ROMANS CHAPTER 7:1-12
OUTLINE AND COMMENTARY-MARK DUNAGAN
I. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER SEVEN:
I. Change of relationship from the Law to Christ Illustrated: 7:1-6
II. The Dawn of Conscience: 7:7-13
III. The defence of the Law: 7:14-25
The sense of bondage which comes through the relationship of the law prepares the soul to seek deliverance through relationship to Christ.
II. COMMENTARY ON CHAPTER 7:1-12:
INTRODUCTION:
'Paul is still defending the doctrine of justification by faith against the supposed objection that it allows sin. The supposition is that if a man be declared just without the works of the law (flawless law-keeping), then he is free to break the law. Paul declares, on the contrary, that justification by faith issues in a life of holiness....He has in the preceding chapter drawn an illustration from the institution of slavery, and has shown that one who is united to Christ has been delivered from the bondage of sin and has been made a servant of righteousness. In this paragraph he is using the illustration of marriage...thus he shows that the life of faith is a life of freedom from sin (habitual) and the law (flawlessness), yet it is a life of purity and holiness.'
'This chapter begins with Paul taking up again the thought he expressed in 6:14. It is freedom from Law that keeps sin from having dominion over people who have sinned. He will make the claim in 7:1-6 that the only way for sinners to acceptably serve their new Master is to get out from under the Law which demands flawlessness. As long as sinners are bound under the iron rule of Law they are required to offer flawlessness. If they offer less than that Sin becomes their master.'
Romans 7:1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth?
'Or are ye ignorant'-'Or do you not know' (NASV). Any argument that says that the Christian is free to sin without consequence, is an argument based on ignorance. (6:3)
'For I speak to men who know the law'-the Law under consideration in the context is the Law of Moses (7:7). And yet the principle that Paul cites is true concerning Jewish and Roman law (or any other), i.e. 'a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer' (NEB). The same principle holds true for the laws of the United States of America. 'The Romans, whether Jew or Gentiles, knew the principle of law' (Robertson p. 366)
'Dominion'-'Jurisdiction' (NASV); 'governs a person only during his lifetime' (Mon); 'that legal claims are only binding on a man so long as he is alive' (Knox). Rules, exercises lordship. 2961. kurieuo {ko-ree-yoo'-o}; from 2962; to rule: -have dominion over, lord, be lord of, exercise lordship over.
The reason that Paul used the marriage relationship to illustrate this principle is...'Paul required an illustration in which both death and a new life appeared...the death of one's spouse provides an excellent illustration in which death liberates a person who yet remains alive and allows them to enter into a new relationship.'
Romans 7:2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband.
'Bound by law'-stands bound (Robertson p. 366) (Matthew 19:6) 'The married wife stands bound to the living husband by law. Certainly not only by Jewish but equally by Roman, yea by barbarian law.' (Lenski pp. 443-444)
Here is a specific example of the principle cited in verse 1.
'Discharged'-'Released' (NASV). 2673. katargeo {kat-arg-eh'-o}; from 2596 and 691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: -abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.
'the law of the husband'-i.e. the law which binds her to the husband. That former relationship is made void, in a sense she dies to that law with the husbands death.
Romans 7:3 So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.
'Joined to another man'-'She be married' (KJV). Clearly divorce in inferred in Paul's example. Paul isn't talking about a woman that is having an affair, but rather a woman that divorces her husband (without Scriptural cause-Matthew 19:9) and marries another. The second use of the word 'joined' demands that it means 'marry'. The person that argues that 'joined' in the first part of the verse means 'have an affair/unlawful sexual relations with', would have Paul saying in the second part of the verse, 'but if the husband die...she is no adulteress, though she be having unlawful sex with another man.' She may not be an adulteress, but she is a FORNICATOR! Certainly Paul is not advocating fornication or making it less sinful than adultery.
