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.
The Line of Thought in Romans 7,15-20 395
depend on the initial oi[damen ... o{ti of verse 14a; grammatically verse 14b
can hardly be the parallel of oJ novmo" pneumatikov" ejstin. Moreover, Paul
could not say: “for ‘we’ know that ... ‘I’ am of the flesh, sold into slavery
under sinâ€. No, verse 14b is a new beginning, opposed to the whole of verse
14a (7). Furthermore, verse 14a grounds (gavr) verse 13 (8). Within the
pericope 7,7-25 the caesura falls between verse 12 and verse 13 (9).
2. Verses 15-16
The statement of verse 14b, in contrast to verse 14a, presents itself as a
radical thesis: “but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sinâ€. The reader
needs a grounding explanation. Paul motivates what he said in verse 14b by
means of verse 15a: “For I do not understand my own actionsâ€. But this last
clause, again, is in need of clarification: “For I do not do what I want, but I do
the very thing I hate†(v. 15bc). The point of this second motivation lies in
verse 15c: “I do not understand what I do because I do what I hate!†The
nuance present in the immediately preceding verse 15b, however, is not really
concessive; “I do not do what I want†anticipates what is going to be said in
verse 15c.
The dev indicates that verse 16 is slightly contrastive. In the conditional
period of this verse the protasis “Now if (eij dev) I do what I do not wantâ€
almost literally repeats verse 15b: “For I do what I do not wantâ€. The
apodosis “I agree that the law is good†is a conclusion drawn from the minor
in verse 16a and consequently also from the whole of verse 15. As to content
verse 16b is the equivalent of what is stated in verse 14a: “for we know that
the law is spiritual†(10). Paul’s reasoning appears to have been: “since I do
what I do not want, i.e., since in fact I want to observe the law, I cannot but
agree that the law is good. I myself am the culprit; I do the very thing I hateâ€.
In this way Paul defends the law just as in verse 14a.
The first round of argument is now completed (11). Verses 15-16 belong
together; they explain Paul’s assertion in verse 14b, namely: ejgw; de; savrkinov"
eijmi pepramevno" uJpo; th;n aJmartivan.
3. Verses 17-20
Verse 17 contains, as it were, a correction of the thesis of verse 14b: it is
not I who am accountable, but the indwelling sin is. Therefore verse 17
appears to be a second, more subtle thesis. Paul distinguishes between the I
and sin. The nuni; dev in verse 17a is not temporal but logical: “but in factâ€. In
the same clause Paul uses oujkevti equally in a logical way (“not ... thenâ€),
(7) In the Greek text a full stop should be written at the end of v. 14a instead of a
comma.
(8) HOFIUS, “Der Mensch im Schatten Adamsâ€, 136, n. 115, interprets gavr as having a
“folgernden Sinnâ€. He translates the beginning of v. 14 as follows: “Wir wissen alsoâ€.
(9) Cf. J. LAMBRECHT, “Grammar and Reasoning in Romans 7,12 and 7,13-14â€, ETL
80 (2004).
(10) In Hofius’ chart v. 16b has no parallel in the right column. The same applies to v.
14a: oJ novmo" pneumatikov" ejstin.
(11) At the end of v. 16b a full stop is appropriate, not a semicolon.