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.
396 Jan Lambrecht
without a reference to time (12). A translation of verse 17a ad sensum is as
follows: “But then in fact I do not do that†(13). The correction of verse 17b
states that personified sin is the real culprit. Paul cannot but also explain this
second thesis.
Since the “I†knows that nothing good dwells within him, that is, in his
flesh, Paul is justified in formulating the new thesis. Yet an explanation must
be provided. Verse 18a constitutes a first gavr clause: “For I know that
nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh†(14). A second gavr clause
follows which further explains the first one: “For I can will (what is right),
but I cannot do what is right†(v. 18bc). Paul returns to the contrast of
“willing†and “doing†of verses 15-16 and, by means of kalovn, he continues
with the idea of good (cf. ajgaqovn in v. 18a and, later, ajgaqovn-kakovn in v.
19ab). One should note that in verse 18b a concessive nuance is present: it is
true (or I admit) that “to wish what is right†lies near me, yet... In v. 19ab a
third motivation is added: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do
not want I doâ€. Here Paul substantially reasserts what he already said in verse
15bc.
Just as verse 16, so also verse 20, with its dev, implies a contrast and
consists of a conditional period. The eij clause is more or less the same
(compare 20a with 16a), but the apodosis differs. Verse 16b refers to verse
14a, verse 20bc is a repetition of verse 17ab. That repetition, however, is not
complete (no nuni; dev in 20b); moreover, the logical function of verse 20bc is
totally different. Verse 17 is a (second) thesis while verse 20bc is the
conclusion which follows from the minor in 20a. To a certain extent,
however, verses 17 and 20ab can be called an inclusion. The second round of
argumentation is clearly terminated.
*
**
Verses 21-23 constitute a resuming conclusion (see in v. 21a a[ra
euJrivskw: “So I findâ€). Does our analysis of verses 15-20 bring about a better
understanding of the line of thought? It would seem that some conclusions
can be drawn.
a) In verses 15-20 one should distinguish two separate sub-units: vv. 15-
16 and vv. 18-20. By means of the first sub-unit Paul motivates the thesis of
verse 14b; by means of the second he grounds the thesis of verse 17.
b) The new thesis proves to be different from the first. “I am fleshly, sold
into slavery under sin†(v. 14b) becomes a more sophisticated
pronouncement: “as a matter of fact it is not I that do the evil, but the
indwelling sin†(v. 17). No doubt, there is a progression in the line of thought.
(12) The rendering “no longer†should be avoided.
(13) Cf. C.E.B. CRANFIELD, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 1975) I, 360: “Both nuniv and oujkevti are here used in a logical,
rather than a temporal, sense; the meaning of the first four words of the verse being ‘But,
this being so (that is, in the circumstances indicated by v. 16), it is then not I whoâ€.
(14) For HOFIUS, “Der Mensch im Schatten Adamsâ€, 136, n. 116, the gavr is
“bekräftigendâ€. He renders it by “jaâ€.