Romans 7: Slaves to Sin or Slaves to Righteousness? (2 of 7)

Analysis of Romans 7

Before embarking on an analysis of Romans 7, it would also be helpful for us to understand the cohesive structure and outline of chapters 5 and 6 that lead us up and into an understanding of chapter 7. At the end of chapter 5, Paul makes two comments with regards to the function of the Law that require further elaboration, and thus the reason for the subject matter in chapters 6 and 7 that is to follow. The first one is: “God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were” (v. 20, NLT); and, the second one is: “But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful grace became more abundant” (ibid). Paul realizes such statements can be misunderstood and twisted out of context to say something that he is not in any way affirming, so he begins to give a more detailed report and clarification with regards to these two statements, starting in chapters 6 through 7.

Romans 6 and 7 are simply two chapters structured around four questions with regards to these previous two statements, and followed by four answers beginning in Rom. 6:1 and 6:15, and then again in Rom. 7:7 and 7:13. Each round of questions with their accompanying answers follows closely along this pattern and subject matter. This is extremely important that we pay close attention to this. If not, one quickly loses sight of the purpose of these questions and why they were placed there to begin with (which were based upon the earlier statements by Paul in Romans 5), in order to focus on the purpose of the law in exposing the dreadful sin of the sinner, and not that of the saint. We need to remember this, and we need to remember it well!

In each round of questions, each misunderstanding about the purpose of the law is posed as a question. These, in turn, are followed by a strong denial; followed by a short, brief answer; and then again followed by a fuller treatment or explanation. So we have a question, followed by a strong denial, followed by a brief answer, followed by a fuller explanation. To compartmentalize and visualize this even further, we have: Question/Denial/Short Answer/Fuller Explanation. So let's get started.

1. The First Question: Rom. 6:1, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (v. 2). The brief answer: “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 3-14.

2. The Second Question: Rom. 6:15, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (ibid). The brief answer: “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (v. 16). Fuller explanation: Verses 17-23; 7:1-6.

3. The Third Question: Rom. 7:7, “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin?” The strong denial: “Certainly not!” (ibid). The brief answer: “Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet’” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 8-12.

4. The Fourth Question: Rom. 7:13, “Did that which is good, then, become death to me?” The strong denial is: “By no means!” (ibid). The brief answer: “But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful” (ibid). Fuller explanation: Verses 14-25.

One should be aware also of how verses 7 and 13 begin in the Greek text with the conjunction, “oun” (“therefore”, NAS in v. 13)—not apparent in most translations—showing that they all flow from a continuation of one connecting thought stemming from Rom. 7:5-6 (esp. v. 5; cp. 6:1 w/ 5:20-21 for a similar pattern [1]), and even from as far back as the first of the two statements mentioned earlier which began this whole discussion by Paul in Rom. 5:20 in the first place. Notice also how verse 13, in turn, is similarly followed in verse 14 with the Greek conjunction “gar” (“for”), and used twice in verse 15, which again connect and continue the same leading thought. And as will be noted later in this article, these little conjunctions are also very significant, because Paul is STILL addressing the same theme: which is the intent and purpose of the law prior to one being saved.

Many (such as John MacArthur) attempt to separate verses 7-13 from verses 14-25, stating that verses 7-13 have to do with the life of the unregenerate, while verses 14-25 have to do with the regenerate. But these connecting conjunctions of “therefore” and “for” will not allow for such a separation of thought.

Some (as Charles Hodge), on the other hand, do see the "connecting" thought between verses 13 and 14, and then say that verses 7-25 are all referring to the regenerate Christian. But they as well have failed to see the connection of the Greek “oun” (or, “therefore”) in verse 7, that takes us back even further to the thought in verse 5 which provoked all the questions and answers starting in verses 7 and 13 to begin with. Clearly, Paul’s theme here is about the purpose and the nature of the law prior to one being saved, verse 5 being the springboard from which this question and answer format has continued throughout chapter 7.

