Read this on the website

 

Since Paul penned the Book of Romans, I suppose debate has occurred over Chapter 7. The first half of the chapter is clear enough. It’s the second half where controversy occurs.

Romans 7:14-25 is one of the rawest, most disconsolate pieces of biblical literature, especially since it is sandwiched between the glories of Chapter 6 and the wonders of Chapter 8. How can the same man who recorded the victory of salvation in 6 and the depth of God’s love in 8 fall so ungraciously into temptation, confusion, and despondency in 7:14ff?

Some argue that Paul was not writing about his Christian life in 7:14ff. Rather, this unsavory passage is about his life before Christ—sort of a reflective look back on his pre-Christian life as the lost man, Saul. Others argue that Romans 7:14ff is an aspect of the normal Christian experience.

Which is it, and does it matter?

The passage and discussion are important, if for no other reason than Romans 7 is an integral component of Paul’s development of the doctrine of justification. Our doctrines should be examined and debated in order to bring clarity and resolve. A position that creates confusion or ambiguity catches my attention.

I find it suspicious that just as the church grapples with making its message relevant to a darkening society, teaching resurfaces asserting this passage is about a lost person—the implication being that it has no real relevance to the Christian life. In fact, I believe the debate over Romans 7:14ff is so consequential that it merits a thorough examination of the debate, the stakes in the debate, and a conclusion regarding what to do with the passage as a Believer.

This leaves our standing with God a theological theory.

One perspective arguing that the passage is about a lost person reasons that since neither God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are mentioned, the passage must be about a lost person. This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is that any number of passages would fail under this line of “reasoning.”

Notice though: We are contemplating 7:14-25 in the broader context of Romans 5-8. The observation about divine involvement being absent is only true if the passage is edited down to only 7:14-21. Doing this does indeed eliminate direct mention of a member of the Trinity… but it also edits out the conclusion Paul is developing within a context he begins in 5:12, or more conservatively, 1:1.

From a literary view, in Romans 5-8, Paul is articulating his theology of justification in 5 and 6, followed by his unnerving experience with justification under duress of temptation in 7, and then his summary and conclusion in 8. If 7:14ff is removed from this sequence, we still have a profound theological ideal, justification, but it is untested in life. This leaves our standing with God a theological theory. Meanwhile, in reality, every self-aware Christian continues grappling with the repeated frustration penned in 7: “Why am I doing the very thing I don’t want to do?” 

He can reconcile the glorious theology in 6 with his poor execution of it in 7.

If 7 is about an unbeliever, then I find the literary gap and illogical thought in Paul’s writing of 5-8 surprising to the point of unlikely. Fine writers and thinkers like Paul don’t make irregular literary or logical leaps like occur if 7 pertains to another subject, i.e., a lost man nested midst a lengthy discourse on what it means to be saved.

If we remove 7 from the sequence of 5-8, then we remove Paul’s practical application of 6 and convincing victory in 8. This guts the most systematic statement of justification and applied Christianity in Scripture.

In an article on the passage, Martin Lloyd-Jones implies Romans 7 is less than clear. I disagree. Romans 7 pulls back the curtain on the principle of sin and removes the mystery of how temptation transpires. Thus, it’s worth considering that any complexity is not literary failing but due to spiritual warfare. Putting myself in the enemy’s shoes, I would fight tooth-and-nail to obscure my strategy and utilization of the power identified as sin. To reestablish his confusing tactics during temptation, Romans 7 has to go.

So, the sequence and flow of Romans 5-8 makes literary, logical, and theological sense. It also makes personal sense for Paul-the-Pharisee and his struggle to overcome the temptation of coveting, which he introduces in 7:7.

As Chapter 7 begins, Paul establishes that the failure he is about to reveal—coveting—is not due to a flaw in the law. In fact, the law confirms that his lapse into covetousness is indeed a real problem that he must sort out, especially in light of what he penned in Chapter 6 regarding the new man and being dead to sin (cf. 6:1-11).

In detail typical of Paul’s tenacious thinking and transparent writing, he stays with his exploration of “why” until he is satisfied he can reconcile the glorious theology in 6 with his poor execution of it in 7.

