First of all in verse 4 he was made to die to the law. 5 Before this he was in the flesh, actively sinning. In 6 he was released from the law, as per verse 4 where he was made to die to the law by which he was bound.

So that is the end of that – He and we now serve in newness of the Spirit instead of the written law.

7 So, he says, what are we now to learn from this? The law the flesh and the sinful passions are all connected – does this mean the LAW is sin? Why no, the law exposed sin.

8 Sin came to light, aroused by the law. (Apart from law, sin is dead). 9,10,11 sin killed me through the law. 12 So there is nothing wrong with the law. 13 Without the law I was alive in my inner sense of myself, but sin needed to be revealed for what it is, the active ingredient in preventing me becoming at one with God. Just as Adam was commanded not to gain awareness of right and wrong, (knowledge of good and evil) so too when I realised this I ‘spiritually’ died like Adam did.

14 The law is spiritually good, but I have not come from that same spiritual source that the law has, although Adam once did. I am of the same fleshly source as Adam, and disobedience brought me into bondage to sin, bound to it by the law.

15 Because the things I do, reveal this nature to me, this sinful nature and its outworking I do not understand, because I find that I don’t do what I would LIKE to do, but what I hate, I do.

16 So I have to agree with the law that it is good. 17 This means it is not me, my will, that is operational, but the will of sin indwelling me.

18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me [the Spirit dwells in me but I am here talking only about my ‘flesh’ (my Adamic nature)]. I can say this because the wishing to do good is in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 The good I WISH for is within me, in my mind, but in practise it is its opposite, its counterpart, that I end up doing. 20 That means it is not me, not my will that is in force here, but the will of sin that indwells me, in my ‘flesh’.

21 The principle then exists that evil is present in me, in my flesh nature; the one whose mind wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully agree with the law’s good intentions, and share those good intentions in my innermost self, 23 but I see a different law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the good intentions of my mind, and taking me as prisoner to other very base intentions and inclinations, motivations based in my naturally selfish and self serving, self preserving nature.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

25 Thanks be to God* through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, of myself, I myself with MY MIND do claim the law of God, but with my ‘flesh’ do claim [and actually serve] the law of sin. [So I appear as being dual natured, but in practise only sin is in control, has the power].

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Because the law of the Spirit of life has SET YOU FREE from the law of sin and death. This destroys the “duality” of nature, because the law of sin has been taken out of the picture, out of the ‘equation’. The law of sin no longer has any power over you and your mind is free to exercise its good intentions but now as guided by the Spirit.

For what the LAW could NOT do, WEAK through the flesh, GOD did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.

*[“for the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is THE LAW, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 15-56,57]


If you are not “With” Jesus, then you are without Him.  Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.” If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Him.

Luke 11-23 “He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

We can be many things apart from Jesus, but unless we have surrendered ourselves to Him and His purposes, we are nothing and will be nothing. Unless we are with Him then we are AGAINST Him. It is not healthy to be against the Son of God, on that day that matters most we could be found to have been actively opposing God, regardless of any seemingly impressive religious appearances to the contrary.

[Be with the Jesus of the supernatural].


If Romans 8 explains the success of the Spirit to overcome sin, then Romans 7 explains the failure of the law to do so. Worse, the law is named as a cause of sin by provoking the flesh.

The Spirit is very successful, “if you are led by the Spirit you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh”. The Spirit is in conflict with the flesh and defeats it.

Conversely is the failure of the law. ‘My flesh wages war against my mind and makes it (me) a prisoner of sin’. And sin in the flesh wins. [empowered by law].

The difference of course is whether you are living in and to the flesh, or in and to the Spirit. [we having died to law].

“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.

Those in the flesh CANNOT please God. However, you are NOT in the FLESH but in the SPIRIT if He [Jesus] dwells in you.

[Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should NO LONGER be slaves to sin, for he who has died is freed from sin.][Be filled with the Spirit]


Recently I have been conversing with those who have a different opinion to my own. In the course of these “discussions” it has emerged that my world and theirs theologically speaking are far apart. One of the three people involved seems to be sympathetic with me regarding the “demise of the law”, while the other two have advanced what appear to be sophisticated arguments in favour of the retention of law as relevant to current day Christianity.

But increasingly it is obvious that I do not, cannot, understand what they are saying, or even what they appear to be saying. My intellect does not rise to theirs, I am not the most intelligent person on the planet, and it seems as though I am unbending and confined to my very own view of things, even on the odd occasion to the point of “quoting” scripture that does not appear to exist. And this is not necessarily an age thing because some of this goes back a long way. Perhaps failing memory plays some part.

Compared with the average man in the street some of the modern book writers appear to be “way out there” in their contradiction of scripture. This often sells books but causes suspicion to be thrown on the motivation behind much of what is put forward by “progressives”. Doubt about biblical translation is seen by the appearance of many modern translations regarding the use of certain words based on scholarly interpretation of other languages. And through it all we have to maintain a correct view on responsible interpretation and implementation of doctrinal matters.

My conviction regarding Romans 7 is that it describes the problem of mankind which is, the “flesh”, because it describes bondage to sin because of law. From which bondage we are, have been, released by Jesus.

So I would now have to say that Jesus then came to release us from the bondage to sin that occurs because of law (whether or not this ‘law’ is the Mosaic law or other kinds of law is immaterial). And that by releasing us from the bondage, he not only releases us from the ‘necessity’ to sin, but from the actuality of sinning, even if we respond ‘imperfectly’. “If you are led by the Spirit you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh”.

Others will then turn around and say that we are released from the bondage, but not from the sinning which comes naturally because “we are but flesh”. [which they claim is the case in R7].

But I believe scripture plainly indicates that it is the sinning itself which is the issue, not the bondage perse’. That it is a matter of ceasing to be unrighteous, and commencing to be righteous, that the “flesh” is the problem, and the answer to it is the release that Jesus brings, which then brings release from the ‘necessity’ to sin. Law provokes sin. 5-13 sin is not imputed where there is no law. 6-18 Having been freed from sin you became slaves of righteousness. 6-14 sin will not master you because you are not under law.

It is not good enough to simply claim a position of righteousness, one must produce that righteousness. 8-13 if you live to the flesh you will die. If you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. This is the plain position that results from the solving of the R7 problem, when you get into R8. “Crossing over from death to life” is a matter of crossing over from unrighteousness to righteousness, made possible by the power of the cross.

They see R7 as being the Christian lamenting his continuing to sin, and then thanking Jesus because they will not be held to account for it. This they promote as being the power that enables people to grow into the Christian life. But not being held to account for their sin is the basic function of their initial entry into the faith, in which they, their flesh, died with Him.

The power involved is that they no longer walk according to the flesh, which they previously did, this was their “former life”. There is a real transition from the power of sin to the power of life, which does not match the picture of R7, which remains a picture of despair because of sinning under law.

R7 is a display of the helplessness of mankind because of law, which weakness is removed by the acceptance of the gospel. This is why Christ came, to die in his flesh under law, so we might be removed from the control of the power of this deadly combination, flesh and law, which produces death.

Inasmuch as our flesh is put to death, so that sin no longer is stimulated by law because of our acceptance of Christ’s death for us, then “those who are His have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” is a true statement of reality, so we can see that the reason Jesus died was to remove the power of the flesh to continue in sin the way it previously did.

So to deny that R7 is a picture of the problem which Jesus solved through His sacrifice, and to claim that it is a picture of one who supposedly has already ACCEPTED that sacrifice, is to deny Christ Himself and the power of the gospel to bring an end to the problem of sin and sinning. Our old self WAS crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be servants of sin. He who has died is freed from sin.

It was this very problem of the flesh that Jesus died for. To claim that R7 simply describes an ongoing problem with the flesh of a believer is to deny the gospel itself. This was the very reason Jesus came and died for, and the wording used is plainly the same wording which is used in other parts of R6 and 7 which describe the condition of one who is a slave to sin.

