In the seventh chapter of Paul the apostle's epistle to the Romans, he speaks in the first person singular in the present tense regarding an intense inner struggle. It was the struggle between wanting to do what was good and right, but not being able to carry it out, and between wanting to avoid doing what is wrong, yet doing that very thing anyway.
For centuries, a controversy has existed between those who believe that Paul was speaking about his past life before Christ, and those who believe that he was speaking about his present life at that time, as a Spirit-filled disciple of Christ. This same controversy continues to this day.
In fact, recently I was visiting with a dear relative of mine, who also loves the Lord, as I do, and who is a born-again believer. He said that he believes Paul was speaking of his present life as a follower of Jesus in that chapter, and that the main point he was making was that he needed to stop trying to keep the law. But I respectfully disagreed, saying that I believe the context, including Romans chapters six and eight, does not allow for that interpretation, and that Paul could not have been speaking about his present life. I said that I believe Paul was speaking about his life before knowing Christ.
This subject, in the context of the law vs. the spirit, is something I have been studying for decades, and the matter of whether Paul was referring to his life before Christ or his present life as a Christian is something I recall coming up in class in Bible school around thirty-four years ago, That recent discussion over dinner with my relative led me to go and check to see what my two favorite Bible commentators thought about this matter. So I went and checked both Matthew Henry and John Wesley's commentaries, and although Wesley usually follows Matthew Henry, in this instance Wesley had a different point of view than Henry.
In this article, I am going to share with you an abridged version that summarizes their comments. For their complete, unabridged comments, please see the commentaries on Romans 7 written by
Matthew Henry and
John Wesley at the links I have just provided.
Matthew Henry's Perspective About Romans 7
Matthew Henry believed that Paul was writing either from the perspective of an unregenerate person, who is convinced they are a sinner, but who is still unsaved, or about the ongoing struggle with the remaining corruption in the life of a sanctified believer in Christ. He believed it was difficult to apply this passage to the regenerate, but even more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate. He also believed that Paul did not intend his remarks in this chapter to be understood to refer to the same state as his present state, and the condition he was now in. Henry explained in his comments that Romans seven:
…is about the period “When we were in the flesh, that is, in a carnal state, under the
reigning power of sin and corruption - in the flesh as in our element.”
…it is “a
description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart, between
the law of God and the law of sin.”
…”it is applicable
two ways: - 1. To the struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate,
in the person of whom it is supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the
struggles that are in a renewed sanctified soul, but yet in a state of
imperfection; as others apprehend. And a great controversy there is of which of
these we are to understand the apostle here.”
…is “difficult to
apply [this passage]…to the regenerate, who are described to walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit.” But “it is more difficult to apply it to the
unregenerate.” “Of [the unregenerate] there are many that will needs have all
this understood, and contend earnestly for it: though it is very hard to
imagine why, if the apostle intended this, he should speak all along in his own
person; and not only so, but in the present tense…if here he speaks of the same
state as his present state, and the condition he was now in, surely he did
not intend to be so understood.”
…”seems rather to
be understood of the struggles that are maintained between grace and corruption
in sanctified souls. That there are remainders of indwelling corruption,
even where there is a living principle of grace, is past dispute; that this
corruption is daily breaking forth in sins of infirmity (such as are consistent
with a state of grace) is no less certain.”
…teaches “That
true grace strives against these sins and corruptions, does not allow of them,
hates them, mourns over them, groans under them as a burden, is likewise
certain (Gal_5:17): The
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these
are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you
would. These are the truths which, I think, are contained in this
discourse of the apostle…his design is further to open the nature of sanctification,
that it does not attain to a sinless perfection in this life; and therefore
[his design is] to quicken us to, and encourage us in, our conflicts with
remaining corruptions.”
…”complains of -
the remainder of indwelling corruptions, which he here speaks of, to show that
the law is insufficient to justify even a regenerate man, that the best man in
the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him
according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt
nature, which cannot fulfil the law.”
…teaches us that “Such
was the strength of corruptions, that [Paul] could not attain that perfection
in holiness which he desired and breathed after. Thus, while he was pressing
forward towards perfection, yet he acknowledges that he had not already
attained, neither was already perfect.”
…shows us that “in
his own account [Paul] was a wretched man, because of the corruption of nature,
because he was not so good as he fain would be, had not yet attained, neither
was already perfect. Thus miserably does he complain.”
…teaches us that “When
we are under the sense of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall
see reason to bless God through Christ…to bless God for Christ; it is he that
stands between us and the wrath due to us for this sin. If it were not for
Christ, this iniquity that dwells in us would certainly be our ruin.”
