Ver. 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 τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν see oni. 12. ἐν ἐμοὶ = ἐν τῇ σαρκί µου = 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. τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί pou: θέλειν 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.
Ver. 19. In this verse there is a re- petition of verse 15, but what was there an abstract contrast between inclination and action is here sharpened into the moral contrast between good inclination and bad action.
Ver. 20. The same conclusion as in ver. 17. If the first ἐγὼ is right, it must go with ot θέλω: Paul distinguishes himself sharply, as a person whose in- clination is violated by his actions, from the indwelling sin which is really respon- sible for them.
Vers. 21-23 summarise the argument. εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν vopov ... ὅτι : most commentators hold that the clause in- troduced by ὅτι is the explanation of τὸν νόµον. The law, in short, which Paul has discovered by experience, is the constant fact that when his inclina- tion is to do good, evil is present with him. This sense of law approximates
very closely to the modern sense which the word bears in physical science—so closely that its very modernness may be made an objection to it. Possibly Paul meant, in using the word, to con- vey at the same time the idea of an outward compulsion put on him by sin, which expressed itself in this constant incapacity to do the good he inclined to—authority or constraint as well as normality being included in his idea of the word. But 6 νόμος in Paul always seems to have much more definitely the suggestion of something with legislative authority: it is questionable whether the first meaning given above would have occurred, or would have seemed natural, except to a reader familiar with the phraseology of modern science. Besides, the subject of the whole paragraph is the relation of “ the law’ to sin, and the form of the sentence is quite analogous to that of ver. 10, in which a preliminary conclusion has been come to on the question. Hence I agree with those who make τὸν νόµον the Mosaic law. The construction is not intolerable, if we observe that εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόµον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ κ.τ.λ. is equivalent to εὑρίσκεται dpa ὁ νόμος τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ κ.τ.λ. “This is what I find the law— or life under the law—to come to in experience : when I wish to do good, evil is present with me.” This is the answer he has already given in ver. 7 to the question, Is the law sin? No, it is not sin, but nevertheless sin is most closely connected with it. The repeated ἐμοί has something tragic in it: me, who am so anxious to do otherwise.
Ver. 22f. Further explanation: the
18—25,