Romans 7

Romans 7:1

Romans 7:1 – Beginning with Romans 7:1 and reading through Romans 7:6, we read that we are released from the Law.

 

Note.–Some of the efforts to explain Romans 7:1-6 have not been very helpful. The meaning is sometimes obscured by injection into the passage things that the Holy Spirit did not put into it. Paul was not teaching a lesson on the relation of husband and wife, but was using that well-known relationship as an illustration to show the brethren their relation to the law and to Christ. There is always one main point of comparison in an illustration, and to seek to extend the illustration to points not intended by the user is con-fusing. What is the purpose of Paul’s marriage illustration? He still has in mind freedom from the law, and whether that freedom permits the Christian to sin (Romans 6:14-15).

His illustration not only shows that we are free from the law, but that Christians are bound to Christ. He now is our master.

 

Romans 7:1 : Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? Law, in the parentheses, has no the before it in the Greek: “I speak to those who know law” who know both the purpose and the limits of law, any and all law, including the law of Moses. Paul credits them with knowing that the law has dominion over a man so long as he lives, and no longer. The law is the law of Moses, though what is here affirmed of the law of Moses is true of any law under which a man lives. When a man dies, the law governs him no longer–he is dead to the law, and the law is dead to him.

Romans 7:2

Romans 7:2 : For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. This is the general law of marriage. Whatever exceptions there might be are not here taken in-to consideration, for they had no part in the truth that Paul was illustrating. It was intended that both parties to a marriage should be faithful to their marriage vows, and that only death should separate them. If they remained true to each other, only death could separate them. As Paul was using this illustration to show that the brethren were released from the law so as to be married to Christ, it is easy to see why he speaks of the wife’s obligations instead of the husband’s. The death of the husband releases the wife from the law of her husband–that is, it releases her from the law that bound her to that husband.

Romans 7:3

Romans 7:3 : So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Here again is a fixed law concerning the marriage relation. When one pledges one’s self to another in marriage, it is a base thing to break the marriage vows by immoral practices. But let us not forget that Paul is using this marriage relation to illustrate a principle that is involved in our relations to the law and to the Christ. Our close union with the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul, by a figure of speech, speaks of as marriage to him. The relation of the people of Israel to Jehovah under the Old Testament was frequently spoken of under the same figure of speech.

When the people then turned from Jehovah to worship idols and to mix in the religions of other people, Jehovah accused them of being guilty of whoredom and adultery. “She committed adultery with stones and with stocks” (Jeremiah 3:9). “With their idols have they committed adultery” (Ezekiel 23:37). So long as the law was of force, they could not be married to another.

Romans 7:4

Romans 7:4 : Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. This is the application of the principle set forth in the marriage illustration. They became dead to the law that they might be joined, or married, to Christ. They became dead to the law through the body of Christ–that is, through the death of the body of Christ. It would be difficult to understand how they became dead to the law through the body of Christ were it not for light gained from other passages. People became dead to the law when it ended, or was abolished. “For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Ephesians 2:14-16).

The law of Moses is here called the enmity between Jew and Gentile, because it acted as a barrier between them. Paul here affirms that this enmity was slain by the cross, or by the death of Christ on the cross. “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).

The law had dominion over those under it so long as it lived, but it was abolished at the cross. They then became dead to it, for it no longer had dominion over them. It is well to notice that this passage definitely settles two things: (1) They were not married to Christ before his death the law was taken out of the way at the cross that they might be joined to the risen Christ. (2) When Paul wrote this letter, these Roman brethren had been joined to Christ. That is made clear by the fact stated: that they were joined to Christ that they might bring forth fruit unto God It is certain that Chris-tians are expected to bear fruit in this life. But the marriage, or joining, to Christ precedes the fruit bearing. Romans 7:6 shows that the bearing of fruit is done in serving God in newness of the spirit.

Besides, if the closeness of the relationship that existed between Jehovah and the Jews was spoken of as a marriage, certainly the closer union between Christ and his fol-lowers would also be spoken of as a marriage. In an-other place Paul uses the marriage relationship to il-lustrate the close union between Christ and the church (See Ephesians 5:22-33).

