Authorship: John Mark

The external evidence in support of Markan authorship is very strong. As early as the first half of the second century, the gospel was ascribed to him. Further, Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon (most likely), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome all link the Gospel with Mark. The fact that Mark was not an apostle is significant for it might have given the church pause in connecting his name with a written gospel. Yet the tradition is unanimous in favor of him. Surely this speaks to the authenticity of the tradition. But, is there anything in the Gospel or in the NT that confirms or disproves this?

There is nothing in Mark or in the rest of the NT that disproves Markan authorship, but there is some evidence that tends to confirm it. Papias said that Mark was Peter’s “interpreter” (e.g., recorded the apostle’s sermons) and the fact that Mark’s Gospel roughly follows Peter’s gospel preaching (cf. Acts 10:36-41¹) seems to corroborate this idea. There is also ample evidence in the NT that John Mark is the one indicated. Peter and John Mark were associated in the early 40’s when they probably met regularly in John Mark’s mother’s house (Acts 12:12). Further, Mark is with Peter ca. 65 CE in Rome (1 Peter 5:13). It is noteworthy that in 1 Peter 5:13 Peter refers to Mark as “his son,” implying in this case a deep and long-time, mentor-oriented friendship. Finally, that Luke refers to Mark and Paul as “assistants” (uJphrevth") in Acts 13:5 and 26:16, respectively, where an “assistant” is someone who “handles documents and delivers their content to men,” may indicate Mark’s service in writing an account of the ministry and passion of Jesus—an account which Luke himself used.²

By way of summary, the external evidence in favor of John Mark is consistent and strong. The internal evidence (in Mark and the NT) corroborates this testimony. No other author was ever cited to contradict this twofold testimony. We therefore conclude that John Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name.

Date: Late 50’s

As in the case of the authorship, so also with the date: there is both external and internal evidence to consider. As far as the former is concerned, the testimony seems quite consistent that Mark wrote his gospel in connection with Peter while the latter was still living. This is in keeping with Papias and Clement of Alexandria, though it differs with Irenaeus (which many scholars side with against Clement of Alex.).

The internal evidence is fairly complicated, but we will try and summarize the most important points. First, Mark 13:14 and the prediction of “the abomination of desolation,” prophesied many years earlier by Jesus, still seems to be a future event as far as Mark is concerned (i.e., still future from the time when Mark wrote his gospel). If the prophecy refers, at least in part, to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, then Mark was probably written before that. The background of suffering in the Gospel and attempts to connect it strictly with the Neronian persecution which broke out in 64 CE are not entirely convincing. Thus it is not necessary that a date of 65-69 CE be accepted.

Second, if Mark was written first and then Luke used Mark later, then the date of Luke would be decisive in establishing the terminus ad quem for Mark. But Acts is to be dated around 62-64 CE.³ This means that Luke was written in the late 50’s or very early 60’s since it precedes Acts. So then, if Luke used Mark, which seems fairly certain, then Mark was written probably some time in the early to mid fifties.

Destination and Recipients: Rome

It seems fairly certain that Mark wrote his gospel while living in Rome to the church in Rome. Thus he wrote primarily for Gentiles, though not exclusively. Such is the force of the external evidence. There are many good pieces of internal evidence, however, to substantiate this thesis: (1) latinisms in the book, some of which are very important (e.g., 12:42; 15:16);⁴ (2) certain Aramaic expressions are translated into Greek (3:17; 5:41; 10:46), and (3) Jewish religious customs are explained (7:3-4).

Occasion and Purpose

It seems that Mark had several purposes in the writing of his gospel. In large measure, however, his focus is taken up with sketching a true portrait of Jesus and what it means to follow him, especially in times of suffering and persecution. In Mark’s gospel Jesus’ ministry and his passion provide both the foundation of discipleship as well as the pattern (cf. 8:34-38).

The Gospels

The Gospels are unique in the ancient world in that there are no other literary documents quite like them. Comparison to other literature of the period, say Greco-Roman biographies, is helpful, but in the end, the nature of the four Gospels cannot be contained within such literary models. For one thing, the Gospels are heavily influenced by OT language, concepts, and customs, thus framing the understanding and proper interpretation of Jesus in light of his own words set against OT and contemporary Jewish messianic hopes. In short, the Gospels are a synthesis of history and theology all packaged in a literary structure designed to enhance the proper understanding and significance of the teaching and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Further, they were written primarily for Christian religious communities with specific questions. They are, in the end, Christian documents, explaining, defending, and applying the deeds and teaching of Jesus to the needs of several distinct, yet related Christian communities.

Special Terms

Teaching Outline of Mark

I. The Preparation of the Suffering Servant (1:1-13)

A. The Title: Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1:1)

B. The One To Prepare the Way of the Lord (1:2-8)

1. The Promise of the Old Testament (1:2-3)

2. The Preaching of John (1:4-8)

C. Jesus’ Baptism (1:9-11)

D. Jesus’ Temptation (1:12-13)

II. The Suffering Servant’s Ministry in Galilee (1:14-6:6a)

A. Cycle One: Early Galilean Ministry (1:14-3:6)

1. Snapshots of Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee

a. A Programmatic Statement (1:14-15)

b. Summary: The Choosing of Four Disciples (1:16-20)

c. The Healing of a Man with an Unclean Spirit (1:21-28)

d. Summary of Healing Ministry (1:29-34)

e. Summary: Prayer, Purpose, and Mission (1:35-39)

f. The Healing of a Leper: The Question of the Law (1:40-45)

2. Five Controversy Stories (2:1-3:6)

a. Healing: A Paralytic Man (2:1-12)

b. Eating with Sinners: The Calling of Levi (2:13-17)

c. Fasting and New Wine (2:18-22)

d. Work on the Sabbath (2:23-28)

e. Healing: Work on the Sabbath (3:1-6)

B. Cycle Two: Later Galilean Ministry (3:7-6:6a)

1. Summary of Mission (3:7-12)

2. The Appointment of the Twelve (3:13-19)

3. The Blasphemy of the Spirit and Jesus’ True Family (3:20-35)

a. The Structure of the Story: 3:20-35 as a Whole

b. The Accusations against Jesus (3:21-22)

c. Jesus’ Response: Back to Issue of Family (3:23-35)

4. Parables: The Kingdom of God

a. The Parable of the Sower: Taught (4:1-9)

b. The Purpose of the Parables (4:10-12)

c. The Parable of the Sower: Explained (4:13-20)

d. The Parable of the Lamp (4:21-25)

e. Growing Seed (4:26-29)

f. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (4:30-32)

g. Summary Comment on Parables (4:33-34)

5. Jesus’ Identity and Authority Demonstrated (4:35-5:43)

a. Over Nature: The Stilling of the Storm (4:35-41)

b. Over Demons: The Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1-20)

c. Over Death and Disease: The Healing of Jairus’ Daughter and the Sick Woman (5:21-35)

6. Jesus Rejected at Home: Unbelief in Nazareth (6:1-6a)

III. The Suffering Servant Withdraws from Galilee (6:6b-8:21)

A. To A Deserted Place (6:6b-52)

1. Catalyst for Withdrawal: The Twelve Sent Out on the Way (6:6b-13)

2. Catalyst for Withdrawal: John the Baptist Beheaded (6:14-29)

3. Catalyst for Withdrawal: The Twelve Return and Report (6:30-34)

4. Public Miracle: The Feeding of the 5000 (6:35-44)

5. Private Miracle: Jesus Walks on Water en route to Bethsaida (6:45-52)

B. To Gennesaret (6:53-7:23)

1. Summary of Jesus’ Healing Ministry (6:53-56)

2. The Issue of Ritual Purity: Confrontation (7:1-23)

a. False Views of Defilement: They Rest on Mere Human Tradition (7:1-8)

b. The Affect of Mere Human Tradition: Commandments Are Annulled (7:9-13)

c. The Source of Real Defilement: Indwelling Sin (7:14-23)

