Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons


Romans

God's law is good. 7:7-12

[Seed logo] Introduction
      In chapters 5-8 we learn of the "newness of life" that is ours in "union" with Christ Jesus, a life that is a natural consequence of a person's eternal right-standing in the sight of God by faith. Having explained how a believer is free from the slavery of sin, Paul now explains how we are free from the oppressive dominion of the law. In our passage for study, Paul tackles a possible misconception; he is not implying that the law is sinful, rather that the law exposes sin and thus our need for redemption. Paul, in this passage, uses the past tense. He speaks in a general way of a person without the law, who is then confronted by the law. He is thinking of the giving of the Mosaic law to Israel and uses the first person to identify himself with the people Israel. His observation is that the law exposes the true nature of sin. The law therefore serves as an especially important revelation from God, a sacred, fair and good thing.

The passage
      v7. "Am I suggesting that the law is sinful?". This criticism could easily be on the lips of Paul's law-bound opponents and so he responds by condemning the suggestion. In no way is Paul implying that the law is evil. Sin is evil, the law but serves to expose that evil. Paul quotes the perfect example, the command not to covet, not to allow ego-centric desire, lust, to gurgle within. Of course, the more we are told not to covet, the more we covet. So, the law exposes our state of loss.
      v8. Apart from the law, sin is powerless and relatively subdued. Sin has certainly set up a base of operations in the life of every human and remains fully destructive, but without the law it just doesn't show itself. When faced with the law, sin raises its head and bursts into life. So, in a sense, sin is like a snake lying motionless and hidden and only stirring to take advantage of its opportunity in the giving of a commandment. Well Mark Twain observed when he suggested that humans are like mules, we do the opposite we are asked to do.
      v9. Unaware of the law, we live in innocent bliss, but once we become aware of the full impact of the law, sin raises its head and our real condition of loss is easy to see. There is no idea that we were actually "alive", in the sense of right with God, prior to understanding the demands of the law, rather, once we come up against the demands of the moral law, any sense of innocence we may have had is soon dispelled.
      v10-11. The commandments, given to Israel to guide faithful living, served only to promote rebellion and this because of the human condition of sin. When faced with the commandment, sin springs into action and we die, we die "the living death of sin, precursor of eternal death", Sanday and Headlam. We are therefore foolish if we think that our Christian walk is improved by attention to the law, because the law tends to promote rebellion, not holiness.
      v12. So, the law is a good and sacred thing because it serves to expose unrighteousness, sin and our state of loss.

The function of the law
      One of the greatest dangers we face in the Christian life is to assume that the law serves to shape righteousness in us, to progress our right-standing before God, to make us holy. The trouble is that any standing we possess in the sight of God is a work of divine grace appropriated through faith, and is not something earned by an effort of the will applied to divine law. In fact, if we slip into law-obedience we find the law operating in our lives to condemn us, pronounce us guilty, and so undermine our assurance of salvation. As Paul asks the Galatians, "after beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain you goal by human effort?" 3:3. So, what then is the role of the law?
        i] To drive us to Christ. It serves to expose sin and thus our need for a saviour. This, for Paul, is the prime function of the law - a revelatory task of immense value. For a believer, the law has already served this function.
        ii] To give direction to the Christian life. God's law is designed to shape the life of faith; it is a practical guide to the renewing work of the Spirit.
      To use the law to earn divine brownie-points is to court disaster.

Discussion
      It is sometimes suggested that there is a third role for the law, namely, "to restrain evil". Does scripture teach this truth? cf. Gal.3:24, 1Tim.1:9. What of Romans 5:20?