Notice specially Ephesians 5:23 : “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church, being himself the Savior of the body.” Here is a comparison: The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church in the same manner as Christ is head of the church. How could that be if, as some say, the church is now only espoused to Christ? That Paul in this entire passage is using the marriage relation to illustrate the relationship existing between Christ and the church is evident to any unbiased reader. Ephesians 5:32 shows conclusively that such is his purpose: “This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church.” So, then, in speaking of husband and wife, he was by way of illustration speaking of Christ and the church

Romans 7:5-6

Romans 7:5-6 : For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that, wherein we were held, so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. “Flesh” here does not mean the human body, for their being “in the flesh” was a thing of the past. Paul’s marriage illustration to show their relation to the law and to Christ shows that he had in mind the Jewish brethren. No others were delivered from the law that they might be joined to Christ. “In the flesh” refers to the time they were under the law of Moses, for Paul immediately adds by way of contrast: “But now we have been discharged from the law.” They had been “in the flesh” but had been “discharged from the law.” It is not strange that Paul spoke of them as “in the flesh” during the time they were under the law. The old covenant was a flesh covenant. They were members of the covenant by virtue of their flesh connection with Abraham, and circumcision in the flesh was a sign of membership in that covenant.

 

“Sinful passions,” or passions of sin. Our passions are not essentially sinful, and they certainly did not come to us through the law of Moses–the law of Moses did not create passions. They are sinful only when they lead us to do things contrary to God’s will. In this way they became sinful through the law–that is, through the violation of the law. These sinful passions work through our bodies to bring forth fruit unto death.

 

The statement that they had been discharged from the law is a positive declaration that they were no longer under the law. They had died to that wherein they were held, and had no longer any connection with it. “Newness of the spirit” is the new life of the spirit into which they were raised at their baptism (Romans 6:4). The “oldness of the letter” was the old law. They were not then serving God in the law of Moses. But Sabbatarians tell us that the term law in these verses does not include the Ten Commandments. The next verse shows them to be wrong.

Romans 7:7

Romans 7:7 : What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, ex-cept the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Hence, the law Paul had in mind included the command, “Thou shalt not covet,” which itself was one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were a part of that law from which these brethren had been de-livered.

Because people violated the law, and there-by became sinful, did not prove the law to be sinful. The law defined and condemned sin. Paul had not known coveting–that is, he had not known the real nature of coveting–had not the law said, “Thou shalt not covet.” Then he knew coveting–knew the nature of it, knew it to be sin. At the time Paul learned coveting to be sinful he was under the law of Moses, and it was his only source from which to learn the nature of coveting. Any one can now learn from the gospel of Christ the sinfulness of coveting. In fact, the gospel of Christ condemns coveting as idolatry, and thus condemns coveting more severely than does the law.

Romans 7:8

Romans 7:8 : But sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. James Macknight translates this verse: “But I say that sin taking opportunity under the commandment, wrought effectual-ly in me all strong desire. For without law sin is dead.” The Authorized Version reads: “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.” Many others render the verse substantially the same as do Macknight and the Authorized Version. It is a fact that the phrase, “by the commandment,” or “through the commandment,” in the Greek text, comes before wrought, and seems to connect directly with “taking occasion.” This makes the commandment only the occasion for sin to assert itself. The commandment was only the occasion for sin to override the authority of God.

It is certain that God’s command was not the source of the evil desires. Let it be remembered that sin is here personified, and represented as an enemy that is trying to get us into trouble. There is no occasion for anyone to think that a command of God creates or stirs up evil desires. The desire was there, even if God had issued no command, but became an evil desire when it sought to override the command. Hence, “without the law sin was dead.” As sin is lawlessness, sin would not be operative where there is no law. Neither does law apply to a person who is not responsible for his deeds.

To such a person there is really no law, and, therefore, no sin.

