The Word Was Made Flesh

Appendix D

I Alone - The Predicament of Paul in Romans 7

We have seen that one of the favorite texts used by Ellen White and her contemporaries in their discussion of the nature of Christ and the closely related saving work of Christ was Romans 8:3:

God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

They understood "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to mean that Christ came to this earth in the nature of fallen man. They understood "condemned sin in the flesh" to mean that Christ met the enemy and overcame him in his own stronghold, the sinful flesh of man. By this means He made clear to all that man in sinful flesh can live without sinning, through the power of God.

They therefore understood Romans 7 in the light of these two great realities. Since Calvinists offer an altogether different interpretation of Romans 7, the following material is supplied for purposes of comparison.

* * *

The apostle Paul was involved. He was concerned. He cared so deeply about the people for whom he labored, and identified himself so completely with their interests, that he could write:

If meat maketh my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. (1 Corinthians 8:13)

His ardent affection for his converts is expressed in Philippians4:1:

Therefore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, m y joy and my crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

His sensitive nature was hurt to its depths by a temporary estrangement from the Corinthians, whom he had brought to Christ, and when the misunderstandings between them were cleared away, his joy knew no bounds. (See 2 Corinthians 7)

But his heaviest heart burden was for the Jews, Israel, the chosen people, the tree of God's own planting. As often as he went forth to preach to the Gentiles, so often he returned to the Jews, hoping, praying, yearning for their salvation.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:1-3)

The book of Romans, in which these poignant words were written, reflects Paul's earnest efforts on the Jews' behalf. In its seventh chapter we find a classic example of the sympathy, the empathy, the devotion to the good of the Jewish people that is expressed in 1 Corinthians 9:20, 22:

Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law ... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

This seventh chapter of Romans has often been analyzed by Christian writers since it was first penned by Paul. In it we see a graphic picture of a man in difficulty, a man in distress, a man who seems to be doomed to failure and defeat in his spiritual life. He appears to be caught up in a tension between his own sinful tendencies and desires, and the just requirements of God's holy law. The chapter speaks in moving terms of temptations resisted but not overcome, of goals not reached, of purposes unfulfilled, of ideals held but not attained, of a victory that is longed for but not gained, of a conflict that is sore and that uniformly ends in defeat. And this unfortunate man is identified by the first personal pronoun "I". In a substantive, objective, or possessive form the first personal pronoun singular appears 46 times in verses 7-25, which describe the predicament of this born loser, this defeated man.

So who is this person, this man? Who is the "I" of Romans 7?

Let us proceed carefully. Profound theological implications are involved in our conclusion. Our view of the very nature of salvation itself can depend on our answer to this question. The chapter is clearly a case study, set before us in such specific detail that we sense that it is intended to be definitive--but of what? Who is this man of Romans 7 who continually yearns for what he cannot achieve, and lives in an unbroken continuum of frustration and defeat?

Two main suggestions have been offered by Christian writers through the centuries:

1. The man of Romans 7 is the unregenerate, unconverted man, whose heart is naturally in rebellion against God and His holy law. Since we have no reason to believe that Paul was ever in this rebellious condition, it is proposed that Paul was simply identifying himself with the rebellious, unregenerate man for purposes of communication, just as preachers often do now. (or)

2. The man of Romans 7 is Paul himself in his regenerate, converted experience, after he has come to know Christ. It therefore proves that victory over temptation and sin are not available to Christians in this life. If Paul could not stop sinning, even through the power of Christ, it is certain that no one else can stop sinning.

The problem that we encounter as we consider these two alternatives is that neither is easy to defend. Neither bears up very well under investigation.

If we prefer the first option, that the man of Romans 7 is the unregenerate, unconverted, rebellious sinner, we have difficulty answering questions like these:

Do unregenerate sinners confess that God's law is holy, just, and good (verse 12)?

Do such men acknowledge that the law is spiritual, but "I am carnal" (verse 14)?

Do unregenerate men plead that it is not by themselves that the evil is done (verse 17)?

Do unregenerate men will to do good (verse 18)?

Do unregenerate men say, "The good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do" (verse 19)?

Do unregenerate men say, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (verse 22)?

It would be difficult to answer yes to any of these questions. In our human experience we do not hear unregenerate men praising God's holy law. They are more likely to curse it. Neither do they admit that God's law is spiritual but they are carnal. They tend to be defensive about their condition. They do not hate the evil that they do; they rather love it. They do not will to do good; they will to do evil. And they certainly do not "delight in the law of God after the inward man." They hate the law, they feel condemned by it, and they fear it. Those of us who have lived in an unregenerate condition realize that Paul's word picture would not correctly describe our experience.

