What I hate, That Do i

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into the captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

(Romans 7:14-25, KJV)

I would be surprised if there were one within our class who has yet to hear of this word from Paul. Indeed, this passage seems to be at the heart of many Christians, who read it and resonate with the statement it makes. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Why do we, as Christians redeemed from our sin by the blood of the lamb, why do we still fall so easily into temptation and sin? Is Paul writing this regarding his own experience? Is he elaborating on the human condition? Is this every person's story?

NT Wright argues that in this section of scripture, Paul is neither writing a discourse about his own life nor about the human condition, but states that in this section of scripture Paul is attempting to describe the actuality of Israel's experience under the Law. Paul sees the Law as spiritual but the Israelites as being fleshly and enslaved to sin. Within the Law itself, there is nothing inherently wrong nor evil. "Paul never denies that the Law is God's Law, holy and just and good." The problem with the Law on its own is that even under it, the Israelites remain under the curse of sin and death. The Law can unveil sin, but it cannot help overcome sin. The Law is useful only to intensify our sin. The Law does not invent sin because sin always was and always will be, but once we are aware of the Law, we are accountable for the knowledge we do have. NT Wright explains it well when he says that "the more Israel does the right thing, which is to embrace God's holy, just and good Law...the more the Law itself says: You have broken me."

Is this a text that speaks only to the Israelites' experience of the law, or does it have a broader base? That Paul changes from the past tense in the beginning of the chapter to the present tense in verses 14-25 suggests that the resistance of Paul to sin is an ongoing resistance. Sin, clearly, has not halted its ways in the coming of Jesus. F.F. Bruce says that the way Paul is speaking within this passage leads him to think of Paul as "like a person living simultaneously on two planes, eagerly longing to lead a life in keeping with the higher plane, but sadly aware of the strength of indwelling sin that keeps on pulling him down to a lower plane." This is the life that Paul leads when he is solely under the weight of the Law without aid of the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the day, however, Paul no longer considers himself solely under the weight of the Law, despite the delight he finds within the Law. Paul is a redeemed follower of Christ and is fully aware of the grace and mercy Christ bestows to his believers. Whereas living under the Law appears to bring about bleak conditions for the Israelites, Paul sees it in light of the mighty work God does at the cross. Even still, Paul is left with a predicament. He is not able to overcome that he is trapped within his carnal, fleshly self and that fleshly self still attempts to dominate.

Although NT Wright says that the text of Romans 7 is itself not a text about the human condition, he does make an allowance that it is a text that finds echoes in the human experience and within literature. This semester we have been examining perhaps the two most influential literary corpora upon Western civilization, namely the Bible and Shakespearean drama. As we have approached a select few of Shakespeare's dramatic texts, we have been examining what these works have to say about humanity, about love, about religion - about our overall experience of life and death. In his book Christian Settings in Shakespeare's Tragedies , D. Douglas Waters says, "Shakespeare in his tragedies presents an idealist view of men and women...a view stressing both admiration for human potential and disgust for people's failure to actualize that potential." I believe this "human potential" that Waters discusses correlates with Paul's passage in Romans 7 regarding the believer's ability (or, better yet, inability) to overcome the fleshly nature.

Within Hamlet, one of the characters we see struggle with the nature of sin's reign over the body is Claudius, specifically during his soliloquy, which occurs just after The Mousetrap in Act 3, where Hamlet stages a reenactment of his father's murder in order to discern the king's guilt. As you know, Claudius is furious with the play and subsequently orders Rosencrantz and Gildenstern to take Hamlet to England. We pick up with the scene now, just after they leave Claudius alone in the chapel.

