7.

Speech-in-Character Concerning the Effect of the Law

(7:13–25)

Published by

Jewett, Robert and Eldon Jay Epp.

Romans: A Commentary.
Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2006.
Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu/book/45984.

For additional information about this book

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/45984

[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

 7:13-25 The Second Proof

7 The Seventh Pericope

Speech-in-Character Concerning the 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 2464
Effect of the Law 2495 Maj have the softer term sarkikov~ (“belong-
ing to a f leshly realm”) in place of sarkinov~
13/ Did the good, therefore, cause my (“made of f lesh”) strongly attested by a* A B C D F
death? By no means! But the sin, in G Y 6 33 69 81 424 1506 1739 1881 al Meth. The
order that it might be shown to be sin, alteration probably had the motivation of reducing
was bringing about my death through the theological difficulty of saying Paul was f leshly
the good, in order that the sin might in a comprehensive physical sense.
become sinful beyond measure c The omission of tou`to (“this”) in D F G mon
through the commandment. 14/ For we appears to be a stylistic improvement, eliminating
knowa that the law is spiritual, but I am the repetition of a parallel phrase in 7:15b and the
fleshly,b having been sold under the
redundancy caused by o{ and tou`to. See Cranfield,
sin. 15/ For I do not know what I bring
about. For what I don’t want—this I 1:358.
practice, but what I hate—thisc I do. d A minor variant in F G t supplies kalovn ejstivn (“it
16/ But if what I don’t want—this I do, I is good”) for kalov~ (“good”), but this looks very
agree with the law that [it is] much like an attempted clarification of the text.
excellent.d 17/ Now surely it is not I e In place of oijkou`sa (“dwelling”) found in A C D F
[who] brings it about, but the sin G K L P Y 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614
dwellinge in me. 18/ For I know that 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735
excellencef does not dwell in me, that 1739 1836 1881 1874 2464 2495 Maj lat Cl [630
is in my flesh. For wishing it lies within
lacking due to homoioteleuton], ejnoikou`sa
my reach, but bringing about what is
excellent does not.g 19/ For I don’t do (“indwelling”) appears in a B 1270 vgmss Ambst, a
the good that I want, but the bad that I reading previously preferred by Nestle-Aland25. The
don’t wanth —this I practice. 20/ Now if latter looks like an effort to improve the text, and
what Ii don’t want—this I do, it is no should be regarded as secondary despite Sanday
longer I who bring it about but the sin and Headlam’s argument (182) about appropriate-
dwelling in me. ness to context.
21/ Thus I discover that while my will is f The provision of the article tov (“the”) in F G
directed to the law in order to do what appears to be a grammatical improvement.
is excellent, the bad lies within my
g The abrupt and undoubtedly original conclusion of
reach. 22/ For with respect to my inner
self, I share pleasure in the law of God,j the sentence with ou[ (“not”) in a A B C 6 81 424c
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

(acc. to Swanson)
23/ but I see another law in my mem- 436 1739 1852 1881 1908 2200 pc sa bo
bers, warring against the law in my goth arm Meth Did Cyrcomm Hier2/5 Aug18/38 Greek
mind and captivating me byk the law of mssacc. to Aug evoked several efforts at stylistic
the sin that exists in my members.l 24/ improvement. D F G K L P Y 5 33 61 69 88* 104
How wretched a person I [am]! Who 181 218 323 326 330 424* 451 459 467 614 623 629
will rescue me from this body of 720 915 917 945 1175 1241 1243 1398 1505 1506
death? 25/ But thanks [be] to Godm 1563 1678 1718 1735 1751 1836 1838 1845 1846
through Jesus Christ our Lord! nThus,
1874 1875 1877 1912 1942 1959 1962 2110 2138
left to myself, I am a slave to God’s law
in my mind, but in my flesh [I am a 2197 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2523 2544 2718
slave] to sin’s law. Maj Lect (ar) b d f g mon o vg syp, h eth geo2 slav Irlat
Orlat Bas Chr Cyrlem Ambst Hier3/5 Pel Aug20/38 sup-
ply oujc euJrivskw (“I do not find”), and 88mg 256 263
a A minor variant in 33 l 883 slav (Hier1/10) pc has the 441 621 1319 1573 2127 pc supply ouj ginwvvskw (“I
text oi\da mevn (“I know on the one hand”) in place do not know”). Metzger, Textual Commentary, 455,
of the widely attested oi[damen (“we know”), and gives the force of the eth as “is not in me.”
several older commentators have argued for this h In place of the broadly attested ouj qevlw (“I do not
reading. Metzger refers in Textual Commentary want”), F pc vgs have misw` (“I hate”), a logical but
(1975), 514, to Reiche and Hofmann; and Zahn, obvious improvement of the text.
347, refers to the strangeness of Paul’s describing i The lack of ejgwv (“I”) is broadly attested by B C D F
his own personal experience prior to the Damascus G 104 256 263 436 1241 1243 1319 1506 1573 1735
conversion by an obtrusive “we.” There is little 1852 2127 2464 pc ar d f g mon o vg sa arm eth geo
doubt that the plural form should be preferred slav Meth Macarius/Symeon Theodore Ambst
here. Ambr Hier2/4 Pel Aug7/15, but the inclusion of this
b a2 K L P 88 104 323 326 330 365 614 945 1175

454
 7:13-25

seemingly redundant term in a A K L P Y 6 33 69 m Several alternatives appear to have been developed

81 88 323 326 330 424 459 614 945 1175 1505 1739 by the early church to replace the probably original
1836 1874 1881 1912 1962 2200 2495 Maj Lect syh exclamation cavri~ de; tw`/ qew`/ (“but thanks be to
bo Cl Orlat Bas Chr Cyr Hier2/4 Aug8/15 is so hard to God”) found in a1 C2 (C* illegible up to 8:3) Y 33 81
explain that it is likely original. Its force is to inten- 88 104 256 (263) 365 436 459 1319 1506 1573 1852
sify the subject, “I.” Nestle-Aland26/27 use the square 2127 2344 pc bo arm geo1 Methms Did1/3 Cyr. B sa
brackets for this reading, which is explained by Or Meth Epiph Hier1/6 delete the dev (“but”), proba-
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 455, as a consequence bly in accordance with liturgical use (Metzger, Tex-
of “rather evenly balanced” evidence (see also tual Commentary, 455). D ar b d mon o vg al Orlat 2/3
Nestle-Aland27 49*-50*; UBS4 2*). The sequence Thret Ambst Ambr Hier4/6 Pel Aug Varimadum
QELWEGW (“I want”) could have caused the similar have hJ cavri~ tou` qeou` (“the grace of God”). F G f
ending of EGW to drop out due to haplography. g have hJ cavri~ kurivou (“the grace of [the] Lord”),
j A minor variant in B uses noov~ (“of mind”) in place and a* A K L P 6 69 323 326 330 424 451 614 945
of qeou` (“of God”), probably a simple case of dit- 1175 1241 1243 1505 1739 1836 1874 1877 1881
tography caused by the scribe’s eye dropping to the 1912 1962 2200 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect syp,h geo2
next line (v. 23): tw`/ novmw/ tou' noov~ (“the law of my (slav) Did2/3 Macarius/Symeon (Chr) Marcus-
mind”); Cranfield, 1:363, suggests an assimilation to Eremita Cyrlem Hier1/6 have eujcaristw` tw`/ qew`/ (“I
the wording of the next verse. Whatever its original give thanks to God”). Metzger suggests that the lat-
cause or motivation, this variant weakens and con- ter arose from a transcriptional error and that the
fuses the argument. other two variants are pedantic answers to the ques-
k The preposition ejn (“by, in”) is found in a com- tion, “Who will deliver me?”
pelling array of texts: a B D F G K P Y 33 69 88 181 n The omission of mevn in a* F G latt, although not
424* 1735 1175 1836 1874 1881 pm latt Cl. It is wide enough to prevail, is evidence of the logical
deleted by (A) C L 6 81 104 323 326 330 365acc. to and textual confusion at the end of this chapter in
Swanson
424c 436 451 614 629 630 945 1241 1243 that v. 25b-c does not follow smoothly on v. 25a.
1319 1505 1506 1573 1739 1962 2127 2344 2464 Venema places v. 25b-c after v. 23 and the Michelsen
2495 syp. The deletion may be an effort at stylistic conjecture listed in Nestle-Aland deletes v. 25b-c as
improvement or, as Metzger suggests in Textual Com- an interpolation. Zuntz, Text, 16, refers to this as a
mentary (1975), 515, a harmonization of the expres- “marginal gloss . . . inserted into the text.” See the
sion tw/` novmw/ earlier in the verse. discussion in the exegesis below.
l Venema conjectures that this was the original loca-
tion of v. 7:25b, a matter that cannot be resolved
without the analysis below.

Analysis v. 12 give rise to the question of v. 13a concerning the

effect of the law.3 The paronomastic series of nine recur-
This pericope continues the “speech-in-character”1 in rences of “law” in this passage clearly indicates the
which Paul’s preconversion zealotism is depicted. This topic.4 The diatribal question is answered in v. 13c-f with
passage opens with a diatribal exchange organized in the thesis of sin invading the law to produce death. The
double-line sentences.2 The intense, first person dis- crucial role of sin is emphasized by the fourfold repeti-
course marked by a high level of pathos characteristic of tion of aJmartiva (“sin”) and aJmartwlov~ (“sinful”) in
proswpopeiva (“speech-in-character”) that began in 7:7 the thesis statement, a forceful instance of paronomasia
is continued through the pericope. The juxtaposition of that holds the opening verse together. The two matching
death by means of the deceit of the law in v. 11 and the i{na (“in order that”) clauses provide an instance of syn-
traditional affirmation of the goodness of the law in onymous parallelism in this impressive thesis statement.5

1 The rhetorical analysis by Stowers, “Speech-in- 3 See Stowers, Diatribe, 149.

Character,” 180–202, is discussed in the section enti- 4 Räisänen, “Paul’s Word-Play,” 89–94, develops the
tled “The Rhetorical ‘I’” in 7:7-25” in the preceding idea of a wordplay primarily between the occur-
chapter. See also Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 238–45. rences of “law” in 7:23.
2 For a less regular strophic analysis, see Weiss, 5 See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 232.
“Beiträge,” 232.

