1. 1
The Conflict With Sin Under the Law
Romans 7:14-20
Interpretive Translation
14 For we know that the Law is sourced in the Spirit, but I am living in
conjunction with fallen humanity, sold as a slave under vile evil. 15 For I am perplexed
by and disapprove of that which I do. For what I do not want to do, this I practice, but I
do that which I hate. 16 But if I do that which I do not want, I agree that Law is good.
17 Now I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me – as an objective evil
that is very much part of who I am.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in the entirety of my fallen
humanity. For the willing is present in me, but the ability to accomplish what is good is
not. 19 For I do not do the good that I want, but I practice the very evil I do not want to
do. 20 Again, if I am doing what I do not want to do, I am not working alone, but sin that
indwells and lives within me.
Exegetical Central Idea
The conclusion about the Law that can be seen in Paul’s representative experience is that
the Law is not capable of saving or producing behavior in keeping with the Law.
Exegetical Sentence Outline
1. Paul’s reason sin usurped the Law and produced death in him (and Jews
generally) was that he was fleshly and sold under sin (7:14).
a. The explanation of what Paul and his readers collectively agreed upon was
that the Law is spiritual (7:14a).
b. The position and status of Paul’s pre-conversion existence under the Law was
that he was fleshly (7:14b).
c. The reason Paul considered himself fleshly was because he was enslaved and
forced to obey sin (7:14c).
2. Paul’s experience under the Law was the inability to do the good that he desired
in contrast with the ability to do the evil that he did not desire (7:15-17).
a. The reason Paul disapproved of his actions is because he did not do what he
desired rather he did what he hated (7:15).
b. Paul acknowledges that though he is not practicing what he desires he still
believes the Law is good (7:16).
c. The reason Paul behaved this way was the fact that he was inhabited with
indwelling sin (7:17).

2. 2
3. The reason Paul knows nothing good dwells in his flesh is because of
contradiction between what he desires to do and that which he actually does
(7:18-20).
a. The content of what Paul knows is that nothing good dwells in his flesh
(7:18ab).
b. Paul contrasts the desire to do well with the inability to do so under the Law
(7:18cd).
c. The condition of Paul’s existence is that he does not do the good that he
desires to do, and rather practices evil (7:19).
d. The reason Paul is doing that which he does not want to, is because of
indwelling sin (7:20).
Commentary
Introduction
Paul begins this chapter with a metaphor depicting the relationship of a wife in
relationship with her husband in correlation to the believer’s relationship to the Law. The
meaning is such that by means of Christ’s death (and ours with him; 6:6) the believer has
died to the Law (and thus freed from the Law) in the same way that a wife is freed from
obligations to her husband when he dies (7:1-4). Paul continues to teach that sin used the
(good) Law as a means of growing and exerting its own dominion (7:5). However, now
the believer is freed from the law so that he or she is able to serve in the newness of the
Spirit (7:6). Paul continues to teach that sin hijacked the Law, as it were, and produced
death (7:7-13). In the passage now under consideration Paul explains the lifestyle sin
produces when one is under the Law.
Sin Usurped the Law (14)
14. Paul begins this passage with a postpositive explanatory γὰρ to unpack what
he has just said the verse before concerning sin’s misuse of the Law. The preferred
reading for this first sentence is Οἴδαµεν, and is translated ‘we’ know (See Appendix 1).
The significance lies in the fact that there is a slight rhetorical nuance that allows Paul to

3. 3
bring his readers ‘in’ so to speak, at a point of unity. This ‘we know’ initiates a contrast
that he will set up throughout our passage. What do ‘we know?’
We know that the Law is sourced in the Spirit of God. In other words, the Law is
not the problem since it is from God (cf. 7:13; 2 Pet 1:21). Paul declares the problem is,
ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰµι, ‘I am fleshly (i.e. fallen, morally depraved). It is noteworthy that in
this passage Paul shifts from mostly aorist tense uses of the verb in the first person
singular to first person present tense ἐγὼ...εἰµι. I do not believe that this change to the
present tense gives Paul’s current (at the time of writing the letter) experience, but views
this present tense as ‘customary’ thus allowing Paul to speak on behalf of corporate Israel
under the Law with an autobiographical notion as one who likewise lived (though
formerly) under the Law (Wallace, 520; See Appendix 6).
Beyond the fact that Paul speaks as one who is morally inept, he continues with
much stronger language, πεπραµένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν, sold under sin. This phrase
communicates that ἐγὼ has been sold as a slave to vile evil (See Appendix 4). This
overtly communicates where the fault lies. Again, the issue is not with the Law, but with
the horrible state of being ruled by sin. Next, Paul describes his inability to do good.
Inability for Good (15-17)
15. Here Paul utilizes an explanatory γὰρ to communicate what is meant when he
says, ‘I am sold under sin.’ In a state of perplexity and disapproval, he tells his readers
that he does not practice what he desires to do, but instead he does what he hates. There
are three action verbs that Paul utilizes in this verse to explain his current condition:
κατεργάζοµαι, πράσσω, ποιῶ. A slight nuance can be drawn from the verb πράσσω, that

