The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Views on Romans 7 and .... NPP

Romans 7 has been discussed here before. However, this time I think it will be more interesting as in addition to discussing "who" Paul is speaking about in Romans 7 (pre-conversion or post-conversion), we can add to it NT Wright's view as well. This will assist some here with a better understanding of some of the errors of NPP and learn how to more definitively deal with the text of Romans 7. Feel free to include some other NPP views of Dunn, Sanders, and Stendahl on Romans 7 as well, however Wright has a most unusual view. Wright's view may be found in several of his works including, The Climax of the Covenant, Paul for Everyone, part 1, and his Commentary on Romans.

From what I've read, the wording points strongly towards the fact that he's speaking about himself in the present. But I have to ask, what is Wright's view?

I’ll let others comment on whether it is pre or post conversion,....

As to Wright’s view (which I hope you will see is contrary to Scripture) he sees for instance in Romans 7:13-20 that it is not intended as an exact description of Paul’s or anyone else’s experience… though it may manifest itself in several places in the individual human life. For Wright, Paul is attempting to do two things:

(1) having described in the previous passage what happened when the Torah arrived in Israel (it meant that Israel copied and recapitulated, the sin of Adam, showing that Israel was indeed sinful), Paul now moves on to the present tense to describe the actual situation (as opposed to the felt experience) of Israel living under the law. In other words, what happens to Israel, when having been given the law, does its best to live under it? Wright sees that Paul exonerates not only the law, but the “I” as well. He states, “Not only the law, but Israel itself, appears to be caught up in a larger purpose, a purpose in the service of which they seem for the moment trapped in a negative spiral. The more Israel does the right thing, which is to embrace God’s holy, just, and good law (the “good thing” of verse 13, referring back to verse 12 where the law is described in that way), the more the law itself says: You have broken me.” Thus, for Wright, the first thing Paul was doing was to say in effect, that Israel was right to desire to embrace the Torah and make it the way of life. But, whereas the law was “spiritual,” Israel, the “I” in the passage, is made of flesh and enslaved to sin (vs 14). Thus, Israel belongs to the Adam side of the equation. The law does not enable Israel to get out of the problem, but it intensifies it.

(2) According to Wright, the second problem proceeds from the above “facts” in that Paul “described the problem of Israel under the law so that it looks exactly like the problem which every puzzled pagan moralist from at least Aristotle onwards had observed.” He states, “there is a long tradition in Greek and Roman philosophy and poetry in which people complained, scratching their heads over it, that they could figure out what was the right thing to do but for some reason or other they couldn’t manage to do it. Conversely, they could see with their mind that a certain course of action was wrong, and yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Thus, Wright’s point is that Paul is saying, “this is the height to which God’s chosen people attain through their possession of the law – the same height as the puzzled pagan moralist.”

This is one example of his exegesis. When I have time I will post more for discussion.

Joe,

I've been up for over 2 hours and I've had 2 cups of coffee. I've read Chapter 7 several times as well as your post. I've got to admit--I don't understand what Wright is getting at.

I'll hang in here and try to understand, but it seems whenever I come to Wrights wrightings, I have a complete mental freeze.

I must admit Wright is very confusing to read. Even when he using the term "covenant" he means something different than "our" meaning of the term, etc. TWO (and there are more) things immediately jump out above in Wright's exegesis, "if I have read him right:" (1) He refers to the "I" in Romans 7 as Israel, not Paul? (2) His statement concerning the pagans, "that they could figure out what was the right thing to do but for some reason or other they couldn’t manage to do it," insinuates that pagans (a) were seeking God prior to conversion (b) desired to serve God prior to conversion ...

The coffee sounds good <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

I did see the points you made, but what I am scratching my head about is where did he see that from the text?

How does he make the jump from Paul to Israel? And then, how does he connect the lines from Israel to the pagans?

It seems to be the same problem I saw in Wright's exegesis re: Galatians. He puts historical accounts and his own logical conclusions on par with Scripture, throws out the analogy of faith, and then uses his musings to "illuminate" the Scripture.

"Romans 7 has been discussed here before."

What conclusions did you come to? The traditional one where paul is describing his christian struggle?

Wright gets there by assuming that the reader is on the exact same ground as Romans 2:17-24. He states that Romans 7 is merely a longer version of Romans 2:17-24. He also states Romans 8 is an expanded version of Romans 2:28-29, etc.

With that understood, he says the point of 2:17-24 is that Israel though claiming to be better off before God than the rest of the world, not least because of possessing the law, was in fact reduced to the same state as the rest of the world (1:18-2:16). Then he jumps to the "I" in Romans 7 being the "Israel" of Romans 2.

