11
Freedom from the Law
Romans 7:1–25
Outline
- Released from Bondage to the Law through the Death of Christ (7:1–6)
- The Coming of the Law (7:7–12)
- Life under the Law (7:13–25)
Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
- Explain the implications of the believer’s release from bondage to the Mosaic law.
- List and evaluate three common interpretations of the experience described in Romans 7:7–25.
- Explain the contribution of Romans 7 to our understanding of the Christian life, particularly in relationship to the law and to the continuing power of sin.
Who am I? Few questions are more important. Your answer to that question will dictate your values, your lifestyle, your future. If I decide, for instance, that I am an NBA prospect, then I may decide it is well worth it for me to quit my day job and concentrate on basketball and conditioning. If I decide, under the influence of certain psychological schools, that I am determined by my environment and heredity, then I will not spend much time wondering what actions to take and whether they are right or wrong. If, on the other hand, I decide that I am a child of God, created in his image and redeemed from sin through his Son, then I will think quite differently about how I should go about my life. I assume that most, if not all, people reading this book have already made this last decision. But if we answer the question “Who am I?” with the response “a Christian,” we still leave a lot unsettled. What does it mean to be a Christian? What is a Christian supposed to be like? And it is here that Romans 7 enters the picture.
Under the old covenant, sacrifices were offered on altars like this one.
Few passages of Scripture have been more influential in shaping how Christians think about themselves. Yet, I submit, most Christians have been wrong in the conclusions they have drawn from this chapter. If my own informal survey is a reliable indicator, most believers think that Paul in Romans 7 (esp. in vv. 15–20) is describing the experience of a “normal Christian.” And so they conclude that constant struggle with sin and even defeat by sin is the norm in the Christian life. Now, it is clear that Christians do struggle with sin. Indeed, I think that Paul teaches that our struggle with sin will not end until our bodies themselves are transformed. I do not think, however, that Romans 7 describes this struggle. And I do not think that the negative outcome of the struggle depicted in Romans 7 should be typical of the Christian life. I will explain these points and try to justify them as this chapter unfolds. But it is important to get off on the right foot, and to do that we need to establish the basic topic of Romans 7.
Romans 7 is not about the Christian life; it is about the law, the torah. As Paul develops his case for the certainty of Christian hope, the overall topic of Romans 5–8, he pauses in chapters 6 and 7 to deal with two key threats to that hope: sin and the Mosaic law. Sin is an obvious threat. But why include the Mosaic law? The reasons will become clearer as the chapter unfolds. But recall that Paul already in Romans has cast the law in a very negative role in salvation history. It makes us “conscious of our sin” (3:20), it cannot justify (3:28), it stirs up wrath (4:15), it increases the trespass (5:20), and it is contrary to grace (6:14, 15). The first paragraph in Romans 7, verses 1–6, brings this negative theme to a crescendo. Then Paul, ever aware of how people will respond to his teaching, backs off to consider the inevitable question, If the law has done all these bad things, is it, in itself, an evil thing? Paul answers this question in verses 7–25. So, again, Romans 7 is about the law of Moses: why Christians need to be released from its bondage, why it nevertheless is God’s good and holy law, and why, finally, it lacks the power to overcome the problem of sin and death.
Released from Bondage to the Law through the Death of Christ (7:1–6)
Verse 4 is the center of this brief paragraph: Christians are released from bondage to the law through the death of Christ. Verse 1 states a principle, which verses 2–3 illustrate, as a way of leading up to this main point. Verses 5–6 then elaborate on the reason why this release had to take place and on the outcome of this release.
As my preceding comments have made clear, the “law” (nomos) that Paul is talking about throughout Romans 7 is the Mosaic law, the torah. This probably is also the case in verse 1. But by addressing his readers as “those who know the law,” is Paul signaling a shift in audience? That is, is he now narrowing his focus from Christians in Rome in general to those who are Jewish? This interpretation is possible, but it is probably not correct. For one thing, Paul ties his discussion in this chapter too closely to his general argument for us to isolate this section as devoted to a narrower audience. For another, it is likely that almost all the Christians in Rome, Jewish or not, knew the law. Many of the gentile converts probably had been God-fearers, who attended synagogue and read the Scriptures before their conversion to Christ. And what these people would know from the law itself is that its power over people ends at death. Paul illustrates this principle in verses 2–3. Quite a number of commentators have tried to find an elaborate allegory in these verses. For instance, they identify the wife with the believer, the first husband with the “old man,” and the second husband with the “new man.” But neither this nor any of the other allegorical schemes work very well. We would do better simply to view the story as an illustration of a simple truth: a death must take place if one is to be released from the authority of the law. The woman, as long as her husband is alive, is prevented by the law from marrying another man. But once the husband dies, she is free from the law pertaining to marriage and adultery. She can marry again without fear of penalty or criticism.
