Bible Commentaries
Romans 7

Introduction

Free From The Law

Paul takes the third step in explaining the second half of the theme he began in Romans 1:17: "The just shall live by faith." How shall the man who has been justified on the basis of his faith (Romans 1-4) live? In chapter five, Paul answers that he shall live free from God’s wrath. In chapter six, he reveals that the believer shall live free from sin. Now he advances the idea that he who is justified has been delivered from the tyranny of the law; thus, the just live free from the law.

It is crucial to recognize from the outset that Paul refers specifically to the law of Moses as a means of justification when he says that Christians are free from "the law." In addition, by legitimate extension, Paul here includes freedom from the moral law that governed the Gentiles. It has been established that the moral law is encompassed in the law of Moses. What is true of the greater is true of the lesser. An important passage to keep in mind is found in Galatians: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law (3:21b).

Justification can be achieved under a system of law, whether Moses’ law or the moral law, only by absolute sinless obedience. No responsible human being except Jesus ever accomplished such absolute righteousness. To the contrary, "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (3:23). Therefore, God’s holy and just law became an implacable tyrant over all men by constituting them to be lawbreakers—not because the law was a failure but because men did not keep it. Law systems by their very nature have no provision to justify sinners (lawbreakers). From this tyranny, the justified believer has been set free.

Paul does not mean to say there is no law under the Christian economy (3:27; 8:2) but that the basis of justification does not arise from the law. The basis of justification is Jesus our Lord "who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (4:25) and our faith in Him (4:24; 5:1).

Paul must prove, however, this argument and not merely state it arbitrarily. He introduces his reasoning in Romans 6:14: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

The remainder of chapter six (verses 15-23) is taken up with an explanation of the first clause of verse 14: "For sin shall not have dominion over you…." Now in this chapter, Paul takes up the second clause of Romans 6:14: "for ye are not under the law, but under grace." He begins to prove the "just" have been freed from the law "in the limited sense of the law-as-condemning" the sinner (Cranfield 147).

In verses 1-6, Paul establishes his argument and elucidates his statement that "ye are not under the law, but under grace" (6:14). Then, in verses 7-25, he explains the ramifications of his argument in order to clarify the truth expressed in the first six verses and to guard against possible misunderstanding.

Verse 1

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,): In Romans 6:15, Paul states "we are not under the law" and then takes considerable pains to explain that such a statement in no way implies a license to sin. That critical point being settled (6:15-23), Paul now enters upon the proof of the Christian’s deliverance from the law as one of the four fundamental effects of the righteousness of faith in Christ Jesus. Lenski comments on the appropriateness of Paul’s logical progression in detailing these fundamental effects of God’s plan for saving man:

That this is the proper place for treating law is evident from 5:20: the law came in after sin in order to increase the fall, to show the full damage which sin had wrought (3:20). We are now told how law does this (440).

To understand this section, we must remember that Paul refers to the law of Moses as the representative of all law systems for justification. If the effect of Moses’ law is condemnation upon all who are lawbreakers, then so is the effect of the moral law. Nevertheless, Paul is here referring to Moses’ law.

He begins by saying that everyone who knows anything at all about law knows the principle he is about to enunciate. This information is not a matter of Christian knowledge alone. It is common knowledge that law is binding only upon the living. It does not hold sway beyond death.

The phrase "Know ye not" means this is an elementary matter. The next phrase, "for I speak to them that know the law," means he expects his readers to grasp the truth that the law of Moses does not extend its jurisdiction beyond death.

The word "brethren" refers to Christians at Rome and not merely to the converted Jews found among them. Lenski observes:

When Paul says that he is addressing the Romans as those who understand law he is not using irony or flattery or praise. Pagan Rome was famed for law as Greece was famed for art…Paul intends to use an ordinary example taken from the general field of law, and the point of this example is one that everybody who knows anything at all about law understands, namely that all law and every law relinquishes its control at the time of death (442).

Specifically, Paul’s reference is the law of Moses. The rest of the chapter reveals this fact as Paul uses himself as an example of how law tyrannizes the sinner; and of course, the law under which Paul lived before he became a Christian was the Mosaical law.

Paul’s central argument is stated clearly at the outset:

how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth: Law’s ability to rule as man’s lord is terminated by death. Nygren notes the parallelism between chapters six and seven:

When in chapter 6 Paul speaks of the Christian’s liberation from bondage under sin, he could speak interchangeably, "We are free from sin" or "We have died to sin." This liberation comes through the death of Christ, and through the fact that by baptism we have become sharers in His death. In verse 7 this is all summed up in one sentence, "He who has died is freed from sin." Now, in chapter 7, Paul takes up the question of the Christian’s relation to the law; and his thesis is that, through Christ, we are also "free from the law." But can one actually be freed from the law in the same sense and in the same manner as he is freed from wrath and sin? First of all, can one die to the law? It is this which Paul affirms with utmost emphasis (269).

Verses 2-3

In the next two verses, Paul gives an illustration that demonstrates the limit of the relevance of the law.

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Verse 2 states the general law of marriage: that marriage is for life (Genesis 2:21-24). The exceptions that prevailed under Moses’ law are not taken into consideration here as they have no part to play in the truth Paul illustrates (Whiteside 144).

According to the general law of marriage, a woman is bound to her husband and to him alone as long as he lives. But when he dies, she is freed from her marriage bond and is entitled to marry another man.

In verse 3, Paul says if she gives herself to another man while her husband is still alive she shall be called an adulteress. The word "called" (xrhmati/zw) occurs nine times in the New Testament (Matthew 2:12; Matthew 2:22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; Acts 11:26; Romans 7:3; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 11:7; Hebrews 12:25), and it clearly refers to a divine call or warning in every appearance (Wigram 803). God delineates such a woman as an adulteress. Continuing, Paul reiterates that the death of a woman’s husband frees her from her obligation to the law of marriage and entitles her to marry another man without the stain of adultery.

When we apply Paul’s illustration in verse 4, we must bear in mind that death dissolves legal obligation. Alford explains:

But he is not drawing an exact parallel between the persons in his example and (those) in his application. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both: (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another:--(2) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another (893).

As Alford notes, "so far the comparison is strict" (893); but if one presses it further, the comparison will not logically hold. In the first relationship, the husband dies and thus the wife is free to remarry. In the second one, it is not the law that dies, as a perfect analogy would require, but rather it is believers who die to the law. Paul’s only objective here is to convey the idea that just as physical death dissolves the first relationship so that the wife is free to remarry; so also our spiritual death to the law through the body of Christ dissolves our relationship to law as the justifying principle and frees us to establish a new relationship with grace as the justifying principle. Paul explains this point further in verse 4.

Verse 4

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Wherefore, my brethren: In verse 1 and again in this verse, Paul addresses his readers as "brethren" or more intensely "my brethren." This term has not been used since Romans 1:13. If one compares the other instances in which Paul addresses his readers in this manner (8:12; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 15, 30; 16:17), he will see that Paul is always marking an item of special concern to himself. Sometimes the reference is made in connection with a fervent admonition. Sometimes it reveals a subject close to Paul’s heart. The latter appears to be the case here. Paul uses himself as an example of the tyranny of the law over a man who has not obeyed the gospel. The deliverance from the law that the obedient believer receives as a blessing of justification is a subject of intense interest to Paul because he vividly remembers the hopelessness he felt under the sway of the law.

ye also are become dead to the law: When interpreters try to explain Paul’s illustration in verses 2 and 3 as an allegory or a parable, they make a serious mistake. Such an interpretation would have the law dying and not the believer dying to the law. Attempts to escape this conundrum are contrived and weak.

The situation is actually quite simple: Paul is affirming only one point throughout verses 1-4; namely, just what he said in verse 1: "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." Death ends the sway of the law. He does not choose marriage as an example because it is a singularly apt illustration of the believer’s relation to Christ. Rather he chooses marriage because it illustrates so clearly his point that death puts an end to the force of the law.

