Biblical Horizons » Uncategorized

Yahweh Dwells Between the Cherubim

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:25:39 +0000

Reading in John Calvin’s sermons on 2 Samuel today, I came across this wonderful statement. This comes from a sermon preached on July 3, 1562, “The True Worship of God,” an exposition of 2 Sam. 6:1-7. Calvin is discussing the implications of the affirmation that Yaweh, the God of Israel, “dwells between the cherubim.”

“Nevertheless, in order that we might know that God does not want to frustrate us, and that the signs which he gives us are not frivolous and empty baggage, like toys for little children, it says that God truly dwells between the cherubim. This does not mean that his essence is enclosed in the ark, but that he wishes to display his virtue there for the salvation of his people. Similarly, today in the waters of baptism, it is the same as if the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ poured down from heaven to water our souls and cleanse them from their uncleanness. When we have the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, it is the same as if Jesus Christ were coming down from heaven and making himself our food, so that we could be filled with him. We must not, therefore, take these signs as visible things and figures that are to feed our spiritual senses, but are to realize that God joins his virtue and truth to them, so that the thing and the effect are joined to the figure. We must not put asunder what God has joined together” (Sermons on 2 Samuel: John Calvin, trans. by Douglas Kelley [Banner of Truth, 1992], 236).

The Impending Distress (1 Cor 7:25-40)

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:55:32 +0000

A great deal of confusion about the relative value of “virginity” and marriage can be avoided if one pays careful attention to the text of Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7. The two most important observations are: 1) that Paul’s specific recommendations are made because of the “impending crisis” (v. 26), and 2) that Paul wants both the unmarried and the married to be free from the anxieties that attend their particular estates.

First, the “impending distress” is the result of the huge change that was taking place between A.D. 30 and 70. The “appointed time has grown very short” (v. 29, ESV). The old “world/age” was under judgment and was “passing away” (v. 31). And although people still had to live in that old world (v. 30, 31), they needed to be careful about the “fleshy tribulations” that were coming (v. 28). Charles Hodge writes:

The awful desolation that was soon to fall upon Jerusalem and on the whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and persecutions, which according to our Lord’s predictions, his followers were to encounter, were surely enough to create a deep impression on the apostles mind, and to make him solicitous to prepare his brethren for the coming storm.

In the light of this, then, secondly, Paul wants everyone to be free from anxiety. Everyone. This portion of the passage has been greatly misunderstood. Paul wants them to be free from anxiety—the anxieties that attend marriage and the anxieties that are peculiar to the single state. Paul says that the unmarried man or woman is unnecessarily anxious about “how he may please the Lord” (vss. 32, 33). That’s not a good thing. He’s not presenting some ideal celibate state where someone might direct all of his attention toward religious matters and not worry about the problems associated with marriage. He is warning single people that they should not be anxious about pleasing the Lord. Paul wants them all to be free from anxieties.

With that little introduction here’s my “interpretive translation” of 1 Corinthians 7:25-40.

25. Now concerning the special case of virgins [that is, unmarried and unmarried betrothed men and women]: I have no direct commandment from the Lord [Jesus regarding this special situation]; yet I will give you my judgement as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

26. Because of the present crisis [—you understand my meaning here: the great turmoil and distress surrounding the dissolution of the old world as prophesied by our Lord, a tribulation that will also spill over into the entire inhabited world and produce, among other horrors, great persecution for the Church of Jesus Christ—] I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. [Haven’t I already urged you to accept this? Permit me now to apply this general principle to your present concern about unmarried men and women.]

27. Are you married [or under the obligations of betrothal to a woman]? Do not seek a divorce [or seek to be loosed from your betrothal obligations]. Are you unmarried [or free from a wedding engagement]? Do not seek a wife. [Just as I have been saying, don’t be anxious to alter your current marital status].