Synagogue in Capernaum built on the foundations of the synagogue in which Christ probably taught
So also it is, Paul concludes in verse 4, with Christians. We, too, have had to experience a death so that we could be free from the law and be joined to Christ. We should not miss the parallel at this point between Romans 6 and Romans 7. If, according to Romans 6, Christians have “died to sin” (e.g., vv. 2–3), so also, according to Romans 7, have we “died to the law.” The theological concept in both cases is the same. In the old era we lived under the domination of sin and the law. Both, though for very different reasons (see vv. 7–12), exercised a baleful influence on us. Coming to Christ means, in effect, to experience a totally new change of status with respect to sin and the law. Neither has the power to dominate believers any longer. Neither determines our destiny. We are free from both, and this freedom was won through the work of Christ. The focus in chapter 6 is on our union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. Paul may hint at a similar corporate idea by using the language of “the body of Christ,” but his focus is on the body of Christ given up for us in his death. Finally, as chapter 6 portrays our death to sin as resulting in a new life and fruit leading to holiness (see 6:22), so 7:4 indicates that our death to the law has led to our being joined to Christ, with the ultimate purpose that we should “bear fruit for God.” We have been transferred from the realm of sin and the law into the realm of Christ, holiness, and life.
Why did we need to be released from the law? Verse 5 offers a brief explanation. Essentially, Paul claims that the law became the instrument that sin was able to use to produce death. Just how the law aroused these “sinful passions” Paul does not say here. The idea, as he elaborates it elsewhere (see 4:15; 5:13–14; 7:7–12), seems to be that the coming of the law both stimulated rebellion in sinful human creatures and increased the penalty for sin. We all are familiar with the notion of forbidden fruits: forbidding an activity is the best possible way to increase its popularity. If I tell my children that on no account are they to play in mud puddles after a rainstorm, they will have a very difficult time not doing so, even if my prohibition was the first time they ever heard of the idea. And, as we have seen earlier in Romans, Paul clearly believes that the coming of the law made the human situation worse by turning sin into “transgression”: disobedience of a definite command of the Lord. So we needed to be released from the law because it had become allied with sin in producing death in us. If verse 5 describes the situation from which we are released, verse 6 describes the new situation we enjoy as a result of that release. Freedom from the law does not mean the end of God’s claim on us. That claim is exerted in a new and powerful way through his Spirit. No longer do we serve in “the old way of the written code.” “Written code” translates gramma, “letter,” a word that Paul uses to denote the Mosaic covenant as being fundamentally an external demand (see comments on 2:28–29). In contrast is the Spirit, the gift of the new realm that God gives to all who come to him in faith. Paul has not said much about the Spirit thus far in Romans (though, again, see the comments on 2:28–29). Here he briefly touches on the Spirit as a hint at the larger development to come in Romans 8.
| Romans 6 | Romans 7:4 |
| we died to sin (v. 2) | you also died to the law |
| through union with Christ (vv. 4–5) | through the body of Christ, |
| slaves of righteousness and of God (vv. 18, 22) | that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, |
| “the benefit [fruit] you reap leads to holiness” (v. 22) | in order that we might bear fruit for God. |
The Coming of the Law (7:7–12)
Paul’s purpose in this paragraph is twofold. First, he wants to vindicate the law from the charge that it is itself evil. One can imagine why someone might make this charge. Has not Paul himself claimed that the law has aroused sin (v. 5) and that Christians need to be released from it (vv. 4, 6)? Paul clearly rejects this charge (v. 7), concluding that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (v. 12). Second, Paul wants to delve more deeply into the exact relationship among sin, the law, and death. He denies that the law is in the same category as sin, but he does not back down from his insistence that there is a relationship between them. Sin, Paul teaches, is the culprit: it has used the law to bring death.