Romans 7:9

Romans 7:9 : And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. The only time Paul was without law was during the years of his childhood, before he reached the years of accountability. On this verse the Cambridge Greek Testament makes the following clear comment ‘was living unaffected by law once.’ He goes back to a pre-moral state–not necessarily in actual memory of a complete non-moral experience, but comparatively; his life as a child was untouched by number-less demands of law, which accumulated with his moral development; at that period whole regions of his life were purely impulsive one after another they came under the touch of law, and with each new pressure of law upon his consciousness, the sphere, in which it was possible to sin, was enlarged. It was easy to carry this retrospect one step beyond memory, and to see himself living a life of pure impulse before the very first voice of law reached him, and to regard such a stage as a typical stage in the general develop-ment of the moral sense in man." The command came to Paul when he began to realize his own individual responsibility in the matter of obeying God. Then “sin revived.” Sin sprang to life. It does not mean that sin came to life again.

The Greek student will recognize the perfective function of the preposition prefixed to the word translated revived, and that in-stead of changing the meaning of the verb, adds to it force and vividness–sin came much alive. And then he died spiritually. But we are told that a person is born totally depraved–born dead in trespasses and sins. It would be interesting to hear one of those advocates of hereditary total depravity tell us when Paul was alive without the law and when he died spiritually.

Romans 7:10

Romans 7:10 : And the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death. The commandment was meant to lead him in the way of life; but when he disobeyed that commandment, the curse of the law, the penalty of death, came upon him. Obedience to the commandment was life; disobedience brought death. This is not strange, for many things that are essential to life bring death when abused. The decree of the law was: Obey, and live disobey, and die.

Romans 7:11

Romans 7:11 : For sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. In the King James Version this verse reads: “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” Notice the difference in the punctuation. The reader of the Bible should know that punctuation marks were not in use when the Bible was written, and that in using them now the translators place them so as to show what seems to them the proper construction of the sentence. The translators of the American Standard Version thought the phrase, “through the commandment,” should modify “deceived”–deceived through the commandment the King James translators thought it should modify “taking occasion”–taking occasion by the commandment. In this instance I prefer the King James Version, for I can see how the devil would take occasion through a command of God to lead a person to disobey that command, but I cannot see how he could deceive a person through a command of God. Yet some seriously argue that Paul was deceived through the commandment, and yet we wonder if the person who so argues does not have any misgivings as to the correctness of his contention.

There is another peculiarity in the contention of those who so argue. Without seeming to be conscious that they shift their ground a little, the advocates of this position tell us that a command of God stirs up in a sinner a feeling of rebellion against whatever God commands. But if a person is led by deception to disobey God, then he does not disobey through a rebellious spirit. But do God’s commands really stir in the sinner a determination not to do what God commands and to do what he forbids? Does anyone really think that the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” ever made any one want to commit murder? Did the command, “Thou shalt not steal,” ever make any one want to slip out at night and steal?

 

Paul used his own experience as typical of the experiences of all other people. The truth he set forth is illustrated in the case of Eve. Concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God said to Adam and Eve: “Thou shalt not eat of it.” By his lying speech Satan deceived her. He did not deceive her by means of the commandment, but took the commandment as an occasion to approach her, and to deceive her into believing it would be greatly to her advantage to eat the fruit. Death was the penalty for that disobedience. Hence, the devil seized the occasion, or opportunity, presented by that command, and by his artful speech deceived her, and by the command slew her.

It certainly was not inherent depravity that caused her to sin. So nearly did her case parallel Paul’s that we can say of her substantially what Paul said of himself: Satan, taking occasion through the commandment, deceived Eve, and by it slew her. And so of all others.

Romans 7:12

Romans 7:12 : So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. This is the conclusion to his answer to the question a Jew might ask: “If we had to be delivered from the law before we could be made free from sin, does that mean that the law is sin?” Sin and death had come through a failure to keep the law. But what is the difference between the law and the commandment? Law includes all the rules and regulations covering man’s duties and obligations commandment is any specific requirement. The law was given to promote holiness, and so was any specific commandment. The commandment was also just in its demands, and good in its results. But this raises another question.

