Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XX)

Swiss theologian Karl Barth raises this issue: How can I ever do God’s will for my life if I cannot do my own will to obey His Word? A good question because no believer will ever be able to reach perfection. And that is the real factor. As new creatures in Christ Jesus, we must accept that there will be things we do well in our obedience to Christ and our calling, but there are other things where we must admit are shortcomings and even failures. But like an umbrella over it all is God’s love, grace, and mercy that offers forgiveness and cleansing so we can get up again and keep going, guided by what we have learned from our mistakes.¹

Verses 16-17: And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that causes me to do it.

Now Paul returns to the crux of his argument about the relationship between himself, the law, and sin. The law is doing a good job of pointing out right and wrong. Paul must weigh the potential of which one to do. But in the end, the determination of whether he does what is righteousness or sin is up to him. The young Psalmist, who wrote the longest Psalm, came to this conclusion: “Whatever it may concern, every law of God is right. That’s why I hate the opposite way.”² So in Paul’s mind, whenever he feels tempted to do the opposite of what the Law says is right, it’s because his sinful nature is taking control while his spiritual nature is trying to hold onto the steering wheel.

Augustine suggests that we take what Paul says here as representing someone under the law prior to grace. He agrees that Paul has defended the law against all charges. However, he sees a danger in that some make think Paul is denying the use of free will. How can Paul say he’s not the one doing what’s wrong? How can he blame it on sin living in him? For Augustine, this condition can only exist in the heart and mind of an unregenerate person. It is a case of sin overpowering this individual who is trying their best to live right. However, they are attempting to do so in their own strength. And since they don’t have God’s liberating grace, their efforts will fail. As far as Augustine is concerned, it is only by their free will a person is able to believe in the Deliverer and to receive grace. Once deliverance comes, then the same Deliverer will help them overcome such tendencies, so they will not sin and cease to be under the condemnation of the law. Instead, they will fulfill the law by the love of God which they could not have done through fear³.⁴ In all fairness to Augustine, it is my opinion that he does not see Paul as an unregenerate Gentile, but as an unregenerate Jew who has not yet seen the light of getting right with God by grace instead of by the law. We can say, Paul was speaking of himself when he was a self-righteous Pharisee.

Another early church scholar, Origen, takes what Augustine says and turns it around. As far as he is concerned the kind of person Paul is talking about here is one in whom Christ dwells. They are no strangers to righteous living. Rather, they are someone who has started on the path of wanting to do what is right but has not yet been able to perfect it in every circumstance. This kind of weakness exists mostly in those who are new in Christ. The urges and temptation of past habits and tendencies are still fresh in their memory. For example, someone was used to lying in order to get their way might hesitate to do so when it appears it would help them achieve something very difficult to get done otherwise. At first, they resist so they might build a reputation for being an honest individual, but since they practiced this habit so often and for so long, a lie just seems to jump out of their mouths like it had done so many times before.⁵ Wouldn’t this tendency make you angry? I’m sure it would just as it did the Apostle Paul.

Martin Luther sees Paul agreeing that the Law serves a very good purpose. It desires what is good, and so does the Apostle. Therefore, since both agree that it’s the right thing to do, why then does his sinful nature rebel against the Law? Wouldn’t it make sense then, that everyone would be better off without the Law? In other words, why have the Law when all it does is tempt a person to sin? Not only that but when the individual does agree and does what the Law says, it finds no satisfaction in doing good. According to Luther, in Paul’s mind, he is driven to do what’s right out of fear.⁶ If given a choice, any sinner would rather stay in sin as long as there was no punishment. But this is wishful thinking. The Law was given to reveal man’s sinful nature so that he could realize more fully his hopeless, lost condition, and would, therefore, seek salvation. Not from the Law, but from the penalty the Law imposes for disobedience.

John Calvin sees the same thing only in a different light. He hears Paul saying that when a person’s heart agrees with the law and is delighted with its instructions on how to live right, they certainly aren’t happy in transgressing it. There is just too much good in what the law teaches that anyone should find fault with it. Rather, let it help them live a clean, upright life with a pure heart. So no one should think that Paul wants to excuse himself for all his faults and failures. This is what hypocrites do. Rather, it shows how disappointed Paul is that he was not doing better. This then allows us to accept that Paul is speaking here of those who have already been born again. He is not suggesting that people who make mistakes, even those they could have avoided, are totally corrupt. They have been freed from the bondage of sin, and that’s what makes their case so regrettable. With everything good being on their side, why don’t they see it as an advantage over the unregenerate sinner who has no help at all? Paul understood that in his heart he was striving and aspiring after the righteousness of God. This clearly proves that he had the law of God engraved in his heart. But at least he had one major credit to his favor: he knew he had done wrong and admitted it.⁷

Later, Adam Clarke didn’t shy away from concluding that Paul was speaking about people in this world who certainly have what constitutes reason and conscience, but their sin-corrupted and sensual inclinations that drive them to do the opposite of what they should do. This happens when evil tendencies gain control over their reasoning, turning off the light of understanding and corrupting their ability to judge and assess the situation properly. But even worse, while the law rightly condemns them for their actions, it offers no cure. Based on that reasoning, Clarke identifies this principle as being in an unregenerate heart. It is so strong that it overrides all reasoning. It is a principle which is not the essence of the soul but clearly expresses itself as such. It becomes an uncontrollable tyrant. Says Clarke: “This is an inbred and indwelling sin – the seed of the serpent; by which the whole soul is darkened, confused, perverted, and delirious to rebel against God.”⁸

Robert Haldane agrees that most unregenerate people know what is unacceptable behavior in their society, but that’s not enough for them to go against their natural inclinations. Such dispositions are tendencies that all point in one direction – sin. But when a regenerate person does what they hate, their mind agrees with the law that it is wrong. So it is obvious that Paul gives the real reason why he was continuing to do all the things he shouldn’t do and not doing the things he should do, is because of sin. So he was talking about more than reason or conscience. It was another force within him. It was not part of the nature of the new man, but of the old man. It was not inspired by his new spiritual nature, but his old sinful nature. What disturbed Paul more than anything was that this ungodly agent of wrong was not a passer-by, not something that is here momentarily and then gone, it was living in him. He knew that as long as his soul lived in this body made from the dust of the earth, he was susceptible to these attacks. That’s why Paul could rightly say, this is not who I am now, this is what I used to be. But to his credit, by being regenerated Paul was able to distinguish good from evil. That allowed him to love what was good and hate what was evil. But he took responsibility whenever evil won out over good. While in his old life he had nothing but his natural inclinations and unenlightened conscience to guide him, but as a born-again child of God, he now had the authority of the Holy Spirit to help him combat these immoral afflictions. Haldane believes that any real Christian will empathize with Paul’s painful experience because they know he’s not hiding the truth.⁹

Albert Barnes believes that Christians can use what Paul states here as a test of their sanctification. The fact that they are still struggling against sinful desires means that want to be free from them. The anxiety, grief, and heartache that they cause them is enough to submit more and more to God’s holiness. One of the first tests is this: although they are doing wrong they don’t love it. That means they are closer to God than to the devil. Another test is that the more often and the longer they struggle against this sinful tendencies, the more they gain ground on being delivered from its dominion over their lives.

