Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:15

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:15” utilice nuestra app.

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

15. I do ] The Gr. word is strong; carry out; perhaps with allusion to servile task-work.

allow ] In the old English sense of the word; “to allaud,” “to praise, or approve:” so “the Lord alloweth the righteous,” Psa 11:6, Prayer-Book. But the common meaning of the Gr. is I know, in the sense of recognition; and this has a fit application here: q. d., “I know not, in a proper sense, what I do; it is done only under the (partial) obscuration due to the presence of the flesh.” This is further explained in the next clauses.

what I would, &c.] Lit., and better, not what I will, do I; but what I hate, that do I. Here the “willing” and the “hating,” if carefully weighed, are good evidence for the reference of this whole section to the regenerate soul in its conflicts. It is certainly out of harmony with St Paul’s doctrine of grace to represent the soul, before special grace, as “ hating ” sin as sin, and “ willing ” pure holiness as holiness. On the whole passage we must again remember that a soul fully alive to the profound sanctity of the Law is in view. Not gross but minute deviations (minute on the human standard) occasion these complaints.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For that which I do – That is, the evil which I do, the sin of which I am conscious, and which troubles me.

I allow not – I do not approve; I do not wish it; the prevailing bent of my inclinations and purposes is against it. Greek, I know not; see the margin. The word know, however, is sometimes used in the sense of approving, Rev 2:24, Which have not known (approved) the depths of Satan; compare Psa 101:4, I will not know a wicked person. Jer 1:5.

For what I would – That which I approve; and which is my prevailing and established desire. What I would wish always to do.

But what I hate – What I disapprove of: what is contrary to my judgment; my prevailing inclination; my established principles of conduct.

That do I – Under the influence of sinful propensities, and carnal inclinations and desires. This represents the strong native propensity to sin; and even the power of corrupt propensity under the restraining influence of the gospel. On this remarkable and important passage we may observe,

(1) That the prevailing propensity; the habitual fixed inclination of the mind of the Christian, is to do right. The evil course is hated, the right course is loved. This is the characteristic of a pious mind. It distinguishes a holy man from a sinner.

(2) The evil which is done is disapproved; is a source of grief; and the habitual desire of the mind is to avoid it, and be pure. This also distinguishes the Christian from the sinner.

(3) There is no need of being embarrassed here with any metaphysical difficulties or inquiries how this can be; for.

(a) it is in fact the experience of all Christians. The habitual, fixed inclination and desire of their minds is to serve God. They have a fixed abhorrence of sin; and yet they are conscious of imperfection, and error, and sin, that is the source of uneasiness and trouble. The strength of natural passion may in an unguarded moment overcome them. The power of long habits of previous thoughts may annoy them. A man who was an infidel before his conversion, and whose mind was filled with scepticism, and cavils, and blasphemy, will find the effect of his former habits of thinking lingering in his mind, and annoying his peace for years. These thoughts will start up with the rapidity of lightning. Thus, it is with every vice and every opinion. It is one of the effects of habit. The very passage of an impure thought through the mind leaves pollution behind it, and where sin has been long indulged, it leaves its withering, desolating effect on the soul long after conversion, and produces that state of conflict with which every Christian is familiar.

(b) An effect somewhat similar is felt by all people. All are conscious of doing that, under the excitement of passion and prejudice, which their conscience and better judgment disapprove. A conflict thus exists, which is attended with as much metaphysical difficulty as the struggle in the Christians mind referred to here.

(c) The same thing was observed and described in the writings of the heathen. Thus, Xenophon (Cyrop. vi. 1), Araspes, the Persian, says, in order to excuse his treasonable designs, Certainly I must have two souls; for plainly it is not one and the same which is both evil and good; and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to do it. Plainly then, there are two souls; and when the good one prevails, then it does good; and when the evil one predominates, then it does evil. So also Epictetus (Enchixid. ii. 26) says, He that sins does not do what he would, but what he would not, that he does. With this passage it would almost seem that Paul was familiar, and had his eye on it when he wrote. So also the well-known passage from Ovid, Meta. vii. 9.

Aliudque Cupido,

Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque,

Deteriora sequor.

Desire prompts to one thing, but the mind persuades to another. I see the good, and approve it, and yet pursue the wrong. – See other passages of similar import quoted in Grotius and Tholuck.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 15. For, that which I do, I allow not, c.] The first clause of this verse is a general assertion concerning the employment of the person in question in the state which the apostle calls carnal, and sold under sin. The Greek word which is here translated I do, means a work which the agent continues to perform till it is finished, and is used by the apostle, Php 2:12, to denote the continued employment of God’s saints in his service to the end of their lives. WORK OUT your own salvation the word here denotes an employment of a different kind; and therefore the man who now feels the galling dominion of sin says, What I am continually labouring at I allow not, , I do not acknowledge to be right, just, holy, or profitable.

But what I hate, that do I.] I am a slave, and under the absolute control of my tyrannical master: I hate his service, but am obliged to work his will. Who, without blaspheming, can assert that the apostle is speaking this of a man in whom the Spirit of the Lord dwells? From Ro 7:7 to this one the apostle, says Dr. Taylor, denotes the Jew in the flesh by a single I; here, he divides that I into two I’s, or figurative persons; representing two different and opposite principles which were in him. The one I, or principle, assents to the law that it is good, and wills and chooses what the other does not practise, Ro 7:16. This principle he expressly tells us, Ro 7:22, is the inward man; the law of the mind, Ro 7:23; the mind, or rational faculty, Ro 7:25; for he could find no other inward man, or law of the mind, but the rational faculty, in a person who was carnal and sold under sin. The other I, or principle, transgresses the law, Ro 7:23, and does those things which the former principle allows not. This principle he expressly tells us, Ro 7:18, is the flesh, the law in the members, or sensual appetite, Ro 7:23; and he concludes in the last verse, that these two principles were opposite to each other; therefore it is evident that those two principles, residing and counteracting each other in the same person; are reason and lust, or sin that dwells in us. And it is very easy to distinguish these two I’s, or principles, in every part of this elegant description of iniquity, domineering over the light and remonstrances of reason. For instance, Ro 7:17: Now then, it is no more I that do it, but SIN that dwelleth in me. The I he speaks of here is opposed to indwelling or governing sin; and therefore plainly denotes the principle of reason, the inward man, or law of the mind; in which, I add, a measure of the light of the Spirit of God shines, in order to show the sinfulness of sin. These two different principles he calls, one flesh, and the other spirit, Ga 5:17; where he speaks of their contrariety in the same manner that he does here.

And we may give a probable reason why the apostle dwells so long upon the struggle and opposition between these two principles; it appears intended to answer a tacit but very obvious objection. The Jew might allege: “But the law is holy and spiritual; and I assent to it as good, as a right rule of action, which ought to be observed; yea, I esteem it highly, I glory and rest in it, convinced of its truth and excellency. And is not this enough to constitute the law a sufficient principle of sanctification?” The apostle answers, “No; wickedness is consistent with a sense of truth. A man may assent to the best rule of action, and yet still be under the dominion of lust and sin; from which nothing can deliver him but a principle and power proceeding from the fountain of life.”

The sentiment in this verse may be illustrated by quotations from the ancient heathens; many of whom felt themselves in precisely the same state, (and expressed it in nearly the same language,) which some most monstrously tell us was the state of this heavenly apostle, when vindicating the claims of the Gospel against those of the Jewish ritual! Thus OVID describes the conduct of a depraved man:-

Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido,

Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque;

Deteriora sequor. OVID, Met. lib. vii. ver. 19.

