Romans 7: Romans 7:19-Paul Acknowledges That He Does Not Do What He Desires But Rather The Evil He Does Not Want To Do

Romans 7:19-20 Romans 7:19-Paul Acknowledges That He Does Not Do What He Desires But Rather The Evil He Does Not Want To Do The apostle Paul in Romans 7:19 acknowledges that he does not do what he desires to do but rather the evil he does not want to do. Romans 7:19 repeats the substance of Romans 7:15b. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. In Romans 7:15b, the desire to the good and the evil that is done is implicit whereas in Romans 7:19, it is explicit. Also, in Romans 7:19 the verb poieo is used of the good and prasso in relation to the evil whereas in Romans 7:15b, the former is used of the evil and the latter is used of the good. This indicates that the good implicitly mentioned in 7:15b is synonymous with the good explicitly mentioned in 7:19 and the evil implicitly mentioned in 7:15b is synonymous with evil explicitly mentioned in 7:19. For is the explanatory use of the post-positive conjunction gar (gavr), which introduces a statement that explains Paul s statement in Romans 7:18. Romans 7:18, For you see, I know as a fact through experience, namely that absolutely nothing good, as an eternal spiritual truth, dwells in me, that is, in my flesh because the desire is, as an eternal spiritual truth, present in me, however, the capacity to produce that which is perfect, is, as an eternal spiritual truth absolutely not. In this passage, we read that Paul teaches the Christians in Rome that he knew as a fact from experience that absolutely nothing of intrinsic good dwells in his physical body because the desire to do God s will is present in him but the capacity to do so is not. Here in Romans 7:19, Paul acknowledges that he does not do what he desires but rather he commits evil acts, which he does not want to do. The conjunction gar introduces a statement that provides more information as to why the desire to do God s will is present in Paul but the capacity to do so is not. This is not the causal use of the conjunction since that would indicate that the statement that it is introducing in verse 19 is the basis as to why the desire to do God s will is present in Paul not the capacity to do so. If gar was causal this 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

would mean that the desire to do God s will is present in Paul but not the capacity to do so because he does not do what he desires but rather commits evil acts, which he does not want to do. The explanatory use means that it is introducing a statement that is providing more information with regards to the previous statement. This use of gar indicates that it is providing more information regarding his statement in verse 18 that the desire to do God s will is present in Paul but not the capacity to do so. The desire to do God s will is present in Paul but not the capacity to do so and here is more information that serves to explain this fact. For you see I do not do what I desire but rather I commit the very evil that I do not want to do. We will translate gar, for you see. The good is the accusative neuter singular form of the adjective agathos (a)gaqov$) (ag-ath-os). This is the eighth time that we have seen the adjective agathos in our studies of the book of Romans (2:7, 10; 3:8; 5:7; 7:12, 13 twice). In Romans 7:12-13, the adjective was used to describe the tenth commandment as being intrinsically valuable, intrinsically good, inherently good in quality but with the idea of good which is also profitable, useful, benefiting others, benevolent since it originates from the perfect nature of God. Romans 7:12-13, Therefore, indeed, the Law is, as an eternal spiritual truth holy. Furthermore, the tenth commandment is, as an eternal spiritual truth holy and in addition righteous as well as good. Therefore, did that which is good cause temporal spiritual death in me? Absolutely not! On the contrary, the sin nature caused temporal spiritual death in me in order that the sin nature would be exposed by repeatedly producing temporal spiritual death in me by means of that which is good in order that by means of the tenth commandment, the sin nature would demonstrate itself extraordinarily sinful in character. In this passage, it expresses the perfect character and nature of God and His attitude towards His moral rational creatures. The word describes the tenth commandment as having man s best interests in mind and is not designed to hurt him. In Romans 7:18, Paul used the word to describe himself and in particular his physical body as indicated by the qualifying or epexegetical statement tout estin en te sarki mou, that is, in my flesh. Romans 7:18, For you see, I know as a fact through experience, namely that absolutely nothing good, as an eternal spiritual truth, dwells in me, that is, in my flesh because the desire is, as an eternal spiritual truth, present in 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