Thus, one of his problems is that he narrows the theology of Paul to the community of Israel "only" in his interpretation of Rom 2, 7, etc and misses the individual aspect of salvation Paul is expressing in Rom 7 and 1, and 3, and 5, etc. Moreover, IMO he misses the point that it takes "individuals" to make "Israel."

If I remember correctly, the conclusions were varied. My own "conclusion", i.e., how Romans 7 is to be understood as it was intended, is that Paul is speaking as a converted Christian who is relating how he was before he was converted AND the struggles he faces as one who has come to know Christ through faith. In other words, it's a mini-history of Paul's life up to that point in time.

In His Grace,

Here is the thread.

thank you and thank you... i am currently struggling with this passage and particularly with vs 14-25... i will read that thread and see if it helps

I read that thread and it didnt address my problem with vs 14-25. Pilgrim mentioned what he believed briefly but i would love to hear more!

after some study here are the conclusions i have come to...

vs 7-13 are obviously about the unregenerate

but where my confusion came in is in vs 14"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin."
my question is who the "I" that is carnal or fleshy is. It is obviously not paul regenerate because then his fleshy body would be crucified with Christ Rom 6:6. I want to say then that this is paul before conversion but it seems it is actually pauls sinful nature that is referred to in vs 18?

vs 16 "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
Why is it that paul chose to do carnal things that lead to death rather then things of the spirit which lead to life? it would not make sense for this to be an unregenerate person because then he wouldnt have this struggle.

vs 17 "17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me."
I guess the "I" here is pauls new regenerate self and the sin dwelling in him is the sinful nature that we should not gratify gal 5:16

vs 18 "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
here is a battle between the 2 natures yet i dont understand why he doesnt have the ability to do good if he is no longer a slave to sin

vs 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing
it is the renewed man talking here but i ask again why does he seem defeated

vs 22 "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being"
why would an unregenerate delight in the law of God

vs 23 "but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."
this seems to be a strong argument that this is paul regenerate because there are different "members" at war and he says his new man is made captive to his sinful nature this analogy can only be used with a regenerate person

vs 24 "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
body, law of sin. he is preparing for his thankfulness in vs 25 where he sums everything up

conclusion: this is paul showing his struggles as a christian

correct me where i am wrong
maybe this will somehow help someone else who may of been confused
God bless

See how much of this you agree with. What problems do you now see?
-----

In connection with Rom. 7:14–25 the question that must be answered is:

Who is the person described here?

Is he:

a. An unconverted person, whether Paul himself before his conversion, or any other unregenerate individual, perhaps a Jew who has not embraced Christ?

b. An immature believer?

c. Paul himself, the believer, and by extension, the believer generally

An Unconverted Person?

From the days of the early church, throughout the middle ages, and also today, there have been and are many who claim that what Paul says in 7:14–25 cannot refer to the believer but must have reference to the unbeliever. The older Greek fathers endorsed this view.

For a while even the great Augustine was of this opinion.

The one who in the twentieth century has perhaps done most to perpetuate this theory was W. G. Kümmel. See his book, in which there is much that is valuable, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus, Leipzig, 1929. H. R. Ridderbos, whose fine commentary on Romans (Commentaar Op Het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1959) deserves diligent study, also defends the view that Rom. 7:14–25 portrays a man apart from Christ, a person engaged in a desperate struggle under the law (op. cit., p. 165). Ridderbos presents a series of arguments in defense of his view, and claims that his position was not only favored in the early church but is also shared by most present-day exegetes (p. 162).

Those who are able to read Dutch should by all means make a careful study of pp. 153 f.; 162–170. Not only is such a study fair to the author but it is also advisable because in my commentary there is no room to enter into all the details of the Dutch scholar’s lengthy reasonings. In part he argues as follows:

a. In verse 14 Paul says “For (&#947;&#940;&#961;) we know that the law is spiritual but I am carnal …” How can the fact that “I am carnal,” if that “I” indicates a person redeemed by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, prove the superior power of sin mentioned in verse 13?

b. Between 8:1 and 7:14–25 there is a sharp contrast. The “now” of Rom. 8:1 (“Therefore, there is now no condemnation”) does not represent the deplorable situation pictured in Rom. 7:14–25 but a situation which arises afterward; that is, the reign of the Spirit cannot be identified with but follows the reign of sin.

c. The view according to which 7:14–25 pictures the discord that remains in the life of the believer conflicts with the statements of Paul in chapter 6 and elsewhere regarding this new life. Thus, according to 6:2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, for the Christian sin is the dethroned lord, the lord who has lost his ruling power. In fact, all of chapter 6 is a continuous refutation of the position according to which the “I” of Rom. 7:14–25 could represent the new man, redeemed by Christ.

Answer

As to a. This argument misinterprets the word for gar as here used. Here, as frequently, this word belongs not merely to a part of verse 13 but to the verse taken as a whole; It has a continuative sense, and by some—e.g., N.I.V.—is not even translated. The apostle is saying that the fact that the law is spiritual but I am carnal is in harmony with the fact that the law is good but I am exceedingly sinful.