C. To the Vicinity of Tyre: Healing of Syrophoenician Woman (7:24-30)

D. To the Region of Decapolis: A Deaf Mute Is Healed (7:31-37)

E. To the Sea of Galilee: Feeding of the 4000 (8:1-9)

F. To the District of Dalmanutha (=Magadan) (8:10-21)

1. Confrontation Intensifying: Demand for a Sign (8:10-13)

2. The Yeast of the Pharisees Exposed (8:14-21)

IV. The Suffering Servant: Revelation and Discipleship (8:22-10:52)

A. Revelation: Blind Man Healed (8:22-30)

1. Sight Restored (8:22-26)

2. Peter’s Confession of Christ (8:27-30)

B. Passion Prediction #1 and Discipleship Teaching (8:31-9:29)

1. Prediction Proper (8:31)

2. Peter’s Response: Misunderstanding (8:32)

3. Jesus’ Rebuke and Teaching on Discipleship (8:33-9:1)

4. Jesus’ Reassurance: Transfiguration (9:2-13)

5. The Disciples Fail to Heal (9:14-29)

C. Passion Prediction #2 and Discipleship Teaching (9:30-10:31)

1. Prediction Proper (9:30-31)

2. The Disciples’ Response: Failure to Understand (9:32)

3. Jesus’ Teaches “The Way” of True Discipleship: Disciples Fail to Understand (9:33-10:31)

a. Concerning the Paradox of the Kingdom: Humility (9:33-37)

b. John’s Response: Misunderstanding (9:38)

c. Concerning Preeminence (9:39-41)

d. Concerning Dealing Drastically with Sin (9:42-50)

e. Concerning Divorce (10:1-12)

f. Concerning Receiving the Kingdom: Little Children (10:13-16)

g. The Issue of Riches and the Kingdom of God (10:17-31)

D. Passion Prediction #3 and Discipleship Teaching (10:32-45)

1. Prediction Proper (10:32-34)

2. The Disciples Misunderstand: James and John (10:35-40)

3. Jesus Teaching on True Discipleship (10:41-45)

E. Revelation: Healing Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52)

V. The Suffering Servant Ministers in Jerusalem: The Temple (11:1-13:37)

A. The Triumphal Entry (11:1-11)

B. Portents of Judgment (11:12-25)

C. Confrontation: Questions about Authority (11:27-12:44)

1. Confrontation Concerning Jesus’ Authority (11:27-12:12)

a. The Question: By What Authority? (11:27-33)

b. The Response: The Parable of the Tenants (12:1-12)

2. Question about Paying Taxes (12:13-17)

3. Question about Marriage and Resurrection (12:18-27)

4. Question about the Greatest Commandment (12:28-34)

5. Jesus Asks a Question (12:35-37)

6. Jesus Warns about Experts in the Law (12:38-40)

7. A Studied Contrast: A Widow’s Giving (12:41-45)

D. Jesus Pronounces Certain Judgment: The Little Apocalypse (13:1-37)

1. The Sermon Proper (13:1-27)

a. Introduction: The Temple To Be Destroyed (13:1-3)

b. The Question of When: The Birthpangs (13:4-8)

c. The Question of the Disciples’ Lives: Persecution (13:9-13)

d. The ‘Abomination of Desolation’ (13:14-23)

e. The Son of Man Coming in the Clouds (13:24-27)

2. The Parable of the Fig Tree (13:28-31)

3. Warning to be Ready (13:32-37)

VI. The Suffering Servant’s Death/Resurrection: Suffering & Victory (14:1-16:8)

A. Preparation (14:1-31)

1. The Chief Priests & Experts in the Law Plot against Jesus (14:1-2)

2. A Woman Anoints Jesus (14:3-9)

3. Judas’ Conspiracy with the Chief Priests (14:10-11)

4. The Passover Meal (14:12-26)

5. Gethsemane: Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial (14:27-31)

B. Passion Proper (14:32-15:47)

1. Gethsemane: Jesus Prays and Disciples Sleep (14:32-42)

2. Jesus’ Betrayal and Arrest (14:43-52)

3. The Sanhedrin Condemns Jesus (14:53-65)

4. Peter’s Three Denials (14:66-72)

4. The Sanhedrin Hands Him over to Pilate (15:1-5)

5. Barabbas Released, Jesus Handed over To Be Crucified (15:6-15)

6. Jesus Is Mocked by Soldiers (15:16-20)

7. Jesus Is Crucified (15:21-32)

8. Jesus Dies (15:33-41)

9. Jesus Is Buried (15:42-47)

C. Jesus Is Raised: Victory (16:1-8)

D. Note: The Authenticity of the Longer Ending of Mark (16:9-20)

¹ Cf. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 10-12.

² Lane, Mark, 22-23.

³ Cf. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 190-94.

⁴ Lane, Mark, 24.

A' The Tomb (14:53--16:20)

Some Broad Observations
on the Chiastic Structure

1. The Wilderness and the Tomb are linked by continunity

2. Galilee and Jerusalem are linked by contrast

3. The Way is the center part and key to the entire Gospel

Introduction

I recently went to a Larry Crabb seminar where he talked about dealing with emotional problems and how to cope in an evil world. He talked about ministering to other people instead of manipulating them to meet our needs. He had lots of good things to say, and since that seminar, those topics have been on my mind a lot.

I also know that one of the things my Dad has been stressing in his teaching is how our goal is not just to be happy, well-adjusted Christians. We are to be that way so we will be able to minister to others.

As I was reading John 13, I realized that this chapter has a lot to say about that subject. So today we are going to work through John 13: and part of chapter 14: to see what principles we can learn about servanthood.

We might divide our passage into the following major sections:

I. Christ’s example of service 13:1-5

II. The basis of our service

A. Dealing with the past 13:6-20

B. Dealing with the future 13:33-14:7

Argument

I. Christ's Example of Service

Whenever you read a passage of Sripture, you need to look at the verbs and participles because they often give you an outline for the section and help you understand the main ideas. That is what we are going to follow in this first section.

The key participles are “knowing” and “having loved” in verse 1, “during” in verse 2 and “knowing” in verse 3. And the key verbs are “He rose” and “He laid aside” and “He girded” in verse 4.

First let us look at the four participles. Three of them are causal participles which means they show us the cause or reason that Christ did what He did. So we could translate these as, “because He knew, …” “because He loved them …” etc.

A. The Reasons

1. Because He knew he was going to the Father

Notice first that it says in 13:1 “Knowing that His hour had come.” If you were to read the first twelve chapters, you would continually see that John says, “His hour had not yet come” (2:4; 7:30; 8:20). But here we are on the eve of the crucifixion. Christ was about to be crucified and He knew it. That is a very important point because this whole event needs to be seen with that in mind. We see that Christ was not having a pity party and upset about what was going to happen to him.

Principle: No matter how bad things are going for us, we have no excuse for not serving others.

Sometimes we feel we can’t take on anybody else’s trouble because we are overwhelmed with our own trouble.

Don’t we often think that somehow others ought to help us because our life is so bad at the moment. After all we deserve it… Maybe we are broke. Maybe we are sick. You pick the problem, but what happens is we get our eyes on ourselves and on our problems and we don’t even see the needs of others, nor are we in the right frame of mind to help others even if their needs were made known to us.

The problem is we have a natural tendency to be selfish and we need to be selfless.

Another interesting thing to notice is, if you read the whole NT you will not find any reference to Christ laughing or smiling. But you do see Him crying and sorrowful. All references to laughing say something like, “Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25).

