What does it mean that sinful passions were aroused by the law?

Explanation:

Paul explains that when we were living in the flesh, the law aroused our sinful passions. While it is startling to suggest that God’s good law arouses sin, Paul will explain in Romans 7:7–11 what he means by this.³ In particular, Paul explains that the law is not sin, but that without the law, he would not have known what coveting is (Romans 7:7). He goes on to write that sin found an opportunity in the commandment, bringing about all kinds of covetousness.

What Paul seems to be saying is that humans have an inherently sinful nature, which by definition is naturally against God. Thus, since humans are inherently sinful and the nature of sin is direct rebellion against God, when they encounter the law of God and the command not to covet, they naturally rebel and begin to covet. In other words, the law arouses sin in the sense that it highlights the inherent sinfulness of humans who are naturally against God’s will.

Counterargument:

There is one important problem with this argument. According to this view, humans are inherently sinful and rebellious against God, and the law instigates this rebellion by forcing humans to encounter God’s will. Because humans are inherently rebellious against God, when they encounter his will, they automatically rebel against it. The problem is that in Romans 7:9 Paul writes that he was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came sin came alive and he died. The notion that Paul was once alive apart from the law does not support the idea behind this view, which is that Paul was once inherently sinful apart from the law, even if the law had not yet aroused this rebellion. For the result of sin is death, so if Paul was inherently sinful apart from the law he was not alive apart from the law but dead apart from the law. Of course, Paul writes here that he was alive apart from the law, which implies that he was not inherently sinful apart from the law arousing sin.

Response to counterargument:

Likely when Paul refers to living apart from the law, he has in mind something like existing.⁴ Paul says that before the law he existed, but when the law came sin revived and brought death. Thus, Paul is saying in Romans 7:9 not that he was alive and not sinful before the law but that the law caused him to die and become a sinner. Rather, he has in mind that his sinful nature lay dormant and when he heard the command, his natural rebellion against God sprang to life and he sinned.

Explanation:

It is important to notice that Paul uses the preposition διά (through) to characterize the relationship between sin and the law. We can draw out the importance of the prepositional phrase by noticing what Paul does not say. He does not say that the law tries to unsuccessfully subdue sin, or that the law directly causes sin, but that sin is aroused through the law.⁵ In other words, the sinful nature is already latent in the human being and when the law comes along, the sinful nature seizes the opportunity as an occasion to rebel against God. Thus, sin is aroused through the instigation of the law.

Counterargument:

This argument is ambiguous because the preposition διά (through) can be taken in the sense of immediate agency.⁶ If that is right, then Paul is saying the law is not just the occasion that instigates sin but the immediate cause of sin. That is, it is not the sinful nature that is the cause of sin but the law. Unfortunately, because of the ambiguity of the preposition διά (through), this argument does not help us decide on whether Paul thinks the law is the direct cause or instigator of sin.

Response to counterargument:

Paul clarifies the ambiguity of the preposition διά (through) in Romans 7:7. There he asked if the law is sin, to which the answer is No. Further, in Romans 7:12 Paul says that the law is holy, just and good. In other words, the law cannot be the direct cause of sin because the law is not sin, and the law is holy, just, and good. These statements clarify that when Paul uses the preposition διά (through), he has in mind that the law instigates the sinful nature by giving it an opportunity to sin, not that the law is the direct cause of sin.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. We know that the law is holy and good, but that it somehow arouses sin. The plainest meaning of this is that the law instigates the underlying sinful nature.

Explanation:

Paul writes that the sinful passions were aroused by the law. We can detect what he means by this when we notice that the Jews sometimes used the law to advance their sinful purposes. The most obvious example of this is the fact that the Jews relied on the tenants of the law to commit the ultimate sin, which was the crucifixion of Jesus. For we read in John 19:7 that according to the law, Jesus had to die because he made himself the Son of God.⁹ In other words, the Jews used the law, which was supposed to be holy and good, in order to perpetrate their sinful passions. Thus, their sinful passions were aroused through the law.

Counterargument:

While it is true that the Jews applied the law in such a way as to advance their sinful passions, it is not clear that using the law to advance sinful passions is the same as the law arousing sinful passions. That is, what Paul seems to say in Romans 7:5 is that the law actually arouses sinful passions, which is not quite the same as using the law to enact sinful passions. For the law arousing sinful passions implies that humans have an underlying sinful nature that the law arouses. On the other hand, using the law to enact sinful passions suggests that the sinful passions are already aroused, and because of those sinful passions, the human uses the law in a sinful way. Paul seems to have in mind not that humans use the law in a sinful way, but the deeper notion that the law actually arouses sin. We can see this more fully in Romans 7:7 when Paul writes that he would not have known what it was to covet if the law had not told him not to covet.

Explanation:

We know that an important theme in this letter is the fact that the Gentiles have now been included as the people of God. With this in mind, we can detect what Paul means when he says that the law aroused the sinful passions. Likely, he has in mind that the law produced in the Jews boastful presumptions that led them to exclude the Gentiles. In other words, the law aroused sinful passions in the sense that it led the Jews to a false self-righteousness based on the fact that God had given them his laws.¹⁰ Since God had given them his laws, they perceived themselves as superior to the Gentiles and excluded them.

Counterargument:

This argument interprets Romans 7:5 in light of an underlying theme of the letter as a whole, which is the fact that the Gentiles are included in the gospel. While the inclusion of the Gentiles into the gospel is an important theme in this letter, the immediate context plays a more influential role in how we are to interpret Romans 7:5. And what we notice is that Paul clarifies what he means that the law arouses sinful passions in a way that goes beyond this interpretation. For Paul explains in Romans 7:7 that the law aroused sinful passions, not in the sense that it generated boastful presumption in the Jews, but that by forbidding Paul to covet, the law aroused the desire for coveting (see interpretation 2, argument 1, counterargument).

The weakness of this view is that it confuses using the law for sinful purposes with the law arousing sin. While it is true that the law can be used for sinful purposes, the law’s ineffectiveness to save, leading one to wonder why the law could not save, motivates Paul to explain that the law simply aroused sin. Thus, this interpretation fails to detect Paul’s underlying intention as it has been unfolding throughout the letter.