Paul is not talking here about his battle with the Law and the consequences of sin, but of the tension between his corrupt nature and renewed nature warring within his soul; between lawless sin and the Christian principles to remain holy. Paul is not happy that he is still dealing with these tendencies and passions leftover from his previous life. The fact is his heart, and conscience did not enjoy being misled. In fact, he was livid each time it happened. One way to understand Paul’s struggle with sinful habits that brought so much bad spiritual health to his life is to think back to diets you have been on. When you first started you were totally committed and counted every calorie and read every label for sugar and fat content. You were proud of the weight you lost. But each time you let yourself snack on what you knew was bad for you, you may have enjoyed eating it at that moment, but later on, the guilt of giving in was enough to make you cry. In the same way, every believer can say that they don’t set out to invite evil into their lives, they want to grow more and more in the Lord and His Word. They hate sin for sure. Yet, if they are not careful and constantly on guard, those sinful tendencies lurking in the shadows of their mind can ambush them at any moment.¹⁰

Bible scholar Charles Simeon has an interesting way of expressing what he sees here. No believer should be running toward temptation, but they sure can run into temptation. This is what happens when they leave the way of righteousness and holiness and find themselves on an old path or an unexplored one. It’s the difference between knowing where you’re going or not sure where you are going. Whenever we get off a known highway onto an unfamiliar road we seek directions. Unfortunately, the directions we seek often come from our sinful nature instead of our spiritual nature. That’s when we not only get confused but may even get lost. So stick to what you know is right and do not flirt with those things of which you are unsure.¹¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XIX)

Martin Luther calls Paul a very spiritual man because he was able to recognize what was good with respect to the Law. As such, the Apostle knew what he should approve and what he should disapprove of in his life. Yet, what frustrated Paul was although he was fully aware of the blessings that came with doing good and the punishment of doing bad, he found himself always having to choose instead of possessing a supernatural inclination to select only that which was right. This then reveals the struggle between his sinful nature and his spiritual nature. Unfortunately, the sinful nature seemed to win more than it should. And that was not by mistake but intentionally; it was willful choosing.¹ This discloses a weakness in the Law. It can point out what is right and holy, but it cannot change a person’s mind for them. This is why our spiritual nature needs a boost from the Holy Spirit to empower our sanctification.

This was certainly the view of John Calvin. He noted the great discord between the Law of God and the nature of mankind that exists in a born again individual. This strife involves the fact that the sinful nature rushes into sin while ignoring the danger, and without any assurance of survival. That’s because without the aid of Divine grace it cannot govern itself when tempted. On the other hand, the spiritual nature is led to do what is right by the Spirit of God. Nevertheless, often the corrupt nature applies pressure and ends up pushing the good nature into doing what is contrary to its wishes.

But Calvin is of the opinion that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in a person before they are renewed by the Spirit of God. When left to their own nature, they are carried along by their lusts without any resistance. Even if the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and although they have no joy in what they are doing because it leaves a bitter taste in their mouth, they are torn between deciding if what they feel is because they either hate evil or love good. The Lord permits them to be tormented in this manner. His purpose is to show them what He really thinks of the way they live. At this point, He is allowing the law to motivate them to love righteousness and hate sin, but it is up to them to decide.²

Adam Clarke thinks we can discover why the Apostle Paul dwells so long on the struggle between the principles of knowing what to do but not doing it, and knowing what not to do but doing it anyhow. Clarke feels that Paul feared some Jewish reader would object to such self-condemnation. Since the law is holy and spiritual; and since they accept it as perfect and right; and they agree that it ought to be followed; and are proud of the way they esteem it so highly; and glory and feel secure in it because they are convinced of its truth and excellency, that by thinking of the law this way shouldn’t this be adequate enough to cover their sanctification? In other words, would it be possible to substitute knowing what’s right in exchange for having to do what’s right?³ Clarke tries to look at this in a positive light. Even if it all seems wrong, at least a believer can come to realize that his or her need for the principles and power that come from the fountain of life are more urgent than they thought. Here is the reverse of this. If a person still isn’t convinced of their need for help they won’t ask for it. This, in turn, can lead to the unfortunate person finding themselves struggling under a load they cannot carry with assistance. Maybe then, the light will go on, and they will call out to God for help. Many of the Psalms were composed under such circumstances.

Robert Haldane strongly advocates that every person, whether regenerate or unregenerate, must be sensitive to the truth, so they know when they are doing wrong. Since this is found to be true in every regenerate person, it must then be confined to the unregenerate person’s mind. Haldane is convinced that Paul is speaking as a regenerate Apostle. It is important to understand this so what he says can be applied, in particular, to the regenerate. Especially since he said that he did what he hated and knew it was wrong. Although an unregenerate person may disapprove of evil, they can never say they really hate sin. Haldane also mentions the saying of the Roman poet Ovid, which we noted before,⁴ but believes these propositions are not at all identical. Ovid confesses that he practices what he knows to be wrong, but his inconsistency arises from the love of the evil not the love of right. Paul, on the other hand, confesses that he does what is wrong but declares that instead of loving the evil he does, he hates it and is repulsed by his actions.⁵

Albert Barnes noticed this same love-right/hate-wrong pattern in believers during his day. He does not find it abnormal among Christians. But their perspective is different than that of the unbeliever. For the believer, they have a habitual, fixed inclination and desire to serve God. At the same time, they have a rigid abhorrence of sin. However, they are still conscious of their imperfections, and that they are error-prone to sin. This is what upsets them and makes them uneasy and unsure. They know that the strength of their natural passion may, in an unguarded moment, take over their will. The haunting sense of habits long gone may still annoy them. Before they became believers, their mind was filled with skepticism, and criticism, and disrespect. But even after being born again this former way of thinking lingered in their mind, and annoyed them for years. And no matter how long these bad habits may lie dormant inside them, they can spring to life with the rapidity of lightning. That’s the way it is with every vice. It is one of the leftover effects of habit. As Barnes sees it, “The very passage of an impure thought through the mind leaves pollution behind.” Not only that but where the roots of certain sins went deep, they had a withering, devastating effect on the soul long after conversion. This too may produce conflicts with which every Christian is only too familiar.⁶

Paul’s dilemma of doing wrong even when he wants to do good, is seen by Bible scholar Charles Hodge as part of conventional thinking rather than some philosophical pattern of thought. It represents the language of everyday life, which is part of the common consciousness of people. This no doubt comes from what is called “common sense” rather than “schooled sense.” Common sense is a belief or a conclusion held in common by a large group of people. Schooled sense indicates being taught, you are different, one of a kind, and need not buy into common sense. The language of the Apostle, in this passage, displays a fact of consciousness, with which every Christian is acquainted. How much of what Paul describes here as a conscious understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, and the conflict it causes exists in every person to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether they are believers or unbelievers. Hodge thinks that this must be decided by conclusions drawn from the whole context of what Paul has said until now. He does favor the idea that Paul is speaking of the turmoil that many believers deal with since unbelievers seldom take time to deal with their conscious commotion.⁷

On the subject of the conflict between man’s will and God’s will, preacher Octavius Winslow is persuaded that most believers do not willingly sin, especially after having just put on the new man which God, through Christ Jesus, created to live in righteousness and true holiness.⁸ It is not possible for a believer to knowingly sin with the full consent and cooperation of their will. Their new spirit hates it, fights against it, and resists it. But this raises the question: is not all sin an act of the will? When it comes to a renewed person, it is going against their will. Winslow notes that the Apostle speaks of the believer’s will under two opposing influences. The one, “I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t. I do what I don’t want to – what I hate.”⁹ The other, “When I want to do good, I don’t; and when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway.”¹⁰

Winslow also addresses the fact that some Bible scholars question whether Paul is speaking of himself as a regenerate man or an unregenerate man. But they cannot ignore that he refers to two antagonist principles dwelling in him – the one on the side of holiness, the other on the side of sin. Even Solomon recognized this when he wrote: “If anyone respects and fears God, he will hate evil. For wisdom hates pride, arrogance, corruption, and deceit of every kind.”¹¹ Yet Paul admitted: “I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I am always doing the sinful things I don’t want to do.”

