Romans 7:13–25

Original Meaning

A Summary and Transition (7:13)

THIS VERSE SUMMARIZES what Paul has taught in 7:7–12, so that we can consider it the conclusion to the previous paragraph. He again notes that God’s law has been the occasion that enables us to see sin for what it really is: “that sin might be recognized as sin,” that “sin might become utterly sinful.” In other words, the law becomes an instrument that sin uses to bring death. The form of the verse, however, similar to 7:7 with its question and emphatic response (“By no means!”), suggests that it introduces what follows. This verse, therefore, is transitional, gathering up the argument so far and launching the new focus: the problem with “me.”

Bridging Contexts

ISSUES IN THE larger perspective. The debate over the meaning of this text affords a classic example of a certain kind of interpretive problem. I think most expositors would admit that the exegetical evidence (i.e., lexicography, grammar, etc.) does not all point in the same direction. Each basic interpretation of this passage can cite evidence in its favor and a long and distinguished list of advocates. Anyone who thinks the matter is clear-cut lacks either objectivity or charity—or both!

What becomes decisive, then, in the interpretation of a text like this one is the larger perspective we bring to it. My own experience with this passage is a good illustration. In my early years of teaching, I held pretty strongly the view that Paul was speaking as a mature Christian. But one term I was teaching through a series of texts about the law. As I worked through text after text, I developed a perspective on the law different from what I had previously held. When I came to Romans 7 with this perspective, the text looked different than it had before. Within this new framework, I suddenly saw how the text made better sense as a description of Paul’s pre-Christian experience. I experienced what we commonly call today (following Thomas Kuhn) a “paradigm shift.”

Three issues are especially critical to this larger perspective that we bring to the text: context, teaching elsewhere, and especially the assumptions we bring to our interpretation. I will look at each of these in turn in order to help the modern reader grapple with this vexing passage.

(1) Context. (a) Arguments for the regenerate view. Almost all interpreters agree that we must interpret 7:14–25 within the “two regime” framework that is fundamental to all of Paul’s teaching (and, indeed, to all of the New Testament) but which is especially prominent in chapters 5–8. We have briefly described this framework in the Bridging Contexts section on 6:15–23. According to it, the “new era” of messianic redemption has broken into history, and believers become a part of that new era through Christ. They are no longer “in Adam” (5:12–21), sin’s power over them is broken (ch. 6), the Mosaic law has no final authority over them (7:1–6), and they are indwelt by the Spirit, adopted into God’s family, and destined for eternal life and glory (ch. 8).

But the “old era” has not been eradicated. It still exists, and believers continue to be subject to its power. They must therefore battle against sin’s continuing influence (6:11–14, 19) and long for the day when they will be delivered from frustration and from the mortal body (8:10–11, 19–23). The “already-not yet” tension is how scholars often describe the implications of this framework for the outlook of the believer. We are “already” justified and reconciled, indwelt by the Spirit, but we are “not yet” glorified and resurrected, still subject to sin’s lure.

How does 7:14–25 fit into this framework? The struggle Paul depicts in these verses makes excellent sense as a description of this eschatological tension in which the believer is caught, as James Dunn has especially emphasized.10 On this view Paul cautions against an overinterpretation of his claim that believers are “freed from sin” (6:6, 18, 22). He does not want us to think that sin’s power is entirely done away with and that the Christian life will be a cake walk. No, the reality is that sin and death are still powerful forces with which the believer must reckon. In 7:14–25, therefore, Paul goes out of his way to depict the seriousness of the struggle that we still have before us. As he has done throughout Romans, Paul responds to his teaching in 6:1–7:6 with another perspective that gives balance to his conclusion. Context, then, can favor the “regenerate” interpretation.

(b) Arguments for the unregenerate view. But, looked at from another angle, context can also favor the “unregenerate” viewpoint. For 7:14–25 is not a response to the teaching of chapter 6; rather, it carries on the discussion of the Mosaic law from 7:1–6 and 7:7–12. Paul’s purpose is to vindicate the law; he wants to keep people from concluding on the basis of 7:1–6 that the law is a bad thing. Thus, he shows that sin, not the law, is at fault in the death that has come to those who are “bound to the law” (cf. v. 6). But those who struggle to do the law and are frustrated when they do not are Jews. They are the ones who are “under the law” (see 2:12; 3:19).