From the felt condemnation evident in the disconsolation of 7, Paul declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8:1). Why would Paul celebrate this dramatic conclusion—“There is therefore now”—if he did not experience Chapter 7 in real time as a Believer? His “thanks be to God” (7:25) is the realization that his justification, as laid out in Chapters 5 and 6, is unchanged by his failed performance in 7:14ff.

As is true for us, Paul learned more about his security in Christ (justification) and the imperative of obedience (cf. 6:1-12ff) from his failure to obey in 7:14ff than he did by writing about these glories in Chapter 6.

Romans 7 is faith in action—unless you take it out of the Believer’s experience of faith. Then it becomes an orphan idea with no ideological home; only a reminiscence of lostness without context and faith without application. This is problematic.

In short, the theology of Chapter 6 is tested by the performance failure described in 7. In the end, Paul concludes that justification is in Christ alone and is neither dependent upon nor influenced by his performance. This is really great news—unless you remove it!

Then there is the Believer’s personal identification with the despondency described in Chapter 7. I think it is unrealistic moralizing to teach—either directly or implied—that Believers don’t experience the unhappiness voiced by Paul in 7.

Teaching this view of 7 creates shame for those experiencing 7:14ff—which as near as I can tell is all of us. Practically, removing Romans 7:14ff from the Believer’s experience establishes a performance-based expectation directly tied to salvation and the message of grace. This is why those who question the passage’s relevance to Believers feel obliged to hedge their teaching with disclaimers that they are teaching sinless perfection.

Further, given that Romans 7 unmasks Satan’s tactics with temptation, if 7:14ff is not pertinent to the Believer, then sin goes back under cover and the Believer is left with a mysterious enemy in the battle between flesh and spirit. This being the case, the question we all ask—"Why am I doing what I don’t want to do?”—goes unanswered.

Personally, my experience with Romans 7 pains me—and it pained Paul as well. This is remarkably pertinent.

It makes no sense that unbelieving Saul is bothered by behavior contrary to a nonexistent new man. Only a saved person can hate behaving contrary to their new self. So how is lost Saul fretting over doing the very thing he hates, let alone thanking God for deliverance in Jesus (7:25)?

A rose-colored faith is an unrealistic faith that is not conveyed in Scripture.

Additionally, if Romans 7 is removed for the Believer, then genuine gratitude for 5, 6, and 8 is abstract versus concrete. The person who endures a dark night of the soul appreciates the dawn differently than the person who slept peacefully—and the Believer who experientially understands that justification is not tied to performance knows a gratitude those don’t who simply profess a theological doctrine.

Not only does 7 test the theological applicability of 6, it also unmasks who is responsible for what in the Believer’s daily endeavor to live the life of faith. Because of Paul’s transparency in 7, our vulnerability to temptation can be understood, the power of sin isolated and identified, along with his tactics, and the tension to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God is made clear, i.e., we understand the obedience required of us (cf. 6:12ff). This is immensely helpful in our struggle to resist sin’s temptation, and for the record, it’s enlightening to our repentance when we choose deception and need to correct course as Paul did.

The debate over this passage is curious, a) that we are even having it, and b) that we are persisting with it. Every self-aware Believer asks the question posed in Romans 7: “Why am I doing the thing I don’t want to do?” If everyone asks this question, and seeks the analysis and understanding Paul provides in Romans 7, why are we so anxious to remove this chapter from the systematic presentation of redemption provided in Romans 5-8?

Could it be we want to paint a rosy picture of grace and life in Christ? Fair enough, but a rose-colored faith is an unrealistic faith that is not conveyed in Scripture.

Could it be we don’t want to grapple with sin’s tactics, our fleshly patterns, or the rigor necessary to resist temptation to the degree which we are called by Scripture? Okay, but this is denial—denial of Scripture’s clear instruction to us, the testimonies of our fathers in the faith, and the reality of our spiritual conflict.

Could it be we are uncomfortable with the location this passage assigns to the law of sin, i.e., placing it in the body? The discomfort being: How can a Believer, who is declared righteous, have something sinful indwelling him?

The problem of indwelling sin in the Believer persists.

