Romans 7: is habitual sin normal for Christians?

Romans 7:7-25 is one of the most interesting, puzzling, misunderstood, and DANGEROUS passages in the Pauline letters. It comes right in between two triumphant declarations of the freedom that Christians have from sin; Romans 6 stating that our nature has been renewed by Christ and is no longer enslaved to sin, and Romans 8 speaking of the Spirit's freeing us from bondage to sin and death.

With this in mind, what in the world should we make of Paul's statement "We know that the law is spiritual; BUT I AM UNSPIRITUAL, SOLD AS A SLAVE TO SIN"? Martin Luther thought that when the writer said "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin" he meant that he himself (the regenerate, justified Apostle Paul) was struggling with sin over which he had no control. Luther writes about Romans 7 in connection to justification by faith in his Commentary on Galatians:

Here, not only the schoolmen, but also some of the old fathers are much troubled, seeking how they may excuse Paul. For it seemeth unto them absurd and unseemly to say, that that elect vessel of Christ should have sin. But we credit Paul's own words, wherein he plainly confesseth that he is sold under sin, that he is led captive by sin, that he hath a law in his members rebelling against him, and that in the flesh he serveth the law of sin...Wherefore when Paul saith "I see another law in my members" he denieth not that he hath flesh, and the vices of the flesh in him....Let no man despaireth if he feel the flesh oftentimes to stir up new battles against the spirit, or if he cannot by and by subdue the flesh, and make it obedient to the spirit....It is impossible for you to follow the guiding of the Spirit in all things without any feeling or hindrance of the flesh; nay, the flesh will resist: and so resist and hinder you that ye cannot do those things that gladly ye would.(1)

Was Paul saying he is enslaved to habitual sin--that our sinful tendencies can overpower us as Christians? The answer is probably NO. To get to the bottom of this we must understand the ancient rhetorical technique of "prosopopoeia".

Paul was a skilled rhetorician, educated in writing and speaking. Furthermore, he had two cultural backgrounds: Hebraic and Hellenistic. His Jewish ethnicity and religion gave him a conceptual world centered on ideas of monotheism, election and eschatology, firmly rooted in the story of creation-fall-Israel. But his Greco-Roman Hellenistic understanding of language and presentation of ideas means that sometimes, instead of sounding like the OT or Jewish rabbis, Paul will sound like Aristotle, Cicero, or Quintilian.

The book of Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles. It was meant to address a variety of concerns (Christians debate what exactly its purpose was). Its important to keep in mind the fact that the whole letter is written to make an argument and employs arguing techniques such as "prolepsis" (a rebuttal that predicts objections, like Rom. 9-11) and arguing against oneself by imagining another person is asking questions (Rom. 3:1, 3:3, 3:5, 6:15, etc.)

One of the rhetorical techniques that was used by some writers was a "speech in character" or prosopopoeia. This is where the writer begins to speak from the perspective of another person. Ben Witherington (one of the top evangelical biblical scholars) points out that this switch in personalities would be signaled and "marked off from the surrounding discourse by a change in tone, inflection, or accent, by forms of delivery, or by an introductory formula signaling a change in voice. Sometimes the speech would simply be inserted 'without mentioning the speaker at all' (9.2.37 Quintilian, Inst. Orat)". (2) I will be presenting Witherington's interpretation of chapter 7, as found in his (excellent) commentary on Romans.

That person Witherington quotes is the Roman rhetorician Quintilian, a contemporary of Paul. He said in his Institutio Oratio that impersonation "is sometimes introduced even with controversial themes, which are drawn from history and involve the appearance of definite historical characters as pleaders" (3.8.52).

In chapters 5 and 6 of his letter, the Apostle had introduced what the Christians he is writing to were like before and after Jesus saved them. Formerly, they had been "in Adam"; they had inherited the consequences of the original act of sin performed by the first man. Thus, they had been condemned and dying because of their sinful inclinations. Chapter 7 can be seen as an explanation for why Christians came to be that way (enslaved to sin and death) in the first place.

Paul shifts tenses beginning in verse 7:7 after his discussion of how spiritually dying in relation to one system of obligation (the law) cuts oneself off from that system. He begins to speak in the past tense, telling of how

v7 I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "do not covet."
v8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.
v9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
v10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
v11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded byt eh commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
v12 So then, the law is holy, righteous and good.
v13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become exceedingly sinful through the commandment.

Who is the "I" in these verses? The answer is probably ADAM, the first human being. Let us observe some features of the text that give evidence that Adam is being impersonated here:

1. Notice the word "commandment"; it is singular, not plural, in the Greek. Hence it cannot be referring to the Mosaic law.

2. The commandment that Paul refers to throughout: "thou shalt not covet", the 10th commandment. When God commanded Adam in the garden, he told him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This singular command seems to be a command not to desire something. And (fittingly) many early Jewish interpreters said that the sin that Adam had performed was that of coveting, or violating the 10th commandment.

3. The person describes himself as "alive apart from the law". This seems to correspond best to the experience of Adam. When God first created him, he had not received any instructions. But then he did. Some commentators say that this could refer to a jewish child before his bar-mitzvoth. This is possible, but considering that children were expected to obey even before their rite, it is unlikely.

