Romans 7: Who is the "I"? Before or After?

[_Rick_C]

Sean,

I have a lot to cover, lol, but will begin with your last.

I'm not sure what "sinful nature" means exactly. I don't agree with the NIV that translates sarx as "sinful nature" where other translations translate sarx as "flesh".

I agree about the NIV. The text says "flesh." The NIV translators were biased, probably because of their belief in the doctrine of Original Sin and/or their Calvinistic "bent."

The thing of it is, if you ask the average evangelical Christian that has a working knowledge of the Bible what the flesh in Romans 7 is, they usually say, "It is our sinful nature"...something they believe we still have. I'd estimate that at least 80% of evangelicals see it this way, but could be wrong.

I do agree that the flesh is still with us as long as we live (1 Pet 2:11). It is a war. But through the Spirit we can actually gain victory or sin in our lives.

(1 Peter 2, NKJV) 11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Peter acknowledges that fleshly lusts exist and that we are to abstain from them. But he doesn't tell us anything about if there is, or isn't, something remaining inside us called "the flesh" (or sinful nature, if you will) that prompts us to sin.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts....There are multiple scriptures that mention the victory over sin in those who have received salvation.

Yes. And to borrow a medical term, they are almost "TNTC" (too numerous to count)!

On another thread about eschatology you mentioned that you begin with passages that are clear or easily understood when trying to understand complexities. The many "victory over sin" passages seem quite clear to me. They also contradict the "I" in Romans 7 if Paul is, indeed, talking about his own personal experiences in the present. I don't believe he is, based on this hermeneutical principle of contradiction, as well as his specially addressing Jews and/or Jewish issues that I mentioned earlier (Rom 7:1).

cont'd....

[Guest]

The thing of it is, if you ask the average evangelical Christian that has a working knowledge of the Bible what the flesh in Romans 7 is, they usually say, "It is our sinful nature"...something they believe we still have. I'd estimate that at least 80% of evangelicals see it this way, but could be wrong.

I certainly agree we are in the flesh until we die, since our bodies are made of it. So as long as we are alive, the desires will come to us. But if we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh. The desires are still there, but we will not fulfill them, if we walk in the Spirit.

On another thread about eschatology you mentioned that you begin with passages that are clear or easily understood when trying to understand complexities. The many "victory over sin" passages seem quite clear to me. They also contradict the "I" in Romans 7 if Paul is, indeed, talking about his own personal experiences in the present. I don't believe he is, based on this hermeneutical principle of contradition, as well as his specially addressing Jews and/or Jewish issues that I mentioned earlier (Rom 7:1).

cont'd....

I'm actually not trying to debate that point specifically, I'm only saying that Paul's argument is what the flesh is like (since we are all flesh beings, Paul using himself as an example works great, especially since Paul is one who knows the law), and what the law's effect is on the man of flesh, and how this bondage is overcome (by the Spirit). This is another of many examples Paul gives throughout Romans of how a Jewish man and the law combined do not produce the life God is looking for. The law, rather, points to Christ, not to yourself.

[_Rick_C]

Homer,

I agree with what you wrote in your post. But first, I want to get contextual here!

(Rom 7, NKJV) 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.

In special address to the Jews and/or Jewish issues in the church at Rome; which would be read in the presence of Jews and Gentiles alike; Paul makes an analogy to marriage. The law, as it would have been intimately known to Paul's Jewish brothers, has dominion over "a [Jewish] man" for his entire life (verse 1). A wife is "bound to her husband" by the law as long as he lives: She and he are "one flesh" (verse 2). Paul proclaims that believing Jews are presently free from the law in the same way a widow is free to remarry. Her remarrying after the death of her husband frees her from the "law of her husband": You shall not commit adultery (verse 3).

The wife in this analogy has been married and widowed. The Jews are depicted as having been formerly married to the law: The wife is free to remarry when her husband died -- as -- believing Jews are freed from the law when Jesus died: "Therefore, my [Jewish] brothers, you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ" emphasizes that the death of Jesus was, for the Jews, the vehicle through which they obtained liberation from the law: They are no longer bound or "married" to it, seems to be Paul's idea. As a widow's husband has died -- so -- Jesus has died in a manner that has "widowed" the Jews from the law. They are now free to "marry him" (verse 5).

Paul is saying that a widow's remarrying -- keeping in mind that marriage (including lawful remarriage) was a "very good" thing (Gen 1:27, 31) -- is essentially what Christ has done for the Jews: Jesus has married them as "widowers!"

