To state a fundamental and basic rule of interpretation: "Simplicity and Naturalness - Presumably the meaning of almost any passage was simple to the writer; otherwise, he would have attempted to simplify it by explanation or further development. The correct interpretation will therefore be a simple one, and any very intricate or devious method of interpretation may be reasonably suspected of error.....Rule: -- —The simplest and most natural interpretation of a passage must be preferred." pages 79, 81, Principles of Interpretation, Clinton Lockhart, Second Edition 1915.
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
Verses 7-13 in chapter 7 are written in the past tense, then in 14-25 Paul clearly switches to the present tense. The NRSV labels vs7-13 as "The Law and Sin" and vs14-25 as "The Inner Conflict". Is the "Inner Conflict" that of a regenerated person, as the present tense would indicate as Paul writes it, and Christians experience it? That is indeed the natural and simple reading of the text. Yet, there are those who bring up the idea in grammar of a "historical present" which is defined as "the present tense used in narrating a past event as if happening at the time of narration". There are instances in the NT Greek of the historical present, mainly in the gospels but they are found in 1-3 verse passages, not passages making up almost half of a chapter. There is no reason in the context to make vs 14-25 a historical present. In English translations, the historical present is rendered as the simple past tense, and no English translation I've seen renders vs14-25 in the past tense. It violates a rule of interpretation to make one tense stand for another:
"No one of these tenses, strictly and properly taken, can stand for another, as commentators often would have us believe. But where such an interchange appears to take place, either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason (especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision." page 209
Biblical Hermeneutics, A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry, copyright 1883
http://www.thestairview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/milton_terry_biblicalhermeneutics.pdf
The only reason to twist Scripture and add complicated theological arguments to the plain statements of the Scripture is to prop up an error in doctrine already locked into. Seemingly, in this passage it is to save the error of some type of perfectionism or total sanctification. V14 is therefore said to not describe a regenerate person. John Gill points out that the context surely cannot refer to the unregenerate:
"...several things which are said by the apostle can neither agree with him, nor any other, but as regenerate; such as to 'hate evil', 'delight in the law of God', and 'serve it with the mind', Ro 7:15. Moreover, the distinctions between flesh and spirit, the inward and the outward man, and the struggle there is between them, are to be found in none but regenerate persons; and to say no more, the thanksgiving for deliverance from sin by Christ can only come from such..."
Paul elsewhere is writing to the brethren when he states, "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." (Gal 5:15, ERV) That describes very carnal conduct by Christians. Paul continues, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would." (Gal 5:17, ERV) and that is stating the same in parallel as in Rom. 7:14-25.
When is total sanctification, full righteousness, sinless perfection to be found?
"And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." (1Thess 5:23-24, ERV)
"But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home." (2Pet 3:13, NRSV) and from the RWP on this verse:
"Dwelleth (κατοικε). Has its home (οικος). Certainly "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνη) is not at home in this present world either in individuals, families, or nations."
The idea that Christians in this life can be fully sanctified or sinlessly perfect is contradicted by the Scriptures:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8, NRSV)
"Surely there is no one on earth so righteous as to do good without ever sinning." (Eccl 7:20, NRSV)
"If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?" (Ps 130:3, NRSV)
In the stereotyped vice lists of Paul, which show those worthy of death and those barred from the kingdom of God, you not only find murderers, adulterers and sodomites; you also find sins and sinners such as gossips, envy, boastful, foolish, greedy, strife, quarrels. It seems that those claiming sinless perfection or total sanctification have a very shallow view of sin and feel good not to be a murderer, adulterer or sodomite, while often being guilty of some others that are equally condemned and worthy of death.
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
Verses 7-13 in chapter 7 are written in the past tense, then in 14-25 Paul clearly switches to the present tense. The NRSV labels vs7-13 as "The Law and Sin" and vs14-25 as "The Inner Conflict". Is the "Inner Conflict" that of a regenerated person, as the present tense would indicate as Paul writes it, and Christians experience it? That is indeed the natural and simple reading of the text. Yet, there are those who bring up the idea in grammar of a "historical present" which is defined as "the present tense used in narrating a past event as if happening at the time of narration". There are instances in the NT Greek of the historical present, mainly in the gospels but they are found in 1-3 verse passages, not passages making up almost half of a chapter. There is no reason in the context to make vs 14-25 a historical present. In English translations, the historical present is rendered as the simple past tense, and no English translation I've seen renders vs14-25 in the past tense. It violates a rule of interpretation to make one tense stand for another:
"No one of these tenses, strictly and properly taken, can stand for another, as commentators often would have us believe. But where such an interchange appears to take place, either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason (especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision." page 209
Biblical Hermeneutics, A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry, copyright 1883
http://www.thestairview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/milton_terry_biblicalhermeneutics.pdf
The only reason to twist Scripture and add complicated theological arguments to the plain statements of the Scripture is to prop up an error in doctrine already locked into. Seemingly, in this passage it is to save the error of some type of perfectionism or total sanctification. V14 is therefore said to not describe a regenerate person. John Gill points out that the context surely cannot refer to the unregenerate:
"...several things which are said by the apostle can neither agree with him, nor any other, but as regenerate; such as to 'hate evil', 'delight in the law of God', and 'serve it with the mind', Ro 7:15. Moreover, the distinctions between flesh and spirit, the inward and the outward man, and the struggle there is between them, are to be found in none but regenerate persons; and to say no more, the thanksgiving for deliverance from sin by Christ can only come from such..."
Paul elsewhere is writing to the brethren when he states, "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." (Gal 5:15, ERV) That describes very carnal conduct by Christians. Paul continues, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would." (Gal 5:17, ERV) and that is stating the same in parallel as in Rom. 7:14-25.
When is total sanctification, full righteousness, sinless perfection to be found?
"And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." (1Thess 5:23-24, ERV)
"But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home." (2Pet 3:13, NRSV) and from the RWP on this verse:
"Dwelleth (κατοικε). Has its home (οικος). Certainly "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνη) is not at home in this present world either in individuals, families, or nations."
The idea that Christians in this life can be fully sanctified or sinlessly perfect is contradicted by the Scriptures:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8, NRSV)
"Surely there is no one on earth so righteous as to do good without ever sinning." (Eccl 7:20, NRSV)
"If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?" (Ps 130:3, NRSV)
In the stereotyped vice lists of Paul, which show those worthy of death and those barred from the kingdom of God, you not only find murderers, adulterers and sodomites; you also find sins and sinners such as gossips, envy, boastful, foolish, greedy, strife, quarrels. It seems that those claiming sinless perfection or total sanctification have a very shallow view of sin and feel good not to be a murderer, adulterer or sodomite, while often being guilty of some others that are equally condemned and worthy of death.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
