Truth Magazine

By Larry H. Fain

The apostle Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth and also to the saints in Rome, had, as his motive, the same thing as he did in writing to Timothy. 1 Timothy 4:16: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (NKJV). The issue at hand is the salvation of souls. The question we must ask is a simple one. “How shall I conduct myself so as to (1) save my own soul, and (2) save others as well?” If we ever lose sight of the fact that salvation is the end of all our discussions, we shall never truly understand any passage of Scripture regardless of its degree of difficulty. 1 Corinthians 10:33: “Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (NKJV). In this manner, Paul concludes his discussion of “liberty” by emphasizing the most important aspect of this or any other discussion, the salvation of souls.

Both in 1 Corinthians 8:9 and 10:29, Paul uses the word “liberty” and applies it to the individual. What is an individual liberty? Inherent in the words from which liberty is translated is the authority or freedom to act. Can liberty ever be sinful, or is it always some approved activity? 1 John 3:4: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (NKJV). The Greek, anomia (lawlessness), simply means “without law.” Sin is action without the approval of law. Law commands or prohibits and sometimes allows. The freeway speed limit law prohibits excessive speed as well as inhibits speed which is also dangerous. Within these two extremes is a course of action which is allowed by the law. By setting an upper and a lower limit, the law allows liberty of action within the parameters of the law.

What, then, is the rule, if any rule exists, for the establishment of a liberty in the Scripture? We know such liberty exists. We have already cited Paul’s references to it. One key passage needed to answer our question is 1 Corinthians 10:23: “All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify” (ASV). Whatever is discerned concerning liberty, primarily, we must comprehend that any activity first must meet the approval of law. “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” (Matt. 21:23b, NKJV). “The baptism of John  where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25a). We may insert any activity in the place of the baptism of John  divorce for any cause, collections into the treasury of the local church on a day other than the first day of the week, fellowship halls, abortion, instrumental music in the worship of the church, baptism by sprinkling for the remission of sins. What is the origin of the authority for these activities?

Does the authority originate with God or with men? This is a primary exercise for the man who seeks to please God.

Expedients may be helpful and profitable. By definition, they must be. Many things, lawful and unlawful, may work to build a house, which is the word edify. Unless, however, these edifying expedients are first and foremost lawful, they are disallowed by God’s word. Sin is activity without law. Sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:2). There-fore, no sin, no action without the approval of the law of God, can be classified as a liberty. We are never at liberty to commit sin. Any interpretation of any passage of Scripture so as to allow sin is an erroneous interpretation. God hates sin.

Law commands. Acts 2:38 records a command. 1 Corinthians 6:18a, 1 Peter 2:11, and 1 Corinthians 11:24b all do the same thing. There are no options here. By law, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins are both required for salvation. By law, all who would be righteous must flee from sexual immorality and abstain from fleshly lusts. By law, Christians must observe the Lord’s death in the Supper “in remembrance of me.” There is no liberty here in the things specified. We are bound by the law to do just as God has said. As there may be liberty, under generic authority, to observe the Lord’s supper at any predetermined time on the first day of the week, or baptize in a lake, stream, or baptistry, these are expedients under the law. Liberties are not debatable. Law must first be surely established before we can act.

In our assigned texts, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, mention is made of meats. In Romans, the discussion concerns meats in general. In the Corinthian correspondence, meat sacrificed to idols is considered. There Paul makes basically one point. Liberty is to be shunned for the salvation of a weak brother. “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13, NKJV). Was it allow-able, under God’s law, for Paul to eat the meat? Certainly it was allowable. It meets the law test. “But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse” (1 Cor. 8:8, NKJV). As far as God is concerned, whether we eat meat or shun meat is no business of his. He leaves the choice to us. Eating meat, including the meat offered by a heathen to a dumb idol, is of absolutely no consequence to God. It is lawful. It is expedient. It is allowed by God to be done.

