Eric,

Thank you for your serious interaction with the article.

This study on this passage is part of the larger study of both Romans,
and Paul and the law. I have not really been happy with my understanding
of Romans 7, and the commentaries are all over the place. As I told Jason,
the only thing that the commentaries speak with one voice on is their
confidence that all the other views are impossible.
Now this interpretation is not something I am completely tied to. I am
trying it on like a shirt and may ultimately reject it. But you are going
above and beyond the call of duty by helping me to think through this. As
you said that you are going to be talking about this in Theo 2, hopefully it
is also helpful, as you said.
In terms of the passage referring to a believer struggling with sin, we
know that the struggle is real. And Galatians 5:16-18 talks about it, so it
could be the subject of this also. But after Romans 6 and when we finally
get to how Paul describes believers in Romans 8, it is difficult for me to see
how Paul can talk about believers currently being sold into slavery to sin
(Romans 7:14). In Romans 6:16-18, Paul says specifically that we have
been set free from sin. It seems like to me there is a difference between
struggling with sin and being a slave to sin, and Romans 6 and 8 focus
more on the fact that we are free and no longer slaves.
So if Paul is talking autobiographically, and I am happy to say he is,
then as a believer now he must be referring to his past. He is looking back
at his pre-Christian experience when he was a zealous Jew, not only
enthusiastically following the law, but even persecuting and killing
believers in Jesus. He sees now that he had a zeal without knowledge
(Romans 10:2). So now as a Christian theologian he is reflecting
theologically on his devotion to the law, and the fact that he was missing
what the law was all about. In the particular section of Romans 7 we are
talking about, 7:14-23 the verbs are in the present tense. Before that they
are in the past tense. I believe that the switch from the past to the present
is not related to time but to aspect. The present tense is more like an
historical present. The historical present occurs often in the gospels,
especially in John, and is always translated into both English and Russian
with past tense verbs. Thus, in line with this interpretation, I would argue
that the verbs in 7:15-23 should be translated with past tense verbs in
English rather than with present tense verbs.

Now, the issue in a sense starts in Romans 5:20 where Paul says that
the law was added so that the trespass might increase. I take this to mean
not that God through the law was trying to get people to sin more
(because they were failing in that department and being too righteous),
but rather that the law provided definition so that people could seemore
clearly just how much they were sinning. This idea is repeated in 7:7
where Paul says that he was able to understand what coveting was
because of the commandment not to covet. But in Romans 7:5, 8, and 11
Paul takes things a step further.
Paul says that sinful desire were aroused by the law and that sin took
the opportunity afforded by the commandment and deceived him into
sinning. Now the normal way of understanding this is to see a
psychological mechanism at work. The very existence of commands
prompts people to sin. I guess I have always felt a little uncomfortable with
this because of how much time God spend saying that people should
meditate on the law. Pardon me if I satirize a little bit (even though I may
ultimately need to return to this interpretation). I will state a command
and then I want your feedback as to how you felt when you read this. DO
NOT MURDER! That is a command. How are you feeling right now? Are
you feeling murderous feelings? I feel like chances are you dont feel like
murdering anyone. Although if this Email gets much longer I might start to
be in trouble.
So what could this be referring to? IN line with this interpretation,
imagine Paul zealously pursuing the law. He knows that it is Gods will and
he is willing to die for it, just like the Maccabees. The thing is, the law
foretold the Messiah, and was intended to lead people to God. But Paul
was so focused on the law, that when the Messiah came, he stuck with the
law. It would be like if a man went on a trip and his wife had his picture
around. She enjoyed having the picture around and looking at it. But when
he returns, she doesny interact with him. She just keeps looking at the
picture. The law that God gave Israel became an end in and of itself. So
the sinful desires that were aroused by the law were not just any desires,
but were desires that arouse out of a misuse of the law.
Romans 7:6 says that we have been set free from the law so that we
are able to serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the
letter. I am arguing that his sinful passions were another way of talking
about living in the old way of the letter. That was the problem. Not sin in
general, but a zealous legalism that led to arrogance, idolatry (worshipping
the law instead of the lawgiver), and even violence. So when he says that

