Is Paul Autobiographical in Romans 7

[Apologiaphoenix]

Who is the subject here?

Link

-------------

Who is being talked about in Romans 7? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So I caused some debate in my Sunday School class yesterday when Romans 7 was brought up and I started hinting that it’s not autobiographical. Now the problem I see with this is too many people go to their experience, see that they struggle in a way that sounds like Romans 7, and then say “Paul must be talking about that!” Our experience is very real, but it doesn’t mean that the Western way of thinking is what Paul has in mind.

For a start, let’s look at the passage in Romans 7:

⁷ What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” ⁸ But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. ⁹ Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. ¹⁰ I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. ¹¹ For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. ¹² So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

¹³ Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

¹⁴ We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. ¹⁵ I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ¹⁶ And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. ¹⁷ As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸ For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

²¹ So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²² For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; ²³ but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. ²⁴ What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Well there you go! Paul speaks in the first person. Obviously, he must be talking about himself.

Except, what about Philippians 3?

“Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. ² Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. ³ For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— ⁴ though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: ⁵ circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; ⁶ as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.”

Here, Paul does talk about how he kept the law. He says he was faultless. Now I was told yesterday that this is just how Paul appeared to others, but there’s no indication that he is talking about that here. Paul is just stating the facts in his mind, just as all the above about his heritage are facts. Furthermore, this makes no sense later on of the passage when he says “All that righteousness, I count as dung.” The Greek word for dung is skubalon which could be an expletive. Paul never says “I considered myself righteous with regards to the law, but I knew I wasn’t.” That would weaken his testimony. His testimony is, “As good as I was before God, that is all worthless before Christ.” Go the other way and you could have him saying “If I could have kept the law, I wouldn’t need Christ.”

But that still leaves us with a question? Who is being talked about in Romans 7?

Go back to Romans 5. Who do you see as the main person being spoken of? It’s Adam. What if we brought him into Romans 7. Does this make sense?

After all, my opening question yesterday was “When was Paul apart from the law?” He never was. In Galatians 4, we are told Jesus was born under the law. So that means the Jewish Jesus was born under the law, but somehow Paul missed it? Paul would have never said in his days before Christ that he was alive apart from the law.

But what about Adam? Suppose we see that when he got the commandment about the fruit in the garden, that that which was meant to bring him life, did become an instrument of death as he broke it? Not only that, some of the Jewish rabbis at the time thought that the sin that was committed in the garden was coveting. Adam and Eve wanted the fruit so they could have what God has.

If we go that route, things make sense. My main concern also is too often we are identifying with Romans 7. This is even after we have come to Christ. Once you come to Christ, your true identity is in Romans 8 and all the wonderful promises in that.

What do we have to do to reach this? Just stop starting with our own experience. Paul is not talking about himself in this passage even if this could have been a struggle for him at times. If you accept Philippians 3, you need to find a way to reinterpret Romans 7 for this way. If you go the route I have presented, you have no difficulty at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[rogue06]

So I caused some debate in my Sunday School class yesterday...

Rabble-Rouser

[tabibito]

Who is the subject here?


What do we have to do to reach this? Just stop starting with our own experience. Paul is not talking about himself in this passage even if this could have been a struggle for him at times. If you accept Philippians 3, you need to find a way to reinterpret Romans 7 for this way. If you go the route I have presented, you have no difficulty at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The issue is not whether Romans 7 is autobiographical - that is of no consequence. The issue is whether Romans 7 can be applied broadly to Christians - that cannot be done. Romans 8:3-4 shows that it cannot. (Romans 8:1 is actually the heading for the section to verse 14 at least). The end of chapter 7 is picked up in Romans 8:2, which note: the "you" in that verse is in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, "me."
Recommendation is to read Romans 8:2 in accord with the majority witness, and see what it does to a reading of chapter 7 as though it is a permanent and general condition. If chapter 7 is about Paul himself, it is about his life as Saul.

