Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

7 25. The true function of the Divine Law: to detect and condemn sin, both before and after Justification

7. What shall we say then? ] Same words as Rom 6:1. Here opens a new and important section, including the remainder of ch. 7, and passing on in close connexion into ch. 8. The dogmatic statement and illustration of the Union of the justified with Jesus Christ as (1) the Second Adam, (2) the new Master, (3) the mystic Husband, is now closed. All these aspects of redemption, but especially the last, have suggested the question now to be definitely treated; namely, What is the true Nature and Work of the law? The expressions just used regarding the Law; the “death” of the justified to it; “the holding down” which it inflicted on them; the “oldness of the letter;” all point the new enquiry “ Is the Law sin? ” We have just read (Rom 7:5) that “the instincts of our sins were by the Law.” Does this mean that the Law is a sinful principle and motive? Is it the origin of sin? Is it sin itself? “ The Law ” here, and through most of the context, (exceptions, of course, are Rom 7:21; Rom 7:23,) is the Moral Law, with a special, but not exclusive, understanding of the Mosaic Code. See above on ch. Rom 5:13.

God forbid ] See on Rom 3:4. The vehement negative is, of course, only in keeping with the many incidental assertions hitherto (e.g. Rom 6:19) of the reality of the obedience of the justified.

Nay ] Lit., and far better, But. St Paul entirely rejects the suggestion that the Law is sin, but all the more insists on the fact that it does both detect sin and (in a certain sense) evoke it.

I had not known ] See on Rom 3:20. The reference of the words there “by the law, &c.,” and that of this clause, are not precisely the same. There, the law is regarded more as detecting the evil of sin; here, more as evoking its power. But the two ideas are nearly akin. Here St Paul means that without the Precept he would not have seen, in evil thoughts, &c., that element of resistance to a holy Will which carries with it a mysterious attraction for the fallen soul. He would not have known sin as sin in this respect.

Through the whole context, to Rom 8:3 inclusive, he speaks in the first person. This change is most forcible and natural. The main topic before this passage, and very much so after it also, is objective truth; the Propitiation, and the legal results, and logical effects, of belief in it. Here comes in subjective truth; the inner experience of the conflict of the soul. How could this be better stated than through the writer’s own experience, as the experience of a typical (but real) man?

lust ] desire after forbidden things. The desire might, of course, be felt “without the law;” but the law gives it a new character and intensity.

covet ] Lit. desire. This verb, and the noun rendered “lust,” are cognates. “I had not known lust as lust, but for the Law’s word, ‘Thou shalt not lust.’ ” The reference is to Exo 20:17; where the terms of the commandment illustrate the meaning of the word “desire” here.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

What shall we say then? – The objection which is here urged is one that would very naturally rise, and which we may suppose would be urged with no slight indignation. The Jew would ask, Are we then to suppose that the holy Law of God is not only insufficient to sanctify us, but that it is the mere occasion of increased sin? Is its tendency to produce sinful passions, and to make people worse than they were before? To this objection the apostle replies with great wisdom, by showing that the evil was not in the Law, but in man; that though these effects often followed, yet that the Law itself was good and pure.

Is the law sin? – Is it sinful? Is it evil? For if, as it is said in Rom 7:5, the sinful passions were by the law, it might naturally be asked whether the Law itself was not an evil thing?

God forbid – Note, Rom 3:4.

Nay, I had not known sin – The word translated nay alla means more properly but; and this would have more correctly expressed the sense, I deny that the Law is sin. My doctrine does not lead to that; nor do I affirm that it is evil. I strongly repel the charge; but, notwithstanding this, I still maintain that it had an effect in exciting sins, yet so as that I perceived that the Law itself was good; Rom 7:8-12. At the same time, therefore, that the Law must be admitted to be the occasion of exciting sinful feelings, by crossing the inclinations of the mind, yet the fault was not to be traced to the Law. The apostle in these verses refers, doubtless, to the state of his mind before he found that peace which the gospel furnishes by the pardon of sins.

But by the law – Rom 3:20. By the law here, the apostle has evidently in his eye every law of God, however made known. He means to say that the effect which he describes attends all law, and this effect he illustrates by a single instance drawn from the Tenth Commandment. When he says that he should not have known sin, he evidently means to affirm, that he had not understood that certain things were sinful, unless they had been forbidden; and having stated this, he proceeds to another thing, to show the effect of their being thus forbidden on his mind. He was not merely acquainted abstractly with the nature and existence of sin, with what constituted crime because it was forbidden, but he was conscious of a certain effect on his mind resulting from this knowledge, and from the effect of strong, raging desires when thus restrained, Rom 7:8-9.

