strong passions for God without the ability to obey Him.” We in the church today cannot have it both ways either Romans 7 teaches us about the Christian experience and that to be a Christian is strictly defined by a good desire, not godly fruit or the case for the Christian in Romans 7 is weak and unsustainable.

 Finally sixth as Walt Russell warned about the Christian view of Romans 7 on page 527 of volume 37 issue 4 of the Journal of the evangelical theological Society “if this understanding of the passage is correct then the experience of Romans 7 verses 7 through 25 is not worthy to be brought under the banner of the New Covenant.” Russell is basically saying that the themes of total defeat and inability as described in Romans 7 do not belong in the New Covenant discussion. this is not to negate that Christians struggle with sin on a daily basis many New Testament passages are clear that Christians have challenging struggles with temptation, and sin such as Galatians 5 in 1st John 1. Even so there many Christians that get caught up in captivating sins and they feel addicted and enslaved such as Galatians 6:1 says.

I am not discrediting that at all but feeling enslaved and being enslaved are two different things. What Paul is describing in Romans 7 is not the feeling of enslavement but the objective reality of being enslaved. It is a passage that is devoid of the Spirit; defeating, fruitless, imprisoning, enslaving, and hopeless. Such a portrayal as found in this passage more disgraces the New Covenant then provides a justification for it. The Christian who feels enslaved to his sin has hope to start walking in obedience today right now. Before the Old Testament saint as described in Romans 7 this was not an immediate option under the law simply because he did not yet have the ability to obey the true intent of the law from the inside out by walking in the spirit under the New Covenant.

 this concludes our series on the Romans 7 passage and whether Paul is speaking as a Christian or not I have sought to provide nearly all the evidence I know to convince you that Paul is speaking as an Old Testament Jew, not a New Testament Christian how you understand Romans 7 will have an enormous effect on your view of sanctification in the present I trust that this series has been helpful for you.