Romans 7:7-11 (ESV) What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
25 responses to “The Preaching of the Law”
Leave a Reply
For the first time I realized in reading the last sentence of this passage that this verse does not say that the law kills me, but that my own sin, deceiving me through the "cover" of the commandment, is what kills me. That the law itself kills me may be said directly somewhere else, and I think it is, but that is not what seems to be claimed here. Maybe this is a case for the Greek scholars among us…
I've always thought the straightforward interpretation of this passage ridiculous. It's got to be rhetorical (and/or interpreters are missing something); he can't really be serious in saying that human beings would not covet if it weren't for the Law. "Forbidden fruit" is just one sort of destructive desire – but it's not sin on the average, as far as I can tell. I mean, I think the world at this point recognizes "the banality of evil," no?
In fact, I've read that most of this section of Romans is actually a discussion of the history of Israel; this is a rhetorical technique using personification (in the first person, apparently).
I would be interested in hearing about the Greek, too.
bls, I think one big giveaway in this matter is that, throughout Romans 7, Paul uses the personal pronoun "I". I don't think Romans 7 fits very well into the canon of contemporary NT scholarship, so they feel that it must be adjusted or fit in somehow. Thus, the Israel thing which really doesn't read as true.
On the other point, I think what he's saying here is that coveting would be so natural in the fallen, bound condition that it would be scarcely noticeable. Introducing the Law invades our need for self-deification such that it makes the fissure of sin wider and deeper so that it is noticed.
Hey guys. . .
I'm no Greek expert, and maybe Lauren or someone could comment further, but I do know that one of the more frustrating things about this entire chapter is that even though it concerns a fairly complex subject, the greek is straightforward.
This is why there are very few text critical issues with it or ones that have any bearing on its interpretation. A quick glance at my resources shows that there is nothing in this section that is under major dispute.
This clarity has made interpretation fairly difficult because he says some pretty wild things about the power of the law. Most people, even surprising ones (cf. James Dunn) reject the Israel reading in favor of either the Apostle Paul speaking as a Christian or as an unregenerate person. There is no lack of resources for these debates on the interwebs:)
For what its worth:
It is true that the Law is never said to kill in and of itself, but what this passage attests to is what the function of the law is, namely, that it reveals sin, makes sin the greater, works with "sin and death," etc.
Romans 5:12-21 is a pretty good explanation of this.
As for the Law killing, from the time of Augustine's On the spirit and the letter, following 2 cor. 3:6 when Paul writes "who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. letter and spirit have been understood as law and gospel, respectively.
Unfortunately, this interpretation led to all sorts of analogizing (is that a word) of what was "spiritual" vs. what was "literal" in a sense, and turned the bible into a huge game of smoke and mirrors about what was actually being talked about. This is where the "idea behind the clear meaning" idea comes from–which was huge for a while, particularly in Deutschland, Deutschland, Deutschland:)
Right now, although this could change, I understand the law and the letter as synonymous, but not as that which can be ascertained or figured out by a hermeneutical gymnastics. In other words, the letter does in fact kill, but there is a central role for faith that transfers us from the law to gospel, letter to spirit, much more than an idea about which we think is which. There is a clear writing of the law in the 10 commandments, but there is a spiritual dimension to the law that transcends its written form, otherwise everyone who walked past the Alabama courthouse would be convicted and brought to repentance. Would that were the case!
This is why, in the same passage, 2 Cor.3:14-17, the Apostle talks about the veil. Referencing the Israelites, he writes: For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
The removed veil does not, as some would argue, allow the law to be welcomed with open arms (cf. 3-56 uses of the law), but, rather, that the law can be seen as that which stirs up sin, condemns (justly) and leads to Christ–in much the same way as it is being spoken of here in Romans 7.
On the other point, I think what he's saying here is that coveting would be so natural in the fallen, bound condition that it would be scarcely noticeable. Introducing the Law invades our need for self-deification such that it makes the fissure of sin wider and deeper so that it is noticed.
But this is not at all what's being said, as far as I can see. "But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness."
???
The odd thing about this passage is that Paul seems to say that "sin" seized the opportunity and, using the commandment ,deceived me; and, that sin, again using the commandment, killed me. This seems to be a different and far more complex thing Paul is talking about here than simply "the law" exposing my sin and thereby driving me to the cross. I think Paul expresses that elsewhere, more or less, but this seems different. It seems to be talking about my sin "killing" me in the sense of causing me to be self-deluded about the nature of the commandment and my relationship to it, rather than "killing" me in the sense of "convicting me of sin." What Jady has said is helpful. This to me is still a very odd and difficult passage.