So, we can see that this is the setting in which verses 14-25 in chapter 7 are to be framed in. Verses 14-25 do not begin an entirely new theme, as some suppose, but just the opposite. They continue exactly upon the same theme that Paul started with, in elaborating on the law’s function in showing one to be a dreadful sinner that they are and the need for a Deliverer.

It is worth repeating: The controlling statement that ties all of verses 7-25 together in one cohesive pattern, is verse 5: “For when we WERE controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.” This, in turn, is immediately followed by the third and fourth questions which give rise to this statement. Paul thus begins to explain his statement that he had just made in verse 5, by referencing his own personal experience prior to conversion in verses 7-25. And as Charles Leiter notes in his book Justification and Regeneration, “Notice that the transition to the present tense takes place quite naturally since Paul could hardly say, ‘We know that the Law was spiritual’” (p. 151). The subject at hand is not the continual sinning of the saint, but that of the carnal, unregenerate sinner, sold as a slave to sin, and the entailing freedom of such a one “under the law” that can only be experienced in Christ! The man referred to in Romans 7 is not just fighting against sin, he is utterly overcome by it!

As we can very well see, Romans 7 is a crucial chapter as we consider how one views the walk of the normal Christian life. Many in quoting verses 14-25 believe that the apostle Paul was, as a mature believer, still “carnal, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14). So it would follow that if Paul as an apostle had found himself unable to do good and capable only of continually doing evil, as we have already shown that he affirmed of himself in this chapter in verses 15-19, certainly we ourselves should not expect to live any better! The question before us then remains: Is this evaluation of Paul, as a believer, true? Or, was Paul, by using his own life as an example prior to being saved, getting at the heart of the life of one who was still under the dominion and power of sin, and not led by the Spirit of God at all? In chapter eight, verse four, Paul speaks of “the righteous requirements of the law being fully met within us.” Yet in chapter seven, it is just the opposite: He says, “I am carnal, sold as a slave under sin” (v. 14) and “I keep on doing” evil (v. 19). So what gives?

I believe that it is undeniably clear that Paul was not admitting to moral lapses into sin and depravity in his Christian walk and life, but just the opposite was true of Paul. Just the opposite was the case in his life and in all his letters (see esp. 1Ths. 2:10). So, in what lies ahead, I will now begin to show what I believe is how we are to personally view verses 14-24. Then, by primarily using the context, even before and after Romans chapter 7, I will attempt to demonstrate the unwarranted fallacy that Paul was a “slave to sin.” But, before I do, the first question that has to be answered for clarity is: What is the sinful nature?

The Sinful Nature

The Greek word “sarx” in the KJV is usually translated “flesh,” whereas in the NIV it is often translated “the sinful nature,” but this isn’t necessarily always the meaning of the word, and the older 1984 NIV takes more liberties in translating it this way than it really should. The Greek sarx is actually used in a variety of ways in the NT. But for our study here, it is sometimes used in an ethical/moral sense with regards to a sinful nature, as in Rom. 7-8 and Gal. 5:16-24; and sometimes it is used just with regards to the lust of our physical fleshly bodies, as in Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:13; 1Pet. 4:2; 2Pet. 2:18; 1Jhn. 2:16 and Jude 23. The context, and who it is that is being addressed, often determines its meaning and usage and is often up for debate, especially with regards to Gal. 5:16-24, as you will soon discover later in this article. On a practical outward level though, it refers to one’s natural carnal desires, passions, and appetites. And people are either controlled (via a sinful nature) by their physical carnal natural desires, passions, and appetites; or they are controlled by the Spirit to suppress such physical carnal desires, passions, and appetites.