me, however, the capacity to produce that which is perfect, is, as an eternal spiritual truth absolutely not. It is used with ou to describe Paul s physical body as not having anything intrinsically valuable, intrinsically good, inherently good in quality in it since the sin nature indwells it. Now, in Romans 7:19, the adjective agathos is used of obedience to the Law, which is indicated by the verb poieo, I do. It therefore describes from God s perspective that obedience to the Law is intrinsically valuable, intrinsically good, inherently good in quality but with the idea of good which is also profitable, useful, benefiting others, benevolent since it is in conformity to God s sovereign will. The anarthrous construction of the abstract word, agathos is qualitative meaning it emphasizes the quality or nature of the word. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb poieo, I do. We will translate agathos, the good. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see.the good That is the accusative neuter singular form of the relative pronoun relative pronoun hos (o^$) (hos), which agrees in gender (neuter) and number (singular) with the adjective agathos, the good and thus refers also to obedience to the Law. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb thelo, I want. We will translate hos, that. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see.the good that I want is the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb thelo (qevlw) (thel-o). Here in Romans 7:19, the verb thelo denotes Paul s desire to obey the Law. Once again, the first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. This indicates that Paul habitually desired to obey the Law. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the active voice form 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3

of the verb thelo denotes that Paul performed the action of habitually desiring to obey the Law. The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate thelo, I habitually desire to do. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do I do not do is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), not and the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb poieo (poievw) (poy-eh-o), I do. As we have noted already in our study of the verb prasso, in the Pauline epistles poieo generally denotes an action complete in itself, emphasizing accomplishment. In Romans 7:15-16, the verb poieo means, to commit and is used in relation to personal sin. Romans 7:15-16, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument I habitually commit the very thing that I by no means habitually desire to do as I ve already admitted to. Then, I do agree with the Law. I do testify that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth perfect. In Romans 7:19, the verb poieo is not used in relation to committing personal sin but rather with regards to obedience to the Law. Therefore, instead of translating the word commit it should be translated accomplish. The meaning of the verb is emphatically negated by the adverb ou. The emphatic negative adverb ou is used to deny the reality of an alleged fact and is the clear cut, pointblank negative, objective, final. It emphatically negates the idea that Paul habitually accomplished the good in the form of obedience to the Law. Once again, the first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. This indicates that Paul habitually did not accomplish that which is good, i.e. obedience to the Law. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the active voice form of the verb poieo denotes that Paul performed the action of not habitually accomplish the good. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate ou poio, I by no means habitually accomplish. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish But is the strong adversative use of the conjunction alla (a)llav) (al-lah), which introduces a statement that is totally antithetical to the accomplishing the good in the form of obedience to the Law, namely, evil in the form of disobedience. We will translate the word, on the contrary. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary I practice is the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb prasso (pravssw), which denotes a habit and a process leading to an accomplishment. We saw the verb in Romans 7:15, where it meant, to habitually practice. Its meaning was emphatically negated by the adverb ou meaning that it emphatically negates the idea that Paul habitually practiced what he desired to do, which was to obey the Law. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. Here in Romans 7:19, the verb prasso again means, to habitually practice. The word is used in relation to the adjective kakos, evil. Therefore, together, they indicate that Paul practiced evil instead of obeying God. Once again, the first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. This indicates that Paul habitually practiced the evil he did not want to do. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the active voice form of the verb prasso denotes that Paul performed the action of habitually practicing evil. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5

