In verses 15, 17, 20 Paul is describing a Christless religionist, trying to obey from the heart, but spiritually devoid of “Christ in you the hope of glory”. In that spiritual state he does what he knows is wrong, he can not stop doing it even though he has convictions he ought to & wants to do right but spiritually is unable to cease loving evil and practicing it. This is not a Jew seeking Christ, this is a Jew rebelling against the Spirit of God, because Christ is what the conviction is all about and this Jew does not want to surrender to Jesus Christ. The power of sin is real & is organized & has an organized set of sympathies built up within Saul of Tarsus. Those powers of sin within himself Saul of Tarsus by himself ego autos can not resist for long much less defeat.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul tells the non Messianic Jew’s dilemma, then he jumps ahead & tells the solution to the dilemma.
24 “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

25 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Then Paul returns to close the situations of Romans 7 that shows the dilemma of Christless religion . )

“So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” He knows that the deeds of the flesh constitute a large portion of the life record. His concern every Yom Kippur is to obtain the seal of God & be allowed life within His people. He is judged by his works as well as his assent to the law. Here Paul is showing that Jesus Christ is the only source of the Yom Kippur seal of God & not the Jew’s power to try to force himself to try to follow God and keep in a life of Christless failure .

The man of Romans 7 is not a Christian, he is Saul of Tarsus the Christless Jew. The man of Romans 6 & 8 is Paul the converted Christian.

------------------
Edward F Sutton

[This message has been edited by Edward F Sutton (edited September 27, 2001).]

Okay, now I get it. Thank you for spelling it out more clearly. It is also plain to me that we don't see eye to eye on this passage. Oh well. That's to be expected with difficult portions of the Bible.

However, I find it hard to imagine Saul blaming his fallen flesh nature for the sins he himself he couldn't overcome in his own power. When he writes - "It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me" - I don't see how that is any different than what Jesus Himself endured. Every born again child of God must resist the unholy clamorings of our sinful flesh nature, just like Jesus had to.

After describing the terrible internal battle with the clamorings of sinful flesh nature in Rom 7, Paul then goes on to make his punch line in chapter 8. It begins with "therefore" and introduces the comforting thought that even Jesus had to put up with resisting the cravings and unholy desires of fallen flesh nature.

This connection with Paul's description in Rom 7:14-25 and the fact that Jesus also possessed "sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3) strongly suggests to me that what Paul wrote about the conflict between the "mind" and the "flesh" must be understood in the context of what it was like for Jesus to endure the same internal warfare with the clamorings of fallen flesh nature.

And if this correlation is correct then it would be safe to conclude that if that's it the way it was for Jesus then Paul must be talking about a converted Christian in Rom 7:14-25 who, like Jesus, is successfully resisting the clamorings of fallen flesh nature by staying connected to the same source Jesus stayed connected to - namely, God the Father.

This interpretation does not require that we accuse Paul of blame shifting when he says - "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Instead we can understand Paul to mean - It's not me craving after sin, rather it's my flesh that is clamoring for sinful expression. The "do it" in verse 17 and 20 is referring not to the committing of sin, but rather to the flesh clamoring for sin.

Does that make sense?

Would anyone else like to share their thoughts on this topic?

I don't understand why we seem so obsessed with ourselves. Christianty is an "others" focused journey. I'm glad Paul wrote this so we don't have to live in constant fear of the sinful desires that keep attacking us, but at the same time, we should be more concerned about helping others than obsessing about our own condition. Does that make sense to you guys?
God Bless
Dan

Dan, good point. All of us must be careful not to lose sight of the reason for "pure and undefiled religion" (James 1:27) as we seek to understand and experience the truth as it is in Jesus.

Yes, Christianity is more about seeking and saving the lost, but does that make understanding how Jesus saves us personally less important? I'm sure you would answer, No. But when and where is a good place to discuss such matters?

You would like to elaborate on your comment about resisting the clamorings of our fallen nature flesh in the context of Romans 7?

If we don't understand our own walk or relationship with Christ, to say it in the general sense, then how can we communicate the message of salvation to others?

We do, however, need a proper blend in all aspects of whatever we do and study.

Going to the extreme one way or the other doesn't help. For example, we can go to the extreme with the law or we can go to the extreme with grace.

__________________________
In His Love, Mercy & Grace

Daryl

Well said, Daryl. A closer look at the holy place suggests 4 ways to grow as a Christian and as a church:

1. The table of show bread - personal and corporate Bible study.

2. The altar of incense - personal and corporate prayer.

3. The golden candle stick - personal and corporate outreach.

4. The holy place - personal and corporate fellowship.

But I'm still curious as to why some of us interpret Romans 7 one way, and others of us an entirely different way. Especially since our interpretations are so radically opposite. How can this be? And does it matter?

For example, I am convinced that the man of Romans 7:14-25 is a born again believer who is successfully resisting the unholy clamorings of his sinful flesh nature.

Whereas others believe the man of Romans 7 is an unconverted person who is slave to sin
and his sinful flesh nature.

And still others believe in a combination of the two. What is the truth about this famous passage of Scripture?

How are we supposed to understand Romans 7 verses 17 and 20?

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Whatever the truth is in this, or any other topic, we need to present it with wisdom and tact.

I often think of those who stop going to church because they can't give up a sinful habit such as smoking. They feel they first need to kick the habit of this or any other sin before they can even come to church.

What is the end result of that kind of thinking?

How would this and some of the other topics here affect that type of person?

__________________________
In His Love, Mercy & Grace

Daryl

Just because Jesus is our sinless example does not mean that we should stop going to church. And just because the Bible describes a Christian as someone who does not sin does not mean that we should stop going to church.

The only reason we should stop going to church is if we stop trying to imitate the sinless example of Jesus. If we give up on Jesus and start clinging to some private or public darling sin then we should stop going to church.

But as long as the example of Jesus is our goal we should continue going to church. Otherwise the church should take some kind of appropriate steps to motivate us to make the right decision about church attendance.

But what is Romans 7:17 and 20 trying to teach us?

This may be going off topic some, however, I always thought it was good for even an unconverted person to go to church as that may be the only place to awaken interest once again.

__________________________
In His Love, Mercy & Grace

Daryl