Thesis: This paper contends that Romans 7:14–25 preserves a pre-Pauline liturgical lament which Paul strategically reframes in 16-17, 20-23, 25b to correct its misuse by affirming the law’s proper place and redirecting the antinomian faction in Rome’s church to recognize sin’s dominion rather than blaming sin on the flesh.
Abstract: I argue that this chiastic lament—enslavement (14), dissonance (15a), failure (15b), incapacity (18a), inability (19), struggle (18b), deliverance (24–25a)—originates in Jewish traditions like the Qumran Hodayot (e.g., 1QH^a 4:29), evidenced by its poetic orality, and transmission through Paul’s Roman network (Rom 16). In Rome’s church, antinomians misread 7:18a’s “no good in flesh” as dualistic fatalism, thus excusing laxity. The nomists defended law-based ethics, thus deepening divides (Rom 14–15). Paul’s corrective exposition affirms law’s goodness (7:16) and blames sin, not flesh (7:20), uniting factions under a shared hope (15:5–6). Engaging Meyer’s “dust anthropology” (2016) and Newsom’s agency focus (2021), I show the lament’s Second Temple roots, while Johansen’s confessional hyperbole (2016) and Longenecker’s liturgical criteria underpin its pre-Pauline status. Keener (2022) and Vasser (2024) illuminate Paul’s rhetorical strategy, framing his pastoral intent. Challenging linear readings of Romans 6 to 8 (e.g., Moo, Wright), I propose 7:14–25 as a sin confession, not a rhetorical device. This study contributes to Pauline scholarship by reimagining 7:14–25 as a communal artifact, revealing Paul’s genius in healing division and redirecting worship toward Spirit-empowered ethics.
Contribution: This paper uncovers Romans 7:14–25 as a pre-Pauline liturgical lament that Paul reshapes to address factional tensions in Rome between nomists and antinomians, a dynamic rooted in the epistle’s broader call for unity (Rom 14–15). It integrates exegetical analysis of the text’s chiastic structure, parallels with Second Temple Jewish traditions like the Qumran Hodayot, and shows a pastoral theology that bridges law, sin, and Spirit—engaging core interests of the field in textual criticism, historical context, and Paul’s practical ministry strategies.
Argumentation Overview:
1. Lament’s Origins: 7:14–25’s chiasm reflects Hodayot-style lament, pre-dating Paul.
2. Artifact Evidence: Poetic form, Qumran parallels, and Rom 16 ties confirm its status.
3. Misuse in Rome: Antinomians’ dualism vs. nomists’ legalism fueled division.
4. Paul’s Reframing: Corrects theology, unites via Spirit.