Romans 7.16-Paul Agrees With The Law And Testifies That It Is Perfect
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday September 18, 2008
Romans: Romans 7:16-Paul Agrees With The Law And Testifies That It Is Perfect
Lesson # 228
Please turn in your Bibles to Romans 7:7.
This evening we will note Romans 7:16, in which Paul states that if he does the very thing that he does not want to do, then he agrees with the Law’s assessment of his conduct that it is sinful and he also testifies that the Law is perfect.
Romans 7:7-16, “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. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.”
“But” is the “adversative” use of the conjunction de (deV) (deh), which introduces a statement that is in contrast with the erroneous conclusion that could be inferred from Paul’s statement in Romans 7:15.
It could be inferred from Paul’s statement in verse 15 that he rejected the Mosaic Law as the means of governing his life or as a moral guide.
In verse 15, he confessed he habitually committed the very thing that he hated, which was to sin in violation of the Law.
Now, in verse 16, the conjunction de introduces a statement that is in direct contrast to an erroneous conclusion that could be inferred from Paul’s statement that he habitually failed in practicing obedience to the Law.
Therefore, he doesn’t want his readers to conclude that he has rejected the Law as a moral guide.
“If” is the conditional particle ei (ei)) (i), which introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument.
Therefore, Paul is employing the first class condition as a tool of persuasion with his audience.
In Romans 7:16, the protasis is “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument that I do the very thing that I do not want to do and of course we know for certain that this is true since I’ve already admitted to this in verse 15.”
The apodasis is “(then) I agree with the Law.”
In Romans 7:16, the basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is “evidence-inference.”
The “evidence” is Paul is doing the very thing that he did not want to do.
The “inference” is that he agrees with the Law and in fact confesses that it is good.
He is not attempting to prove that his protasis is true rather he is saying with the first class condition that we agree that this is true because even though I do the very thing, I hate, i.e. breaking the Law, this does indicate that I agree with the Law.
The first class condition would then persuade them to respond to the conclusion found in the apodasis that Paul agrees with the Law.
Therefore, Paul’s audience would have to come to his conclusion if they submit to this line of argumentation.
He wants them to come to his line of argumentation because he is teaching them about the Christian way of life in relation to the sin nature and the Law through his own experience.
Therefore, it is essential that they agree with him on this point since it will help them to deal with their struggles with the Law in relation to their sin natures.
Paul’s problem is not the desire to obey God’s Word but the “power” to obey God’s Word, which holds true of his readers of this epistle in Rome.
The Christian way of life is a supernatural way of life that demands the power of the Spirit to be experienced (See Ephesians 3:14-19; Philippians 3:10-11; Colossians 1:9-12; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12).
2 Timothy 1:7, “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.”
Thus, in Romans 7:16, Paul’s line of argument is essential to understand and agree upon because he is leading his readers to the solution of the problem in Romans chapter eight when he discusses the enabling power of the Spirit.
Romans 7:16, “But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.”
“I do” is the verb poieo (poievw) (poy-eh-o), which as it did in Romans 7:15 means, “to commit” and is used in relation to personal sin that is signified by the accusative neuter singular form of the demonstrative pronoun hos, “the very thing.”
“The very thing” refers to the personal acts of sin committing by the apostle Paul while a Christian in violation of the Mosaic Law.
“I do not want to do” is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), “not” and the verb thelo (qevlw) (thel-o), “I do want to do.”
These two words express in emphatic terms Paul’s desire to not commit sin.
“I agree” is the verb sumphemi (suvmfhmi) (soom-fay-mee), which is a compound word composed of the preposition sun, “with” and the verb phemi, “to speak, say,” thus the word literally means, “to agree with someone.”
Paul is agreeing with the Law in the sense that he agrees with its assessment of his actions, that they are sinful.
He is not agreeing with the Law’s assessment of itself as some expositors or translators suggest.
They contend that Paul is saying here in Romans 7:16 that Paul is agreeing with the Law’s assessment of itself that it is good.
However, the passage is elliptical as the New American Standard Updated Version recognizes indicating that Paul is actually making two statements.
The New American Standard recognizes this by inserting “confessing” and “the Law is.”
Romans 7:16, “But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.”
In the first statement, he expresses his agreement with the Law’s assessment of his thoughts, words and actions, which is, that they are sinful when they violate one of the Law’s 613 mandates.
The second statement presents Paul’s assessment of the Law’s character.
The second statement is elliptical in that before the conjunction hoti (o^ti) (hot-ee), “that” Paul deliberately omits the verb martureo (murturevw) (mar-too-reh-o), “to testify.”
Also, after the conjunction hoti he deliberately omits the verb eimi (ei)miv) (i-mee), “it is.”
He deliberately omits these two words because he is employing the figure of ellipsis, though these two words are implied.
He leaves them out since he wants to emphasize his assessment of the Law’s character, which is that it is kalos, “good.”
So the first statement is sumphemi to nomo, “I agree with the Law” and the second is marturo hoti estin kalos, “I testify that it is good.”
“With the Law” expresses Paul’s agreement with the Law in the sense that he agrees with the Law’s assessment of his conduct when it violates one of the 613 mandates contained in the Law.
So he agrees he is sinning when the Law says he’s sinning.
In Romans 7:22, Paul gives us more information regarding his agreement with the Law in that he says that he agrees with the Law in the “inner man,” which refers to the nature of Christ that he received at regeneration.
Romans 7:22, “For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.”
“Good” is the adjective kalos (kalov$) (kal-os), which means, “perfect” since it is used with reference to Paul’s conduct and to describe the Law of God, which reflects God’s perfect standards.
God’s perfect standards are reflected in the Law and Paul is saying that he has not measured up to those perfect standards.
Kalos denotes that the Law is: (1) Excellent, complete, beyond practical or theoretical improvement. (2) Exactly fitting the needs and purpose God in relation to His moral rational creatures. (3) Without any flaws or shortcomings. (4) Correct in every detail.
Thus, Paul is saying that he is imperfect and the Law of God is perfect.