As such, the flesh (or a sinful nature or the old man) no longer dominates the Christian; for such a nature or "old man" is no longer existent in the believer, for it was put off and away from us (or crucified) in the person and work of Christ on the cross (see: Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24 in the Holman Christian Standard Bible or the Kenneth Wuest Expanded Translation; see also my article: Created In God's Image, Not Adam's!). I know that's a bold statement. A shocking statement for some! And I know I had previously said that some of this was going to sound like it was a little bit "over the top," but please bear with me as we study this subject in more detail. And be sure to read my article, noted above, before passing judgment. In short, Paul is clear in Rom. 6:6 that our "old man" (or sinful nature) has been, past tense, once-and-for-all crucified (or violently put to death) in our spiritual baptism into Christ's death, with the resulting resurrection of the new man, as also laid out for us in Colossians and Ephesians. I'm not saying this, Paul is. But many just refuse to take Paul at his word and attempt to re-define what he means by being crucified, as if it is a long drawn-out process. In the context of Romans 6, it denotes our violent once-and-for-all death to our old man in Christ's violent once-and-for-all death to the old man when He took our sin upon Himself and "became sin," according to 2Cor. 5:21, and even "flesh of sin" (or flesh with sin in it) in Rom. 8:3, and then crucified us and the sin in us in His person. Not a realm or regime---but a person! Christ crucified a man! The man (or person) we use to be in Adam with a nature born and prone to sin (see also my article: Christ Our Substitute and Identification, along with the footnotes).

According to Paul in Romans 8:5, there are only two contrary and possible mind sets: The mind which is set on the flesh (or the sinful nature), eagerly pleasing its desires; or the mind which is set on the Spirit with a heart entirely devoted to loving God. Which brings me to another point to be understood before moving on. Romans 6-8 speaks of only two groups of people, not three. One group is entirely “fleshly” and, according to the Greek, is passively sold as a slave to sin through the sin of Adam in Rom. 5:12-14 and 7:14; the other group is entirely of the Spirit and, also according to the Greek, is passively bought through the righteousness of Christ from the slave market of slavery to sin, in order to become God’s slave as a slave unto righteousness and holiness in Rom. 6:18, 22 and 1Cor. 6:20 and 7:23. In other words, the conflict being presented by Paul here in these chapters is that of the unregenerate lifestyle as opposed to the regenerate one. Paul is not adding a third lifestyle of a carnal, sinning Christian. Being in and ruled as a slave by “the flesh” means to be unregenerate; to be in and ruled as a slave by “the Spirit” means to be regenerate. It’s that simple!

Since the fall of Adam, people in their carnal, natural, and fleshly state relentlessly tend toward selfishness. Their minds are “set on” the flesh (or the sinful nature). The unregenerate individual is devoted to, controlled, and dominated by their flesh or the sinful nature. Their “flesh” or “sinful nature” can get excited to sin by virtually anything that is set before them; including, but not limited to: food, cars, clothing, and people, etc. Additionally, a person can desire power, attention, money, or even revenge; feelings of jealousy can incite slander; and feelings of rage can vent abuse, and so on and so forth.

Some people are so bent on satisfying their own desires that they will even behave in a charitable manner in order to deceitfully gain an entrance into one’s life. One such example is seen in the case when a man tells a woman that he loves her, not because he truly loves here, but because he merely wants her for ulterior and selfish reasons.

Desire

God created us with desires. But the person who makes their desires into a god, and serves them, has become entirely self-centered. It is only a matter of time before they reap the consequences of such self-centeredness. Deliberate selfishness is what the world practices, and its consequences are what they experience in life as a result. Such uncontrolled passions and desires can only lend themselves to a continual lack in one’s own personal life. How many of us have given ourselves completely over to our own fleshly desires, only to still be unsatisfied? “Look out for number one,” and “If it feels good, do it” are the common thought processes of the sinful, unregenerate person. Such people follow their feelings with no regard for objective truth; with no distinction for what is right verses what is wrong. Understanding just such a person controlled by the flesh is key to understanding the type of person Paul is describing in Romans 7. A person in such a state, according to Paul, just “keeps on doing” evil (v. 19, NIV; "practices" in NASB). And contrary to the individuals spoken of in Romans 8, the “righteous requirements of the law” (v. 4) are not “fully met” in such an individual being portrayed in Romans 7, as they are now in those of us who are saved.

Context, Context, Context!

