In my Romans course today I lectured on Rom 7:1-25 and had a great a discussion with my students about the spiritual status of the speaker (“I”) in verses 14-25. Not surprisingly, prior to the reading and coursework they did in preparation for today, many of my students had never seriously grappled with the issue of whether the speaker in this passage represents a regenerate or unregenerate person; most had simply assumed that Paul was narrating his post-conversion struggle with “Sin”. Again, such is not surprising considering that this is the view taught in many churches and in some scholarly commentaries (e.g., Cranfield and Dunn). But this got me to wondering if this is the assumption shared by most readers of this blog. So, I thought I would post a poll so readers can vote on which position they find the strongest, also providing a third option (“both”) for those who do not believe the regenerate and unregenerate positions adequately cover the interpretive possibilities. Please do share your opinion.
Btw, for interested readers, I recommend Jason Maston’s recently published thesis on Romans 7-8, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Approach (WUNT 2/297; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 6:12 pm
Neither. It represents an Old Covenant Jewish believer committed to and under the Torah, before the New Covenant gift of the Spirit (new birth through Christ’s ‘regeneration’ as the firstborn of the dead). ‘Regeneration’ pre- and post- resurrection and Pentecost are different sorts of things. Or, rather, regeneration in Scripture is rooted in a particular place in redemptive history and should not be confused with the operations of the Spirit in producing repentance and trust in the Old Covenant economy (whether among Jews or Gentile Godfearers).
Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 7:54 pm
Alistair,
Thank you for your comment. I assure you that I do understand the particularity of regeneration in redemptive history; the use of the terms “regenerate” and “unregenerate” in this debate is more for the sake of convenience than anything, with “unregenerate” simply referring to those who do not have the Spirit, irrespective of whether or not such renewal was even possible in the case of “I” (to whomever and whenever this designation refers). In fact, I deliberately chose not to use the term “believer” (as you do) since, according to Paul, this too is anachronistic, for “faith came” with Christ and was not operative in the same sense during the Old Covenant (Gal 3:23).
Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 9:08 pm
Thanks for the response, John. If terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘believer’ are anachronistic, then I would suggest that they are anachronisms that Paul himself readily indulges in (e.g. Romans 4). Obviously, the faith/fulness that comes in Christ is the full and climactic revelation and realization of Abrahamic faithfulness, but there is a fundamental continuity between the two. Regeneration, in a more biblical – rather than systematic theological – sense of the word, is different as it doesn’t have the same sort of OT form, but names our participation in the apocalyptic transition of the resurrection.
As regards Romans 7, the key question for me is whether we are going to frame differing positions purely in terms of the choice between different states of the individual heart in a single covenant economy, or whether we are also open to the possibility that it may be speaking of the opposition between two covenant economies as this maps onto the life of the believing subject, fundamentally a difference between times, even though it may have been experienced or spoken of in its Pauline context as if as a sort of synchronic difference during the brief historical overlap between covenant economies. This opposition obviously has its partial analogies today, both in the individual believer’s struggle with sin and in the contrast between the unregenerate and regenerate states, but what it speaks of goes beyond and is something other than either of these.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 8:01 pm
I take that back, I DID use the term “believer” in the original title, as well as “faith” once within the post! I’ve changed then now to cover make tracks…!
Friday, 23 November 2012 at 4:21 am
Paul gives us an analogy in Romans 7:1-6 that answers this question.
Romans 7:2 and 3 is about Romans 5. We understand in scripture that the Church is the Bride of Christ. We can see this as well even in this analogy that Paul gives. Where many go astray, is coming to the wrong conclusion that the first husband in the analogy is the law. No, the first husband is not the law, but rather it is Adam. The first husband is Adam and the second husband is Christ.
Here in Romans 7:2 and 3 Paul is making it clear that a woman can have only one husband at a time, otherwise it is adultery to be married to another as long as the first is still alive. We also see in Romans 8 that one is either in the flesh or in the Spirit. We are either in Adam and in the flesh or in Christ and in the Spirit, but no one can be in both.
So how does this relate to Romans 5? Our problem began because Adam was the head of the human race and his weak flesh became our weak flesh, resulting in sin. The cure for that was to be taken out of Adam and placed in Christ! Therefore we see Adam was the first husband and Christ the second.
Romans 7:4 is about Romans chapter 6. This verse is a one verse description of chapter 6.
Romans 7:5 is about Romans chapter 7.
Romans 7:6 is about Romans chapter 8.
We also see how the tenses change from present to past to present in 7:4, 5 and 6.
Without question the man in Romans 7 is in the flesh, under the law of God, and living in sin, therefore lost.
We are not under the law, because we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. We are not under the law because the law died, but rather, we are not under the law because we died, the flesh, the Adam part of man.
If this were the only place Paul did this it would be enough to make it clear Romans 7 is indeed a lost man, but he does this about a half dozen times in Romans and each time the verse(s) that fall in place for Romans 7 it is always in the past tense or a lost man condition. If interested I can point out a few more.
In Christ,
Dell Russell
Friday, 23 November 2012 at 9:32 am
Dell, While the relationship between the first and second halves of Romans 7 is significant here, I think that closer attention to the details of verses 1-6.is in order. One could definitely argue that the first husband is Adam. However, the focus of the illustration is not on the husband but on the ‘law’ that binds one to your husband. It is the Torah that binds Israel to Adamic flesh. Only by Christ’s bringing the Adamic flesh down to death can that vicious relationship be dissolved and Israel be freed from the Torah that binds them to Adam. 7:1 and the rest of the chapter bears out my claim that the Torah is the law in view here. Consequently, even though the ‘husband’ may be Adam, the ‘marriage’ and the ‘law’ that forms it are only truly a reality for Israel.
Friday, 23 November 2012 at 10:43 pm
I do believe the law here is indeed the Torah, I don’t doubt that. I also believe the husband in the analogy is significant. The law/Torah only rules over someone as long as they are alive in the flesh, but Paul makes it clear, We are not alive in the flesh. Because of the fact that we are dead the law has no authority over us. But then you are saying the law/Torah never had any authority over us to begin with, because we were never under the Mosaic law. True, but we are still under the law that Adam understood of knowing good and evil. When we know to do good and do it not we are condemned. When we know to not do something and then we go ahead and do it we are condemned as well.
When we obey from the heart that form of doctrine, which doctrine is faith in Christ, we are taken out of the flesh, which is the Adam part of man, and then placed in Christ. We are then no longer under the curse of the law.
Whether one is a Jew or a Gentile we must all get free of what is condemning us. That comes about when we are taken out of the flesh and placed in Christ.