The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate the expression ou prasso, I habitually practice. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice The very is the accusative neuter singular form of the immediate demonstrative pronoun houtos (ou!to$) (hoo-tos), means, the very thing. It refers to disobedience to the Law since its antecedent is accusative neuter singular form of the adjective kakos, evil. The neuter form of the demonstrative pronoun houtos is routinely used in the Greek New Testament to refer to a phrase and in such cases the thing referred to is not a specific noun or substantive. The singular form of the word is used to refer both to an antecedent and a postcedent on a regular basis. In Romans 7:19, the accusative neuter singular form of houtos refers to its antecedent, which is the phrase thelo kakon, evil I do. Houtos is functioning as the accusative direct object of the verb prasso meaning that it is receiving the action of this verb. We will translate houtos, the very. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very Evil is the accusative neuter singular form of the adjective kakos (kakov$) (kak-os). This is the fourth time that we have seen this word in our studies of the book of Romans (Romans 1:30; 2:9; 3:8). In classical Greek, the word kakos expresses the presence of a lack and is not positive for it is an incapacity or weakness. The adjective kakos among the Greeks described that which was evil. The adjective kakos appears extensively in the LXX, occurring 371 times and is used predominately for the Hebrew term ra` and ra`ah (227 times). In the whole complex of historical books the LXX uses the term only in the sense of evil or disaster (to kakon, ta kaka). The adjective kakos is the term in the LXX used to translate the Hebrew terms ra` and ra`ah which are often used to describe the five cycles of discipline as 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

handed down by the Supreme Court of Heaven to be administered to the client nation. The adjective kakos appears 52 times in the Greek New Testament and is used to describe anything by way of thought, word and action that is produced by the old sin nature and is motivated by indoctrination from the cosmic system of Satan. Therefore, it refers to any thought, word or action which is contrary to the perfect character and integrity of God. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words makes the following comments regarding the adjective kakos, stands for whatever is evil in character, base, in distinction (wherever the distinction is observable) from poneros (see No. 2), which indicates what is evil in influence and effect, malignant. Kakos is the wider term and often covers the meaning of poneros. Kakos is antithetic to kalos, fair, advisable, good in character, and to agathos, beneficial, useful, good in act ; hence it denotes what is useless, incapable, bad; poneros is essentially antithetic to chrestos, kind, gracious, serviceable ; hence it denotes what is destructive, injurious, evil. As evidence that poneros and kakos have much in common, though still not interchangeable, each is used of thoughts, cf. (Matt. 15:19) with (Mark 7:21); of speech, (Matt. 5:11) with (1 Pet. 3:10); of actions, (2 Tim. 4:18) with (1 Thes. 5:15); of man, (Matt. 18:32) with (24:48). The use of kakos may be broadly divided as follows: (a) of what is morally or ethically evil, whether of persons, e. g., (Matt. 21:41; 24:48; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 2:2), or qualities, emotions, passions, deeds, e. g., (Mark 7:21; John 18:23, 30; Rom. 1:30; 3:8; 7:19,21; 13:4; 14:20; 16:19; 1 Cor. 13:5; 2 Cor. 13:7; 1 Thes. 5:15; 1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Pet. 3:9,12); (b) of what is injurious, destructive, baneful, pernicious, e. g., (Luke 16:25; Acts 16:28; 28:5; Titus 1:12; Jas. 3:8; Rev. 16:2), where kakos and poneros come in that order, noisome and grievous (page 390). As in the LXX, it is used to describe any thought, word or action performed by the unbeliever who rejects establishment principles ordained for a client nation to God as a result of the unbridled function of the old sin nature and indoctrination and influence from the evil produced by the cosmic system of Satan. It describes the reversionistic or apostate believer who is producing human good and evil as a result of living the old sin nature and is influenced by evil from the cosmic system of Satan. The word is also used in the Greek New Testament as it is in the LXX for the divine discipline handed down by the Supreme Court of Heaven and administered to either the reversionistic unbeliever or believer. The word describes any thought, word or action performed by either the unbeliever or reversionistic believer. The adjective kakos can describe the person or his thoughts, words and actions which are a result of sin nature control and indoctrination from the cosmic system of Satan. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

