Romans 7:25

Romans 7:25. I thank God, or, ‘thanks to God;' it being difficult to decide between the two. (Some authorities read: but thanks to God.) This thanksgiving is for deliverance: it is a deliverance through Jesus Christ our Lord. Not simply that the thanksgiving is through Him, but the fact that the thanks to God is due to Jesus Christ. Here is the key-note of a life distinctively Christian over against the attempt to live better under the law.

So then. This sums up the whole: since this is the conflict and a hopeless one until Christ delivers. Others would connect this with Romans 7:24.

I myself, etc. The two leading interpretations are: (1.) ‘I myself as the same man,' live this divided life; (2.) ‘I of myself,' apart from Christ, thus live. If (1) be adopted, and applied to the man who has uttered the thanksgiving, the inference would be that such discord was the normal condition of the Christian. To apply it to the unregenerate man seems objectionable, for how can such an one be said to serve the law of God. On the whole, then, (2.) is more satisfactory. ‘I in myself, notwithstanding whatever progress in righteousness the Spirit of Christ may have wrought in me, or will work in this life, am still most imperfect; with my mind, indeed, I serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin; and, tried by the law, could not be justified but would come under condemnation, if viewed in myself, and not in Christ Jesus' (Forbes). This suggests the connection with chap. 8. To make an alternative: either with the mind, etc., or with the flesh, is not grammatical.

With the mind, or, ‘with my mind indeed.' Not ‘with the Spirit,' for it is the man of the law who is still spoken of, even though he has been delivered and looks back upon the worst of the conflict.

With the flesh the law of sin. The service of the law, whose excellence is recognized by the mind, is attempted, but the flesh interferes, as the ruling power it brings into captivity in every case where the mere service of law, even of the law of God, is the aim. That the Christian is not ruled by the flesh is his distinctive privilege, but obedience from legalistic motives gives the flesh fresh power. Hence we find here, even after the thanksgiving, a quasi-confession of defeat, to connect with the next chapter.

‘The whole passage seems, by its alternations, its choice of words, as well as its position in the Epistle, to point to an experience which is produced by the holy, just, and good law of God, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ; so that even the outburst of Christian gratitude is followed by a final recurrence to the conflict, which is, indeed, ever-recurring, so long as we seek holiness through the law rather than through Christ (Riddle in Lange, Romans, p. 244).

EXCURSUS ON SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1. BODY. This generally refers to the physical body, though it often suggests the organism of the body. A living body is usually meant. Figuratively it is applied to the Church. In a few passages where it seems to imply sinfulness, it should be interpreted in a figurative sense, as referring to the organism of sin (Romans 6:6; Romans 7:24; Colossians 2:11), since the thought that the body is the source of sin, or even its chief seat, is unwarranted alike by Scripture and by experience.

2. SOUL. The word we translate soul often means ‘life,' animal life; the word which represents eternal life, life in the highest sense, is a different one. ‘Soul' may mean the whole immaterial part of man, or it may be distinguished from ‘spirit.' But the distinction is difficult to define, see under 3. It does not mean the fallen part of our immaterial nature over against an unfallen part called ‘spirit,' nor is it to be limited to the animal life. The Old Testament usage seems decisive on both points. It is unfortunate that the influence of Hebrew modes of thought have not been sufficiently recognized in the discussions about this and kindred terms. Furthermore the analytic tendency of many modern systems has led to the acceptance of a division where the Scriptures suggest only a distinction.

3. SPIRIT. This term, the Hebrew equivalent of which is very common in the Old Testament, has in the New Testament a number of meanings. It is derived from the word meaning ‘to blow,' and retains in rare instances (John 3:8; Hebrews 1:7) its early sense of wind. We often use it now as equivalent to temper, disposition; but in the New Testament it rarely, if ever, refers to this alone. It is, however, applied to evil, unclean, spirits, and to good angels. In these cases it refers to a mode of being, irrespective of the moral quality, which is defined by the context.

Aside from these incidental meanings, the word is used in the New Testament in three senses:

(a.) The theological sense, referring to the Holy Spirit.

