(Oh, and I hope you guys are enjoying learning about Romans. I know I am.)
2a. Moo offers four options for the identification of the “I”
(ego) used in Romans 7:7-25. However
before I (actually “me,” “Beth”) list them, it is important to note as a
reminder that the central topic of these verses is not human nature or
metaphors or personifications, but rather the Mosaic law. Therefore as Moo points out, no matter the
identification of the “I,” the most important teaching of the passage remains. A looming source of frustration is the
question of, how can the law – God’s good
and holy spiritual gift – have been turned into an instrument of sin and essentially
function as both good and bad simultaneously? Because this is such a difficult thing to
grasp (i.e the law is unable to deliver a person from the power of sin and
people who look for it to do just that will endure weariness, agitation, and
eventual condemnation), the identification of the “I” is elevated in its
significance because in some way, it has a direct bearing on the way in which
we understand the Christian life.
The four options (“directions” as preferred by Moo) are: i.) the autobiographical direction;
ii.) the Adamic direction; iii.) the Israel direction; and
iv.) the existential direction. Not all of these identifications are sustained
for the entire passage and, according to Moo, most scholars now combine one or
more of the identifications in their interpretations of the chapter.[1]
I would argue that the identification of “I” is in fact a
combination of options, namely the autobiographical direction and
the Israel direction (which in my mind subsumes the other two options
anyway). After the offspring of Israel
came through the Red Sea, they arrived at Sinai and were given the Law. Paul, in Romans 7:1-8:11, announces that the
renewed people have been given the Spirit to do “what the law could not” (Rom.
8:3). He is still working within the
controlling Exodus story! Paul’s
argument through the device of “I” was calculated – the “I” represents him
speaking of himself as the embodiment of
Jewish history.[2] Nothing resonates with people more than
someone who “gets it,” especially if said someone is delivering a bitter pill
to swallow on a topic which is difficult to understand.
Taking this one step further, I also would argue that
when Paul is speaking of himself, he is representing that self as a divided man
(in parallel to the “before and after” of Israel). “For
the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not
want” (Rom. 7:19). Here we have a
divided man, i.e. a man with a divided will or a divided heart. There is the part of him – the “I”- who wants
to do good and does not want to do evil.
But there is also the part of him – the “I” – who does not do the good
he wants but instead, does the evil he does not want. The complexity of this passage is riveting to
me. Is this the experience of Paul, the
believer? Or is this this experience of
Paul, the unbeliever? Before conversion
or after conversion? Christian or
non-Christian? Saul or Paul?
Posed with more exactitude: is this the spiritually strengthened
(i.e. converted) Paul who is new and immature in the faith, or could this be the
mature Christian Paul, but in times of lapsed faith and acuity? Yes may be the answer to either of those
questions as they are both plausible. And that, in my mind, is the beauty of the “I”
representation in and of itself. As Paul
is speaking of himself as the embodiment of Jewish history, he is doing so in
such a way as to connect with people at their core – their sinful, yet works in
progress, cores. The events in verses
7:1-8:11 were not all experienced by Paul personally, yet he is showing through
is usage of “I” that he is in complete solidarity with Israel.
2b. The
main point of Romans 7:7-25 can be surmised against the bigger backdrop of
first understanding the point of Chapter 7 as a whole. The
law is a big problem in getting right with God. Along the way, Paul has argued fervidly
against justification by works [of the Law].
We do not get right with God by law-keeping, but by faith alone. Crazier yet, in the process Paul even seems
to say that the Law itself is part of the problem, not part of the rescue (cf.
Rom. 3:20; 3:28). Romans 5:20 (“The Law came in so that the transgression
would increase”) makes the Law sound like a straight-up accomplice of
sin. In fact, Paul literally goes as far
as to say that if you want to bear fruit for God (that is, you want to be
sanctified as well as justified), you have to die to the Law (Rom. 7:4). Clearly,
law-keeping is not the first and conclusive way to bear fruit for God; being
joined to the risen Christ is the first and conclusive way to do so (Rom. 7:4).
The bottom line here is that if people choose to fulfill the Law of God (as the law of Christ) it will be only
because they have first died to the law
and sought obedience another way, namely by union with the risen Christ – where
they stand completely justified they can make any progress in law-keeping at
all.
Paul sees the law of God as a big part of the problem (in
getting right with God) in Romans 7:5-6.
So the giant elephant-in-the-teaching-room question he has to answer is
found in the following verse 7, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?” Stated a little differently in verse 13, “Therefore
did that which is good become a cause of death for me?” Basically people are confused. If you have to turn away from law-keeping to
the righteousness of Christ to be justified, and if you have to die to the law
and be united to Christ to be sanctified, then hello…isn’t the law sin and isn’t
it the cause of death?
If the answer to those questions is yes (the law is sin
and causes death) then Paul knows he’s going to get sent packing in a hurry. “It’s not you…it’s me.” There is no future for a gospel that turns
the law of God into sin and death. Yet,
with all his passionate might in verses 7 and 13 Paul exclaims, “No! May it never be! By no means!”
The law is not sin; rather,
sin exploits and uses the law. The law
is holy, just, and good (v.12). The law
does not cause death; sin causes
death through what is good, the law (v.13).
Sin is the problem.
And the law is not sin.
The main point and purpose of Romans 7:7-25 is to explain and defend
that answer. It is all about
justification by faith and sanctification by faith. If those two foundational and essential
doctrines imply that the law of God is sin and causes death, they are doomed
(as are we) and cannot be true. So when
Paul (“I”) is done with Romans 1-7, he has completed two great and necessary
things: first, he has shown that we have
to die to the law to be accepted by God (justification, Rom. 3:28) and we have
to die to the law in order to bear fruit for Him (sanctification, Rom.
7:4-6). Secondly, this necessity to die
to the law to be justified & sanctified is NOT because the law is sin, but
rather, it is because in our woefully sinful condition, we MUST have Christ at
the root of our justification and for the power of our sanctification. The
law cannot do what only Christ can do.
So, circling back to the “I” and the identification of what
I believe is a “divided” man in Romans 7:14-25, his division (and thus,
whatever identity or combination thereof) is caused by his indwelling of sin –
not by the law. So too is his misery (“What
a wretched man I am!” v.24) caused by his sin and not the law.
Paul makes this point at least three times. Verse 14: “The law is spiritual, but I am of
flesh.” Verse 16: “If I do the very thing I do not want to do,
I agree that the law is good.” Verse
22: “For I delight in the law of God, in
my inner being.” So, the law is “spiritual”
and “good” and a “delight.” This is true
whether the “I” – the divided man – is a mature struggling believer, or a
spiritually strengthened new and immature one.
Paul’s main point remains regardless of the identification or state of
the “I”: Justification by faith apart from the law.
Receiving the gift of justification by faith alone does
not tarnish the law of God. Bearing
fruit for Him and dying to the law will not tarnish the law of God. Nothing we
do can. Instead, as Paul is trying to
convey, the contrary is true: by turning
to Christ we will honor the law of
God, because the goal of that law is “Christ for righteousness for all who
believe” (10:4), and the fruit of love inspired by Christ (7:4) is a
fulfillment of the law (13:10).
No comments:
Post a Comment