For I had not known lust – I should not have been acquainted with the nature of the sin of covetousness. The desire might have existed, but he would not have known it to be sinful, and he would not have experienced that raging, impetuous, and ungoverned propensity which he did when he found it to be forbidden. Man without law might have the strong feelings of desire He might covet what others possessed. He might take property, or be disobedient to parents; but he would not know it to be evil. The Law fixes bounds to his desires, and teaches him what is right and what is wrong. It teaches him where lawful indulgence ends, and where sin begins. The word lust here is not limited as it is with us. It refers to all covetous desires; to all wishes for what is forbidden us.

Except the law had said – In the tenth commandment; Exo 20:17.

Thou shalt not covet – This is the beginning of the command, and all the rest is implied. The apostle knew that it would be understood without repeating the whole. This particular commandment he selected because it was more pertinent than the others to his purpose. The others referred particularly to external actions. But his object was to show the effect of sin on the mind and conscience. He therefore chose one that referred particularly to the desires of the heart.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 7:7-13

What shall we say then?

Is the law sin? God forbid.

The law

I. Its nature–

1. Moral.

2. Spiritual.

3. Exemplified by the particular commandment quoted.

II. Its use–

1. To describe the nature.

2. Detect the presence.

3. Reveal the sinfulness of sin. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The law vindicated and commended

I. The law vindicated. The apostle had affirmed that the law constituted that to be sinful, that without the law could have had no such character–nay, that the law called forth sinful affections which, but for its provocation, might have lain dormant. And he seems now to feel as if this might attach the same sort of odiousness to the law that is attached to sin itself. This he repels with the utmost vehemence.

1. The law acts as a discoverer of sin (Rom 7:7). But it is no impeachment against the evenness of a ruler, that by its application you can discover what is crooked. On the contrary, its very power of doing so proves how straight it is in itself. The light may reveal an impurity which could not be recognised at night; yet who would ever think of ascribing to light any of that pollution which it reveals. It were indeed strange if the dissimilarity of two things should lead us to confound them. When one man stands before you full of moral worth, and another full of vice, the presence of the first may generate a keener repugnancy towards the second; and this not surely because they have anything in common, but because they have everything in wide and glaring opposition. And the same of sin and of the law.

2. The law aggravates this deformity by making sin more actively rebellious (Rom 7:8). The law not curing the desire of mans heart towards any forbidden indulgence, this desire is thereby exasperated. The man who sins and thinks no more of it may never repeat it till its outward influences have again come about him, it may be, long after; but the man who is ever brooding under a sense of guilt has the image of allurement present to his thoughts during the whole time when they are not present to his senses. And thus the law turns out an occasional cause, why with him there should be both a more intense fermentation of the sinful appetites than with another, who is reckless of law and undisturbed by its accusing voice. And what adds to the helplessness of this calamity is, that while the law thus gives a new assailing force to his enemies, it affords no force of resistance to the man himself. Depriving him of the inspiring energy that is in hope, it gives him in its place the dread and the desperation of an outlaw. And yet the law here is not in fault. It is sin which is in fault, which, at sight of law, strengthened itself the more in its own character.

3. And it is in this sense only that the law is the occasion of death.

(1) This sore infliction is due to sin, which taketh occasion by the law. The very company of a good man may so degrade in his own eyes a bad man as that, with the desperate feeling of an outcast he might henceforth give himself over to the full riot of villainy, and even become a murderer; and so entail upon himself a death of vengeance. But who would ever think of laying either his own blood, or the blood of his victim, to the door of him whose excellence had only called out into display the hatefulness of his own character?

(2) Then again, sin slays its victim by a process of deception of which the law is made the instrument. It may do this in various ways–

(a) As the mans remorse broods over the transgression, so sin may take advantage by leading the man to dwell as constantly on the temptation which led to it.

(b) Or it may represent the man to himself as the doomed victim of a law that can never be appeased, and thus, through means of this law, may drive him onward to recklessness.

(c) Or it may soothe him by setting forth the many conformities to honesty, or temperance, or compassion, or courteousness, by which he still continues to do the law honour.

(d) It may even turn his very compunction into a matter of complacency, and persuade him that, in defect of his obedience to the law, he at least gives it the homage of his regret.