4. 4
in the New Testament it is never used in reference to God, and is consistently used of that
which is not viewed with regard (BDAG, 860; Cranfield, 358).
It is important to make clear that Paul is speaking concerning his experience
under the Law. It is precisely the fact that he is now a regenerate Christian, that Paul is
able to look back with such clarity and communicate with such precision his experience
of not doing what he desired to do as a Jew (Moo, 482). As a Jew (and a Pharisee!) Paul
wanted nothing more than to keep the Law, and in some sense he did just that (cf. Phil
3:6). Yet as he currently writes as a regenerate Christian, he realizes that sin actually
usurped the Law and produced all sorts of evil within (7:8).
Though I communicate that Paul speaks of this war as one under the Law, it is not
to be understood as exclusive to Jews. Anyone who lives with the mindset that he or she
is under the Law, may likewise experience this existential battle (Wallace, 532).
However, only those ‘sold under sin’ truly are in the war. In sum, the battle ‘Paul
describes here is indicative of a slavery to the power of sin (14) that is not typical, not
even possible, for the Christian’ (Moo, 483).
16. Paul continues by explaining that even though ἐγὼ is continually doing that
which he does not desire, he agrees with (σύµφηµι; i.e. testifies through personal
experience) that the Law is good (BDAG, 960). Although some interpreters believe that
this agreement with the Law is evidence for ἐγὼ referring to Christian experience and
thus further dichotomizes the believer (Cranfield, 360), it is best understood as Paul
(under the Law) having a problem with sin, not the Law (Moo, 484). To make clear, a
Jew living under the Law viewed the Law with highest regard. Though Paul depicts the
inability of those ‘sold under sin’ to obey the Law, the Jew would always believe that the

5. 5
Law is still good in and of itself. In fact, it is this great love for the Law that Paul
addresses. Though the Law is good and holy (7:12), it is not able to save or sanctify.
In fact, the Law came in ‘so that’ sin might increase (5:20). The Law, in some
sense, was meant to frustrate the Jew. Thus, the Law would serve to expose sin, and thus
point the Jew to Messiah (cf. Gal 3:24). Paul intends to build a case for his readers to
show them that sin abuses the Law, and therefore there is great need to be freed from the
Law (7:1-4), in order that they might serve in the newness of the Spirit (7:6).
17. What are we to make of this continual doing of that which is evil? We are to
further realize the depth of depravity under the Law and sin. He begins this verse with a
logical contrast conjunction νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι (Wallace, 671; Cranfield, 360). This phrase
states that ἐγὼ no longer is the one practicing evil, but rather ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐµοὶ ἁµαρτία,
‘sin that lives in me.’ If one understands this passage to speak in reference to the
Christian, this phrase could be understood as communicating ‘Already but also the Not
yet’ of the believer (Dunn, 390). Although Dunn does not teach that the believer is
bifurcated, he communicates that this phrase shows that ἐγὼ is the one who does the very
evil that ἐγὼ hates (Dunn, 390). Thus the believer is not split into two parts, but rather is
fully operative as one ‘sold under sin’ and simultaneously the one who rejoices in the
Law of God (7:22; Dunn, 390).
A second view that sees this verse referring to the Christian posits that this
statement speaks to the extent in which sin, dwelling in the believer, dominates and takes
‘control over his life’ (Cranfield, 360). However, though I empathize with those who feel
sins’ temptation and thus conclude that this passage speaks to that end, I do not think that
the text permits such a reading.

