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).

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.