However, when we inject the conscience of the weak brother into our deliberations, we have another variable in the equation which must be considered. Then, for the sake of the salvation of a soul, eating meat becomes a sin. Read verses 9-11. It does not matter how right the thing is, or how much we may know about how right it is, if we hinder the righteous behavior of a weak brother, we are said to sin against, not only the brother, but Paul says we sin against Christ, who gave his life for the weak brother. 1 Corinthians 8:12: “But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (NKJV). The first example of a “doubtful thing” (Rom. 14:1) is the matter of meat eating (Rom. 14:2). One man eats meat. The other eats only vegetables. So what? Does God care what a man has for supper? Does his law legislate in this area? Only verse 6, that we eat to the Lord and give him thanks. To bind anything else as a matter of law is to go beyond the revealed authority. The child of God, strong or weak, has the option. Strong or weak, we are to receive each other and love each other in the Lord. Concerning the observance of days, Paul says in Romans 14:5b: “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (NKJV). Concerning what sort of question can that statement be made? Can we say that about baptism? Is each man allowed by the Law of God to make up his own mind about that? Can we say that about instrumental music? Can we say that about the fellowship hall? Can we say that about divorce for any cause? Can we say that about immorality? “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17, NKJV).

In an area where we function within generic authority, God has given us liberty to act. No sinful practice is ever allowed in the arena of liberty. When we are commanded to go preach the gospel, we are not at liberty concerning what we must preach, but we are at liberty to decide what is the expedient way to get there. In the area of fellowship, a local church has no option when it comes to the divisive man or the adulterer. “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17, NKJV). “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5, NKJV). There is no liberty here. There are no options. When, however, brethren disagree about a matter where there is liberty, the command is just as clear. Romans 14:3: “Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him” (NKJV). That last phrase is vital. If God has received a man, by faith and obedience to his law, we cannot judge him as he is God’s servant. We must not dispute over matters of liberty. However, when sin is present, we must act in order to save souls from the wages of sin, death (Rom. 6:23).

No doubt there are some serious issues between brethren where liberty and law must be discerned, but let that be done in a spirit of deference for each other and supreme respect for the will of God. “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:22-23, NKJV). If we ever stray from the principle of respect for the law of God, we will stray from God altogether. We can study diligently God’s word daily to decide our course of action in our life of service to him. Sin or the approval or the allowance thereof is never an option for God’s servant. “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5, NKJV). If we stay in the light of God, he will receive us, and we must receive all those who do the same. May God help us by his grace and through his word to, as Ezra of old, “… prepare our hearts to seek the Law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10, NKJV).

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 8-9
February 15, 1996

By Truman Smith

“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23).

Since the phrase, “spirit and soul and body” is the focal point of our study, we can think of no better place with which to begin these considerations than with Genesis 1:26-31; 2:7, 21-23, which is a part of the divine record of the six days of creation. Moses, having chronicled the events of creation from the first day, says that on the fifth day God created the water and air creatures. On the sixth day he created the land animals and, then on that same day, since everything else was now created, the very crown and glory of his creation, humankind, must now grace the landscape of this prepared cosmos; hence the record of the origin and production of mankind the source from whence he came.

Herein we are informed of how God created man in such a way as to dignify him by setting him apart from all other creatures. These passages teach us about the special and particular nature of mankind. The psalmist writes of the excellence of Almighty God and the honor due him for having created such a universe with, as far as man is concerned, such limitless and fathomless boundaries and then to be so thoughtful and perceptive as to remember to create such a minute creature as man. Said he in Psalms 8:4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” David then refers to Genesis 1:28-30 and tells how God elevated man by crowning him with glory and honor and placed him in a position of power and dominion over all other created things. (Please read all of Psalm 8.) Thus, contrary to The Watch-tower doctrine, which placed man on the same level as a dog, when God made mankind, he gave to him a person-age and dignity which sets man apart from the animals and beasts of the field. Now let us look at that of which mankind is comprised.

