Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:18

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.

18. For I know, &c.] This verse intensifies the statement just made. “Sin dwells in him” to such a degree that “no good thing dwells in him:” the intruder has occupied the whole dwelling, and every part of it is infected: by vitiating the affections and will, sin has spoilt all. Notice that the emphasis is on “good;” “no good thing:” q. d., “nothing that dwells ‘in me’ is unspoiled, however good originally and in itself. For instance, affections, right and wholesome in themselves, are spoiled by the absence of right affections towards God.”

It is possible to explain the Gr. words somewhat differently, though in a way which alters the sense hardly, if at all: “For I know that it is not a good thing that dwells in me, [but that sin does.]” There is a languor however about the form of such an assertion, quite unlike the context, which insists upon a terrible reality of evil.

in me ( that is, in my flesh)] See below on Rom 8:7-8. “The flesh,” practically, is the man as unregenerate, and then (after grace) the Alter Ego of the still-abiding impulses and tendencies of evil. Here St Paul is careful not to say that in his whole condition then present there was no good thing dwelling; for the Divine Spirit (Rom 8:9) and His influences “dwelt in him.” And yet he calls “the flesh” still his Ego; because he is contrasting his condition as a whole with the absolute and holy Law. See note on Rom 7:14, (“I am carnal,”) where is explained the apparent inconsistency of the Ego being sometimes distinguished from, sometimes identified with, what is evil.

is present with me ] Is within my reach. Meyer takes this to refer to the unregenerate man; and such is his view of this passage throughout. But see Gal 5:17, and Php 2:13. In this context, the will is represented as uniformly biassed against sin and for holiness; this, surely, cannot be the unregenerate will. Logically, no doubt, the will of the believing soul ought always to conquer evil, because faith calls in Divine power. But then just here comes in the mystery stated in Gal 5:17, and which is a permanent fact of Christian experience.

I find not ] The will is, on the whole, really sanctified; but its exercise is impeded. The counter-influences of “the flesh “ bewilder it in the struggle. Its weapons, so to speak, are not always drawn.

Another reading, but not so well attested, is, “To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, is not so.”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For I know – This is designed as an illustration of what he had just said, that sin dwelt in him.

That is, in my flesh – In my unrenewed nature; in my propensities and inclinations before conversion. Does not this qualifying expression show that in this discussion he was speaking of himself as a renewed man? Hence, he is careful to imply that there was at that time in him something that was right or acceptable with God, but that that did not pertain to him by nature.

Dwelleth – His soul was wholly occupied by what was evil. It had taken entire possession.

No good thing – There could not be possibly a stronger expression of belief of the doctrine of total depravity. It is Pauls own representation of himself. It proves that his heart was wholly evil. And if this was true of him, it is true of all others. It is a good way to examine ourselves, to inquire whether we have such a view of our own native character as to say that we know that in our flesh there dwelleth no good thing. The sense here is, that so far as the flesh was concerned, that is, in regard to his natural inclinations and desires, there was nothing good; all was evil. This was true in his entire conduct before conversion, where the desires of the flesh reigned and rioted without control; and it was true after conversion, so far as the natural inclinations and propensities of the flesh were concerned. All those operations in every stake were evil, and not the less evil because they are experienced under the light and amidst the influences of the gospel.

To will – To purpose or intend to do good.

Is present with me – I can do that. It is possible; it is in my power. The expression may also imply that it was near to him parakeitai, that is, it was constantly before him; it was now his habitual inclination and purpose of mind. It is the uniform, regular, habitual purpose of the Christians mind to do right.

But how – The sense would have been better retained here if the translators had not introduced the word how. The difficulty was not in the mode of performing it, but to do the thing itself.

I find not – I do not find it in my power; or I find strong, constant obstacles, so that I fail of doing it. The obstacles are not natural, but such as arise from long indulgence in sin; the strong native propensity to evil.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 7:18

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.

Grace in believers weakened by the flesh

I. There is no good thing by nature found in any unrenewed heart. And where there is no good there must be much evil.

II. The people of God, whose eyes are enlightened by Divine grace, are fully convinced that in their flesh dwelleth no good thing. I know it, says our apostle. It is a part of the new nature to know it; for grace is a Divine light in the soul, discovering the true nature of things.

III. The children of God not only know this want of any good in themselves, but they acknowledge it whenever they think that God may thereby be glorified. This, I doubt not, was the principal design of our apostle here.

IV. Notwithstanding all this, yet the people of God have always something within them which may be properly called a will to do good. To will is present with me.

V. All the people of God find that their performance of good is never equal to their desires. How to perform that which is good I find not. (J. Stafford.)

Nature and grace in the same individual

I. We have all felt the exceeding difference between the tone and temper of the mind at one time from what it is at another.

1. Many of you can recollect that under a powerful sermon, in church, you caught something like the elevation of heaven; and that when you passed into another atmosphere, the whole of this temperament went into utter dissipation. And again, how differently it fares with us in devotional retirement, and in the world!

2. And many who are not, in the spiritual sense of the term, Christians, will not be surprised when they are told of two principles in our moral constitution–which, by the ascendancy of the one or the other, may cause the same man to appear in two characters that are in diametric opposition–and of two sets of tendencies, one of which, if followed out, would liken them to the seraphs, and the other to the veriest grub worm.

3. We appeal to a very common experience among novel readers–how they kindle into heroism, and melt into tenderness, and appear while under the spell to be assimilated to that which they admire. And yet all flees when again ushered into the scenes of familiar existence. There is one principle of our constitution that tends to sublime the heart up to the poetry of human life; and there is another that weighs the heart helplessly down to the prose of it.

4. A conspicuous instance of the same thing is the susceptibility of the heart to music. You have seen how the song that breathed the ardour of disinterested friendship blended into one tide of emotion the approving sympathies of a whole circle. It is hard to imagine that on the morrow the competitions and jealousies of rival interest will be as busily active as before, and will obliterate every trace of the present enthusiasm. And yet there is in it no hypocrisy whatever. The finest recorded example of this fascination is that of the harp of David on the dark and turbulent spirit of Saul. During the performance all the furies by which his bosom was agitated seem to have been lulled into peacefulness.

II. Let us unfold the uses of this incident in the argument before us.

1.

(1) Saul was refreshed and became well under the operation of this music. In which case it was his duty to call in the harp on the very first approaches of the threatening visitation; for by it alone, it seems, could his tranquillity be upheld.

(2) Further conceive of Saul on the strength of the foreign application, ever at hand and never neglected, conquering the rebellious tendencies of his inner man.

(3) Consider how Saul should have felt as well as acted, under the consciousness of what he natively was. Should he not have been humbled when he bethought him that, to sustain his moral being, he had to live on supplies from abroad, because in himself there was the foul spirit of a maniac and a murderer; and it would have become this monarch, even when feeling at his best, to loathe his savage propensities in dust and in ashes.

(4) That sense of depravity which prompted the self-abasement of his spirit would prompt an unceasing recurrence to that by which its outbreakings were repressed; and so the more intense his detestation of his own character, would be the vigour and efficacy of that alone practical expedient by which his character was transformed.

2. And thus, in all its parts, does it hold of a Christian.

(1) He feels that in himself he is like Saul without the harp. The streams of his disobedience may not be of the same tinge, but they emanate like his from the heart. The Christian feels that in that part of his constitution which is properly his own, there is a deeply seated corruption, the sense of which never fails to abash and to humble him.

