Romans 7 and the Law of Sin

[Cornelius8L]

The law of sin is not a list of laws, but rather it is an evil inclination or a principle that was working within Pauls members that was causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do. In To Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and in Romans 7:5-6, it wouldn't make sense to interpret those verses as referring to the Law of God, as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or as if he delighted in being held captive, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. Likewise, a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that God's law is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, so it can't be referring to the same law as Romans 7:5.

A good rule of thumb is that if Paul is referring to a law that wouldn't make sense for him to delight in obeying, then he is not referring to the Law of God, such as in Romans 5:20, it wouldn't make sense to think that Paul delighted in causing trespasses to increase, but rather that is in accordance with how he described the law of sin. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, where sin has dominion over us, that cause sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin, such Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

Likewise, Romans 6:14 describes the law that he was speaking about as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not refer to the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather that is the law of sin. Furthermore, in Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law, so we are still under it, but are not under the law of sin.

Hello.

“there is only one Lawgiver and Judge,” (James 4:12) Sin doesn't make a law; if it has a law, it's because the one Lawgiver gave it to it. “For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (Romans 5:13)

Here's how good and evil work. Good makes things, while evil corrupts them. Good (only God is good) makes a man, and evil corrupts him. God made everything and said it was good, but then it got bad because of evil, so God destroyed it.

Sin is not exclusively based on what people believe to be moral. Missing the mark or missing the point is referred to as sin in the Bible (Romans 3:23). “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160) – The entirety of God's word forms the mark. Because of this, when we study the pattern of the truth, we do it in its entirety, not a little here and a little there (Isaiah 28:10-13).

Romans 7:7 is a continuation of Romans 7:5-6, which talk about how the OT law brings us away from the entirety of God's words, the pattern of the truth (1 Corinthians 13:9-10). "Sinful passions aroused by the law" means that people took God's words literally and missed the point: sin. It picks up where Romans 2-4 left off, where circumcisions were discussed in this letter to a church.

Romans 7:14 says that the law is spiritual, and we know that God is a spirit. Angels were good to begin with, but they can fall and become Satan. In the same way, Paul said that the Law is holy (Romans 7:12) because it was meant to be spiritual, as God is a spirit. But if we take it literally, as most people do, we miss the point, and the law became the weapon of sin (1 Corinthians 15:56), leading us astray with many more code (John 15:22). [When God promised David he would have a house for Him, He was talking about Jesus (2 Samuel 7:12–16). But David missed the point and thought it was King Solomon, so he had Solomon build a temple for God that mocked Jesus later (Matthew 27:40). King Solomon knew this, so he said, "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands." (Acts 7:48)]

Also, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:23) – But if sin makes a law, its law will go against the fruit of the Spirit. But the OT law doesn't conflict with it.

Paul did not describe the law of sin as referring to Pharisaic traditions. God did not tell Peter to eat unclean animals. In Acts 10:10-15, Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and God's command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so his vision was in regard to the issue of why he refused to do what the Law of God permitted him to do. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, God did not rebuke Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being common. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not supposed to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as being common, and he interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

Even if your narrative is true, in Acts 11:9, God says that everything is clean, so Peter can eat them because God made them(impure κοίνου (koinou)) clean. Even though the Lawgiver and One Judge said it was now clean, Peter still didn't dare to eat them. Peter missed the mark there.

In Psalms 119:29, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life (John 17:3, Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28), which again is salvation by grace through faith. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law is itself the content of His gift of salvation. So the way that people thought about the law and what they did for salvation did not change with the Apostles.

(Luke 24:44) Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”​

Everything, including the ones in Moses' Law and the Psalms that point to Jesus, are just discarded shadows. The pattern of truth tells us to move on because we are still far from being perfect in truth (Philippians 3:10-16, 1 Corinthians 13:9, Hebrews 5:11). Do we remember that Paul scolded the believers for only holding the basic principles of God's word? (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 6:1)

The penalty for breaking the 6th Commandment is death, so if it were the command not to kill, then it would only take one person being killed to create a chain that would wipe out all of Israel, but rather it is the command not to murder.

