Perspectives on Our Struggle with Sin: Three Views of Romans 7

By Terry L. Wilder, Chad Brand, Stephen J. Chester and 2 more

“For I do not understand what I am doing, because I do not practice what I want to do, but I do what I hate.” —Romans 7:15, HCSB

Perspectives on Our Struggle with Sin presents in point-counterpoint form three differing views of a Christian’s relationship with the law, flesh, and spirit as illustrated through Paul’s often-debated words in Romans 7.

Stephen Chester (North Park Theological Seminary) writes “The Retrospective View of Romans 7: Paul’s Past in Present Perspective,” suggesting the apostle’s description of his struggle speaks more to his pre-Christian self.

Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) offers “The Flesh Without the Spirit: Romans 7 and Christian Experience,” perceiving Romans 7 as an accurate representation of what believers go through even after their conversion.

Mark Seifrid (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), in “The Voice of the Law, the Cry of Lament, and the Shout of Thanksgiving,” asserts that Paul is not speaking of his past or his present Christian experience in Romans 7, but more fundamentally and simply about “the human being confronted with the Law.”

Chad Owen Brand (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) writes a conclusion on the theological and pastoral implications of Romans 7.

Acclaim for Perspectives on Our Struggle with Sin:

"One difficult and disputed text, three fine scholars, and three views of the passage. How is one to read Romans 7? This book takes you through all the options and rationale with detail, charity, and clarity. This is how to have a discussion over a disputed text. Read and learn about Romans 7. Decide who is right and why. And, above all, learn about how to discuss a difficult text."

Darrell L. Bock
Research professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary

"The meaning of Romans 7 continues to bedevil and puzzle readers. This volume does not simply rehearse arguments and positions from the past. The authors approach the text from fresh and illuminating perspectives, and hence this work represents a significant contribution to scholarship."

Thomas R. Schreiner
James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament Interpretation
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Christians have long debated how Paul’s moving depiction of a struggle with sin in “Romans 7 should influence our theology and practice of the Christian life. Now, in one book, Christians are given a wonderful opportunity to engage the different views, see how they differ, and come to their own conclusions. Chester, Osborne, and Seifrid clearly and capably defend their positions; and they do so with enough of a difference in method that the reader is given a good sense of the scope of the issues and their significance.”

Douglas J. Moo
Kenneth T. Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies
Wheaton College

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Oct 14, 2011
• ISBN: 9781433674051

Chad Brand

Chad Brand is associate professor of Christian Theology at Boyce College of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Book preview

Introduction

---

TERRY L. WILDER

I have always enjoyed the point-counterpoint type of books in which contributors present their competing positions on an issue and then irenically discuss their differences with the others. Most of these works pay attention to doctrinal or theological subjects, for example, the doctrine of election, hell, or Spirit baptism.¹ For some time now, however, I have hoped that publishers would produce such books with more of a focus on exegetical issues found in the text of Scripture.² Numerous possible topics along these lines await publication. This book hopefully will encourage publishers to increase the number of such works on exegetical subjects.

The exegetical issue at hand concerns the interpretation of Romans 7. I have had wonderful discussions with students as to what is the correct understanding of this text. Many of them eventually come away realizing that this passage is a little more difficult to explain than they thought, and that it is probably the most difficult one in Romans to interpret. Despite its complexity, the text is still a central one in Paul’s theology and must be reckoned with. For example, as Dockery puts it regarding 7:14–25, Since the passage is located at the heart of Paul’s explanation of the outworking of one’s salvation, the view which is adopted will have a tremendous impact upon one’s theology of the Christian life.³ The Perspectives layout is an ideal one to consider in detail the many questions that arise from this text and the various theories as to its explanation.

And yet, few books, if any, have a convenient format like this one for understanding and evaluating the competing views on Romans 7. This fact is remarkable since the passage is a crucial one when interpreting Romans and is also a favorite spiritual formation text for the church. Thus, this book sets out three basic approaches to Romans 7 in the point-counterpoint format. The purpose of this Perspectives layout is to allow readers to assess the various interpretations as they are defended by major scholars from each school of interpretation. This book enables professors, pastors, and students to have the opportunity to consider the various options that have been put forth by biblical scholars and theologians and decide for themselves, based on the exegesis of the text, which is the best model or view.

