“But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good.”

“But I am carnal, sold under sin.”

“But what I hate, that do I.”

“Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

“For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

“Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

“I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.”

“0 wretched men that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" 

Looking at this chapter, as we find it with these statements in it, we ask the question, Was this Paul’s experience at the time he wrote this Scripture? Paul was a Christian from young manhood to old age, and this was written only a few years before his death. So, if it was his experience at the time of his writing it, then we may suppose it was his experience from first to last. The gist of the statements which he makes is this:

Sin wrought death in him; he was carnal and sold under sin; what he hated he did, because sin dwelt in him. He did not do the good that he ought to have done, but did the evil which he ought not. There was a law of sin in him which caused him to do thus. He cried out in misery, “0 wretched man that I am !"

We will compare these expressions with some of his other sayings, and see if there is harmony. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is a good method of interpretation. The Word, properly understood, does not contradict itself. If all those who claim that they do not believe in holiness would only take this into consideration it would marvelously help to clear away their doubts. Now for the comparisons.

“But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me,” etc. Compare this with Gal. 2:20:

“And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” This was some two years before he wrote the epistle to the Romans. He declares that he has life—spiritual life. How one can have life, and at the same time have spiritual death, is a mystery hard to solve.

“But I am carnal, sold under sin.” Then see Rom. 8:2: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” If one is sold under sin, by what process of reasoning can one make out that he is free from the same? When, a few years ago, they sold a Negro under slavery, was he at the same time free from slavery?

“But what I hate, that I do.” He says it was because sin dwelt in him. This sin caused him to do evil when he wanted to do good. He discovered that it was a law in him, which he called the law of sin, which brought all this about, and consequently, evil was an ever present factor in his life. How does this compare with I Thes. 2:10: “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe ?“ Notice also his dying testimony: “I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course;  I have kept the faith. ”Does this look like doing the things he hated; that sin was constantly working in him; that there was a law which kept him from doing what he wanted to do?

“0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?“ Did wretchedness mark the experience of Paul? Hear him:

“Yet always rejoicing.”—2 Cor. 6:10. We understand how one would be miserable had he to drag around with him a “body of death,” and continually to have his good motives thwarted by the evil which was ever present; but we fail to see how one at this same time could look up and say that he was always rejoicing. If he were to give both testimonies at the same time, we would certainly think he was mistaken in one of them. But, says one, “Paul did not give both these testimonies at the same time.” Now, we are getting at the truth of the thing. If we make Paul say that both these were his experiences throughout his Christian life, we certainly make him irreconcilably contradict himself. To make him say that this “wretched” experience was his at the time at which he wrote the epistle to the Romans, will cause the same contradiction. Does he not say in the sixth chapter, that “Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin ?“ Does he not say, “For he that is dead is freed from sin ?“ Does he not say, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?“ Again he says, “That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.” “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.” “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” Here we have diametric opposition in experience to the seventh chapter, and this all occurs in the preceding chapter. In the seventh he says that he was sold under sin; that sin dwelt in him and held the mastery over him. In the sixth he declares that the body of sin is destroyed; that the proper Christian experience is freedom from sin; that we may have our fruit unto holiness. Probably not more than an hour or two at the most elapsed between writing the two opposites. Now, the candid seeker after light will honestly look for an explanation of this, and not seek a refuge in something that will not enable him to pass muster at the judgment day.

The fact is, that the seventh chapter of Romans is a great parenthesis, thrown in. between the sixth and the eighth, no doubt for the benefit of the Jews, as he says at the beginning, “For I speak to them that know the law.” He does it to show ‘the weakness of human effort under the law to give a satisfactory experience, either in saving from sin or satisfying the soul. Whether he meant us to understand that it was his actual experience, trying to obey God under the law without grace, or that he uses the first person singular simply as an illustration of one’s experience in that condition, is immaterial;  the lesson is the same. In the fifth verse of this same chapter he says: “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin (sinful  passions, R. V.) which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” In the eighth chapter and eighth verse he tells us, “They that are in the flesh (un­regenerate state) cannot please God.” Here we have an explanation to the whole chapter. Coupling these statements with the thirteenth verse, where he says that sin worked death in him, shows beyond any question of doubt that: he is describing the case of one “in the flesh” under the law. Not that he was in the flesh at the time of that writing, for he says, as just quoted, “For when we were in the flesh,” showing here past experience. Being  in the flesh, he had the experience of death worked in him, and, of course, could not please God. So in that condition he found evil present with him; the things that he hated he did; he was a wretched man, and cries out for deliverance. But, says one, in describing the experience of this chapter, he makes use of the present tense, which shows that it is his experience at the time of writing. And we have just proved that he uses in the fifth verse the past tense, describing the same experience, which is conclusive evidence that he is referring to his past experience. To say the least, it is an offset to the present tense argument. Does Paul contradict himself? By no means. His purpose is to impress this solemn fact upon the readers. He is a wise writer, and a great scholar from a human point of view. But when inspired by the Holy Spirit, his wisdom cannot be questioned. We want to call attention to the place where he changes the tense, and why. In describing his past experience he gives in the thirteenth verse his closing reason for this awful condition. Now, having made it plain that sin was in him; that the law revealed things in a clearer light; and that human effort was inadequate to the occasion, he puts it down as an inevitable result that such  state would follow, and, simply to make it more forcible, he changes to the present tense in the fourteenth verse, and says, “I am carnal, sold under sin.” That is, under the conditions above described in the chapter, “I am carnal, sold under sin.” Then follows a vivid and impressive account of the distressed state of such a man. Do we not resort to the same method of employing the present tense for the purpose of emphasis? Perhaps the familiar rule of speech obtained in his day: “Habitual truths are in the present tense,” increasing the force. Suppose I should take the same plan in describing my experience to a friend; would he misunderstand me and say it was my experience at time of writing? Let us see. “My Dear Friend:

“I want to tell you a bit of my experience. There was a time in my life when I thought I was good enough. I was unawakened, and was living a good moral life. But under the preaching of the Word I saw my uncleanlinness and sinfulness. I was all right before the light shone upon my path, but when the light came my sinfulness was revealed, and I found myself in a state of death. I try again to do good, but I cannot. The things I hate I find myself doing. It is the sin that dwells in me that causes the whole trouble. I find myself in a sad condition. “0 wretched man that I am !“ Who shall bring about my deliverance? Thank God I have found the way; it is through Jesus Christ my Lord. There is therefore now no condemnation in my experience, for the Lord has taken it all away, and enables me to walk no more in the old sinful state."