Christian Living

Why Romans 7 Does Not Describe a Christian

by J.W. Phillips
04/24/25
Not For Sale

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

Why Romans 7 Does Not Describe a Christian

The seventh chapter of Romans, if not interpreted correctly, can unleash devastating consequences upon the church, and has done so. 

There can be little doubt that most Christians today are living defeated lives, much like the life of that one described in Romans, chapter 7.

The church has been told that this is what Paul experienced after he became a Christian. So, left with this impression, it was entirely predictable that any expectation of consistent victory for us would drastically deflate.

Why, if none other than the greatest missionary theologian of all time was thrown into so much turmoil, so much defeat, what hope do the rest of us have?

To refute the view that Romans 7 is describing a Christian, it must be first pointed out that it isn’t at all certain that the words penned by Paul in Romans, chapter 7, are autobiographical. Paul’s use of the personal pronouns “I,” “me,” “my,” and “myself” in this chapter do not require the conclusion that this chapter is personal testimony.

Werner Georg Kümmel cites passages in Romans (Romans 3:7-8; 7:7a, 9) and in I Corinthians (I Corinthians 6:12, 15; 13:1-3) where Paul uses personal pronouns as an understood rhetorical device and not as indicators of biographical experience. According to Kümmel, these pronouns aren’t personal (referring to Paul) or typical (referring to humanity in general) but are dialogical (a manner of speaking about a subject under discussion).¹

Theologian Johannes Weiss considered these pronouns a literary convention.²

Scottish theologian John Laidlaw challenged the view that Romans 7 describes a Christian.

Considerable injustice has been done, not only to the interpretation of an important passage of Scripture, but, what is more serious, to the entire doctrine of sanctification, by some of those who are bent on maintaining that the latter half of the seventh chapter of Romans describes the experience of a converted man… Now it has been well said, that if this were all that grace did for its votaries, St. Paul would only have proved that it was as futile and insufficient as the law. If all that regeneration could accomplish were only to awaken a sense of inward discord without being able to take it away, this would certainly destroy the influence of spiritual Christianity and disgrace its character.³

Equally indignant, Johannes Weiss argued, “What would be the use of the new birth or redemption at all, if it could not end that miserable stress and slavery?”⁴

Protestant theologian Frederic L. Godet said the view that Romans 7 described a believer’s experience was practically unknown during the first three centuries. Most of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, as well as many other theologians through the years, have denied that Romans 7 is speaking about a Christian.⁵

The case against Romans 7 being descriptive of a believer’s struggle against sin is compelling. For how can it be said of a believer that he is enslaved in sin, that nothing good indwells him, that he is a wretched person not yet delivered from sin when Paul speaks of the believer as being no longer under the dominion of sin (Romans 6:14) but being freed from sin (verse 18). This is a declaration Paul reaffirmed in Romans 8:2.

Charles Wesley’s words, “He breaks the power of canceled sin and sets the prisoner free,” are all the more encouraging when it becomes known that the setting free in Romans 6 is presented in the perfect tense, describing a past action with a continuing affect or force. 

So if the believer’s freedom in Christ is permanent and ongoing, how can this same believer be sold under sin (verse 14)?

The heart-cry for deliverance expressed in Romans 7 is inexplicable if this same believer had already been set free in Romans 6.

The supposedly saved and miserable Christian we see in Romans 7 certainly does not describe the Paul we see elsewhere in Scripture—the Paul who tells others to imitate him (I Corinthians 11:1), the Paul who says that he gets stronger and stronger on the inside (II Corinthians 4:16), the Paul who declares that by walking in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16).

The fact is: The Bible provides extensive biographical details about Paul, and nowhere do we see the defeat described in Romans 7 as being characteristic of the life he lived as a believer, or even being an episode in his life.

From the time Paul reappears on the scene in Acts 13 to become the great missionary of the church to the end of his life on this earth, there isn’t any evidence at all that the sin-struggle Romans 7 describes manifested in this man’s life.

For that matter, there isn’t any evidence that Romans 7 describes Paul prior to his conversion, either.

Would a Pharisee ever say that he didn’t know how to do good?

Typical of the zealous Jew, and particularly a Pharisee, was a strong confidence that he could pass God’s inspection with flying colors. This is what Pharisees prided themselves in being able to do.

Therefore, Romans 7 is not likely an account of Paul’s personal life, at any time or during any stage of his spiritual development. Like most Pharisees, self-doubting did not manifest. And there’s not a hint from Scripture that Paul ever exhibited such doubting.

We may ask ourselves: Was Paul the Pharisee ever wondering about who would deliver him from sin, as the man in Romans 7 did (verse 24)? 

Scripture paints the opposite picture when it says that Saul, “breathing out threatenings and slaughter” (Acts 9:1 KJV), charged out across the countryside—intent on finding the secret to the sin problem? No, he charged out to “deliver” other people! From captivity of sin? No, into the captivity of Jewish leaders!

These other people, of course, being Christians and their forced destination being prison! Apparently, the only anguish present at that time wasn’t in him but was because of him.

According to the biblical record, there was no meltdown in Paul’s attitude, a time of softening, a time of reassessing himself and the rightful role the law ought to have in his life. For Paul it was full steam ahead!

In fact, so fierce and resolute was this man’s attack that it took none other than God Almighty to stop him!

With a quiet instilling of thoughts, you ask? No, with a blinding light and a voice straight out of Heaven!

