Thursday: Saved From Death
Read Romans 7:21-23. How have you experienced this same struggle in your own life, even as a Christian?
In this passage, Paul equates the law in his members (his body) with the law of sin. “With the flesh,” Paul says, he served “the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25).
Image © Francesa Miller Goodsalt.com
But serving sin and obeying its law means death (see Rom. 7:10, Rom. 7:11, Rom. 7:13). Hence, his body – as it functioned in obedience to sin – fittingly could be described as “the body of this death.”
The law of the mind is God’s law, God’s revelation of His will. Under conviction of the Holy Spirit, Paul consented to this law. His mind resolved to keep it, but when he tried he couldn’t because his body wanted to sin. Who hasn’t felt that same struggle? In your mind you know what you want to do, but your flesh clamors for something else.
How can we be rescued from this difficult situation in which we find ourselves? Rom. 7:24-25.
Some have wondered why, after reaching the glorious climax in the expression “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Paul should refer once more to the struggles of the soul from which he apparently has been delivered. Some understand the expression of thanksgiving as a parenthetical exclamation. They believe that such an exclamation follows naturally the cry, “Who shall deliver?” They hold that before proceeding with an extended discussion of the glorious deliverance (Romans 8), Paul summarizes what he has said in the preceding verses and confesses once again to the conflict against the forces of sin.
Others suggest that by “I myself,” Paul means, “left to myself, leaving Christ out of the picture.” However Romans 7:24-25 are understood, one point should remain clear: left to ourselves, without Christ, we are helpless against sin. With Christ we have a new life in Him, one in which – although self will constantly arise – the promises of victory are ours if we choose to claim them. Just as no one can breathe for you or cough for you or sneeze for you, no one can choose to surrender to Christ for you. You alone can make that choice. There’s no other way to attain for yourself the victories that are promised us in Jesus.
(49)
Sin might be bound to my DNA. There is really not much I can do about it! Jesus represents the cure for it. And I must take Him daily! Without this prescription, I'm lost on my own. The best thing about this is that Christ is Free! To a decaying world, in which values are only defined by counting money, Jesus can turn my worthless life into intangible character!
The part of Romans 7 from verses 13-25 is interesting. It is a picture of the capacities and liabilities (that which we can or can not) of the believer without the enabling power of the Spirit of God. If endevour to obey the Lord’s will without the enabling ower of the Spirit, it will be a frustrating struggle. It also answers the questions raised by last week's lesson on the power and force of will.
The believer hate sin (7:15) but he finds himself doing exactly what he detests in verse16. He accept that because he hates sin so much it means the law that magnifies the sinfulness of sin is good (7:16). It good in the sense that it is holy and just (7:12). He recognises the fact that it is not what he wants to do (7:17)but this is because he is sold to sin (7:14). In other words he is saying sin has held him hostage. To prove the point that the whole chapter is trying to obey the law outside Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit, Paul the emphatic pronoun “I” is used 16 times in chapter. the term “Law” 20 times, and the Holy Spirit once in verse 6. and that is questionable. But in chapter 8 the Holy Spirit is mentioned 20 times, and the “Law” only 4 times. The pronoun "I" denotes by his own merits and the results were disastrous. In his "I" theory Paul in Phil. 3:4-9, says that he was blameless; and in Acts 24:10-16 , Rom 7:9 (a)lived in all good conscience. But in Romans 7:9(b) when the commandment with the enabling power of the Holy Spirit came, he understood the true nature of sin and he died. He died in that he saw he was condemned to die. He died in that he realized that he stood guilty before God. He died in that all his hopes from his past life of his good works that he had been relying on came crumbling down. He did in that he realized that if his salvation depended on his keeping the law,there is no salvation. Salvation comes getting hold of Christ's merits who alone is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Salvation by works of the law is not "the way". Salvation by the law is not "the truth" and salvation by being under the law is not "the life" prompting the man to cry "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? (7:24) but thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25).
Well said.
I'm glad you didn't present it as a "before conversion/after conversion" question - a question over which there is much argument - because that is not what Paul is addressing. As you say in different words, Paul is addressing two ways of victory over our sinful inclinations - a) trying to become perfect or b) trusting fully in Christ for both justification and sanctification.
I think many of us recognize that struggle, and it is only after we recognize our utter failure to "do good" that we are ready to trust our salvation to Christ. In my own experience, I had to recognize that all my past "good" was tainted by selfishness, and so I had no recourse but to trust myself to the mercies of Christ. It was only then that I experienced both the peace and the joy of the Lord which He promised to us.
My comment pertains to the last sentence in today’s lesson, “There’s no other way to attain for yourself the victories that are promised us in Jesus.”
Three men wanted to go to the top of a mountain. One said he would ride the tram to the top. Another said he would climb the mountain himself. The other said he would climb the mountain “with God’s help”.
