Among the scholarly debates dealing with Medeas “great monologue” (Euripides, Medea 1078-80), the problem how reason and emotion, or more precisely θυμός and βουλεύματα, relate to each other in Medeas decision to kill her sons is still subject for a wide range of interpretations (Mastronarde, 2002). At the same time, reason and emotion are re-arranged within the literary receptions of the Medea motif by Roman authors, notably in Senecas Medea (Schmitt, 1994; Lefèvre, 1997). Within this context of Medea reception in the Roman imperial period, a particular reception appears in early Christian literature. In Paul’s epistle to the Romans, the quotation οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ ́ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ (Rom 7,15b) is such an adaptation of the Medea motif expressing the incongruence of one’s will and one’s deeds (von Bendemann, 2004). The talk addresses this reception of Medea’s inner conflict in the argument that Paul developes in Romans 7. It aims at highlighting the consequences of such a transfer of a classical literary topos into a new cultural context, in which the struggle between reason and emotion has to be integrated into a view of the human being that is described in biblical terminology and imagery. The problems arising from this re-contextualisation include both semantic considerations and theoretical issues. Among these, the question is raised whether the classical Greek antagonism between reason and emotion at struggle within the human being is compatible with concepts of the self that derive from biblical tradition and are shared with contemporary Judaism.