Romans 7:13-25 Who is that Man?

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi All,

This thread I want to devote to discussing the ever illusive identity of the person Paul is referring to in Romans 7:13-25, is it Paul himself? Is it a saved person? Is it an unsaved person? Is it someone prior to some kind of special experience, like baptism of the Holy Spirit.

As the thread goes along I will of course be expressing some of my views (not completely convinced on this one myself), but wanted to keep the OP short so others can respond.

Here is the text:


Released from the Law through Death
7 Or do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is master of a person for as long a time as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband. 3 Therefore as a result, if she belongs to another man while* her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she* belongs to another man. 4 So then, my brothers, you also were brought to death with respect to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, sinful desires were working through the law in our members, to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, because we* have died to that by which we were bound, so that we may serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter of the law.

Knowledge of Sin Comes through the Law
7 What then shall we say? Is the law sin? May it never be! But I would not have known sin except through the law, for I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, “Do not covet.†8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin is dead. 9 And I was alive once, apart from the law, but when* the commandment came, sin sprang to life 10 and I died, and this commandment which was to lead to life was found with respect to me to lead to death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Internal Conflict with Sin
13 Therefore, did that which is good become death to me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be recognized as sin, producing death through what is good for me, in order that sin might become sinful to an extraordinary degree through the commandment. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into slavery to sin. 15 For what I am doing I do not understand, because what I want to do, this I do not practice, but what I hate, this I do. 16 But if what I do not want to do, this I do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh. For the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want to do, I do not do, but the evil that I do not want to do, this I do. 20 But if what I do not want to do, this I am doing, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me.
21 Consequently, I find the principle with me, the one who wants to do good, that evil is present with me. 22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in my inner person, 23 but I observe another law in my members, at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that exists in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself with my mind am enslaved to the law of God, but with my flesh I am enslaved to the law of sin. (Ro 7:13–25). (LEB)

Thoughts?

Blessings in Christ,
Doulos Iesou

 

[smaller]

Hi All,

This thread I want to devote to discussing the ever illusive identity of the person Paul is referring to in Romans 7:13-25, is it Paul himself?

The ever elusive? You're kidding, right?

It's PAUL.

The scriptural math for Paul on these matters is superabundantly clear and determined:

A. All have sin. Paul was no exception. If you need scripture for this what can I say?
B. All have sinned. Both present tense and past tense applications which undeniably link sin to mankind are again, superabundant in the text.
C. Since sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8), the 'evil present' with Paul in Romans 7:21 should also be relatively clear. The indwelling sin that Paul describes as 'no longer I' is of whom? There is only one remaining party left to observe. The devil or 'a devil, take your pick' was in fact the evil present with Paul.
D. Paul himself stated he had a devil/messenger of Satan in his flesh, openly showing that fact in writing in 2 Cor. 12:7. Again, it doesn't take a genius to connect the written facts on this matter. Paul also stated he had 'temptation in his flesh.' We know the TEMPTER TEMPTS. Again...ding.
E. Paul declared himself, post/after salvation to be 'the chief of sinners' in present tense terms.
F. There should be zero questions to any reader that the person in Romans 7's depiction is in fact PAUL. The terms Paul employed are me and I. Were Paul using some unsaved person as an example it would have certainly been identified.

and IF all the above isn't enough to clarify your questions, the fact that devils are superimposed upon mankind is one of the most prevalent themes of the N.T. Gospels where this fact is shown on nearly every page therein. As incredible of a story as it seems to the 'modern mind.' I for one accept the fact that internal temptation thoughts place the tempter or one of his own IN MY MIND which places that operator where? Uh, yeah. Do the math.

Can it be any clearer? But you see that is part of the issues of understanding. That factual operator clouds the minds of any person attempting to peer inside their OWN mind. And it really is there, within, that the real spiritual battles RAGE.

s

 

[Deborah13]

I agree that Paul is speaking about himself. We see Paul as an almost perfect man of God, how could he not be, he was anointed and instructed by Jesus himself.

It would seem that as a Christian matures and bigger sins go to the wayside the sin that we didn't notice within us comes to our awareness and becomes big. So no matter how much we eradicate sin from our lives, it is still present.....

 

[chessman]

in Romans 7:13-25, is it Paul himself? Is it a saved person? Is it an unsaved person?

It’s me! It’s me that Paul is talking aboutJ
Seriously though, I’ve never heard it taken as anything other than Paul talking about Paul. I'll wait to see where you are going and who (what evidence there is) would see it otherwise.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Chessman, Smaller,

I suppose it would be a good idea to clarify a bit the issue at hand. Obviously if you take the passage at face value, Paul is referring to himself in the first person. The question then is in what way is he referring to himself. Is this in regards to his current struggles as a Christian? Is this in regards to his previous struggles as a Jew? Is this in regards to his struggles as a Christian before some kind of event, such as Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Or does this first person reference have some other kind of meaning not mentioned by me?

I am not making up these examples as they are each of them have been popularly taught by varying denominations. Charismatics and some Wesleyans for example, believe it is in regards to the Christian life before some kind of second experience. While many Reformed Christians hold this as the basis for their doctrine on the indwelling sin in the believer after being saved, and their ongoing struggle to do what is right.
Does this clarify my question a bit more?