My reason this, my passion that persuades;

I see the right, and I approve it too;

Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.

——–indignum facinus! nunc ego et

Illam scelestam esse, et me miserum sentio:

Et taedet: et amore ardeo: et prudens, sciens,

Vivus, vidensque pereo: nec quid agam scio.

TERENT. Eun. ver. 70.

An unworthy act! Now I perceive that she is wicked, and I am wretched. I burn with love, and am vexed at it. Although prudent, and intelligent, and active, and seeing, I perish; neither do I know what to do.

Sed quia mente minus validus, quam corpore toto,

Quae nocuere, sequar; fugiam, quae profore credam.

HOR. Ep. lib. i. E. 8, ver. 7.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For that which I do; i.e. what I do contrary to the command of God.

I allow not: in the Greek it is, I know not: q.d. Many times I am surprised and overtaken, not knowing or considering what I do. Or when he says, I know not, his meaning is, (as our translation renders it), I allow or approve not. So the word is used, Mat 7:23, and elsewhere: q.d. Even now, in my converted and regenerate state, I am many times greatly divided, and feel a strife or combat in myself; so that the good I would do upon the motions of Gods Spirit in me, I do not; and the evil that I hate, and am utterly averse to, so far as I am regenerated, that I do. See a parallel place, Gal 5:17.

But what I hate, that do I: he doth not speak here so much of outward actions, as of inward motions and affections: he doth not speak of gross sins, as drunkenness, uncleanness, &c., but of such infirmities as flow from the polluted nature, and from which we can never be thoroughly cleansed in this life.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

15, 16. For, c.better, “Forthat which I do I know not” that is, “In obeying theimpulses of my carnal nature I act the slave of another will than myown as a renewed man?”

for, &c.rather,”for not what I would (wish, desire) that do I, but what I hatethat I do.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For that which I do, I allow not,…. The apostle having cleared the law from the charge of being the cause either of sin or death, and taken the blame to himself, proceeds to give an account of the struggle and combat he found in himself between the flesh and spirit; “that which I do, I allow not”. That which he did was evil, since he allowed not of it; but this is to be understood not of any notorious crime committed by him, and repeated again and again; nor of a sinful course of life, for before his conversion he was not a profane man, but externally moral; and after his conversion, had his conversation in the world by the grace of God in righteousness and holiness; a vicious course of life being contrary to the grace of God implanted in him, and the doctrines of grace professed by him; but of internal lusts, the workings of corruptions in his heart, and which are real actions of the mind, together with the various frailties and infirmities of life: when that apostle says that what he did, , “I know not”: his meaning is, not that he was utterly ignorant of them, of their nature and operations; that he was insensible of their motions, and unconcerned about them; for his sense of them, and concern for them, are expressed by him in the strongest terms, “I know”, “I find”, “I see”, “O wretched man”, c. Ro 7:18 but either that the efforts and effects of sin in him were so sadden, and at an unawares, that he was sometimes overtaken and held captive, before he knew well where he was, or, what he was doing; or the sense is, that he had not a full knowledge of the evil of his heart, the corruptions of his nature, nor did he understand all his infirmities and the errors of his life; or else the meaning is, I own it not as right, but confess it to be wrong, I do not acknowledge these actions as the productions of the new man, they are alien to him, but as the deeds of the old man; or rather, “I do not approve” of them, I dislike, abhor, and detest them; I cannot excuse or palliate them, but must condemn them; so words of knowledge in the Hebrew language are expressive of love, liking, and approbation; see Ps 1:6; on which last text, “I know him”, says Jarchi, , “it is the language of love”, or a phrase expressive of strong affection; and so here, I know not, I do not like, love, and approve of these things, or I do not “allow” of them, and indulge myself in them, I loathe them and myself for them; and is this talking like an unregenerate man? can it be thought that the apostle speaks of himself as unregenerate, or represents such a man?

for what I would, that do I not; what he desired and willed was good, though he did it not; and so the Vulgate Latin version reads, “for not the good which I would, I do”: and so the next clause, “but the evil which I hate, I do”: and what was that? he would have had his thoughts always employed about the best things; he would have had his affections continually and alone set on God, Christ, and the things of another world; he would he was desirous to keep the whole law of God, and do the whole will of God, and live without sin, and as the angels do in heaven: now such a will as this is never to be found in unregenerate persons; this is from God, and the power of his grace: when he says he did not what he willed, what he was desirous of, and bent upon, his sense is, not that he never did any good thing he willed; for he did many good things, as every good man does, but he did not always do the good he willed, and never perfectly, nor anything without grace and strength from Christ: he adds,

but what I hate, that do I; sin was what he hated; it being contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, to the good and righteous law of God, and was in itself, to his view, exceeding sinful: he hated vain thoughts, unclean desires, revengeful lusts, the secret motions of all sin in his heart, and the various evil actions of life; which can never be said of an unregenerate man; who loves sin, delights in iniquity, and takes pleasure in them that do it; and yet what the apostle hated he did; he wrought with his carnal I, his flesh, and through the power of it, and force of temptation, though not without reluctance, remorse, and repentance. The Karaite Jews, which were the better sort of them, say and hold some things, not much unlike to what is here delivered;

“though a man (say they i) should transgress some of the commandments, or the commandments in part,

, “through the strength of lust, and not on account of, or with pleasure not delight”, he shall be one of those that shall enter into paradise.”

i R. Eliahu in Addareth, c. 3. apud Triglaud de Sect. Karaeorum, c. 10. p. 176.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Conflict between Grace and Corruption.

A. D. 58.

14b — But I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here is a description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart, between the law of God and the law of sin. And it is applicable two ways:– 1. To the struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate, in the person of whom it is supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the struggles that are in a renewed sanctified soul, but yet in a state of imperfection; as other apprehend. And a great controversy there is of which of these we are to understand the apostle here. So far does the evil prevail here, when he speaks of one sold under sin, doing it, not performing that which is good, that it seems difficult to apply it to the regenerate, who are described to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and yet so far does the good prevail in hating sin, consenting to the law, delighting in it, serving the law of God with the mind, that it is more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate that are dead in trespasses and sins.

I. Apply it to the struggles that are felt in a convinced soul, that is yet in a state of sin, knows his Lord’s will, but does it not, approves the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and yet lives in the constant breach of it, ch. ii. 17-23. Though he has that within him that witnesses against the sin he commits, and it is not without a great deal of reluctancy that he does commit it, the superior faculties striving against it, natural conscience warning against it before it is committed and smiting for it afterwards, yet the man continues a slave to his reigning lusts. It is not thus with every unregenerate man, but with those only that are convinced by the law, but not changed by the gospel. The apostle had said (ch. vi. 14), Sin shall not have dominion, because you are not under the law, but under grace, for the proof of which he here shows that a man under the law, and not under grace, may be, and is, under the dominion of sin. The law may discover sin, and convince of sin, but it cannot conquer and subdue sin, witness the predominancy of sin in many that are under very strong legal convictions. It discovers the defilement, but will not wash it off. It makes a man weary and heavy laden (Matt. xi. 28), burdens him with his sin; and yet, if rested in, it yields no help towards the shaking off of that burden; this is to be had only in Christ. The law may make a man cry out, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me? and yet leave him thus fettered and captivated, as being too weak to deliver him (ch. viii. 3), give him a spirit of bondage to fear, ch. viii. 15. Now a soul advanced thus far by the law is in a fair way towards a state of liberty by Christ, though many rest here and go no further. Felix trembled, but never came to Christ. It is possible for a man to go to hell with his eyes open (Num 24:3; Num 24:4), illuminated with common convictions, and to carry about with him a self-accusing conscience, even in the service of the devil. He may consent to the law that it is good, delight to know God’s ways (as they, Isa. lviii. 2), may have that within him that witnesses against sin and for holiness; and yet all this overpowered by the reigning love of sin. Drunkards and unclean persons have some faint desires to leave off their sins, and yet persist in them notwithstanding, such is the impotency and such the insufficiency of their convictions. Of such as these there are many that will needs have all this understood, and contend earnestly for it: though it is very hard to imagine why, if the apostle intended this, he should speak all along in his own person; and not only so, but in the present tense. Of his own state under conviction he had spoken at large, as of a thing past (v. 7, c.): I died the commandment I found to be unto death; and if here he speaks of the same state as his present state, and the condition he was now in, surely he did not intend to be so understood: and therefore,

