#51. Romans 7:1-3 - Dead to Sin; Thus, Dead to Law - Pt. 1 (Conciliation Series, Part XVIII)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

Before we continue, I would like to preface the next few articles with a little statement from myself, here. Romans 7 is arguably the toughest chapter in all of Romans for me (this, or Romans 15, but that’s for an entirely different reason.) I believe Romans 7 is so tough for me because, unlike Paul, I have spent very little time under law, being as young as I am, and having spent the majority of my life in a home that taught grace, and not law. I spent my growing years in a Baptist church, where they tried to teach me all about the law, but I’m rebellious in nature. If they had thrown ‘grace’ down my throat, I would have rebelled against that, too. I’ve always been against the notion that I have to follow every law, or stick to a strict sense of morality (and I have shows like Psych, The Wonder Years, and the remake of Battlestar Galactica to thank for that.) I’m not perfect, by any means, but unlike many, I tolerated this about myself. And, now, especially having come into a realization of the truth, I’m able to be at peace with it as well, knowing God uses it to educate us through our imperfections (2 Cor. 12:7-10.)

It is because of this that I would consider myself more of a secondary source of information on the law, as opposed to Paul, here, who is clearly speaking from experience. I mean, look at the first verse:

Or are you ignorant, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know law), that the law is lording it over a man for as much time as he is living?

He’s speaking to those who know law, beginning here. I don’t know law. I’ve read maybe half of the Pentateuch. I mean, come on! There’s a ton of rules. How’s a man supposed to follow all that? It’s just crazy. If Paul hadn’t contextualized it here, in Rom. 3:20, I’d have pagan beliefs. And, the Pentateuch, aside from Genesis, is very dry. I just get the sense that the law will be more interesting when I’m snatched away and ruling the 1,000 year kingdom with and through our Lord (Eph. 2:5-6.)

Even still, I’ll do my best to carefully study (and, in this case, adhere to those more knowledgeable than me in Christ on this chapter.) There’s a number of great things to get out of the above verse. First, this is going to be the beginning of a new proof, covered in 7:1-6. This proof builds off of the previous one, that proved conclusively that we were not under law, but under grace. We must stand outside of the law’s curse if we are saints, and this chapter is going to break that down. The figure presented in this study is going to be utilized to prove the necessity for our removal from law’s grip and penalty, so we should study this closely.

Before we continue, let’s get on the same page as Paul concerning law. Thus far, in our evangel, we have learned that:

-       If you sin apart from law, you die apart from law (2:12)

-       If you sin in law, you are judged through law (2:12)

-       You must actually perform the law in order to be justified through it (2:13)

-       Though they boast in law, the Jew cannot be justified through it (2:17-29)

-       No one else can be justified through it either (3:20)

-       Law recognizes sin, makes you focus on it, but doesn’t remove sin (3:20)

-       God’s righteousness is manifest in us through faith, apart from law (3:21)

-       Faith operates in Grace, under a separate law (3:28)

-       Faith does not destroy or remove law, but actually sustains it in a way your own works in flesh cannot (3:31)

-       Abraham was not given a conditional promise based on law, or else he would have failed, as no one is just, and law produces indignation on failures like us (4:14-15)

-       Law creeps in so that the doubt increases (5:20)

If we keep these simple facts about the law that we’ve learned so far in mind, then we assuredly can’t go wrong in misinterpreting anything Paul says here. In fact, it’s crucial that we keep the prior revelations in mind, because another reason I’ve struggled so much with this chapter is because, as I came into a realization of the truth, certain folk realized I was getting into Paul and tried pushing these verses in Romans 7 as if Paul is proclaiming that the law has us whether we like it or not (and cite the above verse as evidence.)

Obviously, considering the enslavement topic of Romans 6, this is just not the case, and it’s revealed that the people that presume the law has you for your entire life are completely missing the point, and desire to follow law. The problem with that is, again, that you can’t follow the law, nor can the law free you from sin. The opposite is the case, as we’ve studied. You are forced to look at sin, study it, and try to fight it on your own. You’re your own army, and there’s no one to help you in the fight against the law (or any stretch of morality, for that matter.) You can’t honestly be under law and say “I’m dead to sin” at the same time, because that’s just nonsense! You’re always focused on sin if you’re under law! How can you be dead to something you’re constantly dwelling on??

It follows that the teaching in Rom. 6:1-14 teaches us that we are dead to Sin, and dead to law. That 6:14 ends with, “You are not under law” should reveal that the law is Sin’s power (and this is expressly stated in 1 Cor. 15:56, too.) In being dead to law, we are living to something else.

The verse begins with an “Or.” This may be the beginning of a new chapter, but it is certainly not the end of Paul’s discussion of law vs. grace – this is a theme that will run rampant throughout all of his letters, and it kicks off as early as the middle of Romans, here. The “Or” brings us to Paul’s second point in this argument against us being under law – continuing from Rom. 6:15’s objection. Or, if you’re still not convinced that law’s reign over you is over…

The principle Paul gives here has always confused me a bit, but again, this is because I’ve not spent much time studying the law, Biblical or otherwise. Paul seems to be pointing out that a law cannot punish the dead, simply put. Regardless of the source of the law, it’s impossible for a law to give a punishment in death, because death is the absence of life, and thus the ultimate punishment – there is no worse punishment than this, when considering life in relation to our Lord. Yet, as God considers you to have died to Sin with Christ, the law cannot be lording itself over you anymore.

