I Timothy 1 v 8, 9a - Law is good, but not set out for the righteous

 ‘Now we appreciate that the law is good, provided someone is making use of it lawfully’, (I Timothy 1 v 8). Paul makes a similar statement to the one recorded in chapter seven of his letter to the Romans. He counters any idea that he is suggesting that divine law is bad in and of itself. Not at all, the law is good. But he adds a qualification. Divine law is good ‘provided someone is making use of it lawfully’. He says that the problem is that good divine law can be made use of unlawfully, it can be used in a way that is not according to the rules. It can be used in inappropriate circumstances, and he goes on to explain what he means.

‘Appreciating this, that law is not lying outstretched for the equitable and righteous’, (I Timothy 1 v 9a). He states an important principle that Christians have to appreciate with regard law in general. Law is not set out for the righteous, for the morally upright. Now we have understand what Paul is saying here. Paul is making one of his general statements, stating a general principle. Law – any law, civil law, religious law and so on – is not laid out for the righteous – for the innocent, morally upright or judicially approved. The context in which Paul makes this statement is that of Sinai Covenant law and Christians. Christians are righteous, not because of their own speech and labours towards godly behaviour, but because they are placed in union with the Messiah who fulfils all the requirements of Covenant law on their behalf. Christians are not placed under the written codes of Covenant law but under God’s free gift, they are not placed under the Levitical system but into a royal priesthood. 

Galatians 5 v 19 – 21 - The working energies of the flesh

 ‘And the energies and workings of the flesh are clear. Whatever is selling off sexual purity, uncleanness, brutal rejection of restraint, 20 idol worship and service, drug-related enchantments, hostility, contentions, passionate jealousy, outbursts of hot passion, mercenary self-seeking, division and standing apart, strong personal opinions, 21 jealous grudges, intoxications, revelries and similar to these, which I am forewarning you, just as I warned before, that the doing of such things will not acquire the Kingdom of God’, (Galatians 5 v 19 – 21). 

The energies of the flesh and what the flesh labours to produce in terms of our speech and behaviour is, says Paul, obvious and clear. But if we are in any doubt, he lists what the flesh leads us to construct. Briefly, since they are mostly self-explicit, there is ‘selling off sexual purity’ – by which he means prostitution, adultery, sexual permissiveness, sodomy and lesbianism. ‘Uncleanness’, which covers a wider range of sensual behaviour, as well as impure motivations. The kind of behaviour that leads us to call someone ‘dirty’. ‘Brutal rejection of restraint’. A strong rejection of the idea of thoughtful self-moderation, such that instead, the preference is for following instincts, emotions, ‘gut feelings’, lusts and desires. Acting like wild animals. ‘Idol worship and service’, compliance with idolatrous customs, taking part in idol feasts, or eating food offered to idols. Worshipping and serving other gods, or carved or moulded images. ‘Drug-related enchantments’. Using drugs to create ecstatic or mystical religious experiences. ‘Hostility, contentions, passionate jealousy, outbursts of hot passion’. Quarrelling, being contradictory or displaying angry emotional outbursts. ‘Mercenary self-seeking, division and standing apart, strong personal opinions’. Acting out of personal ambition, working for personal gain, being divisive, schisms, partisanship, cliques, elite groups, having intolerant strong opinions. ‘Jealous grudges, intoxications, revelries and similar to these’. Being governed by envy, ‘marking other people’s cards’, seeking revenge, drunkenness, partying, night time drinking, dancing, singing, sexual permissiveness, wantonness and excessive behaviour. 

Concerning these kinds of behaviours, Paul says, ‘I am forewarning you just as I warned before, that the doing of such things will not acquire the Kingdom of God’. These are the kinds of behaviours that God disapproves of and that oppose God. They are not the behaviours that admit entry into the Kingdom of God or lead to an allotted share in the divine inheritance. Those who happily and unconcernedly regularly engage in these kinds of behaviours will not inherit the Kingdom. For Christians to behave in these kinds of ways without worry or concern is quite inconsistent with their calling by God, and certainly not examples of being led to by the Breath of God. Rather, such behaviours risk ruination, loss and death.

Galatians 3 v 25 – 29 - Christians – Their union in the Messiah

 ‘But confident persuasion and entrustment having come, we are no longer under a child’s governor. 26 Because you are all sons of God by means of persuasion and entrustment within Jesus, His anointed. 27 For as many as have been immersed  - there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male and female, because you all exist one within Jesus the anointed. 29 Now if you [are] of the anointed, then you are existing Abraham’s seed, heirs down from announced promise’, (Galatians 3 v 25 - 29).

What happens when a Jew penetrates towards persuasion and entrustment? Paul says that such Jews ‘are no longer under a child’s governor’. They are no longer under the authority and government of Covenant law (verse 24). Recognising their need of the promise given by God to Abraham, in the light of the extent of their self-forfeiture and loss as revealed by Covenant law, they are persuaded and entrust God. 

Now that the Messiah has been revealed, this rendering idle of divine law is especially the case for those Jews who have heard the gospel and placed their trust in Jesus as their Messiah – Hebrew Christians. Why? ‘Because you are all sons of God by means of persuasion and entrustment within Jesus, His anointed’. Hebrew Christians ‘are no longer under a child’s governor’. They are no longer under the authority and government of Covenant law because by means of persuasion to the point of obedient entrustment within Jesus, God’s anointed, all such Jews are sons of God. They have received divine adoption into the household of God. But what does this mean? What are the implications?

