[1] Thus 7. 7–12, while offering what may be termed an ‘apology for the law’, also affirms and explains the fact that the law has become sin's ally (See Schnackenburg, R., ‘Römer 7 in Zusammenhang des Römerbriefes’, Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag [ed. Ellis, E. E. and Grasser, E.; (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975] 292).Google Scholar In light of this, it is preferable to take άλλά, in v. 7 as restrictive (‘No, but it is true that …’) rather than as adversative (‘No, on the contrary …’) (Kümmel, W. G., Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament: Zwei Studien [TBü 53; Munich Kaiser, 1974] 47Google Scholar; contra, e.g. Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ICC n.s.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975, 1979], 347–8).Google Scholar

[2] See, for instance: Bornkamm, G., ‘Sin, Law and Death: An Exegetical Study of Romans 7’, Early Christian Experience (London: SCM, 1969) 87–104Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 192–7Google Scholar; Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie (FRLANT 119; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978) 66–9Google Scholar; Démann, P., ‘Moïse et la Loi dans la Pensée de Saint Paul’, Moïse: L'homme de L'Alliance (Cahiers Sionens; Tournai: Desclée, 1955) 204–5Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Die theologische Anthropologie des Paulus: Auslegung von Röm 7, 17–8, 39 (Kohlhammer Taschenbücher 1021; Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1980) 26–7.Google Scholar

[3] See particularly: Lyonnet, S., ‘L'histoire du salut selon le chapitre vii de l'Epitre aux Romains’, Bib 43 (1962) 117–51Google Scholar; idem, ‘“Tu ne convoiteras pas” (Rom. 7.7)’, Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (NovT Sup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 158–64; Longenecker, R. N., Paul: Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 88–95.Google Scholar

[4] Chrysostom stands virtually alone as an advocate of this view in the early church (Homily XIL on Romans). Some recent proponents are: Stauffer, E., Έγω’, TDNT 2 (1964) 358–62Google Scholar; van Dülmen, A., Die Theologie des Gesetzes im Paulus (SBM 5; Stuttgart: Katholischer Bibelwerk, 1968) 101–2, 109–10Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., ‘Man before and without Christ: Romans 7 and Pauline Anthropology’, Louvain Studies 5 (1974) 18–33Google Scholar; Gottlob, Schrenk, Έντολή', TDNT 2 (1964) 550–1Google Scholar; Wright, N. T., ‘The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans’, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Oxford (1980) 145–6Google Scholar; and, less clearly: Ridderbos, H., Aan de Romeinen (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1959) 148Google Scholar; Benoit, P., ‘La Loi et la Croix d'après saint Paul (Rom. 7:7–8:4)’, RB 47 (1938) 483–7Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Meyer, K.; 5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978) 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] See especially Bandstra, A. J., The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's Teaching (Kampen: Kok, 1964) 135–6Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Romans 7, 14–25 in the Theology of Paul’, TZ 31 (1975) 257–73Google Scholar; Gundry, R. H., ‘The Moral Frustration of Paul before his Conversion: Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7–25’, Pauline Studies: Essays presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday (ed. Hagner, D. A. and Harris, M. J.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 228–45.Google Scholar

[6] See, for instance, Kuss' excursus on the history of the interpretation of Rom 7. 7–25 (Der Römerbrief [3 vols.: Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1957–78]Google Scholar, 2. 467); Bornkamm, ‘Sin, Law and Death’, 93.

