Romans 7:14 - Experience - Thesis (Conciliation Series, Part XXXVIII)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

For we are aware that the law is spiritual, yet I am fleshly, having been disposed of under Sin.

As we consider this as Paul’s experience, let us also consider this as the next part of the sequence of arguments Paul has been making since Romans 1. This is the beginning of the argument – the “thesis” statement for the remainder of the chapter, if you will. The proof will be considered with three different waves of emotion, followed by the conclusion of the chapter.

Let’s start with that word “for!” God, I love that conjunction. It will never get old. This is the forceful thesis stemming from the previous objection. I’m kind of leaning toward the idea that God is getting ahead of the objector, before they can ask some question or say “nuh uh.” The word shows that we are going from the statement of verses 11-13, that Sin kills you through the law, to an elaborate explanation as to how. We must see the incompatibility between the spiritual law and the perpetual desires of the flesh.

This is why we can view this as half-argument, half-experience. It works perfectly because anyone who has studied argumentative writing can tell you that there are three aspects to a proper argument – the pathos (emotion,) logos (logic,) and ethos (credibility.) Paul has spent a strong amount of time in the “logos” section, in the proper formation of the argument. And, depending on your personality type, you may have found a fair bit of “pathos” in here by now as well (I know I’m amazed at the salvation of all whenever I hear it, but either way, Romans 8 will be chock full of emotion.) It is in Romans 7 that, just in case you were concerned with his credibility, as to why his assertions about the law are worth considering, that God finally breaks down Paul’s experience with the law for us to heed.

The modern objection, as I mentioned in the last article, is that many Christians believe that this was Paul’s disposition as he wrote to the Romans. This is, of course, not true, as the context of the previous verses was clearly clarifying that we are able to freely live to God apart from law (Rom. 7:4,) and the entire evangel and effect therein is, literally, apart from law (Rom. 3:21.)

More than that, it should be easy to note that many writers, in order to give a more vivid account of the past, will speak with a present tense. Check it out. Here’s past tense:

“Droplets of sweat formed around my brow. I took a deep breath. It was my only chance – and the force was with me. I tilted the joystick, and fired. The torpedoes swiveled into the tube, headed directly for the main reactor. As I pulled up and flew into the dark reaches of space, there was a silent implosion – the death star was finally destroyed.”

And here is present tense:

“I feel the sweat forming around my brow. Breathe, I think. Just breathe. The force is with you, just breathe! I gather my courage, and fire! The torpedoes swivel directly into the tube, heading for the main reactor. I yank the joystick up, and feel my X-Wing shake violently around me. When I turn around, I catch the chunks of metal floating through space. The death star is destroyed!”

While neither tense is bad, present tense clearly does a better job at relaying Luke’s experience. A narrator could tell you, “Luke was nervous,” but it’s far more engaging if you write, “Luke is shaken. He nervously…”

All that to say, Paul can’t say, “The law was spiritual,” because the law still is spiritual, regardless of which administration we’re in (Matt. 5:18, 24:35.) Nor can he say, “The law is spiritual, yet I was fleshy,” because it’s discordant with the moment he reaches this internal revelation. He also cannot say that he “is” being disposed of under Sin, because in the previous chapter he’d clearly made the case that the only time he was enslaved to Sin was, literally, when he was free from righteousness! He can’t now be enslaved to righteousness, be dead to Sin, and be still under law, if he just wrote opposite points for a chapter and a half!

We are aware. Is the “we” in relation to all? I would rather: “we” is in relation to anyone who bothers to look at the original text. Anyone who has studied the law can reach the conclusion that the holy writ is spiritual by nature, and there are generations of scientists and Jewish scholars who can attest to this (some Jews go as far as to claim that The Torah came first, they are so mesmerized by its spiritual construct.)

Nonetheless, we are aware that the law is spiritual. In my second article on this series,  I roughly defined this word “spiritual” when it was used in Rom. 1:11 as “the living, invisible quality by which the noun is described”. The noun, in this case, is the law. The law is spiritual, then, because it displays the invisible quality of the Authority behind said law. God is spirit (John 4:24, Col. 1:15, 2 Cor. 4:4,) and thus if one is to follow law, they must conform to The Spirit.

This Spirit appointed Christ as the law’s Authority, and as such is the only reason that, when He descended, the law could live in Christ and not kill Him. He was given the spirit of God without measure (John 3:34,) and thus He was able to follow the law. The law could only be fulfilled by a spiritual walk, which no man has ever been able to effect. It is only thanks to Christ that the law can be sustained in us (Rom. 3:31.) Without Christ, we are not spiritual. The only way one becomes aware of the spiritual is that God reveals it to them, through a spirit. But it is only through Christ that one will become spiritually aware of God Himself.

We are clearly in the flesh by nature, as opposed to spiritual by nature. You can tell this by the simple fact that you are not the wind. You’re visible. You can be seen. You are wearing flesh. Obviously, we can go deeper than this, but Paul’s not there yet. At this point in his experience, he believes he is fleshly. Keep in mind, of course, that Paul doesn’t literally think he is only flesh; he intuitively understands that there is more to a man than ‘internal flesh,’ as he wouldn’t have been pulled to study the law otherwise. But he does understand that the spark of life can’t be determined by the five senses, and that everything he’s become aware of is directly funneled through these dirt molds.