6. 6
The phrase ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐµοὶ ἁµαρτία communicates an active role and animates
sin in a way that moves beyond what Paul has just spoken concerning those in Christ
(Rom 6:2-11, 14, 33; See also Appendix 5). This phrase, in contrast with the indwelling
Spirit (8:11), shows that this evil force is not (only) a part of ἐγὼ but is an objective
dominating force – determined to have its way (Sanday & Headlam, 182). Thus, a better
understanding of this verse is to take it in light of Paul’s greater argument. Specifically,
the Law (though derived from God) is not capable of eliminating this indwelling evil. In
sum, Paul communicates the extent to which sin has usurped the Law and subsequently
brought about this despicable and confounding experience in the life of the ‘Jew under
the Law, as Paul once was’ (Moo, 485).
Conflict Within (18-20)
18. As is Paul’s custom in this passage, he begins with an explanatory γὰρ further
clarifying what he meant previously concerning indwelling sin (7:17). It is clear that he is
not separating ἐγὼ from responsibility for his behavior because he clarifies that ‘nothing
good dwells in me’ (emphasis added). He qualifies this statement even further when he
says, ‘τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί µου,’ that is in my flesh. Here, it is necessary to unpack the
meaning of σαρκί. Some take σαρκί to mean, ‘connected to this age’ (Dunn, 391). Thus
this applies to all humanity (including Christians), and carries with it the notion that there
is a great need to be delivered from this present age for redemption to be complete
(Dunn, 391). Others take this term to mean, ‘the lower self,’ that which ‘if not itself evil,
is too easily made the instrument of evil’ (Sanday & Headlam, 182). Though this is closer
to the meaning I prefer, it seems to create too harsh a dualism within the unregenerate,
rather than the depravity of the entire person. Still others take this phrase to have a

7. 7
‘simple material meaning’ (Moo, 486). Though Moo accurately concludes that there is a
conflict of interest (the major point in this verse) being depicted within ἐγὼ showing the
‘dividedness of Jews under the Law as a way of explaining how sincere respect for that
Law could be combined with failure to perform it,’ it seems there is a better
understanding of flesh (Moo, 486).
I believe the best way to understand this term in context phrase is to take this to
mean, ‘the whole fallen human nature as such,’ that is everything that makes up fallen
man (BDAG, 915; Cranfield, 361) Although, it should be noted that Cranfield would
apply this to the regenerate. This view seems to reconcile the fact that sin is all too much
a part of the fallen condition. Sin is not only a part of the unregenerate, rather sin is the
dominating ruler of his or her life.
Paul keeps in step with his portrayal of the inability of the Law to effect change,
by restating the conundrum that ἐγὼ finds himself in. He continues, τὸ γὰρ θέλειν
παράκειταί µοι, ‘the willing (to do the good) is present in me.’ It is possible that Paul
intentionally omits the Law in his restatement of the predicament of the ἐγὼ. If this was
intententional, it is an implicit way of communicating the common experience that lost
humanity experiences. Thus, Paul could have been echoing a Roman poet by the name of
Ovid whose statement was ‘widespread in the literature of the ancient world’ stating, ‘I
see the better way and I approve it; but I follow the worse’ (Metamorphoses 7:19-21).
19. In this verse Paul restates the content that he has previously given (7:15b),
further advancing his argument of the hopelessness of humanity under the Law and void
of the Spirit (8:2). The difference in this verse and verse 15 is that Paul makes explicit

8. 8
what it is that ἐγὼ desires over against what ἐγὼ does (Moo, 487). He makes clear that
ἐγὼ wants to do good, but in fact does the evil that he does not want to do.
20. To close out treatment of this passage, there is yet another summary of what
Paul has previously stated in 7:16-17. Paul continues his discourse of the helpless
situation of man. This author concludes that ἐγὼ is plausibly a part of the original
manuscript and helps eliminate a misconception that ‘I’ am not responsible for my
actions due to sin (See Appendix 2). He leaves out the second phrase in verse 16 that
references agreement that τῷ νόµῳ is good. It is assumed that Paul does this because he
turns to this very issue of the Law in the latter half of this chapter and into the next
(Dunn, 392).
Conclusion
In sum, Paul communicates that although the Law is good, it is unable to produce
salvation or sanctification in the life of the believer. Further, the Law usurped by sin
actually produces all sorts of evil. Jews (and Gentiles) who belong to Christ have been
freed from this inward torment (7:25a).
Applications
The Apostle Paul, quite persuasively, communicates the dire situation that
specifically the Jew under the Law, and by extension all unregenerate, are in. It is clear
that the Law is not to be understood as something that is evil. Instead, it is sin that is vile
and needs to be eradicated. The issue for Christians today is to understand that the ‘the
Mosaic law, and, hence, all law, is unable to deliver us from the power of sin; the
multiplication of rules and commands, so much a tendency in some Christian circles, will
be more likely to drive us deeper into frustration thatn to improve the quality of our walk