28. But if you do marry, you have not sinned [contrary to what your misguided leadership says, marriage will not drop you down into a second-class spiritual state; and so there is no religious reason why you should not marry]; and likewise if a young woman marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless, [as a faithful pastor I must advise you that] those who are married will have tribulation in the flesh, and I want to spare you this. [Please notice, dear Corinthians, that my reasons for advising you against marriage now are strictly pastoral; they arise out of my evaluation of our own present crisis situation. Unlike your reasons for preferring singleness, spirituality does not enter at all into the rationale for my advice. The old humanity (“the flesh”) is passing away and is being replaced by a new world. That process will bring tribulation, as our Lord promised.]

29-31. Let me explain myself more fully, brethren: the time is short [—we are in the “last days,” the transition from the old to the new world—], so that from now on even those who have wives should live as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not, those who rejoice as thought they did not, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use the things of this world as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form [that is, the entire old world economy with Israel and Rome at the religious and political center of the world] is passing away.

32. Now, I want you to be free from an anxiety-ridden existence [Gk: 'amérimnos*]. The man who is unmarried [in the Corinthian community] is unnecessarily fretful* about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. And the man who is married is anxiety-ridden* over the cares of the world—how he may please his wife [both kinds of anxiety are unhealthy and to be avoided].

*See Matt. 6: 25, 27, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Lk. 10: 41; 21:34; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7;

34. Now consider the difference between a wife and a unmarried woman [in the Corinthian community dominated by your false view of spirituality. Your legalistic pestering has insured that] the unmarried woman is anxious* about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit [and so she has gotten herself all worked up over whether getting married or staying single is more spiritual]. And she who is married is anxious* about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. [Why? Because the teachings that are circulating among you make her anxious about all this “secular” time she supposedly wastes on pleasing her husband. Again, both forms of anxiety are unspiritual and dangerous.]

35. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord [or as some have translated it: that you may serve the Lord without distraction—the distractions of these unspiritual anxieties].

36. Now if any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin.

37. Nevertheless, he who stands steadfast in his heart, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and has determined in his heart that he will not marry—this man also does the right thing.

38. So then, he who marries his betrothed does right, but he who does not marry does even better [because of the present crisis and the trouble that the church will experience].

39-40. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But blessed is she who remains as she is—that is my judgment [given the coming crisis that will spare none of us], and I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Protestants and BMEV

James B Jordan — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:39:26 +0000

For years I have read little posts by fresh new Papal converts that assert that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So did Turretin. Setting aside the question of whether these men believed that this notion was important or not — and Calvin, at least, is clear that it is not important one way or another — we might ask just what is the point? Evidently this information is offered to score points, or as a way of beginning to proselytize.

I imagine that some unlearned or unthinking persons might be impressed by this argument, but nobody who knows much about the Reformation would be. Let us consider what else these men believed, and ask our youthful Papists if they go along with them.

1. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tertullian, etc., all believed that the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the Pope and that the Whore Babylon in Revelation 17 is the Papal Church. Not only did the Protestants of the first couple of centuries after the Reformation believe these things, but they wrote them into their confessions. BMEV (Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin) did not make it into the Protestant confessions, evidently not considered very important or necessary. But the Pope as Antichrist did make it into the confessions. This was considered very important and necessary.

2. All these men also denied the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, to children. This error made it into the Westminster Larger Catechism.

So, now we can ask if our young Romanists want to defend these two ideas, especially #1.

In fact, these Reformers were wrong on all three counts. The Man of Sin and the Harlot Babylon are clearly stated in the text to be phenomena of the Apostolic Age. There is no Antichrist in the Bible, only antichrists (plural). The Reformers and their followers were wrong about this, and their confessions are in error.

There is absolutely no hint in the Bible that baptized children are to be denied the Lord’s Supper. The Reformers were dead wrong on this matter.

Finally, the Bible is clear that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations and children. The men listed above were quite wrong about this, though none evidently thought it important enough to put into their confessions.

In conclusion, the answer to young Papal bloggers is simple: So what? The Reformers erred in a number of areas. We have long since moved past these errors.

