Principles of living a godly life [52] – Christians and divine law [5]

 Let’s stand back for a moment to summarise what Paul is saying and to look at the implications for seeking divine approval by means of divine law. 

Paul is saying that –

 

Divine Law is good, clean, honourable and praiseworthy

By means of divine law we gain knowledge of –

No share of divine inheritance, 

Self-forfeiture, and

Divine disapproval

But a polarising distinction exists –

Divine law is related to the realm of breath and the heavenly realm, 

Whereas we exist as a physical, fleshly entity

Before God brings us forth we follow or bring to completion our fleshly impulses

Self-forfeiture takes hold of divine law and the knowledge it presents

Self-forfeiture uses the law as a starting point to increase and become apparent in every aspect and facet

After God has brought us forth as Christians we find two opposing fundamental principles within us –

 

Our illuminated mind agrees that divine law is good, clean, honourable and praiseworthy

‘I’ closely identify with delight in God’s Law with my mind

Our intention is to speak and behave in agreement with it

But

An opposing energy, impetus and movement exists within our flesh

This impetus, existing in my members, takes me captive within self-forfeiture and loss

The result is that

I speak and behave in ways that ‘I’ do not intend

I say and do the very things that ‘I’ despise

This means that

‘I’ as governor/controller am not fully and wholeheartedly doing this, 

Rather, 

It is the energy and impetus of self-forfeiture inherent within my fleshly constitution that produces the behaviour that ‘I’ do not intend

This means that IF I as a Christian turn to seeking to obey divine law in order to promote my divine approval moment-by-moment, THEN I gain knowledge and confirmation of my self-forfeiture, loss and divine disapproval. My knowledge of self-forfeiture spreads into every aspect - into my behaviour, thoughts, passions and intentions - so that my self-forfeiture increases and is clearly seen. ‘Because Law is working down settled anger’, (Romans 4 v 15a).

But Paul has not finished his explanation and reasoning yet, so before I say any more I will continue to look at what he has to say next.

Principles of living a godly life [51] – Close identification with delight in the law

 ‘I closely identify with delight in the Law of God down from the man within; 23 but I perceive another law or principle within my members, waging war against the principle of my mind and taking me captive within the principle of self-forfeiture and loss existing within my members’, (Romans 7 v 22, 23). 

The Apostle Paul introduces another fundamental and vital concept, that of ‘close identification’. He uses the Greek word ‘synédomai’, from ‘sýn’, meaning ‘to closely identify with’ and ‘hēdomai’, ‘to experience delight’, hence the meaning ‘to closely identify with delight’. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. He closely identifies with delight ‘in the Law of God’ down from the ‘man within’ or ‘inner man’. He is referring to the ‘inside of the cup’ of the renewed man, the man brought forth by God. The general sense of the whole passage here in Romans 7 leads us to understand that Paul is referring to the rational aspect of Christians, the principle of the Christian’s enlightened mind, (verse 23), which is in opposition to the earthy, sensuous impulses of their fleshly constitution. 

Paul is talking about Christians here. Bible commentator John Gill is correct when he draws out the polarising difference between Christians and unbelievers. He says of this identification with delight in Gods Law down from the man within that ‘an unregenerate man cannot [closely identify with this delight in the Law]. He does not like its commands, they are disagreeable to his corrupt nature, and as it is a threatening, cursing, damning law it can never be delighted in by him. The moralist, the Pharisee, who obeys it externally, does not love it, nor delight in it. He obeys it not from [out of] love to its precepts, but from fear of its threats. Or from a desire for popular esteem, and low, mercenary, selfish views, in order to gain the applause of men, and favour of God. Only a regenerate man delights in the law of God, which he does as Christ fulfils it, who has answered all the demands of it’. (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, with slight paraphrasing of his comments on this verse).

But in verse 23, Paul describes the other process or principle that is at work within him, within his flesh, existing within his members, that he does not closely identify with and that is ‘taking him captive’. The Greek word means ‘taken by the spear’, like a prisoner of war, captured within the principle of self-forfeiture and loss. Hence his earlier statement in verse 20, ‘I [ego] am no longer fully working it out to completion, but on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’. He is being taken captive under duress. It is not his intention to be taken captive. It is happening but this does not mean that he is fully compliant, or happily willing to work for the enemy. In World War 2, if the Nazis captured someone, it did not mean that their captive suddenly became a Nazi – they did not suddenly identify with Nazism. That is a fairly clear illustration or image of Paul’s situation.   

‘I’ [ego] as governor/regulator/controller, stand as an intermediary between the impulses that are inherent and at work within my fleshly constitution, and what is carried across into my speech and behaviour. In other words, as a Christian ‘I’ [ego] act as an enlightened ‘regulator’ of what I allow to carry across from within. But imagine the attention of a guard at the guard post, or even the guard himself, being captured or waylaid for a moment. The guard post is then insufficiently unregulated and undesirable material gets carried across to the other side. The Apostle is not giving us freedom to say ‘It wasn’t me!’ or ‘Look what you made me do!’, which in effect is an attempt to say ‘I am not responsible’. No, the injunction of the Apostles is to maturity of understanding and to constant, vigilant watchfulness.

