Romans 7
Can anyone suggest a monograph or a full treatment on Romans 7?
mm.
Comments
-
0
-
Logos 10 | Dell Inspiron 7373 | Windows 11 Pro 64, i7, 16GB, SSD | iPhone 13 Pro Max
0 -
also here is some extensive argumentation by Piper follow the link to the 6 messages...
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/clarifying-how-romans-7-14-25-as-christian-experience
Logos 10 | Dell Inspiron 7373 | Windows 11 Pro 64, i7, 16GB, SSD | iPhone 13 Pro Max
0 -
Two good suggestions - thanks. One I just bought the other I just read.
Anymore suggestions??
0 -
Dr. Michael Brown's book, Go and Sin No More, has a lengthy appendix that deals with this passage (He argues against Piper's (and others) position). I love Dr. Brown, but personally think that he builds to much of his argument on other passages than on what Romans 7 actually says. Especially since the apparently end result he is arguing against is the farthest thing from what Piper (and others) are saying. ie.
"So stand fast in your freedom, and rather than looking to Romans 7 as an excuse for sinful living, read everything Paul wrote in Romans 6-8, and recognize that, while the battle in the flesh can rage, we are no longer controlled by the flesh but rather by the Spirit."
Brown, M. L. (1999). Go and Sin No More: A Call to Holiness. EqualTime Books."
It's impossible to read the above arguments from Piper and conclude he's arguing for an excuse for sinful living!
Here's the link, it's not in Logos yet
Logos 10 | Dell Inspiron 7373 | Windows 11 Pro 64, i7, 16GB, SSD | iPhone 13 Pro Max
0 -
Hey James. I read that book when it first came out and totally forgot all about it until you had mentioned it. I really liked it and I'll have to look at it again with Roman 7 eyes.
Thanks.
James Taylor said:Dr. Michael Brown's book, Go and Sin No More, has a lengthy appendix that deals with this passage (He argues against Piper's (and others) position). I love Dr. Brown, but personally think that he builds to much of his argument on other passages than on what Romans 7 actually says.
Here's the link, it's not in Logos yet
0 -
Encountering the Book of Romans (Douglas Moo) presents a theological survey of Romans 7
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
N T Wright Romans For Everyone series vol 1, even better ROMANs in NIB commentary by N T Wright
0 -
Would the book you suggested be a "summary" of his NICNT Romans?
Dave Hooton said:Encountering the Book of Romans (Douglas Moo) presents a theological survey of Romans 7
0 -
Milkman said:
a "summary"
1. Paul describes his experience as an unconverted Jew under the law.
2. Paul describes his experience, perhaps shortly after his conversion, as he sought sanctification through the law.
3. Paul describes his experience as a mature Christian.Debate over Romans 7 is so lively precisely because each view has some points in the text in its favor. There is no “slam dunk” in the interpretive game here. So the best interpretation will be the one that produces the best overall fit with all the evidence. I think that the first of these options best satisfies this requirement. But before I explain why I come to this conclusion, let’s get a sense of the debate by noting two key arguments for the first and the third views. The argument in favor of Paul referring to his pre-Christian experience (the first view) is that (1) he claims to be “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14), an impossible state for any believer (see Romans 6); and (2) he claims to be “a prisoner of the law of sin” (v. 23), which contradicts the situation of all Christians, who have been “set free from the law of sin and death” (8:2). The argument in favor of Paul referring to his mature Christian experience (the third view) is that (1) he writes in the present tense; and (2) he concludes the passage, after expressing thanks for deliverance through Christ, with a statement of his divided being.