Paul cannot, then, be describing Christian experience in 7:14–25, for Christians no longer struggle to do the Mosaic law; they are not under it (6:14, 15; cf. 7:4, 6). To put the matter in a different way, Paul is certainly continuing to describe the two different regimes of salvation history. But he has consistently placed law in the old regime. Thus 7:14–25, which speaks about the struggle to obey the law, must be about the old regime. Romans 7:5–6 provides a kind of “heading” for the argument that follows. In 7:7–25, Paul elaborates on the situation described in verse 5: “When we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.” Chapter 8 then picks up on 7:6: “Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

My purpose here is not necessarily to choose between these contextual scenarios (although I, of course, incline to the second). Rather, I want to point out that the choice we make here will have significant, even decisive, effect on our final interpretation.

(2) Teaching elsewhere. Scholars agree that Paul teaches two things about the believer and sin: We are no longer slaves to sin’s power, and we will continue to struggle with sin and to commit sins. The difficulty is knowing just how to fit 7:14–25 into this twofold observation. One of the marks of Luther’s theology is the recognition that the believer is, as the famous Latin phrase has it, simul justus et peccator, “at the same time just and a sinner.” This is another way of expressing the eschatological tension described in the last section.

A verse that brings this perspective to classic expression is Galatians 5:17: “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.” We may well decide that the long exposition of struggle in Romans 7:14–25 is simply an expansion of this verse. This reading of Paul’s teaching tends to emphasize the continuing struggle with sin that Paul expects the Christian to have. The more we emphasize this side of Paul’s teaching, the more natural it will be to fit 7:14–25 into it.

The other side is put well by David Wenham in his article on this passage.11 He freely acknowledges that Paul teaches the reality of continuing struggle with sin in the Christian life. But he wonders whether the struggle depicted in 7:14–25 goes a bit too far. For Paul not only describes a struggle in these verses; he seems to suggest that this struggle ends in defeat: I am “a prisoner of the law of sin” (v. 23). By contrast, Paul proclaims loudly that the believer has been put in an entirely new position with respect to sin. We have a new power over sin (ch. 6), and that power must reveal itself in a life of righteousness and holiness (6:21–23). Thus, the more we emphasize the victory over sin that Paul proclaims and expects of the Christian, the more difficult we will find it to fit 7:14–25 into Paul’s description of the Christian life.

(3) Our own assumptions. This may be the most powerful factor of all, tilting our reading of 7:14–25 in one direction or the other. We have noted before in these sections that our reading of the New Testament is always affected by our situation, background, and culture. We bring “baggage” to the text we read, which can seriously affect the conclusions we reach. I doubt that any text in the Bible illustrates this better than 7:14–25.

I have taught Romans now for over fifteen years in all kinds of contexts: seminary classrooms, extension classes, high school and adult Sunday school classes, retreats, and so on. Invariably, when I come to 7:14–25 and ask people what the passage means and why, I will get from a good number of students this kind of response: “This passage must be about the normal, or mature Christian because Paul describes the same kind of struggle with sin that I am having.” I usually respond, first, by gently pointing out two key assumptions in this argument: that the speaker is a “mature Christian” and that the struggle is only one that a Christian could have. Both are necessary assumptions if this argument is to work.

Can we make these assumptions? Do I not run the risk of forcing the New Testament to conform to my own level of spirituality rather than letting the New Testament stand in judgment over my spiritual condition? Perhaps my struggle is not a struggle that mature Christians should be having. Now I don’t want to suggest that mature Christians do not struggle with sin. They do, and I believe that struggle is one we will always have in this life (see Contemporary Significance section). But I think we also need to do justice to the New Testament insistence that genuine believers will produce fruit exemplifying their new life in Christ and that such fruit is necessary if we are to go free in the judgment. It is dangerous to assume that I am a mature Christian and then conclude that any passage that fits my situation must also be describing a mature Christian.

But the other assumption also needs scrutiny. If pushed to the wall, I will usually admit to my classes that verses 15–20 could, indeed, be describing the struggle of a mature believer to fulfill God’s will in his or her life. But those verses are part of an argument, the conclusion of which is that the struggle ends in defeat (vv. 21–25). Verses 15–20, in other words, may be describing the struggle any sincere religious devotee has in doing what his or her god is demanding. It may, indeed, fit Christian experience; but unless it fits only Christian experience, the point at issue is not proven.

I have selected an example from one side of the argument to illustrate the danger of bringing our assumptions to the text without realizing we are doing it or allowing for them. And I chose this example because it is the one I have most often been faced with. But let me hasten to add that the assumptions can be just as pernicious on the other side. I think of the Christian who is a strong devotee of the “victorious Christian life” philosophy. In fact, I can mention one particular devotee of that viewpoint as a good case in point.