Body

Speaking of the creation, David said: “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and they were created” (Psa. 148:5). So, we understand that God spoke and this vast universe, with all of its galaxies, celestial bodies, sun, moon, earth, etc., were brought into existence, including all of the dry land creatures by the sixth day, with the exception of man; and God performed a different kind of miracle that same day, making it easier for us to comprehend the material makeup of our bodies. The miraculous formation of Adam from the dust of the earth, then later the miracle creation of Eve from a rib taken from the side of Adam, informs us of the substance from which our bodies came. Mankind was made of the very same chemicals of which the earth, or dust of the ground, consists; thus Adam, and all men since him, are “of earth, earthy” (1 Cor. 15:47-49; see also John 3:31; 2 Cor. 4:7). Even the name “Adam” means “red earth.”

The word “tabernacle” is used in Scripture to denote a temporary, portable and tent-like house which could be moved from place to place. Thus, this term is used to refer to the body of man to stress its temporary or transitory nature. The body is a habitation for the inner man, the “earthly house of this tabernacle” (2 Cor. 5:1). In our pas-sage (1 Thess. 5:23) it is called “the body” in contrast to the “spirit” and “soul” of man. Other like usages of the – word may be seen in such passages as Matthew 10:28; 2 Corinthians 5:6; James 2:26; etc. When we read where Jesus said in Matthew 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” it should be obvious to any Bible student that Jesus speaks of the body of man as that part of him that is perishable and the soul as being immortal. Therefore the body of man is his physical composition. It is this “body” that dies and returns to the earth from when it came (Gen. 3:19; Psa. 146:4; Job 34:15; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7). But the Christian is charged with the responsibility of keeping his body pure and uncontaminated with sin (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1) and in this body he is to “glorify God,” for it is “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19, 20).

Spirit and Soul

When Moses tells us that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7), we do not believe that this language is necessarily designed to inform us that this is the way man received his immortal soul. And, we agree with Leupold that, “Not this breath itself but the manner of its impartation indicates man’s dignity” (Leupold on the Old Testament, 1:116). Let’s remember that the word translated “soul” in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew nephesh and in the New Testament it is from the Greek word psuche. The word “spirit” in the Old Testament is from the Hebrew ruah, while in the New Testament it is from the Greek pneuma.

Yet, to avoid monotonous and tedious technicalities in dealing with the usages of all of these original words, we believe that it should be sufficient to say that when God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26), and then Moses said: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27), and since “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24) and is “the father of spirits” (Heb. 12:9), the only way that man can have an immortal soul is by the fact that God “created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” (Gen. 1:27). If not, why not? Man certainly could not have been made in God’s image physically, for God is not a physical being! Why do we have to squabble over such things as “breath of life,” “animal life,” etc. It is said of no other creature in the Scriptures that God created them in his own image, except mankind! This is the principle that makes man different from all others of God’s creation. Those of the “Watch-tower Bible and Tract Society” who go up and down the streets and from house to house spreading their false doctrines, believe that man is just a higher form of animals, that all that man consists of is “the breath of life” and flesh and bones, and because he was given dominion over other creatures is the only thing that sets him apart from all other creatures. In other words, they deny that man has an immortal soul, an existence that survives after death (See Let God Be True, 66-75). Thus, they believe that man is to-tally mortal! According to their doctrine, when man dies, he simply goes back to the dust of the ground and that is the end of his existence; no different from a dog! Among other things, this helps them to propagate other false doctrines such as “Hell, a place of rest in hope” (Ibid. 88-89).

It seems most obvious to this writer that there are times when the Bible speaks of the soul and spirit as being two separate things, then there are other times that it uses the terms interchangeably. However, it does seem that when both words appear in a given passage, it is for the purpose of referring to that part of man which is immaterial while including the idea of his immortal being. This most definitely would be true of 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Here we have Paul referring to them “wholly,” thus the complete nature of man is intended: “spirit and soul,” their spiritual make-up, including their whole spiritual being, the part that is “not seen,” their “inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16, 18); and the “body” refers to “the outward man” (2 Cor. 4:16, “the flesh,” (2 Cor. 7:1). We do no detriment to the passage when we think of the “spirit” (pneuma) to include the breath of life or life-principals, and that it also comprehends our intellect, emotions, will, etc., while the “soul” (psuche) embraces all of these, but is also our personage, our own identity.