II. It seems rather to be understood of the struggles that are maintained between grace and corruption in sanctified souls. That there are remainders of indwelling corruption, even where there is a living principle of grace, is past dispute; that this corruption is daily breaking forth in sins of infirmity (such as are consistent with a state of grace) is no less certain. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 1Jn 1:8; 1Jn 1:10. That true grace strives against these sins and corruptions, does not allow of them, hates them, mourns over them, groans under them as a burden, is likewise certain (Gal. v. 17): The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. These are the truths which, I think, are contained in this discourse of the apostle. And his design is further to open the nature of sanctification, that it does not attain to a sinless perfection in this life; and therefore to quicken us to, and encourage us in, our conflicts with remaining corruptions. Our case is not singular, that which we do sincerely strive against, shall not be laid to our charge, and through grace the victory is sure at last. The struggle here is like that between Jacob and Esau in the womb, between the Canaanites and Israelites in the land, between the house of Saul and the house of David; but great is the truth and will prevail. Understanding it thus, we may observe here,

1. What he complains of–the remainder of indwelling corruptions, which he here speaks of, to show that the law is insufficient to justify even a regenerate man, that the best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, which cannot fulfil the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this discourse shows how much Paul’s heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep his sentiments were. Observe the particulars of this complaint. (1.) I am carnal, sold under sin, v. 14. He speaks of the Corinthians as carnal, 1 Cor. iii. 1. Even where there is spiritual life there are remainders of carnal affections, and so far a man may be sold under sin; he does not sell himself to work wickedness, as Ahab did (1 Kings xxi. 25), but he was sold by Adam when he sinned and fell–sold, as a poor slave that does his master’s will against his own will–sold under sin, because conceived in iniquity and born in sin. (2.) What I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I, v. 15. And to the same purport, Rom 7:19; Rom 7:21, When I would do good, evil is present with me. Such was the strength of corruptions, that he could not attain that perfection in holiness which he desired and breathed after. Thus, while he was pressing forward towards perfection, yet he acknowledges that he had not already attained, neither was already perfect, Phil. iii. 12. Fain he would be free from all sin, and perfectly do the will of God, such was his settled judgment; but his corrupt nature drew him another way: it was like a clog, that checked and kept him down when he would have soared upward, like the bias in a bowl, which, when it is thrown straight, yet draws it aside. (3.) In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good, v. 18. Here he explains himself concerning the corrupt nature, which he calls flesh; and as far as that goes there is no good to be expected, any more than one would expect good corn growing upon a rock, or on the sand which is by the sea-side. As the new nature, as far as that goes, cannot commit sin (1 John iii. 9), so the flesh, the old nature, as far as that goes, cannot perform a good duty. How should it? For the flesh serveth the law of sin (v. 25), it is under the conduct and government of that law; and, while it is so, it is not likely to do any good. The corrupt nature is elsewhere called flesh (Gen 6:3; Joh 3:6); and, though there may be good things dwelling in those that have this flesh, yet, as far as the flesh goes, there is no good, the flesh is not a subject capable of any good. (4.) I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, v. 23. The corrupt and sinful inclination is here compared to a law, because it controlled and checked him in his good motions. It is said to be seated in his members, because, Christ having set up his throne in his heart, it was only the rebellious members of the body that were the instruments of sin–in the sensitive appetite; or we may take it more generally for all that corrupt nature which is the seat not only of sensual but of more refined lusts. This wars against the law of the mind, the new nature; it draws the contrary way, drives on a contrary interest, which corrupt disposition and inclination are as great a burden and grief to the soul as the worst drudgery and captivity could be. It brings me into captivity. To the same purport (v. 25), With the flesh I serve the law of sin; that is, the corrupt nature, the unregenerate part, is continually working towards sin. (5.) His general complaint we have in v. 24, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The thing he complains of is a body of death; either the body of flesh, which is a mortal dying body (while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with corruption; when we are dead, we shall be freed from sin, and not before), or the body of sin, the old man, the corrupt nature, which tends to death, that is, to the ruin of the soul. Or, comparing it to a dead body, the touch of which was by the ceremonial law defiling, if actual transgressions be dead works (Heb. ix. 14), original corruption is a dead body. It was as troublesome to Paul as if he had had a dead body tied to him, which he must have carried about with him. This made him cry out, O wretched man that I am! A man that had learned in every state to be content yet complains thus of his corrupt nature. Had I been required to speak of Paul, I should have said, “O blessed man that thou art, an ambassador of Christ, a favourite of heaven, a spiritual father of thousands!” But in his own account he was a wretched man, because of the corruption of nature, because he was not so good as he fain would be, had not yet attained, neither was already perfect. Thus miserably does he complain. Who shall deliver me? He speaks like one that was sick of it, that would give any thing to be rid of it, looks to the right hand and to the left for some friend that would part between him and his corruptions. The remainders of indwelling sin are a very grievous burden to a gracious soul.

2. What he comforts himself with. The case was sad, but there were some allays. Three things comforted him:–

(1.) That his conscience witnessed for him that he had a good principle ruling and prevailing in him, notwithstanding. It is well when all does not go one way in the soul. The rule of this good principle which he had was the law of God, to which he here speaks of having a threefold regard, which is certainly to be found in all that are sanctified, and no others. [1.] I consent unto the law that it is good, v. 16, symphemi—I give my vote to the law; here is the approbation of the judgment. Wherever there is grace there is not only a dread of the severity of the law, but a consent to the goodness of the law. “It is a good in itself, it is good for me.” This is a sign that the law is written in the heart, that the soul is delivered into the mould of it. To consent to the law is so far to approve of it as not to wish it otherwise constituted than it is. The sanctified judgment not only concurs to the equity of the law, but to the excellency of it, as convinced that a conformity to the law is the highest perfection of human nature, and the greatest honour and happiness we are capable of. [2.] I delight in the law of God after the inward man, v. 22. His conscience bore witness to a complacency in the law. He delighted not only in the promises of the word, but in the precepts and prohibitions of the word; synedomai expresses a becoming delight. He did herein concur in affection with all the saints. All that are savingly regenerate or born again do truly delight in the law of God, delight to know it, to do it–cheerfully submit to the authority of it, and take a complacency in that submission, never better pleased than when heart and life are in the strictest conformity to the law and will of God. After the inward man; that is, First, The mind or rational faculties, in opposition to the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh. The soul is the inward man, and that is the seat of gracious delights, which are therefore sincere and serious, but secret; it is the renewing of the inward man, 2 Cor. iv. 16. Secondly, The new nature. The new man is called the inner man (Eph. iii. 16), the hidden man of the heart, 1 Pet. iii. 4. Paul, as far as he was sanctified, had a delight in the law of God. [3.] With the mind I myself serve the law of God, v. 25. It is not enough to consent to the law, and to delight in the law, but we must serve the law; our souls must be entirely delivered up into the obedience of it. Thus it was with Paul’s mind; thus it is with every sanctified renewed mind; this is the ordinary course and way; thitherward goes the bent of the soul. I myself—autos ego, plainly intimating that he speaks in his own person, and not in the person of another.

