Text:
Romans 7:5, "For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death"
Greek: οτε γαρ ημεν εν τη σαρκι τα παθηματα των αμαρτιων τα δια του νομου ενηργειτο εν τοις μελεσιν ημων εις το καρποφορησαι τω θανατω
I thought it would be interesting to discuss this text.
What about v4 that talks about bearing fruit to God. Seems that both of these phrases are in some way similar, our marriage to Christ and the law arousing our sinful passions. Both of them produce something.
And I think v8 can shed some light on this. If I can take liberty to rearrange the word order, "[B ]taking opportunity by the commandment[/B ], [U ]sin produced in me all manner of evil desire.[/U ]" And he also says in v7 he would not have known sin without the law. Actually, v7-11 seems to help explain it. And so it seems knowing what is sin (by the law) arouses our sinful nature. Kindof how he says in v9 when the law came sin revived and he died.
I could be completely off, so I am completely open to better ideas.
Some take the "law arousing sinful passions" as a connection to the Bar Mitzvah (Paul was once alive "apart from the law" but when the "commandment came...").
The Law (and being of age to be held responsible to observe it) seems to have stirred up the sinful passions that were there all the time (or working in a state of covert espionage). The Law exposed those sinful passions and brought them to the surface. They could not longer be ignored in ignorance, and the very condemnation of sinful ways brought them to mind and made them more tempting.
I think there is more than that Paul is saying, but I think he is saying at least that.
Also, connected to that is possibly the implication that when he became of age to observe the Law (13), the changes in his body also brought new temptations to light. that the Law regulated. I think more thought needs to be given to that angle.
From a mother's perspective: We're all born with a sinful nature - right? If a 2-year-old child sees some cookies on the counter he may take one and then later when his mommy asks him where he got it, he will, without shame, say, "From the plate on the counter. They're really good, too!" He's unashamed because there was no known rule about not taking any. Was it "sinful" for him to take it. I don't think so. It may have been "rude" because he should've asked first, but it was not "sinful"... BUT... change the scenerio: If the mommy says to little junior, "Now, don't take any of these cookies," then the child will most likely think of precious little else than how to get one of those delicacies! They may be clear up on the top shelf, even, and he will do all he can to sneak one anyway: pull a chair to the counter, climb up onto the counter, climb the shelves like a ladder, and reach up to the top shelf to get a cookie. And when caught in the act of getting the forbidden cookie, he may say, "Little sister wants a cookie," shamefully trying to shift the blame to an infant who doesn't even have any teeth yet and/or make himself look like the good, caring big brother!!! Did the boy sin? Undoubtedly yes, in disobeying his mother by stealing a cookie, and in telling a lie to try to cover his guilt... In both these scenerios, the boy got a cookie - the only difference is that it was sinful when his mother had told him not to.
We're ALL the same no matter what age we are: When we live in the flesh, we are bound to do what we shouldn't and/or not do what we should. Only by living in the spirit can we overcome our sinful passions.
I think that you are close to the meaning. For example, let's say a group of (not Christian of course *wink*) Jr. High students are sitting in a classroom. The teacher walks in and says, "I have to take care of something for a few moments. While I'm gone, nobody better touch anything on my desk." He walks out. Now, until he had said that, probably none of the students had paid any attention to the desk. It's boring stuff - papers, coffee mug, briefcase, etc. But now, the more mischievous ones will plot how they can mess with the desk without the teacher noticing. Take a pen perhaps or turn that stack of papers the other direction? Because of the clarity of the commandment, the desire to act out found a clear expression.
In keeping with Paul's earlier thoughts in Romans, we can understand this passage as the subjective apprehension of the evangelistic use of the law spoken of in Rom. 1-3. We know that Paul does not think he was really spiritually alive before the law, for he states in Eph. 2 that we are dead in trespasses and sins. However, it is possible he thought himself to be spiritually alive before his true Christian understanding of the law came (remember, he was "blameless" as far as the Pharisees' law (Phil. 3)). That law only served to exacerbate his sinful nature, causing him to be aware of his sin. Then, he understood himself to be dead. However, the law cannot give life; its purpose is to (subjectively) bring death.
In this passage, I think we need to see Paul speaking more theologically than autobiographically. He is speaking of the experience of every Christian, including himself through the first person pronoun.
In this passage, I think we need to see Paul speaking more theologically than autobiographically. He is speaking of the experience of every Christian, including himself through the first person pronoun.
Well, I think it might be better to say Paul is referring to his personal experience with the assumption that others experience the same sort of thing. Sin's arousal, in his case, may have been his Bar Mitzvah, but, Bar Mitzvah or no, sin is aroused is us all.