Concerning BMEV

James B Jordan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:21:13 +0000

BMEV, or “Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin,” should not be an issue for any Protestant today, but clamor from various quarters means that we need once again to “get real” with the Biblical data here. Herewith is a reworking of a recent essay on the subject originally published in Biblical Horizons.

Early on in the church it was decided that Joseph must have kept Mary a virgin all her life. Unquestionably this is because sex was considered dirty — we need only peruse the Church “Fathers” to see this over and over. The mother of Jesus could not possibly have engaged in such a disgusting, sweaty, stinky enterprise.

This abysmal notion is ferociously defended by those given over to this idea. It is clear from the Bible that the pleasures of marital intercourse are to be enjoyed, and it would have been sinful for Joseph to deny it to her. There is nothing dirty about sex in marriage. Theologian John Murray, once asked if Mary stayed a virgin, replied to the effect: “Of course not! She was a Godly woman.”
Jephthah’s daughter wept because she was consigned to perpetual virginity. Are we to believe that God rewarded Mary’s faithfulness with a curse!? — denying her the pleasures of a husband and the joys of more children?

Matthew 1:25 is quite clear: Joseph “was not knowing her until she gave birth to a son.” It does not say “never knew her.” The “imperfect” status verb here indicates routine continual activity.

And we may ask why Joseph would have felt any need to keep Mary a virgin. Neither he nor anyone else knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Often we hear from the ignorant in certain churches that “Well, if my wife had given birth to God Himself, I don’t think I could touch her sexually after that.” Well, in fact nobody knew Jesus was God incarnate. They knew that he was the promised Messiah, son of David, and savior of the world. They did not know and could not possibly have known that He was God on earth. How could Mary and Joseph ever have dealt with him growing up? How could the disciples possibly have had any kind of relationship with him if they had known He was God on earth?

When Jesus calmed the seas, the disciples wondered, saying, “Who is this that even the wind and waves obey him?” Clearly they did not think Jesus was God. He was a kind of super-Moses, who like Moses could command the sea. It is only after His resurrection that the disciples realized that He was God incarnate.

When Peter confessed, “You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God,” he only meant that Jesus was the promised seed of David, the Messiah. In Psalm 2, the Davidic king is “son of God.” It is only after the resurrection that anyone said, “My Lord and my God!”

So, since all Mary and Joseph knew was that Jesus was a man destined for great things, there is no reason on earth they would have refrained from the joys of sex.

Now, even at the time of the Reformation the hold that this evil superstition had on people was so great that the Reformers did not touch it. I read on silly and uninformed blogs that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That is not true. A glance at Calvin’s commentaries shows that he says, in Matthew 1:25, that it is impossible to know one way or another [he's wrong about that -- JBJ] and that it is best not to worry about it.

Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21, and Mark 3:31-35 record that Jesus’ mother and His brothers arrived to see him. We are assured that “brothers” might mean “relatives,” and though a pointless assertion (since Jesus surely did have brothers), this is indeed lexically possible. In Mark 3:32, however, the multitude reports to Jesus, “your mother and your brothers and your sisters are outside looking for you.” Now, “and your sisters” is absent from some ancient manuscripts. It was the consensus of the United Bible Societies Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd ed., 1971), that “and your sisters” is most likely original. If it had been added later, they argue, it would also have been added in verse 31, where it is only “his mother and his brothers arrived.” Now, “brothers” might mean “relatives,” but “sisters” cannot. “Sisters” means sisters.

Whatever the case may be in Mark 3, we can be absolutely certain that Mary and Joseph began to enjoy sex after her purification from childbirth, and that this pleasure was part of God’s gift to them for their faithfulness and obedience, and that they had other children together. Any other opinion is simply an impossibility from a Biblical and consistent Christian point of view.

It is my hope that the Roman Catholic Church, as it rethinks various issues today, will begin to think more clearly and Biblically about this. They rightly seek to honor Mary, but they do so in a very sadly wrong way.