BTW, apparently John Wesley also thought that Paul was taking on another identity here, so it's not just a recent idea. Here's what he says about 7:7:
"7:7 What shall we say then – This is a kind of a digression, to the beginning of the next chapter , wherein the apostle, in order to show in the most lively manner the weakness and inefficacy of the law, changes the person and speaks as of himself, concerning the misery of one under the law. This St. Paul frequently does, when he is not speaking of his own person, but only assuming another character, Rom 3:5, 1Cor 10:30, 1Cor 4:6. The character here assumed is that of a man, first ignorant of the law, then under it and sincerely, but ineffectually, striving to serve God. To have spoken this of himself, or any true believer, would have been foreign to the whole scope of his discourse; nay, utterly contrary thereto, as well as to what is expressly asserted, Rom 8:2. Is the law sin – Sinful in itself, or a promoter of sin. I had not known lust – That is, evil desire. I had not known it to be a sin; nay, perhaps I should not have known that any such desire was in me: it did not appear, till it was stirred up by the prohibition."
BLS,
Nobody denies the long history of the interpretation that Paul is speaking metaphorically or as someone else–many of the "church fathers," in the 2nd and 3rd century read this in much the same way as Wesley.
St. Augustine, famously, at the end of his life, changed his opinion from Paul speaking as someone else to Paul speaking as himself.
What is difficult about this passage is that there are no clear answers as to which interpretation is right; therefore, they all require an a priori commitment to the nature of human existence and, in this case, Christian existence.
Wesley believed that Christians could reach perfection this side of heaven, so it is not surprising that he chose to read it in such a way.
Michael,
You said: It seems to be talking about my sin "killing" me in the sense of causing me to be self-deluded about the nature of the commandment and my relationship to it, rather than "killing" me in the sense of "convicting me of sin."
This is exactly how Paul can uphold the validity and holiness of the law while also implicating it in the plight of humanity.
If "sin" is, fundamentally, unbelief, then the height of unbelief is to take the commands of the creator and turn them into means to our own ends. Paul describes sin as a power from which we are delivered as well as a power which turns the law—that which promised life–into death.
As he writes at the end of this chapter:
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 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.
There is something deeper and more powerful going on than our conscious rejection or affirmation of "sinful" things, and the interplay of law and sin is a perfect example of that.
Jady, I really like that.
Actually, I think David Browder was objecting to the interpretation, on the grounds that "contemporary NT scholarship" was trying to "adjust" this passage. I was trying to show, first, that it's not new – and second, that the interpretation does explain a couple of things.
For example, Verse 9: "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Unless the word "came" has a special meaning here for Paul, this actually really works far better if you read him as speaking as Israel.
Also, I've just come from reading elsewhere that there are some ambiguities in re the word translated as "covetousness." It apparently has been taken to mean "covetousness" – but also "lust" and "concupiscence." This seems to me to be an important distinction.
My two cents on Rom. 7, Paul is speaking categorically of the "I" who lives under law, using illusions to the nation of Israel and Adam.
Paul fuses language of the giving of the law at Sinai with Adam's experience of sin and the law in the Garden. This reading includes, yet transcends, the categories of Christian vs. non-Christian, into the universal experience of everyone as informed by the particular experience of Israel and Adam. The experience of the law "do not eat" produced in him death. Without the law, Adam would not have sinned. The experience of Israel and the giving of the command to not covet (shorthand usage for the ten commandments), produced in them rebellion and death.
This is a reading of Israel's history to which Paul is referring to, but by extension it is also true all who are under the law- whether Christian or non-Christian.
This is a reading of Israel's history to which Paul is referring to, but by extension it is also true all who are under the law- whether Christian or non-Christian.
That seems exactly right to me, actually.
It's a really interesting way of speaking, in fact – it transforms the point he's making into something grand and expressive, and is very exciting for that reason.
I think so, anyway. Paul is really an interesting man….
I love talking about this passage! I have found myself re-evaluating some of my previously held opinions concerning the way this works out in a pastoral situation. Like the rest of the world, I'm far from offering the final word on the issue, but I find it fascinating to observe how, because of the straight-forward Greek, the interpretation changes in conjunction with changes in systematic theological categories. For example, as one's understanding of law, flesh and sin changes, so will one's interpretation of this passage—
What a wonderful reminder of the need for systematic theology in conjunction with exegesis and "biblical studies."