Paul returns to the theme of ‘oneness’. ‘For as many as have been immersed within His anointed have sunk into being enclothed with the anointed one’. Those who entrust Jesus, the anointed of God, are immersed, submerged or baptised, implying enclothing, being ‘wrapping around’, and a very close and intimate relationship. What are they immersed into? They have been immersed ‘within His anointed’, by which believers are placed into mystical union with the crucified and risen Lord, the means of this union being the set-apart Breath of God. The result is that believers have ‘sunk into being enclothed with the anointed one’. They have sunk into the Messiah in the same way that someone sinks into a garment, into clothing. ‘Putting on’ the Messiah implies that his character, feelings and works become the believer’s own. The believer has received God’s anointed as the means of their judicial approval, have obtained union with him, and in consequence a likeness to him – walking around within his clothes.

Now this is true of all who are persuaded and entrusting the Messiah, be they Jews or Gentiles. There is no difference ‘because you all exist one within Jesus the anointed’. There we see the theme of ‘oneness’ once again. The God of Sinai Covenant law is one and the same as the God of promise, and those hearing, persuaded and entrusting in Jesus ‘all exist one within Jesus His anointed’, denoting the closest and most intimate approximation conceivable. We see it again here, ‘you (Christians) [are] of the anointed (Messiah), and the anointed (Messiah) of God’ (I Corinthians 3 v 23).

Paul now reaches a sub-conclusion and in doing so he continues to explain the Christian’s position in relation to divine law. He will explain this over the first eleven verses of chapter 4. His sub-conclusion is this, ‘Now if you [are] of the anointed, then you are existing Abraham’s seed, heirs down from announced promise’. Paul is applying what is true of Christians specifically to Hebrew Christians and he links existing ‘within the Messiah’ to their patriarch Abraham and the promises made to him by God. 

If you [are] of the Anointed,

Then you are existing Abraham’s seed (plural), and

        Heirs down from announced promise.

Paul introduces the theme of inheritance. Hebrew Christians are no longer in the situation of experiencing the loss of their inheritance because of their self-forfeiture. On the contrary, they are heirs down from the announced promise to Abraham.

Galatians 3 v 23, 24 - Covenant law – a guardian for infants

 ‘Now persuasion and entrustment came in front. Under the law we were guarded, protected and kept watch over, enclosed and shut in together penetrating into the persuasion and entrustment intended to be uncovered, 24 so that the law has come into being our guardian and tutor of children, penetrating into His Anointed, in order that we might be judicially approved and made right wise from out of persuasion and entrustment’, (Galatians 3 v 23, 24).

Persuasion and entrustment, like that of Abraham’s, came first, long before the law. Then, for Jews, over four hundred years later, the law was added. Jews, who are God’s chosen ethnic group, came to exist under the authority of Covenant law, they ‘were guarded, protected and kept watch over, enclosed and shut in together’. Covenant law was (and is) not given as a means to divine judicial approval. It was not (and is not) an alternative to, or a means of fulfilment of, that which was made known by the announced promise of God to Abraham. The function of the law was (and is) to penetrate into persuasion and entrustment, as individuals under the law came to know their self-forfeiture and hopeless position. The function of Covenant law was (and is) to enable individuals to perceive their need of God’s promise. The law provides knowledge of self-forfeiture, it is the starting point that reveals the sinfulness of sin, and the extent and increase of sin within our fleshly constitution. The law does indeed lead wayward Jews to entrustment in God. The particular details of how God would bring His promises into effect, and what this entrustment would mean in particular, were yet to be revealed. Jews were in a state of infancy.

Covenant law came in towards Jews like a tutor or guardian of children or infants. It points out what God judicially disapproves of and indicates the penalties that certain behaviours incur. The law also provided the means of paying for and sending away self-forfeiture and loss by means of the infrastructure of Levitical priests and the various prescribed ceremonies and sacrifices. All of this constitutes an ‘outline shadow’ pointing to, and penetrating into His Anointed and judicial approval by means of hearing, persuasion and entrustment in him.  

That was the position of Jews prior to the coming of the Messiah. It remains the position of those Jews who are still not persuaded that Jesus is the Messiah and who therefore do not place their trust in him.

Galatians 3 v 19, 20 - If God’s promise is still in effect, why was the law given? [1]

 ‘Then why the law? It was added on account of stepping contrary up until that the seed comes to whom the announced promise [was made], having been arranged and ordered by means of angel/messengers within the hand of a mediator. 20 But a mediator is not one; and God is One’. (Galatians 3 v 19, 20).

Paul anticipates another objection. If judicial approval and right-wiseness is shown as the result of promises made by God to Abraham and his seed, promises given over four hundred years before the law, then why was the law given to Jews at all? Paul says that the law was added because Jews and their delegated leaders were ‘stepping contrary’. They were engaging in wayward teaching and disapproved-of behaviour. So the law was brought in until the seed – Jesus - to whom the announced promise was made, (verse 14) - came in. It was brought in because of waywardness.

Covenant law is not of human origin. It does not belong to human manufacture, tradition or philosophy. Rather, it was arranged and ordered by means of angel messengers. ‘Yahweh came from Sinai and rose up on them from Seir. He shone forth from Mount Paran and He came from a myriad of the set apart. From His right hand, a fiery law for them’, (Deuteronomy 33 v 2). And again, ‘who received the law into the arrangement of angels…’, (Acts 7 v 53). (See also Acts 7 v 38, Hebrews 2 v 2). Covenant law was delivered ‘within the hand of a mediator’, namely, Moses. Thus, Covenant law was not given to Israel in the same way that the promises were announced to Abraham. The promises were announced immediately from and directly by God Himself. By contrast, Moses served as an intermediary, a ‘middle man’ between God and the angels on one hand, and Israel on the other hand. 

