Romans 7 man

[Moses]

I wrote a short article on my blog on the Romans 7 man -- I believe the view I present is much different then the common view and current debate on the topic, but I believe it to be exegetical.
I am posting it here to see if I can get some comments and debate on the topic of "The Romans 7 Man"


The Romans 7 man is a man whom Paul refers to in the first person whose struggling with the law of God and with sin. Much debate has gone on throughout Christendom as to whether or not Paul in his example is referring to himself as a ‘saved’ man or as an ‘unsaved’ man. I believe most of these debates come from a sincere, but overly individualistic, comparison of one’s self with Paul. We force ourselves into this text because it is so easy to relate to Paul here. But the fact is that none of us can relate to Paul here except perhaps in a peripheral way.

First off Paul is not writing to us. Apart from the obvious that he was only writing to those who lived in 1st century Rome; he was specifically at this point in Romans writing to his fellow Jewish brothers. Paul states in Romans 7:1 'Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law.' Not only does Paul state to whom he is speaking, but he also draws his fellow brothers into the Romans 7 man when he references their second temple Judaist soteriology. Romans 7:10 'The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.' The promise of life through the Torah was in Paul’s day the teaching of the Rabbis.

Here is a quote that promotes an idea that Paul and his audience would familiar with.


Why are the words of Torah compared to a Prince? To tell you that just as a prince has the power to put to death and to grant life, so do the words of Torah have the power to put to death and to grant life. – Talmud Shabbat 88b

Paul and his Jewish brothers were soaked in the idea of ‘life through the Law/Torah’. Not ‘life’ in the idea of simple biological existence, but life in its fullest sense–life in its COVENANTAL sense. Their mode of existence was a covenantal mode of existence where they related to the whole world, and especially to God, through the Torah. There was covenantal relationship and life only through the Torah. The Romans 7 man is a man who lives in this mode of existence. We Gentile Christians have no idea what is like to live in ‘this world’ where God’s righteousness is based on his keeping Covenant with man and man’s righteousness is based on keeping covenant with God through Torah observance.

Paul then establishes from the Romans 7 man the fault of that mode of existence. He does this while still upholding the holiness and goodness of the law (which is fitting considering his audience). Without going into a verse by verse exegesis of this portion of scripture we can clearly draw out of the text that it is not the Torah that is the problem, but the sinful nature of man. Though the law of God is good, man is sinful and even though there is a desire to keep the law, there is along with that desire the desire to do evil. At this point we modern day gentiles will want to jump in and try to personally relate. Though we may relate to the desire to do evil, this is not Paul’s purpose in speaking to his Jewish brothers, i.e., simply stating mankind’s general inclination towards evil.

Paul’s desire to do ‘good’ under the Torah, while giving way to the evil he does not want to do statements are consistent with Judaist teachings. This is a concept that Paul would have understood from his youth, having been taught under the Rabbi Gamaliel. The Rabbis taught the people that along with Torah, there is a God ordained 'evil inclination' (their term). Through the Torah is life, but the ‘evil inclination’ is a harasser of those who pursue this life.


'A man’s inclination attacks him every day and seeks to put him to death, as it is said, 'the wicked watches for the righteous; seeking to put him to death' (Psalm 37:32), and if it were not for the Holy One who helps him, he could not withstand it' B.Suk. 52b

In this midrash, the 'wicked' who is on the lookout for an opportunity to kill the righteous is not another person, rather, the 'wicked' is a person’s own nature continually waging war against him (that is the Rabbis interpretation of the Psalm). The help that comes from the Holy One is the Torah, but the ‘evil inclination’ is not taken away rather it is just soothed as medicine soothes a soar, but the soar will always remain.


