Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by Homer » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:05 am

Hi Jeremiah,

Thanks for your reply. You asked:
Again, I just don't think the sharp distinctions of categories you're making are correct. Maybe you can expound on why exactly you think these are contradictions in the verses you've cited.
I think too little is made of the significance of Paul's statement "sold to sin" which draws a very sharp distinction. As Adam Clarke noted in his commentary, if Paul simply meant he struggled with sin (I am carnal) or had not yet reached perfection (Philippians 3:12), why add this "sold to sin" comment?

Consider part of Clarke's commentary on this verse, which long ago I found convincing:
But the word carnal, though used by the apostle to signify a state of death and enmity against God, is not sufficient to denote all the evil of the state which he is describing; hence he adds, sold under sin. This is one of the strongest expressions which the Spirit of God uses in Scripture, to describe the full depravity of fallen man. It implies a willing slavery: Ahab had sold himself to work evil, Kg1 21:20. And of the Jews it is said, in their utmost depravity, Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, Isa 50:1. They forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and Were Sold to do mischief, 1 Maccabees 1:15. Now, if the word carnal, in its strongest sense, had been sufficiently significant of all he meant, why add to this charge another expression still stronger? We must therefore understand the phrase, sold under sin, as implying that the soul was employed in the drudgery of sin; that it was sold over to this service, and had no power to disobey this tyrant, until it was redeemed by another. And if a man be actually sold to another, and he acquiesce in the deed, then he becomes the legal property of that other person. This state of bondage was well known to the Romans. The sale of slaves they saw daily, and could not misunderstand the emphatical sense of this expression. Sin is here represented as a person; and the apostle compares the dominion which sin has over the man in question to that of a master over his legal slave. Universally through the Scriptures man is said to be in a state of bondage to sin until the Son of God make him free: but in no part of the sacred writings is it ever said that the children of God are sold under sin. Christ came to deliver the lawful captive, and take away the prey from the mighty. Whom the Son maketh free, they are free indeed. Then, they yield not up their members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; for sin shall not have the dominion over them, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made them free from the law of sin and death, Rom 6:13, Rom 6:14; Rom 8:2. Anciently, when regular cartels were not known, the captives became the slaves of their victors, and by them were sold to any purchaser; their slavery was as complete and perpetual as if the slave had resigned his own liberty, and sold himself: the laws of the land secured him to his master; he could not redeem himself, because he had nothing that was his own, and nothing could rescue him from that state but a stipulated redemption. The apostle speaks here, not of the manner in which the person in question became a slave; he only asserts the fact, that sin had a full and permanent dominion over him.
You can find Clarke's commentary on Romans 7 here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/rom007.htm

dizerner

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by dizerner » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:49 pm

I think too little is made of the significance of Paul's statement "sold to sin" which draws a very sharp distinction.
I completely agree. You hear very little teaching on this. And Paul doesn't even reach a full solution in Romans until he says "I thank my God through Jesus Christ."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by Paidion » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:58 pm

I also see chapters 6, 7, and 8 "flowing seamlessly."And we would expect them to do so. For, as we know, Paul was writing a single letter to the Romans. He didn't insert chapter divisions.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by jeremiah » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:10 pm