To understand verses 14-25 in Romans 7, we need to understand the concepts which Paul is expressing in context. In verses 4-6, we have a summary of this entire section in a nutshell. This is the context in which verses 7-25 are to be framed, as well as chapter 8:

4 So my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code.

That’s it in a nutshell! In v. 5, Paul explained how the law effects a carnal and unregenerate person. The carnal, unregenerate person is controlled by the flesh (or the sinful nature), and his passions are only incited all the more by the demands or “arousals” of the law to live a more holy life—similar to what was described by Horace and Ovid earlier. In v. 6, Paul contrasts this with a life which is in Christ: “by dying to what once bound us…we serve in the new way of Spirit.” And in verses 7-12, he answers two objections regarding the goodness of the law, and explains further about the relationship between the holy law of God and the carnal, unregenerate person: “When the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died” (v. 9).

A handful of commentators (such as John MacArthur) have understood this when it comes to verses 7-13, but when they get to verses 14 through 25, the story changes for them. And it all pretty much centers around Paul’s usage of the present tense, personal pronoun “I” in these verses, as opposed to him saying “we” in the earlier verses. Remarkable when you think about it, that a “pronoun” can make all the difference in the world as to one’s interpretation of these passages. But when this pronoun is understood of Paul using his own personal experiences of one who use to live “under the law,” then such an idea really becomes a moot point. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Romans 7, describes this personal pronoun used here by Paul as, “dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the giving offense to the Jews: and this is particularly evident in his use of the word 'I' in this place. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he says YE; in the 4th verse he joins himself with them, and says WE; but here, and so to the end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin and the inability of the law to subdue it, he appears to leave them out, and speaks altogether in the first person, though it is plain he means all those who are under the law.” Again, it is all those "who are under the law"! Paul was addressing his Jewish brethren in the faith who use to be under the Law (and not Gentile believers), by the fact that he starts out this chapter by saying, “I am speaking to men who know the Law” (Rom. 7:1). And this is buttressed by the fact that he later says: “we know that the Law is spiritual” or “I had not known coveting, except the Law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (vv. 7, 14). For the most part, Gentiles knew nothing of any “spiritual” laws or any law against coveting. These words are for Jews alone. Never once does Paul have any and all laws in mind in verse one, both secular and Jewish, in order to make his statements applicable to both Gentile and Jewish Christians. This alone is very telling indeed of who this exhortation in chapter 7 is actually addressed to. And the omission of the definite article “the” in the Greek in verse one before the word “law” was something that Paul often employed throughout the book of Romans with regards to God’s Law. Just earlier he told the Jews that they were not “under law, but under grace” without using the definite article “the” in the Greek (6:14). Which “law” were the Jews no longer under? Why, the Law of Moses, of course! Gentiles were never “under” this law. Again, this exhortation was to the Jews who were familiar with the Law, and to none other.

Clearly, Paul is appealing to his, as well as to his Jewish Christian brethren’s historical past, by bringing to the remembrance of those “who know the law” and who were once “under the law,” but now under grace (vv. 5-6; cp. 6:14) in order to remind them of the Law’s function in exposing their sin (and not the Gentile’s sin). In light of this, Paul was tactfully and respectfully using what is commonly understood in all languages as the “historic” (or ‘dramatical’ or ‘narrative’) present tense verb ("I am") as one who personally understood what he was talking about and, in all honesty, making it very real and personable with regards to both himself and his Jewish brethren. And he just got through using it in Rom. 3:7, so his readers were already prepared for his usage of it again here in Romans 7. So, if anyone knew the affects of the Law upon the unregenerate Jew and sinner, it was Paul; and he expresses this in no uncertain terms with the Law against coveting in Rom. 7:7ff.