(2) What, then, is it which serves to mark him as a Christian? Not most assuredly that he is free of a carnal nature, but that he has access to an influence without, by which all its rebellious tendencies are thereby overborne. The Christian hath learned whither to flee in every hour of temptation; and thus it is that a purifying influence descends upon his soul.

(3) There was a personal agent called in by Saul–the son of Jesse. In the former case, the power to soothe lay materially and directly in the music–though, to bring it into contact with the organ of hearing, there needed one to perform it. In the latter case, the power to sanctify lies materially and directly in the doctrine–though, to bring it into contact with the organ of mental perception, there needed to present it the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to bring all things to our remembrance. And so, when like to be overborne by the tyranny of your own evil inclinations, is it your part, depending on the Holy Ghost, to go forth and meet His manifestations, as He takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto your soul; and the heart will be kept in the love of God; and this will attune it out of all discord and disorder. In conclusion, learn from these observations how it is that by means of a power external to the mind of man, he may be so transformed as to become a new creature. If eloquence, or romance, or poetry, or music attune the heart to nobler and better feelings than those by which it is habitually occupied, shall we wonder that, upon faith realising the promises and the prospects of the gospel, the heart shall be translated into a new state? What music can be sweeter to the soul than when peace is whispered to it from on high; or what lovelier vision can be offered to its contemplation than that of heavens Lord and of heavens family; or what more fitted to lay the coarse and boisterous agitations of a present world than the light which has pierced across the grave and revealed the peaceful world that is beyond it? (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

Willing inability

How much waste there is in the world! Beauty, and no eye to see it; music, and no ear to hear it; food, and no creature to eat it; land, barren for want of cultivation. As in nature, so among men, Paul was not peculiar in his experience. There is–

I. Much native talent undeveloped. Parents pay no attention to the natural aptitudes of their children. One has vocal powers, another musical, others artistic, poetic, oratorical, or mechanical. In after life, when a born singer feels the rising of music in his soul, he would sing, but cannot, because lacking the acquired skill. So with the artist and the engineer. This is waste; loss to the community and to the individual. Many a gifted soul has been compelled to say, I would, but I cant; and I cant, not because I want the ability, but the acquired art.

II. Much skilled talent unused. Men who have educated their minds, trained their fingers, and matured their natural aptitudes, cannot employ them.

1. Cannot find an appropriate sphere for them. They must live, and so are obliged to do something less genial and remunerative. The man who should have been at the plough is in the pulpit, and the man who should have been in the pulpit is behind a counter. These misplaced men say, I would do better, but cant.

2. Many who have found appropriate spheres, cannot do their best, because they are hindered and discouraged.

(1) Many a skilled artisan would do more and better work if better placed. Many a servant would be better with better masters. And many a Christian worker would do more if there were fewer hindrances and more helpful and stimulating conditions.

(2) Men who can rise above such conditions are not always the best. They have often more force than intellect or goodness. There are many men and women who have good heads, warm hearts, and skilled fingers, but lack force, because the body is disordered. The helm, the compass, the captain, and the sea may be all right, but if there is no steam in the machine the vessel will make no headway.

III. Much natural affection unexpressed. There may be sap in the plant, but if there is no sun there will be no flower or fruit. Many hearts want sunshine; the cold chills them. They recoil from uncongenial influences.

1. Sometimes the head is so full of cares that the heart has no play. The mind may be so distracted that it has no time to think of the claims of the heart, or no time or power to respond to its promptings.

2. There are many who can, and who do, both think and feel, but cannot for want of means. How gladly would you do many things for those you love! But the hand is empty, the heart swells, and the tongue is dumb. The good I would do, I do not, because I cannot.

IV. Much sincere and ardent piety unmanifested. When I would do good, evil is present with me. Evil stands like a sentinel at the door of the heart to prevent good getting out, and if it gets out, to distort, cripple, and pollute it.

1. If veneration struggles to express itself in prayer, incarnate evil is at the heart and lips pleading no time; and if it struggles through, and makes time, then it distracts the thoughts.

2. If our affections would rise up to God, incarnate evil is there to fetter the soul; and if it escapes, then it presents innumerable idols to eye and heart.

3. If benevolence would show itself, incarnate selfishness bars the way; and if you overcome it, it will fill you with low motives.

4. If your affections try to be beautiful and tender, an evil temper distorts and pollutes them.

5. The life of the soul may be chilled and dwarfed by the want of piety in those around you.

Conclusion:

1. It is possible for a man to feel himself to be greater than his little world, and greater than he can make it.

2. God does not expect more from us than we are capable of being and doing. Virtue under difficulties is of finer quality than under more favourable circumstances, and God regards quality more than quantity. The widows mite was of more value than the greater offerings of the rich. He regards and rewards the willing mind where nothing more is possible.

3. We might have been better than we are. None of us have made the best use of our opportunities.

4. We might have done better than we have done. There is more cause for humility than for complaint.

5. We may do better in the future. There is no cause for despair. Let us not forget that it is in little things that love best expresses itself. Oh that we may so live and die that we may receive from the Master, She hath done what she could. (Wickham Tozer.)

Inefficacious convictions

1. It may be true that the apostle was describing a man under the bondage of the Jewish law, but it is no less true that he might have uttered these words concerning himself. But it must have been a humiliating confession. How much he wished the case to be otherwise! Adam did not more fervently wish it possible to go back into paradise.

2. But we have sometimes heard confessions, in something like the same terms, made in a very different spirit. Confessions that certainly there is something very wrong with us; but, then, there is no helping it; it is the common condition of man.

I. Let us describe this state of mind. A clear apprehension as to the necessity of a serious attention to certain great concerns, and an earnest desire that these great concerns were duly attended to. But, still, they are not or in no such manner as it is felt they ought. Some fatal prevention lies heavy on the active powers, like the incubus in a dream. Again and again the conviction returns upon the man; and he wishes and resolves, but nothing is done. He wishes some mighty force might come upon him, and would be almost willing to be terrified by portentous phenomena. But nature is quiet, spirits do not encounter him, and he remains unmoved.

II. How comes so deplorable a condition of a being made a little lower than the angels? It comes of the disorder and ruination of our nature., What is the disorder, the ruination of anything, but its being reduced to a state that frustrates the purpose of its existence, be it a machine, a building, or an animal?

III. But what shall, a man, conscious of and lamenting such a state of mind, do? Shall he absolve himself from all duty respecting it? Soothe himself into a stupid contentment? Resign himself to despair? Infallibly the time must come when he will feet that this was not the way. No; he has a solemn work to do, and he must think of means. The immediate cause of this inefficacy is, that the motives are not strong enough. We want to be under a constant, mighty, driving power of good motives. When a mariner suffers a long, dead calm, how oft he looks up at the sails, and says, Oh, if the winds would but blow! Now, there may be persons who will aver that a man can do no more respecting his motives than the mariner respecting the winds, We must think differently, and wish to inquire what practicable means he may find for strengthening the operation of good motives upon his mind.

1. We must deeply think what it is that all the great motives are required for. What in us, for us, by us? This serious thinking will tend to render luminously distinct those grand considerations which ought to constitute our chief motives.