'Called an adulteress'-what 'law' would make such a 'call'? (Matthew 19:8-9; 5:32; Mark 10:11-12). For how long is she 'called' an adulteress? The inference is that she is an adulteress as long as she remains with the second husband. The same is true with any other sin, i.e. one is a fornicator as long as they remain the relationship. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Colossians 3:5-7)
'but if her the husband die'-I don't think that Paul is dealing with the "adulteress". If that were the case under consideration then Paul should of said, 'she is no longer an adulteress'. I think Paul is simply dealing with the case of a widow. A woman that marries again, that isn't an adulteress, why? Because her first husband is dead.
SOME SIDE ISSUES BEFORE WE MOVE ON:
Since these verses have become a focal point in the Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage Issue, I would like to take the time to respond to some views expressed concerning these verses.
1. 'The passage in Romans 7:1-3, is dealing with the law of Moses and not marriage...To apply this to the marriage as Jesus spoke about it is erroneous..We need to realize that Paul is not even talking about marriage in the Gospel age..it is not a discussion of divorce and remarriage..to apply this to the marriage relationship in the Gospel Age is erroneous.'
'Appealing to Romans 7:1-3 in an effort to establish an adulterous relationship of a married couple today is a misuse of Paul's illustration.'
'It may surprise many students of the Bible to learn that there are those who do not believe this passage has any bearing or relevance to a study of God's marriage law. They contend that the teaching here concerning marriage is only used as an illustration to show freedom from the law of Moses, and that it is an abuse of the passage to use it to teach about marriage.'
In response:
A. First of all, what is untrue about Paul's illustration? What point in Romans 7:2-3 is erroneous?
Do men and woman have the right to marry? (7:2) Yes-1 Cor. 7:2. Do widows have the right to remarry? (7:2) Yes-1 Cor. 7:39. Does an unlawful divorce and remarriage result in adultery? (7:3) Yes-Matthew 5:32/19:9. Can a married couple be guilty of adultery? (7:3) Yes-Matthew 5:32. Can one be bound to one man and married to another? (7:3) Yes-1 Cor. 7:11/Matthew 19:9 (that's why the second marriage involves adultery!) What point in Paul's illustration contradicts other verses that deal with such issues?
If Romans 7:2-3 isn't dealing with God's marriage law during the Gospel Age, then why does it agree with God's marriage law during the Gospel Age?
B. If using something as an illustration negates it's truthfulness, then we had better stop using Ephesians 5:22-33, in teaching husbands and wives how to properly treat each other. Because LIKEWISE in these verses, Paul was only using the marriage relationship AS AN ILLUSTRATION. (Ephesians 5:32)
2. 'He shows that Christ's law in Romans 7:2-4 and Matthew 19:9 is for two believers'
A. I find a major problem in trying to exclude the non-Christian from Jesus'(and Paul's) teaching about marriage.
(1) Then the Sermon on the Mount is only directed to Christians (because it contains teaching on marriage, divorce, remarriage that agrees with what Paul said in Romans 7:2-3, Matthew 5:32). Is so then the non-Christian doesn't commit sin when he lusts upon a woman (5:28), when he hates (5:22), when he lies (5:33), when he violates the law of love (5:44ff), when he worships God hypocritically (6:1-18), when he prays using vain repetitions (6:7), when he tries to serve two masters (6:24), when he doesn't trust God (6:25-32), when he doesn't seek first the kingdom (6:33), when he acts hypocritically in judging (7:1-5)
In saying that two people in a marriage cannot commit adultery, we are playing into the hands of the world. This was the 'standard' of righteousness' that the world (Matthew 5:46-47) and the Pharisees and Scribes (5:20) had come up with. Most could see that an 'affair was adultery'. But take the same man, first have him go through the proper 'legal channels' to get rid of his first wife (5:31), and then have him marry the woman he wants, and all of a sudden the world and the nominal church is fooled. But God isn't. Jesus called such 'adultery'. Going through the proper legal channels may 'sanitize' it in the eyes of some, but not in God's eyes. (5:32) After all, there is no difference between the man who cheats on his wife, and the man who divorces her, so he can 'legally' cheat on her.
