Legalism or Cheap Grace? An Exegetical Examination of Romans 7:7-25

Understanding the historical, cultural, and literary context of Romans 7:7-25, we now transition to passage analysis, continually remembering the progression of thought advancing from the previous sections. Beginning his discourse on the relationship between the Law and sin (Romans 7:7-12) Paul writes,

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Capturing the audience’s attention, Paul employs a diatribe to dispel any negative perception of the Law. Explaining the Law is no longer applicable to the Christian in the preceding section, Paul’s audience is likely questioning the validity or nature of the Mosaic Law, requiring Paul to respond accordingly. Underscoring this point, New Testament scholar Colin Kruse comments, “To respond to criticisms that his gospel involves a denigration of the law, Paul is at pains to show that he rejects any suggestion that he implies that the law is evil—a conclusion that his audience might reach from comments the apostle made earlier (cf. 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 6:14)”¹¹

Squelching any critical misinterpretation of his position, Paul explains the purpose of the Law is revelatory rather than salvific (i.e., it exposes sin, it does not alleviate sin). Pervading the human condition at the fall (cf. Genesis 3), human sinfulness exists long before the introduction of the Mosaic Law; however, decadent thoughts and behaviors did not previously receive explicit classification as transgressions. Consequently, the Law demonstrates human sinfulness by defining debased actions accordingly, causing us to realize our covetousness (using Paul’s example) when we were previously unaware.¹² Explicating this point, New Testament Professor Craig Keener remarks, “‘You must not covet’ is the tenth of the Ten Commandments, the only one that goes directly beyond one’s actions to the state of one’s heart. The point is that one might not regard coveting as transgressing God’s law if one were not so informed by the law.”¹³

Regrettably, some might deem the Law evil based upon this explanation, attributing the Law as the cause of sin, especially if the statements, “For apart from the law, sin lies dead” (v. 8b) or “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” (v. 10) were taken out of context.¹⁴ However, Paul is explicit in identifying the cause of his covetousness as sin. Masterfully expounding upon Paul’s point, theologian C. E. B. Cranfield writes,

Why was the divine commandment an opportunity for sin? We shall not do justice to Paul’s thought here, if we settle for a merely psychological explanation along the lines of. . . proverbial wisdom that speaks of forbidden fruits as sweetest. It is rather that the merciful limitation imposed on man by the commandment and intended to preserve his true freedom and dignity can be misinterpreted and misrepresented as a taking away of his freedom and an attack on his dignity, and so can be made an occasion of resentment and rebellion against the divine Creator, man’s true Lord. In this way, sin can make use of the commandment not to covet as a means of arousing all manner of covetousness.¹⁵

Considering Paul’s comments in context, his point becomes clear—the Law, deriving from a holy and righteous God, is good; yet it was never intended to bring about salvation, but rather to expose the depths of human depravity.

Continuing the discourse (Romans 7:13-19) Paul writes,

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

Beginning this passage in like manner, Paul opens with a rhetorical question, setting the stage for further discussion concerning the relationship between the Law and death. Again, Paul’s audience might misconstrue his previous comments, wrongly attributing death to the Law, thus prompting him to clarify his argument. In fact, viewing the Law as the cause of sin and death may have gained traction in early Christianity as an unintended consequence of emphasizing grace in proclaiming the gospel message.

Elucidating the need to address such views, Professors Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky remark,

If the fault lies in the law itself, then it must be revised or abandoned. This simplistic answer has always been available, and apparently had some foothold in the Roman congregations in which the “strong” were criticizing the “weak” for their adherence to the law. But if the problem lies elsewhere, the human dilemma must be probed more deeply, and the resolution is not so simple. It cannot be framed in a liberal/conservative polarity that lends superiority to one side or the other. The problem is much more basic; indeed, it is universal in its scope.¹⁶

Categorically denouncing any correspondence between death and the Mosaic Law, Paul maintains the holiness and righteousness of God’s commandments, reiterating human sinfulness as the cause of rebellion and death. Summarizing Paul’s central contention, New Testament scholar Leon Morris writes, “His [Paul’s] clause of purpose, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, sums up much of the relationship between sin and the law. The law was given in order that sin might be seen for what it is. Without the law we would not recognize sin in its deepest evil; we would not see it as rebellion against the command of God.”¹⁷