So the question is, does Paul see himself doing the opposite of what he wants to do as part of his own volition? Most would say, “Yes!” Every sin must be done voluntary, otherwise it would not be sin since sin is knowing disobeying the Word and will of God. So that raises another question: Is there the concurrence and consent of the renewed will in such an act of disobedience? The love and grace of God demands that we say, “No.” Only a regenerate person can say that they hate sin. So it is not their spiritual nature causing this discord, it is their sinful nature acting up at the wrong time.¹²

Charles Spurgeon calls this: “The believer’s riddle.” Anyone who would try to put this dilemma only in the lap of an unbeliever proves that person doesn’t know much about how believers feel. They hate sin! Granted, but why do they then keep falling into it? First of all, no believer would ever claim to be perfect. There was only one and His name was Jesus of Nazareth. Every Christian would live a perfect life if it were possible. But that still is no excuse or justification for sin. Even when it is being done a believer regards it as evil and abominable. That is the real war that is going on inside the believer’s heart and mind.¹³ In Spurgeon’s way of thinking, this constitutes a strange contradiction – a man who has enough grace to decide to do good, and yet fails to do so. He also sees it as the new nature’s struggle with the old nature’s habits. So for Spurgeon, Paul was talking about a born-again believer who finds that part of him is still imperfect.

For Frédéric Godet, this verse contains proof that serving sin is a form of slavery. Slaves only do what they are told and do not question why. They are not doing their own will but that of another. What Paul is saying then, is that some of the things he does are not the result of what he had planned to do all along. They are, in fact, the result of blind instinct, which drags him along without his consent. But once he realizes what had been done, he gets angry with himself and deplores such mindless and meaningless obedience to sin.¹⁴ To put this another way, it is like a person who hails a taxi at the airport and gives the driver the address of a place they know exactly how to get there. But even when they see the taxi driver going in a different direction they say nothing. It’s only when it takes them twice as long and twice as expensive to get there they want to kick themselves for not saying anything.

Why is it people find it so hard to love, but so easy to hate? Why is it people request permission to love but use any excuse to hate? Why is it people go only so far to show love but will go to any length to express hate?

Jesus detected this disgusting tendency, that’s why He taught so much about love. Love God, love your neighbor, love each other, and love yourself. The Apostle Paul was also aware of this terrible inclination. That’s why he said that you can have all the gifts, talents, and abilities possible in order to do all sorts of wonderful things for others, but if they are not done in love they are a waste of time.

Remember that hit song by Dionne Warwick, “What the world needs now is love sweet love?” But it is more than just human love, it’s God’s love. Because God turns everything around. He finds it so easy to love and so hard to hate. He will use any reason to love and turn down any excuse to hate. He will go to any length to express His love but will always stop short of expressing any hate. If you want any proof, just read John 3:16.

So just remember this, each time you hate for whatever reason, and sometimes for no reason at all, you are not a true Christian. Jesus did not teach us to hate, He taught us to love. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

READY FOR A NEW TRADITION

A woman once told this story, and it really spoke to me, I hope it says something to you. She remembered how she hired a plumber to come out to a farm where she was restoring an old farmhouse. She didn’t know it, but he was leaving another house after fixing a broken water pipe, and it had been a long, tiring job with a lot of problems. On the way to the farm, he had a flat tire and that caused him to arrive late, losing an hour of work. Shortly after he started to work on the farmhouse his big plumbing wrench broke. And then, at the end of the day when he got ready to go home, his old, beat-up pickup truck refused to start.

So the lady had to drive him home. He sat in stony silence all the way. But upon arriving at his house, he graciously invited her in to meet his family. As they walked toward the front door, he paused briefly at a small tree. He reached up and touched the tips of the branches with both hands. When he opened the front door, it seemed that he underwent an amazing transformation. His wrinkled face broke out in a big smile as he hugged his two small children who came running to him and gave his wife a kiss.

Afterward a short visit, he walked the lady back to the car. As they passed the little tree, her curiosity got the better of her. So she asked him about what he did earlier, reaching up and touching the tips of the branches. “Oh,” he said, “that’s my trouble tree,” “What do you mean by trouble tree?” The farm lady asked. “I know I’ll always have troubles and problems on the job, it happens to all of us, But there’s one thing I make sure of, those troubles don’t belong in my house to worry my wife and the children. So that’s why I hang them up on this tree every time I come home and ask God to take care of them. Then in the morning, when I reach up to take them with me again, a funny thing happens. There aren’t as many troubles left hanging there as I hung there the night before. I guess God does take care of them.”

Not only is it a fact that many people bring their troubles home and dump them all over their spouse and kids. Some even throw them at their pets. But often, the same is true in reverse. People take their troubles from home and dump them all over their boss and coworkers. So maybe we should pick out a place near the door of our house, apartment, or workplace, and call it our “Trouble Tree.” We too may find out that during the night, God does take some of them down, so we don’t have as many the next morning. How can we believe such a thing? Listen to what St. Peter himself told us: “Let God have all your worries and cares, for He is always thinking about you and watching everything that concerns you.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XVIII)

Frédéric Godet believes that we must take the notion of flesh here in a moral sense. That’s because it embraces, as it does in all cases, those occasions when the flesh works against God’s will. It reveals what is divine and what is devilish in every believer as a whole person. Paul felt that his basic nature was controlled by the flesh, from hunger to lust. The flesh, in self-complacency, is inclined to seek self-satisfaction in everything. One’s natural will is harnessed by this tendency. Incompatibility between his nature and that of the law forces action. Such action is more than doing the things a person likes to do. It demands absolute self-consecration to the Word and will of God.¹ Believers all recognize that the Law is spiritual. It is given and inspired by Divine will. Yes, regenerated sinners are capable of communion with God, but they are also communicating with their basic nature which tends to be in direct opposition to divine instructions. Being so earthly and sensual, this part of their nature is in slavery. But they must remember that they were redeemed from the slave market of the devil and are now servants of the Lord God.²

Swiss theologian Karl Barth believes that Paul’s call for recognition of the Law as spiritual is the first requirement of a righteous person. They need to know where they are coming from and where they are going in their spiritual life. Paul knew that life is short and finds himself dealing with conviction at the same time. This introduced an intolerable tension between his carnal nature and spiritual nature. He finds himself engaged in a conflict from which there is no escape. Yet it is good for him because it is the battle for his very existence. A demand is made on him to do something to hasten his victory over the natural tendencies that are causing so much warfare. Not only is this right, but also necessary for survival. So the question is asked, “What am I going to do?” It’s at that moment the Spirit of God rises up in his life to take control. It’s like building a wall around his soul. It becomes a fortress that cannot be occupied by the enemy. So it is decision time. Go with the natural tendencies or stick with the Spirit’s will? He and he alone can decide. Whatever his decision, he must live with it. He cannot pass it off on someone else to decide.³

Douglas Moo speaks from an Evangelical point of view on this thought. To him, Paul is characterizing the two chief actors in the drama that he unfolds. They are his “spiritual nature” and “sinful nature.” The law of Moses is considered spiritual because it is of divine origin.⁴ But Paul complains, “I am unspiritual. I feel like a slave sold to sin.” By using the phrase, “unspiritual” Paul is speaking of his natural tendencies. He uses this same phrase when he identifies those he calls “carnal” Christians.⁵ So he is not identifying himself nor those he calls carnal as being unregenerate. In other words, he is speaking of the sinful tendencies that every believer must deal with. In his case, he admits that they got the best of him at times and made him feel like a slave to sin. In such cases, he’s no better off than those who have never escaped sin’s tyranny⁶.⁷

Jewish scholar David Stern addresses the need to recognize, as Paul did, that the Torah was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This identifies Paul as a Messianic Jew who retained a high view of the Torah. Among Jews, this was a requirement. It was an axiom to which all agree without further demonstration. Yet Paul confesses that he was still somewhat bound to the old nature, literally, “I am fleshly” or “carnal.”⁸ What made him feel that way? It was the Torah. But was the Torah at fault. No! What Stern is saying here is a fact, whether we’d like to admit it or not. We can be a spiritually-minded prayer warrior, a faithful church-goer, and a dedicated Bible reader on the inside, but we still must deal with the deprecated temple on the outside that houses our souls – called the flesh, with all of its faults, failures, and foibles.

