Category Archives: Romans

Who is the Man of Romans 7:14-25?

Posted on by

I have been doing some work lately on the nature of the Christian life from Paul’s grand expression in Romans 6, 7, and 8. Having spoken of the universality and the totality of man’s natural depravity in the first three chapters, the freeness of gospel grace and the wonder of justification by faith alone in the next two, Paul goes on to give a fit description of the Christian life and situates it in what has been called the “already-not-yet” tension. In Romans 6 he majestically points out the “already” of our identity, which is union with Christ in his death and resurrection. In Romans 7 he grapples with the “not yet,” as he struggles with indwelling sin. And in Romans 8, simply one of the greatest chapters in the entire Bible, he reminds those who live in that tension of the certain victory in Jesus Christ who has made us more than conquerors.

Unless I can be convinced otherwise, I think maintaining the tension of Romans 6, 7, and 8 is absolutely necessary. To be too much in the “already” leads to a deflated view of indwelling sin and the need to mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). To be too much in the “not yet” leads to a deflated view of our positive identity in Jesus Christ. All that to say, as we walk the seeming knife’s edge, on one side is the danger of legalism, and the other is antinomianism, both equally dangerous and condemning doctrines (and both are prevailing today!). Douglas Moo is right about one thing, “It may be generally said that the interpretation of few passages has been more influenced by one’s broad theological perspective and experience” (Romans, 443).

Of course, one of the important questions regarding Romans 7 is who is the “man” of Romans 7:14-25? Can a Christian suffer the experience which is described here, or is this struggle only that of an unregenerate person? Historically, many of the early church fathers saw this passage speaking of the unregenerate. Even Augustine in his early years adopted this view, but in the midst of the Pelegian controversy he came to see it as speaking of the believer. This interpretation was accepted by nearly all the Reformed and Lutheran right down to today—and is still widely held. For my part, recognizing some of the difficulties, I agree with the Reformers. Beyond being a fine exegetical point, I think the church is in danger of being robbed of much comfort if we fail to see the man of Romans 7 as a believer struggling with indwelling sin. My simple argument is that I don’t see how an unregenerate person could possibly say the things that are said here, while I can conceive how the believer can. Here are five reasons why many view this as speaking of the regenerate man (see Murray, Romans, 1:257-259):

  1. In v 22 Paul says, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being.” This cannot be said of an unregenerate person, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed it cannot” (Romans 8:4).
  2. There is v 25, “I myself serve the law of God with my mind.” Again, this service is not merely external, but of the heart and mind and is impossible for the unregenerate man because he is “in the flesh,” and has “the mind of the flesh” (Romans 8:5-8).
  3. The man portrayed here is inclined towards the good (vv 15, 18, 19, 21) and the bad which he does he regards as going against that which he loves (vv 16, 19, 20). This is unlike the unregenerate who hates the good, but the man here hates the evil (Romans 8:5-8).
  4. The tension here between doing what he hates and not doing what he loves is inevitable in a regenerate person so long as sin remains in him. We cannot ignore the fact that sin persists in the believer. There is a certain contradiction in every believer, and the more sensitive one grows to the demands of holiness and the more he sees the strength of indwelling sin, the more he is brought to complain “Wretched man that I am” (v 24).
  5. This doesn’t mean the Christian is defeated. Paul’s complaint in v 24 is answered by his praise in v 25, which is an assured confidence and a great gospel hope. This word of thanksgiving is not the language of an unregenerate man.

Holiness a Necessary Consequence

Posted on by

John Witherspoon, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) once wrote, “I have always found, that the most specious and plausible objection, and that most frequently made against the doctrine of justification by imputed righteousness, has been in this case, as indeed usually before, that it loosens the obligations to practice” (Works, 1:28).

Imputed righteousness is the belief that in our justification (standing before God), the believer has nothing to offer in and of himself. Rather, the righteousness (or obedience) of Jesus Christ is credited to one’s account so that by faith in Christ, God looks at a man as though he had never sinned. It doesn’t make a man righteous (that’s sanctification), but it accounts him righteous in the sight of God. Therefore, justification is a declarative act–God declares a man not guilty.

In a brilliant and applicable sermon on Romans 6:1 Witherspoon worked to counter this argument by showing, “The imputed righteousness of Christ, is so far from weakening the obligations to holiness, that, on the contrary, the belief and reception of it, as its necessary consequence, must make men greater lovers of purity and holiness and fill them with a greater horror of sin than any other persuasion on the same subject.” He gives six reasons:

  1. First, those who are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ have the clearest and strongest conviction of the obligation every man has to the law of God.
  2. Second, he who believes in Christ and expects justification by imputed righteousness has the deepest and strongest sense of the evil of sin.
  3. Third, the one who expects to be justified only through the imputed righteousness of Christ have the greatest view of the danger of sin.
  4. Fourth, they have the highest sense of the purity and holiness of God; and are therefore under the conviction of the necessity of purity in order to be in his presence and enjoy him.
  5. Fifth, justification by imputed righteousness strengthens one’s gratitude and thankfulness to God which are the strongest inducements to obedience.
  6. Sixth, those who are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ are possessed by a supreme love to God which is the very sum and substance, even the perfection of holiness.