(2) If the non-Christian isn't under Matthew 19:9, then how can he be under: (a) The exception-what Scripture do preachers show to non-Christians or former non-Christians ( people who divorced their mates for fornication while outside of Christ and remarried), that their current marriage is scriptural? Matthew 19:9! If the non-Christian isn't under Matthew 19:9, then they don't have the right to divorce their mates for fornication, if as some claim this legislation is ONLY FOR CHRISTIANS. (b) But neither could they be under Matthew 19:4-6. If the non-Christian isn't under God's marriage law, then what right to do have to get married?
In his book previously cited, Homer Hailey argues:
"Where in the Old Testament is there an appeal to Genesis 2 establishing a rule concerning marriage-divorce-remarriage addressed to those out of covenant relationship with God. (p. 41)...Therefore, any principle laid down in Genesis 2, when man was in fellowship with God, before sin broke the fellowship, is now restored to those in fellowship with God through the blood of his covenant (p. 42)...So, the passage (Genesis 2:24) can apply only to those in fellowship with God under Christ's covenant" (p. 43)
The problem is, when we start removing the non-Christian from God's rules about divorce, adultery, remarriage, we must also remove them from God's rules concerning MARRIAGE! If ANY PRINCIPLE laid down in Genesis 2 isn't restored until one enters into Christ, then all non-Christians don't have the right to the marriage relationship (a principle laid down in Genesis 2). Then all non-Christian marriages are sinful! The truth is, even in the book of Genesis, after sin entered in, we find sinners who are accountable to God's laws concerning marriage. (Genesis 20:3-6-Note Abimelech wasn't planning on having an affair with Sarah, he was just planning on marrying her! (legally!) And yet God called such, 'sin'-a sin for Abimelech! Genesis 39:9; Leviticus 18:20,24-God held non-Jewish nations accountable for adultery. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.)
3. 'Let us be reminded, however, that Webster defines adultery as, "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband"....even if one adamantly insists that adultery is always a sexual act, it is apparent that Webster's definition, and those of the various Greek lexicons one may wish to consult, do not apply to people married to each other. It is a fact therefore that the expression "adulterous marriage" is simply a contradiction in terms.'
The problem with this view: Webster and the Lexicons only cite one type of adultery, i.e. the affair the married person is having. But unfortunately, like most of the world, people forget about the other kind of adultery that doesn't fool God. The man or woman that unscripturally divorces their mate (Romans 7:3; Matthew 19:9/5:32) and marries another (Romans 7:3/Matthew 5:32,19:9) Both Jesus and Paul call that situation "adultery" also (Romans 7:3/Matthew 5:32/Matthew 19:9). In fact, to claim that a married couple cannot commit adultery with each other is to contradict what Jesus plainly said. 'and whoever MARRIES a divorced woman COMMITS ADULTERY' (Matthew 5:32). Paul agrees, 'She is joined/married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress' (7:3). BRETHREN, WHO IS THIS WOMAN COMMITTING ADULTERY "WITH"?
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, {even} to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God.
"Dead to the law"-don't make the mistake of thinking that Paul is saying, 'becoming a Christian made you free from obeying law'. The Christian is under law (1 Corinthians 9:21; James 1:25) But the Jew or Gentile that becomes a Christian is no longer under a system that demands 'flawless obedience' to find favor with God. God expects obedience (James 1:22), and yet provision is made for imperfection (1 John 1:8-2:2; Romans 4:7-8; James 5:16)
"through the body of Christ"-'by becoming identified with the body of Christ' (NEB); 'by union with the body of Christ' (Con). One identifies himself with the 'body of Christ' in baptism (Romans 6:3). Since forgiveness is only in Christ (Ephesians 1:3,7), everyone outside of Christ lives under a system that demands flawlessness, i.e. a system of pure law and no forgiveness for violations of it (i.e. sin). This demonstrates the foolishness of thinking that I can find favor with God through my own efforts. In addition, those that claim that the only sin which the non-Christian commits is the 'sin of not believing in Christ', have missed one of the main points in the Book of Romans (as in other parts of the Bible as well).
