I wrote a term paper on Romans this semester. In preparation I reread the first two chapters of Ben Witherington III’s The Problem of Evangelical Theology (p. 7). He addressed how often Rom. 7 is misread writing the following:
There is no text more commented on in the entire Bible than Romans, and within the text of Romans, there is no text more commented on than Romans 7. One would think with all the ink spilt on this text that we could get it right. Yet there are almost as many views of this text as there are major commentaries and dissertations on it. Oddly enough, one of the most fundamental problems in Evangelical exegesis of Romans is the failure to read Romans cumulatively, rather than sound-byting it. This failure manifest itself when Romans 7 is read as if it has little or not connection with Romans 5. But the story told in Romans 5:12-20 is the very short story that underlies and undergirds Romans 7…”
Amen! I might add that what we find in 5.12-20 doesn’t impact chapter 7 alone, but the entire epistle. If we do not read Romans with the Adam-Christ contrast in mind we may miss important points from chapter 1 all the way to 16. Well said, Witherington!
the archives near Emmaus 
Ah, this is good! He got me at “cumulatively.” For the most part, I sit at the feet of Wright on Romans. 😉
Indeed, “cumulatively” is the operative word. I have read fair portions of Wright’s commentary on Romans, but not enough to know if I sit at his feet. Though I assume I have been influenced by him in my reading of Romans no matter what since I have read/listened to so much of his other materials and I did listen to that “Romans in a Week” audio series from Regent College.
I did the major portion of my Th.D. (years ago) on the connection of Romans 7:13-25, with the interpretative final being verse 25 (and Rom. 8:1-3, etc.. Taking the classic Reformational position, or late Augustine. I have Witherington’s Romans, which obviously stands against Luther, Calvin and Augustine (late). But, I stand with the Reformer’s here! 🙂
Great line: Oddly enough, one of the most fundamental problems in Evangelical exegesis of Romans is the failure to read Romans cumulatively, rather than sound-byting it.
A while back, I wrote a 2-part series on Romans 7, as I also believe it is widely misread amongst Christians. (part 1; part 2)
Ya just might want to read the early and late positions of Augustine here on Romans 7. Augustine changed his early view (like yours somewhat), to his later/older position. Which has become the classic of the Reformation! It is here that I also follow Luther’s great paradigm: Simul Iustus et Peccator – simultaneously Sinner & Saint! “Thus the righteouness of the Christian is not something which can be seen or empirically verified.” (Luther, WA)
And what Luther is not out to do is to make future freedom from sin the basis of God’s acceptance of the sinner. The Pauline teaching is that one is justified by faith alone, and not by faith and sanctity, even if the one grants that future inherent righteouness of the Christian is a gift rather than an achievement. Already in the Romans commentary Luther is clear in his own mind that the believer is reckoned righteous in the present because of an alien righteousness. United to Christ by faith, he possesses a righteousness which belongs to him only by virtue of the reputatio Dei. “It is Christ and not the future contingent sanctity of the Christian that provides the basis for God’s favorable judgment, his acceptance of believers in spite of their continuing unacceptability.” (Luther, WA)