When one considers the reason for Paul’s choice, he will realize what a perfect illustration Paul has used. As human beings, we cannot know anything about the law’s relationship to one who is dead because we have no source of knowledge beyond the point of death. What relationship a dead person has to the law is beyond our ability to comprehend. Therefore, in order to prove that death releases from the law, Paul chooses an illustration in which a person is bound by a law; but through the intervention of death, that person is released from the law while still alive on the earth.

The woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives. There is no escape from the law of her husband. But by the intervention of death, she is freed from the law. There is no other way to escape the control of the law. But death has the effect of removing one from the pale of the law. Clearly, death sets a limit to the relevance of the law. Lard concurs:

But how is this? The husband dies, and the wife is released; whereas we die, and we are released. Is not this incongruous some will ask; and should we not rather have, the wife dies and the husband is released. But this would not unprove the case; for we should still have, we die and we are released. This seeming incongruity arises from not remembering that by the death of either party, both are released….We die to the law— this is the fact; and this releases us from it, not the law dies to us. The law is never said to die; for the reason, I presume, that it cannot die. Its principles of truth and right are alike immutable and immortal. As a ponderous ritual, prescribing a peculiar form of worship, Christ, by his death, took it out of the way; but in its fundamental features it never died. It is we who die, not the law; but hereby we are as effectually released from it, as if the law itself died (221).

Indubitably, one can die to the law; and that, according to Paul, is exactly what has happened to the Christian. Formerly, the Christian was held under the dominion of the law. In Paul’s case, the law of Moses held sway. In the case of the Gentile, the moral law held sway. The law is the power that has complete control over all sinners, and it is the force that places them under condemnation for breaking the law (3:23; Galatians 3:21). In order to be saved, the Christian has to die to the law. A death must intervene. How does this situation occur?

by the body of Christ: Christ died on the cross, paying the penalty of sin for all men (3:24-26; 4:24-25; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 2:16; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 1 John 2:1-2; Revelation 1:5), and the believer dies with Him by being "baptized into his death" (6:3-6; Revelation 1:5). Consequently, the justified have been set free from the law.

that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead: This phrase causes some to insist on applying the marriage illustration as an allegory throughout the passage; however, such an approach is flawed. It is quite true that Paul’s choice of words is influenced by what he has said about the woman’s freedom to marry again after her husband dies. Nygren notes:

The idea that we belong either under the law or under Christ, Paul has already advanced, apart from the illustration here taken from the area of marital law. When one is dead to sin, he lives for God in Christ Jesus. Paul has said that in 6:11…Now he says the same as to the law. When one has died to the law, he lives for Christ and belongs to Him. This is the same idea we meet in Galatians 2:19-20…that Paul when he wants to set forth this idea which is so familiar to him…allows it to take on a certain coloring from the illustration which he now uses, is not in any way surprising. It is most natural to see here an incidental play on words, such as we often find in him. But it must certainly be called unjustified for us, on that account, to call all this an allegory, and thereby rob the line of thought of its clear and simple meaning (273).

Christ bore the law’s condemnation for all men in His death on the cross; therefore, when a person believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, recognizes Him as his substitutionary sacrifice, and dies with Christ in baptism for the remission of sins, that person is set free from the law. He has died to the law and has been freed from its condemnation. Henceforth, he belongs to the risen Christ. When the believer is baptized into Christ, then Christ, who was raised from the dead, becomes the believer’s Lord.

that we should bring forth fruit unto God: Some writers believe the reference continues the figure of marriage and this clause refers to Christians bringing their fellows to Christ and converting them by the gospel. This clause, however, is best understood to teach that believers should "bear fruit" in the sense of the deeds of an obedient faith in Christ (6:21-22). God requires this fruit of all Christians. As Cranfield observes, "The general sense of ’bear fruit’ in the present verse is probably much the same as is expressed in v. 6 by ’serve’ " (151).

The whole argument advanced by Paul is the transference of allegiance from one master that only condemns (the law) to another (Jesus Christ) who provides for the forgiveness of sins and freedom from the harsh reign of the law.

Verse 5

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

For when we were in the flesh: By introducing this passage with the word "For," Paul elucidates what he has said in verse 4. The phrase "in the flesh" is sometimes used as equivalent to being alive on earth—that is, living in a human body (2 Corinthians 10:3; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:22); however, we know that is not Paul’s meaning because he speaks to the brethren at Rome of a condition that is past (compare 8:8-9). The Christians in Rome were no longer living in the flesh, and neither was the apostle. Clearly, he refers to a time in the past when both they and he were under the control of the flesh. Lard notes that to be under the flesh means "to be controlled by its propensities, evil inclination and desires" (224). Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker contribute this helpful comment under the definition of flesh (sa/rc):

In Paul’s thought especially all parts of the body constitute a totality known as sa/rc or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sa/rc Romans 7:18…The Old Testament lays no stress on a necessary relationship between flesh as a substance and sin. But for Epicurus the sa/rc is the bearer of sinful feelings and desires as well as the means of sensual enjoyment (915).

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker go on to list numerous examples in the New Testament where sa/rc carries this same connotation. One of them is this phrase in verse 5 where "in the flesh" is defined as to "be in an unregenerate (and sinful) state" (915).

Paul’s reference to a time past when he and the Roman brethren were in the flesh denotes the time before they were Christians. Paul does not refer in this phrase to their condition under the law but, simply, the time before they obeyed the gospel. He describes here the state of all men, whether Jew or Gentile, before they become Christians. Later, beginning in verse 7, he will reference his own time spent in the flesh; and when he does, he refers to Moses’ law. The same situation prevails upon Gentiles under the moral law before they become Christians; therefore, here at the outset Paul’s reference includes all men everywhere in the state of unregenerate condemnation.

the motions of sins, which were by the law: The "motions of sin" would be better translated "sinful desires" (BDAG 748). The phrase refers to desires of the body that, when indulged, lead to sin. These passions are called sinful because they tend toward sin; and when they are gratified, they result in sin.

Paul says these evil desires are "by the law." Does he mean to imply that the law causes one to have desires that are evil? Or that the law generates evil passion? To ask the question seriously is to answer it. The law (whether Moses’ law or the moral law) cannot be held in complicity with evil. No, Paul does not teach that the law causes or excites sinful passions. He means the law makes man aware that his sinful passions are sinful. In Romans 5:20-21, this is the reason the law entered. The law made the offense to abound more clearly than ever before by delineating what sin was (1 John 3:4). In this same context, Paul clarifies his meaning in verse 7: "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

The law did not create Paul’s sinful lust, nor did it excite it; however, it did specifically point out that his lust was a sin. The law declared or made known what sin was more specifically than it had been known previously.

did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death: The result of these sinful passions was that when the various parts of our body were yielded as the instruments (weapons) of sinful passions they brought forth fruit. It was not "fruit unto God" (verse 4), however. Instead it was fruit that kills. Paul reminds us "the wages of sin is death" (6:23).

Verse 6

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

But now we are delivered from the law: Now that believers have obeyed the gospel and thus have been declared righteous by their faith in Jesus Christ, they have been delivered from the law. The law’s power to condemn them has been broken. Paul does not mean believers are freed from the concept of law altogether. If he did, he would run afoul of his own statement (3:27; 7:25b; 8:2; Galatians 6:2). He simply means the believer is freed from the law as a system of justification. The law is no longer the condemning master of the Christian.

that being dead wherein we were held: This phrase is better rendered "by dying to what once bound us" (NIV; compare also: ASV, RSV, NAS, Amplified). The believer dies to the law when he is baptized into the death of Christ. Thus, making the benefits of Jesus’ death effective for himself, the believer is freed from the captivity in which he had been held under the law’s dominion.

that we should serve in newness of spirit: When sinners are under the reign of the law, they are controlled by the sinful passions of the flesh; but now that Paul and his readers have become Christians by their faith in Jesus and their obedience to the gospel, they have died in Christ. By dying with Christ in baptism, Christians die to sin and to the law. They are then released from the dominion of both sin and the law. Accordingly, they are no longer under the control of their sinful passions, and they no longer walk in the flesh. They now serve God (6:22) in newness of spirit.

