I received this email yesterday in discussion on the Gospel. It smashes the curse of legalism that would seek to wrap its ugly claws around my heart and others in Idaho Falls. Permission has been granted by the sender to print this publicly. Believing the Gospel for both nonbeliever and believer transforms the Scream of the heart to an indescribable Song of the soul.

Dear Todd,

This is long, but I think it can be very encouraging to anyone who takes the time to read it. A few days ago you forwarded an excerpt on Romans 7. For years I have been seeing something there that few others seem to be pointing out. Tell me what you think:The book of Romans and Galatians are marvelously complementary. Their messages are very similar. Although Galatians is shorter, there are places in the book where it expounds on concepts introduced in Romans, and vice-versa. Galatians 3 is only one such place. Consider especially the “Schoolmaster” paragraph. A purpose of the Law is to bring men to Christ. The way the Law does this is by revealing their sin, hopelessness, and need for a Savior. More…Romans 7:7ff expounds upon this exact concept by giving a more detailed explanation and illustration. This is the Schoolmaster Principle in Romans—identical concepts different language. “If it had not been for the law, I would not have known what sin was.” The Law has this ability to draw out sinful behavior, to make it obvious and indubitable. Because of this, some might be tempted to say that the Law is evil. But the conclusion Paul draws is that the Law is very, very good. It is good because it shows people that they are sinners, hopeless, and in need of a Savior.

So in Romans 7:7-12, we find an expansion of the Schoolmaster Principle–a further explanation of how the Galatians concept works.

Then Romans 7:13-25 continues as a first person illustration of what the above process looks like in the life of a person who is learning the depths of his own sin, hopelessness, and need for a Savior. This illustration cannot be divorced from the preceding without losing its meaning and force. Whether or not it is Paul in the first person is not the issue. It is no different from our history professor starting a lecture by saying, ” My name is Martin Luther . . . .” Instead, it is Paul saying, “I am whoever has, through the Law, realized his own sin, hopelessness, and need for a Savior.

For some reason, the 13-25 is often separated and presented without much reference to what has just preceded it. The chief question becomes “Is this a believer or an unbeliever speaking?” I think the question is unfortunate, because it has caused many to miss the value of the passage. Those who take it to be a believer are fond of borrowing the passage as a sort of solace for their guilt: “See, even Paul struggled with sin.” Those who take it to be an unbeliever have robbed believers of a very valuable illustration within a theology of Grace. Instead, I would argue that the passage should refer to anyone who is relying upon works for favor with God, whether a believer or unbeliever. The passage therefore illustrates everyone whose need is for Christ, whether that person be an unbelieving druggie on the street, or me on any day and at any time when I fall into legalistic, prideful, sinful attitudes and behavior.

As such, the passage wars with legalism and presents grace. Legalism is our most basic religious response to our own sinfulness. It is itself a sinful response to sin. It is the way the sin nature wants to fix our sin. A legalistic fix is every bit as evil as its corresponding sin. And more than this, it is doomed to failure. This is the lesson of the Law. Apart from Christ, with legalism only, we are hopeless and doomed. Try and try again and again and again, and we will still fail. The illustration vividly records these efforts and the failure that follows. Through these legalistic efforts comes the Scream of the Soul that every one of us has experienced when wallowing in the muck of our own failures. The passage records that Scream: “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death.”

When one is in this place, has met with the Law, has seen his sin for what it is, has experienced the futility of works-righteousness, has nowhere else to turn, one is ready for the Savior. One is exactly where God wants one to be for a time.

The answer to the Scream comes with a whoosh of relief. It is expressed enthymatically: “I thank God [that my deliverance comes] through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

So the Schoolmaster has brought one to Christ.

But it does not stop there. What is taught next by pastors and teachers is crucial and makes the difference between a continuing life of legalism and a life of dependence upon God’s Spirit for sanctification. Sanctification for many means that when the Deliverer has come in verse 25, He has flipped some sort magic Spirit switch that now enables the one delivered to go back up to verse 14 and try again. This time, he has hope that when he goes through the process he will do the things he ought to do, and will not do the things he ought not do. It is a strange hope that, this time, he will not be brought to the place of darkness and the Scream of the Soul, and he will have no need for a Savior.