Transitioning from historical tense to present tense, Paul humbly employs a first-person narrative (vv.14-25) in which he explains the personal, experiential struggle between the devout Jew and sin.¹⁸ Before interacting with the passage further, it is necessary to recognize Paul’s use of the word fleshly (σάρκινος)—the term he employs to contrast himself (representing all humanity) with the spiritual Law—is not referring to the physical characteristics of human nature, nor devaluing the human body (as gnostic philosophies suggest).¹⁹  Expressing this point, Jewett and Kotansky observe, “For Paul, to be ‘fleshly’ refers not primarily to the material nature of humans but to opposition against God, for it was precisely in his own zealous advocacy of the law that Paul found himself in such opposition. In his striving to demonstrate his righteousness under the law, he found himself caught in the throes of sin.”²⁰

Additionally, as Paul expounds upon the tension between orthodoxy (i.e., correct belief) and orthopraxy (i.e., correct behavior) one must recognize the hyperbolic language of the passage (vv. 18-24). Accentuating the detriment of interpreting the passage literally, Keener observes, “[The] complete inability to do right and involuntarily compulsion to do wrong (7:15–20) sounds like possession rather than mere moral frustration!”²¹ Therefore, when considering Paul’s hyperbolic verbiage in context, the principle that orthodoxy does not necessitate orthopraxy becomes evident. Illuminating Paul’s message further, Professor Keener writes,

The mind and inner person recognizes what is right, knowing God’s law (7:16, 22–23). But whereas many ancient thinkers (especially Stoics) felt that proper knowledge would produce transformation, Paul denies that knowledge apart from God’s Spirit can produce righteousness (cf. 8:2–4). Righteousness must be God’s gift alone (4:11; 5:17; 10:3), and humans cannot boast in their own righteousness before God (3:27; 4:2).²²

After providing clarification concerning the relationship between the Law and sin, and Paul’s experiential relationship under the Law, we near the end of the passage, as Paul continues expressing his struggle against natural inclinations toward sinful behavior—something common to both the pious Jew and the practicing Christian. Concluding his thought from verse 19, Paul writes (in Romans 7:20-25),

Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So, I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.  For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh, I serve the law of sin.

Immediately, our attention is drawn to verse 20, as Paul restates the phrase, “it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me,” from verse 17. Seemingly, this restatement serves to emphasize a central point, while successfully capturing the reader’s attention before Paul offers a recapitulation of this deplorable condition. Relating Paul’s struggle to the Christian experience, theologian John A. Witmer comments, “Paul recognized that even as a believer he had an indwelling principle of sin that once owned him as a slave and that still expressed itself through him to do things he did not want to do and not to do things he desired to do. This is a problem common to all believers.”²³ Similarly, New Testament scholar Douglas Moo remarks, “The ‘already-not yet’ tension is how scholars often describe the implications of this framework for the outlook of the believer. We are ‘already’ justified and reconciled, indwelt by the Spirit, but we are ‘not yet’ glorified and resurrected, still subject to sin’s lure.”²⁴

Remarkably, the tone of the passage transforms from one of despondency, as Paul summarizes his inability to conform to God’s holy directives (vv. 20-24), to one of exuberance, as he reintroduces the remedy—Jesus Christ (v. 25).²⁵ Analyzing this passage, New Testament scholar Richard C. H. Lenski comments, “Paul deplores most deeply the continuance of the flesh in himself because it still affords lodgement for ‘the sin,’ yet it surely meant much for him to be able to write: ‘no longer I myself,’ no longer my own real person as was the case before my regeneration.”²⁶

Considering the passage in its entirety, Paul efficaciously conveys the relationship between the Mosaic Law and sin—depicting the Law as revelatory rather than salvific. Transitioning, Paul considers the relationship between the Law and humanity, noting our inability to conform to God’s moral directives due to our sinful nature, before reintroducing the gospel message by identifying Jesus as the only alleviation of our detrimental condition.²⁷