All of these, including the “body” (soma) must be “pre-served blameless” to the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Incidentally, while most all of us speak of “the salvation of the soul,” Paul does refer to the salvation of the “spirit” (pneuma) in 1 Corinthians 5:5. While either one is a biblical concept (see James 1:21; 5:20), it does seem that most of us think as we have explained above. As a general rule, the “soul” (psuche) refers to a person or individual. Luke speaks of “three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41; see also Acts 7:14, etc.). These “souls” are persons, individuals.

Let us remember too that we are to “present your (our) bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1). The body of man is dependent upon the “inner man,” the “spirit,” to keep it pure. Paul said, “Let not sin there-fore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:12, 13). From this passage we also learn that the Christian’s body serves as an instrument through which the spirit functions and that the body must be used in the performance of righteous deeds in service to God.

An animal, such as a dog, functions by instinct. Its very survival depends upon this innate quality. Since it does not possess the same spiritual quality as does man, it does not have the capacity to understand, believe, repent of sin, and be baptized for remission of sins, which all must be done with the heart (Rom. 6:17, 18). This is why Paul said, “We persuade men” (anthropos), people. People do not instinctively obey the gospel; they have to be taught and brought to an understanding of the will of the Lord, then they must obey from the heart “that form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17).

Brethren, our treatment of this passage might seem to be an over-simplification. However, we do not see the necessity of involving ourselves in the tedious and complicated aspects of the Hebrew and Greek usages of the words translated “soul” and “spirit.” Such, we believe, will only confuse the issue. And, while there are many aspects of these words and their usages, still it is our can-did view that the Bible student can be brought to an understanding of truth on these matters by carefully studying the context of any given Scripture where such is discussed. Let us uphold the dignity of man by seeking to be led by the teaching of God’s word, keeping ourselves pure within and without. If we do this, when life is no more upon this earth, we will be prepared to go home to be with Christ and live forever in the sweet by and by.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 10-11
February 15, 1996

By Bobby R. Holmes

I am grateful for the opportunity of being a part of the discussion concerning “Difficult New Testament Pas-sages.” I have been assigned James 5:13-16, however, I believe the context of this section of Scripture continues through verse 20, thus we will include those verses as well. I make no claim of knowing all there is to know on the subject. I have wrestled with these passages in the past and after prayerful, careful study, I have arrived at the conclusion that the overall theme in these passages is the power of prayer for those in sin. All I do is invite and encourage each of you to study with me.

Verse 13: “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.” Through out this book, James has discussed the suffering of Christians. The first twelve verses of the first chapter ad-dress the subject of suffering and the profit that comes to those who endure with patience. Note verse ten of the chapter before us. “My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience.” What is one to do when suffering? The answer is given, “Let him pray.” James tells us how we are to pray “But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (James 1:6-8, NKJV). Next in the verse he asks, “Is anyone cheerful?” and then tells us what to do, “Let him sing psalms.”

Verses 14-15: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing ‘him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick; and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” The question that comes to mind here is this, is the “sick” here referring to a physical sickness or is it spiritual in nature? Many have asserted it to be a physical illness but I believe that is assumed. I pose some questions for consideration. Why call for the elders of the church to pray for a physical illness? It is said that it was because they had the spiritual gift of healing, but that is assumed. Not all had this gift and being elders did not automatically grant them this gift. One real important question that has led me to believe the sickness here was spiritual in nature is in regard to the work of elders.

