Is Romans 7 about life as a Christian?

I was involved in a Calvinist/Reformed discussion on Romans 7, specifically discussing whether Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of himself as a "Christian struggling with sin" versus whether Paul here is speaking of his former life as an  "unconverted Jew". Biblical commentators have argued both as possible readings, but generally the Protestant side (especially Reformed and Lutheran) comes down strongly on the "Christian struggling with sin" reading of Romans 7. While that Protestant reading is understandable, I think it is a very problematic and inferior to the more likely "unconverted Jew" interpretation of Romans 7. This might not seem like an important debate, but I think we really need to care what Paul actually wants to teach us in Romans, and we should care if certain agendas are causing us to read Paul incorrectly in order to prop up erroneous theological ideas.  

Before delving into the text, it is important to affirm that everyone agrees that the Christian life involves an inner battle with one's flesh, which Paul speaks of elsewhere (e.g. Romans 6; Galatians 5:16-24). After we delve into the actual text and do actual exegesis, I will then share why I suspect the Reformed/Lutherans are trying so hard to hold to their reading.

Romans 7 begins with Paul speaking of "law" but is not immediately clear what "law" he's referring to in verses 7:1-5. Given that properly defining "the Law" is critical to properly understanding Paul (as I discuss often, especially HERE), and given that it is certain Paul almost always has the Mosaic Law in mind elsewhere, we should have the Mosaic Law as the default assumption when reading the first verses of Romans 7. This immediately suggests that Paul is most likely contrasting a former life as a Jew under the Mosaic Law, and then being released from that former life through conversion to Christianity.

Now when we come upon Rom 7:6, we see an important detail: "Now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." This language sounds a lot like a conversion. The language of "Spirit" versus "written code" is a common theme in Paul which refers undoubtedly to living by the Holy Spirit versus living by the Mosaic Law (e.g. Rom 2:26-29; 2 Cor 3:3-8). Then Paul immediately says (7:7) "Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”" This reference to "thou shall not covet" is an explicit reference to the Ten Commandments, and thus the "law" here is even more certainly referring to the Mosaic Law and Paul's former life under it. This exegesis now starts to confirm our default assumption that Paul has his former life as an unconverted Jew in mind as the primary meaning of Romans 7. 

Paul continues (7:8-10): "But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me." If Paul is talking about life as a Christian here, it sounds like a serious backslide took place, as if he failed as a Christian. This would read as if Paul was once alive as a Christian but then the law came and he got entangled and died spiritually. That really doesn't sound like something a Christian would argue. Recall that for Paul the Mosaic Law is what brings awareness of sin, and without that awareness one is somewhat blissfully unaware of their status as a sinner (Rom 3:19-20). I don't think it was an accident that Paul used the example of "coveting," because coveting is unique among the Ten Commandments as being the only 'secret sin' that takes place almost entirely inwardly. All other sins have a mostly external component, and so all those other sins have actual punishments assigned to them. But the Mosaic Law does not assign any punishment to coveting, because it is so subjective and hidden that it cannot really be evaluated by a human judge. In fact, it could be argued that most people would never think of coveting as sinful since they didn't outwardly do anything. Thus the Mosaic Law was critical in exposing this. In this way, Paul is starting to highlight the problems and limitations of the Mosaic Law and how it is imperfect. This would be just the kind of set up Paul would be making if he wants to make a sales pitch for why one should choose the Gospel and the transformed life under the Holy Spirit, which the Mosaic Law could not provide. 

Now we begin to get into the most critical section of the chapter:

12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 

Paul is not trying to suggest the Mosaic Law was bad, because God did give it to the Israelites to help them, but for Paul the Mosaic Law was not the final word. God wanted the Mosaic Law to be only the first stage of the salvation story unfolding. Sin was in the world before the Mosaic Law was given (Rom 5:12-14), so the Mosaic Law was not the cause of sin, the critical point is that the Mosaic Law isn't the solution to sin either. 

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 

This section is probably the most controversial, because on the surface it does read as if a Christian is struggling against sin. But keep in mind that this section could just as easily be read as that of someone who recognizes they are a sinner and need saving because they cannot save themself. The Reformed/Lutheran would say it is impossible for a non-Christian to desire to do good, and thus Paul must be speaking of a Christian struggling with sin. This is understandable, but Paul is speaking in far more gloomy manner than merely struggling against sin. Paul is more saying the person cannot even do good, and the best they can do is "wish they could" do a good deed. It is very unlikely that Paul is saying a Christian is stuck merely "wishing" they could do good, because for Paul the Christian can actually do good. And if Paul is trying to argue that the Holy Spirit really produces good fruit in the life of a Christian, then Paul cannot be denigrating the power of the Holy Spirit and paint the Gospel as largely impotent to produce actual good works in the life of a Christian. So we are definitely compelled to read these verses as Paul speaking of an unconverted Jew who sees they are a sinner and wants to do the right thing, but needs conversion through the Gospel to do so. In fact, the Reformed have a term for the phase of salvation before they come to faith, which they call "regeneration," which is the person being awakened by grace to their sad situation as a sinner and their need to reach out to Jesus as their only hope. 

