Packer 1

An Exegetical Study of Romans 7:13-25

by Andrew Packer

Introduction

The pericope examined in this paper is one of the most controversial parts of Romans. As

Nygren so aptly put it, “It presents us with one of the greatest problems in the New Testament. It

was already recognized in the first Christian century; and since that time it has never come to

rest. Through the centuries the battle has been waged as to what this particular passage means.”1

The main issue that surrounds this pericope is this: Who is the “I” that Paul is referring to

throughout the pericope? There are a variety of views on this subject, but in many ways the

options can be narrowed down to two - is Paul speaking as a Christian or as a non-Christian?2

Thus this paper will seek to answer that question and two questions that flow out of it: What does

it mean for this pericope? And what does this mean for the Christian in his daily life?

Important Textual Issues

Who the “I” is in this section of Romans chapter 7 can be established by looking at two

textual issues: 1) Paul’s use of the pronoun evgw,. 2) Paul’s use of the present tense.

The first textual issue of importance in this pericope regards the pronoun evgw,.3 evgw, is

used only 12 times outside of chapter 7 in Romans.4 Four of these are part of Old Testament

quotations.5 In 16:22 Tertius uses the pronoun to greet the Christians in Rome himself. In all

1
Anders Nygren, Commnetary on Romans,( Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949), 284.
2
For an in depth study of this issue and the pericope as a whole see Michael Paul Middendorf, The "I" In the Storm:
A Study of Romans 7, (Saint Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1997). This work, along with Nygren’s, have shaped
the content of this paper.
3
Though this paper will focus on whether Paul is speaking concerning his Christian or pre-Christian life, it is still
important to establish that Paul is in fact speaking of himself in this section. For discussion of the other ways “I”
can be understood see Middendorf, chapters 1,3,4 and also Cranfield, 344ff.
4
Middendorf, 149.
5
10:19; 11:3; 12:19; 14:11.
 Packer 2

five of these instances the pronoun is used to refer to the person speaking or writing. In 11:19

and 3:7 Paul uses the pronoun rhetorically and the context of each one makes it clear that this is

the case.6 The other five times that Paul uses evgw, he is making a clear personal reference to

himself.7 Outside of Romans Paul uses evgw, 84 times and of those 84 Paul uses it to refer to

himself 77 times.8 The contexts of the other seven make it clear that Paul is not the subject.9 The

evidence weights heavily in favor of understanding evgw,, in chapter 7, as a personal reference to

Paul. There is nothing in 7:13-25 or even in all of Paul’s epistles that would allow an interpreter

to make evgw, refer to anyone but Paul.

Starting in verse 14 Paul begins to use the present tense and uses it for the rest of the

chapter.10 Some commentators see Paul switching to the present for emphasis and argue that the

present should be understood as a sort of historical present. Generally those who argue this also

argue that Paul is speaking of his time as a Jew that is as a non-Christian.11 The other main view

is to take the present tense as a typical present tense and that Paul is describing his current

situation as a Christian. As Daniel Wallace points out, the use of the first person pronoun along

with the present tense mitigates against this being the use of the historical present.12 Not only

does the syntax itself not allow for the present tense to be taken as a historical present, there is

also no indication anywhere in the context that Paul is using the historical present. The

6
See Middendorf, 150 for a more detailed argument of taking these rhetorically.
7
9:3; 11:1; 11:13; 15:14; 16:3-4. See Middendorf, 151.
8
Middendorf, 152.
9
I Cor. 1:12; 3:4; 2 Cor. 6:17.
10
This will be a very brief overview and only cover two of the more prominent views.
11
See for example Douglas J. Moo, NICNT: The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1996), 447-448. However, Thomas R. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament: Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 390ff, actually argues Paul is applying this to both non-
Christians and Christians .
12
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 531. Also see Cranfied, 344ff. The
historical present only occurs in the third person (singular and plural) in the NT (Wallace 528).
 Packer 3

development of Paul’s argument in chapter 7 is also a strike against the historical present view.13

There are no grounds anywhere in the text that would support the historical present view in any

sense.