'Why is the Torah likened to life giving medicine? This can be compared to the case of a man who struck his son with a huge blow and put a compress on his wound. He said to him, 'my son, so long as this compress is on your wound, eat whatever you like and drink, and bathe in hot or cold water, and you need not be afraid. But If you take it off, it will break into soars.' Thus the Holy One said to Israel, 'My son, I created the evil inclination; I created Torah as its antidote. If you occupy yourselves with Torah, you will not be delivered into its power. . .'' b. Qidd. 30b

Now alongside this ‘evil inclination’ is also the ‘good inclination.’ Here is one more quote from the Rabbis.


'A person should always incite his Good Inclination against his Evil Inclination, as it is written, 'So tremble and sin no more.' If he is victorious over it, well and good. If not, let him occupy himself with Torah.' B. Ber. 5a
Perhaps this Judaistic concept is precisely what Paul is referring to (which his audience would be familiar with) when he says 'For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing' (Rom. 7:18). Paul understands that he must ‘incite his Good inclination against his evil inclination’, but he just can’t do it. And even though he has the Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination, and even though he does occupy himself with Torah (delighting in it as he says), it is not working. In fact the Torah, which promises life, is proving to be death to him (Rom. 7:10). This is where Paul dramatically departs from the Rabbis. But Paul provides something much better in their place.



this is part 1 - you can read part 2 on my blog if you want (listed in my signature line)

[joel]

Paul is the apostle to the nations, the uncircumcision. His letters are to the nations.

He is talking to "Those who know the law"........you claim that these are the Jews, and therefore he is not talking to Gentiles.......

Gentiles don't know law? He previously stated that to those of the nations who do by nature the things written in the law are a law unto themselves.

The law of Moses was given specifically to Israel. But law.......is given to all. Love God with all your heart.....and your neighbor as yourself. This is the fulfillment of the law as given to all people, not just Jews.

And what is ....."second temple Judaist soteriology"? Are you saying that this what Paul is speaking of.......?

When I attempt to do good, whether as a Gentile believer....or a Jewish believer......the commandment.....the specific instructions as how to love others.....causes sin to revive, and puts me under its rule again,.....and rations out death......not life. You are stating that this only applies to the Jew.

Sin is revived.........it doesn't say....."sinful nature". This is an erroneous teaching. Man's nature is not sinful. It is sin within him that is working its law. Read chapter 7 again, and try to hold back your bias.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Paul is the apostle to the nations, the uncircumcision. His letters are to the nations.

Hey there Joel,

Glad you found time to stop by.

I'm confused by your statement. It appears you are asserting that Paul's letters were written exclusively to the Gentiles. Simple grammar shows that Paul was speaking to Jews in Romans 2. He referred to the Gentiles in the third person as "they" whereas he referred to his readers as Jews in the second person as "thou":
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles [3rd person], which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves [3rd p]: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their [3rd p] hearts, their [3rd p] conscience also bearing witness, and their [3rd p] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 17 Behold, thou [2nd p] art called a Jew [Paul is talking directly to the Jews here], and restest in the law, and makest thy [2nd p] boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law [only the Jews were instructed out of the law]; 19 And art confident that thou thyself [2nd p] art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou [2nd p] therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself [2nd p]? thou [2nd p] that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou [2nd p] steal? 22 Thou [2nd p] that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou [2nd p] commit adultery? thou [2nd p] that abhorrest idols, dost thou [2nd p] commit sacrilege? 23 Thou [2nd p] that makest thy [2nd p] boast of the law [only Jews boast in the law], through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you [2nd p], as it is written [concerning the blasphemy of the Jews!].
Do you see how this works Joel? Paul spoke of the Gentiles as "them" in the third person while speaking explicitly to the Jews as "thou" in the second person.

There are many other passages where it is clear that Paul was writing his letters to both Jews and Gentiles. I know of nothing in the Bible that suggests Paul was writing only to the Gentiles. If you have some evidence supporting your position, please share it with us.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Moses,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

It's great that you are here. You obviously have much to offer.

