^{page 39 note 1} Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1929. For brief histories of the interpretation of this question see Kümmel, ibid., pp. 74ff.; Sanday, William and Headlam, Arthur C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), pp. 184ff.Google Scholar; Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Römer: Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 81ff.Google Scholar; and Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief (2 Vols.; Regensberg: Pustet Verlag, 1957. 1959). pp. 462–485.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} As cited in Ridderbos, Herman, Paul: An Outline, of his Theology, trans. Witt, J. R. De (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 126, n. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans, trans. Rasmussen, C. G. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949), pp. 284–303.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: The International Critical Commentary Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975). PP. 344ff., 354ff.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 5} Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (2 Vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958, 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 256ff.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 6} Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: Tyndale, 1963), pp. 150ff.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 7} Barrett, C. K., The Epistle to the Romans: Harper's New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 146ff.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 8} Packer, J. I., ‘The “Wretched Man” of Romans 7’, Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 621–627.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 9} Dunn, James D. G., ‘Rom. 7, 14–25 in the Theology of Paul’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 31 (1975), 257–273.Google Scholar

This position has also been taken recently by the Chinese scholar Fung, Ronald Y. K., ‘The Impotence of the Law’, 34–48 in Gasque, W. Ward and Sor, William Sanford La (eds.) Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation (Festschrift: Everett F. Harrison) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1978)Google Scholar. For a list of others who take this position see Dunn, op. cit., p. 258, n. 8.

^{page 40 note 10} Convenient summaries of these arguments are found in Nygren, ad. loc., pp. 284ff.; Dunn, op. cit., pp. 260–4; and Longenecker, Richard N., Paul: Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 11} Dunn, op. cit., p. 260, and Nygren, ad. loc., p. 287 are examples of those who are very much against seeing vv. 7–25 as a digression; otherwise Barrett, ad. loc., p. 140.

^{page 40 note 12} e.g., Cranfield, ad. loc., p. 344.

^{page 40 note 13} In particular (v. 22) and (v. 25).

^{page 40 note 14} see Nygren op. cit., pp. 34,293; Bruce, op. cit., pp. 151, 156; and Dunn op. cit., pp. 264ff.

^{page 40 note 15} Packer, op. cit., p. 625; cf. Cranfield, ad. loc., p. 345.

^{page 40 note 16} Dunn, op. cit., p. 261.

^{page 41 note 17} For brief summaries of these points see Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 97f.; Longenecker, op. cit., p. 110; Murray, op. cit., pp. 256f.; and Fung, op. cit., pp. 37f.

^{page 41 note 18} See Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 127.

^{page 41 note 19} Although Fung takes the ‘Christian’ position on Rom. 7: 14ff. he gives an illuminating discussion of Gal. 5:17 and admits that the Christian there is able to overcome the flesh (op. cit., pp. 36f.).

^{page 41 note 20} See Longenecker, op. cit., p. 113.

^{page 42 note 21} παρατήσεται(12: 1) seems to recall παριτάνετε(6: 13, 16) and παρεστήσατε (6:19).

^{page 43 note 22} See Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 84–94; and Longenecker, op. cit., pp. 91f.

^{page 43 note 23} Sanders, E. P., ‘Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison’, Harvard Theological Review, 66 (1973), 458–476, p. 476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 43 note 24} A few recent exponents of this position are Longenecker, op. cit., pp. 90–6; and Lyonnet, Stanislas, ‘Questiones ad Röm. 7, 7–13’, Verbum Domini, 40 (1962), 163–183, pp. 163ff.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 25} Paul uses this verb in connexion with the fall (2 Cor. 11: 3; cf. 1 Tim.2: 14); see Barrett, ad. loc., p. 144.

^{page 43 note 26} See Longenecker, op. cit., pp. 93f.

^{page 43 note 27} See especially 1: 32; 2: 1, 3, 21ff.; 7: 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25.

^{page 44 note 28} If the nonchristian described in 8: 5–8 only refers to someone who loves evil, then it cannot refer to ἐγώ (7: 14ff.), but then neither could it refer to the man of Rom. 2. Perhaps, however, the terms of 8: 5–8 can be viewed more comprehensively. Just as the Galatians are trying to complete their salvation ‘with the flesh’ (3: 3) or through obedience to the law, so ἐγώ and the moralist of Rom. 2 are attempting to obey the law in order to be saved. They, then, have ‘the mind of the flesh’ (8:5–7), ‘set their minds on the things of the flesh’ (8: 5), and ‘live according to the flesh’ (8: 5). They are ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν because they are not able to obey (ὑποτάσσεται) the law of God (8:7).