In general, it is commonly understood that the “historic present tense” in a statement starts to express itself in the past tense to establish its foundation, or as a springboard for what is about to be said, as here in the case of Rom. 7:1-5. Once this is established, the writer then uses the historical present tense to create a more vivid, real and personable description of the event. This mode of speech, relating a past incident by using present tense verbs, makes the narrative more vivid and real by transporting the listener or reader back to the time of when they were acting as such, and thus recalling it to their minds as if it were actually happening in the present. Or, it could also be said that the incident being described is transported to the actual time of the narration or writing. By this means, the speaker (or writer) recreates the incident as if it were happening at that moment. He puts the scene before himself and his audience so that they can personally imagine the events unfolding before their eyes. They begin to imagine themselves as being in the midst of the time of the action. Like I said, Paul just got through using it this way in Rom. 3:7, and CLEARY not referring to himself as STILL being judged as a sinner. Many commentators make note of this fact here in Rom. 3:7 (such as Matthew Poole, Charles Hodge, and John Stott), but deny it in Romans 7.

Another example of all of this can be seen in Romans 7:9-11, where Paul says, “For I was alive without the law once [past tense]: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me…” Once establishing this pretext for what Paul is about to say, he then proceeds to write using the historic present tense to give his readers a more vivid picture of the torment in the life of an actual hypocrite that both he and they were when under the Law. And what better person to relate to the Jews in all of this, than Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees?

In literature there are times when the historic present tense is used where English also uses a past tense verb. In the New American Standard Bible, historical present tense verbs are marked with an asterisk (*). The editors explain:

In some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence. [The translators] felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents into English past tenses. (New American Standard Bible, Reference Edition. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1973, p. x.).

Whether or not to change to the past tense is up to the individual translators. Based upon current English language being used, the translators decide whether or not to change the verb tenses. An example from the New Testament where one group (NASB) decided to change it, and another group (NIV) decided not to change it, is in John 1:15. The NASB renders the verse as: “John bore witness of Him, and cried out,…” whereas the NIV translates it: “John testifies concerning him. He cries out,…” As one can clearly see, the NASB chose to change the historical present to past tense, and the NIV chose to leave it in the present tense. Notice also that John the Baptist was not presently testifying when the apostle John wrote his gospel. It was a past event, yet St. John wrote this in the present tense as if John was still “testifying” as of John’s writing. Maybe St. John believed that in a sense John the Baptist’s voice was still speaking, similar to that of Abel’s life being a testimony that “still speaks” (Heb. 11:4). I don’t know. But what we do know is that this form of writing is replete throughout the gospels, so not every case can be explained away as easily as this one might be. And this is probably not even how we are to explain this text away either. But, anyway, there you have it! The cold, hard facts are there staring at us right in the face: “John testifies” (present tense). In such a shocking illustration the historical present now makes all the more sense as being translated as a "past tense" by the NASB. So why treat Paul in Romans any differently? Is it because his voice is not in the third person? Come on! Is this what we have reduced deducing correct doctrine to? The absence of a third person voice?

It has been estimated that there are over 400 historic present tense verbs used in the gospels and in the book of Acts alone, all most notably in the third person, whereas here in Romans 7 Paul speaks in the first person. But, again, I believe that by doing this Paul just brings home that which was very real both to himself and to his readers. And keep in mind the fact also noted earlier that for Paul to say that the Law “was” spiritual just wouldn’t make any sense. The Law “is” (presently) spiritual; always has been and always will be! So by this admission alone Paul could not have spoken in the past tense even if he wanted to. And for him to argue that the Law “is” (present tense) spiritual but that he “was” (past tense) carnal, would not only make for bad grammar, but would also make it sound like his carnal condition preceded the spirituality of the Law, when just the opposite is true! God’s spiritual Law or Word was around long before the carnality of man ever came into being.

Now, first-person singular historic presents are not without precedent or support. Twentieth-century philosopher and grammarian John Langshaw Austin, with no bone to pick concerning Romans 7, in his book How To Do Things With Words, says: “The first person singular present indicative active [our usage in Romans 7] may be used in a way similar to the ‘historic’ present. It may be used to describe my own performances elsewhere or elsewhen” (p. 64).

Ted Hildebrandt, in his Greek text book, Mastering New Testament Greek, adds: “Greek will often use the present tense to reference an event that actually happened in the past. The historical present is used to add vividness or dramatic effect to the narrative…It often occurs in narrative in the third person” (pp. 31, 204). He then gives the present active indicative paradigm in the first, second, and third person singular/plural.

