The Effect of the Law

befitting tone of God’s power
and grace and mercy to set the stage for the passage before
us today. Romans chapter seven, if you
would once again. We’ve been considering Romans
chapter seven for more than a month now. Paul has taken up the subject
of sanctification. Beginning in verse six or chapter
six, rather, he entered into that grand subject and he will
sustain that subject through chapter eight, and so in the
In a very real sense, we are in the heart of the great subject
of sanctification, but we’re also in the midst of that or
underneath that umbrella. We are also considering the law
and its role or place in the life of a Christian. What is
the place of the law? Paul began this discussion back
in chapter seven, verse one. We’ll take it today in pretty
rapid fashion. I’m not going to review any of
that except by way of a brief reading. Paul is dealing with
a number of questions that have come up with regard to his perspective
or position on the law and that maybe Paul was minimizing the
effect of the law or the place of the law. And Paul, in a very
real sense, is defending his position and outlining his position. We have seen thus far in the
first six verses the the reach or, if you will, the scope of
the law in the verses that followed. We saw the point of the law in
verses seven through 12. And here, beginning in verse
13, through the close of this chapter, we will see the effect
or the effects of the law, the effect as we move into those
verses, if you would go all the way back to verse one so that
we can read these passages, we’ll consider this morning in their
proper context. Or Paul wrote to the Romans,
or do you not know, Brethren, for I am speaking to those who
know the law, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as
long as he lives. For the married woman is bound
by law to her husband while he is living, but if her husband
dies, She is released from the law concerning her husband. So
then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another
man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she
is free from the law so that she is not an adulteress, though
she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you were
made to die to the law through the body of Christ that you might
be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead,
that we might bear fruit for God, For while we were in the
flesh the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were
at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
But now we have been released from the law having died to that
by which we were bound so that we serve in newness of the spirit
and not in oldness of the letter. What should we say then is the
law sin. May it never be. On the contrary,
I would not have come to know sin except through the law, for
I would not have known about coveting if the law had not said,
you shall not covet. But sin, taking opportunity through
the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind. For
apart from the law, sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from
the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I
died. And this commandment, which was
to result in life, proved to result in death for me. For sin, taking opportunity through
the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So
then the law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous
and good. Therefore, did that which is
good become a cause of death for me? May it never be. Rather, it was sin. In order
that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through
that which is good. That through the commandment,
sin might become utterly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual. But I am a flesh sold into bondage
to sin. For that which I am doing, I
do not understand. For I am practicing what I would
like to do. Pardon me, I am not practicing
what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with
the law confessing that it is good. So now no longer am I the
one doing it, but sin which in dwells me. For I know that nothing
good dwells in me that is in my flesh for the wishing is present
in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish
I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer
the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the
principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to
do good. For I joyfully concur with the
law of God and the inner man, But I see a different law in
the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind
and making me a prisoner in the law of the law of sin, which
is in my members. Wretched man that I am, who will
set me free from the body of sin and death? Thanks be to God
through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So then, on the one hand, I myself,
with my mind, I’m serving the law of God. but on the other
with my flesh, the law of sin.” I have spoken in weeks past of
the difficulty of chapter 7, and particularly when people
talk about the difficulty of chapter 7, it’s this section
to which they’re referring. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones first frightened
me into deeper study back in December when I was reading his
chapter on this volume. He said the volume, this particular
volume, his commentary on Chapter 7, deals with what is undoubtedly
one of the most controversial chapters in the Bible. Whatever
view one may take of it inevitably leads to criticism and disagreement.