[7] Schrenk, Έντολή', 550; Gundry, ‘Moral Frustration’, 230; D. H. Campbell, ‘The Identity of έγω in Romans 7. 7–25’, Studia Biblica 1978. III: Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (ed. Livingstone, E. A.; JSNT Sup 3; (Sheffield: JSNT, 1980) 61.Google Scholar Lyonnet (‘“Tu ne convoiteras pas”’) has presented the strongest case for an alternative–the Paradise commandment. He notes that ‘desire’ without object is found in Tg. Neof. Exod. 10. 17, that Tg. Neof likewise uses the root hmd (whose Heb. equivalent is sometimes translated with έπıθυμέω in LXX) in Gen 3. 6, and that babb. 145b–146a says that ‘desire’ was injected in Eve by the serpent. But the first reference proves no more than that, as argued above, there was a tendency in some circles to absolutize ‘coveting’, while the other two are tangential to the issue. In fact, Lyonnet furnishes no evidence that Jews ever interpreted the Paradise commandment as a prohibition of ‘coveting’. It should also be noted that έπıθυμέω and its cognates do not occur in Genesis 1–3, but are used in Ps 100 (106) 14 with reference to the wilderness generation (cf. Strelan, J. G., ‘A Note on the Old Testament Background of Romans 7:7’, Luth Theo Jour 15 (1981) 23–5).Google Scholar

[8] See also Pesiq. R. 21 (107a) (fourth century) (Schoeps, H. J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959) 191).Google Scholar

[9] Kümmel, , Römer 7, 56.Google Scholar Gundry (‘Moral Frustration’, 232) argues that the commandment has specific reference to sexual lust here but, although 4 Macc 2. 6 occurs in a context having to do with sex, Paul's own usage and the context give no support to this restriction.

[10] In Romans, νόμος is used of the Pentateuch (Rom 3. 21), of the OT as a whole (3. 19), possibly of secular law (7. 1–3 [so Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902) 172Google Scholar; but cf. Kümmel, , Römer 7, 38]Google Scholar), and with the more general sense of ‘force’ or ‘principle’ (3. 27 bis [probably; though see Friedrich, G., ‘Das Gesetz des Glaubens. Röm. 3, 27’, TZ 10 (1954) 401–17]Google Scholar, 7. 21; 7. 23 [probably in the first and third occurrences], 7. 25b; 8. 2 [probably in the first occurrence; possibly in the second], 9. 31 bis [possibly]).

The attempt to discern different meanings of νόμος by means of the presence or absence of the article (many older commentators; cf. e.g. Sanday-Headlam) has now been generally (and properly) abandoned (see the early discussion in Edward, Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz nach den vier Hauptbriefen [Freiburg and Tübingen: Mohr, 1884] 5–8).Google Scholar

[11] The view of Barth (A Shorter Commentary on Romans [Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1959] 36Google Scholar; cf. also Cranfield, , Romans, 1. 156Google Scholar) that Gentile-Christians are intended in these verses would remove this inconsistency, but the position has many difficulties.

[12] Käsemann, , Romans, 62–4.Google Scholar

[13] Feuillet, A. (‘Loi de Dieu, loi du Christ et loi de l'esprit d'après les Epitres pauliniennes: Lés Rapports de ces trois lois avec la Loi Mosaique’, Novt 22 (1980) 29–65)Google Scholar has recently argued for a broad reference of νόμος in 7. 25 and 8. 7. I cannot follow him on 7. 25; on 8. 7, something can be said for a universal condemnatory function of the law (cf. 2. 14–16).

[14] Stauffer, ‘Έγω’, 358; Schrenk, , ‘Έντολή’, 550–1; Karl Prümm, ‘Rom 1–11 and 2 Kor 3’, Bib 31 (1950) 177–80.Google ScholarContra, e.g. Barrett, C. K., who says of Rom 7, ‘It is in the last analysis the meaning of religion that is analyzed here’ (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1957] 140).Google Scholar

[15] While the verb παρεıσέρχομαı need not indicate a hostile action (Cranfield, , Romans 1. 292Google Scholar; Käsemann, , Romans, 158Google Scholar), it does clearly characterize the law as a temporary and essentially negative element in the Heilsgeschichte (Käsemann). As Scroggs, R. says, ‘The Apostle thus dethrones Moses from his position of life-giver via salvation through Torah’ (The Last Adam: A Study in Paul's Theology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966] 2).Google Scholar

[16] Schnackenburg (‘Römer 7’, 291) points to this connection as well as to a number of parallels between 7. 1’6 and 6. 15–23.