Trench makes the following comment regarding the word in relation to its synonym poneros, he states, Kakos and poneros are used in Revelation 16:2 and kakia and poneria in 1 Corinthians 5:8. The dialogismoi kakoi of Mark 7:21 are referred to as dialogismoi poneroi in the parallel passage in Matthew (15:19). The distinction between kakos and poneros is best understood by studying poneros. Kakos is constantly used in antithesis to agathos and is less frequently as the antithesis of kalos. Kakos describes something that lacks the qualities and conditions that would make it worthy of its name. Kakos was first used in a physical sense. Thus the kaka heimata are mean or tattered garments ; kakos iatros is a physician lacking the skill which physicians should possess ; and kakos krites is an unskillful judge. Kakos is used in Scripture without ethical connotations and sometimes with one. The kakos doulos is a servant lacking that fidelity and diligence which are properly due from servants As Ammonius called him, the poneros is ho drastikos kakou (the active worker out of evil). Beza made this distinction: Poneros signifies something more than kakos and beyond question it refers to a person who has been trained in every crime and completely prepared for inflicting injury to anyone. According to its derivation, the poneros is one who furnishes trouble to others. Poneria is the cupiditas nocendi (desire of harming). Jeremy Taylor defined poneros as an aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischief and tragedies; a loving to trouble our neighbor and to do him ill offices; crossness, perverseness, and peevishness of action in our intercourse. The positive activity of evil is emphasized more by poneros than by kakos. Thus poneros constantly is contrasted with chrestos, the good contemplated as the useful. If kakos is the French mauvais (bad) or merchant (wicked), then poneros is noisome in the older sense of this word. The kakos may be content to perish in his own corruption, but the poneros is not content unless he is corrupting others and drawing them into his own destruction. For they do not sleep unless they have done evil; and their sleep is taken away unless they make someone fall (Prv. 4:16). The opson poneron is an unwholesome dish ; asmata ponera are wicked songs that by their wantonness corrupt the minds of the young; gyne ponera is a wicked wife ; ophthalmos poneros (Mark 7:22) is a mischief-working eye. Satan is emphatically ho poneros as the first author of all the mischief in the world. Ravening beasts are always theria ponera in the LXX. Kaka theria (evil beasts) occurs once in the New Testament (Titus 1:12), but the meaning is not precisely the same, as the context sufficiently shows. Euripides testifies that the Greeks thought there was a more inborn and radical evil in the man who is poneros than in the man who is kakos: The evil person (poneros) is in no way different from the bad [kakos]. In the context, Euripides means that a man with an evil nature (poneros) will always show himself so in his actions (kakos) (Synonyms of the New Testament, pages 329-331). 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 8

In Romans 7:19, the adjective kakos describes actions that are done against the laws of God that reveal His will and thus refers to various acts of sin that constitute evil. It describes the actions that flow from the sin nature. The word functions as a substantive and as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb thelo, I want. We will translate kakos, evil. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil That is the accusative neuter singular form of the relative pronoun relative pronoun hos (o^$) (hos), which refers to disobedience to the Law, which constitutes evil. The word also functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb thelo, I want. We will translate the word, that. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil that I do not want is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), not and the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb thelo (qevlw) (thel-o), I do want. We saw the verb thelo in Romans 7:15, where it is denoting Paul s desire to obey the Law. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. However, in Romans 7:16, the verb s meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou and together they express in emphatic terms Paul s desire to not commit sin. Romans 7:16, However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument I habitually commit the very thing that I by no means habitually desire to do as I ve already admitted to. Then, I do agree with the Law. I do testify that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth perfect. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 9

In Romans 7:18, the verb appeared in a articular infinitive form as a substantive meaning the desire and was used again of Paul s volition and his desire to do God s will or in other words, obey the Law, thus it means, to desire to do. Romans 7:18, For you see, I know as a fact through experience, namely that absolutely nothing good, as an eternal spiritual truth, dwells in me, that is, in my flesh because the desire is, as an eternal spiritual truth, present in me, however, the capacity to produce that which is perfect, is, as an eternal spiritual truth absolutely not. In Romans 7:19, the verb thelo means again, to desire to do and is used in relation to committing evil in the form of disobedience to the Law. The meaning of the verb is emphatically negated by the adverb ou, which emphatically negates the idea that Paul desired to do that which is evil. Once again, the first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. This expresses the fact that Paul by no means habitually desired to do evil. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the active voice form of the verb thelo denotes that Paul performed the action of by no means desiring to do evil. The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate thelo, I habitually desire to do. Completed corrected translation of Romans 7:19: For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil that I by no means habitually desire to do. Therefore, Romans 7:19 reveals the intense struggle that Paul had with his sin nature as a Christian. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 10