I am familiar with the two "inclinations" known in Jewish tradition as Yetzer HaTov and Yetzer HaRa, but I don't see those Rabbinic metaphysical constructs supported by Scripture, in either the Old or New Testaments. Sure, Paul's discussion in Romans 7 has some "similarity" in that it speaks of good and evil inclinations, but that does not seem sufficient to import the entire Rabbinical metaphysical system and the associated traditions like God "creating" the evil inclination and giving the Torah as a "medicine" for it. Did Paul ever talk of the Torah as a medicine for sin? NEVER! On the contrary, he said that if there were a law (Torah) that could give life, then righteousness would have been by the Law rather than by faith:
Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
It is also important to remember that the idea of life from the Torah was not unique to first century Judaism. On the contrary, it was derived directly from Scripture (Lev 18:5) and then contrasted the Gospel of justification by faith:
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them (Lev 18:5).
I don't see anything specific to first century or Talmudic Judaism in Paul's argument.

So there you go! You asked for a debate .... :p

All the best,

Richard

[joel]

Richard, the discussion as presented by Moses, centers on the viewpoint that Romans 7, with its vital discussion concerning the law, and the law's effect on sin's rule within us, is only to the Jews, as they were the only ones who had the law.

The first verse is addressed to brothers.........the ones who know law and how it is applicable to all under it as long as they live.

To say that this verse only speaks to Jews.........since they were the actual "brothers" of Paul......and.....since they were exclusively given the law of Moses........is to limit its scope.......and is therefore not applicable to us, the Gentiles.

You took us back to Romans 2 and diverted the conversation. It is obvious in Romans 2 that Paul differentiates between the Gentile and the Jew. To say that this differentiation holds true in Romans 7 is simply not true, and when it is presented as truth, it must be challenged.

Romans 7 is written to Paul's brothers.....which includes you, as a Gentile believer, and anyone who may believe as a Jew.

Can you discuss the truths of Romans 7 from the perspective of applying to all.....not just to some?

Joel

[Moses]

A couple of thoughts.

First - I think we give first century gentiles far too little credit. They were just a bunch of ignorant heathens, right? They new nothing of the Torah, or the Monotheistic and Jewish worldview, right? The argument that Paul was speaking to gentiles and was thus not speaking from his 'judaistic' background and world view completely misses the historical bearing in bible exegesis. 1st century gentiles were probably more familiar with the 'jewish' world view, 2nd temple Judaism, etc. then any bible scholar of today would be. They lived in a world where the temple in Jerusalem was the center of the empire (all trade routes went through Jerusalem), there were not only synagogues in many cities but there was, what many historians call, the greatest missionary movement in world history...this 'movement' was due to the translation of the Hebrew bible into the Greek language (the Septuagint). Add in influence resulting from the diaspora, political movements, gentile converts becoming missionaries of Judaism, etc. and you have a gentile world very familiar with, and influenced by, 2nd temple Judaism.
This is clearly seen in the scriptures as well. Paul battled with this stuff all the time with the gentiles who saw themselves as becoming Jews in their conversion to Christ. There was circumcision, torah observance, feast observance, etc. by many of the gentile churches. And, for those who did not ‘give in’ to circumcision, it could be said that many gentiles probably converted to Christ, because it was an easier way of becoming a ‘Jew.’ And becoming a ‘Jew’ for a ‘God-fearer’ gentile was very important. Why? Because if they became a ‘Jew’ they then belonged to the only ‘group’ in the empire with the legal status and special privilege of being free from emperor worship and offerings, (this of course changed for Christians, who were originally seen as jews, under Nero).

Second – I hope that my article does not come across that I am advocating that Paul was specifically teaching ‘Judaist soteriology’ or ‘talmudic Judaism’ itself as the truth. Rather, he was teaching from that perspective, background, and history, because he was himself a part of that history. Again he is not teaching the rabbinic metaphysical system itself as truth---only that he is from that background, in that history, AND so are his hearers! He is teaching from within the world of which he and his audience live (gentiles included).
Paul is an inspired man, but still just a man. To take Paul out of his historical background, to remove all prejudice and bias, sociological standing, worldview, social convention, influence, etc. is to remove him from his humanity. Paul lived, walked, talked, breathed, and taught his doctrine within time and space, and to others in the same time and space.

