Longenecker on Romans 7.14-25

[bookslover]

Today, I received my copy of Richard N. Longenecker's new commentary on Romans ("The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text" [New International Greek Testament Commentary series] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

Of course, I immediately turned to his exposition of Romans 7.14-25 to see what he says. Longenecker devotes 28 pages to this passage (pp. 647-674). Long story short: he doesn't believe that the passage is Paul describing either his pre-conversion life as a Jew or his post-conversion experience as a Christian. Instead, he believes that the passage "should be understood as Paul's rhetorical soliloquy, which he sets out in a 'speech in character' rhetorical form, regarding the tragic plight of all people who attempt to live their lives by their own natural abilities and acquired resources, apart from God. And it expresses the realization of both Paul and all spiritually sensitive people that, because of humanity's corporate history and our own personal experiences, we have become so bound up by depravity and sin that there can be deliverance only through divine intervention." (p. 673)

So, it's a first-person speech embodying mankind's position under God as man tries to live without Him.

Interesting - wrong, but interesting.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So, it's a first-person speech embodying mankind's position under God as man tries to live without Him.

Interesting - wrong, but interesting.

I think you are half right.

 

[Taylor]

I can't possibly see how Paul can be anything other than regenerate in this passage. Who else but a regenerate person can "in [their] inner being...delight in God's law" (v. 22)? I wonder, upon what exegetical grounds does he draw such a conclusion?

 

[bookslover]

I can't possibly see how Paul can be anything other than regenerate in this passage. Who else but a regenerate person can "in [their] inner being...delight in God's law" (v. 22)? I wonder, upon what exegetical grounds does he draw such a conclusion?

I hear ya. For the life of me, I don't understand why some people have such a hard time understanding this passage. Anyone who's been a Christian for more than five minutes intuitively understands the tension between knowing yourself as a saved person who loves God and His law and, at the same time, knowing yourself to be a sinner who is drawn by temptation to sin. The passage is obviously Paul describing his post-conversion experience as a Christian.

 

[arapahoepark]

Its fashionable in NT scholarship today to reject the traditional interpretations of the reformers.
Its chronological snobbery as CS Lewis would say.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Even within the Reformed tradition, there has been a majority opinion and several other views represented. Many times, the meaning is nuanced or shaded slightly; so that if mild disagreements were glossed over, two variants might be viewed as one opinion. But at the level of raw exegesis, there are substantive disputes. So, I find it reductionist to see this issue as a litmus test for Reformed bona fides.

At an early stage in seminary, one of my class assignments was to survey the Reformed world (not the entire spectrum of theology) for its views of Rom.7, on the way to defending my own position. The exegetical or theological challenges of the passage do not disappear simply by the adoption of the majority answer to "who is the first-person-singular?"

When a man understands someone else' opinion well enough to present it as if he held it; then he can be entrusted to critique its flaws most legitimately.

I started my study of "The Reformed on Rom.7" accepting a naive and simple I am Paul understanding, surprised to learn that anyone else in my world might hold to an alternative. I found it to be a lesson in humility.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A helpful post, Bruce. I think it has to be noted that exegesis and the broader subject of hermeneutics comes into play. One can glean certain things from the syntax of the text but the author's broader context or theology within a letter or his corpus comes into play as well as a theology that emerges about the nature of indwelling sin more generally.

Put another way, a theology about the Gospel and the Christian life emerges from the text and, in turn, informs our understanding of the particular text. It's sometimes hard to put into words but I find the Puritan view about indwelling sin to be most theologically and experientially convincing and it dovetails into Paul's other discussions in other Epistles where he reminds Christians of their new life in Christ where they are to now reckon themselves dead to sin. He has, heretofore, discussed this reality in Romans 6.

The real question for me is whether or not the battle with indwelling sin takes on this character. Even in the OP's presentation, one might say that believers often live their lives as if the law of sin in their members defines who they are and it is Paul's burden to constantly remind them that this is no longer the law they live by. They are now alive but the sin within their members is going to convince them to live as if dead. I believe this is why Romans 8 picks up the point (returning with some new light to add to Romans 8) about being alive.

Anway, gotta run...

 

[arapahoepark]

Even within the Reformed tradition, there has been a majority opinion and several other views represented. Many times, the meaning is nuanced or shaded slightly; so that if mild disagreements were glossed over, two variants might be viewed as one opinion. But at the level of raw exegesis, there are substantive disputes. So, I find it reductionist to see this issue as a litmus test for Reformed bona fides.