Notes

Textual notes   Abbreviations,   Bibliography
 
      Paul's letter to the Romans is an exposition of the gospel set against law-bound believers (mainly Jewish believers - judaizers, the circumcision party) who regard submission to the law (primarily the law of Moses) as the means of maintaining and/or advancing their standing before God. For Paul, this heresy (nomism / pietism) not only undermines the substance of the gospel, but actually undermines a believer's standing before God, a standing which rests wholly on the covenant faithfulness of God appropriated through faith in the person and work of Christ.
      Paul, having stated his thesis in 1:16-17, that right-standing in the sight of God (covenant compliance) is appropriated through faith, proceeds in 1:18-2:11 to establish the universality of sin, reminding self-righteous Jewish (law-bound) believers ("the weak", 15:1) that they too are infected by the stain of sin, 2:1-5, the consequence of which is divine condemnation, 2:6-11. Then, in 2:12-29, Paul examines the place of the law in the righteous judgment of God, making the point that those Jewish believers who have retained their standing under the law, even though circumcised, actually break the law and thus face the curse of the law and the "wrath and fury" of God's condemnation. In 3:1-8 Paul answers two objections to his rather negative view of the standing of Jewish believers under the law, namely, that he devalues the covenant/law and that he promotes libertarianism. Then, in 3:9-20, Paul drives home his conclusion, namely that the human condition of universal sin and its consequence is not avoided by submission to the law, for the law only serves to make sin more sinful. In 3:21-30 Paul draws a conclusion from his argument so far. When it comes to the covenant faithfulness of God, whether in judgment or vindication, there is no "distinction" between a person under the law, or a person outside the law. All have sinned and stand condemned, and all who believe are justified, and this because they rest, not on their own faithfulness, but the faithfulness of Christ - his "sacrifice of atonement." So, for believing Jews, like Paul, there is no ground for "boasting" about their faithfulness under the law, for a person is judged in the right with God ("justified") by faith and not by obedience. From 3:31 to 4:25, Paul explains, with reference to the life of Abraham, how his gospel of right-standing in the sight of God by faith does not "nullify" the law, rather, it "fulfills" the law; faith "fulfills / completes" the justification to which the law of Moses pointed. Then in 5:1-11 Paul draws together the consequence of his argument so far, namely, a believer's "reconciliation with God."
      Having dealt with the business of justification, of right-standing before God, Paul, in 5:12-8:39 examines the business of living right before God, of possessing the fullness of life which belongs to those who are in Christ. In 5:12-21 Paul explains how Christ's saving death has brought eternal life to all humanity by overcoming the curse of Adam's sin and then in 6:1-23 he explains how "newness of life", right-living before God, apart from the law, is expressed in the life of a believer as a natural consequence of their right-standing before God.
      Now, in 7:1-25, Paul examines the place of the law in the Christian life. First, in 7:1-6, he explains that a Christian is no longer "under the law", is "discharged from the law", has "died to the law (ie. we have died with respect to the law, although some argue that it is the law that has died)." In 7:7-12, our passage for study, Paul "deals with a possible misunderstanding. He repudiates the suggestion that the law is sin and asserts that, far from being sin, it is that which makes him recognize sin", Cranfield.
      7:7-25 has always been the focus of controversy. Using the first person singular, Paul speaks in the past tense in v7-13, and the present tense in v14-25. The tendency has been to treat the passage as autobiographical, but at the same time aligned with what is a common human experience. Paul speaks as either an unbeliever, or a believer under the conviction of sin, or an unbeliever in v7-13 and in v14-25 a law-bound believer who is affected by recurrent sin, or a believer who is living a low level of Christian life, with chapter 8 outlining "the victory life." Some commentators propose a more theological approach suggesting that Paul speaks as a representative Adam confronted by divine law, rebelling against that law and thus facing the consequence of death, cf. Gen.3. Adam was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin raised it head (the snake) and death ensued. Taking a salvation-history approach, other commentators have suggested that Paul speaks as a representative Israelite confronted by the law at Mount Sinai, v7-13, and then with the struggle of living with the law from Sinai to the present day, v14-25. This view certainly fits with Paul's argument, in Romans, against those believing Jews who see the law as essential for their progress in the Christian life. Paul's argument is simple, all the law does is expose sin that sin might abound, 5:20. See Cranfield for a list of possible interpretive approaches.
      New Perspective commentators tend to see Israel's two stages under the law as that of receiving the law and finding itself under the curse of the law (although for those with the faith of Abraham the law serves as the expression of that faith, or the maintenance of that faith, Sanders), and then (v13-25) Israel under the law post-resurrection (ie. the old covenant having been replaced by the new).
      What of Paul's use of "I", to what degree is it autobiographical? It is certainly representative, as noted above, but Paul's words surely also express his own experience as a person bound under the authority of the law. As a Pharisee, he had plenty of experience in this department. Yet, at the same time, Paul is no Luther struggling with oppressive guilt.
      As to what law? Primarily the law of Moses, but since Paul has Christian Jews in mind, the ethic of Jesus may well be included, standing with, or at least, interpreting the Torah. See notes 7:1-7.