Both Paul’s use of the first person pronoun and his use of the present tense make it

explicitly clear that Paul is talking about his present situation as a Christian. Having established

this, it is still necessary to add one more clarification. As Middendorf says, “But the “I” is never

depicted as two “I”s in verses 15-25; nor do we have a schizoid, dual, or split personality in this

section…Paul does not divide or separate the “I” form ‘the flesh.’”14 To be sure there is a

duality in the Christian life, “But he does not think of a divided will or a discord in the soul. He

has in mind the tension which exists, in the Christian life, between will and action, between

intention and performance.”15 That is, the Christian is “in Christ”, but at the same time lives out

their life “in the flesh”. The Christian daily lives in the struggle of the tension between the

already, and the not yet.16

Context

The immediate context, as well as the whole flow of the book of Romans to this point, is

extremely important in understanding Paul’s argument in 7:13-25.17 Paul’s theme for the whole

epistle is “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”18 In 1:18-3:20 Paul then develops a

detailed argument to show that no one is righteous and all are under the wrath of God. Of

particular importance to his argument in chapter 7 is Paul’s discussion of the role of the Law for

13
See Commentary below to see how this plays out in Paul’s argument.
14
92-93
15
Nygren, 293.
16
This will be explained more fully in the commentary section.
17
See Middendorf, chapter 2. It seems that too often this broader context gets lost in the discussion of this
pericope.
18
Romans 1:16-17. See Charles Gieschen, “Outline of Romans”, (April 2007).
 Packer 4

those without the Law at the end of chapter 1 and its role for those who are under the Law in

chapter 2.19 In 3:20 Paul makes the crucial point: dio,ti evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa

sa.rx evnw,pion auvtou/( dia. ga.r no,mou evpi,gnwsij a`marti,ajÅ No one is justified by the Law and the

Law brings the knowledge or recognition of sin. It should also be pointed out that throughout

chapters 1-3 Paul’s picture of the unbeliever’s relationship to the Law never includes the

unbeliever delighting in God’s Law, a desire to do God’s Law, etc. Paul knows of no such

situation where those things would even be possibilities.20 All of these points will be important

in Paul’s discussion of the Law in chapter 7.

In 3:21 - 31, Paul shows that God is righteous in that Christ, the righteousness of God,

has been made the i`lasth,rion for the sins of the world. This is received by faith alone, apart

from the Law.21 Then in chapter 4 Paul gives the example of Abraham who was reckoned

righteous by faith alone even before he had received circumcision and before the Law was given

to Moses on Sinai.

Romans chapters 5 - 8 is often considered to be the next major section of Romans.22

Nygren says that the subject in this section is “the meaning of the Christian life”.23 To be in

Christ means to be free from “Wrath, Sin, the Law, and Death.”24 Romans 7:13-25 is in the third

section which discusses the Christian’s freedom from the Law and what this looks like. In

Romans 7:1-6 Paul shows how believers are dead to the law through Christ.25 Then in verses 7-

12 he explains how the Law provokes and increases sin. After this is where the pericope under

19
See 1:20, 28; 2:12, 20, 23, 25, 27. See Middendorf, 53.
20
Even just a cursory reading through Romans 1-3 make that point emphatically, over and over again.
21
See 3:22, 28, 30.
22
See Middendorf, 54ff. for other possibilities on dividing this section.
23
287.
24
Ibid., 288.
25
The following explanation of the flow of Romans 7 is following Nygren, 268ff.
 Packer 5

discussion begins, and here Paul lays out the Law’s inability to produce good in believers

because they live out their lives in the flesh. The opening verses of chapter 8 then serve as a

conclusion to this section. The flow of the overall context is no small point for it gives the proper

setting in which Paul’s argument occurred. To ignore this context or to rip the verses from this

context as some kind of independent subsection, completely misses the thrust of Paul’s

argument.

Commentary

So then, Romans 6 had boldly proclaimed that the Christian is no longer a slave to sin

and set out the implications for this in the day to day life of the believer. The first part of Romans

7 set out the believer’s freedom from the Law and how the Law functioned in their life before

they were a believer. This latter part of Romans 7 makes it clear that though one is free from

both sin and the Law the believer must live out this life in the sinful flesh, and therefore the Law

still cannot produce good in the believer.

In verse 13 Paul concludes the argument from 7:1-12. To. avgaqo,n is a reference to the

Law itself.26 It was not the Law, which is good, that was the reason for it working death in him.

Paul makes an emphatic denial that it is the Law’s fault by using the expression mh. ge,noito.27 It

was because Paul was a sinner that when the Law came it worked death. For the Law showed

sin to be sin and provoked it so that it became u`perbolh.n a`martwlo,j. When the Law meets sin it

becomes a “destroying power”.28 The Law came showing sin for what it was and demonstrated

Paul’s need for the Gospel, and that the Gospel had accomplished what the Law could not.29

26
7:12, 18, 19
27
Cf. 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15, 7:7
28
Nygren, 298. Cf. 8:3.
29
8:1-2. See Middendorf 86-87.
 Packer 6