2. Then these being acknowledged, it should be our study to aggravate the force of those considerations in all ways. There is something that needs to be reinforced. It should be so today. We should watch for anything to be added to their power, seize on everything that can be thrown into the scale. Observe how this takes place in the case of a motive which falls in with our natural inclination. The motive, then, of itself, as by an instinct for its good, catches all these things that serve to strengthen it. Without our care it avails itself of each casual thought, each passing impression. Observe, too, how fast the very worst motives may grow upon a man, and he never intend it! Oh! not such the condition of the good ones!

3. But, besides this general vigilance, there must be a direct, earnest effort to bring before the mind those realities which are adapted to make the right impressions. And here we appeal to the man who laments in the language of the text, and say, Cannot you do this? And if he is sincere he will be willing to sustain a painful repetition of these applications. And if he feels that the motive takes hold of him, oh, let him be earnest that it may be retained and prolonged!

4. In connection with this, it will be well, by an exercise of thought, to endeavour to combine all the motives that tend to the same effect. But take special care of admitting an evil or doubtful principle into this combination. Revenge may work to the same point as justice; but here the companionship of the bad will vitiate the good. Each good motive must, to be of any essential value, be part of a whole system. There must be a vital circulation of the holy principles through the whole soul. The single part cannot by itself have pulsation and warmth and life.

5. Our concern respecting the influence of motives upon us must be directed to this indispensable point–the earnest cultivation of vital religion. This alone can put conscience into them.

6. Dwell often on the most instructive and impressive examples. And also there are many affecting scenes and events applicable to the principles that should move us (the death of friends, dreadful deaths, etc.).

7. Choose the society which furnishes the best incitements.

8. Motives work best in fire, that is, in the warmth and animation of the passions. Where these are faint, so will be the actuating principles. Where, then, there is little fire of soul, let it not be wasted on trifling things, but applied and consecrated to give efficacy to the best principles. When there are barely combustibles enough for offering a sacrifice, it were sacrilege to take them away for baubles and amusements. But there is fire enough in heaven for all our noblest uses, and we want it as much as Elijah, when his altar and offering were drenched in water. But God has put into our hands that which will bring it down. He has promised the Divine energy of His Holy Spirit to those that ask Him. Then what have we to say to Him? Oh! infuse into these convictions, these motives, Thine own omnipotence! Here is a solemn consideration that glimmers in my mind–make it lighten! Here are the motives which Thou hast sent; but there is something between them and me; oh! make them break in upon me! Here is a languid, unavailing strife of the better principles against an overpowering force; oh! arm those principles with all that there is in heaven that belongs to them, and then my deadly oppressors will be drawn away! Here is a wretched corrupted nature averse to Thee and all that is good; oh! lay Thy new-creating hand upon it and it will be forever Thine! (John Foster.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 18. For I know that in me, c.] I have learned by experience that in an unregenerate man there is no good. There is no principle by which the soul can be brought into the light no principle by which it can be restored to purity: fleshly appetites alone prevail; and the brute runs away with the man.

For to will is present with me] Though the whole soul has suffered indescribably by the FALL, yet there are some faculties that appear to have suffered less than others; or rather have received larger measures of the supernatural light, because their concurrence with the Divine principle is so necessary to the salvation of the soul. Even the most unconcerned about spiritual things have understanding, judgment, reason, and will. And by means of these we have seen even scoffers at Divine revelation become very eminent in arts and sciences; some of our best metaphysicians, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, chemists, c., have been known-to their reproach be it spoken and published-to be without religion nay, some of them have blasphemed it, by leaving God out of his own work, and ascribing to an idol of their own, whom they call nature, the operations of the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Most High. It is true that many of the most eminent in all the above branches of knowledge have been conscientious believers in Divine revelation; but the case of the others proves that, fallen as man is, he yet possesses extra-ordinary powers, which are capable of very high cultivation and improvement. In short, the soul seems capable of any thing but knowing, fearing, loving, and serving God. And it is not only incapable, of itself, for any truly religious acts; but what shows its fall in the most indisputable manner is its enmity to sacred things. Let an unregenerate man pretend what he pleases, his conscience knows that he hates religion; his soul revolts against it; his carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. There is no reducing this fell principle to subjection; it is SIN, and sin is rebellion against God; therefore sin must be destroyed, not subjected; if subjected, it would cease to be sin, because sin is in opposition to God: hence the apostle says, most conclusively, it cannot be subjected, i.e. it must be destroyed, or it will destroy the soul for ever. When the apostle says, to will is present with me, he shows that the will is on the side of God and truth, so far that it consents to the propriety and necessity of obedience. There has been a strange clamour raised up against this faculty of the soul, as if the very essence of evil dwelt in it; whereas the apostle shows, throughout this chapter, that the will was regularly on God’s side, while every other faculty appears to have been in hostility to him. The truth is, men have confounded the will with the passions, and laid to the charge of the former what properly belongs to the latter. The will is right, but the passions are wrong. It discerns and approves, but is without ability to perform: it has no power over sensual appetites; in these the principle of rebellion dwells: it nills evil, it wills good, but can only command through the power of Divine grace: but this the person in question, the unregenerate man, has not received.

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

In my flesh; i.e. in my fleshly part, or my nature in and of itself.

No good thing; no goodness at all, or no spiritual good.

For to will is present with me; i.e. I can, so long and so far as I follow the motions of Gods Spirit, will that which is good;

but how to perform the good that I would, I find no power or might, at least to perform it in that manner that I desire: the meaning is not that he never did the good he desired; but it often so fell out, he began many good things, but he could not go thorough-stitch with them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

18. For, c.better, “ForI know that there dwelleth not in me, that is in my flesh, any good.”

for to will“desire.”

is present with me but howto perform that which is goodthe supplement “how,”in our version, weakens the statement.

I find notHere, again,we have the double self of the renewed man; “In medwelleth no good; but this corrupt self is not my true self; it isbut sin dwelling in my real self, as a renewed man.”

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

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh,…. The apostle goes on to give some further account of himself, what he knew, and was fully assured of by long experience; as that

dwelleth no good thing in him, that is, in his flesh, or carnal self; for otherwise there were many good things dwelt in him; there was the good work of grace, and the good word of God in him, and even Father, Son, and Spirit, dwelt in him; but his meaning is, that there was no good thing naturally in him; no good thing of his own putting there; nothing but what God had put there; no good thing, but what was owing to Christ, to the grace of God, and influence of the Spirit; or as he himself explains it, there was no good thing in his “flesh”; in the old man that was in him, which has nothing in his nature good; no good thing comes out of him, nor is any good thing done by him: and this explanative and limiting clause, “that is, in my flesh”, clearly proves, that the apostle speaks of himself, and as regenerate; for had he spoke in the person of an unregenerate man, there would have been no room nor reason for such a restriction, seeing an unregenerate man is nothing else but flesh, and has nothing but flesh, or corrupt nature in him; and who does not know, that no good thing dwells in such persons? whereas the apostle intimates by this explication, that he had something else in him beside flesh, and which is opposed to it; and that is spirit, or the new man, which is of a spiritual nature, and is seated in the spirit, or soul, and comes from the Spirit of God; and in this spiritual man dwell good things, for “the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth”; so that though there was no good thing dwelling in his flesh, in the old than, yet there were good things dwelling in his spirit, in the new and spiritual man, the hidden man of the heart: and he adds,

to will is present with me; which must be understood, not of the power and faculty of the will, with respect to things natural and civil, which is common to all men; nor of a will to that which is evil, which is in wicked men; but of a will to that which was good, which he had not of himself, but from God, and is only to be found in regenerate persons; and denotes the readiness of his mind and will to that which is spiritually good, like that which Christ observes of his disciples, when he says, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”, Mt 26:41, which may serve much to illustrate the passage before us: since it follows,