Romans 7:20-Paul s Sin Nature Is The Source Of Evil In His Life In Romans 7:20, Paul reiterates that his sin nature is the source of evil in his life. But is the resumptive use of the post-positive conjunction de (dev), which introduces a statement that reiterates or resumes Paul s argument in Romans 7:16-17. If you recall, in Romans 7:14, the apostle acknowledges that the Law is spiritual, yet he still possesses a sin nature. Romans 7:14, For you see, we acknowledge this fact, namely that the Law is, as an eternal spiritual truth spiritual. However, I myself, as an eternal spiritual truth, perpetually exist in a state of being unspiritual, sold as a slave under the authority and dominion of the sin nature. Then, in Romans 7:15, Paul continues his autobiographical account in which he relates his struggles as a Christian with his sin nature without the enabling power of the Spirit. In this passage, he relates that as a Christian he did not understand what he was doing because he was not practicing the Law but rather was committing the very thing he hated, namely sin. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. Next, in Romans 7:16, Paul states that if he does the very thing that he does not want to do, then he agrees with the Law s assessment of his conduct that it is sinful and he also testifies that the Law is perfect. Romans 7:16, However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument I habitually commit the very thing that I by no means habitually desire to do as I ve already admitted to. Then, I do agree with the Law. I do testify that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth perfect. In Romans 7:17, Paul presents the logical conclusion that he possesses as a Christian, a sin nature and which conclusion agrees with his claim in verse 14 and is based upon the evidence presented by him in verses 15-16. In Romans 7:17, Paul is not saying that he is not responsible for his actions but rather, he is attempting to demonstrate his point in Romans 7:14 that he possesses a sin nature, which is source of personal sin in his life. Romans 7:17, So then, as previously stated, based upon the evidence presented, I myself do no longer produce it but rather, the sin nature, which does perpetually dwell in me. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 11

Now, in Romans 7:20, Paul uses the conjunction de to introduce a statement that resumes or reiterates his conclusion in verse 17 that he possesses. This conclusion is based upon the evidence he presented in verses 15-16. This evidence agrees with his claim in verse 14 that he possesses a sin nature. This use of de was employed by Paul in verse 17 where we translated it, so then, as previously stated. Therefore, the resumptive use of the conjunction de introduces a statement that reiterates or resumes Paul s logical conclusion in Romans 7:17 that he still possesses as a Christian a sin nature. The fact that de is resumptive rather than presenting a contrast is that in verse 20 Paul presents a conclusion based upon the evidence presented in verses 18-19 that his sin nature is the source of personal sin in his life. This evidence presented in verses 18-19 demonstrates his point in verse 17 that he possesses a sin nature. In Romans 7:18, Paul states to the Christians in Rome that he recognizes that nothing good dwells in his physical body because the desire to do God s will is present in him but the power to do so is not. Romans 7:18, For you see, I know as a fact through experience, namely that absolutely nothing good, as an eternal spiritual truth, dwells in me, that is, in my flesh because the desire is, as an eternal spiritual truth, present in me, however, the capacity to produce that which is perfect, is, as an eternal spiritual truth absolutely not. Then, in Romans 7:19, he acknowledges that he does not do what he desires to do but rather the evil he does not want to do. Romans 7:19, For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil that I by no means habitually desire to do. Therefore, in Romans 7:20, the conjunction de introduces the conclusion that Paul possesses a sin nature, which is based upon the evidence presented in verses 18-19 and which evidence supports Paul s conclusion in verse 17 that he possesses a sin nature. Therefore, we will translate de, So then, as previously stated (in verse 14). If is the conditional particle ei (ei)) (i), which introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. In Romans 7:20, the conditional particle ei, if is employed with the indicative mood of the verb poieo, I am doing. Together, they explicitly convey a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. However, the apodasis is introduced implicitly meaning without a structural marker, thus we will insert the word then into our translation before the apodasis statement in order to account for this. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 12