"Spirit" here refers not to the Holy Spirit but to the human spirit of the believer. It is used in the same way as in Romans 2:29. "Newness" describes the quality of the spirit as renewed by the gospel. It is not that a person’s spirit is new; but having been released from the law, from sin, and from the dominion of the flesh, the spirit discovers a renewed state wherein God can be served.

and not in the oldness of the letter: The Christian no longer serves the law of Moses or any other law system as a basis of justification. The mode of service prescribed by the law of Moses is no longer binding upon the Christian.

Verse 7

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin?: Paul recognizes he has made several comments that might lead some of his readers to gain a false impression of the character of the law. According to Romans 5:20, when the law comes in, the result is that the offense abounds. In Romans 6:14, Paul reveals that sin no longer has dominion over the Christian, for the believer is "not under the law but under grace." Then, in the first six verses of this chapter, Paul explains that the believer has died to the law and hence is free from it. Several times the law and sin have been discovered to be in juxtaposition and apparently working toward a common end. Does Paul mean to imply the law itself is sin? What is the meaning of all of this? Specifically, what is the meaning of verse 5: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death"? If the law either generates or excites these sinful desires, it seems clear the law must be indicted at least indirectly as the cause of man’s sin. Knowing that some might reason thus, Paul hastens to deny such a notion in the most emphatic terms.

God forbid: Literally, the phrase is "may it not be" (Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English 459). Nevertheless, the translators of the King James Version have correctly interpreted Paul’s meaning. Such a notion as God’s law being sin, Paul rejects as too absurd for serious consideration.

Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: Paul’s answer is unequivocal. No, the law neither generated nor excited man’s sinful desires. These evil desires existed before the law was given. They have been universally harbored in the hearts of all men, Jew and Gentile alike, at least since Satan’s temptation of Eve and possibly since the day of man’s creation. The law of Moses did not cause the evil desires of men, nor did it excite them. The law merely points them out as sinful. The reason that when the law entered the offense abounded (5:20) is the law of Moses delineated sin more clearly than it had ever been outlined by the moral code within man. The relationship the law sustains with sin is simply to mark out what is sinful in unmistakable terms. Lard questions the credibility of any person who espouses the false idea that the law either causes or impels people to sin: "That when the Bible says, ’You shall not steal,’ the precept arouses in human breasts the desire to steal, is what every man knows within himself to be false" (228).

for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: Without the law’s designating what thoughts, words, or deeds were sinful, neither Paul nor anyone else would have the knowledge to recognize sin. Paul illustrates with the last of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17). Rather than being sin, the law defines and condemns sin. It does not create sin, and it does not assist sin. The law forbids sin and prescribes its punishment.

In his illustration Paul says he had not known lust was sinful until the law revealed it was. He knew desire, but he had no way of distinguishing evil desires (lust) from good desires until the law defined and condemned evil desires.

It is important to recognize that with this phrase Paul has shifted from first person plural "we" (5:5-7:6) to the first person singular "I," which runs throughout the remainder of this chapter. Paul is speaking directly of his own experience prior to his obedience to the gospel; however, his intent is to use himself as representative of all persons who are "in the flesh," that is, all people before they become Christians (6:3, 4, 17, 18).

In this section (verses 7-24), Paul uses himself as representative of all who are unregenerate; however, he poses himself as having a dual nature. Part of him (the flesh) always tends to do wrong and part of him (his spirit) always tends to do right, but the consequent battle between these two selves is complicated by sin. He personifies sin as the power that holds him captive and enables his flesh to dominate his spirit, and sin uses the law to gain an almost unbreakable bond upon humankind.

Under the law of Moses, there is no delivery from this terrible bondage. Sin reigns over every individual, and the law implacably condemns the sinner, finally wrenching the cry of verse 24 from his tortured soul: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Happily that question is answered in verse 25, and the answer is that deliverance comes through Jesus Christ our Lord and obedience to His gospel.

Verse 8

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment: Sin is the actor in this passage and not the law. Sin is personified as a sinister being that takes advantage of Paul through the opportunity afforded by the law. "The commandment" refers specifically to the tenth commandment cited by Paul in verse 7; however, in general terms, it is synonymous with the law. Paul demonstrates how sin availed itself of the opportunity to ensnare him through that specific commandment, but in the same way sin uses that commandment and many others to ensnare all people under the law. (Sin also takes advantage of men and women through the moral law in a similar, though less concretely defined, way.) Paul uses the law of Moses to illustrate his point (for reasons expressed previously) (5:20; Galatians 3:21).

wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: Who worked in Paul all manner of concupiscence? The answer is sin and not the law. This conclusion is crucial for a correct interpretation. "Concupiscence" (e)piqumi/an) means "a great desire for something, desire, longing, craving…a desire for something forbidden" (BDAG 372). In this sentence, sin (personified) has done two things. First, sin took advantage of Paul as representative of all people who have not yet become Christians. Sin accomplished this subversion by artfully employing the law. Specifically, the tenth commandment of the Decalogue was the opportunity used by sin to subvert Paul. Secondly, sin laboriously worked up in Paul every evil desire. Sin takes advantage of all people just as it did Paul by working up what the law prohibits; therefore, sin generates, excites, and causes these evil desires and not the law. Lard observes:

There is no real, personal entity, called sin, acting upon the human family, and causing violations of the law. Nor is there any abstract, evil thing so acting. Who then is it that performs the office here ascribed to sin? It is not our nature, however, degenerate; for our nature is acted upon. Who then is it? Satan. In all cases of sin, and of the excitement of desire causing sin, he is a factor never to be lost sight of. It is he who leads us into the wilderness, to tempt us to sin; he that takes advantage; he that works up evil desire. In computing the forces then, that induce sin, he must always be taken largely into account. Otherwise we shall never conclude correctly (230).

For without the law sin was dead: A passage in 1 Corinthians is significant here: "The strength of sin is the law" (15:56). Since the nature of sin is lawlessness, in the absence of law, sin is powerless to kill (1 John 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:8-10). That is the reason the law and sin sustain such a close relationship in Paul’s message. Not only is sin powerless in the absence of law, it is also powerless for one who is not responsible for his deeds. To such a person, there is no law and therefore no sin. Paul is about to explain just when and how it was that sin gained control over him and slew him. First, he had to become amenable to God’s law.

Verse 9

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

For I was alive without the law once: When was Paul alive without the law? Paul was alive without the law when he was a child. It is true he was born a Jew, circumcised the eighth day (Philippians 3:5), but he was not held accountable by the law until he became responsible for his own actions. When one is not accountable to the law, it can be said that in all practicality he lives without law and consequently without sin; for sin can become operative only when one is accountable and does what the law forbids. F.W. Farrar comments on Jesus’ visit to the Temple at the age of twelve:

The age of twelve years was a critical age for a Jewish boy…At this age he became a "son of the law." Up to this age he was called "little"; henceforth he was "grown up," and was treated more as a man (The Life of Christ 77).

Jesus himself testifies about children "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14), acknowledging children are innocent of sin and unaccountable before God. In the Old Testament, there is some indication God might not hold a child accountable until the age of twenty (Exodus 30:11-16; Numbers 1:3; Numbers 14:29; Numbers 32:11).