Rome? Why Bother?

James B Jordan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:30:06 +0000

When I hear from time to time of some young evangelical Presbyterian going into Roman Catholicism, I ask myself, “Why bother? You’re already in a church pretty much like what the Reformers rejected.”

In the Medieval church, the congregation did little but watch while the priest and choir did everything. It’s not much different in conservative Presbyterianism. There is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies.

In the Medieval church, the psalms were absent from the song of the congregation. That’s why the Reformers were psalm-fanatics. Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today. The Trinity Hymnal certainly does not contain near all the psalms. Look at the bulletin of any conservative Presbyterian church and see if there is even one psalm sung.

In the Medieval church, people were served only one half of the Lord’s Supper. Wine was never served to them. Wine is pretty much never served in conservative Presbyterianism either. In this, modern Presbyterianism is identical with Rome. (And don’t tell me grape juice is wine. If it is, then use wine. Woops! The moment you say that, you find out that grape juice is most definitely not wine!) “Grape juice” communion is for all intents and purposes identical with Roman Catholic communion.

Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year.

Rome had no interest in the Bible. The touchstone of truth was tradition, as understood by the Romanists of Luther’s Day. Luther, Bucer, Calvin and the other Reformers showed over and over that in fact Augustine and the Fathers did not teach the Roman doctrines, and that they (the Reformers) were in line with the true tradition. It made no difference. The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings. Not once has any “study committee” dealt with the Bible in dealing with the “Federal Vision.”

The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings. Most interestingly, in the Presbyterian Church in America there is the SJC (Standing Judicial Commission) which has total and absolute power in the PCA. This Star Judicial Chamber has exercised its power to threaten to dissolve the Louisiana Presbytery if it did not fail to condemn the teachings of one of its members — after the Presbytery itself had twice exonerated him. There is no recourse in the PCA against this Star Chamber, and evidently the PCA is too full of milquetoasts for anyone to stand up against them. So it seems.

So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change. And it’s not a big surprise when people do so.

2009 Biblical Horizons Conference

James B Jordan — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:35:44 +0000

LOCATION: Trinity Presbyterian Church, 44 Southview Avenue, Valparaiso, FL

BIBLICAL HORIZONS 2009 BIBLE CONFERENCE

July 20-24

- Peter Leithart on Sex & Death in Leviticus 18 & 20. That’s right: the gross, sexy chapters. Three lectures projected. (How can you pass up attending these????)

- James B. Jordan on Learning Holy War at Sinai. Leviticus between Egypt and Canaan. Six lectures projected.

- Jeffrey Meyers on Cool Foot Luke. More amazing stuff on Luke than you can even imagine. Four lectures projected.

- Blake Purcell and Rich Bledsoe will also speak, once each at present.

- Begins Monday evening at 7:00 pm; ends Friday at 1:00 pm.

- Registration: $100 per person; $125 per family. (Sorry for the price hike, but stuff costs more than it did 20 years ago when we started.)

- Sung Vespers each evening, with “chanted” psalmody.

- Local airport is Northwest Florida Air Terminal (VPS).

- Motels: In Niceville there are three acceptable motels:

Quality Inn (formerly Comfort Inn), price around $100/night.

Comfort Suites (new), price around $130/night.

Holiday Inn Express, price around $120/night.

I suggest you go to Expedia, Priceline, Hotels.com, etc. and see what you can get. If you are willing to drive 45 minutes each way, you might get a nice deal in Destin or Fort Walton Beach. If you need a roommate, let me know as soon as you can. There is also an el cheapo motel called Tisa’s Friendly Inn. If you don’t might el cheapo, phone them at 1-850-678-4164. For younger single people, it’s not all that bad, and not nearly as expensive.

Sanctus

James B Jordan — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:32:01 +0000

http://biblicalhorizons.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/jordan_sanctus.pdf

Let’s see if this works. This should be a link to the Sanctus I put together for use at the Biblical Horizons Conferences. Some churches have been using it also. So, let’s see if this works.

