SEV Biblia, Chapter 7:15
Porque lo que cometo, no lo entiendo; y ni el (bien) que quiero, hago; antes lo que aborrezco, aquello hago.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Romans 7:15
Verse 15. For, that which I do, I allow not, &c.] The first clause of this verse is a general assertion concerning the employment of the person in question in the state which the apostle calls carnal, and sold under sin. The Greek word katergaxomai which is here translated I do, means a work which the agent continues to perform till it is finished, and is used by the apostle, Philippians ii. 12, to denote the continued employment of God's saints in his service to the end of their lives. WORK OUT your own salvation; the word here denotes an employment of a different kind; and therefore the man who now feels the galling dominion of sin says, What I am continually labouring at I allow not, ou ginwskw, I do not acknowledge to be right, just, holy, or profitable. But what I hate, that do I.] I am a slave, and under the absolute control of my tyrannical master: I hate his service, but am obliged to work his will.
Who, without blaspheming, can assert that the apostle is speaking this of a man in whom the Spirit of the Lord dwells? From ver. 7 to this one the apostle, says Dr. Taylor, denotes the Jew in the flesh by a single I; here, he divides that I into two I's, or figurative persons; representing two different and opposite principles which were in him. The one I, or principle, assents to the law that it is good, and wills and chooses what the other does not practice, ver. 16. This principle he expressly tells us, ver. 22, is the inward man; the law of the mind, Romans vii. 23; the mind, or rational faculty, ver. 25; for he could find no other inward man, or law of the mind, but the rational faculty, in a person who was carnal and sold under sin. The other I, or principle, transgresses the law, ver. 23, and does those things which the former principle allows not.
This principle he expressly tells us, ver. 18, is the flesh, the law in the members, or sensual appetite, ver. 23; and he concludes in the last verse, that these two principles were opposite to each other; therefore it is evident that those two principles, residing and counteracting each other in the same person; are reason and lust, or sin that dwells in us. And it is very easy to distinguish these two I's, or principles, in every part of this elegant description of iniquity, domineering over the light and remonstrances of reason. For instance, ver. 17: Now then, it is no more I that do it, but SIN that dwelleth in me. The I he speaks of here is opposed to indwelling or governing sin; and therefore plainly denotes the principle of reason, the inward man, or law of the mind; in which, I add, a measure of the light of the Spirit of God shines, in order to show the sinfulness of sin. These two different principles he calls, one flesh, and the other spirit, Gal. v. 17; where he speaks of their contrariety in the same manner that he does here.
And we may give a probable reason why the apostle dwells so long upon the struggle and opposition between these two principles; it appears intended to answer a tacit but very obvious objection. The Jew might allege: "But the law is holy and spiritual; and I assent to it as good, as a right rule of action, which ought to be observed; yea, I esteem it highly, I glory and rest in it, convinced of its truth and excellency. And is not this enough to constitute the law a sufficient principle of sanctification?" The apostle answers, "No; wickedness is consistent with a sense of truth. A man may assent to the best rule of action, and yet still be under the dominion of lust and sin; from which nothing can deliver him but a principle and power proceeding from the fountain of life." The sentiment in this verse may be illustrated by quotations from the ancient heathens; many of whom felt themselves in precisely the same state, (and expressed it in nearly the same language,) which some most monstrously tell us was the state of this heavenly apostle, when vindicating the claims of the Gospel against those of the Jewish ritual! Thus OVID describes the conduct of a depraved man:- Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor.
OVID, Met. lib. vii. ver. 19.
My reason this, my passion that persuades; I see the right, and I approve it too; Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.- indignum facinus! nunc ego et Illam scelestam esse, et me miserum sentio: Et taedet: et amore ardeo: et prudens, sciens, Vivus, vidensque pereo: nec quid agam scio.- TERENT. Eun. ver. 70.
An unworthy act! Now I perceive that she is wicked, and I am wretched. I burn with love, and am vexed at it. Although prudent, and intelligent, and active, and seeing, I perish; neither do I know what to do.
Sed quia mente minus validus, quam corpore toto, Quae nocuere, sequar; fugiam, quae profore credam. HOR. Ep. lib. i. E. 8, ver. 7.
More in my mind than body lie my pains: Whate'er may hurt me, I with joy pursue; Whate'er may do me good, with horror view. Francis.
epei gar o amartanwn ou qelei amartanein, alla katorqwsai? dhlon oti, o men qelei, ou poiei, kai omh qelei, poiei. ARRIAN. Epist. ii. 26.
