Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep993: #993 - Why Romans 7 is NOT Talking about Christians: Dr. Joey Dodson

Episode Date: July 25, 2022

Dr. Joseph (Joey) Dodson is the Craig L. Blomberg Endowed Chair of New Testament at Denver Seminary. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland and continued his studies at the University of Tübingen in Germany. He has written a number of articles for peer review journals such as Harvard Theological Review, Novum Testamentum, the Journal for Jewish Studies, and Catholic Biblical Quarterly. His most recent books include The Things I Want to Do: Romans 7 Revisited (forthcoming), A Little Book for New Bible Scholars with E. Randolph Richards (2017) and a co-edited volume with David E. Briones, Paul and Seneca in Dialogue (2017). Dr. Dodson’s current research includes a Romans commentary in the Brill Exegetical Commentary Series and a Colossians-Philemon commentary in The Christian Standard Commentary Series. And–Joey is my best friend. We met at Aberdeen years ago and have been joined at the hip ever since. In this conversation, Joey shows why Romans 7 is NOT talking about a Christian, but a pre-converted first century Jew.  –––––– PROMOS Save 10% on courses with Kairos Classroom using code TITR at kairosclassroom.com! –––––– Sign up with Faithful Counseling today to save 10% off of your first month at the link:  faithfulcounseling.com/theology –––––– Save 30% at SeminaryNow.com by using code TITR –––––– Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review. www.theologyintheraw.com

This episode is sponsored by Faithful Counseling, and I'm so excited to let you know about this sponsor. Okay, so Faithful Counseling is a Christian-based online counseling center filled with over 3,000 U.S. licensed therapists across all 50 states. Look, we all know God is always there for us, but sometimes things in this life can feel downright overwhelming, and it can be super beneficial for your mental, spiritual, and physical well-being to talk to a professional counselor. So faithful counseling is safe and private. You can get help on your own time and at your own pace. The professional counselors at Faithful Counseling, they specialize in many things like depression, stress, anxiety, relationships, sleeping, I could use that, crisis of faith, trauma, anger, family conflicts, grief, and self-esteem. Everything you share is confidential. And if you're not happy with

your counselor for any reason, you can request a new one at no additional charge. And I love that the communication with your counselor is super flexible. You can text, you can chat, you can call them on the phone or connect via video, and financial aid is available. So if you want to get started, go to faithfulcounseling.com forward slash theology, and Theology in the Raw listeners will receive 10% off your first month. Okay, so that's faithfulcounseling.com forward slash theology. thebabelcounseling.com forward slash theology. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. Registration for Exiles in Babylon 2023 is now open March 23rd to 25th here in Boise, Idaho. You can attend live in Boise. There's 1,100 seats open. But last year, we did sell out. So if you do want to attend the Exiles of Babylon Conference in Boise, Idaho live, you

want to register sooner than later, you can also attend virtually as we did last year as well. So we're going to be talking about the future of the church, disability of the church, multi-ethnic perspectives on American Christianity. And we're also going to have a conversational debate on the problem of evil and suffering. I'll release some of the speakers that we've already lined up maybe by next month. We're still shoring up some speakers, but we have another amazing lineup of thoughtful, raw Christian thinkers who are going to tackle some of these tough topics.

Oh, also, we do have 200 early bird seats available. Okay, so once the 200 is gone, then the price is going to go up. So if you want, if you know you're going to attend, take advantage of those 200, at least some of those 200 seats that are available at an early bird rate. All the info is on our website, TheologyNarod.com. My guest today is my best friend, Dr. Joey Dodson, professor at Denver Seminary. Joey is working on a book on the interpretation of Romans 7, the famous passage where Paul talks about being overwhelmed with sin. So I'm going to go ahead and read it. This is Romans 7, 14 to 25, and then we'll jump into our conversation. Romans 7, 14, Paul says, for we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh sold as a slave under sin.

For I do not understand what I'm doing because I do not practice what I want to do, but I do what I hate. Now, if I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. So now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is sin living in me for I know that nothing good lives in me, that is in my flesh. For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it. For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do. For if I do what I do not want, I am no longer the one who does it, but it is the sin that lives in me. So I discovered this law. When I want to do what is good, evil is present with me. For in my inner self, I delight in God's law, but I see a different

law in the parts of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body. What a wretched man I am. Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So then with my mind, I myself am serving the law of God, but with my flesh, the law of sin. That's from the Christian Standard Bible translation. And Joey and I are going to wrestle with this passage. The main question is, is Paul describing a believer or a non-believer here, or more specifically, a pre-converted Jew or a post-converted, just, I guess, Christian, Jew or non-Jew? So yeah, that's what we're going to wrestle with. And we are going to let you know the correct interpretation of this passage. So please welcome back to the show for the 57th time or something like that.

The one and only Dr. Joey Dodson. Hey, Joey. What's up, man? How's it going? Welcome back. I think you lead the most frequented guest on my podcast. You're kind of like the Joey Diaz of the El General. For you Rogan fans out there.

Always an honor. All right, dude. Well, hey, when we first met, I remember I think within a few minutes, maybe. Maybe not minutes, maybe a few days. We started talking about Romans 7, and both of us were pretty elated that we both were kind of reading Romans 7 correctly. And I know you're working on a book, a whole book on the interpretation of Romans 7. And I mean, just to set it up for somebody who has no clue what we're even talking about.

So Romans 7 is a famous passage where Paul talks about how he is just overwhelmed with sin, struggling to sin, not just struggling with sin, but like enslaved to sin. There's nothing good in me and woe is me. And it's become like, I would say a key text for, especially for like more reformed Christianity, would you say Protestant reformed where this kind of really, really view of man you know um of humanity but you know if you and a lot of people read this passage and like resonate with like yeah yeah this is how i feel i read the passage and it's like a mirror to my life but if you look at the passage in context it's not i'll be i'll try to be more neutral here it's not super clear clear that he's talking about his post-converted state.

Yeah, at least there's a debate about that. Both you and I would end up saying, yeah, he's not describing, this is not describing a Christian who's been filled with the Holy Spirit. So why don't we, I want to do a deep dive. Because, I mean, it's a, you know, I like doing every once in a while doing just a deep dive into scripture, get into the nitty gritty, the exegetical stuff.