[Starlight]

I tend to think the best background for interpreting Romans 7, is Plato's Chariot Analogy. In a modern form of that analogy, we sometimes depict a human with an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, telling us to do good vs bad things. But in Plato's version of it, those two beings (horses in Plato, angels/demons in the modern version) are part of us and our minds. He depicts the desires of the flesh tempting us to do bad things (flesh), and the spiritual desires tempting us to do good things (spirit, law), while the part of us that makes the final choice grapples with those competing desires.

Paul is using that rhetorical background of Greco-Roman moral theory, to argue through following Christ we can achieve what the Greco-Roman moral philosophers wanted to achieve. The passage is about tooting the horn of Christianity, claiming it achieves pagan moral goals. Through Christ we can follow the holy spiritual desires rather than the sinful fleshly desires. I strongly doubt the passage is meant autobiographically, because elsewhere Paul is quite positive about himself prior to Christianity (Phil 3:6 "blameless").

[KingsGambit]

The issue is not whether Romans 7 is autobiographical - that is of no consequence. The issue is whether Romans 7 can be applied broadly to Christians - that cannot be done. Romans 8:3-4 shows that it cannot. (Romans 8:1 is actually the heading for the section to verse 14 at least). The end of chapter 7 is picked up in Romans 8:2, which note: the "you" in that verse is in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, "me."
Recommendation is to read Romans 8:2 in accord with the majority witness, and see what it does to a reading of chapter 7 as though it is a permanent and general condition. If chapter 7 is about Paul himself, it is about his life as Saul.

I thought the general scholarly consensus was that he did not change his name upon conversion, but that pedantry aside, I'm inclined to share your view. It would likely also be applied to his calling himself "chief of all sinners" in 1 Timothy 1:15. I don't see anything in the text that would suggest it would refer to Adam; the mere fact that Adam is mentioned earlier in the epistle is weak support.

[tabibito]

I tend to think the best background for interpreting Romans 7, is Plato's Chariot Analogy. In a modern form of that analogy, we sometimes depict a human with an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, telling us to do good vs bad things. But in Plato's version of it, those two beings (horses in Plato, angels/demons in the modern version) are part of us and our minds. He depicts the desires of the flesh tempting us to do bad things (flesh), and the spiritual desires tempting us to do good things (spirit, law), while the part of us that makes the final choice grapples with those competing desires.

So Plato also saw the human as tri-une. I'm not sure why I didn't expect that. The flow of Romans 8 tends to support the

Paul is using that rhetorical background of Greco-Roman moral theory, to argue through following Christ we can achieve what the Greco-Roman moral philosophers wanted to achieve. The passage is about tooting the horn of Christianity, claiming it achieves pagan moral goals. Through Christ we can follow the holy spiritual desires rather than the sinful fleshly desires. I strongly doubt the passage is meant autobiographically, because elsewhere Paul is quite positive about himself prior to Christianity (Phil 3:6 "blameless").

I too have serious doubts about the claims of autobiographical content (hence the "if" in "If chapter 7 is about Paul himself, it is about his life as Saul.")

[tabibito]

I thought the general scholarly consensus was that he did not change his name upon conversion.

I'm almost afraid to ask - but - what supports such a conclusion?

It would likely also be applied to his calling himself "chief of all sinners" in 1 Timothy 1:15. I don't see anything in the text that would suggest it would refer to Adam; the mere fact that Adam is mentioned earlier in the epistle is weak support.

True enough - even if it a confession about Paul at the time of writing, the fact remains that he declares others to be free of that condition. However, the reasons that he gives for saying that he is the chief of sinners are firmly sourced in his pre-Christian activity. So, not a statement that supports the ongoing activity of sinning.

The same concept is present also in James - still a sinner, but not actively sinning.

Sin is in remission, so to speak.

[Starlight]

So Plato also saw the human as tri-une. I'm not sure why I didn't expect that.

It makes a bigger difference in the translation/interpretation in the earlier parts of Romans, because if the sinful fleshly desires and the holy spiritual desires are both inherent parts of the tri-part psychology of all humans, then it breaks a calvinist total-depravity / total human inability reading of those chapters that needs to interpret the word flesh as humanity and the word spirit as God's external action rescuing us from our fallen humanity. A Greco-Roman moral reading of these passages instead sees them taking for granted that every human has the power and free will to choose good. I suspect this is probably one reason why the Church Fathers were so forceful on emphasizing human free will and never went down the calvinist line of interpretation of these passages.

