#58. Romans 7:9-11 - A Lot of Different Topics Smushed Into One Article, So That it Somehow Makes Sense (Conciliation Series XXXV)

Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

Now I lived, apart from law, once, yet at the coming of the precept Sin revives.

Paul introduced the figure of death in the last verse, with the phrase, “apart from law, Sin is dead.” In my last article, I mentioned passively that death is a figure. But why? Why is this use of death figurative, but not fact?

While we’re here in chapter seven, I believe this is a good time to explain what a “figure” is. People take “figurative” to mean a million different things. I am going to clarify: when I say “figure,” I’m speaking grammatically. It is not the “opposite of literal,” as some will claim, but a “figure of speech.” This does not automatically mean that the figure is “not fact,” or “could be interpreted in a million ways.” There are a number of different figures – irony, hyperbole, euphemisms, oxymorons, similes, and more. It does not always automatically mean “metaphor,” and, when a metaphor or simile is presented, it is almost always explained in its context. We’ve already dealt with a few similes (“present yourselves as if alive from among the dead.”) In fact, for the last chapter or so, we’ve been dealing with “personification,” which is in and of itself figurative. This does not mean that Paul is speaking falsely, or with flowery, poetic language that secretly holds an entirely different meaning, but that he is breaking down these heavy concepts in a simple way that is easy to apprehend. Please keep all of this in mind throughout your studies, that you may not see something and begin to theorize. Study it closely; you may just be dealing with a figure, and said figure may unlock the whole passage.

One of the primary rules of grammar is: “literal, if possible.” When this cannot be done, it is evident that a figure is present. Such is the case here. We know it’s a figure here and not in previous chapters (concerning Romans 5:12-21, for example,) because if we applied “dead” and “living” literally here, it would cease to make sense. As Paul elaborates in this sentence and the next, Paul could not live to write these words if he literally died.

It follows: we must read the chapter sequentially if we are to properly apply the figure of life and death here, lest we accidentally make our own assumption, or begin to reason our idea into the text.

Here, Paul is referencing that he was “living,” apart from law, “once.” This carries with it a wealth of information. As we know, it is Jewish custom that one is not subject to the law until they reach the age of accountability, or ‘legal adulthood,’ which for the Jews is thirteen (sometimes twelve for girls.) As such, before this, and before his study of the law, Paul believed himself to be ‘living to God.’ Now, George Rogers says that Paul is not referring to ‘living’ to God the way that saints are ‘living’ to God now. This is true; Paul does not say that he ‘was living to God,’ but that he lived. The same is true of us now. Of course, he’s not implying all the blessing that comes with our living now; at most, young Saul probably presumed that he was automatically going to be a part of the coming kingdom promised to Abraham, before he even became familiar with the law. But the very idea of truly living is very likely how he perceived himself, before he was placed under law.

Some may ask: what’s so wrong with that? Well, what I’m referring to, in an elaborate sense, is innocent, childish bliss. It’s no better than Adam and Eve’s mindset in the garden, and we saw what God had to do there in order to bring about the blessings we are discussing now. Paul may have believed he was living to God, but he did not understand that Sin lie dormant within him. He was self-ignorant, or, ignorant-to-himself. He didn’t realize the depths to which his spirit could sink, when driven by his flesh. Not once did this man consider that he couldn’t live up to righteousness, when it came down to it.

Here’s what I imagine Paul’s train of thought was:

“Well, let’s take a look at this ‘law,’ then! Let’s see… ‘No other elohim before Me.’ Yeah, I can do that. What about… ‘don’t make a carving or representation to worship instead of Me…’ Well, I haven’t done that, yet, so that’s good! What about ‘don’t take God’s name in vain?’ That shouldn’t be too bad, just lay off the videogames… The ‘sabbath day?’ That’s a whole event in this house! ‘Honor father and mother…’ I do that all the time, especially on the sabbath! ‘Don’t murder…’ I’ll certainly try! ‘Don’t commit adultery…’ I won’t even get married! ‘Don’t steal.’ That may be tricky, but I think I’ve been all good so far! ‘Don’t testify falsely against your friend…’ Honestly, it’s kinda hard for me to lie… and what’s this? ‘Don’t covet what you don’t have.’ Well, if I’ve been living to God so far, this should be a cakewalk!”

Yet I died, and it was found that, to me, the precept for life, this is for death.

Yes, Paul died when he was placed under law. He died, but not in the Romans 7:4 sense – he did not die to the law, but died under law, because no mortal, fleshy body can handle the sheer weight of the perfect behavior of righteousness.

It is found in his experience that the precept for life – was, in actuality, for death.

Let’s do something a little more fun! My girlfriend and I have recently begun watching “The Lord of The Rings” trilogy – Peter Jackson’s well-known adaptation of the epic book. The story is filled to the brim with spiritual metaphors and beautiful parallels to Paul’s evangel, so this may not be the last time I reference the story. Here, I find a beautiful parallel with the One Ring and the law.

I know, it’s such a strange parallel, isn’t it? To consider that the ring that brings Frodo and his friends so much trouble is, in actuality, a good thing? Well, consider a few ideas, here. As we’ve studied, the law itself is not sin, but it stirs up Sin within us – thus no man can wield it properly without becoming enslaved to the reality. If you considered this in the context of The Lord of The Rings, you will find that it is the heart of men that is corruptible, that the One Ring preys on in order to effect its will. It is not the ring itself that is corruptible – but the ones that use it (yes, Frodo included.)