Then Paul seems to add an unusual sentence. He says, ‘but a mediator is not one; but God is One’, (verse 20). The statement itself is plain enough in its meaning, but why does Paul say such a thing here? A mediator is a facilitator who helps parties resolve disputes through communication. In Scripture we read that almost immediately after leaving Egypt the Israelites engaged in wayward behaviour, (Exodus 32), incurring God’s judicial anger. But Moses pleaded on behalf of the Israelites, reminding God of his promises to Abraham, and in due course divine law was given to Israel by means of Moses. So a mediator is not ‘one’ – rather he is an intermediary, in the case of Moses, between God and His chosen ethnic group. But it is also true to say that Jesus is a mediator between God and those whom God has selected. So the first problem is this, who is Paul referring to when he says a ‘mediator is not one’? Paul contrasts a mediator with God, Who is one. The second problem is this, what does Paul mean by raising this theme of ‘oneness’? Many scholars and commentators have had their minds exercised by these questions, and they have come up with different answers. I will consider these themes a little more in the next post.

Galatians 3 v 13 – 16 - Jesus and God’s announced promises to Abraham and his seed

 ‘His anointed has paid the price to rescue us from out of the law’s denouncement, having been denounced above and beyond us, because it has been written: ‘Denounced – all hanging on a tree’, 14 in order that the benefit penetrating towards Abraham comes towards the Gentiles within Jesus, His anointed. So that they receive the announced promise, the Breath, by means of faithful entrustment. 15 Brothers, I am speaking down from man, nevertheless, even man, having validated an agreed arrangement, no one sets it aside, negating it or adding to it. 16 The announced promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say ‘seeds’, on the basis of many, but on the basis of one – ‘and your seed’ – who is His anointed’, (Galatians 3 v 13 - 16). 

There is no individual human being who has the ability to fully construct all that is written in the book of law. Instead, everyone who seeks to observe the injunctions of the book of law finds that they are denounced by it. The law reveals that they incur self-forfeiture and loss, and that they face divine disapproval. 

So how can anyone obtain divine approval? How can they be delivered from divine condemnation? The answer is that God’s anointed – His only-begotten Son - ‘has paid the price to rescue us from out of the law’s denouncement’. The Messiah himself has been denounced above and beyond us, so that the benefit that penetrates towards Abraham also comes towards Gentiles, within Jesus. This means that Gentiles as well as Jews receive the announced promise, the Breath, by means of faithful entrustment. (Compare Joel 2 v 28, 29; Acts 2 v 16 - 21).

Paul says, ‘I illustrate this by a familiar example taken from common human practice. Even human beings, having established an agreement, don’t then ignore it, negate it or add to it without the consent of the other stipulating party’. This constitutes his next general statement. Namely that such an agreement is established and fixed. Nothing is going to come in from the side to make it invalid. 

Paul then explains what he means in more detail. ‘The announced promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed’, (verse 16). Paul refers to Genesis 22. ‘And Yahweh says, ‘I have sworn by Myself…17 that praising I will praise you, and increasing I will increase your seed according to the stars of the heavens, and according to the sand upon the sea shore. And your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemy. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed in consequence that you listened and obeyed My voice’.’, (Genesis 22 v 16a, 17, 18).

Paul comments on this text and says, ‘The announced promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say ‘seeds’, on the basis of many, but on the basis of one – ‘and your seed’ – who is His anointed’. In the first part of Genesis 22 v 17, the word ‘seed’ is intended to be understood in the plural sense – ‘according to the stars of the heavens and….the sand on the sea shore’. As with ‘stars’, the word ‘sand’ is to be understood in the same way. The reference is not to a single grain of sand, but to one body of sand made up of many grains.

Then, in the second part of verse 17, the word ‘seed’ refers to one individual, one seed out of many, who ‘will take possession of the gate of his enemy’. This phrase indicates conquest and victory. Similarly in verse 18, the word ‘seed’ refers to one individual within whom ‘all the ethnic groups of the earth, (not only Jews), will be blessed’. Paul says that this individual is God’s Anointed - Jesus.

Galatians 3 v 10 – 12 – Working to observe divine law is not out of entrustment and leads to condemnation

 ‘Because as many as are existing from out of law-works are existing under denouncement, because it has been written, ‘Denounced – all who are not continuing in all the writing within the book of law, constructing them’. 11 But because no one is judicially approved or made right-wise in the presence of God within law, it is clear that the judicially approved will live from out of entrusting persuasion, 12 and law is not from out of faith, on the contrary, they will live within having constructed them’, (Galatians 3 v 10 – 12).

a

Paul continues to construct support for his general statement that Christians receive the Breath from out of hearing and entrustment. He has shown that Gentiles or non-Jews are connected to the Jewish patriarch Abraham by means of hearing and entrustment. Paul now contrasts this with seeking to maintain divine approval by putting energy and effort into observing the written codes of Covenant law. He says that everyone who is trying to earn and maintain divine approval by putting energy and effort into observing the written codes of Covenant law, exists under denouncement, under a curse. The curse is that those who are following this path have to obey every single injunction in the book of law. Those who fail to do so, even within just one instance, are not judicially approved. They incur self-forfeiture and loss.  

No one is judicially approved by putting their energy and work into obeying the written codes of Covenant law. So as a result, it is clear, it is evident, that those who are judicially approved will live from out of entrustment and persuasion – faith. It is also clear that divine law is not from out of faith. These are two completely different paths. Those putting their energy and work into obeying the written codes of Covenant law will live IF they have fully and completely constructed all the writing, all the injunctions, in the book of law. ‘Do this and you will live’, ‘they will live within having constructed them’, (verse 12), but ‘no one is judicially approved in the presence of God within law’, (verse 11). People are not able to stand acquitted before God on Judgement Day by means of observing Covenant Law. Nor are Christians able to maintain divine judicial approval day-by-day by means of seeking to keep the written codes of Covenant law such as the Ten Commandments. 

Galatians 2 v 14 – 16 - The Christian challenge to legalists

 ‘But when I saw them not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of all, ‘If you, being a Jew first of all, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why are you compelling the Gentiles to live like a Jew? 15 We [are] natural born Jews, and absolutely not from out of ethnic [Gentile] self-forfeiture and no share, 16 but we know that a man is absolutely not judicially approved or made rightwise from out of actions of law, if not by means of persuasion and entrusting Jesus His Anointed. We penetrate towards being faithfully persuaded of Jesus, His Anointed, to the point of obedience, in order that we are judicially approved and made rightwise from out of faith in His Anointed, not by means of law actions, because all flesh will not be judicially approved or made rightwise by means of law works’, (Galatians 2 v 14 – 16). 

