Romans 7 again (further update)
Koot van Wyk (DLitt et
Phil; ThD)
Department of Liberal
Arts Education
Kyungpook National
University
Sangju Campus
South Korea
Conjoint Lecturer of
Avondale College
Australia
17th May 2014
The importance of
Romans 7 cannot be overlooked. It is a beautiful chapter dealing with cardinal
issues relating to the topics of salvation, law, sin, spirit and how all these
elements harmonize in the life of Christian as opposed to when he was still a
sinner.
We are using the
convenient structural analysis of prof. J. P. Louw of Pretoria University
department of Greek, 1978 for this purpose. We do not necessarily follow this
Dutch Reform Calvinist's interpretation on aspects in the layout. After all, we
are Seventh-day Adventists for whom the Sabbath is cardinal as necessary to
keep since Jesus was a Jew, Paul was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews and so
was John the last writer of the New Testament. For them, Sabbath was Saturday
and that cardinal point in continuity with Jewish habit of keeping Saturday, is
the prime fulfillment required by the Ten Commandments and still binding today.
The dealing with the concept of law in Romans 7, by a Seventh-day Adventist
will be very sensitive and careful. In fact, there is no attempt by Paul to
cancel the Ten Commandments as we will see below in Romans 7:7 "What
then shall I say. Is the Law sin? No absolutely not, but I would not have known
sin, if it was not through the law. And also not know desire if the law did not
say, you shall not desire."
There is no desire
by Paul to cancel the importance of the Ten Commandments and that includes the
Sabbath command. That also means that there is no intention to substitute any
part of the law with new rules or new days for worship as was done by the
Catholic Church, helped by Constantine the Great and then followed or retained
by nearly all Protestants during and after the Reformation. This aspect was ridiculed
by many Catholic scholars through the ages for example, Karlstadt's ridicule of
Luther at the Diet of Worms and also in The Faith of Our Fathers by
James Cardinal Gibbons (1876, 1917): "But you may read the Bible from
Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single line authorizing the
sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of
Saturday, a day which we never sanctify" (Gibbons 1917: 89). Peter
Kreeft's jump from Calvinism to Catholicism in the 1960's may have been because
of this inconsistency in Calvinism but in the process he has thrown out the
baby with the bathwater and got derailed altogether. His messages are fantastic
at times but mixed with truth and error, a typical characteristic of the
Catholic Church since its inception.
That rectification
by Seventh-day Adventists does not give one salvation, but it certainly is a
right step in the right direction especially if perfection is also a Christian
goal which should be strive for.
Romans 7:1-6 forms
a pericope that belongs together. It is in three parts: A, B and C as prof.
Louw has identified. A is verse 1, B is verses 2-3 and C is verses 4-6.
To whom does Paul
speak? Scholars are not all on the same wave-length here.
1.1 in verse 1
reads "Do you not know brothers". Now that is a hint. Who
would be considered by Paul to be a brother? Of course it would be
brothers in faith and that could be Jewish Christians in Rome or Greek
Christians or other nations Christians or all of them together. The Roman
society was very law orientated. Paul continued and said: 1.2 "For I
speak with those who know the law". These people are knowledgeable of
the law. At this point, those people can be Latin Christians or Hebrew
Christians since both of them were instilled with the law since childhood, the
civil law for the Latin Romans and the religious law for the Jews. In 1.3 and
1.4 Paul continues: "that the law rules over man, as long as he
lives". There is something general in this statement of Paul. It is
hard to say that the law only rules of Jews and not over Latin Romans or Greeks
for that matter. It is almost a general theme including Jews and Gentiles so
that the audience or brothers of 1.1 above could have been either Jewish
Christians or Roman or Greek Christians. The strong statement of 1.2 above
makes one wonder if he is not really speaking to the Jewish Christians only?
There is hardly a nation that instilled the law as central part of their lives
as the Hebrew nation, and that for their whole existence, not only until they
retire.
If we take an
excurs to Romans 2:1-16 and what scholars made with the issue to whom the words
are addressed, we see a wide variety of opinions. We list them: Jews (Denney
595); Jews (Wuest 39); Jews (Willie Jonker 41, of Stellenbosch University,
Systematic Theologian of the Calvinistic Church); Jews themselves (Nygren 113,
see also 117); polemic against Jewish tradition but that nothing suggest that
they were Jewish-Christians (Käseman 53); general person = person of God (Karl
Barth 57); heathen Christians (Augustine); Romans 2:2 "We know . .
." = faith knowledge of the congregation (Jonker 43). Twice further in
chapter 2 the question is whether it is Jews or Heathens or Jews and Heathens,
namely in Romans 2:9 and Romans 2:10 "upon every soul of man".