Romans 7:13

Romans 7:13 : Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good;–that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. The commandment which was just, and intended for good, did not work death. Sin brought death through the good commandment that sin might appear in its true nature, and in that way appear to be exceeding sinful. Not only does sin by deceit make the good commands of God instru-ments of death, but also by deceit converts the choic-est gifts of nature into instruments of sin, and even death. In its results sin shows its destructiveness. A good law is not to blame, if people disobey it and bring punishment upon themselves.

Romans 7:14

Romans 7:14 : For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. The law is spiritual, because it appeals to the inner man–the spirit of man. Likely the worldly-minded Jew saw nothing in the law but forms and ceremonies, but the pious and faithful recognized its appeal to the heart. The first and fundamental requirement of the law is stated in these words: “Thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5-6). “But I am carnal, sold under sin.” Was Paul here speaking of himself as a Christian? Was he as a Christian “sold under sin”?

In Romans 7:9 he spoke of the time when sin entered his life, and he died. He then explains that sin, not the law, caused this spiritual death.

Sin is here personified, and Paul represents himself as having been sold to sin as a slave. But if he referred to his past experience, why did he use the present tense? Because he was merely speaking of himself as a type of all who were under the bondage of sin. The following from Macknight is worth considering: “Because the apostle in this passage uses the first person, ‘I am sold,’ etc., Augustine in the latter part of his life, and most of the commentators after his time, with many of the moderns, especially the Calvinists, contend that in this, and in what follows, to the end of the chapter, the apostle describes his own state at the time he wrote this epistle, consequently the state of every regenerated person. But most of the ancient Greek commentators, all the Arminians, and some Calvinists, held that though the apostle speaks in the first person, he by no means describes his own state, but the state of an unregenerated sinner awakened, by the operation of law, to a sense of his sin and misery. And this opinion they support by observing that in his writings the apostle often personates others (See Romans 13:11-13).

Where-fore, to determine the question, the reader must con-sider to which of the two characters the things written in this chapter best agree; and, in particular, whether the apostle would say of himself, or other regenerated persons, that ’they are carnal, and sold under sin.’ " Would he also say of himself as a Christian, “Wretched man that I am”? And would he as a Christian exclaim, “Who shall deliver me out of the body of this death”? (See Romans 7:24).

Then notice that in the next verse he thanks God that deliverance comes through Jesus Christ our Lord. To take it that Paul in his own person describes the condition of the unregenerated sinner presents less difficulties than to suppose that he was describing his condition as a Christian. The sinner’s conflict is next described.

Romans 7:15

Romans 7:15 : For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practice; but what I hate, that I do. Some commentators think the first clause should read: “For what I do I approve not.” But that has the appearance of being a translation made to escape a seeming difficulty. Lard thinks that ginosko sometimes, though rarely, means to approve, and adds: “Now, I hold that to render the word know, in the present clause, is to make the apostle not only contradict himself, but speak like a simpleton. For what I do, I know not.’ If a man know not what he is doing, he is demented. This will not do for Paul.” But Lard, with others, misses the significance of the word know. It does not mean simply 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. When Jesus was on the cross, he prayed: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” These men knew they were engaged in the act of crucifying a man called Jesus they did not know that they were crucifying the Son of God. They did not know what they were doing. “And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).

Now, these men were not demented. They knew they were putting a person to death; yet they did not know what they were doing. If a sinner really knew the full nature and awful consequences of the life he is living, he would quickly turn away from it.

 

The correctness of the foregoing remarks will be more easily seen if the reader is able to note a pe-culiarity of this verse. “Do” occurs twice, and each time from a different Greek word, and “practice” is from still another word, and these words are:

 

katergadzomai–to effect, accomplish, achieve, etc.

Prasso– to exercise, practice, be busy with, carry on, etc.

Poieo– to produce, construct, form, fashion, to make, etc.

 

And so it is seen that these words mean more than simply to perform one act. It will be helpful exercise if you will take your pencil and reconstruct this verse, using different definitions each time you write it. Try this: “For that which I accomplish I know not: for not what I would, that do I practice; but what I hate, that I produce.” The sinner does not know what he accomplishes by a life of sin. He cannot so much as know how far reaching is the influence of his life of sin. In his thoughtful moments he desires a different life from the things he practices, but without Christ, sin has him under its dominion. He may delight in gratifying his flesh, but he hates the results produced by his dissipation.