So, along those lines, I'd be interested to see what yins think:)
This is a reading of Israel's history to which Paul is referring to, but by extension it is also true all who are under the law- whether Christian or non-Christian.
I would agree with this as far as this particular snippet goes, but it is hard to argue that vs. 14-25 are referencing anyone but a post-Christian person.
I used to argue (and have written as much) that this had to be universal human/Israel-whatever throughout the entire chapter because of fear of echoing the "solution to plight" nonsense of the New Perspective on Paul.
I found myself trying to argue that everyone is really described by the introspective torture that is this passage, not just Christians.
However, I think that while there are types of non-Christians who would identify with some of the tortured complaints of vs. 14-25, this is not a psycho-dynamic template for universal dominion under the law any more than saying only hippies really know what the law is (in a cultural sense).
There are perfectly content, happy and well-adjusted people who are just as lost and condemned under the law as anyone, yet they will have a hard time finding anything "universal" about this passage until they are converted.
I don't think that this falls into the "solution to plight" opposed to "plight to solution" trap, because the curse of the law still stands, but it takes many different forms, :insecurity, doubt, fear and anxiety are just flip-sides of pride, conceit, audacity and complacency—all of which can be manifestations of the law.
At any rate, the only interpretation that should be rejected out-of-hand, IMHO, is that Paul is speaking here as a nominal or weak Christian in some sense. I've read before that the tragedy of this passage is that so many preachers see themselves described–now that is a tragedy. And people wonder why "Clergy burnout" is so high?
Love to you all,
Jady
Jady, I think we could all talk about this passage all day. It's just that good!
If I were to use Watson's term here, I think in Romans 7 we have a representative autobiography, where the community's history with the law is also Paul's own history. The transition from past to present found in verse 14 should not be ignored, but I'm hesitant to speak of the distinction between christian/non-christian here. I'd rather say that Paul speaks of his present reality under the law as rooted in a concrete, past event. The past history of Adam/Israel's experience with the law representatively reaches forth into the present.
I cannot say that Paul is making a transition from Jewish history to Christian present. This distinction interpretively functions to sever 1-13 from 14-25 as speaking about two different ontological statuses. Instead I think the whole point of the transition from past to present is to argue for a continuity between past and present- the present experience of the law continues to be death.
I fear the distinction between a Jewish 1-13 and a Christian 14-25 is a legacy of Calvinist 3rd use of the law. That is, a pre-christian 1-13 experience of the law is death, while a 14-25 Christian experience of the law is inner conflict.
Todd,
I appreciate your comments and want to press you a little because I've been readdressing this issue recently and want to work through some thoughts—grains of salt aplenty:)
A wise man once said, "An argument against (Calvinistic) abuse is not an argument against use":)
Calvin was wrong–or at least his nefarious epigone (Hammer, don't hurt me:)—about the power,use, function, role and temporal nature of the law–not whether Paul was speaking as a Christian here in Romans 7.
I think that an appreciation for the law in this respect can be seen in Luther's interpretation of this passage, who, following Augustine, certainly saw this sort of turmoil as descriptive of the Christian life.
You said: The transition from past to present found in verse 14 should not be ignored, but I'm hesitant to speak of the distinction between christian/non-christian here. I'd rather say that Paul speaks of his present reality under the law as rooted in a concrete, past event. The past history of Adam/Israel's experience with the law representatively reaches forth into the present.
I completely agree; however, why would Paul speak of his "present reality" as anything other than as a Christian–particularly one who cries out to Jesus!? That does not seem like a pre-Christian exclamation.
I fear the distinction between a Jewish 1-13 and a Christian 14-25 is a legacy of Calvinist 3rd use of the law. That is, a pre-christian 1-13 experience of the law is death, while a 14-25 Christian experience of the law is inner conflict.
But isn't that the case? The problem with most interpreters is that they minimize the pain/death of this conflict. It is as much death as before, but now we have hope; the way out is not to win the struggle, but to be delivered through death. . .
Furthermore, to see this as pre-Christian, we have to deal, particularly, with vs. 7:22-23.
Now, if Calvin is right, then we can approach this law as a guide and have remorse over our inability to fulfill it—an interpretation we reject. Furthermore, his interpretation does not do justice to the absolute condemning of the law in this instance–were it a guide or a teacher, it is quite the sadistic one!
