Roma 1:20

1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people ¹  are without excuse.

Roma 1:27

1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women ²  and were inflamed in their passions ³  for one another. Men ⁴  committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Roma 7:7

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I ⁵  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 ⁶  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” ⁷ 

Roma 7:23

7:23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.

Roma 8:26

8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, ⁸  but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings.

Roma 13:9

13:9 For the commandments, ⁹  “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” ¹⁰  (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹¹ 

Roma 16:25

16:25 ¹² Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that had been kept secret for long ages,

[1:20]  ¹ tn Grk “they”; the referent (people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:27]  ² tn Grk “likewise so also the males abandoning the natural function of the female.”

[1:27]  ³ tn Grk “burned with intense desire” (L&N 25.16).

[1:27]  ⁴ tn Grk “another, men committing…and receiving,” continuing the description of their deeds. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[7:7]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”

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

[8:26]  ⁸ tn Or “for we do not know what we ought to pray for.”

[13:9]  ⁹ tn Grk “For the…” (with the word “commandments” supplied for clarity). The Greek article (“the”) is used here as a substantiver to introduce the commands that are quoted from the second half of the Decalogue (ExSyn 238).

[13:9]  ¹⁰ sn A quotation from Exod 20:13-15, 17; Deut 5:17-19, 21.

[13:9]  ¹¹ sn A quotation from Lev 19:18.

[16:25]  ¹² tc There is a considerable degree of difference among the mss regarding the presence and position of the doxology of 16:25-27. Five situations present themselves from the ms tradition. The doxology is found in the ancient witnesses in three separate locations: (1) here after 16:23 (Ì⁶¹ א B C D 81 365 630 1739 2464 al co), (2) after 14:23 (Ψ 0209^vid Ï), or (3) after 15:33 (Ì⁴⁶). The situation is further complicated in that some of the mss have these verses in two places: (4) after 14:23 and after 16:23 (A P 33 104 2805 pc); or (5) after 14:23 and after 15:33 (1506). The uncertain position of the doxology might suggest that it was added by later scribes. But since the mss containing the doxology are so early and widespread, it almost certainly belongs in Romans; it is only a question of where. Further, the witnesses that omit the doxology are few: F G 629 Hier^mss. (And of these, G has a blank space of several lines large enough for the doxology to belong there.) Only two positions (after chapter 14 only and at the end of the letter only) deserve particular notice because the situation of the mss showing the doxology in two places dates back to the 5th century. Later copyists, faced with the doxology in two different places in the mss they knew, may have decided to copy the doxology in both places, since they were unwilling to consciously omit any text. Because the textual disruption of the doxology is so early, TCGNT 472 suggests two possibilities: either (1) that Paul may have sent two different copies of Romans – a copy lacking chapter 16 and a copy with the full text of the epistle as we now have it, or (2) Marcion or some of his followers circulated a shortened form of the epistle that lacked chapters 15 and 16. Those mss that lacked chapters 15-16 would naturally conclude with some kind of doxology after chapter 14. On the other hand, H. Gamble (The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [SD], 123-32) argues for the position of the doxology at 14:23, since to put the doxology at 16:25 would violate Paul’s normal pattern of a grace-benediction at the close of the letter. Gamble further argues for the inclusion of 16:24, since the mss that put the doxology after chapter 14 almost always present 16:24 as the letter’s closing, whereas most of the mss that put the doxology at its traditional position drop 16:24, perhaps because it would be redundant before 16:25-27. A decision is difficult, but the weight of external evidence, since it is both early and geographically widespread, suggests that the doxology belongs here after 16:23. For a full discussion, see TCGNT 470-73.