Romans 2:20

2:20 an educator of the senseless, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth –

Romans 2:29

2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart ¹  by the Spirit ²  and not by the written code. ³  This person’s ⁴  praise is not from people but from God.

Romans 7:6-8

7:6 But now we have been released from the law, because we have died ⁵  to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. ⁶ 

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I ⁷  would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else ⁸  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” ⁹  7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. ¹⁰  For apart from the law, sin is dead.

Romans 7:2

7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her ¹¹  husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage. ¹² 

Colossians 3:6

3:6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience. ¹³ 

[2:29]  ¹ sn On circumcision is of the heart see Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:9.

[2:29]  ² tn Some have taken the phrase ἐν πνεύματι (en pneumati, “by/in [the] S/spirit”) not as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but referring to circumcision as “spiritual and not literal” (RSV).

[2:29]  ³ tn Grk “letter.”

[2:29]  ⁴ tn Grk “whose.” The relative pronoun has been replaced by the phrase “this person’s” and, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started in the translation.

[7:6]  ⁵ tn Grk “having died.” The participle ἀποθανόντες (apoqanonte") has been translated as a causal adverbial participle.

[7:6]  ⁶ tn Grk “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”

[7:7]  ⁷ sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

[7:7]  ⁸ tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”

[7:7]  ⁹ sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.

[7:8]  ¹⁰ tn Or “covetousness.”

[7:2]  ¹¹ tn Grk “the,” with the article used as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[7:2]  ¹² tn Grk “husband.”

[3:6]  ¹³ tc The words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (epi tou" Juiou" th" apeiqeia", “on the sons of disobedience”) are lacking in Ì⁴⁶ B b sa, but are found in א A C D F G H I Ψ 075 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy bo. The words are omitted by several English translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV). This textual problem is quite difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the parallel account in Eph 5:6 has these words, thus providing scribes a motive for adding them here. On the other hand, the reading without the words may be too hard: The ἐν οἷς (en |oi") of v. 7 seems to have no antecedent without υἱούς already in the text, although it could possibly be construed as neuter referring to the vice list in v. 5. Further, although the witness of B is especially important, there are other places in which B and Ì⁴⁶ share errant readings of omission. Nevertheless, the strength of the internal evidence against the longer reading is at least sufficient to cause doubt here. The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.