By claiming otherwise is to deny what Jesus has done for us, is to disclaim the great victory over law sin and death which He achieved. I have firmly stated that the context of R7 is law, (law is mentioned about 27 times in only 25 verses) and this statement has been strongly opposed by said “academics”. This I cannot understand, to me it defies logic.

I unequivocally state that it is my firm belief that by dying in this flesh, Jesus came to rob, to destroy, to dispossess the flesh of the power which others claim R7 exhibits the continuation of in a believer instead of that which Jesus came to destroy to produce such a believer. And that the reason it may still retain power is because it is given power by just such wrong views as they hold and proclaim to others as truth. Regardless of their so called knowledge intellect or academic qualification.

[You were made to DIE to the LAW through the BODY  of Christ. When you were IN the flesh the sinful passions aroused by the law were AT WORK in us in our BODY to produce the fruit of DEATH….BUT NOW we have been RELEASED FROM THE LAW so we now serve in newness of the SPIRIT and not in OLDNESS of the letter.]

Romans chapter 7 describes one who is IN THE FLESH. [It describes Paul talking about ‘his flesh’ without the benefit of Jesus or Spirit, as one ‘on his own’. V18 ‘that is, in my flesh’ and V25 ‘I myself (of myself, by myself). It describes the condition from which we are freed to become Christians in the first place.

“Go and sin no more”   http://www.eternalsecurity.us/must_we_sin.htm    


The fact that we have to say “this or that is LITERAL” shows we are operating in an environment of deceit, because  it is saying that everything else is NOT literal, so cannot be taken at face value, therefore it is deceitful. Someone said “There are lies, and there are damn lies”. They were obviously thinking of politicians and lawyers.

The title “True Lies” comes from a movie by Arni Schwarzenegger, where he, as the hero, is a spy who keeps this identity secret from his family. I guess the point of the title is that the double life he leads as a spy is more real than his supposed real life in normal suburbia, and so the lie is more true than the supposed “truth”.

One has to wonder about the way scripture is handled, because of the claims of literality, or otherwise, made by the various groups of people who have differing views or slants on particular doctrinal matters.

So what are we to believe? There are a few seemingly obvious contradictions in scripture, which may be explained by context, but still there is the underlying thought that “face value” is not something that can readily be applied.

We get into the world of literal, not literal, symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual, sign, and whatever else that I can’t think of at the moment. And so we distrust what we read, having to submit it to our “higher faculties” in order to examine critically, and to assign it to whatever pre-ordered kind of bias or prejudice, or “filter” we may have already structured within ourselves.

Such as “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” [tree of death?] But, anyway, I find this scripture to be LITERAL, as it describes the action of Christ assuming within himself, within his body, the suffering and penalty that sin extracts from mankind. And, “By his stripes, we are healed”. This is saying that by his punishment, and there was literal whipping, WE are “healed”. It is true that the punishment we deserve, fell upon him. It doesn’t tell us HOW this is true, but it says it is.

And because it says that they were OUR sins, we can read that they were not HIS sins (because he didn’t have any that were not ours). And then we are healed, meaning that his action was for us, on our behalf, and the fact that he cried, “it is finished”, means that something was achieved by his action, was brought to completion .We have to assume that it was our healing that was completed. Now the word healing is seen by Pentecostals as being literal, and they place emphasis on it to support their claims to physical healing. In the greater plan, healing of the whole person has been achieved, but to take it as literal that it is an automatic claim or promise for the “now”, is a matter of individual faith.  later edit – (physical healing I mean)

So I have already entered into judgement concerning one word.



Knowledge of good and evil  =  wretched man               [romans7]

What has happened to this man Paul, that he discovers his own will is worthless and inoperable? Why is it that the performing of good is impossible for him to do?

What is inside him that is sabotaging his ability to provide a good outcome?