^{page 44 note 29} The problem is not merely to do the good, but to do the good in order to be saved. Josef Blank, ‘Der gespaltene Mensch: Zur Exegese vom Röm 7,7–25’, Bibel und Leben, 9 (1968), 10–20, p. 14ff. notes that for Paul the problem of gaining salvation and the problem of doing the good go together.

^{page 45 note 30} δεδικαίωται may perhaps be forensic here; thus, when a slave dies his master has no further claim on him.

^{page 45 note 31} The enduring character of the believer's death to sin is indicated by the perfects γεγόνalpha;μεν (6:5), δεδικαίωται (6:7), and συνεσταύρωμαι (Gal. 2:19). The once for all nature of the believer's death to sin is indicated by the aorists ἐβαπτίσθημεν (6:3). ἀπεθάνομεν (6:2), συνεσταυρώθη (6:6), καταργήθη (6:6), and by Christ's death to sin ἐφάπαξ (6: 10).

^{page 46 note 32} To ‘me’, on the other hand, Pauline exhortations not to act as a slave would be pointless because ‘I have no choice in the matter. This makes Fung's view (op. cit., p. 40) untenable. Following C. L. Mitton, ‘Romans vii Reconsidered’, Expository Times 65 (1954), 132–5, p. 133 he holds that ἐγώ in Rom. 7: 14ff. refers to the believer who has ‘slipped … back in a legalistic attitude to God and to righteousness’. Similarly, according to Fung (op. cit., p. 41f.), Gal 5: 18 leaves open the ὑπὸ νόμον, who are not led by the Spirit (πνεύματι ἄγεσθε). But then Rom. 8: 14, which indicates that those who are not led by the Spirit (πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται) are not νἱοὶ θεοῦ, becomes problematic. Furthermore, the legalistic Galatians wish to be ὑπὸ νόμον (4:21), yet no longer are (4:7), ὑπὸ πατδαγωγόν (3:25), or ὑπὸ νόμον (3:23). Only because they are freed slaves does Paul urge them to ‘stand fast’ and not submit again to a yoke of slavery' (5: 1f.).

^{page 46 note 33} There is no evidence that Paul, as opposed to Luther, had an introspective conscience, see Stendahl, Krister, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, Harvard Theological Review, 56 (1963), 199–215, p. 202f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 46 note 34} Kümmel (op. cit., pp. 126–32) claims that ἐγώ in Rom. 7 is to be understood in the sense of a Stilform or an indefinite τις. AS evidence he adduces one passage from Philo (de Somnis I: 176), three from the Rabbis (Mishna: Ber. 1: 3; Gemara: Ber. 3a; Pirke Aboth 6:96), and three from Greek literature (Demosthenes: kata Philippou g 9:17; Pseudo-Xenophon: De republica Atheniensium 1: 11; 2: 11). Karl Georg Kuhn, ‘Peirasmos — hamartia — sarx im Neuen Testament and die damit zusammenhangenden Vorstellungen’, Zeitschrift für Theologie and Kirche. 49 (1952), 200–22, p. 210 believes that this usage occurs in IQS 11: 9, 10 and that Rom. 7 is to be understood in light of it.

Stauffer, Ethelbert, ‘ego’, Vol. II, p. 357 in Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard (eds.), Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, trans. Bromiley, G. W. (10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976)Google Scholar, also sees a gnomic or general usage of ἐγώ in Rom. 3:7; 1 Cor. 6: 12ff., 10: 29f., 14: 11ff., and Gal. 2: 18–21. On Gal. 2:18–21 see Kertelge, Karl, ‘Exegetische Überlegungen zum Verständnis der paulinischen Anthropologie nach Römer 7’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 62 (1971), 105–114, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 35} Rom. 7 seems to be the product of Paul's mature Christian thinking rather than his ‘conversion experience’. Against Bandstra, A. J., The Law and the Elements of the World (Dissertation: Free University, 1964), p. 142 as cited in RidderbosGoogle Scholar, op. cit., p. 126, n. 87.

^{page 47 note 36} Against Packer, op. cit., p. 624 who does not wish to see an historical present in 7: 14ff.

^{page 47 note 37} Against Cranfield, ad. loc., p. 345; he claims ‘v. 24 would be highly melodramatic, if it were not a cry for deliverance from present distress’.

^{page 47 note 38} Nygren, ad. loc., p. 286 would so label the cry of v. 24 if it referred to Paul's pre-Christian past.