Book review: R&R

Book review: R&R [∞]

Book review: R&R summary

The chapter discusses different historical interpretations of Romans 7:14–25:

1. Early Church (First 300 years): Saw the "Romans 7 man" (R7 man) as an unconverted individual struggling with sin apart from God.
2. Augustine's View (4th Century): Reinterpreted R7 man as a Christian struggling with indwelling sin, emphasizing spiritual struggle as part of Christian experience.
3. 19th-Century View (Keswick Movement): Introduced the idea of the R7 man as a Christian-under-law, striving for a victorious life but continually failing.

The author will defend the first.Many early church fathers and later theologians have interpreted Paul's struggle in Romans 7:14–25 as referring to an unconverted person, rather than a Christian struggling with sin.

Here are some key figures who have held this view:

Early Church Fathers (Pre-Augustine)

1. Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD) – He saw Romans 7 as describing the natural man, someone outside of Christ, struggling under the law without the Spirit’s help.
2. Origen (c. 185–253 AD) – Interpreted Romans 7 as referring to an unregenerate Jew or a person under the law, highlighting the powerlessness of human effort without grace.
3. Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD) – Believed the passage describes a pre-Christian state, emphasizing that the struggles of Romans 7 are resolved by the victory in Romans 8 through the Spirit.

Reformation & Post-Reformation Theologians

1. Erasmus (1466–1536 AD) – Saw Romans 7 as describing an unregenerate person under the law, unable to fulfill it.
2. Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609 AD) – Believed that the struggle in Romans 7 was not a Christian experience, but rather the experience of an unregenerate person under conviction by the law.
3. John Wesley (1703–1791 AD) – Strongly opposed the idea that Romans 7 described a Christian; he saw it as a depiction of a person under the law, not yet fully converted.

Modern Scholars & Theologians

1. W. G. T. Shedd (1820–1894 AD) – Distinguished between the "natural man" in Romans 7 and the Spirit-filled life in Romans 8.
2. C. H. Dodd (1884–1973 AD) – Argued that Paul was describing the experience of someone still under the law, not a mature believer.
3. Douglas Moo (b. 1950s, contemporary scholar) – Notes that the passage is often debated but sees strong reasons to connect it with a pre-conversion struggle under the law.

Summary of the Two Views

• Romans 7 describes an unconverted man (pre-Christian experience): Held by early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom), Arminius, Wesley, and many modern scholars.
• Romans 7 describes a Christian struggling with sin: Introduced by Augustine, later followed by Luther, Calvin, and many Reformed theologians.The main reason for claiming that Romans 7:14–25 describes an unconverted person rather than a Christian is that Paul portrays the person as being "sold under sin" and incapable of obeying God's law, which seems to contradict the experience of a believer who has been set free by Christ.

Here are the key arguments:

1. The Person Is "Sold Under Sin" (Romans 7:14)

• Paul says, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin.”
• This phrase suggests enslavement to sin, which contradicts Paul's teaching elsewhere that believers have been set free from sin (Romans 6:6–7, 6:18, 8:2).
• If Paul were describing a Christian, he would not be “sold under sin” since he already stated that believers are no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6:22).

2. The Inability to Do Good (Romans 7:15–20)

• The person desires to do good but cannot do it, repeatedly failing.
• Critics argue that this describes the unregenerate person under the Law, who lacks the power of the Holy Spirit.
• In contrast, Romans 8:1–4 describes believers as being enabled by the Spirit to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law.

3. The Law Still Has Power Over Him (Romans 7:23)

• Paul speaks of being “captive to the law of sin”, implying that the person has not yet experienced the freedom of Christ (compare with Romans 8:2: "the law of the Spirit of life has set you free").
• This contradicts Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

4. Transition to Romans 8

• Romans 7 ends with a cry for deliverance: “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (7:24).
• The answer comes immediately in Romans 8: freedom through the Spirit.
• Many argue that if Romans 7 described a Christian’s normal life, then Romans 8 would not describe such a radical transformation.

5. Early Church Interpretation

• Before Augustine, most early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom) saw Romans 7 as describing the pre-Christian state of a person under the law.
• The Augustinian-Reformed view (that Romans 7 describes a Christian) emerged later, based on a view of ongoing struggle with sin in the believer’s life.

