Good morning, Bereans. For our study this morning, we are going to look at what Paul has to say in Romans 7. Getting a proper translation of this text is fairly easy, but getting a proper interpretation of it is not. As I'm sure you understand, a proper interpretation of Scripture is critical. We cannot live out how Yahweh tells us if we don't understand what He is saying.
In our last study of 1 Peter, we looked at God's call for us to be holy because he is holy. Someone may respond to that call to holiness with:
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Romans 7:24 ESV
Some interpret this as Paul's saying, "I'm a wretched man, so how can I live holy?"
Notice what Paul wrote a few verses earlier.
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Romans 7:19 ESV
Does this sound like your experience? We come to church, we hear the Word of God, we worship God, we go home, we read our Bibles, we do ministry, and we feel like we're on top, and then we find ourselves saying things or doing things or thinking things that plunge us into despair.
We say, "I will," and then we don't. We say, "I won't," and then we do. We make a promise, and then we break it. We get on our knees and say, "Oh, God, I'll never do that again." And then the next day, we do it again. That is the truly human experience for all of us.
At the end of March, on a Burros of Berea Podcast (Episode 180), the guest, Kelly Cory, said: "The more I read and the more I am educated by God through his Word I feel like I fail more." He continued by saying, "In Romans 7, Paul is describing a war within himself." That's a typical view. And Cory implies that this is what it's always going to be like. Near the end of the show, he stated: "I don't believe that in this flesh we can ever stop sinning." He sees the flesh as the body which he calls a "meat sack." I got the impression that He was using Romans 7 to justify sinful actions.
This past week, the Burros posted an updated testimony of Kelly in which he admitted that his biggest problem was that he was constantly complaining. When he realized how much God hated complaining, it made a huge change in his life.
Do Christians have this type of struggle that we see in Romans 7? Sure, they do. Does this mean that this passage is talking about the Christian experience? No, it does not!
This text has been a battleground for interpreters, theologians, and expositors of Scripture. Who is the "I" in this text? The identity of the "I" in verses 7-25 has generated much controversy. There are three main views on this. One view is that the "I" is autobiographical, denoting the experience of Paul. This is by far the predominant view.
Two questions arise from this view: (1) Is this the experience of Paul, the believer, or (2) Is this the experience of Paul, the unbeliever? In other words, is this the condition of the Christian Paul or the non-Christian Paul?
Those who claim that Romans 7 reflects Paul's life before Christ when he had some regard for the Law of God but couldn't fulfill it. They contend that Paul's words cannot pertain to the Christian Paul because there's too much bondage to sin here for this to be the testimony of a Christian. I agree with that.
Does what we see in Romans 7:13-25 fit with what we know about Paul before his conversion? No, it does not.
though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Philippians 3:4-6 ESV
A very important interpretive principle here is understanding that Paul uses "flesh" here for the Old Covenant. Paul viewed his life under the Law as blameless. So, what we see in our text can't be Paul before his conversion.
Others contend that Romans 7 depicts the experience of Paul as a Christian. This is by far the majority view. Those who hold this view say that there's too much desire for obedience here for this to be the testimony of a non-Christian. This view is divided between those who say that this is Paul as a mature Christian, and those who say that this is Paul as a carnal Christian. Let’s consider each:
Paul as a Mature Christian
Ray Prichard writes: "Romans 7 is describing the mature Christian life as it is actually experienced much of the time by the people of God. I think that what you have in Romans 7 is Paul's spiritual autobiography of his experience as a follower of Jesus Christ."
MacArthur writes: "No, the only way to understand this is that this is a believer, this is every believer, this is every believer who is truly regenerated, who feels the agony of the struggle. And, in fact, this is Paul, who when he wrote this was mature. He is in Christ, strong in the faith and never got over his sinfulness. This is a very mature Christian."
Paul as a Carnal Christian
Some have tried another explanation to avoid admitting that Paul, as a mature Christian, could have such spiritual struggles with sin. They acknowledge that Paul is a believer here, but a carnal one. This was Paul in his early days as a Christian. They would say that every Christian must pass through Romans 7 in order to reach the victory of chapter 8.
The main view, then, is that the "I" in Romans 7 is autobiographical, and Paul is talking about his own experience.
A second view is that the "I" refers to Adam's experience with God's commandment in the Garden of Eden. Kasemann writes: "There is nothing in the passage which does not fit Adam, and everything fits Adam alone." We'll look at how this view fits or doesn't fit as we deal with these verses.