every kind of desire came up, he is talking about the different ways his
misguided zeal expressed itself.
I think this view lines up a little better with what Paul tells us about
his pre-Christian life experience. It also resonates with an issue that
Romans is concerned with and that is legalism. He has dealt with it before
this and will deal with it explicitly again in chapter 14 with the discussion
about food and days.
I am trying to take a canonical view of the law. I have used the word
canonical which means my view must be correct. But looking at the law
canonically to me just means that what I know about the law from other
places must influence how I view the law in this passage. The clearer
portions help illucidate the less clear. To me any view of the law must
contain at least the following three elements:
1. The law of Moses (about which we are speaking in Romans 7)
was not given to unbelievers as a way for them to earn salvation
by means of a perfect performance. It was given in Exodus 19 to
a people that had been redeemed through the Passover and the
Exodus. Now no doubt that crowd included many unregenerate
people, but God was speaking to them as regenerate. In the
same way the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Philippi probably
contained unregenerate people. But Paul write to them with the
general assumption that they were believers. God gave the law
of Moses to believer to show them how to express their faith, to
show them what the life of a believer should look like.
2. The law of Moses cannot be reduced to graceless demand, as if
the law of Moses were simply a list of rules. One of the largest
part of the law of Moses relates to sacrifices which dealt with sin.
We may say that it was a burden to offer a sacrifice, but offfering
a sacrifice is much better than going to hell. In the law itself God
gave forgiveness. That is grace, the law contained grace. If we
were to ask why the cross of Christ was necessary of the law
provided sacrifice for sin, I would respond by saying that the
efficacy of the sacrifices was drawn from the cross. The benefits
of the cross went back in time and were applied to those in the
Old Testament. The sacrifices were symbols and shadows of the
cross not simply in terms of prophecy or knowledge, but they
were also the means by which the benefits of the cross were
communicated in advance of its having occurred in time.
3. Jesus says in Matthew 23:23 that the law contains different kinds
of commands, but that the weighier matters of the law, which I
interpret to mean, basic elements of the core of the law, are

justice, mercy, and faith(-fulness). The last word is the Greek

word , which most of the time is translated faith. So if we
described the law in such a way that our description would not be
compatible with the idea that mercy and faith are at its core,
then our description of the law is wrong.
So, these three elements, the law was given to believers, the law
contains both commands and grace, and the core of the law is justice,
mercy, and faith, must inform our understanding of Pauls description of
the law in Romans 7. Part of the difficulty is that the law has many
different facets and aspects. And it seems that Paul simply uses the word
law when he is probably only referring to one aspect of the law, and not
every aspect at the same time. Thus, in Pauls writings, the law is
abolished and not abolished, for us and not for us, etc. We have to look at
what sense he is referring to.
It seems to me that one difficulty with the law arose from the very
fact that it was a gift to the Jewish people. Psalm 147:19-20 says that He
has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done
this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. I believe that many of
the people of Israel became proud of their uniqueness in the plan of God.
Deuteronomy 7 and 8 warn Israel about becoming proud and assuming
that the promises and blessings God was given were as a result of their
righteousness. God said, it was all a gift of grace. Even the law was a gift
of grace. But many Jews were proud and became so focused on the law
that they lost sight of the laws true purpose, to promote love for God and
for neighbor.
They also came to believe that since they were Jews, they didnt need
to be saved or repent. When John the Baptist came, some responded to his
calls for repentace by saying that they didnt need to repent because they
were children of Abraham. I talked to Mitch Glaser, the head of Chosen
People Ministries in NYC and asked him if Jews today, at least those who
still believe in God and the Bible, if they are trying to earn their salvation
by obeying the law as best they can. He said, of course theyre not. They
are Jews, they are the chosen people. Since birth and circumcision they
are the people of God. The law for a Jew is not about getting in. It is about
what life should look like for those that are in.
Another interesting thing about the text and the translation. In English
translations it appears that Paul repeats the word do a whole lot of times.
But actually our word do is representing three different words in Greek:
, , and . They are similar in meaning, but Paul

may be wanting to nuance what he is saying by not using the same word
over and over again.
So how should we read Romans 7? Below I have given an expanded
paraphrase that includes the different elements I have talked about. The
verbs are in the past tense in English and the three Greek words are
translated slightly differently. Ultimately this may not work, but I am going
to give it a go.

Romans 7:15-20
15
For I didnt recognize what I was accomplishing (). For I
was not practicing () what I wanted to, intended to. Rather I did
() what I hate.
16
Now even if did () what I did not want, did not intend to do,
namely go against the law as a zealous Jew, I still was agreeing that the
law was good. It was still true that I was committed to the truth of the law.
17
But I see now that I was not producing () this result,
but sin that lived in me, this distorted viewpoint that the law was a badge
of honor that made me better than other people.
18
But I realize now that I was completely off track, there was nothing
good about how I was living. For even though the desire to follow the law
was there, with my perspective I could not actually obey the law, that is do
what the law required, namely accept the Messiah when he came. The law
anticipated and proclaimed Christ, and when the Messiah came, when the
lawmaker came, I didnt recognize him, didnt accept him.
19
Plain and simple, I didnt do () the good I intended. Rather I
practiced () the very evil I didnt intend. By devoting myself to the
law of Moses in a distorted way, I was actually disobeying and rebelling
against the law of Moses. By rejecting Jesus as the Messiah and by
persecuting his followers, I was fighting against the very God I claimed to
be serving.
20
But I want you to see that when I was doing () what I didnt
intend, It was no longer me the zealous, God-loving Jew that was
producing () this, but rather a destructive, anti-God
sinfulness that was doing it.
Well, that is what I am going with right now. This is a lot, but feel free
to read it, file it, or toss it. Thanks for getting this far.
Mark