The idea behind the first class condition is not since but rather, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then... This would encourage Paul s audience to respond and come to the conclusion of the apodosis since they already agreed with him on the protasis. Therefore, Paul is employing the first class condition as a tool of persuasion with his audience. In Romans 7:20, the protasis is if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument that I do the very thing that I do not want to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true in verses 18-19 and have already admitted to this in verse 17. The apodasis is (then) I am no longer the one producing personal sin but rather the sin nature which dwells in me is the culprit. In Romans 7:20, the basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is evidence-inference. The evidence is Paul is doing the very thing that he did not want to do. The inference is that the sin nature is the source of personal sin in Paul s life. The response to Paul s protasis by his Christian readership would be obvious. The sin nature is the source of personal sin in Paul s life and thus in theirs as well! They would agree emphatically with his protasis. Thus, we call this a responsive condition. Paul is not attempting to prove that his protasis is true rather he is saying with the first class condition that we agree that if I do the very thing I do not want to do, then it is not me but the sin nature that dwells in me that is the source of personal sin in my life! The first class condition would then persuade them to respond to the conclusion found in the apodasis that Paul s sin nature is the source of personal sin in his life. Therefore, Paul s audience would have to come to his conclusion if they submit to this line of argumentation. He wants them to come to his line of argumentation because he is teaching them about the Christian way of life in relation to the sin nature and the Law through his own experience. Therefore, it is essential that they agree with him on this point since it will help them to deal with their struggles with the Law in relation to their sin natures. As we have noted in previous studies in chapter seven, Paul s problem is not the desire to obey God s Word but the power to obey God s Word, which holds true of his readers of this epistle in Rome. The Christian way of life is a supernatural way of life that demands the power of the Spirit to be experienced. Ephesians 3:14-19, For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Colossians 1:9-12, For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12, To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 1:7, For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Thus, in Romans 7:20, Paul s line of argument is essential to understand and agree upon because he is leading his readers to the solution of the problem in Romans chapter eight when he discusses the enabling power of the Spirit. Therefore, we will translate or paraphrase the conditional particle ei, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument and of course I ve demonstrated this is true and have already admitted to this Then (in verse 17), if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then I am doing is the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb poieo (poievw) (poy-eh-o), which as it did in Romans 7:15-16 means, to commit. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. Romans 7:16, However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument I habitually commit the very thing that I by no means habitually desire to do as I ve already admitted to. Then, I do agree with the Law. I do testify that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth perfect. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 14

In Romans 7:20, the verb poieo is not used in relation to personal sin but rather evil, which personal sin is. This indicated in that poieo is used in relation to the accusative neuter singular form of the demonstrative pronoun hos, the very thing whose antecedent is the neuter singular form of the adjective kakos, evil, which appears in Romans 7:19. Romans 7:19, For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil that I by no means habitually desire to do. In Romans 7:19, the adjective kakos describes actions that are done against the laws of God that reveal His will and thus refers to various acts of sin that constitute evil. It describes the actions that flow from the sin nature. In Romans 7:20, the verb poieo is once again in the first person singular form and means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. This indicates that Paul habitually committed personal sin in violation of the Law. The active voice denotes that Paul performed the action of habitually committing that which he in fact did not want to do, namely, sin, which is evil. The indicative mood of the verb is conditional meaning that it is employed with the conditional particle ei, if and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument in order to form the protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. We will translate poieo, I habitually commit. habitually commit and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then The very thing is the accusative neuter singular form of the immediate demonstrative pronoun houtos (ou!to$) (hoo-tos), which refers to evil as indicated in that its antecedent is the neuter singular form of the adjective kakos, evil, which appears in Romans 7:19. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb poieo, I habitually commit. We will translate houtos, the very thing. habitually commit the very thing and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 15