In practice, that is sanctification to many people. Sanctification is a toggle switch that causes one to struggle less and less with obedience to the Law. Sanctification becomes, for these people, a legalistic process and less and less a process of Christ-reliance. Unfortunately, this interp misunderstands the nature of the deliverance in verse 25, by failing to read on to chapter 8:1.

The nature of the deliverance in this passage is not, first and foremost, some sort of magical ability to struggle less with the Law. Instead, it is something that turns the Scream of the Soul into a Song of the Spirit. It is this: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” When you have been in the pit of despair again and again and again, there are no more uplifting words than those. They cause a man to rejoice. They cause a man to sing in his soul. They move a man to love like he has never loved before. And in that love, nearly incidentally, he stumbles upon the fulfillment of the Law. He knows he will likely Scream again. But he knows his Savior will always be there for him.

Although Luther was speaking very tongue in cheek, you can see from these passages in Romans and Galatians why he came up with the statement, “If you are going to sin, sin boldly.”

We know this is tongue in cheek, because Paul had earlier said, “Shall we sin more that grace may abound?” Of course not. Silly question. But those who have had the above encounters with the Law and God’s grace can laugh with happy and relieved hearts at the irony of Paul’s rhetoric. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

So, on the heels of your post, I would like to suggest that the “Good That I Would” portion of Romans 7 is a first person illustration of the Schoolmaster Principle, intending to illustrate how the Law brings a person who is not relying upon Christ to the feet of the Savior, whether they be believers or unbelievers. This interpretation relies in part upon some further interesting interp ideas in Romans and Galatians that I do not really discuss here, but are part of the larger context. For instance, the “flesh/Spirit” antithesis in Romans and Galatians corresponds directly to the “Law/grace” antithesis in both books, so that to be “in the flesh” is to be “under the Law” and to be “in the Spirit” is to be “under grace.” This adds a dimension to our understanding of “in the flesh” that adds legalism to lists like murder, lust, etc. In fact, it puts legalism at the root of those lists. Legalistic righteousness, a plague within much of Christianity, is thus included with the worst sins against our God. It also takes “in the Spirit” out of the realm of mystery and gives it shape for our minds to grasp. For example: Ask someone what “walk in the Spirit” means, and see how amorphous, Keswick, and unhelpful their answer is. Probably will be something along the lines of “Stay close to God.” Answers like that wreak havoc on our ability to do what God says. Other important yet assumed interp ideas are a concept I call the “Dispensations of Time and Life,” from Gal. 3:21-29. There is an author-intended dual meaning to the phrase, “before faith came.” Does the passage demand this to be “before Christ came in history?” or “before Christ came in an individual’s life?” The answer is “both at once.” The passage demands it, and the result is that we understand the entire OT period to be a massive, straightforward, unadulterated illustration of the Schoolmaster Principle. The Law apart from Christ results only in frustration and failure.

Another important yet assumed interp idea is my definition of legalism. It is stretched to include any efforts at righteousness apart from Christ and is assumed to be far more pervasive among believers than what most of us are willing to admit.

And final assumed interp idea is the emphasis in the first several chapters of Romans upon what is meant by “all” in several places. In several places, “all” does not refer to every individual, but to large groups. For instance, the statement, “for all have sinned. . .” does not immediately imply that each individual person has sinned, but rather that all classes of people under discussion have sinned, namely the Jews and the gentiles. That each individual person is a sinner is a further implication of the fact that everyone belongs to one or the other of these classes. The significance of this distinction is minimal (13 years ago in grad school, Barrett said, “so what!”), but it is an interpretational emphasis that is usually missed in expositions of Romans. Moo is the only one I have seen it in. It has implications that support my emphasis above.

Dennis Bills

dbills@wvlearningcenter.com

____________________________