[17] The antithesis between πνευμα and γράμμα should not be understood with reference to how the law is understood (Cranfield, , Romans, 1. 339–40Google Scholar), but with reference to the salvation-historical disjunction of the ‘two ages’ (Käsemann, E., ‘The Spirit and the Letter’, Perspectives on Paul [London: SCM, 1971] 143–7Google Scholar; Schneider, B., ‘The Meaning of St. Paul's Antithesis ‘The Letter and the Spirit”’, CBQ 15 [1953] 203–6).Google Scholar

[18] In 7. 6, the phrase άποθανόντες [έκεı] έν κατεıχόμεθα is reminiscent of Gal 3. 22–25 (this parallel as well as the grammar shows that νόμος, not σάρξ, should be understood as the antecedent of [Kümmel, , Römer 7, 42Google Scholar; Cranfield, , Romans, 1. 338–9Google Scholar; Käsemann, , Romans, 189–90Google Scholar; contra Sanday-Headlam, , Romans, 175Google Scholar ]). Schneider (‘“Letter and Spirit”’, 203) lists several striking parallels between 2 Cor 3.7–18 and Rom 7. 1–6.

[19] Lyonnet, ‘“Tu ne convoiteras pas”’, 159–63; Longenecker, , Paul, 94–5.Google Scholar On the tradition, see Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (2 vols.; New York: Schocken, 1927, 1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1. 274.

[20] André, Feuillet, ‘Le plan salvifique de Dieu d'après l'Epître aux Romains’, RB 57 (1950) 368–9Google Scholar; Benoit, ‘La Loi’, 483. Kümmel, (Römer 7, 87)Google Scholar correctly observes: ‘…das Erleben Adams und der in ihm beschlossenen Menschheit konnte auch niemals zum Beweise dafür dienen, daß das mosaische Gesetz nicht Sünde, sondern nu eine Handhabe für die Sünde war.’

[20] The statement that men living between Adam and Moses ‘did not sin in the likeness [όμοıω-ατı] of Adam's transgression’ implies a parallel between Adam and those who were subject to the Mosaic law.

[21] Against, Longenecker (Paul, 94–5)Google Scholar who, sensitive to the difficulty of finding a pre-mosaic νόμος in Paul, seeks to salvage the Adamic view by suggesting that Adam possessed according to Paul a prototype of the torah.

[22] See Kümmel, , Römer 7, 51.Google Scholar

[23] Lyonnet, S., Les étapes de l'histoire du salut selon l'Epitre aux Romains (Bibliothèque Oecuménique 8; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 139–60.Google Scholar Similarly, Käsemann asserts: ‘There is nothing in the passage which does not fit Adam, and everything fits Adam alone’ (Romans, 1969).

[25] Other, less difficult, (problems confront the Adamic view: 1) the interval of time during which éγώ is without the law is difficult to fit into the Paradise narrative; 2) the contrast ‘sin was dead’ (v. 8b)/‘sin sprang to life’ (v. 9b) suggests that sin existed as a force in the world (not just in the serpent) before the commandment came; 3) Adam is, of course, not named (for these criticisms and others, see: Gundry, ‘Moral Frustration’, 230–1; Benoit, ‘La Loi’, 493; Bornkamm, ‘Sin, Law and Death’, 93).

[26] Deissmann, A., Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Bros., 1927) 91Google Scholar; Sanday-Headlam, , Romans, 180Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1948) 24–5.Google Scholar

[27] Calvin, J., Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947) 255Google Scholar; Hodge, C., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1886) 224Google Scholar; Murray, J., The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965)Google Scholar, 1.251; Bandstra, , Law, 137.Google Scholar

[27] Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1932) 110–111Google Scholar; Gundry, ‘Moral Frustration’, 232.

[29] Of the 59 occurrences of ζάω in the Pauline corpus, only nine refer probably to spiritual life (Rom 1. 17; 6. 13; 8. 13; 10. 5; 2 Cor 8. 4(?); Gal 2. 19; 3. 11; 3. 12; 5. 25) (See on this Bandstra, , Law, 137Google Scholar and the survey of usage in Kuss, , Römerbrief, 2.445–6Google Scholar). Dunn's attempt to bolster the autobiographical interpretation by appealing to Paul's death/life language (‘Romans 7’, 261) fails because only here does Paul speak of a transition from life to death.