We are privileged to have three esteemed scholars who have done advanced study in Romans contribute to this book. Grant R. Osborne is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. Amongst his many published works, he has authored a commentary on Romans in the IVP New Testament Commentary series (2004). Stephen J. Chester is professor of New Testament at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, Illinois. His publications include an interpretation of Romans 7 in Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church (T&T Clark, 2003), and an extended discussion in an influential article on the history of interpretation of Romans 7.⁴ Mark A. Seifrid is the Mildred and Ernest Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He spent considerable time in Romans when he authored Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Brill, 1992) and Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (New Studies in Biblical Theology; InterVarsity, 2001). Despite their work in Romans, do not think that these scholars simply rehash positions we have already heard. Instead, they lead us through fresh, detailed discussions of this disputed text and do so charitably.

Two fundamental questions arise for the ardent reader and student of Romans 7. First, of whom is Paul speaking when he exchanges the third-person style he used earlier in Romans for the first-person I used several times in this passage? As you might imagine, this question has led to even still more questions. For example, does Paul refer to himself autobiographically or as an example of what persons go through? Is he depicting everyone’s confrontation with the law or struggle with sin? Does he rhetorically describe the fall of Adam into sin? Is he using I rhetorically to describe Israel’s struggle with sin and the law? Or, does Paul picture the battle between his spirit and flesh that he undergoes as a believer? These questions and more will be examined by our contributors in the chapters that follow. Second, is Paul describing the spiritual experience of a regenerate or unregenerate person, or both? This question has given birth to a variety of theories. What follows is an abstract of some, though not all, of those various views.

Advocates of the perspective that Romans 7 refers to a Christian or regenerate experience usually argue that the expressions in vv. 15,21, and 22 describe a Christian experience, and the present tenses there clearly show a present experience.⁵ The Christian experience view seems to have three basic nuances: (1) the mature Christian—the experience of vv. 14–25⁶ is one which sanctified believers may expect to encounter until the resurrection of the body; (2) the immature Christian—the experience of vv. 14–25 is one which may be overcome by means of growth and maturity in the faith, the goal of which is to exchange the conflict of Romans 7 for the victory of Romans 8; (3) the nomistic Christian—the experience of vv. 14–25 describes a Christian who, instead of living according to the Spirit, tries to keep God’s law by his own efforts but finds that, despite all his delight and good intentions to keep it, is firmly gripped by indwelling sin. The fundamental difference between these views is that view 1 sees the experience of vv. 14–25 as always present in the believer’s life whereas views 2 and 3 do not. Grant Osborne writes the chapter on this perspective. He makes the case that Paul first describes himself as an unregenerate Jew (7–13) and next as a regenerate believer in Christ (14–25). In vv. 14–25 the regenerate desires to do what is right but because of the flesh’s power fails in his war against sin and death.

Advocates of the view that Romans 7 refers to a pre-Christian or unregenerate experience tend to argue that the description of sin’s repeated victory plus references found, e.g., in verses 19–20, are not used of regenerate man. They also usually contend that the present tenses found in this passage are historical presents which point to a past experience. They further maintain, perhaps more than the advocates of the other views, that the overall context of the letter to the Romans best fits this view. The pre-Christian experience view also seems to have three basic nuances: (1) Paul’s autobiography—Rom 7:14–25 is Paul’s retelling of his own preconversion experience either as seen and understood by him at the time of his non-Christian life, or as seen and understood by him at the time he was writing Romans; (2) mankind under the law—the experience of 7:14–25 is that of humanity under the law; i.e., the I is not Paul himself but a stylistic form for painting a vivid picture and analysis of human existence apart from faith, either as seen by the non-Christian or as seen by the Christian, in this case, Paul; (3) Paul speaks as a representative Jew—the experience of 7:14–25 is that of Paul who speaks as a Jew detailing his past to reveal the law’s weakness and the source of that weakness, viz., the ego of human beings. The difference between views 2 and 3 is that view 3 refers to a person rather than describing mankind or representing Jews. Stephen Chester writes the chapter on this perspective and maintains that Paul speaks of his own experiences, but does so making retrospective evaluations of his pre-Christian past.