The answer is given in special ordering fashion: Jews and also first Greek.
Notice that the copulative and consecutive particles in the Greek is before and
after first. It appears not to say Jews first. What is it then?
In these verses Romans 2:9-10 they refer to preference of Jews listed first but
preference also the second item listed since an explicit first is
attached to the second item rather than the first. What does it mean? They are
viewed collectively, one item but equally also the other item. It still
makes it difficult to decide here whether Paul is speaking to Jews to make them
understand that Greeks are also equally considered on this aspect or whether he
is addressing Greek-Christians to suggest that Jewish-Christians are sometimes
thinking they are first but actually also Greek-Christians are first? Käseman
concluded on Romans 2:6 and Romans 7 "The only particle of truth in it
is that, as in ch 7 [Romans 7] the non-Christian world is seen from the
Christian point of view . . . But the stylistic forms of the diatribe should
not allow us to forget that the apostle is addressing the congregation"
(Käseman 57).
In Romans 2:14
Jonker felt strongly that the "hearers of the law" are Jews
(Jonker 47). Actually if you look at the two statements of Paul in Romans 2:12
in almost synonymous parallelism Paul spells out the executive judgement of
both the Heathens 12a and the Jews 12b which endresult are the same if they sinned.
Both are judged and both destroyed in this verse. The original of the Jewish
side of the verse actually read "and all who sinned in law".
Notice that there is not a definite article and Lightfoot [see Wuest 43] said
that it is because it is general law and not specific Mosaic law.
In A of Romans 7
Paul wishes to bring the theme that the law binds. In B that follows
(verses 3-4), Paul is going to elaborate with metaphors in order to explain
that death breaks and brings freedom or release.
In Romans 7:2 we
find Paul using a chiastic structure A:B::B1:A1. The one side A:B paints a
picture of the perspective while living and the other side B1:A1 paints a
picture while the husband died. The situation of A:B change in B1:A1 because of
death. Death brings freedom. It is not life:death that is compared but the
results before death:the results after death.
Resultant of this
principle spelled out in Romans 7:2 "therefore then" another chiastic
structure follows in bringing the results out of another case compared to the
rule. Paul used a chiastic structure as follows in Romans 7:3 A:C:B::B1:A1:C1.
She will be an adulteress if she becomes another man's while her husband is
still living but if her husband dies she is free to become another man's.
This rule of verse
2 and application of verse 3 Paul now wants to extend to the congregation "so
that my brothers" in verse 4. The general law of marriage in vv. 2-3
is now going to be extended to a case about the moral law or ten commandments
in verse 4.
The congregation
members are also dead to the law. How? Through the body of Christ.
Result? In order to become another's. How? Through the raising from
the death. Purpose? So that we may be fruit-bearing for God.
Looking back on
their condition before they became Christians Paul reminds them that "the
passions of sins worked, those through the law, because when (time) we
were in the flesh, in the our members (place), in order to (purpose)
bear fruit for death".
Time wise it was in
the past but Paul wants to stress that something transformed in the meantime
and so he uses the explicit "now" in verse 6 with the
adversative "but" to indicate a complete change. "Now
we have been released from the law, having died in that which bound, so that we
are slaves (new binding) in the newness of the spirit and not in the
oldness [oldness in quality, like worn out] of the letter". One
can probably suggest that if one is a faithful obedient Christian the spirit of
the law applies but if one is a sinner, the letter of the law applies. For the
radiant Christian, the letter cannot point to any wrongdoings and thus the
excitement is that the spirit brings the proper intentions of the letter to the
fore so that the letter is not seen any longer but only the beautiful spirit of
the law. The law is only ugly to those who do not follow it and it is then that
phrases of the law are teeth that just wants to bite at every wrongness and
wrongdoing.
When you sin the
letter of the law binds you and judge you and places you under death but when
Christ fulfilled the demands of the letter of the law 100% then that becomes a
substitution for your imperfection and now you also in Christ died to the
letter of the law judging, and enslaved to the spirit a new life starts in the
law, one that is free from the condemning letter of the law by following the
letter any way but lives blooming and challenging lives in the spirit for new
applications have to be carved out by every Christian challenged by culture
obstructions, adversative circumstances and temptations of Satan around every
corner. The spirit of the law is that creative new application that makes sure
the letter of the law is not ignored, and in so doing, can cause a new binding.
This is true freedom and true enslavement to the spirit of the law without the
binding condemnation of the letter of the law due to transgressions. The
forgiven Christian is set free, not to sin any longer but to follow the law.
That is why Paul is
starting Romans 7:7 with the importance of keeping the law. "What then
shall we say, is the law sin? No definitely not but I would not have known sin,
if it was not through the law, for also the desire I would not know, if not the
law said, you shall not desire". It is definitely the Ten Commandments
that is at stake here. That includes Sunday keeping or Saturday keeping since
it is explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments.