I’m not trying to be a killjoy, but what this tells me is living in a fallen world is not very pleasant. We see the pain and rejection that Jesus, Paul and others faced, but we also see how they operated in spite of it. So we need to know what to expect in this life and not be surprised by it and most of all, live above it.

What is the reason Christ was not feeling sorry for himself?

Notice what the verse says. What did He know? He knew it was time for Him to depart out of this world and go back to the Father. Notice what the verse doesn’t say. It doesn’t say, “Knowing that He was about to die …”

I’m sure Christ knew He was about to suffer a horrible death, but we see that His focus is not on the bad aspect of departing the world — the pain and suffering. It is on the good part. He is going to be with the Father again. That is the emphasis of the phrase “to the Father.” That is what Christ is thinking about.

It helped him face death and not be overwhelmed by it.

2. Because He loved them completely

It also says in verse 1, “having loved them to the end.” This could mean he loved them until the end, but the Greek word for “end” could also mean “completely” and so this probably should be better translated, “He loved them completely.”

What Christ is about to do is the result of His love. And this shows us that love is one motivation for service.

3. He lived above circumstances

The word “during” in verse 2 is the next participle but it is not causal. It shows the time of the event.

There were two things going on at that time:

• The first thing was the supper, and I’m going to discuss that when we get to verse 4.
• The second thing is the betrayal. What we see is that Judas already planned to betray Christ. Christ knew it but it did not stop Him from serving them.

Principle: The presence of evil did not hinder love.

This evil was directed at Christ, but we see that He did not react to Judas. He continued with His attitude and actions of love and service.

Our reaction to evil in the world and evil that is done to us is what counts. We cannot use our environment as an excuse for our problems. If we were abused by our parents, if we had a weak father and a dominant mother, these things do not excuse the way we are. We are the way we are because we reacted to our environment badly.

We see Christ lived above circumstances. He acted rightly.

Verse 3 continues to tell us why Christ was able to live above circumstances.

4. Because He knew who He was

First, it says “knowing …” I think this is significant because how often do we know something but don’t act on it. Intellectually we know it is true, but we don’t really believe it. Either we think we are special and it doesn’t apply, or we just refuse to change.

Christ knew something, and He believed it and acted upon it. Verse 4 goes with verse 3 and it says, “Knowing ________ he did _________.” His knowledge was the basis of His actions.

What did He know?

( a) He knew “that the Father had given all things into His hands.”

Eph. 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

Heb. 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.

Christ counted on something that hadn’t actually taken place yet. He was looking to the future. And He acted accordingly. Satan was still out and about causing problems, but we don’t see Jesus saying, “Hey, God, I thought you said you would take care of that.” He knew God had promised to take care of it and would when He thought the time was right. If you will remember, even the Son of Man does not know the exact time that God will bring this world to an end.

He knew He had to live on earth and face tough times for a little while longer. But even though circumstances weren’t exactly in His favor, He acted like they were. When I use the word “acted,” I don’t mean He pretended like they were. I mean His actions showed He believed they were. He knew what the Father had said and He wasn’t worried.

(b) He knew “that He had come forth from God and was going back to God.”

Christ had no identity crisis. He was not dependent on the opinions of others for His self identity. This gave Him the freedom to serve others.

That is why the disciples wouldn’t wash each other’s feet. They were afraid of what others would think. Their self-image was formed by others’ opinions.

All the new books about having a good self-image have probably over-emphasized the topic, but it really is important to have a good one. But the most important thing is to have a Biblical self-image. This means you know you are secure and valuable because God loves you, not because others like you or think highly of you.

So now we have looked at the participles and seen the reasons Christ was able to serve the disciples. Next we get to the regular verbs. Now we see the action.

B. The Actions

1. He rose from supper

The phrases “during supper” in verse 2 and “rose from supper” in verse 4 are significant because normally foot washing was the first thing done when one entered the tent or house. You’ve probably already heard that people just threw their garbage and other worse things out into the street. So feet covered only by sandals got pretty dirty. In this case, there were no servants present, and we see that they were all the way into the meal, and no one had done this service for the others. Why?

(a) I think this shows that Jesus waited for the disciples to do it first. When it was obvious that no one was, then He took the servant’s job. I’m sure He didn’t do it with the attitude, “Oh well, since nobody else will do it I guess I will…” I’m sure He did it gladly. He just wanted the others to have a chance.

(b) I’m sure the disciples were too proud. We know they were concerned about their place in heaven, and probably concerned about who got to sit next to Jesus at the dinner table. They certainly were not going to be humiliated by doing a servant’s job and wash everyone else’s feet.

2. He laid aside His garments

In contrast to the disciples, we have Jesus’ attitude. He laid aside His garments and that is symbolic of Him laying aside His position. What is the ultimate thing that Christ laid aside. Nowhere is it stated better than in Phil. 2:5-8.

2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Some translations say Christ did not hold on to His equality or cling to His rights as God. But they are missing the point here. Christ never gave up His equality with God. Christ was in essence and being equal with God, but He did not want to become functionally equal to God. He subordinated Himself to the will of God the Father.

The disciples were also in essence, equal to one another, but they were unwilling to become functionally inferior. They instead wanted to steal the position of superiority from the others. For instance, compare:

Matt 20:20-22 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him.

21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left.” 22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.”

Mark 9:33-34 And they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.

Luke 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.

So we see their basic attitude, and we see Christ’s attitude of servanthood.

3. He girded Himself about

He continues with the clothing symbolism. The imagery in the phrase, “He girded Himself about” is that of putting on the servant’s apron, adopting a servant’s role and performing a servant’s task.

Although He was superior to them, He laid aside His rightful position and took up the servant’s position.

So, we see that Jesus has given them an example of service and now He must teach them some things that are necessary to know and do before they can follow His example and serve others.

II. The Basis of Service

In the first section He teaches them about being in fellowship with Him. Then there is a break while He sends Judas out to do his evil mission and then, in the second section, He tells them of His departure and gives them hope for the future when they will join Him in heaven.

We will concentrate on the first and last section.

We need to understand that the next two sections are essential to having the servant’s heart and the ability to serve. The first section shows that we need to deal with our past — we need to be cleansed. The second section tells how we deal with the future. When these two areas are settled in our mind, that frees us up to serve others.

Read verses 6-11.

A. Having a Cean Heart¹ — Dealing Wth the Pst

How are we cleansed?

What does this act of washing the feet signify?

From the Greek text we see that two Greek words are used for washing. Verse 10 makes that clear in the NASB and NIV but the KJV translated both as wash. One word means to bathe (louw) and the other means to wash (niptw). By way of correlation there are two spiritual washings:

First is the bath of regeneration. This happens when we are saved. When we come to the recognition that we are sinners with no hope of ever earning God’s approval, and we then trust in Christ’s death and resurrection. Then we are welcomed into the family of God. Then we become Christians.

The second spiritual washing is performed when we confess our sins like in 1 John 1:9.

This is what the foot washing symbolizes. That is why Christ says the one who has bathed (is saved) needs only to wash his feet (confess his sins).

Notice also that He says, “and you are clean, but not all of you.” John explains this in verse 11. Judas had never had a bath. He did not believe in Christ.

Christ then sits down and explains what He has just done. Read verses 12-17.

How does this relate to us?

The most obvious application is that we are to serve others… 13:15 plainly says that Christ did it as an example for us to follow.

I think this also shows us how we are to relate to our world. In spite of our personal problems, in spite of the evil around us and the evil that has been done to us, we still have the responsibility to act correctly and minister to others. Too often we react wrongly—we have anger or bitterness at those who have wronged us. We try to manipulate those around us so that we don’t get hurt again. We need to confess our wrong reactions, and then take the right course of action.