[30] ‘Dead in Trespasses and Sins (Eph. 2.1)’, JSNT 13 (1981) 16.Google Scholar

[31] Calvin, , Romans, 255Google Scholar; Hodge, , Romans, 224Google Scholar; Murray, , Romans, 1. 251Google Scholar; Bandstra, , Law, 137.Google Scholar

[32] Although the bar mitzvah as such is a medieval development (Safrai, S., ‘Home and Family’, The Jewish People in the First Century [ed. Safrai, S. and Stern, M.; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974, 1976]Google Scholar 2.771, it is argued that evidence exists in earlier sources for some sort of legal shift at age 13 (Gundry, ‘Moral Frustration’, 232).

[33] Cf. the classic essay of Stendahl, K., ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56 (1963) 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 78–96).Google Scholar

[34] In one place (Rer. Div. Her. 293–9), Philo speaks of a child's first seven years as being without good and evil, but he elsewhere (Leg. Gai. 210) indicates that the Jewish child learned the law at an early age. The rabbis testify to some increase in responsibility for the law as a child grows (cf. m. 'Abot 5. 21), but the same texts also indicate that children were taught the law from a very early age (See on this point Kümmel, , Römer 7, 81–3Google Scholar and Longenecker, , Paul, 91–2Google Scholar). However, Gundry is correct in pointing out that the autobiographical view demands nothing more than an increased sensitivity to the law; the degree to which the law was taught to the child is strictly immaterial (‘Moral Frustration’, 233). In this case, the difficulty is in understanding εḉων χωρίς νόμου ποτέ as a reference to this sensitivity to the law.

[35] It is debated whether v. 7 introduces this idea of the revelatory function of the law, the meanings to be assigned οιδα and γωώоκω being the crucial issue. These verbs have been taken in two general senses: 1) experientially–involvement in sinning itself (Kümmel, , Römer 7, 45Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951, 1955]Google Scholar, 1.265; Bornkamm, ‘Sin, Law and Death’, 102; Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief [HTKNT; 2nd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1979] 221)Google Scholar; 2) noetically–awareness of sin (Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883] 269; Benoit, ‘La Loi’, 487Google Scholar). What seems to fit the context best, and do justice to the fact that olōa only infrequently denotes simple experience, is something of a combination of these two according to which Paul refers to the understanding of sin in all its depths (cf. v. 13), as rebellion against God–‘Herausarbeitung des Wesens der Sünde coram deo’ (Michel, , Römer, 227Google Scholar; see also Cranfield, , Romans, 1. 348–9Google Scholar; Ridderbos, H., Paul, : An Outline of His Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 151Google Scholar; Gutbrod, W., ‘Νόμος’, TDNT 4 [1967] 1073Google Scholar; Burdick, D. W., ‘oida and ginōskō in the Pauline Epistles’, New Dimensions in New Testament Study [ed. Longenecker, R. N. and Tenney, M. C.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974] 351).Google Scholar

[36] Thus, for instance, Kümmel finds no fixed experience depicted and takes πστέ (v. 9) ‘ganz allgemein den Lebenszustand’ (Römer 7, 132–3)–similarly, Conzelmann, H. (An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament) (London: SCM, 1969) 233Google Scholar argues that Paul ‘replaces Adam with himself, the Adamitic man, and thus draws time together into one point.’

[37] So Käsemann, , Romans, 121.Google Scholar

[38] Cf. Rom 2. 23; 4. 15; 5. 14; Gal 3. 19; 1 Tim 2. 14(?) and Schneider, J., ‘Παράβασıς’, TDNT 5 (1967) 739.Google Scholar

[39] Cranfield, , Romans, 1.292–3.Google Scholar The view according to which the increase of trespass involves the attempt to base one's existence on fulfilment of the law will be discussed at a later point.