What is the purpose and work of elders? When we consider the following passages I believe we must conclude that their work is spiritual in nature. “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28, NKJV). “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (Heb.13:17, NKJV).There are many others but these will suffice to show the purpose and work of elders is spiritual in nature. Yes, elders are to be concerned about the physical welfare of the saints as well but, in reference to the context before us and in view of lack of evidence that all elders had the gift of healing (and for the verses to have any import all elders would have had to have the gift of healing else the verses lose their meaning), I believe the “sick” referred to are those spiritually ill. In addition, the word “sick” can be used to refer to one who is “made weak” according to Strong’s Concordance. And in verse 15 the word “sick” is used “faint, sick, be wearied” (Ibid. 39). There are other questions that pose a problem if the sickness here is physical in nature. What of the churches that had no elders? Who would the elders call if they are sick? Are not all members of the church to pray for the sick and not only the elders? In case someone should make the point that all members are also to be concerned about and pray for the spiritually sick I state here that I heartily agree and though we are not to the verse yet, I refer you to verse 16 that encourages this very thing. “Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” Let us go back to verse 14. What about “anointing him with oil”? Anointing with oil was a common practice in the Old Testament. It was used in two ways. As a ceremonial way as found in 1 Samuel 16:13. This served to symbolize an event. It also was used for medicinal purposes as found in Isaiah 1:6. Since the con-text must decide the purpose of the anointing let us look carefully at it. Looking at verse 15 it says, “And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” Strong says that the word “save” as used here means “to save, i.e., deliver or protect (lit. Or fig.)  heal, preserve, save, be (make) whole.” Thayer says “to make well, heal, re-store to health (all understand this as including spiritual healing)” and refers to James 5:15 as one of the verses.

Verse 16: “Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” The context alone would demand that the subject dealt with is spiritual in nature but to add to this thought, Thayer tells us that the word “healed” here means “to make whole i.e., to free from errors and sins, to bring about (one’s) salvation. James 5:16.” Again, when left in context, the passages are discussing prayer for spiritual healing. Lest I be misunderstood, I certainly do also believe in praying for those sick physically. I am simply discussing what I believe these passages in James 5 are talking about.

Verses 17-18: “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit.” The example of the faith of and fervent prayer of Elijah is used here to show Christians both of the first century and today the power of prayer. He is not saying that one should or could pray that the earth be stayed from rain for three and a half years, but rather uses this Bible example to give us confidence in the power of prayer from a godly person that prayed fervently. Contextually, it is used in connection with praying for those caught up in sin. The lesson shown here should serve as a deterrent to the lack of faith that some have in the assurance from God that he will forgive us of sins when forgiveness is sought in the proper way. Too many have expressed doubt in such statements as, “I wish I could be sure that God has forgiven me of such and such sin,” etc. These passages in James, when truly believed and heeded, will eliminate such lack of faith.

Verses 19-20: “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” These verses simply encourage us to reach out to our erring brothers and sisters with loving hands and bring them back to the fold of safety. I trust that this brief study will help some to better understand the exhortations and promises from our Lord.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 19-20
February 15, 1996

By Harry R. Osborne

To say that this passage has been the occasion for much debate is an understatement. The fact that it is a difficult passage, regardless of the interpretation defended, is a truth to which all serious students would readily agree. In this brief study, we cannot raise all of the questions posed about this text, much less take the space required to reason to-wards answering all of those questions. We will, however, try to lay a foundation needed to properly understand the main points. For a detailed study, Whiteside’s commentary gives an excellent examination of this text.

The apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans by affirming that the Gospel is God’s power to save those who respond in faith to that message. He then shows that all are in need of that salvation because all have sinned beginning with the Gentiles and then concentrating on the Jews (Rom. 1:18-2:20). The next two chapters emphasize the themes of faith and grace as they relate to the justification of the sinner through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This point is also made with special emphasis to the Jews. Up to that point in the book, the writer stresses the need for and nature of God’s action in salvation.

With the beginning of chapter 6, the apostle spends three chapters mainly concentrating on the proper response from man to God’s grace in salvation. Paul affirms that “we” (Christians) cannot say that we may sin the more since God’s grace takes care of sin. Instead, we must see our baptism as a death to or separation from sin that we might live in “newness of life” (Rom. 6:1-11). He views that point of obedience from the heart as the time we were freed from the dominion or mastery of sin and brought under the control of the Lordship of Christ, being made servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:12-23). Those figures of death and dominion continue to reappear throughout this section of the book.