That part I’ve shared with you before. The part that’s new to
you is what he went on to say. He said no other chapter perhaps
has been more frequently the cause of discussion and disputation
and argument. We come to what is beyond any
doubt the most famous and best known section in the entire epistle. There is no section certainly
which has so frequently led to dispute to dispute even wrangling
and a display of a spirit far removed from that which is taught
in the New Testament. He goes on to appeal, as I will,
for reasonable humility, a patience that enters into this chapter
with trepidation, fearing to misstep. And I pray that I will
lead you through that this morning. My greatest fear this morning
is is that in 10 minutes time I’m going to lose half of you. It is a deep passage and even
the consideration of the things is deep. And to tell you the
truth there are so many different viewpoints on what this passage
means and its significance that it can be bewildering. But I
have no choice but to lay them before you and in a sense to
kick each one around a little bit. One summarized it by saying
there have been radical difference of opinion among the ablest of
commentators from the earliest of times. So it doesn’t even
matter how far back I go. I can’t find anyone, including
Augustine, because Augustine changed his position at least
once. I came to go back to, you know, the pillars of the faith,
because even the pillars disagree one with another. Let me set
the context, if I could. in these passages before I lose
you. In these verses before us, Paul
is essentially dealing with another one of these false conclusions
or inferences that could be lodged against him because of what he
had said in verses 9 through 12. Specifically what he said
there was that the law which is good is ultimately to blame
for man’s death. And so once again the Jews or
others could step up and say that Paul is again finding another
way to repudiate the law. The bottom line is that Paul
goes on to say was he said it in those verses that it was sin
that caused our death. It was the fact that we had a
death wish and that we were willing To hang on to our sin, that’s
what led to our demise, not the law. The law didn’t kill us. Our love of sin did. The law
was a good thing, and it’s in that context that Paul responds
to even the criticism before us. Did that which is good become
a cause of death for me? Let me give you a brief overview
by way of one pastor over this great section in verses 13 through
the end of the passage. He said the passage is obviously
a poignant account of a person’s inner conflict with himself.
I mean, you see that. What we have to wonder, though,
is that is this Paul speaking of himself? Is this Paul wrestling
with sin? Because he comes to conclusions
and makes some statements that are really difficult for us To
agree with much less to sign off on and to agree that they
are statements about even us. It’s a poignant account of a
person’s inner conflict with himself. One part of him pulling
in one direction another part pulling the opposite. For as
long as the church has known this text interpreters have disagreed
as to whether the person described as a Christian or a non-Christian.
One side maintains that the person is too much in bondage to sin
to be a believer. You get that just from the reading
of the passage. Whereas the other side maintains
that the person has too much love for the things of God and
too much hatred of sin to be an unbeliever. And you enter
in immediately into this conundrum. So when those verses are read
and you are uncomfortable with them, you’re in good company.
Because for more than 2000 years, that’s exactly where the church
has been. I don’t want to say that. Going in. That whatever position we take,
we can just take it kind of flippantly because so many people have disagreed
with us. I am going to ask you to think I am going to ask you
to wrestle with the passage. I am going to ask you to walk
with me and both to examine the statements that have been made
to poke holes in what we can. and to see what remains. So, this section contains questions
and the questions inherent to this section begin to mount and
present themselves even as you begin to read it. One pastor
summarized a few of these. Which sort of person is Paul
talking about? Does Paul’s first person singular
refer only to himself or is that simply a literary device? We’ll
talk more about that in a moment. If Paul is speaking of himself,
is he speaking of his condition before or after his conversion? And that is a crucial question
to answer as we course through this. Another asked, does this
passage describe the experience of a regenerate or an unregenerate
man? Is this The words of a Christian
or are these the words rather of an unbeliever? And yet another. Pastor pointedly inquired, who
is the person described here, an unconverted person, Paul himself
before his conversion, an immature believer or Paul himself, the
believer, and by extension. The believer generally us. Did
you read? about yourself in those verses
in chapter 7, verses 13 through 25, or did you read, which is
always our tendency to do, about somebody else? Regarding the
question of who or what kind of person is in view in this
passage, there have been essentially three main views. And we’re going
to kick them around plenty today, but First, there have been those
who said that Paul here is pointing and describing, laying out before
us an unregenerate man with regards to his view of the law. A man
who, as one said, in the state of nature, not yet regenerated. This is an unregenerate, unsaved
man. One pastor characterized them
in these terms. He said from the early days of
the church throughout the Middle Ages and also today there have
been many that claim that what Paul says in 714 through 25 cannot
refer to the believer but must have reference to the unbeliever.