(b.) The anthropological sense, referring to the spirit of man, as part of his nature.

(c.) The soteriological sense, referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit, or to the spirit of man as informed by the indwelling Holy Spirit

(a.) The prevailing sense in the New Testament is the theological one, that is, it means the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. In the contrast with ‘flesh' (see below) it usually has this sense, but frequently in the modified form which is discussed under (c.) .

(b.) The anthropological sense is not very common. It must be insisted upon, father for the purpose of defining the other senses and kindred terms, than for its own sake. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, we find a reference to ‘body, soul, and spirit,' but even here Christians are spoken of. At the same time we infer from this passage, from the Old Testament distinctions, and from Hebrews 4:12, ‘that in the original structure of man there is something yet remaining, needing, and capable of sanctification corresponding to the three terms, body, soul, and spirit.' It is implied in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, that the spirit needs sanctification, and that the body and soul also are to be preserved for God. Holding fast to these points, we shall escape many of the false inferences drawn from the theory of the tri-partite nature of man (trichotomy). On the other hand we must not go to the extreme of holding that the ‘spirit' is the renewed nature, hence that man has not a ‘spirit' before regeneration. ‘Ft must be held fast, that man could not receive the Spirit of God, if he were not himself a spiritual being; yet it is a supposition of the Scriptures, that, since the fall, the spiritual nature is bound in the natural man, and does not come to its actuality' (Lange). This view includes ‘the mind,' and ‘the inward man' (see 5, below) under the term ‘spirit,' making the spirit the sphere in which Divine influences begin their operations, like God in mode of being, but the very inmost seat of moral unlikeness to Him. Before renewal the ‘spirit' is itself under the power of the ‘flesh' (see 4, (1.), (b.), below). The New Testament never contrasts ‘flesh' with this sense of ‘spirit' Hence this anthropological sense is rare compared with that which follows.

(c.) The soteriological sense: the Holy Spirit in the human spirit, or, the human spirit acted upon by the Holy Spirit. As distinguished from (a.) this is the subjective sense, as distinguished from (b.) it is a theological sense. In Paul's writings it is very frequent, and we find it expressed in the Gospels: ‘that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6); comp. Matthew 26:41 ; Mark 14:38. This sense includes the term ‘new man;' comp. also Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10.

4. FLESH. (1.) Physical sense. In the Old Testament this term is applied to' man with the adjunct idea of frailty' (Tholuck), but the idea of depravity is not suggested. In the New Testament the physical sense occurs, with a reference to the earthly life and relations (Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 10:3; Ephesians 2:15; Philippians 1:22; Philippians 1:24; Colossians 1:22, etc.). In these instances the contrast with man's new relation to God is only negatively implied. In other cases the term is almost = body, or to the material of which the body is composed. ‘According to the flesh,' as applied to Christ, refers to His human nature (or, descent), probably with the idea of frailty, as in the Old Testament use. Here, too, we may trace the notion of physiological descent, suggesting the transmission of nature, a thought not remote from the strictly ethical sense; comp. John 3:6: ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh.'

(2.) The ethical sense of flesh is recognized by all commentators. It is in contrast with ‘Spirit,' either expressed or implied, and this gives the key to its meaning, i.e., that it refers to our unregenerate depraved nature, but the exact significance has been frequently discussed.

(a.) How much of man's nature is included under the term ‘flesh,' when used in the ethical sense. We answer more than the body, or the body with its animal life and appetites. The Bible nowhere justifies the Pagan view that sin is confined to our animal life. Nor can we limit the term to body and soul, excluding the human spirit from the empire of the flesh. The distinction between soul and spirit is not essentially an ethical one; the only passage suggesting this is 1 Corinthians 2:14, where ‘spiritual,' however, implies the influence of the Holy Spirit. The antithesis to ‘flesh' in this ethical sense never is the unregenerate human spirit. Even in Romans 7:18; Romans 7:25, where ‘inward man,' and ‘mind' are contrasted with ‘flesh,' the real antithesis is to be found in Romans 7:14: ‘the law is spiritual, but I am carnal,' which is illustrated in the description that follows. ‘Flesh,' therefore, means, not a tendency or direction of life in one part of man's nature, but the whole human nature, body, soul, and spirit, separated from God, the human nature we inherit ‘according to the flesh,' from Adam.

