Romans 7:16

Rom 7:16-17. If then I do that which I would not, &c. — In willing not to do it, I do so far, though to my own condemnation, consent to the law, and bear my testimony to it that it is good — And do indeed desire to fulfil it; though when temptations assault me, contrary to my resolution, I fail in my practice. This is an inference from the former verse, the obvious sense of which is, that men, even in an unconverted state, approve of the law of God: they see its propriety and equity, consequently their judgment approves of it as good, though their passions and inclinations oppose it. It is not supposed here that the person spoken of consents at all times to the whole of God’s law as good: this inference is limited by what he said in the former verse. Nor is it every evil which he hates, that he does; nor does he always feel that hatred which he mentions against the sins which he commits. He only mentions it as a thing which frequently happened, that the evils which he hated, and was inclined to avoid, were actually committed by him; and the good deeds which his conscience inclined him to do, were not performed. From this he infers, that this inclination implied the consent of his judgment unto the goodness of those laws, which under these circumstances he was in the habit of breaking. And, that the minds even of wicked men consent to the law of God as good, is obvious from their approbation of good actions in others. Now then it is no more I that can properly be said to do it, but rather sin that dwelleth in me — Which makes, as it were, another person, and tyrannises over me. “Here the apostle considers man as composed of two parts, flesh and spirit, each of which has distinct volitions, affections, and passions. And, because the influence of these on men’s actions is very powerful, he calls the one the law of the members, and the other, the law of the mind; (Rom 7:23;) and, like the ancient philosophers, he considers these two principles as distinct persons. And as in this discourse he personates mankind, he speaks of the former, which (Rom 7:22) he terms, ο εσω ανθρωπος, the inward man, or spiritual part of human nature, as his real self, and calls it, εγο, I, (Rom 7:17; Rom 7:19,) and αυτος εγω, I myself (Rom 7:25,) because it is the part in which man was made after the image of God. The other person he calls his flesh, or carnal part; and, ο εξω ανθρωπος, the outward man; (2Co 4:16;) and sin dwelling in him, in this verse; and the body of sin; (Rom 6:6;) and the body of death; (Rom 7:24;) and the old man; (Rom 6:6; Eph 4:21; Col 3:9;) and denies that this part is his self; (Rom 7:17;) and to prevent our confounding this with his real self, having said, (Rom 7:18,) I know that in me dwelleth no good thing, he immediately corrects himself by adding, that is, in my flesh. But notwithstanding the apostle considered the flesh and spirit as distinct persons, who have different affections and members, and though he ascribes to those persons different volitions and actions, and denies that the actions of the outward man, or flesh, are his actions, it does not follow that he thought himself no way concerned in, or accountable for, the actions of his flesh. For he told the very persons to whom he said those things, (Rom 8:13,) If ye live after the flesh ye shall die. But he thus spake to give a more lively idea of the struggle between reason and passion, [or rather, between grace and nature,] which subsists in the minds of those whose conscience is awakened by the operation of the law, but who are not completely converted.” Perhaps, as Doddridge conjectures, he might have read the passage in Xenophon’s Cyropedia, lib. 6., where Araspes complains of two souls contending within him.

But sin that dwelleth in me — “As the apostle had personified sin, he very properly represents it as dwelling in him; because this suggests to us the absolute and continued influence which sin hath in controlling the reason and conscience of the unregenerated, and in directing all their actions. By distinguishing his real self, that is, his spiritual part, from the self, or flesh, in which sin dwelt, and by observing that the evil actions which he committed were done, not by him, but by sin dwelling in him, the apostle did not mean to teach that wicked men are not accountable for their sins, but to make them sensible of the evil of their sins, by showing them that they are all committed in direct opposition to reason and conscience, the superior part of their nature, at the instigation of passion and lust, the lower part. Further, by appealing to the opposition which reason and conscience make to evil actions, he hath overturned the grand argument, by which the wicked justify themselves in indulging their lusts. Say they, since God hath given us passions and appetites, he certainly meant that we should gratify them. True, says the apostle; but God hath also given you reason and conscience, which oppose the excesses of lust, and condemn its gratification: and as reason and conscience are the superior part of man’s nature, a more certain indication of the will of God may be gathered from their operation, than from the impulses of the other.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 7:16. Σύμφημι, I consent) Συνήδομαι, I delight is a stronger expression, Rom 7:22, note. The assent of a man, given to the law against himself, is an illustrious trait of true religion, a powerful testimony for God.—καλὸς, beautiful) The law, even apart from its legality, is beautiful: καλὸς, beautiful, suggests holiness, justice, and goodness, Rom 7:12.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_7:16. Not an incidental inference (Rückert), but an essential carrying on of the argument, from which then Rom_7:17 is further inferred. For the relation of the ἐγώ to the law is in fact the very aim of the section (see Rom_7:25).

ὃ οὐ θέλω] whereto I am unwilling, for in fact I hate it, Rom_7:15. By οὐ the θέλειν is turned into its opposite. Comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 278; Ameis on Homer, Odys. iii. 274.

σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ, ὅτι καλός] since indeed the law also desires not what I do. My conduct, therefore, so far as my desire is opposed to it, appears, according to this contradiction, as a proof that I concur with the law, that it is beautiful, i.e. morally good; the moral excellence which the law affirms of itself (e.g. Deu_4:8) I also agree with it in acknowledging; in point of fact, I say yes to it. Comp. also Philippi and Hofmann. The usual view: I grant to the law, that, etc., overlooks the συν, and the reference of the τῷ νόμῳ to συν (I say with). Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 608 B, Theaet. p. 199 C, Phaed. p. 64 B; Soph. Aj. 271, Oed. R. 553; Eur. Hippol. 265; Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 153. We may add that Chrysostom, in loc., has appropriately directed attention to the οἰκεία εὐγένεια of the moral nature of man.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 7:16 . ὃ οὐ θέλω takes up ὃ μισῶ the negative expression is strong enough for the argument. In doing what he hates, i.e. , in doing evil against his will, his will agrees with the law, that it is good. καλός suggests the moral beauty or nobility of the law, not like ἀγαθή (Rom 7:12 ) its beneficial purpose.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_7:16

If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Paul here asserts that his acting contrary to the law was no evidence that he thought the law evil; for what he did he disapproved. But to disapprove and condemn what the law forbids, is to assent to the excellence of the law. There is a constant feeling of self-disapprobation, and a sense of the excellence of the law, in the Christians mind. He is, therefore, never disposed to blame the extent or severity of the law, but admits the fault to be in himself. I consent to, σύμφημι, I speak with, I say the same thing which the law says, when it pronounces itself good. There is no conflict between the law and the believer; it is between the law and what the believer himself condemns.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If then I do that which I would not--"But if what I would not that I do,"

I consent unto the law that it is good--"the judgment of my inner man going along with the law."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 16. If then I do that which I would not, c.] Knowing that the law condemns it, and that therefore it must be evil. I consent unto the law I show by this circumstance that I acknowledge the law to be good.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. But if what I desire not, I do, I consent to the law, etc.; that is, “When my heart acquiesces in the law, and is delighted with its righteousness, (which certainly is the case when it hates the transgression of it,) it then perceives and acknowledges the goodness of the law, so that we are fully convinced, experience itself being our teacher, that no evil ought to be imputed to the law; nay, that it would be salutary to men, were it to meet with upright and pure hearts.” But this consent is not to be understood to be the same with what we have heard exists in the ungodly, who have expressed words of this kind, “I see better things and approve of them; I follow the worse.” Again, “What is hurtful I follow; I shun what I believe would be profitable.” For these act under a constraint when they subscribe to the righteousness of God, as their will is wholly alienated from it, but the godly man consents to the law with the real and most cheerful desire of his heart; for he wishes nothing more than to mount up to heaven.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(16) But the fact that I desire to do what is right is itself a witness to the excellence of the Law, which commands that which I desire.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. If then, &c.] The emphasis is obviously on “that which I would not:” q. d., “If my faulty course of action is contradicted by my will, I thereby consent to the goodness of the Law, which also contradicts it.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If then I do that which I would not,.... This is a corollary, or an inference from what he had related of his own experience; that since what he did, though it was contrary to the law of God, yet was what he did not will nor allow of, but hated, it must be a clear point, that he

consented to the law, that it was good; lovely and amiable; that it forbad those things which were hateful, and commanded those things which were desirable to a good man; and so is acknowledged to be a very beautiful rule of obedience, walk, and conversation.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Ver. 16. I consent unto the law] I vote with it, and for it, as the rule of right; I wish also well to the observance of it, as David did, Psa 119:45.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I consent unto the law - The very struggle with evil shows that it is not loved, or approved, but that the Law which condemns it is really loved. Christians may here find a test of their piety. The fact of struggling against evil, the desire to be free from it, and to overcome it, the anxiety and grief which it causes, is an evidence that we do not love it, and that there. fore we are the friends of God. Perhaps nothing can be a more decisive test of piety than a long-continued and painful struggle against evil passions and desires in every form, and a panting of the soul to be delivered from the power and dominion of sin.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This very thing is an argument, that the law is such as I have before asserted, Rom 7:12,14. This shows my consent to the holiness and goodness of the law; I vote with it, and for it, as the only rule of right or righteousness.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

It is good - This single word implies all the three that were used before, ver. 12, "holy, just, and good."

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Note, 1. How readily the apostle consented to the equity and holiness of God’s law; he did love the law of God, which made holiness his duty: I consent, says he, to the law, that it is good; he assented to it in his judgment, he complied with it in his will, he clave to it in his inward affections. So far as a person is regenerate, his heart doth correspond with God’s law: But may not a unregenerate person consent in his judgments approve, yet not in their hearts like and love the law of God: At the same time, that they commend it with their mouths, they cast it behind their backs.

Note, 2. How the apostle disclaims though not disowns, the evil done by him; It is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me. As if he had said, "My corrupt affections sometimes overpower me against the approbation of my judgment, the inclination of my will: But it is not I, (according to my better part, from which I am denominated,) but sin dwelleth in me."