In my early years at Trinity (before I had “seen the light”), I taught that 7:14–25 described the experience of a mature Christian. In the midst of my teaching on this point one day in class, a student rose from the back of the classroom, walked calmly to the front, and in the surprised silence that ensued said, “Anyone who believes that this passage is describing the Christian life has never experienced the life of the Spirit.” She then took her seat again. I don’t remember how I responded, although I expect it was not very profound. But the incident illustrates the point I am making. Each of us brings a certain view of what the Christian life “must be like” to this text. If we do not subject that view itself to the scrutiny of Scripture, we can be guilty of forcing Romans 7:14–25 into a mold of our own making. We cannot rid ourselves of the baggage we bring to the text. But we must acknowledge the baggage is there and try to stay balanced by compensating for the direction in which it is making us lean.

Contemporary Significance

WHEN MY CHILDREN were young, they liked reading “Choose Your Own Adventure” books. The book would begin by establishing a basic direction for the plot, but would then offer the reader choices about the development of the plot as the book went along. I am tempted to entitle this section “Choose Your Own Application.” I have argued a certain view of verses 14–25 in the sections above: Paul describes the defeat he experienced trying to obey the Mosaic law as a Jew before he became a Christian. But I recognize that a good case can be made for other views of the text. I therefore hesitate to apply the text as if my own view were the only possible one.

Nevertheless, I am also reluctant to open the door to a relativism in which each reader gets to choose what the biblical text means. So I will compromise. I will base my application on my interpretation of the text but, along the way, make clear where the other interpretations offer valid insights about this text and the Christian life.

The Jew, the Christian, and the law. Application of the text should begin with the main point in the passage: the human weakness that makes it impossible for the Mosaic law to rescue us from the power of sin and death. The law was given to people already locked up under sin’s power. They could not obey it; by making people accountable to a definite and clear standard of conduct, the law revealed their sinful state and plunged them even deeper into despair and death.

A number of commentators think we can expand the horizons of application by taking “law” in this passage to refer not to the Mosaic law, but to the law of God in any form: Torah for Israel, natural law and conscience for Gentiles, perhaps even the law of Christ for Christians. But it seems most likely that Paul continues throughout this passage to refer to the law of Moses. Even so, we must remember that he views the experience of the Jews with the Mosaic law as paradigmatic. In describing his own situation under the law of Moses, the apostle is implicitly describing the situation of every human being confronted with “law.” Therefore, even if Paul is not recounting his own failure as a Christian to obey God’s law, a principle emerges from the passage that is applicable to anyone, including the Christian: Law can never rescue us from our predicament. Romans 7 stands as a warning never to think we can please God by our own efforts. We can never fulfill his law; we will always have to confess that we are “debtors to grace.”

On the view of the passage we have argued, the primary application for these verses belongs to the unbeliever. Advocates of the “mature Christian” interpretation often argue that only the regenerate person “delights” in God’s law (v. 22). There is a sense, certainly, in which the believer, because of the indwelling Spirit, has a deeper appreciation of God’s revealed will. But pious Jews also delighted in God’s law. They studied it, revered it, and sought to obey it. As Paul says in 10:2, Jews are “zealous for God.” As we have noted, the Jew stands as an example of a certain kind of person.

While I think his existential approach to Romans 7 is off track, Rudolf Bultmann is ultimately right about this: Romans 7 is about the “religious person.” Paul is looking at the very best of human beings outside of Christ. We can then think of people in our day who fit this profile, people who have a deep and sincere desire to do good and find approval with their god. Indeed, in the pluralistic environment of our day, people completely dedicated to various religions and beliefs are all around us. But the experience of Paul and other Jews under the law proves the point: Sincerity is not enough. As long as people are “sold as slaves to sin,” sincerity by itself can never lead to genuine fulfillment of God’s law.

Some interpreters claim that Paul cannot be describing his experience under the law in these verses because the struggle he reveals here does not fit his own claim that he was, as far as “legalistic righteousness” goes, “faultless” (Phil. 3:6). But Paul is talking about two different things in these texts. In Philippians he is describing his “official” status: born as a Jew and seeking to follow God’s law, he was “righteous” according to Jewish definitions. But in Romans he is describing his experience.

A parallel often cited here is Luther’s description of his life as a monk. Looking back at that time of his life from the perspective of his Christian experience, he could claim to have been a faithful, obedient monk—“righteous” by the standards of that time—yet filled with doubt and despair. Indeed, Luther, and Paul before him, undoubtedly recognize a degree of frustration and failure in their pre-Christian experience that they did not fully realize at the time.

Many of us can relate to this. It is not a matter of retrojecting into our past a problem that did not exist in order to “justify” our conversion (as some sociologists of religion would argue). It is, rather, that our new understanding of spiritual reality helps us to understand the nature of the insecurity, doubt, and frustration we often suppressed or ignored in those years.

