Jan Lambrecht, «The Line of Thought in Romans 7,15-20», Vol. 85 (2004) 393-398
The parallelism between Romans 7,14-17 and 18-20 as it has recently been put forward by O. Hofius is critically examined. It would seem that within this text Paul’s reasoning progresses from vv. 14b-16 to 17-20. The thesis of v. 14b ("I am fleshly, sold into the slavery under sin") gives way to the more sophisticated pronouncement of v. 17 ("as a matter of fact it is not I that do the evil, but the indwelling sin"). Each time motivations follow, vv. 15 and 18-19; finally a conclusion is drawn, vv. 16 and 20.
394 Jan Lambrecht
clauses, each with gavr; the second motivation explains the first (see vv. 15a
and 15bc; vv. 18b and 19ab). In each unit a conclusion with eij de; ... oujkevti
constitutes the end (see vv. 16a and 17ab; vv. 20a and 20bc) (4). In his study
Hofius further explains how between the two units there not only exists “eine
formale, sondern zugleich auch eine inhaltliche Parallelität†(138) (5).
It would seem that Hofius exaggerates the parallel character of the text
unit and, consequently, also forces his comment at several points. The
intention of this brief note is to reconstruct as carefuly as possible Paul’s way
of arguing (6).
1. Particles and Clauses
In order to detect the line of thought as well as the structure of 7,15-20,
close attention must be given to the numerous particles which connect or
separate the clauses. Within Hofius’ unit (vv. 14-20) only two clauses are
lacking a particle: verses 16b and 20b; each constitutes the apodosis of a
conditional period. Six gavr clauses are present: 14a.15a.15b.18a.18b.19a.
There are five clauses that are introduced by the oppositional dev:
14b.16a.17.18c.20a. Four clauses begin with the even stronger contrastive
allav: 15c.17b.19b.20c. It should be noted that a verb is absent in the ajllav
j
clauses of 17b and 20c: but sin that dwells within me “does itâ€.
The two conditional periods, verses 16 and 20, both have eij dev at the
beginning of the protasis (vv. 16a and 20a) and, as already stated, no particle
in the apodosis (vv. 16b and 20b; in each apodosis the adverb oujkevti
appears). The tenses in protasis and apodosis are present; so we have a simple
case, the so-called “realisâ€: if this, then that.
Special attention must also be given to the gavr ... dev (or ajllav) sentences:
verses 15bc; 18bc; 19ab. In this type of construction the real reason is often to
be found in the second clause while the first one sometimes — but not always
— possesses a concessive nuance.
What about verse 14? One would easily assume that in this verse there
also is a gavr ... dev construction. Yet it would seem that verse 14b does not
(4) Cf. HOFIUS, “Der Mensch im Schatten Adamsâ€, 138.
(5) See HOFIUS, “Der Mensch im Schatten Adamsâ€, 139-141; quotation on p. 138.
(6) Our attention will be centered almost exclusively on the publication of Hofius. Yet
compare, e.g., B. BYRNE, Romans (Sacra Pagina 6; Collegeville 1996) 226-227: “The first
two statements (vv 14-17 and vv 18-20) stand in close parallel: each begins with a sentence
containing the verb to ‘know’ and mentioning the ‘fleshly’ constitution of the ‘I’ (v 14, v
18a); each concludes with precisely the same ten-word phrase attributing responsibility to
‘indwelling sin’ (v 17, v 20b); in between, each states the moral dilemma in virtually the
same words (vv 15b-16a and vv 19-20a)â€; J.D.G. DUNN, Romans 1–8 (WBC; Waco, TX
1988) 377: “... the parallel between vv 14-17 and 18-23 has been given insufficient
attention: the analysis in each case is largerly the same, with the explanation of the “Iâ€â€˜s
failure attributed to sin in both cases (vv 14-17, 18-20), but with the positive affirmation of
the law in v 16 answered by the fuller statement of vv 21-23â€; D.J. MOO, The Epistle to the
Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1996) 456-457: “Recognizing the close parallelism
between vv. 15-16 and vv. 19-20, some expositors divided vv. 15-20 into two parts, each of
which explains a different part of v. 14 – vv. 15-16 the ‘spirituality’ of the law (cf. v. 16b -
“the law is goodâ€) and vv. 17-20 the “fleshiness†of egô. But no such neat division is
possible, for the paragraph is pervaded throughout by the conflict between willing to do the
right (e.g., what the law demands) and the failure to put it into practiceâ€.