I have learned over the past few months that this is one of the keys to effective counseling. The process is like this:

The first step is helping a person uncover the past so they can see how they were mistreated. Not so they can be mad at the one who mistreated them, but so they can do the second step.

The second step is helping the person understand how they reacted wrongly to the mistreatment or abuse.

The third step is bringing the person to the point where they can confess their wrong reaction.

Then with a clean slate, they can move on with their life and learn how to correctly handle these bad memories and learn how to cope with life.

So confession is a very important step. Let’s talk about confession for a minute.

To confess our sin means to say the same thing about our condition that God does. We must agree with God that it is wrong and that there is no way for self-justification.

First we must believe that there is no sin too big for God to forgive. Erwin Lutzer says, “We may even believe that it is a mark of humility to think that our sins are greater than God’s grace. But if we doubt God’s ability to forgive, that’s pride and unbelief, not humility.”

Whenever we think we have sinned too greatly to be forgiven, we are doubting the foresight of God. We are assuming that He did not consider the particularly scandalous sins that we would commit.

Second we must believe that God is faithful and will keep His promise to forgive.

What is the purpose of cleansing?

To have fellowship with God.

Verse 8 shows that without confession we have no fellowship with God. Without God we are left to our own resources. Jeremiah 2:13 says we hew for ourselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Those broken cisterns are our own methods of handling life — being shy, or outgoing, an alcoholic or addict, etc. But the cisterns are broken. We can’t make it on our own.

What are some reasons why Christians don’t confess and consequently live out of fellowship with Christ?

Immaturity — They have the attitude, “I’m going to mess up anyway.” So they let the sins pile up. Some don’t realize the need to confess regularly. Some call it “keeping short accounts with God.” Don’t wait until you have a whole bunch of sins saved up like going to consumer credit…

E.g. In the real estate business I deal a lot with people who have credit problems. One common thing people do is get behind on several accounts and so they do a debt consolidation with the consumer credit people.

Unbelief — They don’t believe God will really forgive and forget. This person might say, “I’ve committed the same sin so many times that I feel embarrassed to come to God about the same matter.”

Ignorance — “I’ll get back in fellowship when I’m sure I will be able to hold out.” What’s wrong with this is that it is not “we” who hold out. God is the one who removes the sin. We just keep confessing and keep trying.

In Romans 6-8 we see something that sheds some light on the subject. After discussing in chapter 5 how we are justified by faith because of Christ’s work on the cross, Paul asks in chapter 6 if we should sin that grace might increase. The obvious answer is no. Then in chapter 7 he tells us how he struggles to do the right thing and not sin, but he can’t control himself.

Notice the most predominant word in chapter 7, especially 7:15-25. It is the word “I.” That tells me that Paul couldn’t do it on his own. He could not control his old nature.

Notice the topic of chapter 8 and the most predominant word in 8. The topic is power over sin and victorious living. The word “I” is only found once in vs. 18 where Paul says he considers the suffering of this world nothing in comparison to the glory to be revealed, but the word Spirit appears a number of times. What we see is “I” can’t do it in chapter 7 but the Spirit can do it in chapter 8.

So don’t wait to confess when you think you will be able to overcome the sin.

Deception — “I want to enjoy the world first before I settle down to serious commitment to Christ.” Deception is a strong word but it fits. When we think this, we have swallowed the lie of Satan that says life will be better without God.

Haven’t you all said these things to yourself at one time or another? I know I have.

How hard is it to be cleansed? It is very hard. No, it is not hard for God, it is hard for us because it takes humility.

Let’s go back to the foot washing example. Some may be wondering if we are supposed to wash each other’s feet in our day. I don’t think so. That was a cultural thing and was necessary before you reclined at the table and stuck your dirty feet under someone else’s nose. I think the point of 13:15 is that we are to serve others.

But some people do believe we are supposed to do this in the church today and so they hold foot washing ceremonies in the church a few times a year. But do you know what they do?

Before the ceremony everyone does just like you and I would do. Before they come to church they wash their own feet, trim and clean out their toenails. Why? It’s one thing to have someone wash your clean feet, but quite another to have someone wash your dirty feet! It is humiliating.

I think we can carry this analogy a little further and correlate it to our spiritual washing.

It is humiliating to come to God and confess our sins. It is a blow to our pride. We have a tendency to want to clean up our act before we ever come to Him and confess. As if He will be more apt to forgive us and accept us if we are working on the problem ourselves.

That is why Christians try to live life on their own without God’s help. They are too proud.

In verse, 16 Jesus says, “a slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.” Jesus seems to needlessly state the obvious, but the disciples were in fact acting like they were the important ones.

Verse 17 reminds us that it is not enough to know these facts — to know that we are to be servants, etc. The goal is that we put our knowledge into practice.

The next section deals with Judas and I want to skip it and move to 13:33.

B. Having a Calm Heart² — Dealing With the Future (13:33-14:7)

Jesus has just given them an example of service, and explained the importance of dealing with the past and being in fellowship with Him.

Now Jesus deals with something else that is foundational for service—hope for the future.

He begins by telling them that He has a new commandment for them. The Greek word means “way of life.” It is not a law that can be legalistically followed. It is an attitude. It is an attitude of love for one another. Again, we could go back to the terms—ministry, instead of manipulation.

Verse 35 says, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” This new way of life will set us apart from the rest of the world, because man’s natural tendency is to love himself and try to manipulate and control his world to meet his own needs.

Notice Peter’s response: verses 36-37. He would rather die than live without Christ. Imagine living with the perfect human being. The thought of losing Him would incapacitate them.

So Jesus reassures them of His return. He gives them a hope for the future. He gives them a calm heart. I think it shows that we can’t concentrate on obeying this “new commandment” of ministering to others until our own fears are relieved, until we are sure of the future.

In John 14:1 Jesus says, “Let not your heart be troubled.” And Christ repeats that in vs. 27. That tells me that what is said in 14: will tell us how to do that.

How does Christ reassure them? He tells them they are going to heaven in 13:36-14:7. It says they will be reunited with Christ, and that is what heaven is all about.

How does knowing this help us now while we are here on earth?

I think the best way to describe that is by way of example of an Air Force academy survival/POW camp. I can make it because it is only 48 hours. It’s not going to be fun, but I can take it because…

Conclusion

Erwin Lutzer writes, “Many people live their lives crucified between two thieves—the regrets of yesterday and the anxieties of tomorrow.”

I think Christ showed them how to wipe out the regrets of yesterday. They were to confess their sins. This would put them in fellowship with Him and give them His power to handle life.

He also relieved them of their anxiety for the future by telling them that He was preparing a place for them and would return for them. This would make life more bearable because they knew it wouldn’t last forever and it gave them something better to look forward to.

I believe these verses tell us how to cope with the trouble in our lives. When we are depressed about life and overwhelmed by something, we need to recognize the sinfulness of our response and confess it. We need to get back in fellowship with Christ. Put Him in control.

We then need to remember that the future holds permanent deliverance and we are only facing these trials for a little while. We need to have the attitude of Paul in Rom 8:18.

And remember the setting is a foot washing. It is a setting of service. All this is not only for our own personal comfort. The ultimate goal is that it will free us up to serve others.

1 This outline was adapted from How to Have a Whole Heart in a Broken World, Erwin Lutzer. Pp. 11-26

2 Lutzer pp. 27-39

Introduction

The doctrine of justification as explained in Romans 1-5 is explained as the foundation for the doctrine of sanctification in Romans 6-8. The first occurrence of the word “I” (ejgw) in the book of Romans is in ch. 7. Since in the Greek language no first-person subject need be stated apart from the verb, Paul’s use of “I” eight times is for emphasis. But what is he emphasizing in vv. 7-25? When a problem abounds, theological discussion superabounds. The question of the identification of the “I” is one that has been discussed for many, many years.