but how to perform that which is good, I find not; he found he had no strength of himself to do what he willed; and that he could do nothing without Christ; and that what he did by the strength and grace of Christ, he did not do perfectly. To will to live without sin, not to have a lustful or a revengeful thought in his breast, was present with him, but how to perform, how to live in this manner, which was so desirable to him, being born again, he found not. It may be asked, how does this agree with what the apostle says, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure?” Php 2:13. To this it may be replied, that when God does work in his people both to will and to do, he does not work both equally alike, or to the same degree, so that the work answers to the will; God never works in them so to do, as to will, for when they are wrought in, acted upon, and influenced to do the most, and that in the best manner, they never do all that they would; and sometimes God works in them to will, when he does not work in them to do; as in the case of the disciples of Christ, in whom he worked to will to watch with Christ an hour, but did not work in them to do, Mt 26:40; and whenever he works in the saints, whether to will or to do, or both, it is always of his own good pleasure.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

In me ( ). Paul explains this by “in my flesh” ( ), the unregenerate man “sold under sin” of verse 14.

No good thing (—). “Not absolutely good.” This is not a complete view of man even in his unregenerate state as Paul at once shows.

For to will is present with me ( ). Present middle indicative of , old verb, to lie beside, at hand, with dative . Only here in N.T.

The wishing is the better self,

the doing not the lower self.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

In me. The entire man in whom sin and righteousness struggle, in whose unregenerate condition sin is the victor, having its domain in the flesh. Hence in me considered as carnal (ver. 14). That another element is present appears from “to will is present with me;” but it is the flesh which determines his activity as an unregenerate man. There is good in the I, but not in the I considered as carnal. This is brought out in ver. 25, “With the flesh (I serve) the law of sin.” Hence there is added that is, in my flesh. Is present [] . Lit., lies beside or before.

Perform [] . Carry the desire into effect.

I find not [ ] . The best texts omit find, and read simply ouj not. So Rev., “To do that which is good is not (present).”

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For I know that in me,” (oida gar hoti en emoi) “For I Perceive, know, or recognize that in me;” He knew by the word of God and by experience, 1Ki 8:46; Ecc 7:20; Isa 53:6; Jer 17:9.

2) “That is, in my flesh “, (tout F estin en to sarki mou) “This (that) is in my flesh;” what I am I am by moral nature of natural birth.

3) “Dwelleth no good thing,” (ouk oikei agathon) “Dwells not that which is good,” by nature; From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, Paul confessed to be a sinner by nature still, though an apostle, Isa 1:4-5; Rom 3:9-23.

4) “For to will is present with me,” (gar thelein parakeitai moi) “For to will (in a godly way) is present with me;- he had a new nature, had been made a partaker of the new nature, the divine nature, 2Pe 1:4; 2Co 8:12.

5) “But how to perform that which is good I find not,” (to de katergazesthai to kalon ou) “But (how) to work the good I do not find,” in the sense of often falling short of finding or reaching the desired goal of holiness in life and service; yet in Christ he pressed on toward it, 1Co 15:58; Php_3:13-14; Php_4:13; Php_4:19.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

18. For I know, etc. He says that no good by nature dwelt in him. Then in me, means the same as though he had said, “So far as it regards myself.” In the first part he indeed arraigns himself as being wholly depraved, for he confesses that no good dwelt in him; and then he subjoins a modification, lest he should slight the grace of God which also dwelt in him, but was no part of his flesh. And here again he confirms the fact, that he did not speak of men in general, but of the faithful, who are divided into two parts — the relics of the flesh, and grace. For why was the modification made, except some part was exempt from depravity, and therefore not flesh? Under the term flesh, he ever includes all that human nature is, everything in man, except the sanctification of the Spirit. In the same manner, by the term spirit, which is commonly opposed to the flesh, he means that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so re-formed, and purified from corruption, that God’s image shines forth in it. Then both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the latter to that part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural character. (227)

To will is present, etc. He does not mean that he had nothing but an ineffectual desire, but his meaning is, that the work really done did not correspond to his will; for the flesh hindered him from doing perfectly what he did. So also understand what follows, The evil I desire not, that I do: for the flesh not only impedes the faithful, so that they can not run swiftly, but it sets also before them many obstacles at which they stumble. Hence they do not, because they accomplish not, what they would, with the alacrity that is meet. This, to will, then, which he mentions, is the readiness of faith, when the Holy Spirit so prepares the godly that they are ready and strive to render obedience to God; but as their ability is not equal to what they wish, Paul says, that he found not what he desired, even the accomplishment of the good he aimed at.

(227) The Apostle here is his own interpreter; he explains who the I is that does what the other I disapproved, and who the I is that hates what the other I does. He tells us here that it is not the same I, though announced at first as though it were the same. The one I, he informs us here, was his flesh, his innate sin or Corruption, and the other I, he tells us in Rom 7:22, was “the inner man,” his new nature. The “inner man,” as [ Calvin ] will tell us presently, is not the soul as distinguished from the body, but the renewed man as distinguished from the flesh. It is the same as the “new man” as distinguished from “the old man.” See Eph 4:22; Rom 6:6; 2Co 5:17. But “the inward man,” and “the outward man,” in 2Co 4:16, are the soul and the body; and “the inner man,” in Eph 3:16, the same expression as in Rom 7:22, means the soul, as it is evident from the context. The same is meant by “the hidden man of the heart,” in 1Pe 3:4. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(18-20) Enthralled it is, and the will is powerless. What I do and what I will are opposite things. It is therefore sin that acts, and not I.

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

18. For to will What proves that in the me, which is identical with my flesh, is no good thing, is the fact that it defeats my will to perform the good, and induces me to do the evil which I would not.

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

‘For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing, for to will is present with me, but to do what is good is not.’

While up to this point what he has been describing has been of the flesh (‘I am fleshly’) and not of the Spirit (‘the Law is spiritual’), technical terms have been avoided. But now he begins to introduce them. Initially he speaks of ‘my flesh’ as something in which nothing good dwells (thus confirming that ‘fleshly’ means ‘of the flesh’, and therefore that ‘spiritual’ means ‘of the Spirit’). As a consequence of what he has said, Paul recognises that in his flesh, that part of him which is carnal, there dwells no good thing. He recognises that within himself is a fleshly tendency which has nothing good about it. That is why, at times, even when he wills to do good he finds himself not doing it. He can will to do what is good, but finds it impossible to do it all the time. And this is because of his ‘desires which spring from the flesh’. The ‘flesh’ is not his body as such. It is the principle of illicit desire which lies within him which affects the whole of him (‘in me’). Thus up to now with a casual reading we might have thought that Paul was simply ‘fleshly’.

However, he now makes clear that ‘the flesh’ is not all that there is to him. ‘In me,  that is in my flesh, there is no good thing.’ He may be fleshly (Rom 7:14), and no good thing might dwell in his flesh, but the qualifying phrase ‘that is, in my flesh’ indicates that we must watch out for other aspects of what he is which have not up to this point been dealt with. And he will now begin to describe these. The flesh does not have all its own way. This makes it clear that in his analysis he is concentrating on different aspects of his behaviour as they are affected at times by his make-up and situation, not with a chronological sequence. He wants initially to establish his fleshliness so that he can then deal with what counters that fleshliness.