4. Sin is personified. It has the ability to "take opportunity" and "deceive". The verb used for deceive here is the same one in 2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:14 where it describes the experience of the first humans being deceived. These considerations make it plausible to see sin here as the serpent.

5. The phrase "I did not know sin except through the commandment" seems to fit with Adam's experience as well. With God's instruction not to eat from the tree, Adam became aware of the possibility of eating from the tree. When the word "know" is used here, it could also mean it in a personal sense (as in be acquainted with). Thus only after the command was issued did Adam experience sin.

The evidence that Adam is the "I" in these verses is very strong. Quintilian's statement that historical people are often impersonated to prove a point in a speech in character also connects verses 7-13 to the last historical individual Paul introduced (in Rom 5) who is, of course, Adam.

A principle we can infer from this interpretation are that good things from God can often be used for bad purposes. The commandment not to eat was a good thing (it had a good end, it was meant to bring about a morally-good orientation) but it created the possibility for a bad thing (the temptation of the serpent). Another truth that comes out of this is that laws (moral instructions) themselves cannot guarantee our obedience; quite the contrary, it is God's grace that enables us to perform every good act.

This leads into verses 14-25. Before we go there, another quote from Quintilian is in order. Sometimes rhetoricians would use a technique called "overlap" as a move to bolster their speech when moving from one argument or proof to another. An ABAB structure is good for adding force or energy to what is being argued for. Witherington quotes the Roman rhetorician as saying

"When one is recounting history or narrative this 'does not so much demand full rounded rhythms as a certain continuity of motion and connexion of style.... we may compare its motion to that of men, who link hands to steady their steps, and lend each other their mutual support.' (9.4.129)

If Adam is in view in verses 7-13, who is the "I" of 14-25? The Apostle's letter surely has continuity between its sections because it was written to make arguments and teach people. The change of tense to present that occurs seems to indicate that the person speaking is someone who exists at the time of Paul himself. The passage reads:

14 I know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is the sin which dwells within me.
18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
19 For the willing to do good is not there, but the evil I do not will, this I practice/commit.
20 But if I do not wish to do this, and nevertheless I do it, then it is sin dwelling in me.
21 For I find then it to be the rule/law with my willing to do the good, that the evil is ready to hand for me.
22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law;
23 But I see another law in my members at war with the law of my mind and making me captive in the rule of sin which is in my members.
24 I am a miserable human being. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. So then I myself while on the one hand with mind I am a slave to the law of God, but on the other hand the flesh [is a slave] to the rule/law of sin.

The best way to read these verses is as talking about "Adam's lost race" (to borrow Witherington's phrase). That is, these passages are spoken from the perspective of people who are "in Adam" (1 Cor 15:22) or those who are united to Adam and share in his identity. This makes sense because it connects with Paul's impersonation of Adam immediately before. Those "in Adam" are all people who have not yet been redeemed by Christ.

Why can't these verses be talking about Christians? Consider Romans 6:6, 6:11-14, 8:1-4, and other verses in these 2 chapters. It is very clear that Christians, in being redeemed, are not under the influence of sin in the same way anymore. Whereas before they were slaves to sin, now they are freed from this slavery. This wouldn't fit with the person who describes himself or herself in Romans 7:14-25; this person still experiences the overwhelming power of sin in their life.

Those who are not redeemed, therefore, cannot help but sin to a certain extent. They have an awareness of God's law because of grace (like Paul talks about in Romans 2) but are not capable of resisting the flesh successfully. Their mind may be aware of God's law, but yet the sinful inclinations which originate in their body keep them from doing good.

It is important to realize that flesh can have a variety of meanings, and that Paul does not believe being a physical being with a body is bad in itself. After all, the universe that God created was good. (Gen 1:31, 1 Tim 4:4) But as a result of the fall, evil desires, some of which originate in the body, have been inherited by all humankind.

How should we understand verse 25? Remember what Quintilius said about overlapping arguments; this is probably what Paul is doing. After all, he immediately launches into his talk about how the Spirit frees those united to Christ from sin's power over them. The first part of verse 25 is therefore a conclusion to the old argument and a connection with the next passage. It can also be thought of as the point of conversion, where a person initially becomes redeemed.

Now if this understanding of Romans 7 is correct--that it talking about Adam, and then those united to him--what does this imply? Remember it is likely that Paul is not here talking about Christians, and it is probably not Paul speaking from his own perspective. It seems Luther was wrong; Romans 7 does not imply that Paul the apostle had major sin-problems. It paints a picture of the non-Christian as experiencing a dilemma of inability to avoid sin; but it says nothing at all about Christians and their lives.

What this does not imply is that Christians are sinless. On the contrary we do continue to sin to some extent. But that is very different from being a SLAVE to sin. In 1 Corinthians10:13 Paul teaches that God's grace is capable of helping any Christian resist sin. None of the obstacles that exist in the world can compell us to do wrong; God always provides a way out of temptation. We can therefore conclude that Paul is not describing his own experience in Romans 7:7-25. Thus, habitual sin is not described here as being a normal characteristic of Christians, and we have good reason to think (Romans 6, 8; 1 Corinthians 10:13) to assume that it is not.

Endnotes:
(1) Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians. In Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings; Anchor Books, New York. p 146-148
(2) Ben Witherington III, Paul's Letter to the Romans: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. p 179-206