In verse 14 Paul transitions to the next phase of his discussion. This can be seen by his

switch to the present tense.30 Paul makes a striking contrast - the Law is pneumatiko,j, but he is

sa,rkinoj. In 1:11 and 15:27 Paul uses the word “spiritual” to clearly refer to gifts and blessings

coming from the Holy Spirit. So the Law is Spirit-filled, but Paul himself is “fleshly”. This is

not referring to Paul just being a man of flesh and blood, but is getting to the root of the problem

as noted in verse 13 - Paul still lives in the flesh that is his fallen, sinful nature.31 This is made

even more explicit by the phrase peprame,noj u`po. th.n a`marti,an. Paul is sold under sin like a

slave is sold to a master. The use of the perfect form of pipra,skw further highlights that this

was a past condition that is still having present ramifications. Right away the tension that exists

throughout Romans 6-8 is set before the reader. Paul, who in Romans 6 declared the believer free

from sin, now says the believer is a slave under sin. Though the Christian is spiritual (8:9) he

still must live out this life in the sinful flesh. So that now there is this daily battle between the

Spirit and the flesh.32 The non-Christian does not experience this tension. Only the Christian has

this struggle, for the non-Christian is not waging war against the sinful flesh. This point is vital

to understanding the rest of this pericope.

In verse 15 the description of how this tension plays out in the lives of believers day to

day begins. The verb ginw,skw is best understood in this context along the lines of approve or

condone.33 That is Paul as a Christian fights and battles, yet still sins and as a Christian cannot

30
See discussion above under Important Textual Issues.
31
5:12, 18. Cf. Middendorf, 89.
32
Gal. 5:17. See Nygren’s excellent discussion of this issue on pages 296ff.
33
Though most English translations translate this as “understand” Cranfield (358ff.) and Middendorf (91ff.) both
show that “understand” does not fit the context since Paul explains throughout the passage why he is not doing
what he wills - sin.
 Packer 7

approve or condone these sinful actions.34 The various words used for “do” here and throughout

this pericope are related to the “doing” or “performance” of the Law.35

Verse 16 and 17 develop this further. Paul as a Christian is by this very struggle with the

flesh showing that he knows that the Law truly is kalo,j - the highest good. Paul’s use of

su,mfhmi here in verse 16 again shows that this is Paul as a Christian. It is nearly impossible to

imagine Paul saying that an unbeliever could agree with the Law that it is good, especially after

his description of the unbeliever in chapters 1-3. In verse 17 it is once again shown why his

agreement with the Law does not end up in perfect conformity to the Law. The issue, as

throughout this passage, is that Paul still has sin that is indwelling within him.36

Verse 18 is in essence a restatement of what has just been said. Paul does not let up even

for a second but continues to drive this point home. Paul has the will to do the good, but because

he lives in the flesh there is a constant disagreement between what he as Christian wills to do,

and what often takes place. Verse 18 provides further evidence that Paul is speaking as a

Christian. If he was speaking as an unbeliever he would not need to qualify what is meant by

“no good dwelling in me” but he makes sure he clarifies by adding “this is, my flesh.” This

“flesh” though is not where his identity is to be found. It is the qe,lw, his willing, his desire, is to

do the good that defines him, not the flesh. As one redeemed by Christ, and freed from the

dominion of sin he desires to do the good and fights and battles the flesh, but still must

acknowledge that he is indeed living in that flesh.37

34
This would NOT be an issue if Paul were speaking as an unbeliever.
35
Cf. Middendorf, 92.
36
Nothing in this section indicates Paul saying that always and only does evil. In the context of chapters 6-8 it is
clear that Paul is laying out the struggle/tension that exists as the believer sees themselves falling short of the Law
again and again.
37
See Middendorf , 98 and Nygren, 300.
 Packer 8

Verses 19 - 20 continue to demonstrate these points. Verse 20 is not Paul’s attempt to

justify his sin, but is furthering illustrating the tension and battle that exists. This is further

illustrated in verses 21- 23. Paul in these verses gives another sobering view of the reality of the

situation he finds himself in. In verse 22 Paul announces that he in fact delights, joyfully agrees

(sunh,domai) with the Law of God. This is by far the clearest and most explicit verse showing

that Paul is speaking as a Christian. There is nothing in any of Paul’s letter that would allow this

statement to be said of an unbeliever.38 This coupled with the phrase kata. to.n e;sw a;nqrwpon,

which is used only of Christians in 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:16, are undeniably used

in relation to the Christian only.39 So then verse 23 adds the sobering reality that though the

Christian does delight in God’s Law, because he still lives this life in the sinful flesh he cannot

escape the constant struggle and even failures of falling short of God’s Law.

It is because of this tension that Paul repeatedly points out that he cries out in verse 24

that he is a Talai,pwroj. Paul, as all Christians, find themselves to be miserable as they live out

life in this “body of death”. That is Paul is frustrated by this tension that exists in this earthly life

and desires to be free from that tension. This is why r`u,setai is in the future tense. He is looking

forward to the second coming of Christ that will bring him deliverance from the struggles of the

flesh.40 Paul awaits the full redemption of his body, the day it will be completely free from the

struggles with sin that accompany this earthly life.