The main argument for the second, “immature Christian,” view is, of course, that the arguments for the first and third views both carry weight, and so the only way to reconcile all the data is with a mediating view. Paul is a Christian (explaining the data in the third-view argument), but a Christian who finds himself frustrated because he is trying to live by the law (explaining the data in the first-view argument). But the problem with this mediating view, and the reason I finally think that the passage describes an unregenerate person, is that the data in the argument for the first view involve an objective state, not a subjective feeling. Paul does not say that he feels as if he were a slave of sin or that he feels as if he were a prisoner of the law of sin; rather, he states such as the reality of his situation. However, that situation is, by definition, one that no Christian can ever experience. As Paul has taught at some length in Romans 6, every believer, united with Christ in death and resurrection, has been “set free from sin” (see 6:6, 14, 18, 22). And Romans 8:2 makes it clear that the Spirit sets every believer free from the law of sin and death. For me, then, the decisive point is simply put: the assertions made in verses 14–25 cannot be true of a believer, and thus cannot be referring to Paul. That is why I think that Paul is describing what it was like to live as an unregenerate Jew under the law.
Moo, D. J. (2002). Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey. Baker Academic.Logos 10 | Dell Inspiron 7373 | Windows 11 Pro 64, i7, 16GB, SSD | iPhone 13 Pro Max
0 -
This includes Piper, but I thought this was a good, recent dialog. This won't do new lines, sorry about the links running into each other.
0 -
Milkman said:
Can anyone suggest a monograph or a full treatment on Romans 7?
mm.
Not a monograph or anything like that, but I found this interesting.
I created a visual filter to point out the first person singular pronouns in the Greek text (including those found in a reverse interlinear). As you may know the first person singular (Greek:ego; English "I, me, my,") is not usually necessary in Greek (though sometimes it is), and is often used for emphasis--to make a point. Looking at Rom 7:7-25 as compared to the surrounding text shows something I thought was very interesting (and can easily be missed in the English reading). I count 24 times in those verses (7:7-25) and just once in 5:1-7:6, and not at all in chapter 8 (where it seems to be replaced by sarx: "flesh"). Interestingly in chapter 8:1-17 "Spirit" is used 14 times, often in contrast with "flesh" (12X).
I'm not saying I fully understand what it all means, but I do think it's very significant. Though I haven't done the kind of study you're endeavoring to do on this passage, I didn't find anyone who found this as interesting as I did. I suppose that should give one pause. So if you do find an author who comments on this, I'd be interested in hearing about it, or reading the material myself.BTW, if you want to create a visual filter to check my results here's what I did:
- The visual filter to highlight the first person singular pronoun: @RP1?S
- The visual filter to highlight the Holy Spirit: <LouwNida = Louw Nida 12.18>
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I don't own the NICNT so I can't comment on whether he summarizes from it or not, but Encountering the Book of Romans is a great resource!
Here's a pic of one page on Romans 7
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw9u6PD-uOfSbFZ5d3FuNWE2NFU/view?usp=sharing
Milkman said:Would the book you suggested be a "summary" of his NICNT Romans?
Dave Hooton said:Encountering the Book of Romans (Douglas Moo) presents a theological survey of Romans 7
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
Rich DeRuiter said:
I created a visual filter to point out the first person singular pronouns in the Greek text (including those found in a reverse interlinear).
Personally use wavy superscript for plural and singular line superscript for singular:
Rich DeRuiter said:The visual filter to highlight the first person singular pronoun: @RP1?S
Morph Search shows singular pronoun usage (can be converted to visual filter):
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Rich DeRuiter said:Milkman said:
Can anyone suggest a monograph or a full treatment on Romans 7?
mm.
Not a monograph or anything like that, but I found this interesting.
I created a visual filter to point out the first person singular pronouns in the Greek text (including those found in a reverse interlinear). As you may know the first person singular (Greek:ego; English "I, me, my,") is not usually necessary in Greek (though sometimes it is), and is often used for emphasis--to make a point. Looking at Rom 7:7-25 as compared to the surrounding text shows something I thought was very interesting (and can easily be missed in the English reading). I count 24 times in those verses (7:7-25) and just once in 5:1-7:6, and not at all in chapter 8 (where it seems to be replaced by sarx: "flesh"). Interestingly in chapter 8:1-17 "Spirit" is used 14 times, often in contrast with "flesh" (12X).
