Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father except through Me.”

I remember reading these words in John 14 as an unbelieving but religion-curious college student. My conscience was convicted—though I was not yet converted. My categories for Jesus as a mere prophet or wise man were blown up by his words.

At around the same time, I also remember reading Paul’s words in Romans chapter 7.

There, Paul wrote, “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . . For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Rom 7:15, 19).

My conscience at the time was not convicted by these words. Rather, I was utterly confused. Did this Paul guy have psychological issues? Was he dealing with some major mental health breakdown? One “I” wants to do one thing, but another “I” does what the first “I” hates. It seems like he suffered from a split personality disorder! (My embarrassing full disclosure: yes, I was a psych major as an undergraduate.)

After my conversion, however, my reading of Romans 7:13–25 changed completely. I could now relate to what Paul describes there as my own Christian experience. As a new believer, I was just beginning to understand doctrines that would become much more clear later: that I also died with Christ to the dominion of sin, and am raised with him to walk in newness of life (Rom 6); that I died to the law as a covenant of works and am now married to Christ (Rom 7:1–12); that I now delight in God’s law as a rule of gratitude; and that I sincerely desire to walk in grateful obedience to all his commandments. And yet I find myself hindered by my remaining sin. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24) I knew the bitterness of these words by personal experience—as well as the hopeful words which follow: “Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom 7:25)

As a young believer, however, I was uncomfortable around fellow believers who claimed that total victory over sin was possible in this life. I did not know it at the time, but some of these were “higher life” Christians—who thought they had graduated from being “carnal” Christians to “spiritual” Christians. Others were influenced by Wesleyan perfectionist teachings—either Nazarenes or Pentecostals. I found myself feeling guilty around folks like these—and, frankly, rather annoyed, too! Either they were dishonest about their remaining sin or deceived by bad teaching. Or in darker moments, I feared that perhaps I was helplessly stuck in the “carnal Christian” status. Worse still, maybe I was not regenerated at all! False, legal teaching like this generates pride or despair in those who embrace it—or a bipolar swing between these two gospel-denying poles.

These folks would claim that Romans 7:13–25 described Paul’s pre-conversion experience, or his experience under the conviction of the law immediately before his conversion. They did not ring true to me—not only in my experience, but also in the grammar of the passage. Why did Paul move from the past tense in Romans 7:1–12 to the present tense in Romans 7:13–25? I was still a newer Christian, but I was learning that we need to read the Bible carefully in its context and pay attention to such grammatical details.

Over time, I began reading “Reformed” writers—contemporaries like R. C. Sproul, J. I. Packer, and G. I. Williamson. And thankfully, they led me back to the sources of older Reformational writers like Luther, Calvin, Owen, etc. In God’s good providence, I stumbled across the Westminster Standards and later the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort. Throughout these confessional documents, Romans 7:13–25 is cited as the real experience of the true Christian. At last, I found my people! These writers and the Reformed confessions were biblically and pastorally honest about the believer’s life-long struggle with remaining sin.

Their honesty in turn magnified the grace and sufficiency of Christ’s Cross and righteousness—even for Christian sinners like me! Romans 7:13–25, however, is not a refuge for the antinomian who seeks the false comfort of wallowing in remaining sin. Instead, this key passage points us to the true comfort of walking by faith in the Son of God, “who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). It teaches us the truth that is in Christ Jesus, that we would learn to continually look to Christ’s blood and righteousness which are all-sufficient for our justification before God. Christ alone is our righteousness, our sanctification, our ultimate redemption, and our hope of glory. This reality also drives us to seek the help of the Holy Spirit in our continual battle against sin, the war that is sanctification. By virtue of our union with Christ, the Spirit applies Christ’s death and resurrection to us, so that the old man is put to death more and more, and the new man is strengthened more and more.

This battle, however, is not fought for some imaginary victory of sinless perfection in this life. Instead, it is fought under the victory banner of Christ’s cross and obedience for us. We fight not for the victory but from his victory over sin and death: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1) And this battle is also fought in light of the final victory—the perfection that will be ours, in glory. Indeed, “Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

I take the Reformational and confessionally Reformed understanding of Romans 7:13–25 to be exegetically sound, pastorally honest, and entirely hopeful, because we are continually reminded to trust in Christ’s sole sufficiency as our Savior, and we are renewed in our certain hope, that seeing him in glory, we will be made like him. This hope also purifies us now, even as he is pure (1 John 3:2–3). All of this is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—to the glory of God alone!