Principles of living a godly life [50] – Christians, ego and divine law [4]

 ‘Now if I [ego] construct this, that I am not intending, I [ego] am no longer fully working it out to completion, but on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me. 21 Therefore I am finding the law or principle that my intention is to manufacture and construct the good, [but] that inner malice and harm is at hand, present with me. 22 Because I closely identify with delight in the Law of God down from the man within; 23 but I perceive another law or principle within my members, waging war against the principle of my mind and taking me captive within the principle of self-forfeiture and loss existing within my members’, (Romans 7 v 20 - 23). 

In verse 20 Paul restates what he said in verse 14, and in the light of what he has said in the intervening verses, he now states it as a sub-conclusion. Self-forfeiture is creating energy, impetus, inclination and movement within his fleshly constitution, within the members of his physical body. This impetus brings to completion speech and behaviour that is not his intention, or even speech and behaviour that he despises. In other words, he is not always completely successful in exercising enlightened self-control and bringing his godly intentions to completion. 

So what is the process and situation that he is describing and how does it relate to good and praiseworthy divine law, and to divine approval moment-by-moment? In verse 21 Paul says that he finds a fundamental principle or process. He says - 

I am desiring and intending to do good in the inner man

Foulness and malice is dwelling within me, in my fleshly constitution

This leads him to a sub conclusion in verse 21. ‘Therefore I am finding the law or principle that my intention is to manufacture and construct the good, [but] that inner malice and harm is at hand, present with me’.  

He then explains this a little more. ‘Because I am closely identifying with delighting in the Law of God down from the man within’. Paul reaffirms not only that the Law down from God is good, but that he is closely identifying with it, agreeing with it and delighting in it. He says that this is coming down from the ‘man within’ as a Christian. In other words he is talking about the intangible realm within him – the ‘inside of the cup’ – and he confirms this in the next phrase, where he refers to his mind. 

This next phrase, (verse 23), is complex, so I will break it down into its parts. He also perceives another fundamental principle or process taking place within him. But this other principle is not taking place within his mind, but rather within the limbs and organs of his body – within the fabric of his fleshly constitution. This fundamental principle of energy, impulse, inclination, impetus and drive within his physical flesh is working in opposition to the first principle that is at work in his mind – in his ‘inner man’. These two fundamental principles within him are in opposition to one another. 

The result is that the impetus within his fleshly constitution is sometimes taking him captive. At this present time, as a Christian, Paul exists in his physical constitution and he is not able to fully, totally and completely live a perfectly clean, godly life day-by-day, because the principle or impetus existing within his fleshly constitution is sometimes taking him captive within self-forfeiture and loss.

Principles of living a godly life [49] – Christians, ego and divine law [3]

 ‘Now at this present time I am no longer fully working out to completion [what I do not intend, or what I hate], on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting dwelling within me. 18 For I know and am appreciating that absolutely no good is inhabiting within me, existing within this, my flesh, because intending and desiring is lying down side-by-side with me, but working out the good to completion, absolutely not. 19 For I am not manufacturing and constructing good that I am intending, on the contrary, the inner malice and harm that I am not intending, this I am accomplishing’, (Romans 7 v 17 - 19). 

Having made his general statement in verse 17, (see the previous post), he now goes on to explain what he means in more detail. From verse 14 Paul has been writing in the present tense and referring to himself as an illustrative example. He is talking to Christians who know law (verse 1), about himself as he is now, as a Christian. He is no longer talking about how things were before he became a Christian. Now ‘I’ [ego] am no longer fully working out to completion what ‘I’ [ego] do not intend. But neither am I perfect and complete. 

In verse 17 he says that self-forfeiture is creating an opposing energy, impetus, inclination and movement within him that brings to completion speech and behaviour that he does not desire, that he even despises. When he uses the phrase ‘within him’ he tells us in verse 18 what he means – he is referring to his flesh - his natural, earthy, fleshly, constitution. He has already pointed out that there is a polarising dichotomy between divine law that pertains to breath in the heavenly realm, and his fleshly [constitution] having been sold across the other side under no share and self-forfeiture’, (verse 14). Thus we find that in Paul’s mind, enlightened by the Breath, he knows, appreciates and agrees with good, clean, honourable and praiseworthy divine law, but at the same time, ‘absolutely no good is inhabiting’ his fleshly constitution. Right there he states the crux, the locus, of the conflict, contradiction and inconsistency within him at this present time, as a Christian.  