v7
      eroumen (eipon) fut. "[what] shall we say" - Deliberative future.
      oJ nomoV aJmartia "is the law sin?" - [is] the law sin. The verb is assumed. "Is the law sinful", Morris, seems more likely than that the stronger "the law and sin are one and the same thing", Cassirer.
      mh genoito "certainly not" - may it never be. "Never".
      alla "indeed" - but. Strong adversative, "on the contrary", Morris.
      ouk egnwn "I would never have known what [sin] was" - I did not know [sin]. The aorist is probably inceptive, so "come to know." "Know", of course, is not just intellectual assent, but rather a knowing as a person "knows" their partner in marriage.
      ei mh "except" - Introducing a conditional clause, contrary to fact, "if it were not by means of the law, I would not know sin."
      te gar "for" - also for. Introducing a supportive example; "what I mean is", Barclay.
      ouk h/dein (oida) pluperf. "I would not have known" - I was not knowing. Most regard the pluperfect is used here as an imperfect, so expressing durative action, an ongoing knowing / experiencing of the sinful desire to covet.
      thn epiqumian (a) "what coveting really was" - desire, lust. It is possible to convince ourselves that we obey most of the ten commandments, but the tenth, above all others, reminds us that our righteousness is but filthy rags. Covetousness is "the exaltation of the ego", Barrett, "the inward root of man's outward wrongdoing", Cranfield, and gurgles within each one of us independent of something to focus on. Even without the law we are well aware of this "bent" in our nature, but the law exposes the "bent" as a corruption of the divine image, exposes sin as sin, draws it out, fires it up, reminding us of our need for redemption.

v8
      labousa (lambanw) aor. part. "seizing" - having taken. The participle is adverbial expressing manner; "sin, having set up a base of operations in my life."
      aformhn (h) "the opportunity" - occasion. A base of operations, a launching pad. Possibly the commandment is the base of operations from which sin launches itself, although it seems likely that sin has set up a base of operations in our life and the commandment then provides the means by which it launches itself.
      kateirgasato (katergazomai) aor. "produced" - worked, oppressed, produced. "sin ..... promoted in me, through the commandment, every lust." Note how "through the commandment" can go with "seizing the opportunity", so NIV, but it seems likely that it goes with "produced/promoted".
      nekra adj. "dead" - Probably in the sense that where there is no law then sin is powerless, it has nothing to motivate it; "for where there is no law, the life goes out of sin", Barclay.

v9
      pote "once" - formerly, once. "Before I knew about the law I was alive", CEV.
      egw "I" - Emphatic. As noted above, although it is most likely that Paul is speaking theologically in salvation-history terms, of Israel and the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, there is an alignment with his own experience. Even a Jewish child will, for a time, experience "no conviction of sin", Hendricksen, but sooner or later, the law will drive home the real state of affairs. Even from the grammatical angle, it is appropriate to use the first and second person "to illustrate something universal in a vivid manner", Morris.
      ezwn (zaw) imperf. "I was alive" - The imperfect, being durative, expresses an ongoing state. "Alive" in what sense? The answer to this question is controlled by the interpretive approach we take to this passage. For example, if Paul is alluding to Adam and the fall, then "alive" means alive in every sense - alive in the garden, alive to God (walking every evening with God). "I died" would then refer to Adam's (and thus humanity's) inevitable death and separation from God (cast from the garden). The point Paul is making is clear enough: prior to the giving of the law, Adam / Israel / mankind / "I" lived in blissful ignorance, but when the commandment came sin took control and "I died."
      elqoushV (ercomai) aor. gen. part. "when [the commandment] came" - having come. Genitive absolute participle usually forming a temporal clause, as NIV. "Came" in the sense of impinged itself on, so "when the command came home to me", Moffatt.
      anezhsen (anazaw) aor. "sprang to life" - revived, sprang back to life, lived again. BAGD argues that the prefix ana, "again", has lost its power, so "spring to life", as NIV, not "spring to life again."
      egw apeqanon "I died" - With the coming of the law, Adam's / Israel's / mankind's / "my" sin exploded, innocence died, and the law's curse was enacted. As with "alive", it is difficult to know what Paul means by "died". Does he mean died spiritually, "I died spiritually in that I was separated from God", Junkins, even died eternally, condemned before God? Even a moral sense may be intended. In Romans, Paul argues against law-bound believers (nomist Jewish believers) who saw attention to the law as the means of progressing holiness. Paul exposes their heresy by arguing that the law promotes rebellion, not holiness. "With the coming of the commandment, sin sprang to life and I died unto God" - rebellion became the norm, not righteousness and thus the law's curse enacted God's condemnation with its inevitable eternal death. "I died the living death of sin, precursor of eternal death", Sanday and Headlam.