It appears conclusive that Paul can have reference only to when he was a child and not accountable before God for his behavior. During his childhood he was "alive without the law" because he was innocent of sin and not yet amenable to the law.

but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died: As Paul matured, he developed a more accurate ability to discern right from wrong, and more significantly, he developed his own conscience. When a child begins to seek after God independently and to feel a sense of obligation to serve God, the commandment (whether "Thou shalt not covet" or some other law) "comes" to him. On a more practical note, when a young person experiences guilt for violating God’s law, even when no one else knows of his action, the law comes to him. He is then accountable to God. Does this occur at a certain age? No, it is different with each child. Generally, such an awakening occurs between the years of twelve and twenty. When it does occur, sin "revives"—that is in reality, it springs to life. Whiteside comments:

The Greek student will realize the perfective function of the preposition prefixed to the word translated revived, and that instead of changing the meaning of the verb, adds to it force and vividness (151).

When sin thus springs to life, the result is death—spiritual death of Paul and of all accountable people (3:9-23; Galatians 3:22). Paul is speaking specifically of himself before he obeyed the gospel and when he lived under the law of Moses, but what he describes concerning his own experience is true of all men and women before they become Christians. Under whatever law a person lives (whether Moses’ or the moral law), the same process takes place. All begin life innocently and free of sin in a state of non-accountability before God—that is "without law." As they mature, they become personally aware of right and wrong, develop a sensitive conscience, and come under the sway of sin that springs to life; as a result, they die spiritually.

Verse 10

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life: The intent of the law was to command the behavior of mankind and organize the Old Testament system of worship in a manner that was right. It was appointed or set apart to grant life, eternal life, to those who kept it (Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:13). Life could be merited under Moses’ law only by absolute, sinless obedience. No precept in the law commands anything other than upright moral behavior. As Paul writes to Timothy, "…we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8).

I found to be unto death: Nevertheless, in spite of the law’s goodness, it is discovered to be the occasion of death to all of humanity. Nygren observes:

The law takes its place among the powers that destroy. But it takes a particular place among these. Sin and death are by nature simply powers of destruction. As to them all is simple. Without any qualifications, they are powers of evil… But Paul does not say that about the law. It is not, by nature and purpose, a power of destruction. Its primary aim is to make man responsive to the will of God. But in actual fact it becomes a power that destroys, because sin finds "opportunity" through it. This double character, this discrepancy between the law’s original purpose and its real effect Paul expresses clearly [in this verse—AWB] (280-281).

The law system that is the opponent of sin at the same time is used by sin to deliver humanity up to sin and death. The reason for this abnormality is fairly simple. The law rewarded only perfect sinlessness with life; however, it had no provision for the forgiveness of sins—no provision purely on the basis of law alone without regard to the coming of the Messiah. The lawbreaker stood condemned by the law, and then sin was empowered to use the law against him in order to bring about his death (Galatians 3:10; Galatians 3:21-22; Galatians 5:3).

Verse 11

For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

According to some interpreters, sin deceived Paul by the commandment; that is, the commandment deceived Paul. Such cannot be the case, however, for God’s commandments do not deceive. Paul means sin deceived him; and to do so, sin used the commandment as a means. As Lard notes, "The presence of the precept was a fact. Of this fact sin took advantage to deceive" Paul (232).

"Deceived" reminds us of Genesis 3:13 where "the woman said, The serpent beguiled me…." The parallel here in Romans 7 with Satan’s temptation and deception of Eve in Eden is close. In Genesis 3, the serpent deceived Eve in at least three ways: (1) he distorted and misrepresented God’s command recorded in Genesis 2:16; (2) he made Eve believe God would not punish disobedience by death (Genesis 3:4); and (3) he used the command itself to insinuate doubts about God’s good will and to suggest that Eve might actually become like God if she ate (Genesis 3:5). Satan deceived Eve and seduced her by using God’s commandment as leverage. In the same way, sin deceived Paul by using God’s commandment as a means of accomplishing the deception.

In this manner, sin used the law to secure Paul’s spiritual death. When the law is violated, its punishment is unavoidable. The lawbreaker stands condemned; and by virtue of the law itself, the act cannot be forgiven or undone (James 2:11). It is important to remember that sin is still being personified, and Paul is speaking of his own experience as a Jew under Moses’ law before he became a Christian. And what he says of himself is true of all men and women.

Verse 12

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

The law of Moses has inescapably resulted in death for Paul and for all people under it, but the law must not be blamed. The blame must be laid at the feet of sin. Cranfield makes this interesting comparison about the law:

…(it) is no more to blame for this result than is the gospel for the fact that those who reject it or try to make use of it for their own evil purposes come under a severer condemnation than would have been theirs had they never heard the gospel (2 Peter 2:20-22) (162-163).

The law is holy because it comes from God. Unmistakable marks of its origin and authority are evident. For both Paul (7:22, 25; 8:7) and Jesus (Matthew 15:3; Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:8), the law is God’s law. In verse 7, Paul asks the question in anticipation of his detractors:

"Is the law sin?" Having explained the relation between the law and sin in verses 8-11, he now states unequivocally that the law is not sin—to the contrary, it is holy.

The commandment Paul mentions might be "the individual commandments contained in the law" as Cranfield (163) proffers. More probably, though, the commandment refers to the particular one named in verse 7 through which Paul fell—"Thou shalt not covet."

Concerning the adjectives "holy, and just, and good," Lard comments:

On the epithets holy, just and good, it is not necessary to dwell. The reader will recognize them substantially synonymous, though not strictly so. "Holy" means that the law is pure within itself, is without the taint of sin; "just," that it is right in its requirements of men or free from wrong; "good," that it is positively beneficial, working the welfare of those to whom it relates (233).

Verse 13

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful:

Was then that which is good made death unto me: Again, Paul anticipates the objection of his detractors. The Jew would respond to what has gone before with a note of incredulity in his voice, "Are you saying that the law which you, yourself, recognize as good actually brings about the death of the Jew who has not believed in Jesus?"

God forbid: Paul’s answer is emphatic and unequivocal. The good law is not to be blamed for the death of the sinner.

But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful: It is not the law that causes the death of the sinner. It is sin. Paul clearly distinguishes between the proper cause of the sinner’s spiritual death and the occasion used by sin to slay the sinner. This passage restates the points established earlier in verses 7-11.

One of the reasons God gave Moses’ law was to reveal the true colors of sin. In Romans 5:20, Paul says, "the law entered that the offence might abound"; and in Galatians 3:19, he says the law "was added because of transgressions." Here he reveals that God allowed sin to bring about the spiritual death of people through the good law in order to expose sin as sin in all of its wicked ugliness. Thus, sin became sinful even beyond measure. It is important to remember that in this chapter sin is being personified. Cranfield contributes this note:

The true conclusion to be drawn is not that the good thing is responsible for my death but that sin made use of the good thing in order to accomplish my death. The purposes indicated by the two final clauses, that sin might be shown to be sin (by the fact of its misusing God’s good gift to men) and that by means of the commandment sin’s sinfulness might actually be enhanced, are God’s, though they are neither the whole, nor yet the main element, of God’s intention in giving the law. But the fact that they are embraced within God’s intention does not mean that God and His law are to blame for man’s death…. The two final clauses are an indication that the dire results of men’s encounter with the law, so far from being a proof of the triumph of sin or of the imperfection of the law, are a sign that God’s purpose finally and completely to overthrow sin is being advanced (163,164).

Verse 14

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

For we know that the law is spiritual: Three ideas merit consideration as to Paul’s intent in this clause. Does he mean to say that the law is spiritual in the sense that it is pure and holy? Such a view seems implausible, for he has already affirmed these ideas in verse 12. Does he, then, mean that the law is spiritual because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit? There is no question but that this is a true fact, and to some extent, one can be persuaded that Paul’s assertion includes the fact that the law originated in the mind of God and was delivered to men by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is more likely, however, that Paul’s emphasis, in view of the succeeding context, is upon the fact that the law is spiritual in the sense that it addresses the eternal spirit in man. The law of Moses appealed to the inner person—the reason and conscience of a person. Clarke observes:

The law is not to be considered as a system of external rites and ceremonies; nor even as a rule of moral action: it is a spiritual system; it reaches to most hidden purposes, thoughts, dispositions, and desires of the heart and soul; and it reproves and condemns everything, without hope of reprieve or pardon, that is contrary to eternal truth and rectitude (Vol. VI 86).

