Excuses, excuses - Romans Chapter 7

When people defend the concept of sin in a Christian, the reasons they give for continued sin after salvation are often lame excuses. Strangely enough, words defending sin come from the lips of those who claim to love God. They say they try to obey, yet they continue to rebel against Him in some manner. This, of course, is unreasonable.

Does a reasonable person rebel against a beloved master? Does a servant of the Almighty lack the power to obey? Of course not. So the words a sinner uses to excuse his rebellious behavior are really a weak cover up. They either misrepresent God and His word or shift blame in a disingenuous manner.

One of the most common excuses for sin comes from Romans chapter seven. Many interpret Paul’s story of struggle with sin as one that occurred while he was a Christian, and, or so the excuse claims, if Paul struggled with sin, somehow that means that all Christians struggle, thereby creating an excuse that legitimizes sinful behavior in the individual.

There are many problems with both the interpretation of the passage and the application. It seems strange to me that anyone would point to another person’s sin and use it as an excuse for his own. For example, if a pastor of a church molests a child, would a layman in the church dare do the same and then claim the pastor’s example as an excuse? Would he dare say, “The pastor molested a child. So it stands to reason that I would, too”?

I assume everyone would agree that such an appeal is absurd. It would be a moral outrage. Yet, this is what people are doing when they compare themselves to Paul and his struggle. “Paul struggled with sin, so it stands to reason that I would, too.” This is exactly the same. There is no difference. It doesn’t matter if the sin is molestation, lying, lust, theft, or an unkind word. In every case, the idea of pointing out another person’s sin in order to exonerate oneself is a moral outrage.

But it’s even worse than that. In Paul’s case, he wasn’t even describing his life as a regenerate man. He was describing his life under the law, before Jesus stopped him in his murderous march toward Damascus, so an appeal to this passage as an excuse for sin is even more unreasonable.
So that readers won’t have to look up the passage, I will be quoting sections here.

Romans 7:1-13
1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here is an overview of the chapter and its context: The first verse is meant to be a further explanation of truths declared in the previous chapter. Paul starts an illustration section in verse 1 of chapter 7 when he says, “Or do you not know brethren.” He then provides an illustration of bondage to law in verses 2 and 3. Following that, he brings the examples down to earth by relating the doctrine to the readers in verses 4 through 6. Paul goes on to paint a picture of bondage under the law from verses 7 through 25 and then describes what freedom from the law means in chapter 8, verses 1 through 11.

Now for the details. The first six verses of chapter 7 explain how a person escapes from the bondage of law; he must die to it. An example is given in verses 2-3, and Paul shows how the concept works for Christians in verses 4-6. Note the past tense in verse 5, "For while we were in the flesh.” This will become important later.

Paul has taken great pains to this point to make these statements clear:

1. Christians have died with Christ. (6:3)

2. By doing this they have died to the Law. (7:6)

3. By this they have also been freed from sin. (6:18, 22)

4. They have also become slaves of God and of obedience to God. (6:10-11, 13, 16, 22)

Verse 7 of chapter 7 starts an interesting view into Paul's life. He apparently is not satisfied with a pure, step by step theological analysis, but also wants to put meat on the discussion by placing his past life in the open as an example.

There are two deaths to describe in his illustration. First is the spiritual death to God that comes from sinning, illustrating Romans 6:23, "for the wages of sin is death." The second is the death to the law and the coincident rebirth to God, thereby demonstrating Romans 7:6, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.” Both kinds of death are included to make the example complete.

Verses 7-13 of chapter 7 clearly speak about a past experience. The past tenses throughout show this, and the wording reveals that the first death, the death to God, occurred before Paul became a Christian. Verse 9 indicates that this death occurred when “the commandment came,” which is probably a reference to Paul's understanding of God's expectations of him, whether through the Old Testament written law or through revelations of conscience.

Paul, being a zealous Pharisee, certainly knew God’s law long before his conversion, so this coming of the commandment must also have occurred before his conversion. It will be important to remember that this passage (7:7-13) is about a past experience as I examine the next passage.

Romans 7:14-25
14For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

In this section Paul switches from past to present tense in his illustration, without otherwise changing the time of the events. Verse 14 is certainly connected with the previous passage, because the word "for" is used as an explanatory introduction. There is also no change in the pronoun, "I." The person described in verses 7-13 is certainly a man under the law, so since the pronoun does not change, we should assume that this is the same man in verse 14, unless a change is given explicitly. But is this the same man under the same condition as in the preceding verses (7:7-13), enslaved to the law and to sin? Apparently so, because the verse says that he is both of flesh and sold under sin.

Remember that Paul has taken great pains to say that a Christian is freed from sin (6:18, 22), and now he says that he is sold into bondage to sin, or, more literally, sold under sin. It is also clear in verse 9 of chapter 8 that Christians are not in the flesh, “However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Galatians 5:24 says, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Christians are not "in the flesh" and have "crucified the flesh," but in Romans 7 Paul is saying that he is "of flesh.” This is certainly not a description of one who is a Christian. These two ideas, being of flesh and in slavery to sin, contradict the clear lessons that Paul has taught in this section of Scripture. Remember verse 5 of chapter 7 where Paul says "while we were in the flesh"? The illustration at hand describes this “in the flesh” time, but the obvious implication is that Christians are not in the flesh.

If Paul is not describing his present experience, then why does he use the present tense? With Greek, a tense does not necessarily indicate the time of an action; it is used to indicate the type of action that is being described. The time of an action may also be indicated (depending on the mood of the verb) but even then only the context will reveal it. When this passage is considered with its context, making the assumption that this is the present condition of Paul is at best, very confusing and at worst, impossible.