Verse 15: I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I end up doing the evil I hate.

The Apostle Paul continues his confession of an internal conflict between his conscience and the law. Doing what was right was an option along with doing what was wrong. The choice had to be made, either by something with an unsure nature – sin, or something with an eternal nature – the Law. Paul was aware of the Greek and Roman writings of his day, and we find one interesting statement by a contemporary Roman poet, Ovid, who wrote: “Discern this, how affection persuades, I see the right, and I approve it too; Condemn the wrong – and yet the wrong I pursue.”⁹ Also, the Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, who lived during Paul’s time, gives us these instructions: “He who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the wrath of his dislike is wretched.”¹⁰ This does not mean that Paul borrowed from Ovid or Epictetus, but it does prove that even the non-Jews were aware of this inner struggle.

Paul explained this later to his protégé young Timothy:  “God’s truth stands firm like a great rock, and nothing can shake it. It is a foundation stone with these words written on it: ‘The Lord knows those who are really His,’¹¹ and ‘A person who calls himself a Christian should not be doing things that are wrong’.¹²”¹³ So the same dynamics that existed under the Law, also exist under Grace. The main factor is that the Law could provide no forgiveness while God’s love and mercy do so through Christ.

While this did not eliminate the conflict Paul experienced, it did shed light on what needed to be done to conquer this rebellious force operating within his heart and mind. This same truth was seen while Solomon was king. At the dedication of the Temple, Solomon prayed a prayer of dedication. While doing so, he goes into a long narration that was meant to remind the children of Israel of their past actions and God’s responses. Then, while on his knees with his hands stretched out toward heaven, he concludes with this request of the LORD: “If they sin against you (and who doesn’t?) and you become angry with them and let their enemies lead them away as captives to some foreign land, whether far or near, and they come to their senses and turn to You and cry to You saying, ‘We have sinned, we have done wrong’; if they honestly return to You and pray toward this land that You have given their fathers, and toward this city of Jerusalem that You have chosen, and toward this Temple that I have built for Your name, hear their prayers and pleadings from heaven where you live, and come to their assistance.”¹⁴

David also understood this problem, and prayed to the LORD: “How can I ever know what sins are lurking in my heart? Cleanse me from these hidden faults. And keep me from deliberate wrongs; help me to stop doing them. Only then can I be free of guilt and innocent of some great crime.”¹⁵ This may have also inspired the Apostle John to write: “If we confess our sins to Him, He can be depended on to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong.”¹⁶ The believers in Galatian no doubt were dealing with the same internal conflict: “We naturally love to do evil things that are just the opposite from the things that the Holy Spirit tells us to do, and the good things we want to do when the Spirit has His way with us are just the opposite of our natural desires. These two forces within us are constantly fighting each other to win control over us, and our wishes are never free from their pressures.”¹⁷

But Paul didn’t want to give up and he didn’t want others to give in. So he tells the Philippians: “I don’t mean to say I am perfect. I haven’t learned all I should even yet, but I keep working toward that day when I will finally be all that Christ saved me for and wants me to be.”¹⁸ So it is a case of us running away from something, but it is also a case of our running toward someone. The Psalmist saw it this way for those who sincerely want to do what is right even though they have sinful thoughts: “Light is sown for the godly and joy for the good.”¹⁹ That’s why King David pleaded with the LORD: “Help me to refuse the low and vulgar things; help me to abhor all crooked deals of every kind, to have no part in them.”²⁰ His son Solomon expresses a similar thought: “If anyone respects and fears God, he will hate evil. For wisdom hates pride, arrogance, corruption, and deceit of every kind.”²¹

Early church teacher Origen recognizes that Paul intends to show that even the man who is unregenerate and sold under sin may try, by their natural instincts, to resist their evil tendencies. But since these tendencies rule, it’s difficult for them to submit easily to his moral authority. This often occurs when someone, for instance, decides not to react to provocation, but in the end, their anger gets the best of them, and they surrender, even if it goes against their will. In other words, they get angry even when they do not want to get angry. Someone whose spiritual nature has not yet been awakened most often will be defeated in such instances, even if they don’t like it. This happens because their will has no assistance from the Holy Spirit, so it is not strong or resilient enough to retain control. Sadly, this remains the case even when they reach the point of death in their struggle to do what is right.²²

One anonymous early church writer wonders what Paul meant when he said, “I don’t understand why I act the way I do.” Could it be that he really doesn’t want to know? Or is it that he hurt someone but doesn’t want to be hurt himself? Or could it be that there are things he desires which he knows are wrong but does not want to cheat himself out of getting them? That seems to be what Paul is saying when he states: “I don’t do the good I want to do.” Is that another way of saying: what I love to do is attractive, but what I hate to do is more attractive. Even for the unbeliever, sometimes the sin they committed is detestable. But because they couldn’t resist they resort to either denying they did it or pretend that it is not that bad.²³ This scholar touches on something that is still the culprit today among many who sin: People don’t want to recognize the cause of their wrongdoing, and, therefore, do not feel they should be held responsible for the sins they commit even though they know it’s wrong.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XVII)

Jesus made it very clear what evil tendencies were. On one occasion, He told His followers that a man’s desire to commit adultery with another man’s wife has already been done in his heart.¹ That’s why the writer of Hebrews informed his readers: “The Word of God is alive! It is at work and is sharper than any double-edged sword – it cuts right through to where soul meets spirit and joints meet marrow, and it is quick to judge the inner reflections and attitudes of the heart.”²

Even before the Law was given, God confronted mankind over matters of conscience dealing with right and wrong. After He challenged Adam and Eve to tell Him why they were hiding instead of meeting Him out in the open, they confessed that for the first time they both realized they were naked. Adam blamed it on Eve, Eve blamed it on the serpent. Then, after Cain murdered his brother Abel, God confronted Him. His lame excuse was he didn’t know he had any responsibility for his brother’s welfare. The list can go on and on. Even the patriarch Job confessed that after getting to know God, all his righteousness evaporated and he said: “I had heard about You with my ears, but now that my eyes have seen You; I detest who I am and repent in dust and ashes.”³

The great prophet Isaiah also had a moment where, after witnessing the awesome six-winged Seraphs singing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD Almighty,” before God’s throne, he reflected on himself and it was enough to make him cry out: “My doom is sealed, for I am a foul-mouthed sinner, a member of a sinful, foul-mouthed race; and I have looked upon the King, the Lord of heaven’s armies.”⁴ Later on, Isaiah confessed: “Since the world began no one has seen or heard of such a God as ours, who works for those who wait for Him. You welcome those who cheerfully do good, who follow godly ways. But we are not godly; we are constant sinners and have been all our lives.”⁵ In Christ, and through the Holy Spirit, this is what we call “conviction.” But the sense of sin’s awful presence does not come from the law, but from God’s grace and mercy calling us to repent and ask forgiveness. No doubt that’s how Peter felt, and it caused him to fall to his knees before Jesus and plead: “Get away from me, Sir, because I am a sinner!”⁶

Chrysostom is quick to agree that Paul clears the law of all blame. He holds it in high honor. And by calling it spiritual, he praises it as a proponent of virtue and a prosecutor of vice. This is the whole meaning of being spiritual – directing people away from sin toward holiness. This is what the law did by admonishing, reprimanding, and chastising those who practiced sin, while, at the same time, recommending every godly virtue available. So the question may be: How then was sin produced if the teacher is so admirable? It wasn’t due to any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the teacher, but from the lackadaisical and unenergetic attitude of the pupils.⁷ Were I able to have conversed with the great Chrysostom I may have asked him, instead of blaming their sin on laziness would he approve of calling it their inherited sinful nature from Adam.