The Pastoral Function

James B Jordan — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:12:32 +0000

I wrote this elsewhere and was encouraged to put it here. It is a comment on what a pastor is. Today, this is not very well understood, and God’s people suffer because of it.

There are four professions: medicine, education, law, and religion. Each of these, when done at a professional level, is marked by the wearing of a gown. A gown is a garment of leisure.

Each of these mandates that a man be paid to have leisure time. Do you want a busy M.D. looking over your general health? A busy judge deciding your case? A busy professor teaching you? A busy pastor? No, not if you’re sane. Each of these professions entails having lots of time to listen to people, and also lots of time to read and keep abreast.

That’s why real tentmaking, like Paul did, fits just fine with being a Christian minister. But a “day job” does not.

Each of these professions requires that a man have lots of time to listen to people and to reflect on what they have said. Also, each requires that a man have time to study and consult before making a life and death decision. In a sense, the academic professor is not making a life and death decision, as the judge, physician, and pastor is. Yet, he also needs time to sculpt and mold the mushy mind of his students.

This is why “parttime” pastors and ruling-elders as the same as pastors does not work and is a major problem. People instinctively know that the fulltime guy is the real pastor; unless he’s a jerk who keeps his door locked and thinks he’s a great scholar and is not available all the time to his people.

Lectures on Worship

James B Jordan — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:28:00 +0000

Lectures on worship by James B. Jordan, delivered at the first meeting of the Eastern European branches of the Confederation of Reformation Churches in Budapest, are now up on line. The lectures were delivered in English without translation. You can hear them, and also lectures by Rev. Jack Phelps, Presiding Minister of the CREC, at this place:

http://www.reformalt.hu/audio

Romans 7

James B Jordan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:47:35 +0000

This is a problematic and much discussed passage. I’ve been discussing it in another forum, and have decided to move it here and present some very preliminary observations about it.

One large question is this: Who is the speaker here and what is his situation? Traditionally, the speaker is seen to be Paul and the situation is the trials of believers as they wrestle with indwelling sin. There are reasons why this traditional view has come into question, primarily that throughout this part of Romans Paul is discussing the coming of the New Creation and the end, in some sense, of the Torah-Law. That’s the point of Romans 7:1-6.

Hence, some have argued that the “I” in Romans 7:7-27 is not Paul himself but Israel, or the typical Israelite living under Torah and yearning for the New Creation. Yet, the problem with this is that the man in Romans 7 includes in his arguments that he has been raised from the Deathbody of Adam/Israel in union with Jesus Christ our Lord. He seems, thus, to be someone in the New Creation already.

My suggestion is that the man in Romans 7 is Paul Himself, but Paul putting himself in the position of Israel, and behind that, of the corporate Adam of the human race. Death entered through Adam, and humanity lived in an unresurrected Deathbody from then on. Death includes division,and Adam and Eve divided from each other right away, putting a fig-leaf barrier between themselves. God enhanced this division at Babel, and again by dividing humanity into circumcised and uncircumcised (Genesis 17). Further divisions, and symbolic forms of the Deathbody were introduced at Sinai, with priests alone allowed near to God, and various forms of symbolic uncleanness (death) linked to bodily functions (the flesh). The division within the human person is manifested here in Romans 7.

Torah-law, with its divisions and its Deathbody manifestations, arises from the original death-law, “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge or you will die.” The things that have to do with extending human dominion are marked with death: eating all animals, having children, glorious white skin, and rivers flowing from the center of the body (Lev. 11-15). Humanity is not resurrected, so all this glory is marked with death. This Deathbody and its problems is in view in Romans 7:13-25. The passage exists with an introduction and a three-fold argument, which cycles through four phases three times. Paul says, normatively, that he agrees with Torah (v. 16); dispositionally,that it is he himself who wishes to do Torah (v. 19), and situationally, that Jesus Christ has resurrected him from the Deathbody and its contradictions.