455
The thesis in v. 13c-f is sustained by the subsequent argu- crucial significance of “law” in this paragraph is indi-
ment, organized primarily in double-line sentences, cated by the repetition of novmo~ in vv. 21a, 22, 23a, 23b,
showing how sin prevents a person from achieving the and 23c. Each of the final three lines in the paragraph
desired good. Each paragraph ends with a triple-line sen- concludes with mou (“my”), an impressive example of
tence marking the end of the coherent units of argu- homoioptoton.
ment. The parallelism in v. 14a + b is marked by the The ejaculation in vv. 24-25a about the wretchedness
antithesis between “spiritual” and “f leshly,” while of the human plight and the blessedness of the grace of
vv. 15a-16a is marked by homoioptoton in four succes- Jesus Christ, who saves humans from this plight, pro-
sive first person singular endings. These verses also con- vides a powerful triple-line expression to conclude the
tain the first two of seven reduplications of the verb argument. A recapitulation of the argument follows in
“want” in this pericope, expressing the contradiction v. 25b-c, interrupting the f low of argument in such a way
between wanting and achieving. The concluding line of that some form of textual intrusion has long been sus-
this paragraph refers back effectively to the word “good” pected.
in the opening rhetorical question.
The paragraph of vv. 17-206 shows that sin is respon- The Question of Interpolation
sible for the actions of the frustrated self. It is organized
as a ring-composition with “it is not I [who] brings it Since a significant number of scholars have proposed
about, but the sin dwelling in me” in v. 17 echoed by “it that all or part of this pericope resulted from an interpo-
is no longer I who brings it about but the sin dwelling in lation,8 the question must be assessed before we can
me” in v. 20.7 The paragraph is marked by homoioteleu- turn to exegesis. On the assumption that an interpola-
ton in the o- or on-type endings (vv. 17a, 18a, 18b, 19a, tion is a later insertion into a document with the intent
19b, 20a, 20b) as well as by the repetition of “sin” and to change its meaning,9 several of the criteria required
“good” as the final words in lines 17b + 20c and 18a + to identify such an interpolation appear to be lacking in
19a respectively. The three pairs of double lines followed v. 25b-c.
by a concluding triple-line sentence are exactly matched (a) The material in v. 25b-c does in fact disturb the tri-
by the next paragraph, which describes the “law of sin” umphant f low of discourse from 7:25a to 8:1.10 It
that struggles against the good intentions of the mind reaches back in a rather pedantic manner to reiterate
(7:21-23). A well-developed antithetical parallelism con- the argument that had come to a rhetorically effective
trasts the “good” of v. 21a with the “evil” of v. 21b, the climax in v. 25a. This has led various scholars to suggest
“inner self” of v. 22 with the “members” in v. 23a, and an originally intended sequence of 7:22, 23, 25b-c, 24,
the “mind” of v. 23b with the “members” of v. 23c. The 25a, 8:1, or the sequence 8:2, 1, 3.11 Placing v. 25b-c

6 That a new paragraph begins in v. 17 with nuni; dev Scholars wishing to resolve the difficult transition
is argued by Wilckens, 2:87, and Engberg-Pedersen, with a theory of interpolation include Weiss,
“Reception,” 46–47. “Beiträge,” 232–33; J. Wilson, “Romans vii. 24—viii.
7 See Harvey, Listening, 196. 2: A Rearrangement,” ExpT 4 (1892–93) 192;
8 See the listing of interpolation proposals in nn. n Jülicher, 279; Dodd, 104; Käsemann, 211–12; Wilck-
and 11. ens, 2:96–97; O’Neill, 131–32; Schlier, 235, follow-
9 See the discussion in the chapter below devoted to ing Fuchs, Freiheit, 82–83; Bauer, Leiblichkeit, 159;
the likely interpolation in Rom 16:17-20a; the most Schulz, Mitte der Schrift, 127–28. Other prominent
recent theoretical discussion is available in Walker, advocates include Bultmann, “Glossen,” 198–99;
Interpolations, 1–90. Schmithals, Anthropologie, 81–82; Paulsen, Überliefer-
10 As Keuck, “Röm 7:25b,” demonstrated, this verse ung, 23–24; Kuss, 2:461, following Lipsius, Bult-
has long troubled interpreters. mann, and Müller. In “Zwei Marginalien,” 249–52,
11 See the Venema and Michelsen textual emendations Müller opts for a marginal correction written by
in n. n above. In Emendationen, 24–25, Könnecke Paul himself that was inserted into the wrong loca-
argued for an emendation by Paul himself that tion instead of between v. 23 and v. 24. Lichten-
should have been placed between v. 23 and v. 24. berger, Ich Adams, 150–60, concludes that an

456
 7:13-25

between v. 23 and v. 24 is not unobjectionable, however, (c) An interpolation should feature vocabulary and
because v. 23 already contains an adequate transition to style that differentiate it from the surrounding material
v. 24,12 so no improvement is achieved by the addition. written by a different author. No matter how assiduously
The proposal to interpret v. 25b-c as a question, “Is it a later writer attempts to emulate the style and word
really true that I remain a slave to the law of sin?”13 usage of an earlier author, tiny discrepancies remain visi-
could provide a relatively smooth transition to chap. 8, ble. Yet every word in this sentence, as well as its style, is
albeit one that is inferior to a direct transition between typically Pauline. The key terms in this pericope, “I
v. 25a and 8:1. However, the translation as a question is myself,” “mind,” “law of God,” “f lesh,” and “law of sin”
grammatically problematic,14 and it lacks a denial such are embedded in a typically Pauline antithesis. The infer-
as “No longer!” or “By no means!” which should imme- ential expression a[ra ou\n (“so then”) is a distinctive
diately follow.15 expression of Pauline style, employed eleven other times
(b) A contradiction with the earlier argument of the in Paul’s letters, indeed, seven other times in Romans.19
pericope has been proposed by Bultmann in that the The sentence rings true, but remains rhetorically disrup-
alleged interpolation replaces agreement with the law tive in its current location.
with “serving the law.”16 This is not convincing because (d) Until recently, no advocate of interpolation had
Paul depicts himself in this pericope as a Jewish zealot proposed a redactional motivation for the insertion of
who “shares delight” in the law (7:22) with other like- this sentence. Lichtenberger now proposes that v. 25b-c
minded religionists. In the context of first-century zealo- in its present location serves to relate the preceding
tism, the verb “serve” is perfectly appropriate. Hermann argument to the situation of believers as marked by the
Lichtenberger perceives a contradiction with the previ- continued presence of sin in the full Lutheran sense of
ous argument in the insistence of v. 25b-c that the entire simul iustus et peccator.20 If this is convincing, the verse
self, despite its inner division, serves the law of sin.17 refutes both chap. 7 and chap. 8 and sets a long tradi-
Käsemann argues virtually the opposite, that a non- tion of misinterpretation in motion. However, the entire
Pauline anthropological dualism between the mind and case rests on the fragile premises that vv. 22-23 contain a
the f lesh is implied here.18 The formulation is under- dualistic anthropology and do not ref lect the situation
standable, however, so long as one keeps the dilemma of of the religious zealot. If the refutation in section b
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

the religious zealot in view, because while his inner per- (above) is correct, it remains implausible to suggest that
son delights in the law of God, his violent deeds serve a later redactor sought to alter the thrust of Paul’s argu-
the law of sin in opposing the new revelation of divine ment. Moreover, Lichtenberger makes no effort to situ-
righteousness in Christ (7:22-23). Rom 7:25b-c aptly reca- ate the theological correction allegedly visible in this
pitulates the previous argument in a clarifying manner, interpolation in the late first century when the Pauline
and unlike other interpolations in the Pauline letter cor- letters were being edited.21
pus, there is no substantive element of refutation. Scholars who have inferred a Pauline correction or

unknown editor who misunderstood Paul added 15 See Lichtenberger, “Röm 7,25b,” 286.
v. 25b and thereby provided the foundation for the 16 Bultmann, “Glossen,” 198; see Jewett, Terms, 388.
simul iustus et peccator doctrine. In “Glosse, Interpo- 17 Lichtenberger, “Röm 7,25b,” 292–94; idem, Ich
lation, Redaktion und Komposition in der Sicht der Adams, 157–58.
neutestamentlichen Textkritik,” in Studien zur Über- 18 Käsemann, 211.
lieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes 19 See Dunn, 1:282.
(ANTF 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) 53–55, Kurt 20 Lichtenberger, “Röm 7,25b,” 294.
Aland rejects both the marginal correction and 21 Lichtenberger, Ich Adams, 159–60, deals with the
interpolation options. later history of interpretation, which he feels was
12 See Jülicher, 279; Wilckens, 2:86. led toward the simul iustus et peccator and the two
13 Zahn, 372, followed by Keuck, “Röm 7:25b,” 279. kingdom doctrines by this verse, but these are not
14 BDF §440; 451, makes clear that a[ra can be inter- evident among the theological interests of the post-
rogatory when it stands alone, but in combination Pauline period responsible for distributing the
with ou\n as in v. 25b, it has a resumptive sense. Pauline letter corpus.

457
“second thought,” perhaps in conjunction with a pause 7:13e c) Sin’s action of producing death by means
in dictation, are more likely on the right track.22 Paul’s of the good law
7:13f d) The purpose of sin’s action: to become sin-
motivation may well have been to close the door against
ful beyond measure
a dualistic construal of the preceding argument: both 7:14-16 b. An explanation about how the law remains spiri-
the mind and the f lesh of the zealot remain as doomed tual and good while humans are caught in the
aspects of the person “left to himself,” for without the contradiction of sin
transforming revelation of the righteousness of God on 7:14 1) The antithesis between the spiritual law and
the f leshly self
the Damascus road, Paul would never have seen the
7:14a a) The shared assumption that the law is spiri-
light. The addition of this sentence, probably in the mar- tual
gin of Paul’s final draft of the letter, ref lects a dictation 7:14b b) The declaration of f leshliness as bondage
process in conversation with others in the Corinthian to sin
arena. This included Tertius (16:22) and the people 7:15-16 2) The dilemma of achieving what one really
intends
around him, as well as Phoebe (16:1-2), who probably
7:15a a) The “I” has no understanding of its actions
not only invested the funds required for the drafting of 7:15b b) The “I” does not do what it wants
this extensive letter but also served as its first interpreter 7:15c c) The “I” does what it hates
in the Roman house and tenement churches. In view of 7:16a d) Restatement of the premise that the “I”
her probable involvement in the redactional process does not do what it wants
7:16b e) Conclusion that the law remains good
related to Paul’s dictation, the precise placement of this
7:17-20 c. An explanation about how sin is responsible for
sentence would not have been a matter of concern, the actions of the divided self
because she and her secretarial staff would have under- 7:17 1) The contention of sin’s action
stood the genesis and hence the original motivation of 7:17a a) The “I” does not intend the evil conse-
the gloss. It was only with the later copying and publica- quences of zealous behavior
7:17b b) The sin that dwells within the self is domi-
tion of Romans, which had not been envisioned by Paul,
nant in producing evil consequences
who believed that history would come to its appointed 7:18-19 2) The proof that the performance of the good is
end with a successful Spanish mission, that v. 25b-c came frustrated by sin
to pose so formidable a problem. 7:18a a) The good does not dwell in the f leshly “I”
7:18b b) The “I” wants to perform the good but is
unable to do so
Rhetorical Disposition
7:19a c) Reiteration that the “I” does not do what it
wants
IV. The probatio 7:19b d) Reiteration that the “I” performs the evil it
5:1— B. The second proof: Life in Christ as a new system of does not want
8:39 honor that replaces the search for status through con- 7:20 3) The concluding proof that sin contradicts the
formity to the law intention of the “I”
7:13-25 7. Speech-in-Character Concerning the effect of the 7:20a a) The premise: the “I” does not achieve what
law it wants
7:13 a. A diatribal exchange concerning the goodness of 7:20b b) The inference that the “I” is not acting in
the law in relation to sin its own behalf
7:13a 1) The question whether the good law caused 7:20c c) The contrary inference that “sin” is acting
death to produce evil consequences
7:13b 2) The emphatic denial 7:21-25a d. An explanation about how the law of sin captures
7:13c-f 3) The thesis about sin acting through the law to the self by countering the law of the mind
produce death 7:21 1) The discovery of a new law of human behavior
7:13c a) The active agent: “sin” 7:21a a) The condition of the new law: whenever
7:13d b) The purpose of sin’s action: to reveal its the “I” wishes to accomplish the good
true nature

22 Könnecke, Emendationen, 24–25; Lietzmann, 78;

Jewett, Terms, 388–89; Müller, “Marginalien,”
251–52; Zeller, 145.