[40] The mention of this specific period of time makes it clear that νόμος refers to the Mosaic law in these verses. To interpret Paul as implying the existence of law at all periods (Murray, , Romans, 1.188–9Google Scholar; Danker, F. W., ‘Romans V.12: Sin Under Law’, NTS 14 [1967–1968] 430–1)Google Scholar is to misunderstand the text and Paul's doctrine of the law (see on this point Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last: A Study in Paul's Theology [New York: Scribner's, 1962] 15, 23–4).Google Scholar

[41] This emphasis could mean that Paul intends vv. 13–14 as support for a ‘corporate’ interpretation of v. 12d: the death of people before the law can be fully explained only by reference to Adam's ‘transgression’ (Ridderbos, , Paul, 96Google Scholar; Sanday-Headlam, , Romans, 135Google Scholar). Dahl, N. A. (Studies in Paul Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977] 91)Google Scholar argues from these verses that only from Adam to Moses did people die because of Adam's sin. Against Wedderburn, (‘The Theological Structure of Romans V.12’, NTS 19 [1972–1973] 352)Google Scholar, it is not necessarily sin against the law (Mosaic) which the argument of vv. 13–14 presupposes, but sin against any revealed commandment.

[42] έλλογέω, used elsewhere in the NT only in Philemon 18, means to ‘charge to someone's account’ (BAG; cf. Preisker, H., ‘Eλλογέω’ TDNT 2 [1964] 517)Google Scholar and suggests, therefore, the idea of personal responsibility. Clearly, in light of Romans 1–3, Paul cannot mean that men bear no responsibility for their own sins before the law. For variations of the view presented here in this text, see: Preisker, ‘Eλλογέω’, 517; Barrett, , Romans, 112Google Scholar; Cranfield, , Romans, 1.282Google Scholar; Jüngel, E., ‘Das Gesetz zwischen Adam und Christus: Eine theologische Studie zu Röm. 5, 12–21’, ZTK 60 (1963) 54Google Scholar; hFriedric, G., ”Aμαρτία ουκ έλλογεīται Röm. 5, 13’, TLZ 77 (1952) cols. 523–8Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., ‘Aμαρτάνω’, TDNT 1 (1964) 310Google Scholar; Cambier, J., L'Evangilc de Dieu selon l'Epître aux Romains; Vol. 1: L'Evangile de la Justice et de la grâce (Stud Neot 3; Brussells and Louvain: Desclée, 1967) 250–5.Google Scholar Schoeps cites a possible rabbinic parallel (Pesiq. R. 107a); ‘Had I not received the law, I would have been as one of the heathen nations, for whom there is neither recompense nor punishment’ (Paul, 191).

[43] Several scholars point to 5. 13–14 as a crucial parallel to 7. 7–12: Schrenk, ‘Eντολή’, 551 (chap. 5 is ‘indispensable as a key to R. 7’); Grundmann, ‘Aμαρτάνω’, 310; Benoit, ‘La Loi’, 486–7; Feuillet, ‘La plan salvifique’, 371–2; Schoeps, , Paul, 191Google Scholar; Leenhardt, F. J., The Epistle to the Romans (Cleveland and New York: World, 1961) 186.Google Scholar In addition to 5. 13–14, Michel, (Römer, 227)Google Scholar compares also 4. 15. The objections of Brandenburger, E. (Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm. 5:12–21 [1 Kor 15] [WMANT 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1962] 209–214Google Scholar) to the juxtaposition of 5. 13–14 and 7. 7–12 are based on his own understanding of the former text and on an unjustified insistence that ἔζων must be given a theological meaning. If, then, Brandenburger's interpretation of 5. 13–14 is rejected, there is no reason to refrain from comparing the two texts (Käsemann, , Romans, 196–7).Google Scholar

[44] While it is possible that the preposition ανά has lost its basic force (‘again’) (Cranfield, , Romans, 1.352Google Scholar; Käsemann, , Romans, 197Google Scholar), the only other occurrence of the verb in Paul (Rom 13. 9) and the contrast with νεκρός (‘inactive; cf. Jas 2. 26) suggest that the verb should be translated ‘sprang back to life’. In this case, the. reference may be back to Adam (Lambrecht, ’Romans 7’, 24; Wright, ‘Messiah and People of God’, 151) or, with the Adamic view, to the sin which, according to Jewish tradition, was already dormant in Adam (Malina, B. J., ‘Some Observations on the Origin of Sin in Judaism and St. Paul’, CBQ 31 [1969] 30–1).Google Scholar

[45] See Stendahl's strictures on over-individualizing interpretations of Paul's discussion of the law (‘Introspective Conscience’, 80–8).