For, truly, he who sins does not will sin, but wishes to walk uprightly: yet it is manifest that what he wills he doth not; and what he wills not he doth.
-alla nikwmai kakoiv, kai manqanw men, oia tolmhsw kaka? qumov de kreisswn twn emwn bouleumatwn, osper megistwn aitov kakwn brotoiv.- EURIP. Med. v. 1077.- But I am overcome by sin, And I well understand the evil which I presume to commit.
Passion, however, is more powerful than my reason; Which is the cause of the greatest evils to mortal men.
Thus we find that enlightened heathens, both among the Greeks and Romans, had that same kind of religious experience which some suppose to be, not only the experience of St. Paul in his best state, but to be even the standard of Christian attainments! See more examples in Wetstein.
The whole spirit of the sentiment is well summed up and expressed by St. Chrysostom: otan tinov epiqumwmen, eite kwluwmeqa, airetai mallon thv epiqumiav h flox? If we lust after any thing which is afterwards prohibited, the flame of this desire burns the more fiercely.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 15. For that which I do, I allow not , etc..] The apostle having cleared the law from the charge of being the cause either of sin or death, and taken the blame to himself, proceeds to give an account of the struggle and combat he found in himself between the flesh and spirit; that which I do, I allow not. That which he did was evil, since he allowed not of it; but this is to be understood not of any notorious crime committed by him, and repeated again and again; nor of a sinful course of life, for before his conversion he was not a profane man, but externally moral; and after his conversion, had his conversation in the world by the grace of God in righteousness and holiness; a vicious course of life being contrary to the grace of God implanted in him, and the doctrines of grace professed by him; but of internal lusts, the workings of corruptions in his heart, and which are real actions of the mind, together with the various frailties and infirmities of life: when that apostle says that what he did, ginwskw , I know not: his meaning is, not that he was utterly ignorant of them, of their nature and operations; that he was insensible of their motions, and unconcerned about them; for his sense of them, and concern for them, are expressed by him in the strongest terms, I know, I find, I see, O wretched man, etc.. ( Romans 7:18,21,23,24); but either that the efforts and effects of sin in him were so sadden, and at an unawares, that he was sometimes overtaken and held captive, before he knew well where he was, or, what he was doing; or the sense is, that he had not a full knowledge of the evil of his heart, the corruptions of his nature, nor did he understand all his infirmities and the errors of his life; or else the meaning is, I own it not as right, but confess it to be wrong, I do not acknowledge these actions as the productions of the new man, they are alien to him, but as the deeds of the old man; or rather, I do not approve of them, I dislike, abhor, and detest them; I cannot excuse or palliate them, but must condemn them; so words of knowledge in the Hebrew language are expressive of love, liking, and approbation; (see Psalm 1:6 Hosea 8:4 Genesis 18:19); on which last text, I know him, says Jarchi, hbj wl , it is the language of love, or a phrase expressive of strong affection; and so here, I know not, I do not like, love, and approve of these things, or I do not allow of them, and indulge myself in them, I loathe them and myself for them; and is this talking like an unregenerate man? can it be thought that the apostle speaks of himself as unregenerate, or represents such a man? for what I would, that do I not ; what he desired and willed was good, though he did it not; and so the Vulgate Latin version reads, for not the good which I would, I do: and so the next clause, but the evil which I hate, I do: and what was that? he would have had his thoughts always employed about the best things; he would have had his affections continually and alone set on God, Christ, and the things of another world; he would he was desirous to keep the whole law of God, and do the whole will of God, and live without sin, and as the angels do in heaven: now such a will as this is never to be found in unregenerate persons; this is from God, and the power of his grace: when he says he did not what he willed, what he was desirous of, and bent upon, his sense is, not that he never did any good thing he willed; for he did many good things, as every good man does, but he did not always do the good he willed, and never perfectly, nor anything without grace and strength from Christ: he adds, but what I hate, that do I ; sin was what he hated; it being contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, to the good and righteous law of God, and was in itself, to his view, exceeding sinful: he hated vain thoughts, unclean desires, revengeful