As to b. The situation pictured in 7:14–25 is not all dark. The contrast between 7:14–25 and 8:1 f. must not be exaggerated. To be sure, the earlier passage dwells on sin, but it also dwells on the struggle against sin. Victory over sin is even recorded (verses 24, 25). The words, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (7:25) harmonize beautifully with, “So then there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” etc. (8:1).

Similarly, the situation pictured in 8:1 f. is not as bright as some represent it to be. Even chapter 8 recognizes the paradox in the Christian’s life between good and evil. This conflict is implied in verse 10 and clearly expressed in verse 13.

Elsewhere too Paul teaches that a spiritual struggle continues in the life of the believer until the day he enters glory. See I Cor. 9:27; Gal. 5:17; Phil. 3:12–14. The child of God receives the assurance that the One who has begun a good work in him will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6).

As to c. Though these statements do indeed picture the Christian as walking in newness of life, having been brought from death to life, and in a sense having died to sin, nevertheless, nowhere does chapter 6 or any other Pauline chapter or passage either state or imply that the believer during his present life here on earth has been completely delivered from his struggle against sin. Do not the exhortations of 6:12, 13, 19 imply that this struggle must be continued?

With respect to the claim that many present-day exegetes favor Kümmel’s view, as did also many earlier scholars, this must be granted. As could be expected, the view according to which the unbeliever is able to do whatever is mentioned in 7:14–25, including even the good things, is in favor with Pelagians and to a certain extent with Arminians. However, even some Reformed writers have endorsed the position of Kümmel. But, on the whole, Reformed theologians reject this theory, and so do, and did, many others, as will be shown.

Since the arguments proving that the man pictured in 7:14–25 cannot be an unbeliever are the same as those establishing the fact that this person must be a believer, see below (p. 228) for the defense of the latter theory.

An Immature Believer?

The question can be asked, however, “Though it be granted that the man pictured by Paul in 7:14–25 cannot be an unbeliever, nevertheless, in view of the fact that he makes many unfavorable statements about himself—see 7:14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24—is it possible that he is a mere ‘babe in Christ’ (cf. I Cor. 3:1; Heb. 3:13)?”

According to this theory three stages of religious position and development are pictured by Paul: (a) that of a person still under the dominion of sin (7:5, 9a); (b) that of the struggling individual, one who hates sin but has not advanced very far on the road of sanctification (7:14–25); and (c) that of the mature and grateful believer, rejoicing in the fact that for him there is now no condemnation (8:1 f.).

But according to Scripture it is exactly the more advanced Christian, the mature believer, who is most deeply concerned about his sin. The more a person has made progress in sanctification, the more also will he abhor his sinfulness.

Thus, Scripture pictures Job as a paradigm of virtue (Job 1:1; Ezek. 14:14; James 5:11). Nevertheless, it was exactly Job who exclaimed, “I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:6). All will agree that Daniel, the hero of the book of Daniel, was an example of Godfearing life and conduct. But listen to his humble plea, in which he confesses his own and his people’s sin: “Alas, O Lord, we have sinned and done wrong … We are covered with shame because of our sins against thee” (Dan. 9:4, 5, 8). A king among the prophets, a most Godfearing person, was Isaiah. Yet, it was precisely Isaiah who cried out, “Woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips …” (Isa. 6:5).

This should indicate that the person whom the apostle has in mind in Rom. 7:14–25 need not be considered, and was not necessarily, an immature believer.

Paul Himself, and by Extension, Believers Generally, Including Even the Most Mature

In line with the humble and self-incriminating language of eminent believers is the fact that Paul too, in referring to himself elsewhere, uses language not far removed from “Wretched man that I am!” Note the following:

“I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God!” (I Cor. 15:9).

“To me, the very least of all the saints, was this grace given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph. 3:8).

“Christ Jesus came into the world sinners to save, foremost of whom am I!” (I Tim. 1:15).

The person described in Rom. 7:14–25 hates sin (7:15), wishes to do what is good (verses 19, 21), in his inner being delights in God’s law (verse 22), deeply regrets his sins (verses 15, 18–24), and thanks God for his deliverance (verse 25). Is it at all probable that such a person has not been regenerated by the Spirit of God? Contrast all this with the description of the unregenerate (7:5, 9a; 8:5a). Clearly, in Rom. 7:14–25 the apostle, in the words of John Calvin, “in his own person describes the weakness of believers and how great it is” (Romans, p. 264).

Important also is the change of tense between 7:5, 9a, on the one hand, and 7:14–25, on the other. Surely the most natural explanation is that there has been a radical change; that is, that the “I” of the second passage is no longer the unregenerate of 7:5, 9a but is spiritually reborn.