(2.) That the fault lay in that corruption of his nature which he did really bewail and strive against: It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. This he mentions twice (Rom 7:17; Rom 7:20), not as an excuse for the guilt of his sin (it is enough to condemn us, if we were under the law, that the sin which does the evil dwelleth in us), but as a salvo for his evidences, that he might not sink in despair, but take comfort from the covenant of grace, which accepts the willingness of the spirit, and has provided pardon for the weakness of the flesh. He likewise herein enters a protestation against all that which this indwelling sin produced. Having professed his consent to the law of God, he here professes his dissent from the law of sin. “It is not I; I disown the fact; it is against my mind that it is done.” As when in the senate the major part are bad, and carry every thing the wrong way, it is indeed the act of the senate, but the honest party strive against it, bewail what is done, and enter their protestation against it; so that it is no more they that do it.–Dwelleth in me, as the Canaanites among the Israelites, though they were put under tribute: dwelleth in me, and is likely to dwell there, while I live.

(3.) His great comfort lay in Jesus Christ (v. 25): I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. In the midst of his complaints he breaks out into praises. It is a special remedy against fears and sorrows to be much in praise: many a poor drooping soul hath found it so. And, in all our praises, this should be the burden of the son, “Blessed be God for Jesus Christ.” Who shall deliver me? says he (v. 24), as one at a loss for help. At length he finds an all-sufficient friend, even Jesus Christ. When we are under the sense of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall see reason to bless God through Christ (for, as he is the mediator of all our prayers, so he is of all our praises)–to bless God for Christ; it is he that stands between us and the wrath due to us for this sin. If it were not for Christ, this iniquity that dwells in us would certainly be our ruin. He is our advocate with the Father, and through him God pities, and spares, and pardons, and lays not our iniquities to our charge. It is Christ that has purchased deliverance for us in due time. Through Christ death will put an end to all these complaints, and waft us to an eternity which we shall spend without sin or sigh. Blessed be God that giveth us this victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

I know not ( ). “I do not recognize” in its true nature. My spiritual perceptions are dulled, blinded by sin (2Co 4:4). The dual life pictured here by Paul finds an echo in us all, the struggle after the highest in us (“what I really wish,” , to practise it steadily, ) and the slipping into doing () “what I really hate” ( ) and yet sometimes do. There is a deal of controversy as to whether Paul is describing his struggle with sin before conversion or after it. The words “sold under sin” in verse 14 seem to turn the scale for the pre-conversion period. “It is the unregenerate man’s experience, surviving at least in memory into regenerate days, and read with regenerate eyes” (Denney).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

I do [] . See on ver. 8. Accomplish, achieve. Here appropriately used of carrying out another’s will. I do not perceive the outcome of my sinful life.

I allow not [ ] . Allow is used by A. V. in the earlier English sense of approve. Compare Luk 11:48; Rom 14:22; 1Th 2:4. Shakespeare : “Thou shalt hold the opinion of Pythagoras as I will allow of thy wits” (” Twelfth Night, “4, 2). But the meaning of ginwskw is not approve, but recognize, come to know, perceive. Hence Rev., I know not. Paul says :” What I carry out I do not recognize in its true nature, as a slave who ignorantly performs his master’s behest without knowing its tendency or result. ”

I would [] . See on Mt 1:19. Rather desire than will in the sense of full determination, as is shown by I consent (ver. 16), and I delight in (ver. 22).

Do I not [] . See on Joh 3:21. Rev., correctly, practice : the daily doing which issues in accomplishment [] .

Do I [] . See on Joh 3:21. More nearly akin to katergazomai I accomplish, realize. “When I have acted [] I find myself face to face with a result which my moral instinct condemns” (Godet). I do not practice what I would, and the outcome is what I hate.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For that which I do,” (ho gar katergazomai) “For what I work,” or do – This is a contrast between the two natures of the child of God; these two war with, are in conflict, one with the other, a condition that continues until death, 1Co 15:57-58.

2) “I allow not:” (Ou ginosko) “I know (recognize) not;” or do not have a knowing will to do it, but do it by the continuing sin-slave nature with which I battle, while trying to bring the body,” under subjection,” to the Spirit, 1Co 9:26-27; Gal 5:25.

3) “For what I would, that do I not,” (ou gar ho thelo touto prasso) “For I practice (repeatedly do) not what I wish,” again and again, Paul admitted he did wrong. He did not claim personal perfection, Rom 7:21; Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25.

4) “But what I hate, that do I,” (all’ ho miso touto poio) “But what I hate, this I do;- Paul, like all human beings, even Christians, was sometimes overtaken by sin, to think evil and foolish thoughts, to imagine evil, and impulsively to do wrong, each of which is a sin, of the old carnal nature, Gen 6:5; Pro 24:9; Mat 12:36.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

15. For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case, that of a man already regenerated; (221) in whom both the things which he had in view appear more clearly; and these were, — the great discord there is between the Law of God and the natural man, — and how the law does not of itself produce death. For since the carnal man rushes into sin with the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men — that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he pleases. But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously; for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the case of a regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much is the contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law. From this case, also, a proof as to the other clause may more fitly be sought, than from the mere consideration of human nature; for the law, as it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is doubtful whence the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man it brings forth salutary fruits; and hence it appears, that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life: so far it is from producing death of itself.

That the whole, then, of this reasoning may be more fully and more distinctly understood, we must observe, that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the Spirit of God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his lusts without any resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices, but that they have some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude, either that evil is hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to be thus tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment; but not to imbue them either with the love of righteousness or with the hatred of sin.

There is then this difference between them and the faithful — that they are never so blinded and hardened, but that when they are reminded of their crimes, they condemn them in their own conscience; for knowledge is not so utterly extinguished in them, but that they still retain the difference between right and wrong; and sometimes they are shaken with such dread under a sense of their sin, that they bear a kind of condemnation even in this life: nevertheless they approve of sin with all their heart, and hence give themselves up to it without any feeling of genuine repugnance; for those stings of conscience, by which they are harassed, proceed from opposition in the judgment, rather than from any contrary inclination in the will. The godly, on the other hand, in whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that with the chief desire of the heart they aspire to God, seek celestial righteousness, hate sin, and yet they are drawn down to the earth by the relics of their flesh: and thus, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own nature, and nature fights against them; and they condemn their sins, not only as being constrained by the judgment of reason, but because they really in their hearts abominate them, and on their account loathe themselves. This is the Christian conflict between the flesh and the spirit of which Paul speaks in Gal 5:17.

It has therefore been justly said, that the carnal man runs headlong into sin with the approbation and consent of the whole soul; but that a division then immediately begins for the first time, when he is called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit. For regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the Spirit.

The inexperienced, who consider not the subject which the Apostle handles, nor the plan which he pursues, imagine, that the character of man by nature is here described; and indeed there is a similar description of human nature given to us by the Philosophers: but Scripture philosophizes much deeper; for it finds that nothing has remained in the heart of man but corruption, since the time in which Adam lost the image of God. So when the Sophisters wish to define free-will, or to form an estimate of what the power of nature can do, they fix on this passage. But Paul, as I have said already, does not here set before us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes what is the weakness of the faithful, and how great it is. [ Augustine ] was for a time involved in the common error; but after having more clearly examined the passage, he not only retracted what he had falsely taught, but in his first book to Boniface, he proves, by many strong reasons, that what is said cannot be applied to any but to the regenerate. And we shall now endeavor to make our readers clearly to see that such is the case.

I know not. He means that he acknowledges not as his own the works which he did through the weakness of the flesh, for he hated them. And so [ Erasmus ] has not unsuitably given this rendering, “I approve not,” ( non probo .) (222) We hence conclude, that the doctrine of the law is so consentaneous to right judgment, that the faithful repudiate the transgression of it as a thing wholly unreasonable. But as Paul seems to allow that he teaches otherwise than what the law prescribes, many interpreters have been led astray, and have thought that he had assumed the person of another; hence has arisen the common error, that the character of an unregenerate man is described throughout this portion of the chapter. But Paul, under the idea of transgressing the law, includes all the defects of the godly, which are not inconsistent with the fear of God or with the endeavor of acting uprightly. And he denies that he did what the law demanded, for this reason, because he did not perfectly fulfil it, but somewhat failed in his effort.

For not what I desire, etc. You must not understand that it was always the case with him, that he could not do good; but what he complains of is only this — that he could not perform what he wished, so that he pursued not what was good with that alacrity which was meet, because he was held in a manner bound, and that he also failed in what he wished to do, because he halted through the weakness of the flesh. Hence the pious mind performs not the good it desires to do, because it proceeds not with due activity, and doeth the evil which it would not; for while it desires to stand, it falls, or at least it staggers. But the expressions to will and not to will must be applied to the Spirit, which ought to hold the first place in all the faithful. The flesh indeed has also its own will, but Paul calls that the will which is the chief desire of the heart; and that which militates with it he represents as being contrary to his will.

We may hence learn the truth of what we have stated — that Paul speaks here of the faithful, (223) in whom the grace of the Spirit exists, which brings an agreement between the mind and the righteousness of the law; for no hatred of sin is to be found in the flesh.

(221) It appears from this, that [ Calvin ] did not apply the foregoing words, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” in the same way: but they are evidently connected together. They are indeed strong words, and some explain them in such a way as to be wholly unsuitable to a renewed man; but we ought to take the explanation as given by the Apostle himself in what follows, for he handles the subject to the end of the chapter.

Various fictions have been resorted to by critics on this point. The Apostle has been supposed by some to speak of himself as under the law, or as [ Stuart ] terms it, “in a law state,” and such is the scheme of [ Hammond ] Others have imagined, that he personates a Jew living during the time between Abraham and the giving of the law; and this was [ Locke ] ’s idea. A third party have entertained the notion, that the Apostle, speaking in his own person, represents, by a sort of fiction, as [ Vitringa ] and some others have imagined, the effects of the law in Jews and proselytes, as opposed to the effects of the gospel, as delineated in the next chapter. And a fourth party maintain, that the Apostle describes a man in a transition state, in whom God’s Spirit works for his conversion, but who is as yet doubtful which way to turn, to sin or to God.

All these conjectures have arisen, because the language is not taken in its obvious meaning, and according to the Apostle’s own explanation. As soon as we depart from the plain meaning of the text and the context, we open a door to endless conjectures and fictions. The Apostle says nothing here of himself, but what every real Christian finds to be true. Is not a Christian, yea, the best, in this world carnal, as well as spiritual? Is he not “sold under sin?” that is, subjected to a condition, in which he is continually annoyed, tempted, hindered, restrained, checked, and seduced by the depravity and corruption of his nature; and in which he is always kept far below what he aims at, seeks and longs for. It was the saying of a good man, lately gone to his rest, whose extended pilgrimage was ninety-three years, that he must have been often swallowed up by despair, had it not been for the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The best interpreter of many things in Scripture is spiritual experience; without it no right judgment can be formed. Hence it is that the learned often stumble at what is quite plain and obvious to the illiterate when spiritually enlightened. Critics sometimes find great difficulties in what is fully understood by a simpler minded Christian, taught from above. “Wayfaring men” are far better divines than any of the learned, who possess nothing more than natural talents and natural acquirements. — Ed.

(222) “ Pii quod perpetrant non agnoscunt, non approbant, non excusant, non palliant;” — “What the godly do [amiss,] they know not, approve not, excuse not, palliate not.” — [ Pareus ]

The verb γινώσκω is used here in the sense of the Hebrew verb ידע which is often so rendered by the Septuagint. See Psa 1:6; Hos 8:4; and Mat 7:23. — Ed.

(223) “As the Apostle was far more enlightened and humble than Christians in general are, doubtless this clog (indwelling sin) was more uneasy to him than it is to them, though most of us find our lives at times greatly embittered by it. So that this energetic language, which many imagine to describe an unestablished believer’s experience, or even that of an unconverted man, seems to have resulted from the extraordinary degree of St. Paul’s sanctification, and the depth of his self-abasement and hatred of sin; and the reason of our not readily understanding him seems to be, because we are far beneath him in holiness, humility, acquaintance with the spirituality of God’s law, and the evil of our own hearts, and in our degree of abhorrence of moral evil.” — [ Scott ]

“

What some mistake as the evidence of a spiritual decline on the part of the Apostle, was in fact the evidence of his growth. It is the effusion of a more quick and cultured sensibility than fell to the lot of ordinary men.” — [ Chalmers ]

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(15) That which I do I allow not.Rather, that which I perform I know not. I act blindly, and without any conscious direction of the will; that higher part of me which should preside over and direct my actions, is kept down by the lower physical nature.

Which I do.St. Paul uses three words for to do in this passage, the distinction between which is hard to represent in English. That which is employed here and in Rom. 7:17; Rom. 7:20, is the strongest, performdeliberate action, thoroughly carried out. The other two words differ, as do and practise, the one referring to single, the other to habitual and repeated actions.

What I would.If my will had free course I should act very differently.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

15. I do, I allow not Here begins the battle of the I ’s. It is the corrupt I of carnality and indwelling sin asserting its law in the members, and overwhelming the I of conscience, awakened by the Spirit, with the body of death. What I wickedly do, I conscientiously allow not.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For what I do I know not.’

Here begins Paul’s description of the human moral struggle that is experienced by most good people, but is especially the lot of the Christian whose moral sense has been heightened. He has constantly to battle with himself. And we have, of course, to recognise that what would appear as sin to Paul would appear to many not to be sin at all. As our consciences develop and are purified through our knowledge of God, things are seen as sin which had previously been seen as acceptable.

The words in this verse could mean that the first effect of being carnal and held captive by sin is that ‘we know not what we do’. We sin unwittingly, not realising that what we are doing is sin. How many of us daily mourn over the fact that our love for God is not as total as it should be? But as we grow older in the Christian life more and more things become recognised as sin which in the beginning we did not realise were sin. We realise then that we have been sinning all the time. And this is a continuing process because we are so sinful. ‘If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves’ (1Jn 1:8). We have to learn more and more the depths of what is really sin. Thus ‘what we do we know not’.

But more possibly it means, ‘what I do, I do not acknowledge’. Here Paul would be saying, ‘What I do which is bad, is something that is, as a Christian, alien to me. I am, as it were, forced to do it against my will because of the fleshliness of a certain disposition within me, but I do not acknowledge it as right, nor am I proud of it.’

‘For I do not practise what I would, but what I hate, that I do.’