Not really. Since God controls life, God can take action to kill lawbreakers instead of letting people kill. God did that many times in the OT.

God's law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are aspects of God's nature/fruits of the Spirit. For example, God's righteous laws are intended to teach us about a spiritual principle of righteousness that will lead us to take examples of that principle in accordance with what God's law instructs, even in situations where it does not give a specific instruction. Correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking actions that are examples of that principle. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6), so it is not referring to something spiritual apart from obeying what it commands, and this has nothing to do with the law of sin.

Romans 2:26 implies that an uncircumcised man who keeps the righteous requirements of the law doesn't need to be physically circumcised. This verse itself says that the examples of this principle are not true.

David killing righteously was not breaking the commandment against murder. There isn't a commandment against marrying a prostitute. A spiritual principle can't be contrary to the examples of that principle. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete in Hebrews 8:13 does not mean that God's law became obsolete alone with it.

If David's killing was okay, why did God hold it against him for shedding blood? (1 Chronicles 22:8) And on what basis did Paul say, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Or don’t you know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’”(1 Corinthians 6:15)

Examples of spiritual principles that go against the example of that principle: Jesus called many people who can see blind. The body of Jesus, which is a "body," is a "house" of God, but it is not a physical "house." Another example is that people who have been spiritually circumcised don't need to be physically circumcised, that dying with Christ in baptism doesn't mean dying physically, that eating physically unclean foods is fine but eating spiritually unclean foods is not, and so on.

Hebrews 8:10 does not say that the laws in our minds and hearts are OT laws.

 

[Soyeong]

That appears to be the opposite of what Paul says. He says that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin: so according to you he is saying he serves the evil inclination with his flesh?

Sorry, t's not clear to me why you think that it appears to be the opposite of what Paul says. There is the Law of God that is the good that Paul wanted to do and there is the law of sin that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so they work are opposite purposes. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh, who refuse to submit to the Law of God, and in Galatians 5:19-21, the works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are all against the Law of God, so serving the law of sin with his flesh is in opposition to serving the Law of God with his mind (Romans. 7:25).

Moreover, in regards to the last statement in the above paragraph, "Romans 7:7 says that God's law is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is", that is an open admission of what has already been said: that the torah-nomos-instruction-teaching of sin is actually how we understand what sin is. In other words you are saying the same thing without even realizing it: you would not know what sin is, (or how to deal with it), if it was not for the torah-nomos-teaching-instruction concerning sin.

The Law of God is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20, 1 John 3:4), so Romans 7:7 saying that the law is not sinful, but how we know what sin is, it is referring the the Law of God, not the law of sin. The law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is the law that is sinful. I said that it is the Law of God that is how we know what sin is, not the law of sin, so I did not admit or in anyway suggest that the law of sin is how we know what sin is.

It's about rightly dividing the Word of Truth: there is Instruction concerning sin and death, but that instruction is not the whole Torah. And that Instruction concerning sin and death is good because it shows us what sin is and teaches us how to deal with it in our members, and especially in the Light of the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts which expounds these things.

It is strange that I think that everyone that I've seen who emphasizes the need to rightly divide the word of truth is wrongly dividing it. While the Law of God teaches us what sin is and that the consequence is death, that is not what Paul described as being the law of sin and death, but rather he described the law of sin as causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, and that leads to death.

All one needs to do is understand that nomos is nothing more than a Greek loan word for torah: for it is used many times in the LXX where we find torah in the Hebrew text. Nomos therefore has the same meanings to the authors of the N/T as the word torah, and that means it can be used in the sense of instruction or teaching, (for that is what it actually means), just as it is used here in this passage, and again, two verses later in the next chapter, which is still the same passage regardless of the man-made chapter break.

While the Greek word "nomos" can refer to the Torah, its meaning is by no means limited to that. For example, in Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the (nomos) of God with his mind, but contested that with the nomos of sin that he served with his flesh, and in Romans 8:2, the nomos of the Spirit of life has set us free from the nomos of sin and death, so it does not always refer to the Torah. Likewise, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a nomos of works with a nomos of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the nomos, and in Galatian 3:11, works of the nomos are not of faith, so these verses can't both be referring to the Torah, especially because the Torah is of faith. So we need to use the context to determine whether Paul was using nomos to refer to the Law of God, the law of sin, to works of the law, or to something else.