So that is the first overarching view. The problem with that view
is there is no way. There just is no way that these
are the thoughts of an unregenerate man. An unregenerate man is unable
to affirm almost everything in 14 through 25. Listen. For we
know that the law is spiritual. That is not the thought of an
unregenerate man. That’s not the thought of an
unsafe man. He doesn’t care about the law. He doesn’t care about
the quality or the nature of the law. I am a flesh at the
end of verse 14, the unregenerate man doesn’t see himself in those
terms sold into bondage and to sin. He thinks he’s living a
good life, right? Let’s go in and have coffee with
him and let’s interact with him on these words, shall we? For
that which I am doing, I do not understand. For I am practicing
what I would. I am not practicing what I would
like to do. Yes, you are. You’re doing exactly
what you want to do as an unbeliever. That’s exactly what we talked
about last week, right? They have a death wish. But I’m doing the very thing
I hate. No, you’re not. You love your sin. That’s why
you hate God so much. But if I do the very thing I
do not wish to do, I agree with the law. No, you don’t. You hate
God’s law. And on and on it goes and throughout
the entirety of this section, there isn’t a single thing. That
an unregenerate man could affirm. With possible one exception. At the very end of verse 25.
When Paul says, on the other hand, with my flesh, I am serving
the law of sin, he wouldn’t call it sin, but he’s serving his
flesh. And he may not call it in those terms but that’s exactly
what he’s doing is the unregenerate man. It’s not an unregenerate
man in this passage and we can throw a lot of those out right
away. The second view is that it is
a description of a regenerate man a saved man and that presents
a number of problems doesn’t it. Not only did one say that
this is a description of a regenerate man but one who is always even
at his best. He is he is always regenerate
and in every course of this he is he is the best kind of Christian. That is a difficult position
to take. The third view the third general
view remember I said there were three. The third general view
maintains that it is an account said one of the regenerate man
in his early stages. This is different. It’s not a
mature Christian anymore. This is one who’s starting out
on the path of righteousness and he’s beginning to wrestle
with these things beginning to wrestle with what the law says
beginning to wrestle with his own flesh. Now this view it has
potential doesn’t it. For those that suggest that Paul’s
referring to an unbeliever. It’s almost an untenable position. They’ll cite things like this,
and these are the very things that make it so uncomfortable
for us to say that these are words of a believer. They’ll
say it’s got to be an unbeliever because Paul says he’s of flesh
sold into bondage to sin. He has nothing good dwelling
within him. This is an unbeliever. But one author proceeded to objectively
inquire, if the person is an unbeliever, how do we explain
some of the statements in the rest of. Romans 7, having died
to sin, having his old self crucified, freed from sin, verse 7, 18 and
22, considering himself dead to sin, verse 11. See, similar
difficulties present themselves if we adopt the opposite view.
That this is spoken of a believer, and we’ll talk about that in
a moment. One of the classic. Difficult
elements of this passage, this section is that Paul pushes aside
his use of the past tense that would have been so much easier
had Paul used the past tense of dealing with this. I was.
A sinner, I was not practicing what I Desire to do that would
have been so much easier to deal with. But what he does is he
pushes aside the use of the past tense form of verbs and he switches
instead almost exclusively to the present tense, and that creates
all kinds of difficulties and has created the discussion in
which we’re engaged. It’s the here and now that Paul
is discussing. Listen to it again. I am. of flesh. That’s a problematic
statement. Sold into bondage to sin for
that which I am doing I do not understand. For I am practicing
what I would. I am not practicing what I would
like to do but I’m doing the very thing that I hate. Those
statements in the present tense create difficulty for us don’t
they. They at least make us uncomfortable
and they should. One faithful commentator, I don’t
agree with the position that he ended up with, but he laid
out the great variety of positions that have been taken on this
passage. I suggested to you that there are
a great many. I’ve distilled down 10 and we
are going to touch on each. Some of them we can brush aside
very shortly and very briefly, rather. With regards to this use of the
first person, just stay with me. Why is Paul speaking in these
terms? Why is he speaking in the first
person when he’s already told us all that Christ has accomplished?
Remember, he has been justified by faith in Christ. Why does
he still insist on using this language? Especially in the first person. The first option was that what
Paul is really doing here is speaking in generalities in this
first person and he’s presenting the experience of the non-Christian
Jew as seen by himself. In other words, Paul is doing
the talking, but he’s pointing to a man and he’s pointing to
a man outside of Christ. This is the unregenerate man
argument. And I’ve already told you, we’re
not going to take it. We don’t need to adopt that view.
The unregenerate man can’t say and affirm anything in here,
even if he’s a Jew. Now, a Jew might come along and
say, you know, the law is spiritual. We love the law with David. A Jew, no doubt, could say that. The second view. is that it presents the experience
of the non-Christian Jew as seen through Christian eyes. Now you
have Paul. Now you have Paul essentially
interpreting the data for the Jew. And I don’t think that this is
a workable position either. We don’t need to adopt that position
either, because essentially he’s still making the Jew say things
that ultimately the Jew would not say, especially when it comes
to his desire for Christ. It’s not the position of the
Jew. That’s not a position that we’re going to adopt. I’ll tell
you when you can start liking some of these options. There’s
a third option. And this one this one I hesitated
to even mention because I dislike it so much. But with a desire
to be academically honest and Maintain my integrity. I want
to tell you about it and then I’ll really kick this one around.
The third option is that Chapter 7 describes the carnal or the
fleshly Christian. This is how one described it.
Whatever is being taught here we can say that it is not a statement
about a man who is unregenerate. Neither is it a statement about
a man who is fully developed as a Christian as anybody possibly
can be in this life. In other words what he points
to is the weakling the struggling Christian. You know we’ve all
heard about and somewhere along the 80s this whole idea of the
carnal Christian blossomed again and that that basically served
as a grand antidote and excuse really to ungodly lives. This option misses the entire
point of the discussion. It evades it. It destroys it
really. The discussion you remember is
about sanctification and specifically about the Christians relationship
to the law. This option of calling referring
to this individual as the carnal Christian is essentially providing
a whopper of an excuse to those who mutter and putter through
the Christian life and just want to say, oh, I’m a carnal Christian. It’s a terrible argument and
it’s destructive even to the gospel itself. Let me read just
a portion. Just a portion as a carnal Christian
might read Romans 7. I am a flesh sold into bondage
to sin for that which I’m doing, I do not understand. For I am
not practicing what I would like to do, but I’m doing the very
thing I hate. Poor me. It’s not biblical. No such thing
as a carnal Christian. There’s a fourth option. Don’t
get too excited yet. The fourth option is that it
presents the experience of the Christian who is living at a
level of the Christian life which still trying to fight the battle
in his own strength. This is as one described the
position of legalism. He’s trying to align himself
and live under and according to the law he’s trying to rise
to the level of Christian maturity by a strict adherence to the
law. One described it in these terms. He said many suggest that
this is a person who is a frustrated legalistic Christian who attempts
in his own power to please God by living up to the Mosaic law.
And I understand the argument and it’s not a bad argument necessarily. After all, as we mentioned, what
is the law mentioned in Romans 7, 22 times. It’s not like this
particular option ignores the law. It does bring the law into
focus and it does bring the Christian into focus and it does try to
meld them together in some sense. But while it seeks to address
some of those elements of the passage, the law, the struggle,
there is no reason There’s no reason in this passage to indict
the individual here in the passage as being legalistic. It says
that he longs to do some things. He sees a standard, but he doesn’t
hold out any hope of desiring to do that. He’s given up hope,
if anything, on a strict adherence to God’s law. He sees the law
is good. He wants to obey, but he cannot. That doesn’t describe legalism.
That describes the function of the law. The function of the
law is conviction. And this individual is under
conviction, not under some delusion that somehow if he only tries
harder, he’ll achieve God’s standard. And so there are much better
options. Leave four off the table. Option number five. That this
is an immature believer. And this one has some potential. As one described it though it
can be granted that the man pictured cannot be an unbeliever nevertheless
in view of the fact that he makes many unfavorable statements about
himself. It is possible that he is a mere
babe in Christ and those refer specifically to those. Some of
those difficulties we’ve already mentioned. What does he say about
himself? I am a flesh sold into bondage and sin. I am not practicing
what I would like to do. There is nothing good that dwells
in me. I find the principle that evil is present within me. Now, I guess it’s not a bad observation
that this could be a weak Christian, not a carnal Christian, but a
weaker Christian, one growing in the faith, an immature believer
who is In the process of growing in grace. But this particular
commentator way oversteps his bounds when he says the following.
He says there are three stages of religious position and development
that are pictured here by Paul. First is that it is of a person
still under the dominion of sin, and so that’s like stage one.
And then somehow, by his own doing, he extracts himself from
stage one and enters into stage two, that of a struggling individual,
one who hates sin but is not advanced very far on the road
to sanctification. And then the third stage, almost
magically, mind you, is that of the mature and grateful believer
rejoicing in the fact that for him there is now no condemnation,
Romans 8.1. You know, some of the things
that he says here are true. Immature believer, you could
pin that on any one of you could pin that on any Christian who’s
ever walked the face of the earth. We are immature believers. We
are imperfect. We are yet unglorified. This
is a weak argument. Throw this one aside. First of
all, the idea, the very idea that these verses contain for
us Three distinct stages for growth in the Christian life
is just plain ridiculous. There’s nothing in there that
suggests it. Instead of a clearly defined
grouping of three, you have a swirling mass of thought that is akin
to stew. Not a carefully delineated progression
of the Christian life, it isn’t there. There are better arguments and
let’s press on. To the sixth option, see how
quickly we’re moving through these. I told you there’s only
10. So and we’re building towards
better arguments, aren’t we? So you see the direction that
we’re heading. Number six. Number six is it is autobiographical. This is about Paul. It is autobiographical,
the reference being to Paul’s present experience as a Christian. Now, this is really This is where
it gets difficult. Because now all of those present
statements are statements that we have to acknowledge if this
is our position. This is what Paul is saying about
himself now as Paul was writing the letter to the Romans. Here’s how one described it.
It is only along the lines of either this option or the following. psych up for the next one. It
is only along the lines of either this or the next option that
we can really do justice to the text. Well that’s a really humble
thing to say. That’s a lot of times how commentators
will argue is they’ll say oh you know this is the only one
that does justice to the text. Well He says, The man who speaks
here is the one who wills the good and hates the evil, who
is as far as his inner man is concerned, delights in God’s
law, serves him with his mind. But Paul does not so describe
the unregenerate man in these terms. Still another, and with
all humility, I respect this position. This one said, it also
seems as one would naturally suppose from the use of the first
person singular, which appears 46 times in Romans 7 through
25, Paul is speaking of himself. I get that. At the very minimum,
Paul is putting himself in with us. I don’t think that he’s speaking
only of himself, which is what this position articulates. Not
only is he the subject of this passage, but he is the mature
and spiritually seasoned apostle that is portrayed only a Christian
at the height of his spiritual maturity would either experience
or be concerned about such deep struggles of heart. And there
is a lot of truth to this one. I like this option. This option
is a good option if it weren’t just about Paul. And that really takes us to option
number seven, doesn’t it? And you know where he’s going
with this. Option number seven is that it presents the experience
of Christians generally. It’s about us. When Paul uses
this terminology and uses I, I, I, what he’s really saying
is we. Because if it’s true of me, it’s
true of you. It’s a good argument. This one
has real potential. If you will get your chip out
and get ready to put it on this one. Although we’re only at point
seven right. One described it in these terms
it seems rather that Paul is here describing the most spiritual
and mature of Christians who the more they honestly measure
themselves against God’s standards of righteousness the more they
realize how much they fall short. The closer we get to God, the
more we see our own sin, the level of spiritual insight, brokenness,
contrition, the humility that characterizes the person depicted
in Romans 7 are marks of a spiritual and mature believer. Who before
God has no trust in his own goodness and achievements, this is a great
position. You can read through Romans 7.