Paul was not one to mince his words. He confronted Peter in front of everyone when he saw him acting contrary to the gospel, ‘not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel’. In what way was Peter in error? He was separating himself away from Christians who were Gentiles. But more than this, it would seem that Peter was aligning himself with the assertive, legalistic Jews who had recently arrived, and he was now compelling male Gentile Christians to be circumcised according to divine law. First of all, Paul exposes Peter’s inconsistency. He says, ‘You are first of all a Jew, and under the equality of the gospel you are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. So why are you now compelling Gentiles to live like a Jew?’ Peter’s approach was a contradiction.

Then Paul, who was himself a Jew, reminds Peter of their heritage and their new position within the Messiah. Unlike Jewish proselytes, Paul and Peter are natural born Jews. They are not from out of the self-forfeiture of Gentiles. Paul and Peter both knew that if an individual is not judicially approved by means of persuasion and entrusting Jesus - God’s Anointed - then they are absolutely not judicially approved from out of his or her labours and efforts to observe the written codes of divine law, such as the requirement to be circumcised.  

Hebrew Christians, like Gentile Christians, penetrate towards being persuaded of Jesus, God’s Anointed, to the point of obedience. This means that Jews, like Gentiles, are judicially approved and made rightwise from out of faith – entrustment to the point of obedience - in His Anointed. Hebrew Christians are not judicially approved or made rightwise by means of law actions, says Paul, because all flesh will not be judicially approved or made rightwise by means of energy and work invested in trying to observe the requirements of the written codes of divine law. Even though Jews possess divine law and have this advantage over Gentiles, God will not judicially approve or make rightwise even one natural born Jewish individual as a result of them labouring and expending their energy in trying to observe the injunctions of divine law. 

Galatians 2 v 12, 13 - Christians and Jewish legalists – The problem stated

 ‘Before some came away from James, he [Peter] was eating with Gentiles. But when they came he shrunk back and separated himself, fearful of those from out of circumcision, 13 and the remainder of Jews also played the part with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away together with their acting the part’, (Galatians 2 v 12, 13). 

Paul states that because of the free gift of the Messiah, when it comes to Christians there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. Previously, Jews, as God’s chosen ethnic group, separated themselves away from other nations, races and tribes – referred to in Scripture as ‘Gentiles’ or ‘Greeks’. Jews did not eat with Gentiles. But Peter, as a Christian Jew, had embraced what was for him this new equality and so he ate with Gentile Christians. 

But in Antioch, some Jews came away from James, though they were not necessarily authorised by him, (Acts 15 v 24), and they were emphatic in re-emphasising traditional Jewish practices, including Jews not eating with ‘unclean’ Gentile ‘outsiders’. They also emphasised the requirement of Covenant law, that males who were seeking to serve God were to be circumcised. This was originally an instruction to Abraham, patriarch of the Jews, and later this instruction was enshrined in the written codes of divine law. It was the first injunction for Jews and it was also a requirement for Gentile males who sought to embrace the worship and service of YHVH by becoming Jewish proselytes.

So when these rather assertive Jews appeared on the scene, Peter became fearful of them, and he shrunk back and separated himself from eating with Gentiles, contrary to the gospel. Then other Jewish or Hebrew Christians also began to behave in the same way, carried away by this fear and by what their fellow Jews were doing. Even Barnabas was caught up in this. But Paul was not happy with this situation at all.

Covenant law, flesh, set-apart Breath and the promise of God

 I want to continue the discussion about Christians and their relationship to divine law by looking at Paul’s letter to the Galatians. I am concerned to explore the theme of legalism and the Christian’s relationship to Covenant law because a few decades ago I spent some years within a legalistic Christian fellowship. I know from first hand experience how depressing, discouraging and disheartening a legalistic fellowship can be, and how it can lead a Christian to be imprisoned. The legalist’s constant reference to Christians consistently failing to keep the principles and injunctions of what they define as God’s (moral) law can serve to promote an orientation of failure, helplessness and entrapment. Under such teaching, Christians may develop a sense of impotence when serving God moment-by-moment, a sense that they are powerless victims at the mercy of their ungodly fleshly impulses and desires, constantly falling short of what God approves of, and thus incurring God’s displeasure. Such legalistic teaching can lead to a joyless fellowship that can in turn lead to its members criticising and judging one another.

Christian legalists may not completely disagree with this since they propose that the intention of Covenant law is to drive both unbelievers and Christians to entrust the Messiah. This principle is indeed true for ‘outsiders’ or unbelievers’, especially those who are seeking divine approval by their own efforts to keep God’s law. But for those having embraced the Messiah by faith, turning back to efforts to observe divine (moral) law as a means to live a set-apart life is portrayed by both Paul and the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, as a backward step. If pursued enough it risks denying or negating the Messiah. Emphasis on, and regular reference to, divine law leads even Christians to a sense of their pervasive guilt and failure. But legalists propose that this then ‘drives’ Christians (and unbelievers) to the Messiah. That is their ‘dynamic process’ when it comes to living a godly life, but it is not what is presented to Christians by the Apostles.   

Even so, legalism can be very difficult to argue against because its Christian advocates make many appeals and references to Scripture. After all, Covenant law itself is part of Old Testament Scripture. So legalists may imply, or even openly and directly state, that to criticise legalism is to criticise the Word of God itself. Criticism of the legalist dynamic is portrayed as another example of failure. Such critics may have their loyalty to God or even their salvation, questioned. I know. I’ve seen it happen and experienced it myself. And of course, legalists almost always also accuse or warn their critics of supporting liberalism or permissiveness. Thus it is that Christians may be ensnared by these kinds of tactics.