Learn hence, That if we disclaim the evil done by us, as being contrary to us, contrary to the habitual frame and disposition of our hearts, contrary to the deliberate purpose and settled resolution of our wills, Almighty God will not charge our failings upon us to our condemnation, but mercifully distinguish between the weakness of the flesh, and the willingness of the spirit; between us, and sin that dwelleth in us. Sin will remain and dwell, but it must not reign and rule: ’Tis a busy inmate in a gracious heart, but ’tis a lordly master, yea, an imperious tyrant in a sinner’s heart. Happy he that can in truth and sincerity say, It is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. “But if I do that which I do not wish, I consent to the law that it is good: now it is no longer I that do this, but sin that dwelleth in me.” You recognize the error in E. V., and see how Paul certifies that he commits neither known nor willing sin. Can you apply this statement to a sinner? I know not. The normal character of a sinner is to commit known and willing sin. You see positively that this is not only a justified man, but he is living in a very high state of justification, which may be said of few, i. e., that our people in the churches who claim justification could truthfully say that they commit neither known nor willing sin! Let those Christians who apply this chapter to the sinner make the application to themselves, and see whether they are living on a plane superior to Paul at this time in his experience when he certifies twice over that he commits neither known nor willing sin. This is truly the Bible standard of justification. Paul was a man of gigantic mentality and intense moral and spiritual acumen. Hence he thinks, speaks and acts in the superlative degree. In Rom 7:15 he positively certifies that he commits neither known or willing sin. In Rom 7:17 most unequivocally abnegates all personal identity with the sin-trouble in which he is involved.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good . [But the law can not be sin, for it is spiritual; i. e., it is of divine origin, contains divine principles, and is addressed to the divine in man; and if man were as he should be, there would be no fault found with the law. But, alas! we are not as we should be. The law indeed is spiritual, but I (speaking for myself, and also as fairly representative of all other Christians) am not wholly spiritual, but carnal, and sold unto sin; i. e.. I dwell in a fleshly body, but have all the weaknesses, passions and frailties that flesh is heir to, and am, consequently, so much the servant of sin that I am as one sold into permanent slavery unto it; so that as long as I am in the flesh I have no hope to be wholly free from it. So much is this the case--so much am I a slave to powers that control me--that I act as one distracted, not fully knowing nor being conscious of the thing that I do; for my actions and practise are not according to my own wishes, which follow the law; but, on the contrary, I do those things which I hate, and which are contrary to the law; my spiritual nature wishing to obey the spiritual law, but not being able, because blended with my flesh and weakened by it. But if I do the things contrary to the law, at the same time wishing to do as the law directs, I agree with the law that it is right, endorsing it by my wish, though failing to honor it in my conduct. My own consciousness, therefore, belies the accusation that the law is sin.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. If then I do. Rather, “But if I do.” If he sins, against his purpose and inclination, he condemns his sin, and thus acknowledges the law, which he disobeyed, to be just and good.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

16.] But if (= ‘now seeing that;’ takes up the foregoing and draws an inference from it) what I wish not, that I do, I agree with (bear witness to) the law that it is good (viz. ‘in that the law prohibits what I also dislike,—the law and I are as one in proscribing the thing,—the law, and my wish, tend the same way’).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I consent [συμφημι] . Lit., speak together with; concur with, since the law also does not desire what I do. Only here in the New Testament.

Good [καλος] . See on Joh 10:11, 32; Mt 26:10; Jas 2:7. Morally excellent.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 16, 17. “If then I do that which I would not, I consent with the law that it is good. And now it is no more I that perform it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

These two verses draw the conclusion from the fact mentioned Rom 7:15, a conclusion which is the reaffirmation of the thesis laid down in Rom 7:14.

The reprobation with which Paul’s conscience visits his own work, is a solemn homage rendered by him to the law, for thereby he takes part with the law against himself. The preposition σύν, with, in the verb σύμφημι, I give testimony, I applaud with, can only bear on the regimen τῷ νομῷ, the law: “I declare, in concert with the law, that the contents of the law are good.” It is the reproduction of the assertion: “We know that the law is spiritual.”

Vv. 16 likewise reproduces the second part of Rom 7:14; it is, so to speak, the paraphrase of the words: sold to sin. It is not to be thought that Paul wishes to exculpate himself in the least when he says: “It is not I who do it, but sin.” On the contrary, he wishes to make the miserable state of bondage to which he is reduced the more palpable; he is not master even in his own house; there he finds a tyrant who forces him to act in opposition to his better wishes. What humiliation! What misery! It is the state of sin regarded from its painful rather than its culpable point of view.

The adverbs now, νυνί, and no more, οὐκέτι, cannot have a temporal meaning here; Paul states the moral conclusion drawn from the facts which he has just recorded. Their meaning is therefore logical. Now means: “Things being so;” no more: “not as if the normal state, that of full moral liberty, still existed in me.”

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.