Third – I believe Paul is operating within his cultural context as a Jew, but, he uses it not in simply a relational way, but also to ‘enlighten’ his fellow Jews (and gentiles who are familiar the same world view). He takes what ‘he’ and ‘they’ both know, and then brings in the TRUTH. . . He uses what they both mutually agree on, and then progresses to something ‘higher’. For example- The Romans 7 man—he is specifically ‘jewish’ in nature…Paul’s Jewish brothers know what Paul is talking about, and know that this ‘romans 7 man’ is consistent with their ‘jewish’ world view. Paul relates to them a truth they agree on, and then progresses. It is the small details in Romans 7 and the entirety of Romans 8 that bring in ‘New Revelation’. Romans 7 man is essentially Jewish, Romans 8 man is something 'new' to the jews.

I will post part 2 next. I think it will help.

Also, Joel, you asked about ‘Judaist soteriology’—I will post the basic teaching of what the soteriology of the jews (and Paul pre conversion. . . but still influenced by) was.

[Moses]

And what is ....."second temple Judaist soteriology"? Are you saying that this what Paul is speaking of.......?
fyi

The dominate soteriology in Palestinian Judaism was:

1.God has graciously chosen Israel as his people
2.He gave them the law, which implies …
3.God’s promise to maintain the election, and …
4.The requirement to obey
5.God rewards obedience and punishes transgression
6.The law provides for means of atonement, which results in …
7.Maintain or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship
8.All those who are kept in the covenant by God’s mercy, atonement, and [intended] obedience belong to the group which will be saved.

This 'system' would have been ingrained in Paul. But, post conversion he then views these things (filters them) through the 'Christ event'.

[joel]

Moses,
refrain for awhile, if you can, from the discussion that the Romans 7 man is seeing the world through Jewish lenses, who must be intimately familiar with the "law" as given to Israel, and it is this law of which he speaks..............
please give me some of your thoughts concerning verse 2........where Paul doesn't speak of a man at all........but describes a woman under a man.

Paul uses this illustration to begin his discussion in chapter 7.

Who is this woman? And how do the Roman Gentiles..........as well as the Roman Jews who were among the called out ones.........relate to this part of his discussion?

Joel

[Rose]

Moses,
refrain for awhile, if you can, from the discussion that the Romans 7 man is seeing the world through Jewish lenses, who must be intimately familiar with the "law" as given to Israel, and it is this law of which he speaks..............
please give me some of your thoughts concerning verse 2........where Paul doesn't speak of a man at all........but describes a woman under a man.

Paul uses this illustration to begin his discussion in chapter 7.

Who is this woman? And how do the Roman Gentiles..........as well as the Roman Jews who were among the called out ones.........relate to this part of his discussion?

Joel

Hi Joel,

It's hard to divert ones eyes away from the "Jewish lens" and still retain the image that Paul is painting for us....for he speaks to them who "know the law". The Jewish customs of marriage and the Law were wrapped up together in the Jewish mind; it was what they were taught from youth....the Gentile mind did not necessarily think in these terms because they were not raised with the same customs.

The reason Paul was using the marriage metaphor was because it was clearly understandable to the Jewish brethren he was speaking to, they lived it in their everyday lives. Under Jewish law the woman was bound to her husband in marriage, and only loosed by his death....so Paul could use their familiarity with the Jewish law to state that those who are bound by the law are now freed by the death of the body of Christ, thus being released to become his bride.

Blessings,
Rose

[Moses]

Hey Joel,
I think ROSE did an excellent job in answering your question concerning the 'woman'... hopefully it was satisfactory for you. Do you have something to add on the example of marriage from the law found in the example of the woman in Romans 7:2 ?

Below is part 2 of my Romans 7 man article.