If Paul’s letter to the Romans looks at divine law, flesh and the set-apart Breath, then his letter to the Galatians looks at divine law, flesh and the promise of God to Abraham and his seed. I want to get straight to heart of the theme – namely the arrival of Jewish legalists who insisted that male Gentile Christians should be circumcised according to Covenant law. So I am not going to comment on the early section of Galatians. 

By way of introduction I will give an exceptionally brief overview here of the early part of Galatians. Paul states that there is only one gospel, one good news message. But then he says, ‘I marvel that you are transferring in this manner quickly away from your calling within the Messiah’s free gift into another good message – which is not another…there are some troubling you, desiring to turn and change the good news of the Messiah’, (Galatians 1 v 6, 7). Paul then explains his background and defends his delegated authority as an Apostle, stating that he had received approval from the other Apostles. In other words he is not some eccentric rogue itinerant preacher making up his own good news. It is in chapter 2 v 12 that Paul states the nature of his concern.

Principles of living a godly life [56] – No condemnation within Jesus [2]

 Paul possessed a legal frame of mind. He constructed his arguments and conclusions carefully and logically, paying close attention to the meaning of words. Sometimes his reasoning is complex. For example, most of us compare and contrast two elements or facets of a problem but Paul has now introduced no less than six elements, all of which are interconnected in some way. 

These are the elements that he has introduced in this discussion -

1) His main theme from chapter 6 has been divine Law in relation to obtaining divine approval. His stance is that Christians are dying away from and set free from the written codes of Sinai Covenant law. Nevertheless, Christians closely identify with delight in good, clean and praiseworthy divine law. 

2) By means of Sinai Covenant law people come to know self-forfeiture and loss. But self-forfeiture uses the opportunity provided by divine law as a starting point to increase, such that we see that self-forfeiture is present in all of our thoughts, words, desires and so on. Thanks to the written codes of Covenant law we are no longer ignorant of self-forfeiture and loss. But we are deceived, because we thought that divine law led to life – ‘Do this and you will live’ - but instead it leads us to death. Knowing Covenant law leads to a greater knowledge and experiential awareness of the extent and magnitude of self-forfeiture, divine disapproval and loss, which we come to plainly see.

3) Divine law pertains to the realm of Breath - the unseen current and energy away from God, the Messiah and the heavenly realm. 

4) Christians exist as flesh, which has inherent energies, impulses and inclinations that are opposed to Breath. 

This places Christians in a battle -

Fleshly energies work to bring divinely disapproved-of speech and behaviour to completion. 

On being brought forth by God, ‘I’ [ego] am not intending to engage in such disapproved-of behaviour. But fleshly impulses take me captive.

5) How can I be delivered away from my flesh? By the free gift of God by means of Jesus the Messiah, our Lord.

6) Under these circumstances, no judicial condemnation within Jesus the Messiah at this present time.

If the Apostle had been a juggler, he wouldn’t have been throwing two or three balls in the air, but these six. No wonder Romans chapter 7 proves to be a difficult chapter to interpret and understand correctly. At the start of chapter 8, Paul is continuing with his discussion of the means of divine approval – ‘Under these circumstances, no judicial condemnation at this present time’

Principles of living a godly life [55] – No condemnation within Jesus [1]

 ‘Rejoice! The free kindness and favour of God by means of Jesus the Messiah our Lord! So then, indeed I am willingly serving God’s law with the mind, but [my] flesh, [is enslaved to] fundamental principles of self-forfeiture and loss. Under these circumstances, no judicial condemnation within Jesus the Messiah at this present time’, (Romans 7 v 25, 8 v 1).

Paul continues his discussion about judicial approval and deliverance in verse 1 of chapter 8. Very often the start of this verse is translated in to English like this – ‘Therefore there is now no condemnation…’. But there is nothing in the immediately previous verses at the end of chapter 7 to directly suggest that Paul has successfully argued such a conclusion. Chapter 7 actually ends with the strongest assertion of the sin-awaking and sin-detecting power of divine Law and the consequent conflict within the Christian. ‘So then, indeed I am willingly serving God’s law with the mind, but flesh [is enslaved to] fundamental principles of self-forfeiture and loss’, (Romans 7 v 25).

Thus it is better to refer the introduction of chapter 8 to the whole of Paul’s previous logical reasoning. Verse 1 is especially connected with chapters 5 and 6, and the first section of chapter 7, which state, (using various means of imagery), the union of those brought forth by God with the Messiah by means of the set-apart Breath. So far in his letter to the Romans the Apostle has discussed and explained, from many sides, the central theme of salvation, divine approval and its immediate results. These aspects include union with the Messiah, bond-service to God, enlightened liberation of the will, and so on. His last theme has been the place of the written codes of divine Law. With regard to both unbelievers and Christians, divine Law cannot subdue self-forfeiture, but only expose and condemn it. Paul has answered various anticipated objections, partly to vindicate the set-apart cleanliness and praiseworthiness of the Law, partly to expose the magnitude of self-forfeiture, and partly to reinforce the truth that divine approval has to be attained by another way. 

But it is even better to consider the opening words of verse 1 to be the start of a new aspect in the light if all that Paul has been saying. Understanding the Greek word ‘ara’ is the key here. The meaning of the word is more nuanced than the English word ‘therefore’. Thayer states it like this, ‘under these circumstances, something either is so, or becomes so’. It refers to a preceding assertion or fact, (verse 25), or even to something existing only in the mind, and leads to something that follows on as a consequence. With verse 1 we have another example of the later superimposition of chapter and verse divisions on the text potentially getting in the way. Paul is continuing to logically progress from what he has been saying previously. And he has by no means finished talking about divine law, which he will return to in verses 4 and 7 of chapter 8 as part of his continuing discussion about Christians and maintaining divine approval day-by-day.  