(b.) This human nature, termed ‘flesh,' is essentially alienated from God; antagonism to God is the essence of sin. Its positive principle is selfishness, for after God is rejected, self becomes supreme. The human nature, thus alienated from God, with selfishness as its ruling principle, seeks its gratification in the creature, for it has forsaken God, and it requires some object external to itself. This devotion to the creature has a higher form as sensuousness, and deems itself noble, in its intellectual and esthetic pursuit of other things more than God. But the course of heathenism, as portrayed in chap. 1, shows that it is an easy step to sensuality, the lower form of fleshly gratification. Hence this ethical sense of ‘flesh' has been confused with its lowest manifestations, namely, physical appetites. But the true definition is: ‘Flesh is the whole nature of man, turned away from God, in the supreme interest of self, devoted to the creature.' This definition links together ungodliness and sin, implies the inability of the law, and the necessity of the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit.

5. MIND. The word translated ‘mind' in the preceding section is row, and may be distinguished from several other Greek terms occasionally rendered by the same English word. As indicated in the above comments, ‘mind' here is not equivalent to renewed nature, nor does it include merely the intellectual faculties. It is rather the active organ of the human spirit, the practical reason, usually as directed to moral questions. Hence it properly covers what we term the moral sense, or conscience. But the Scriptural anthropology does not favor the view that this ‘mind' of itself is not depraved; for it is used several times in connection with the worst forms of heathenism, and in other passages obviously means a sinful mind (chap. Romans 1:28; Ephesians 4:17; Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:15). The ‘inward man' (Romans 7:22) is practically equivalent to this term, and represents the same moral status: before regeneration under the dominion of the flesh, but made the sphere of the operations of the Holy Spirit, so that a ‘new man' results, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. But both ‘mind' and ‘inward man' may cover the whole immaterial nature of man; the former in its moral and intellectual aspects; the latter in its theological aspects (so Ellicott).

6. HEART. Although this term occurs with comparative infrequency in this Epistle, it is important to understand its application in the New Testament. More distinctly than any of the other terms it shows the influence of the Old Testament. It is regarded as the central organ of the entire human personality, and includes what we distinguish as intellect and feeling, sometimes the will also. It is the organ of both soul and spirit, and yet is sometimes distinguished from the former (comp. the sum of the commandments: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,' etc.), never from the latter, although occasionally used as if equivalent to it (Psalms 51:10; Psalms 51:17; comp. Colossians 2:5 with 1 Thessalonians 2:17). Hence it is inferred that it is more closely allied to ‘spirit' than to ‘soul;' but we must beware of making divisions, where only phases of a vital unity are concerned. The important point to be remembered is, that while ‘heart' includes the affections, the term in the Scriptures does not imply the contrast we make between ‘head' and ‘heart,' i.e., intellect and affections. In chap. Romans 10:9-10, believing is predicated of the ‘heart,' but in contrast with confessing with the ‘mouth,' not with intellectual credence. Hence the phrase ‘new heart' implies far more than a change of feelings, just as ‘repentance' suggests more than our English ‘change of mind,' which is the literal sense of the Greek. For ‘mind' and ‘heart' alike, according to the Hebrew conceptions, had moral aspects which were the controlling and important ones. ‘Heart,' therefore, when used in the New Testament in a psychological (not physiological) sense, implies a moral quality, but what that moral quality is depends on the connection. In the case of the regenerate man the ‘heart' is spoken of as if it were the seat of the Holy Spirit's influence (chap. Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 3:16-17).

The incidental meanings of the term may be readily determined.

Clearly, then, the New Testament use of terms serves to emphasize the language of the Apostle in Romans 7:24: ‘O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' All the powers and organs of human nature are powerless from this organism of sin, until through Jesus Christ our Lord deliverance comes.