Those Jews who were like Simeon, "just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25), no doubt were able to discern the law’s appeal to the human spirit. Deuteronomy 6:5-6 would be the center and focus of their lives:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Unfortunately, most Jews from Moses’ day to Paul’s day served under the law in a fleshly manner, seeing only the external forms and ceremonies.

but I am carnal: Much controversy rages among commentators as to the correct interpretation of this clause. Almost from the beginning of the Christian Age, battle lines have been drawn. Is Paul speaking of himself as a Christian, or is he speaking of himself as an unregenerate Jew living under the law of Moses? Much depends on the correct understanding of this clause.

Origen, one of the earliest Christian commentators, took the view that Paul has reference to the unregenerate man throughout verses 14-25. Generally, the Greek fathers agreed with him. The other view, that Paul refers to himself as a Christian struggling mightily to do right in verses 14-25, was championed by Augustine and the Latin fathers in general. This latter view was accepted in the West during the Middle Ages and is the traditional view of the Reformers. Most commentators who have espoused the views of John Calvin (especially his view on predestination) from his day until now have accepted the view of Augustine, also. That this discussion should have prevailed for so long and that so many would accept the notion that Paul speaks as a Christian in these verses is little short of incredible. The astonishment of Adam Clarke is also ours:

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that "the apostle speaks here of the regenerate state, and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state." This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character (Vol. VI 86).

Crucially, in order to ascertain the correct meaning of these verses, one must keep verse 9 in the forefront of his mind. In that passage, Paul explains that when he was a child he was alive without being held accountable to the law of Moses under which he lived; however, when he reached a state of maturity in which he was able to begin independently to seek after God and to feel the pains of guilt—inflicted not by the threat of the exposure of his wrong deeds but by his own alert conscience—he became accountable. Sin sprang to life, and he died spiritually. Thus, it is evident that Paul was not born guilty of sin—neither on his own account nor on that of his forbears. The scriptures not only do not teach total hereditary depravity, but they teach the opposite. The reason this consideration is important here is that one can interpret verses 14-25 correctly and go astray at the end by failing to understand the thrust of verse 9. Adam Clarke makes this mistake.

That verses 14 to 25 describe Paul’s own personal experience before his justification is evident based on the following five reasons. (Paul describes himself in these verses as an unbeliever; however, he does so, not from the perspective of an unbeliever but from the enlightened perspective of one who has been saved and is looking back, correctly interpreting his true state before he obeyed the gospel.) The five reasons are:

1. In verses 9-11, a great and sad change took place in Paul’s life. He was alive without law, but sin sprang to life and he died.

Paul inserts this observation in order to explain the condition described in verse 5. In verse 6, however, a subsequent change occurs – a return from death to life. The same scenario has been described elsewhere (6:22; 8:2; Ephesians 2:5-6). This change is as glorious as the earlier one was sad. To preserve the parallel nature of his argument, this second change—the one from death to life, from bondage to liberty—must be discovered between verse 13, which gives the purpose of the first change, and Romans 8:1-2, which describe the state of those who enjoy the second. Verses 14-25 obviously deal with one subject and represent a unit of thought. Therefore, the second change must be found either between verses 13-14 or in Romans 8:1. In fact, verse 14 explains verse 13 and, therefore, cannot be separated from it by any event in Paul’s life equal to a change from death to life. But in Romans 8:1 just such a change occurs. The words "made me free from the law of sin and death" proclaim in unmistakable language that the horrible bondage of Romans 7:23; Romans 7:25 has passed away.

2. Verses 14-25 contradict all that Paul and the other New Testament writers say about themselves as Christians and about the Christian life in general. In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the slave of sin groaning beneath the sin’s bondage. He is, indeed, a calamity—a stricken man. Contrast this with Galatians 2:20, "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Or contrast 1 John 3:14, "we know that we have passed from death unto life." If the words of these verses (7:14-25) refer to a justified man, they stand absolutely alone in the New Testament and contrary to all that is revealed elsewhere in the New Testament.

3. Some have objected that the language of verses 14-25 is not applicable to an unjustified man (particularly verses 22, 23, and 25); however, similar language is found in the writings of Greek and Roman pagans. Beet cites Seneca, Euripides, Xenophon, and Ovid (207). These comments differ widely from Paul’s expressions here because the authors were pagans who knew nothing of the law of God. But the similarity of their expression is unmistakable. They prove that men were often carried along against their better judgment to do things they, themselves, knew were bad things. Their statements convincingly establish that there is in man an inward man who approves that which the law commands.

4. What Paul says elsewhere in the New Testament about his religious state before his conversion to Christ confirms the description given in these verses. Before he became a Christian, Paul was a man of blameless morality, zealous for God, a Pharisee of the strictest sect, in ignorance persecuting the church (Philippians 3:6; Acts 22:3; Acts 26:5; 1 Timothy 1:13). The same man is pictured here; however, as mentioned above, two different perspectives are assumed. In the passages cited here, Paul speaks from his perspective before he obeyed the gospel. But in Romans 7:14-25, he speaks of his unregenerate life from the enlightened perspective of a Christian—what is revealed in this text presents Paul’s true state as an unregenerate, groaning under the bondage of sin. In Philippians 3:4-6 and each of the other similar passages mentioned above, Paul’s conscience approves the law. He makes every effort to keep it, but his efforts demonstrate his moral powerlessness and reveal the presence of an enemy in whose ever tightening grip he lies. He seeks to conquer inner failure by outward observance and perhaps by bloody loyalty to what he considers to be the honor of God. In the conscientious Pharisee, there is a man who desires to do right but actually does wrong. The more earnestly he strives to obtain God’s favor by doing right, the more painfully conscious he is of his repeated failure. Thus, the harmony of this passage with Paul’s character revealed elsewhere is evident, albeit the standpoint is sometimes different. Still, the picture is one and the same with what is described here of his unregenerate state.

5. Then why did Paul use the present tense to describe a past experience? If one were to read the paragraph in the past tense, he would answer his own question. The punch of the paragraph is lost entirely. The desperation disappears. The life and strength wane. Beet observes:

To realize past calamity, we must leave out of sight our deliverance from it. The language of vv. 9, 11 made this easy. Paul’s description of his murder by sin was so real and sad that he forgot for a moment the life which followed it.

When therefore, he came to describe the state in which that murder placed him it was easy to use the present tense (208).

But the question remains as to whether or not in the Greek the present tense can be used in such a manner. Again, we cite Beet:

The past and present tenses are distinguished, not only in time, but also as different modes of viewing an action. The past tense looks upon it as already complete; the present, as going on before our eyes. Consequently, when the time is otherwise determined, the tenses may be used without reference to time. In the case before us, the entire context, foregoing and following, tells plainly to what time Paul refers. He is therefore at liberty to use that tense which enables him to paint most vividly the picture before him. This mode of speech, common to all languages, is a conspicuous feature of the language in which this epistle was written. So Kuehner, Greek Grammar 382.2: "In the mention of past events the present is frequently used, especially in principal sentences, but not infrequently in subordinate sentences, while in the vividness of the representation of the past is looked upon as present. This use of the present is also common to all languages. But in the Greek language it is especially frequent; and in the language of poetry appears not merely in narration but also in vivid questions and otherwise, frequently in a startling manner" (209).

I am indebted to Beet for this argumentation, which may be read at some greater length in his commentary (206-209). It seems clear that we have here the fullest explanation in the Bible of the mind and nature of an unregenerate man. Paul speaks of himself as a conscientious Pharisee. If he faced such a hopeless struggle, it is a given that all other sinners face the same fate or worse—whether under the law of Moses or the moral law.