Verse 25 concludes the pericope, Paul looks forward to that day of Christ’s return and

cannot hold back a cry of praise to His Savior. He then adds the sobering conclusion that even

38
Romans 1-3 alone should be enough evidence for this point.
39
Whether this is referring to the Christian’s regenerated spirit (Middendorf, Lenski) or Christ himself (Gieschen)
still needs to be further investigated by this author. Either option is only true of the Christian, so either way the
point stands.
40
One thinks also of Philippians 1:21-22.
 Packer 9

with that day in mind he still must acknowledge that he lives in the time before that day. He is

already in Christ, but not yet fully freed from the sinful flesh, even though he is free from the

dominion of that sin.

It must be noted here that Romans 8:1ff. are the true conclusion of this section. Paul goes

on to show that though Christians fail to live out the Law perfectly, that there is no condemnation

because they are in Christ Jesus. Furthermore, the Gospel has done for the believer what the

Law could not and still cannot do. But this does not give the believer a free pass to wallow in the

mire of sin, for God has given them His Spirit to fight and battle against the deeds of the flesh.41

Application

Why this is important for the Christian and what this means for their daily life has in

many ways already been covered. However there are still several points that need to be fleshed

out. First, other interpretations miss Paul’s point here that the Law “can never, under any

circumstances, be a way of salvation, not even for the Christian.”42 This point is as important for

today as it was in Paul’s time. With covenantal nomism gaining popularity throughout various

parts of the Church, it cannot be reiterated to strongly that Christ is the Christian’s righteousness

at the beginning, middle, and end of the Christian’s life. The Christian still lives this life in the

flesh, and so the Law cannot ever be done perfectly by the Christian and can never in any way be

relied on for their righteousness before God. Second, and flowing out of this first point, when

the freedom from the tyranny of sin in chapter 6 is divorced from the struggle with sin that still

remains for the Christian many dangerous errors can creep in. Two dangers in particular stick

out. On the one hand, the Christian may fall prey to some kind of self-righteous pride believing

41
In many ways a return to Romans 6, except now it is in light of the reality of the present struggle of the believer.
42
Nygren, 303.
 Packer 10

that they no longer have that sinful flesh to deal with, underestimating the seriousness of the

battle with the flesh that still remains. On the other hand, they may fall prey to despair as they

struggle day to day with their flesh but have no context within which to understand why they are

struggling or if it is even normal for a Christian to have this struggle. A whole paper could be

written about the great harm caused by these two dangers that have resulted from a denial of the

Christian’s struggle with the sinful nature that still remains. Third, taking Romans 7 in the

context of chapters 5 through 8 not only shows the struggles and battles with the sinful nature,

but at the same time keeping it in context avoids the other danger of falling into an

antinomianism that sees no use for the Law in the life of the believer. Paul again and again

makes it clear that the Law is holy and good and right and it is the sinful nature that is the

problem not the Law. Keeping Romans 7 in its overall context also helps keep in check the

sinful nature that would use Romans7 as an excuse to sin and not battle against the flesh -

thereby denying the reality presented in Romans 6 and 8.

Conclusion

Romans 7:13-25 is a vital component in helping the Christian understand what it means

to live life in the tension of the already and the not yet. It gives the Christian a clear picture and

understanding of the struggles that exist as they live out their day to day lives in the flesh. A

proper understanding of this pericope gives the Christian comfort and hope as it helps to put

these struggles in the proper context. The importance of the proper understanding of this passage

cannot be overestimated for the life of the baptized.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings. 3rd
Edition. Edited by Frederick William Danker. Translated by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2000.

"BibleWorks 7." 2007.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The
Epistle to the Romans. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark Limited, 1975.

Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 38A: Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Engelbrecht, Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

Gieschen, Charles A. "Original Sin in the New Testament." Concordia Journal 31, no. 4 (2005): 359-375.

Gieschen, Charles. "Outline of Romans." April 2007.

Kitttel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey
Bromiley. 9 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 - 74.

Lidell-Scott. Greek Lexicon (Abridged). Bibleworks 7, 2007.

Melanchthon, Philip. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Fred Kramer. Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1992.

Middendorf, Michael Paul. The "I" In the Storm: A Study of Romans 7. Saint Louis: Concordia Academic
Press, 1997.

Moo, Douglas J. NICNT: The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1996.

Nygren, Anders. Commnetary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the New Testament in Light of Historical Research. 3rd Rev. Edition.
London: George H. Doran Company, 1919.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1998.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.