Bible Studies In The Word of God

ROMANS 7

 

Verse 1. The fact that his brethren understood the working principles of law as it pertained to marriage, prompted Paul to draw comparison between Christ and Moses.

Verse 2. A woman cannot be lawfully bound to more than one man at a time, neither can a person be subject to more than one religious law at the same time.

Verse 3. Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9 that fornication of a married person is the only lawful ground for the remarriage of the innocent one.  Such a sin virtually causes the guilty one to be dead to the other. Adulteress is used by some to support the notion of “1iving in adultery,” something the Bible does not teach, since the single act of adultery unites the two permanently. (See the comments at Matthew 19:9.) The worditalicized is detined by Thayer as a person with
“eyes from which adulterous desire beams forth.” It means a frame of mind rather than any physical performance.

Verse 4. As physical death breaks the union of persons in marriage, so when Jewish penitent believers died with Christ, that broke the bond between them and the law of Moses.  Being free from the law they could become married to Christ, and the offspring of such a union would be fruit ufnto God.

Verses 5, 6. The outstanding difference between the law of Moses and that of Christ, is that the former was.ritualistic and its penalty was physical death in extreme cases. The latter is spiritual in its character, and makes provision for the weakness of the human fleshly natlure through the grace of God.  

   
Verse 7. The foregoing does not blame the law for the existence of sin; it only revealed it and thus made man responsible. But it could not clear man of guilt by its virtue, hence it was necessary for the law of Christ to come in, to accomplish that which “the law could not do” (chapter 8:3).

Verse 8. The purpose of this verse is to defend the law against unjust criticism. The revelation of sin by the law seemed to increase it, whereas it was the carnal disposition of man to crave that which he was forbidden to have, that brought about the apparent increase of sin.

Verse 9. I was alive. Paul is speaking of humanity in general. While man was ignorant of his sin he was not responsible for it--it was not imputed (chapter 5:13). As sin was dead at that time, it follows that the conscience was alive--was free from the sting of guilt. The law brought sin to life and then man became “dead in sin.”

Verse 10. The commandment that would bring spiritual life to the man if he obeyed it, would result in death “in trespass and sins,” until he repented.

Verse 11. This is virtually the same as verse 9.

Verse 12. See the comments on verse 10.

Verse 13. The law (which would mean good to man if he obeyed it), was not responsible for the spiritual death of the human being. No, the law only revealed the existence of sin and decreed a penalty. It was the sin itself, springing into life or action, that brought on the condition of spiritual death. The law served to show how exceeding sinful such a life is.

Verse 14. This is explained at verse 10.

Verses 15-21. In the foregoing verses of this chapter, Paul has said much of the carnal or fleshly part of man’s personality. He has shown that its tendencies were responsible for the difliculties with the law of Moses, which was not adapted to the needs of man on its own merits, therefore leaving it necessary to bring in the spiritual law of Christ. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a description of these two parts of man’s being, which I shall refer to by the terms, “inner man” and “outer man.” I shall quote the verses of this paragraph, substituting these terms for the pronouns, and making such other changes as the grammatical rules require.   “For that which the outer man does, the inner man allows [endorses] not.  For what the inner man would, the outer man does not. What the inner man hates, that does the outer man.  If then the outer man does that which the inner man would not, the inner man consents unto the law [against sin] that it is good. Now then it is no more the inner man that does it, but sin that dwells in the outer man.

For the inner man knows that in the flesh dwells no good thing. For to will is present with the inner man, but how to perform that which is good the outer man will not do; but the evil which the inner man would not do, the outer man does. Now if the outer man does what the inner man would not, it is no more the inner man that does it, but sin that dwells in the outer man. The inner man iinds a law, that, when he would do good, evil is present with the outer man.” The reader should understand that both parts of a man are not operating at the same time. The paragraph shows only the tendencies of each, and whichever is in the lead at any given time, will determine whether the person is a servant of Christ or Satan.

Verse 22. This is direct proof of the foregoing description of the “inner man.”

Verse 23. This verse should be understood in the light of the paragraph of verses 15-21. Members means all the parts that go to make up a human being. The conflict between the fleshly law (rule) of sin and that of the mind or spirit or better part of said being is the subject of this verse.

Verse 24. Roman convicts were sometimes chained to a dead body as a means of punishment. Paul likens the carnal man whose tendencies lead to spiritual death, to the dead body thus chained to the inner man. Only the proper officer can release a convict from the chain, and Paul asks who can release one from the control of the fleshly man.

 

Verse 25. Paul answers his questionby saying it is Christ who can give the sinner such release, for which he thanks God. The chapter closes with the proposition running through several verses, namely, the conflict between the mind and the flesh.