So up to this point the thought has been based solely on the contrast between ‘spiritual’ and ‘fleshly’ (Rom 7:14), with the emphasis being on the effects of his own fleshliness. As a whole Paul has studiously avoided supplying any technical word to describe what is in him which is contrary to ‘the flesh’, (the whole passage is based on Paul’s fleshliness – Rom 7:14). The first instances to the contrary will be found in Rom 7:22 where he speaks of ‘the inward man’ (Rom 7:22), followed by references to ‘the mind’ (Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The struggle between the flesh and the spirit in the believer:

v. 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.

v. 19. For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.

v. 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

St. Paul here, for the sake of emphasis, repeats and amplifies his statements concerning the struggle between flesh and spirit in the regenerate: For I know that there lives not in me, that is, in my flesh, anything good. He makes a distinction between himself, his real, regenerated self, and his flesh, his old, perverted nature. Inasmuch and in so far as he still has this nature in himself, nothing good lives in him. This implies, incidentally, that in the real self of the regenerated person there is indeed something good, something spiritual, something that agrees with the demands of the will of God. For the willing, the determination to do good, lies beside him, is ready for him, and its use offers no difficulty. But to perform that which is excellent he finds not, he does not know where it is, it is not to be found. So the purpose to perform the holy will of God is there, but the difficulty lies in the execution of that which he acknowledges as being excellent. For the good that he desires he does not perform, but the evil which he does not desire, that he practices. The determination to live in accordance with the will of God is not altogether without effect, the struggle is never given for an instant, although the evil is committed again and again. And so the apostle again concludes: If, then, I perform that which I do not purpose, then it is no longer I that do it, but the sin which dwells in me. “The things which I do, when contrary to the characteristic desires and purposes of my heart, are to be considered as the acts of a slave. They are indeed my own acts, but not being performed with the full and joyful purpose of the heart, are not to be regarded as a fair criterion of character. ” (Hodge.)

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Rom 7:18 . Basing of the in Rom 7:17 on the human (not: Christian) experimental consciousness of the ( Wis 12:10 ).

] More precise definition to , by which it is designated, in order to make the meaning clear beyond all doubt, according to its aspect of self-verification here meant; and the latter is expressly distinguished from that of the moral self-consciousness, conveyed by the in Rom 7:17 .

That good , that is, moral willing and doing, consequently the opposite of , has its abode in the of man, i.e. in his materiophysical phenomenal nature (comp. on Rom 7:14 ), is negatived by . , and this negation is then proved by . . . If the , namely, were the seat of the moral nature, so that the will of the moral self-consciousness and that residing in the harmonized, in that case there would be nothing opposed to the carrying out of that moral tendency of will; in that case, besides the willing, we should find also in man the performance of the morally beautiful ( , “quod candore morali nitet,” van Hengel). On the identity of the and the , according to the Greek view of morality, see Stallb. ad Plat. Sympos . p. 201 C.

] lies before me (Plat. Tim . p. 69 A, Phil . p. 41 D; 2MMal 4:4 ) a plastic expression of the idea: there is present in me . Paul presents the matter, namely, as if he were looking around in his own person, as in a spacious sphere, to discover what might be present therein. There he sees the ( ) immediately confronting him, before his gaze; but his searching gaze fails to discover ( ) the . The performance of the good, therefore, is something not characteristic of the natural man, while that of the moral “I” is present with him. “ Longe a me abest ,” says Grotius aptly in explanation of the reading sc . , with which, however, is perfectly equivalent in sense; so that to render the latter “I gain it not, i.e. I can not” (Estius, Kypke, Flatt, Tholuck, and Kllner), or, “it is to me unattainable ” (Hofmann), is inconsistent with the correlative , as well as the in Rom 7:21 . Theodoret has rightly noted the ground of the : . , (namely, that of the Holy Spirit) . But the , which has the willing, can not at all be the (against Philippi), whose is the “ fidei promptitudo ” (Calvin), because that , clogged by the sinful power of the flesh, is naked and void of the . The latter is the simple to bring about, to bring into execution (see on Rom 1:27 ); and if, in order to interpret it appropriately of the regenerate person, it be made to mean, to live quite purely (Luther), or the “implere qua decet alacritate ” (Calvin), or the act which is in harmony with the will sanctified by the Spirit of God (Philippi), these shades of meaning are purely imported.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1854
SPIRITUAL CONFLICTS OF BELIEVERS

Rom 7:18-23. 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. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 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.

OF all evils that can be mentioned, Antinomianism is the worst; because it makes the Lord Jesus Christ himself a minister of sin, and turns the most glorious revelation of his grace into an occasion of unrestrained licentiousness. But whilst we reprobate with utter abhorrence the idea of sinning that grace may abound, we dare not, with some, deny or pervert the Gospel of Christ. We must affirm, that the Gospel offers to us a free and full salvation through the blood of Christ, and that they who believe in Christ are altogether dead to the law, so as to have nothing to hope for from its promises, or to fear from its threats. If, from this assertion, any one should infer, that we think ourselves at liberty to violate the precepts of the law, he would be much mistaken. There were some who put this construction on St. Pauls statements; to whom he replied, Shall we then continue in sin, that grace may abound? and again, Shall we then sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace [Note: Rom 6:1; Rom 6:15.]? To each of these questions he answered, God forbid: and in like manner we reject with indignation the remotest idea that we would make the Gospel an occasion of sin.

But, whilst St. Paul vindicated himself from this charge, he shewed, that, as a woman who had lost her husband was at liberty to be married to another man, so the law to which he once owed allegiance being dead, he was at liberty to be married to Christ, and by him to bring forth fruit unto God.
The terms however in which he expressed himself seemed to criminate the law, as much as he had before seemed to cast reflections on the Gospel. When we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death [Note: ver. 5.]. Here, as he had before denied to the law the office of justifying a sinner, so now, in appearance, he seemed to accuse it as being to him the author both of sin and death. But these representations also he rejects; and shews, that the law had only been the occasion of sin, and not the cause of it [Note: ver. 8.]; and that it had also been the occasion of death, but was by no means the cause of it [Note: ver. 13.]. The proper cause both of sin and of death was the corruption of our nature, which remains with us even to our dying hour; as he himself could testify by bitter experience. This experience of his he then proceeds to describe. But as commentators have differed widely from each other in their explanations of the passage, we will endeavour to shew,

I.

Of whom it is to be understood

That we may bring the matter to a fair issue, we will distinctly inquire,

1.

Does the passage relate the experience of an ungodly man, or of one that is truly pious?

[Those who explain it of an ungodly man say, that the whole preceding chapter represents a true Christian as made free from sin [Note: Rom 6:6-7; Rom 6:11; Rom 6:14; Rom 6:18.]; and that to interpret this passage of a true Christian, would be to make the Apostle contradict himself. As for the opposition which the person here spoken of makes to his sinful propensities, it is nothing more (say they) than the ordinary conflict between reason and passion; and it may therefore properly be interpreted as experienced by an ungodly man.

But to this we answer, that, though an ungodly man may feel some restraints from his conscience, and consequently some conflicts between reason and passion, he cannot say that he really hates sin, or that he delights in the law of God after the inward man [Note: ver. 15, 22.]. The carnal and unrenewed mind neither is, nor can be, subject to the law of God [Note: 1Co 2:14.]; it is altogether enmity against God [Note: Rom 8:7.]: and therefore the character here drawn cannot possibly be assigned to an ungodly man.]