22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

This concludes the chapter. As with the prior section, in this final section it is certainly understandable to read this as if Paul was speaking of the Christian life as a battle whereby he desires to do the right thing but is constantly being hit with fleshy desires (e.g. lusting), and is constantly failing. But for the same reasons as we've already shown, the unconverted Jewish life is the far superior and more coherent reading. The final verse practically screams that Jesus is the solution to the inward battle this person is facing. It would be ironic to present Jesus as the solution, the "Who will save me from this body?", if Jesus isn't really going to make a real difference. Imagine giving your testimony of how the Holy Spirit came and transformed your life, and that entire testimony you speak about how lousy of a job you have done to be holy and rather have only wished to be holy but never made any real progress. The chapter ends on verse 7:25, but the very next thing Paul says is the famous Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." Again, this is powerful language of conversion and it strongly fits a theme of unconverted Jew versus converted Christian. Jesus and the Holy Spirit come in to completely defeat sin, not merely make sin slightly more manageable. 

If Paul was speaking of life as a Christian then it would be almost blasphemy to suggest the Holy Spirit merely allows us to know what is good without actually changing our behavior. It would not even be a selling point for the Gospel if Paul could not even show good fruit being produced from the Holy Spirit. So in my opinion, the main reason why someone would prefer, or even insist, that Romans 7 is about a Christian struggling with sin, is if they have an agenda to push.

I think the primary agenda the Protestant side wants to push is that man is so damaged by Original Sin that he cannot do any good works, and this allows the Protestant to more strongly argue for Faith Alone and Imputation as the "solution" which the Gospel provides. This also allows the Protestant to embrace a more defeatist stance on good works within the Christian life, so that when they fall short they can blame things outside of their control and not have to take responsibility. Recall one of my other posts where I discuss the erroneous Lutheran/Reformed understanding of Original Sin, specifically on the error of Protestants seeing the temptations/desires which remain after Baptism as being truly sinful in themselves (see HERE).

To summarize the superiority of the "unconverted Jewish life under the Mosaic Law" reading of Romans 7, we know for sure that (a) the Mosaic Law is Paul's primary referent to "law," and (b) that Paul is opposing the Judaizers who argue the Mosaic Law makes them superior to the Gentiles, yet (c) Paul wants to show the Mosaic Law is limited in its function and not able to save, while (d) the Holy Spirit actually does transform lives, including Gentiles who never even had the Mosaic Law, and (e) this is why Jesus is necessary and not merely some optional accessory which barely changes you inwardly. To read Romans 7 as a Christian struggling with sin is to not be able to explain why Paul brings up the Mosaic Law and to read the transformed Christian life as one of defeat and despair when faced with temptations. 

Paul describes the power of the Holy Spirit as far surpassing the power of ink and paper (i.e. the written law). The Holy Spirit gives you spiritual life, raises you from the dead, makes you a child of God, gives you the power to live a holy life, etc. When you read Romans 7, there is an emphasis on being in an unwanted marriage, being bound to that wife until the wife dies (Rom 7:1-6). There is an emphasis on how the law has brought death to Paul (Rom 7:7-13). There is an emphasis on being enslaved to the flesh and wanting to break free (Rom 7:14-24). The Christian life is definitely not about a bad marriage or slavery to sin. Thus, it makes far more sense that this chapter is talking about an unconverted Jew who has Divine Revelation through the Torah but then recognizing that this isn't enough, which is precisely the lesson Paul wants to convey. 

That leads me to one final point, which is that we often don't talk about or include that "on the way" aspect of the Christian life. Often in the Bible and among ourselves, friends, and family, there are people who need to go through some things before they finally fully and properly accept the Gospel. Often times a person is not totally wicked, but in a place where they have left their life of sin and are now searching, and have changed some of their sinful ways, now seeing them as unhealthy, but are still needing to take the final step of converting. Without this "on the way" as a third view, one is stuck seeing the only options as either being Christian or else totally depraved Pagan, when in reality many Pagans can and do progress towards the Truth. Realizing this 'nuance' completely cuts through the poor excuse of thinking "but a Pagan would never want to do any good, thus it must be speaking of a Christian". Consider that the Mosaic Law is absolutely a step up from being a Gentile walking aimlessly, but the Mosaic Law is not the whole story. Thus, one is required to affirm the "on the way" category of having some things correct, which is basically the situation Jews find themselves in. This is precisely why I use the phrase "unconverted Jew" throughout this article, because it is precisely this "on the way" situation that best fits the evidence. The "unconverted Jew" should be in a sort of anxiety of wanting to be free and yet not having the Messiah to save them. 

Paul wants to convince his Jewish audience to aim for the higher calling of accepting the Gospel, and to convince his Gentile audience why becoming Jewish is aiming too low. If the issue is merely that of inward sin, then the Law wouldn't be the problem, the Law would be the solution with the problem being the person needs to just become enabled to keep it. But that's a form of Judaizing. also known as Judeo-Christian ethics. 

Conversion of St Paul. As a Jew he was
above the Gentiles, but below that of
a Christian living in the Holy Spirit.