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.