There is no written "Law of the Spirit of Life in Messiah", no, because it actually says and means the Teaching or Instruction of the Spirit of Life in Messiah, meaning his Testimony, which was by and from the Spirit of Life that was in him throughout his earthly ministry.

God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of the Spirit is the same as the Law of the Christ and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk I the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Torah.

This whole misunderstanding is the result of strict mechanical translations where one word always means the exact same thing throughout the text, in this case nomos, which they almost always render as "law", which is wrong and very misleading in some cases, and especially in this passage. Scholars are supposed to be wise, circumspect, and full of scripture knowledge and understanding, not robots inserting "law" every time they see a form of nomos in the Greek text.

Then why do you think that "nomos" always means "Torah"?

 

[Soyeong]

Is the law of Moses a list of laws?

Is the law of God a list of laws?

If yes to both, are the two lists different?

(If this is off topic, I withdraw the questions.)

Peace be with you all

Yes, they are lists of laws and they are the same. The Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Paul described the law of sin not as a list of laws, but as something that was working within his member to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do.

 

[daq]

Sorry, t's not clear to me why you think that it appears to be the opposite of what Paul says. There is the Law of God that is the good that Paul wanted to do and there is the law of sin that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so they work are opposite purposes. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh, who refuse to submit to the Law of God, and in Galatians 5:19-21, the works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are all against the Law of God, so serving the law of sin with his flesh is in opposition to serving the Law of God with his mind (Romans. 7:25).



The Law of God is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20, 1 John 3:4), so Romans 7:7 saying that the law is not sinful, but how we know what sin is, it is referring the the Law of God, not the law of sin. The law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is the law that is sinful. I said that it is the Law of God that is how we know what sin is, not the law of sin, so I did not admit or in anyway suggest that the law of sin is how we know what sin is.


It is strange that I think that everyone that I've seen who emphasizes the need to rightly divide the word of truth is wrongly dividing it. While the Law of God teaches us what sin is and that the consequence is death, that is not what Paul described as being the law of sin and death, but rather he described the law of sin as causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, and that leads to death.


While the Greek word "nomos" can refer to the Torah, its meaning is by no means limited to that. For example, in Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the (nomos) of God with his mind, but contested that with the nomos of sin that he served with his flesh, and in Romans 8:2, the nomos of the Spirit of life has set us free from the nomos of sin and death, so it does not always refer to the Torah. Likewise, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a nomos of works with a nomos of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the nomos, and in Galatian 3:11, works of the nomos are not of faith, so these verses can't both be referring to the Torah, especially because the Torah is of faith. So we need to use the context to determine whether Paul was using nomos to refer to the Law of God, the law of sin, to works of the law, or to something else.


God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of the Spirit is the same as the Law of the Christ and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk I the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Torah.


Then why do you think that "nomos" always means "Torah"?

Romans 7:25 KJV
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:25 ASV
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So your answer is that, yes, Paul says that with the flesh he serves the evil inclination.
Thanks for the clarification. I hope you know that is pure Gnosticism.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Hi again, my lengthy posts were intended to share how to perceive from Paul's perspective without violating God's words. However, to put it simply, “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge” (James 4:12) and “But the fruit of the Spirit… …Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23), saying that sin has its own law does not fit these two verses.

 

[HIM]

That appears to be the opposite of what Paul says. He says that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin: so according to you he is saying he serves the evil inclination with his flesh?

Which is what the Law of sin is. In verse 21 Paul says he found a law and it is when he would do good evil was present with him. He said this in respect to the previous verse. In it he stated, the good he would he didn't, but the evil he wouldn't he did. Then he says in contrast to the good he would that he delights in it, the law of God. But sees ANOTHER law, the law that he said that he found. The Law that evil is present with him. That the good he would he doesn't but the evil he would not, that he does. And he says this is the law of the sin. And this what we have been set free from through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus, that the righteousness of the Law, God's Law may be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit of this life in Christ through His resurrection. That we may become servants of righteous. No longer slaves to sin. For he that commits sin is a slave to it. And this servant will not abide in the house forever. But if the Son shall make us free. Free we are indeed. This is what the context to the passage reveals according to the grammar and sentence structure.


Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

 

[daq]

Which is what the Law of sin is. In verse 21 Paul says he found a law and it is when he would do good evil was present with him. He said this in respect to the previous verse. In it he stated, the good he would he didn't, but the evil he wouldn't he did. Then he says in contrast to the good he would that he delights in it, the law of God. But sees ANOTHER law, the law that he said that he found. The Law that evil is present with him. That the good he would he doesn't but the evil he would not, that he does. And he says this is the law of the sin. And this what we have been set free from through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus, that the righteousness of the Law, God's Law may be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit of this life in Christ through His resurrection. That we may become servants of righteous. No longer slaves to sin. For he that commits sin is a slave to it. And this servant will not abide in the house forever. But if the Son shall make us free. Free we are indeed. This is what the context to the passage reveals according to the grammar and sentence structure.


Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

I don't have to read it that way at all: and I don't.

Romans 7:23
23 βλεπω δε ετερον νομον εν τοις μελεσιν μου αντιστρατευομενον τω νομω του νοος μου και αιχμαλωτιζοντα με εν τω νομω της αμαρτιας τω οντι εν τοις μελεσιν μου

but I see a different teaching in my members, warring against the Torah of my mind and taking me captive by the teaching of the sin that exists in my members.

Sin dwells in the flesh, Romans 7:18.

 

[HIM]

Hi again, my lengthy posts were intended to share how to perceive from Paul's perspective without violating God's words. However, to put it simply, “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge” (James 4:12) and “But the fruit of the Spirit… …Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23), saying that sin has its own law does not fit these two verses.

Hi,
The text literally translates, Making captive me to the Law OF THE SIN. The clause "the law of the sin" is being stated in the genitive, possessive case. In other words the law mentioned is of sin. The text in James has nothing to do with what is being stated in Romans. But if you wish to make a connection than considered what was shared previously here is this thread. That Jesus himself stated in John 8:34 that he that commits sin is a slave to it. This is being said in the indictive mood. Which means it is an objective fact, therefore a law. As is where he says in verses 35 and 36. that this slave to sin will not abide in the House forever, but if the Son sets us free from this slavery, free we are indeed. In this respect Galatians is speaking. For we are dead, nevertheless we live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the Faith of the Son of God who gave himself for us.

Rom 7:23 βλέπω δὲ But I See
ἕτερον Another
νόμον Law ἐν In
τοῖς My μέλεσίν μου Members
ἀντιστρατευόμενον Warring Against
τῷ The
νόμῳ Law
τοῦ Of
νοός Mind,
μου My
καὶ And
αἰχμαλωτίζοντά making Captive
με Me
τῷ To The
νόμῳ Law
τῆς Of The
ἁμαρτίας Sin
τῷ Which
ὄντι Is
ἐν In
τοῖς μέλεσίν Members.
μου My




However we are Not in James, or Galatians. We are in Romans. Prove what you think through the context and grammar of the passage or accept it. Then we can move on to these other books if you wish. The text is talking about our need of our Savior. Romans says in verse 21 Paul says he found a law and it is when he would do good evil was present with him. He said this in respect to the previous verse. In it he stated, the good he would he didn't, but the evil he wouldn't he did. Then he says in contrast to the good he would that he delights in it, the law of God. But sees ANOTHER law, the law that he said that he found. The Law that evil is present with him. That the good he would he doesn't but the evil he would not, that he does. And he says this is the law of the sin. And this what we have been set free from through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus, that the righteousness of the Law, God's Law may be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit of this life in Christ through His resurrection. That we may become servants of righteous. No longer slaves to sin. For he that commits sin is a slave to it. And this servant will not abide in the house forever. But if the Son shall make us free. Free we are indeed. This is what the context to the passage reveals according to the grammar and sentence structure. This is a objective fact not a subjective opinion.


Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

 

[HIM]

I don't have to read it that way at all: and I don't.

Once again your post doesn't answer the objective facts shared. The Context and grammar of the passage

Romans 7:23
23 βλεπω δε ετερον νομον εν τοις μελεσιν μου αντιστρατευομενον τω νομω του νοος μου και αιχμαλωτιζοντα με εν τω νομω της αμαρτιας τω οντι εν τοις μελεσιν μου

but I see a different teaching in my members, warring against the Torah of my mind and taking me captive by the teaching of the sin that exists in my members.

Sin dwells in the flesh, Romans 7:18.

But we have been set free from it. We are no longer subject to it through the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. So that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit and not the sin that is in the flesh which has been condemned, sentenced there.


Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[daq]

Hi,
The text literally translates, Making captive me to the Law OF THE SIN. The clause "the law of the sin" is being stated in the genitive, possessive case. In other words the law mentioned is of sin. The text in James has nothing to do with what is being stated in Romans. But if you wish to make a connection than considered what was shared previously here is this thread. That Jesus himself stated in John 8:34 that he that commits sin is a slave to it. This is being said in the indictive mood. Which means it is an objective fact, therefore a law. As is where he says in verses 35 and 36. that this slave to sin will not abide in the House forever, but if the Son sets us free from this slavery, free we are indeed. In this respect Galatians is speaking. For we are dead, nevertheless we live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the Faith of the Son of God who gave himself for us.

Rom 7:23 βλέπω δὲ But I See
ἕτερον Another
νόμον Law ἐν In
τοῖς My μέλεσίν μου Members
ἀντιστρατευόμενον Warring Against
τῷ The
νόμῳ Law
τοῦ Of
νοός Mind,
μου My
καὶ And
αἰχμαλωτίζοντά making Captive
με Me
τῷ To The
νόμῳ Law
τῆς Of The
ἁμαρτίας Sin
τῷ Which
ὄντι Is
ἐν In
τοῖς μέλεσίν Members.
μου My




However we are Not in James, or Galatians. We are in Romans. Prove what you think through the context and grammar of the passage or accept it. Then we can move on to these other books if you wish. The text is talking about our need of our Savior. Romans says in verse 21 Paul says he found a law and it is when he would do good evil was present with him. He said this in respect to the previous verse. In it he stated, the good he would he didn't, but the evil he wouldn't he did. Then he says in contrast to the good he would that he delights in it, the law of God. But sees ANOTHER law, the law that he said that he found. The Law that evil is present with him. That the good he would he doesn't but the evil he would not, that he does. And he says this is the law of the sin. And this what we have been set free from through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus, that the righteousness of the Law, God's Law may be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit of this life in Christ through His resurrection. That we may become servants of righteous. No longer slaves to sin. For he that commits sin is a slave to it. And this servant will not abide in the house forever. But if the Son shall make us free. Free we are indeed. This is what the context to the passage reveals according to the grammar and sentence structure. This is a fact not an objective opinion.


Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

No, it isn't a fact, it's your opinion. As I said according to the scripture: you must die, the soul that sins shall die, and Paul here is leading into mortification of the deeds of the body and putting to death your members concerning below, (upon the earth). You don't understand it because you do not understand the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, which Testimony is Spirit, and from above, from the heavens, and proceeds from the Spirit of Life that was in him throughout his earthly ministry.

Same passage:

Romans 8:13 KJV
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Then he turns the physical examples into spiritual things:

Colossians 3:5 KJV
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

This is about using the torah-instruction concerning sin and death, and of below, to put to death sin which dwells in the flesh, in your members. Ignore it and you are not so free as you claim, for these same teachings are found in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts and from the Torah, but are simply couched in different more apocalyptic language, like plucking out your eye, or cutting off your hand, or foot: soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, show them no mercy, cut them off before they choke the seed of the Word from the soil of your heart. Sin is personified from the very beginning. The Torah provides us with the way to cut off sin, and the Messiah expounds these things, and Paul is calling it the instruction (torah-teaching) of sin and death. Believe what you will.