458
 7:13-25

7:21b b) The action of the new law: evil lies ready to congregations in which the “strong” were criticizing the
act “weak” for their adherence to the law. But if the problem
7:22-23 2) The proof of the action of the malevolent new
lies elsewhere, the human dilemma must be probed
law
7:22 a) The “inner self” delights in God’s law more deeply and the resolution is not so simple. It can-
7:23a b) A new law is at work in the “members” not be framed in a liberal/conservative polarity that
7:23b c) The action of the new law: to counter the lends superiority to one side or the other. The problem
“law of my mind” is much more basic; indeed, it is universal in its scope.
7:23c d) The consequence of captivity to the “law of
So Paul f latly denies this possibility: “By no means!” he
sin”
7:24 3) The lamentation of the doomed self declares, which establishes the theme of the pericope.
7:24a a) The wretchedness of the “I” This is the seventh time mh; gevnoito (“by no means”)
7:24b b) The need of deliverance from the “body of has appeared in Romans, conveying a f lat repudiation of
death” what was probably a popular view in the majority of
7:25a 4) The thanksgiving
Roman churches.
a) The one to whom thanks are due: God
b) The means by whom one gives thanks: The counter-thesis is stated in a rather rambling man-
Christ ner, without a finite verb but with two i{na (“in order
7:25b-c e. A recapitulation of the antithesis between the that”) clauses, contending that “the sin” misused the
“law of God” and the “law of sin” good law to produce death and thereby proved to be sin
7:25b 1) The mind serves the law of God
beyond measure. The first “in order that” clause refers
7:25c 2) The f lesh serves the law of sin
to sin manifesting itself as sin: i{na fanh/' aJmartiva
(“that it might be shown to be sin”), with the verb
Exegesis
faivnomai (“manifest, show oneself”) appearing here for
the only time in Romans.25 The expression is rare, with
■ 13 The rhetorical question that opens this pericope
the only occurrences in the pre-Pauline period found in
picks up the category of “the good” from the end of v. 12
LXX Ps. Sol. 2.17, i{na fanh/' to; krivma sou (“in order
in reference to the law, which is similar to Prov 4:2-4:
that your judgment might appear”), and Herodotus Hist.
3.137.22, reporting that Democedes acted “in order to
I give you a good gift (dw'ron ga;r ajgaqovn):
seem worthy in Darius’ eyes (i{na fanh/' pro;~ Dareivou
do not forsake my teaching . . .
ejwvn . . . dokimov~).” “The sin” appears here with the arti-
my father . . . taught me, and said to me,
cle to denote the subject of the sentence; the article
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
refers back to the definition in the previous pericope:
keep my commandments, and live. . . .”
sin as covetousness, desiring what belongs to another,
that is, that spirit of competition for honor that had cor-
In a similar vein, Epictetus refers to the “laws of God”
rupted the law and turned it into a means of status
dwelling within him as “the good” (to; ajgaqovn) that he
acquisition. The problem was that such competition was
was obligated to keep, in every respect.23 “Was it the
so ingrained in the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures
good law that caused my death?”24 asks Paul, reiterating
that it seemed perfectly benign and thus remained unac-
in a more radical manner the thought of v. 11. If the
knowledged as sin. It required the crucifixion and resur-
fault lies in the law itself, then it must be revised or
rection of Christ to expose this lethal competition for
abandoned. This simplistic answer has always been avail-
what it was; it was “unmasked” not by the law26 but by
able, and apparently had some foothold in the Roman

23 Epictetus Diss. 4.3.11–12; Michel, 229, refers also to occurred (ejpeidh; par j aujtoi`~ oJ tou` ÆOrfevw~
later rabbinic writings that identify the law as “the ejgevneto qavnato~).” See Godet, 278; Cranfield,
good”: Ber. 5a; ’Abot. 6.3; ‘Abod. Zar. 19b. 1:354.
24 The idiom ejmoi; ejgevneto qavnato~ probably means 25 See Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann,
“cause my death,” as illustrated in Aristotle Frag. “faivnw ktl.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 2: “to become visible
var. 8.44.552 in reference to the Thracian Leibethi- . . . for spiritual perception.”
ans, “since by their hands the death of Orpheus 26 Käsemann, 198; Dunn, 1:386.
459
 the cross, which revealed the full, evil potential of reli- it rises to “deliberate violation of God’s good will for his
gious zeal acting to defend itself and to prove its superi- people,”31 but this is surely true for all sin. What Paul
ority. Indeed, the cross contradicts every human finds so outrageous as an expression of sin’s inherent
campaign to achieve honor through superior perfor- nature is that it perverts the finest dimension of religion
mance. The true character of sin was disclosed, accord- into a system of dominating others and demonstrating
ing to this verse, by bringing about “my death through the superior virtue of one’s own group, whatever that
the good,” that is, through the law. The participle might be. The expression kaq j uJperbolhvn (“beyond
katergazomevnh is used here with the connotation of measure”) appears in the authentic Pauline letters
“bringing about, producing”27 to convey how sin accom- (1 Cor 12:31; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:17; Gal 1:13) and is a favorite
plishes this perversion of the good. Sin takes the law, of the Attic orators.32 In the light of Paul’s experience,
which was intended to guard peace and justice, and the immeasurable capacity of sin and its inherent per-
turns it into an instrument for claiming superiority over versity were most clearly demonstrated in turning his
others. Once again, what Paul has in mind is under- passion to be more righteous than others into a cam-
standable in the light of his preconversion experience of paign against the Messiah and his people, so that the
having opposed the gospel because of his own competi- commandment that God gave to sustain and protect life
tive righteousness,28 which brought him into conf lict resulted instead in death. In Godet’s words, “sin wrought
with God’s Messiah and therefore under wrath. The death by goodness, that it might become as sinful as pos-
death he had been living and promoting was exposed sible.”33
and overcome by the encounter with the risen Christ. ■ 14 Paul’s explanation of the thesis begins with the
The second i{na (“in order that”) clause “discloses in unparalleled claim that the law is “spiritual” (pneu-
rhetorical crescendo the point of the first,”29 exclaiming matikov"). While he had earlier referred to the spiritual
that this perversion of the original purpose of the law blessing of the gospel (Rom 1:11), a theme to which he
reveals sin as becoming “sinful beyond measure.” The will return in 15:27, and while he frequently referred to
verb gevnhtai (“become, occur”) is employed to produce other features of the new age as “spiritual” (eleven times
an idiom first found in Plato Theaet. 193c4, “in order in 1 Corinthians; once in Galatians),34 never did he or
that recognition might occur (i{na gevnhtai ajnagnwv- anyone else prior to this moment, as far as I can tell,
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

risi"),” and occurs elsewhere in the NT (Matt 10:25; ever connect the word “law” with the adjective “spiri-
23:26; Luke 4:3; Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 3:18; Col 1:18). How- tual.”35 In the OT and intertestamental literature,
ever, the thought that “sin” achieves the epitome of sin- prophetic and wisdom literature are thought to be
fulness in its twisting of the “commandment” into a expressions of the divine Spirit,36 but it was not until the
vehicle of gaining honor is uniquely Pauline. Rengstorf early rabbinic period that a spiritual origin was claimed
observes that this verse poses “some difficulty,” but that for the entire Jewish Scripture.37 Early Christians were
it can be explained with the premise that a personified making similar claims about their sacred writings (Matt
sin “becomes aware of itself and its power” through the 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 4:25; 28:25; 2 Pet 1:21), but
commandment.30 However, for Paul to speculate about without using the terms Paul employs here. The later tal-
sin’s awareness of itself seems far from the concern of mudic viewpont is visible in Sanh. 10.1, that whoever
this letter. Moo proposes that sin “becomes worse” when says “that the law is not from heaven” has no place in the

27 See Cranfield, 1:354; Wilckens, 2:84. 33 Godet, 279.

28 See Middendorf, Romans 7, 174. 34 See Jacob Kremer, “ pneumatikovvi, pneumatikwv",”
29 Käsemann, 198. EDNT 3 (1993) 122–23.
30 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “aJmartwlov", ajnamavrth- 35 Philo claims that “the nature of angels is spiritual”
to",” TDNT 1 (1964) 329. (pneumatikhv) in QG 1.92, but never claims this
31 Moo, 453. attribute for the Torah.
32 Demonsthenes Erot. 7.9; 20.4; 33.2; Isocrates Antid. 36 Erik Sjöberg, “pneu'ma, pneumatikov" . . . in Pales-
147.7; Phil. 11.5; Panath. 123.5, etc. It appears some tinian Judaism,” TDNT 6 (1968) 381–82.
twenty-two times in the Aristotelian corpus. 37 Ibid., 382.

460
 7:13-25

world to come. There is little doubt, therefore, about the “f leshly” refers not primarily to the material nature of
likely assent of at least a portion of the Roman audience humans but to opposition against God, for it was pre-
with Paul’s contention even though it was formulated in cisely in his own zealous advocacy of the law that Paul
an innovative manner, couched with the formula, “for we found himself in such opposition. In his striving to
know,” as in Rom 2:2; 3:19. In this context it seems likely demonstrate his righteousness under the law, he found
that Paul intends to imply that the Torah was created, himself caught in the throes of sin.44
activated and authorized by the Spirit.38 An extensive TLG search indicates that the expres-
The antithesis is formulated with ejgwv (“I”) in the sion “sold under sin” (pepramevno" uJpo; th;n aJmartivan)
emphatic position, contrasting with the “we” who know appears here for the first time in Greek literature, and
that the law is spiritual.39 That the “I” is sarkinov" thereafter is entirely restricted to patristic writers depen-
(“f leshly”) picks up the theme from v. 5, “when we were dent on this verse. The verb pipravskw (“sell”) occurs in
in the f lesh,” which we showed to be a matter of living a variety of commercial contexts including slavery,45 as,
under the power of perverse systems of honor and for example, in Lev 25:39, “and if your brother is humili-
shame, in which the will to surpass others destroys the ated and sold to you (praqh/' soiv) he shall not serve you
good that one wants to achieve. While sarkinov" in secu- with the servitude of a slave.” In Isa 50:1, being sold into
lar usage referred to obesity,40 to human limitation,41 the slavery of captivity is associated with Israel’s sins, but
and to susceptibility to corruption,42 both the earlier for- there is no suggestion that sin itself is the slaveholder:
mulation in Rom 7:5 and the use of this word in 1 Cor “Behold, you are sold on account of your sins (tai;"
3:1-3, referring to a carnal, worldly orientation closed off aJmartivai" uJmw'n ejpravqhte), and for your iniquities
to the Spirit, suggest a specifically Pauline definition. have I put your mother away.”46 A particularly striking
The closest non-Pauline parallel is T. Jud. 19.4,43 but parallel occurs in a Hellenistic lead inscription from
there the fault lies in susceptibility to a demonic force Asia Minor in which the slave Antigone is to be “sold
rather than in a human revolt against God: “The prince from among her fellow slaves” (peprhmevna ejx
of error blinded me, and I was ignorant—as a human oJmolodouvl[wn]) and given over to the power of Deme-
being, as f lesh, in my corrupt sins (wJ" savrx ejn aJmartiv- ter, an infernal deity who will “not be propitious to
ai" fqareiv") until I learned of my own weakness after her.”47 Paul’s formulation is also unique in employing
supposing myself to be invincible.” For Paul, to be the article in the expression “sold under the sin,” refer-