Part 2 -

From looking at Paul (within his Judaist worldview as the Romans 7 man), in part one, we may find ourselves asking the question 'What sin or evil deed was Paul specifically struggling with?' The ‘evil inclination’ was clearly part of his life—he did not simply subdue it permanently with the Torah. So, what ‘evil inclinations’ under the life of the Torah did Paul struggle with, what was Paul’s sin(s)? Was he a habitual coveter, or perhaps he was once an adulterer or luster, maybe he was, as someone once suggested in a bible study I attended, a habitual ‘dog kicker’? One thing we do know is that Paul was not without sin, that he may have with his mind coveted his neighbor’s house, or possessions, but, as regards to the Law as covenant Paul was blameless. Paul was not a habitual Law breaker; in fact he had a righteousness of his own under the Law.


For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. . . having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law. (Philippians 3:4-9)

Paul had reason to boast in the flesh (i.e., human will, power, and exertion). He, being blameless, had done everything right; sort of speak, under the Law. According to his own will and strength under the law he was righteous. This sounds a little different than the Romans 7 man on the surface, but I think if we get into it a little deeper we will see the connection. I believe the conduit for the connection is the ‘deceitfulness of sin.’ A surface reading of the Romans 7 text may lead us to believe that the law psychologically stimulates man to disobedience. There is in this the thought that the commandment which forbids a certain practice will actually stimulate a man’s desire to break that commandment. This though, which may in fact be true (especially as is seen in small children), is missing not only Paul’s point in Romans 7, but Paul’s entire gospel message as regarding the Law. Sin is much more deceitful than this.

I believe that the thrust of the problem here is not even the disobedience itself (though that should not be dismissed), but something much deeper as concerning Paul and his Jewish audience. At the heart of Paul’s gospel message is this statement 'Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.' (Romans 9:31). Disobedience is not the problem here, but rather Israel’s striving after righteousness by means of Law observance, i.e., ‘works’. This is the ‘deceitfulness of sin’ which had deceived the Romans 7 man, who is really in a way a picture of Israel. We have already seen in part 1 that Torah observance was the way in which a Jew was to pursue life according to the Rabbis interpretation(s). This pursuit of life by works was not only brought about because of sin, but was condemned as sinful itself. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. In this is revealed the sinfulness of sin, that even in the pursuit of Law observance they became guilty of sin.

Thus the question 'what was Paul’s evil inclination?' is answered–not in a personal way for him alone, but for all of Israel. The Rabbis teaching, that the cure for the ‘evil inclination’ of man is Torah observance, has itself become the problem—it is actually the most deceitful part of the ‘evil inclination’ and causes the ‘sore’ of which they spoke to become gangrened rather than soothed. Paul’s (and the Rabbis and the Jews) perverted use of the Law of God was the sinfulness of sin (the great ‘evil inclination’). Not only did healing not take place through their use of the law, as they expected, but rather death. The Torah slew Paul (Romans 7:11) because the deceitfulness of sin lured him into a perverted use of the law, i.e., pursuing life by means of law observance based on human power and performance. The Romans 7 man now finds himself in a very big dilemma. He cannot disobey Torah, because this is sin, but he cannot obey Torah either, because of sin. He has found himself within a corporate body of death (sin) in which there does not seem to be a way of escape (i.e., resurrection).

[joel]

Rose, there is no dispute as to the strictness of the Jewish law, and in this case, the law as it applied to marriage.

But marriage came before the law which was given to Moses. Law, as it applied to marriage, was given in the garden when the first couple was joined together.

I am only trying to get Moses, and you as well, to take off those glasses which focus only on the law of Moses.......and attempt to look away from "the law" as given to the Jews, and see if what Paul is saying applies to us......who is the woman? Please do not interject......."she is a Jewish woman who is married to a Jewish man who are both under the law of Moses".

She is a "hup-andros", a word that was applicable to Greek speaking people.

Can you see an application beyond the Jewish Law/Law of Moses that you and Moses are applying? Yes, or No.......

Joel

[Moses]

But marriage came before the law which was given to Moses. Law, as it applied to marriage, was given in the garden when the first couple was joined together.

