Why does Paul say, “It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me”?

Explanation:

Paul writes that it is no longer he who acts against God’s will, but sin that dwells in him. To understand why Paul writes this and what he means, we need to recognize that he opens rom Romans 7:17 with the phrase so now, which indicates that he is about to draw a logical inference.³ Of course, if Romans 7:17 is supposed to draw a logical inference, it is important to notice the material he draws the inference from. In particular, it is important to notice what Paul writes in Romans 7:14–16.⁴ There, he defends the goodness of the law. He explains that the law is spiritual, but that he is sold under sin. Further, he knows that the law teaches what is good, and yet he is unable to uphold the law. Finally, he draws the inference in Romans 7:17, It is no longer I who do it [break the law], but sin that dwells within me. Given that Paul defends the goodness of the law from Romans 7:14–16 while recognizing that he cannot obey it, his likely inference is the following. Although he has the capacity to recognize the goodness of the law, he cannot obey it, suggesting that another force is at work in him, that is, the force of sin.⁵

Counterargument:

The phrase so now can also be taken in a temporal sense. And if we take so now in a temporal sense, then Paul is not drawing an inference from what he wrote in Romans 7:14–16. Rather, he is explaining something in the order of his repentance and conversion (see interpretation 2, argument 1).⁶ Thus, without independent reasons to think that Paul uses so now in a logical sense, we are just as likely to take the phrase to have a temporal meaning, which leads to a different interpretation.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument does not go through for two reasons. First, the fact that so now could be taken in a temporal sense is not enough to show that it is not being used in a logical sense in Romans 7:17. Rather, for this counterargument to go through, it ought to show that it is better to take Romans 7:17 in a temporal rather than logical sense, or that the logical sense is somehow not coherent. Second, we do have independent grounds for taking so now in a logical sense based on the immediate context. For it is not clear what Paul means when he writes that it is not I but sin that dwells within me, aside from being an inference based on what he writes in Romans 7:14–16. For the clause seems to indicate that Paul is somehow split, or not responsible for his sinful actions. But when we take Romans 7:17 as an inference from what he wrote in Romans 7:14–16, it is clear that Paul is defending the goodness of the law, along with his capacity to identify that the law is good. Paul is able to identify that the law is good, and yet he is unable to keep the law, because sin is at work in him.

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means when he writes that it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me, we must recognize what he has already written in Romans 3:9–18.⁷ There he has explained that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin. Here he reiterates this same fact in light of the purposes of the law. For while Paul can identify that the law is good, he cannot obey it. Of course, from this we should not conclude that the law, which is good, brings death (Romans 7:13). Rather, Paul wants us to circle back to what he already wrote in Romans 3:9–18, which is that the sinful nature prevents him from obeying the law. In other words, while Paul can recognize that the law is good because sin dwells in him, which he has already concluded indicated in Romans 3:9–18, he cannot obey it.

Counterargument:

There is a significant problem with this argument. It contends that Paul reflects on the fact that he cannot uphold the law in light of the sinful nature he already introduced in Romans 3:9–18. The problem is that Paul seems to have moved beyond his initial comments regarding the sinful nature in Romans 3:9–18, for in Romans 7:6 he says that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code. Of course, serving in the new way of the Spirit suggests Paul is referring to the new life in Christ. But if Paul has in mind living a new life in Christ in Romans 7:1–25, it is unlikely that he also has in mind that because of the sinful nature, he is unable to keep the law. For the inability to keep the law likely refers to his pre- rather than post-conversion experience.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misses the fact that in Romans 7:14 Paul refers to being sold under sin. Of course, being under sin is the same phrase Paul used in Romans 3:9 when he wrote that both Jews and Greeks are under sin. And Paul writes that he is sold under sin after stating in Romans 7:6 that we serve in the new way of the Spirit. So how can Paul say in Romans 7:6 that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and in Romans 7:14 that he is sold under sin? As this view argues, Paul is defending the goodness of the law in this section, explaining why, although the law is good, aside from Christ it leads to death. In other words, when Paul says, It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me, he is saying that aside from Christ, while he can recognize the goodness of the law, he cannot uphold it, because of the sinful nature. So if Paul lives by the new way of the Spirit, he does not need to worry about the law, because the law will be fulfilled, but in himself he is sold under sin, and unable to keep the law.

The one weakness of this view is that it implies that humans have a natural capacity to detect the goodness of the law. In other words, Paul, as a sinner, is able to detect that the law is good, which implies that there is something good in Paul, even while he is a sinner. Of course, while he can detect the good, he is unable to do the good, which is why Paul says, It is not I but sin that dwells within me. Still, some might object to the notion that Paul, as a sinner, can detect anything good at all, never mind the goodness of the law.

Explanation:

Paul opens Romans 7:17 with the expression so now, which indicates that he has a temporal notion in mind. In particular, the phrase introduces a temporal shift which marks a permanent change in Paul as a believer. By writing so now it is no longer I who disobey the law, Paul contrasts how things were before with how things are for him now that he is a Christian. That is, before Paul was a Christian it was he who disobeyed the law, but now it is no longer he who does it because in his inner self, he now disapproves of sin. In other words, Paul is saying that before his conversion he approved of the sin he committed, but since his conversion he strongly disapproves of the sin that still dwells in him.⁸

Counterargument:

There is a problem with the logic of this view. This view holds that Paul discusses his post-conversion status in Romans 7:17. This implies that in the preceding verses, Paul discusses his pre-conversion state while in Romans 7:17 he uses the temporal expression so now to mark a shift in time toward his post-conversion state and the new attitude to sin that he adopts. In other words, while sin still dwells in Paul, since his conversion, his attitude toward sin has changed so that he disapproves of it in the sense that it is no longer he who does it.

The problem with this argument is that Paul has already indicated his disapproval of sin in the verses before Romans 7:17. That is, before Paul introduces the temporal phrase so now, which is supposed to mark a shift in his attitude toward sin, he says in Romans 7:15 that he does what he does not want to do. In other words, Paul does not want to disobey the law, but he does anyway. Of course, according to this argument, the temporal phrase that opens Romans 7:17 is supposed to indicate Paul’s change in attitude toward sin, but this cannot be the case since he already notes in Romans 7:15 that he had a negative attitude toward sin.

Explanation:

We know from other passages that when Paul converted, his attitude toward sin changed. Likely, Paul alludes to this changed attitude when he writes that it is no longer he who disobeys the law, but sin that dwells within him. For Paul writes in Galatians 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. In other words, before his conversion Paul had a certain attitude toward sin, but now that he has been crucified with Christ, his old attitude toward sin is dead, because it is now Christ who lives in him.

Paul is referring to this same changed attitude in Romans 7:17. That is, he is saying that it is no longer he who breaks the law, for he has been crucified with Christ, but it is sin that dwells in him.⁹

Counterargument:

In Galatians 2:20 Paul says it is not he who lives but Christ who lives in him. Compare this with Romans 7:17 where Paul writes it is not him who lives but sin which dwells in him. The difference because Christ dwelling in Paul and sin dwelling in Paul could not be more stark. In Galatians 2:20, Paul reflects on the Spirit-filled life he has in Christ, while in Romans 7:17 he reflects on the fact that sin lives in him so that he continues to break law. Thus, Galatians 2:20 is not a good candidate for informing the meaning of Romans 7:17, because they make different points.

The weakness of this view is that the theme of this section has to do with Paul explaining and defending the purpose of the law. Thus, we need to interpret Romans 7:17 in light of this theme. This interpretation, on the other hand, is focused on Paul’s conversion, but there is no indication from Paul that his conversion is the theme he wants us audience to focus on.