38 See Schlier, 229; Cranfield, 1:355; Winger, Law, 42 Epicurus Dep. 16.1, “what is of f lesh is capable of
172–73. As Jervis points out (“Commandment,” corruption (to; savrkinon fqora'" ei\nai dek-
201), this “foreshadows the thought of 8.4 that the tikovn).”
just requirement of the Law is fulfilled by those who 43 See Jörg Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese von
walk according to the Spirit.” ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische
39 It is possible that “we know” should be understood Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90 (1999) 66, 72–76.
as a “plural of modesty,” according to Smyth, Gram- 44 This interpretation is adapted from Robert Jewett,
mar, §1008–12. E.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.1.1, e[nnoiav “The Basic Human Dilemma: Weakness or Zealous
poq j hJmi`n ejgevneto (“the ref lection once occurred Violence (Romans 7:7-25 and 10:1-18),” ExAud 13
to me”). See also Plutarch Rom. 15.2. In this case, (1997) 96–109. For a recent restatement of the simul
however, commentators who discuss the matter are iustus et peccator interpretation that “sin remains a
agreed that the plural includes Paul’s audience; see problem in believers’ lives,” see Jervis, “Command-
Schlier, 229; Cranfield, 1:355; Dunn, 1:387; Wilck- ment,” 202.
ens, 2:85; Moo, 453. 45 See MM 513–14, and Herbert Preisker,
40 Eupolis Comic Frag. 387, “a corpulent woman” “pipravskw,” TDNT 6 (1968) 160.
(sarkivnh gunhv); see also Anonymus Iamblichi Frag. 46 See Marc Philonenko, “Sur l’expression ‘vendue au
7.53. pêché’ dans ‘l’Epître aux Romains,’” RHR 203
41 Aristophanes Inc. Fab. 26.1, “not as another man of (1986) 45–51.
f lesh (a[ndra savrkinon)”; see also Hipparchus 47 C. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnas-
(Stobaeus Anth. 4.960.15H = Sib. Or., Frag. 1.1); Aris- sus, Cnidus, and Branchidae (London: Day & Son,
totle Eth. nic. 1117b 3; Polybius Hist. 38.8.6. 1863) vol. 2, part 2, no. 81, pp. 725–27.

461
ring back to “the sin” in 7:13c, which was defined as the What he actually achieved was the opposite, the direct
perverse spirit of competition for honor that had turned thwarting of God’s Messiah and the new community of
the law into a system of status acquisition. In Gal 3:22 an those who accepted his lordship.52
anarthrous form of this expression occurs, that “scrip- That Paul did not understand the contradiction
ture consigned all things under sin (uJpo; aJmartivan).” between his intent and his accomplishment is conveyed
Sin functions in Paul’s expression as the alien power that by the verb ginwvskw, which is often taken in the Augus-
enslaves its helpless victims, which would have been an tinian sense of “I do not approve,”53 which fits the clas-
emotionally powerful metaphor for Paul’s audience that sic doctrine of Rom 7 as descriptive of the sins of
consisted mostly of slaves and former slaves with first- believers.54 No linguistic parallels have been adduced for
hand experience of slavery’s abuse and degradation.48 It this special translation of a word that has the basic defi-
is all the more striking that Paul applies this metaphor nition of “experience, know, or understand,”55 so this
not to a sinner defined in terms of violating the law but option should be rejected as “forced.”56 The more seri-
to himself as the epitome of legal righteousness prior to ous exegetical choice is whether ouj ginwvskw implies
his conversion. basic lack of knowledge and awareness of the contradic-
■ 15 Verses 15-16 clarify what it means to be “sold tion, as in 7:7,57 or whether it implies a failure to under-
under sin.” Taking the formulation of this sentence in stand the contradiction and its consequences.58 The
the Greek word order, o} ga;r katergavzomai (“for what example of Medea, who murders her children as
I bring about, accomplish”) refers simply “to that which vengeance against her unfaithful husband, is frequently
is accomplished by one’s activity.”49 What is striking, cited in support of this latter alternative:59
however, is that this same verb was employed in 7:8 and
13 with sin as the subject.50 A kind of cosponsorship of I can no longer, as such, gaze upon you; rather I am
evil is evidently in view, in which human action is at the vanquished by evils (ajlla; nikw`mai kakoi`~), and I
same time performed by sin as an alien power, so that learn what sort of wicked things I intend to do, but
no evasion of responsibility is possible.51 What Paul had passion has gotten the better of my plans (qumo;~ de;
intended to bring about in his zealous advocacy of the kreivsswn tw`n ejmw`n boulhmavtwn), and such is the
law, ending up in the persecution of early Christians, reason for the greatest of evils to mortals. (Euripides
was the messianic reign of righteousness and peace. Medea 1077b–80)

48 See Harrill, Slaves, 29–33. 56 Godet, 284.

49 Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 57 BAGD 160.1; Lietzmann, 77; Schmidt, 130; cf. John-
“katergavzomai,” EDNT 2 (1991) 271; see also son, 110–12.
BAGD 421.2, “bring about, produce, create.” 58 BAGD 161.2; Weiss, 316; Lagrange, 175; Hommel,
50 See Schlier, 240; Wilckens, 2:86. “7. Kapitel,” 165–67; Kuss, 2:453; Schlier, 230;
51 Zahn, 353. Haacker, 146; Schreiner, 373; most other commen-
52 Although he acknowledges these details, Midden- tators.
dorf, Romans 7, 243, insists that Paul’s purpose is 59 Haacker, 146, Hommel, “7. Kapitel,” 160–61;
“to inform his readers about the role and activity of Theobald, 212; Robert Renehan, “Classical Greek
the Law in the Christian life” (243, italics in origi- Quotations in the New Testament,” in D. Neiman
nal), which is explained in terms of classical and M. Schatkin, eds., The Heritage of the Early
Lutheran doctrine (244–52). Church: Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges
53 Fitzmyer, 474, identifies the source of this view in Vasilievich Florovsky (OrChrA 195; Rome: Pontifi-
Augustine’s Exp. quaest. Rom. 36 (CSEL 84.19). cium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973) 24;
54 See Weiss, 316, for an account of earlier advocates Klauck, “Wortlose Seufzen,” 87; Lichtenberger, Ich
of this interpretation, followed in recent times by Adams, 177–86. See the discussion of the Greek
Barrett, 148; Cranfield, 1:359; Moo, 457; etc. An philosophical background of the premise that peo-
extensive argument to this effect is available in Mag- ple always seek to accomplish the good but some-
nussen, Verstehen, 157–99. times have “the wrong idea of what is good,” in
55 Rudolf Bultmann, “ginwvskw ktl.,” TDNT 1 (1964) Strom, Reframing Paul, 49; cf. 48–57.
689, 703–4; BAGD 160–61; Walter Schmithals,
“ginwvskw ktl.,” EDNT 1 (1990) 248–51.
462
 7:13-25

On closer analysis, however, this classic expression of the prises the ironic antithesis. Poievw means to act or do,
contradiction between reason and passion is quite differ- which appeared in 2:13 as “doers of the law,” and has
ent from the lack of knowledge claimed by Paul. Nor the connotation here of performing a specific action,66
does the philosophical discussion of ajkrasiva (“lack of which again has an ironic resonance. It is not that Paul
self control, weakness of will”) match Paul’s insistence proved unable to obey the law, but that his very obedi-
on prior unawareness.60 Moreover, if the model of Paul ence achieved the opposite of its intended effect67
the zealot is employed, the matter of previous under- because rather than pleasing God and advancing the
standing seems less plausible; unlike Medea, Paul was cause of God’s realm, Paul’s had opposed the Messiah.
completely unaware of the contradiction between his This dilemma of misguided religious zealotism was very
actions and their consequences until after his conver- different from classical expressions of human contradic-
sion, which means that a lack of basic knowledge is more tion, and it had a much more direct bearing on the
likely in view here. This brings the use of ginwvskw as actual behavior of the Roman house and tenement
“know” in this verse into consistency with v. 7 and the churches toward each other. For example, Euripides
earlier usages in Rom 1:21; 2:18; 3:17; 6:6; and 7:1.61 places these words in the mouth of Phaedra:68
The contradiction that Paul discovered on the Damas-
cus road is explained by parallel clauses, in which “what During long nights I have often thought about what
I don’t want” and “what I hate” are matched with “this I so wrecks our human life, and I realized that lack of
practice” and “this I do.” The first of seven reduplica- understanding is not the root of all evil (ouj kata;
tions of qevlein in this pericope appears here with the gnwvmh~ fuvsin pravssein kavkion)—most people lack
connotation of “want,” understood with the negative ouj nothing in insight, so the cause must lie elsewhere: we
(“not”) as the will not to disobey the law.62 This is inten- know and recognize the good but we do not do it (ta;
sified by the verb misw', used here for the only time in crhvst j ejpistavmesqa kai; gignwvskomen. oujk ejkpo-
the Pauline letters. It appears with the connotation of nou`men d j), some from sloth and others preferring
“hate,”63 because what Paul the zealous Pharisee pleasure over duty. . . . (Euripides Hipp. 375–82)
deplored most of all was disobedience to the oral and
written Torah. His own “blameless” conformity with the Ovid’s epigrammatic formulation of Medea’s dilemma
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

law (Phil 3:6) was an expression of this profound antipa- fits this classic conf lict between reason and passion or
thy. The two verbs for action have roughly synonymous pleasure: “I see and approve the better course, but I fol-
meaning.64 Pravssw has the sense of “intensive occupa- low the worse” (Metam. 7.21).69 Epictetus comes closer to
tion with the matter at hand,”65 and was used in 2:25 in Rom 7 in arguing that “every sin involves a contradic-
the expression “practice the law,” to which 7:15 com- tion. For since he who sins does not wish to sin, but to

60 See Ronald V. Huggins, “Alleged Classical Parallels 62 Gottlob Schrenk, “qevlw ktl.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 50;
to Paul’s ‘What I Want to Do I Do Not Do, but the effort to develop a special connotation for qevlw
What I Hate, That I do’ (Rom 7:15),” WTJ 54 (1992) as trans-subjective desire to achieve life (Bultmann,
158–61. Engberg-Pedersen, “Reception,” 47, 54–56, Old and New Man, 33–48; idem, Theology, 248) is
appears to overlook the disparity with ajkarsiva, as overly specific and too existentialist to be plausible
does Carter, Power of Sin, 191. in ancient usage.
61 Lichtenberger, Ich Adams, 163–64, proposes that the 63 Otto Michel, “misevw,” TDNT 4 (1967) 692.
commandment in Gen 2:17, “of the tree of the 64 Barrett, 147.
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,” is the 65 Christian Maurer, “pravssw ktl.,” TDNT 6 (1968)
source of what the speaker “does not know” in this 632.
verse, but the link is purely on the verbal level, 66 Walter Radl, “poievw,” EDNT 3 (1993) 125.
because Adam now knows that he should not eat 67 See Schmidt, 130.
from the tree while the speaker is described as 68 Cited by Theobald, 212; Theissen, Psychological
being unaware of the consequences of his actions. Aspects, 212–13.
So far as I can tell, the two situations are entirely 69 See Renehan, “Classical Greek Quotations,” 25.
different.