9. 9
with Christ’ (Moo, 476-77). This is very important for those who find themselves in the
Church. It is all too easy to revert to a law ‘mindset’ to try to get the behavioral result that
all Christians desire. This is to be avoided at all costs. With the raging, and indeed losing
war that this passage represents, we should be encouraged to fight the urge to say that this
is normal Christian experience. Though Christians may feel that this passage represents
their current experience, we must be reminded that we are not ‘sold under sin,’ but rather
have been freed from sin and are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit freed to serve the
living God (7:14; 6:7; 8:9).
Appendix 1, Textual Criticism for Romans 7:14
Οἴδαµεν
The text addressed for this critique is Romans 7:14. The question at hand is which
reading is most likely in the original manuscript: either the perfect active indicative first
person plural Οἴδαµεν (as found in NA28) or the perfect active indicative first person
singular οἶδα µεν (as found in Miniscule 33 and a few early church fathers).
External Evidence
Manuscripts in support of the plural reading Οἴδαµεν are, according to the textual
apparatus found in NA28, such the majority that there is no need to list them.
Manuscripts in support of the singular reading οἶδα µεν are: 33, and a few copyists along
with some early church Fathers (including Jerome; See Metzger, 454; Cranfield, 355).
The Miniscule listed in NA28, 33, dates from the 9th century as a Secondary Alexandrian
text-type. However, Jerome was much earlier dating late 4th century early 5th century.
The fact that the earliest text-type listed in NA28 is from the 9th century, and the fact that
this is the only manuscript listed contra the given reading, external evidence is in
overwhelming favor of the plural reading. Based on external evidence I give the first
person plural reading a grade of A+.
Internal Evidence
I believe it would haven been easy for a scribe to either incorrectly hear whether
Οἴδαµεν was one word, thus making it plural, or whether it was two words οἶδα µεν, thus
making it singular. Further, copyists could have easily confused the two, separating what
was meant to be together, or placing together what was meant to be separate.
Intrinsically, I believe that Paul would have preferred to use the first person plural
Οἴδαµεν as a tool of rhetoric, even though he does use the singular in v. 18. Here, he
initiates common ground and brings his readers into agreement with what he is saying as

10. 10
he declares, ‘we know that the law is spiritual’ (i.e. from God, good, Metzger, 454). He
has just proclaimed that sin has abused the law, and that sin is in fact dead apart from the
law (7:8). Thus, his readers might have begun to contemplate, ‘is Paul actually saying the
law is unspiritual (bad/evil)?’ Paul responds with an inclusive, ‘we know’ that the law is
spiritual (i.e. No! The law is not unspiritual). In fact, sin is the problem ‘I am unspiritual’
(7:14). Based on internal evidence I assign a grade of B.
Conclusion
In
sum,
I
believe
based
on
both
external
and
internal
evidence
that
the
original
reading
was
the
first
person
plural
Οἴδαµεν, ‘we know,’ and give an overall
grade of A. The external evidence was in overwhelming majority, while the internal
(though easily confused transcriptionally) likewise suggests the first person plural. Again,
the plural was needed for the flow of Paul’s argument and such content is commonly
introduced by Οἴδαµεν and follows ὅτι as is the case here (Metzger, 454; Cranfield, 355;
BDAG, 693).
Appendix 2, Textual Criticism for Romans 7:20
ἐγὼ
The
text
addressed
for
this
critique
is
Romans
7:20.
The
issue
addressed
is
whether
the
verse
under
consideration
contains
pronoun
ἐγὼ (bracketted in NA28) in
the original manuscript or if it was omitted (as found in multiple variants).
External Evidence
Manuscripts in support of including ἐγὼ are: ‫,א‬ A, K, L, P, Ψ, 33, 81, 1175, 1505,
1739, 1881, Byz.
Manuscripts in support of omitting ἐγὼ are: B, C, D, F, G, 104, 1241, 1506, 2464 latt sa.
The earliest manuscripts in favor of including and omitting the pronoun are both from the
4th century and are Alexandrian text-type. Likewise, both sets of manuscripts are well
attested geographically surfacing again in Byzantine (9th century) and Western (6th
century) text-types respectively. Since this is the case, this author concludes that the
external evidence is tied.
Internal Evidence
Likewise the internal evidence is difficult to determine. It is possible that a scribe
might have ommitted the word through parablepsis (i.e. skipping over text inadvertantly)
or could have intentionally supplied the pronoun for emphasis to go along with ἐγὼ in the
second half of the sentence (Metzger, 455). Intrinsically, I believe that the evidence
likewise leans towards including ἐγὼ as this is a major theme Paul is communcating.
Though it is quite possible Paul did not include the first person personal pronoun, this
author believes it is probable Paul included the pronoun for the sake of emphasizing ‘I
am doing what I do not want.’ Thus, from an internal perspective I conclude the evidence
is in favor of including ἐγὼ for the purpose of clarifying the personal responsibility for