 

[Soyeong]

Romans 7:25 KJV
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:25 ASV
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So your answer is that, yes, Paul says that with the flesh he serves the evil inclination.
Thanks for the clarification. I hope you know that is pure Gnosticism.

Paul was not teaching Gnosticism.

 

[daq]

Paul was not teaching Gnosticism.

True, and to throw him under the bus, hijack and subvert his teachings, and pervert them into Gnosticism, just proves that the doers of such evil are slaves to sin.

 

[daq]

Once again your post doesn't answer the objective facts shared. The Context and grammar of the passage

But we have been set free from it.

Set free by what? I've answered that from Paul's own words: and he is not thanking the Father for a crucifixion, no, he is thanking the Father for the Testimony of the Messiah which indeed sets us free if we understand it, believe it, and do it by walking in it, for that Testimony expounds the proper way to understand the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.

This is my paraphrase of your reasoning concerning context and grammar:

I have grammar rules which prove that "the law of sin" is an evil inclination at work in our members and therefore it is an evil law that Paul says he had found.

My response to your reasoning: Because Paul says that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin, you are teaching that it is okay to serve sin when it comes to the flesh, (which teaching in itself is sin, "to miss the mark"). Whether you realize it or not that is Gnostic thinking and reasoning.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Hi,
The text literally translates, Making captive me to the Law OF THE SIN. The clause "the law of the sin" is being stated in the genitive, possessive case. In other words the law mentioned is of sin. The text in James has nothing to do with what is being stated in Romans. But if you wish to make a connection than considered what was shared previously here is this thread. That Jesus himself stated in John 8:34 that he that commits sin is a slave to it. This is being said in the indictive mood. Which means it is an objective fact, therefore a law. As is where he says in verses 35 and 36. that this slave to sin will not abide in the House forever, but if the Son sets us free from this slavery, free we are indeed. In this respect Galatians is speaking. For we are dead, nevertheless we live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the Faith of the Son of God who gave himself for us.

Rom 7:23 βλέπω δὲ But I See
ἕτερον Another
νόμον Law ἐν In
τοῖς My μέλεσίν μου Members
ἀντιστρατευόμενον Warring Against
τῷ The
νόμῳ Law
τοῦ Of
νοός Mind,
μου My
καὶ And
αἰχμαλωτίζοντά making Captive
με Me
τῷ To The
νόμῳ Law
τῆς Of The
ἁμαρτίας Sin
τῷ Which
ὄντι Is
ἐν In
τοῖς μέλεσίν Members.
μου My




However we are Not in James, or Galatians. We are in Romans. Prove what you think through the context and grammar of the passage or accept it. Then we can move on to these other books if you wish. The text is talking about our need of our Savior. Romans says in verse 21 Paul says he found a law and it is when he would do good evil was present with him. He said this in respect to the previous verse. In it he stated, the good he would he didn't, but the evil he wouldn't he did. Then he says in contrast to the good he would that he delights in it, the law of God. But sees ANOTHER law, the law that he said that he found. The Law that evil is present with him. That the good he would he doesn't but the evil he would not, that he does. And he says this is the law of the sin. And this what we have been set free from through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus, that the righteousness of the Law, God's Law may be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit of this life in Christ through His resurrection. That we may become servants of righteous. No longer slaves to sin. For he that commits sin is a slave to it. And this servant will not abide in the house forever. But if the Son shall make us free. Free we are indeed. This is what the context to the passage reveals according to the grammar and sentence structure. This is a objective fact not a subjective opinion.


Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

I used to think like you did for a long time, until I read the whole Romans myself.

Rightfully, we shouldn't put away “The entirety of Your word is truth,” (Psalm 119:160) when we share the truth, else “the word of the LORD to them will become: 'Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line; a little here, a little there,' so that they will go stumbling backward and will be injured, ensnared, and captured.” (Isaiah 28:13) Both Jesus and the Apostles explained the Bible by making connections, and we should do the same. And logically, we should know enough to not read any book in the canon on its own.

But even if we ignore these connections, Paul's statement in Romans 7:21–13 that he found another law doesn't mean that law has never been heard before. He was talking about his inner self in the context of focusing on God's law. Another law is just another law, not an unheard law. And the law of sin in Romans refers to OT law (Romans 7:10-11).