Still other scholars advocate the perspective that Romans 7 refers to both regenerate and unregenerate persons. One nuance of this view is that Romans 7 describes the experience of every human being. They see this experience as that of any morally earnest man who tries to obey God’s law without the strength and resources that God’s grace and the Holy Spirit provide. In other words, 7:14–25 deals with the person who tries to do right, as he understands it, but who is not in Christ—he may not yet be converted to Christ, or he may have strayed from Christ. The passage is not concerned with what is past or present, but instead with what was true of Paul’s past and with that which may turn out to be true of the present. Another nuance of this view is the perspective from which Mark Seifrid writes his chapter. He contends that Paul speaks in Romans 7 neither of his life before conversion to Christ nor primarily of his Christian experience, but rather, of the human being confronted with the law. Whether before or after faith is irrelevant.

After each contributor presents his view and his responses to the others, Chad Brand offers an insightful conclusion to these chapters that considers matters of spiritual formation. His task in this chapter is not to act as final umpire between contributors or decide which view is correct. Rather, he discusses the various theological and pastoral issues and implications of Romans 7, no matter which view is correct.

I trust that the contributors’ essays in this book will make you think as you read, with Bible in hand, and help you to sort out the issues associated with Romans 7. All of us have our convictions on this text. And I hope that you strengthen and enrich those beliefs, and, yes, maybe even change them if need be, as you read and reflect upon the biblical text and consider the views and charitable interactions of our contributors.

1 E.g., C. O. Brand, ed., Perspectives on Election (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006); W. Crockett, gen. ed., Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); C. O. Brand, ed., Perspectives on Spirit Baptism (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2004).

2 Not many multiview books specifically written on exegetical issues can be found, but some are available; e.g., H. W. Bateman IV, gen. ed., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007).

3 D. S. Dockery, Romans 7:14–25: Pauline Tension in the Christian Life, Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981): 240.

4 S. J. Chester, Romans 7 and Conversion in the Protestant Tradition, in Ex Auditu 25 (2009): 135–71.

5 Each contributor refers to advocates of the various views so there is no need for me to do so here.

6 Or vv. 13–25. Questions like those in the previous paragraph and exegesis of the text have divided scholars as to whether to treat the two sections of Romans 7 as vv. 1–12 and vv. 13–25, or as vv. 1–13 and 14–25.

CHAPTER 1

---

The Flesh Without the Spirit:

Romans 7 and Christian Experience

---

GRANT R. OSBORNE

Romans 7:7–25 is one of the most difficult exegetical and theological conundrums in the New Testament. A general consensus never has been and never will be reached on its meaning, for simply too many viable options seem to fit the context of Romans 5–8. All of the options presented in this work fit the data, and it would be arrogant to try to claim that only my view can be correct. This text is another of the many biblical passages where we simply have to admit that we will not know the true meaning until we get to heaven—and then Paul himself can tell us what he meant! Nevertheless, this chapter will argue that of these options, the one which claims that Paul was describing Christian experience best answers all the variables.

Romans 7: The Importance of Context

It is critical at the outset to establish the context, for in the end the answer that best fits the developing argument of Romans 5–8 will be preferable. The first half of Romans contains two parts: (1) 1:1–4:25 centers on the utter sinfulness of mankind, with the only solution being the justification (God declaring people righteous on the basis of the atoning sacrifice of Christ) provided by God and the necessity of faith in Christ as the only way people can find salvation; (2) 5:1–8:39 details the new life in Christ that justification effects.¹ This latter section can best be described as a ring composition or chiasm in which this life in Christ and the Spirit is celebrated.²

A Results 1—hope and assurance of future glory, 5:1–11

B Basis for assurance—the work of the New Adam, 5:12–21

C The problem of sin and death, 6:1–23

C´ The problem of sin and the law, 7:1–25

B´ Basis for assurance—new life in the Spirit, 8:1–17

A´ Results 2—glory and security in the Spirit, 8:18–39

Chapter 7 is part of the central section of what could be called Paul’s doctrine of sanctification. In 1:18–3:18 the problem of sin is discussed in terms of the unbeliever, detailing that depravity that makes it impossible to achieve salvation. In 6:1–23 sin is described as still an active force in the life of the believer, invading and trying to establish a bridgehead in their lives to gain power over them. The first section (vv. 1–14) reiterates that we have died to sin and are now alive to God in Christ. The second section (vv. 15–23) explains that we have been liberated from enslavement to sin and are now slaves to righteousness.³ We will be asking whether in chap. 7 Paul returns to the pre-Christian life or continues the theme of chap. 6, namely, the struggle of the Christian against sin.