11. 11
sin over against the misunderstanding that could be taken from the second half of this
verse that sin (alone) is to be blamed. I posit a grade of B-.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe since the external evidence is tied, internal evidence must
be given greater weight. Thus, it is possible Paul did not include ἐγὼ in his original, but it
is believed more likely that ἐγὼ was included to guard against the misunderstanding that
sin (alone) is accountable for Paul’s actions. Based on all the available evidence this
author agrees with Metzger and the editors of NA28 that ἐγὼ should be included in the
text, yet left in brackets (Metzger, 455; NA28, 494). This shows the reader (without
having to check the textual apparatus) that the evidence could go either way, but shows
the slight favoring by keeping it in the main text. This conclusion could effect the
meaning in a significant way, if one misunderstands Paul to mean that ἐγὼ is not
responsible for his actions.
Appendix 3, Structural Layout
14 Οἴδαµεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόµος πνευµατικός ἐστιν,
ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰµι
πεπραµένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν.
15 ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζοµαι
οὐ γινώσκω·
οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω
τοῦτο πράσσω,
ἀλλʼ ὃ µισῶ
τοῦτο ποιῶ.
16 εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ,
σύµφηµι τῷ νόµῳ ὅτι καλός.
17 νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζοµαι αὐτὸ
ἀλλʼ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐµοὶ ἁµαρτία.
18 Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐµοί, ... ἀγαθόν·

12. 12
τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί µου,
τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί µοι,
τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ·
19 οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν,
ἀλλʼ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν
τοῦτο πράσσω.
20 εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω
[ἐγὼ] τοῦτο ποιῶ,
οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζοµαι αὐτὸ
ἀλλʼ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐµοὶ ἁµαρτία.
Appendix 4, Synchronic Word Study 1
Πιπράσκω (Rom 7:14)
I. LXX
1. The sense of the term is sold in a general sense, with a few instances
where it means in relationship to evil.
2. Examples for sold in general:
i. Land shall not be sold permanently (LXX SESB Lev
21:23; NASB Lev 21:23)
ii. Sold for (to pay for) his theft (LXX SESB 22:2; NASB
22:3)
3. Examples for sold to do outright evil in a figurative sense:
i. ‘There was none who sold himself to do what was evil
in the sight of the LORD like Ahab...he acted very
abominably in going after idols’ (LXX SESB 3 Km
20:25; ESV 1 Kgs 21:25-6)
ii. ‘And they (Israel and Judah) burned their sons and their
daughters as offerings and used divination and omens
and sold (passive voice) themselves to do evil in the
sight of the LORD’ (LXX SESB 4 Km 17:17; ESV 2
Kgs 17:17)
iii. ‘And they (renegades from Israel) removed the marks
of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant.
They joined with the Gentiles and sold (passive voice)

13. 13
themselves to do evil’ (LXX SESB 1 Macc 1:15;
NRSV 1 Macc 1:15)
Summary of LXX usage: The term generally means sold, or to sell,
in the common sense. When the term is used in a similar sense as
our passage, the term means sold (into sin)
II. Koine
1. The term mean sold in a general sense (MM, 513):
2. Examples for sold in general sense:
i. P Oxy Xiv. 1672 (A.D. 37-41) ‘We sold 32 choes to
some strangers’
ii. BGU IV. 107916
(A.D. 41) ‘I have sold my wares for a
talent’
III. New Testament
1. The term means sold in a general sense and (once) sold under sin/evil.
2. Examples for ‘to sell’ in a general sense found in Synoptics, John, and
Acts:
i. On finding a pearl of great price, went and sold (Matt
13:46)
ii. Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred
denarii (John 12:5)
iii. And they were selling their possessions and giving
(Acts 2:45)
iv. Since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be
sold (Matt 18:25)
3. Example for ‘sold under sin’ only in verse under consideration
i. In Rom 7:14, the only Pauline (and NT) usage of its
kind, the term means ‘sold under sin’ with the nuance
found in the above entries from the LXX.
Summary of NT usage: The NT usage generally carries the
basic meaning of something or someone sold for a price. In our
passage the term means ‘sold under sin.’
IV. Signifiance for Exegesis in Romans 7:14: I believe that the term, only here
employed by Paul, carries the nuance stated above from the LXX when the
term is used in a similar way. Though the term is used in the LXX thirty-two
times, when the term is used in a similar sense as ‘sold under sin,’ two out of
three times it refers specifically to heinous evil participated by ‘Israel and
Judah’ (4 Km 17:17; See also BDAG, 815). Further, the LXX speaks of some
from Israel who abandoned the holy covenant and joined themselves with
Gentiles to do evil (1 Macc 1:15). Paul is showing the depth of depravity that
even (or specifically!) the Jew under the law experienced. This is not someone