The objectives of this article are threefold: (1) to identify the emphatic “I” in the passage, (2) to show the relevance of its identification to the doctrine of sanctification, (3) and to give application based on the relevance of its identification.

The Identification of the “I”

In 7:1-6 through principle and illustration, Paul taught the Roman Christians that they, as believers, were no longer under the authority of the Law of Moses. Just as they were dead to the principle of sin, as taught in Romans 6, they were also dead to the authority of the Old Testament Law over them. Since the believer is said to be dead to sin and dead to the Law a logical question is therefore asked and answered by Paul in v. 7-13. Paul asks in 7:7, 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.” The Law is not sin; it simply revealed sin. On the contrary, the Law is holy (v. 12) and spiritual (v. 14) and useful if used lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). It made known what otherwise Paul “would not have come to know,” that is, sin. In asking the question in v. 7 Paul uses the first person plural: “What shall we say then?” and in answering he uses the first person singular: “I would not have come to know . . . I would not have known. . .” “It is significant that, beginning with verse 7 and continuing through this chapter, the Apostle Paul turned to the first person singular . . . Up to this point he had used the third person, the second person, and even the first person plural.”¹ Why the switch in number continuing through v. 13? And even more, why the switch in tenses (past to present) from vv. 7-13 to vv. 14-25? The second question will be dealt with later. As for the first, Cranfield lists six possibilities for explanation in these verses:

(1) that the passage is strictly autobiographical;
(2) that Paul is using the first person singular to depict the experience of the typical Jewish individual;
(3) that he is speaking in the name of Adam;
(4) that he is presenting the experience of the Jewish people as a whole;
(5) that he speaks in the name of mankind as a whole;
(6) that Paul is using the first person singular in a generalizing way without intending a specific reference to any particular individual or clearly defined group, in order to depict vividly the situation of man in the absence of the law and in its presence.²

Lambrecht see this section (as well as this whole chapter) as autobiographical of Paul before his conversion.³ Since sanctification in the Christian life is the context of Romans 6-8, and not the autobiography of Paul, the first option, as well as the second, may be eliminated logically. For how could Paul (in v. 9) “. . . conceivably say either of himself or of any other Jew who had been circumcised on the eighth day . . . [‘And I (ejgw—emphatic) was once alive apart from the Law’].”⁴ Granted the emphatic nature of the “I” suggests an autobiographical approach, but it does not require that Paul speaks of the experience as his alone. The tenor of the passage is general in nature, and while options 3-4 are possible, they are inherent in option 5 which seems to fit the general context best. Option 3 is good (as inherent in option 5) in that it uses Adam as a representative of the experience of the human race, and yet it should not be limited strictly to Adam’s experience. Lambrecht says that

Romans 5:12 and 19 mentioned the invasion of sin, and it is precisely these verses which militate against the supposition that sin was already present in Adam before the Fall. This supposition, according to 7:7-12, would be necessary if the “I” of Romans 7 were Adam.⁵

While Lambrecht does not see the passage as referring to Adam (or especially to Adam as a representative), but only to Paul, he also does not see the passage as using Paul as a illustration.

Commentators have tried to see the “I” as representing every human being. . . Text and context, however, do not seem to allow such a broad interpretation. With the “I” Paul must have had in mind a person who belongs to the Jewish people. . . The specific items and allusions in this epistle clearly concern law and Jewish matters and problems. This overall context itself makes it hardly conceivable that Paul was writing in a ‘timeless’ manner and was pointing to universal human experiences and conditions.”⁶

This is simply not a clear fact in “this epistle” of Romans. It was written to not only Jews, but also to Gentiles, as the first two chapters allude. Chapter 5 has universal implications, so why can not ch. 7? Lambrecht concedes that the pattern of sin’s deception in Romans 7 mirrors that of Adam’s fall: “Such an agreement is hardly accidental. While composing Romans 7:11 Paul must have had the story of the Fall in mind. . . The literary impact of Genesis 2-3 upon Romans 5 and 7 can hardly be denied.”⁷ If he concedes such, then why is it so difficult to concede that Paul could be using the pattern of Adam’s experience, illustrated by Paul’s own experience, to show the general experience of all? The experience of ch. 7 cannot be simply a Jewish experience, because if, as Lambrecht says, Genesis 2-3’s pattern is present, why would Paul use Genesis’ pattern of a non-Jewish Adam in a so-called strictly Jewish context? It makes more sense that Paul used Genesis’ pattern to show the general way sin works as a deception and how it uses the good law for evil purposes, and to illustrate that general pattern in the life of Paul, who happened to be a Jew.

Regarding option 5, if Cranfield means, assuming my modifications, “that he [Paul] speaks [of his own experience] in the name of mankind as a whole” I agree that this is the meaning of this section and not strictly option 6. This seems to be Cranfield’s position as he suggests “. . . that the choice should be between (3) and (6), or perhaps a modification of the latter.”⁸ This modification would include Paul as the experience which illustrates the general principle (this is essentially my qualified option 5). It is legitimate to speak generally of the Christian life by speaking of one’s self specifically, for what is specifically true for one must also be generally true, by principle, for all (cf. 5:12-21). This does not mean that all specifically covet like Paul did in v. 7, but the principle of coming to know sin, as Paul specifically did in coveting, is generally true of all people in relation to the Law regardless of the commandment. Gundry even gets very explicit regarding the nature of Paul’s coveting, saying that it was a sexual desire that awakened at puberty;⁹ this is hardly able to be confirmed. Paul simply uses a specific personal illustration to show a general principle. This is the same thing he did in the verses prior to this (vv. 1-6). Paul employed a specific illustration of marriage to show a general principle regarding being dead to the Law. Cranfield’s “modification” seems to concur that these verses are:

. . . an example of the general use of the first person singular; but at the same time we shall probably be right to assume that his choice of this form of speech is, in the present case, due not merely to a desire for rhetorical vividness but also to his deep sense of personal involvement, his consciousness that in drawing out the general truth he is disclosing the truth about himself (emphasis mine).¹⁰

Bruce, as well, sees this section as autobiographical and typical:

In considering how far the ‘I’ of verses 7-13 (and of verses 14-25) is strictly autobiographical or how far Paul is relating his personal experience, we must bear in mind that there is no evidence that Paul, before his conversion, suffered from an uneasy conscience. Up to the moment when the risen Lord appeared to him on the Damascus road, he was confident that his persecution of the church was an acceptable service to God. In so far as the ‘I’ is autobiographical, “here Paul’s autobiography is the biography of Everyman.”¹¹

Paul’s use of “I” in v. 9 follows this general line of interpretation: And I (emphatic) was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died. Cranfield states that the emphatic “I” refers not to Paul’s experience here, but “. . . Paul is using the first person in a general sense, and refers to man’s situation before the giving of the law, along with which Paul probably has in mind the state of man pictured in Gen. 1.28ff.”¹² The problem with this is inconsistency. Why would Paul use “I” emphatically in vv. 9-10 to not refer to himself (which Cranfield himself assumes not to be true in the previous quote from pp. 343-44), and then use “I” again in vv. 14-25 to refer to himself? It is more logical and consistent that not only, as we shall see, is Paul using his own experience through the emphatic “I” to prove a universal truth in vv. 14-25, but he is also doing the same through the emphatic “I” in vv. 7-13. With this Bruce agrees:

Paul did not think of his own experience as unique; the account he gives here is in a greater or lesser degree of the human race. A parallel can be traced between 7:13-8:2 and the outline of human history in 5:12-21; in both passages one can distinguish three phrases: (a) before the law; (b) under the law; (c) set free from the law in Christ.¹³

What then, is Paul’s experience in v. 9 of being “alive apart from the Law”? Simply what he said before in v. 7, that he did not know what sin was except through the Law. Then (as in v. 9) “when the commandment came, sin became alive,” that is, he knew that coveting was undoubtedly sin against God.