In making these basic points, Paul reverts to a narrative style. He portrays the experience, apparently, of an individual: “I.” Who is this “I”? Here, many readers might think that I am raising a ridiculous question, because it is obvious that the “I” is the author of Romans writing about personal experience. Paul is the author, and the experience is his. What more need be said? I am sympathetic to such objections: scholars sometimes pursue pointless issues that abandon the plain meaning of the text. But I do not think that such an accusation would be just in this case. The fact is, as we will see, that there are elements in the experience described in verses 7–25 that can only with great difficulty be attributed to Paul. Moreover, we must reckon with differences between our culture and Paul’s. We might think that a narrative using the pronoun “I” can mean only one thing. But in the first-century Jewish world, this was not so clear. Recall my comments on Adam in Romans 5: Jews had a lively sense of corporate identity. To a degree quite foreign to most of us, they could identify themselves with other people.
With these general observations in place, we can now briefly examine three main interpretations of the “I” in Romans 7:7–12.
- “I” is Paul. He describes his own experience, either (a) when he came of age and took on full responsibility for the law,1 or (b) when he came to Christ and recognized his sin for the first time.2
- “I” is Adam. Paul speaks as a human being, caught up in Adam’s representative transgression of God’s law and its terrible consequences.3
- “I” is Israel. Paul speaks of the history of his people, for whom the coming of the law meant not life but death.4
Each of these views has strong arguments in its favor and capable defenders. The strengths and weaknesses can be assessed by focusing on a key narrative development within verses 8b–9:
| Apart from the law | When the commandment came |
| sin was dead | sin sprang to life |
| I was alive | I died |
The problem with thinking that Paul simply is describing his own experience is that he had never lived “apart from the law,” nor did he die when the commandment came. As a Jew, he had always lived under the law; furthermore, he was born under sentence of death because of Adam’s sin. Herein lies the attraction of the Adamic interpretation, for Adam and Eve alone of all human beings were “alive” (spiritually) before law was given. They alone “died” (spiritually) when the commandment (not to eat the fruit of the one tree) came. Paul probably has this experience in view; but it is probably not the whole story. For Paul is talking in this context about the law of Moses, which, obviously, did not exist when Adam and Eve were alive. That law did come when it was given to Israel at Sinai. But it is finally hard to remove all personal reference in Paul’s use of “I.” So we end up having our cake and eating it too. Taking his usual salvation-historical perspective, Paul is reflecting on the impact of the law of Moses on the people of Israel; at the same time, however, using typical first-century corporate perspective, he identifies himself with the experience of his people Israel. It is helpful at this point to remember that Jews celebrated the Passover by thinking of themselves as being present during the great events of the exodus. Paul does the same kind of thing, thinking of himself, as a typical Jew, as being present when the Mosaic law was first given to Israel. But this experience, in turn, is pictured as a recapitulation of the experience of Adam and Eve in the garden (see 5:13–14).
With this overall perspective in place, we can glance at some of the details in the paragraph. As in 3:20, Paul claims that knowledge of sin came through the law. As he explains further in verse 13, this probably means that the law first revealed sin in its true colors. By disobeying the law that God himself gave the people of Israel, the Jews became aware that their sin was flagrant rebellion against God. Paul illustrates by citing the last of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not covet” (v. 7). Some interpreters think that Paul chose this commandment because he personally had a particularly difficult struggle with “coveting” or desire (possibly, sexual sin). More likely, however, is that Paul follows Jewish precedent in citing the commandment as representative of the law as a whole.5
Paul’s claim that “sin was dead” and then, when the commandment came, “sprang to life” (vv. 8b–9) reflects his teaching about the Mosaic law elsewhere in Romans. As we have seen, he repeatedly suggests that the coming of the law turned sin into transgression and therefore increased both the number and the seriousness of sins (4:15; 5:13–15, 20; 7:5). So it could be said that Israel “died” when the commandment came. To be sure, the people of Israel were already “dead,” as are all descendants of Adam. But certain Jewish traditions presented the giving of the law as the time when Israel, alone of all the nations on the earth, awoke to true spiritual life. Paul therefore exaggerates for polemical effect, claiming that the coming of the law did not mean “life” for Israel, but “death.” By affixing on Israel clear, unequivocal responsibility for the obedience of fixed commands, the law sealed the death of the people. All this is to illustrate Paul’s main point: sin used the law to bring death (v. 11). The law was the occasion of sin. As good and holy as it was, the law of God made severe demands upon Israel without granting them the renewed heart and mind necessary for obeying it. Sin, which Paul virtually personifies here, then could stand up and say, in effect, “See, you have not obeyed the law God gave you. You continue to follow me. Therefore, your death clearly is deserved.”