I am only trying to get Moses, and you as well, to take off those glasses which focus only on the law of Moses.......and attempt to look away from "the law"

Joel. . . well it is still going to be hard for me to take those 'glasses' off-
Even your proof text about 'mariage' originating in the garden is going to force me to keep the glasses on. Why?
Because, your appeal to 'the garden of eden' story IS an appeal to the Law of Moses itself The genesis marriage IS the Law of Moses. You recieved the 'gensis story' from the Hebrew canon and the law of Moses.

[joel]

Then, Moses, your answer to the question....."Can you see an application beyond the Jewish Law/Law of Moses that you and Moses are applying? Yes, or No".......is "No". Thanks, Joel

[Rose]

Rose, there is no dispute as to the strictness of the Jewish law, and in this case, the law as it applied to marriage.

But marriage came before the law which was given to Moses. Law, as it applied to marriage, was given in the garden when the first couple was joined together.

I am only trying to get Moses, and you as well, to take off those glasses which focus only on the law of Moses.......and attempt to look away from "the law" as given to the Jews, and see if what Paul is saying applies to us......who is the woman? Please do not interject......."she is a Jewish woman who is married to a Jewish man who are both under the law of Moses".

She is a "hup-andros", a word that was applicable to Greek speaking people.

Can you see an application beyond the Jewish Law/Law of Moses that you and Moses are applying? Yes, or No.......

Joel

Hi Joel,

Moses stated it very well when he said: "Because, your appeal to 'the Garden of Eden' story IS an appeal to the Law of Moses itself. The Genesis marriage IS the Law of Moses. You received the 'Genesis story' from the Hebrew canon and the law of Moses.".

Most of the Gentiles that Paul spoke to would have been unfamiliar with the details of the Jewish law, whereas today we can read the Old Testament Scriptures and understand fully what Paul is speaking of when he uses the marriage metaphor so we can see its application beyond the Jewish law.

Blessings,
Rose

[joel]

Rose,
Then your answer is "No" as well.

Neither you, nor Moses, see any application of Paul's Romans' 7 discussion beyond the application of the Law of Moses.

Further, neither of you demonstrated any curiousity or interest in whether or not I, or anyone else, connected with a possible different application.

I would conclude then that, as for the two of you, you are settled comfortably in your opinion as to its applicability.

Who is the woman in the text? Your answer would be......A Jewish wife of a Jewish man both of which are under the law of Moses.

One more question.......when the text speaks of the "law of the husband"....what is that? It is again......the Law of Moses?

Joel

[Moses]

I think the 'application' comes in Romans 8. . . The transformation from Old Covenant mode of existence under the Law (Romans 7), to a resurrected new man in a New Covenant mode of existence in Christ...'The Romans 8 man'..

Joel, I think you are look for something WE modern day christians can relate to...Well, it is Romans 8. We are brought directly into the new covenant, through Christ...Where as Paul and his brothers, were in the old covenant mode of existence (we never were). Death, to the old code, was working through them, that life may work in us (2 Corinth 4:2).
Those Jews under the OC needed to be 'born again'--they were born once into the covenant, but in Christ they needed to be born again into the new.
Modern day gentiles steal this term 'born again' and relate it to themseleves.
Gentiles did not need to be 'born again'--gentiles were never born the first time (they were dead in sin outside of the covenant), thus, they did not need to be born 'again', they just needed to be born the first time.

No, we do not relate to, nor is it applicable to us, a life under old covenant mode of existence..BUT, just because we don't relate does not mean we can't learn from it.
That is what the bible is. Scripture records redemptive history, not world history or profane/secular history. From beginning to end scripture records the redemptive history of Israel. The Hebrew Moses begins the story and the Hebrew Apostle John ends the story. The bible contains a completed redemptive historical narrative. The narrative is set within a covenantal framework.

For example, The Exodus event is past, and it was not directly related to me or you..but we can surely learn from it, and praise yhwh for what he has done. Scripture does not have to be written directly to us for it to be of beneifit.