In the seventh chapter, those figures are pulled together in the first six verses as the writer uses them to picture the freedom “we” have from the old law as analogous to the wife released from the dominion of her husband upon his death. Paul shows the need for that change in dominion by noting “our” condition under the law. He notes, “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death” (Rom. 7:5). Paul is not saying that the old law created the sinful passions of man, for sinful passion predated that law. The law, rather, was the means by which the one living under dominion of the “flesh” identified his passions as sinful because the law so defined them as sinful. Such a person also learned through the law that the fruit of his sinful passions when acted upon (“wrought in our members”) was “the fruit of death.” Obviously, the main audience the writer addresses with this point are those of a Jewish background.

This line of reasoning was sure to raise a question in the mind of the reader. It is that question which initiates the context with which we are concerned. Paul answers by more fully explaining that the law was not sinful, nor was it the originator of sinful conduct. The law merely defined sin and made its nature clear to those it addressed. The identity of the law under consideration is made certain when the writer says, “Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). “The law” being considered obviously included the Ten Commandments for it is only in the two times those commandments are given that we find the phrase quoted by Paul, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Through that commandment, Paul first learned that coveting was sinful. That understanding came solely from the old law. Though men today may learn not to covet through the Gospel, such was not available to Paul when he learned the nature of coveting. In dealing with the context, let us remember that Paul introduces the teaching which follows by using himself as an example of those under the old law who discovered their sin by means of that law. Up to this point, he has tailored his teaching to those of a Jewish background.

It may also be noted that from this point forward in the context, the sin of which the writer speaks is that practiced by one who knows that his actions constitute sin. Thus, those who seek to use this passage to illustrate the Christian’s battle with sins of ignorance pervert the context. As we will see, this passage does not have primary application to the Christian’s struggle with sin much less his battle with sins of ignorance. It deals with the dilemma faced by the sinner who came to understand his sinfulness by the old law and found himself unable to escape sin’s dominion over him apart from the deliverance found in “Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The problem was not with any inherent evil in the law. Paul affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). This use of the present tense gives us our first clue about how Paul uses the present tense in this context. Though the apostle writes this at a time after that law had been done away, he further portrays that law as presently working “death” in him “through the commandment” (Rom. 7:13). How could that be literally true at the present time since Paul could only be condemned as a violator of the law he was presently under — the Gospel. He clearly speaks of a past time in the present tense just as the Hebrew writer does in saying what Jeremiah “saith” (present tense) even though Jeremiah spoke such in the past (Heb. 8:8-13).

The pattern of the context would lead us to the conclusion that Paul is also using the present tense to describe a past state when he says, “I am carnal, sold under sin” (v. 14) and later exclaim, “Wretched man that I am!” (v. 24). Not only would the consistency of context suggest this conclusion, but so would other passages which plainly state the manner of Paul’s life. In speaking of his present conduct as a Christian, Paul says, “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously and unblameably we behaved ourselves to-ward you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:10). Which was it? Was Paul presently carnal, sold under sin and wretched or was he holy, righteous and unblameable? It cannot be both ways at the same time, but it could have been both ways if the two passages speak of different points in his life.

Some have suggested that any casual reader of this con-text would automatically think that Paul was speaking of his present struggle with sin in verses 14 to 25 and that only those seeking to make an argument against Calvin-ism would view it otherwise. Such reasoning assumes what is to be proven. In the first place, the careful reader of the context will see that Paul has consistently spoken of a past time in the present tense and should reasonably expect that he is doing the same in these verses. Secondly, various commentators throughout history have defended the view that Paul here speaks in the present tense of a past point in time. Macknight shows the diversity of those so viewing the passage as he comments on verse 14 by saying:

Because the apostle in this passage uses the first per-son, “I am sold,” etc. Augustine in the latter part of his life, and most of the commentators after his time, with many of the moderns, especially the Calvinists, contend, that in this, and in what follows, to the end of the chapter, the apostle described his own state at the time he wrote this epistle, consequently the state of every regenerated person. But most of the ancient Greek commentators, all the Arniinians, and some Calvinists, hold, that though the apostle speaks in the first person, he by no means describes his own state, but the state of an unregenerated sinner awakened, by the operation of law, to a sense of his sin and misery. And this opinion they support by observing, that in his writings the apostle often personates others. See Romans 13:11-13. Wherefore, to determine the question, the reader must consider to which of the two characters the things written in this chapter best agree; and in particular, whether the apostle could say of himself, or of other regenerated persons, that “they are carnal, and sold under sin.”