‘For,’ he says, ‘I do not (always) practise what in my heart I want to do’, (i.e. what he recognises to be right in accordance with the Law), but rather find myself doing what I hate’ (what is contrary to that Law). The fleshly man described appears to be a very contrary creature. But when we recognise that that Law admonishes that we ‘love God with heart, soul, mind and strength’ (Deu 6:5) and that we ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ (Lev 19:18) we can see why even a good man feels that he falls short of it constantly. True love is very demanding. What is described here is not, of course, to be seen as Paul’s experience all the time. What he does and hates is not in accordance with his normal practise. Indeed it is not anyone’s experience all the time. It is the experience which comes at times of difficulty and temptation.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rom 7:15. That which I do, I allow not, &c. From Rom 7:7 to the present, the Apostle denotes the Jew in the flesh by a single I. Here he divides that I into two I’s, or figurative persons, representing two different and opposite principles which were in him. The one I, or principle, assents to the law as good, and wills and chooses what the other does not practise, Rom 7:16. This principle, he expressly tells us, Rom 7:22 is the inward man,the law of the mind, Rom 7:23.; the mind, Rom 7:25 or rational faculty: for he could find no other inward man, or law of the mind, but the rational faculty, in a person who was in the flesh, and sold under sin, or in servitude to sin. The other I, or principle, transgresses the law, Rom 7:23 and does those things which the former principle allows not. This principle he expressly tell us, Rom 7:18 isthe flesh, the law in the members, or sensual appetite, Rom 7:23.; and he concludes in the last verse, that these two principles were consistent with each other. Therefore it is evident that these two principles residingand counteracting each other in the same person, are reason, and lust, or sin that dwells in us; and it is easy to distinguish the two I‘s or principles in every part of this elegant description of iniquity; or the habits of lust domineering over the light in the soul which is only awakened to a sense of sin. For instance, Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells or reigns in me. The I he speaks of here is opposed to indwelling or governing sin, and therefore plainly denotes the principle of reason; the inward man, or law of the mind. These two different principles he calls, the one the flesh, the other the spirit, Gal 5:16-17 where he speaks of their contrariety in the same manner as he does here. And we may give a probable reason why the Apostle dwells so long upon the struggle and opposition between those two principles; it is most likely, to answer a tacit but very obvious objection. The Jew would allege, “But the law is holy and spiritual; and I assent to it as good, as a right rule of action, which ought to be observed: yea, I esteem it highly; I glory and rest in it, convinced of its truth and excellence: and is not this enough toconstitute the law a sufficient principle of sanctification?” The Apostle answers, “No; wickedness is consistent with a sense of truth. A man may assent to the best rule of action, and yet be under the dominion of lust and sin: from which nothingcandeliverhimeffectually,butaprinciple and power communicated from the Fountain of life.”A heathen poet gives us a description of the combat between reason and passion, similar to this of St. Paul’s before us:

My reason this, my passion that persuades; I see the right, and I approve it too, Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue. HOR.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 7:15 elucidates and assigns the reason of this relation of slavery. “ For what I perform I know not ,” i.e. it takes place on my part without cognition of its ethical bearing, in the state of bondage of my moral reason. Analogous is the position of the slave, who acts as his master’s tool without perceiving the proper nature and the aim of what he does. Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Glckler, Reiche, and Reithmayr, erroneously take as I approve , which it never means, not even in Mat 7:23 ; Joh 10:14 ; 1Co 8:3 ; Rom 10:19 ; 2Ti 2:19 ; Psa 1:6 ; Hos 8:4 ; Sir 18:27 . Hofmann’s view, however, is also incorrect, that the cognition is meant, “ which includes the object in the subjectivity of the person knowing ,” so that the passage denies that the work and the inner life have anything in common . In this way the idea of the divine cognition, whose object is man (Gal 4:9 ; Mat 12:23 ), is extraneously imported into the passage.

. . .] The proof of the . . For whosoever acts in the light of the moral cognition does not, of course, do that which is hateful to him following his practical reason ( ), but, on the contrary, that towards which his moral desire is directed ( ). The person acting without that cognition, carried away by the power of sin in him, does not pursue as the aim of his activity ( , comp. on Rom 1:32 ) that which in the morally conscious state he would pursue, but, on the contrary, does ( ) what in that state is abhorrent to him. The ethical power of resolution, which decides for the good, is inactive, and man does the evil that he abhors. Paul consequently ascribes to the unregenerate man also the moral wish, which he has in rational self-determination; but he denies to him the action corresponding thereto, because his moral self-determination does not come into exercise in the state of his natural bondage, but he is, on the contrary, hurried away to the performance of the opposite. His of the good and his of the evil are not, therefore, those of the regenerate man, because the new man, in virtue of the holy , emerges from the conflict with the as a conqueror (against Philippi); nor yet the weak velleitas of the schoolmen (Tholuck, Reithmayr, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius); but a real, decided wishing and hating (comp. Rom 7:16 ), which present, indeed, for the moral consciousness the theory of self-determination, but without the corresponding result in the issue. The “I” in and is conceived according to its moral self-consciousness, but in and , according to its empiric practice, which runs counter to the self-determination of that consciousness. Reiche, in consistency with his misconception of the entire representation, brings out as the pure thought of Rom 7:15 : “the sinful Jew, as he appears in experience and history, does the evil which the Jew free from sin, as he might and should have been, does not approve.” As profane analogies of the moral conflict meant by Paul, comp. Epict. Enchir . ii. 26. 4 : ( ) , ; Eur. Med . 1079: (stronger) , and the familiar “video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor” (Ovid, Met . vii. 19). See also Wetstein, and Spiess, Logos spermat . p. 228 f.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Ver. 15. I allow not ] Gr. , I know not, as being preoccupated,Gal 6:1Gal 6:1 , wherried and whirled away by sin before I am aware or have time to consider.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15. ] For (a proof of this under sin, viz. not being able to do what I would, Rom 7:15-17 ) that which I perform (am in the habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at the dictates of another: which is proper to a slave. , , , , Chrys. The meaning, ‘ I approve not ,’ introduced by Aug [45] and held by Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanctioned by usage, see note on 1Co 8:3 , and would make the following clause almost a tautology): for (explanation of last assertion, shewing how such blind service comes to pass) not what I desire, that do I (this is not the full determination of the will , the standing with the bow drawn and the arrow aimed; but rather the inclination of the will, the taking up the bow and pointing at the mark, but without power to draw it: -we have in the sense of to wish , 1Co 7:7 ; 1Co 7:32 ; 1Co 14:5 ; 2Co 12:20 ), but what I hate (= , Rom 7:19 ; no distinction in intensity between and ), that I do (no distinction here between and , as apparently in Joh 3:20-21 , where see note: for they are interchanged in Rom 7:19-20 ).