And there are many as we go through it, if we can affirm many of
the things we felt, the things that he says, we’ve sensed those
things. And there is a lot of truth.
To this position. Another described it. In simpler
terms, when he said throughout this subsection, the first person
singular is used in the present summary, we assume that Paul
is not just speaking about his own experience, but is taking
himself as representative. First of mankind generally, and
then in verses 14 through 25 of Christians. So Paul, when
he uses the word I, what he’s really saying is, look, this
is how we respond to sin. Now. In order to play this out fully,
and I wanted to read this. A couple of different portions. We’re talking about how Paul
has now switched into speaking of the present tense and how
uncomfortable that makes us to to say some of the things about
ourselves as if they’re still in effect. Thinking that when
we came to Christ, all of those things fell by the wayside. Our
sin. Our bondage to sin. The fact that we no longer can
do what we really want to do, which is to please God. Those
things bother us. I hope they bother you. One said, the past tense gives
way to present. Paul is thinking specifically
of Christians. The verses which follow depict
vividly the inner conflict characteristic of the true Christian. A conflict
such as possible only in the man whom the Holy Spirit is active. And you know what? There’s a
lot of truth to that. And believe me on this position, on this,
this is the position. Not the final position, not the
one that I’m going to adopt. But this is the position that
the majority, and I mean the heavy hitters, the big boys,
this is the one they take. And it’s tough. It’s tough to
part company with them. And I do it only, I do it nicely
too. And I don’t do it completely.
There’s a lot of what is said here that I agree with. We will
continue to wrestle with sin as long as we’re on this earth.
But some of them, they get a little testy about this position. One
said, As often as my attendant bookseller sends me on approval
another new commentary on Romans, I immediately turn to the seventh
chapter. And if the commentator sets up
a man of straw in the seventh chapter, I immediately shut the
book. I at once send the book back
and say, No, thank you. That is not the man for my hard-earned
money. In other words, if you don’t
take this position, I ain’t buying your commentary. That’s the comment. Still another said in chapter
7, the apostle is still talking about the believer. I bet you
wish I threw some of my commentaries away, don’t you? Then I wouldn’t
have so many to kick through. He says in chapter 7, the apostle
is still talking about the believer. The focus is on the conflict
A believer continues to have with sin. I absolutely agree
with that. There’s an inward tension in
this particular passage that the previous section did not
possess. In that section, as one person
pointed out, sin assaulted Paul by stealth and struck him down,
but here he puts up an agonizing resistance even if he cannot
beat down the enemy. There is this tension within
him that longs to do what’s right, even though he can’t. Now. The problem with this position
is. It’s the same problem they’ve been wrestling with for 2000
years. So if you’re still struggling, we’re in great company. There’s
no doubt that these things are true. There’s no doubt. That
there is an element of the struggle with sin that will remain as
long as we walk this earth. But can we truly adopt the position
and advocate that a Christian can continue to use such phrases
as Paul does in order to describe himself in these passages. What
I characterize this section is these are things which a Christian
cannot continue to say. You may say them at one point,
but you cannot keep living your life wallowing in these statements. I am a flesh. There’s a cop out
for you. Anytime you said just throw that
out. Sold into bondage to sin, how
then at the end of the passage does Paul say who will set me
free? Is there no freedom? Nothing good dwells in me. There’s nothing that I brought
to this table, but now by God’s grace. By the residence of the
Holy Spirit, I am able to affect great things by God’s grace for
the Lord. Evil is present within me. There is sin swirling in and
throughout the world, but to say that evil has taken up residence
within me and there abides. For perpetuity, that is going
to me too far. And that’s why I say these are
things which a Christian, you may say these things about you.