At an early stage in seminary, one of my class assignments was to survey the Reformed world (not the entire spectrum of theology) for its views of Rom.7, on the way to defending my own position. The exegetical or theological challenges of the passage do not disappear simply by the adoption of the majority answer to "who is the first-person-singular?"

When a man understands someone else' opinion well enough to present it as if he held it; then he can be entrusted to critique its flaws most legitimately.

I started my study of "The Reformed on Rom.7" accepting a naive and simple I am Paul understanding, surprised to learn that anyone else in my world might hold to an alternative. I found it to be a lesson in humility.

Your post has humbled me indeed Rev. Buchanan.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I started my study of "The Reformed on Rom.7" accepting a naive and simple I am Paul understanding, surprised to learn that anyone else in my world might hold to an alternative. I found it to be a lesson in humility.

Excellent words, Bruce. We should approach every text with humility and extend charity to those who may disagree with our position. I am curious though, what is your opinion on Romans 7?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree that Paul is talking about indwelling sin in the believer, and since this is a common problem he assuredly includes himself in "I."

But I do not think he is strictly setting himself up as the illustrative instance, as if he said: this is true for me, and therefore for you also.

But it is "personal," and every Christian says "I." It is good for new Christians that Paul says, "me too."

Now, why does indwelling sin stand for treatment in Rom.7? Or, why does this chapter bridge the gap from ch.6 & ch.8?

Those who are burdened with guilt of lawbreaking find relief in justification through Jesus Christ. Sin's power is broken, 6:14.

So, Paul speaks to those who know the law, 7:1, and who are dead to the law, v4: "Do not despise the law, v7; but also do not depend on the law which could not save, AND nether can sanctify."

It is the Spirit who sanctifies, ch.8

So, I point out the mature Paul is not strictly speaking the perplexed and vexed Christian who thought he could be a proper law-keeper once he was justified in Christ. This is a common mistake, of especially (but not limited to) a new Christian. Throughout this treatise, errors and questions are addressed.

Paul is the instructor who knows the answer to the frustration--one that he is no stranger to, being a man still at home in his body of death, not yet in heaven.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, I point out the mature Paul is not strictly speaking the perplexed and vexed Christian who thought he could be a proper law-keeper once he was justified in Christ. This is a common mistake, of especially (but not limited to) a new Christian. Throughout this treatise, errors and questions are addressed.

Paul is the instructor who knows the answer to the frustration--one that he is no stranger to, being a man still at home in his body of death, not yet in heaven.

I agree. I don't think it's good to see Paul strictly speaking autobiographically (i.e. "...here is what I go through or have gone through...") but it is descriptive of what a believer will experience as they battle indwelling sin.

I find that the biggest challenge for believers to grasp is that the Gospel represents not merely the freedom from sin's condemnation but from it's dominion. We tend to forget that sin is not merely transgression but that our inherited corruption is absolutely enslaving and it is from this that our transgressions proceed.

I heard a really good analogy that the Puritans used from Beeke where we are federally united to Adam in guilt by the Fall but also inherit corruption. We are, as it were, hooked to Adam's belt as far as our identity apart from Christ's redemption. Our justification represents us being unhooked from Adam's belt and hooked to Christ's belt. We are federally accounted as righteous but when we are hooked to Christ's belt the corruption of our nature is not instantly soved. We are still corrupt and sanctification is that process by which Christ now makes those who are in Him more and more holy.

What we tend to forget is that we are now united to Christ. Corruption remains and we can forget that we are Christ's and so when temptation to sin arises, it remains powerful and can defeat us if we let down our guards and live as if we are still hooked to Adam's belt. In Adam we have no power to resist sin and the law can only condemn us because we have no power in our corruption to obey the law. Paul reminds us, however, that we are not dead. We are not in Adam. We are not slaves. We are Christ's and so in Romans 8 he proceeds to tell us again that Christ condemned sin as power on the cross.

As I read Paul, repeatedly throughout his Epistles, he is wont to remind people that the flesh has no power. It is only when we live our lives in the light of the reality of being in Christ that we recognize our power to obey not by some inherent power to resist the power of sin but only by the power that the Spirit supplies as we are vitally united to the living Christ.

For any interested, I preached on Romans 8:1-17 recently: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=117161754160

I've also been working through Joel Beeke's lectures on Puritan Theology: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHKxt9HSA8B6SGgxqOQB4rC34ZBX2ijNW

Lectures 10-12 focus on aspects of sin, union with Christ, preparatory grace, etc that are related to this topic. The audio on 10 isn't really very good so you'll have to turn up the volume.