Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Romans 7:22

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:" — Romans 7:22 (ASV)

Paul now summarizes what has gone before. “So I find this law at work.” So far, “law” (GK 3795) meant the law of Moses, but here it has a specialized meaning—that of “principle” (cf. 3:27; 8:2). This usage makes it necessary, when speaking once more of the Mosaic law, to call it “God’s law” (v.22). In Paul’s inner being the divine law is welcome and brings delight, but that which manifests itself in the bodily members (what may be called the outward self) is the law (i.e., principle) of sin. There is a state of war, and he finds himself a captive (cf. the slave figure in v.14) to the imperious operation of sin. The agony of this unhappy condition comes out in the cry “What a wretched man I am!” It is a powerful and moving cry, recalling the words of Isaiah when he became aware of his sin (Isaiah 6:5). Since Paul is unable to help himself he must look elsewhere.

In answering this cry of desperation, the apostle does not say, “What will rescue me?” but “Who... ?” There is deliverance, provided by God through Jesus Christ, for his sinlessness and triumph over evil assure him that deliverance is possible.

The final statement of the chapter (v.25b) is another summary. Coming as it does after the cry of thanksgiving for deliverance through Christ, it seems strange that there should be a reversion to the state of tension described earlier. What could possibly account for this strange concluding statement? Apparently Paul wanted to state once more the essence of the struggle he had depicted in order to prepare the reader to appreciate the grand exposition of one’s deliverance in terms of Christ and the Spirit in the next chapter.

Before moving on to that portion, we must return to the overall problems of interpretation in ch. 7. First of all, is Paul giving a truly autobiographical sketch, or is the “I” a vehicle to present a human being in his or her extremity, a means to universalize the experience treated here? It is difficult to decide, as both are possible explanations. Perhaps the personal and the universal are intended to mingle here.

The more strenuously debated issue is the question of interpretation of the material itself, especially vv.14–25. Are we to regard the state pictured here as that of the unsaved person or of the Christian? The case for the unsaved condition is as follows: (1) It was the prevailing view among the Greek Fathers of the early church. (2) Such expressions as “sold as a slave to sin” and “unspiritual” seem more fitting as a description of the unsaved than of genuine believers. After all, the main message of ch. 6 is that Christians are free from sin. How can Paul then say they are sold as slaves to sin (v.14)? (3) If the “now” of 8:1 means what it seems to mean, Paul is passing from a consideration of the unsaved to the saved condition. (4) The absence of the Holy Spirit from the discussion and even of Christ (until the very close) is hard to understand if a redeemed experience is under review.

The other interpretation holds that a Christian is being depicted, despite his wretchedness. The case for that position is as follows: (1) This was the conclusion of Augustine and of the Reformed interpreters. (2) Paul changes from the past tense in vv.7–13 to the present tense in vv.14–25. Presumably, then, the former section relates to Paul’s pre-Christian experience and the rest of the chapter to his postconversion experience. (3) Paul’s description of his preChristian life in Php 3:6 as a blameless condition in terms of the law does not jibe with his wretchedness in the passage before us. (4) The progress of thought in Romans needs to be taken into consideration. Paul has passed beyond his description of the unsaved state and is now giving attention to sanctification and its problems; so the theme is really relevant only to believers. (5) That a conflict of the sort described here can and does characterize the Christian life is apparent elsewhere in Paul . (6) The power of self-diagnosis at the penetrating level found here (vv.22–23) is beyond the capacity of an unbeliever. (7) A person desiring holiness of life, as pictured here, could only be a believer, for the unsaved person does not long for God but is hostile toward him. (8) The last verse of ch. 7 acknowledges deliverance in Christ, yet goes on to state the very problem sketched in vv.14–24 as though it continues to be a problem for one who knows the Lord.

The wide difference between these two views puts the general reader in a dilemma. Which view is correct? Which has the better of the argument?

Another and more satisfying approach is possible—namely, that the experience pictured here is not wholly autobiographical but is deliberately presented in such a way as to demonstrate what the situation would indeed be if someone who is faced with the demands of the law and the power of sin in his life were to try to solve his problem independently of the power of Christ and the enablement of the Spirit. That is, Paul is hypothetically describing what life under the law would be like if it was seen according to the logic of its nature.

A parallel use of this methodology may be detected in Ecclesiastes. The writer knows God personally, but purposely and deliberately views life from the standpoint of his natural self in order to expose it as meaningless, empty of lasting value. Romans 7 performs a service by calling into question certain popular notions that lack biblical foundation: that the soul’s struggle is essentially against specific sins or habits; that human nature is essentially good (cf. v.18); that sanctification is by means of the law; that if one will only determine to do the right, he or she will be able to do it. These are some of the misconceptions that must be removed, and they might not have been removed had the apostle proceeded directly from ch. 6 to ch. 8. Without ch. 7 we would not be able to appreciate to the full the truths presented in the next chapter.