Another author online, adept in the Greek, noted with regards to the historical present: “The purpose is to lend a sense of immediacy to the narrative. Sometimes if you’re telling about something you’ve experienced, you’ll use the present tense, like it is happening while you are telling it, to put the hearer right in the situation” (http://kcusers.com/faithassembly/GreekFiles/Lessons/ Greek102-51.pdf).

In The Intelligent Persons Guide to Greek, William Harris writes: “The Greek Present has a great deal of flexibility, it can be used as a Historical Present….Present is just like the conventional English present schoolbook notion. In the following paradigm, the singular and plural will be given on the same line…” (http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekGrammar.html). Harris then gives the paradigm in first-person singular/plural; second-person singular/plural; and third person singular/plural.

Just the fact that such a possibility exists in a narrative for the presence of a historic present in the first-person, singular, present active indicative should give us cause to pause with concern before denying that Paul himself could have ever spoken in such a manner. In fact, in Phil. 3:3-6, Robert Gundry sees just such a usage by Paul which we will come back to in a little while. And I believe that just such a usage is evident again when Paul recalls his former life as a “chief sinner” in 1Tim. 1:15. I will address this incident along with Gundry’s when we wrap all this up towards the end. And it should not go without saying again here that Paul used this historic present tense in the first person, present active indicative, in Rom. 3:7. Once again he is talking to the Jews here, and says, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Paul was no longer being “condemned as a sinner”; yet for dramatization he puts himself in the position of his Jewish brethren according to the flesh who would argue as such against what Paul was teaching them. And even though Matthew Poole does not acknowledge this usage of the historic present by Paul in Romans 7, he takes note of this usage by Paul in Rom. 3:7. He writes: “The apostle does plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent amongst all authors” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: MA, 2008; vol. 3, p. 487). Many more commentators (such as Charles Hodge and John Stott, to name just a couple) agree with Matthew Poole's analysis here.

Now, to reason otherwise, as I have laid out with regards to all of this, Paul would be affirming that as a believer he is still “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (v. 14), and even affirming “I do not do” (v. 15), or “I do what I do not want to do” (v. 16), I “cannot carry out” (v. 18), and I “keep on doing” the “evil that I do not want to do” (v. 19b). And with verses 15, 16 and 19 all being present active indicatives, they mean just how the NIV translates them: “I KEEP ON doing.” Paul continually keeps on doing (or "practicing," NASB) that which is evil. Does this sound like the apostle Paul as a believer who said elsewhere: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how HOLY, RIGHTEOUS and BLAMELESS we were among you who believed” (1Ths. 2:10)? Not on your life! If you believe that Paul as a believer kept on doing (or better, "practicing") the evil that he didn’t want to do, then, seriously, you have a screw missing in your head! You are not in the light; you are in darkness. And such a deception has blinded you with regards to what is truth.

The problem of inadvertently missing the historical present tense in Romans 7 is an important one to take note of, because accurately translating the verbs here are important for right thinking with regards to our obedience and, with regards to our sanctification before God. The question may arise concerning the extended and continuous usage of the historical present by Paul in Romans 7; and accepting for the fact that no historical presents are used in the writings of the poet and Greek philosopher Homer, there seems to be no limits on its usage elsewhere in other Greek literature of the day, as delineated earlier by those mentioned on the internet. In fact, the reality seems to be that the historical present tense is often used with no restrictions at all with regards to first, second, and third person usage. So this would, of necessity, surely include an extended use of it as such in the first person to be found in Romans 7; and in "the present active indicative" at that, as noted by Langshaw above!

Please click here for part three.



Footnotes:

[1] Regarding Rom. 5:2-21 with 6:1, Kenneth Wuest writes: “So Paul proposes the question, ‘What shall we say then?’—say then to what? We go back to 5:20 [not 5:21] for our answer…” (Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, Romans. Vol. 1, p. 90).