Romans 7:15-17 – Experience – Paul’s First Wave of Lament (Conciliation Series, Part XXXIX)

  Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

For what I am effecting I know not, for not what I will, this I am putting into practice, but what I am hating, this I am doing.

Paul gave us his thesis in the previous sentence. In this portion here he’s going to begin to break down the proof for this thesis, which, as we’ve been talking about, must be done through an explanation of his experience under law.

What am I effecting? asks Paul.

No clue, replies Paul.

The word “effecting” is “DOWN-ACT” in Greek. This is the actual committing of an action. Paul has no clue what he’s actually effecting. He’s a deaf man trying to march to the beat of a drum. He’s blindly obeying, under the notion that he’s properly obeying. Even in “not murdering,” he didn’t know why he “shouldn’t murder,” beyond incurring God’s indignation.

The word ‘for’ provides the forceful explanation of why he does not know what he’s effecting. He says that he does not will the things he actually puts into practice. To will something is to formulate a plan, or course of action. This is evident from every contextual use of the term ‘will’ (and, side note, we’ll have way more to discuss about the term ‘will,’ especially under the notion that your will is free.)

His will, in this case, is overpowered by another unknown source, causing his actions and his will to enter a dysfunctional relationship. The two aren’t aligning, and he finds that he is doing the very things he hates. Saul of Tarsus is credited with being the worst Pharisee, murdering fellow circumcision brethren by focusing on their wrongdoings – without once realizing that, in doing so, he himself was taking the life of others without care or sympathy (that is, murdering them.) He would enforce the penalty of the law, but he was unjust in that he was enforcing a penalty on others, without considering his own failures.

This disconnect between his actions and his will made him proficient in committing hated actions. How he managed to block all of this out of his head is beyond me, but there are various psychological theories that come to mind. For one, “out of sight, out of mind,” or, more scientifically, this is “dissociative amnesia.” The brain likes to forget traumatic events, whether you were the (relative) source, or (relative) victim, to prevent emotional hangovers. This personal dark side of Paul’s may have been blocked out by himself in order to escape accountability for his actions, which likely propagated his ego, reinforcing his believed ability to follow the law to the letter. Here, however, he has no choice but to admit to his faults – the very things he hated, because of his study of law, were the very things he found himself committing.

Now if what I am not willing, this I am doing, I am conceding that the law is ideal.

And why wouldn’t it be? It’s still perfection, and even Paul is still wanting of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23.) The law is ideal, but as we cannot follow it all, God gives us faith to take care of those imperfections.

This statement begins Paul’s conclusion to his first wave of lament. If he is unwillingly doing the thing he hates, then it can’t be due to his own desire to do evil. He’s a Pharisee, but honestly, very few people operate like The Joker, yeah? And that’s the upside, here. Though he was likely full of religious egotism, he was also just a human being, who dwells and considers things rationally. Whether this was an admittance to himself at his gradual failures, or something he’s proclaiming now, post-road-to-Damascus-blind-episode, is unclear to me. Maybe it’s both. Nonetheless, he has to concede that the law is ideal. He is in agreement with God that his actions are wrong, and should be hated. He has a proper love and appreciation for what God has shared, hence the term “ideal.” I stress that the term is “ideal,” because many versions say that Paul says “good” here. But it is not only good, but the ideal. It’s not just a ‘proper’ thing, but fulfills all expectations, and satisfies man’s moral sensibility far greater than anything else.

Not only is it actually ideal, but he concedes that it is ideal. The Greek elements of the term “concedes” is “TOGETHER-AVERRING.” He is, essentially, vouching for the law’s efficacy with the law itself. His conscience knows better than his body. Even in being exposed by the law, he’d rather be exposed, than accredit his sinful actions.

Yet now it is no longer I who am effecting it, but Sin making its home in me.

Evidently, if your will, your conscious, your self, agrees with the law, then you can’t possibly be the cause of your insubordinate behavior, can you??

If you are in the Christian faith, this verse may stand out to you as uniquely frustrating, as the ‘free will’ doctrine stresses that you are responsible (as opposed to accountable) for your actions. Yet here, Paul clarifies that you do not choose to, say, covet, but you hate coveting, and then do it anyway. It’s a glaring inconsistency in our fleshy makeup, but if you are actively trying not to covet, then how are you supposed to be at fault?? You were trying not to.

It’s this simple. The solution is that you are not the one attempting to commit the action, but Sin. The “I” here is in the ‘nominative’ case, so it is emphatic, referencing the true ‘self,’ apart from Sin. You are able to protest mentally, per the simple fact of moral conscience, but the simple reality is that, in the flesh, you will always miss the mark in this flesh, in some capacity. The body is sinning, yes, but your inner self is true. God says He has justified this inner self (Rom. 3:21-26,) which makes this distinction key.

One more thing, here – Paul doesn’t “ask for forgiveness.” He doesn’t say, “so because it’s not literally my fault, please forgive my faults, folks!” The inner conscious self, while not at fault, is still accountable for the flesh and its action (Rom. 2:6.) He is condemned methodically, by proxy, per Paul’s argument in Rom. 1:18-32. He’s not looking to exonerate himself, but understands his present predicament. At this moment in his experience, he has not yet been justified by faith, nor does he understand yet that, through Christ’s death, he has been justified from Sin (Rom. 6:6-7.)

With that, Paul’s first wave of lamentation is completed. He recognizes that his will and his actions don’t align, and his conclusion is that the law is ideal, and Sin presently reigns in his members.

- GerudoKing