The word "carnal" (sa/rkino/$) means "fleshly…pertaining to being human at a disappointing level of behavior or characteristics…with focus on the physical as being quite mediocre, transitory, or sinful, earthly, mediocre, merely human, worldly" (BDAG 914). The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 3:1 to denote the imperfect knowledge and immature behavior of those who have been recently converted. But, generally, this word is used to describe a state of alienation from God. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker define sa/rc, which is the root word used here and throughout this context, in these words:

In Paul’s thought especially, all parts of the body constitute a totality known as sa/rc or flesh which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sa/rc Romans 7:18…[the phrase used in Romans 8:5 a means—AWB] to be in an unregenerate (and sinful) state (915).

In Ephesians 2:3, being carnal is said to consist of fulfilling the desires (lusts) of the flesh. That Paul uses the word "carnal" in this verse in its worst possible sense is emphasized by the next phrase: "sold under sin."

Adam Clarke explains clearly the tension that exists in this context between the carnal man and the spiritual man:

Of the carnal man, in opposition to the spiritual, never was a more complete or accurate description given. The expressions, "in the flesh," and "after the flesh," in verse 5 and in chap. viii. 5, 8, 9 &c., and company, are of the same import with the word carnal in this verse. To be in the flesh, or to be carnally minded, solely respects the unregenerate. While unregenerate, a man is in a state of death and enmity against God, chap. viii. 6-9. This is St. Paul’s own account of a carnal man. The soul of such a man has no authority over the appetites of the body and the lusts of the flesh: reason has not the government of passion. The work of such a person is "to make provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof," chap. xiii. 14. He minds the things of the flesh, chap. viii. 5; he is at enmity with God. In all these things the spiritual man is the reverse; he lives in a state of friendship with God in Christ, and the Spirit of God dwells in him; his soul has dominion over the appetites of the body and the lusts of the flesh; his passions submit to the government of reason, and he by the Spirit, mortifies the deeds of the flesh; he mindeth the things of the Spirit, chap. viii. 5. The Scriptures, therefore, place these two characters in direct opposition to each other. Now the apostle begins this passage by informing us that it is his carnal state he is about to describe, in opposition to the spirituality of God’s holy law, saying, "But I am carnal" (Vol. VI 86).

sold under sin: In case anyone should misunderstand him, Paul adds to the word "carnal" that he is "sold under sin." Before he obeyed the gospel, he was not just "sort of" sinful: he was the slave of sin. This is one of the strongest expressions used by inspiration to describe the fallen state of the sinner once sin has sprung to life and murdered him (7:9). Clarke believes the implication here is of "a willing slavery" (Vol. VI 86) and cites several passages in support of his view (1 Kings 21:20; Isaiah 50:1, and the apocryphal book 1 Maccabees 1:15). The point is that the unregenerate man has sold himself over to sin, which is now his unrelenting master. He has no power to disobey his master until he is redeemed by another. Sin, of course, is being personified here, and the extent of sin’s dominion over the unregenerate is compared to the dominance of a master over his legal slave. Throughout God’s word, man is said to be in a state of bondage to sin until the Son of God makes him free by the sacrifice of Himself and until man chooses to obey the gospel. Nowhere in the scriptures is it ever said that the children of God are sold under sin. It is contrary to reason to believe Paul is speaking here of himself as a Christian. The whole passage (verses 14-25) is an elucidation of verses 5, 7-13 and how sin employs God’s holy law as an instrument to effect the corruption of man. Paul speaks throughout of himself as a conscientious Pharisee under the law of Moses, but what he says of himself is true of all unregenerate men whether under Moses’ law or the moral law. Paul describes this unregenerate hopeless condition in the succeeding verses.

Verse 15

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate that do I.

For that which I do I allow not: Lard thinks Paul means to say that he does not approve of what he is doing. He does admit that the word "allow" is the same word translated "to know" (ginw/skw) in other passages. It does not ordinarily mean to approve, though he insists it can be used that way in rare instances. But Whiteside is correct in his assessment when he says:

But Lard…misses the significance of the word know. It does not simply mean to be conscious of the particular act one is performing, but also to grasp the nature and consequences of what one is doing. No sinner does that. When Paul was persecuting Christians he was conscious of his acts, but was utterly ignorant of the nature and consequences of his deeds." "Howbeit, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," (1 Timothy 1:13). He did not know that every act he performed in persecuting the church was a crime against God and man; he thought he was doing right. He, therefore, did not know what he was doing—what he was accomplishing (156-157).

Whiteside continues his argument by citing Jesus’ prayer for those who nailed Him to the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Jesus did not mean that these men were "demented" (Lard’s word, 237). They knew they were crucifying a man. They did not know that he was, in fact, God’s Son. They certainly did not perceive the nature and consequences of their deed (Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8). If sinners actually understood the nature and consequences of their deeds, they would instantly change their lifestyles. Paul recognizes that when he was a sinner he did not understand the effects of his actions.

for what I would, that do I not: Paul says his actions are not determined by his own desires. In fact, they run counter to his wishes. The things he knows he should do he fails to do. Beet comments:

That a soldier on the field marches and counter-marches, he knows not why, and actually achieves results beyond his thought, proves that he is a servant working out the purposes of another. Just so, all sinners know not what they do (202).

but what I hate that do I: In his more rational moments, the sinner knows the kind of deeds he should hate and avoid. But he is without Christ, and sin has him under its dominion. In spite of his better judgment, he continues to practice what he knows to be wrong. He hates what he produces; but sold under sin, he cannot overcome his own evil desires. "He may delight in gratifying his flesh but he hates the results produced by his dissipation" (Whiteside 158).

Verse 16

If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

The law clearly delineates what is right and good. In it, God’s will for the Jews until the coming of Christ was revealed and an obedient upright life was commanded. Paul desired to live the kind of life the law of Moses demanded. In so doing, he testified that the law was good. But without Christ, without the gospel, without the forgiveness of sins, Paul was helpless. Despite his good intentions, he continued to be dominated and controlled by sin. And what was true of Paul under the law of Moses is true of all people under any law before they obey the gospel and become Christians. In this section not only does Paul personify sin but also he divides a person’s nature into two parts, which are at odds with one another. As shall become clearer in a few verses, there is the part of a person that always tends to do right—one’s own spirit—and there is the part that always tends to do wrong—the flesh and its desires. Before one obeys the gospel through faith in Christ, sin controls that person by empowering the desires of the flesh to override the reason of the spirit. The longer this carnality prevails, the greater the hold of sin over the person. These two opposing natures within a person are equivalent to:

1. The "inward man" (verse 22); "the law of my mind" (verse 23); "I myself" (verse 25) that delights often in the "law of God" (verses 22, 25); and

2. "the law which is in my members" (verse 23); "my flesh" (verse 18); "no more I" (verse 20); "the flesh" (verse 25) that delights in serving the "law of sin" (verse 25).

The former corresponds to a person’s eternal spirit and its reason; the latter to the desires of the flesh controlled by sin through a person’s emotional mind.

Verse 17

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Now then it is no more I that do it: The dual character of human nature comes into view with this phrase. Paul personifies a person’s nature as two foes in perpetual conflict with one another. A person is composed of flesh and spirit, and each of these parts of one’s mind possesses a distinctive will. Each has its own affections and desires. The first, that is, the flesh, Paul refers to as the "law which is in my members" (verse 23). These two contrary parts of one’s mind Paul portrays as distinct characters warring against one another. The spirit, or the spiritual part, Paul calls "the inward man" (verse 22). Peter refers to this part of a person as "the hidden man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:4). This part of a person Paul believes to be the real or true self. In verses 17 and 19, he refers to the spirit as "I." In verse 25, he is more emphatic—"I, myself." This part of a person is the part made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; Zechariah 12:1).