Whether it is even possible to reach the top of the mountain (moral perfection) is another question. (Please see below.) But, for many years, I didn’t understand why so many adventists kept saying that moral perfection must be ACHIEVED. Isn’t it true that there is imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness available to the Christian? If the righteousness of Jesus is being imparted to those who accept it by faith, isn’t that different from ACHIEVING the righteousness of Jesus (his perfect selflessness)?
For those many years, when I read statements by Ellen White about “attaining” moral perfection, I thought she was writing about reaching the goal. (Analogous to reaching the top of the mountain in our illustration.) It also seemed to me that, when people talked about “achieving” perfection “with God’s help”, it was an indication that they were failing (and encouraging other people to fail) to take advantage of the tramway--God’s provision of imparted righteousness.
A few years ago, I was startled to notice that one dictionary defined the word, “attaining”, not as reaching a goal but “achieving” it. Does that mean that, all these years, many or most adventists thought Ellen White was writing about climbing the mountain instead of riding the tram?
From my perspective, moral perfection is possible before Jesus returns. Anyone who claims (or even thinks) he has reached that goal is guilty of spiritual pride and, therefore, isn’t morally perfect. On the other hand, if moral perfection is not “achieved” but “received”--i.e. if it is God’s gift to us--I see no reason to say that we can’t reach that goal.
Rom 7:10
Is Paul here suggesting that for some the commandments bring death? How could that be possible since they are about nothing but life? Does not following the commandments bring death? If so then it must be the case that following the commandments brings life? However, we claim that entering into Heaven is about faith and grace rather than works. No matter how it is sliced - if I enter into heaven because of following the commandments then I am saved by works in which case I have no need of a Savior.
See the slippery slope that this entire train of thought causes us to go down?
So what is the answer?
Once again I bring up Romans 8:2.
There are only two roads.
I can follow the law of sin which leads to death.
Or...
I can follow the law of faith as referred to in Romans 3:27 which leads to life.
If I follow the law of faith the natural outcome will be that I follow the commandments. Not out of duty and responsibility like the Israelites did but simply out of love for my Lord.
I am thankful to God the father and to Jesus Christ my Lord and savior for the gift of life. The freedom that comes from living thru Christ us unexplainable and yet so wonderful! Bless be his holy name forever more! Amen!
Esther Moran
Lesson this week may be interpreted that although we have been brought from death to life, God’s law (particularly the Ten Commandments) is still binding. Much of the reasoning is aimed to give legal support to Sabbath keeping, because most other christians would agree that either murdering or committing adultery is sin. In previous lessons we are taught that we are not under the law after accepting justification by Jesus, but still have to keep an eye on it to be preserved from sin as if it was a mirror needed to see our sinful nature. The result of that contemplation is a struggle between what we want to be and what we really are, that often brings dispair to the believer. Therefore, for a moment we were freed from the law and again we are under its dominion.
The first thing that I need to remind is that obedience to our creator does not need legal support of any kind. When we feel that our loyalty to God is a legal matter (including keeping Sabbath), we are probably putting ourselves in a defenseless position. Hopefully, there is another explanation that in my view is more compatible with the teaching of justification by faith.
We are to find incongruence when we think christian growth as a straight line going from sinful to perfect status. Using that reasoning, as we grow in sanctification the dial moves to perfection, but we may go back to imperfection at any moment when we separate from Christ. Obviously, we would need the law to measure our achievements and the law can never be done away. However, if evil and goodness were a straight line of walk, the obvious conclusion is to assert that evil is something coexisting with God and He himself may be in danger of moving backwards from his position of greatest perfection. But the bible teaches that evil and perfection do not operate like Yin and Yang needing equilibrium. God just allowed sin to exist, but has demonstrated that it does not have existence of its own, and will be destroyed forever as a false alternative to life.
The encounter between Jesus and Nichodemus reveals the true meaning of the controversy. There is not a straight line of growth from evil to goodness, but two different natures. To enter the kingdom of God we need to be born again in Jesus Christ, that will stop our rejection of his grace and his justification in our favor.
In another place Christ repeats that God is seeking true worshipers, those who will worship in spirit and in truth. All the time he talks about two natures: One is made of a pseudo-reality (that will disappear after transformation) where sin prevails and the law is binding. The other is the true-reality where faith commands after we are moved to abide in justification.
Perfection is a goal that is granted and achieved by grace, and the fundamental purpose of sanctification is teaching the believer to enjoy and practice justification in order to deveop loyalty until our transformation is completed.
The law (that is condemnatory in essence) does not have its power on the believer and can not serve the purpose to accuse him/her or check upon our christian growth as neither the meter unit, used to measure the dimention of distance, can be employed to measure the dimension of time. Furthermore, christian do not need the law as a self-validating stick for their growth, because no one can be a judge to his own growth, let alone their neighbors’. We are only encouraged to check if we are deceiving ourselves in our surrender, but not our growth.