And so I'd like to do that with Romans 7 with you. Does that sound good? Yes, let's do it. Here we go again. Did I, just in my setting up the passage, anything to add,

clarify, how would you set up the passage for somebody, again, for somebody that might be just vaguely familiar with what's going on there? Yeah, well, once again, the first rule of Bible interpretation is context, context, context.

And most people take Romans 7, 14 through 25, especially out of context. And so you want to read Romans 7 and lie to Romans 5 through 8. And what Paul says in Romans 6 and what Paul says in Romans 8 seemingly stands in stark contradiction, diametrically opposed to the wretch's condition in Romans 7. And so I think one of the things that sometimes hinders our interpretation is chapters and verses, because we stop at, oh, what a wretch I am. Who would deliver me from this body of death? But what does Paul say in 8.1? Therefore, now there's no condemnation.

And so there seems to be a shift there. And Paul's going to come and say, and the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you singular free from the loss and the death. And so if you keep reading on the Romans 8, it seems like Paul is saying, hey, the predicament, the plight, the mess that you're in in Romans 7 now is no longer because we're in Christ. And so he'll go on to say that we're no longer obligated to fulfill the desires of our sinful nature.

And so I think the context is one of the main reasons that most people misread Romans 7, aside from their personal experience. That was a big one for me. And I want to get into the nitty gritty exegetical stuff. But why don't we start with like a historical overview? Like, has this passage always been kind of like debated in the church? Or give us a quick kind of history of interpretation of the passage. Yeah, very good. So the very first commentator that we have is Origen. So this takes us back to the second century.

And for Origen, Paul is obviously not talking about himself. Origen says that he puts on a persona, kind of does an impersonation of someone else, of an unbeliever who is under the law. And so that's the very first one. And one thing to say, not only is he the earliest, but he's a natural Greek speaker. And so he thinks Paul is using this rhetorical device that's used to almost use a foil for what the gospel is going to be. And it's interesting because he seems to anticipate that people would say, well, wait, wait, wait, wait, why does Paul use the eye? And he says, well, Paul's just doing what we see the Old Testament prophets and the Old Testament saints do, and they of show solidarity with, and so he kind of

appeals to this Jewish tradition of confession with the lost. But he says that it's totally not Paul. Now, Origen, interestingly enough, he says it's an unbeliever, an unbeliever, an unbeliever. But then at the end, he has like a pastoral heart and says, but Paul may be using this eye to relate to some of the people in the congregation who is, this is their experience, but he does that to bring them to the glory of Romans chapter eight. And so origins are very first one that we have that deals with this. Erasmus follows suit. And I was in Cambridge last month and I was at the pub overlooking where the office of Erasmus was, but Erasmus also follows suit and says, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure. And even tells us

that no one before his time considered Paul talking about himself. And so he thinks Paul puts on this mask, this persona as well, and also appeals to the practice of what we see in the Old Testament saints doing this. The next one that we have is Jerome. And Jerome is a guy who translated the Latin Vulgate, amazing scholar. And Jerome also has a series of letters that he wrote to learned women during this time. They would send him questions, and he would send them back. And so, a Gaelsia writes a letter and says, what in the world is Romans 7 talking about? And so also Jerome comes and says, Paul's not talking about himself. And instead, he's putting on this mask.

He's doing an impersonation. He also says that, you know, I probably need to write a book on this, maybe numerous books to explain it. But one thing is that this is not Paul. This is Paul putting on the mask for the sake of his rhetorical effect. Why do you think they... And those aren't in chronological order, right? So Erasmus is more, what, 1500? It's origin Erasmus, origin Jerome Erasmus.

Yeah. Sorry. No, it's fine. Why do you think they were so confident? Was it for exegetical reasons or because of... Yeah. Or did they come at the text believing like, no, Christians aren't enslaved to sin. We kind of come at the text more existentially of already thinking you're so weighed down to sin, we're horrible. And then we read this text and it's like, yeah, see. But I wonder if they even had more... I mean, I'm just thinking like the ascetic tradition and their view of obedience and stuff was a lot different than kind of how we view it in American Christianity. Yeah, almost all of them appeal to what Paul says elsewhere.

He says what he says in Romans 8. And so they are reading it contextual and says that if this is Paul talking about himself, then he's contradicting everything else that he has said. And if it's Paul contradicting himself, I forget if it was Jerome or Erasmus, but one of them says, you know, if Paul can't overcome sin, then none of us can overcome sin, which is interesting. When we get to the, it's totally not Paul group, they're going to say, exactly, they find consolation in that. But these guys have said, no, no, Paul is the one who says, I no longer live, but Christ lives within me. He is the great apostle who talks about being a temple of God, God's spirit speaking through him. And so they look and just place this one minority

before it. Because Romans 7, this monologue, there's nothing else like it. There's nowhere else in Paul's letters or in the New Testament that has this idea that we as believers are utterly sinful and there's nothing good in us and we're sold as a slave. And so for most of them, they're putting it side by side with what we see in the rest of scripture. I don't know if you remember Sesame Street, but Cookie Monster, we'd have the different cookies and one would look like the other. And it's like, one of these things is not like the other. One of these just doesn't belong. He sings a song. Do you know this? Did you grow up on Sesame Street? I didn't grow up on Sesame Street. Oh man. How did you get through a PhD program without Sesame Street?

And Conjunction Junction, Watch Your Function from, I forgot the name of that. But anyway, yeah. So if you put Romans 7 side by side with all these other verses that are absolutely clear of what Paul says about himself and other believers, then it just doesn't belong. And I think Cookie Monster would throw it away. Yeah. And so most of them are looking at it from both what Paul says about himself, what Paul says about the other letters, what Paul says about believers, and the New Testament and say that Paul must be doing something different here. So was it the Reformation when the Paul reading started?

Yeah. Let me give one more because he's my favorite. It's John Wesley. John Wesley is going to come and say that not only is this an impersonation, but Paul is impersonating a Jew or someone wanting to be like a Jew under the law. So John Wesley is the first one that actually not only considers the context, but also considers the immediate context that Paul begins by saying, I'm speaking to those of you who know the law, and he's quoting the Mosaic law. And so John Wesley is the very first one that says, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right, right, true, true, true. He is doing an impersonation, but he's specifically impersonating a Jew or someone like maybe a God-fearer that is trying

to live under the Mosaic law rather than the Holy Spirit. And so those are kind of like the four OGs, if you will. I love what Wesley says. He says that it's a person who's struggling with the law, trying to overcome the sin with his own power. And it's like a dog that is chained. And the dog may bark, it may bit, it may complain, it may bite at its chain, but it can't be free. And so it's just quite vivid.