I'm not saying I fully understand what it all means, but I do think it's very significant. Though I haven't done the kind of study you're endeavoring to do on this passage, I didn't find anyone who found this as interesting as I did. I suppose that should give one pause. So if you do find an author who comments on this, I'd be interested in hearing about it, or reading the material myself.BTW, if you want to create a visual filter to check my results here's what I did:
- The visual filter to highlight the first person singular pronoun: @RP1?S
- The visual filter to highlight the Holy Spirit: <LouwNida = Louw Nida 12.18>
That's a good way to study, far better than a commentary. There are more than 10 'views' on Rm 7.
My advice: add 'Law' (nomos) to your filters.
Study question: When was the "I" alive apart from the Law (Rm 7.9)?
Hans
MacOS Sierra / Logos 7 Collector's Edition & All Base Packages / Logos Now
0 -
Rich DeRuiter said:
I'm not saying I fully understand what it all means, but I do think it's very significant. Though I haven't done the kind of study you're endeavoring to do on this passage, I didn't find anyone who found this as interesting as I did. I suppose that should give one pause. So if you do find an author who comments on this, I'd be interested in hearing about it, or reading the material myself.
I did find some commenting on this as below
Try the Basic Search ""Personal pronoun" WITHIN {Milestone <Rom:7>}" and see what you find
0 -
The Perspectives on Rom 7 is an EXCELLENT resource
Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College0 -
I like the EBR resource. I used it last quarter for a survey of Romans I taught. However, it is WAY too Reformed flavored. I mean, not that I have a problem with people espousing such a view if they wish (hey, this is America, and we all have a right to be wrong if we wish, LOL [;)]).
But Moo seemed to see Reformation theology everywhere he looked, even when there really wasn't any need to flavor the text in such a way. It was frustrating to my students, even the ones who hold Reformed leanings. We actually got a few good laughs towards the end of the course about the text and Moo's ability to find Calvinism all over the place. We often joked about where he was going to find the next hint of Calvinism.
Just goes to show you...no matter how intelligent one is (and he sure IS intelligent) when our theological bias gets in the way, it can rally take us for a ride!
Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College0 -
Another possible resource is The Exegetical Summary by Abarnathy. See here https://www.logos.com/product/8136/an-exegetical-summary-of-romans-1-8-2nd-ed
It summarizes more common commentaries. It is quite useful, although a bit tricky to read. It could be real helpful.
I am pasting a part of the text as illustration
7:1 Or do-you-not-know,a brothers,b
LEXICON—a. pres. act. indic. of ἀγνοέω (LN 28.13) (BAGD 1. p. 11): ‘to not know’ [BAGD, BECNT, LN, NTC, WBC; KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV], ‘to be unaware’ [AB, LN], ‘to be ignorant’ [BAGD, NICNT], ‘to be ignorant of’ [LN]. In this rhetorical question the verb is translated ‘surely you know’ [NCV], ‘you surely cannot fail to know’ [HNTC], ‘don’t you realize’ [GW], ‘you must be aware’ [REB], ‘certainly you will understand’ [TEV], ‘you surely (understand enough about law) to know’ [CEV].
b. ἀδελφός (LN 11.23): ‘Christian brother, fellow believer’ [LN]. This plural noun is translated ‘brothers’ [AB, NTC, WBC; NIV], ‘my brothers’ [TEV], ‘brothers and sisters’ [BECNT, NICNT; GW, NCV, NET, NRSV], ‘dear brothers and sisters’ [NLT], ‘brethren’ [HNTC, ICC2; KJV, NASB], ‘my friends’ [CEV, REB]. The use of this word here indicates that he is about to introduce a sensitive subject [WBC], or that he is becoming emotionally involved [Mor], or that he is about employ a more familiar mode of teaching than he has used prior to this [Gdt].
QUESTION—To what previous issue is he returning with this question?