A third view is that the "I" refers to Israel's reception of The Law at Sinai, their transgression, and their subsequent death. This explanation would account for the historical narrative and progression found in verses 8-10.
I see Paul here as not talking about himself; this is not autobiographical. Paul uses "I" as a rhetorical device, personifying both Adam and Israel. So, I think a combination of the second and third views best fits the text.
N.T. Wright says: "Paul's point is precisely that what happened on Sinai recapitulated what happened in Eden…What he has done here is to tell the one story, that of Israel, that echoes of the other, that of Adam."
In the rhetorical letter-writing skill in the first century it was common practice to "put on a character," so to speak, especially a character renowned in biblical history. It is a fact, too, that Jews relived the Passover account in the first-person, even if they didn't experience it themselves, all in the effort to identify with their people. They would say things like: "I was held in Egyptian slavery. God delivered me through His servant Moses." In other words, speaking in the first-person could be a way of creating solidarity with others by taking on a character. Paul is telling here the story of Israel in the first- person singular. He is identifying himself with his people Israel, so he cannot be accused of being anti-Semitic.
So, Paul uses "I," not to speak of himself, but as a rhetorical device, personifying both Adam and Israel. To help you see this, look at what Paul says:
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Romans 7:9 ESV
Could Paul be saying this of himself? When was Paul alive apart from the Law? Was Paul ever not under the Law? No! This can only be true of one person—Adam. We know from 5:12 that all men are born dead in Adam. No one since Adam was alive in the theological sense. How is Paul using alive and died? It seems to me that we need to keep this verse in its larger context in Romans 5.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12 ESV
The death here is the same death as we see in our text. Adam was alive—he was in fellowship with God. When he sinned, he died—he lost fellowship with God. He died spiritually.
Paul, as Adam, remembers the start of the story, before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had been mentioned. As soon as the command was given, temptation presented itself and lured him to disobey the command of God and he died.
MacArthur, because of his view that Paul is talking about himself in Romans 7:9, says this: "True believers, even though they are new creations, and because they are new creations have a built-in nature that despises remaining sin. And no matter how they would want to feel good about their spiritual progress, they continually feel like disappointments to God, hating the flesh that clings to that glorious new creation."
If that isn't a sad statement, I don't know what is. What kind of a relationship can we have with God when we "continually feel like disappointments to God?" I am not a disappointment to God; I am in union with His Son, I am righteous, holy, I have perfectly obeyed The Law in Christ. Believers are not disappointments to God. We are His holy children! I hope you can see from this that that misinterpretation leads to bad theology.
So, if we are going to understand this text, we must understand that Paul is using a rhetorical device, personifying both Adam and Israel. This is critical to a correct interpretation. Something else that is very important to our understanding of this text is that Paul's argument is typically Semitic. Conceptually, he thinks in corporate terms. We run into problems when we read this text as though it applies individually instead of corporately.
The importance of community in Ancient Near East thought and life and a corporate understanding of the nature of humanity provides an important perspective on the interpretation of the text.
An individualistic reading of Paul has long been the overwhelmingly dominant approach. The recent work of E. P. Sanders, however, helped to usher in a far greater appreciation of the concept of covenant in Paul's thought. This resulted in a far greater emphasis on corporate over against individual concerns, particularly concerning the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. Currently, the corporate perspective is widely accepted and may even be called the firm consensus among New Testament scholars.
We must recognize that Paul's thought was thoroughly covenantal and focused on the fulfillment of the covenant purposes of God in Christ and their consequences for Jews and Gentiles. Second, for Paul, and virtually for all Jews (and non-Jews in Mediterranean and Hellenistic culture) of his time, the group was primary and the individual secondary. This is an essential point to grasp for interpretation of Paul and the New Testament. Modern westerners tend to view social reality in the opposite way: the individual is primary and the group is secondary. So, the individual is viewed as standing on his own, and corporate concerns are subordinated to individual concerns.
Paul's (and his culture's) perspective was essentially corporate. The individual was not viewed as standing on his own but, rather, was seen as embedded in the group to which he belonged. Corporate concerns generally took precedence over individual concerns, and when it did not, this was judged as wrong.
Understanding this, we should call into question individualistic interpretations about Paul battling with his own sins. This passage is introduced using a corporate illustration (Rom 7:1-6). Paul uses the example of marriage and remarriage to show how a new relationship can come into existence. The analogy of marriage is regularly used throughout the whole of Scripture to depict the relationship of God with His people. This analogy is never used for the relationship of an individual with God. It is always corporate, describing the experience of the covenant community.
