Dodson, Joseph R. and Mattie Mae Motl. Conquerors Not Captives: Reframing Romans 7 for the Christian Life. Lexham Press, 2024. xxi+175 pp.; Pb.; $16.99. Link to Lexham Press
Joseph R. Dodson is Craig L. Blomberg Endowed Chair of New Testament at Denver Seminary and an associate pastor at New Denver Church. He wrote this book with his daughter, Mattie Mae Motl, a graduate of Denver Seminary and a pastoral resident at Denver Community Church. This is a short, focused study of Romans 7:14–25, primarily on the identity of the wretched person in verse 24. There are many possible interpretations of this passage, and the verses usually occupy several pages in any Roman commentary. C. E. B. Cranfield’s ICC Commentary, for example, has a list of seven possible interpretations. Unfortunately, one interpretation consistently comes up in popular preaching: the wretched man is Paul talking about his own struggle in the Christian life.
According to Dodson, this view is impossible based on reading the rest of Paul’s letters. In Romans, Paul argues that the Holy Spirit enables believers to overcome sin. Romans 8:27 seems clear: believers are “more than conquerors in Christ.” Any interpretation that understands the wretched man as referring to Paul himself clashes with the context of Romans 7:24. Dodson considers this view a “blunt and clumsy popular view that leads believers to think that they are impotent before sin and powerless to do good” (xviii). To read Romans 7:24 this way is a “flip it surrender to sin,” which sounds like Emily Dickinson: “The heart wants what it wants, or else it doesn’t care” (7). Unfortunately, this will lead to a learned helplessness in the Christian life. “A person persuaded she will always be defeated by sin likely will be. People rarely win battles they have are convinced they have already lost” (127). This “learned helplessness” completely ignores Romans 6 and Romans 8.
Dodson divides the possible interpretations of Romans 7:24 into two broad categories: the wretched man is not Paul (chapter 1), or the wretched man is Paul (chapter 2). He observes that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought that the wretched man somehow refers to Paul’s life. This does not mean that the wretched cry implies Paul was giving into sin or doing evil things. Chapter 8 covers several minority views on the identity of the wretched man (some of which are categories of Dodson’s broad categories).
To support the academic consensus view on Romans 7:24 that Paul is not talking about his own personal experience, Dodson walks through the context of Romans 5–8 (chapter 3), concluding that the context of Romans 6 and Romans 8 does not give any evidence. A believer is still enslaved to sin. He then provides an exegetical commentary on Romans 7:14–25 (chapter 4) and other relevant passages (chapter 5).
Chapters 6–7 deal with eight objections to the view that the wretched man is not Paul or referring to the Christian’s ongoing struggle with sin or their inevitable defeat by sin. The biggest problem is that Paul used “I” in this passage. Why did he use that pronoun if he was not talking about himself? Richard Longenecker, Dodson argues that there is a difference between the autobiographical I and the gnomic I. For example, in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul says, “If I speak…”. This is an example of a gnomic I since Paul is not specifically referring to himself (82). In Romans 7, Paul speaks about anyone living without God, not necessarily himself.
One of the more difficult objections to the wretched man not referring to Paul himself is the question, “What about my own experience?” Many Christians feel guilty because they do not live a moral life that they know they should. Every Christian struggles with sin in their life. Isn’t this what Paul is talking about in Romans 7:24? Dodson considers this objection, reading one’s own baggage into the text. Proper understanding of Romans 7:24 requires that we not imagine that Paul has had the same sort of experience that we have. To a certain extent, this is exactly why Augustine and Martin Luther thought the wretched man was the apostle Paul: they were reading their own struggle with sin into Paul’s statement.
Conclusion. Conquerors, Not Captives is a stimulating study of one particular issue in the book of Romans. But this is not an academic book for the sake of academics; Dodson has a pastoral heart, which frequently comes through in this book. Over dealing with an academic issue, Dodson wrote the book in a style that will be accessible to people who want to dig deeper into this important topic. Pastors should read this book carefully before preaching on Romans 7:24.
Addendum: I just ran across this article, which might interest some readers: Wong, Matthew. “A Defense of the ‘Mature Autobiographical Believer’ Interpretation Of The ‘Wretched Man’ In Romans 7:24 .” Journal of Dispensational Theology 26.72–73 (2022).
NB: I appreciate Lexham Press’s generous offer of a review copy of this book, but this did not influence my thoughts about the work.
Should we assume an ancient person’s theological commentary will always be consistent? What ‘rule’ are we breaking by saying Paul was not as consistent as he could have been?
There are several scholars who argue Paul was not a consistent thinker and occasionally contradicts himself. It is true he did not write a “systematic theology” in the modern sense of the word, and he never answers many of the theological questions we ask today.
The point this book makes, is that if Romans 7:24 refers to Paul’s own struggle with sin, then it is out of step with the rest of Paul’s theology. Not just other books in the NT, but with what he just said in Romans 6 and says immediately after this in Romans 8. In fact, 7:25 leads directly to 8:1, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
“…if Romans 7:24 refers to Paul’s own struggle with sin, then it is out of step with the rest of Paul’s theology.”
———-Can we be reasonable to remain open to the possibility that Paul contradicted himself within a single epistle, you know, the way many evangelical scholars in scholarly journals accuse another Christian author of contradicting himself within a single book? Or is there a hermeneutic that says everybody is obligated to presume the single author is consistent in his religious opinions within a single work, and we must first exhaust all possible harmonization scenarios before we dare consider the possibility that he really did contradict himself?
“Can we be reasonable to remain open to the possibility that Paul contradicted himself within a single epistle”
Sure, we can (and should) be open to that possibility. His views on women in the church seem to be inconsistent (sometimes silencing them, other times allowing them to teach).
On the other hand, we can (and should) be open to the possibility Paul tried to be consistent on Romans 6-8 with respect to the affect of sin in the life of the believer.
A third possibility is that he was consistent in his view of sin in the life of the believer in Romans 6-8, and that consistency is lost of the modern reader (the way modern scholars fail to follow the consistency in another writer who thought they were making a consistent, rational argument).
I believe the Holy Spirit makes the difference. The first chapter I studied after getti;ng saved was
Romans 8. I believe it properly interprets Romans 7. Anyway, that was very thought provoking.
Woodrow Nichols