463
be right, it is clear that he is not doing what he wishes” statement of this mistaken theory that Rom 7 describes
(pa`n aJmavrthma mavchn perivecei. ejpei; ga;r oJ aJmar- the conf lict between “the Jew such as he ought to be . . .
tavnwn ouj qevlei aJmartavnein, ajlla; katorqw`sai, [and] the real Jew, such as he shows himself in
dh`lon o{ti me;n qevlei ouj poiei`, Diss. 2.26.1–2). How- practice.”75 Sanday and Headlam’s inf luential commen-
ever, the contradiction described by Epictetus could be tary suggests that the dilemma of Rom 7 had been
overcome by enlightenment, whereas for Paul the situa-
tion of being “sold under sin” involved an unacknowl- felt most keenly when he was a “Pharisee of the Phar-
edged hostility against God and thus required a much isees.” Without putting an exact date to the struggle
more fundamental cure. Epictetus continues: which follows we shall probably not be wrong in refer-
ring the main features of it especially to the period
He, then, who can show to each man the contradic- before his Conversion. It was then that the powerless-
tion which causes him to err, and can clearly bring ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was
home to him how he is not doing what he wishes, and brought home to him.76
is doing what he does not wish, is strong in argument,
and at the same time effective both in encouragement The theory of Paul’s bad conscience as a Jew unable
and refutation. For as soon as anyone shows a man to obey the whole law has been refuted by Krister Sten-
this, he will of his own accord abandon what he is dahl,77 E. P. Sanders,78 and a host of others. It is contra-
doing. (Diss. 2.26.4–5) dicted by the references in Rom 7:13-16 and 9:1-5 to the
Jewish law as holy and good; it is even more sharply
That the human dilemma is more than cognitive70 is refuted by Paul’s statements in Phil 3:4-6 and Gal 1:14
conveyed by Paul’s following verse. about his having excelled in the performance of the Jew-
■ 16 The mysterious conf lict between willing and ish law, even to the point of being “blameless.” The idea
achieving the good, in which Paul again employs qevlw that he nevertheless had a bad conscience was a figment
(“will”) and poievw (“do”) as in the preceding verse, can- of the introspective conscience of the West and of liberal
not be clarified by increased knowledge of and adher- Protestantism of the last century, a view whose vicious
ence to the law. “If what I don’t want—this I do” points stereotype of Jewish religiosity has evoked widespread
to a deeper dilemma than Paul’s Pharisaic teachers of criticism in the wake of the studies by Stendahl and
the law had imagined. Paul’s adherence to the law, both Sanders.
in spirit and in deed, is affirmed by means of a unique Another problematic alternative is the psychological
formulation for the NT, one that appears in philosophic theory of an unconscious conf lict with the law prior to
usage: suvmfhmi with the dative (“I agree with . . .”). Paul’s conversion. C. H. Dodd builds his case on Rom
Plato uses this expression, suvmfhmi soi, e[fh (“‘I agree 7:8, where “the command gave an impulse to sin,” fol-
with you,’ he said”).71 That the law is kalov" (“excellent, lowing Augustine’s confession that “the desire to steal
beautiful”) reiterates the thrust of 7:1272 and makes it was aroused simply by the prohibition of stealing.”79 He
clear that Paul’s dilemma was not inadequate adherence goes on to explain as follows:
to the law or some hidden conf lict or weakness in per-
forming its demands.73 This verse confirms the problem It is one of the most important teachings of modern
with the classic explanations of Rom 7 in terms of psychology . . . that the attempt to repress an instinc-
human weakness.74 Fréderic Godet provides a classic tive desire directly, seldom succeeds in its object. If

70 See Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 216. 74 Heil, 77: “this common weakness of the human con-
71 Plato Resp. 608 b9; see also 403c8; 526c7; 608b3. dition.”
72 That kalov~ is used here as a “near synonym” of 75 Godet, 280.
ajgaqov~ in 7:12-13 is suggested by Dunn, 1:390, and 76 Sanday and Headlam, 186.
Jörg Baumgarten, “ajgaqov~,” EDNT 1 (1990) 6. 77 Stendahl, Paul, 78–96.
73 See Schmidt, 130; Murray, 263. 78 Sanders, Paul, 443, 494, 504.

464
 7:13-25

the desire is repressed, it is likely to form a “complex” drives of the id overpower the superego and inf luence
below the threshold of consciousness, and to break the ego from above in threatening and promising man-
into the conscious life in fresh and perhaps even more ners.”86
deleterious forms.80 The problem is that there is not a hint of such a con-
f lict in Paul’s description of his former life as a Pharisee.
The psychological approach has been further developed Theissen has simply provided an internalized variety of
by Gerd Theissen.81 His viewpoint rests on an exegesis the old theory of Paul’s introspective conscience, based
of the “I” in Rom 7 that is widely accepted today, that it not on an actual incapacity to obey the law but on an
“combines personal and typical traits.”82 It is Paul’s own inner anxiety that he might be unable to do so. But the
ego that is being described, and in view of the past tense theory’s only evidence is Rom 7 itself, and it is contra-
forms of the verbs and the contrast with current Chris- dicted by the rest of the evidence from the Pauline let-
tian experience described in Rom 8, Theissen finds it ters and by our knowledge of ancient Judaism.
very likely that Paul’s pre-Christian past is in some sense A similarly problematic theory relates to Paul’s
being described. Looking back on his life, Paul detects allegedly suppressed sexual tension and his inability to
an “unconscious conf lict with the law,”83 a conf lict of control his desires, suggested by Robert Gundry,87 Hol-
which he became aware only after his conversion.84 It ger Tiedemann,88 and Francis Watson.89 The only indica-
was not that he had been unable to perform the law as tion, however, that Paul was bothered by the “awakening
some of the earlier psychological theories had sug- of sexual desire at the very time his obligation to the law
gested, but that there was internal resistance within him matured”90 in some first century Bar Mitzvah is the ref-
that expressed itself through hostility to others. Theissen erence to the “law in my members” (Rom 7:23). How-
writes: ever, ta; mevlh was used twice in 6:13 to refer to human
capacity in general,91 and in 12:4-5 the phrase refers to
Christ became to him a symbol of his negative iden- individual members of the body of Christ, in neither
tity, that is, of all those aspects he did not wish to per- case with any sexual overtones. Moreover, there is not a
ceive in himself and from which he consciously hint in Paul’s other letters that he had had an unsuccess-
wished to distance himself. Instead of seeing and ful “confrontation with the tenth commandment”;92
addressing in himself repressed incapacity to fulfill indeed, this would seem to be contradicted by Paul’s
the law and anxiety at the demands of the law, he per- claim in Phil 3:6 to have been “unblemished” in his obe-
secutes them in a small group that deviated from the dience to the law prior to the conversion. It is also con-
law.85 tradicted by 1 Cor 7:7, where a particular sexual
inclination to marry or not to marry is described as a
Later Theissen uses Freudian categories to understand divine charisma. The same objections pertain with
this unconscious civil war: “Destructive and libidinus regard to Watson’s claim that “[s]exual desire—Augus-

79 Dodd, 109. 87 Gundry, “Moral Frustration,” 228–45; Gundry,

80 Ibid., 110. Soµma, 137.
81 Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 179–201, 211–60. 88 Holger Tiedemann, Die Erfahrung des Fleisches:
82 Ibid., 201. Paulus und die Last der Lust (Stuttgart: Radius, 1998)
83 Ibid., 231. 287–304.
84 Ibid., 235. 89 Watson, Paul, 151–53, and Agape, 171–82.
85 Ibid., 243. 90 Gundry, “Moral Frustration,” 233.
86 Ibid., 245; for a similar analysis, see Klauck, “Wort- 91 See Käsemann, 177; Dunn, 1:337, following the lead
lose Seufzen,” 88–90, and Michael Reichardt, Psy- of Schweizer, “Sünde in den Gliedern,” 437–39.
chologische Erklärung der paulinischen 92 Gundry, “Moral Frustration,” 234.
Damaskusvision? Ein Beitrag zum interdisziplinären
Gespräch zwischen Exegese und Psychologie seit dem 18.
Jahrhundert (SBB 42; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1999) 329–34.

465
 tine’s concupiscentia—is for Paul the paradigmatic René Girard, he interprets the death of Christ as “an
instance of the desire the law prohibits.” It entails “a epiphany of sacred violence.”97 To accept the gospel
reorganization of the body around the genitals.”93 therefore commits one to resist the principalities and
That Paul was skeptical about the human capacity to powers that encourage “exclusiveness and scapegoating”
live the transformed life even after conversion remains and to join “the new community of freedom and mutual
typical of Lutheran and Calvinist exegesis. In the classic acceptance.”98 The Pauline doctrine of original sin is
formulation of Anders Nygren, Rom 7 describes “the reinterpreted as a manifestation of “mimetic rivalry
tension which exists, in the Christian life, between will within the system of sacred violence,”99 since it focuses
and action, between intention and performance. . . . The so intensively on the elements of covetousness and desire
will to do the right is always present in him; but he that corrupt the law. Hamerton-Kelly interprets the
steadily falls short in performance.”94 The reason for dilemma of a representative religious person in Rom 7,
this failure is that “the Christian belongs at the same “caught in the coils of the Sacred” that instruct him in
time to both the new and the old aeons,”95 and the con- zealous obedience.100 “Sin used the Law to deceive him,
stant lures of the latter cause weakness in performance. by constructing the sacred community of sin and death
This interpretation is now becoming more popular within which his desire for God was deformed continu-
because of the collapse of other interpretive alternatives. ously into the service of self. His will was not weak but
An example of this is James D. G. Dunn, who concludes warped by mimeseis, the deviated desire that dwelt in
his discussion as follows: his religious identity as a Jew.” By zealous conformity to
the law, there is created “a sphere of sacred violence
It is not Paul the pious Pharisee who speaks here, but within which good intentions have bad outcomes.”101
Paul the humble believer. . . . Evidently conversion for Although he does not provide an extensive discussion of
Paul means becoming aware as never before of the Rom 7, Hamerton-Kelly suggests in a footnote, “Looking
power of sin in his own life . . . not just as a power back on his Jewish life from the other side of his conver-
now broken insofar as he had died with Christ, but as sion, he saw the moral numbness caused by the system
a power still in play insofar as he was still a man of and confesses it ironically. . . . Now he understands that
f lesh. . . .96 he really did not know what he was doing (Romans
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

7:15a).”102 Although this theory gives too little attention

The main barriers to this exegesis are the contradictions to the social context of Paul in the first century, it moves
in Rom 6:4, 7, 11-14, 17-19, and chaps. 12–16 as well as in the right direction, despite ferocious criticism about
the ethical sections in other letters, none of which hints the alleged anti-Semitism it implies.103 There is a grain
that Paul believed the Christian ethic was incapable of of truth in this critique, because Paul’s analysis of the
fulfillment. Honesty about the dilemmas of current human plight generalizes from his Jewish experience,
Christian ethics should not be allowed to override the suggesting that all groups have the same zealous tenden-
evidence in Paul’s own letters of an expectation of ethi- cies.
cal transformation. The wording of 7:16 suggests that the details match
An approach derived from French literary criticism is Paul’s experience of frustration as a zealot, a frustration
employed in Robert Hamerton-Kelly’s provocative study, only manifest at the moment of his conversion.104 The
Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross. Building dilemma of zealous religion, however, is recurring within
on the scapegoat and mimesis theories developed by the church as ethnic conf licts between house and tene-

93 Watson, Agape, 177–78. 100 Ibid., 107.

94 Nygren, 293. 101 Ibid., 108.
95 Ibid., 296. 102 Ibid., 122 n. 11.
96 Dunn, 1:407. 103 See especially Boyarin, Radical Jew, 214–19.
97 Hamerton-Kelly, Cross, 63. 104 This section is adapted from chap. 7 of my book
98 Ibid., 87. Apostle to America. See also Saint Paul at the Movies,
99 Ibid., 111. 21–25, 126–33. Cf. Patte, Paul, 275–77.