I sensed this idea, and thought it fitting to include here, when I heard Gandalf say the following lines at the beginning of the story, when Frodo keeps trying to pass off the One Ring to Gandalf:

“Understand, Frodo… I would use this ring from a desire to do good! But… through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.”

I’m not saying that this parallel, being the One Ring and the Mosaic Law, is a perfect 1:1 analogy, as The Lord of the Rings story makes it clear that the One Ring is sentient, whereas Mosaic law is… well, it’s a rulebook, when all is said and done. But if you replaced Gandalf’s word here, being “ring,” with “law,”  then Paul might as well have written it:

“Understand, Rome… I tried to use the law from a desire to do good! But… through me, it wielded a power too great and terrible to imagine.”

This is a surprising inconsistency, but anyone that has tried so hard to do the right thing, and ended up failing so miserably, and has felt worthless, will understand exactly where Paul is coming from. Most, if not all, in Christ, have felt this feeling, but those under law specifically understand this even greater, whether they feel fit to admit to it or not (Rom. 7:1.) The law, as we all know, promised that, if one followed the whole law without error, he would live (Lev. 18:5, Deut. 5:33, Gal. 3:12.) You can see a prime example of this in our Lord, who did follow the law. He did not eat for forty days in a wilderness, and yet He did not pass out, or die from starvation (Matt. 4:1-2.) He was hungry, yes, but He was not dead, or dying. He felt the weight of starvation, without suffering the tired outcome.

The law curses those who disobey it (Gal. 3:12,) and as we know from the previous studies, not one is righteous (Rom. 3:10-11.) Thankfully, Paul doesn’t just leave us with this phrase, and he pushes onward with a longer explanation of his experience:

For Sin, getting an incentive through the precept, deludes me, and through it, kills me.

Ah! So instead of law being the primary issue, Sin reveals that it gains one of those “incentives,” or a “base of operations” through the precept.

This sentence is so important, not merely in the context of the argument, but in reference to the law in general. Here we have a comprehensive sentence from Paul on how the “power of Sin is the law.” You can say that ‘law comes in, that the offense should be increasing,” and, when the “why” is firmly answered (which it was, in the last moments of Romans 5,) the new question from the objector is, “How?” Here Paul can use the objection that the law is sin to explain the “how.” In order to elaborate on this, let’s go double check how exactly sin enters into the world:

Now the serpent, it became more crafty than any other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made. The serpent said to the woman: Indeed did Elohim say, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?

The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; yet of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden Elohim said, You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it, lest you should die.

Now, recall, during our study of the eons, that I discussed this verse already. We discussed that Eve, intentionally or not, was doubting God. She did not have Sin operating in her, but was in that state of ‘naivety,’ or ‘innocence,’ that Paul says that he was in before the law’s precept was presented to him. Now, I’d like to show you the next two verses, that clarify and elaborate on how Sin uses this naivety to delude Eve:

But the serpent said to the woman: Not to die shall you be dying; for Elohim knows that on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be unclosed, and you will become like Elohim, knowing good and evil.

This idea, that things, simply, were not actually as God had presented, was assuredly appealing to Eve. In fact, Eve had only heard her man’s instruction, and what was that guy doing? When she found herself in front of him, all he could look at were her tits! She was looking into his eyes for meaning, but he was focused on her body. How frustrating this must have been for Eve, no? For all she knew, Adam could have been crazy! Maybe there were other humans. Maybe this rule was presented by him, not by God. The serpent, while odd, probably didn’t come across nearly as evil as he is portrayed these days in Christian theology.

At the time, Eve caused the external voice of the serpent to manifest in her, as she hearkened to the serpent’s voice, putting herself under his authority. This same voice is apparent in all of us, thanks to her (and ultimately, Adam’s) decision. Now, as we’re considering that Sin’s power is the law, it’s now evident, when we look back at this Genesis account, that if God had not given the precept to Adam, then Satan would have nothing by which to tempt them.

Do you have a better idea of how necessary this was? The first law ever presented to man follows the exact same idea that Paul is discussing here. The law that Adam believed was the preservation of their lives, was actually the introduction of death into their lives, and their successors.

It’s as simple as this: Sin says “nuh-uh.” No, really! The things you’re not supposed to covet? Your reasoning, your logic, your emotion, all will tell you that the object you’re not supposed to desire, is in fact the most desirable thing on the planet. Many have become aware of this inner voice apart from Scripture, leading to terrible cases of depression and anxiety. This is the “delusion” Paul speaks of. One becomes deluded in listening, or fighting, Sin’s voice. Just as it’s impossible for man to follow law, it is naturally impossible for man not to follow sin. In the flesh, Sin will reign, apart from Christ.

Eve was “deluded.” Paul uses this same term in 1 Tim. 2:14, in describing the very topic we’re discussing:

Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression…

As Eve was deluded, so also is mankind now deluded. It is because of Eve’s action, relatively, in the garden, that the law has this impact on all – it kills us through the precept.Finally, this takes us back to the reason Paul presents “coveting” as his example: because it is the very same precept that initially introduced sin to the human race! Eve coveted the tree, and fulfilled the coveting when she ate it.

The analogy is consummated perfectly: As soon as the law is presented, Sin can bear its fruit. There’s no way out of this on our own terms. Thus Paul concludes the argument, showing how Sin operates through law, but cannot literally be law. However, this leads to yet another objection that will be covered in the next article.

- GerudoKing