From this backward look arises another clear application of this text. With Paul, we should break out in thanksgiving to God when we recognize the state from which he has rescued us. I can well remember the terrible insecurity I felt before coming to Christ. I did not then recognize the source of that insecurity, but in hindsight it is clear. I had no foundation in a relationship to God and was seeking foundations everywhere else—only to have them crumble sooner or later. All of us who read Romans 7 as Christians can identify, to some degree, with the struggle and frustration Paul depicts here. Looking back at that time is good for us, for it moves us all the more to praise God for his rescue of us in Jesus Christ.

Advocates of the “mature Christian” interpretation, as noted above, think this text provides warrant for thinking that the Christian life will be marked by continuing struggle with sin. Let me make clear that while I do not agree with their interpretation of Romans 7, I certainly agree with the larger point. Paul makes abundantly clear elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 6:11–13; Gal. 5:17; Eph. 6:10–17) that believers have a never-ending fight on their hands to put into practice the victory over sin we experience in Christ. My problem with taking Romans 7 as a description of this struggle, as I indicated above, is that Paul does not just describe a struggle here (e.g., 7:15–20); he describes a struggle that ends in frustration and defeat (7:21–25).

This is not true to Paul’s understanding of the Christian life. Our “death to sin” (ch. 6), the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (ch. 8), and the renewal of our minds (12:1–2) will inevitably mean that we sin less and less. Yes, we will never become sinless, but we will certainly sin less. Paul does not seem to reflect this in Romans 7, however, nor do the negative tones of verses 21–25 fit the eventual victory that is ours in Christ.

Whatever our view of Romans 7 might be, then, we need to avoid what I think all interpreters would agree is a misuse of the text: using it to justify sin or stagnation in the Christian life. I have all too often encountered believers with just this attitude: “I am really struggling with a sin, and it keeps getting the best of me. But that’s alright—Paul had the same problem [Rom. 7].” Paul may indeed have had that problem. But this does not make it appropriate—for Paul or for us. We should never regard the sins we commit with complacency. They are not supposed to be there. God hates them, and he has given us the power to get rid of them.

Original Meaning

The Divided “I” (7:14–20)

IN VERSE 14, Paul characterizes the two chief “actors” in the drama that follows. The law of Moses, as Paul has made clear in verse 12, is “spiritual”; that is, it has a divine origin (see, for this use of “spiritual,” 1 Cor. 10:3–4). But “I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” “Unspiritual” translates sarkinos, which means “composed of flesh.” Paul can use this word to describe “carnal” Christians (1 Cor. 3:1–3), so it does not necessarily mean that the “I” is unregenerate. But the following description seems to tilt the scales in this direction. “Sold as a slave to sin” (lit., “sold under sin”) may mean simply that the believer continues to be exposed to the influence of sin.4 But “sold,” as the NIV suggests, often refers to being sold into slavery (see Matt. 18:25), and Paul has used “under sin” to describe the condition of all people apart from Christ (3:9).

In verses 15–20, Paul graphically portrays the struggle he finds within himself to follow through on his conviction that “the law is spiritual.” As he looks at this struggle, he is in consternation; he does not “understand” what he does. He finds himself unable to do what he wants to do. He is torn between willing and doing, and this tension reveals two truths. (1) The fact that he wills what is good shows that he acknowledges the goodness of the law (v. 16). He knows it is God’s law, his revealed will for his life, and he is trying to do it as best he can.

(2) But he finds that he cannot do the law. This reveals that “it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me” (v. 17). Paul is not disclaiming responsibility for his actions. Rather, he is trying to explain his actions by revealing the force within himself that leads him to act as he does. That force is “sin,” a power he has been describing throughout Romans 5–7.

The beginning of verse 18 continues this analysis of “indwelling” sin: “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature [sarx; lit., flesh].” Two very different interpretations of this verse exist, each lining up with one of the major views of the identity of the “I” in these verses. Those who think the “I” is regenerate usually insist that the “that is” qualification is restrictive: Paul, the Christian, has a certain part of himself—a sinful nature—that disposes him to sin. Those who think the “I” is unregenerate usually take the “that is” clause as a definition: Paul, the Jew under the law, is still “flesh”; that is, he is still “in the flesh,” in a condition in which sinful passions are aroused by the law (see 7:5). We incline toward this second interpretation because it better fits the way Paul uses sarx in this context. But the other is certainly possible.

In verses 18b–20, Paul once more rehearses the struggle between willing and doing that reveals his sinful condition and makes it impossible for him to obey the law.