I wish someone else would explain it because I am likely to be stumbling around a bit with this. (so what’s new you say?).[2005]

Is it that because the more he knows, the more he realises that the good his will proposes to do, is the very opposite of that mental pathway that is set up because he knows he is inherently “not good”?

That he is himself, by his own judgement, guilty of producing sin, and so therefore is condemned to a poor outcome, because the input thought to his mental process is already in conflict with the proposed outcome?

It is as if, being self-condemned, he must not allow a clear passage of this thought streaming to go unchallenged, and in fact, brings it to a premature death, just as he believes he himself deserves. It is certainly a psychological process, which may well be understood in medical terms already.

In other words, the knowledge of good, having made him aware of the knowledge of bad, has brought judgement down on his integrity, thus destroying his inherent integral thought processes, in order to maintain the truth of the judgement he perceives that has been brought down on him, by himself, and God..

Adam only knew the good, until he brought in the opposite which was bad. And it was by the knowledge of the “new player” that he became conscious of the bad, because it was in contrast to his previous good..

Is it (and it has to be) related to “the fall” of Adam, where he was “in the clear” so to speak, “until the commandment came”, following which he was conflicted, guilty, and disenfranchised from his former position, removed from the place of truth and therefore true rationality, and so became irrational.

And from within this irrationality, he was unable to return to a rational place. (his lost innocence was irretrievable). And, in this state, he was unfit to retain the status of “eternal life”, and having lost it, could not “of himself” regain it. (The strength of this irrationality may be seen in the subsequent behaviour of his son Cain).

It is as if it were some spiritual law* that cannot be circumvented, is unavoidable, because it is TRUTH. Now, we might say, there are two truths. The one is the real truth, the truth of life, while the other is the imposter, the “truth” of the LIE.

When the truth comes into contact with the lie, that clash causes CONFLICT.

Paul, who is a seeker of truth, of righteousness, even though it is a “poor man’s righteousness”, being that of the law, (which nonetheless came with “glory”, being of God, and being “spiritual”), has his conscience engaged regarding truth and justice, and it is this which comes into conflict with the inherent LIE which has become an entity “in his flesh”, to the extent of being said to “be his flesh”. [italics not meant as scriptural quotes but for literary explanatory purposes].

It is this overwhelming conflict, which is driven by guilt and judgement and its inherent fear of death, which “disengages his moral drive” and leaves him floundering in no man’s land. And no man’s land provides the opportunity for the inhabitation of evil.

So there can be no good outcome, since the production of good comes from “….a sound mind….” [Timothy?]

And since there is no good outcome, there can only be a bad one. Given that there is something still left of his will that has not been completely frozen into submission, though unable to produce good, still has enough “inertia” to promote strife and trouble once it enters the conflict zone. * And this “law” that is in operation may be “the law of sin and death”.

So Paul, “of himself” is a dead man. WRETCHED. It is only when he is no longer “of himself”, being “of Christ”, that  power returns to his moral drive. He is released from judgement and condemnation, and his conscience is free to proceed with moral judgement that is in line with the gift he now has internally, the Spirit of God.   [Paul’s conflict here is mind law flesh, whereas Galatians is Spirit flesh]

This position of Paul results in the typical defensive position of people forced to hide behind their sin, because of their sin.[later edit. Paul is under wrath][2020 edit – “Law brings wrath”]


Sin is no longer consequential for those who want it to be no longer consequential. All sin has already been assigned to death, it has no other outcome. Christ suffered it so we could avoid that outcome. So we could recognise the truth and cleave to it, to him. Recognition of this and appreciation of his pain in suffering our sin to free us from it, the very thing that killed us, unites us with him in the pursuance of life instead of death.

Whether or not we remain in sin, does not effect the outcome of what he has done. All sin  will be as nothing, will be removed in the end. [and he has already said that the consequences of sin have been far removed from us already] What is important is whether or not we remain attached to sin. If we remain attached to it, we die with it. If we separate ourselves from it, we will live with him. If in fact he has already dealt with it in such a way that it has absolutely no power at all to condemn or accuse, because he has finished the matter, having treated it as his forgiveness of us who “didn’t ask to be born” [as a friend would say], then it becomes a non event, virtually whether we sin or not.