I also want to note that the rest of the verse 1 says, [Not walking down from flesh, but down from breath] [pneuma], (Romans 8 v 1b). It is highly probable that these words are to be removed or omitted since it is very likely that copyists inserted them here. We will come across these words a little later, in their correct place, as Paul continues his reasoning and analysis. But when placed here, they intrude and distract from the sequence of Paul’s logical propositions. 

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 [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).

Principles of living a godly life [47] – Christians and divine law [1]

 ‘For indeed, I am not knowing or understanding what I am working out and producing. For what I am not intending and desiring, this I am doing, and what I am detesting and hating, this I am manufacturing and constructing. 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, not like before, I [ego] am no longer fully working it out to completion, on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’, (Romans 7 v 15 - 17). 

Paul continues to present himself as an illustration of his teaching. He is now talking in the present tense, having in the past been sold across the other side under the power of self-forfeiture and loss. He was carried across to divine condemnation, but divine law itself did not cause this, nor is divine law inherently bad. The cause of his selling across is the fact that he exists as a fleshly entity, and the result at this present time, as a Christian, is that he does not know or understand his behaviour. There is a fundamental contrariness and conflict within the very fabric of his being. There are certain behaviours and actions that he does not intend or desire to engage in, yet he finds that he nevertheless engages in these very behaviours. There are certain behaviours and actions that he hates and detests yet these are the very things that he sometimes finds himself constructing. 

So how does this situation relate to good, clean, divine law? He tells us in the next two verses. ‘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, not like before, I [ego] am no longer fully working it out to completion, on the contrary, the self-forfeiture sitting and dwelling within me’, (verses 16, 17).

There are two important principles that emerge from out of this inner conflict and contrariness. He states the first in verse 16. He finds himself doing something – behaving, speaking, thinking – that he does not intend or desire, that he even hates and despises. So the first principle is this - IF he does not intend or desire such behaviour THEN this means that he agrees in company with the good and praiseworthy divine law. IF he does not intend or desire such behaviour, THEN he is not constructing this behaviour from out of considering divine law to be bad or dishonourable. He is not dismissing divine law, or opposing divine law.  

The first principle in relation to divine law is this -

IF we are engaging in speech and behaviour that we do not intend or desire, or that we despise,

THEN we are in agreement in company with good, honourable and praiseworthy divine law

Let’s imagine that I impulsively and opportunistically steal something, even though I do not usually desire to steal, and usually consider stealing to be a transgression of divine law and therefore disapproved-of by God. In stealing I have acted contrary to myself and done something that I disapprove of, that in a more sober moment I did not intend. I am not only acting contrary to myself but also contrary to divine law, which I agree with - stealing is wrong. The first point that Paul is making is that because in my calm and sober moments I do not intend to steal, that I even despise stealing, then in this instance of my stealing, it does not mean that I therefore disagree with or oppose divine law. Rather my behaviour is inconsistent with my usual intentions and with the divine law that I agree with. 

Principles of living a godly life [46] – Divine Law [31] – Flesh, Breath and divine law

 ‘Because we know that law exists related to Breath pertaining to God [pneuma]. But I am fleshly, having been sold across the other side under self-forfeiture and loss’, (Romans 7 v 14).  

Paul continues his explanation of why good divine law does not cause his no share and self-forfeiture. In this verse he changes from the past tense that he has been using since verse 7, and begins to use the present tense. In the previous verses Paul used the past tense in talking about himself, referring to himself before he was a Christian. But he now begins to describe himself at the time of writing. He goes a step deeper to look at some fundamental principles and in doing so he turns to two important and pivotal themes - the polarising difference between Christians and unbelievers, and the opposition between Breath and flesh. These themes run through all of his thinking. He mentions the importance of Breath in the first two chapters of his first letter to the Corinthians, as well as in his letter to the Galatians, and he brings into focus once again here.

He is speaking to Jewish Christians who know divine law, (Romans 7 v 1), and he begins with a view that both he and they share in common – ‘we know that law exists related to Breath pertaining to God’. Divine law is related to Breath, a current or movement that pertains to God and the unseen realm. In other words divine law is not of human origin. It is not merely a moral, ethical or philosophical tradition constructed by scholars in the past and that has then been handed down from generation to generation. Law is of divine origin, it exists in relation to Breath pertaining to God, and the implications of this are that God approves of divine law and that the law is clean and pure. It is virtuous, set apart from the standards, principles and values of the worldly arrangement, and therefore it is good, reflecting life and sensitivity to God, and what God desires and approves of. This divine origin by means of Breath is a fundamental principle that underpins divine law.

Paul then places the Breath pertaining to God and the unseen realm in polarising contrast and opposition to flesh – ‘But I am fleshly’. It is a fundamental principle that I exist consisting of flesh, says Paul. He now begins to use the present tense and he says in effect, ‘I do not exist as breath – I exist as a physical, fleshly being. Although at this present time he is a Christian, this does not mean that he no longer has a physical, fleshly constitution. 

So what is the implication of being fleshly? He tells us right away, ‘having been sold across the other side under no share and self-forfeiture’. The phrase ‘having been sold’ is a ‘perfect participle’ - a form of verb used to indicate an action that was completed before another action began. The action that was fully completed before he became a Christian, and that occurred because of his fleshly constitution, was that he had been carried across to the other side, ‘sold’ under self-forfeiture and loss. What we have seen him describing in the previous verses is his emergent knowledge by means of good, virtuous divine law, was that his self-forfeiture and loss was super-abundant. 