After reading this verse, early church scholar Constantius is convinced that Paul has made an important admission. He does not claim any exemption as a holy Apostle but admits that even he is subject to things that are all too common among mere humans. By saying that the law had a spiritual message that he had not previously discerned, he identifies himself as one who only looked at the legal content. By doing so, Paul condemns himself for sinning by the weakness of his will to do otherwise. He was not forced into it by the law.⁸ And Bishop Cyril of Alexandria recognized that the dictates of the Spirit are one thing, but the desires of the flesh are another. They end up fighting against each other and can never, ever reach an agreement. So if mankind possesses a carnal mind, and the law communicates on a spiritual level, then it is easy to see why they don’t communicate effectively. So can the law ever learn to tolerate those who cannot break free from sin’s power? This is where wisdom is called for. If a person is convinced that they live in sin’s captivity, they will realize they are nothing more than a slave. That’s when the law is given an opportunity to awaken the desire to be set free.⁹

Paul has been trying to point out that before the law came mankind was “amoral.” In other words, they didn’t know the significant difference between right and wrong and really didn’t care whether or not what they did was ethical or virtuous. But after the Law arrived, mankind proved to be “immoral.” Now that they were aware of what God said was right and wrong, they did what was wrong anyway. To bring this into practical living. For instance, you attend a seminar, and on a display table there are items such as pens, pads, etc., and the sign reads: Free! If you take three or four of each without knowing that the provider meant that attendees should take only one of each, then your act was amoral because you didn’t know. But if the sign says “Free! – only take one of each,” but you go ahead and take three or four anyway, then your act is immoral because you now knew the rule.

For Martin Luther, Paul provides ample proof that he is a spiritually wise man. He knows that he is capable of immorality, and is displeased that he must confess such failings. But he still praises the Law of God because he recognizes it as being effective. But for Luther, someone who is aware of such sinful tendencies but nevertheless prides themselves as being spiritual, they are immoral fools.¹⁰

John Calvin sees Paul begin to compare what the law says with what man does. His object is to help everyone more clearly understand from where the sting of death proceeds. He does this by using an unregenerate person as an example. They live in darkness and ignorance about their sin, but when a person is born again, those same tendencies are still around. While the spirit inside would gladly obey God’s rules, it must struggle to do so. But keep in mind that Paul is only drawing a comparison here. We could say that he wanted everyone see what they used to be, what they are now, and what they should be in the future when it comes to being right with God. Since believers must continue to deal with the discord between their spirit and their flesh, can’t they arrange to agree? The emphatic answer is, No! They were not meant to fellowship with each other. That would be like asking why darkness and light can’t get along? Why do they insist on it being one or the other? Here we can see darkness as a symbol of evil and light as a symbol of holiness; one is of the devil and the other of God. They were never meant to get along with each other.¹¹

In Robert Haldane’s analysis, Paul is describing himself as a dual personality and points to two distinct natures operating within him. This is not just Paul, it is a universal truth respecting all believers. When grace came, sin was moved from its position of dominance but was not entirely evicted from the heart and mind. There was, then, in the Apostle Paul, as in every Christian, what can be called the field of operation for two competing armies.¹² As a result of this warfare, and these opposing principles still fighting within, no Christian is ever exempt from the collateral damage that occurs to their sense of being sanctified and committed to God’s will and ways. Every believer who is aware of this plague in their heart must also be fully convinced of its potential for good or possible harm.¹³

Albert Barnes agrees that the remainder of this chapter has been the subject of a lot of controversy among Bible scholars. The real question is whether Paul is describing his state before or after conversion. I have read arguments on both sides. There are no outright, uncomplicated answers either way. But Barnes feels that after giving attention to all that was available to him on the subject, he came to the conclusion that Paul is describing the state of a person under the influence of the Gospel, as the operations of the mind subsequent to conversion.¹⁴ Barnes is pointing out that some scholars believe Paul is talking as a Jew, others think he is using himself as an example for all mankind, others think he meant his condition, and, therefore, all people’s condition before he and they met Christ. Paul’s intentions will be made clearer as we continue with this chapter.

Charles Hodge believes that Paul is wanting to explain why a believer may still be subject to a power which, by themselves, they cannot overcome. It results in a constant struggle. All because they want to be free. But no matter what they try sin always seems to assert its authority from time to time. Every believer must be keenly aware of this conflict and resist ever becoming enslaved again. Although they endeavor to submit to God and His will, there is a tendency within their fleshly members that causes them to be subject to the law of sin. So in their distress, they begin to distrust of God. This can result in hardening of the heart for things that are holy, and an increase in their attraction to the unholy things of this world because of self-pride. This is the time to wake up to the indwelling evil tendencies and their potential for sin. The real struggle should not be just to keep from overcoming its influence but to be free from it ever taking control. With this comes a realization – they cannot emancipate themselves on their own. That’s when they need to appeal to a power greater than themselves. That is why God gave the Holy Spirit, just for this very reason.¹⁵

For preacher Charles Spurgeon, the law of the Lord must be seen as something far more critical than it seems to be. It cannot be taken as a mere set of does and don’ts. Its implications are far more serious because it affects the secret thoughts and purposes of people’s hearts and minds. Their imaginations are also subject to domination. The Psalmist declared: “Let the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart be pleasing in Your eyes, O Lord, my Rock and the One Who paid my ransom.”¹⁶ Paul’s admission that because he is mere flesh and blood, that is the source of all the mischief, not some irksome law. The Law serves a good purpose, it’s the right thing to do. It’s the immoral-minded person that’s the problem because in spite of knowing what is right they continue doing what’s wrong.¹⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XVI)

Reformist John Calvin takes a dramatic step in suggesting that “sin” must be regarded the same as, what was called, “bad behavior” before the law was announced. But as soon as the law was promulgated, then such bad behavior obtained its own identity as sin. So what was once seen as a misdemeanor is now designated as a crime against God, and, therefore, “sinful behavior.” That’s because it perverted the goodness of the law and changed it from being constructive to being destructive. This is what happens when something is changed by contamination. What may have contained elements in its own nature that were beneficial to the user, because of pollution it has become hurtful to them. This is why the law was so important. It was vital that the atrocity of sin to be openly revealed by the law. In many cases, it was considered excessive even by worldly standards. That’s why, once this truth was known, there are absolutely no excuses left. They are all invalid.¹

Although Calvin makes his explanation seem somewhat complicated, put it in layman’s terms it implies that sinful tendencies lay dormant in mankind’s nature and what they caused them to say or do was understood based on their own perception of right and wrong. But when the Law was given, those same tendencies had the opportunity to turn toward what was right and obey the law. But to the contrary, they turned away in rebellion and transformed something meant for life into a weapon for death. In a way, we can see how this relates to cancer. Normal cell reproduction becomes unrestricted and begins to multiply into tumors which put pressure on nearby tissues and can lead to death. So is the cancer of our sinful tendencies.

As far as Bible scholar Adam Clarke is concerned, people cannot have a full understanding of what sin is except through God’s law. That’s because the law serves a dual purpose. It not only helps us see the detestable and destructive nature of sin, but also serves as rules for living. There is little possibility that mankind could have discovered, on their own, the true stigma of sin in order to produce a sense and need for repentance. Also, without that awareness, it would have been impossible to see the necessity of Christ’s death as Savior. When no challenges are made to one’s conscience by the light of the Holy Spirit, there is little chance a person can see themselves as slaves under sin’s control. This would then keep them from recognizing God’s law and the commandments as holy, just, and good.²

With that understanding, Clarke applied this reality to his day and age. And he saw that there was no true repentance taking place where the moral law was not preached and enforced. Ministers who preach the Gospel only to sinners, at best do what the God lamented to the prophet Jeremiah: “They offer only superficial treatment for the wounds of the daughter of my people.”³ In other words, they don’t confront the believers directly. Yes, the law can be a beautiful instrument in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken unregenerate sinners. But they must also show that everyone who sins is breaking the law, and consequently fall under its curse. So unless they flee to the refuge hope holds out through the Gospel, they are doomed. This gives us, even more, reason to accept the fact that Jesus Christ is the End of the Law for justification to them that believe.⁴

For Albert Barnes, the sense of what Paul says here is that by the giving of the commandments and their application to the mind sin was completely exposed. That’s because it was riled up, inflamed, aggravated, and showed to be excessively malignant and deadly. So here is the bottom line: that the disposition of the Law is to awaken wicked tendencies out of their slumber into active existence so as to reveal their true nature. That’s what needs to be done, and is all that the Law is asked to accomplish. It is not then requested to sanctify the soul. That is beyond its power. So here we see the design of the Apostle Paul. Namely, that sin be seen for what it really is.