466
 7:13-25

ment churches arise. Paul needs to expose this funda- suffice in this situation, because the sinful distortion of
mental problem in order to provide a basis for coopera- the motivation to obey the law is so willingly endorsed
tion and to clarify the task of the mission to Spain, lest it by the ego that seeks the honor of superior perfor-
become one more zealous, imperialistic exercise similar mance. Both Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures provided
to the efforts Rome had long made to dominate Spain. elaborate support for this distortion, so that Paul’s first
■ 17 The next four verses explain how sin causes an person singular discourse was truly paradigmatic.
objective kind of contradiction between willing and Although it was the very opposite of the intention of the
achieving the good. There is wide agreement that nuniv religious zealot to oppose God’s will, this indwelling sin
dev oujkevti has a logical and inferential rather than a tem- transforms obedience into a means of status acquisition
poral sense;105 there is also a contrasting connotation in and thus produces the disastrous contradiction between
this expression that introduces a new argument,106 so I what is intended and what is actually achieved.
translate it with “Now surely it is not . . . .” In view of the ■ 18 The next two verses explain how the motivation to
agreement of the ego with the law, which produces per- achieve the “good” is frustrated by sinful distortion. The
fect performance thereof, how can one explain that the first person singular verb “I know” (oi\da) opens the sen-
very opposite of the law’s object is achieved? Paul reiter- tence as in the succeeding vv. 21, 22, and 23, making
ates the theme of v. 14, that the ego is “sold under the clear that the failure to perform the “good” (ajgaqov") is
sin,” claiming here that sin rather than the ego “brings an insight derived from Paul’s personal experience with
about” (katergavzomai, as in v. 15) the awful contradic- the law. In the preceding pericope Paul had made the
tion inherent in religious zealotism. This could be taken claim that “the commandment is holy and righteous and
as a denial of human responsibility for evil conse- good (ajgaqov")” (7:12) and the same word is used in ref-
quences, but it seems clear from the expression “the sin erence to the law in the opening verse of the present
dwelling in me” (hJ oijkou'sa ejn ejmoi; aJmartiva) that sin pericope (to; ajgaqovn, 7:13). The cryptic formulation in
and the self are inextricably tangled and thus are mutu- this verse, that the good does “not dwell in me, that is in
ally responsible for such consequences.107 Walter Grund- my f lesh,” is usually mistranslated as “nothing good
mann claimed that this expression implies that the dwells within me,”109 but as Leander Keck has shown,
person in Rom 7 “is possessed by demonic power,” hav- the “not” immediately precedes what is negated, that is,
ing been sold under sin.108 Commentators have noted a “dwells in me” (oujk oijkei` ejn ejmoiv).110 The question here
close parallel to this idea in T. Naph. 8.6, “The one who is not how much good resides in the self but rather the
does not do the good . . . the devil will inhabit him as his “non-residence of the good,” because as long as sin dom-
own instrument.” But it is questionable whether inates, the good is entirely absent.111 This contention
demonic possession is the appropriate model for Paul’s refers again to the capacity of the f lesh to transform the
argument, because human assent to sin is the necessary law into a system of status acquisition, and thus totally to
precondition to being enslaved by it. Exorcism would not frustrate its capacity to produce the good. The will to

105 BAGD 546.2; 592.2; Weiss, 318; Meyer, 2:20; Godet, Fitzmyer, 475; Byrne, 224; Haacker, 140; Schreiner,
285; Kuss, 2:454; Käsemann, 204; Moo, 457; Dunn’s 372; Witherington, 196.
effort (1:390) to retain “the eschatological overtone” 110 Leander E. Keck, “The Absent Good: The Signifi-
despite the “primarily logical” function of this cance of Rom 7:18a,” in S. Maser and E. Schlarb,
expression is semantically illogical and unconvinc- eds., Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeit-
ing. ens aus dem Freundes- und Schülerkreis Dieter
106 See Engberg-Pedersen, “Reception,” 46–47. Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag (MTS 50; Marburg:
107 Moo, 458. Elwert Verlag, 1999) 73–74. Commentaries provid-
108 Walter Grundmann, “aJmartavnw ktl.,” TDNT 1 ing an accurate translation include Weiss, 319;
(1964) 311, followed by Käsemann, 204; Otto Zahn, 354–55; Schlier, 228; Cranfield, 1:340; Käse-
Michel, “oijkevw,” TDNT 5 (1967) 135; Zeller, 141. mann, 199; Zeller, 126; Moo, 458; Newman and
109 Godet, 285; Lietzmann, 76; Lagrange, 176; Kuss, Nida, 139.
2:451; Michel, 223; Schmidt, 126; Barrett, 148; 111 Keck, “Absent Good.” 74.
Dunn, 1:390; Stuhlmacher, 108; Ziesler, 197;

467
perform the good “lies ready at hand for me” (parav- tion, the problem is the objective reversal of good and
keitaiv moi), an expression that appears here and in 7:21 evil, namely, that the very good one aims to accomplish
but nowhere else in early Christian literature. Sir 31:16 turns out to be evil in the enactment thereof. This is pre-
uses this term in the admonition “Eat like a human cisely the dilemma of Paul the former persecutor of the
being what is set before you (ta; parakeivmenav soi),” church, pursuing “zeal without knowledge” (Rom 10:2).
which fits the basic meaning of “lie ready . . . at dis- ■ 20 This verse reiterates 7:17-18, which explained the
posal.”112 Paul’s entire Pharisaic education had prepared role of sin in causing moral contradiction. Paul employs
him for a life under the law—the ultimate good—which here the metaphor of “the sin dwelling in me” (hJ
was as natural as eating the food laid on the table before oijkou'sa ejn ejmoi; aJmartiva), which has a distant parallel
him. Yet “bringing about the good” (to; katergavzesqai in Philo Leg. 1.78.5: “Now the overall intelligence that
to; kalo;n)113 did not lie ready at hand, because Paul dis- indwells the wisdom of God (hJ oijkou'sa th;n tou' qeou'
covered on the Damascus road that he had been oppos- sofiavn) and his house is beautiful, for it is imperishable
ing the Messiah, whose advent he believed his zealous and abides in an imperishable house.” In the light of
violence would advance. Rom 1, Paul views such sin as the human desire to be
■ 19 This verse reiterates 7:15b-c, using the language of godlike in an effort to suppress the truth about shameful
good and evil: “For I do not do the good that I want, but status. Culturally twisted systems of competing for
the bad that I do not want—this I practice.” The good honor lead individuals and groups to challenge the
that Paul wished to achieve as a persecutor of the church honor of God. In this case, the sinful competition for
was to advance adherence to the Torah as a means to honor dwelling in Paul’s zealous behavior was frankly
usher in the messianic age. He sought to follow the will acknowledged in Gal 1:14, the verse that immediately
of God but discovered through the encounter with the follows his description of persecuting the church: “I
risen Lord that he was in fact opposing the will of God advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of
as exemplified in the Messiah Jesus. What v. 19 the same age, for I was far more zealous for the tradi-
describes is not an inability to perform the violent deeds tions of my ancestors.” Competition in zeal promised
that Paul was taught were right, but rather the objective social honor and divine approbation. The shocking dis-
failure of zealous obedience to produce the good. The covery on the Damascus road was that such competition
last thing he desired was to oppose the Messiah, and this was a demonstration of the power of “sin,” acting at the
is precisely what he ended up doing. This is a different very heart of religious devotion. There is no doubt that
dilemma from the classical parallels. Epictetus describes sin is used here to refer to a cosmic force that leads peo-
the contradiction of a person lacking reason and thus ple to act in certain ways. A demonic social power114
acting in ignorance against his better interest: “what he deriving from a distorted system of honor and shame
wants he does not do, and what he does not want he that had infected religion as well as the political realm,
does” (Diss. 2.26.4). In a similar vein Ovid depicts the had been internalized by Paul so that it “dwelled” within
dilemma of the weak-willed person who says, “I perceive him and led him to act as he did. The frustration con-
what is better and approve of it, but I pursue what is sisted not in the ability to perform the zealous deeds he
worse” (Metam. 7.20–21). In either case the problem is felt were justified, but in the inability of such deeds,
nonperformance of what the actor should know is the motivated by a sinful system of competition for honor,
right thing to do. A proper philosophical education will to achieve the good. Such zeal, in fact, had led him into
presumably resolve this dilemma. But in Paul’s formula- conf lict with the very God he wanted to serve.