In chap. 7 Paul turns to an issue he has mentioned often, that of the Torah or Law. He had already spoken frequently regarding the place of the law. In 3:21 he stated that justification (= righteousness from God, cf. 1:17) can only be experienced apart from the law, meaning that God has instituted a new age of salvation that cannot be attained by Torah observance.⁴ He clarified this further in 3:28 by asserting directly that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Faith rather than works is central to the new covenant initiated by Christ. Then in 4:13–16 he refined the point in another direction in the example of Abraham, whose faith or belief in God was credited to him as righteousness (4:3 from Gen 15:6). Paul explained that this denotes explicitly that Abraham and his offspring (Gentile as well as Jew) receive the promise not through the law but by grace through faith.

But now Paul goes a step further. It is not just that the law cannot produce salvation; it also becomes an instrument of sin (3:20; 4:15; 7:5). In 5:20 it says that God brought in the law so that the trespass might increase, that is, to deepen the intensity of people’s awareness of sin by proving to them the serious nature of sin as direct transgression of the laws of God. Finally, in 6:14 Paul concludes that due to the grace of God in Christ sin shall no longer be your master because you are not under the law, that is, no longer part of the old eon in which sin could use the law to draw people away from God.

This teaching about the law is summed up in 7:1–6. Here Paul has decided to address the whole question of the law that he has introduced in the several spots noted above, and a good title for this section would be Freedom from the Law in the Death of Christ.⁵ Especially, he wishes to clarify the meaning of not under the law in 6:14 and to clarify the relation of the law to sin and then to the believer. To do so, he utilizes the metaphor of marriage to demonstrate the principle that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives (7:1). To illustrate this, Paul appeals to the fact that a married woman is bound under the authority of her husband so long as he is alive, but once he dies she is free from that marriage bond (vv. 2–3). This is then applied to the authority of the law in vv. 4–6, making the point that in this same way death removes a person from the authority of the law. The law has authority only over the living, so death is a liberation. Since Christians have been baptized into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3) and been buried with him (6:4), they have died to sin (6:2). Paul now extends this death to the law. Believers have died to the law through the body of Christ and been united with Christ (7:4), meaning both to be set free from the condemnation of the law and to leave the old realm of sin, death, and the law and enter the new realm of Christ and life. The law had become a tool in which the sinful passions were aroused by it (7:5), so in Christ the follower has been released from the law to serve in the new way of the Spirit (7:6).

On the one side of 7:7–25 lay the context of 5:1–7:6, dealing with the results of justification in the Christian life, including the relationship of the believer to sin and the law. While at one level sin and the law produced condemnation and defeat, at the other level the believer had victory over both in Christ and had entered another realm, the new covenant reality of life in Christ and the Spirit. On the other side of 7:7–25 lay 8:1–39, detailing the new life in the Spirit. The defeatism caused by sin and the law operating in the flesh in chap. 7 has been overturned in the victory caused by life in the Spirit. The key term is πνεῦμα, occurring 21 times in chap. 8, and the eschatological battle with sin and the law is solved in the eschatological presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life.

There are four parts to Romans 8: (1) in vv. 1–11 the joy and hope promised in 5:1–11 are realized via the indwelling power of the Spirit, who enables God’s people to overcome sin, obey God, and find life and peace in Christ; (2) in vv. 12–17 this life in the Spirit entails a new family relationship, as believers are adopted as God’s children, cry out to him as Abba, Father, and are promised a glorious inheritance; (3) in vv. 18–30 the presence of the Spirit produces a new hope in the midst of our groanings in affliction; participating in Christ’s suffering is the path to glory, and God’s sovereignty guarantees our salvation and that final glory; (4) in vv. 31–39 this security is absolute because it is anchored in the love of God and the love of Christ.

The task of this chapter is to examine the various options for understanding 7:7–25 from the standpoint of which one best fits the context we have just highlighted. What was Paul trying to say about the presence of sin and the law in this world, and how are we to understand the straw man Paul develops to illustrate his point? In one sense Paul provides an apology or defense for the law, clarifying that the law is not evil but has a God-given purpose. In another sense he extends his study of sin from chap. 6 by noting the power of sin over people, then the solution for overcoming sin. Our purpose now is to delineate the options and then through a deep study of the text itself see which one emerges as the most likely thrust for 7:7–25.

Romans 7: Options for Understanding It

The two basic questions are quite clear to anyone who reads this passage at all clearly: to whom does Paul refer when he switches from the third person style he has used in Romans to the first person I throughout this passage, and is Paul describing the spiritual experience of an unregenerate or a regenerate person? These two issues have spawned a multiplicity of theories. In the ensuing material we will look at the major options on the first issue and will cover the second when we get to 7:14–25. It is important to realize that these theories are not mutually exclusive. Most scholars combine two or three of them.