The underlined words (in my Romans 7 quote) reiterate why I don't believe Paul's "I" is in the present tense.

(Rom 7:7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.

Paul shifts from the "we" to the "I."

It seems crystal clear that the "we" cannot be anyone other than the Jewish believers in the Roman church. Paul's discussion up to this point is specific to them and Paul includes himself (personally) with them ("brothers," verses 1 and 4). All of the "we" statements are Jewish and are about Jewish issues.

So who is this "I" fellow?

The "a man" is a Jew under under the law (verse 1). Paul now makes the transition by picking up on "a man" using an "I statement" to be descriptive of him. Him who? "A Jewish man" who had formerly been bound by law. Paul can be said to be describing himself in that he (personally) was a Jew under the law. Paul's "I" autobiography, so to speak in a metaphorical sense, is "a Jewish's man's" biography. "I" is Paul's corporate representative of every Jewish man's past experience. Paul wasn't talking about his present struggle! Rather, he goes back and tells how he -- or any Jewish "I" -- came to learn and understand the law...beginning with its bringing of the knowledge of sin (verse 7b).

(Rom 7:7, my added words in bold) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, (this is what we shall say): "I would not have known sin except through the law...." (and up to the end of the "I" statements (the rest of the chapter, verse 25). I might be wrong in this particular angle with "(this is what we shall say):"...just brainstorming & it seems to be implied....

I need more time on this section, and, a nap....Thanks for reading
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Paidion,

Your hand-writing/computers analogy generally "fits" how I see the passage.

Thanks

[_Rick_C]

Sean,

I haven't replied to a lot of what you posted but can't pass up on:

It's noteworthy that Paul says that although man is dead in sin, he is able to desire what is good, even though "in the flesh" this desire cannot be carried out.

I would say, "It's noteworthy that Paul says that although a Jewish man, Paul's corporate representative "I", is dead in sin, he is able to desire what is good, even though "in the flesh" this desire cannot be carried out."

And add: "in the flesh" means those who are not "in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1) because "...those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:8b). "In the flesh" people, according to Paul, aren't Christians.

Years ago, anyway, we used to say "I got in the flesh" when we, as Christians, had committed a sin or error. This wasn't really inaccurate! A biblical way to have said this would have been, "I got weak and walked off the path" (Rom 8:26, 8:4, respectively).

My main thing to you is: You just gave Calvinism a strong rebuttal!
"Dead men can do something!"
To wit: desire to do good!!!
(their wills are even involved).......

out

[_Rick_C]

Homer...I've had too much coffee!

I believe Paul is speaking of himself prior to conversion. If you follow his thought from 7:7 to 7:25, in v.9 Paul says: "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. " Many of us who believe in an age of accountability have taken this statement to refer to Paul as an innocent child who, when he learned of and understood the law, "died". It is a personal statement of his experience.

Yer right on the money, imo! Paul explaining, in essence, "the Jewish life" (from childhood on, in Romans 7).

Then in v.14 Paul said: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." The word "sold" here is the Greek piprasko which means "sold as a slave" to sin. If we place ourselves among those who heard Romans read, what would we think Paul meant? What did it mean in those days to be a slave? Would they not have immediately recognized that Paul was speaking of a person in a hopeless condition, a person who had no choice whatever to do what he might wish to do, but one who must do the will, and only the will, of his master? Yet Paul goes on to say in 8:2: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

Please refer back to my underlined (in the past tense) verses in Romans 7:1-7, Amen!

The hermenutical principle of non-contradiction, cf:
(Romans 6, NKJV) 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Verse 12: A simple command. Nothing is said or alluded to that Christians have a "sinful nature" sneaking around inside of them! Moral responsibility is underscored. Our mortal bodies are not the cause of our sinning (the "body" with its "members" is essentially neutral in Paul in terms of personal responsibility)..."but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (Rom 8:13b). Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," underscoring the Jewish belief that the body, though subject to death, human frailties (like sleepiness in the case of the disciples), and prone toward sin; the body can be used correctly. Paul said, "I beat my body under (subjection)" to make it obey the Lord. God forbid! that we Christians take a Gnostic view that the body and/or the flesh are evil, in and of themselves! Our hearts are what can go wrong...we live for God or the devil in our bodies based on how our hearts (minds) are aligned.

The "body of sin" (Rom 6:6) has been interpreted by some to mean it is inherently evil, even after salvation. Bodies (we people who "have" those) without Christ do sin, and sin habitually. While we, obviously, keep our bodies after we become Christians; the "body of sin" is done away with in Christ: we no longer practice sin continually (by habit).

