Sin and Law in Romans 7

What are we to make of Paul’s discussion of sin in Romans 7? If we take it as a description of fallen humanity as such, it is difficult to see how it can square with other portions of Scripture or with the Reformed doctrine of sin. Paul presents sin as an external power that dominates and oppresses a victimized “I,” who really does want to do good. The problem, further, does not seem so much a matter of the heart as a matter of practice. The “heart” of the person in Rom 7 seems perfectly fine; but he can’t do what he desires to do. Locating sin primarily in practice, in doing, rather than in the heart, runs counter to much thinking about sin. The whole thrust of the argument, in fact, is designed to exonerate the “I” ?Enote the conditional sentences in vv 16, 20. The man of Romans 7 is possessed; someone else has taken control of his body (though not [!] of his mind), and directs his members to do evil. Poor “I” is a marionette, victim of a demonic puppeteer.

Which is why so many have taken this as a description of the struggle of a saved person with remnants of indwelling sin. The latter view, however, is difficult to square with Paul’s own discussion of the deliverance that the believer has experienced through union with Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit (Rom 6 and 8).

The best approach, I think, is to recognize that the division that Paul is examining is not believer/unbeliever but old covenant/new covenant. The I is an old covenant Jew (and, at another level, Israel as a whole), who truly delights in Torah, who loves the law, who approves the things that are essential, who is instructed out of the law (Rom 2), but whose performance consistently runs contrary to his desires (Rom 2 again). Under the old covenant, man ?Econverted man ?Eis essential schizophrenic, divided between desire for the good and practice of evil. This is the death that Sin brings in its wake, the death that involves splitting a man into two bits. When the Spirit brings life, it is because the Spirit brings integrity, sanity, because the Spirit indwells so that desire and performance are not running at cross purposes. (This is pastorally unsatisfying; what do we do with all the Christians who say that Rom 7 is a mirror?)

This also helps to explain the weakness Paul sees with Torah, or if not explain, at least it unpacks it a bit. There are two ways to spin this (more, no doubt). First, Torah kills by dividing the man. An Israelite is under the dominion of sin, and under the dominion of Pharaoh; Yahweh delivers him and Israel, and the Israelite responds with genuine love and devotion to Yahweh; when Yahweh gives His commands, this Israelite joins in the cry “Whatever Yahweh commands, we will do”; but his performance doesn’t match his confession, and he’s even tempted to join the revelries round the golden calf. Law comes in, and he sees its wisdom and truth, but that merely leaves him schizophrenic, because he can’t do what he desires. Torah came in, and he died.

Alternatively, one might say that even before the law is added, man under the dominion of sin is schizophrenic. He is made in the image of God, yet does not love God. When Torah comes to this divided man, Torah itself is torn in two, into a Torah of the mind and a Torah of sin, a Torah of the inner man and a Torah of the members.