Introduction:
As we get to the 7th verse of Romans 7, we make our entrance onto an interpretive battlefield.
We talked about it two weeks ago, but this chapter has an interesting history of interpretation. There are some important questions we have to answer when we come to the following verses.
Is Paul describing his own experience, or is he using himself to talk about ANYONE’S experience?
Is this Paul’s experience pre-conversion or post-conversion?
Is his main point to give voice to his frustrated desire for complete holiness, or is there some other point that he is advancing?
I’m convinced that if we hear what Paul writes here, IN IT’S CONTEXT — IF WE KEEP TRACKING WITH THE APOSTLE, then we will see that he’s advancing a tremendously important and logical argument concerning the law and its inability to save or sanctify apart from the Spirit of God and faith in Christ.
Remember, you are either in the flesh or in the Spirit. And when someone is “in the flesh” they meet, not only with the law’s pronouncements, but a certain power that the law exerts upon unregenerate and sinful human nature. The law actually INCREASES sinning.
The only answer to that operation of the law upon human beings is the new birth. It is freedom from the law and union with Jesus Christ. Nothing else will do, if there is to be fruit for God, except life in the Spirit.
He is, then, telling us certain things about the law, and at the same time, telling us especially important things about unregenerate human nature.
That is the context for what we find that follows those first 6 verses.
To say it another way, I think people often misunderstand Romans 7 because they lift the chapter out of its context and they hear what Paul writes, NOT FOR THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT THAT HE’S ADVANCING, but through the grid of their own emotions as they struggle against sin and desire complete holiness.
For them, Romans 7 is the chapter they go to when they want to think about their frustration with sin. For them it represents Paul giving voice to a struggle that we all know in our desire for holiness. But what I’m saying, and what I believe we will see together, is that that is not Paul’s aim. Rather, he is explaining, and personifying, the very points that he made in verses 5 and 6.
THIS IS ABOUT THE PERFECT GOODNESS OF THE LAW OF GOD, BUT THE WEAKNESS OF THE FLESH THAT REQUIRES MORE THAN THE LAW — IF THERE IS TO BE FRUIT FOR GOD.
So, let’s follow the apostle here.
He says that while we were living in the flesh, the law did not transform our desires. The law agitated our desires. The result of our exposure to the law was not life. Our lives went on exhibiting the fruit of spiritual death (vs.5).
He also says that having died to the law, being released from it, means a new way of service — the new way of the Spirit — and that the result is fruit for God (vs.4).
Now, obviously, the apostle knows how this statement might be taken. And he now wants to answer false views of what he is saying.
THE FIRST ANTICIPATED MISUNDERSTANDING (vs.7a)
Does this teaching imply that the law is sin?
Now, at first this question might not seem to make sense. How would Paul’s teaching imply that the law is sin?
Well, the answer is found in his statement that the operation of law of God upon the unregenerate person results in fruit for death.
What brings forth death?
What has Paul said earlier?
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:23-7:1 ESV)
So, if the law is at work in a life in such a way that the fruit of death is the result, are we not saying that the law is an INSTRUMENT OF SIN?
THE EMPHATIC AND BRIEF ANSWER (vs.7b)
Paul responds, as he has done earlier in the letter, with a brief but EMPHATIC answer.
Unthinkable!
By no means!
May it never be!
THE EXTENDED ANSWER (vs.7c-12)
But, thankfully, Paul does more than simply deny the accusation. He explains why the accusation does not have merit.

THE LAW IDENTIFIES SIN (vs.7)
Paul says, the law does not CREATE sin. The law IDENTIFIES it.
When Paul says that without the law he would not have “known sin,” he doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have known it in his committing of it. He means he would have known it in terms of his recognition of it.
Sin is already there. The spiritual condition of man is not CREATED by the law of God, it is EXPOSED by the law of God.
The law teaches. The law informs. The law defines and specifies. The law identifies.
The law SOUNDS THE ALARM.
Here is man in a spiritually ruinous condition. He is under the wrath of God and headed for the second death. And his KNOWLEDGE of his sinfulness lies dormant.
HE IS A GREAT SINNER, BUT HE DOESN’T FEEL LIKE A GREAT SINNER.
HE HAS AN URGENT NEED, BUT HE FEELS NO URGENCY.