Originally Posted by
BroRog
Okay but notice his mental process in Romans 7. The question he asks is, " Is the Law sin?" That is, is it bad? Is the law evil? Is it something to be avoided? In verse 8, I would argue, he begins to inform his readers of the true intent of the Law. God gave the law to serve a purpose. What is that purpose?
Romans 7:8 *But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
He points out that the Law serves to highlight sin in a special way. Not only does the Law define God's moral vision for everyone, but it also paints an existential picture for those who attempt to keep it. One might say to himself, "I can live a life without lust." Then the Law will say to the sinner, "Go ahead and try. See how far you get." The law becomes the opportunity (Paul's word) for the sinner to find out something about himself. Without a law to challenge the sinner, sin isn't a live issue. I could be lusting all the time, but until the Law challenges me to stop, I'll never know if it's actually possible to stop.
And so Paul builds his case for why the Law is actually a good thing and not a bad thing.
9 *And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died;
10 *and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
That passage describes a moment of discovery Paul experienced when the commandment against coveting finally "came". We might say in our idiom, the Law finally "came home" to me. It finally got to me. It's implications concerning me as a sinner finally settled into my soul such that I was finally willing to admit to myself that I am a sinner.
Out of the Ten Commandments, the Tenth is not doable. It is simply not possible to avoid an inner desire. We can hide it. We can ignore it. We can run around the room, or lift weights, go for a jog, or take a cold shower. But we can not remove our desire. We can avoid murder. We can avoid theft. We can avoid adultery. But we can't avoid WANTING another man's life. We can't avoid WANTING another man's stuff. We can't avoid WANTING another man's wife. And when the Law challenged Paul, "Okay don't want stuff." he found he couldn't comply.
11 *for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.
It must have been the sin of pride and presumption that induced him to take up the challenge of the commandment. It must have looked deceptively easy. But he lost the challenge and in the process he came to the realization that he was dead with respect to his search for God's favor.
I should note here that Paul is revealing his mental process to his readers. In order to arrive at all these conclusions, especially the existential conclusions that he is a dead sinner he must already be in an internal dialog with God in which Paul is open and willing to look afresh at himself, his moral condition, and his standing before God. I would argue that this "righteous" view of himself is the work of the Spirit. Not that he is righteous, but he has the right, rational, true perspective on his condition. Only a child of God is willing to admit to himself that he is a dead sinner. Everyone else makes excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for it.
12 *So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Conclusion: the law serves a good purpose. While a man can not use the Law to gain God's favor through his meritorious efforts; the law is useful as a mirror into which a man might learn to see himself as he really is. If the law is used properly, it is a good thing.
13 *Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
Here Paul defends those who would accuse him of saying, "out of good, evil has come." In his defense he points out that it was not the Law that caused his death; rather, it was in the process of his coming to learn the great hold of sin, that he died. In other words, it was the sin, not the law that became the result of his "death."
Remember that Paul is describing a process of self-realization in which he abandons a faulty, distorted view of himself in favor of a more realistic and true view of himself. He refers to this as his "death" because he is speaking in terms of his condemnation -- his being declared guilty and worthy of punishment. Before his eyes were opened, he mistakenly believed he was "alive" -- not subject to punishment. But when his eyes were opened, he came to learn the truth about himself.
He will set out to demonstrate that his "death" was not actually an evil thing but a good thing because in the process of coming to terms with the Law he discovered something else about himself.
14 *For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
We must be careful to understand his phrase "of flesh" in contrast with his assertion that the Law is "spiritual." When Paul says the Law is spiritual, he means the Law is the product of a rational mind, reflecting reason, common sense, what is fitting and what ought to done. So Paul is "of flesh" in exactly the opposite sense that the Law is rational. Paul is subject to the irrational as he goes on to explain.
15 *For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 *But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good.
Paul admits to being subject to bouts of irrationality. Just like a man sold into slavery, he doesn't always get to do what HE wants to do. Sometimes he does the very thing he hates to do. By comparison to the rational law, he acts contrary to reason, doing the things he doesn't understand. But he concludes, and this is his main idea, if while he is acting irrationally he agrees with the Law, if he is doing what he hates to do while agreeing with what the law says ought to be done, he is confessing that the law is good.
In other words, there is Paul, the one who sometimes acts contrary to good reason, especially as dictated in the law, which is the same guy who also agrees with the law while he does it. He goes on to explain that while he commits sin according to some irrational aspect of himself, he is able to stand aloof and above it all in order to allow the law to be critical of his actions and side with the law as it does.
17 *So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.
18 *For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 *For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
20 *But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 *I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
22 *For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 *but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
And so we see that contained in the nature of a single man, a principle of evil that allows a man to joyfully concur with the Law of God, even as he is doing the very thing he hates and does not wish to do. He finds in himself the ultimate weirdness in that his very own members are at war with his own mind causing him to be a prisoner in his own body. And yet, even in this strange and awful state, he is able to maintain his aloof perspective on himself, the law, and his God. He is able to joyfully concur with the rational, moral vision contained in the law, even as he sees himself a prisoner of his own body.
In my view, the fact that Paul is able to concur with the law, come to agreement about his true nature, lament and mourn over it, is substantial evidence that he is a born again believer. The processes of the inner man having a "dialog" with the Spirit of God as he comes to a true picture of himself and his hunger to be freed from his prison is all evidence that Paul has come to belief. His prayer of thanksgiving to God for the Lord Jesus Christ is also clear evidence of his right standing as a believer.
And I think that all believers can say, without hesitation, that they serve the law of God with the mind, even if they find themselves, at times, serving the law of sin. Has any man truly transcended his sinful nature?
Reply With Quote
)
Bookmarks