"that we might bring forth fruit unto God"-'And why were we made dead to the Law? That they might live in lawlessness? That they might bring forth even more fruit (6:21) of which they should be ashamed?'
They were released through their obedience to Christ in baptism from a system that demanded flawlessness, that they might serve God more effectively! Trying to serve God under a system of flawless law-keeping is discouraging and impossible (like trying to work with someone constantly looking over your shoulder, ready to pounce on your every mistake). Serving God 'in Christ' is encouraging, it's motivating, sins can be repented of and forgiven, mistakes can be corrected, everyday I can know that I am right with God and that I am accomplishing something. (Ephesians 2:10; Titus 3:1,14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
"For"-here is the reason that we were released from a system of law and married to Christ. "For" under such a system we brought forth fruit unto death, instead of fruit unto God.
"In the flesh"-"Flesh" here doesn't refer to the mere physical body, for Christians are still 'in the flesh, in that sense. Neither does "flesh" here refer to a state of being subject to temptation, for Christians are still subject to temptation (1 Corinthians 10:23; James 1:12ff). "In the flesh" must refer to their condition outside of Christ, when they allowed their bodies to be used as the instruments of sin (6:19). McGuiggan argues that "in the flesh" means "unaided human resources", i.e. we needed to be married to Christ, because depending upon our own moral efforts only brought fruit unto death, i.e. sin.
"the sinful passions"-someone has pointed out that "passion/desire" isn't inherently sinful. When God designed us He built various 'desires' into man. When properly channeled these desires are good (1 Corinthians 7:2-5). And yet, these 'desires' can also be perverted and used for sinful ends. (Galatians 5:19-21)
"It may be that here is the best point at which to note a grim fact about the works of the flesh. Without exception, every one of them is a perversion of something which is in itself good. Immorality, impurity, licentiousness are perversions of the sexual instinct which is in itself a lovely thing and part of love. Idolatry is a perversion of worship..sorcery is a perversion of the use of healing drugs in medicine (so is drug abuse)..envy, jealousy and strife are perversions of that noble ambition and desire to do well which can be a spur to greatness. Enmity and anger are a perversion of that righteous indignation without which the passion for goodness cannot exist. Dissension and the party spirit are a perversion of the devotion to principle which can produce a martyr...nowhere is there better illustrated the power of evil to take beauty and to twist it into ugliness, to take the finest things and to make them an avenue for sin."
"Which were through the law"-'which were aroused by the law' (NASV) 'The Law didn't make our passions. Nor did the law make our feelings or emotions sinful. It's just that when the Law made demands on us.. it only succeeded in provoking in us the abuse of those feelings and passions.'
We see this in the garden (Genesis 3:3-6) in Sodom and Gomorrah (19:9). Unfortunately, when many people are told they 'can't do it', that often encourages them to do it. But the fault is not in law (7:7,12,14), but rather in stubborn people.
"Wrought in our members"-'Were at work' (NASV), 'Were active' (Alf). We yielded our bodies to be the instruments of sin. (6:19)
Romans 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.
"We have been discharged from the law"-true of both Jews and Gentiles, for the Gentiles had 'law' too. (2:14-15) Some have argued that since Christians are said to have 'died' to a law, this proves that the non-Christian isn't under the 'Law of Christ', and therefore not under such things as it's law concerning marriage. It is argued that the non-Christian dies to the "moral law" that he was under.