112 Friedrich Büchsel, “kei'mai ktl.,” TDNT 3 (1965) synonym of ajgaqov"; see Meyer, 2:21–22; Kuss,
656; G. H. R. Horsley provides a more distant exam- 2:454; Dunn, 1:391; BAGD 400.
ple from the first century, referring to “their 114 Schottroff, “Schreckensherrschaft,” 501–2, deals
appended letters” (aiJ parakeivmenai ejpistolai with sin as demonic power that exercises a reign of
aujtw`n) in “Petition Concerning Ephesian Myster- terror, but she does not deal with the issue of com-
ies,” NDIEC 4 (1987) 94–95. petition for honor.
113 Here as in 7:16 and 19, kalov" appears as a virtual
468
 7:13-25

■ 21 The final argument in this pericope, comprising the same terminology as vv. 18-19, o{ti ejmoi; to; kako;n
the next five verses, explains the role of the Torah in the paravkeitai. The self-evident pattern of enforcing con-
contradiction between willing the good and actually per- formity with the law, shaped by a competitive religious
forming it. Paul announces his discovery by means of tradition of nomistic zealotism, is herein expressed.
euJrivskw (“I find, discover”),115 which implies a new While Paul intended to achieve the good in persecuting
insight that had been unavailable to Paul prior to his the early Christians, he found that the behavior that
conversion. The controversy in interpreting this verse appeared so natural and good was actually bad. Again,
centers on “the law,” which most interpreters view as a the contradiction between wanting and actually achiev-
general rule rather than as an explicit reference to the ing the good is in view; not the capacity to obey the law,
Torah.116 Dunn points out, however, that most of the but the surprising consequence that such obedience led
previous occurrences of novmo" in Romans refer to the Paul into conf lict with God’s Messiah.
Jewish Torah, and there is no semantic indication of a ■ 22 Paul explains the contradiction by means of an
changed connotation here; that nowhere else in the NT expression not found elsewhere in biblical Greek, sunhv-
does novmo" mean “rule”; and that the argumentative domai ga;r tw/' novmw/ tou' qeou', which I translate “for I
function of this verse synthesizes the preceding argu- share pleasure in the law of God.”120 The verb sunhvdo-
ment concerning the Torah.117 Failing to take the intense mai is used by classical writers to convey rejoicing
grammatical discussion of nineteenth-century commen- together with others,121 as in Plato’s explanation of the
tators into account, however, Dunn does not offer an ideal state in which all will “share the pleasure or the
adequate translation, which weakens his case. By taking pain” (h] xunhsqhvsetai a{pasa eJauth'" ei\nai to; pavs-
to;n novmon tw/' qevlonti ejmoi as “my will is directed to con) of each individual citizen (Resp. 462e). Contempo-
the law,” whereby qevlein followed by the accusative to;n rary commentators avoid the social dimension of such
novmon indicates the object of willing, and with poiei'n to; joy and provide translation guesses such as “joyfully
kalovn understood as an infinitive of purpose, “in order agree,”122 “delight/rejoice in,”123 or “agree with,”124
to do the good,” H. A. W. Meyer has provided a viable without citing precise semantic parallels. The social
translation of this verse with the Torah in view:118 “it dimension was suggested in the nineteenth century but
results to me, therefore, that, while my will is directed to dropped as “foreign” to the context.125 To the contrary,
[5.198.138.9] Project MUSE (2024-06-30 16:11 GMT) Moody Bible Institute

the law in order to do the good, the evil lies before me.” the pleasure shared with fellow Pharisees in the perfor-
This translation effectively brings v. 21a into congruence mance of the law is exactly appropriate for the context
with the preceding argument and provides a smooth of social zealotism. The joy shared by the obedient con-
transition into vv. 21b-23.119 formed to a biblical paradigm: “the precepts of the Lord
The statement “the bad lies within my reach” employs are right, rejoicing the heart” (Ps 19:8); “Blessed is the

115 See Herbert Preisker, “euJrivskw,” TDNT 2 (1964) other their pleasures and discomforts (sunhvdeto
769. kai; sunahdivzeto).” Xenophon Symp. 8.18 refers to
116 BAGD 542.2; for examples from the last century, friends “sharing a common joy in life’s pleasures
see Meyer, 2:23; Godet, 286–87. Other advocates (sunhvdesqai de; ejpi; tai`~ kavlai~ pravxesi).”
include Sanday and Headlam, 182; Kühl, 239; 122 BAGD 789; Schlier, 233; Wilckens, 2:74; Zeller, 136.
Lagrange, 177–78; Käsemann, 205; Schlier, 233; 123 Zahn, 359; Cranfield, 1:362; Murray, 294; Ziesler,
Cranfield, 1:362; Kuss, 2:455–56; Murray, 264–65; 197; Fitzmyer, 476; Moo, 461.
Ziesler, 197; Zeller, 142; Moo, 460; Thielman, Law, 124 Kühl, 241; Schmidt, 132; Michel, 223; Kuss, 2:456;
200. Dunn, 1:393.
117 Dunn, 1:392–93. 125 Meyer, 2:26, citing van Hengel, who proposed “joy
118 Meyer, 2:25–26. over the law, shared with others.” Nor has Meyer’s
119 Meyer, 2:26. suggestion of a personified law, whose joy is shared
120 That novmo~ refers here to the Jewish Torah is shown by performers, been followed, because nowhere in
by Winger, Law, 186–87. the Hebrew Scriptures is the law’s own joy
121 LSJM 1715; Weiss, 323; see also Philo Conf. 7, “com- described.
munity of languages led them to impart to each

469
man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his com- followers of the law is stated in terms that could easily be
mandments! His descendants will be mighty in the land; interpreted as an expression of Hellenistic dualism.132
the generation of the upright will be blessed (Ps 112:1- “Another law in my members” and “the law of sin in my
2); “May we shout for joy over your victory, and in the members” stand in stark antithesis to the “law of my
name of our God set up our banners!” (Ps 20:5) mind,” which could be understood as a virtually Gnostic
As the choice of the preposition katav suggests,126 the expression of the material side of humankind holding
location of the shared joy in the law is specified as Paul’s the spiritual side in bondage.133 In the context of Paul’s
“inner self/person.” This concept has been extensively argument in this pericope, however, the e{teron novmon
investigated in recent decades,127 with the realization (“another law”) is identical with “the law of sin” that
that although Paul uses a Platonic concept here, his twists performance of the law into a means of status
anthropology is not dualistic.128 While the expression acquisition (see 7:5, 7-8, 11, 13-14). This functions ejn
appears to have developed in the context of the toi`~ mevlesin mou (“in my members”), repeated twice in
Corinthian correspondence,129 Paul was the first to have this sentence in reference to the human limbs required
used the “inner/outer man” terminology, apparently for action.134 In this context, bodily “members” are the
coining these words to articulate Middle Platonic ideas means of zealous action that reveal a bondage to the for-
in a radically innovative manner.130 In 2 Cor 4:16-18, the eign power of sin. The good the law is intended to
inner man is being renewed by the spirit while the outer achieve, that is, the “the law of the mind” of Paul the
man is subject to persecution and other forms of deteri- zealot hoped to advance, is captured by this alien force.
oration that will ultimately lead to death. The very dif- Paul uses military verbs for making war against an
ferent use in Romans is neatly captured by Nikolaus enemy (ajntistrateuvomai)135 and for being taken cap-
Walter and others as what “the individual should be, in tive after a defeat in war (aijcmalwtivzw),136 which car-
distinction from what he actually is.”131 This can easily ried none of the benign features that moderns associate
be coordinated with the hypothesis of this “speech-in- with prisoners of war. In the Roman Empire, defeat
character,” with Paul as the zealot whose deeds achieved implied subsequent slavery, death in an imperial theater,
the opposite of his original intent to serve “the law of or if a prisoner was particularly important or attractive,
God.” he would be executed in honor of Jupiter at the end of a
■ 23 The antithesis to the joy shared with other zealous victory parade.137 For example, at the end of the

126 The prepositional phrase “qualifies the first person 131 Nikolaus Walter, “e[sw, e[swqen, ejswvtero~,” EDNT 2
singular of the verb” (Cranfield, 1:363), and cate- (1991) 65; see also Hofius, Paulusstudien, 59;
gory 6 for katav with the accusative, “denoting rela- Markschies, “Innerer Mensch,” 281.
tionship” (BAGD 407) leads to my translation, “with 132 Zeller, 142–44.
respect to my inner self.” 133 See Jewett, Terms, 400; the dualistic anthropology of
127 See Christoph Markschies, “Innerer Mensch,” RAC Gnosticism is explained by Rudolf, Gnosis, 88–112,
18 (1997) 266–312; A. van den Beld, “Romans 7:14- and is developed by Fuchs, Freiheit, 77–78; see also
25 and the Problem of Akrasia,” RelS 21 (1985) Schmithals, Anthropologie, 146–52.
495–515; repr. Bijdr 46 (1985) 39–58; Theo K. 134 See the analysis of 6:13 and Johannes Horst,
Heckel, Der Innere Mensch: Die paulinische Verar- “mevlo~,” TDNT 4 (1967) 561–63; Martin Völkel,
beitung eines platonischen Motivs (WUNT 53; Tübin- “mevlo~,” EDNT 2 (1991) 404, stresses the service of
gen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993); Hans Dieter Betz, review humans either to the power of sin or of God.
of Heckel, Der Innere Mensch in ThLZ 119 (1994) 135 See BAGD 75; an example is Xenophon Cyr. 8.8.26,
133–35. which reports that no state can get along without
128 See Alexander Sand, “a[nqrwpo",” EDNT 1 (1990) Greek mercenaries, “neither when they make war
102; Markschies, “Innerer Mensch,” 279–82; against one another, nor when the Greeks make war
Schmithals, Anthropologie, 41–42. a gainst them (o{tan oiJ ÓEllhne~ aujtoi`~ ajntis-
129 See Jewett, Terms, 396–99; Heckel, Innere Mensch, trateuvwntai).”
141–47; Betz, review of Heckel, 133–35. 136 See BAGD 27; a parallel figurative use of this verb
130 See Heckel, Innere Mensch, 146–47; Markschies, is found in Dio Chrysostom Orat. 32.90, who
“Innerer Mensch,” 280. describes “ransoming” the soul as “captivity, slavery,

470
 7:13-25

Jewish–Roman war, Josephus reports that, of the ninety- end of this letter does it become evident that another
seven thousand, those who had borne arms should be form of human interaction, “welcoming one another as
executed immediately after their capture, that the Christ has welcomed you” (Rom 15:7), should replace
“tallest and most handsome of the youth” were reserved zealous crusading. Before that can be understood, how-
for the triumphal parade in Rome, while the rest were ever, the awful dilemma of the law corrupted by sin
either enslaved or “presented by Titus to the provinces, needs to be grasped.
to be destroyed in the theaters by the sword or by wild ■ 24 The exclamation “How wretched a person I [am]”
beasts.”138 Since the majority of the members of the is the appropriate response to Paul’s dilemma of frus-
early house and tenement churches in Rome were either trated zealotism. The wording has parallels in early
slaves or former slaves, many of whom had been prison- Attic,141 Hermetic,142 Stoic,143 Cynic,144 and Hellenistic
ers of war or were descended therefrom, this formula- Jewish145 sources where the adjective talaivpwro~
tion would have a particularly powerful resonance. (“wretched, miserable”) appears, but the context of frus-
However, this “battle for world domination”139 did not in trated zeal for the law in Paul’s discourse is quite differ-
Paul’s view require heroic resistance on the part of ent from these dualistic treatments of a fatal conf lict
believers, but rather a sober recognition that their mar- between the mind and the f lesh, or between love’s pas-
tial inclinations were themselves the evidence of having sion and fate’s cruelty. Paul’s exclamation cannot refer
already been taken prisoner by sin. The impulse to cru- to the tension between the two aeons146 or to a yearning
sade against others in behalf of one’s view of the law was for resurrection,147 which ref lect the experience of
in this sense “the law of sin at work in my members.” Yet believers rather than of the pre-Christian Paul. The sen-
by maintaining the first person possessive mou (“my”), timent of hopeless misery resonates with Paul’s admis-
Paul maintains the “speech-in-character” that dramatizes sion in 1 Cor 15:9, “For I am . . . unfit to be called an
his own experience with the law, thus avoiding any direct Apostle, because I persecuted the church of Christ.”
accusation against the groups in Rome.140 Only at the The rhetorical question about who can deliver such a

