Romans 7:14-25: The Christian's Remaining Sin and Hope for Future Deliverance (part 10)

by Danny Pelichowski

Contextual Arguments Against the Reformed View: "Tense"

It cannot be overemphasized that Romans 6-8 is written by Paul to Christians about the Christian life. In Romans 7:7-13 Paul speaks in the first person past tense to describe his pre-Christian experience in order to vindicate false charges against the law. And in Romans 7:14-25 Paul changes tenses to the first person present to discuss the spirituality of the law and its relation to his own sinfulness and inability to live in perfect obedience to the fulfilled law of Christ as a Christian. The issue of tense in this passage has been addressed by interpreters opposing the reformed view. For example Daryl Wingerd states that “the switch to the first-person present-tense must be explained as a literary device, perhaps designed to help the reader “personalize” the experience, rather than a chronological shift to Paul’s present experience.”[33] This argument is multiplied by many who share his conviction that although it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking in the first person present, this passage absolutely cannot be describing Paul’s present experience as a mature believer in Christ. The explanation that this first person present tense passage is not as it seems but is really a literary devise is not in the least persuasive given the context of Romans 7:7-25. J.I. Packer explains that “the change from the aorist to the present tense at verse 14 remains unaccounted for. On this view, the change is exceedingly unnatural, occurring as it does in the middle of a passage which ex hypothesi, is dealing with a single unit of experience, and one, moreover, which is now past and gone. There is nothing comparable in Paul, and the use of the historic present in the gospels to give vividness to narrative does not provide a parallel, for here the narrative part is in the aorist, and what is in the present is not narrative, but generalized explanatory comment.comment.”[34] 

The Absurdity of the Non-Reformed View

The last point that will be made in terms of overall tense and context issues is the absurdity of the non-reformed view. As shown above, this view pictures Paul writing as a believer (from a Christian perspective) in the first person present tense about his pre-Christian experience. So we are to believe that Paul uses the personal pronouns “I am” to describe not himself at the time of writing but his past experience. Why Paul does not simply continue to use the past tense pronouns “I was” he used in verses 7-13 is still an unsolved mystery. And if this interpretation weren’t confusing enough it unconvincingly continues to attempt to evade yet another problem in verse 25 making this interpretation all the more absurd. Romans 7:24-25a says “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Daryl Wingerd states that “this exclamation could have easily been intended by Paul the Christian as joyful parenthesis in the middle of recounting his pre-conversion despair.”[35] This interpretation is many things, but it is certainly not “easy” as Daryl Wingerd asserts. For the sake of “vividness” the argument will be summarized once again so that no confusion remains about the absurdity of this view. In this view Paul from his Christian perspective writes using present tense personal pronouns “I am” in order to describe his pre-Christian past experience as an unbeliever in verses 14-24. Paul then as a Christian inserts his present Christian understanding and answers his past problem in verse 25a “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Paul then concludes in the first person present tense describing his past pre-conversion experience in verse 25b “so then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” This interpretation begins with the regenerate Paul discussing his unregenerate life in the first person, then moves to his regenerate answer to the problem in the same tense, and finally concludes back with an unregenerate description still in the present tense. It is amazing how far one’s presupposition of the impossibility of a certain undesired conclusion will take a person in order to justify a faulty interpretation.

The issue here of tense and context in this passage is one of the major problems that must be seriously considered before deciding which side of the Romans 7 debate you end up on. Other non-reformed interpretations of the context of this passage have been considered above and were found errant.[36] The issue of the tense changes in this passage is even more problematic for the non-reformed view than the earlier mentioned objections because their interpretation requires questionable exegesis to even begin to assert that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul as an unbeliever. In light of the inadequacy of the non reformed interpretation and due to the obvious and persuasive tense and context arguments for the reformed view of Romans 7 we could in theory end the discussion now confident that this passage is written by the apostle Paul speaking as a mature believer about his struggle with indwelling sin. However, for the sake of being even more certain about the validity of the reformed view of Romans 7 we will continue with arguments on both sides of the debate.
_______________________________
33. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Describe the Christian Life" Accessed 10 November 2009. Available from http://www.ccwtoday.org. pg. 6
34. J.I. Packer Keep in Step with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books 2005), 224
35. Daryl Wingerd. "Why Romans 7:14-25 Cannot Descibe the Christian Life" pg. 17
36. See the discussion of the question and answers argument as well as the discussion of Doug Moo's objections to the reformed view.