Romans 7:16

Romans 7:16 : But if what I would not, that I do, I con-sent unto the law that it is good. The law demands a decent, upright life. He wished to live that kind of life, knowing that it is really the best life; and so he agreed that the law was good. But the sinner, help-less without Christ, goes contrary to what his better self desires.

Romans 7:17

Romans 7:17 : So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. This verse furnishes conclusive evidence that Paul is not, in these verses, represent-ing the condition of the Christian, for it certainly can-not be said that sin dwells in the Christian. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian, and it is not possible that the Holy Spirit and sin inhabit the same dwelling place. True, sin slips in at times when the Christian is off guard, as a thief might slip into your dwelling place. He who dwells in a house has charge of the house. To say that sin dwells in a person is to say that sin has the control of him. When sin enters into a Christian, it enters as an intruder and not as a dweller.

 

But Paul’s language does not free the sinner from responsibility for his conduct. His language is a fig-ure of speech, often found in the Bible, in which one member of a sentence is negative in order to emphasize the other member. Here is an illustration: “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me” (John 12:44). We would say: “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me alone, but also on him that sent me.” And so with Paul: “So now it is not I alone that do evil, but rather it is sin that dwells in me.” His urge to follow the flesh was greater than his desire to do what his moral judgment dictated.

 

Paul makes a distinction between his real self and the sin which dwelt in him. Had he held to the doc-trine that total depravity was an inherent part of everybody born into the world, he could not have made that distinction. If sin is a part of our nature, then no one could think of himself as distinct from sin. I dwell in house, but the house was not made with me in it. Paul locates the time when sin enters a person. “I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Romans 7:9). Sin enters a person when he first becomes responsible before God and violates his law, and then it dwells in him till he is redeemed from its bondage.

Romans 7:18

Romans 7:18 : For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. Paul affirms that no good thing dwells in his flesh. Here again he makes a distinction between the inner man and the flesh. 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. For that reason an idiot or a crazy person is not responsible for his deeds.

The mind must have a part in any deed for it to be either morally good or morally evil. A normal person under law, whether the moral law or the law of Moses, but without Christ, has a desire to do good, but has not the ability to throw off sin and lead a pure life. Paul used himself as an example of all such characters. To make the lesson forceful, he pictures himself as under the law, and without redemption through Christ.

Romans 7:19

Romans 7:19 : For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice. Practically a repetition of Rom 7:15. That could not be said of Paul as a Christian. Of himself as a Christian he said: “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously and unblamably we behaved ourselves toward you that believed” (1 Thessalonians 2:10).

Romans 7:20

Romans 7:20 : But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. This verse is almost a repetition of Rom 7:17. Even when the alien sinner would do good, he finds that sin hinders him. Paul is picturing the helplessness of the sinner without Christ–without the regenerating and saving power of the gospel. Here again is emphasized the need of the power of the gospel. The inward man, the spirit, in its contest with the passions of the flesh is helpless without the gospel.

Romans 7:21

Romans 7:21 : I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. This verse has given commentators no end of trouble. Some think that the law is the law of Moses; others, that it is the rule of sin. But to say that it means the rule of sin involves Paul in great confusion in the use of the term the law. By that term, when not restricted by other words, he had constantly designated the law of Moses. There is no indication that Paul meant anything else in this verse.

But to take it that he referred to the law of Moses involves us in a difficulty as to what the verse means, unless we adopt the marginal reading of the American Standard Version, or a similar reading. If we adopt the marginal reading, we have: “I find then in regard of the law, that to me who would do good, evil is present.” This is in harmony with what Paul had said about the condition of a person under the law and, without Christ. Such a person endorsed the law, but sin hindered him from carrying out what he knew to be right. Every normal person out of Christ finds himself wishing for a better, cleaner life but without Christ he finds himself unable to free himself from the dominion of sin. But the doctrine of hereditary total depravity, that by inheritance “we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually,” makes it impossible for an advocate of that doctrine to see how an unconverted person can ever approve purity and holiness, or have the least desire to do any good deed. With them a sinner is opposed to everything that is right and wholly inclined to commit every crime known to man.