Sin is no longer the focus, life is. And we must cleave to life because he has said that death “is no more” unless we want it to be. If he has restored us to the “Pre-Adam” state, in terms of guilt, then we need to act guilt free and pursue those things that do not attract guilt. In other words, to recognise that we now have a clean slate, and that sin which “dirtied” the slate can never ever do that again, because God has eliminated it forever through Christ’s sacrifice. Sin is no longer the issue, it is or it is not, it matters not. What does matter is that we accept this free life and take advantage of it.

One might advance an argument that it is “only those who are forgiven, that are forgiven”. But what if, rather than applying to a select few, this applies to all, even “the sin of the whole world”. What if ALL are “forgiven” in the sense that ALL have had their sin “covered”, and are therefore on that basis, offered life. It only remains then, to believe it. Or not. What if God is totally accepting ALL responsibility for bringing into this world of sin, sinners. What if the greatest way of looking at salvation, is in fact true.

If we put conditions on salvation; if this, and if that; then interpretation of scriptures and differing doctrinal interpretations may always interrupt the clean flow of redemption. There may be things that are offered as aids to believing, as aids to faith, as aids to accepting the release from sin. But nothing in the way of “props” or rituals will alter the truth or reality that is God’s love towards us as accomplished in Christ. He opened the door. He himself became the gate whereby men “go in and go out and find pasture”[?]. I maintain that in this case, if it seems too good to be true, it’s because we are unwilling to believe in Him, his nature, his love.

That which needed to be done to restore mankind, has been done. It only remains for mankind to believe it and to become it. By believing it. Digging up scriptures regards this might be an interesting exercise. An early objection might be that one needs to be baptised [ in water, since the Spirit would obviously be involved already.] There may be all manner of conventional doctrine against this position. Then again, this may actually BE the orthodox position, and only sects and other groups may amass objections to it. That would be revealing in itself!

While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


The plain language used here automatically and logically denotes this statement as being the response to the foregoing information in chapter 7 of Romans, where the great problem of slavery to sin in the flesh under law was described.

Obviously it also means that for those NOT in Jesus, there remains condemnation. Having said that, it also means that R7 was a condition of condemnation, being that it is the condition of what we were being released from. [and Paul was NOT ‘in Jesus’. For explanatory purposes he was “in” his ‘flesh’]

Paul describes his wretchedness. Who will set me free from this body of death? The body within which sinful passions have been aroused by the law. He has said he is a PRISONER to sin in his own body. He said he is in BONDAGE to sin. [not quite the happy little Christian?]

What shall we say then, is the law sin? No, but it provoked sin in me to kill me. This he said would happen to anyone IN the flesh*. He has just said that ‘we’ had been RELEASED FROM THE LAW. But then goes on to describe what happens if you are IN the flesh, NOT “released from the law” still in BONDAGE to it, and therefore also to sin.

Why is this easy to claim? Because the whole context of R7 IS LAW. The word ‘law’ or ‘commandment’ is mentioned 27 times, yet a learned friend denies the context is law. This is hard to understand in anyone’s language. There are only 25 verses, yet law is mentioned 27 times. That should speak to anyone that the subject matter here is death under the law.

Paul says here that anyone of flesh who is IN the flesh is subject to law sin death, matters which are foreign to the now Spirit controlled believer, quite contrary to “having died to that by which we were bound”. One dies to the bondage in Christ, as in “but now we are released from the law...”.  This is the opposite of  “sinful passions AROUSED by THE LAW.”

That the subject matter is primarily that of the MOSAIC law is shown by the mention of a specific commandment “Thou shall not covet”, even though there are other aspects of “law” involved as well.

The law is called “the ministry of death” and Romans 7 is the perfect example of the fruit* of it.

[Everyone not ‘in the Spirit’ is ‘under law’][For I know nothing good dwells in (my) flesh (Adamic nature)][There is no forgiveness, no grace, no mercy in R7, only law]

R7-22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God which has already been abolished? Eph 2-15.