Romans 8:3 “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh..." – This is OT Law (I'm talking about the examples of spiritual principles.)

In fact, if we understand that sin is missing the "point" of God's truth, the letter can be read smoothly from chapter 1 to chapter 16. In God's eyes, sin is not just a moral problem with people. Sin makes a person a slave to sin, and in the truth, he has no freedom (John 8:34). This is because they missed the point of the law, went astray, and were bound in God's eyes. Evil's most powerful tool is misunderstanding what "sin" means.

John 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.” - So, how else could it be said that they not be guilty of sin if Jesus hadn't told them the real truth?​

 

[Soyeong]

True, and to throw him under the bus, hijack and subvert his teachings, and pervert them into Gnosticism, just proves that the doers of such evil are slaves to sin.

Paul described his struggle with the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. How is it not appropriate to describe that as an evil inclination and how does describing that as such throw him under the bus, hijack and subvert his teachings, and pervert them into Gnosticism?

 

[daq]

Paul described his struggle with the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. How is it not appropriate to describe that as an evil inclination and how does describing that as such throw him under the bus, hijack and subvert his teachings, and pervert them into Gnosticism?

It's a fine line because Gnostics also make a distinction between spirit and soul, and the physical and the spiritual, and they believed originally that all things physical, including the flesh, were evil. But they take this distinction way too far and thereby reason that anything done with or in the flesh is separate from the spirit: and thus they teach something almost akin to two different entity-aspects of a human being. What they do according to the flesh and in the flesh therefore they count as irrelevant because they say that the flesh is evil anyway, and will perish, meanwhile thinking they have some sort of holy spirit entity, (I mean of their own, themselves), which communes with God or God's Holy Spirit, and therefore what they do with and in the flesh doesn't matter because they have a spirit that communes with God while the soul is counted almost as if a throwaway source of evil that is doomed to perish anyway. This, of course, is catastrophic error.

The idea that Paul is teaching that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin becomes the same reasoning if you say that the nomos of sin is an evil inclination: for Paul does in fact state that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin. If the nomos of sin is an evil inclination then Paul would be saying that with the flesh he serves the evil inclination, and that is indeed Gnostic thinking and reasoning.

Moreover, to be honest with the text, simply insert Torah or torah for nomos, (law), and you may see that it cannot be what you have proposed if you are honest with the text.

Romans 7:25 TS2009
25 Thanks to Elohim, through יהושע Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself truly serve the Torah of Elohim, but with the flesh the torah of sin.

This translator is not willing to be dishonest with the text, but does place the second instance of torah in lower case. Can you call the second mention of torah an evil inclination? That would not be right judgment imo. Here is another translation that typically renders Torah instead of Law where nomos is found, but look what they do in this passage:

Romans 7:25 HRB2012
25 I thank YAHWEH through Yahshua Messiah our Master! So then I myself with the mind truly serve the Torah of Elohim and with the flesh the law of sin.

Is that a fair treatment of the text? rendering nomos as "Torah" in one case and then switching it to "law" in the next occurrence in the same statement? No, imo, that is not a fair treatment of the text.

I myself also found a torah-teaching concerning sin, just as Paul did: and I found that teaching and instruction in the Torah, but the Torah is not only for showing us what sin is: it is so much more than that. So there is Torah of Elohim, which is of the mind and of above, and there is also Torah of sin, (and death), concerning that which is of below, the flesh, and it is used to mortify or put to death the deeds of the body and our members upon the earth, (of below).

 

[HIM]

Paul described his struggle with the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. How is it not appropriate to describe that as an evil inclination and how does describing that as such throw him under the bus, hijack and subvert his teachings, and pervert them into Gnosticism?

And as was mentioned earlier, Jesus himself said one who commits sin is a slave to it. And that slave will not abide in the House forever, but the Son forever. And if the Son shall set one free, free they are indeed. Free, no longer a slave to sin but a servant to and for righteousness through Christ's resurrection.

 

[HIM]

Set free by what?