Paul mentioned
"desire" in Romans 7:7 and wish in Romans 7:8 to elaborate on that
word. The content of Romans 7-10 forms a unit in which Paul is indicating that
the law reminds a person of sin and bring the person then under its control.
Paul summarize in Romans 7:11 what he set out in Romans 7:7-10, namely, that sin
tempted him taking opportunity through the law. How does that happen? Satan
plays with the letter of the law when he deals with the sinner. Trying to
rationalize his/her own position as correct, since humans do not like to hear
or see that they are wrong, Satan also rationalize by playing with the letter
of the law in order to make its appearance skew and inconsistent and in fact obsolete
to follow. Satan is the sin tempting Paul and Satan loves to use the letter of
the law to phrase his temptation. Rationalizing the letter of the law to be
right in his own eyes for his sin, the sinner remains bound under the
condemnatory letter of the law. The spirit of the law is absent for one
breaking it. The terrible result of sin is that it works in the sinner (7:8)
that it tempts me (7:11a) and that it kills me (7:11b). We should substitute in
Romans 7:8-11 the word Satan for sin. We cannot miss the
personification of sin in this unit.
Whereas Paul is
trying to say in Romans 7:7 is that the law is not sin but makes us aware of
it; in Romans 7:8-11 Paul is trying to say that sin/Satan is using the letter
of the law to play with my sins in order for the letter of the law to keep me
under its control; and in Romans 7:12-13 Paul is trying to say that the law is
good but sin/Satan is using it for his own purposes.
After dealing with
the misuse of the law by Satan in Romans 7:8-13 Paul now comes to verse 14-16
to indicate the positive position of the law. The law is good but I am the bad
one.
In Romans 7:14 Paul
placed two sentences opposite each other in a special way: "For we know
that the law is spiritual" in contrast to the phrase "but I am
fleshly, sold out under sin". Paul blamed everything and everyone
outside of himself for the sins. He blamed the letter of the law when the
chapter started, he blamed sin/Satan in the unity prior to this one and now in
this unit starting with Romans 7:14 he blames himself. He himself is the origin
of his problem. Yes, the problem is multifaceted and yes it is complicated, but
because he can be the solution to the problem with his free will, therefore, he
can be honest about the origin of his problem at himself. As long as Paul will
be fleshly, he knows that he is the origin of his own problem since he is sold
out to sin/Satan.
In Romans 7:15 Paul
states that "because what I am doing, I definitely do not know".
Paul says that someone who lives a fleshly life definitely does not contemplate
that they are wrong or when they realize they are wrong, do not know how to get
out of their problem. They do not fully understand the wrongfulness of their
own actions since sin or Satan is rationalizing for them that their actions are
actually not that different from the letter of the law although it is in
essence opposite to the letter of the law and lacks the spirit of the law. You
cannot follow the spirit of the law unless you comply 100% with the letter of
the law. You cannot enjoy the spirit of the law and its benefits as long as one
is sold out to the condemnation and letter of the law through sin and a fleshly
lifestyle.
Verse 15 is a
classical statement that many sinners like.
Paul says that
living a fleshly life, bound under the letter of the law (although the law is
spiritual as the congregation knows [Romans 7:14]), for not do I do those
things I want, but I do those things I hate.
In Romans 7:16 Paul
summarize Romans 7:14-15 by saying: "for if I do, that which I do not
want, I agree with the law that it is good".
This verse is
intriguing. It almost seem to say that if you do things wrongly that you want
to do and desire to do, then you are fleshly sold out to the law since the law
condemns you and binds you and sin and Satan will keep you under the
condemnation of its letter. But, if you do things wrongly that you do not want
to do and not desire to do, then you are claiming and upholding that the law is
good and thus, it by extension, as we see it, will not condemn you and bind you
and sin/Satan cannot keep you under the condemnation of its letter since you
are evolving and transforming to the spirit of the law. It is almost the Old
Testament difference between wilful sins or transgressions and accidental
unwillful transgressions. The last one is not sin and there were special
offerings to deal with them separately from the willful sins. The second
category sins are by oversight, neglect, accidental, unconscious. Paul has hope
for the struggling Christian here. Daily offering your life to Christ is the
daily offerings for the unconscious sins.
In a series of
discussions, Paul outlines the problem. In Romans 7:14-16 Paul indicates that
the law is good but he is the bad one. In Romans 7:17 Paul indicates that
actually not he is the problem but the sin/Satan that lives in him. In Romans
7:18-19 Paul indicates that he is the bad one. In Romans 7:20 Paul indicates
that he is not the bad one but the sin/Satan that works in him. In Romans
7:21-23 Paul summarized a kind of hybrid or fusion of his ideas supra, namely,
that he is the bad one through the sin/Satan that is working in him.
