Besides the identity of “Israel” in Romans 11, the identity of the man in Romans 7:14-25 is another point of debates amongst orthodox Christians. The mainstream view understands the man as regenerate (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, John Murray, and this list is long; either as a regenerate as his best or in his weakness). As Murray explains, the reasons are: 1) the unregenerate cannot “delight in the law of God after the inward man”; 2) the unregenerate cannot “with the mind serve the law of God”; 3) the unregenerate cannot hate sin; 4) the unregenerate cannot have the tension between good and evil (Murry’s NICNT commentary, ad loc.). Another view also popular is to see this man as unregenerate (most Greek fathers, some Arminians). The main reasons are: 1) the man described here is not consistent with the regenerate state Paul describes in other places, for example Ch. 6; 2) the view of regenerate man cannot explain the triumph in 8:1-4. The deficiency of each view is apparent as the other side shows.
Sinclair Ferguson pointed out that in modern scholarship, the view of W. G. Kummel became popular. “According to this view Paul is not here describing his Christian experience; in a sense he is not describing his own experience at all, at least in the strictly historical sense. Rather, he is viewing himself (in some readings of the text) as a Jew, under the law, but described from the perspective of being a new man in Christ. The “I” of Roman 7 is, strictly speaking, a rhetorical figure.” (p. 156, in The Holy Spirit, IVP, 1996) Ferguson holds the traditional view (p. 156-162, ibid.). Some of the following theologians echoed Kummel’s view, although they did not mention his name.
F. F. Bruce modified the traditional view of regenerate man. In his commentary on Romans (TNTC, ad loc.): “Here is a picture of life under the law, without the aid of the Spirit, portrayed from the perspective of one who has now experienced the liberating power of life in the Spirit. … Here is the portray of one who is conscious of the presence and power of indwelling sin in his life; indwelling in is a tyrant whose dictates he hates and loathes, but against whose power he struggles in vain by his own strength”. In another book Paul: the apostle of the heart set free, he explained: “what Paul is doing in Romans 7:7-25, in so far as his description is truly autobiographical, is voicing a Christian perspective on his existence under the law, both in the earlier section where he uses the past tense and in the later section where he uses the present tense”. Bruce held the view of a regenerate man, but with a twist. For him, Paul is talking about a Christian, but only as a Christian “without the aid of the Spirit”, “struggle by his own strength”; but the current Paul is “one who has now experienced the liberating power of life in the Spirit”. So this state of 7:14-25 is only hypothetical (because a Christian cannot be “without the aid of the Spirit”) or when a Christian “struggles with his own strength” (and a Christian should not “struggle by his own strength”). At least, Bruce acknowledged this is not the normal or normative state of a Christian, while other consider this as the regular Christian experience or even Christian at his best.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (H. N. Ridderbos) and E. F. Harrison (William Manson) had the same view, which I think best explains the meaning of Romans 7. Their view can be described as “hypothetical dialectic”.
E. F. Harrison (Expositor’s commentary ad loc.) wrote: “the experience pictured here is not wholly autobiographical but is deliberately presented in such a way as to demonstrate what would indeed be the situation if one who is faced with the demands of the law and the power of sin in his life were to attempt to solve his problem independently of the power of Christ and the enablement of the Spirit”. He then quoted William Manson (Jesus and the Christian, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], p. 159): St Paul has set the state for an enquiry dictated by a purely argumentative necessity. What is the life under the law according to the logic of its nature? St. Paul presents the case from the standpoint of Christianity but a Christianity not present in all its terms. We are contemplating an abstraction developed by dialectic, not the actual situation either of the regenerate or of the unregenerate man but only the hypothetical condition of a Christian under Law (end quote). Manson and Harrison understood 7:14-25 as a hypothetical state for argument only, not about regenerate or unregenerate.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Romans. Chapters 7:1-8:4,Banner of truth, 1973) had a series of sermons on this section. Harrison’s commentary was published in 1976, but did not mention Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd-Jones in the preface said H. N. Ridderbos took the same view as he did (p. xi) [I could not find a copy of Ridderbos’ work, so cannot quote the texts]. The main arguments by Lloyd-Jones are found in sermons #14-19 in his book (#1 is a great introduction). Here are some quotes: “The Apostle is not primarily writing about himself or his experience, but about the Law and the truth about the Law” (p. 186, cf. p. 202); “Yet so many seem to expound chapter 7 as if they had never read chapter 6” (p. 194); “What is said here about this man’s experience is true in a measure of the experience of the regenerate”, then he explains why “only in a measure” (p. 199); “This is the truth about a man who is ‘carnal, sold under sin’, who nevertheless sees the spiritual character of the Law” (p. 200); “The Apostle says that even though you are enlightened as to the spiritual character of the Law of God, it is not enough” (p. 206); “Paul is not merely describing a warfare. He does so at the beginning of the verse, but he says that the warfare leads to defeat, to captivity. … He is not walking about a tendency to sin, he is talking about a captivity to sin” (p. 220); “I suggest that to interpret Romans 7 in terms of the fully regenerate man – Paul at his best – is indeed to place the regenerate man at his best in an inferior position to the saints of God under Old Testament teaching. The man in Romans 7 is in a more desperate position even than David in Psalm 51” (p. 251, cf. p. 252); “He is describing a man who is experiencing an intense conviction of sin, a man who has been given to see, by the Spirit, the holiness of the Law; and he feels utterly condemned” (p. 255).
Lloyd-Jones explained the present tense as a literary tool, “dramatic present” (p. 183-184). He understood Paul as creating a hypothetical scenario in order to explain the impotence of Law and the misery of man under it. This man is neither regenerate nor unregenerate, but a man awakened to the spiritual nature of the Law and no more. A regenerate man would not stop here, and an unregenerate man could not reach here. Although this state on appearance resembles the struggle of a regenerate, the distinction is so great that it should not be ignored. Lloyd-Jones also pointed out that the interpretation here relates to a more critical issue in Christianity, that is the role of Law in sanctification and the reality of regenerate life. Those holding to a view of regenerate tend to commit exactly the same errors the Apostle is addressing here, by relying on the Law for sanctification and refusing to acknowledge the reality of regeneration in Christian life; those holding to a view of unregenerate tend to go to the other extreme of antinomianism or perfectionism.