Using the present tense in an illustrative way (the "historical" present), even when reflecting on a past event or series of events, is not unusual. Paul uses much of chapter 7 to illustrate the truths explained in the previous chapters, especially the truths in chapter 6 in which the death of the old self is taught. To illustrate the death of this self Paul explains, starting in verse 1 of chapter 7, how bondage to the law requires death for release. His explanation includes an illustration in verses 2 and 3. Notice that the illustration is about a person's relationship to the Law and that it uses present tense verbs. It is followed in verse 4 by a "therefore" statement relating the readers to that illustration, that they have died to the Law in order to be joined to Christ. Paul follows with another teaching section from verse 7 to verse 13 explaining how people become bound by the Law and sin in the first place.

In order to better explain this teaching section, Paul again gives an illustration, and again it is about a person's relationship to the Law using the present tense. Paul's illustration technique is consistent, and he follows it up again with another "therefore" statement in chapter 8 verse 1 comparing the readers' position to that of the illustrated individual.

I’ll try to break this down in an orderly way:

We have two teaching sections that begin with “What shall we say then?”
Romans 6:1-23 is one of those teaching sections: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”
Christians are dead to sin, so they no longer sin, and the remainder of the chapter talks about that in detail. Then, Paul provides a present tense illustration in chapter 7:1-3 where he explains how death to the law brings about freedom from the law. Then, in chapter 7:4-6, Paul makes a comparison to his readers, “Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ.”

In a similar manner, Paul starts another teaching sections in 7:7-13, using identical beginning words, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.” The teaching section goes through verse 13. Then, as he did in verses 1-3, he gives a present tense illustration in verses 14-25, followed by a comparison to his readers that begins with a “therefore.”

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

It should be clear that Paul is being consistent in his explanatory and illustrative way of teaching. He uses the present tense in both illustrations in order to describe truth about the law and its bondage. He is not making statements about his current life.

The present tense argument is truly weak. It cannot overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in the chapter 7 segment and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the book, especially when a clear reason is given for the use of the present tense to make an illustration.

After telling about how he died to God spiritually, Paul uses the present tense to describe his ongoing sinful condition which occurred in the past, and then, in verses 24-25, he magnifies the awesomeness of the salvation that is in Christ. Finally, in Romans 8:1, Paul makes it clear that he is reverting back to the real present (not historical present) rather than the Greek "present" of the illustration when he writes; "There is therefore now no condemnation ... ". The "now" indicates that there is no condemnation for those who are free from the condition that he has just described. The "now" is in opposition to the time being illustrated immediately before the verse. If the chapter seven passage was really the present time and his present condition, then the “now” wouldn’t make any sense.

The present tense argument fails to prove that this is Paul’s condition as a believer. It is not possible for a person to be both enslaved to sin and not enslaved to sin at the same time. The person in the passage is enslaved to sin, and a Christian is not enslaved to sin. It is not possible for a person to be both in or of the flesh and not in or of the flesh. The person in the passage is of flesh, and a Christian is not in the flesh and has crucified the flesh.

Perhaps the most obvious contradiction between the person of this passage and the condition of a Christian occurs between 7:23 and 8:2. In 7:23, Paul is made “a prisoner of the law of sin,” and in 8:2, Paul says that those who are in Christ Jesus have been set "free from the law of sin and of death." Is a Christian a prisoner of the law of sin? The second verse says that he is not. Paul says that he is such a prisoner in chapter 7. A Christian cannot be both a prisoner of sin and not a prisoner at the same time, so Paul is not referring to a believer in the chapter 7 passage.

Again, the present tense argument is not strong enough to overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in chapter 7 and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the section.

Therefore, this section of Romans chapter seven describes a man under the Law, before he becomes a Christian. Any professing Christian who uses this to excuse his own sin or somehow find a biblical description of sin in a Christian does so erroneously. The man with whom he is comparing himself is not a Christian. So those who see such parallels in their own lives are really finding evidence that they, themselves, are also unbelievers who need to cry out with Paul in his unregenerate state, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” and then find the power of God to be set free from sin.

This explanation of Romans 7 is sufficient to prove that Paul is not writing about a Christian’s struggle with sin. It is about the struggle an unregenerate man who is under the law. It’s true that many unregenerate men have no such struggle. They don’t agree with the law that it is good. Yet, some unregenerate men do agree with the law, and Paul was one of them. This kind of unregenerate man is the topic of the passage.

My main point is that every appeal to Scripture that tries to “explain” sin in an individual professing Christian is nothing but an excuse. A person who loves Jesus will never sin. Christians have the desire and the power to obey, and that combination can never fail to bring about the desired results—obedience to God every minute of every day.

More on the fallacy of the appeal to the "present tense" argument:

Those who insist that the use of the present tense must mean Paul is relating his present experience don't seem to realize that their assumption is self defeating.

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. (Romans 7:15)

If this is Paul's present experience, then he does not understand what he is doing at the present time. What is he doing? Writing this verse. He does not even understand what he is writing, so he would be doing something incoherent--writing something that doesn't make any sense. Also, writing this verse isn't what he would like to do. In fact, he hates writing it. This is an absurdity.

But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (Romans 7:16-17)

If this is Paul's present experience, then his indwelling sin writing this Scripture passage.

So Paul not only doesn't understand what he is writing, his indwelling sin is actually writing it. If this is true, then how could we trust this passage? It is incoherent and is written by sin.

But those who claim this is Paul's present experience would also claim that they don't think the present tense refers to what Paul is doing at the exact moment of writing the passage. Paul is talking about recent events in his life.

If this is true, then Paul is talking about past events. Recent past is still past. Therefore, Paul is using historical present, not actual present.

Since an authoritative and coherent teaching must be historical present, then an appeal to the present tense to prove that this is Paul's present experience is destroyed.