The traditional Reformed understanding of this text, like most others, begins from an individualistic interpretation of the passage. The evidence is not compatible with this. Rather, it points to the passage’s being corporate.
Tom Holland writes concerning Paul’s words in Romans 7:
He expects believers to meet for this purpose and composed his letters with congregations in mind. In other words, the practice of interpreting the letters as though they were to individuals is misguided. The letters are not about what God has done or is doing for a Christian, they are what God has done or is doing for his covenant people, the church. It is not permissible—despite widespread practice—to read the details as though they describe the experience of the individual believer. Such practice not only makes much of the individual, it makes little of the covenant community.
The change of tense from 7:7-12 to 7:13-25 has to do with the change from the description of what happened when Torah first arrived in Israel to the description of the ongoing state of those who live under the Law.
Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. Romans 7:13 ESV
Here the question is asked, "Was this good Law the cause of my death?" Again, Paul says, "Not at all, no way." The "good" to which he refers is the Law (identified in verse 12). It was sin, not the Law that brought death. Paul has already defended the Law against the charge that the Law was the direct cause of death. Sin is the culprit, and we must never forget that. Paul answers his own question: "Rather, it was sin." Sin killed us, not the Law. Paul's summary answer is that sin's use of that which is really and truly good to bring about death is more proof of the exceeding wickedness of sin.
Believer, please understand this sin is a destructive force even for a believer. It will damage the life of a believer if the believer continues in it. Obeying God brings peace and joy; sinning brings misery.
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. Romans 7:14 ESV
"The Law is spiritual"—in Rabbinic literature it was often said that the Law was spiritual, and the meaning of the contexts usually is that the Law is something given by God on Mount Sinai. Paul has already said this in verse 12: "the Law is holy, the commandment is holy and righteous and good."
MacArthur writes: "You have a new nature that loves the Law, longs to keep the Law." What Law? Does the believer long to keep the Mosaic Law? We must keep the context in mind. This passage is all about the Mosaic Law.
Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Romans 7:1 ESV
"The Law"—here is Torah. We, Gentile believers, have nothing to do with Mosaic Law. Reformed theologians like to distinguish the moral from the ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law at this point. Many of them contend that God has only terminated the ceremonial part of The Law.
John MacArthur writes:
Paul gets very personal, back in Romans, very personal, and you see the first-person pronoun 'I,’ 'I would not have come to know sin except through The Law.’ He's talking about the moral Law here, not ceremonial Law and ritual Law which had been set aside, was being, of course, set aside first when Jesus came and was really finally crushed in His death and eventually obliterated in the destruction of Jerusalem, all of that went away. But he's talking about the moral Law.
Believer, there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that The Law should be divided into three parts (ceremonial, civil, and moral). This is an unbiblical division. To the Jews, The Law was the 613 commandments.
This division of the Law into moral, judicial (civil), and ceremonial parts started with Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) back in the 13th century, and most Christians seem to have adopted this division. The problem with this is that there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that the Law should be divided in this manner. Most teach that God has done away with the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law but not with the moral aspect of it. Such a distinction is not drawn anywhere in the Scriptures. The Law is viewed as a unit or as a whole. James said that anyone who breaks one point of the Law, breaks the whole Law.
"I am of the flesh"—we must have a correct understanding of what Paul means by "flesh" here. Remember, Paul followed the Hebrew understanding when using the term "flesh." He made use of its wide variety of meanings and applied the term in differing contexts to support what he was teaching. He made particular use of the term when writing of the frailty of man as well as of his solidarity to his representative head, Adam. We must recognize that the Hellenistic meaning of "flesh" has dominated Christian thinking.
By "flesh" here, Paul is talking about the Old Covenant mode of existence. Here again we see the spirit/flesh contrast that runs all through this section. Just like the Adam/Christ contrast ran through chapter 5 and the slave/free contrast ran through chapter 6.
"I" here is Adam/Israel which belongs to the Adam solidarity and is under the sin and the death. The problem is not Torah; it is sin. The point of the argument in chapter 6 is that the Christian is not in Adam—not in the flesh. Paul tells Christians in chapter 8:
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Romans 8:9 ESV
Believers are not in the flesh. We are in the Spirit. If you are not in the Spirit, you do not belong to Christ.
