Romans 7.13a-The Commandment Did Not Cause Paul's Death But Rather The Sin Nature
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday September 11, 2008
Romans: Romans 7:13a-The Commandment Did Not Cause Paul’s Death But Rather The Sin Nature
Lesson # 224
Please turn in your Bibles to Romans 7:1.
Thus far in our studies of Romans chapter seven, we have noted that in Romans 7:1-6, the apostle Paul uses the analogy of marriage and argues that the Christian’s bondage to the Law has been severed because they have died with Christ and have been freed from the Law and placed in union with Christ.
Romans 7:1-6, “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
Then, we noted that beginning in verse 7 all the way to the end of the chapter, Paul speaks of his own personal experience with the Law in relation to his sin nature.
In verses 7-12, he is speaking from the perspective of his conversion to Christianity as indicated by the aorist tenses of the verb in the passage and the contextual evidence in these verses.
However, in verses 13-25 he is speaking from the perspective of his struggles as a Christian with his sin nature apart from the power of the Spirit as indicated by the present tenses of the verbs in the passage and the contextual evidence.
In Romans 7:13-25, Paul is describing his regenerate experience in dealing with the Law and his sin nature “apart” from the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.
If one is seeking to obey the Lord’s will without the enablement by the Spirit, it will be a frustrating struggle.
Romans 7:7-13, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COVET.’ But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”
This evening we will study Romans 7:13a, in which Paul poses a rhetorical question that anticipates an erroneous conclusion that could be inferred from his teaching in verses 7-12 that the commandment caused him to lose fellowship with God and which false assertion, he emphatically refutes.
Romans 7:13, “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”
“Therefore” is the “inferential” use of the conjunction oun (ou@n) (oon), which introduces a rhetorical question that anticipates a false inference or erroneous conclusion that could be inferred from Paul’s teaching in Romans 7:7-12.
Now, in verse 12 Paul employed the conjunction hoste, which also introduced a statement that draws an inference from Paul’s teaching in Romans 7:7-11.
This statement makes a positive declaration concerning the Mosaic Law and the tenth commandment, namely that the Law is not sinful but rather, it is holy and that the commandment is also holy and righteous and good.
This statement is the final definitive answer to the question raised in verse 7, namely, “Is, the Law, in the state of being identical with the sin nature?”
In verse 7, Paul poses a rhetorical question that anticipates the false inference from his teaching in Romans 5:20, 6:14b and 7:5 that the Law is equivalent to the sin nature.
He empathically rejects the idea that the Law is sinful but rather that it made him aware of his sin nature and then presents an example with the tenth commandment that prohibits coveting and identifies it as a sin.
Then, in Romans 7:8, Paul teaches the Christians in Rome that because the sin nature seized a base of operations through the tenth commandment, the sin nature produced in him each and every kind of covetousness.
At the conclusion of the verse he begins to explain why this is the case.
He states that apart from the Law, personal sin is dead in the sense that it can never be charged to the account of the sinner when the Law is not in effect.
Then, in Romans 7:9, Paul teaches that when the tenth commandment became a reality in his life through the ministry of the Spirit, his sin nature suddenly became active and consequently, he died spiritually.
In this passage, he teaches that his awareness of the significance of the tenth commandment awakened his sin nature and he died spiritually.
Next, we read in Romans 7:10 that Paul surprisingly discovered through his own personal experience as a Christian that the tenth commandment prohibiting coveting, which was intended to give life instead resulted in his experiencing temporal spiritual death, i.e. loss of fellowship with God.
In Romans 7:11, he teaches that because his sin nature seized a base of operations through the commandment, it deceived and killed him.
Then, lastly in Romans 7:12, Paul presents a positive inference from his teaching in verses 7-11 by stating that the Law is holy and the tenth commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Now, in verse 13, Paul employs the conjunction oun in order to introduce a rhetorical question that anticipates a false inference or erroneous conclusion that could be inferred from his teaching in verses 7-12.
The rhetorical question and statement in response to it deal with a negative inference from his teaching in verses 7-12 whereas in verse 12, Paul presents a positive inference from his teaching in verses 7-11.
Romans 7:13, “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”
Now, in verse 13, he picks up this last description of the commandment that it is “good,” which describes the tenth commandment as having man’s best interests in mind and is not designed to hurt him.
It describes the commandment as being “intrinsically valuable, intrinsically good, inherently good in quality but with the idea of good which is also profitable, useful, benefiting others, benevolent.”
The rhetorical question asks if that which is good, i.e. the commandment, cause his death, i.e. loss of fellowship with God.
Paul emphatically rejects the idea that the commandment caused him to lose fellowship with God but rather he states that it was his sin nature through the function of his own volition that caused him to lose fellowship with God.
“That which is good” expresses the perfect character and nature of God and His attitude towards His moral rational creatures.
The word describes the tenth commandment as having man’s best interests in mind and is not designed to hurt him.
“Death” is the noun thanatos (qavnato$) (than-at-os), which refers to Paul as a Christian dying spiritually in the sense that he lost fellowship with God, which is also called by theologians “temporal spiritual death.”
“For me” is the first person singular dative form of the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv) (e ), which refers to the apostle Paul and functions as a “dative locative of place” indicating that this loss of fellowship took place “in” Paul.
Romans 7:13, “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”
The expression me genoito, “may it never be” is the strongest negative Greek expression emphatically denying any possibility or thought of the tenth commandment being the cause of Paul’s loss of fellowship with God, which is the result of a false inference from his teaching in Romans 7:7-12.
“Rather” is the adversative use of the conjunction alla (a)llav) (al-lah), which introduces a statement that presents a counter assertion to the false assertion that the Law caused Paul to lose fellowship with God as a Christian.
“Sin” is the noun hamartia (a(martiva) (ham-ar-tee-ah), which refers to the sin nature indicating that the sin nature was the cause of Paul suffering loss of fellowship with God.
Of course, we must remember that Paul gave in to the impulses of his sin nature and through the function of his own volition, he violated the commandment.