Autobiographical. The most natural understanding would be that by using I in 7:7–25 Paul is speaking of himself as an example of what people experience. According to this view Paul is describing his own experience when as a youth he first realized the implications of keeping the law (so Zahn, Godet, Dodd, Jeremias, Bruce, Gundry). Those who take this approach believe that the strong emotional outpouring and powerful personal tone of Romans 7 demands that Paul has to be speaking primarily of his own experiences. J. Knox Chamblin states, He is too deeply involved in what he is saying—the existential anguish of these verses is too real—for us to regard the ‘I’ as merely a rhetorical device.⁶ Stott adds, What he writes seems too realistic and vivid to be either a purely rhetorical device or the impersonation of somebody else.⁷ J. I. Packer thinks that the issue is beyond dispute because any suggestion that the wretched man was uttered of someone else rather than of Paul himself seems so artificial and theatrical as to be incredible.⁸ These scholars do not go so far as Theissen, et al., who read the text from the viewpoint of psychoanalysis and see Paul providing an existential analysis of himself,⁹ but still autobiography is seen as central. This view is easiest to understand in vv. 14–25 where the text shows the I struggling to put what he knows to do into practice but being unable to do so. Every Christian has agonized over the problem of sin in just this way.

Everyman. This view understands Paul as describing the struggle of every person with sin (so Kümmel, Bornkamm, Lambrecht, Fitzmyer). Peter Borgen believes that Paul gives this biographical form but in actuality is describing a contrite wrongdoer who admits his misdeed, affirms the authority of the law/the divine rule, reacts existentially, and faces punishment and/or deliverance.¹⁰ This view has become a dominant one. Kümmel sees it as purely rhetorical for all people under the law and points to three places in the Talmud where he believes a Stilform or basic type of writing is used, demonstrating the use of I for people in general: m. Ber 1:3 (Rabbi Tarphon reciting the Shem in a dangerous situation); m. Aboth 6:9 (Rabbi Jose b. Kisma interacting with a Gentile); and b. Ber 3a (Rabbi Kisma speaking with Elijah).¹¹ Also, examples are often adduced from Paul himself, e.g., Rom 3:7 (If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness . . . ; why am I still condemned as a sinner?); 1 Cor 6:15 (Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute?); 1 Cor 13:1–3 (If I speak in human or angelic tongues . . . If I have the gift of prophecy . . . If I have a faith that can move mountains . . . If I give all I possess to the poor). These are all examples of the use of I to speak of people in general rather than of the speaker himself. Many today believe this is the case in Romans 7. Scholars have seen in Paul’s use of I an instance of the ancient stylistic method of prosopopoeia or speech-in-character, a technique whereby an author would speak of others via a representative and imaginary I to make a point.¹²

Adam. Many believe that Paul is rhetorically depicting the Genesis story regarding Adam’s fall into sin. Adam, the progenitor of all humanity, faced with the command of Gen 2:16–17 not to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, was then confronted with and gave in to the temptation to sin and experienced despair and condemnation from God (so Theodore of Mopsuestia, Dibelius, Käsemann, Stuhlmacher, Dunn). Longenecker sees several advantages:¹³ (1) this fits the past tenses of 7:7–13; (2) it catches the force of I was alive, formerly without law and I died; (3) it fits the connection between 5:12–21 and 7:7–25; (4) it is favored by the parallel use of (ἐξ)απατάω in Gen 3:13 and Rom 7:11; (5) the gnomic understanding of I becomes even more clear. A. Busch differs slightly, believing that Eve is the central figure, seen first in passive surrender to God and yet paradoxically in active transgression as a picture of the self torn between the law and transgression due to sin.¹⁴

Israel. It is also commonly held that the rhetorical use of I depicts Israel wrestling with the law and sin. This approach states that Israel, alive before Sinai, realized the reality of sin via the giving of the law and fell into transgression. This idea is also called the salvation-historical view in the sense that it describes the dilemma of all humanity via the continuing situation of Israel under the Mosaic ordinances (so John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bornkamm, Schlier, Achtemeier, Moo). D. Catchpole argues that the I in Romans 7 is an Adamic person living in the sphere of Moses, trapped in era 1 (the period