I have noticed in Reformed circles, however, that some are reevaluating this classical Reformational exegesis of this key passage. Some influential scholars and commentators are introducing alternative exegetical constructions, perhaps to mitigate this seemingly “defeatist” Reformed exposition.

For my part, I am a confessional Presbyterian minister who sincerely subscribes to the Westminster Standards. I have also previously and happily subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity as a former minister in the URCNA. My concern in this matter is for the confessional integrity of my fellow ministers in NAPARC who may be enticed by alternative exegetical approaches to this all-important passage. Not only is confessional integrity at stake, but also the pastoral comfort of those who sit under our preaching and still struggle mightily with remaining sin. Our confessions are pastoral and honest about this reality. A denial of it only encourages silent despair for those not experiencing some idiosyncratic and non-reformed version of a “higher life” or sinless perfection.

Furthermore, significant sections of our confessional documents are based on the Reformational understanding that what the apostle Paul describes here is his actual Christian experience—and that of all who are regenerate. To embrace any alternative exegesis creates a tension, I believe, for those who have subscribed to Westminster or the Three Forms. Some may try to alleviate that tension by appealing to Galatians 5:17, but that seems hardly sufficient to alone bear the confessional weight that Romans 7:13–25 so ably does.

One recent advocate of an alternative exegesis of Romans 7:13–25 is Douglas Moo. He is a well-regarded evangelical exegete and his commentary on Romans (part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament) makes a robust scholarly contribution to understanding this magnificent epistle. Many Reformed preachers (including this one) will rightly consult his commentary and find much exegetical help—except, in my view, when it comes to our passage.

Moo’s exegesis argues that Paul is indeed looking back to his pre-Christian experience. “Particularly in vv. 21–23, Paul is characterizing his pre-Christian situation from his present Christian perspective.”¹ He further argues that Paul is engaging a literary technique by using the first person and shifting to the present tense:

Paul’s characterization of the situation of Jews under the law in this paragraph describes, in personal terms, the state that resulted from the event he has narrated in vv. 7–13. This goes some way toward explaining the shift from past to present tense verbs; Paul first narrates past events, then depicts the continuing status of those who were involved in those events.²

Moo further argues that “the law” referred to here is not the moral law in general, but the Mosaic law in particular. Paul’s cry of despair leading to thanksgiving is merely an interjection regarding the deliverance that has indeed come with Christ. In Paul’s concluding words, however, “he returns to summarize the divided state of the Jew under the law, serving ‘two masters’—the nomos of God and yet also the nomos of sin (v. 25b).”³

After his verse-by-verse exegesis defending a pre-conversion view of Romans 7:13–25, and that of the conflicted Jew under the law of Moses, Moo grants the following:

While Paul is not, in my opinion, depicting a Christian situation in this paragraph, there are important theological applications for the Christian. First, we are reminded of our past—unable to do God’s will, frustrated perhaps at our failure—so that we may praise God for his deliverance with deeper understanding and greater joy. Second, we are warned that the Mosaic law, and, hence, all law, is unable to deliver us from the power of sin; the multiplication of “rules” and “commands,” so much a tendency in some Christian circles, will be more likely to drive us deeper into frustration than to improve the quality of our walk with Christ.⁴

As Dana Carvey’s classic church lady character would say, “Well, isn’t that convenient?” Perhaps the confessional Reformed minister can, with Moo, have his cake and eat it, too?

I think that would be a difficult case to make, based on how much our confessions and catechisms rely on the Reformational exegesis of Romans 7:13–25. In the next installment, I will survey some key examples from our Reformed confessions and catechisms to demonstrate this, where part or all of this passage is cited.⁵

Notes

1. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 450–51.
2. Moo, Romans, 451.
3. Moo, 451.
4. Moo, 467.
5. I am using the on-line URCNA resource for The Three Forms of Unity. For the Westminster Standards, I am utilizing the Logos version of James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014).

©Tony Phelps. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Tony Phelps

  

  Tony grew up in Rhode Island. He was educated at BA (University of Rhode Island) and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He worked in the insurance industry for ten years. He planted a PCA church in Wakefield, RI where he served for eleven years. In 2015–18 he pastored Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA) in Colorado Springs. He is currently pastor of Living Hope (OPC). Tony is married to Donna and together they have three children.

  More by Tony Phelps ›