The other part of a human’s nature, Paul calls the flesh or carnal part. In 2 Corinthians 4:16, he styles it "the outward man." In this chapter he refers to it as the part in which sin dwells (7:17), and in chapter six he calls it "the body of sin" (6:6). It also is called "the body of this death" (7:24) and "the old man" (6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9). In the verse under consideration, Paul denies that this part of himself represents his real self; and to confirm this point in verse 18 when he says, "For I know that in me…dwelleth no good thing," Paul hastens to add "that is, in my flesh."

Is the apostle then saying, as some slanderously report, that people are not accountable for the sinful actions of their flesh? Absolutely not! In fact, to the contrary, he insists "if ye live after the flesh ye shall die" (8:13). His purpose in revealing the dual character of human nature is to make manifest the struggle within every person between reason and passion. This battle begins when a person becomes accountable to God for his actions and sin springs to life and murders him (7:9). More specifically, Paul endeavors to clarify that before a person obeys the gospel and is regenerated—while he is lost in sin and bound by the law of Moses (or by legitimate extension, the moral law) (Galatians 3:21)—that person cannot overcome the power of sin. Even though one’s spirit tends to do right (recognizes the right and struggles to obey), the flesh dominates through the power of sin. Once sin springs to life and slays a person, he cannot by any means overthrow the dominion of sin by his own power. Short of conversion to Christ, the unregenerate person cannot escape the clutches of sin.

but sin that dwelleth in me: Aside from the focus of Paul’s argument, this verse furnishes indisputable evidence that Paul in this context is not describing the Christian’s struggle with sin. One cannot construe that the regenerate believer has sin dwelling in him. Nowhere does the New Testament so describe a Christian. Of course, the believer is still likely to sin from time to time (1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1-3); the scriptures provide a remedy for such occasional stumbling, but sin no longer dominates the life of the Christian (1 John 3:8-9).

Another issue derived here, incidental to Paul’s argument, relates to the lively discussion as to the methodology of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of the believer (8:9). Even a casual reader of God’s word recognizes that the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer. The question is not whether or not He does but how He does. Whatever is meant by sin dwelling in the unbeliever will undoubtedly go a long way toward unraveling the mystery of how the Holy Spirit dwells in the regenerate person. The two statements appear to be equal and opposite statements. The methodology comprised in the one is more than likely to furnish the understanding of the other.

The concept of sin dwelling in a person is one of control. Macknight says, "The Hebrews expressed absolute rule or dominion by the figure of dwelling," and he cites several passages to support his assertion (Ezekiel 43:7; Ezekiel 43:9; Zechariah 2:10-11) (Vol. 1 325). By the same token when the Holy Spirit is said to dwell in the believer, control is the issue. The expression means that the believer is under the control of the Holy Spirit (8:14, 16). To be under the Spirit’s control is to allow the word of God to regulate one’s life, for the word of God is the medium through which the Spirit operates on the believer’s heart and mind.

Paul does not imply that the unregenerate is not responsible for his deeds. To the contrary, he means to teach that the wicked are accountable and to make unbelievers sensitive of the evil of their sins. He demonstrates this point by revealing that in spite of reason’s plan and the conscience’s pain, the unregenerate continues to be under sin’s control. The lower part of man’s nature, at the instigation of lust and passion, subverts the higher part of man’s nature—his reason and conscience. Obviously, the argument that God gave us these desires and it is not wrong to satisfy them is false.

"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body" (1 Corinthians 6:13). Paul’s reply is yes, God gave us these appetites, but He also gave us reason and conscience to oppose the immoral use of such desires. Everyone acknowledges that we can discern the will of God more clearly from reason and conscience, the superior part of man’s nature, than from the impulses of the flesh (Macknight Vol. 1 325).

Verse 18

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Paul is careful here to preserve the distinction between the spirit or inner man that represents his true self from his flesh or outer man that is under the sway of sin. He finds himself unable to do the good that he recognizes should be done. He determines to do it, but over and over he fails in the performance of it. Whiteside makes an astute observation concerning the flesh with its passions and appetites:

In and of itself, aside from the intellect, the flesh is neither morally good nor morally bad. The flesh, the animal part of man, is a bundle of appetites and passions which lead to sin only when they have enlisted the mind to plan and execute methods of self-gratification in an unlawful way (159).

He goes on to say that it is for this reason that the mentally incompetent person is not responsible for his deeds. The mind of man must cognitively participate in an action for it to be either morally good or morally evil (160).

The responsible, unregenerate man living under the authority of Moses’ law or moral law, without Christ and the gospel, may have a desire to do what is right. In such a state, however, he does not have the power to throw off sin, which rides like a monkey on his back. Thus, he cannot lead a life of purity and righteousness. Even Paul could not accomplish this feat when he was an unbelieving Pharisee. In fact, he applies this picture of hopeless failure to himself when he was under the law and had not become a Christian in order to make the lesson graphically real. Without Christ and the salvation of the gospel, there is no hope of overcoming sin. The unregenerate man cannot pick himself up by his own bootstraps. It is impossible.

Verse 19

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Before one becomes a Christian, he does not do the good things toward which reason and conscience incline; and he continues to do things he knows are evil. In practical terms, alien sinners find excuse to omit countless duties and justification to commit many sins in spite of the testimony of reason and conscience.

Verse 20

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

What was implied in verse 17 is now stated as a fact. Even when the unbeliever wants to do right, sin hinders him. Paul’s repetition of this forlorn situation over and over again serves to demonstrate forcefully the total helplessness of the person who has never obeyed the gospel. He cannot rid himself of sin. The more he tries to do right, the deeper he sinks into the quagmire of sin. The inward man empowered only by self is helpless in its contest with the passions and desires of the flesh.

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

The question arises as soon as one reads this verse: What law does Paul have in mind? Ordinarily, when the word no/mo$ (law) appears with the definite article before it, the law of Moses is under consideration; however, as Whiteside correctly observes: "to take it that he referred to the law of Moses involves us in a difficulty as to what the verse means." In the Pulpit Commentary, J. Barmby says:

Ancient and other commentators have been much puzzled as to the meaning of ver. 21, from taking no/mo$ at the beginning to denote the Mosaic Law as no/mo$ usually does when preceded by the article. But not so when there is something after it to denote a different meaning; as there is here in the o%ti at the end of the verse, meaning "that," not (as some have understood it), "because" (Vol. XVIII on Romans 190).

Numerous translations reflect the same difficulty in correctly interpreting this verse:

1. NIV - So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

2. NASB - I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.

3. NRSV - So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.

4. NKJV - I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.

5. AMP - So I find it to be a law [of my being] that when I want to do what is right and good, evil is ever present with me and I am subject to its insistent demands.

When referring here to the ever-present tendency of the unregenerate man to sin—even when he wills to do what is right and good—Paul calls it "a law". In other words, it is a "rule of thumb" or a general principle of action. Without Christ and the hope of the gospel, the unbeliever continually inclines toward sinful behavior. He experiences a steady and constant compulsion to sin, even though he knows what is good and plans to do it—even yearns to do it. It is not that he is totally incapable of an occasional right action but that the general rule of his life is held under the sway of the flesh and its desires as they are incited by sin. The problem is the unbeliever cannot free himself from the dominion of sin.

It must be emphasized that Paul clearly denies the false doctrine of total hereditary depravity. The unregenerate man of Paul’s description knows what is right and good; and with his spirit he wills to do it, although he generally fails. Paul calls this failure a law. If Calvin’s view of total hereditary depravity were correct, the unregenerate would be incapable of even knowing—much less having the will—to do the good and right thing (Whiteside 161).