So, finding it difficult to defend the first option, that the man of Romans 7 is the unconverted, unregenerate man who lives in rebellion against God, we turn to consider the second, that the man of Romans 7 is the converted, regenerate Christian man who finds that although he is in Christ he still cannot stop sinning.

We quickly encounter problems. How shall we answer questions like these?

Why would Paul say, "I am carnal" (verse 14) and in the same discussion say, "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7)?

Why would Paul say, " I am sold under sin" (verse 14) and in the same discussion say, "being then made free from sin" (Romans 6:18)?

Why would Paul say that he found it impossible to stop doing the evil that he hated (verses 15-23) and in the same discussion write that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Romans 8:4)?

Why would Paul describe himself as being "in captivity to the law of sin" (verse 23) and in the same discussion write but now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness ... (Romans 6:22)?

And translating the matter from abstract discussion to real life, are we to believe that Paul wanted to quit swearing, but couldn't; that he wanted to quit stealing, but couldn't; that he wanted to quit committing adultery, but couldn't? Or even that he wanted to quit imagining himself doing these things, but couldn't? How then could he write in 2 Corinthians 10:5:

Casting down imaginations ... and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ?

If we widen the context to include all of Paul's writings, we are impressed by the absence of defeatism and the note of victory that pervades them. Space limitations preclude the listing here of all of Paul's victory texts, but a representative sampling might include:

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. (Philippians 4:15)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I , but Christ liveth in me. ... (Galatians 2:20)

Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. (Ephesians 3:20)

And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:23, 24)

(See also 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Galatians 5:16, 20-25; Ephesians 2:1-6; Ephesians 5:25, 27; Ephesians 6:10-17; Philippians 2:13, etc.)

So we find that the second choice, that the man of Romans 7 is the converted, regenerate Christian, i. e., Paul himself, is also difficult to defend. Is there nothing else?

Fortunately, there is. We are not limited to these two choices. A third suggestion has been made, and has been subscribed to by such reformation theologians as Arminius and Wesley, and by such earlier witnesses as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cypolian, Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexander, Macarius, John of Damascus, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Vigilius, Procopius of Gaza, Bernard of Clairveaux, Leo the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the early Augustine.[1]

What is perhaps more to the point, this third view is strongly supported by Paul's own words in the original Greek.

What is the third view? That the man of Romans 7 is neither the unregenerate rebel against God, nor yet the converted, regenerate Christian, but is the man "under law," the Jew who wants to do God's will but does not accept Christ; just such a man as Paul was before his experience on the Damascus road. Paul can write about this man as "I" with precise accuracy, because he is describing such an experience as he himself had before he knew Christ. Although it does not describe his present experience, he empathizes and identifies himself with this man and his predicament as indicated in 1 Corinthians 9:20:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under law, that I might gain them that are under the law.

We will do well to remember that in Paul's world view all human beings were divided into three groups: those without law, those under law, and those under grace, (also described as under the law to Christ.) (Compare 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21 with Romans 6:15, Galatians 4:4, 5, and Galatians 5:18, etc.)

Those without law were the pagan, unregenerate rebels against God; those under law were the Jews who professed to be doing God's will while rejecting Christ; and those under grace were those from either pagan or Jewish backgrounds who had accepted Christ.

We find this third position much less vulnerable than the other two. We have no trouble with either the characterization or the description. Any man, we judge, who would try to do God's will without a relationship with Christ would be likely to have such an experience as Paul sets forth. We do not find ourselves struggling to harmonize apparent discrepancies or contradictions in either the immediate context of Romans or the larger context of Paul's other writings.

We do have one question, but, as was suggested earlier, it can be readily answered by an examination of Paul's words in the original language. The question is this:

Paul's long and graphic description of the man who wants to do God's will but finds it impossible to succeed reaches its climax in Romans 7:24:

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

In the first part of verse 25 there is a response, in answer to the question:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then the last part of verse 25 presents a thought that calls for reflection:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This is an easy and natural conclusion to the entire line of thought that has been presented. But our question is about its relation to the words just preceding:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Those who believe that the man of Romans 7 is the regenerate Christian see these words as their strongest evidence. They feel that proof is here provided that Paul is writing about his own experience as a Christian, able to serve God's law with his mind only and unable to stop sinning in his real life experience.