[joel]

For example, The Exodus event is past, and it was not directly related to me or you..but we can surely learn from it, and praise yhwh for what he has done. Scripture does not have to be written directly to us for it to be of beneifit.

Is there is not a reality for us, as believers today, that the Exodus shadows? Or is the Exodus story merely a narrative history to teach us something?

Joel

[Moses]

Is there is not a reality for us, as believers today, that the Exodus shadows? Or is the Exodus story merely a narrative history to teach us something?

Joel

Of course there is a reality for us believers today...We are living in 'the age to come' we are living in the glory of the New Covenant coram Deo!
The redemptive history in the bible is the history of how WE came to be living coram Deo.

[joel]

So then,......there is an equivalent truth for us as concerning Exodus......but.......not so concerning Romans 7?

We are delivered from the wrath of our sins, covered by the blood of Christ, just as the Israelites were delivered from Egypt, their doorposts covered by the blood of the sacrificial lambs.

What I am asking you is......what specific applicability does the woman in Romans 7 have for us? What is the corresponding truth?

Joel

[Moses]

So then,......there is an equivalent truth for us as concerning Exodus......but.......not so concerning Romans 7?

Exodus is a historical narrative, Romans 7 is didactic..What do you mean by 'equivalent truth' for us? Are you asking if a particular metaphyscial reality for 'them' is true, then would not that metaphysical reality also be true for us?



What I am asking you is......what specific applicability does the woman in Romans 7 have for us? What is the corresponding truth?

Israel was free from her marriage contract to the law because a death had taken place--she was now free to marry another.
How does this apply to us?
Well, we gentiles are reaping the benefits of that truth..(see Romans 11:11-15). We Gentiles are reaping salvation and resurrection because of what God has done for Israel.

note: now if your wanting some sort of direct application for us---rather then just the benefits of the metaphysical reallity--then I can give you one (though I do not believe the text supporrts such an application). ok-- Just as Israel was free from the Torah as a way of covenant because a death took place and was free to marry another--so we gentiles might consider ourselves free from a marriage to 'sin' (satan/godlessness) as law, being a death has taken place, we are free to marry another, namely Christ.

[joel]

note: now if your wanting some sort of direct application for us---rather then just the benefits of the metaphysical reallity--then I can give you one (though I do not believe the text supporrts such an application). ok-- Just as Israel was free from the Torah as a way of covenant because a death took place and was free to marry another--so we gentiles might consider ourselves free from a marriage to 'sin' (satan/godlessness) as law, being a death has taken place, we are free to marry another, namely Christ.
__________________

Now I believe you are approaching closer to the truth that Paul was presenting in Romans 7.

However, our marriage, as the woman in the illustration, was not to sin.....but, was to our old humanity that was crucified in Romans 6. That truth........our old humanity was crucified together with Christ, so that henceforth we should not serve sin....that the body of sin would be rendered idle......
is followed by the illustration by Paul that we, as believers, are now free from the old husband, our humanity from Adam, as to our being joined to him and following his law, the law of sin.

The vital issue is; our old humanity was crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6)......palios anthropos.
And......because this is so.....which we must know, and reckon and yield accordingly.......we.....are.....compared to a married woman in Romans 7.....who is subject to the law of her husband....as long as he lives (and....he continues to live until such time as the truth is applied by faith in God's word and we see ourselves crucified together with Christ).

This is beyond any cultural considerations. It matters not whether I am a Jewish woman, or a Greek woman, or a man of either group.....it applies to me as an individual, living now in this age.
To insist that it applies only to a select part of humanity is to take away from the truth of Romans 6.

No one can live in Romans 8 without first passing through Romans 6, and 7 and get down to the truths that Paul is presenting, not some fanciful theory concerning the Law of Moses that only applied to the Jews.

Moses, do you have any writings on Romans 6 that would help in clarifying your understanding of that pivotal section of Paul's letter?

Joel