Paul says that he is speaking to those who know law already. Only Paul has a right to give this teaching, and elaborate on this part of the evangel, having been one of the law’s biggest proponents, and a Jew himself (Phil. 3:1-7.) He is called the foremost of sinners (1 Tim. 1:14,) and less than the least of all saints (Eph. 3:8.) He tried to follow the law the hardest, and he failed the hardest. In relaying this experience to us, we learn of the greatness of grace from the worst of us.

Goodness, it’s almost like it was set up this way on purpose!

It is at this point in the study that, before continuing. I would recommend reading the Pentateuch for the first time. It’s a tall ask, I guess, and I’ll admit that I’m certainly not about to go do a big breakdown of the law within this series, but I will operate under the assumption that you’ve read it (ideally in the Concordant Literal Version, so that we negate as many mistranslations as possible.) Paul is listing a principle that is true of any law (so Rom. 2:14-16 can apply here,) but the Mosaic law is primarily in view here, per the contrast being presented from chapter six.

Some, such as Clyde Pilkington, and others that are assuming that somehow, the book of Romans is a Jewish book (makes sense,) and thus does not apply to saints today, will proclaim that, when Paul says “brethren,” he is referring to those explicitly of the Jewish community. Yet this is not the case, as all of the saints are referred to as “brethren” in the book of Ephesians, which folk like Clyde Pilkington will concede concern us today (Eph. 1:1, 5:15, 6:10, 23.) One that is spiritually tied to you is a brother – whether of the Circumcision or Uncircumcision (Eph. 3:6.) If Paul was speaking specifically of the Jewish community with the word ‘brethren,’ then he would not need to clarify that he is speaking to those under law, for that would be redundant, making both his words and God’s word unjust.

Moreover, it’s easy for us to assume that Israel is the only group that is given the law. I’ve likely said this in the past, and I stand wholly corrected if that’s the case. Again, Rom. 2:14-16 is the indication here that the law speaks to the morality inherent in man, simply because we are made in God’s Likeness (Gen. 1:26,) but corrupted (Rom. 5:12.) Many today place themselves under law, such as the Galatians (Gal. 1:6, 3:1,) who were clearly of the nations. The covenant between God and Israel requires the law, but anyone can place themselves under law and be judged thus.

For a woman in wedlock is bound to a man living by law. Yet if the man should be dying, she is exempt from the law of the man. Consequently, then, if the man is living, she will be styled an adulteress if she should be becoming another man’s, yet, if the man should be dying, she is free from the law, being no adulteress on becoming another man’s.

This analogy is a big pill to swallow for the strictly religious. The woman in this figure is bound (I daresay ‘restricted’) to the man by law, being his morality. She is naturally subject to him, and, if she breaks his law, she naturally transgresses against the man.

Now, some modern-day feminists may say that this is unfair, and I don’t really care. This is the way humans were thinking at the time, and it’s still the way many think today. Moreover, it is only covering one side of the relationship; Paul discusses the entire other half in other parts of the evangel (Eph. 5:25-27.)

The Greek elements of the term “in wedlock,” hupandros, is “UNDER-MAN.” This is in line with Gen. 3:16, where God says that man rules over woman due to her being seduced by Satan (it is the curse on their side, as man’s curse is presented in Gen. 3:17-19.) This makes the analogy of woman’s subjectivity to man in marriage a perfect analogy for us being under law (and, no, we’re not bringing divorce into the analogy, because Paul didn’t mention it, so it’s not necessary in this figure.)

When the man she is married to dies, she is no longer conformed to that part of the law, but is freed from the law in his death. Consequently, or, as a result of this, if she cheated on him, screwing another man, she is styled an adultress. That term “styled” is hrematise, that is, “SHALL-BE-APPRIZING.” This is to show that she is not just being called a name, but characterized as something. Knoch even points out in the back of their concordance that the term can mean “revealed.” As we know God is telling the story from the beginning, this is a revelation, not merely name-calling.

Under law, “adultery” is punishable by death. Ironically, then, transgressing the law in this situation effectively kills the woman, which is what the law does – it gets all up in your business, studying you to an extreme degree, before sniping you the moment you slip up. The only case in which she’s allowed to take another man is if the previous man is dead (Matt. 6:24.)

Now, to clarify: the law does not die, in this situation. It is righteous. It’s chillin’ over there either way. The law enjoys itself, because it will always be righteous, and it has proven that you are not. Now, this would not be a problem if law was not currently used by Sin against us. The law can’t help it; the law isn’t there to do anything other than showcase Sin, which is why Sin can control it. But the law is set – it is a set of righteous precepts that can never be disproven, and will not ever pass by until the end of the story (Matt. 5:18.)

Also, the woman in the analogy (when she is not committing adultery, that is) is not literally dying, but she is “made dead to” the law when the man dies.

I will follow, and end, with this: in the analogy itself, the woman’s actions don’t change. No matter how you paint it, she’s joining herself to another man. In one case, the joining causes her to be an adulteress – this is when she is subject to law, thus subject to her sin. Yet in contrast, when the man is dead, she is able to join herself to another man freely, without being appropriated as anything. In the man’s death, woman is freed from the law. It has nothing to do with her, just as being freed from the law has nothing to do with you, but from the One who died for you.

- GerudoKing