But this regenerated individual is still experiencing a struggle. He has not yet reached heaven. Those who reject the existence of a kind of dualism within the rescued person Paul and, in general, within believers, find it very difficult to explain 7:24, 25:

“Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin.”

The reasons for believing that in 7:14–25 the regenerated individual, Paul, is describing his own condition and that of believers generally, have been given. It has been shown that it cannot be the unbeliever who is here being pictured. Something should now be said about the claim that the opposite view was held by many in the early church and is cherished by most present-day exegetes.

It has already been admitted that there was a time when Augustine, along with many others, supported the view according to which the person described in Rom. 7:14–25 is the unregenerate. Calvin points out what happened next, and, in doing so, also again reveals his own interpretation of the disputed passage:

“Augustine was for a time involved in the common error, but having more thoroughly examined the passage, not only retracted what he had falsely thought, but in his first book to Boniface proves, by many forceful arguments, that what is said cannot be applied to any but the regenerate” (Calvin on Romans, p. 264).

It has also been admitted that throughout the centuries by many exegetes, especially but by no means exclusively Pelagians, have endorsed the theory according to which Rom. 7:14–25 is a description of the unregenerate, and that today that view is being propagated, at times even by those confessing the Reformed faith.

However, it certainly merits serious reflection that in one way or another, and with varying opinions on details, the belief according to which Paul is here referring to himself and, in general, to believers, is endorsed by the following, among many others:

Batey, R. A., The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Austin, 1969, pp. 98–104.
Bavinck, H., Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, third edition, Vol. III, p. 65f.; IV, pp. 282, 283.
Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1949, p. 540.
Berkouwer, G. C., Dogmatische Studiën, Geloof En Heiliging, Kampen, 1949, p. 61, tr. Faith and Sanctification, pp. 59, 60.
Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, (Tyndale Bible Commentaries), Grand Rapids, 1963, pp. 150–156.
Calvin, J., as has been shown.
Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 344, 355–370.
Fraser, J., A Treatise on Sanctification, London, 1898, pp. 254–356.
Greijdanus, S., op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 337–339.
Haldane, R., The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1966, p. 299.
Hamilton, F. E., The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1958, pp. 111–121.
Hodge, C., op. cit., pp. 357, 386.
Knox, J., op. cit., pp. 498–500.
Kuyper, A., Het Werk van den Heiligen Geest, Kampen, 1927, pp. 583, 612. Engl. tr., The Work of the Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, 1941, pp. 636–640.
Lenski, R. C. H., op. cit., pp. 473–492.
Luther, M., Lectures on Romans, p. 203.
Murray, J., op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 256–273.
Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans, Philadelphia, 1949, pp. 284–296.
Pronk, C., “Who is the man of Romans 7:14–25?,” article in The Outlook (Journal of Reformed Fellowship, published in Grand Rapids, Mich.), Nov. 1978, pp. 9–13.
Steele, D. N., and Thomas, C. C., Romans, An Interpretive Outline, Philadelphia, 1963. pp. 126–130.
Van Andel, J., Paulus’ Brief Aan De Romeinen, Kampen, 1904, pp. 143–151.
Van Leeuwen and Jacobs, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 124–137.
Wilson, G. B., op. cit., pp. 117–126.

This is also the stand taken by Evangelical Creeds:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, speaking about the believers’ “best works” (Chapter XVI, par. VI), states, “they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.” The annexed scriptural passages include Rom. 7:15, 18. See Creeds of Christendom, edited by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, p. 635.

The Belgic Confession, 1561, referring to those who have received Jesus Christ as their only Savior (Article XXIX), states, “But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life …” To the French text of the quoted words are appended the following references: Rom. 7:6, 17, etc.; Gal. 5:17. Creeds of Christendom, Vol. III, p. 420.

The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563, in Lord’s Day XLIV, Q. & A. 114, asks, “But can those who are converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?” and answers, “No, but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so that with earnest purpose they begin to live not only according to some but according to all the commandments of God.” The appended references include Rom. 7:22. See also Lord’s Day LII, Q. & A. 127.

Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 12-13, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary, Page 225. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.

thanks J_Edwards
I am now in agreeance with basically everything posted. I actually had all the same questions but answered them myself, although i answered "a." a little differently.

I think Romans 7 7 starts out talking about how we must obey the law but that is not the law which commands our lives that law is Gods law. Paul is saying he would not what his sins were called and what they mean if the law had not shown him therefore the law is not sin which he says very bluntly. Now forgive me guys and girls I am a new Chriatian I have only been saved about 7 months . My whole life I have grown up under Calvinistic preachers and by Gods grace He saved me in July. My views on the Bible may not be totally right. But I aslways enjoy digging it apart.

in Christ
Robb Coleman