As was said by Paul, the Spirit of Life IN Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of the sin and of the death. That the righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus and not after the flesh where sin has been condemned and thereby rendered powerless over us.

I've answered that from Paul's own words: and he is not thanking the Father for a crucifixion, no, he is thanking the Father for the Testimony of the Messiah which indeed sets us free if we understand it, believe it, and do it by walking in it, for that Testimony expounds the proper way to understand the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.

It is the resurrection Paul is speaking of when he speaks of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. If we have taken part in His crucifixion through baptism we are also of His resurrection and walking in newness of life. That the body of sin be destroyed so that hence forth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin because the old man has been crucified. (Rom 6:1-7) It is Not knowledge, gnosis. Or self-knowledge or enlightment, Gnosticism. Knowing the Torah, the Law even properly through Christ's teachings, testimony avails nothing accept a proper understanding. It is a heart issue that can only be changed through God working on our hearts through the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. (Phil 2:13) Know you not that we the Temple of God and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Cor 3:16) He is not far from us, out of our reach. For in Him we live, move and have our being. (Acts 17:22,23) It is the Lord who sanctifies. (Ex 31:13) So say not in your heart bring Christ down from above or up from the deep. But the righteousness of faith speaks this. The Word, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law our in our hearts and in our mouths that we may do them. That is the word of faith in which we preach. The circumcision made without hands. The circumcision of Christ. (Deut 30:6,10-14; Rom 10:6-8; Col 2:11)

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

This is my paraphrase of your reasoning concerning context and grammar:

I have grammar rules which prove that "the law of sin" is an evil inclination at work in our members and therefore it is an evil law that Paul says he had found.

My response to your reasoning: Because Paul says that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin, you are teaching that it is okay to serve sin when it comes to the flesh, (which teaching in itself is sin, "to miss the mark"). Whether you realize it or not that is Gnostic thinking and reasoning.

Not my grammar rules. Paul said he was carnal sold as a slave under sin. So he was in bondage to it. For he does what he hates that which he would not do. It is no more him that does it but the sin that dwells in Him. For the good that he would, he does not but the evil he wouldn't he does. He says he finds then a law that Evil is always with him even when he would do good. And this good that he would he delights in and calls it the Law of God. But as Paul continues he calls this law that he found. This new law to him. The law that when he would do good, evil is present with him. He calls it another law and gives it a name. He calls it the law of the sin. And this law of the sin, that evil is always present with him. The evil he wouldn't he does he says he is captive to it. This captivity is what the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from. That the righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirt of the life in Christ Jesus and not after the flesh in which sin has been condemned in.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

 

[HIM]

Romans 7:25 TS2009
25 Thanks to Elohim, through יהושע Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself truly serve the Torah of Elohim, but with the flesh the torah of sin.

This translator is not willing to be dishonest with the text, but does place the second instance of torah in lower case. Can you call the second mention of torah an evil inclination? That would not be right judgment imo. Here is another translation that typically renders Torah instead of Law where nomos is found, but look what they do in this passage:

Romans 7:25 HRB2012
25 I thank YAHWEH through Yahshua Messiah our Master! So then I myself with the mind truly serve the Torah of Elohim and with the flesh the law of sin.

Is that a fair treatment of the text? rendering nomos as "Torah" in one case and then switching it to "law" in the next occurrence in the same statement? No, imo, that is not a fair treatment of the text.

Nomos does not always mean Torah. The LXX shows us this as does Paul's statement that he found a law in Romans 7:21 and in verse 23 where he calls the law he found another law, making a distinction between it and the Law of God which is to be in our hearts. And this other law he calls it the Law of the sin. And this law is even when he would do good evil is present with him. Therefore the good that he would, the Law of God that he delights in he doesn't. But the evil that he wouldn't he does. This is what the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from that the righteousness of the Law of God be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus and not after the flesh in which the sin has been condemned, sentenced to.

 

[daq]

All this hemming and hawing is meaningless while the elephant in the room remains: which is why I went straight to that to begin with. As I said, believe what you will, but it is never going to change the fact that Paul says that with the flesh he serves the nomos of sin.