In the sixth and eighth chapters, Paul talks about the life of a Christian. But is he talking about Christians or non-Christians in the seventh chapter?

Verses 1-6 clearly talk about Christians. In verses 7-13, Paul speaks of man under the law. What about verses 14-25? Most of the recent Bible scholars consider that Paul talks about non-Christians in those verses. But there are also scholars who are of the same opinion as the reformer Martin Luther: at the end of the seventh chapter, Paul speaks about the Christian, who is a sinner and righteous at the same time.

The law of this life – Rom. 7:1-6

When talking about the law and Christians, Paul uses a comparison; he takes an analogy from the relationship between a husband and wife. Marriage is only for this life (cf. Matt. 22:30), and therefore marriage binds the spouses only as long as both live. When one of them dies, the marriage ends. In the same way, a Christian is dead to the law. For a Christian, the period when the law is in effect ends when he is baptized into Christ's kingdom.

It is important to note that in this, as in the parables of the Bible in general, there is just one point where the narrative aims at. Therefore, it should not be interpreted too literally. There is no parallel in Paul's thinking for everything that is included in it. For the parable to be complete, it would have to include the idea that the law died, but, in fact, Christ died. Using marriage as an image, Paul wants to say one thing: the time of the law is already over for the Christian, as he has moved to a new time. Nothing more should be "squeezed out" of this narrative. As the Christian is dead – baptism is also called a burial – the law can no longer present any punishment: death has already been suffered.

Two ways of living

A person can choose from two ways of life: either he lives under the rule of the flesh or under the guidance of the Spirit. The law arouses the lusts of sin in man (verse 5). So, the law does not destroy sin from our lives. "The grass is greener on the other side of the fence!" Everything that is forbidden tends to be followed by the pursuit of the forbidden, because due to original sin, man is at war against God, and thus he also wants to war against God's law. Walking under the guidance of the Spirit means true freedom. Christ has set us free from sin, the devil, the world, and our own flesh, which fight against us.

"The old way, slaves to the letter" should not be interpreted to mean that before Christ, the law was interpreted literally, but Jesus brought a new, freer way of interpretation. Jesus did not soften the law or its interpretation, but he opened a completely new way of salvation for man (John 14:6).

The law reveals man's inadequacy – Rom. 7:7-13

Once again, Paul realizes that his thoughts can raise objections, "If you have to get rid of the law, is the law a bad thing?". But such thinking would be wrong: after all, God set the law, and his will is declared to us in it. That is why Paul rejects the idea very strongly, "Of course not." The reason for

the fact that the law had become a problem was not the law but the people who followed it. People could not fulfill the requirements of the law. Therefore the law came for judgement. If the law had been fulfilled, the result would have been good: salvation. We humans have a bad habit of blaming God for things that we should be responsible for. For example, it is pointless to bring God to judgement for wars that man himself has started.

The law reveals to us that sin is deep within us. It is not only the breaking of the commandments of the law that is sin, but even the desire to break them is sin (cf. also Matt. 5:21-30). Lust is that we want to do our own will. We do not want to submit to God's will. This is the source of all sin. Adam and Eve had only one way of sinning: to break God's commandment (Gen. 3:3). When man did not want to do what he knew was God's will but wanted to do things his own way, sin was born (Gen. 3:6-7).

Biblical scholars have presented several explanations for who Paul means by "I" in this passage. The two most common interpretations are: either Paul is talking about himself, or Paul is talking about man in general, using the first man, Adam, as an example. Paul hardly thought that he had ever been without the law (verse 9). Even if a Jewish boy becomes a "son of the law" only at the age of 12-13, even before that he does not live without the law. So, Paul is talking about man in general. If man is not set free by Christ, he is under the law, as we already noted (verse 5).

Sinner and saint, bad and good – Rom. 7:14-25

Also in this episode, Paul speaks of "I". Who does he mean now?

There are two options: either Paul is talking about Christians or persons who are not Christian. If we want to think that Paul used himself and his own history as an example in this context, the options are Paul the Christian, or Paul before his conversion.

As I already mentioned at the beginning, the opinions of scholars are divided on this point. Most of them think that Paul is talking about non-Christians.