lusts, the secret motions of all sin in his heart, and the various evil actions of life; which can never be said of an unregenerate man; who loves sin, delights in iniquity, and takes pleasure in them that do it; and yet what the apostle hated he did; he wrought with his carnal I, his flesh, and through the power of it, and force of temptation, though not without reluctance, remorse, and repentance. The Karaite Jews, which were the better sort of them, say and hold some things, not much unlike to what is here delivered; though a man (say they f128 ) should transgress some of the commandments, or the commandments in part, Upjh dx l[ al hwat trwbgtl , through the strength of lust, and not on account of, or with pleasure not delight, he shall be one of those that shall enter into paradise.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 14-17 - Compared with the holy rule of conduct in the law of God, the apostl found himself so very far short of perfection, that he seemed to be carnal; like a man who is sold against his will to a hated master, from whom he cannot set himself at liberty. A real Christian unwillingl serves this hated master, yet cannot shake off the galling chain, til his powerful and gracious Friend above, rescues him. The remaining evi of his heart is a real and humbling hinderance to his serving God a angels do and the spirits of just made perfect. This strong languag was the result of St. Paul's great advance in holiness, and the dept of his self-abasement and hatred of sin. If we do not understand thi language, it is because we are so far beneath him in holiness knowledge of the spirituality of God's law, and the evil of our ow hearts, and hatred of moral evil. And many believers have adopted the apostle's language, showing that it is suitable to their deep feeling of abhorrence of sin, and self-abasement. The apostle enlarges on the conflict he daily maintained with the remainder of his origina depravity. He was frequently led into tempers, words, or actions, whic he did not approve or allow in his renewed judgement and affections. By distinguishing his real self, his spiritual part, from the self, or flesh, in which sin dwelt, and by observing that the evil actions wer done, not by him, but by sin dwelling in him, the apostle did not mea that men are not accountable for their sins, but he teaches the evil of their sins, by showing that they are all done against reason an conscience. Sin dwelling in a man, does not prove its ruling, or havin dominion over him. If a man dwells in a city, or in a country, still he may not rule there.
Greek Textus Receptus
ο 3739 R-ASN γαρ 1063 CONJ κατεργαζομαι 2716 5736 V-PNI-1S ου 3756 PRT-N γινωσκω 1097 5719 V-PAI-1S ου 3756 PRT-N γαρ 1063 CONJ ο 3739 R-ASN θελω 2309 5719 V-PAI-1S τουτο 5124 D-ASN πρασσω 4238 5719 V-PAI-1S αλλ 235 CONJ ο 3739 R-ASN μισω 3404 5719 V-PAI-1S τουτο 5124 D-ASN ποιω 4160 5719 V-PAI-1S
Vincent's NT Word Studies
15. I do (katergazomai). See on ver. 8. Accomplish, achieve. Here appropriately used of carrying out another's will. I do not perceive the outcome of my sinful life.I allow not (ou ginwskw). Allow is used by A.V. in the earlier English sense of approve. Compare Luke xi. 48; Rom. xiv. 22; 1 Thessalonians ii. 4. Shakespeare: "Thou shalt hold the opinion of Pythagoras as I will allow of thy wits" ("Twelfth Night," iv., 2). But the meaning of ginwskw is not approve, but recognize, come to know, perceive. Hence Rev., I know not. Paul says: "What I carry out I do not recognize in its true nature, as a slave who ignorantly performs his master's behest without knowing its tendency or result."
I would (qelw). See on Matt. i. 19. Rather desire than will in the sense of full determination, as is shown by I consent (ver. 16), and I delight in (ver. 22).
Do I not (prassw). See on John iii. 21. Rev., correctly, practice: the daily doing which issues in accomplishment (katergazomai).
Do I (poiw). See on John iii. 21. More nearly akin to katergazomai I accomplish, realize. "When I have acted (prassw) I find myself face to face with a result which my moral instinct condemns" (Godet). I do not practice what I would, and the outcome is what I hate.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
7:15 {I know not} (ou ginwskw). "I do not recognize" in its true nature. My spiritual perceptions are dulled, blinded by Sin (#2Co 4:4). The dual life pictured here by Paul finds an echo in us all, the struggle after the highest in us ("what I really wish," ho qelw, to practise it steadily, prassw) and the slipping into doing (poi") "what I really hate" (ho mis") and yet sometimes do. There is a deal of controversy as to whether Paul is describing his struggle with Sin before conversion or after it. The words "sold under Sin" in verse #14 seem to turn the scale for the pre-conversion period. "It is the unregenerate man's experience, surviving at least in memory into regenerate days, and read with regenerate eyes" (Denney).