Examination of Terminology

The terms Paul uses to describe his thoughts and actions are the strongest argument for understanding his statements in this text to illustrate the confusion experienced by the sinner condemned through the law. Often, a close scrutiny of the words used will help us better comprehend the idea stated by the writer. For example, if one reads Galatians 6:1-5 not knowing two different Greek words are both rendered “burdens” in the English translation of verses 2 and 5, the reader is likely to be confused. However, when he understands that the word in verse 2 refers to a heavy load which must be shared while the word in verse 5 refers to a personal load, the meaning be-comes obvious. Let us look at the terms in Romans 7:15-21 to see if we can get similar help.

Paul says, “That which I do I know not” (v. 15). Is he suggesting that he is not conscious of his actions? If so, his mental competence to stand accountable may be in question. Such is surely not the case with an apostle chosen by God to spread the truth and inspired to write these words by the Spirit. The word translated “know” is the Greek word ginosko which carries with it the significance, not just to being conscious of a fact, but of growing to understand the nature or comprehend the result of something. Whiteside commented on this word by noting:

It does not mean simply to be conscious of the particular act one is performing, but also to grasp the nature and consequences of what one is doing. No sinner does that. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he was conscious of his acts, but was utterly ignorant of the nature and con-sequences of his deeds. “Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief’ (1 Tim. 1:13). He did not know that every act he performed in persecuting the church was a crime against God and man; he thought he was doing right. He, therefore, did not know what he was doing  what he was accomplishing. When Jesus was on the cross, he prayed: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” These men knew they were engaged in the act of crucifying a man called Jesus; they did not know that they were crucifying the Son of God. They did not know what they doing. “And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Now, these men were not demented. They knew they were putting a person to death; yet they did not know what they were doing. If a sinner really knew the full nature and awful consequences of the life he is living, he would quickly turn away from it.

Three Words Describing Action

Three Greek words rendered “do” or “practice” in our English translations of the context also bear examination. All three words are used in verse 15 providing us an opportunity to examine their use and relation. Notice the passage:

“For that which I do (katergadzomai) I know not: for not what I would, that do I practice (prasso); but what I hate, that I do (poieo).”

Why are three different Greek words translated with two English words, both of which may convey the same meaning? When we define the words, we are aided in understanding the text. Let us define them:

1. According to lexicographers Arndt and Gingrich, the Greek word katergadzomai carries the idea of achieving or accomplishing something. It does not describe a mere action, but connotes action towards an accomplishment. It could be illustrated by that which an artist ultimately “does”  not just making strokes of paint, but accomplishing the desired end of his expression.

2. In contrast, the Greek word prasso describes one engaged in some action. It is mostly used of being involved in action which is not praiseworthy, thus rendered “commit” in many cases.

3. The last word, poieo, is used to signify the making, manufacturing or producing of something. It is used to de-scribe the action of Aaron in producing the golden calf (Acts 7:40) and of God in creating the earth (Acts 17:24). It carries the connotation of action done to make an end product.

The sinner does not fully comprehend what he will achieve as a result of his participation in sin. Instead, the sinner merely lives for the moment, satisfying his lusts. But what happens when he has time to think about the direction of his life? At such times, he surely longs for a different life than is characterized by his action of committing sin. Yet, he keeps on doing the same thing. In the end, he hates the end product of his life being produced by his actions. In paraphrased form, that is Paul’s point in verse 15. The same points are made repeatedly as Paul elaborates on this theme using the same terms throughout the text to describe the captivation of the sinner who realizes his sinfulness through the old law, but has no deliverance without Christ.

What is the solution? Paul says deliverance for such an one was found only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 25). What was true for the one who came to understand his sin by the old law is also true of the one today who comes to under-stand his sin by the new law. There is deliverance available, not by submitting to the dominion of the flesh, but by submitting to the Lordship of Jesus as an obedient servant of righteousness who has found newness of life in Christ.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 16-18
February 15, 1996