And so Wesley's just quite vivid. And so Wesley's going to absolutely underline that this is not the believer, but this is someone trying to live under the law rather than walking according to the spirit, which is another thing with Romans 7. There's no mention of the Holy Spirit anywhere else. And so this wretch seems to be trying to pull himself up by his own bootstraps, to use a Southern idiom. I'm curious, did Wesley it's the Wesley's interpretation, find its way into all Wesleyan kind of denominations. I mean,

basically, yeah. You mentioned earlier that the post-conversion Paul, those who think that this is Paul as a believer, typical of every believer, you see that more in the reformation tradition and the pietist tradition after Wesley, most take this as not paul talking about himself or believers if they're talking about a believer it's someone who just became a believer or someone on the route to becoming a believer so someone who is in the thralls of the conversion waiting for romans 8 okay interesting okay cool yeah so uh luther calvin are they all this is post conversion paul sure yeah yeah so augustine's gonna be our first one it's not young augustine Cool. Yeah. So, uh, Luther, Calvin, are they all, this is post conversion Paul?

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So Augustine is going to be our first one. It's not young Augustine. It's old Augustine. So young Augustine, he follows suit. Um, he reads origins like, yeah, origins got it on the money. And then, uh, he starts having these debates with the Pelagians who are overemphasizing human goodness. Um, and, uh, this idea was perfection. And so he changes his tune because of this polemical battle that he's having. And so he's the very first one that says it's post conversion. And so he rings a bell that can't be unwrong. But what's interesting is that he makes two qualifications. He says that when Paul says that I can't do the things that I want to do, he's not really impotent. He's not really Paul says that I can't do the things that I want to do,

he's not really impotent. He's not really powerless before sin, but his frustration is that he has to wrestle with sin in the first place. So it's not sin that he's falling under. He's just tired of saying no to temptation. And so that's his first qualification. So if this is Paul talking about himself, it's not that he is powerless before sin, but he's just so frustrated, like, I'm tired of the stinking temptation. I'm tired of even the desire. And so he even like reads a paraphrase in where Paul says, when I say I don't covet, it's not that I covet, it's just that I'm tired of the desire to covet. And so that's his first qualification. The second one is that when Paul says the things I want to do, the frustration is that he doesn't do it perfectly. And he's reading the Latin, and the Latin even has this perfection

idea there. And so he's not saying that he can't do any good, he just can't do it perfectly. And I obviously would agree with that. So after Augustine, you have Aquinas, who's going to say, actually, both options are pretty good. But I go with old Augustine rather than young Augustine. So he takes a post-conversion view, but doesn't really expound on it more than that. After Aquinas, then you're going to have Luther that's going to be the big dog. And, of course, with Luther, he's going to say that no, Paul is utterly sinful. He brings in the, yeah, we're both saints and sinners. And it's almost like if you were to have our characters today, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde type idea, or for the Spider-Man fans that listen

to it, an Osborn and Green Goblin, or a Smeagol and Gollum type character that he sees with human nature. And Luther is going to have this idea that, yeah, there's nothing good inside of us. But what's interesting with Augustine and Luther, Luther also is commenting on this in response to these guys who read way too many books that like Aristotle that he's using that are emphasizing this perfectionism as well. But Luther has this quote that I grew up hearing, and it may be legend. I'm not sure. But he said that, you know, before I understood the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, whenever sin would knock on the door, I would answer it. But now that I understand the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, whenever sin knocks on the door, I'll let Christ get the door.

And when sin sees the nail prints, then it obviously recedes. And so you do have Luther at times when he's in this polemical that this is totally Paul, y'all. Paul talking about himself because we're rats. We're just in misery. There's nothing good inside of us. But then you have these comments like, yeah, we do have a power to let Christ get the door. And so there's some inconsistency there. But again, I think it's interesting that it's a polemical battle that Luther has where he's going to really underscore. And so he's bringing kind of his supposition, presuppositions of, though we are nothing but worms into it. I like what

Winston Churchill said, all men are worms, but I'm a glow worm. Did Luther or the reformers, I guess, have strong exegetical reasons? Did they wrestle with Romans 7 against the backdrop of Romans 8, or I guess against the foredrop or whatever, and the language and everything? Or was it just kind of like, yeah, this is more like a theological reading of it? More of the latter. And this is more like a theological reading of it? More the latter. And again, not to take anything away from it, even Augustine, there's a legend about him about how after he had become a believer, he was walking through one of his old haunts and he runs into a paramour who he used to Netflix and chill with all the time. And she sees him walking down the road and full of delight of what the night was surely hold. She begins to cry out to him, Augustine, it is I, it is I,

it is I. And he turned and now conformed and transformed into the image of Christ looks at her and says, I, but it is no longer I. And so it's interesting that when it comes to practicality in their life and at least the legend that they do seem to think that the believer has power to say no to sin. And so, yeah, so it's interesting to put those things side by side. So Luther and Calvin are going to be the ones who really resonate with our popular view that we are powerless to sin. And Calvin's going to come and say that our life is misery. The closer we get to God, uh, the more we realize that, uh, we're nothing

but worms and almost a self-condemnation. And so I don't know what they do with like what we see in Galatians, that the fruit of the joy is through the spirit is joy and self-control. But, uh, yeah, so Calvin is going, Calvin and Luther have really informed most of our traditions today. But of the New Testament scholars that are writing on Romans 7, it's mostly Baptists that are still holding on to the post-conversion view. So Thomas Schreiner, who you had on your podcast, he kind of holds on to that. Drawing on Will Timmons, who has a Baptist background. And then David Garland at Baylor has a new Romans commentary. But as far as I know, these are,

and all three of those have Baptists in their backgrounds. But outside of that, it's pretty closely established that Paul's not talking about a post-conversion experience where a believer is powerless before sin. So that's, you're talking about New Testament scholarship. Like you get the scholarly level and it's a far minority view that a New Testament scholar

with a PhD would read in Romans 7 as a pre-conversion Paul. But why is it so popular in the pulpits? Most preachers, right? Would you say, I mean, in evangelical,

let's just say non-Westly and evangelicalism. I don't know about charismatic circles. I don't know how they read the passage, but most of the time when I hear someone referenced, I don't even critique them anymore because I'm like, well, of course you're going to say it's post-conversion Paul. That's just in the air. Why is that? I mean, are they not? Yeah. Well, I listened to your podcast the other day and you had J.D. Greer on and this is not to take away from J.D. at all. He mentioned in passing.