2.

Does St. Paul in this passage personate a godly man who is in a low state of grace, or does he speak altogether of himself?

[That the Apostle does sometimes speak in the person of another, in order that he may inculcate truth in a more inoffensive manner, is certain [Note: 1Co 4:6.]: but we conceive it to be clear that he speaks here in his own person: for it is undeniable that he speaks in his own person in the preceding part of the chapter, where he tells us what he was in his unconverted state [Note: ver. 711.]: and now he tells us what he is, at the time of writing this epistle. In ver. 9. he says I was alive without the law once; and then afterwards, in ver. 14. he says, The law is spiritual, but I am carnal: and so he proceeds to the very end of the chapter declaring fully and particularly all the workings of his mind. This change of the tense shews clearly, that from stating his former experience he proceeds to state that which he felt at present. Moreover, in the concluding verse of the chapter, where he sums up, as it were, the substance of his confession in few words, he particularly declares, that he spake it of himself: So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin [Note: To interpret , I the same man, i. e. not I myself, but I that other person, is such a perversion of language as cannot with any propriety be admitted.]. And this is yet further evident from what he adds at the beginning of the next chapter, where he says, The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death [Note: Rom 8:2.].

The only thing that can raise a doubt whether the Apostle speaks in his own person or not, is the strong language which he uses. It is certainly strong language to say of himself, I am carnal, sold under sin. But this differs as widely from what is said of Ahab, who sold himself to work iniquity, as the motion of a volunteer differs from the motion of a person who is dragged in chains. To understand the Apostle, we must consider the subject on which he is writing. He is comparing himself with the spiritual and perfect law of God. To fulfil that in its utmost extent, was his continual aim: but by reason of his indwelling corruption he could not attain his aim: and this may well account for the strong terms in which he speaks of his corrupt nature. And, if we compare his language with that which the holiest men that ever existed have used in reference to themselves, we shall find that there is a perfect agreement between them. Behold, I am vile! says Job; I repent and abhor myself in dust and ashes. David also complains, My soul eleaveth to the dust. And the Prophet Isaiah, on being favoured with a vision of the Deity himself, exclaimed, Woe is me, I am undone! I am a man of unclean lips. And it is a fact, that the most eminent saints in every age have felt a suitableness in the language of St. Paul to express their own experience, just as they have also in those expressions of our Liturgy, We are tied and bound with the chain of our sins; but do thou, O Lord, of the pitifulness of thy great mercy, loose us!]

Having shewn that the passage relates the Apostles own experience, we will proceed to shew,

II.

Its true import

The Apostle is speaking of that corrupt principle, which, notwithstanding his attainments, still remained within him, and kept him from that perfect conformity to the law of God to which he aspired. This principle he represents as having the force of a law, which he was not able fully to resist. He had indeed within himself a principle of grace which kept him from ever yielding a willing obedience to his indwelling corruption; but it did not so free him from the workings of corruption, but that he still offended God in many things;

1.

In a way of occasional aberration

[To conceive of this subject aright, we may suppose the holy and perfect law of God to be a perfectly straight line on which we are to walk; and the corrupt principle within us to be operating on all our faculties to turn us from it. Sometimes it blinds the understanding, so that we do not distinctly see the line: sometimes it biasses the judgment, so as to incline us, without any distinct consciousness on our part, to smaller deviations from it: sometimes with force and violence it impels the passions, so that we cannot regulate our steps with perfect self-command: and sometimes it operates to delude the conscience, and to make us confident that we see the line, when in reality it is only a semblance of it, which our great adversary has presented to our imagination in order to deceive us. By this principle a continual warfare was kept up in his soul against his higher and better principle, keeping him from what was good, and impelling him to what was evil; so that he often did what he would not willingly have done, and did not what he gladly would have done. Thus, as he expresses it, there was a law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin in his members. This representation exactly accords with that which he gives of every child of God, in the Epistle to the Galatians: The flesh Justeth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would [Note: Gal 5:17.].

This is by no means to be understood as though he acknowledged that he was driven to any gross violations of Gods law; for with respect to them he had a conscience void of offence: but in respect of smaller deviations from the exact line of duty, he could not assert his innocence: he felt, that however much he longed for perfection, he had not yet attained, nor was he already perfect.]

2.

In a way of constant defect

[The law of God requires that we should love God with all our heart, and all our mind, and all our soul, and all our strength; and that every action, every word, every thought, be in perfect accordance with this rule. But who has not reason to confess that his very best duties are defective, in extent, in intensity, and in continuance? Who comprehends in any one action all that assemblage of nicely-balanced motives, and purposes, and affections, that were combined in the heart of our Lord Jesus Christ? Who at any time feels all that ardour in the service of his God which the angels in heaven feel? Or, supposing he did at some highly-favoured season serve God on earth precisely as the glorified saints are serving him in heaven, who must not confess that it is not always thus with him? However willing his spirit may be, he will find that his flesh is weak. Indeed, in proportion as any man aspires after perfection, he will lament his imperfections; and in proportion as he sees the beauty of holiness, he will lothe himself for his defects: and we doubt not but that St. Pauls spirituality of mind led him to complain more bitterly of the defects, which, with all his exertions, he was not able to prevent, than he would have done in his unconverted state of more plain and palpable transgressions. It might be supposed that the more holy any man was, the more free he would be from such complaints: but the very reverse of this is true: the persons who have received the first-fruits of the Spirit, are they who groan most within themselves for their complete redemption [Note: Rom 8:23.]; yea Paul himself, as long as he was in the body, did groan, being burthened [Note: 2Co 5:2; 2Co 5:4.]: to his dying hour he resumed at times that piteous moan, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me [Note: ver. 24.]?

St. Paul indeed makes a wide distinction between these sins of infirmity, and wilful sins. Of these (these sins of infirmity) he twice says, If I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me [Note: Compare ver. 17, 20.]; that is, my new nature in no respects consents to these sins; nay, the full bent and purpose of my soul is against them; but the remainder of my in-dwelling corruption, which I hate and oppose to the uttermost, keeps me from attaining that full perfection that I pant after: and therefore I hope that God will accept my services, notwithstanding the imperfection that attends them. In like manner, we, if we have the testimony of our consciences that we allow no sin, but fight against it universally, and with all our might, may rest assured, that God will not be extreme to mark what is done amiss, but that our services, notwithstanding their imperfection, shall come up with acceptance before him.]

In considering this experience of the Apostle, we must especially attend to,

III.

The improvement to be made of it

We may learn from it,
1.

How constantly we need the atonement and intercession of Christ

[It is not for the sins only of our unconverted state that we need a Saviour, but for those of daily incursion, even for those which attend our very best services. As Aaron of old was to bear the iniquity of the people of Israel, even of their holy things [Note: Exo 28:38.], so our great High-Priest must bear ours: nor can the best service we ever offered unto God be accepted of him, till it has been washed in the Redeemers blood, and perfumed with the incense of his intercession [Note: 1Pe 2:5.]. Guard then against all conceit of meriting any thing at the hands of God: guard also against self-complacency, as though you had wrought some good work in which no flaw can be found. If God were to lay a line and plummet to your best deeds, there would be found inconceivable obliquities and defects in them [Note: Isa 28:17. Psa 130:3.]. Be sensible of this, and then you will learn how to value the Pearl of great price, even the Lord Jesus Christ, for whom you will gladly part with all that you have, that you may obtain an interest in him and in his salvation.]