dragging away (aijcmalwsiva, douleiva, ajpa- body deprived of access to truth in Corp. herm.
gwghv).” 34–37: “For we wretched ones have been con-
137 Auguet, Cruelty and Civilization, 184–99; Fears, demned, and seeing was not granted to us directly,
“Cult of Jupiter,” 1–141; Fears, “Theology of Vic- etc.”
tory,” 737–826. 143 Dunn, 1:396, points to Epictetus Diss. 1.3.5–6, “‘For
138 Josephus Bell. 6.414–19. Kreitzer, Striking New what am I? A miserable, paltry man,’ (talaivpwron
Images, 136–38, observes that Roman coins struck ajnqrwpavrion) say they, and ‘Lo, my wretched, pal-
after the victory over Jerusalem feature dejected try f lesh.’ Wretched indeed, but you have also some-
Jewish prisoners with their hands bound. thing better than your paltry f lesh,” that is, reason
139 Käsemann, 207; see also Zahn, 360. and intelligence. See also Diss. 1.4.1; 1.28.9; 3.3.17;
140 In contrast, Carter, Power of Sin, interprets Rom 7:7- 3.26.3; 4.4.4; 4.16.18; etc.
25 in the context of “high group/low grid anthro- 144 When Diogenes the Cynic, in Diogenes Laertius
pology of the good inside and the evil outside” Vitae philos. 6.66.7, encounters a man suing a courte-
(193), which identifies “the Jew under the law as a san, he remarks, “Why, O miserable man (w\
sinful outsider, one who is excluded from the righ- talaivpwre), are you at such pains to win your law-
teous eschatological in-group (197).” Both the suit, when you are better off to lose it?”
“weak” who continue as believers to follow the law 145 Smith, “Romans 7:24-25a,” 129, cites Conf. Asen.
and the Jews who reject the messianic message 6.7.2, where the lovelorn cries out after ruining her
would be included in this exclusion, which funda- chance to marry Joseph, “Woe to me the miserable
mentally distorts the message of the letter as a one. . . . I am wretched and foolish (talaivpwro~
whole. ejgw; kai; a[frwn), because I have spoken wicked
141 Aeschylus Prom. 233; 595; Demosthenes Cor. 121.3; words to my father.”
Plato Euthyd. 302b7. 146 Dunn, 1:396; see Zeller, 144.
142 Edgar W. Smith, Jr., “The Form and Religious Back- 147 See Robert J. Banks, “Romans 7:25a: An Eschatolog-
ground of Romans 7:24-25a,” NovT 13 (1971) 128 ical Thanksgiving?” ABR 26 (1978) 34–42.
points to a Hermetic version of despair of life in the

471
miserable person is posed in such a way as to require the body as a body of death,155 imposing death on others
answer, “Nobody can!”148 In this context, the “body of and doomed to a divine sentence of death as punish-
death” in 7:24 links most closely with Paul’s own involve- ment for murder. The theme of death picks up Paul’s
ment in the persecution and death of early Christians.149 replication of the theme of the fall of Adam in 7:11, “sin
The question of whether to translate with “the body of . . . deceived me, and through it slayed me.”
this death”150 or “this body of death”151 is relatively clear That Paul cannot be speaking here of the current con-
grammatically. The word sequence may favor the first dition of believers, following the simul iustus et peccator
alternative, but the connection between v. 24 and the interpretation,156 was shown by Godet on the basis of
reference to the “members” in the preceding verse leads two details in this rhetorical question. The first is the
Kühl, Kuss, and others to connect “this” in a substantive use of the indefinite pronoun tiv~ (“who”): “A Christian
manner with the body doomed to death.152 Schlier may find himself in distress; but he knows at least the
observes that “this” cannot be attached to the word name of his deliverer.”157 The second is the future tense
“death” because, in contrast to “body,” it was not devel- of the verb “will deliver me,” which places the speaker at
oped in the previous argument.153 The easiest way to a point prior to experiencing salvation through Christ.
convey this in English is the formulation, “this body of The status of the current believer is properly formulated
death.” Although some commentators assume that the in 8:2: God “has set you free from the law of sin and
death being specified by “this” is a spiritual death, the death.” The rhetorical question in 7:24 therefore relates
wording would function equally well in reference to the to the preconversion Saul, caught in an awful contradic-
death-dealing quality of Paul’s former action as a Jewish tion between the good he sought to advance and the evil
zealot, which we have traced through the rest of Rom 7. that he actually achieved.
There is a vague, metaphorical quality of explanations ■ 25 In answer to the rhetorical question, Paul breaks
in terms of “spiritual death,”154 which seems to ref lect forth in a “joyful shout”158 that reiterates the ecstatic cry
modern views. The death probably in view here is Paul’s of 6:17, thanking God for deliverance that would other-
involvement in violent persecutions prior to his conver- wise be impossible: “But thanks be to God (cavri~ de; tw/`
sion: “I was violently persecuting the church of God and qew/')!”159 In addition to 6:17, there are four similar
was trying to destroy it” (Gal 1:13). It was of course only thanksgivings in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor
after his conversion that Paul was able to discern his 15:57; 2 Cor 2:14; 8:16; 9:15), of which the first is the

148 Morris, 297. the references to “f lesh” in 7:18 and to “members”

149 Grappe, “Typologie adamique,” 473–75, argues in 7:23.
that the “body of death” in Rom 7:24 is drawn from 152 Kühl, 242; Kuss, 2:459, following Gutjahr, Dodd,
4 Ezra 3.4-5 (“. . . Adam, a lifeless body [Adam corpus and Jülicher.
mortuum]? Yet he was the workmanship of your 153 Schlier, 235, following Hommel, “7. Kapitel,”
hands, and you breathed into him the breath of life, 146–47.
and he was made alive in your presence”). But there 154 See Moo, 466, and Gundry, “Moral Frustration,”
is no hint in 4 Ezra that the not-yet-enlivened body 239.
of Adam was dead because of sin. 155 Hommel, “7. Kapitel,” 146, argues on grammatical
150 Godet, 290, prefers this translation, citing Meyer grounds that this phrase should be translated “von
that “the sigh for deliverance does not arise from diesem Todesleib.”
the fact that the body is this earthly, but from the 156 See James D. G. Dunn, “Rom 7:14-25 in the Theol-
fact that the body is the instrument of this state of ogy of Paul,” ThZ 31 (1975) 68, cited with approval
death in which the soul is sunk (ver. 11).” According by Garlington, Letter to the Romans, 112.
to Käsemann, 209, this view is adopted by Schlatter, 157 Godet, 290.
Bardenhewer, Gaubler, Murray, Kümmel, and 158 Morris, 297.
Schmidt. Barrett, 151, rightly comments that “‘the 159 Smith, “7:24-25a,” 134, cites the parallel formula-
body of this death’ is grammatically possible but tion in Epictetus Diss. 4.4.7 that refers to the
scarcely makes sense.” philosopher’s enlightenment as having overcome
151 Käsemann, 209, citing Kühl, Lietzmann, and his former preoccupation with external success:
Lagrange. Moo, 466, adopts this view because of “There was a time when I too made mistakes, but

472
 7:13-25

closest parallel: “but thanks be to God (tw/` de; qew/` this recapitulation should be sought. Taking a[ra ou\n in
cavri~) who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus an inferential sense, the expression aujto;~ ejgwv refers to
Christ.”160 Although some commentators and translators the self restricted to its own resources,164 translated aptly
drop the dev, in part under the inf luence of text-critical by Dodd as “Thus, left to myself.”165 Without the inter-
confusion,161 the adversative sense of “but” should be vention of Christ, the nou`~ of the zealot believes that he
retained162 to express the antithesis between the hope- serves the “law of God” but as a consequence of misun-
less situation of the “body of death” and the release derstanding the “righteousness of God” (see Rom 10:2),
from that bondage by the power of Christ. The context the deeds of his f lesh actually serve the “law of sin.” The
in Romans is reminiscent of cavriti de; qeou` eijmi o{ eijmi human dilemma lies not in some kind of ontological
(“by the grace of God I am who I am”), which Paul dualism posed between allegedly higher and lower
appended to his sad admission about having persecuted aspects of the self, as a misinterpretation of vv. 22-23
the church (1 Cor 15:10). If the dilemma of zealotism could have been taken to imply. Insofar as the entire
was a trap that captured the most devoted of religious pericope concentrates on Paul’s paradigmatic situation
fanatics, only a divine agency could possibly provide before his conversion, and in view of the fact that tem-
release from the impasse. The extraordinary redemp- poral categories are absent from v. 25b-c, the effort to
tion Paul and other early believers had experienced see therein a reference to the “eschatological tension”
requires the full christological formulation, “through between the already and not yet of faith166 is misguided.
Jesus Christ our Lord.” It is only “through” (diav) the Neither did Paul intend to imply “that the Christian, so
agency of Christ’s redemptive activity that they had been long as he remains in this present life, remains in a real
released from the hopeless misery of sin. This differenti- sense a slave of sin.”167 The originally intended climax of
ates Paul’s thanksgiving from other Greco-Roman for- v. 25a should provide the parameters of our interpreta-
mulations, such as “I give thanks to you, Lady Artemis” tion, which leads directly into 8:1, regardless of the after-
in an official inscription found in Ephesus.163 There is a thought (v. 25b-c) that Paul added in the margin. It is the
significant shift in Paul’s formulation of the plural “our” grace of Christ that reveals and overcomes the destruc-
Lord, from the singular “I” that had been dominant tive zealotism that had marked Paul’s former life and
throughout the earlier portion of this pericope. that was reemerging in the conf licts between the weak
Although the reason for his former misery was unique, and the strong in Rome. By using himself as the paradig-
he shared the experience of unmerited grace with all matic example of such misunderstanding, thus avoiding
other believers. the evocation of divisive accusations between groups in
Having concluded above that v. 25b-c is a marginal Rome, Paul sought to clarify a profound dilemma at the
gloss added by Paul himself that was probably intended heart of religion.
to be placed between v. 23 and v. 24, the implications of

now no longer, thanks be to God (cavri~ tw/` qew/`).” Wilckens, 2:74, 95; Ziesler, 199; Fitzmyer, 476;
That thanks were due to God or the gods was a Theobald, 218–19; Moo, 466; Byrne, 233.
common belief in the Greco-Roman and Jewish 162 Zeller, 136; Stuhlmacher, 112–13.
worlds, as the exegesis of 1:21 demonstrates. See 163 See G. H. R. Horsley, “Giving Thanks to Artemis,”
also BAGD 878.5; Alfred Stuiber, “Eulogia,” RAC 6 NDIEC 4 (1987) 127–29.
(1966) 909, suggesting dependency on the Hellenis- 164 Meyer, 2:33; Godet, 291–92; Zahn, 370; Kümmel,
tic Diaspora; and Klaus Berger, “cavri~,” EDNT 3 Römer 7, 66; Wilckens, 2:97; Lichtenberger, “Röm
(1993) 459. 7,25b,” 287–88.
160 See Banks, “Romans 7:25a,” 38–39. 165 Dodd, 104.
161 See note n above. Commentators dropping “but” 166 Dunn, 1:411–12.
include Weiss, 327; Lietzmann, 76–77; Michel, 223; 167 Cranfield, 1:370.
Kuss, 2:451, 460; Barrett, 151; Cranfield, 1:367;

473