[45] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

The Commentators cite several parallel passages from profane writers: e.g. Seneca, Hippol. 604, ‘Vos testor omnes clites, hoc quod volo, me nolle;’ Epictetus, Enchiridion ii. 26, , , , : the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. Rom 7:19 , ‘aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet: video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor:’ Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, ‘Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser:’ &c.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 7:15 . Only the hypothesis of slavery explains his acts. For what I do , i.e. , I do not recognise it as my own, as a thing for which I am responsible and which I can approve: my act is that of a slave who is but the instrument of another’s will. . . . There is “an incomprehensible contradiction in his action”. is to effect, to bring about by one’s own work; is to work at, to busy oneself with, a thing, with or without success, but with purpose; is simply to make or produce.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

do. Same as work, verses: Rom 8:13.

allow = approve. The same as know, verses: Rom 7:1; Rom 7:-7.

what, &c. = not what I wish, this I practice.

would. App-102. 1, Note the use of thelo, on the fight side, seven times in verses: Rom 7:15-21.

that . . . not = this do I practice (Greek. prasso. See Rom 1:32. Joh 5:29).

that do I = this I do (Greek. poieo). There are three Greek. words in this verse for “do”. The first is katergazomai, work out, in verses: Rom 8:13, Rom 8:15, Rom 8:17, Rom 8:18, Rom 8:20. The second is prasso, practice, in verses: Rom 15:19, and the third poieo, do, in verses: Rom 15:16, Rom 15:19, Rom 15:20, Rom 15:21,

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15.] For (a proof of this under sin, viz. not being able to do what I would, Rom 7:15-17) that which I perform (am in the habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at the dictates of another: which is proper to a slave. , , , , Chrys. The meaning, I approve not, introduced by Aug[45] and held by Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanctioned by usage,-see note on 1Co 8:3,-and would make the following clause almost a tautology): for (explanation of last assertion, shewing how such blind service comes to pass) not what I desire, that do I (this is not the full determination of the will, the standing with the bow drawn and the arrow aimed; but rather the inclination of the will,-the taking up the bow and pointing at the mark, but without power to draw it:–we have in the sense of to wish, 1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:32; 1Co 14:5; 2Co 12:20), but what I hate (= , Rom 7:19; no distinction in intensity between and ), that I do (no distinction here between and , as apparently in Joh 3:20-21, where see note: for they are interchanged in Rom 7:19-20).

[45] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

The Commentators cite several parallel passages from profane writers: e.g. Seneca, Hippol. 604, Vos testor omnes clites, hoc quod volo, me nolle;-Epictetus, Enchiridion ii. 26, , , , :-the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. Rom 7:19, aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet: video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor:-Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser:-&c.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 7:15. , for that which) He describes slavery in such a way as not to excuse himself, but to accuse the tyranny of sin, and to deplore his own misery, Rom 7:17; Rom 7:20. , for, tends to strengthen the word sold. The slave serves an unworthy master, first, with joy, then afterwards, with grief, lastly, he shakes off the yoke.- , I do not acknowledge [allow]) as good; ([] the same as to consent to it, that it is good, Rom 7:16, which forms the antithesis); its opposite is I hate.-, I would, [wish]) he does not say, I love, which would imply more, but I would, intending to oppose this [I would] to, I hate, following immediately after.–) There is a distinction between and commonly acknowledged among the Greeks;[74]-the former implies something weightier than the latter. The former is put twice in the present tense, first in a negative assertion, and then in an affirmative assertion, I practise not, the thing is not put in practice; I do, refers to action both internal and external. These words are interchanged, Rom 7:19; Rom 13:3-4; and this interchange is not only not contrary to the nature of the discourse which is gradually rising to a climax, but it even supports and strengthens it; for at Rom 7:15, the sense of the evil is not yet so bitter, and therefore he does not so much as name it, but by the time he reaches Rom 7:19, he is now become very impatient [takes it exceedingly ill] that he should thus impose evil on himself. The farther the soul is from evil, the greater is its distress [torture], to touch even the smallest particle of evil with so much as one finger.

[74] See my previous note. is ago. , facio. , operor.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 7:15

For that which I do I know not:-This is the picture of the struggle that goes on between the flesh and the spirit to rule the life of the man who is attempting under the Mosaic law to serve God without the purification of the heart. The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. They are contrary the one to the other.

for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.-The things that he does his mind disapproves, and what he recognizes as hurtful, that he does. He explains this in these words: But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. (Rom 7:23). That is, the law which his mind approves is not able to overcome the law of sin ruling in his members. He says that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed him from the law of sin, and death dwelled in his members. For what the law of Moses could not do, in that it was weak through the law of sin dwelling in the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned, or enabled, man to overcome sin in the flesh. (See Rom 8:2-3). He is here showing that the law of Moses could not overcome the law of sin in the flesh.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

I do I allow not

The apostle personifies the strife of the two natures in the believer, the old or Adamic nature, and the divine nature received through the new birth 1Pe 1:23; 2Pe 1:4; Gal 2:20; Col 1:27. The “I” which is Saul of Tarsus, and the “I” which is Paul the apostle are at strife, and “Paul” is in defeat. In Chapter 8, this strife is effectually taken up on the believer’s behalf by the Holy Spirit; Rom 8:2; Gal 5:16; Gal 5:17 and Paul is victorious.

Contra, Eph 6:12 where the conflict is not fleshly, but spiritual.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

For that: Rom 14:22, Luk 11:48

allow: or, know, Psa 1:6, Nah 1:7, 2Ti 2:19

what: Rom 7:16, Rom 7:19, Rom 7:20, 1Ki 8:46, Psa 19:12, Psa 65:3, Psa 119:1-6, Psa 119:32, Psa 119:40, Ecc 7:20, Gal 5:17, Phi 3:12-14, Jam 3:2, 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 1:8

what I hate: Rom 12:9, Psa 36:4, Psa 97:10, Psa 101:3, Psa 119:104, Psa 119:113, Psa 119:128, Psa 119:163, Pro 8:13, Pro 13:5, Amo 5:15, Heb 1:9, Jud 1:23

Reciprocal: Rom 7:18 – for to will Rom 7:25 – So then

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

-21

Rom 7:15-21. In the foregoing verses of this chapter, Paul has said much of the carnal or fleshly part of man’s personality. He has shown that its tendencies were responsible for the difficulties with the law of Moses, which was not adapted to the needs of man on its own merits, therefore leaving it necessary to bring in the spiritual law of Christ. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a description of these two parts of man’s being, which I shall refer to by the terms, “inner man” and “outer man.” I shall quote the verses of this paragraph, substituting these terms for the pronouns, and making such other changes as the grammatical rules require.

“For that which the outer man does, the inner man allows [endorses] not. For what the inner man would, the outer man does not. What the inner man hates, that does the outer man. If then the outer man does that which the inner man would not, the inner man consents unto the law [against sin] that it is good. Now then it is no more the inner man that does it, but sin that dwells in the outer man. For the inner man knows that in the flesh dwells no good thing. For to will is present with the inner man, but how to perform that which is good the outer man will not do; but the evil which the inner man would not do, the outer man does. Now if the outer man does what the inner man would not, it is no more the inner man that does it, but sin that dwells in the outer man. The inner man finds a law, that, when he would do good, evil is present with the outer man.”

The reader should understand that both parts of a man are not operating at the same time. The paragraph shows only the tendencies of each, and whichever is in the lead at any given time, will determine whether the person is a servant of Christ or Satan.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 7:15. For that which I perform. In this passage there are three Greek words translated do in the A. V. We distinguish them thus: perform, practise, do; the first is usually rendered work.

I know not. This does not mean: I do not approve, but that like a slave he performs ignorantly the will of his master. But Lange rightly says: thus one thing dawns upon him

that he acts in gloomy self-distraction, and in contradiction of a better but helpless desire and repugnance. The rest of the verse indicates this: For not what I with, that I practise; but what I hate that do I. We change would to wish on account of the contrast with hate, though will would be more literal. The main question here is respecting these two contrasted verbs, will (or, wish) and hate. Some strengthen the former into love, in the interest of an exclusive reference to the regenerate; others weaken the latter into do not wish. We prefer to regard hate as stronger than wish, while practise is stronger than do. This suggests that the desire for good is less strong than the hatred of evil. Passages from heathen writers express similar sentiments. It is asserted that no such will exists in the unregenerate man, but this is true only where the sense of will is unduly pressed. To admit that an unregenerate man can use the language of this verse, is perfectly consistent with a belief in the depravity of the human will.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words are an argument to prove what the apostle had asserted in the foregoing verse; namely, That he was held under the power of sin unwillingly, because he did not allow or approve of any evil which he did contrary to the holy law of God, but did hate and abominate it, was displeased with it, and with himself for it.