v10
      eureqh (euJriskw) aor. pas. "I found" - [the commandment] was found [to me]. Paul is making the point that the problem lies with us and not with the law. "So far as I was concerned", Barclay.
      hJ eiV zwhn "that was intended to bring life" - which to/toward life. The preposition "to" probably expresses purpose, as NIV; "the commandment intended to bring life", Moo. As noted above, the sense we give to Paul's "life" and "death" here will be dictated by our interpretive approach. For example, if we are taking the Genesis 3 line then the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, was a command that intended "life" in every sense of the word for Adam. On the other hand, for Israel, the giving of the Torah was for the continuance of the nation under God, "the living of a righteous life unto God." It seems very unlikely that Paul held that the law's purpose was to provide access to life eternal, to salvation (Sanders is surely right when he suggests that Israel's eternal standing was a matter of God's sovereign grace, and that covenant law was but the mechanism for maintaining that standing). Still, this position is commonly argued: "the great dilemma is that the commandment was supposed to bring life in the sense of making people right with God and helping them to experience life as he intended. Its true purpose was life-giving, but it "was found" or "proved to be" death bringing. Sin has twisted the true purpose of the law and brought about spiritual death", Osborne. It seems safer to argue that Mosaic law (covenant obligations) was designed to give expression to a life of faith, a faith like Abraham's, and that such covenant faithfulness = "life". The problem is that the existence of sin undermined this purpose, for in the giving of the law sin was agitated into outright transgression. Again, this argument works well against those in the Roman church who thought that submission to law, rather than a faith like Abraham's, promoted new-covenant faithfulness.
      auJth "-" - this. "This" as in "this particular law." "This law, the one that was designed to bring life (to shape righteous living in the covenant community, "a direction to life", Phillips) actually brought death (promoted unrighteousness, a life apart from God, ...)."
      eiV "brought" - to, into. Here the preposition, which earlier expressed purpose, now expresses result.

v11
      aformhn labousa "seizing the opportunity" - taking the occasion. Sin, latching onto the commandment, springs to life and puts me to death.
      exhpathsen (exapataw) aor. "deceived" - This word supports the Genesis 3 allusion, although it is Eve who is deceived by the serpent (sin). Probably the better approach is to see this reference in terms of Israel's deception. Sin undermines the notion that the Mosaic law is but a guide for a life of faith and turns it into an instrument by which favor / standing may be extracted from God as a due.

v12
      There is no verb in the sentence so the verb to-be is supplied. Note the reference to "law" and "commandment". They most likely mean the same with Paul simply adding "commandment" since he used the word in previous verses.
      wJste "so then" - thus. Inferential conjunction indicating that the verse functions as a conclusion to the argument of this passage.
      oJ men "-" - indeed, undoubtedly. Often with oJ de setting up a contrast, although here Paul does not bother to carry the contrast through; "the law is ......... but sin is ................."
      aJgioV adj. "holy" - sacred, holy. The law is God's law, originates with God and is therefore sacred.
      dikaia adj. "righteous" - righteous, just. God's law is fair and reasonable. "Fair", Phillips.
      agaqh adj. "good" - "It is beneficial in its outlook and aim", Morris.


[Printer icon]   A print friendly justified 10pt Times New Roman version sized to fit a 1 page A4, or 2 page A5 format.
 
The Lectionary. Sequential Lectionary readings and sermons.
[Pumpkin Cottage]
Pumpkin Cottage Ministry Resources
Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons
www.lectionarystudies.com