First, let’s define our terms: When this passage uses the word “sin,” it is in noun form, meaning the passage is not directly discussing poor performance, which would be a verb, but is in fact identifying a person, place, or thing—a noun named sin, the law of sin, or the principle of sin.

When the passage uses the word “flesh,” it primarily means those habitual thoughts, emotions, and behaviors you’ve adopted to live independently of God.

The force of the passage is that Satan utilizes the entity of sin to suggest temptations that are compelling for you because they are correlated with your fleshly habits.

Finally, as to sin’s technique, temptation is deceptive because sin presents temptation using first-person pronouns—I, me, myself—to make it sound like the temptation is your idea, not sin’s. Correlate temptation with your habitual patterns, disguised as you, and now you have a genuinely tempting temptation. It’s quite the diabolical slight of hand that Romans 7 is exposing.

So back to the location of sin: How can a Believer have sin dwelling in “the members of my body” (7:23)? If Romans 7 is describing a lost person, then indwelling sin is understood and the question is resolved.  

However, looking at the broader context, no one would ever say Romans 6 is about an unbeliever. Yet, in 6:12 sin is located in the body just like it is in 7:23: “…do not let sin reign in your mortal body….” So, the problem of indwelling sin in the Believer persists.

There are various work-around explanations in an effort to manage the location of sin assigned in 6:12, but in the end, sin’s location boils down to the preposition “in.”

Some postulate that Paul meant “into” in 6:12 and 7:23, not “in” as is translated. But there’s a problem with this view: That’s not what either verse says. Both verses use the Greek word “in,” not the Greek word “into.”  

Here’s the argument I’m hearing: “What difference does it make if sin is located in or is simply close by? The effect is the same.”

Is this “much ado about nothing?”

 

But in trying to superintend the location of sin by manipulating the preposition, these folks create a serious problem: While seeming innocuous, declaring that you know better than the clear statement of Scripture does violence to the fidelity of Scripture, the author’s intent, and establishes your authority as superior to that of the inspired Word of God. When Scripture says “in,” it is dangerously shortsighted to change its meaning to resolve your spiritual conundrum. Rather, the guidance of Scripture is that when you encounter a challenging passage, you ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you (cf. Jn. 16:13).

Notice that Paul states sin indwells the body, i.e., not the new man. While the body is not evil, it cannot be defined as righteous, i.e., made right. One of these days, we will get new bodies—meaning, the bodies we currently have are not suited for heaven. This means the body is not a component of the new person. As Dad used to say, “It’s snakebit.”

So, why the effort to manage 7 out of the Believer’s experience?

Am I straining at gnats? Is this “much ado about nothing,” to quote Shakespeare?

This teaching, and the techniques utilized to manage Scripture as seems best to us, is pervasive enough that it now has its own phraseology. It’s termed, “unhitching ministry from theology.”

I think those attempting to manage Romans 7 and the Believer’s relationship to sin mean well. In listening to them, I think they are trying to convey the magnitude of our redemption in Christ and wish to guard Believers against discouragement. But in their zeal, it’s necessary to unhitch their ministry desire from biblical fidelity. To approach Scripture with the attitude, I know better and will impose upon Scripture my view, is a dangerous practice.

Realistically, the age-old question persists for Believers: “Why am I doing what I don’t want to do?”

It is news worthy of celebration: You are a new person in Christ. Romans 7:14-25 confirms justification in Christ alone apart from works while practically guiding your application of faith in Christ. This is wonderful news!

 

Note: I’ve not elaborated on the insights Romans 7 provides. My goal in this article has been to reestablish the relevance and importance of the passage so any who wish can turn to other sources to explore the practical application of justification by faith. Here are some resources to guide your examination:

For a practical explanation and application of Romans 5-8, see Lifetime Guarantee by Bill Gillham.

For an exploration of Romans 5-8 in novel form, see No Mercy by Preston Gillham.

For either an audio or video resource on this topic, see “The Life” (video) or “The Victorious Life” (audio) by Bill and Anabel Gillham.

For legacy resources that touch on this topic repeatedly, see both Lifetime.org and PrestonGillham.com.

To receive consistent input on applied Christianity, subscribe at: PrestonGillham.com.

Also, the latest podcast with Tony, Frank, and me is available at this link.