Not translated is the accusative neuter singular form of the relative pronoun relative pronoun hos (o^$) (hos), which refers again to evil since it agrees with in number (singular) and gender (neuter) with the relative pronoun hos, which as we noted refers to evil in Romans 7:20. The word also functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb thelo, I do want to do whose meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou, not. We will translate the word, that. habitually commit the very thing that and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then I is the nominative first person singular form of the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv) (eg-o), which refers of course to Paul as a Christian. It is used for emphasis in a contrast meaning that the word emphasizes Paul in contrast with his sin nature, which is denoted by the noun hamartia, sin in the adversative clause. It emphasizes that he is not the source of evil and personal sin in his life but rather his sin nature. The word functions as a nominative subject meaning that it is producing the action of the verb thelo, do want. Therefore, we will translate ego, I myself. habitually commit the very thing that I myself and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then Do not want is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), not the first person singular present active indicative form of the verb thelo (qevlw) (thel-o), do want. As was the case in Romans 7:15, 16 and 19, the verb thelo here in Romans 7:20 means, to desire to do or intention. In verse 15, it was used of his desire to obey the Law. Romans 7:15, For you see, I habitually produce what I by no means understand because I by no means habitually practice the very thing that I 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 16

habitually desire to do. On the contrary I habitually commit the very thing that I do hate. However, here in verse 16, the verb s meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou and together they express in emphatic terms Paul s desire to not commit sin. Romans 7:16, However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument I habitually commit the very thing that I by no means habitually desire to do as I ve already admitted to. Then, I do agree with the Law. I do testify that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth perfect. In Romans 7:19, the verb thelo is used in relation to obeying the Law and denotes Paul s desire to obey the Law. Romans 7:19, For you see, the good that, I habitually desire to do, I by no means habitually accomplish. On the contrary, I habitually practice the very evil that I by no means habitually desire to do. Now, in Romans 7:20, the verb means, to desire to do and is used in relation to committing evil in the form of personal sin. The word s meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou, not. Therefore, together, the verb thelo and the emphatic negative adverb ou express in emphatic terms Paul s desire to not commit evil in the form of personal sin. Once again, the first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense of the verb is a customary or habitual present used to describe an event that regularly or habitually occurs. The emphatic negative adverb ou indicates in emphatic terms that Paul habitually desired not to commit evil in the form of personal in violation of the Law. Such desire is a clear indication that he is a Christian since only a Christian has the desire not to sin and commit evil because he possesses the nature of Christ in him as well as the Holy Spirit. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the active voice form of the verb thelo denotes that Paul performed the action of habitually not desiring to commit evil in the form of personal sin by violating the commands and prohibitions of the Law. The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate expression ou thelo, by no means habitually desire to do. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17

to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then As we noted earlier in our study of the conditional particle ei (ei)) (i), the word introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The word is employed with the indicative mood of the verb poieo, I habitually commit. Together, they explicitly convey a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. However, the apodasis is introduced implicitly meaning without a structural marker. Therefore, we will insert the word then into our translation before the apodasis statement in order to account for this. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17) Then I is the nominative first person singular form of the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv) (eg-o), which refers of course to Paul as a Christian. It is used for emphasis in a contrast meaning that the word emphasizes Paul in contrast with his sin nature. It emphasizes that Paul is not the source of evil and personal in his life but rather the sin nature. The word functions as a nominative subject meaning that it is producing the action of the verb katergazomai, the one doing. Therefore, we will translate ego, I myself. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself No longer is the adverb ouketi (ou)kevti) (ook-et-ee), which is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ouk, never, absolutely not, and eti, yet, still. The word expresses an absolute, direct and full negation and denotes the extension of time up to a point but not beyond. In Romans 7:20, the adverb ouketi means, no longer and is also used in a logical rather than a temporal sense expressing an absolute, direct and full 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 18