[46] The other alternative is to give εḉων a relative force (Benoit, ‘La Loi’, 487: man lives before the law in the sense ‘d'une vie relative en ce sens qu'il n'est pas en rébellion ouverte contre Dieu et surtout qu'il n'est pas sous le joug du θάνατος imposé seulement par le péché formel’. Cf. also Cranfield, , Romans, 1.351–2Google Scholar).

[47] On the power of the torah to give life, we Pirgé Abot. 6. 7 (‘Great is torah, for it gives to them that practice it life in this world and in the world to come’); Pss Sol 14. 2; Bar 3. 9; Lev. Rab. 18,3; Exod. Rab. 32,1; t. Šabb. 15, 17 and the discussion in Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 1.424–6Google Scholar and Schoeps, , Paul, 175.Google ScholarSanders, E. P. (Paul and Palestinian Judaism A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]Google Scholar) has contested the view that early Palestinian Judaism saw the law as a means of earning salvation; the law was rather the means of maintaining one's place in the covenant. This is not the place to discuss his thesis and for our purposes it is not crucial to distinguish the earning from the maintaining of covenant life.

[48] b. Šabb. 145b–146a (see Urbach, , Sages, 1.429–430Google Scholar).

[49] ibid. 30b: ‘Even so did the Holy One, blessed be He, speak unto Israel: “My children, I created the evil desire but I [also] created the torah as its antidote; if you occupy yourselves with the torah, you will not be delivered into its hand”’ (see Moore, , Judaism, 1.491).Google Scholar

[50] We presume that Paul views Israel's sinning as transgressions against the law. Bultmann (‘Romans 7’, 154; Theology, 1.262–4) followed by others (Bornkamm, ‘Sin, Law and Death’, 90–1; Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings [AGJU 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971] 145–6Google Scholar) has argued that this sinning involves especially the ‘sin against grace’, the effort to fulfil the law as a means of securing righteousness. However, while Paul castigates Israel for seeking a righteousness based on the law (Rom 9. 30–10. 4), it is not clear that he regarded attempts to fulfil the law as in themselves wrong (see U. Wilckens, ‘Was heißt bei Paulus, : “Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht”?’ Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974]).Google Scholar In any case, this ‘nomistic’ concept is probably not present in Romans 7. The phrase ταπαθήματα τ⋯ν αμαρτιων (v. 5) can only with difficulty be understood as sinful ‘strivings’ and the terms έπιθυμία, έπιθυμειν (vv. 7, 8) clearly designate in Paul behaviour which is contrary to the law. Moreover, clear differences in vocabulary and conception exist between Romans 7 and texts said to speak of the ‘nomistic’ sin. (For these points and others, see especially: Räisänen, H., ‘Zum Gebrauch von EPIΘϒMIA und EPIΘϒMEIN bei Paulus’, ST 33 (1979) 85–99Google Scholar; Beker, , Paul the Apostle, 238–40Google Scholar; Ridderbos, , Paul, 146Google Scholar; Wright, ‘Messiah and People of God’, 147–8).