Hey Homer,
Thanks for your reply...
Yeah man, my pleasure. I've enjoyed chiming in more lately.
you wrote:I think too little is made of the significance of Paul's statement "sold to sin" which draws a very sharp distinction. As Adam Clarke noted in his commentary, if Paul simply meant he struggled with sin (I am carnal) or had not yet reached perfection (Philippians 3:12), why add this "sold to sin" comment?
I think I would much rather make too little of a large thing—and I don't believe I am in this case—than read far too much into a little thing. Why add the "sold under sin" comment? I don't deny it adds to the carnality he first speaks of, but I think he uses it as a short unfolding of being carnal, to intensify the thought. What I think goes too far is this idea that some new or subsequent category or distinction of wickedness is being taught by it.
Adam Clarke wrote:...This is one of the strongest expressions which the Spirit of God uses in Scripture, to describe the full depravity of fallen man. It implies a willing slavery: Ahab had sold himself to work evil, Kg1 21:20. And of the Jews it is said, in their utmost depravity, Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, Isa 50:1.
This is only an assertion, especially the bit about an implication of willing slavery. Before Paul can take another breath he speaks of his unwillingness to do that which he hates. The parallels he employs to prove his point don't seem to me good workers either, Paul doesn't say he is carnal, having sold himself under sin. Why not maintain in our minds the admonition of not letting sin reign in our mortal bodies, obeying it, and then see how he is describing here what it looks like when we do that very thing?
Paul wrote:...O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?...
not long after he wrote:...For the wages of sin is death...
These all seem to me parts of one single train of thought, that is, one concerned with the regenerate child of God throughout.

Have a great weekend man.
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
willowtree
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:56 pm
Location: Sooke BC Canada

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by willowtree » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:55 pm

jeremiah wrote: What I think goes too far is this idea that some new or subsequent category or distinction of wickedness is being taught by it.
I don't think I would express this idea in quite these terms, but I do think we need to recognize that this is the case. What is new is not what is already there, but the conscious awareness of it that has previously been masked by overt sin and guilt, futile attempts to justify our lives by our good deeds, and /or indifference to the possibility of a new life in Christ we have not yet experienced.

Consider that Paul, as a Pharisee, was enslaved to the law. It was his obsession to obey it to the utmost degree, and in keeping it he kept telling himself that he was living a life that was pleasing to God. What a transformation it was to accept that salvation was a gift of God by grace through faith. And what a fraud he must now have felt when he discovered, deep down in his heart, after accepting forgiveness, that there was a problem remaining that he was not conscious of before. And that no amount of Pharasaic law-keeping would ever have brought it to his attention.

There is a proverb to the effect that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life.There are some believers who think that conversion is just a big fish - good enough, when given, for the rest of your life. Others believe that conversion is more like a rod and tackle box with accompanying directions and instructions.

The big fish is a reactive approach to the problem of sin - a fix-it for every time we fail God, with little being said about addressing the underlying causes. The rod and tackle box approach is pro-active - it seeks to provide an ongoing solution to the hunger problem. I know the analogy can be shot full of holes, and of course salvation is both an initial experience and an ongoing journey. There are two points I want to make, 1) that every day we walk with Christ, we discover things that we had not noticed before, some minor and some major. It is in our best interests, spiritually, to address them. 2) the gospel of Jesus Christ is not simply a reactive remedy, a never ending trail of band-aids to deal with the injuries from the sins we keep on committing. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is also pro-active, cleansing our hearts from the very impossibility of being able to do the things we want to do in our service to God. As John writes, 'If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to purify us from all unrighteousness.'

In chapter 8, Paul introduces us to the rod and tackle - 'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free from the law of sin and death'. Some effort on our part is required to make all this happen.

Graeme
If you find yourself between a rock and a hard place, always head for the rock. Ps 62..

dizerner

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by dizerner » Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:21 pm

great thoughts guys

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by Homer » Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:08 am

Hi Graeme,

If I understand you correctly, your view is similar to that I posted earlier from Lange:
Paul here enters into a remarkable psychological analysis of the working of the law, in order to show that it, although holy and good in itself, cannot effect the sanctification of man, on account of the power of indwelling sin, which can be overcome only through redeeming grace. He gives a chapter out of his own experience, especially out of the transition period from the law to the gospel. In this experience, however, is reflected, to a certain extent, the history of the religious development of humanity as a whole. What is here so vividly individualized, repeats itself also in the experience of every earnest Christian. The law, instead of slaying sin, first brings it to full manifestation (vers. 7-13); in the internal contest it is proven powerless; it leads to the painful confession of helplessness (vers. 14-24); no other hope remains, save the grace of Christ (ver. 25).