Those, however, who believe that the man of Romans 7 is the man who tries to do God's will while rejecting Christ see the words:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord as parenthetical, a spontaneous outburst of praise which interrupts Paul's line of thought, to which he returns immediately.

Is it possible to know which of these two understandings is correct? Yes. An examination of a few words in the original language will answer our question satisfactorily. This is the passage under consideration, the last part of verse 25:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Let us begin with the subject of the sentence, the two words I myself. These two words fall a bit short of expressing the full meaning of the words from which they are translated. The two Greek words are ego autos. The first word, ego, means simply I. But what about autos? It has considerably more meaning than the English self. Let us observe the definitions given in several Greek-English lexicons:

Self: intensive, setting the word it modifies oft' from everything else, emphasizing and contrasting.--Gingrich.

Self, as used to distinguish a person or thing from or contrast it with another.--Thayer.

Of oneself, by oneself, alone.--Lidell and Scott.

Of oneself, of one's own motion, alone.--Greenfield.

Ego autos, then, would never be used to describe a joint effort or action, or a cooperative relationship between two persons . It means, emphatically, I alone. In the context of Romans 7 it means I without Christ. Paul is saying:

I alone, without Christ, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

This harmonizes perfectly with the view that in the entire chapter he is describing the experience of the man who is not a rebel against God, but is trying to do God's will while rejecting Christ. Arndt and Gingrich, in a definition that uses Romans 7:25 for an example, give as the true meaning in this context, of ego autos:

Thrown on my own resources, I can only serve the law of God as a slave, with my mind.

Autos is a word that has been carried over into the English language in a number of ways that reflect its true meaning:

So the words ego autos, I alone, would never be used to describe the experience that is pictured in such passages as: These experiential Pauline expressions are all the precise opposites of ego autos in that they speak of the resources of Christ which are made available to the believer, whereas ego autos means thrown on my own resources, I alone. They speak of togetherness, the united life and effort of the Christian with Christ; ego autos speaks of individual, solitary life and effort.

The intensive-reflexive meaning of autos: the subject and no other, is indicated in several scriptures where it is translated into the weaker English self. The action is always individual, as distinct from the actions or assistance of others; so when Paul says ego autos in Romans 7:25, his meaning is:

I on my own resources, I without Christ, I alone, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

This is emphatically not the experience of the regenerate man the Christian who does all things in the spiritual realm in and with and through the power of Christ.

We now turn to another expression in verse 25, and the two words so then:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

The first two words of the sentence in Greek are ara oun. Again we establish quickly the meaning of the first word, ara, which is simply therefore, or so then. But what of the word oun? Unfortunately, the King James translators did not bother to translate it into English. This may be because the first major usage of this word is identical with that of ara: therefore, or so then. Apparently the translators felt that there was no need to write in English, therefore therefore, or so then, so then, or even therefore so then. One such word is enough.

But what of the Greek? Paul did use both words, as we may ascertain by looking at the verse in any Greek New Testament. Paul did not just say ara, he said ara oun. Are we to suppose that Paul just forgot that he had already used ara, so added oun by mistake? Or that he actually meant to say therefore therefore, or so then so then? Neither of these suppositions seems likely. What then?

Returning to our lexicons, we note with interest that they give a second major usage of the word oun, and they agree as to its meaning. They say that oun is used: So we see that our understanding of Romans 7 would have been greatly enhanced if the good translators of the King James version had not left oun out of their translation. What we now recognize is this:

Paul is developing a line of thought that begins in Romans 7, verse 7. In this lengthy passage he describes with accuracy and eloquence the frustrations and failures of the man who is "under law . " He is the man who is neither a rebel against God nor yet a born-again Christian, but who is trying to do God's will while refusing the help that can only come from Christ. This is just such a man as Paul himself once had been. And in harmony with the zealous missionary spirit that led him to say,

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law,

Paul identifies himself with this unfortunate man, as if it were his own predicament, as indeed it once had been. His description continues and builds through verses 22 and 23:

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man, But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

At this point the intensity of his feelings, combined with his actual personal knowledge of the frustration of the poor man, cause him to burst out in a question and answer which interrupt the line of thought and are parenthetical:

(O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.)