What is the evidence for this situation? How does Paul know that this is indeed the case? He knows ‘because intending and desiring is lying down side-by-side with me’ – the intention and desire towards godliness and divine approval moment-by-moment is settled close beside him – ‘but working out the good to completion, absolutely not’, (verse 18b). There is a problem in the process between his good intention and the working out of his good intention by carrying it across to the other side into his speech and behaviour. Paul says that he can see that this is the case because ‘I am not manufacturing and constructing good that I am intending’, (verse 19a). In fact, worse than this, the opposite is sometimes happening – ‘I am accomplishing the inner malice and harm that I am not intending’, (verse 19b). This is Paul, an Apostle, describing the dynamic process within himself at this present time as a Christian. 

I don’t know if this is true of your own experience as a Christian, but it is certainly true of my own experience. I agree with the honour and praiseworthiness of divine law, but with the best intention and desire in the world, I still by no means attain complete and total enlightened self-control. I don’t always end up doing or saying what I intend. I do sometimes find myself doing and saying things that I hate. I find a battle, a conflict, taking place within me, and if I were to say that I am living a perfectly godly life day-by-day, maintaining divine approval by means of my speech and behaviour as a Christian, then I am deceiving myself and fooling no one. 

Principles of living a godly life [48] – Christians, ego and divine law [2]

 ‘And if I am doing this, what I do not intend, I am agreeing and consenting in company with the law that is good and honourable. 17 Now at this present time I am no longer fully working it out to completion, on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’, (Romans 7 v 16, 17).

Paul is drawing out two important principles with regard to the fact that he sometimes behaves in ways that he does not intend or desire, or even in ways that he detests. The first principle is that his behaviour that is contrary to divine law does not mean that he is opposed to divine law. Rather, he agrees in company with divine law that is related to the Breath of God. He agrees that divine law is good, clean, honourable and praiseworthy. 

Then, here in verse 17, he moves on to the second principle with regard to the inconsistency of his behaviour with divine law and his own intentions. He makes the general statement that ‘at this present time I [ego] am no longer fully working it out to completion, on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’. We now reach the crux of the dynamic process that is happening within him and leading him to this contrary behaviour. He says, ‘I am no longer working it out to completion’. He uses a Greek word that in recent decades has fallen into common use – ‘ego’ – ‘I’. He is now looking at what Jesus called ‘the inside of the cup’, the inner, less tangible realm of mind, emotions, desires, intentions and so on. The different facets and aspects within our inner realm – our thoughts, feelings, preferences and so on – emerge into a form of hierarchy in which these various inner aspects become co-ordinated and interconnected. Thus, at or near the top of this inner hierarchy is our co-ordinated sense and locus of ‘I’-ness, our locus of control, regulation or governance. To varying degrees, ‘I’ or ‘ego’ as controller/governor, co-ordinate, evaluate, order and govern the various aspects within – my thoughts, memories, desires, emotions, conscience, attention and so on. ‘I’ do this with the aim of choosing how to act, to do this, not that. 

Paul says that at this present time, now that I am a Christian, ‘I’ as governor/controller am no longer fully working out self-forfeiture and loss to the end result of its completion in speech and behaviour. That’s what I did before God brought me forth. But now, at this present time, ‘I’ am no longer fully carrying across self-forfeiture and loss from within so as to bring it to completion in my speech and behaviour. Nevertheless, I do find that I am speaking and behaving in ways that ‘I’ do not intend. In other words he is saying that ‘I’ [ego/governor/controller] am not fully in control over the energies of self-forfeiture within my fleshly constitution. ‘I’ am failing in my self-governance sometimes. The evidence of this failure is that I sometimes speak and behave in ways that ‘I’ [ego/governor/controller] do not intend. In fact I sometimes speak and behave in ways that ‘I’ [ego/governor/controller] despise and hate. 

So this begs the question, ‘If ‘I’ am not always totally in control, if my speech and behaviour is not always completely what ‘I’ intend, then what is it that is bringing such unintended and undesired speech and behaviour to completion?’ Paul answers straight away. It is ‘the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’. In other words, within the Apostle there is an energy, impetus, inclination or ‘drive’ that sometimes defeats his intentions and considered desires, and overcomes his self-control. 

‘Look what you made me do!’ ‘Don’t blame me! He/she/they/it made me do it!’. That is the unspoken objection to what Paul is saying. The objection is that Paul is saying that we are not accountable for our self-forfeiting speech and behaviour. Indeed, within civil law in the U.K. we have the category and defence plea of ‘diminished responsibility’. When someone behaves or speaks in an unacceptable or illegal way, their responsibility and accountability for what they do and say might be considered to be diminished. If it can be shown for example that they were physically ill at the time of their offending behaviour, such as suffering from a brain tumour that affected and distorted their perception of objective reality, then this would be taken into consideration. Although Paul does not directly address such a potential objection here, it is clear from the verses that follow, as well as his other writings, that he is not proposing such an idea. So with that in mind I will stay with what he has to say here as he goes on to explain what he means. (See further discussion on this theme when I look at Romans 7 v 20 - 25).