The Greek word translated into English as ‘sold’ is the verb ‘pipraskó’, which primarily means ‘to sell’ or ‘to be sold’, ‘across the other side’. When something is ‘sold’ it passes from one side to the other. It describes the literal act of selling goods or property, as well as being used in a metaphorical sense to describe being carried across under the power or influence of self-forfeiture and loss, reflecting the pervasive nature of this process. Thus, Paul was carried across the other side – penetrating to divine disapproval - as a slave under the rule of self-forfeiture and loss. The emphasis is not on the word ‘sold’ as if any usual act of selling and purchase had taken place, but rather on the effect - he had been carried across under the influence of self-forfeiture. The Greek preposition ‘ὑπο’́ - means ‘underneath’ - with the accusative, implying direction - so as to be ‘under the power of’ self-forfeiture and loss. That is the fundamental principle that underpins what it means to exist as ‘fleshly’ or ‘down from the flesh’. 

Principles of living a godly life [45] – Self-forfeiture, loss and divine law [2]

 ‘Then the good became my death? It cannot come to be! But self-forfeiture and loss, in order to be shown self-forfeiture and loss, is fully working out my death by means of the good, in order that self-forfeiture and loss comes down self-forfeiture and loss beyond measure, by means of the injunction’, (Romans 7 v 13).

Earlier in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, ‘Law is working down settled anger’, (Romans 4 v 15a). He is explaining that statement here. He anticipates a final objection, namely that good, divinely approved law causes his death. Once again he phrases the objection in the form of a rhetorical question – ‘Does good law become my death?’ Does the cause of my death, my condemnation and loss, lie with good, divine law itself? Is divine law the cause of my death, my withering away? Once again he dismisses such a suggestion – such a thing cannot come to happen. 

He then describes the dynamic process once again. It is a slightly complex verse but lets go through it bit by bit. The core of his reply to this objection is that his self-forfeiture and loss already existed, but he did not know it until law came along. Before divine law came along he existed in relative ignorance and considered himself free to behave as he pleased. By means of the injunctions of divine law, Paul came to know self-forfeiture and loss existing within him and he began to realise that he was enslaved to it. In order to be seen to be self-forfeiture and loss, self-forfeiture took hold of the initial starting-point provided by divine law. Self-forfeiture roused up to life and by means of good divine law, it fully worked out towards his death. Every facet, aspect and form of self-forfeiture and loss roused up within him, (verse 8a), with regard to this or that particular injunction. He became aware that he was self-forfeiting in his words, in his behaviours, in his thoughts, in his intentions and in his desires and inclinations, such that his self-forfeiture and loss, and his awareness of it, increased. He came to know more and more aspects and facets of, and the greater extent of, his self-forfeiture. By means of good divine law ‘coming in’, self-forfeiture and loss came down beyond measure – there were too many instances of it to count - and as such it was clearly seen to be self-forfeiture and loss. In the light of divine law there was no doubt that self-forfeiture and loss existed, in abundance. But divine law itself did not cause his self-forfeiture. Rather, divine law revealed the extent and degree of his self-forfeiture, such that it was clearly seen to be self-forfeiture. 

Principles of living a godly life [44] – Self-forfeiture, loss and divine law [1]

 ‘Because self-forfeiture and loss, having taken hold of a starting point by means of the injunction, thoroughly deceived me and by means of it, slew me. 12 So that therefore law is indeed set apart, and the injunction set apart, righteous and intrinsically good’ (Romans 7 v 11, 12).

If we are in any doubt as to what Paul has been saying in the previous verses, he restates what he said in verse 8 so that we are clear what happens to us as ‘unbelievers’ existing within the realm of the flesh. Paul says, ‘I encountered knowledge gained by means of divine law and I initially thought it was a means to gain and maintain divine approval – ‘Do this and I will live’. But instead, self-forfeiture and loss took hold of an initial starting point presented by means of the injunction or commandment. 

Here is the principle or the fundamental process –

Knowledge of divine law raises our self-forfeiture and loss to life, which then begins to take hold within us

By means of the knowledge that he gained from divine law, self-forfeiture and loss thoroughly deceived Paul. He initially supposed that he was going onward to life and that divine law would lead him to life, to divine approval. But self-forfeiture and loss roused up by means of knowing the law, deceived him and slew him. Knowledge of his self-forfeiture put him to dying away and death. By means of the law he found that his self-forfeiture and loss was much greater and more extensive than he initially thought when he first encountered the injunction. 

So this is Paul’s reply to the objection that he stated in verse 7 – ‘Shall we say ‘The law of self-forfeiture and loss?’ Is it divine law itself that creates self-forfeiture and loss within us? On the contrary, divine law itself is good, clean and set apart, and God judicially approves the injunction.

When Christian legalists are faced with those Christians who say that they are freed away from law through the Messiah, they sometimes make out as though such Christians are saying that divine law is ‘bad’, or that the law itself creates self-forfeiture and loss. In reply they then firmly insist that divine law is good and right, and that it promotes cleanliness and godliness, and that David loved divine law, (Psalm 119 v 97, 113, 163, 165). They imply or even say directly that if you do not love divine law and look to it as a means to promote a godly life then there is something wrong with you as a Christian. They question your loyalty to God or even whether you really do believe after all.   

Nevertheless, despite these protests by Christian (or Jewish) legalists, Paul says in verse 6, ‘But now we [Hebrew Christians] are rendered entirely idle away from the law’. He agrees with legalists that divine law is good and judicially approved. But he also says that by means of divine law, self-forfeiture and loss is roused up and is revealed to reach every part and facet of our being. Divine law is not leading to life and holiness, but to withering away and death – to divine condemnation.

I point out once again that at the moment Paul is still looking at those who know law but who are walking around day-by-day down from their flesh, down from the inclinations of their long established physical constitution. He is looking at those who are not entrusting God and His Messiah. 

However, he has one more anticipated objection in mind before he turns his attention to Christians.

Principles of living a godly life [43] – Human nature and divine law [3]

 ‘For separate and apart from law, self-forfeiture and loss is lifeless, 9 and how much I [ego] was living separate and apart from law. But the injunction having come, the self-forfeiture and loss came up to life, and I [ego] withered away. 10 I discovered the injunction penetrating towards life - this penetrated towards death’, (Romans 7 v 8b - 10).