14. 14
(a believer) who slips up every now and again with sins, this is someone who
is sold under a relentless lord, vile sin.
V. Check Your Work:
BDAG – The definition is confirmed ‘(of a person) who is sold as a slave to
sin’ (p. 815).
TDNT – The definition is confirmed ‘Man...has lost his independence. He has
become subject to ἁµαρτία like a bondslave, and is now a mere object. He is
delivered up to the most terrible lord whose wages are death. Thus
πεπραµένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν describes the desperate situation of a man from
which only God can rescue him’ (p. 160).
NIDNTT – ‘Sold under sin’ (p. 268).
Appendix 5, Synchronic Word Study 2
οἰκέω (Rom 7:17)
I. Koine
1. The term denotes both to dwell/live in a temple and in the context of
marriage (MM, 440):
2. Examples for dwell/live/reside within temple:
i. Examples for dwell/inhabit/reside within a temple P
Tebt I. 640
(B.C. 140-39) ‘inhabit (the temple) contrary
to custom’
3. Examples for dwell/live/reside within context of marriage:
i. Ib 10421
(B.C. 92) ‘a marriage contract, where it is laid
down that the husband shal not reside in a house over
which his wife has no rights’
Summary of Koine usage: The term referred only to humans or deities
and the fact that they dwelled either in a marriage together or in a
temple.
II. New Testament
1. In the NT, but outside the particular author under consideration – No
examples
2. Elsewhere in the same author, but outside the particular book under
consideration:
i. Used intransitively the word means to reside in a place,
live, dwell with someone in the context of marriage (1
Cor 7:12)
ii. Used intransitively the word refers to the Spirit of God
that dwells in the believer (1 Cor 3:16)

15. 15
iii. Used transitively the word means ‘to inhabit a place,
inhabit, dwell in’ with a transcendent sense of God who
dwells in unapproachable light (BDAG, 694)
3. In the same book, but outside the verse under consideration:
i. Spirit of God who dwells in a person (Rom 8:9, 11)
ii. Speaks to the (lack of) good that lives in ‘me’ (Rom
7:18)
iii. Of sin that dwells ‘in me’ (Rom 7:20)
4. In the particular verse under consideration:
i. In Romans 7:17 the word ‘to live/dwell’ and speaks to
sins controlling force in a personified fashion
Summary of NT usage: The NT usage typically speaks of either
humans that live in a marriage context, or God who dwells in the
believer or ‘unapproachable light.’
III. Significance for Exegesis in Romans 7:17: This term shows that sin is spoken
of in a personified fashion. The experience that Paul is expressing, in the
present tense, speaks of sin indwelling (fully active/alive) and forcing him to
do ‘that which I hate.’ This not only communicates sin having influence on
Paul, but that sin is fully active within him, in the same sense that the Spirit of
God is alive and indwelling the believer in Romans 8:9. Thus, it seems
difficult to believe that Paul is speaking of himself (and others) currently as a
regenerate believer outside of the law. Further, I find it more problematic to
hold that view with the statements made concerning the ‘old man’ dying to sin
(6:2-10, 14, 18, 22) and the bold declaration that God’s Spirit lives in the
believer who is ‘no longer in the flesh’ but in the Spirit (and the Spirit
likewise is in the believer; 8:8-9; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; Gal 5:24)
IV. Check Your Work:
BDAG – The definition matches ‘to reside in a place, live, dwell’ (i.e. sin
lives in me; p. 694)
TDNT – This entry matches the definition given. ‘The dwelling of sin in man
denotes the dominion of sin over him, its lasting connection with his
flesh…sin which dwells in me is no passing guest, but by its continuous
presence becomes the master of the house’ (emphasis mine; though this entry
appears to suggest a duality [i.e. present experience for Paul and others]; p.
135)
NIDNTT – This entry likewise matches. The phrase means, ‘‘sin…dwells in
me’’ and ‘‘depicts the old man (that died; cf. Rom 6:6), while the truth about
the new man is testified to in the sentence ‘the Spirit of God dwells in you’
(cf. Rom 8:9, 11)’’