This is the only way a person can become acquainted with their true character. A person should never deceive themselves into thinking this is not necessary. It is part of God‘s plan to diagnose and expose the secret tendencies of the heart. Without this revelation, they would have no reason to look for a remedy. Just as a person who does not know they have cancer or diabetes asks a doctor for a prescription or treatment. Why should they worry about living if they don’t know there is a disease inside that could kill them? So it is with sin. No wonder God often allows people to plunge into sin to show who they really are. This is to alarm them that without help they will suffer the consequences of their own sinful deeds.⁵

In Charles Hodge’s mind, there is nothing more inconsistent with true faith than self-complacency. The truth is, the more sanctified we become, the clearer will be our views of the benefit of God’s law. Consequently, the clearer we can see with the light of the law the deeper we can look into the darkness where sin is hiding. Not only that, but our humility must grow as well. No matter what our experience as believers may be, if it does not correspond with Biblical expectations and results, we cannot really call ourselves Christians. So unless we have experienced what Paul experienced, we do not share Paul’s beliefs and convictions. That also means, we cannot expect to get the same reward.⁶ Hodge also sees some doctrinal implications in what Paul writes. One of them is that the law of God is a transcript of His own nature – holy, just, and good. The clearer our view who God is, what God is, and what God can do, the deeper will be our sense of our own unworthiness. Sin is exceedingly wicked. Its depravity is often manifested when it comes into contact with holiness. That arouses its harsh opposition and criticism. So it is with the holiness of the law. Instead of what is forbidden causing it to shrink back in contrition, it makes it all the more hostile and insistent. That should no doubt alarm us and make us take notice of what we are doing. But worse than that is the fact that sin is very deadly. It can take away all the meaning of life and why God created us. And such a state of mind cannot continue without bringing misery and despair.⁷

In one of his sermons, Charles Spurgeon pointed out that the law and sin are something like medicine which many physicians prescribe for their patients. After diagnosing a potentially fatal disease in the patient’s body, the doctor wants them to take this medicine to combat this terrible disease. Its evidence may be seen on the skin. It may also cause severe pain. And sometimes a person does not know it is there at all. It can be a silent killer. Left untreated, it would have brought death. But by being treated it only has the potential of causing death. So the whole purpose of the treatment is to cure the disease and put it into remission or eradicate it totally from the body.⁸ So Spurgeon is letting us know that as soon as the truth in the Law enters a person’s heart, their rebellious nature kicks against the restraints of the law, and such revolt is called sin. In other words, it is the reaction of mankind’s imperfect nature coming into contact with God’s perfect Law.

John Stott offered an illustration that exemplifies a man being caught red-handed breaking the law. He is arrested, brought to trial, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. He cannot blame the law for his imprisonment. True, it is the law which convicted and sentenced him. But he has no one to blame but himself and his own criminal behavior. In similar fashion, Paul exonerates the law. The villain here is evil tendency. And because of its perversity, when the law provoked it by saying, “No,” it rebelled and became belligerent. Those people who say that the problem is with the law, are quite wrong. The law is not the problem, its a person’s evil tendencies that enjoy sinning. This contention and conflict between evil tendencies and holy law show two things. First, the strength of the law to hunt down and expose these evil tendencies hiding inside hearts and minds. Secondly, the weakness of the law seen in its inability to offer forgiveness and salvation. This is true not only because the law has no such authority unless it is kept to perfection. But we cannot keep it because of indwelling evil tendencies.⁹

Douglas Moo feels that what Paul is doing here is summarizing what he taught in Romans 7:7–12. The main point being that because of the law it enables us to see sin for what it really is. The purpose is to identify the desires of our evil tendencies as sin, and to convince us that sin is fatal. In other words, the law is misused as an instrument that brings about sin instead of holiness. Holiness comes as a benefit of being in a living relationship with Christ, but sin fractures that relationship and eternal separation from Christ can be the result. This verse also reveals another factor. It helps people refocus on the law, evil tendencies, and sin. Instead of seeing the law as the problem, they can now see that the problem begins with them.¹⁰

Verse 14: We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I’m mere flesh and blood. Sin rules me as if I were its slave.

Clearly, Paul is drawing on his own experience in order to explain the hopelessness of seeking salvation by good works. For as anyone who has gone on a diet in order to lose weight will tell you, that your figure looks so much different in a picture or a video than it does in a mirror. In the mirror, you see what you want to see, but in a picture the facts and reality are more than your self-perception can dismiss. Paul is confessing to the same paradox in the way he viewed his spiritual status. He thought he had mastered the effort of developing a spiritual nature, when in fact he was carnal to the bone. Furthermore, he discovered that instead of having control over his sinful tendencies, they had full control over him, even to the point of making him a slave to their power.

Paul had reached the point where he discerned the difference between what the law said about works and what it said about wants. To put it another way, deeds cannot always be a mirror image of decisions. A person may be involved in helping a fellow farmer harvest his crop, but volunteered with the intent of stealing part of the harvest. This is the real issue that the law deals with. That’s why we read: “You are to love Adonai your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources.”¹¹ It doesn’t say with you hands or your feet, but with your heart and mind. That’s why, after the prophet Nathan told David that God knew all about his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, he made this confession: “I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. You deserve honesty from the heart; yes, utter sincerity and truthfulness.”¹²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XV)

When it comes to our evil tendencies and sin, let’s look at it like this way: A homeowner has never had a problem with ants in the house. But suddenly he spots one, and then another, and then a whole army. Like most people, he will set up traps or put out poison. But when that doesn’t slow them down, he starts tracing them back to where they came from, and then forward to where they are going. He finds out that the kitchen garbage container is uncovered. He also learns that ants love dead insects, grease, seeds, and sweets. So now what is the answer? Not only to cover and seal the garbage container but if possible put it outside if it contains leftover food. Likewise at the ant hill. Do something to cut off the source of the infestation. When we take those ants as a metaphor for our evil tendencies, the same action must be taken. Not only find out what attracts those tendencies, and block access to them. Furthermore, those tendencies come from our leftover sinful nature. The best remedy for that is to feed the spiritual nature until it takes charge of the tendencies to keep them from gravitating toward satisfying the things of the flesh.

So we can see that this verse incorporates an answer to the question in 7:7, “Is the law sin?”¹ It is no mystery that Paul calls the law holy, just, and good. That’s because its purpose is good and its very nature is to promote good which then leads to happiness. If obeyed, it would produce satisfaction everywhere. But that’s the problem, disobedience is the cause of misery and condemnation of the guilty. So stop blaming it on the Law.² To see a most beautiful description of the law of God, read Psalm 19:7-11.

In Frédéric Godet’s analysis, we see Paul being credited with removing from the law all suspicion of blame for a person’s failures and put it squarely where it belongs on the individual’s choices. No matter what claims, alibis or excuses are made by the individual who committed the sin, nothing will invalidate the character of holiness belonging to the law. By using the term “law,” it is obvious that Paul is pointing to the Mosaic system in its entirety, the commandments, and each article of the code in particular. In referring to the law as holy, Paul uses the Greek word hagios which in Scripture has a broad sense of perfect love for what is Godly. Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, offers a definition of “holy” in its moral sense, meaning, pure, sinless, and upright. And that is how it is used here.