Those expositors who follow the later Augustinian view refer vers. 14-25 to the regenerate because they are unwilling to ascribe to the natural man even this powerless longing after higher and better things. On the other hand, those who refer them to the unregenerate, urge this reason, that the regenerate man is not so powerless, so captive to sin, as the person here described, but has overcome the dominion of sin, as the Apostle clearly indicates in chapters 6 and 7. The correct interpretation lies between these two. Paul describes his state, not when sunk in sin, but when awakened to earnest struggles against sin under the scourge of the law, under preparation for a state of grace - i.e., in the period of transition from the law to the gospel, in the Judaico-legalistic state of awakening.
Am I correct regarding your thinking?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by Homer » Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Hi Jeremiah:

You wrote:
This is only an assertion, especially the bit about an implication of willing slavery. Before Paul can take another breath he speaks of his unwillingness to do that which he hates. The parallels he employs to prove his point don't seem to me good workers either, Paul doesn't say he is carnal, having sold himself under sin. Why not maintain in our minds the admonition of not letting sin reign in our mortal bodies, obeying it, and then see how he is describing here what it looks like when we do that very thing?

Paul wrote:
...O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?...
The predicate "sold" is passive. But as Lange says, you must "tamper" with the meaning of sold to make it mean anything less than it literally says. The question then is the "when" of this state of helplessness. I think we must rule out the idea that this was Paul's experience after his baptism and being filled with the Spirit:

Acts 9:17 (NASB)

17. So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”


Paul would not have been ignorant regarding how would escape ("who shall deliver me?") from his state. "Deliver" is in the future tense.

User avatar
willowtree
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:56 pm
Location: Sooke BC Canada

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by willowtree » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:47 pm

Homer wrote:Hi Graeme,

If I understand you correctly, your view is similar to that I posted earlier from Lange:
Paul here enters into a remarkable psychological analysis of the working of the law, in order to show that it, although holy and good in itself, cannot effect the sanctification of man, on account of the power of indwelling sin, which can be overcome only through redeeming grace. He gives a chapter out of his own experience, especially out of the transition period from the law to the gospel. In this experience, however, is reflected, to a certain extent, the history of the religious development of humanity as a whole. What is here so vividly individualized, repeats itself also in the experience of every earnest Christian. The law, instead of slaying sin, first brings it to full manifestation (vers. 7-13); in the internal contest it is proven powerless; it leads to the painful confession of helplessness (vers. 14-24); no other hope remains, save the grace of Christ (ver. 25).

Those expositors who follow the later Augustinian view refer vers. 14-25 to the regenerate because they are unwilling to ascribe to the natural man even this powerless longing after higher and better things. On the other hand, those who refer them to the unregenerate, urge this reason, that the regenerate man is not so powerless, so captive to sin, as the person here described, but has overcome the dominion of sin, as the Apostle clearly indicates in chapters 6 and 7. The correct interpretation lies between these two. Paul describes his state, not when sunk in sin, but when awakened to earnest struggles against sin under the scourge of the law, under preparation for a state of grace - i.e., in the period of transition from the law to the gospel, in the Judaico-legalistic state of awakening.
Am I correct regarding your thinking?
The short answer is yes, but I have some issues.
Paul here enters into a remarkable psychological analysis
I would not have used the word psychological - since the remedy is spiritual, there is a case for calling it spiritual. On the other hand there is merit in what Lange has used. Paul quite plainly states that the conflict is between his will and his ability - he wants to do good but can't because 'sin is living in me'.
working of the law, in order to show that it, although holy and good in itself, cannot effect the sanctification of man, on account of the power of indwelling sin, which can be overcome only through redeeming grace.