John 3:6 says that everything begotten by flesh is flesh. As flesh is contrasted with the spiritual here, we can determine that no man is inherently spiritual. Flesh is begotten from Adam. Law is of God. These two, as we’ve been studying, do not coincide. They are opposites, used for contrast, not parallel.

Because of this, Paul was disposed of under Sin. If you are under law, you are under Sin, because, as we discussed, Sin gains an incentive through the law’s precepts. Sin is not in the law, but it is in the flesh of the one seeking to follow the law, and thus the person seeking to follow the law will be disposed of under Sin. Note that this says under Sin. Sin dwells in an individual, but it is not dominant until it is given that incentive. You can see this in the actions of individuals prior to the Mosaic law is presented to Israel. Abimalech knew that Abraham had lied, per Gen. 20:1-6. Joseph knew his brothers did him dirty, per Gen. 50:20. Esau knew that Jacob had stolen, in Gen. 27:34. Though no law existed, sin was indeed present in all of these examples. But when you are put under law, then Sin reigns (6:12, 7:5,) because the incentive is automatically applied.

We’ll continue discussing the flesh in a moment, but before this, let’s take a moment and fully appreciate what Paul is saying here. Are we really going to say that this fretful experience of “being disposed under Sin” is somehow the story of a man under grace? Can we honestly make this inference, considering the facts Paul has presented so far concerning the law, and Sin’s abuse of it? If you are disposed under Sin, then how can you simultaneously be under God in grace? I thought no man can serve two masters? Jesus, can you just..?

…no one can be slaving for two lords. You cannot be slaving for God and mammon.

Thank you, my Lord. Paul began this chapter with the phrase, “I am speaking to those who know law.” In that, you, as in, you, the reader, and myself, and any other believer today, should not be applying these words to their current disposition, because it will ultimately lead you nowhere, and confuse what Paul is saying. It would be a disservice to grace.

*   *   *

In studying this chapter, I came across a bit of a difficult concept to understand. Paul spends much of this chapter delineating between his literal “self,” and his “flesh.” His spirit, and his flesh. This is all well and good, and honestly, most people could wrap their heads around this idea. But what caught me was the phrase, “I am fleshy,” in the very thesis statement. I thought to myself, Well, if he is saying he is flesh, then how can he delineate between his ‘self’ and his ‘flesh’ in later verses of this experience?

The answer is found in a brief study of the word ‘flesh.’ It’s not as easy a word as ‘just,’ or ‘holy.’ It’s more contextual by nature. One thing we can establish, right off the bat, is that its primary meaning does not have a ‘moral’ quality to it. You can’t say “the flesh” and have that automatically include ‘weak’ or ‘wrong’ or something. You have to say it in an ominous voice. Try saying it in Heath Ledger’s ‘Joker’ voice, and you could add that connotation, I guess. But Scripture usually clarifies whether our moral capacity in the flesh should be considered.

Example? Sure. ‘Flesh,’ in its basic use, just identifies the material that our body is made of. Moses writes about ‘all flesh’ in Gen. 7:21, and makes clear to include ‘flyers,’ ‘domestic beasts,’ ‘wild animals,’ ‘swarming things,’ and then ‘man.’ This shows that a ‘moral’ statement is not being made in that verse, because no fleshy creature besides man really has a higher form of thought.

As if to clarify its meaning, God actively distinguishes between blood, flesh, and bones in various verses, to clarify the different moving parts of our body. Here’s 1 Cor. 15:50, for example:

Now this I am averring, brethren, that flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom of God…

And here’s another, in Luke 24:39–

Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and perceive, for a spirit has not flesh and bones according as you behold Me having.

Clearly, the flesh, bones, and blood are separate objects. But here is where things get complicated; though bones and blood are crucial to the construct of the human body, soooooometimes God will use the term ‘flesh’ to consider your body. This was the case with the Gen. 7:21 passage from earlier. This is usually used to signify that this is all you can see, visually, of man.

But that’s not all! Soooooometimes God will use the term ‘flesh’ to consider all mankind specifically. Here’s an example, in Ps. 65:1-2–

To you behooves praise, O Elohim, in Zion, And to You shall be paid the vow in Jerusalem. O Hearer of prayer, Unto You all flesh shall come.

He’s certainly making this easy.

Another way that flesh can be discussed in Scripture apart from morality is that of kinship. This can be shown as early as Gen. 2:24, where Adam and Eve are said to be “one flesh.” A more relatable example is Joseph’s brothers referring to Joseph as “our own flesh” in Gen. 37:27. Still more, we will see Paul call Israel “his brothers in flesh” in Rom. 9:3. The best example can be found, yet again, in our Lord, Who is called “the seed of David according to the flesh” in Rom. 1:3.