1. The Jew or Gentile that became a Christian wasn't released from the obligation to obey God's law, but rather was released from the demand of justification on the basis of law, i.e. flawlessness. Outside of Christ both Jew and Gentile had to perfectly obey in order to stay in favor with God. In Christ, they can remain in favor with God, even though they sin, because forgiveness is available to those that trust God. (Romans 4:6-8).
2. Being "in" the New Covenant and enjoying it's blessings (Hebrews 8:11-12) isn't the same thing as being "accountable to it". The non-Christian is "accountable" to the conditions for admission (Mark 16:15-16); he is accountable to it's moral demands (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Peter 4:3-5; Matthew 5:28); isn't he accountable to it's doctrinal demands? (Galatians 1:6-9, does the non-Christian sin when he teaches false doctrine or doesn't he?). Isn't he accountable to everything that Christ taught? Or does John 12:48 only apply to Christians that reject Christ?
3. In addition, the "law" that the Gentile was under prior to Christ, condemned his adultery also. (Leviticus 18:20,24)
McGuiggan makes an interesting comment: "The morality of the "Gentile" law (often called the "Universal Moral Law") is the morality of the Jewish law (2:14-15) (Leviticus 18:1ff confirms this). The standing moral requirements of the Mosaic system (such as loving the Lord, refraining from adultery, etc..) are the same as those laid upon Christians (Romans 13:8-10)."
Those that argue that the non-Christian isn't under God's marriage law, are actually saying, 'The non-Christian isn't accountable to the same moral standard as the Christian'. If this is true in marriage, then what other 'moral requirements' is the non-Christian free from? Have we been wrong in preaching against the "sins" of the world (Ephesians 5:11)?
"so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter"-"Under Law there had to be the utter fulfillment of everything (Galatians 3:12). In fact, the "Law" doesn't require "faith", it requires flawlessness (Gal. 3:12)
"Newness of the spirit..oldness of the letter"-this verse isn't teaching: (1) We don't have to obey commands now. (2) The O.T. contained written regulations and the New Testament doesn't. (3) The O.T. wasn't spiritual, for it was (7:14)
'Newness of the spirit' means that as a Christian I recognize that I can't perfectly obey, I must always trust in Christ for mercy upon my repentance. I realize that being released from the demand of "flawlessness" isn't an excuse to sin or treat the Law of God in a casual manner (2 Tim. 2:15), I press on, striving to serve God to the best of my ability (Phil. 3:12-14), all the while humbly confessing my short-comings (1 John 1:8-10; James 5:16). 'Oldness of the letter' is seen in the Pharisees who had turned religion into nothing more than keeping rules, without remembering that trust, humility and such things are necessary also. (Matthew 23:23; Luke 18:9ff)
THE DAWN OF CONSCIENCE-7:7-13
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
"What shall we say then?"-Another objection is anticipated. 'Then what shall we conclude' (Gspd)
"Is the law sin?" 'Is the Law itself a sinful thing?' (Wey)-Paul has already pointed out that both Jews and Gentiles needed to be released from the demands of "law" (i.e. flawlessness) in order to find favor with God. And that the commands of God had stirred people up to violate them (7:5). In Chapter Six Paul had taught that the Christian is to be "dead" to sin, and in Chapter Seven, "dead to the Law", that seems to link "sin" and "law" awfully close together. The question that would naturally arise, 'then is Law a bad thing?'
"Some people today oppose all inhibitions and prohibitions because they stimulate violations (i.e. the push to legalize such things as drugs and prostitution). That is half-baked thinking'
"I had not know sin, expect through the law.."-"There are those who believe we know what is right and wrong by an inbuilt knowledge. I think this passage plainly refutes that notion...there are those who believe we can determine right and wrong from a rational view of the amoral universe. That is, they believe we can tell what the will of God is on specific questions without special revelation. I don't believe that and I think that this passage establishes that the notion is wrong."