Lambrecht sees this section as an unconverted Jewish Paul partly because of the absence of the mention of the Spirit in contrast to the similar struggle in Galatians 5:15-18 where the Spirit is present. Lambrecht assumes that since the Spirit is not mentioned, He is not present: “It must be added that one does not see where. . . the tragic event of 7:7-11 could be placed in the life of a Christian.”¹⁴ On the contrary, the similarity of the Galatians passage does not negate the “I” in Romans 7 from being a Christian simply because the Spirit is not mentioned, rather, it reinforces the purpose of Romans 7. Without the aid of the Spirit the believer is powerless to appropriate the freedom from sin revealed in ch. 6. Chapter 7 shows the need for ch. 8 which is the means by which ch. 6 is applied. Vv. 7-13 are not necessarily discussing the life of a believer, but rather the life of all men generally from the perspective of a Jewish believer, Paul.

Simply stated, in vv. 7-13 Paul uses a specific personal illustration to demonstrate a general principle (as he had done in vv. 1-6—though not personal, it was specific). Just as in vv. 7-13 Paul is the icon for all of mankind (not just before the Law, but after it, as Paul includes himself), so in vv. 14-25 he is the icon for all Christians. Vv. 7-13 answer the question, “Is the Law sin?” with a resounding “No!” The Law revealed sin as sin, and sin used the Law, which is good, for its own evil purposes of making man want to do the evil the Law forbids. Vv. 14-25 then deals with one who would want to blame the Law for sin, for Paul shows that it is the flesh that houses the sin principle, and that even a Christian, apart from the Law and dead to sin, still will struggle with the flesh as a slave to sin.

As in vv. 7-13 there are a number of interpretations for Paul’s use of the emphatic “I” in vv. 14-25. This section is, again, considered separately because of the obvious change in tenses from past (vv. 7-13) to present (vv. 14-25). Why the change? And who is the “I” in these verses? Cranfield lists the options for the identification of the “I”:

(1) that it is autobiographical, the reference being to Paul’s present experience as a Christian;
(2) that it is autobiographical, the reference being to his past experience (before conversion) as seen by him at the time referred to;
(3) that it is autobiographical, the reference being to his pre-conversion past but as seen by him now in the light of his Christian faith;
(4) that it presents the experience of the non-Christian Jew, as seen by himself;
(5) that it presents the experience of the non-Christian Jew, as seen through Christian eyes;
(6) that it presents the experience of the Christian who is living at a level of the Christian life which can be left behind, who is still trying to fight the battle in his own strength;
(7) that it presents the experience of the Christians generally, including the very best and most mature.¹⁵

The second option is held by Lambrecht, who writes: “. . . within the ‘I’, besides the will to do the good, there is also the consciousness of this wretched condition. . .”¹⁶ This second option, as well as the fourth, contradict Paul’s contentedness as a Pharisee¹⁷ and the Jews’ arrogant contentment with their own righteousness in the time of Christ and the Apostles¹⁸ (which Paul has already clearly revealed in ch. 2). There is no knowledge of wretchedness in the Jews; there was only self-righteousness. Also against the second option (as well as the third option, discussed next) is the use of the present tense in vv. 14-25.

The third option (autobiographical, referring to his pre-conversion past but seen in the light of his Christian faith) is held by G. Campbell Morgan who writes, “While thus the apostle wrote the words which reveal the agony of his past condition, he wrote them from his present sense of victory and deliverance, and so parenthetically answered his question, in the words, ‘I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord.’”¹⁹ Newell quotes Darby, who holds this view (which is an odd support, because Newell holds option 6):

Romans Seven is not the present experience of anyone, but a delivered person describing the state of an undelivered one. A man in a morass does not quietly describe how a man sinks into it, because he fears to sink and stay there. The end of Romans Seven is a man out of the morass showing in peace the principle and manner in which one sinks in it.²⁰

The problem with both Morgan and Darby’s position is that it does not explain why, after the victory statement of v. 24, Paul immediately retorts with the same “agony” position he had before the “victory” statement (this is a problem as well for options 2-6). Some say that this verse must be misplaced, even though there is absolutely no textual evidence to indicate so, and even though “so then” followed by “on the one hand . . . but on the other” seems to indicate a conclusion for the chapter. Cranfield is helpful:

It is hardly surprising that many of those who have seen in v. 24 the cry of an unconverted man . . . have felt this sentence to be an embarrassment, since, coming after the thanksgiving, it appears to imply that the conditions of the speaker after his deliverance is exactly the same as it was before it. . . an exegesis which rests on a re-arrangement of sentences . . . when there is not the slightest suggestion of support in the textual tradition for either procedure, is exceedingly hazardous, and, when sense can be made of the text as it stands, has little claim to be regarded as responsible . . . the Christian, so long as he remains in this present life, remains in a real sense a slave of sin, since he still has a fallen nature.²¹

Also against this option (as well as the second, as mentioned before), is the use of the present tense in vv. 14-25.

. . . the use of the present tense is here sustained too consistently and for too long and contrasts too strongly with the past tenses characteristic of vv. 7-13 to be at all plausibly explained as an example of the present used for the sake of vividness in describing past events which are vividly remembered. Moreover, v. 24 would be highly melodramatic, if it were not a cry for deliverance from present distress.²²

The sixth option (the Christian who is living at a level which can be left behind, who is still trying to fight the battle in his own strength) is held by Bruce:

Here is a picture of life under the law, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, portrayed form the perspective of one who had now experienced the liberating power of life in the Spirit. . . M. Goguel may be right in assigning Paul’s personal experience of this inner conflict to the period immediately following his conversion. But, whatever may be said about this [here is where Bruce shoots himself in the foot], the man who, even at the height of his apostolic career, made it his daily business to discipline himself so as not to be disqualified in the spiritual contest, the man who pressed on to the goal of God’s upward calling in Christ Jesus, knew that the ‘immortal garland’ was to be run for ‘not without dust and heat’.²³

Paul struggled at the end of his career, not with a lack of information to appropriate the Spirit’s power, but with his flesh, as here in Romans 7. Newell also holds the same view as Bruce:

Mark also that while the indwelling Holy Spirit is the Christian’s sole power against the flesh, He is not known in this struggle; but it is Paul himself against the flesh—with the Law prescribing a holy walk, but furnishing no power whatever for it.

Even the fact of deliverance through Christ from the Law, is most evidently not known during this conflict with the flesh. (This fact itself marks the conflict as one that preceded the revelation to the apostle of his being dead to the Law, not under Law: for such knowledge would have made the struggle impossible.)

Therefore this conflict of Paul’s, instead of being an example to you, is a warning to you to keep out of it my means of God’s plain words that you are not under law but under grace.²⁴

It is true that the conflict is here between Paul and his flesh, but this does not necessarily negate the presence of, much less the knowledge of, the Holy Spirit. Paul’s cry of victory is in the midst of his struggle (cf. vv. 24-25). It is not merely a knowledge (through “plain words”) of one’s freedom from sin and Law that gives spiritual victory any more than it is a knowledge of the Law of God that gives justification. Rather, on both counts the revelation gives condemnation, because man, in his own power, is unable to justify himself (ch. 3) or to sanctify himself (ch. 7) simply on the basis of revelation. The point is not the Holy Spirit’s absence but man’s impotence apart from the implementation of the Holy Spirit’s power.