2.

What reason we have to watch over our own hearts

[Carrying about with us such a corrupt nature, and knowing, as we do, that even St. Paul himself could not altogether cast off its influence, how jealous should we be, lest we be led into the commission of iniquity, even whilst we imagine that we are doing God service! Even the Apostles of our Lord, on more occasions than one, knew not what spirit they were of: and we, if we will look back on many transactions of our former lives, shall view them very differently from what we once did: and no doubt God at this moment forms a very different estimate of us from what we are disposed to form of ourselves. How blinded men are by pride, or prejudice, or interest, or passion, we all see in those around us. Let us be aware of it in ourselves: let us remember, that we too have a subtle adversary, and a deceitful heart: let us never forget, that Satan, who beguiled Eve in Paradise, can now transform himself into an angel of light to deceive us, and to corrupt us from the simplicity that is in Christ. Let us pray earnestly to God to keep us from his wiles, to disappoint his devices, and to bruise him under our feet. If God keep us, we shall stand; but, if he withdraw his gracious influences for one moment, we shall fall.]

3.

What comfort is provided for us, if only we are upright before God

[If we wish to make the Apostles experience a cloak for our sins, we shall eternally ruin our own souls. His experience can be of no comfort to us, unless we have the testimony of our own consciences that we hate evil, of whatsoever kind it be, and delight in the law of God, even in its most refined and elevated requirements, after our inward man. But, if we can appeal to God, that we do not regard or retain willingly any iniquity in our hearts, but that we unfeignedly endeavour to pluck out the right eye that offends our God, then may we take comfort in our severest conflicts. We may console ourselves with the thought that no temptation has taken us but what is common to man, and that God will, with the temptation, make for us also a way to escape. We may go on with confidence, assured of final victory; and may look forward with delight to that blessed day, when sin and sorrow shall depart from us, and death itself be swallowed up in everlasting victory.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Ver. 18. Dwelleth no good thing ] Horreo quicquid de meo est, ut sim meus, saith Bernard. It was no ill wish of him that desired God to free him from an ill man, himself, a For, though ingrafted into Christ, yet we carry about us a relish of the old stock still. Corruption is, though dejected from its regency, yet not ejected from its inherency; it intermingleth with our best works.

How to perform ] Gr. , to do it thoroughly; though I am doing at it, as I can.

a Domine, libera me a malo homine, meipso.

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

18 .] An explanation of the of the last verse . For I know (by experience, detailed in the next verse) that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, ( any ) good ( thing ). I said, sin that dwelleth in me , because I feel sure, from experience, that in me (meaning by ‘me’ not that higher spiritual self in which the Spirit of God dwells, but the lower carnal self: see on this important limitation the remarks at the beginning of the section) dwells no good thing . And what is my proof of this? How has experience led me to this knowledge? For (the proof from experience) the wish (to do good) is present with me ( ., not metaphorical, see reff., but, as in Homer, used commonly of meats served up to, lying before, any one); but to perform that which is good, is not (the absence of in [46] [47] [48] [49] , and the variations of and in one or two mss. and versions, and besides, the somewhat unusual termination of the sentence with , are too strong presumptions of its being an interpolation, to allow of its retention) ( present with me ).

[46] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .

[47] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).

[48] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments 2 . It seems to have come to France with Catherine de’ Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de’ Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C 3 ) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople 3 . But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text, holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century . Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C 2 , C 3 .

[49] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 7:18 . It is sin, and nothing but sin, that has to be taken account of in this connection, for “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, there dwells no good”. For see on Rom 1:12 . = = in me, regarded as a creature of flesh, apart from any relation to or affinity for God and His spirit. This, of course, is not a complete view of what man is at any stage of his life. : is rather wish than will: the want of will is the very thing lamented. An inclination to the good is at his hand, within the limit of his resources, but not the actual effecting of the good.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

flesh, i.e. old nature.

no = not. App-105.

to will. Same as “would”, verses: Rom 7:15, Rom 7:16, Rom 7:19, Rom 15:20, Rom 15:21.

is present. Greek. parakeimai, to be at hand. Only here and Rom 7:21.

perform. Same as “work”, Rom 7:13, and “do-“, Rom 7:15.

I find. The texts read (is) “not” (present).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

18.] An explanation of the of the last verse. For I know (by experience, detailed in the next verse) that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, (any) good (thing). I said, sin that dwelleth in me, because I feel sure, from experience, that in me (meaning by me not that higher spiritual self in which the Spirit of God dwells, but the lower carnal self: see on this important limitation the remarks at the beginning of the section) dwells no good thing. And what is my proof of this? How has experience led me to this knowledge? For (the proof from experience) the wish (to do good) is present with me (., not metaphorical, see reff., but, as in Homer, used commonly of meats served up to, lying before, any one); but to perform that which is good, is not (the absence of in [46] [47] [48] [49], and the variations of and in one or two mss. and versions,-and besides, the somewhat unusual termination of the sentence with ,-are too strong presumptions of its being an interpolation, to allow of its retention) (present with me).

[46] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.

[47] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).

[48] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments2. It seems to have come to France with Catherine de Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C3) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople3. But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text,-holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century. Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C2, C3.

[49] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 7:18. , I know) This very knowledge is a part of this state, which is here described.-, that is) It is a limitation of the sense; in me is more than in my flesh, and yet the flesh is not called sin itself[75] (we must make this observation contrary to the opinion of Flacius); but what Paul says, is: sin dwells in the flesh. And already this state, of which Paul is treating, carries along with it some element of good.- to will) The Accusative, good, is not added after to will; and the delicacy [minute accuracy] of this language expresses the delicacy [minute accuracy] in the use of the expression, to will.-) [is present] lies in view, without [my being able to gain] the victory. The antithesis, concerning the performance of good works, is the not [I find not] which occurs presently after. My mind, though seeking [that, which is good], does not in reality find it.

[75] It is only called sinful.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 7:18

Rom 7:18

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing:-The flesh seeks after its own gratification, and never after anything that demands the abasement, or crucifixion of the flesh. The inner man must be educated, trained, and brought under the elevating and purifying of the word of God to such an extent as to control and keep down all excessive demands of the flesh. God does not propose to take away or to destroy the desires and appetites of the flesh. He only proposes to so educate and train the man so as to mortify, crucify, and control the impulses of the flesh. This is the great work of the Christians life: to keep down fleshly desires and impulses and to keep them in harmony with the word of the Lord.

for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.-His will was present to do good, but with the flesh in the mastery he found no way to accomplish it. [The good which he could not attain is the absolute good-the morally perfect, the perfection required by the law. Jesus so uses the term: Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good. (Mat 19:17). Why callest thou me good ? none is good save one, even God.” (Mar 10:18). The law requires absolute good. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. (Gal 3:10). There is a relative goodness predicated of man, but no man is absolutely perfect; neither can he, in the flesh, attain this perfection.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

that in me: Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21, Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Job 25:4, Psa 51:5, Isa 64:6, Mat 15:19, Mar 7:21-23, Luk 11:13, Eph 2:1-5, Tit 3:3, 1Pe 4:2

in my: Rom 7:5, Rom 7:25, Rom 8:3-13, Rom 13:14, Joh 3:6, Gal 5:19-21, Gal 5:24

for to will: Rom 7:15, Rom 7:19, Rom 7:25, Psa 119:5, Psa 119:32, Psa 119:40, Psa 119:115-117, Psa 119:173, Psa 119:176, Gal 5:17, Phi 2:13, Phi 3:12

Reciprocal: 2Ch 19:3 – good things Neh 8:12 – because Mat 13:8 – good Mat 26:41 – the spirit Mat 26:75 – And he Mar 14:38 – The spirit Luk 8:15 – in an Act 15:39 – the contention Rom 7:14 – but Rom 7:17 – sin Eph 2:3 – by 1Ti 1:8 – the law

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Rom 7:18. For I know; not, we know, which would point to common Christian experience. This verse proves from the experience of the man whose case is described the truth of Rom 7:17.