Hence, commentators who are thoroughly wedded to that theory become confused in trying to explain Romans 7:14-23. They cannot understand how a sinner could desire to do good, or delight in any good thing.

Romans 7:22

Romans 7:22 : For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. There is an inward man and an outward man. The inner man is the seat of the mind and will. Even the inner man of the sinner is pleased with the law of God, though he does not practice it. If there were nothing good in an unconverted man, the good that is in God’s law would not appeal to him. 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.

Such were the people before the flood, and such were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. To be totally depraved means to be totally lost now and in the world to come.

Romans 7:23

Romans 7:23 : But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. “Members” here stands for the sum total of the body. The different law–different from the one he has been discussing–is the rule of sin in his members. The law of the mind is the law of God, the law addressed to the mind. It is through the mind the inner man–that God seeks by his law to control the body. Hence, there is a warfare. If the spirit under the influence of the law of God controls the body, the person lives a spiritual life.

If the appetites and passions of the body control the person, he is brought into captivity to the law of sin in his members. In Romans 7:14 Paul speaks of this condition as being sold under sin. Such a person is a slave of sin. It could not be said of a Christian that he was sold under sin–brought into captivity to the rule of sin. Such language as Paul here uses shows the complete helplessness of a person under the dominion of sin and without Christ.

Romans 7:24

Romans 7:24 : Wretched man that I am! who shall de-liver me out of the body of this death? This moral and spiritual death, to which the appetites and passions of the body had led. To be sold under sin, to be dead in sin, is the same thing. Paul here presents the condition of the man who first finds himself completely under the dominion of sin and helpless in his desire to free himself, and yet knows no way of escape, till Christ is revealed to him; then he exclaims, “I thank God that through our Lord Jesus Christ” deliverance comes. In Christ Jesus our Lord there is peace with God, life from spiritual death, and rest from the intolerable burden of sin.

Romans 7:25

Romans 7:25 : I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. It seems to me that the commentators fail entirely to grasp the meaning of this verse. Some of them take it for granted that Paul is speaking of the condition of the Christian. In their estimation the mind of the redeemed man serves God, but the flesh serves the law of sin. When they seek to explain this idea by dwelling on the warfare in the Christian between the spirit and the flesh, they miss the point entirely, for the verse says nothing about such a warfare.

Paul spoke of service, and not of fighting. And there is no such thing as serving God with the mind while the body serves sin. The idea is absurd. No man can serve two masters at the same time. Recognizing this truth, Lard says, “Now of course, I cannot serve both the law of God, with the mind, and the law of sin, with the flesh, at one and the same time. To serve the one is to slight the other.

And since I cannot serve the law of sin continually and be a Christian; it follows that the service of sin is only occasional and exceptional. Hence, the meaning must be that with the flesh, and not with the mind, I serve the law of sin whenever I sin at all. I sin but seldom, suppose, but whenever I do sin, it is with the flesh as an instrument, or through its influence.” But Lard misses the mark, for the word here translated “serve” means to be a slave, or subject. An occasional act does not constitute slavery in any relationship. You do not be-come a slave to your neighbor by helping him occasion-ally. An occasional sin does not make one a slave of sin.

A person becomes a slave of sin only when he gives himself up to the rule of sin.

 

Paul contrasts the two kinds of service. He had been a slave of sin, but was redeemed to the service of God. The Christian serves with the mind the law of God; the sinner with the flesh serves the law of sin. In the life of a Christian, the mind–the inner man–dominates the flesh; in the sinner’s life the flesh dominates the mind. But in either case the mind does the planning and willing. In the sinful life the mind yields to the appetites and passions of the flesh, and plans for their gratification; in the Christian life the mind keeps the body under, and uses it in acts of service to God. Hence, the use we make of the mem-hers of our bodies determines whose servants we are. “Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16).