At different periods of your life. But to continue to say
them throughout the rest of your Christian days. But there’s one. There’s one
that just doesn’t fit. Wretched man that I am. We are
sinful. But that word wretched. That’s
a tough pill to swallow. It is found in scripture in verb
form and noun form and as an adjective. I don’t think any
of these come close to describing a Christian. First is James 4
9 the verb form be miserable. and mourn and weep, let your
laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. This is
calling someone to repentance. This is someone who isn’t miserable
that needs to be. This is a call to repentance
and to Christ and to think that we can live in a constant state
of misery and gloom, having been saved and sanctified as beyond
me. The noun form found we’ve already
come across it in Romans, Romans 316, destruction and misery are
in their paths. Sinners. That’s what they have
to look forward to is destruction and misery. Back in James, he
uses it again in the noun form this time, speaking of the miserable
rich who were cold and callous and heartless. And he says to
them, come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries. Which are coming upon you. You
are wretches, he says. The adjective used in Revelation.
Because you say, I have I am rich and have become wealthy
and have need of nothing. You do not know that you are
wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. That doesn’t
describe a believer to me. There’s an eighth option, thankfully. But it’s autobiographical, but
the reference here this time is to his past experience before
conversion as seen by him as he’s writing. He looks back into
the annals of history. This one has potential we’ll
touch more upon it in a moment. But the present tense becomes
a problem because it’s it’s this form that we’re essentially he’s
using the present to point back to the generality of his life.
I am I am I am. As one said about that particular
form, it’s a form that very often is adopted in pleading a case,
establishing a point to employ a method of speech known as the
dramatic present. He’s bringing the past up and
placing it before us. He’s bringing the totality of
his life and putting it before us for all to see. And as we
see him, we see us. It’s a good option. Number eight,
mark it down, it’s a good option. Number nine. I think we’ll make
it. Neither do I. Number nine. Is that it is autobiographical
with the reference being to his pre conversion past as seen by
him now in the light of his Christian faith. So now he brings everything
forward. He brings the fact that he’s
been saved and he brings his pre Christian past. And I’ll tell you the rest of
the commentators didn’t like this one. They didn’t like this one
at all. As one said the use of the present
here is sustained too consistently and for too long and contrasts
too strongly with the past tenses of verse 7 through 13 to be at
all plausibly explained as an example of the present used for
the sake of vividness in describing the events which are vividly
remembered. In other words, they say, you
know, look, Paul switches to the present tense to say that
he’s switching to the present tense in order to reach back
into the annals of history and bring it forward and set it before
us is ludicrous. It’s a difficult pill to swallow,
I acknowledge, but this is a good position. It’s Paul wrestling
with his life in total, and he’s bringing it all and setting it
before us. I told you there were 10, right? Number 10. We’ll take it up next
Lord’s Day. I have no way to even introduce
it. Let’s pray. Our merciful God,
we thank you for the depth and the richness of these words.
We thank you for the privilege to wrestle with them and to look
and to meditate and to mull over the significance, the deep meaning
and the poignancy of them to our very lives. Lord, we thank
you and we praise you for those that have labored in the word
before us and dug into these things and proffered reasonable
and healthy options to consider. We thank you for the humility
with which so many come in considering these things. And we pray, Father,
for your vision and for your mind as we interact with these
things. We pray that you might give us
understanding into the richness of this passage. It’s in Jesus
name that we pray. Amen.