“Augustine at one time understood Paul to be speaking in the name of the unregenerate man . . . but later he retracted his earlier view . . . and maintained that Paul was speaking in his own name as a Christian.”²⁵ I believe Augustine was right. A combination of the first option (autobiographical, of Paul’s present Christian) and the seventh (general experience of Christians, including the most mature) is quite good and matches the previously defended context (in vv. 7-13). In fact, the word “I” (ejgw) is used exclusively to denote an emphasis, in different contexts, of the literal first person singular²⁶ (hence, the term “personal” pronoun). While not holding the general view, Lambrecht concedes that the passage must be autobiographical:

There is also the style itself. In the final analysis, even the highly passionate, personal style with the “I” appears to plead for a strong autobiographical dimension of the passage. . . it cannot be denied that in this pericope Paul speaks in a vivid, emotional and pathetic manner. Personal experience is presumably to a large extent responsible for this kind of speech.²⁷

The Relevance of Paul’s “I” to Sanctification

The context of Romans 6-8 is something often forgotten. Paul’s purpose in this section is to show the practical outworking for the Christian of the justification described in ch. 1-5. It is taking Romans 7 out of its intended broad sanctification context to say, as Hoekema has, “. . . that the biblical description of the normal Christian life is found, not in Romans 7:14-25, but in Romans 6 and 8.”²⁸ Lambrecht, in an attempt to see Romans 7 as an unbelieving Paul, is at least honest in his attempt to solve this inconsistency:

One can ask why Paul in this section of his letter, devoted to the justified life of the Christian (chapters 5-8), speaks at such length of this pre-Christian, unregenerate situation, a condition of death. Our answer must refer to what has already been underlined: only through and after justification Paul did duly realize his pre-Christian state of estrangement and misery. . . Through the negative picture of the Jew before and without Christ he evidently wants to promote the appreciation of Christian existence and, at the same time, to encourage a life which corresponds to the gift of the Spirit. The past, being remembered, is per se not really past but present. Only after deliverance do we understand what it was to be captive. Nonetheless, at the same time, it is only against that negative background that we are able to appreciate fully what it means to be free.²⁹

This is a true principle, but Romans 7 does not require it to be true in itself. Paul also wrote chapters 1-5 from a converted perspective, and they alone are more than sufficient to give the “appreciation” Lambrecht says ch. 7 is meant to give. Also if ch. 7 is to only “encourage” the Jew, what is the relevancy for the Roman Gentile readers?

It is better understood another way. The placing of Romans 7 after Romans 6 is crucial for its interpretation and application. Romans 6 teaches that a believer is free from the power of sin, yet Romans 7 shows that the presence of sin seems to still be very much alive! If ch. 7 had come before ch. 6 we might then have concluded, as many have anyway, that ch. 7 is referring to the life of someone under the law and unsaved, struggling with a power that he is not free from (Romans 6 would then provide the answer). But since the order is as it is there must be another reason for the seeming inconsistency on Paul’s part, especially if he is referring to himself as the epitome of all believers. The reason is this: just as the unbeliever could potentially earn salvation through his own efforts in ch. 3 (but he does not because he is a sinner), so the believer is said to be able to potentially “earn” sanctification through his own efforts in ch. 6 (but he does not, even though he is free from the power of sin). Just as in ch. 1-4 Paul demonstrated that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, so in ch. 7 Paul shows the need for that same grace in sanctification, because while the believer is free from the power of sin (ch. 6), he still struggles with the presence of sin (ch. 7). God’s provisional grace is still necessary, not only for holy standing, but also for holy living, because man in his own power is powerless to gain either. Having described in Romans 6 the new identification the believer has in Jesus Christ, no longer being in Adam (the point of 5:12-21), Paul wrote, beginning in ch. 7, of the Christian’s relationship to the Law—essentially, that he is dead to it. Yet simply being identified with Christ and dead to the Law, and even having a knowledge of such, does not give the believer victory in the Christian life. There still is an intense struggle within the believer which Paul illustrates personally in 7:15-25. In fact, knowing what ch. 6— 7:14 teaches only serves to frustrate the believer, because he, in his own strength, cannot apply the liberating truth found therein.

The sanctification tension, and therefore relevancy, is described most vividly in vv. 14-25 and is aptly put by Paul in vv. 15 and 19: For that which 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. . . For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. His sincere desire is to do what is right, but he does not; in fact he does outright what he hates! “Paul has within him an independent witness, the voice of conscious, which, by condemning his failure to keep the law, bears testimony to the perfection of the law.”³⁰ “The fact that there is such a conflict in the Christian proves that there is within him that which acknowledges the goodness and rightness of the law.”³¹

Paul’s understanding of the source of this struggle is thus stated in vv. 17 and 20: So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. . . But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. “This does not mean Paul was avoiding personal responsibility for his actions; he was speaking of the conflict between his desires and the sin within him.”³² It is “. . . an acknowledgment of the extent to which sin, dwelling in the Christian, usurps control over his life.”³³ The “sin” Paul refers to is literally “the sin,” referring to the same principle of sin he taught as entering the world through Adam in ch. 5 and to which Christians are dead to in ch. 6. He also refers to this, by name, as the “principle,” or “law of sin” in v. 24. This sin is said to “indwell” Paul. This is true not only of Paul, but also of all believers—actually of all people everywhere; this was demonstrated in 5:12-21.

“There is something in humanity, even in regenerate humanity, which objects to God and seeks to be independent of him. This ‘something’ is what Paul calls his ‘flesh.’”³⁴ “This is not literal physical or material flesh, but the principle of sin that expresses itself through one’s mind and body.”³⁵ When Paul writes in v. 18: For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. . . he defines what he means by nothing good dwelling in him as meaning only in his flesh “. . . since in the Christian the Holy Spirit [also] dwells. . .”³⁶ The NIV translates the word “flesh” as “sinful nature.” This “nature” and the flesh must be understood in this context as indicative of the attributes and desires of the pre-conversion man that are still present within him. In that sense, the believer has two natures in that the flesh’s desires are certainly different than that of the “inner man.” Yet in other contexts “nature” must be understood in a different sense—that a believer has a completely new nature, himself being made new. Understanding then the need for both definitions, there understandably may be two coexisting “natures” within the one “new nature” of every Christian. ³⁷

“Paul recognized that even as a believer he had an indwelling principle of sin that once owned him as a slave and that still expressed itself through him to do things he did not want to do and not to do things he desired to do. This is a problem common to all believers.”³⁸ Toussaint writes, “. . . this is what Paul is driving home in Romans 7—there can be no spiritual victory under law. In other words, Romans 7:13-24 portrays more than a conflict; it describes the abject misery and failure of a Christian who attempts to please God under the Mosaic system. He is doomed to defeat.”³⁹ I think it demonstrates more than a Christian attempting to live out what the previous section taught him he is free from (cf. vv. 1-13); it demonstrates the inability to please God under any system but grace.