In me, that is, in my flesh, in my depraved human nature; flesh being here used in its strict ethical sense. Usually in this sense the antithesis is Spirit, and even here that idea is implied in the spirituality of the law which produces the experience under discussion. Hence it is not necessary to assume that the case is that of a regenerate man, in order to find room for a reference to the Holy Spirit, over against the flesh, The man under the law, whether before or after conversion, is here represented as becoming conscious that he is made of flesh, under the conflict awakened by the law. The better desire may exist (see next clause), but in every case it is powerless unless the man escapes from the law to Christ.

For to wish is present with me, lies before me. The word translated wish (would, A. V.) is the same throughout the passage, and preserves the same general sense, of wishing, being willing, rather than of a decisive purpose or controlling desire.

But to perform that which is good is not. We follow here the better sustained reading. Wishing lies before me, but executing does not; I can and do have a desire for what is good, but I cannot and do not carry that desire into effect; this experience proves that there dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, no good thing. So far as one is in the flesh, this is his highest moral state; only when in the Spirit can good be truly performed.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. The apostle’s proposition; I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: That is in my corrupt and unregenerate nature, there is nothing truly and spiritually good; and this I myself am sensible of, and privy to, and very well acquainted with.

Learn thence, That good men are intimately acquainted with themselves, privy to their own corruptions, sensible of the indwelling presence of sin in themselves, which calls upon them to be humble, and excites them to be watchful: I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.

Observe, 2. The confirmation of the foregoing proposition; for to will is present with me; that is, to will what is good, to purpose good, and to desire that which is good, is present with me; but I want ability to perform that good I purpose.

Learn hence, That though to will that which is good is ready and at hand with God’s regenerated children, yet through that corruption which still abides in them, they are sometimes disabled for doing that good which they purpose, design, and desire to do; and that little good they do, is very brokenly and imperfectly done.

A mortal father may as soon beget an immortal child, as an imperfect saint can perform anything perfectly good: There can never be more in the effect than there is in the cause: A weak grape cannot make strong wine: Whilst we are saints on earth, though we may and ought to aspire after, yet we shall not be able to attain unto the sinless perfection of the saints in heaven: A real Christian is one that is continually labouring after the attainment of that which he knows in this life he shall never attain unto; namely, perfection in grace; In heaven we shall have no occasion to complain, that how to perform that which is good, we find not.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 7:18-20. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh The corrupt and degenerate self, my animal appetites and passions, debased and enslaved as they are by sin through the fall; or in me, while I was in the flesh, chap. Rom 8:8, and not in the spirit, Rom 7:9; dwelleth no good thing , good dwelleth not. Hence he asserts, in the place just referred to, that they who are in the flesh, whose reason and conscience are under the government of passion and appetite, or who are in their natural unrenewed state, cannot please God. For to will To incline, desire, and even purpose; is present with me , lies near me, or, is easy for me; but how to perform , statedly to practise, or, habitually work, (see on Rom 7:15;) that which is good , excellent, I find not Have not sufficient ability. For the good that I would, &c. See on Rom 7:15; Rom 7:17, for an explanation of this and the next verse.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Second Cycle: Rom 7:18-20.

The first verse again contains a thesis parallel to that of Rom 7:14. This thesis is demonstrated by experience in the second part of the verse and in Rom 7:19, which thus correspond to Rom 7:15-16 of the first cycle. Finally, in Rom 7:20 we find as a conclusion the reaffirmation of the thesis; it is the parallel of Rom 7:17.

Rom 7:18 a For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.

This thesis, reproducing that of Rom 7:14 : I am carnal, connects itself, by terms used, with the last words of Rom 7:17; comp. the two expressions: Sin dwelling in me, and in me dwelleth no good thing. The , for, is explanatory rather than demonstrative. It is the same experience which is again expounded more precisely; comp. the similar for, Rom 7:10. It might seem, when Paul said, Rom 7:14 : I am carnal, that he left nothing subsisting in the ego which was not flesh. The contrary appeared, however, from the we know preceding; for he who recognizes that the law is spiritual, must possess in himself something spiritual. This distinction between the ego, the I, and the flesh, is emphasized still more fully in Rom 7:18. For it is obvious that the phrase that is has a restrictive sense, and that Paul means: in me, so far at least as my person is carnal. He therefore gives it to be understood that there is something more in him besides the flesh. This something is precisely that in him which recognizes the spirituality of the law, and pays it homage. We thereby understand what the flesh is in his eyes, the complacent care of his person, in the form of pride or sensuality. Now this is precisely the active power which in practice determines the activity of the unregenerate man. The flesh thus understood does not exclude the knowledge, and even the admiration of goodness; but it renders this noble faculty fruitless in ordinary life, by enslaving to itself the active principle, the will. There is therefore really, as Paul gives it to be understood, good in the ego, but in the understanding only, the contemplative faculty, not in the flesh which gives the active impulse. See this contrast exactly stated in Rom 7:25.

The proof from fact follows.

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

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

18. I know that in me, that is in my carnality, there is no good thing. This is the carnal me, representing Adam the First, in whom there is no good thing. Me is here antithetical to spiritual I representing his own personality. To will is present with me, but to work out that which is beautiful is not present with me. This is the hackneyed confession of the unsanctified. Justification brings us into the kingdom of peace and sanctification into the kingdom of power. Beautiful in this verse (E. V. good) means the beauty of holiness, which literally charms all true Christians, who spontaneously leap to the conclusion that they can do it, only to sink broken-hearted in contemplation of constant failure. Every real Christian desires and wills to do his whole duty, yet signally failing for lack of power which sanctification alone can supply.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

7:18 {12} For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but {a} [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

(12) This vice, or sin, or law of sin, wholly possesses those men who are not regenerated, and hinders them or holds those back who are regenerated.

(a) This indeed is appropriate to the man whom the grace of God has made a new man: for where the Spirit is not, how can there be any strife there?

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

"In general, we may say that in Rom 7:14-17, the emphasis is upon the practicing what is hated,-that is, the inability to overcome evil in the flesh; while in Rom 7:18-21, the emphasis is upon the failure to do the desired good,-the inability, on account of the flesh, to do right.

"Thus the double failure of a quickened man either to overcome evil or to accomplish good-is set forth. There must come in help from outside, beyond himself!" [Note: Newell, p. 270.]

Paul meant that sin had thoroughly corrupted his nature ("flesh"). Even though he was a Christian he was still a totally depraved sinner (Rom 3:10-18; Rom 3:23). He knew what he should do, but he did not always do it. "Total depravity" refers to the fact that sin has affected every aspect of our person. It does not mean that we are necessarily as bad as we could be.

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