When you asked him why these mature pastors are sexually exploiting their members, he pointed to Romans 7. Like Paul says, our flesh is weak and there's nothing good in us. And, you know, I think if the things that you don't want to do is that you're finding yourself doing is sexual exploitation, it sounds more like Romans two and the hypocrite than it does Romans seven. And I think Paul would say to that person, if you're a pastor and you're struggling with sexually exploiting someone, then you need to step down immediately. And if you're a church leader, you need to step down immediately and get counseling for that. That's not Romans 7. But you even have this thing, it's this idea.

I had a church member who left his wife and children for another church member. And I confronted him and just was begging him to reconsider. And he looked at me and says, well, it's like Paul, the things I want to do, I can't do. And so it comes to a point where people use it to excuse their sins. The heart wants what the heart wants. Elsa doesn't do. And so it comes to the point where people use it to excuse their sins. The heart wants what the heart wants. Elsa doesn't care. I think that's Emily Dickinson. It's almost even a Pi Pi type idea. I am what I am, and that's what I am. And so they just kind of appeal to this Adamic nature that, well, we're just all an atom. We can't do good. And we forget that Paul says

that Adam's part of the old that's dead and gone and it's passing away. And now we put on Christ instead. But yeah, it just it resonates so well. I'm working on a book right now. And the book series is to take what is commonplace in scholarship and try to bring it to the busy pastor and student to let them know that if you are in Romans 7, you don't have to stay there. Romans 8 is right next door. Let's speak of Romans 8. Let's get into some of the exegetical arguments. So let's start with arguments for your view, for our view, I guess, the correct way.

I usually don't speak so boldly on theology. I'm going to be an exception for this episode. You know, yeah, speak so boldly on the altar. I'm going to be an exception for this episode. Why does Romans 7 not describe a believer and does describe somebody who is not yet in Christ? Good. Yeah. Well, again, going back to origin and Erasmus and Jerome and Wesley, if you start in Romans chapter five, because most scholars think that Romans five through eight is kind of a good segment. And Paul is talking about the justification that we have.

He goes to Romans 5, 12 through 21, where he's talking about what Adam did. And he says, but guess what? There's a new Adam in town and his name is Jesus. And he had this obedience and his obedience leads to righteousness and grace. And you can serve either sin or you can serve obedience. And then he brings this great question that I think we need to make sure we use as lenses when we come to Romans 6 and 7. Shall I continue in sin so that grace may abound?

And Paul says, meganoita, no, no, no, no, no, no. We don't talk about Bruno. We don't talk about that. And so he sets up this rhetorical question. Since we're under grace, do we continue to sin so that grace may abound? And Paul says no. And so in Romans 6, Paul is going to underline, he's going to underscore repetition, superfluous, over and over and over again, sin is no longer the boss of me. Sin is no longer the boss of you. And so he uses syllogism, kind of an

Aristotelian rhetorical device where he says, okay, Jesus Christ died to sin once and for all with me, right, right? We died with Christ through baptism with me, right, right? Therefore, we are dead to sin. How can we live in it any longer? Now, Paul realizes that this is not a pie in the sky, mawkish, saccharine idea. Sin is still knocking on the door. Sin is still coming at us, but it no longer has to reign inside of us. And so Wesley says, yeah, yeah, sure. Sin remains, but it doesn't reign in our life anymore. It's no longer on the iron throne.

Instead, it's in the trench that's coming after us. And so Paul, if you read Romans 6, Paul is going to say it louder for the people in the back so they can hear that sin is no longer our master. And he says that's who we used to be. And now we want to make sure that we walk under obedience and righteousness. And then we get to Romans chapter 7, verse 1. And Paul seems to get Phoebe to look at the, Phoebe is the one who's reading the letter, right?

To the Romans, to maybe turn to the audience who have more, love the law a lot. And so now we're going to speak to those of you who know the law. The law here, almost all scholars believe that Paul's talking about the Mosaic law. And we know in Paul's churches that this was often an issue of what do we do with the law? Paul said some quite nasty things about the law, but if you look at Romans 6, 1 through 12, and Romans 7, 1 through 6, he kind of has the same type of argument. Although here he's going to use a parable. C.H. Dodd, a New Testament scholar, thinks that the parable is awful, thinks that Paul just does a really bad job when it comes to parables. But he says, okay, there's this woman, she's married to a man and she gets with another

man while she's married. That would be unlawful, right? But what happens if the husband dies? Now she is free to be with another man. So here he switches the parable and says, but guess what? We, as the woman have died, so that now we can belong to a new man. And that new man is Jesus Christ. And so in verses five and six, before he gets into this soliloquy and monologue of the wretch, he says that, so now we no longer walk according to the old way of the law that leads to sin, sin, sin, flash, flash, flash, death, death, death. But instead we walk into the newness of the spirit. And most New Testament scholars think that this is kind of the outline.

So verse 5, the old way of the law is going to be fleshed out, enumerated, unpacked in 7 through 25. And then the verse 6 is what Paul really wants to talk about and move the believer from the Romans 7 to Romans 8 and walking according to the Spirit. And so that context really reframes Romans 7. And we get to Romans 7, and Paul brings in this rhetorical device where he asks a question again, and he answers that question. And so, is the law sin? Now, again, Paul said some really nasty, bad, horrible, seemingly bad things about the law. In chapter six, chapter five, the law slips in the back door in order to increase trespasses.

He had even said in Romans seven before that the law stirs sin up. That's one thing for the law to be weak before sin, but it's another thing for it to stir it up. And it's not just there, but look at what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15. After the, where, O, death is your sting, where is your victory? He talks about how the stinger of sin and death is the law. And then

look at 2 Corinthians 3, Paul seems to say that the law leads to death. Anytime the law is proclaimed, it blinds people so they can't see the truth of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, of the glory of Jesus Christ. And so here he begins to defend the law. And a lot of New Testament scholars think that Romans 7, we're so vain, we probably think it's about us, but really it's about the law and Paul's defense, not just of the law, but his vindication of his theology of the law. And so he asked two rhetorical questions and helps us follow his train of thought, 7-7 and 7-12. lost in and did the law, um, intend to bring death. And so really what Roman seven is about is this is about the law and then someone who connects with the law. I'll stop there and see if you have any questions or comments.

