Paul's Personal Experience Of The Law, Used As An Illustration In Order That The Roman Christians Might Also Apply It To Themselves, Demonstrating Both The Holiness And The Powerlessness of The Law; The Sinfulness Of Our Flesh, Even Though Redeemed; The Transformation Of The Redeemed Mind; And The Way Of Release Through Jesus Christ Our Lord And The Law Of The Spirit Of Life In Christ Jesus (7:7-8:2).
Paul now gives what we might see as a personal testimony (note the singular personal pronouns which continue on to Romans 8:2 where they abruptly cease). His purpose, however, is not in order to inform them about his own problems, or to excuse himself, but in order that they might think along with him and see its application in their own lives, and recognise the way of deliverance by Jesus Christ our LORD (Romans 7:25), and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2). His purpose is to teach, and make them think about the Law in relation to themselves, rather than to confess on his own behalf. He is using himself as an illustration. We should end up, not by saying ‘now isn't that interesting about Paul', but by saying, ‘this is so illuminating. It is the story of my Christian life'.
The first thing to notice here is the change in Paul's address to ‘I' (ego). Previously he has spoken of ‘we, us' and he will return to speaking of ‘we, us' in chapter Romans 8:3. But in Romans 7:7 to Romans 8:2 he speaks of ‘I, me'. Note especially the change from ‘we' to ‘I' in Romans 7:14 which emphasises this. It is clear therefore that what he has to say is very much to be seen as an aspect of his own experience. We must remember when interpreting this that he was expecting his letter to be read out to the churches, and to be understood by his hearers as they heard it, so that any subtle meaning to ‘I, me' must be ruled out. This is not a piece of Greek literature, intended to be read by the intelligentsia, and ruminated over in order to discover hidden meanings, but a down to earth letter intended for all. Nor are there any good reasons why the hearers should have seen him as using ‘I' to mean ‘we Jews' (it might have been different had he used ‘we'). In view of the sudden transition any hearer would immediately assume that Paul was talking about himself. After all, if he meant ‘we Jews', why did he not say so? And this is especially brought out in the cry of his heart, ‘O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me --.' This the cry of an individual in pain, not of a hypothetical nation.
It is true that a close examination of the text does reveal that Paul probably has in mind more than just his own experience, and that he possibly sees his own experience as reflecting both the experience of Adam, and the experience of Israel in the wilderness. In other words as reflecting the experience of all men. But he does it by speaking about is his own experience, as one who participates in the run of history. Thus he considers that both the experience of Adam and the experience of Israel are reflected in his own life and the life of his hearers. We must remember in this regard the Jewish belief that their own history was a continuation of the past to such an extent that they actually saw themselves as involved in the past. Thus when they met at Passover they were not just remembering what had happened to their forefathers long before, they actually felt that they were themselves were becoming a part of that wonderful deliverance. They were themselves partaking in it. It had happened to them.
In the same way, Paul, as he outlines his own experience, possibly does so in terms of the history of his forefathers. It may be (although it is questionable) that when he said, ‘I was alive apart from the Law once', he saw himself as having been innocent and as having himself sinned with Adam. It may be (although again it is questionable) that when he said, ‘when the commandment came sin revived and I died', he saw himself as receiving the revelation of the Law. In other words that he saw his life as a reflection of his forefathers. This would help to explain the vivid language that he uses in the initial verses. But the experience that he is describing is not theirs but his, and that of all men. We should remember in this regard that the vivid references to being dead and being alive are also referred to sin (Romans 7:8-9). Thus the vividness is no indication of literalness.
But we may ask, why does Paul switch so unusually to speaking of himself? It was certainly in order to convey a message, but why else?
· It might suggest that he saw what he was about to say as a message of such delicacy that he did not want to apply it too directly to his hearers, recognising that it might arouse strong personal feelings within them. By referring it to himself he took away its sting while getting over his point. (After all his aim was to keep on good relations with the church at Rome, and he was not over well known to most of them). And it may be that he feared that some of them at least might not have recognised it all in themselves, due to a weak sense of what was sin. By applying it to himself he would make them think more carefully. And certainly part of the material very much expresses an individual experience (Romans 7:7-13), even though it is a personal experience which has a message to convey.
· It might suggest that he did not want them to make what he said an excuse for ‘living in sin'. He might well have felt that if he had told them ‘it is no longer you who do it but sin which dwells in you', it could well have triggered the wrong kind of reactions. He would know that he himself would never excuse his own sin on the grounds of ‘sin dwelling in him', but he could not be so certain about others.
· It might suggest that he wanted to present his message in such a way that it helped those who felt that they had experienced what he had, whilst not making all feel that they ought to be experiencing the same. Different Christians were at different levels. He would not want to encourage ‘copycat' sin.
· It might suggest, and this may possibly be seen as the most prominent reason, that it was in order to bring out what he was saying in all its vividness, a vividness that might have been lost in a general application. He may well have hoped that as his hearers listened they would find themselves caught up in his struggles, recognising it as a part of their own experience.
So there may have been a number of reasons for him making it personal, although in the end we can only surmise, for we do not know of a certainty why it was.