And when it is applied to God Himself, it speaks of His will with goodness. And when used on God’s creation it signifies voluntary consecration to God, the one Being who is perfectly good. Because it is set aside for this purpose, that’s what makes the law holy, precisely because it demands such consecration. The same goes for the commandments because each one demands this same allegiance in its particular case. So when we speak of holiness or being holy, we find the two characteristics included in holiness are being Just and being Good. The law and commandments are Just because they regulate relations between different beings for their benefit. We can see this expressed in verse 10, “was intended to bring life.”³

Karl Barth raises an urgent question which weighs heavily upon a person after they realize that although they are religious, they are still in danger of rebelling against God because of what they must deal with as a citizen of this world. So the question is: “What, then, are we to do?” First of all, may God never stop questioning us! May He box us in with questions on every side! May He bar every exit and cut us off from using any excuses or alibis. May the center of our lives be bounded by a ring of questions! This is a similar thought spoken of by the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tse.⁴ The reason is that the answer to our question will not come from the outside, but the inside. That’s why the questions must keep coming until we discover the answers. And may it never cease until God is satisfied that we know what we need to know about Him and ourselves.⁵

Jewish scholar David Stern has trouble with those who think that Paul was only looking for a way to escape from his responsibility to Jewish Law only to make Christianity easy for pagan converts. If so, they will have trouble proving it after reading this verse. Paul proves that he had neither a non-Jewish view of the Law nor did he have any desire to abolish it. Paul had a lifelong high regard for the Torah.⁶ This had been with him from his youth since his parents were Pharisees.⁷ It is what no doubt led to his studies at the feet of Rabban Gamli’el in Jerusalem.⁸ So there is no reason to suppose that his conversion to Yeshua changed all that. Even Yeshua did not come to abolish the Torah.⁹ So many false reports concerning Paul’s disdain for the Law could have been proven as nonsense had this verse been contrasted with everything else he writes about the law. Here is a rule to remember: God’s holy Torah for holy living will not change. Why? Because God Himself will not change.¹⁰ With that being understood, then we can say that holiness will not change. For the rest of this chapter and well into the next, we will see that Paul still had a high regard for the Torah.¹¹

Another Messianic Jewish writer feels that it must be understood, as repeated over and over, although the Torah stirs up sin it is not sin itself. It is the revelation and instruction of the Holy One who gave it, and He is sinless. This provides an answer to the question of Romans 7:7, “Is the law sin?” The Torah is God’s will for Paul as it was for Yeshua,¹² and for all who follow the Messiah. When Paul talks about deliverance, it’s not from the law but from sin and death. Following what Yeshua already said, the observance of the Torah has not been abolished for His followers.¹³ Just as God’s faithfulness is not voided by Israel’s unfaithfulness. That means the soul of the Torah is not contaminated because man’s heart and mind are infected with disobedience.¹⁴ But keep in mind, Jesus embodies the whole Torah, so by obeying Him we fulfill all the demands of the law and eliminate sinning.

Verse 13: Does this mean that something that is good brought death to me? No, it was sin that used good commandments to bring me death. This shows how terrible sin really is. It can use a good command to produce a result that shows sin at its very worst.

Here Paul defends the purpose of the Law. The responsibility for one’s spiritual death is blamed on sin that reveals how hopelessly lost a person is, and how impossible it would be to save themselves from the punishment of sin. Paul explained this same truth to the Galatians: “Well then, are God’s laws and God’s promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by His laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin – for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe Him.”¹⁵

The Apostle James preached the same truth: “Remember, when someone wants to do wrong it is never God who is tempting him, for God never wants to do wrong and never tempts anyone else to do it. Temptation is the pull of man’s own evil thoughts and wishes. These evil thoughts lead to evil actions and afterward to the death penalty from God.”¹⁶ So again, the old excuse, “The devil made me do it,” is out the window; that defense is like a bucket with a big hole in the bottom that cannot hold water. God does not make you sin. Even Satan does not force you to sin. The Law and the Word of God do not cause you to sin. You and you alone are responsible for sin in your life.

Early church theologian Didymus believes that Paul is focused on Adam. And the reason is, that although he was made in the image of God,¹⁷ yet he turned away from life and chose death instead.¹⁸ By using the term “death,” Paul is talking about more than the common death of our bodily members but spiritual death as well. And spiritual death refers to the ultimate eternal separation from God.¹⁹ Ambrosiaster believes that Paul’s wording here suggests that before the law was given, there were a limited number of transgressions. But that is not what the Apostle means by saying more sin came after the law, in fact, there was much more serious sinning after than before. This merely implies that as more and more sins were revealed once the law was issued, the attacks and tricks of Satan grew more frequent and clever.²⁰ Chrysostom compliments Paul on the way he accuses sin. By doing so, Paul shows how excellent the law really is. Each commandment showed just how evil sin is. But the Apostle also takes the opportunity to show how grace is so much more marvelous than the law. Grace is not in conflict with the law. In fact, it is superior to it.²¹

Under Roman Catholic teaching today we find agreement with this assessment. It says that far from improving the sinner, law purposely encourages sin to show how it transgresses or violates specific commandments.²² So when a person who has not yet experienced the justifying grace of God, or when a believer reverts to dependence on law as the criterion for their relationship with God, they will recognize a rift between their being good like the law says and their actual performance that is contrary to the law. Being unable to free themselves from the slavery of sin and the power of death, they can only be rescued from defeat in this conflict by the power of God’s grace working through Jesus Christ.²³ The one thing left out of this commentary is the recommended way of accepting God’s grace for such a rescue and deliverance.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER SEVEN (Lesson XIV)

Charles Hodge offers an idea on how sin’s modus operandi misled Paul, completely deceiving him, and caused all his expectations to end in disappointment. This happened because the Apostle was led to expect one thing while experiencing another. He anticipated a holy life, but found spiritual death; he awaited fulfillment, but was given only failure; he looked for holiness, but found increasing corruption. In other words, he imagined that the law would deliver all these desirable virtues so he could feel eternally secure. You can only imagine the heartbreak when he discovered that his devotion to the law had produced the exact opposite effect. Sin, therefore, was using the law to victimize, leaving him empty and disappointed instead of being holy and blessed. Sin follows a similar pattern. It also promises to deliver the joys and pleasures of sin. Everyone who has been delivered from sin knows how it always mocked expectations and imitated hope. Paul was not alone, such is the experience of every believer in the ordinary progress of their inward life. They often turn to the law for help in constructing a temple to worship their own righteousness and strength, only to find out that all the law does is aggravate their efforts by not meeting its promises because they never met their vows.¹

Karl Barth has a philosophical way of looking at the role of the Law. As he sees it, the law has proven to be an occasion for sin to raise its ugly features and insist on making it something other-worldly. They try to clothe their time here on earth with the garment of eternity. This is an attempt to make themselves look holy through human achievement. Furthermore, this is what led to a form of worship where they are speaking to God instead of God speaking to them. Then they have the gall to call such worship a “religion.” In the process, worshipers find life here on earth questionable, and that puts their religion in doubt. So out of desperation, they lift their hands in prayer and then slump in weariness. They do this over and over to no avail. All of this describes living under the law in a futile attempt to become right with God on their own so as to justify their deserving eternal life as a reward.²

John Stott takes this a little further by outlining three devastating effects of the law in relation to sin. First, it exposes sin, then provokes sinful tendencies, and finally condemns the sin committed. That’s why Paul told the Corinthians that this defines the law as the power of sin, with its resulting sting known as death.³ However, this does not constitute thinking of the law as sinful, nor to assign to it the responsibility for sin. Instead, it is our sinful nature that responds to the law by sinning. When seen that way, then the law is exonerated, and sin receives the blame.⁴ How often do we find people who blame their misdeeds and mistakes on the rules? Like the person who gets a speeding ticket blames it on the cop who tracked them with radar. Or the person who is fined for not returning an overdue borrowed item. They blame it on the policies of the lender. Paul is saying, you cannot blame your sin on the Law, but you must realize and confess that it was your own sinful nature that rebelled against the Law which was designed to protect you from harm.