It refers to what he said in 6:14 about not being under law, but under grace [Gdt, HNTC, Ho, ICC2, Mor, Mu, NICNT, NTC, TNTC]. It refers back to the questions raised in 6:14–15 about the role of law in the life of a Christian [AB, NTC]. It returns to the discussion in 6:9 and 14 where the same verb ‘to rule’ was used of sin and death [WBC]. It also carries a step further the argument concerning Christian freedom and the law, which was introduced in 6:15–23 [BECNT, HNTC, NICNT].
for I-speak to-(ones)-knowinga (the) law,b
LEXICON—a. pres. act. participle of γινώσκω (LN 28.1) (BAGD 3.a. p. 161): ‘to know’ [AB, BAGD, BECNT, HNTC, ICC2, LN, NICNT, NTC, WBC; KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV], ‘to know about’ [TEV], ‘to have knowledge of’ [LN], ‘to have some knowledge of’ [REB], ‘to be acquainted with’ [LN], ‘to be familiar with’ [GW, NLT], ‘to understand’ [NCV], ‘to understand enough (to know that)’ [CEV].
b. νόμος (LN 33.55, 33.333) (BAGD 1., 3., p. 542): ‘law’ [LN (33.333)], ‘Law’ [LN (33.55)]. This noun lacks the definite article here. It is translated without the definite article: ‘law’ [AB, BAGD, LN (33.333), NTC; CEV, REB, TEV]; as though having the definite article ‘the law’ [HNTC, ICC2, NICNT, WBC; KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV]; as though referring specifically to the Torah: ‘the law of Moses’ [NCV], ‘the Mosaic law’ [BECNT], ‘Moses’ teachings’ [GW].
p 446 QUESTION—Is νόμος ‘law’ a reference to the Mosaic law or to law in general?
1. It is a reference to the Mosaic law [AB, BAGD, BECNT, Gdt, HNTC, Ho, ICC2, Mu, NICNT, NTC, WBC; GW, NCV]. All the previous references to the law have been to the Jewish Law and the readers would take this to be the same [WBC]. This statement would apply only to Jewish law [AB, HNTC, WBC], since Roman law allowed women to initiate divorce. The idea is a general one and not necessarily limited only to the Mosaic law, but here he speaks of the Mosaic law considered as revelation of the Jewish moral law [Ho].
2. It refers to law in general [ICC1, Mor, NAC, SSA, TH; CEV, REB, TEV]. He will articulate a general axiom that death clears all scores [Mor]. He is speaking of Jewish law certainly, but probably also Roman law as well [St].
QUESTION—Is Paul addressing only Jewish Christians?
Although the reference is to the Mosaic law, his comments are addressed to both Jewish and non-Jewish Christians [AB, BECNT, Gdt, HNTC, Ho, ICC2, Mu, NICNT, NTC, WBC]. It is likely that many, if not most, of the Gentile converts in Rome had been adherents of a synagogue prior to conversion and therefore knew the Jewish law [WBC]. At this stage of the argument he is not concerned with any specifically Jewish laws about marriage, but with a general principle that applies in all cultures [NICNT, TNTC], so it does not matter if the readers knew the Mosaic law or not [TNTC].
David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1-8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 445–446.0 -
Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics has some great insights on the grammatical issues involved in exegeting Romans 7. Take a look at the index at the back for the appropriate references.
0 -
Myke Harbuck said:
Just goes to show you...no matter how intelligent one is (and he sure IS intelligent) when our theological bias gets in the way, it can rally take us for a ride!
From those of us from a Reformed Perspective, we would say that the Biblical bias is what takes us for a ride. And therefore, because it is the Word takes us for a ride, it can bee seen as "our theological bias."
I don't find Moo to necessarily misconstrue the text at all.
FWIW, The Three Perspectives is very good, and worth the $3. I'd start there and dig deeper into journal articles afterwards.
0 -
Just last night I prepared an email for some family and friends recommending this iTunesU course from Biola.
CSAP 527: Hermeneutics & Bible Study Methods (Russell) [Video]
Biola University
Dr. Walt Russell includes two lectures on Romans 7 which I found to be unique and quite compelling. The earlier lecture which includes Galations serves as an introduction to his position on Romans 7.
0