While christians are still on this earth, we are certainly confronted with a dilemma: Either we accept God’s grace and be judged by Christ’s merits or live the pseudo-reality where the law is king and binding. The mechanic is not exactly a direct struggle over every sinful act, but over our loyalty to God at every moment (I do nothing of myself, said Jesus). Jesus experienced this formidable struggle during his confrontation with Satan in the dessert with a significant difference: The pull to act with autonomy came only from an outside force, while ours comes also from within. This is why christians need to claim in anguish as Peter did, Lord save me; don’t let me go. Our victory over sin is driven by this commitment as the Spirit takes control of our will and desires.
I can not read anywhere of Jesus praying: Father I kept holy the Sabbath-day, I did not commit adultery, I did not kill anyone and therefore I deserve to be your son. All the contrary, his prayer was directed to be one with the father, to make his will and fulfill his purpose.
On other page, God rested of his work on Sabbath day and invited man to do likewise and those who abide in his love and accept him as sovereign will accept his invitation to rest physically and spiritually in his love. We should teach the world that we do not need to obey God in response to a law, but to his love and irreplaceable wisdom.
That's one difficult argument Inge. But the language used by Paul suggests that of a believer. I am of the opinion an unbeliever could not be able to diagnose his condition as the writer of these verses did. Starting from the verse 14 he is sold to sin. He hates sin (v. 15). He delights in the Law (v. 22), He cries for deliverance (v 24), till God in Christ comes to his rescue in an unusual manner. He dies on behalf of the man. This deliverance is Christ alone's grace (v. 25). To me it's more like this is a man who knows the work of the Christ. Again verse 25 is a summary statement, in which he appropriates the struggle to the present time. That is after Calvary. Verse 18 is harmony with salvation. It suggests that there is a part of him that is good, other than the flesh. It is the mind that must serve God. The analysis of verse in the discussion question on Friday also suggests this is a converted person. It reads as follows: "In 7:25 the Apostle writes: ‘With the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.’ This is the clearest passage of all, and from it we learn that one and the same (believing) person serves at the same time the Law of God and the Law of sin. He is at the same time justified and yet a sinner (simul iustus est et peccat); for he does not say: ‘My mind serves the Law of God’;nor does he say: ‘My flesh serves the Lawof sin’; but he says: ‘I myself.’ That is, thewhole man, one and the same person, is in this twofold servitude."
So I can put my head on the block and say it's post conversion. This is from past experience.
Anele, you explain things just about the way I have done for years. But lately I've come to the conclusion that the argument over whether Paul is speaking of his pre-conversion or post-conversion experience is unnecessary. Either way, the solution is found only in Christ.
As you say, we all know from experience that the struggle doesn't just stop at conversion. The difference is that, after conversion, we know where the answer lies. We need to surrender ourselves anew to Christ, rather than just trying to pluck off the sinful "leaves." Like Paul, we need to "die daily" (Gal 2:20) and often more than daily.
The way I see it, our growth in grace, our sanctification is marked by becoming more and more like Jesus, till we, indeed, have the mind of Jesus. (Phil 2:5-8) When I'm struggling with temptation, what I find most helpful is to turn to Jesus and ask for help right then and there. If I keep in mind how sin hurts my Savior, sin loses much of its appeal. So my struggle is mainly to take time to nurture my relationship with Jesus. When I do that, the rest of my life falls into place.
I started writing a lengthy post about justification/sanctification, Romans 7/8, etc., but I think my question can be boiled down to this: Are there two types of sin? Is there a difference between "I know I shouldn't do this but I am going to do it anyway" and having an ongoing struggle with something like tending to be frustrated by the way other people drive, completely forgetting that I may be asked to witness to them someday. The first is something like rebellion; there is a clear choice. The second seems that, in the moment, there is no choice. It is something that can be remedied only over time... maybe the work of a lifetime. (On the other hand, if victory over, say, abusing one's spouse, is the work of a lifetime, I would have to reconsider everything I know about the gospel.)
By the grace of God and the power of Jesus blood, today I experience victory over known, conscious, habitual sin. The victory over wishing other drivers would get their act together? That escapes me. I repent and claim forgiveness in that moment, but it certainly hasn't stopped happening. Maybe I recognize the behavior sooner and it happens less often than yesterday, but there is no victory like there is over the habitual, rebellious sin. I claim Jesus's victory, but the progress is slow when it comes to cessation of the act. This sounds like Romans 7 to me.
So good to see you back, Jeffrey! For those who missed your story, I suggest reading, "Love Wins Again." Perhaps you can give us an update of your experience since then by posting a comment under your story?
By the way, "Maybe I recognize the behavior sooner and it happens less often than yesterday" seems to indicate growth in sanctification. It happens when we choose to focus on Jesus rather than our own sinfulness or our own sanctification. (You may not even realize how much you have changed in small ways.) I trust that your honest comment will help others to see how sanctification works. Thank you!