So we may ask, is this “Paul” Paul himself, or is he simply speaking of the experience of Adam, as matured into Israel? I submit that Paul’s use of “I” throughout means that he is using himself and his biography as an example of what he is talking about. I argue this for three reasons:

1. The use of “I.” Paul is perfectly capable of discussing historical changes brought in by the New Creation objectively. He does so in most of his epistles. When he speaks of Israel/Jews, he writes “we.” His use of “I” here pushes me, as it has most exegetes, to think that there is some personal relationship between this argument and Paul himself.

2. I believe that the preceding paragraph, Romans 7:7-12, links nicely with Paul’s own biography. It seems, to me, to describe his fall at the stoning of Stephen, his being killed by the Law, and imply his baptismal resurrection. In my mind, it sets up Romans 7:13-25 as an argument that Paul had with himself after he became a Christian. That argument is offered here as something for all Old Creation believers to learn from.

3. In my opinion, Paul sets forth his own experiences here as a prelude to his discussion in Romans 11. What he went through is something “all Israel” is shortly to go through, so that like him, “all Israel” will be saved before the end of Israel in AD 70. I’ve discussed this in The Future of Israel Reconsidered, a monograph available from Biblical Horizons. (See the catalogue at www.biblicalhorizons.com

So now, Paul’s biography. I’m leaning a bit on insights from N.T. Wright, but with one departure. Wright sees Saul or Tarsus as somewhat of a political revolutionary from the start. I do not. He was a disciple of the peaceable Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He did not join in stoning Stephen, but followed Gamaliel’s advice to wait and see (Acts 5:34ff.) At this point I suggest that the kind of envy and wrath so ably discussed in the writings of Rene Girard too over. Wright points out that Stephen claimed to see heaven opened, the desire of every superfaithful Jew. Saul had not seen that, and Stephen’s claim provoked him to envy and superwrath (orgee). Suddenly Saul was motivated to murder all Christians, all the new kingly Davids, and began doing so.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin [is] dead. 9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10 and the commandment, which [was] unto life, this I found [to be] unto death: 11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. 12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

Notice that Paul does not refer to the total Torah here. It is only the 10th Word that is in view. It is this commandment that struck Saul/Paul, not the totality. Paul writes that when this commandment came home to him, “sin became alive and I died.” Now, this is what happened at Sinai. The arrival of Torah meant that uncleanness (symbolic death) was multiplied. Paul, however, seems to be talking about something existential: sin became alive and I died. Paul immediately says that the purpose of Torah was life, but for him it became death.

I suggest that Paul refers to his own experience here, as typical of Israel. He was enraged at the claims of the Christians to be the new Israel, the new Temple, the new people of God. He saw what they had, lusted for it, but hated them for having it. He “died” to his earlier believing life as a faithful Jew. He experienced the fall of Adam anew. After his conversion he had to work through what it meant to be delivered from “bondage” to Torah, because Torah was good. His series of arguments with himself is given in Romans 7:13-25 as an example for others.

But is this passage of no meaning for us? No, because Romans 3:31 says that by faith we “establish Torah.” When Christians go through times of conviction, Romans 7:13-25 is a good passage to work through.

Introduction:

13 Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; — that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.

Cycle 1: Normative Perspective: Objective goodness of Torah

A. Problem: Indwelling sin.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

B. Contradictory life of the believer.

15 For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.

C. Comfort in knowing one is on the right side.

16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good.

D. Isolation of sin from “me.”

17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.

Cycle 2: Dispositional Perspective: “My” desires

A. Problem: Indwelling sin.

18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good [is] not.

B. Contradictory life of the believer.

19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice.

C & D. Comfort Isolation of sin.

20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.

Cycle 3: Situational Perspective: What God has Done to Change Things

A. Problem : Indwelling sin.

21 I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.

B. Contradictory life of the believer.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.

C. Comfort in deliverance.

24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this death-body? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

D. Isolation of sin.

So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.