Romans 7:14-25 -- 'It wasn't me!'

[Turgonian]

Let's go back to topic -- Rom. 7:14-25. JP Holding shares the view brought up in the first post; he says:

Is Paul confused about himself here? No: What Paul is actually doing here is engaging in a typical Greco-Roman rhetorical practice (also found in Jewish literature, including the Qumran Psalms) in which the personal "I" and the present tense is used as a literary convention. Where the personal "I" is combined with the present tense, the author is utilizing a practice called "speech in character" to represent a universal experience. Here, Paul is bringing out the universal experience of those who do not know Christ (and that did include him, at one time) and their struggle with moral law and sin. He is not giving a biographical account of his present experience as our critics suppose. (Also possible and in line with our position is Witherington's [Wi.PLR, 188] suggestion that the "I" here is meant to be Adam; he notes that the "commandment" [v. 8] is in the singular, and Adam is the only person who never knew the Law [v. 9], and that the word used for "deceive" is the same one used of what happened to Adam in 2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:14.)

Bruce [Br.Rom, 144] argues that what Paul describes has been "the real experience of many Christians" so that we cannot confidently say that Paul is not being present-autobiographical. We would reply that this may well be the experience of weak or immature Christians, who have not come to realize their position in Christ, but that no believer who has realized (or keeps their focus on) the solution to the "body of death" in Christ would have this sort of experience.

Mounce [Mo.Rom, 167] also maintains that this is a "present-experience" commentary on the grounds that Paul described himself as morally pure in Phil. 3:6. But this might be the same error as those who assume that Job or Mary and Joseph were considered to be sinless. Mounce also draws a parallel to the statement of the Roman poet Ovid: "I perceive what is better and approve of it, but I pursue what is worse." [169n]

In addition, is there an incongruity in Paul saying that no good thing "dwells" in him, though he has Christ in him (Gal. 2:20)? No -- Paul is using a Greco-Roman rhetorical technique, as noted above. Even so, the objection fails to distinguish between the Greek words involved. The Galatians word is, according to Strong's:

2198. zao, dzah'-o; a prim. verb; to live (lit. or fig.):--life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.

While the Romans word is:

3611. oikeo, ay-keh'-o; from G3624; to occupy a house, i.e. reside (fig. inhabit, remain, inhere); by impl. to cohabit:--dwell.

The latter connotes physical occupation. The former connotes influence or substance. ("Man does not live (zao) by bread alone.").