It seems to me Paul was either rather careless with his use of the word piprasko or using hyperbole if he meant to describe his life as a Christian. And if he was using hyperbole, how would we ever know just what he meant?

I think I know what you mean. When are we a "slave to the law of sin" (Rom 7:25b)? and when are we a "slave of Christ Jesus" (Rom 1:1a)? Did Paul switch back and forth with each sin or act of righteousness?

If Paul's "I" is in the present tense, he would be using more than just hyperbole. If such were to be the the case; satire, undoubtedly, and histrionics (for sure) are added. He'd really be stretching it!

I do feel "wretched" and horrible when I sin (really) badly. But I can't see myself as being a wretched man in a wretched state over it (this isn't biblical, imo). Paul wrote elsewhere that "Godly sorrow produces repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death" (2 Cor 7:10, NIV). Paul experienced this worldly sorrow in a pronounced way before he was saved...which he describes in Romans 7: Parallels to 2 Cor 7:10 run through this whole chapter.

I don't know if Steve will have time to see this before he goes to Africa but....

In his Romans 9-11 lectures he mentions that he couldn't understand why Paul had been discussing the true Israel and the the status of believing and unbelieving Jews, etc., in chapter 9..."only to go off into an excursus about Calvinism?" Of course, Paul didn't! lol.

In the same way I wonder why Paul had been discussing basically the same, or related, Jewish stuff in 6-8..."only to go off into an excursus about what a wretched "in the flesh" and rotten guy he is in chapter 7 -- while contradicting himself on things he had just written in 6?" Hyperbole is one thing; contradiction, another.

I have to go.
God bless you, Homer
(maybe I'll get lucky and Steve won't see that...but: Why would Paul do this?), lol

[Guest]

Sean:

I certainly agree we are in the flesh until we die, since our bodies are made of it.

Sean, that is one meaning of "sarx". But surely Paul is not contradicting your statement when he wrote:

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit, if in fact the spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Obviously, if "sarx" means only the physical flesh, then how could Paul state to those living persons to whom he was writing, that they were not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in them? Surely they had physical flesh, didn't they?

So what else could "sarx" mean? I think it means something like "self-serving mind". If the spirit of Christ dwells in you, you are not in a self-serving mind. Maybe "sinful nature" is not all that bad as a translation.
If the spirit of Christ dwells in you, you do not dwell in a sinful nature.

[Guest]

If Paul's "I" is in the present tense, he would be using more than just hyperbole. If such were to be the the case; satire, undoubtedly, and histrionics (for sure) are added. He'd really be stretching it!


Paul knows how to use tenses since several times earlier he clearly spoke in the past tense. And it's not that he is using hyperbole or satire , it's that the more holy we become the more we see our sin and the more it grieves us. So Paul's actual quantity of sin may be very small but because of his sanctification it really grieves him.
So can Paul speak in the past tense?
7.4 "you also were put to death"
7.5 "For when we were in the flesh"
6.20 "For when you were slaves of sin"
Yes Paul clearly knows the difference between past tense and present tense and in the verses in question he speaks in the present tense by design.
Paul consistently speaks about a continuing battle between the flesh and his mind, here and in his other writings. Does Paul teach that because we accept Christ our "SIN NATURE" disappears?
"For the creation was subjected to FUTILITY" 8.20
"And not only that , but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the FIRSTFRUITS , we ALSO GROAN within ourselves , eargerly waiting for the adoption , the redemption of our bodies" 8.23

[Guest]

Sean:

I certainly agree we are in the flesh until we die, since our bodies are made of it.

Sean, that is one meaning of "sarx". But surely Paul is not contradicting your statement when he wrote:

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit, if in fact the spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Obviously, if "sarx" means only the physical flesh, then how could Paul state to those living persons to whom he was writing, that they were not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in them? Surely they had physical flesh, didn't they?

So what else could "sarx" mean? I think it means something like "self-serving mind". If the spirit of Christ dwells in you, you are not in a self-serving mind. Maybe "sinful nature" is not all that bad as a translation.
If the spirit of Christ dwells in you, you do not dwell in a sinful nature.

My point is that as long as we live, the flesh will desire what it wants, and it's up to us to not give in to it's desires when sinful. To put it another way, Christ was also tempted, to the point of sweating great drops of blood, because He was in the flesh, in other words, He was being tempted through the flesh. His prayer was "not My will, but Yours be done".

Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.


Clearly, we are still "in the flesh" as Christians. Meaning, we are still tempted through the desires of the flesh. Paul is exhorting us not to gratify it's desires. Paul would not have to do that if the indwelling of the Spirit completely destroyed the ability of the flesh to tempt us any more. Rather, through the Spirit we now have the power to overcome sin, if we follow the Spirit, that is.

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

So while we are "in the Spirit" we still have the ability to go back to the flesh:

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

The choice is ours.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Sean,

Clearly, we are still "in the flesh" as Christians. Meaning, we are still tempted through the desires of the flesh. Paul is exhorting us not to gratify it's desires....

I would say, "It's noteworthy that Paul says that although a Jewish man, Paul's corporate representative "I", is dead in sin, he is able to desire what is good, even though "in the flesh" this desire cannot be carried out." And add: "in the flesh" means those who are not "in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1) because "...those who are in
the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:8b). "In the flesh" people, according to Paul, aren't Christians.

Since we are trying to understand Paul exegetically (what his words mean): Do you think people who are "in the flesh," according to the Romans text, are or are not Christians? I still maintain Paul said they were not.

I realize you may not have been posting "exegetically."

My point is that as long as we live, the flesh will desire what it wants, and it's up to us to not give in to it's desires when sinful. To put it another way, Christ was also tempted, to the point of sweating great drops of blood, because He was in the flesh, in other words, He was being tempted through the flesh. His prayer was "not My will, but Yours be done".

I've assumed that most of us who post here knew the different uses of "flesh" (in the flesh, the flesh, according to the flesh, fleshly, etc.) and what they mean. "In the flesh" can simply mean: has (or had) a physical body. E.g., Acknowledging that Jesus came "in the flesh" in John's epistles (and how you used it, above).

You seem to see "the flesh" as some kind of entity...like a "sinful nature." I can't really tell, though, because I don't know when you are using technical terms (biblical words). E.g., Paul wrote "...those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7b). Yet Jesus pleased God "in the flesh" (with your use of the term, which is basically what John meant in his epistles: that Jesus had a physical body).

...Paul is exhorting us not to gratify it's desires. Paul would not have to do that if the indwelling of the Spirit completely destroyed the ability of the flesh to tempt us any more. Rather, through the Spirit we now have the power to overcome sin, if we follow the Spirit, that is.

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

In Gal 6:7 Paul is telling us what happens when anyone "sows and reaps." A Christian can "sow to his own flesh." The imagery of planting seeds & the harvest. This text has no real bearing on if we have a "sinful nature" kind of "the flesh" inside of us. It just says we have fleshly bodies....

But again, it looks like you see "the flesh" as a "sinful nature" that is inside of us or part of of us; in that you say it "tempts us." (Do you?). I don't know of any place that teaches this in Scripture.

We are tempted by the devil and by our own lust which is a work of the flesh. Lust is conceived in our minds (or hearts). And we could say we do this "in the flesh" (in the sense that we have physical bodies). I agree we choose what we will, or will not, do. We do this using our (free) will, imo.

We will to do as we exist in our weakened fleshly bodies. Peter said we are exposed to "fleshly desires which rage war against the soul" ("soul" in the Bible basically means: a person, a living being, someone). Peter doesn't tell us anything about us having a "fleshly desires entity" that lives inside of us (like a "sinful nature"). Paul wrote:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12, NKJV).

We are tempted by the devil and evil powers and fight back according to (by) the Spirit.

2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10, NKJV)

Verse 2b: Paul uses walking according to the flesh here in a similar way he does in Romans (where he refers to unbelievers...or "mere men").

Verse 3a: walk "in" the flesh, being alive, existing in a body
("walking" is a Jewish euphemism for "living life")

Verse 3b: "war according to the flesh," probably means that we don't fight militarily (not a normal human warfare), also that we don't fight using philosophy (mere human argumentations)

Verses 4 and 5: the scene of the warfare is in the thoughts, the mind (also, heart in the Bible)

Our enemies are the devil and his powers, human philosophy ("so-called knowledge"), and any thought that is not according to Christ [see Col 2:8].

I yet maintain that my fleshly body is not my enemy nor a thing that houses a "lurking sinful nature" inside of me! (bold, for why I'm studying all of this)!

Thanks,
Rick

P.S. Anyone,
What did you think of my Rom 7:1-7 stuff? I ask because you hardly ever hear anyone take that section into full account! (for exegesis of the chapter).