Questions and Answers
Who is Romans 7:14-25 about? Surely it is about a believer; and any at any point in time.
When we come to a question such as this which is load with many assumptions and presuppositions which have all come from a particular interpretation of the passage-- where by the identity of the person become the most central point of contention. Instead of starting with this kind of thought; perhaps a more logical and even better one would be to ask:
what is the passage about?
Then we can really get down to some of the more foundational issues that faces us when dealing with truly problematic statement. And it is if the most common interpretation is allowed to prevail. The thing we must understand is this: the identity of the person is not required at this stage as it will become apparent as we progress.
The above question is answers very easily: the Law and its convicting power when it is applied to a person who is not a Christian (vs. 7-13). In that section, Paul deals clearly with His own pre-conversion time of conviction he became aware of his continually breaking the 10th commandment. Following the same line of thought he adapt the convicting work into a more general frame work (not directly about himself at any point). That is what verses 14-25 is all about.
How do we prove this contention? Is there any clues as to show us that it has a more general application; and not a specific one? Yes.
First, in verse 14 we are told this: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin." If there is one thing which is clear in this verse it is the fact that the work of the law enslaves such a person under its proclamation-- this can never be the case for a Christian of any standing as Romans 6, 7 and 8 all make clear. We are not "slaves of sin," says Romans 6:19 but "slaves of righteousness." We are now "released from the Law," says Romans 7:6 "having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit."
Second, there is this tension of desires in this person which has no place when speaking of the Believer ever gives any indication. But it does tell us of holy desires which captivate us and take control of our very being in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. On one hand we have the desire to be with the Lord and enjoying glory; but on the other hand, we have the desire to remain to be instruments of God's kingdom. Here in this passage in Romans 7 this person does not know this because he knows not the work of the Spirit as he does not have him working in him.
Third, and this maybe the death blow to the idea that this describing a Christian of any standing. When he says: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" This is not a Christian at the end of his or her tether; rather it is a man or women who has been under severe conviction of his sin. they know they are sinner; but have no personal relationship or knowledge of the saviour. "Who can save them?" well it is not a Christian because he knows-- and despite what he may face-- he still and always has. And because he put his trust in Christ there can be no dispute.
Fourth, perhaps beside the misidentification being put forth based on a tradition which is suspect-- there is at least one thought which could be based on a single statement in verse 25 which when removed shows that this is no passage regarding the believing people of God. That statement is this one: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" If this was meant to communicate anything it would be the opposite of what is commonly thought; Paul is saying that he thanks God that he is not in this position anymore. Beyond this fact, we see that if it were true of Paul-- not only would it mean that he is contradicting himself in less than a few paragraph; he likewise would have no basis of being thankful as he would be in the same position he was before conversion: an unregenerate sinner. That would be the worse possible scenario as it would lead to false hope.
Fifth, So if this is not about the believing community or even Paul once he was converted-- and that is full gone conclusion. Who is the man? And why does it use present tense? The first question is as we have seen a very generic point-- it has no particularity about it. So the second, we can dismiss the importance of the present tense simply because it was never meant to be read in such a way. In convicting a man-- he recognises that the law is spiritual and good; but because he sees himself as helpless sinner he can do nothing to rectify his current problem. And as of yet has not been given the biblical remedy to deal with it: who can save this body of death?