Why do we need to go into all this? Well, later in Paul’s letters, we learn that we are a new creation in Christ, and that we do not need to “know” Christ according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16.) This may be applied to every facet of our lives. Flesh is transmitted. Spirit, however, is not, and is given by God (evident by the fact that the spirit of Christ has been given to you – Rom. 6:3-4, 8:9-11, Heb. 12:9, John 1:13. Flesh is hereditary, while spirit is not.)

Yet again, we can differentiate further between ‘flesh’ and ‘body.’ The body is the personal item of yours – your body, where you take it, what you do with it, etc. The body has a set structure, limbs, a form. The flesh is… well, it’s flesh. It’s more of a cover for the body, literally speaking. It’s the “wrapping paper” of your body. It slowly multiplies cells, unto its death. Your body survives, draped in this soilish cover.

Moreover, we have to establish the difference between ‘body’ and ‘flesh’ because the body is far more intimate by nature, being a composite whole of all the individual cogs that make up your external and internal parts. We can’t call ourselves “the flesh of Christ,” but we can call ourselves “the body of Christ.” You can’t say, “me and my wife are one body,” but you can say “me and my wife are one flesh.”

I hope, with all of this considered, that you can see that the flesh is not “sinful” by nature, but it has become sinful thanks to Adam’s transgression. Before eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam was not dying, and he did not know the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ The penalty for breaking God’s law there was the curse of death. As we learned in Rom. 5:12, sin entered into the world through Adam’s offense. This means that Adam existed during a period before sin had ‘entered’ into the world. Adam has to exist in order for sin to enter through it (you wouldn’t say ‘I entered through the doorway’ if there was no entrance to pass through!)

This means, also, that flesh was not explicitly “mortal” by nature. Considering Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12 reaffirms for us that through sin, death made its way into man. So, not only was the flesh not corrupted, but it was literally not dying. Yes – if Adam was not sinning, then he was not dying, and thus flesh was not made in a ‘dying’ state, but a living one (as all of El’s deeds are flawless – Deut. 32:4.)

I know I called these articles… extraneous, when considering the beginning of this chapter, but the truth is that this entire study on flesh truly is important when considering our evangel (and considering the fact that Paul says ‘flesh’ 79 times, and its adjectival counterpart 8 times, both of which being the considerable majority use of the term in all of Scripture.) As early as Romans 1:3, Paul clarifies that our Lord did come in the flesh (John 1:14,) and this quite literally placed Him under death. Yet Christ knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21!) He will be seated again, in flesh, in Israel during the 1000 year kingdom (Acts 2:26,30-31.) Would you tell me that, during His reign in flesh, Christ picks up flesh again, being mortal? And especially after showing His disciples a completely different kind of flesh (Luke 24:39??)

It follows that, if the primary definition of ‘flesh’ is not interchangeable with ‘corrupted,’ then Paul can most assuredly say that he is ‘fleshy’ without a moral connotation. This is proven in his use of the term ‘fleshy’ in 2 Cor. 3:3, used positively concerning those in Christ:

…for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart.

In flesh, we are living creatures that feel. This is okay. It is okay to feel. The flesh very much gives a sensory perception to the feelings of the spirit. This, also, is not its primary purpose, but it is necessary to consider this when thinking about our flesh.

Conclusion? Sin in the flesh is the issue – not the flesh itself. Desire in flesh, having been corrupted by Sin, is what turns the desire into an issue – not the desire itself. The Sin’s corruption is not what causes the desire – the heart wants what the heart wants, and this comes from the spirit (proof? Christ Himself also “desires” things, and He is living in spirit – Luke 22:15.) It is Sin’s goal to use the flesh to corrupt inherent emotions, causing you to be led by them, instead of having mastery over them.

It is because of this issue in our flesh, this Sin having corrupted it, that the body is “dead” apart from Christ, attached to a body of Sin. This is why Paul clarified, “I am fleshy, having been disposed of under Sin.” This corrupted flesh needs a spiritual newness. Flesh can never beget a spiritual oneness with Christ, but Christ can develop a spiritual oneness with you. When this does happen, you are considered a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17.) If that occurs while you are still in Sin’s flesh, then your flesh and your spirit will continually conflict (Gal. 5:17.) The two concepts don’t reconcile. The corrupted flesh will always conflict with a righteous law, as the new humanity is unified in spirit, whereas the old humanity is unified in the flesh.

Living to the flesh and living to the spirit both bear different kinds of fruit (Gal. 5:18-20,) just as living to Sin and living to God bears different fruit (Rom. 6:21-23.) This is not because the flesh is inherently evil, as we’re studying (and going to continue to study) Paul’s experience under law, and his growing realization of the Sin dominating his flesh. Let us be careful in apprehending that God does not create new things a chaos (Is. 45:18,) and flawless are His deeds (Deut. 32:4.) The flesh has been corrupted, but did not begin corrupted (1 Cor. 15:53-54; corruptible, not inherently corrupt.) The flesh is all we see of man, so in that, we are fleshy. But it is not I effecting wrong, but Sin. More on this in Paul’s first wave of lamentation.

Anyways, here's my most important statement concerning your flesh:

- GerudoKing