*The day you eat of it you will die.


The verses of Romans 7 which critically state the difference between the states of life and death, are verse 5 “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”. = DEATH.

AND verse 6 “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”. = LIFE.

Comparing these with R8 verse 13  presents the same situation. “..FOR IF you are living according to the flesh, you must die; = DEATH  BUT IF by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body [works of the flesh] you will live”. = LIFE.

R6-6 says our old self WAS crucified with Him. [that our body of sin might be done away with]. 7-4 says you were MADE to die. [to the law through the body of Christ].

Gal.5-24 “Now those WHO BELONG to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” R8-9 ‘…you are NOT IN THE FLESH but in the Spirit if the Spirit dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does NOT BELONG TO HIM.

7-1,2,3. Died to the law covenant. 7-4 MADE TO DIE through Christ’s body so as to be joined to another. TO BELONG TO HIM..


On the matter of life and death- just a few thoughts around the recent Romans 7 issues. It should be understood that the subject matter of this chapter is the whole life/death matter being revealed.

So yes, this is why Abraham had to leave the life he was familiar with, and we have to “leave” the flesh life we are so familiar with.

The repercussions of this on the understanding of R7 may be as follows. That we may be able to take to ourselves more literally his words about the “I” that he is representing from his experience in his “body of death”, this ‘flesh’.

It is still talking about his life in the flesh though, (although it really is), It does not necessarily have to be talking of his life under THE law, but only his life in the “natural”, by the natural laws of conscience or sense of being, of the “knowledge of right and wrong”.

He could then be comparing his performance with THE law.

So yes, this is the condition, the body, the mindset, the sin nature, the “flesh”, the Adamic nature; that he has to “leave”.

The law killed him, so he is this dead thing which must now be assigned to the same death which Jesus died to, that it might be left behind, that he might be “born again” into the Spiritual, to be of the Spiritual and working in the spiritual, building up his new personage in Christ..

That having recognised and identified with His death, that he now shifts his identity into the person of Jesus. ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me’. Yet we live. The new I, in tandem with Him and His “I”.

We died. Our old life and being has been shown to be one of death. We now take part in the first resurrection, a spiritual one. later to be followed by the bodily one, the new bodily one. Those not in Christ will be resurrected in their OLD one.

We were made, caused, to die with Him, that we might rise with Him. R7-13 “Did that which is good become a cause of death for me?” Past tense.

Through the commandment sin becomes utterly sinful.

14. “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin”. Now all those of the flesh, who are IN the flesh, are sinful and in bondage to sin. All are under the sentence of death because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

And it is “sin in the flesh” which is the problem, the one Jesus solved by dying to it and for it, by His Spirit recreating it into the divine image. And our flesh also, our “mortal bodies” according to R8-11 will be given life through His spirit who indwells us.

So we likewise die to the old and spring to life in the new. It is for the hope of the resurrection of our mortal bodies that we wait ‘patiently’.

So our bodies are either those subject to the “second death” (although we all will be tested by fire) or to the “first resurrection”.

Ref.R7 verse 14. “Flesh” is by natural nature, automatically in BONDAGE to sin, and BOUND to it and by it.

Paul speaks of this natural and committed and both wilful and un-wilful bondage of the natural man, to sin. NOT in any way referring to the new life, HIS new life in Christ.

R8 verse 2 could read ‘has set you free from the bondage to sin and flesh’.

Paul, though talking about life in the natural bondage to sin, was in no way speaking of his new self, but only his old self.

The new self is of the Spirit, IN the Spirit, and no longer IN or OF the flesh. The new life is not the old life, is based on completely new parameters.

“if any man be in Christ he is a new creation, behold the old has gone, the new is come”.

So Paul talks about the “I” of his flesh, his natural nature, that he was IN, but no longer in bondage to. And no longer operates out of, or from. He now operates out of, from, and of, his new nature in Christ.