Then, realizing that his line of thought has been interrupted, he advises the reader of this fact, as well as of his intention to return to his line of thought, by using the word oun. Oun is used to return to a line of thought that has been interrupted. Having taken this precaution, he uses the words that should be unmistakably clear to indicate that he is still talking about the same person who is trying unsuccessfully to do God's will apart from Christ: the two words ego autos, I alone, thrown on my own resources.

A faithful translation of this last part of verse 25 would look like this:

So then (to return to my line of thought, which was interrupted), I alone with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Moffat's translation of the New Testament indicates the sense of ego autos like this:

Thus, left to myself, I serve the law of God with my mind but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

And lest the English reader fail to understand the full meaning of Dun this translation places the above verse before the interruption, instead of after it.[2]

The careful student will want to compare other Bible examples of the use of oun to resume a line of thought after it has been interrupted, such as the following:

(The parentheses are in some cases supplied; the identification of the word that is translated from oun is in all cases supplied.)

Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

(Now Jacob's well was there.)

Jesus therefore (oun), being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. (John 4:5, 6)

* * *

The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one where into his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after the Lord had given thanks:)

When the people therefore (oun) saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. (John 6:22-24)

* * *

And he (John) came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins:

(As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias, the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough shall be made smooth;

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.)

Then (oun) said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Luke 3:3-7 * * * And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.

(And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because they thought that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear.)

He said therefore (oun), A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. (Luke 19:9-12)

* * *

Now as touching things offered unto idols we know that we all have knowledge . Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

(But if any man love God, the same is known of him.)

As concerning therefore (oun) the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. (1 Corinthians 8:1-4)

* * *

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it.

(For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.)

When ye come together therefore (oun) into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (1 Corinthians 11:18-20)

* * *

From these examples we can see that the united opinion of the Greek language experts who prepared the lexicons, that Dun is used to resume a line of thought after an interruption, is well sustained by the Biblical evidence.

We have seen that this third understanding of Romans 7, that the unfortunate man identified by the first personal pronoun is the man who tries to do God' s will while refusing to accept Christ, even as Paul had once done, was held by many early Christian writers and by the Reformation leaders, Arminius and Wesley. This view was also held by Ellen White. Here is a typical example of her use of verses from Romans 7:

Sin did not kill the law, but it did kill the carnal mind in Paul. "Now we are delivered from the law," he declares, "that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. " (Romans 7:6). "Was that then which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (Romans 7:12). Paul calls the attention of his hearers to the broken law, and shows them wherein they are guilty. He instructs them as a schoolmaster instructs his scholars, and shows them the way back to their loyalty to God.

There is no safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man cannot hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with Him through the merits of Christ, while he continues in sin. He must cease to transgress, and become loyal and true.[3]

When Arminius was defending his understanding of justification and sanctification in the light of Romans 7, he was asked, "If it is not necessary for Christians to sin, why is it that they do sin?" His carefully considered answer was that Christians sin because they do not make use of the power that God has made available to them.[4] Therefore their sin can never be chargeable to God as a failure to supply them with adequate grace and strength. Again, we note the similarity with this view in the writings of Ellen White:

Our heavenly Father measures and weighs every trial before He permits it to come upon the believer. He considers the circumstances and the strength of the one who is to stand under the proving and test of God, and He never permits the temptations to be greater than the capacity of resistance. If the soul is overborne, the person overpowered, this can never be charged to God, as failing to give strength in grace, but the tempted one was not vigilant and prayerful and did not appropriate by faith the provisions God had abundantly in store for him. Christ never failed a believer in his hour of combat. The believer must claim the promise and meet the foe in the name of the Lord, and he will not know anything like failure.[5]

Ego autos, then, I alone, is definitely not the secret of success. That which is done through power supplied by God could not be described by the words ego autos. The believer who fails to recognize his need of the forgiving and enabling grace of Christ is doomed to frustration and defeat in the Christian life. This is the message of Romans 7 . It is a warning message, sounding its clarion call across the centuries, telling us that we must never be found in the attitude of ego autos; I alone.

Notes:
  1. Bangs, Carl. Arminius. A Study in the Dutch Reformation, pp. 191-192. See also The Writings of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, Volume 2, pp. 553-574.
  2. Moffat, James, The New Testament, A New Translation, p. 387.
  3. White, Ellen, Selected Messages, Volume 2, pp. 212-213.
  4. The Writings of James Arminius, Volume 3, pp. 312-320.
  5. White, Ellen, Mind, Character, and Personnality, Volume 2, p. 473.