Imagine getting your first motorcycle or car, and having passed your driving test, you go out to enjoy driving for its own sake. It doesn’t matter where you go – it’s the freedom of movement that you now have and the sheer enjoyment of driving. After a while you find yourself in a small town that you have never been to before and it feels wonderful to have the freedom to explore this new location. But as you are driving, someone points out that you are driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street – you are breaking the law. Whilst you were unaware of breaking a law you were free and enjoying yourself. You had no awareness that you were breaking the law, or of any fines or penalties that you might be incurring, or the potential danger you were in. But then someone pointed out that you were breaking the law – a rule of law ‘came in’. As a result, the incurring of all kinds of fines and penalties ‘sprung to life’ in your mind. That is the kind of initial process that Paul describes in relation to divine law in verses 8b and 9. 

The result of knowing divine law is that our sense of freedom, moral rightness and ability begins to wither away. Our former persuasion of being alive vanishes, because by means of knowing the law we see that we have incurred loss of the divine inheritance and self-forfeited away from God’s favour. Our awareness of loss and self-forfeiture springs to life. 

The result was that Paul discovered something in his personal experience. He discovered that the divine injunction towards life, ‘Do this and you will live’ – the injunction towards sensitivity and responsiveness to God and a share in the divine inheritance – was penetrating towards death. It was penetrating towards guilt and condemnation. By means of knowing the divine injunction he came to know loss and self-forfeiture away from God’s favour. Worse still, he came to see his self-forfeiture of this injunction permeating into more and more aspects of his thoughts and behaviour.

So, as a general principle, ‘the injunction having come, the self-forfeiture and loss came up to life, and I [ego] withered away’. The law comes in and I become more and more aware of my self-forfeiture and loss. The meaning is ‘coming up to life again’ - implying that it was previously dormant but was now roused up into new life. Worse still, ‘I’ withered away. This is placed in contrast to ‘I was living’. The effect of the divine injunction was to bring Paul to an awareness of his ‘withering away and dying off’. The essential idea here is that the Law did not answer the purpose that many Jews would claim for it, to cleanse and to give comfort, but that its influence was to produce aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe. He now saw himself a dead man, dead in sin, dead in law, under a sentence of death. That he had within himself the impulse and energy leading towards death, and all his hopes of eternal life by investing his energy and work is seeking obedience to the law, died at once. ‘I discovered the injunction penetrating towards life - this penetrated towards death’.

Such is the result of knowing divine law. ‘Do this and you will live’ (Luke 10 v 28), but any failure to ‘do this’ does not originate in the injunction itself, but rather in knowing the injunction and by means of this knowledge becoming aware of the extent of loss and self-forfeiture. Our ‘ancient human constitution [is] being corrupted and ruined down from deceitful passionate desires and yearnings’, (Ephesians 4 v 22) – the raw passions and energies inherent in our fleshly constitution.

Principles of living a godly life [42] – Human nature and divine law [2]

 ‘But self-forfeiture and loss, having taken hold of a starting point by means of the injunction, fully worked to fashion within me every aspect of inordinate desire’, (Romans 7 v 8a).

Paul has just said that by means of Covenant or divine law he knows what self-forfeiture and loss is. Covenant Law defines self-forfeiture and loss. Divine law sets boundaries on thoughts, emotions, intentions, speech and behaviours, revealing what God approves of and what He disapproves of. 

So what happens? Knowledge of self-forfeiture and no receipt of a portion (of the divine inheritance) is gained by means of knowing divine law. But knowledge of divine law means that self-forfeiture and loss actively takes hold of a starting point and opportunity presented by means of the injunction. Talking about himself, Paul says that the knowledge of self-forfeiture conveyed by means of divine law fully worked to completion within him. Knowledge of self-forfeiture with regard to covetousness fully worked down within him to produce and accomplish an end result. Namely, this knowledge fashioned and formed all of the individual parts and aspects of covetousness, focused passion, yearning and lusting. The knowledge that Paul attained by means of divine law - that passionate, lustful desire was prohibited - also presented within him the opportunity, the opening and starting point for self-forfeiture and loss. His awareness of what self-forfeiture and loss is with regard to covetousness sprung to life and it worked within him to form self-forfeiture and loss with regard to every aspect of passionate, lustful desire that he possessed. His awareness of self-forfeiture and loss because of his covetousness increased, he saw it as being present in so many aspects of his passionate desires. But it was not the law itself that was producing this result, but rather the ‘self-forfeiture and loss’ within him. It was everywhere within him, often in subtle and unexpected ways. 

The Greek word that Paul uses is ‘hamartia’, which is almost universally translated into English as ‘sin’. In its more strict definition it is a noun derived from ‘A’ – ‘not’ or ‘no’, and ‘méros’ – ‘a part, a share of’, and it emphasises its self-originated or self-empowered nature – in other words, this loss of a share is not originated or empowered by God. Thus, in its fullest sense it is ‘self-forfeiture leading to no-share or portion of the divine inheritance’. It was this ‘self-forfeiture and loss’ that was working within Paul and producing every kind of form of covetousness, which had been defined by divine law. Passionate desire was present in him before he encountered divine law, but knowing the law constituted the initial starting point of knowing the presence and extent of self-forfeiture and loss, which worked within him to form many instances and aspects of self-forfeiture and loss in relation to his passionate desires.

At this point in his discussion, Paul is still thinking primarily of the dynamic process that takes place within ‘unbelievers’ – who are walking around day-by-day down from their flesh, because they are enslaved to their natural, earthy, ancient humanity or physical, fleshly constitution. In other words, this is the dynamic process that takes place when unbelievers encounter divine law. Paul does not introduce the present tense until verse 14. From verse 7 to 13 he uses the past tense, which means that he is referring to himself before God brought him forth.