negation that Paul is the source of sin in his life but rather his sin nature. We will translate the word, no longer. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself, no longer The one doing is the first person singular present (deponent) middle indicative form of the verb katergazomai (katergavzomai) (kat-er-gad-zo-my), which means, to produce evil. The word s direct object is the accusative form of the intensive personal pronoun autos, it, which refers to the production evil in the form of personal sin. That autos refers to evil is indicated in that its antecedent is the accusative neuter singular form of the immediate demonstrative pronoun houtos (ou!to$) (hoo-tos), whose antecedent is the neuter singular form of the adjective kakos, evil, which appears in Romans 7:19. The meaning of the verb katergazomai is negated by the adverb ouketi, no longer emphatically indicating that Paul is not the source of evil in his life. The first person singular form of the verb means, I and refers to the apostle Paul as a Christian. The present tense is a gnomic present, which is used to describe something that is atemporal and true any time and does take place. Therefore, the gnomic present indicates that Paul is emphatically denying that he is the source who does produce personal sins. Paul is saying with the gnomic present that personal does take place in his life because of him ultimately but because of the sin nature. This interpretation of the gnomic present is supported by the meaning of ouketi, no longer, which expresses an absolute, direct and full negation and denotes the extension of time up to a point but not beyond. The middle voice is deponent meaning that it has an active voice meaning even though it has a middle voice form. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. The subject in our present context is the apostle Paul. Therefore, the deponent middle voice form of the verb katergazomai along with the adverb ouketi, no longer denotes that Paul as the subject was not the source of evil in his life. The indicative mood is declarative presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate katergazomai, do produce. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 19

habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself do no longer produce It is the accusative neuter third person singular form of the intensive personal pronoun autos (au)tov$) (ow-tos), which is correctly translated and refers to evil. This is indicated as we noted before in that its antecedent is the accusative neuter singular form of the immediate demonstrative pronoun houtos (ou!to$) (hoo-tos), whose antecedent is the neuter singular form of the adjective kakos, evil, which appears in Romans 7:19. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb katergazomai. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself do no longer produce it But is the strong adversative use of the conjunction alla (a)llav) (al-lah), which introduces a statement that presents a strong contrast with the idea that Paul is the source of evil in his life. We will translate the word, but rather. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself do no longer produce it but rather Sin is the nominative feminine singular form of the noun hamartia (a(martiva) (ham-ar-tee-ah), which refers to the sin nature. This is indicated in that the word is being personified by the verb oikeo, which dwells, which means, to occupy as one would a house. The word functions as a nominative subject meaning that it produces the action of the verb katergazomai. We will translate hamartia, the sin nature. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 20

habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself do no longer produce it but rather the sin nature Which dwells is the articular nominative feminine singular present active participle form of the verb oikeo (oi)kevw) (oy-keh-o). In Romans 7:20, as was the case in Romans 7:17, the verb oikeo is used intransitively and is personifying the noun hamartia portraying the sin nature as dwelling in Paul s physical body. The verb oikeo functions as an attributive participle meaning that it is functioning like an adjective modifying the noun hamartia as indicated in that it is articular in the first attributive position. Attributive participles should normally be translated as though it were a relative clause. Since oikeo functions as an attributive participle modifying the subject hamartia, the sin nature, it too functions as a nominative subject. The present tense of the verb is customary or stative present signifying an ongoing state or unbroken process. This indicates that the sin nature dwells or resides continually or perpetually in Paul s physical body. The present tense is also a gnomic present, which is used to describe something that is true any time and does take place. Therefore, the gnomic present says that the sin nature does dwell in Paul s physical body. The active voice is a stative active indicating that subject exists in the state indicated by the verb oikeo. Therefore, the stative active voice indicates that the sin nature exists in the state of perpetually residing or dwelling in Paul s physical body. We will translate oikeo, which, does perpetually dwell. habitually commit the very thing that I myself by no means habitually desire to do and of course I ve demonstrated this is true (in verse 18-19) and have already admitted to this (in verse 17). Then, I myself do no longer produce it but rather the sin nature, which, does perpetually dwell In me is composed of the preposition en (e)n), in and the first person singular dative locative form of the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv), me. 2008 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 21