First of all, that's the first time I've heard you say you're so vain without singing. Um, so that's a, I have a, I have a sore throat this morning so you're off your audience yeah um yeah i do have some questions so first of all you mentioned that the the analogy the marriage analogy if i i remember looking at this years ago when i used to read romans when you do your phd on the book of romans it kind of steals the joy out of it so i had to stop i disagree i went the other way you did yeah all i see is 15 different ways to interpret every single verse when i read it now so in my devotions it just doesn't work anymore yeah it's interesting so the you know but the but if the husband dies and you're free from the marriage therefore we've died so are we the dead husband

or are we the wife that's been freed is Is that where the analogy is like, well, it's yeah, exactly. Yeah. So something gets convoluted, something gets clever. I kind of follow the other side of it. It's a, it's irony. It's a traditional irony is a surprise. So we're expecting the husband to die, but instead it's, we have died with Christ. It gives us that parallel that we see in Romans six. And we, the church, Yeah, I think he's trying to be clever, but I often try to be clever and sometimes it doesn't land there. But we're the ones who have died with Christ. Therefore, we can belong to Christ. I want to underscore, because for me, this was the first time the light bulb went on with reading Romans 7 and light of Romans 8. So you mentioned in passing, I just want to underscore it, that Romans 7, 5, and 6 seems to be a clear outline of the rest of Romans 7 and 8. So Romans,

and if you have your Bible, you can look at it or just write it down. Look at Romans 7, 5, and I'm saying, and not just me, but lots of scholars, Romans 7, 5 is like a summary of the rest of Romans 7. And Romans 7,6 is like a summary of Romans 8. So let me read Romans 7.5. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us and bore fruit for death. That's when we were not in Christ. That's clearly a statement about pre-conversion. But, verse 6, but now we have been released from the law since we have died to what held us so that we may serve in a new way of the spirit and not in the old letter of the law.

Just the language in that verse ends up being repeated in all throughout Romans 8. Even the but now, I i think is that the same in the greek but now um yeah it is romans 8 1 so and then he goes on to kind of unpack those two uh verses i remember talking to tom schreiner about that years ago this is 10 over 10 years ago i'm like what are you doing that like this seems like clear like he's setting this up this is out like he's like yeah i don't know maybe you know but yeah he wasn't as impressed with it to me it's just that was like oh this even the very language he's using there is like he's setting up how he's going to unpack that language later on anyway um you do have this uh i mean in between pat i don't see it's not in between for paul but

romans 7 7 through 12 that has its own interpretive things, right? Maybe let's just jump then to Romans 7, what, 14 to 25 or 13? Where do you make the break? 13 to 25? I usually go straight to 14, but 13 is fine. We can bring that in there as well, this rhetorical question that Paul is using. Yeah. Let's go to the actual passage. What are some things here in the narrow context that show that it's not talking about, that it must be talking about a non-believer? Yeah. Very good. So in seven, let's go to verse 14 here. Joey has his Greek text out, by the way. The law is spiritual. And then he says, but I myself am fleshly, sarkinos. It's interesting

that in the Greek, Paul uses not just am, I am, he uses I myself am, the ego in me, this emphatic ego. And so some people think that even this is Paul giving a clue that he is shifting into this impersonation. So Stanley Stowers talks about the speech in character, the prosopopoia. It's fun to say that here with the rhetorical question that Paul is asking and identifying someone that this would be a clear clue to the audience who was very familiar with this trope, with this rhetorical device that Paul was shifting and putting on the mask, but that Paul is saying that he is fleshly. We don't see this anywhere else in Scripture, Paul referring to himself as fleshly after being a believer or of believers, except for this irony in 1 Corinthians, where he's going to talk about these fleshly believers.

But Paul's going to say these, you know, it's where he gets frustrated with them. It's like, I want to give you guys meat, but you're still nursing. And there, it's not that this is the expectation of Christians. It's that, hey, you guys need to move beyond that. It's time to stop being this fleshly believer. So this emphasis here, I myself, some scholars think that the ego in me, if you have any Greek readers in your group, that this is Paul saying, I, in my own nature, I separated from Christ, I apart from Christ. And so my interpretation is that this is actually Paul

talking about himself before Damascus Road, before God knocked him off his donkey. And so we can talk about later the different ideas of who this I might be. But I myself in the past is how I would take this, was fleshly without the spirit of Christ in me. So to be clear, even if we talk about a post or non-converted person, even that there's a debate. Is it talking about, is it Paul's still autobiography? Is it a generic human? Is it specifically a Jew? Certainly it's a Jew because he talks about loving the law. I mean, no non-Jew in the first century would have said they love the Jewish law. It doesn't make sense. But so you think this is, this is Paul really reflected on his autobiography before Christ. Yeah, I could be persuaded the other way. Um, what my, my main contingent is

that Paul is not talking about himself as a post-conversion and typical Christian life. But if we want to talk about in a moment the different possibilities of who the I is, we can bring in that as well. But I think this is Paul giving autobiography, bringing in, going back to his roots. Again, I can't sing that. So he's going to bring in Adam language. He's going to bring in Israel language and also language of his non-believing brothers and sisters that he's going to talk about in Romans 9 through 11. And so, yeah, in the Greek, it's interesting because he begins it with the ego. And Preston, you're a Greek reader, and you know, Paul doesn't often use ego, a me, I myself am. And so already there's something that's interesting that's going on

there. But also he switches, I myself have been sold as a captive, sold as a slave to sin. You notice that that verb there, and I don't get into the weeds of all this Greek in my book, but the verb there is a perfect participle. So you have a paraphrastic. So he is screaming it as loud as he can. I, whoever this I is, am sold as a slave to sin. Now, again, if you look at Romans 6, what he said over and over again, thanks be to God, you're no longer sold as a slave to sin. And so it seems like there's a contradiction, even at this point, that we would say this can't be Paul talking about a post conversion. And that's where Christians they'll read that when they, you know, just got off porn or slept with a girlfriend or something like, yes, see, yes, yes. I'm like, Paul, okay, we can have that experience. And I, and I, um, and we'll get to some of the pastoral stuff later, but like, do you think it's so easy, so natural to, for modern Western modern Western Christians to kind of feel this, right? And then to see the passage and just immediately want to read it that way. But like you said, if you just think just exegetically, where else do we see Paul describing the Christians as being sold in the bondage to sin? I mean, just chapter 5, chapter 8, he says the exact opposite.

