Freedom from Sin?: The Question of Romans 7:19

OK, so I am starting this blog back up and I will be writing on it this time. This is a post that I posted as a facebook note a few days back. I thought I'd post it here as well. The post continues below . . .

Now that my eight week study of Hebrew is complete, I have the time to do some personal study on questions of interpretation and theology that have often been the source of great reflection and, at times, great frustration. The first one I decided to tackle was one of great personal meaning to me, the question of the struggle with sin after conversion.

Well, let’s get to the heart of the matter: Paul’s so-called “internal struggle” in Romans 7:15-20. I have heard many proclaim that this passage of Scripture deals with a split within the individual, a battle between the “fleshy,” or sinful nature, and the spiritual nature. Is this really what Paul is getting at? Are we doomed to live a life split between our lower, carnal nature and our higher, spiritual nature? Is freedom from sin really only about freedom from condemnation (Rom. 8:1)?

In Romans 7:19, Paul wrote, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (all Scripture references from ESV). The first question we must answer is, what does Paul mean by “I” in this verse? Douglas Moo suggests that “I” does not always connote personal experience in the Bible. He points to the fact that Old Testament and Jewish texts often use “I” to depict the people of Israel as a whole (see Micah 7:8-10 for example; Douglas Moo, “Romans,” Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3, pg. 40).

Furthermore, if we look at this passage of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Romans, it makes sense that Paul would be referring to a type of corporate solidarity with Israel and not to himself. Paul even clarified this in 7:1 when he wrote: “for I am speaking to those who know the law.” This clarification is important in light of the fact that Rome was very much of a battle ground for Jews and Gentiles. There was a significant population of Jews in Rome at the time of Paul’s writing of the letter (around A.D. 57), but there was no unified Jewish community. Romans 1, specifically vv 5-6 make it clear that Paul is writing to all in Rome, Jews and Gentiles (v 5 “including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” referring to the Gentiles).

He is very much writing to address the tensions that existed between the two groups. Christianity was quickly moving away from its Jewish roots in Rome. Luke recorded in Acts 18:2 that Aquilla and Priscilla were forced to Corinth because the Roman emperor, Claudius, had forced all the Jews to leave. According to Moo, when they finally returned, they found a Christian church that now had only a minority of Jewish-Christians (Moo, 7). When Paul makes the distinction of “speaking to those who know the law,” he is distinguishing between those who understand the Mosaic Law (this essentially means Jews, but also perhaps Gentile God-fears, or others well-versed in the Mosaic Law) and Gentile Christians.

So, it is clear, that Paul is not addressing personal issues of sin, legalism, etc., but rather, he is addressing life under the Mosaic Law versus life in Christ. Manfred T. Brauch writes, “If this passage and the verses that surround it in chapter 7 are a description of what Christian life is all about, then it stands in stark contrast to the joy and freedom and newness with which Paul describes the Christian’s life in chapters 5, 6, and 8. Indeed, it would seem that the ‘good news’ of the gospel, expressed with such exuberance in 5:1 and 5:11, has become the ‘bad news’” (Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, 43-44).

I must agree. If we are to understand what Paul is saying in chapter 7 as descriptive of the Christian life, how on earth can we grasp anything he is saying in chapter 8?

Paul surely wanted to express solidarity with the Jews (with Israel) in his Letter to the Romans. In chapter 11, he wrote, “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendent of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin” (v 1). This brings us back to the question of Paul’s use of the pronoun “I.” From our modern, individualistic, American viewpoint, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would use “I” to refer to Israel as a whole and thus, his corporate solidarity with Israel. However, I have concluded that there is no other way to understand this verse.

We see Paul exclaim that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26—I have written a paper on this topic if you are interested let me know). This is a hope that rests squarely upon the mystery, Christ Himself (see Col. 1:27), the Deliverer from Zion.

Paul clearly tells us that there is absolutely no freedom outside of Christ, even for those who profess to be “good people,” but have not accepted Christ as their savior: “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (Romans 7:22-23). This passage is confusing, but I agree with Moo when he states that as a revelation of God’s will for His people, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (v 12) while under the power of sin, the law becomes deceptive and brings death” (v 11).

Once again, we must affirm the exclusivity of Christ. Many in our American society, in our American churches even, are denying the exclusivity of Christ in the name of tolerance. There is much talk about those who do good, about the human race being good, about just accepting everyone for who they are. The point of this passage is to make it clear that freedom does not exist outside of Christ. Outside of Christ, we possess bodies of death (v 25). While I certainly have struggled with this issue, I must affirm that Paul clearly did not write this passage about his personal struggle with sin. It simply does not line up with the historical or contextual evidence.

Freedom in Christ means freedom from the bondage of sin. Let me be clear here. This does not mean that those who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior will not sin. Given my own continuing struggle with sin, it would be dishonest and downright ludicrous for me to argue this. However, what it does mean is that those who are in Christ (those who truly believe and have faith) are capable of choosing not to sin, of resisting sin. Those outside of Christ are not. This is the cut and dry truth of this passage.

I understand that this is the ground upon which many people have denied the truth of Christianity and turned to a sort-of spiritual ambivalence that plagues our country today. I have had conversations with several people recently who have pointed specifically to the exclusivity of Christ as their particular issue with Christianity. I pray and hope that as you read this you hear my utter belief in the fact that Christ is the only way to true freedom. I exclaim with Jesus Christ himself, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
Regardless of how you take this essay, I pray that you will be courageous enough to put your chips on the table, to move out of ambivalence and into freedom. What could be more important that this!

I would love to hear any comments, critiques, or questions you may have. If I have made any errors in my research, theology, etc., I hope you would be bold enough to correct them.