An unregenerate man’s judgment and conscience is sometimes against sin; which makes him afraid to commit it; but a gracious person’s will, heart and affections, are all set against sin;: Indeed there is a regenerate and an unregenerate part in the Christians will (he is sanctified totus, but not totaliter;) so far the will is renewed, it hates all sin, and meditates the ruin and destruction of it.

And observe, It was not this or that particular evil, but all evil which the apostle hated. A wicked man may hate a particular evil, as Absalom hated Ammon’s uncleanness; but to hate all sin, is the character of none but a regenerate person.

Observe, lastly, That a good man sometimes, through the power of corruption, and the prevalency of temptation, doth that evil which is disallowed and disapproved by him; yea, which is very odious and hateful to him: he loaths in part what he doth, and afterwards loaths himself for the doing of it; and when he doth evil, allows not of the evil that he doth.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 7:15. For that which I do Greek, , what I thoroughly work, the word signifying earnestness and perseverance in working till the work in which the agent is employed is finished. It is therefore used by the apostle to denote the continued employment of Gods people in his service unto the end of their lives; Php 2:12, Work out your own salvation. That is, as you have, in time past, laboured to serve God in all things, so persevere in that service to the end. The word here denotes a continued employment of a very different nature. Therefore he says, What I work, I allow not, or, approve not; for the word,

, which literally signifies I know, is used in the sense of approving, Mat 7:21. For what I would That is, incline to, or desire, as Macknight renders , which, he observes, cannot here signify the last determination of the will, actions always following that determination; but such a faint ineffectual desire as reason and conscience, opposed by strong passions, and not strengthened by the Spirit of God, often produce. These corrupt passions frequently darken the understanding, mislead the judgment, and stupify the conscience; in consequence whereof the will, strongly impelled by criminal desires, in the place of being governed by these higher powers of the mind, governs them herself. But, when order is restored to the soul by regeneration, then the enlightened understanding determines the judgment, and the decisions thereof, enforced by the voice of conscience, determine the will, whose volitions, thus excited, become the spring of action; so that the good the regenerated man would, he doth, and the evil he hates, he doth not. But, in the unregenerate, those volitions neither obey the directions of reason nor conscience; hence there is a continual conflict in his breast, between appetites and passions on the one side, and reason and conscience on the other. The latter, however, are generally overcome; and in this state the person, with propriety, may say, What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do: or, as it is expressed, Rom 7:19, The good, that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Ovid, a heathen, describes the conduct of depraved men in words very similar to these:

Sed trahit invitam nova vis, aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. OVID, Metam., lib. 7. Rom 7:19. My reason this, my passion that persuades; I see the right, and I approve it too; Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.

The apostle does not say that this took place in his conduct on some particular occasions merely, but he gives us this account of himself as his general conduct, while he was carnal and sold under sin, as appears from Rom 7:21. where see the note. Smith, On the Carnal Mans Character.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 15. Indeed what I perform I know not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

This verse contains the proof from fact of the state of slavery which Paul has just affirmed. The slave knows not what he does, for he does the will of another. So Paul complains that his work is not the result of a distinct view in which he has, as it were, intellectually possessed himself beforehand of what he was going to do; it is the result of blind instinct, which drags him along as if without his knowledge, so that when he sees it realized, it is not what he wished; it is, on the contrary, what he detests. The expression: I know not, should not be taken in the sense: I do not own as good, a forced sense, and one which is not necessary.

The , will, which Paul does not execute, is of course the willing of good, and what he hates and yet executes is certainly evil. The moral tendency of his will to purpose good and hate evil, is connected with the acknowledgment of the perfection of the law of which he spoke in Rom 7:14. But this will which puts itself on the side of the law is nothing more than a desire, a wish, a simple I should like, which gives way in practice. Such, indeed, is the frequent meaning of , to will, in Paul (1Co 7:7; 2Co 5:4; 2Co 12:20; Col 2:18).

The term , to do, has the meaning of working at, and expresses the idea that his practical activity does not follow the direction of his will., to hate, here denotes moral reprobation; and , to do, which has the sense of accomplishing, realizing, refers not to activity in exercise (), but to the product of the activity, so that the exact paraphrase of the two last propositions would be this: At the time when I act, I am not working in the direction of my desire to fulfil the law; and when I have acted, I find myself face to face with a result which my moral instinct condemns.

It is asked how Paul could ascribe to himself this desire of good and hatred of evil, while speaking of the time when he was yet under the law? but we ask in turn of those who refer this verse to Paul in his regenerate state, how he could in this state ascribe to himself the powerlessness with which he charges himself, especially if we compare the contrast he brings out between the state described here and the delineation of the Christian he draws in chap. 8? In fact, what this verse expresses is nothing else than what is contained in the words of Jesus, Joh 3:24 : He that doeth truth cometh to the light. To do the truth certainly denotes the loyal desire of goodness; and this disposition precedes faith in the case of the men of whom Jesus is speaking, since the latter is its consequence: cometh to the light. We meet with the same thought in the parable of the sower, Luk 8:15, when Jesus speaks of the honest and good heart in which the gospel seed produces its fruit; comp. also Rom 2:7 and Act 10:34-35. It is understood, of course, that such a disposition exists only as the work of Him who is alone good. But there is a way of regarding the corruption of human nature contrary to the gospel, and which when thoroughly weighed is self-destructive.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

15. For that which I do I know not; for I do that which I do not wish, but I do that which I hate.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 15

For that which I do; on the supposition, as before explained, that I am endeavoring to save myself by the law.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

7:15 {9} For that which I do I {10} allow not: for what I {11} would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

(9) He sets himself before us as an example, since he has been regenerated, and in whom may easily appear the strife of the Spirit and the flesh, and therefore of the law of God, and our wickedness. For since the law in a man who has not been regenerated brings forth only death, therefore in him it may easily be accused: but seeing that in a man who is regenerated it brings forth good fruit, it better appears that evil actions proceed not from the law but from sin, that is, from our corrupt nature: and therefore the apostle teaches also what the true use of the law is by reproving sin in the regenerated, unto the end of the chapter: as a little before (that is, from the seventh verse until now) Rom 7:7-15 , he declared the use of it in those who are not regenerated.

(10) The deeds of my life, he says, are not in accordance to my will, rather they are contrary to it. Therefore by the consent of my will with the law, and repugnancy with the deeds of my life, it plainly appears that the law and a properly controlled will induce us to do one thing, but corruption, which also has its seat in the regenerated, another thing.

(11) It is to be noted that the very same man is said to will and not to will, in different respects: that is, he is said to will in that he is regenerated by grace: and not to will in that he is not regenerated, or in that he is in the same state into which he was born. But because the part which is regenerated at length becomes conqueror, therefore Paul, speaking on behalf of the regenerated, speaks in such a way as if the corruption which willingly sins were something outside of a man: although afterward he grants that this evil is in his flesh, or in his members.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul’s sinful human nature influenced him to such an extent that he found himself volitionally doing (approving) the very things that he despised intellectually. This caused him to marvel. All Christians can identify with him in this.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles