Monday, September 03, 2007

• Romans 7 and the Problem of Interpretation

  "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 that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me."

  Romans 7:15-20

   

  This is a quite famous passage from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans. In it, we apparently see that even one of the most important early church leaders admitting to his personal struggles with sin. The passage above has served as a comfort and inspiration to Christians for untold generations. But…what if we are missing what Paul is actually doing here?

   

  One of the problems with quoting from Romans is that Paul is, from the first verses, building a large overarching argument. Paul is trying to convince his readers/listeners of his theological viewpoint, and in so doing, every new section of text in Romans is building upon what came before. As hard as it is to do, it is a letter that is best read as a whole, rather than in parts. So, what exactly did come before?

   

  Back in chapter 5, Paul sets up a duality. For Paul, it is Adam vs. Jesus Christ. Adam brought sin and death into the world, Jesus defeated sin and death through his death and resurrection. Adam brought condemnation into the world, Jesus brought grace. Before Jesus the dominion of death ruled, but now we live in the dominion of justification and eternal life (Romans 5:12-21).

   

  Paul sets up this duality and gives us two paths we can follow: that of Adam, or that of Jesus. We can choose the path of sin and death, or we can choose the path of grace and life. Paul speaks to his readers who once followed Adam, but now follow Christ: “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (Romans 6:19).

   

  Also important to this discussion is Paul’s views on the law vs. faith. Back in chapter 3 is perhaps Paul’s most concise rendering of his (ever changing) view: “But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:21-24). Paul’s argument is that the way of life he is proposing, that of faith and grace, is just as valid if not more so than observance of the law…for there is no distinction (There are obviously many more ways to discuss this issue, but they are really beside the point right now).

   

  Now lets jump forward again to Romans 7, where Paul brings back the law into his argumentation just before the passage quoted at the start of this post: “What then should 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. 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 in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (Romans 7:7-11).

   

  The question that arises in my mind here and in the passage at the beginning: is this really Paul speaking of himself? Is this the same Paul who lists of his impeccable credentials any chance he gets (2 Corinthians 11:16-13:14; Philippians 3:4-6)? Is this the same Paul who said that he was “blameless” with regard to righteousness under the law (Philippians 3:6)? This just does not seem to jive with the Paul found elsewhere throughout scripture.

   

  So, if Paul is not speaking as himself…whom is he speaking as? What clues are there? Let us first look at the single commandment he mentions: “You shall not covet” (Rom. 7:7). For Paul’s contemporaries “desire,” or “covetousness,” was viewed as the root of all evil (James 1:15; 4 Maccabees 2:4-6; Philo, De spec. leg. 4.84-94). In fact, the famous (and very important) Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria said that it was the source of Adam’s sin (Philo, Leg. All. 3.115). When Adam sinned by disobeying God, he broke the law against coveting, which is inferred from God’s commandment not to eat of the tree (Genesis 3:3).

   

  Furthermore, vs. 9 says that “I was once alive apart from the law.” Who in all of creation has existed apart from any law? I would say Adam is a strong candidate. Then Paul says that once he sinned, “I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death” (vs. 10). This correlates with how God said Adam and Eve would die if they broke his law and ate of the tree (Genesis 3:3).

   

  The final bit that clinches it for me is in the end where Paul says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (vs. 24-25). The person speaking contrasts directly with Jesus, just as Paul had done with Adam and Christ earlier in chapters 5-6. Paul is not speaking of his view of Christian existence, for those baptized in Christ are “no longer slaves to sin” (Rom. 6:6). Rather, it seems that he is not describing his own personal struggles, but illustrating the contrast between a person living under the rule of Adam rather than the rule of Christ.

   

  So, I get to this point to ask the question that is really on my mind. I have problems with the interpretation of Romans 7 that sees Paul as struggling with sin, it just doesn’t seem to work in the overall picture. However, that interpretation has been indescribably helpful to a great many people, or at least I assume it has…perhaps it has not. My question is though, if incorrect interpretation is helpful…is that ok? Furthermore, should I disagree with someone’s interpretation if it is beneficial to them? Obviously, in many cases a good deal of scripture can be interpreted in a variety of ways (and should be!). Yet in cases like this, I’d say it’s quite evident that there is more going on than the traditional interpretation accounts for. There is a dilemma here, and I do not know exactly where I should land. This issue came up in a conversation Natalie and I had last night, and I am quite uncertain how to deal with the whole thing. Perhaps my readers may be of some help?

   

  Currently Reading Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars By Hugh Ross see related

  • 10:22 AM
  • 47 views
  • 4 eprops
  • 3 comments