16. 16
Appendix
6,
Validation
1
ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰµι
Introduction
The phrase ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰµι raises a interpretive and theological issue. This
issue is to determine who the ‘I’ is in our passage (Rom 7:14-20, and the larger unit of
7:13-25), the speaker’s (‘I’) state of being (condition) and how these answers fit into the
context of the passage in view. I will briefly state the differing views concerning the ‘I’
and will conclude with my view concerning the best plausible explanation. While there
are numerous viewpoints within these specific interpretations, this author seeks to address
whether or not the ‘I’ refers to Paul’s current experience (thus normative for all
Christians) or if it is prior to regeneration. These questions will be collapsed into broad
general categories, and thus will not be dealt with at the minute level.
Differing Views
A)
The ‘I’ refers to Paul’s current (post-conversion) experience and therefore the ‘I
am fleshly’ struggle of ‘doing what I hate’ and ‘not doing the good I want’ can be viewed
as the normal Christian life. Support for this view is rooted in the shift in the tense of the
verbs Paul uses from past to present (7:14-25). Thus, the natural interpretation would be
that Paul uses the present tense to describe his current experience. Further evidence for
this struggle to be that of a regenerate individual is that an unbeliever would not ‘delight
in God’s law’ (7:22). Further still, an unregenerate individual would not ‘want to do
good’ (7:15-16). Man is totally depraved, thus an unregenerate person would not ‘hate
evil’ (7:15b).
Yet another reason it is believed this struggle depicts Paul as a regenerate believer
is that the broader passage speaks of God’s deliverance in Christ, yet finally ends with a
restatement of the struggle within (7:25b). Proponents of this view do not deny that the
Spirit does indwell believers and that there is a real sense of newness, but they would
maintain that there remains a distinct ‘fleshliness’ in a believer. This view claims that ἐγὼ
is ‘split’ and thus accentuates a dual nature understanding of the believer (Dunn, 388). It
is thought that this passage teaches as someone grows in awareness and knowledge of
God, as a believer, he or she grows in awareness of their own continuing sinfulness
(MacArthur, 379). In sum, this view says concerning ἐγὼ ... εἰµι along with Calvin,
‘Paul...is depicting in his own person the character and extent of the weakness of
believers’ (quoted in Cranfield, 356).
B)
The ‘I’ refers to Paul’s experience as an unregenerate Jew under the law, and
typical Israel. Evidence in support of this view begins with the connection of σαρκί (form
of σάρκινός found in 7:14, 18b) with the unregenerate (7:5; 8:6, 8). Further ἐγὼ is ‘sold
under sin.’ For further understanding of the vileness of this phrase see Appendix 4.

17. 17
Outside of our verses, yet within the passage, ἐγὼ is spoken of as taken captive to the law
of sin, yet Romans 8:2 ‘proclaims that believers have been set free from this same law of
sin’ (Moo, 472; emphasis mine). I believe it noteworthy that obvious freedom from sin is
declared in chapter 6:1-10, 14, 18, 22. Yet this truth would be nulled if in fact the
regenerate is ‘sold under sin’ (7:14). Yet another reason in favor of the unregenerate view
is that there is not any mention of the Spirit’s help in this passage (Byrne, 226). Paul is
clear that a major mark of the New Covenant and therefore new creation experience of a
believer is the presence of the Holy Spirit (8:9; 1 Cor 3:16; See also Appendix 5).
English Translations
Here, I will show the different interpretative headings that English translations
give this section of text. Although one cannot be certain how these translations
understood this passage, the headings do communicate telling and distinct interpretations.
NIV ‘Law and Sin’
NASB ‘The Conflict of Two Natures’
ESV ‘Law and sin’
HCSB ‘The Problem of Sin in Us’
RSV ‘The Inner Conflict’
NLT ‘Struggling With Sin’
Conclusion
In sum, the two views presented counter each other, thus showing the strengths
and weaknesses within each argument. I believe the greatest evidence is for option B.
While I have empathy for those who feel this passage depicts their own personal struggle
with temptation, I do not feel the evidence leads to the conclusion that this passage refers
to a regenerate believer. For the believer has died to sin (6:6) and is not ‘in the flesh’, but
‘in the Spirit’ (8:9). The believer is not sold under vile evil (7:14), but has been set free
from sin (6:20). Further, I believe that a proper understanding of 7:1-6 shows that the
believer is freed from the Law (entirely); thus, does not have the law to excite sin (7:8).
In response to how an unregenerate person could delight in God’s law (7:22), Paul
communciates in 2:17-29 that a Jewish person delights and boasts in God’s law, yet still
has a great need to trust in God to receive true righteousness. For the Jew, the Law was
viewed constitutionally – a source of nationalistic pride as God’s chosen people. Thus,
there was a need to instruct those in what sin produces when it takes advantage of the
Law – the experience given in Romans 7:14-25. Thankfully, the Jew that belongs to
Christ is no longer under law (6:14), and is dead to sin (6:6) freed form condemnation
(8:1) and is no longer in ‘the flesh’ but is indwelt by the Spirit (8:9).