"I think what was true for a Jew was true for a Gentile and that neither of them could say what God's moral requirements were without special revelation to someone." (Isaiah 55:8-9; Jeremiah 10:23)
"except the law had said"-the Law isn't evil, Paul insists rather that it is because of his contact with the Law that he found out what is sin, that's a good thing!
"Thou shalt not covet"-the primary 'Law' in the context, then is the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments.
Romans 7:8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin {is} dead.
"Finding occasion"-'taking opportunity' (NASV), 'a starting-point, a base of operations' (Vincent p. 78)
"wrought in me"-'produced in me' (NASV); 'to arouse in me' (TCNT); 'stirred up within me' (Mon).
"all manner of coveting"-'Paul states here..that a knowledge of right, and a command to obey, instead of producing virtue, are strong incentives to vice. As an old Roman writer declared: "We always endeavor to obtain that which is forbidden, and desire that which is denied", or as another confessed: "The permitted is unpleasing; the forbidden consumes us fiercely."'
Like the example of Eve in the garden, the command of God 'not to eat' gave the devil an opportunity to convince Eve that she was being deprived of something good. Or, the command of God to Pharaoh to let Israel go, only made Pharaoh more stubborn to resist.
"for apart from the law sin is dead"-sin can't accomplish anything without a law to transgress. (1 Cor. 15:56)
Romans 7:9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;
"I was alive apart from the law once"-but if Calvinism is true (Total Hereditary Depravity, i.e. one is born in sin, born dead), Paul was never alive at anytime prior to his becoming a Christian.
"When the commandment came"-not when God delivered it or first legislated it. 'Most commentators agree that Paul was "apart from the Law" during his childhood. The day came however when he was judged accountable before God--the commandment came. At that point, Paul, like everyone else, sinned against God.'
-'but when the commandment was brought home to me' (TCNT)
"Sin revived"-'became alive' (NASV); the blissful innocent stage was over. 'He lived in childish innocence prior to accountability; but when he became accountable to law, sin sprang into being.'
"I died"-i.e. I died spiritually.
Romans 7:10 and the commandment, which {was} unto life, this I found {to be} unto death:
"unto life"-'designed to bring me life' (Wey) "Do this and live" he had heard. The Law was to regulate the living. Paul said: "Apart from the law I was alive", and what happened? That which was to regulate and result in continued living became the occasion of his dying! What a surprise. What a shock! Mustn't this have been awfully disturbing to a pious Jew who bragged on the Law and his possession of it?
A commandment designed to bring out life, turned out in my case to end in death, i.e. because I violated it!
Romans 7:11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.
"Beguiled me"-1818. exapatao {ex-ap-at-ah'-o}; from 1537 and 538; to seduce wholly: -beguile, deceive.
'And this is the case history of the race. This is only a lightly-veiled allusion to the experience of Eve when the Serpent used the commandment as the "occasion" to beguile the poor woman. Where Sin has entered the life of a person we consistently hear of God's commandments spoken of as if they were an obstacle to life rather than a means of regulating it. Eve was told the commandment was really in her way. If she ignored it she would learn what life was really all about. Nothing has changed. The Devil is still conning people into thinking that God's commandments dry up life, steal away life, stunt life and rob people of life.'
This is one reason that sin is called "deceitful" (Ephesians 4:22; Hebrews 3:13). All of us, at one time or another were conned into thinking that the will of God stood between us and happiness..'The commandment is lyingly made to appear as a disagreeable obstacle to the gratification of our desires, to our "free self-expression", to "living our own lives".' (Lenski p. 468)
"Slew me"-Killed me off, made a clean job of it (Robertson p. 368). But if one is born into this life, inheriting the sins of Adam, you are already dead, there is nothing left for sin to kill!
Romans 7:12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.
There is nothing wrong with God's law, the problem lies with us, we allow ourselves to become convinced that the commands of God are not in our best interest. We don't trust God enough. (1 John 5:3) The law is not a promoter of ungodliness, it is righteous. It is not intended to corrupt or hurt man, rather it is intended for his "good".