However, I will first discuss the less popular option, i.e. that Paul's "I" is a Christian. Church father Augustine and the religious reformer Martin Luther have been of this opinion. The view has been justified as follows:

1. The talk about man whose will is good only applies to a Christian (verses 15 and 18).

2. "Inner man" also describes a Christian in 2 Cor. 4:16-18.

3. Only in a Christian can there be real spiritual struggle (cf. Gal. 5:16-17).

4. The "I" longs for a Savior in the future. Only a Christian seeks Jesus (verse 24).

5. Verse 25 only fits to describe a Christian.

6. The verbs are in the present tense. Paul is thus talking about something happening at that moment, not in the past.

7. The "I" wants to do good and not evil (verse 19).

8. Only a Christian can say that there is nothing good in him (verse 18), a non-Christian wants to be good, and believes he is good.

The so called rhetorical interpretation, according to which Paul is talking about the non-Christian in the passage, is supported by most modern Bible scholars. The interpretation itself is very old, it can already be found in the Greek church fathers. It was also particularly popular in Pietism.

The reasons for this interpretation are as follows:

1. Elsewhere in his letters, Paul speaks much more positively about Christians, and he also sees the time he spent as a Pharisee more positively, for example in Phil. 3:6, he says about his time as a Pharisee that he was “as to righteousness under the law, blameless".

2. A Christian cannot be "sold unto sin" (verse 14). But if we think like this, we must ask what kind of understanding we have of original sin and its power even over a Christian.

3. The theme in the passage is not the problem of man, but the problem of the law.

4. The description is not a non-Christian's self-image of a non-Christian, but Paul's Christian description of a non-Christian.

The problem is not the easiest to solve, but personally I am inclined to agree with Luther and Augustine: Paul describes a Christian and the battle between good and evil that goes on in him. A Christian is both righteous and sinful at the same time. The new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), which we will see and experience perfected in heaven, is still incomplete here in the world.

Paul's picture of living as a Christian is quite grim at this point. It is worth remembering that in the next chapter, Paul describes the "other side of the coin", that is, the work of the Holy Spirit in a Christian.

A Christian lives in two “time periods”: the past one still does its work in him and wants to drag him back to the realm of sin, but the present one also does its work in him. That is why there is a constant internal conflict in the Christian. In the seventh chapter, Paul focuses on the influences of the past on the Christian, in the eighth he talks about where the Christian would already like to move to completely: to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I think the so called rhetorical interpretation is too theoretical: would Paul's first readers have known how to look for the message "between the lines"?

What about reality?

Of course, we must remember that we cannot interpret Paul by the events of our time, but still, it is probably not wrong to say that the interpretation of Luther and others has always been closer to real life, even today. No Christian has ever attained perfect holiness in this age. Even today, no one can say that sin no longer fascinates him and does not cling at all.

It is hard to think that Paul would have been as naive in this regard as the rhetorical interpretation would require. Paul did know, e.g., because of the events in Corinth, that Christians also sin and violate God's will constantly. In addition, it must be remembered that Paul usually included instructions on living as a Christian at the end of his letters, and often those instructions include talk about fighting against sin (for example, Eph. 6). It is only in death that the Christian is set free from this struggle (1 Cor. 15:50).

It is important that this is taught correctly. If we proclaim, "Convert to Christianity and all your problems will be solved!", it may be that the "converts" may for a little while find that our claim is true. But sooner or later the reality of sin in their lives will be revealed to them again, and then they face three options:

1. To "accept" that we are sinful and lacking even as a Christians.

2. To deny our sinfulness and strive for complete sinlessness.

3. To abandon the faith that “does not work in real life”.

Unfortunately, many choose the last option. But the second option is not harmless either. It easily leads to a spiritual "schizophrenia": reality is something different from what we imagine and think we live in. We do not believe what we see in our lives, we live in our own "spiritual bubble". It's only a matter of time before the discrepancy between reality and "reality" becomes so big that the bubble we built bursts. The burst of the bubble can even lead to mental illness if the false life has been lived for a very long time.

Maybe we would like to deny Paul's description of a Christian in our own case, and be better. But then it is worth remembering that only "the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). If God loved us as sinners, we are also good enough for him as imperfect Christians. And if we are good enough for God, we must also be good enough for ourselves and other Christians, even if we are not always pleased with our "mirror image".