However, if the holiness, completeness, perfection, whatever to which the law points is that which we do, in fact, want to be–loving, holy, kind, self-controlled, etc–while still rejecting any sort of pedagogical use (or power!) to the so-called "Gospel indicatives," then we can still see this as Paul speaking of his current–Christian–experience of life under the law, a life that is killing him, from which he must be delivered.
I completely agree with you about not wanting to make too strong a distinction about the effect/power of the law with regards to Christian and non-Christian people (goodness knows, that is sort of a fundamental premise of our entire enterprise here:). . BUT, I don't think that Romans 7 is the vehicle for that insight with respect to the internal conflict Paul is describing.
We talk about reality all the time, but this lament over seeing what's holy but not measuring up is not reality for people "dead in their trespasses and sins," or for people who, following Ezekiel, are dry bones, have stone hearts, etc. . That people are crushed by the law of demand, expectation, failure, guilt, shame, etc. . is certainly true to both Christians and non–but that's not the type law Paul is talking about here.
This is not to say, with the Calvinists, that knowledge of the Law combined with Christian growth brings about ability to fulfill it or to view it differently, but there is something within this passage in particular that seems to say that there is a longing for holiness–final release from "this body of death"–that can be longed for even under the power of the lex semper accusat
But, of course, I could be wrong:)
Jady, I think that you know Calvin sees Romans 7 as Paul speaking of himself as a Christian, and that Romans 7 says "who will deliver me FROM THIS BODY OF DEATH". So, I am very puzzled by your view that Calvin somehow does not take the condemnation of the law for the Christian seriously enough. What Calvin and Luther both affirm is that the law no longer "condemns the Christian to hell." That does not mean that Calvin thought that the law no longer brings a form of "death" to the Christian, from which he is "delivered" only through Jesus Christ. Otherwise, it would be absurd for Calvin to see Romans 7 as Paul speaking as a Christian, since this very passage says that the law renders the believer a "body of death" !!! p.s. Please forgive my nasty habit of writing in defense of Calvin…
Jady Am I right to suspect that "wise man" you quote is non other than Michael Cooper? Ha, given your response I'll be sure to never accuse you of being a Calvinist.
It seems that we're both saying similar things about 14-24 but from vastly different starting points. You seem to argue that Paul is speaking primarily about Christians, and the occasional non-Christian. While I wish to stress that Paul is speaking about Jewish existence under the law in particular, and by extension, universal existence inasmuch as it is under law.
What type of law do you think Paul is referring to?
I suppose the question I have is whether one can properly speak of a Christian reality of the law. In the preceding chapter, Paul states twice that Christians are not under law, but under grace (6:14,15); and again in chap 7, "we have been released from the law" (7:6). It seems odd then that Paul then turnaround and speak disparagingly of a Christian reality that is still under the law. It seems, instead, that Paul is describing as acutely as possible the Jewish plight of living under the law. Forever laboring under an unquenchable demand; hoping to find the promised life through the doing of the law yet only finding death. (I think that "Do" here refers to Lev. 18.5) This plight persists in Christians inasmuch as one is under the dominion of the law and sin.
ps- I do enjoy this back-and-forth. It's a fun opportunity to take some ideas for a "test drive."
Todd–That "wise man" quote Jady gave was not from me. If Jady ever cites a quote that he attributes to a "smart a–", well, that one would probably be from me 😉
So, what about Lon Chaney? Isn't that cool?
bug out, Browder, what do you think, that this is your blog post or something??? and yes, it is cool.
Hey Michael,
No worries about defending Calvin, but I do think that there are some significant differences that play out with regard to his understanding of the law vs. that of Luther.
I've recently run across some lectures from Wheaton that are on the different ways the Law, in this case the 10 commandments in particular, were appropriated and used by different reformers.
It really helped me get some more clarity on this issue: http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Feed/wheaton.edu.1912887908.01912887914
At any rate, I have no doubt that Calvin takes the condemnation of the law seriously, but there is no question that his understanding of the changed relationship to it that comes about after becoming a Christian has contributed to, whether he intended this or not, a domestication of the law.
But these thoughts are not new with me. . .
Todd,
Great "talking" to you:)
It is always helpful to keep pushing until there is some clarity, because given our shared theological commitments, it is likely that any disagreement will turn out to be ultimately helpful and broadening. . .
You said: You seem to argue that Paul is speaking primarily about Christians, and the occasional non-Christian. While I wish to stress that Paul is speaking about Jewish existence under the law in particular, and by extension, universal existence inasmuch as it is under law.