…is “an argument
why sin should not reign over us, and why we should walk in newness of life.”
...is to be understood as referring to the law here “as a covenant of works”…rather than “as a rule”, since “we are
freed, by death, from our obligation to the law as a covenant,” [not as a rule].
…”shows from [Paul’s]
own experience the great excellency and usefulness of the law, not as a
covenant, but as a guide,” which is holy, just, and good. The law in general
is so, and every particular commandment is so. Laws are as the law-makers are.
God, the great lawgiver, is holy, just, and good, therefore his law must needs
be so.”
…teaches that “the
commandment, which was ordained to life, was intended as a guide in the way to
comfort and happiness.”
…is “an argument
why we should be holy” and an “encouragement in [our] endeavors” to do so
through “grace, which promises strength to do what [the law] commands, and
pardon upon repentance when we do amiss,” since “…we are under a covenant of
grace, and not under a covenant of works - under the gospel of Christ, and not
under the law of Moses.”
…”distinguishes
the good works of believers from the good works of hypocrites and
self-justifiers”, since those of believers “…are brought forth in marriage,
done in union with Christ, in the name of the Lord Jesus.” For “The only fruit
which turns to a good account is that which is brought forth in Christ,” which
is “one of the great mysteries of godliness.”
…teaches is that as believers, “we must now serve in newness of spirit, by new spiritual rules, from
new spiritual principles, in spirit and in truth. There must be a renovation of
our spirits wrought by the spirit of God, and in that we must serve. Not in the
oldness of the letter; that is, we must not rest in mere external
services, as the carnal Jews did, who gloried in their adherence to the letter
of the law, and minded not the spiritual part of worship…We are under the
dispensation of the Spirit, and therefore must be spiritual, and serve in the
spirit.” For “Wherever there is true grace there is an experimental knowledge
of the spirituality of the law of God….Wherever there is grace there is not
only a dread of the severity of the law, but a consent to the goodness of the
law…This is a sign that the law is written in the heart, that the soul is
delivered into the mould of it. To consent to the law is so far to approve of
it as not to wish it otherwise constituted than it is. The sanctified judgment
not only concurs to the equity of the law, but to the excellency of it, as
convinced that a conformity to the law is the highest perfection of human
nature, and the greatest honour and happiness we are capable of…All that are
savingly regenerate or born again do truly delight in the law of God, delight
to know it, to do it - cheerfully submit to the authority of it, and take a
complacency in that submission, never better pleased than when heart and life
are in the strictest conformity to the law and will of God.”
…teaches that “It
is not enough to consent to the law, and to delight in the law, but we must
serve the law; our souls must be entirely delivered up into the obedience of it.
Thus it was with Paul's mind; thus it is with every sanctified renewed mind;
this is the ordinary course and way; thitherward goes the bent of the soul. I myself - autos egō,
plainly intimating that he speaks in his own person, and not in the person of
another.”
…teaches us that “there
is no way of coming to that knowledge of sin which is necessary to repentance,
and consequently to peace and pardon, but by comparing our hearts and lives
with the law.” For “There is nothing about which the natural man is more blind
than about original corruption, concerning which the understanding is
altogether in the dark till the Spirit by the law reveal it, and make it known.”
…teaches us “to
bow our souls to the commanding authority of the word and law of God, not
striving against, but submitting to it.”
John Wesley's Perspective About Romans 7
Now let's look at what John Wesley believed about that same passage. Based on the following key statements that Wesley made, we
can clearly see that he made a perfectly sound argument from Scripture to
support his belief that Paul was impersonating an unsaved man in order to
illustrate the utter bondage of trying to please God by obedience to Him in the
flesh without the Spirit before becoming united with Christ in his death, raise
with Him to new life, born again of the Spirit, and controlled by the
Spirit. Wesley states that Romans seven:
…is “the
comparison between the former and the present state of a believer”
…is a comparison
between “the past and present state of believers -- that ‘in the flesh,’ Rom
7:5, and that ‘in the spirit’."
…speaks of the
period “When ye were in the flesh - Carnally minded, in a state of nature;
before we believed in Christ.”
…demonstrates the
futility of trying to serve and obey God “in the oldness of the letter…in a
bare literal, external way, as we did before,” rather than “in newness of
spirit…in a new, spiritual manner.”