[Play clip from Hamlet - Act 3.3.36-72]

Whereas within the play we are constantly given many snapshots of Hamlet's inner life, what Hamlet is thinking about and processing through during the entire play, in this scene we are given something a bit more rare. We are given a glimpse into the internal life of Claudius and are shown how he views not only what is happening around him, but also what is happening within him. We see that he is stressed out about the same predicament that Paul finds himself in - disgusted with his actions yet unable to resist them. Newell writes, "Claudius' full consciousness of his fallen condition, his imaginative intensity in expressing it, and his distressing inability to extricate himself from it win sympathy because he is struggling with his guilt, trying desperately to repent, and judging himself honestly within the Christian moral framework that is meaningful to him and that he comprehends in fairly deep, uncompromising terms." He is uncoiling his soul before the Lord, revealing or acknowledging, perhaps, his crime for the first time.

In viewing this scene, however, questions ought to be raised with regard to the nature that Claudius approaches the Lord in prayer. Does Claudius display a contrite heart? In one sense, he absolutely does. Claudius is aware of the reprehensibility of his deeds. He proclaims, "O, my offense is rank: it smells to heaven; it hath the primal eldest curse upon't - a brother's murder." Claudius sees his place within the biblical narrative and recognizes with whom he identifies. His murder of King Hamlet is reminiscent of the story of Cain and Abel and is, in no manner, fitting with God's will.

But even though Claudius recognizes that his act is foul and shows some amount of remorse, Claudius shows no sign of turning from his ways. Instead, he delves deeper into the sin that has a hold on him. Sister Miriam Joseph writes, "He realizes that he lacks the single-mindedness that true prayer demands and that even though his own condition is most fit for the exercise of God's boundless mercy, he cannot be pardoned unless he gives up his ambition, his crown, and his queen, for which he committed murder. He cannot repent because his evil will again make the same choice to gratify the same desires." Claudius can confess his sin, but does not seem to be able to repent of it. The material and power conquests of his crime have too great a hold on him in order for him to change his ways. Although Claudius is attempting to deal with Hamlet's madness, he is in a very real sense ignoring his own madness that is developing by his inability to relinquish the power that his kingly effects have over his own life. Seemingly, Claudius is unaware that he not only possesses these effects but is possessed by them and is not able to free himself. These kingly effects are not simply letting the king remain in the status quo but are instead drawing him deeper into their grips by leading him to commit another murder as he sends Hamlet off to be executed in England.

I'd like to invite us as a class to consider the following questions that arise out of this discourse:

Can Claudius find a home within the Romans 7 passage? Is he captured by the flesh yet longing to live as a regenerated Christian under the auspices of the Spirit? Romans 7 can be a bit bleak because Paul is telling us that he desires to live out the Law but that his desire is not enough to overcome that force that compels him to disobey the Law. Claudius must certainly resonate with that, since he feels compelled to continue on in his sin to maintain his standing, his pride and his effects. Is this an issue of sanctification? In Luther's framework, is Claudius both sinner and saint? Does there seem to be any work of the Spirit within him, moving him closer to full sanctification? Is Claudius "a person eager to do God's will, but inwardly incapable of doing it in his own strength"?

Or, is all of this thrown out of the window because Claudius is so possessed of his possessions that there is no possible way the Spirit can intercede? Paul says in verse 15, " For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Paul says that it is not he who is willing his sin but that he is unknowingly doing it through his sin. These sins of ignorance and unwilling action are taken care of within God's atoning plan. If the king is knowingly sinning, does it mean that it is he who is doing it or the sin that is within him?

In the larger framework of the play, is Shakespeare presenting us with a Calvinistic viewpoint? Are the players destined to their lot in life or do they have the ability to freely will the actions that their lives take?

And, lastly, to bring this topic back to Denise's presentation, is there anything practical we can do with these texts? Does this discourse belong in the church and, if so, how?

[Originially written in December 2006 as a class presentation for "Through a Glass, Darkly: The Biblical and Shakespearean Visions." Please contact Jenny for a complete bibliography.]

Wright, p. 127. Throckmorton, p. 70. New Interpreter's , p. 565. Bence, p. 127. Wright, p. 128. Bruce, p. 143. Bruce, p. 143. Hobbs, p. 93. Wright, p. 127. Waters, p. 216. Newell, p. 111. Joseph, p. 138. Newell, p. 112. Bruce, p. 144. Bence, p. 132. New Interpreter's, p. 567.