Romans 7 shows the painful struggle of the Christian. Martin Luther wrote, “I am a sinner, and I feel sin in me, for I have not yet put off the flesh, in which sin dwelleth so long as it liveth. . . Let no man marvel therefore, or be dismayed, when he feeleth in his body this battle . . .”⁴⁰ The Christian cannot live victoriously alone, and Paul describes why that is so, namely, that there are two laws which conflict within him. The conflict is real: I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good (v. 21). The principle is explained that there is, within the Christian who desires to do good, the flesh (cf. v. 18a) that desires to do evil. Herein lies the struggle in sanctification! The complete inability of the Christian to do what he, with all his heart and soul, desires to do! This must be a saved person’s struggle, as Cranfield notes:

The mind which recognizes, and is bound to, God’s law is the mind which is being renewed by God’s Spirit; and the inner man of which Paul speaks is the working of God’s Spirit within the Christian.⁴¹

Newell writes practically:

It is the unwillingness to own this different law, this settled state of enmity, toward God, in our own members, that so terribly bars spiritual blessing and advancement. As long as we think lightly of the fact of the presence with us of the fallen nature, (I speak of Christians) we are far from deliverance. . . There is no strength or power in ourselves against the law of sin which is in our members. God has left us as much dependent on Christ’s work for our deliverance as for our forgiveness!⁴²

Toussaint concurs:

In Romans 7:13-24 there is no mention of faith and consequently there is no reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. Of course defeat is the consequence of such a situation. . . the believer is called upon to be decisive and constant in drawing upon all of the resources of Christ in order to know God’s victory in his day-by-day walk. This is the message of Romans 7:13-25 by implication . . .⁴³

The implication to rely on God is declared clearly in Romans 8, but the purpose for Romans 7, again, as seen in its broad intended sanctification context, is showing the need for the Holy Spirit by showing the ultimate helplessness of the Christian to obey Christ in the power of the flesh. The hopelessness of self-sanctification, it’s solution in Christ, and the summary for the whole of ch. 7 is nowhere better epitomized than in vv. 24-25: Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

This struggle within a Christian is to be understood as normative, and yet, in almost having to defend a Christian perfectionism, Lambrecht disagrees:

In Romans 7 Paul has depicted his pre-Christian, not his Christian situation. We, present-day Christians, cannot agree with the Lutheran simul iustus et peccator (at the same time righteous and sinner). The adage, at least in the way most commentators understand it, is incorrect and, moreover dangerous. The indwelling Spirit will never admit a compromise between righteousness and sin. Christians should not resign themselves to evil as if it were unavoidable.⁴⁴

This resignation was Paul’s point in ch. 6, that Christians are no longer slaves to sin. But does this mean the Spirit will not allow conflict within the believer to show his need of Him? This is the point of ch. 7. Does not Galatians 5 teach that the Spirit not only allows such conflict but also is an active part in it? In a better understanding, Cranfield excels:

The farther men advance in the Christian life, and the more mature their discipleship, the clearer becomes their perception of the heights to which God calls them, and the more painfully sharp their consciousness of the distance between what they ought, and want, to be, and what they are. The assertion that this cry could only come from an unconverted heart, and that the apostle must be expressing not what he feels as he writes but the vividly remembered experience of the unconverted man, is, we believe, totally untrue. . . The man, whose cry this is, is one who, knowing himself to be righteous by faith, desires from the depths of his being to respond to the claims which the gospel makes upon him. It is the very clarity of his understanding of the gospel and the very sincerity of his love to God, which make his pain at this continuing sinfulness so sharp. But be it noted, v. 24, while it is a cry of real and deep anguish, is not at all a cry of despair.⁴⁵

Having already had this sin/death rendered powerless in ch. 6, ch. 7 shows the inability to benefit from this freedom within one’s own strength. Paul’s longing here not is a desire not for the glorification of ch. 8, but for the empowerment revealed in ch. 8, through the Holy Spirit, who enables the believer to utilize the freedom acquired in ch. 6 and to quench the cry for freedom in v. 24. So, the freedom cried for is not just a physical freedom from the body of death, but a practical freedom from having to succumb to the law of sin within the body of death/sin that battles against the mind of the believer’s inner man. This is why, I believe, Paul makes the mind a poignant sanctification theme in 8 (vv. 6-7⁴⁶). This inability of the fleshly mind to obey echoes the same theme of ch. 7. With this interpretation Bruce agrees: “. . . meanwhile [before glorification], when the longed-for deliverance has been obtained through the ‘law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’ (8:2), it serves as a vehicle for the glorifying of God. . .”⁴⁷

Conclusion and Application

This whole chapter so sadly smacks of American Christianity. Self-willed, self-directed arrogance that tries to pull oneself up by the bootstraps characterizes the so-called piety of our nation, as it did the nation Israel in the time of Paul and in the centuries beforehand. Today, even a faith that is so liberating (freedom from sin, freedom from the law, empowerment of the Spirit) can be completely debilitating if attempted to live on one’s own strength. In Numbers 14, when the nation was terrified at the report of the spies, they refused to enter Canaan because of unbelief. Then, after a hearty rebuke of being told they would wander and die in the desert, they attempted to enter the land (i.e. fulfill God’s purpose) without God! Moses made it so clear, “Do not go up, lest you be struck down before your enemies, for the LORD is not among you” (Num. 14:42). When we attempt to fulfill God’s purpose, apart from God’s Holy Spirit, in our own strength, we will utterly fail. Even after the emancipating truth of Romans 6:1-7:13, there is still an intense struggle with sin within the believer which Paul demonstrates in 7:15-25. Just as in ch. 1-4 Paul demonstrated that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, so in ch. 7 Paul shows the need for that same grace in sanctification, because while the believer is free from the power of sin (ch. 6), he still struggles with the presence of sin (ch. 7). God’s provisional grace is shown to be still necessary, not only for holy standing, but also for holy living, because man in his own power is powerless to do either. “Most humbling of all confessions. Renewed, desiring to proceed—we cannot! We are dependent on the Holy Spirit as our only spiritual power, just as on Christ our only righteousness.”⁴⁸

A lesson to learn here, as teachers, would be not to teach the liberating truth of ch. 6:1-7:13 (freedom from sin and Law) without teaching the struggle of ch. 7:14-25 as normative for one who tries to live out the Christian life in his own strength, and without the empowering truth found in relying upon the power of the Holy Spirit, as explained in ch. 8. I believe a fair exposition may be given of ch. 6-7 even if one gives away the “answer” of ch. 8. After all, if sanctification is our goal, it is that “answer” we should always arrive at.

Thanks be to God! Who gave us Romans chapter eight!

1 John Witmer, Bible Knowledge Commentary, 466

2 C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, 1:342

3 Jan S.J Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation, 60, 86, 90

4 Cranfield, 1:343

5 Lambrecht, 63

6 Lambrecht, 80, 63

7 Lambrecht, 82, 63

8 Cranfield, 1:343

9 Robert Horten Gundry, “The Moral Frustration of Paul before His Conversion: Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7-25,” 228-245

10 Cranfield, 1:343-44

11 F. F. Bruce, Romans, 139 (he quotes T. W. Manson)

12 Cranfield, 1:351

13 Bruce, 140-141

14 Lambrecht, 67

15 Cranfield, 1:344

16 Lambrecht, 86

17 Observe Paul’s Pharisaic contentment in Philippians 3:6: “. . . as to the righteousness which is in the Law, [he was] found blameless.”

18 The rich young ruler demonstrates his piety in Mark 10:20: “And he said to Him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.’” The Pharisees’ arrogant ignorance of their own sin in John 9:34 “They answered . . ., ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?’” and Matthew 21:32 Jesus told them, “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax-gatherers and harlots did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him [i.e. and repent].”

19 G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Whole Bible, 464

20 Newell, 271 footnote (admittedly, a secondary source)

21 Cranfield, 1:368, 370

22 Cranfield, 1:344-345

23 Bruce, 143-144

24 Newell, 262

25 Cranfield, 1:345 footnote

26 “I, used w. a verb to emphasize the pers.” BAGD, 217

27 Lambrecht, 78

28 Hoekema, Five Views. . ., 232

29 Lambrecht, 87

30 Bruce, 146

31 Cranfield, 1:360

32 Witmer, 468

33 Cranfield, 1:360

34 Bruce, 145

35 Witmer, 468

36 Cranfield, 1:361

37 Charles Smith, “Two Natures—Or One?,” Voice 62, 21

38 Witmer, 468

39 Stanley Toussaint, “The Contrast between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5,” Bib Sac, Oct.-Dec., 1966, 312

40 Luther, Galatians, 504, 503

41 Cranfield, 1:363

42 Newell, 278

43 Toussaint, 314

44 Lambrecht, 90

45 Cranfield, 1:366

46 “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able {to do so}.”

47 Bruce, 147

48 Newell, 274