Verse 12: Now the law is holy, and what it commands is holy and right and good.

A recent translation of this verse from Hebrew by Jewish scholars reads as follows: “For what reason the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good?”⁵ A better English rendition would be: “For what reason was the law made holy, and the commandments holy, just, and good?” It obviously sends us to the next verse that continues the thought by also asking; “If it was so good and holy, why does it cause failure?” Paul is not arguing against the law, but rather to show how by understanding its aim, its purpose can be better seen. The question is also asked so that Paul could show that it wasn’t the law that ruined him, but the sinful tendencies that came to live because of the law. Again, we must understand here the word “kill” is a figure of speech meaning, to bring to an end.

This was done by Paul in order to cushion any push-back from the Jewish members of the church in Rome in response to what they interpret as Paul assigning the Law of Moses to the trash-heap of outdated philosophies. He wants them to know that he still has great respect and reverence for the Law. After all, it did not come from Moses, it was given to Moses by God. In fact, God asked the children of Israel: “What nation, no matter how great, has laws as fair as these I am giving you today?”⁶ That’s why the announcement went out to everyone: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you except to listen carefully to all He says to you, and to obey for your own good the commandments I am giving you today, and to love Him, and to worship Him with all your hearts and souls?”⁷

From that time onward the Laws given to Moses were held in high esteem. The Psalmist exclaimed: “God’s laws are perfect. They protect us, make us wise, and give us joy and light. God’s laws are pure, eternal, and fair. They are more desirable than gold. They are sweeter than honey dripping from a honeycomb.”⁸ Even after the children of Judah returned from exile in Babylon and Persia, when Ezra the scribe prayed to God at one of their festivals, he said: “You came down upon Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them good laws and true commandments… and You commanded them, through Moses, Your servant, to obey them all.”⁹ In the Jewish teachings on mysteries and the Messiah it is said: “Therefore, it is necessary we should study the secret doctrine day and night and observe its teachings and doctrines.”¹⁰

That’s why Paul told young Timothy not to get involved with those who argue endlessly over what they think the Law is really saying: “They want to become famous as teachers of the laws of Moses when they haven’t the slightest idea what those laws really show us. Those laws are good when used as God intended.”¹¹ This is good advice for all today who are confronted by those who argue incessantly over what they think Paul said in his letters.

Apparently, early church scholar Chrysostom got wind of some teachers who were confusing the law of Moses given on Mt. Horeb in Sinai with the law of nature delivered to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Paradise. Chrysostom dismisses such a notion because Paul had no quarrel either one of them. What brought fear to the Jews was the possible abolition of the law. This would put an end to their religion and all of its rites, rituals, and ceremonies. No wonder they so stubbornly opposed the idea of the law being replaced by the doctrine of grace. Also, their argument holds even less water when it is proven that Paul never called the commandment given in paradise a law. So putting that aside, it would allow for a more focused examination of the logic behind Paul’s argument about how the law had failed and needed to be replaced.

So building on what he had already discussed with the believers in Rome concerning the need for having proper standards of behavior for Christians, Paul began this chapter by reminding them that they were very acquainted with what the law says about conduct, but did they take the time to notice that it only applies to a person while they are alive. And since their interest extends beyond this life to the world-to-come they needed something more eternal. If that is the case, then why continue under a standard of living that’s going to expire when they can live by the rules that will be theirs on into eternity? It would make no sense to continue living under a code of conduct that will soon be out-of-date. To do so would make them no better than those who occupy the animal world. So there is no reason to even consider it.¹²

John Calvin feels that more insight is needed to better understand Paul’s wording here about the law being holy. First, Calvin accepts the opinion that the words “law” and “commandments” are one and the same thing. But he bids us to notice a curious force in the words. Paul says that the law itself and, whatever it commands, is holy, and, therefore, should be regarded with the highest reverence. That’s because since it is holy and just, it cannot, therefore, be charged with doing anything wrong. To accept the law as good and pure is to free it from responsibility for doing any harm. Paul wanted to make sure that any charge of blame brought against the law would fail because that is contrary to its goodness, justice, and holiness.¹³

Robert Haldane is convinced that as believers we should not only abstain from all that God forbids but that we should not even desire what is forbidden. All that the law demands from anyone is what’s equitable and due to God, and nothing more. The same goes for the believer and their fellowman. A just law could demand no less. In so doing, the law proved not only to be fair but also beneficial. That’s because in and of itself it’s purpose is redeeming. That means that the law’s whole intent is to promote harmony and to establish in the highest degree the happiness of all who are under its authority. When we look closer, every commandment given to Moses was basically designed to promote happiness among humans. This is the glory of the law and shows that it proceeds from the Giver of every good and perfect gift – from Him who alone is good.¹⁴ But this must not be mistaken as the basis for our obedience to the law. Anyone who has attempted to place the foundation of morals on the principle of, “do what feels good for you,” only proves their shortsightedness. They fulfill what Paul said at the beginning: “Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools”¹⁵.¹⁶

Albert Barnes hopes that we have all come to the same conclusion: The law is not to be blamed. This is what happens under normal circumstances in everyday life. The real culprit is not the law, it is the corrupt nature of mankind. But keep this in mind, although the Law is good, it was never meant to purify the heart of fallen man. It has no such power. But it was designed to increase guilt, conflict, alarm, and despair. For what reason? To show what was hiding inside of men’s hearts and minds. This should then prompt them to seek help and resolution.

You may have never heard of Joseph John Campbell, born March 26th, 1904, in White Plains, New York. First child of Charles and Josephine Campbell. In 1921 Joe graduated from Canterbury School in New Milford, Connecticut. The following September entered Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. But soon became disillusioned with the social scene and disappointed by a lack emphasis on academic achievement. He transferred to Columbia University in New York, where he excelled while specializing in medieval literature. In 1934, he was offered and accepted a position in the literature department at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, a post he would retain for thirty-eight years. He passed away after a bout with cancer in 1987.

Later, Diane K. Osbon put together a book consisting of material she selected and edited from the writings of Joseph Campbell. In the section titled, “In the Field,” we find this quote: “We must be willing to get rid of the life we’ve planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us. The old skin has to be shed before the new one can come. If we fix on the old, we get stuck. When we hang onto any form, we are in danger of putrefaction.”¹

This is not only true of secular life but of spiritual life as well. The Apostle Paul said: “Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!”² This was the problem with a very talented, educated, and wise Jewish member of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus. He wanted to know more about the new Kingdom of God Jesus was preaching. So he came to Jesus by night to find out. Jesus told him, there would be no way to explain it to him unless he was first born again.³ In other words, started anew. Let go of the old worn out religion he had become so accustomed to and take hold of the new vibrant faith offered by Christ.

Paul wrote on another occasion: “You have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”⁴ Why is it that some Christians only live a victorious, positive, God-fearing life on Sunday, but the rest of the week they sit around stewing in the rusty pot or old habits? Paul expressed the same frustration when he wrote the Galatians: “Why is it that after you have come to know God, you keep going back again to the weak and worthless elementary mindset of the world? Why do you want to be enslaved once more? You only reverence God on certain holidays!”⁵

Come on! Every day can be a day of rejoicing because you are a child of the King! Start living like one. Campbell said it was like a snake shedding its skin. So do what the Prophet Isaiah encourage the people of Zion to do: “To all those who are despondent and feeling sorry for themselves, God has a crown of beauty to replace your sad look, a joyous blessing instead of your feeling sorry, a festive song of praise instead of singing the blues.” By doing what He wants, you will grow like great redwoods that the LORD has planted for His own glory. Then people will see what a mighty God you serve.⁶ – Dr. Robert R Seyda