Had there been any ambivalence in Paul, at least some self-doubting about his spiritual standing, perhaps lesser measures would have been sufficient to turn him around. But there’s no indication from Scripture that Paul was ever conflicted in this way! His confidence wasn’t challenged until Damascus. 

Important to note also is that Paul’s conversion transacted suddenly and that thereafter his relationship with the Lord progressed quickly. 

As we further track what happened, we discover that soon after Damascus Paul is filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17), becomes a powerful preacher (Acts 9:22, 29), before then going into the desert of Arabia for three years to commune directly with God, full-time, all the time (Galatians 1:17, 18).

So, again, we have to ask ourselves, where in the biblical record do we see Paul lamenting there is nothing good in him and that he doesn’t even know how to be good?

Harvard professor Krister Stendahl contended that Paul consistently viewed himself as a free and holy man and did not exhibit the conflict of conscience that troubles so many in their struggles against sin. The sense of personal disappointment from any current or recent failures in his moral life is remarkably absent from his writings.⁶

It should also be noted that years later Paul expressed outright amazement that the Galatians reverted to old ways so soon after they received the gospel (Galatians 1:6).

But if Paul had done the same thing, as those who think Romans 7 describes him say, would he have been so amazed? One would think that a softer, more empathetic approach would have been forthcoming. But this isn’t what happened.

The confrontation Paul launched in the Galatians letter was serious and sobering. With strong and pulsating emotion, Paul called these people fools and wondered openly who had bewitched them (Galatians 3:1).

Of considerable relevance to our discussion is the fact the issue at Galatia was exactly the same issue Paul addressed in Romans 7 (Galatians 3:2; Romans 7:6)—newness of spirit versus the letter of the law.

But instead of telling these believers that what they are going through is a normal stage in Christian growth, something we all have to go through, Paul renounced their thinking in no uncertain terms! He even told them their beliefs and behaviors were outside the gospel, instead of being a part of the gospel.

This intolerant response by the apostle further supports the notion that the pronouns used in Romans 7 are more likely fictive and not actual.

Further undermining the view that Romans 7 describes a Christian transitioning to maturity is the total lack of transitional language in this chapter.

There is no indication of any transition occurring in Romans 7. The direction of Romans 7 is not forward but sideward.

Just because the numeral 7 follows the numeral 6 doesn’t mean that chapter 7 presents a new development in the believer’s walk with God. It does not. There’s not one word in chapter 7 that adds any instruction for spiritual growth. None! Chapter 6 provides this instruction. Chapter 8 provides this instruction. Chapter 7 does not.

More properly understood, Romans 7 holds the ground Romans 5 gained (and Romans 6 defended) by further explaining why the law way to God, described in Romans 7, had to be displaced by the gospel way, described in chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 7 shows a contrast between the law approach to God and the gospel approach to God.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones offered this observation about Romans 7:

Its primary object, its fundamental theme is to deal with the place and the function of the Law in God’s dealings with the human race. Every detail must be considered in the light of that purpose, and of nothing else. To start by thinking that the object of this chapter is that Paul should give us his experience is to miss the whole point. That is not his purpose at all.

The unanswerable question is this: Why would Paul, after systematically setting forth this meticulous and marvelous explanation of the superiority of the gospel, interrupt this explanation to acknowledge it wasn’t working for him?

This makes no sense. And, of course, Paul did no such thing.

We see no linkage, no similarities, no blending in Romans 7; we only see contrasts. Moreover, the contrast between Romans 7 and Romans 8 couldn’t be more vivid!

In Romans 7:14 we see a man enmeshed with flesh ; in Romans 8:9 we see a man who isn’t enmeshed with flesh.

In Romans 7:17 sin wins; in Romans 8:4 righteousness wins.

In Romans 7:18 we see a man totally confused and utterly confounded in his struggle against sin; in Romans 8:6 we see a man spiritually minded and confused no longer.

In Romans 7:24 we see a man who is miserable; in Romans 8:6 we see a man who is very much at peace.

So is this the same man? Are we to understand the Christian life is one that fluctuates and vacillates between Romans 7 and Romans 8?

If this be the case, then the strong language of Romans 6:14 (“sin shall not have dominion over you”) cannot be true.

For if the Christian has been set free, as Romans 6 and Romans 8 both declare, but then reverts—periodically, if not more routinely—to the defeat and despair of Romans 7, in what possible sense has he been set free?

And further we may ask: How can a believer keep on being filled with the Spirit, as Ephesians 5:18 instructs, yet succumb to sin repeatedly?

And how can a believer never thirst, never be dissatisfied again, according to Jesus (John 4:13; 7:37-39), but then be thrown back into Romans 7 despair, as many people today claim?

The incongruence of possessing a joy that is full and a joy that remains (described by Jesus in John 16) with all these repeated lapses into the defeat dynamics described by Paul in Romans 7 cannot be resolved. ⁷

Notes:

1. Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p.191.

2 James S. Stewart, A Man in Christ, (Vancouver, Regent College Publishing, 2002), p.101.

3. John Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1895), p.279.

4. James S. Stewart, A Man in Christ, p.99.

5. F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p.271.

6. Donald L. Alexander, Christian Spirituality, (Downers Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press, 1988), cited on p.112 by Professor Laurence W. Wood.

7. Further proof that Romans 7 does not describe a Christian is found in Appendix A of my book, Pursuing a Divine Life, (Honolulu, HI, HCC Publishing, 2017), pp.415-436.