Paul is doing us a
favor by exposing the wikileaks of his experience as a Christian. We now know
that the justified Christian goes through a struggle sins he/she is not
transformed to heaven but is still on earth. As long as the Christian is in
Satan's territory the body is the organ that Satan will utilize to appeal and
talk and impress the faithful person. That is a struggle but the focus of the
Christian is constantly on the right things. The law is good and the sinner does
not want it to be condemnatory or binding. The spirit of the law for the
Christian will be like a balloon that blows up and lose air and blow up again
and lose again. But the letter of the law is not applicable because the
Christian is keeping it and keeping it the beauty of the spirit of the law
blooms and is radiant.
There is a very interesting swing between
prasso πρασσο and poieo ποειω in this part of Paul discussion. Prasso πρασσο is
to do things in habit or in custom but poieo ποειω is to just do it in
isolation.
In Romans 7:19 Paul
says that the good I do [things in isolation] I want but these bad
things I practice [habits or customs] I definitely do not want.
Compare this statement with that of Paul in Romans 7:15 where he says for these
things I practice [habits or customs] I want but these things I do
[isolated actions] I hate. What do we have here? Paul talks about good
habits and bad habits and good isolated actions and bad isolated actions. In
both cases, as a Christian he wants the good ones.
Paul is hoping to
spell out the ingredients for the victorious Christian. The struggle with
Satan/sin is helped with the sanctified will of man in combination with the
law/Torah of God in the inner man (Romans 7:22) brings opposition and problems
to the presence of Satan or evil in him (Romans 7:21). That is his joy.
There is a point in
the Christian that he can rest assure that God is not blind to his/her
intentions for following the law of God to the spirit of the law. Then Satan
who is living in him/her has problems.
Notice that the
struggle in Paul is with himself and not a struggle with the congregation that
has problems with Paul. It is self-perception and not problems due to a
disciplinary committee of the congregation. There should not be problems with
the disciplinary committee of the congregation because then it means that Paul
is sold out to the letter of the law due to known transgressions publically
visible to all.
In Romans 7:24 Paul
sings a prayer or lamentation namely who can save him from his body of death.
But, there is an answer and Paul provides it in Romans 7:25. His mind follows
the law of God to the best of his ability but if there are fleshly actions that
he does not want to do but happen unconsciously, unwantedly, accidentally, then
it is only with the flesh and not with the sanctioning of his will, thus
unwillful.
Keith
Augustus Burton who is a professor at Oakwood University did an excellent work
on the Sabbath School lessons for March 29-June 27 on Christ and His Law. On
Tuesday May 13 he dealt with “O Wretched Man” and his comment is that “The
person described here is someone who delights in the law of God (hardly sounds
like a nonbeliever) yet who seems to be enslaved to sin (which makes no sense
because Christians are promised power over sin).” I hope the above explanation
will underlines that the matter is one of definition of sin and that there are
many kinds of sin. Will-fully sinning and sins unaware are
different categories of sins. The Old Testament do distinguish them. The person
who is aware of greeting brother Dave friendly at church but not aware that he
overlooked sister Judy behind him, is committing an unknowing an “intensity of
the fruits of the Spirit of Galatians 5”, sin. If it is the case, one will have
to tone done Burton’s “which makes no sense” in his second statement cited
above with the second leg of his comparison.
Another
surprising statement is “Where Sin Abounded” on May 11 “although the Ten
Commandments had not yet been formally revealed when Adam ate the forbidden
fruit” is what I call, the fallacy of Eichrodtian methodology. See, Walther
Eichrodt wrote two volumes on the Theology of the Old Testament and the fallacy
of his methodology is this: quantity of scriptural text means quantity of
reality of the particular idea. Moses selectively chose from the Book of the
History of Adam and the Book of the History of Noah only small portions,
because we are living in the post-deluvial world, but that does not mean God
did not reveal to them the full law from the beginning just because I cannot
read it in a single verse. So angels are later, eschatology is late,
resurrection concepts grew over time. All bogus ideas. Burton in his statement
reveals the same sentiment and many Adventist scholars suffers from this
Eichrodtian syndrome which is actually artificial Hegelianism, to use
Albright’s words or based on classical Darwinianism. It means first there was
nothing and it grows with time. No. God wrote His law on Adam’s heart just like
Jeremiah explains to us. Regeneration is Eden restored. God walked with them
and did not only talk about the birds and the bees. His character is His law
and walking with God you know the Ten Commandments. The law is on your mind not
on tables of stone. Not on parchment, not on paper, not on digital devices.