So did something good, as in the law, bring death? You can see Paul continually teasing out the apologetic dilemma here. If The Law leads to sin and so to death as wages, and if the alternative is justification through faith, a free gift then does that mean that we might as well continuing to sin in order to give more opportunity for grace (6:1)? Does it mean that the Law is in fact not good, it is itself sinful (7:7)? Or does it mean that something good actually leads to harm, leads to evil? Each time he insists “surely not” or “by no means. It was sin that led to death. However what the law does is highlight the true extend of sin’s magnitude (7:13).
The Law is identified as spiritual whereas Paul identifies himself as “fleshly.” Flesh here has the idea of human nature, specifically sinful human nature. In other words, the Law is functioning in a different sphere or realm. Later we will see the connection between “spirit” and freedom whereas, “flesh” is associated with slavery, we have been sold into slavery to sin (v14).
Paul then sets up a famous and exegetically challenging dilemma. This links back to the point mentioned earlier that there has been much discussion and dispute about whether Paul is speaking of himself before or after conversation, or whether he is using the first person to identify himself with Israel. We will return to that but in the meantime let’s follow the argument literally as though referring to Paul, we can then look at its implication to different contexts later. Paul introduces a dilemma, he finds himself doing the very things he doesn’t want to do, the things he hates and he is unable to do the good things that he wants to do (v15).
He argues that if he does things against his own will, this demonstrates his agreement that the Law to be good. His will agrees with the good commandments of the law and so he recognises his own guilt when he unwillingly does wrong ((v16). Then he seems to distance himself from the action on one level. His will is to do good but he finds himself under compulsion to sin. He likens sin to what has been called “an alien interloper”, something within him that is in conflict with his will and he says that it is sin that is doing wrong (v17). Then he looks woefully at himself from the perspective of sinful human nature, there is nothing good in him. He desires to do what is right but is unable to follow through on that desire. So, he keeps on doing wrong (v18-19). Then he comes back to the point, if sin is contrary to his desire, then it must in some sense be alien to him because he is not desiring and willing it. .