Blessings in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

 

[smaller]

Hi Chessman, Smaller,

I suppose it would be a good idea to clarify a bit the issue at hand. Obviously if you take the passage at face value, Paul is referring to himself in the first person. The question then is in what way is he referring to himself. Is this in regards to his current struggles as a Christian? Is this in regards to his previous struggles as a Jew? Is this in regards to his struggles as a Christian before some kind of event, such as Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Or does this first person reference have some other kind of meaning not mentioned by me?

I am not making up these examples as they are each of them have been popularly taught by varying denominations. Charismatics and some Wesleyans for example, believe it is in regards to the Christian life before some kind of second experience. While many Reformed Christians hold this as the basis for their doctrine on the indwelling sin in the believer after being saved, and their ongoing struggle to do what is right.
Does this clarify my question a bit more?

Blessings in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

Paul obviously identified indwelling sin as 'not him.' Paul also differentiated himself from the 'evil present' with him.

In my first post I cited some supporting text to show that Paul in fact had a devil and that sin is associated with the devil.

That is in fact the unpleasant fact that any longer term serious student will be led to come to grips with if they want to understand Paul, sin and our mutual adversaries.

I'd also add that the 'reformed' camp (and many other sects visions on these open facts) could use an upgrade to their general understandings in this particular matter.

s

 

[chessman]

Does this clarify my question a bit more?

Yes.

I thought you meant literally Paul might be talking about another person altogether and couldn't believe how anyone would find evidence for that in Rom 7. Plus, I’ve just never heard about any controversy WRT Rom 7. Maybe I’m lucky or maybe I’m ignorant.

The question then is in what way is he referring to himself. Is this in regards to his current struggles as a Christian?

I would say, yes to this option. For the same reason, basically. Not sure how anyone could come to a different understanding that Paul means himself (now converted, yet not forgetting from whence he came nor struggling with the deepness of God’s grace). It’s all Paul. Why would anyone want/need to segregate him into pieces?

Is this in regards to his previous struggles as a Jew?

Well, I'd say yes and no. Paul was a Jew (past and present) and was totally sold on the idea that his Jewish-ness equaled his righteousness. But God changed his thoughts about the law that he formerly held in such high regard as to make him righteous before God. Did that mean God totally expunged all past memories of the Law’s effect on Paul. Of course not. The Holy Spirit (and Jesus himself on a walk one day to Damascus) explained it all to him. Providentially, he explained it all to us as well.

Did that which is good[the law], then, bring death to me? [was it all just a waste and actually has condemn me?] By no means! It was sin, producing death in me [showing him just how useless the law was toward true righteousness] through what is good [the law], in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
(Romans 7:13 ESV)
​

Yet he still remembered what it [the law] had formerly meant to him, yet he now saw it for a different purpose (it’s original purpose in fact). He thought it was for his righteousness, yet God really meant it to show him just how sinful he really was/is all along. I don’t see two different “persons†in any of that message. I also don't see any controversy in Rom 7 (or anywhere else in romans). So again, I'll just wait and see where this leads.

That’s why the rest of Romans 7’s is still about Paul as well. Yes, there’s some back and forth between his old way (Saul) of thinking and his new way (Paul). But it’s all about him (his struggles) in the present tense of Romans 7, even as a Christian.

That’s why I answered, Me! I feel like I know exactly what he’s talking about. Now, whether I’ve misunderstood something in Paul’s message and I hold my feelings because I’ve hung-out to much with Reformed Christians? I’m open to being wrong on this subject or any other. Somebody’s going to have to point out to me scripturally where I’m wrong, however. I don’t think my beliefs here comes via my presuppositions/church teachings. But maybe.

Reformed Christians hold this as the basis for their doctrine on the indwelling sin in the believer after being saved, and their ongoing struggle to do what is right.

Well, I’d say yes and many, many other passages of Scripture as well. Again, somebody would have to point out where there’s a conflict with this view and then I’d look into it more.

Charismatics and some Wesleyans for example, believe it is in regards to the Christian life before some kind of second experience.

Well, I suppose there’s a spectrum of meanings possible within this statement; from very literal to metaphorical. To being “saved†then much later in life being “filled with the Spiritâ€. I don’t find any evidence for that “second experienceâ€, if that’s what you mean they teach. I’d have to know what is meant by their statement and when this “second experience†occurred. If they meant some event after the events in Acts 9 (where Paul is clearly “filled with the Spiritâ€, for example, much later than in Damascus. I’d have to ask what evidence there is of a “second experience†coming after that event.

So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.†And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.â€
(Acts 9:17-20 ESV)…

But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
​

Clearly Paul here was a Christian and also was “filled with the Holy Spiritâ€. So I don't see the point. But that's fine. I'll wait for where this leads.

 

[Sinthesis]

Paul is describing the futility of a works based system when practiced by fallen mankind. The mere presence of an external bond elicits a response within us that, even when overcome by the will, still amounts to sin. Christ shows the way to escape this bondage.