18. 18
Appendix
7,
Validation
2
οὐ γινώσκω
Introduction
The issue here addressed is the meaning of the phrase οὐ γινώσκω in Romans
7:15. There are multiple variations that scholars communicate this phrase to mean. I will
introduce the differing views, respond with brief critique, and conclude with the most
probable understanding of the phrase under scrutiny.
Differing Views
The main issue is does this phrase mean I do not know (cognitively) what I do;
‘Paul existentially disowns his action even though still admitting that it is his’ (Dunn,
389); I act blindly as one forced to do ill; I am completely ‘perplexed’ by what I do as
contra what I desire (Byrne, 227); or does the phrase mean I do not approve of that which
I do?
A)
The first option is a lack of cognitive understanding of that which ‘I’ participates
in. This translates, ‘What I am accomplishing I really do not know’ (BDAG, 200; see also
Chrysostom as quoted in Moo, 483). Contra this view, is the fact that the ‘I’ classifies
what he is doing as ‘evil’ (Rom 7:19). It is not to be understood that the ‘I’ does not
‘perceive’ what he does, but in fact is keenly aware of the ill he practices (Moo, 483;
Rom 7:15)
B)
The second option is γινώσκω carries an ‘experiential knowledge’ thus ‘Paul
existentially disowns his action’ even though he does not deny that the action is indeed
his (Dunn, 389). This view has some merit found in ‘So now, no longer am I the one
doing it, but sin which dwells in me’ (Rom 7:17, NASB). However, I do not believe that
7:17 is meant to be taken as ‘I’ separating himself from the behavior, but rather as that
which clarifies the guilt and vileness of ‘I’ (Moo, 485)
C)
The third option is that the ‘I’ is not totally engaged in the doing of ill. This view
distinguishes between the ‘will and motive’ of an individual, and the individual himself.
‘The man acts, so to speak, blindly: he is not a fully conscious agent’ (Sanday &
Headlam, 182). Thus this irresistible evil removes the choice from the ‘I’ forcing him into
ill. In response to this view, it is accepted that ‘sold under sin’ means that one is ‘free in
regard to righteousness’ thus a slave to evil (7:14; 6:20). However, this view suggests that
the individual ‘I’ is not repsonsible for that which is taking place through him. ‘I’ is very
much involved in sin (7:24; 8:8).

19. 19
D)
The fourth option is that οὐ γινώσκω refers specifically to a state of perplexity
and wonder at that which the ‘I’ does (Byrne, 227). This perplexity comes from behavior
that is contra the desire of ‘I.’ In essence, I am completely baffled by what I see in my
life, I am torn between what I desire and what I actually do, I am under the control of sin
(Byrne, 227). This option is viable. ‘I’ wants to do good, and does delight in God’s law,
therefore when his behavior is counter this desire a state of perplexity is warranted (Rom
7:22, 25).
E)
The fifth option is that the phrase οὐ γινώσκω refers to ‘I do not acknowledge’ in
the sense of ‘I do not approve’ of that which I do (Cranfield, 359). Cranfield’s
understanding of the phrase is a great interpretation. As mentioned under D, it is clear
that ‘I’ as an affinity for the law of God, and desires to do good (19). Therefore, when he
does not see his behavior matching his desire, dissaproval is logical.
English Translations
English translations vary in their interpretation of this phrase. The different
nuances listed above are shown quite clear in the translations that follow.
NLT ‘I don’t really understand myself...’
NASB ‘For what I am doing, I do not understand...’
NCV ‘I do not understand the things I do...’
ESV ‘For I do not understand my own actions...’
CEB ‘I don’t know what I’m doing...’
MESSAGE ‘What I don’t understand about myself is that I decide one way, but I act
another...’
VOICE ‘Listen, I can’t explain my actions...’
Conclusion
In sum, I believe the best option is a combination of D and E above. This
understands οὐ γινώσκω to mean I am perplexed by what ‘I’ am doing in the sense of that
which is happening is complicated. Sin is waging war within me and is responding to the
Law (that which is good) in a profoundly evil way (Rom 7:9-10). Further, this view
understands that this perplexity does not lead to ignoring that which ‘I’ do as if the writer
is not responsible and therefore has no need to disagree, but rather ‘I’ disapprove of what
I practice (7:15, 24).