Counterargument (Why Some Say It Describes a Christian)

• Augustine, Luther, and Calvin later argued that even Christians struggle with sin and that Romans 7 reflects the battle against the flesh.
• They point out that Paul uses present tense ("I do... I want... I do not..."), which suggests he is talking about his current experience.
• However, others argue that the present tense is rhetorical or a dramatic device, not necessarily literal.

Conclusion

• The strongest argument for the "unconverted man" view is that the person in Romans 7 is still under the law, a slave to sin, and unable to do good, which contradicts Paul’s descriptions of Christian life elsewhere.
• However, those who see this as a Christian struggle argue that believers still battle against sin, even after salvation.

Fourth option

The interpretation that each person is both a sheep and a goat, representing the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit, is a less common but notable perspective in Christian theology. Here are some key figures who have proposed similar ideas:

1. Origen (c. 184–253 AD)

• Origen, an early church father, often interpreted Scripture allegorically.
• While he did not explicitly say that every person is both a sheep and a goat, he did teach that each believer has an inner battle between good and evil, light and darkness.
• His view aligns with the idea that the sheep (Spirit) and goats (flesh) could be seen within each person rather than as separate groups.

2. Augustine (354–430 AD)

• Augustine described the struggle between the flesh (sinful nature) and Spirit (new nature in Christ), especially in his interpretation of Romans 7.
• In his writings (such as Confessions and City of God), he often emphasized that even believers still have a “goat-like” sinful nature alongside their redeemed sheep-like nature.

3. Martin Luther (1483–1546) – Simul Justus et Peccator

• Luther taught that believers are simultaneously justified and sinners ("Simul Justus et Peccator").
• While he did not specifically say that people are both sheep and goats, his doctrine implies that a person has both righteousness (sheep) and sin (goat) at the same time.

4. Watchman Nee (1903–1972)

• Nee’s teachings on the Spirit, soul, and body suggest that believers struggle between living by the Spirit (sheep) or by the flesh (goat).
• He emphasized that the believer must learn to live by the Spirit and deny the flesh.

5. Some Messianic and Mystical Christian Traditions

• Some Jewish-Christian and mystical traditions interpret the sheep and goats as a symbol of the inner war between the flesh and Spirit.
• This aligns with Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:17, where the flesh and Spirit war against each other.

Main Argument for This View

• The traditional view sees sheep as believers and goats as the lost (Matthew 25:31–46).
• However, those who hold the "both sheep and goat" interpretation argue:
  • Every person has both a sinful flesh (goat) and a redeemed spirit (sheep).
  • The separation at judgment could symbolize the final sanctification, where the flesh is destroyed, and only the new creation remains.
  • This aligns with Paul’s teaching that sin still dwells in believers (Romans 7:17, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

The view that we are both sheep and goats—flesh and Spirit—can be supported by the Old Testament distinction between trespass and sin.

Trespass (שֶׁגָגָה - "shegagah") vs. Sin (חֵטְא - "chata")

In the Old Testament, there is a clear distinction between trespass (shegagah) and sin (chata):

1. Trespass (Shegagah) – Instinctive, unintentional violations
   • This refers to sins committed unintentionally, in ignorance, or by instinct rather than by conscious rebellion (Leviticus 4:2, Numbers 15:27-29).
   • It corresponds to our "goat nature"—acting in the flesh without thinking.
   • This aligns with Paul’s statement: "I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (Romans 7:15).
2. Sin (Chata) – Deliberate rebellion
   • This is a willful violation of God’s law, often associated with hardness of heart and rebellion (Numbers 15:30-31).
   • It corresponds to the fully lost state, where someone knowingly rejects God.
   • A hardened goat is different from the struggling believer who has both goat (flesh) and sheep (Spirit) within.

Connecting to Sheep and Goats

• If sheep represent those who live by the Spirit, and goats represent those who act by instinct (flesh), then this OT distinction aligns:
  • The believer still trespasses (instinctive sin = goat-like nature) but does not live in rebellion (sinful nature fully hardened).
  • Paul expresses this in Romans 7, where the war between the flesh and Spirit is evident.

Conclusion

This interpretation is consistent with the distinction between trespass and sin in the OT. It allows for the understanding that:

• The judgment of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25) could reflect the separation of the believer’s two natures rather than simply different groups of people.
• The flesh (goat) must be crucified, and the Spirit (sheep) must lead.
• Paul’s struggle in Romans 7 mirrors the struggle between trespass (instinctive sin) and full rebellion.Under construction - please pardon the mess.