…“is a kind of a
digression, to the beginning of the next chapter, wherein the apostle, in order
to show in the most lively manner the weakness and inefficacy of the law,
changes the person and speaks as of himself, concerning the misery of one under
the law. This St. Paul frequently does, when he is not speaking of his own
person, but only assuming another character, Rom 3:5, 1Co 10:30, 1Co 4:6. The
character here assumed is that of a man, first ignorant of the law, then under
it and sincerely, but ineffectually, striving to serve God. To have spoken this
of himself, or any true believer, would have been foreign to the whole scope of
his discourse; nay, utterly contrary thereto, as well as to what is expressly
asserted, Rom 8:2…”
…depicts the
unsaved “man, finding there is no help in himself, [who] begins almost unawares
to pray, Who shall deliver me? He then seeks and looks for deliverance, till
God in Christ appears to answer his question.” However, “the deliverance is not
wrought yet.”
…depicts a man before knowing Christ, who “is now utterly
weary of his bondage, and upon the brink of liberty,” who finally realizes how
wretched he really is in himself, and who realizes that “God will deliver me
through Christ.”
…is summed up and concluded “as he began, Rom 7:7. I myself
- Or rather that I, the person whom I am [im]personating, till this deliverance
is wrought.”
My Own Key Points
I believe that Romans seven could not have been about Paul's present life, since he said, "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin" (Rom 7:14), which is completely inconsistent with what he wrote in chapters six and eight.
In chapter six, he said that once you are saved, you are united with Christ through water baptism in his death and burial, and you are united with him in His resurrection to a new life (Rom 6:3-6).
He said that our old self was crucified with Christ, so that we should no longer be slaves to sin (Rom 6:7). He also said you are now a slave to righteousness and no longer a slave to sin (Rom 6:17-18,22). Therefore, as a true believer, it was impossible for Paul to still be a slave to sin as he stated in Romans 7:14, so he could not have been speaking of his present state.
Likewise, in chapter eight, he said that through Christ the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). He said the mind governed by the flesh is death, while the mind by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). He also said that the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God's law, and that those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8). All of these statements in Romans eight about the Spirit-controlled life that Paul was living as a believer are completely inconsistent with the kind of struggle he described in Romans seven.
I do believe, however, that the Holy Spirit was illustrating through Paul the ongoing struggle between the flesh and the spirit that exists in the life of a sanctified believer, and emphasizing the points made in Romans six and eight about the old self being crucified with Christ and the need to now be controlled by the Spirit.
Lastly, it's important to always remember that we cannot interpret the teachings of the apostles, except through the teachings of Christ, and not the other way around. The Lord Jesus always upheld the law, and commanded obedience to it (eg., Matt 5:17-19; Luk 16:16-18), as I've written about here. In fact, the Gospels, and especially the Sermon on the Mount, prove this point (Matt 5:48; Matt 5 - 7).
Conclusion
As you can see, Wesley and Henry each had their own different opinions about the meaning of Romans seven
, and both were able to support their views in a doctrinally sound way from Scripture. Henry said that Paul speaks in his own person, and not in the person of another, while Wesley said Paul was impersonating an unsaved man.
They both made many excellent points which, even to this day, continue to edify, instruct, and encourage the Body of Christ. Neither of these men used their viewpoint as an opportunity to teach grace as a license for sin, but both taught the need to live a holy life in obedience to God. Both of them taught that we must obey the gospel law (see here).
Therefore, whichever way you choose to view Romans seven, just be sure that it is consistent with sound doctrine that conforms to Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus, and that it is consistent in its context with the rest of Paul's discourse.
Attributes: Most Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible NIV, copyright Zondervan, all rights reserved, used by permission. Image may be subject to copyright, used per the Fair Use Act for educational and commentary purposes only.
Author's note: If you enjoyed this post, you may also like
Aim for Perfection,
Christian Perfection,
Walking in the Perfect Will of God,
Living on Earth as They Do in Heaven,
Wesley and Henry on Gospel Law, Is Practical Righteousness a Lost Truth?, Faith in Action, Bearing Fruit in Every Good Work, Living a Life Worthy of the Lord, and the other posts available through the links on the Home page. You may also access my complete blog directory at Writing for the Master. Do You Want to Know Him?If you want to know Jesus, you can. It all begins when you repent and believe in Him. Do you know what God's Word, the Bible says?
“Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” (Mar 1:14b-15). He preached that we must repent and believe. Please see my explanation of this in my post called "Do You Want to Know Jesus?" ______________________________________
Len Lacroix is the founder of
Doulos Missions International. He was based in Eastern Europe for four years, making disciples, as well as helping leaders to be more effective at making disciples who multiply, developing leaders who multiply, with the ultimate goal of planting churches that multiply. His ministry is now based in the United States with the same goal of helping fulfill the Great Commission.
www.dmiworld.org.
