Why does Paul add the qualification “in my flesh”?

Explanation:

In Romans 7:18 Paul writes that nothing good dwells in him before qualifying that he means nothing good dwells in his flesh. Likely, Paul is reflecting on the fact that in this life, although he is redeemed in Christ, his full redemption from sin has not yet occurred, for there is still an aspect to his existence, which he calls his flesh, that is sinful.

We can detect that this is Paul’s meaning because he refers to the already-not yet aspect of redemption in Romans 8:1–39. First, in Romans 8:11 he says that if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in the believer, this Spirit will give life to one’s mortal body. This makes it sound as though believers have been redeemed by the Spirit in the body and will no longer sin. Then, in Romans 8:23 Paul says that even those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies. In other words, although the Spirit gives life now, there is still a future redemption that we await.

Paul anticipates the already-not yet aspect of existence that he will refer to in  Romans 8:1–39 when he writes that there is no good in his flesh. That is, already in Romans 7:18 he has in mind that there is an element to his existence that is prone to sin, even though he has the Spirit.⁴

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Romans 8:23 and Romans 8:25 are not related to what Paul says about the flesh in Romans 7:18. We can detect this because in Romans 7:18 Paul is referring to the fact that there is no good in his flesh. When we reach Romans 8:1, Paul says there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, because God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. In other words, in Romans 8:1–39 Paul moves beyond the notion of being in flesh to explain what God has now accomplished in Christ. Thus, when Paul writes in Romans 8:11 that the Holy Spirit will give life to our mortal bodies, he has in mind our future resurrection, not our current state as those filled with the Spirit. Likewise, when Paul says in Romans 8:23 that we wait for the redemption of our bodies, he is referring to the resurrection when Jesus returns. So Romans 8:1–39 has to do with anticipating a future resurrection body, while Romans 7:18 is about the sinful nature. Thus, we should not use Romans 8:1–39 to inform the meaning of Romans 7:18.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument overlooks the fact that Paul does not think of humans in a dualistic fashion. That is, Paul does not conceptualize humans in terms of mind and body, but as whole beings who are embodied. Thus, to be embodied is an aspect of being in the flesh, which is why Paul can say that before the resurrection, there is a fleshy aspect to him that is not good. We can detect that Paul blurs the lines between the flesh and the body by considering what he writes in 1 Corinthians 15:44–54.⁵ There Paul refers to the natural body being raised a spiritual body, before stating in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. In other words, the mortal body and the flesh are not entirely distinct, which implies that we can use what Paul says about the body in Romans 8:1–39 to inform what he says about the flesh in Romans 7:18.

Explanation:

Paul says there is no good in his flesh. We know that he means that although he is redeemed in Christ, he is still sinful, because he writes in Romans 7:14 that he is sold under sin.⁶ That Paul is sold under sin means that there is a part of him that cannot help but sin, even as one who is redeemed by Christ. The fact is, there is an element of the sinful nature that remains in this life until Christ finally returns.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that when Paul refers to being sold under sin he likely has in mind his pre-conversion state. We can detect this because, although Christians continue to sin in this life until Christ returns, those who are in the Spirit are no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6:18).⁷ Of course, to be sold under sin is to be a slave to sin, so when Paul refers to being sold under sin, he must have a non-Christian in mind. Of course, if Paul has his pre-conversion state in mind in Romans 7:14, then when he says there is no good in his flesh, he may have in mind that before he converted, there was no good in him. This undermines the heart of this view, which is that Paul is saying that although he is redeemed, he is still a sinner.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it ignores the verbal tenses Paul uses throughout this section, which suggest that he has a present state in mind. First, in Romans 7:14 Paul writes that he is of the flesh, where the verb is takes the present tense. Also, when he says that he is sold under sin, the verb to sell is in the perfect tense, which suggests the ongoing consequence of a past action. Further, when Paul writes that nothing good dwells in him, that is, in his flesh, both the verb to dwell and is are again in the present tense. So we have strong indicators from the verbal tenses that Paul uses in this section that when he refers to being sold under sin, and sin dwelling in him, he has his present state in mind. That is, in the present, he is sold under sin so that, even though he is redeemed by Christ, complete redemption will not take place until Christ returns.

The one weakness of this view is that the broad context of this section suggests that Paul is responding to possible questions about the law, not referring to his own experience. That is, in Romans 7:6 Paul exclaims that he has been released from the law and lives by the Spirit. He then focuses on answering possible objections to what he has written, including how the law functions. It is possible that Paul explains the function of the law by putting himself in the first-person perspective to make a point about the law, not the sinful nature in the redeemed person. All of this to say that the weakness of this view is that it does not address the fact that Paul may be addressing how the law functions rather than the reality of sin in redeemed people.