[51] Modalsli, O., ‘Gal. 2, 19–21; 5, 16–18 und Röm. 7, 7–25’, TZ 21 (1965) 32Google Scholar; Schrenk, ‘Eντολή’, 551; Brandenburger, , Adam und Christus, 215–16Google Scholar; Wright, ‘Messiah and People of God’, 95–6; Leenhardt, , Romans, 186–8.Google Scholar

[52] The use of έεαπατάω in v. 11 is generally seen as the most obvious linguistic allusion to Genesis 3, since Paul uses this verb with reference to the Paradise narrative in 2 Cor 9. 3 and 1 Tim 2. 14. But Paul also uses the verb three times with no reference to Genesis (Rom 16. 18; 1 Cor 3. 18; 2 Thess 3. 3), so the allusion is not certain (Kümmel, , Römer 7, 54).Google Scholar

[53] Philo, Som. 1.176; Rom 3. 5 (first person plural), 3. 7; 1 Cor 9. 31–32; 3. 1–3; 13. 11;Gal 2. 18.

[54] Dem., Kata Philippou 3. 9, 17; Ps. Xen., Re Publica Atheniensium 1.11 and 2.11 (with explicit hypothetical constructions also); 1 Cor 6. 15; 10. 29–30; 13. 15.

[55] 1 Cor 6. 12 (probably a ‘slogan’ of the libertine party).

[56] Kümmel admits this for the three rabbinic texts (m. Ber. 1.3; b. Ber. 3a; m. Άbot vi 9). The first and third are (possibly) fictitious narratives used for purposes of illustration; the second occurs in the recounting of a vision. Kümmel appears to assume, incorrectly, that the use of a narrative to make a point constitutes evidence against an autobiographical understanding.

[57] See Kuhn, K. S., ‘New Light on Temptation, Sin and Flesh in the New Testament’, The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Stendahl, K.; New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 102Google Scholar; Longenecker, , Paul, 88–9.Google Scholar

[58] See Bardtke, H., ‘Considerations sur les cantiques de Qumrân (1)’, RB 63 (1956) 220–33Google Scholar and, on 1QH 3. 24–26, Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Acta Theologica Danica 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960) 75.Google Scholar

[59] Others who see the need to retain some autobiographical influence in Romans 7 (among recent contributions): Bandstra, , Law, 136Google Scholar; Ridderbos, , Paul, 130Google Scholar; Dunn, ‘Romans 7’, 260; Campbell, ‘The Identity of έγώ’, 59–60; Gundry, ‘Moral Frustration’, 229; Feuillet, A., ‘Le Règne de la Mort et le Règne de la vie (Rom. V, 12–21)’, RB 77 (1970) 512Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., PauL Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 198Google Scholar; Dahl, , Studies in Paul, 93Google Scholar; Wenham, D., ‘The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experience in Paul’, Pauline Studies, 89.Google Scholar Beker makes an important point when he asserts that Paul's depiction of pre-Christian existence in Romans 7 must have some ‘foothold’ in Paul's own experience if it is to possess validity (Paul the Apostle, 241 and cf. also Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (WUNT 2, 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1981) 53–5).Google Scholar And note Turner's, N. characterization of the Pauline έγώ: ‘Paul instances both himself and his reader in a vivid way to illustrate a point, not intending to apply what is said literally to himself or his reader…’ (Syntax: Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek by Moulton, J. H. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963] 39).Google Scholar

[60] For this idea, see Stauffer, ‘Έγώ’, 361–2 (and also Strelan, ‘Background of Romans 7:7’, 24–5). The combination of autobiographical and salvation-historical references in the έγώ of Romans vii is suggested also by Vergote, A. (‘Apport des données psychanalytiques à l'exégèse: voi, loi et clivage du moi dans l'epître aux Romains 7’, Exégèse et Herméneutique [ed. Barthes, R. et al. ,; Paris: Seuil, 1971] 120–8)Google Scholar, although from a very different perspective and with differences of emphasis.

[61] Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BEVT 49; Munich: Kaiser, 1968) 159, n. 87.Google Scholar

[62] By including Paul in the scope of έγώ, we are able to give a natural interpretation of the personal struggle depicted in 7. 15–20. The failure of the redemptive-historical view at this point has been a chief criticism of the view.

[63] Against Lyonnet, Lambrecht (‘Romans 7’,28) correctly stresses that Paul's salvation-historical scheme focuses on the era of the law as a separate entity.