Yeah. So you would have some like Jimmy Dunn, our gross Dr. Fata. He's going to say that here we have like this schizophrenic Paul. You're saying gross, you're using the German gross, not the English gross. Yeah, exactly. Right, right, right. All those outfits were pretty gross. Yeah, exactly. Right, right, right. All those outfits were pretty gross. So, and for Douglas Moo, this clinches the argument here that Paul can't be talking about himself or the believer less. And so you brought up Tom Schreiner earlier. Tom is going to bring in the already not yet paradigm tension to bring in that, that we already are free from sin, but we're not yet

free from sin. And I have no problem with that tension in Paul's letters everywhere else. And so he's going to bring that up. Will Timmons, Timmons has a book, a monograph on Romans 7 with Cambridge University Press, very sophisticated, very well done. And Tom and his new commentary draws a lot on Will. And then David Garland at Bay commentary draws a lot on will and then david garland at baylor draws a lot on will as well but all three of those if i'm correct breathe this already not yet so what paul's saying is yeah yeah you're already set free from sin but not yet set from sin and my pushback to that would be what you just said earlier um paul doesn't use an already not yet here he begins and ends this this monologue with a back then,

but now. So I think of back then, this is who we were, but now. And so Romans 8, therefore now, there's no condemnation for those of us who are in Christ Jesus. But let's give it to Tom and company that it is already not yet. If you actually look at already not yet with Paul, it's better stated as already not fully rather than already not yet. Already not yet becomes a already not really. So we're already set free from sin, but we're not fully set free from sin. Sin continues to barrage us and continues to come at us, bro. But and so, yeah, it would be already not fully every time we see Paul talking about this.

And so like what he says in 2 Corinthians 7, so out of reverence with God, we're perfecting holiness out of this reverence for God. So we already are holy. We're not fully holy. We're perfecting that. Or what he says in Philippians 3, not that I've already arrived. I'm not perfect yet. But one thing I do, forgetting what is behind, I press on to grab a hold of that, which Christ has already grabbed a hold of for me. And so there is this already not fully idea, but that's not what Paul's talking about here. It's more of a back then, but now.

But let's give him that. Let's say, okay, already not yet. Still, when we do see Paul talk clearly about already not yet, it's already not yet, therefore no longer. So we see in Romans chapter eight, he's going to say that, yeah, we all already are set free from sin and death, but not yet because we still will die. The believers are still going to die. All flesh fades away. The flowers are the field to borrow from Peter. But then he says, so therefore no longer fulfill the desires of your sinful flesh. Or the most clear place that we see it is Romans 13, the end of Romans 13, where the darkness is fading away. The dawn is here.

The day of your redemption is closer now than when you first believed. And so you have that already, not yet, with the twilight or the dawn of that. But what does Paul say? Therefore, no longer satisfy the desires of your flesh, but instead put on the Lord Jesus Christ and don't even think about how to do it. And so even if we do have an already not yet, Paul never just stops and says, so that you're going to be utterly powerless to continue to sin, sin, sin. All you do is sin, sin, sin, no matter what. Instead, Paul's going to come

and say, no, already not yet. Therefore, no longer identify with the old Adam and live according to your flesh. So you're saying there is an already not yet component to sanctification where we still do have our sinful flesh with us, the spirit. There's a war going on and we're waiting for liberation and the resurrection. But the language and imagery that the New Testament uses to describe that state is very different than what we're seeing here. Yeah. And so with the already not fully idea, the expectation that we bring to the table is that we're going to lose a sin more than we're going to win to sin. But in scripture, when we do sin, when someone does struggle with porn, uh,

that should be the exception to the rule, not the rule. The rule is, is that we, we don't answer the door to bring Martin Luther's legend back. Instead, more often than not, we let Christ get the door. We as believers can fall in the Roman seven, but that's not who we're supposed to be. And we need to get out of there as soon as possible. But this guy in Roman seven, he lives there. I have been sold, this perfect participle.

I myself have been sold as a slave to sin. And so that's one of the key verses for me that says this can't be Paul talking about post-conversion. Let's keep going and maybe speed up, walk into the passes. But what are some other statements that you're like, yeah, this cannot be describing a believer? Yeah. So if we keep going on, so the so, uh, the thing, I don't know, you had this idea of Paul saying, I don't know what I do. Um, and, uh, we, it's hard to think Paul not understanding and knowing what he, he does. Um, because we, we see the, the scene that he understands exactly what he does. He says in, uh, Corinthians, uh, we're not, uh, we, we understand, uh, the enemy's thing. And then he's going to talk about, it's not me,

but sin dwelling within me. And so here we have this idea of sin still living inside of Paul's life. Now, nowhere else in scripture do we have this idea of sin dwelling still in the believer. And so I don't even know if that's the idea. It seems like when Christ takes the throne, he's going to kick sin out the door to the curve. But everywhere else, we don't see Paul saying, not I, but X. It's not sin. So we see, for example, his very first autobiography, Paul says, it's no longer I, but Christ that lives within me. And so we see that this contradicts what we see in Galatians chapter two, which one of

the Not Paul group brought out. We see it, the not I, but X paradigm in 1 Corinthians 15.10. I'm the least of the apostles. I'm abnormally born, but by the grace of God, I am what I am. And it's not I that works it, but it's Christ that's working it inside of me. And so this idea of sin controlling Paul, so that he can't do what he wants to do, that's indwelling inside of that. There's nothing good in me. It seems to stand in stark contradiction to what we saw in Romans chapter 6. Even this idea, I am a wretch. This word for wretch was often used for someone who was absolutely in bondage to sin that was there. And if you look back at verse 23, he talks about not only

being sold as a captive to sin, but I see another law that's working in my members that is making war with the law of my mind and taking me captive with the law of sin. And so that's working in my members. Again, reading in a context, we see in Romans 6, this members, the bodily parts are all over where Paul says no longer use your instruments, your members for unrighteousness, but instead use it for righteousness. And then so when Paul says, who will rescue me from this body of death? Paul knows who's going to rescue him from this body of death, right? It's Jesus. And so then we have what many people would be on the other argument that what we see in verse 25b, verse 25, where he says, but thanks be to God through Christ. And so we have this phrase. And so Paul answers it. And so even Origen says,

and those who follow Origen said at this point, Paul can't stand it anymore. He can't. And so he takes off the mask for a moment and says, whoo, thanks be to God. Now, the last time we see this phrase, thanks be to God, it's in chapter six, where he says, you formerly were enslaved to sins, but thanks be to God that now you walk and you've been delivered over to the pattern of the teaching that we have. So 25A is where he comes up for a quick breath and reflects on what he's been saying from a Christian perspective. That's the only time though that he does that, right? That's right. So even 25B, he's kind of summarizing, so then with my mind, I myself am a slave to the law of

God, but with my flesh to the law of sin. And some people there, that's where some people read in the already not yet. They're like, see, this is clearly a Christian because what non-Christian would say, he's a slave to the law of God. I'm like, every single first century Jew would say that. I think this is the number one reason why modern Christians think this is a believer is because they're not approaching the passage from the category of a first century Jew. Because one of the main arguments I hear people say is like, well, what non-believer would say they delighted in the law? Again, I would say every single first century Jew would say that.