Life under the Law (7:13–25)
Verse 13 is transitional, as Paul moves from a description of the coming of the law (vv. 7–12) to a description of the law’s continuing effects (vv. 14–25). Note, therefore, that while we find English past tenses in verses 7–12, English present tenses are used throughout verses 14–25. Once again, we have to establish a broad perspective on this passage as a whole before we can understand any of its details.
We simplify a bit by introducing three main options:
- Paul describes his experience as an unconverted Jew under the law.6
- Paul describes his experience, perhaps shortly after his conversion, as he sought sanctification through the law.7
- Paul describes his experience as a mature Christian.8
Debate over Romans 7 is so lively precisely because each view has some points in the text in its favor. There is no slam dunk in the interpretive game here. So the best interpretation will be the one that produces the best overall fit with all the evidence. I think that the first of these options best satisfies this requirement. But before I explain why I come to this conclusion, let’s get a sense of the debate by noting two key arguments for the first and the third views. The argument in favor of the first view, which sees Paul as referring to his pre-Christian experience, is that (1) he claims to be “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14), an impossible state for any believer (see Rom. 6); and (2) he claims to be “a prisoner of the law of sin” (7:23), which contradicts the situation of all Christians, who have been “set . . . free from the law of sin and death” (8:2). The argument in favor of the third view, which sees Paul as referring to his mature Christian experience, is that (1) he writes in the present tense; and (2) he concludes the passage, after expressing thanks for deliverance through Christ, with a statement of his divided being.
The main argument for the second view, what could be called the “immature Christian” view, is of course that the arguments for the first and third views both carry weight, and so the only way to reconcile all the data is with a mediating view. Paul is a Christian (explaining the data in the third-view argument), but a Christian who finds himself frustrated because he is trying to live by the law (explaining the data in the first-view argument). But the problem with this mediating view, and the reason I finally think that the passage describes an unregenerate person, is that the data in the argument for the first view involve an objective state, not a subjective feeling. Paul does not say that he feels as if he were a slave of sin or that he feels as if he were a prisoner of the law of sin; rather, he states such as the reality of his situation. However, that situation is, by definition, one that no Christian can ever experience. As Paul has taught at some length in Romans 6, every believer, united with Christ in death and resurrection, has been “set free from sin” (6:18, 22; cf. 6:6, 14). And Romans 8:2 makes it clear that the Spirit sets every believer free from the law of sin and death. For me, then, the decisive point is simply put: the assertions made in verses 14–25 cannot be true of a believer and thus cannot be referring to Paul. That is why I think that Paul is describing what it was like to live as an unregenerate Jew under the law.
Before moving on, let me make three quick but vital points about my position. First, I again admit that other views can cite good evidence in their favor. I do not ignore this evidence, but I do conclude that it is not as decisive as the evidence in favor of my own interpretation. Second, I emphasize that Paul writes about Jewish experience. Verses 14–25 therefore follow on naturally from verses 7–12. If in his previous paragraph he wrote about the effect of the coming of the law on the Jewish people, he now writes about the continuing consequences of that law on the Jewish people. Third, I admit that verses 15–20, taken on their own, could describe the struggle with sin that even the best Christians continue to have. But what we must recognize is that the struggle depicted in these verses issues in defeat: imprisonment by the law of sin. This is not the outcome of the Christian’s struggle with sin.
As we saw, verse 13 is transitional. Verse 14 then establishes the fundamental contrast that Paul describes in these verses: the good law of God versus the sinful human being. The struggle that marks this contrast is described in verses 15–20 before Paul wraps up the narrative with a look back at the general state of affairs (vv. 21–25).
Paul has claimed that the law is “good” (v. 12), but he has not explained yet how something good could have been used by sin to produce death. This he will do in verses 14–25. His basic answer is that the law, though good and holy, was given to people who were not. Because people were under sin’s power, the law could not be obeyed. And so it was that the law revealed sin for what it really is, turning even the good law of God into an instrument of death (v. 13). Paul neatly summarizes this situation in verse 14. The law may be “spiritual” (i.e., a divinely given, authoritative word), but “I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” Interpreters who think that Paul describes his Christian experience in these verses argue that these words simply state the biblical and experiential truth that Christians, still under the influence of the old realm, continue to be attracted to sin. But the language is stronger than this. It implies a slavery to sin such as no Christian any longer experiences (see Romans 6).