"Sold under sin"—does this sound like something Paul could say about himself as a mature Christian? Paul had just said at least six times in Romans 6 that Christians are freed from the slave master of the sin (verses 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22).
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. Romans 6:22 ESV
Paul says here that Christians have been freed from "the sin" because of their union with Christ. How could he then say that he was in bondage to the sin? He couldn't, and he wouldn't. This was the position of Israel under Torah.
MacArthur writes of Paul: "In his maturity at the end of his life, at the end of all of his years of walking with Christ, nothing had changed about how he had viewed himself. He was a massive disappointment to himself." Really! Look at what Paul says about himself:
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. 2 Timothy 4:6-8 ESV
This doesn't sound like a man who was disappointed with the life he lived for Christ:
For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Romans 7:15 ESV
This is the paradox of Israel under Torah—seeing what is the right thing to do, delighting in it, and wanting to perform it, and yet constantly falling short.
One writer says, "What Paul despises as a Christian, he does anyway. Really! Is this the same Paul whom we saw in the book of Acts? The man who was hunted, beaten, stoned and kept right on going? What Paul says here is the same thing he says in Galatians 5.
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Galatians 5:17-18 ESV
The flesh and Spirit are contrary to one another. This is New Covenant/Old Covenant. If you walk in the New Covenant/Spirit you are not under the Law. It is under the Law that the conflict is seen.
Please understand that we can say, "This text is not about Christian experience," and still believe that Christians have experiences like this—sometimes doing what we don't want to do.
Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. Romans 7:16 ESV
Here he agrees with the Law's assessment of his practice—that it is sinful. In other words, the Law is right in calling my sin, sin. The Law is good; I'm the problem. Some say that only the believer can agree that the Law is good. That's not true because the Old Covenant Jew loved the Law and certainly thought it was good.
MacArthur writes: "The Christian then stays in a place of brokenness over his sin. The Christian stays in a place of submission to the Law."
What is wrong with those statements? Paul has just taught that the believer is not under the Law. Gentile Christians were never under the Mosaic Law.
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. Romans 7:17 ESV
We have already seen that Paul's understanding of "the body of sin" is mainly corporate. As a part of the body of sin, every person in Adam is under sin's control. Sin dwells in the body of Adam and Moses.
Paul is saying that sin is dwelling in the body of Moses, the Old Covenant.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. Romans 7:18 ESV
Notice how the NIV translates this verse:
For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. Romans 7:18 NIV
The NIV translates sarx as: "sinful nature." This is a bad translation. The Greek word "sarx," directly translated, means "flesh." This idea of a sin nature reflects more of a Greek dualism than a Hebraic understanding of Scripture. To translate sarx as "sinful nature" assumes that the argument is about individual human experience and leads the reader in the direction of an inherited human nature rather than to a federal understanding. Because of this unfortunate misinterpretation of sarx, the doctrine of the sinful nature or indwelling sin has been propagated.
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Romans 7:19 ESV
This is Israel under Torah. MacArthur writes: "So this is Paul's testimony as a Christian. And it's very, very important for us to understand that because what's here is what we live with every day." Not me, I never struggle with life under Torah. I live in the Spirit.
Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. Romans 7:20 ESV
This verse basically repeats word for word what was said in verse 17. "I" refers to Israel according to the flesh, Israel in Adam.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. Romans 7:21 ESV
"Law" here is the same exact Greek word that Paul has been using for the Torah since this argument began in 5:20. From 5:20 until now he has used it 20 times to refer to Torah. Paul uses the definite article here: the Law.
Paul opened this chapter speaking about the law of marriage. He said that the woman was under the law of her husband. This is the law of Sin and Death from which man cannot escape. Man, under the Old Covenant, was married to sin and death. The offspring of Adam is like the helpless woman who is married to an abusive husband. Evil was present because they were married to the Law which increased sin.
"Evil lies close at hand"—contrary to popular opinion, this is not referring to a "sin nature." This is like the last phrase of verse 20: "I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." "Sin which dwells in me" and "evil lies close at hand" if not understood corporately will lead to wrong theology. The context of this is a contrast between the Old and New Covenants and not between two natures.
who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6 ESV
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. 2 Corinthians 3:11 ESV
So, we have a contrast of covenants, one is fading away and one remains. Consider the following:
So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. 2 Corinthians 4:16 ESV
The outer self is the Old Covenant and the inner self is the New Covenant. This is not what Paul is talking about when he uses "inner man" in Romans 7. The inner man is simply another way of denoting the mind which agrees with the Law and wants to practice it.
but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Romans 7:23 ESV
"My members"—It is easy to read the statement: "my members" as a reference to Paul's physical body if an individualistic perspective for interpreting the passage is adopted. This is a reference to individuals within the corporate body of Moses.