If Lange means the law of Moses, then I agree with the statement that he has written. But I do not think Paul was talking about the LOM in most of his uses of the term 'law' in Romans 7. Paul shows the law of sin and death to be the ugly underside of the commandments. Jesus speaks to this in the Sermon on the mount - You have heard it said... but I say unto you...
He gives a chapter out of his own experience, especially out of the transition period from the law to the gospel. In this experience, however, is reflected, to a certain extent, the history of the religious development of humanity as a whole. What is here so vividly individualized, repeats itself also in the experience of every earnest Christian.
I agree here as well, but think that the 'transition from the law to the gospel' sounds like Paul considered it was just another notch on his spiritual belts - I really was on the right track back there but with a few minor changes in understanding, I am now that much further along. From what I read, it was not a transition at all, but a major about face. I agree with the comments about the 'religious development of humanity as a whole'. etc.

The law, instead of slaying sin, first brings it to full manifestation (vers. 7-13); in the internal contest it is proven powerless; it leads to the painful confession of helplessness (vers. 14-24); no other hope remains, save the grace of Christ (ver. 25).
This is quite well said. However, I note that Paul switches in vv 7 - 13 from the law of Moses, to the law of sin and death. IMO the LS&D originates when Adam had an apple for lunch, and was ushered out of the Garden of Eden. The law of Moses draws attention to it, exposes it, but does not have any power to over rule it.
Those expositors who follow the later Augustinian view refer vers. 14-25 to the regenerate because they are unwilling to ascribe to the natural man even this powerless longing after higher and better things.
IMO Right conclusion, wrong reason. I do not believe that man is so totally depraved to the point that he is not aware that part of his original created makeup has died and that the remaining part does not yearn for its return. I believe that the real reason Paul has discovered this law of sin and death, is because he had experienced the bondage of it. I also believe that it was not until he saw the blinding light on the road to Damascus, and following, that Paul became aware of this dark underbelly of the commandments. In the forgiveness of God, the death of Christ on his behalf, the wonder of grace, he was opened to the immensity of sin and its hold on the human frame. I am sure he felt, when he was a Pharisee, that he was able to keep the law, and that with effort, he could do a creditable job ('I thank God that I am not like this publican.. I..., I,,, etc' could well have surfaced in Paul's praying). That is, I think of his understanding of sin to be quite superficial.


On the other hand, those who refer them to the unregenerate, urge this reason, that the regenerate man is not so powerless, so captive to sin, as the person here described, but has overcome the dominion of sin, as the Apostle clearly indicates in chapters 6 and 7. The correct interpretation lies between these two. Paul describes his state, not when sunk in sin, but when awakened to earnest struggles against sin under the scourge of the law, under preparation for a state of grace - i.e., in the period of transition from the law to the gospel, in the Judaico-legalistic state of awakening.
If this is the correct understanding, then I wonder how relevant all this is to me. I never was a Pharisee, and have never obsessed with law keeping as Paul was. But since believers today frequently see themselves in this chapter it seems to me that there has to be relevance for every one of us that is greater than Paul's 'transition'. To me that relevance is that we have all experienced, as believers, the desire to do something we really need to do, but simply cannot. And it is not for lack of trying. But when 'dying out to this sinful bondage' and applying the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus over the law of sin and death, we have found victory in Christ. We have proved that what Paul writes about is most relevant to you and me, as believers, from day to day.

So, yes, I see this as primarily speaking to the regenerate, about an issue that has been around since Adam, but not apparent to unbelievers generally until they have been born again. There are some things in our spiritual lives that follow a rational sequence. Jesus was not tempted by Satan until after he was baptized - probably because once Jesus had made this public declaration of his faith and mission, it became a signal to Satan that the war was on. If I had read that Jesus was tempted by Satan, with the temptations mentioned, before his baptism, I would be asking why the timing seemed to be out of sequence.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

Graeme
If you find yourself between a rock and a hard place, always head for the rock. Ps 62..

dizerner

Re: Meaning of Flesh, Romans 7:14-18

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:23 pm

That is, I think of his understanding of sin to be quite superficial.
bingo

Post Reply

Return to “Acts & Epistles”