The whole point is not Paul talking about just an abstract non-believer. He's talking about a Jew trying to be free from the law of Moses and finding it not having the power to liberate. Only the spirit can liberate from sin. Is that, I mean, any thoughts on that? So Will Timmons has an article that says that the Psalmist, Psalm 119, is the eyes, the person here, his doppelganger. Because you see that Psalm 119 is, I love the law. Give me some more law. I can't get enough of your law. Law, law, law. Love it, love it, love it.

I want to rub it all over me. But he also has this idea that he can't obey the law. It even ends with this confession. And so he argues that if you want to understand Romans 7, you need to understand Psalm 119, where you have this Jew who loves the law. Psalm 119, where you have this Jew who loves the law, but this, and not just 119, but if you look at the history of Israel, those who loved the law often failed to obey the law. And so, and then John Goodrich connects this passage of being sold as a slave to sin to Isaiah 49 and 50, where you're also going to have this cry of who's going to rescue me? Can God rescue me from this? And so those are two articles that seem to really show Paul's solidarity, his continuity that he has with these Jews who have a frustration that

they want to obey the law, but they can't because it hasn't been written on their heart yet to bring in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the new covenant. Yeah. Also 18, 18, again, is another like, how can this be a believer for the desire to do what is good with me, but there is no, my translation says, ability to do it. well, I'm trying to use language care. We can say we've succumbed to sin and sin captivated us and bam, and we fell in and, you know, slept with somebody we shouldn't have or whatever, like, you know, hit somebody in the face and we shouldn't, you know, outburst of anger. Like we, we, yes, we have that where we're like, ah, sin overcame me,

but we should never say I lacked the ability. I didn't possess the ability to not sin. Right. I mean, that's just not, no Christian can say that theologically. Right. Wesley makes a quip that with redemption like this, who needs bondage? So are you telling me that? He was a funny guy. I didn't know he was so clever.

Yeah. The power of Jesus Christ is not enough to help us overcome our sin. And so it comes to this idea that we can do all things through Christ, except live a holy life. You know, Christ came to set us free from everything except for the power of sin that's ruling over us. And so, yeah,

it's, it's quite absurd for me. And again, not to make light of the battle and the struggle with sin. I feel that I fall to sin, but that's not who we're supposed to be. And so it still remains. I mean, sin. But that's not who we're supposed to be. And so it still remains. I mean, there are times that we fall to it.

But God is faithful and he always provides the way out. So no temptation has seized us except what is common. And when we face that temptation, God is going to provide the way out. He's going to lead us from that. And so for many times when I sin, it's not because I have to sin. It's because I choose to sin. I know that I can walk away from it. I know that I can let Christ get the door, but I choose to open it anyway. Here's Mike. What about what we now know about the neurology of addictions?

And let me just, so the only time I've experienced like what I would consider an addiction was a few years, both pre-conversion and post-conversion. I was, I was addicted to nicotine. I chew tobacco, baseball player. And I remember like just being so, it was almost robotic. Like I just couldn't not put a dip in. I couldn't imagine that the thought of like having a conversation at night with my buddies in my apartment and not having a dip in it was like i couldn't do it like i just it was almost like it was that's the only word i can use like robotic like my brain was just so rewired and now i mean i was like 25 years ago and even i had my first year my i came to christ

and even for that first year it was still there And then it really was kind of a miraculous, like, I don't know. Like I got sick. I was really sick for a week. And when you're sick, even if you're addicted to nicotine, you typically like lay off it. And then after that week, I'm like, I got a week under my belt. I probably should quit this habit. And it was pretty grueling, but it, you know, I got free from it.

So maybe, maybe that, but you know, even today, you know, you talk to genuine, solid Christians who are addicted to porn, drugs, alcohol, um, whatever. And like, I would, I can only imagine what that would be. Like I could, I could pastorally see where this passage, it doesn't mean this is what Paul's saying, but like, I could see some residents here where, where it's not just a, you know, Bob Newhart,hart you know stop it or choose right or whatever it's like no there's something deeper neurologically going on here where you you are

just have been through bad choices over the years but almost now it's just become you know overcome by by sin you know where it's not just a struggle it's like all right i'm gonna choose choose not to it's like well it's more than just a raw choice like yeah, yeah, I don't know. Have you wrestled with that? Or any thoughts on that? Yeah. Especially for people listening that are like, yeah, that's me. I, it's not like I want to, I just, I feel like something is taking control of my brain and I can't not do this thing. Yeah. And if that is that person, I want them to understand God's grace, his compassion, his love, um, is smothered over this and God doesn't want them to understand God's grace, his compassion, his love is smothered over this. And God doesn't want them to continue to walk in that addiction.