Then he uses military terms to describe the struggle—"waging war," "making me captive." The Greek word for "waging war" means "to line up the troops and go out on a military campaign."
The law here is identified as the law of the mind, while in verse 25 it says, "So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind." Israel serves the Mosaic Law with its mind, while in verse 23 the law is identified as the law of the mind. The law of the mind and the Law of God are therefore the same. This text is all about the Law God gave to Israel, the Torah.
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Romans 7:24 ESV
MacArthur writes: "And this is a very mature man. And any mature Christian lives with a sense of misery with a sense of overwhelming disappointment, with a grief and a groaning and a longing, a longing that expresses itself in the words of Paul, verse 24, 'Who will set me free from the body of this death?'"
What is the mature Christian crying out for deliverance from? His physical body? Is he then crying out for physical death? Kill me Lord and take me to heaven? If Paul is distressed at not being a better Christian, we are all in trouble!
He uses a present tense to describe a present reality of wretchedness. "Wretched man that I am," not "I was" or "I used to be." Would a believer call himself a "wretched man" and then cry out for someone to rescue him? Is he looking for a second work of grace?
One writer says: "Here is the evidence of the regenerate life: the Christian longs for deliverance." And I ask, from what?
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, Colossians 1:13 ESV
"Delivered" is aorist and suggests that which is an accomplished event. We were delivered at a point in the past—our conversion. This deliverance is absolutely finished. There is no progress in this rescue. It is an event.
So, who is the wretched man here? It is corporate, unregenerate Israel. Vincent says that "wretched" from the Greek word talaiporos originally meant "wretched through the exhaustion of hard labor." Boy that sure pictures Israel under Torah.
The words "deliver me" are the word "rescue." It's used to denote the act of a soldier who runs to his comrade in the midst of a battle, and he rescues him from the enemy.
This is the lament of the Jew under Torah. The question is; who is going to raise me from the dead? How will I get out of this body of death? What is "This body of death"? Sadly, most Christians see this as a reference to the physical body. But is that what it means? The argument continues to address the corporate aspects of Sin. "This body of death" is nothing less than the body of Moses, which was a body of sin. So, Paul's cry could be interpreted: "Who will deliver me from the kingdom of darkness?"
Thanks be to God through Yeshua the Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Romans 7:25 ESV
"Thanks be to God through Yeshua the Christ our Lord!"—this shout of praise will be unfolded in chapter 8. He's looking ahead at the time of redemption, and he says I see it and it's coming and I'm living in hope that indeed it will come. This is an eschatological view; that is, Paul is looking for the final day of redemption when Israel is redeemed out of the body of Moses and into the body of Christ.
Notice what Paul says in:
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Yeshua the Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:56-57 ESV
This parallels our text so closely that it is clear that the subject is the same. The victory is not from our sin nature but from life under the Law.
"Thanks be to God"—this looks back to:
so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Yeshua the Christ our Lord. Romans 5:21 ESV
"So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin"—the mind of the "I" loves and delights in the Law of God, but the flesh of the "I" resists God's Law and serves sin. This is Israel under Torah. She was loving God's Law and yet continually serving the flesh. The one and only solution for Israel and us is the Lord Yeshua the Christ.
So, our text in Romans 7 is not describing the Christian life because we are not wretched men; we are more than conquerors.
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Romans 8:37 ESV
We can live a victorious Christian life.
I can do all things through him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13 ESV
Does this apply to us? While Paul is clearly talking about himself, the principle also applies to us if we are abiding in Christ. Most of the teaching that we find in the New Testament is directed to the Church and applies to all Christians in all times. This verse is usually removed from its context. Can we really do ALL things through Christ? Leap tall buildings at a single bound? Run faster that a bullet? Notice the context.
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. Philippians 4:11-12 ESV
Does this apply to us? Can we also deal with any circumstance if we are living in dependence on Christ? Yes, we can. This is a spiritual truth that applies to all believers who live in dependence upon Christ.
What Paul is saying here is that whatever circumstance he finds himself in, he can handle it through God's enabling power. The words "by His grace" could be substituted for "through Him who strengthens me." The idea is the same. Verse 13 could be read, "I can do all things by His grace." "By His grace" and "through Him who strengthens me" express an identical thought.