Verse 22

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

The higher part of man’s nature, his spirit, is his inward man. The inward man is the seat of reason and will in the mind of man (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; 1 Peter 3:4). Always the inward man, his spirit, inclines toward the right action. The law of God is pleasing to him, even though he does not obey it. The law of God here is specifically the law of Moses, for that was the law under which Paul was governed before he became a Christian. By legitimate extension the same is true of the moral law and those who live under it.

Again, the reader must note that Calvinism is not supported by this verse. If there were absolutely no good in the unconverted man, he would not recognize the good that is in God’s law; but Paul says the unregenerate delights in God’s law with his spirit. Whiteside says:

Beauty does not appeal to him who has no eye for the beautiful; music does not appeal to him who has no ear for music; and the goodness in the gospel would have no attraction to him who is "opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil." People who reach that stage of depravity are utterly beyond the hope of redemption (162).

Verse 23

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

The other law Paul recognized in his members (see notes on 6:13) refers to the general law that the lower part of man’s nature, the flesh, always tends to do evil. In the unregenerate man, the principle that "evil is present with me" (verse 21) is the dominant law. It is against his reason, which appeals to the law of God (verse 22); the law of the flesh almost always defeats his desire to do right. Consequently, time and again the unsaved person without Christ and the gospel is more and more brought into captivity under the dominion of sin. Paul has this result in mind in verse 14 when he says: "I am carnal, sold under sin." This conflict between reason and passion is also described in Galatians 5:17:

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

"The law of my mind" refers to the law of God as it is apprehended and approved by Paul’s own intelligence. "The law of sin" reveals a more complete description of that other law warring against the law of Paul’s mind. Beet concludes:

Such, as he contemplates it, is Paul’s awful position. He sees a foe not only in his country and his home but in his own body. The struggle with the invader continues: but resistance is vain. By force the stranger imposes his own laws: and Paul finds himself a prisoner in his own body. He is a slave: his master is his greatest enemy: and his enemy dwells in his own breast (204).

Before a person obeys the gospel, this battle between the flesh and the spirit of man cannot be won. Sin dwells in and empowers the flesh; and, consequently, the spirit is overruled, and the man is made the captive slave of sin. After he becomes a Christian, this same battle still must be waged; but then it is a winnable struggle. The power of sin is broken when one receives forgiveness for past sins and a plan is revealed for the removal of any future sins (3:21-26; 6:17-18; Hebrews 10:14-18; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1-3). The body is no longer controlled by sin (verses 17, 20). In addition, the spirit of man is empowered by the Holy Spirit’s working through the agency of God’s word (8:14-16; Ephesians 6:17).

Clearly, Paul cannot be speaking of the Christian in these verses when he pictures this man sold under sin (verse 14) and brought into captivity to the rule of sin (verse 23) because sin dwells in him (verses 17, 20). This language can apply only to an unsaved person, and Paul uses his own self before he became a Christian as an example of all the unsaved.

Verse 24

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Realizing the futility of his struggle against sin, Paul cries out in despair. His own body is to him a body of sin and of death. Through his own appetites and passions, which control his body, sin drags him along a path of sin and degradation, leading inexorably to eternal death. In desperation Paul cries out for deliverance—not from a foe before his eyes and not from a prison of iron and granite—but from his own body. For sin, his great enemy, has invaded his body and taken control of it. Through the desires of his own body, he is compelled to sin and is held in an ever-tightening bondage to sin. But it is not death for which Paul shrieks. It is freedom from the tyranny of his own body and from a life obedient to its desires for which he cries. Clarke graphically depicts this pitiable scene as Paul, who is representative of all unregenerate men, struggles helplessly against this body of death:

This affecting account is finished more impressively by the groans of the wounded captive. Having long maintained a useless conflict against innumerable hosts and irresistible might, he is at last wounded and taken prisoner; and to render his state more miserable, is not only encompassed by the slaughtered, but chained to a dead body; for there seems to be here an allusion to an ancient custom of certain tyrants, who bound a dead body to a living man, and obliged him to carry it about, till the contagion from the putrid mass took away his life! Virgil paints this in all its horrors in the account he gives of the tyrant Mezentius (Aeneid lib. viii. ver. 485)…We may naturally suppose that the cry of such a person would be, "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this dead body?" And how well does this apply to the case of the person to whom the apostle refers! A body—a whole mass of sin and corruption, was bound to his soul with chains which he could not break; and the mortal contagion, transfused through his whole nature, was pressing him down to the bitter pains of an eternal death. He now finds that the law can afford him no deliverance; and he despairs of help from any human being; but while he is emitting his last, or almost expiring, groan the redemption of Christ Jesus is proclaimed to him; and if the apostle refers to his own case, Ananias unexpectedly accosts him with -- "Brother Saul! The Lord Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me unto thee, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." ["And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16)—AWB]. He sees then an open door of hope, and he immediately, though but in the prospect of this deliverance, returns God thanks for the well-grounded hope which he has of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Lord (Vol. VI 91).

Verse 25

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord: Amidst the groans and shrieks of one in the woes of eternal death, the darkness is swept away in an instant by the glorious light of the gospel of hope shining in the face of Jesus Christ! Immediately, sorrow is turned to joy. Pain and suffering have vanished, and the desperate cry of anguish is lost in a grateful and triumphant shout of thanksgiving. The Redeemer has come—thanks be to God through Jesus Christ.

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin: Paul pauses here before discussing in more detail the wonderful deliverance granted by God through His well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, in order to recapitulate the argument begun in verse 14 and concluded in verse 24. In delineating the dual nature of man, Paul reminds us that with his mind—that is, his reason or his spirit—man recognizes and serves the law of God, whether Moses’ law or the moral law. On the other hand, with his flesh—that is, his body with its appetites and passions or his emotional mind—man serves the law of sin. Without Christ and the gospel, sin always gains the dominant hand, invades the body, and gradually brings the unregenerate man to the point of verse 24. Even though man recognizes God’s law with his spirit and yearns to do the right and good thing, he cannot by his own power live the absolutely righteous life that law requires for justification (3:23). Though he may struggle mightily, as Paul did, the unregenerate man cannot be saved by his own merits. One of the reasons for which God gave to the Jews the law of Moses and to the Gentiles the moral law was to demonstrate palpably that no man can be justified upon his own merit. The unregenerate man always loses the battle between the flesh and the spirit. Once sin springs to life and murders him (verse 9), the sinner is more and more brought under the power of sin until he is either destroyed in eternal punishment or he yields to and obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is only through Jesus Christ that man can be freed from the tyranny of the law’s condemnation of all sinners and every sin. Beet’s review of Paul’s argument is worth preserving:

Paul asked in v. 13 whether, so far as he is concerned, the gift of the Law had been a fatal failure. It would be so, if vv. 7-12 were the whole case. But Paul answers his own question with an emphatic negative; and says that his death by means of the Law was itself a divinely-chosen means to reveal the nature of sin. In vv. 14-25, we see this purpose accomplished. As we watch Paul struggling helplessly against his foe, and see the foe planting himself in his body and making it a prison, as we hear his cry for deliverance from bondage to his own body, we learn as we never learnt before what sin is. We learn this, not as in vv. 7-11 from Paul’s sad death by means of the Law, but from the abiding state of bondage which followed his death, i.e., from the continuous working of sin in one whom it has already slain.

This revelation of sin was made by means of the Law. Had there been no Law, whatever men did would have been attributed to their ignorance and folly. It would have been thought that nothing more was needed than divine teaching supported by the thunders of Sinai. This illusion has been dispelled. The thunders of Sinai have uttered their voice; but in vain. Yet not in vain. By evoking the approbation of that in Paul which is noblest, and by prompting vain efforts after obedience, the Law has proved that Paul is a captive in the hands of an enemy against whom there is no rising up. By means of the Law, Paul has learnt that he needs, not merely a guide to show him the way, but a Savior to rescue him from the grasp of one stronger than himself…. Thus Paul has virtually proved his argument in v. 13. Compare carefully Galatians iii. 22-24 (205-206).