I don't think Romans 7 is talking about neurological addiction, but that is a real thing in our world today. And so in the last chapter, I have a so what. So if you are a believer and Romans 7 is your experience rather than Romans 6 and 8, What do you need to do? And I always avoid alliteration as a Baptist, but I have four alliterations here. And the first one is just clarity, clarifying, understanding, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it's God that works in that side of us. Is our frustration a temptation or is it sin itself? And because, again, Augustine's going to say that, yeah, we're going to get frustrated with having to say no, but that's the difference between being

enslaved to sin. And so we need to clarify that sense. Also clarify that, you know what, it may be that we have more freedom today than we did yesterday. And so when Luther, to bring back his response to you saying that the Christian can't do any good, he says, well, what Paul really means is that the Christian can't do as much good, as good as he would like, he or she would like. And so I'm like, okay, sure, that's fine. I know that I can't do as much good as I want, but that doesn't mean I can't do any good. And so Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would say the unexamined faith is not worth having. So examine your faith. And when you actually look at your life, you may see that the spirit of God, the counseling that you have, and the friends that you have, and the confession

that you've been given has given that you're closer now than you were yesterday, than you were a year ago. And so finding that clarity, understanding what actually is the problem, why am I doing that? Another important thing that we see in the early church is confession. And it's not like the confession, like, oh yeah, I did something bad last night, or again, growing up as a Baptist, I have an unspoken prayer request. In the early church, and Scott McKnight talks about this in his James commentary, it was specific, it was detailed. And the more specific it is. And so as Protestants, as reformers, we've lost this idea of really confessing. I just confessed to God. And it's

harder for me to confess to you a sin that I've done, which seems odd, right? Because you're a sinner just like me. You know me more than the holy transcendent God. But I think it's God inside of you in the flesh, me confessing specifically what I've done is what leads to that freedom. And so it's interesting that James ends his commentary, sorry, his letter talking about the importance of confession, confession, confession. And so I think if we believers put just as much value in confessing our sins as we do preaching the gospel, our evangelism, whatever it may be, then we would have more freedom from that. And so it needs to be more like Chunk on the Goonies. Do you remember? we would have more freedom from that. And so it needs to be more like Chunk on the Goonies.

Do you remember? Yeah, exactly. And Chunk, they hold him down and he's like, tell us what all bad that you did. And he goes back and says, well, I knocked my sister down the stairs. And this one time I went to the theater and I had to speak cute, but I threw it down and it was worse than I ever did. And so I think that's the kind of, and so Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Life Together, one of the best ways to get through Romans 7 and Romans 8, if you will, is to read life together. And he talks about the vital importance of confession. And so if you're struggling with that, have you confessed it to someone specifically? Another thing that maybe relates to you is cultivating godliness. So we see that godliness doesn't just happen.

We have to train ourselves for righteousness. And so Paul writes to Timothy and says, hey, I want you to set an example in speech and life and all these things, but you have to do it by training yourself for godliness. And so there's a training exercise that comes involved with this. Seneca, my boy, I have to mention him at least once per podcast, right? He talks about that when it comes to people training for virtue, you have three different types of people. The first type is those who they don't need anybody to train them. They're just self-motivated. They get up at 4 a.m. and go for a run for 20 miles. And, you know, it's easy for them. And most people of us, we're not like that. Instead, what we need is a running partner, someone that we get up out of the bed because I know Preston's waiting for me to start that run.

And we need someone that has that accountability, someone to spot us when we need that. And he says the last of those, which is the majority of people who want to strive for virtue and to overcome their flesh, is we need someone who is like a personal trainer or even like a drill sergeant that barks us out of bed and that pushes us beyond. And so I think clarification, confession, and then cultivating, those are three things that can help most people get to Romans 8. Again, it's not going to happen overnight for most people, but it's that process that we're inching along and getting to that. But bringing specifically to your point the uh the last c is uh counseling um unfortunately why when we were growing up at least in my context counseling was

you know the head shrinker was a bad thing but fortunately today we're embracing counseling and therapists and um if if confession just to a brother that may not be enough you need to go to a professional counselor um if you're dealing with a sexual addiction or addiction to chemicals or whatever it may be. We have that importance of God. We don't have a problem going to a medical doctor and seeing God help us out through the medical doctor. So also, how much more, if we're dealing with a mental illness or addiction, should we go and allow God to work through those? And so, yeah, that would be my, my point. If you have an addiction, go, go to counseling because God has, will work through them. Do you have a title and publication date of your book? So again, Joey's writing or has

written, did you finish it or you're, you're. Yeah. I'm waiting for Michael Gorman's Romans commentary. I ordered it. So I want to work it in and then I'll send it off to Mike Bird and Derek Brown. They're the editors for it. It's in the Lexham Snapshot series. Hurtado did the first one, Shriner, Da Silva, and then mine's in that list with it. The title right now, and if any of your listeners or you can help me out, I'm not just overjoyed with it. if you can help me out, I'm not just overjoyed with it. It's the things I want to do, reframing Romans 7. So I wanted to do like, I grew up listening to White Snake. You remember his first song?

So here we go again. Oh, yeah, yeah. So when scholars talk about the I, the Greek word is ego. So I want to do stuff like, here we go again, rather than here we go again. But too dad joke-ish. I know it's too silly, but I'm a father now, so I can make dad jokes for sure. But yeah, so the things I want to do, colon, reframing Romans 7. You think it'll be out this time next year? I hope so. I'm not quite sure how quick the turnaround is. Things are slow these days.

But I'd love to be out at the end of this year, if not the beginning of next year. If anybody still needs to be more convinced of this reading, for me, I think we've given some big arguments. We didn't deal with the pushbacks. Try writing out or typing out Romans 7.14 through Romans 8.11. Get rid of the verses. Get rid of the paragraph breaks and just read it twice. That's it.

Do that. get rid of the verses, get rid of the paragraph breaks, and just read it twice. That's it. Yeah. Do that. And if you still think that Romans 7, 14 to 25 is talking about a believer, then read it again. Like that contrast, like the chapter break is terrible. Like the contrast, it's one mainstream of thought, 7, 14 to 8, 11. And that 8, one to 11 is obviously describing a believer, but the very language there is, I think you think playing off of what he just said previously. So Joey, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Yeah. Yeah.

One more book recommendation. So edited by Terry Wilder, it's four perspectives. So if you enjoy the point counterpoint type reading, it's four views on Roman seven or four perspectives on Romans 7. Grant Osborne does the traditional post-conversion, although I think it's a bit nuanced, and I like it. Stephen Chester looks at the pre-conversion Paul, which is the one that I would follow if you're interested. Mark Seifried comes in and talks about kind of this confessing eye.

Maybe it's just three. I think it's like three perspectives on Paul. And they go point, counterpoint. It's a great way to kind of hear all sides of the story. Awesome. Awesome. Well, thanks, Joey, for coming on the podcast. If anybody wants to study under Joey at Denver Seminary, they are always accepting students.

So check it out. Yeah. Thanks, Joey, for walking us through Romans 7. I hope it was helpful for our listeners who are interested in this important passage. So check it out. Uh, yeah. Thanks Joey for walking us through Romans 7. I hope it was helpful for our listeners who are interested in this important passage. Love you, bro. Peace. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.