In verses 15–20, Paul movingly depicts the effect of this tension in the life of sincere, torah-loving Jews. Jews agree that “the law is good” (v. 16). They want to obey it, but they find themselves constantly falling short of its demands. Of course, Paul does not mean that Jews always failed to do the law. Many of them lived exemplary lives, carrying out many of the law’s demands even in difficult circumstances. But his point is that the obedience always falls short. No Jew has ever done the law perfectly. Every Jew who was at all sensitive to spiritual things sensed frustration at the failure to live up fully to the law’s demands. Although not with respect to every command, nevertheless frequently, they saw all too clearly that their “doing” did not match their “willing.” How can this difference be explained? It must be the effect of “sin living in me” (v. 17b). Paul again pictures sin as a power that holds sway over people outside of Christ. By claiming that it “lives in me,” Paul may imply that sin is in a dominant position in this person’s life. He says roughly the same thing at the end of verse 20: “It is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” This is not an attempt to avoid blame (“The devil made me do it!”). Rather, it is simply the recognition that there must be some explanation for the constant failure to do what one wills. That explanation is the power of sin. As we saw, verses 15–20, taken on their own, could describe the frustration of the Christian, alive to God and seeking to do his will yet constantly falling short of perfect conformity to that will. Paul makes very clear elsewhere that in this life believers will never be fully free of that struggle. And this is probably also the way we should explain verse 18a: “Good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.” “Sinful nature” is the NIV rendering of sarx, “flesh.” But why does Paul qualify his absolute claim with this reference to “flesh”? Some scholars claim that this addition shows that Paul is describing a Christian. He wants to make clear that the believer is subject to sin’s influence only in the sinful nature that still remains. This could make sense of the text, but it is also possible that Paul wants to explain why nothing good dwells in this person: he or she is still dominated by the flesh.
If verses 15–20 might apply to the Christian, the same cannot be said of verses 21–25. In these verses Paul draws a conclusion from the struggle that he has depicted in these earlier verses. This conclusion is that the person undergoing the struggle finally is defeated by sin and can be rescued only by Jesus Christ. Paul begins by citing a “law”: “Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me” (v. 21). This is one of the few places in Romans that Paul uses the word nomos to mean something other than the law of Moses. Here it must mean something like “rule” or “principle.” The principle neatly summarizes what Paul has described in verses 15–20. Verses 22–23 elaborate. Paul contrasts two “laws” that govern the situation: “God’s law,” which Paul further describes as the “law of my mind”; and the “law of sin,” the law “at work within me.” Scholars debate the nuance of the word “law” in these verses. All agree that “God’s law” in verse 22 is the Mosaic law or, perhaps, divine law in general. And almost all also think that the “law of my mind” in verse 23 is but another way of describing this law. As Paul has made clear, the person he describes in these verses knows God’s law to be good and seeks to do it. His or her “mind” is fully committed to the law of God. The debate centers on the identity of the other, contrasting law. More and more interpreters in recent years are attracted to the idea that this “law of sin” might also be the law of Moses. Paul would call it the “law of sin” because it has been used by sin to produce death (see vv. 7–12).9 But I think that this interpretation is unlikely. The most natural way to interpret Paul’s reference to “another law” is that he refers to a law different from the law of Moses, not to the same law from a different perspective. So it is better to think of the “law of sin” as a rhetorical play on words. Opposed to God’s law, the claim he exerts on his people, is another “law,” a claim exerted on us by sin. These laws oppose one another. But God’s law, Paul concludes, is unable to overcome this law of sin. The result? “I . . . [am] a prisoner of the law of sin.”
This objective conclusion is a key reason why I think that the “I” Paul describes here cannot be a Christian. Believers are no longer held captive by “the law of sin” (Rom. 8:2). They have been delivered from sin’s authority and death-dealing power through Jesus Christ. It is this deliverance that Paul celebrates in verses 24–25a. Apart from Christ, he is “wretched,” but God has delivered him from that state of dejection and defeat through Jesus Christ the Lord. Paul, looking back on his past life and reflecting on its struggles and tensions, cannot restrain himself from celebrating the victory he has experienced in Christ. Verse 25a is an interruption in the narrative, a skipping ahead to the victory that Paul knows has already been won. In verse 25b, then, he reverts back to his main line of thought, summarizing the dividedness that he has depicted so movingly in this passage. The mind stands in tension with the flesh. The one follows God’s law, the other the law of sin.