But I am Carnal, Sold Into Bondage to Sin
B4WC8YCME2CU
As I continue my cursory and amateur look at Romans 7, I would like to examine the main verse that prevents me from agreeing that Paul is talking about himself (in the present tense) in this portion of Scripture. In verse 14 Paul makes a distinction between the spiritual and the carnal. He says, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh [unspiritual; carnal], sold into bondage to sin.” The first thing one must do is deal with the first word of that statement – “for”. If you’ve been in a church that exposits Scripture for any length of time, you have no doubt heard what I have heard many times, “You must ask what the ‘for’ is there for…”. In short, Paul is continuing to build his case concerning the law that he began in the first part of Romans 7. And he makes a distinction between the spiritual and the carnal, which he continues to do on through chapter 8.
The two main things I want focus on in this post are the phrases, “I am carnal [unspiritual; of flesh]” and “[I am] sold into bondage to sin”. It is these two statements – in their context – that prevent me from agreeing with those who say that Paul is talking about himself in the present tense at the time of his writing his letter to those in Rome. The description of a believer in chapters 6 and 8 contradict loudly with the person Paul describes in chapter 7. The person in chapter 7 is sold into bondage to sin (sold in sin), yet the person in chapter 6 is no longer a slave to sin (verse6). What is interesting is that the word for ‘sold’ in Romans 7:14 is ‘piprasko’, and it means “to be sold under sin, entirely under the control of the love of sinning; of one bribed to give himself up wholly to another’s will”. Now I ask you, is that the description of a believer who is a new creation in Christ? Paul lays out this distinction between a person who is a slave of sin and one who is not in chapter 6:
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. – verses 16-18
The man Paul describes in chapter 7 is sold into bondage to sin, but those in chapter 6, who are alive in Christ Jesus (v.11), are freed from sin.
Now let’s look at the first statement from verse 14, “I am carnal”. Yes, Paul is talking in the first person. Yes, he is talking in the present tense. And that settles it for many. But I think those who make that conclusion do so at the peril of the context of the passage, especially when we see how the description of being in the flesh is used in the New Testament. I will now borrow from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and I want to thank my brother Les for providing a link to Jones’ exposition of this passage of Scripture. Basically, there are only two ways used in Scripture of describing someone as being in the flesh, of flesh, or fleshly. One is of a person who is unregenerate, and we can see this in chapter 8, verses 5-9. The other way this description is used is found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church. In chapter 3 of his first letter, Paul calls his readers “men of flesh”, and then likens them to “babes in Christ”. So the second way this description is used is of immature Christians who have not yet reached a level of spiritual maturity.
Now I ask you, into which of these two categories does Paul fall? Is he an unbeliever at the time of his writing of Romans 7, or is he a babe in Christ, an immature Christian? I think it is clear that Paul cannot be talking about himself as a new creation in Christ here in Romans 7, for he is neither unregenerate nor an immature Christian at the time of this letter.
Read it for yourself – in context – and see if what Paul says can be about himself at the time of his writing the letter.
Finally, I will allow D. Lloyd-Jones to explain the present tense used by Paul:
There are those who say that this [use of present tense] settles the whole matter, and that when he says “I am” he means “I am,” when he says “I do” he means “I do,” and that clearly enough, he is describing his personal experience at the very time of writing.
But that does not follow for a moment, and of itself does not prove anything whatsoever. If there were such a proof there would never have been the great discussion I have described, and a man like Augustine would never have changed from one position to the other. That the matter of tense does not settle the question, and that the matter cannot be disposed of so simply, can be stated in the following way.
A form that is very often adopted in pleading a case, or in establishing a point, is to employ the method of speech known as the “dramatic present.” This is done very often by preachers. I often use this method myself. I say to a man who puts a certain proposition to me, “Well now,” if that is so, the position you leave me in is this.” I am putting it in the present–I do this, I say that. I am dramatizing the argument, saying, “Well now, this is the position in which you leave me”; and then I proceed to put it in terms of that position; “This is how I find myself if what you are saying is right.” It is a very common way of establishing a point. So we are entitled to say that the Apostle here is putting this whole position in this personal and dramatic way in order to make it objective. He puts it in terms of a person and how that person finds himself, and what he finds in himself, in the light of this particular position.
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz