Romans 7 · The Lantern

Release from the Law

Or are you ignorant, brothers — for I speak to those knowing law — that the law rules over the man for as long a time as he is alive?

Add to this the fact that the apostle, with regard to widows and the unmarried, advises them to remain permanently in that state, when he says, "But I desire all to persevere in (imitation of) my example: " but touching marrying "in the Lord," he no longer advises, but plainly bids.

Since then he had said, we are "dead to sin," he here shows that not sin only, but also the Law, hath no dominion over them. But if the Law hath none, much less hath sin: and to render his language palatable, he uses a human example to make this plain by. And he seems to be stating one point, but he sets down at once two arguments for his proposition.

After showing that we are set free from sin through the grace of Christ, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from slavery to the law. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; second, he excludes an objection, at what shall we say, then (Rom 7:7).

For the married woman has been bound by law to the living husband; but if the husband shall die, she has been cleared from the law of the husband.

If, however, the husband shall have died, she has been freed from (his) law, (so) that she is not an adulteress if made (wife) to another husband." But read the sequel as well in order that this sense, which flatters you, may evade (your grasp).

Next, after hinting this at the commencement, he carries on what he has to say by way of proof, in the woman's case, in the following way. "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the Law to her husband, so long as he liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the Law of her husband.

Then he clarifies what he had said with an example from the law of marriage, when he says for the woman who has a husband: first, he gives the example; second, he clarifies it by a sign, at therefore, while. In regard to the first he does two things.

Then therefore, while the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she shall become married to another man; but if the husband shall die, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress having become married to another man.

And for this reason he says: "Therefore, while her husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she be with another man," so as to show that the soul of a man too, if it has now come to Christ and has been joined to Christ as to a second husband, must in no way have the oldness of the letter — which is as it were the former husband — living in it, lest perchance, if it sh…

As long as her husband is alive, a woman must live according to his will alone, but once he is dead and she is married to another man, she should no longer live in the manner of her former husband.

Then he clarifies what he had meant by a sign, when he says therefore, while her husband. And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife while her husband lives.

Likewise, my brothers, you yourselves also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, for you to belong to another — to him who was raised out from the dead — so that we may bear fruit to God.

Moreover in the former passage he says, "You are dead to the law," not to marriage, "that you may belong to another who was raised from the dead," as Bride and Church.

Paul was reluctant to tell the Jews that the law was dead, but what he dared not say out loud he leaves to be understood.… A man bears fruit for God when his works of righteousness like fruit break out in blossom, then grow into fruit, and finally become fully ripe, for no fruit is forever in blossom.

Then when he says, therefore, my brethren, he concludes to his main proposition, saying, therefore, my brethren, you also have died to the law, by the body of Christ, i.e., in becoming members of the body of Christ, dying and being buried with him, as stated above; you have died to the law in the sense that the obligation of the law ceases in you, so that you may belong to anot…

For while we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that were through the law were at work in our members to bring forth fruit to death;

Yet the Apostle brings this same sense of the exposition forward again under another figure. For he adds: "For when we were in the flesh, the vices of sins which were through the law worked in our members so as to bear fruit unto death.

Holy Scripture sometimes calls our human nature "flesh," and sometimes it goes beyond this and includes the concept of mortality as well.… In any case, the flesh is never said to inherit or to be capable of inheriting eternal life in the age to come.

The second is at for when we were in the flesh. He shows that this fruit was impeded when we were under the slavery of the law, saying, for when we were in the flesh, i.e., subject to the concupiscences of the flesh. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit (Rom 8:9).

but now we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, in order for us to serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin, which (passions) used to be efficiently caused through the law, (wrought) in our members unto the bearing of fruit to death; but now we have been emancipated from the law, being dead (to that) in which we used to be held, unto the serving of God in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Now everything has changed, Paul says. We have died to this life and are no longer under any obligation to keep the law. Our life no longer has anything in common with that, because we have been renewed by the power of the Spirit and have become different people.

The third is at but now we are loosed. He shows that this usefulness is acquired by those freed from the slavery of the law, saying, but now we are loosed by the grace of Christ from the law of death, i.e., from the slavery of the law of Moses, which is called the law of death, because it killed violators without mercy (Heb 10:28).

God’s Law Is Holy

What then will we say? Is the law sin? Never would it be! But I have not known sin except through law; for I had not known covetousness except that the law was saying, “You will not covet.”

While on this point I think I must not commit mention of the fact that the apostle declares that the same God is the God of the law, the prophets, and the gospel. In the Epistle to the Romans he quotes the gospel saying "Thou shalt not lust" as if it were from the law, knowing that it is the one Father who is preached by the law and the prophets.

From here on Paul speaks as one who accepts the law, i.e., of one who first comes to know God's commandants while he is still in the habit of breaking them. Paul does not say that without the law he would not have been in the habit of coveting, nor does he say that he would not have done it; rather, he says that he would not have known that coveting was a sin.

After showing that through Christ's grace we are freed from the slavery of the law, and that this liberation is useful, the Apostle now answers an objection which arises from the foregoing, namely, that the old law seems not to be good. In regard to this he does two things.

But sin, having taken an occasion through the commandment, produced in me all covetousness; for apart from law sin is dead.

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus.

It is not reasonable to condemn completely someone who has sinned in ignorance. But when the law was given and revealed sin, it gave sin power. This was not a condemnation of the law but a punishment of the contempt shown by those who did not keep it. For if it is true that without the law sin lies dead, it is also true that sin is dead when the law is kept.

Then he shows what follows from the law by way of opportunity, when he says, but sin, taking the occasion. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies it, at for without the law. First, therefore, he says that sin, taking occasion by the commandment of the law forbidding sin, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

But I myself was alive apart from law once; but when the commandment was coming, sin revived,

"For without the law sin was dead. But I was alive without the law once. Yet when the commandment came, sin revived. But I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, was found by me to be unto death." Concerning nearly all these matters full treatment has already been given in what precedes; and so, that we may not turn over the same things again and again, we shall briefl…

When, pray, was that? Before Moses. See how he sets himself to show that it, both by the things it did, and the things it did not do, weighed down human nature. For when "I was alive without the Law," he means, I was not so much condemned. "But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This seems indeed to be an accusing of the Law.

But the condition so far as man was concerned is indicated when he says, and I lived some time without the law. This can also be understood in two ways; in one way with respect to the fact that it seemed to man that he was alive, so long as he did not know that sin was that by reason of which he was dead: you have the name of being alive, but you are dead (Rev 3:1).

and I died, and the commandment that was to life, this proved to me to be to death;

for sin, having taken an occasion through the commandment, deceived me and through it put me to death.

And even if, when the commandment comes — which is "holy and just and good" — sin revives in us and slays us ("for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me"), it is no accusation of the commandment that he says the occasion by which sin slew me came from the commandment; but this is the logical consequence of that saying.

What does the Apostle mean when he writes to the Romans: "For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me" (Rom 7:11)? Let us examine the whole passage and, with the help of Christ, try to understand its meaning.

Then when he says, for sin, he repeats the cause as though intending to clarify it by the outcome of the law, saying: this happened, namely, that the commandment which promised life proved to be death, for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me through the covetousness it wrought in me.

So the law indeed is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Wherefore the law is productive of the emotion of fear. "So that the law is holy," and in truth "spiritual," according to the apostle.

Paul calls the law "holy" because it gives us the principles on which to tell the difference between good and evil, … "just" because after showing us what is good it necessarily points out the punishment for the transgressor, but also "good" because it is the source of good things, showing us what they are and persuading us that they are desirable.

Then when he says, wherefore the law, he reaches the main conclusion, namely, that the law is not only not sin but furthermore is good, making sin to be known and forbidding it.

Struggling with Sin

Did that which is good then become death to me? Never would it be! But the sin — in order that it may be shown as sin, working out death to me through that which is good — so that the sin may become beyond excess sinful through the commandment.

Why then do you, (O Marcion, ) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its commandment just and good." Now if he thus reverences the Creator's law, I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself.

That is, that it might be shown what great evil sin is, namely, a listless will, an inclinableness to the worse side, the actual doing, and the perverted judgment.

Then, when he says, did that then which is good, he raises a question in regard to the effect of the law. First, the question, saying, did that then which is good, namely, in itself, bring death unto me, i.e., act as a per se cause of death? For someone could falsely gather this from what he stated above, namely, that the commandment that was ordained to life . . .

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I myself am fleshly, sold under the sin.

Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other good, when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both "just and good? "Then, again, when affirming the law to be "spiritual" he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative.

Paul says he was carnal because, although he accepted the law, he was in the habit of living carnally.

After showing that the law is neither evil nor productive of an evil effect, the Apostle now proves that the law is good. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves its goodness from the very repugnance to good found in man, a repugnance the law cannot take away; second, he shows what can take away this repugnance, at unhappy (Rom 7:24).

For what I do I do not understand; for not what I want, this I do, but what I hate, this I do.

"For what I work, I do not know. For I do not do what I will; but what I hate, this I do." Now as to what he says, that "I do not know what I work," it is not the thing itself which one works that he is ignorant of, though he be carnal, but he is said to be ignorant of the cause of the thing which he does.

Paul says that he subjected himself to sin of his own accord and then, as if drunk, he did not know what he was doing. Or perhaps he meant that he did not understand that what he accepted against his will was evil.

Then he clarifies what he had stated, when he says, for that which I work: first, that the law is spiritual; second, that man is carnal, sold under sin, now then it is no more. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a proof; second, he draws the conclusion, at if then I do that which I will not.

But if what I do not want, this I do, I consent to the law that it is good;

Nevertheless, in that part by which he does not will the evil, he consents to the law of God that it is good, since it forbids evil; and the natural law is brought into a certain harmony with the law of God, so that they will the same things and do not will the same things.

The law is defended against every accusation, but we must be careful not to think that these words deny our free will, which is not true. The man being described here is under the law, before the coming of grace. Sin overpowers him when he attempts to live righteously in his own strength, without the help of God's liberating grace.

Then when he says, now if I do, he concludes from the aforementioned condition of man that the law is good, saying, now if I do that which I will not. No matter which of the aforementioned ways is taken, by the very fact that I hate evil I consent to the law, that it is good in forbidding evil which I naturally do not want.

and in that case it is no longer I myself doing it, but the sin dwelling in me.

"For the law," says he, "of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death," -that, surely, which he previously mentioned as dwelling in our members. Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free.

Paul means that he did it willingly before it became a habit. Sin then lived in him as a guest or as one thing inside another … in other words, as an accidental quality, not as a natural one.

Then, when he says, now then it is no more I, he proves what he had said about man's condition, namely, that he is carnal and sold under sin. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his proposition; second, he proves it, at for I know; third, he draws the conclusion, at if then I do that which I will not.

For I know that in me — that is, in my flesh — nothing good dwells; for to wish to do is present with me, but to do the good is not.

On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: "For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing," showing that the "good thing" of our sal…

Paul does not say that his flesh is not good. The will is there but not the action, because carnal habit opposes the will.

Then he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits, when he says, for I know: first, he presents the middle term proving the proposition; second, he explains the middle term, at for to will. First, therefore, he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits.

For the good that I desire, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want, this I practice.

Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, "The good that I would, I do not; "for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is altogether innocent.

Do you see, how he acquits the essence of the soul, as well as the essence of the flesh, from accusation, and removes it entirely to sinful actions? For if the soul willeth not the evil, it is cleared: and if he does not work it himself, the body too is set free, and the whole may be charged upon the evil moral choice.

Then when he says, for the good which I will, I do not, he manifests what he had said by citing man's action, which is a sign and effect of human capability. For man does not have the strength to accomplish good, because he does not do the good he wants but does the evil he does not want. This has been explained earlier.

But if what I myself do not want, this I do, it is no longer I myself who do it, but the sin dwelling in me.

I find then the principle, for me who is desiring to do the good, that the evil is present with me.

Paul declares that he gives the Law of Moses the consent of his will against the sin that dwells in the flesh, which compels him to do something other than what man and the Law desire.

If sin inheres in my flesh and corrupts it, it may well be that the law offers help and gives advice, but even so it does not set me free from sin. Yet for those who are bound by the weakness of sin, it is hardly enough to know that they should be doing better; what they need is the strength to do what is right and in accordance with the law.

After showing that the law is good because it concords with reason, the Apostle now draws two conclusions based on the two things he had posited; the second conclusion is at but I see another law. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he draws a conclusion from what he had said; second, he offers a sign to clarify it, at for I am delighted.

For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man,

Scripture says that in man there are two: "For though our outer man is being destroyed, yet our inner man is renewed day by day"; and also: "I delight in the law of God according to the inner man." The Apostle everywhere presents these two men as distinct.

Paul's "inmost self" is the rational and intelligent soul which agrees with the law of God, for its law is to live rationally and not to be led about by the passions of irrational animals.The outer self, on the other hand, is the body. Its law is the wisdom of the flesh, which instructs one to eat and drink and enjoy the other sensual pleasures.

Then he presents a sign to show that the law agrees with reason, when he says, for I am delighted. For no one delights except in that which agrees with him. But man according to his reason delights in the law of God; therefore, the law of God agrees with reason.

but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which is in my members.

For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be "the law of sin dwelling in his members," and "warring against the law of the mind." On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful…

Paul was right to refer to his members here, because sin takes many forms according to the nature of our members. There are sins of the eyes, sins of the tongue, sins of other parts of the body as well.

Then, when he says, but I see, he presents the other conclusion, which corresponds to his previous statement that I am carnal (Rom 7:14). The conclusion is this: but I see another law in my members, which is the inclination to sin and can be called a law for two reasons: first, by reason of the effect. For just as the law induces to do good, so the inclination induces to sin.

O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death?

Having considered the struggle which was taking place in the body against the soul and how man was imprisoned by this, Paul now seeks a way to escape and tries to rescue man, so that the body of death may be transformed into a body of life.… For Paul wants his body to be a body of life and not a body of death or of sin.

Then, when he says, unhappy man that I am, he deals with liberation from the law of sin and does three things: first, he poses a question; second, he answers, at the grace of God; third, he draws a conclusion, at therefore, I myself. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he declares his misery when he says: unhappy man that I am.

But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then I myself with the mind indeed serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

"Therefore I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Perhaps someone will say that the Apostle, who up to this point has been speaking not as it were in his own person but having assumed the person of another, now, as though marking a change of person, says, "I myself," so as to show that these things which are to be said pertain to that s…

Grace sets free the man whom the law could not free. Was Paul at this time not yet set free by the grace of God? Of course! This shows that here he is speaking of somebody else. He then reviews the main points in order to conclude his argument. In a sense the carnal person is made up of two people and is divided within himself.

Then he responds to the question, at the grace of God. For man by his own power cannot be freed from the corruption of the body, nor even of the soul, although he agrees with reason against sin, but only by the grace of Christ, as it says in John: so if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed (John 8:36).

Romans7

Release from the Law

God’s Law Is Holy

Struggling with Sin