I wouldn't disagree that Paul is speaking about Jewish existence under the law, but I do think that the perspective from which he is speaking is that of a Christian to other Christians in Rome who would similarly recognize the place and role of the law. I don't know if you are arguing this, but that Jewish people were running around aware of this sort of slavery is contrary to both scripture and even Paul's own attestation in Philippians 3. It is only from the perspective of faith that the law can be rightly seen, and it is also only from faith where the inability, foolishness and futility of human striving–ie.law–is revealed as the slavery that it is. Thus, we have Paul speaking as only a Christian can about the role of the law as it has now been revealed by faith (Gal. 3:23)
That people are universally under the law is something that we can only hope to alleviate not by instruction or enlightenment but by (gasp) converting them:)
As for your statment: It seems, instead, that Paul is describing as acutely as possible the Jewish plight of living under the law. Forever laboring under an unquenchable demand; hoping to find the promised life through the doing of the law yet only finding death. (I think that "Do" here refers to Lev. 18.5) This plight persists in Christians inasmuch as one is under the dominion of the law and sin.
I think that this vision of slavery, again, is not the universal "Jewish plight," or human plight for that matter. For those who are fulfilling the law–however minimized and banal that law may be (money, sex, power, etc)–there is no such internal conflict.
It is true that this plight exists in Christians "inasmuch as one is under the dominion of the law and sin," but this is where the simul doctrine was developed and defended by Luther (among others).
So, I still think that one could argue that Paul is describing the role of the law in general AND in specific for those who now have "eyes to see" Moses unveiled.
Friday afternoon thoughts.. . .
Jady, As I have said before, I am not claiming that Luther and Calvin, or Calvinists and Lutherans, in terms of emphasis, have the same view of the law. Heck, no two Lutherans seem to have the same view! I totally agree with the Lutheran view of the proper "Third Use" of the law as defined in great detail in Article VI of the Formula of Concord, and I have never read anything in Calvin to the contrary. If you or anyone else has a quote from Calvin that is contrary to anything in Article VI, I'd love to see it. But on a practical level, as someone who got his "5 Points" from birth, the idea that Calvin or Calvinistic preaching, at least in my experience of it, somehow "domesticates" the law seems totally off base. In fact, we always had the living hell scared out of us at every single "once in a blue moon" communion that we better not be taking this too lightly in terms of our sin and unworthiness,or we were going to probably choke on our own blood or be struck by lightning right there in front of everyone. You would not go to hell,sure, but you might wish you had ! I think this is why Emily Dickinson never took communion.
sorry for the delay, Jady…
I certainly think that Paul speaks as a Christian to fellow Christians. That said, I would point out that the exclamation of despair "Who will rescue me from this body of death" is not directed toward anyone in particular.
You said:
"I don't know if you are arguing this, but that Jewish people were running around aware of this sort of slavery is contrary to both scripture and even Paul's own attestation in Philippians 3."
I'm not arguing that Paul is saying that this is the everyday experience of Israel's life under the law per-se, but that this is his reading of Israel's history under the law. So when Paul says, "the Letter kills" or "when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died" Paul is referring to the actual event of the giving of the law, the Golden calf, and the slaughter of 13,000 Israelites at the foot of Sinai, as well as the garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit.
So, Paul isn't simply making personal remarks about his life, though he includes himself in what he says, but rather Paul is answering the question of why then, the law, since v 1-6 make the point that we are not under the law. He answers this by stating the purpose of the law within God's economy in general, and the nation of Israel in particular. In this history, the law has primarily a negative function to reveal sin by making sin utterly sinful(13). It's a history that begins with the Golden calf, the death of a generation in the wilderness and culminates ultimately in the exile. Whether this experience of the law translated into an existential plight is certainly probable.
The questions are then whether this interpretation of the law and its deathly effects in Israel's history are a proper interpretation of the past, and then whether this history is typological of all encounters with law or solely a past event.
I think that Christians who read the letter and Paul himself identified with this history of Israel- the "I" of Romans 7. That's why Paul writes as he does using such a rhetorical I. In many ways, this personal identification reinforces and verifies Paul's interpretation of history. That's part of the power of this section.
But how would a first century Jew read Romans 7? Paul's contemporaries did not have the same interpretation of the law or Israel's history, though they all (generally) have trouble explaining with the golden calf event and subsequent annihilation of a generation in the wilderness. God's righteousness would not judge the nation of Israel, but the Gentiles.