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means when he writes that there is no good in his flesh by considering what he says in Romans 7:23 and Romans 7:25.¹⁰ For there he makes clear that he has in mind a sort of dualistic perspective on the composition of human nature. First, in Romans 7:23 Paul writes that in his members, that is, his flesh, there wages a war against the law of his mind. In other words, there is a war going on between the physical aspect of Paul and his immaterial mind. Then in Romans 7:25 he says that he serves the law of God with his mind but with his flesh he serves the law of sin. In other words, there is a dualism between his mind and physical nature, which are at odds with each other. Likely, Paul has the same meaning in mind in Romans 7:18 when he says that no good dwells in him, that is, in his flesh.¹¹ He adds the qualification in my flesh because he does not want to imply that his mind, which is redeemed, is still under sin.¹² Rather, it is his physical aspect that is under sin.

Counterargument:

Romans 7:23 and Romans 7:25 do not indicate that Paul thinks of himself in a dualistic fashion. Rather, he is reflecting on the tension of what it is to be a sinful person. Paul has clearly described himself throughout this section as a unified entity. That is, in Romans 7:14 he says that the law is spiritual, but I am sold under sin. Then in Romans 7:15 he says that he does the thing he hates and that sin dwells in him. On each occasion Paul characterizes himself as a single entity who is a sinner. Of course, he also recognizes that he is able to say that the law is good (Romans 7:16). So although Paul is a sinner, he can still recognize good things; he just cannot get himself to do the good he recognizes (Romans 7:17). Thus, Paul describes this tension of recognizing the good of the law while failing to uphold it in Romans 7:23 and Romans 7:25 as a war between his members and his mind, but this is not meant to suggest that his mind is redeemed while his physical aspect is not. Rather, he is simply characterizing what it is to be a sinful human on this side of eternity, that is, as one who can recognize good but not perform it.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument might be right that Paul is not suggesting that the mind is redeemed while the body is not. Still, he does seem to have a dualism between the mind and body in mind, shown by the fact that his members wage war with his mind. So while Paul’s mind and body are both sinful, he does seem to split humans into the mental and physical in Romans 7:18.

Explanation:

Paul qualifies the fact that nothing good dwells in him by explaining that he has in mind his flesh. His purpose for doing this is to imply a sort of dualism regarding human nature, where humans comprise mind and body. We can detect this is Paul’s point by noting the immediate context.

Paul has in mind Jewish opponents who might have many questions for him regarding his new attitude toward the law. For Paul has been saying that the law will not justify (Romans 3:27–28) and leads to sin (Romans 7:7–10), yet he also says that the law is spiritual and good (Romans 7:14–16). All of these statements might lead a pious Jew to wonder how they can revere the law, even though the law is unable to save them.¹³

Paul heads off this question by explaining that it is his flesh in particular that is not good. That is, Paul introduces a dualism to let the Jews know that while they might recognize the quality of the law with their mind, their flesh is sinful and unable to uphold it.

Counterargument:

It is not clear that Paul is simply responding to possible objections to his views on the law from pious Jews. That is, according to this argument, the reason Paul explains there is nothing good in his flesh is to explain to a Jewish audience how it is possible for them to respect the law, without being able to uphold. Unfortunately, this does not suit what follows, for Paul seems to make clear that he has not general questions regarding the law, but his own deep struggle with sin in mind. As Paul has already explained, he cannot do the things he wants but does the things he hates (Romans 7:15). He goes on to characterize himself as a wretched man who dwells in a body of death (Romans 7:24). These sound like the words of one who struggles with sin, not one who is explaining how one can respect the law and still disobey it.

Response to counterargument:

That Paul is describing his own struggle with sin does nothing to undermine the notion that he also responds to the pious Jew who might question how they can respect the law, and yet not uphold it. Further, it does nothing to undermine the heart of this view, which is that Paul has used a sort of dualism to explain our experience with sin. Using his own experience, which reveals to Paul the dualistic nature of human existence, is simply an effective way to respond to Jewish questions regarding the function of the law.

The weakness of this view is that if the mind were truly redeemed and the sinful body not, the body would never perform sinful actions since the mind controls the body. Since the body does perform sinful actions, we can deduce that such actions are the result of the mind, which means the mind is not wholly redeemed before Christ’s final return.