There's a recent book on the subject of the Greco-Roman moral background of Paul, which I would definitely have read if it had come out a decade ago when I was reading up on that topic. Given I think moral transformation is Paul's paradigm of salvation (justification = sanctification = moral improvement), I suspect it's one of the most relevant works to understand Paul's soteriology.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm almost afraid to ask - but - what supports such a conclusion?

I don't know about the "scholarly" part, but just looking at Scripture shows his conversion occurring in Acts 9, but no mention of his being called "Paul" until Acts 13.

[tabibito]

I don't know about the "scholarly" part, but just looking at Scripture shows his conversion occurring in Acts 9, but no mention of his being called "Paul" until Acts 13.

Acts 13:9 shows that he was already going by the name of Paul before Luke makes the switch to calling him Paul (dual names being not an unknown phenomenon in the those times), but you're right - maybe I''ll have to shift to saying the more cumbersome "pre-Christian Paul" or "the Pharisaic Paul," rather than saying "Saul" as designating his pre-Christian self.

[KingsGambit]

Acts 13:9 shows that he was already going by the name of Paul before Luke makes the switch to calling him Paul (dual names being not an unknown phenomenon in the those times), but you're right - maybe I''ll have to shift to saying the more cumbersome "pre-Christian Paul" or "the Pharisaic Paul," rather than saying "Saul" as designating his pre-Christian self.

Like NR said, the timing doesn't match up exactly with his conversion. One evangelical article that treats it as a myth was this:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...l-the-apostle/

I first inquired into it some years ago when dealing with somebody who insisted that Barack Obama had to be a Muslim because people from non-Christian backgrounds are "required" to change their names, like Paul.

[tabibito]

Like NR said, the timing doesn't match up exactly with his conversion.

True enough: Checking NR's comment showed that scripture doesn't state any time for Saul first going by the name of Paul; it could even have been before his conversion. Nor it seems does Paul become an apostle upon his conversion or subsequent baptism. Paul and Baranabas were appointed to that role in Acts 13.

[tabibito]

I don't know about the "scholarly" part, but just looking at Scripture shows his conversion occurring in Acts 9, but no mention of his being called "Paul" until Acts 13.

Like NR said, the timing doesn't match up exactly with his conversion. One evangelical article that treats it as a myth was this:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...l-the-apostle/

I first inquired into it some years ago when dealing with somebody who insisted that Barack Obama had to be a Muslim because people from non-Christian backgrounds are "required" to change their names, like Paul.

The Gospel Coalition write-up,

5. The decisive shift from “Saul” to “Paul” in Acts happens only once Paul sets off on his missionary journeys away from Jerusalem

.

This subtle shift occurs in Acts 13:13: “Now Paul and his companions set sail.” The person who “changes” his name is not Jesus, but Luke.

No - Luke didn't change the name.

[rogue06]

I'm almost afraid to ask - but - what supports such a conclusion?



True enough - even if it a confession about Paul at the time of writing, the fact remains that he declares others to be free of that condition. However, the reasons that he gives for saying that he is the chief of sinners are firmly sourced in his pre-Christian activity. So, not a statement that supports the ongoing activity of sinning.

The same concept is present also in James - still a sinner, but not actively sinning.

Sin is in remission, so to speak.

Sounds like alcoholism or drug addiction. Even those who quit are still alcoholics and addicts.

[rogue06]

True enough: Checking NR's comment showed that scripture doesn't state any time for Saul first going by the name of Paul; it could even have been before his conversion. Nor it seems does Paul become an apostle upon his conversion or subsequent baptism. Paul and Baranabas were appointed to that role in Acts 13.

Given his history I get the impression that Paul wasn't exactly trusted yet immediately after his conversion. Like they wanted to keep an eye on him to make sure it "sticks" before sending him out.