4. For without the law sin is dead (Rom 7:8)–dead in respect of all power to condemn, and in respect of its inability to stir up the alarms of condemnation: and as to its power of seducing or enslaving you by means of a remorse or terror. And in the next verse Paul is visited with the remembrance of his own former state, when, ignorant as he was of the exceeding breadth of Gods commandment, he looked forward to a life of favour here and of blessedness hereafter, on the strength of his many outward and literal observations. He was thus alive without the law once; and it was not till the commandment came–not till he was made to see what its lofty demands were, and what his wretched deficiencies therefrom, that sin revived in him, and dislodged him from his proud security, and made him see that, instead of a victorious claimant for the rewards of the law, he was the victim of its penalties. This state (see also Rom 7:9) is the prevalent state of the world. Men live in tolerable comfort and security because dead to the terrifying menaces of the law. It is because the sinner is thus without the law that he sees not the danger of his condition. And thus it is that it is so highly important when the Spirit lends His efficacy to the Divine law–when he thereby arouses the careless sinner out of his lethargies, and persuades him to flee for refuge to the hope set before him.

II. The law commended. The apostle having cleared the law from all charge of odiousness, now renders it the positive homage which was due to its real character–as the representation of all moral excellence. If the law be the occasion of death, or of more fell depravity, it is not because of any evil that is in its character, which is holy and just and good (Rom 7:12). This may lead to the solution of a question by which the legal heart of man often feels itself exercised. Why should the law, that is now deposed from its ancient office of minister unto life to that of minister unto death, still be kept up in authority, and obedience to it be as strenuously required? In order that God should will our obedience to the law, it is not necessary to give to it the legal importance and efficacy that it had under the old dispensation. At the outset of our present system, the Spirit of God moving upon chaos educed the loveliest forms of hill and dale and mighty ocean and waving forests, and all that richness of bloom and verdure which serves to dress the landscapes of nature. And it is said that God saw everything to be good. Now there was no legality in this process. The ornaments of a flower, or tree, or the magnificence of outspread scenery, cannot be the offerings by which inanimate matter purchases the smile of the Divinity. The Almighty Artist loves to behold the fair composition that He Himself has made; and wills each of His works to be perfect in its kind. And the same of the moral taste of the Godhead. He loves what is wise and holy and just and mood in the world of mind; and with a far higher affection. And the office of His Spirit is to evolve this beauteous exhibition out of the chaos of ruined humanity. And to forward this process it is not necessary that man be stimulated to exertion by the motives of legalism. All that is necessary is submission to the transforming operations of the Divine Spirit, and willingness to follow His impulses. And must God, ere He can gratify His relish for the higher beauties of morality and of mind, first have to make a bargain about it with His creatures? So, then, though the old relationship between you and the law is dissolved, still it is this very law with the requirements of which you are to busy yourselves in this world; and with the graces and accomplishments of which you must appear invested before Christ at the judgment seat. It was written first on tables of stone, and the process was then that you should fulfil its requisitions as your task, and be paid with heaven as a reward. It is now written by the Holy Ghost on the tablets of your heart; and the process is now that you are made to delight in it after the inward man. With gold you may purchase a privilege or adorn your person. You may not be able to purchase the kings favour with it; but he may grant you his favour, and when he requires your appearance before him, it is still in gold he may require you to be invested. And thus of the law. It is not by your own righteous conformity thereto that you purchase Gods favour; for this has been already purchased by the pure gold of the Saviours righteousness, and is presented to all who believe on Him. But still it is with your own personal righteousness that you must be adorned. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

The excellence of the law

I. It exposes sin.

1. Its nature.

2. Its existence in the heart.

3. Its activity (Rom 7:7-8).

II. It condemns the sinner.

1. Destroys his self-complacency.

2. Awakens conscience.

3. Pronounces sentence of death (Rom 7:9-10).

III. Demonstrates its own perfection.

1. By the display of its own nature, holy, just, good.

2. By exhibiting the exceeding sinfulness of sin. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Nay, I had not known sin but by the law.—

Revelation of sin by the law

Sin lies concealed in man, however fair and refined he may appear to the world, just as even in ice there exists hundreds of degrees of latent heat. The argument is that the law brings to light sin, and is not its parent nor in any sense responsible for its existence, as it is not its physician nor capable of removing its guilt and remedying its effects (chap. 3:20). The law does not in any sense create or cause sin by exerting any deleterious influence, as the frost, by withdrawing the heat from water, freezes it. Nay, the function of the law is to reveal and expose sin, as the office of the sun is to bring to light the dust and dirt which existed, but escaped notice before its rays entered the apartment. (C. Neil, M. A.)

The mercifulness of the law in the revelation of sin

Just as a mirror is not an enemy to the ugly man, because it shows him his very self in all his ugliness, and just as a medical man is not an enemy to the sick man, because he shows him his sickness, for the medical man is not the cause of the sickness nor is the mirror the cause of the ugliness, so God is not the cause of the sickness of our sin or its ugliness, because He shows it to us in the mirror of His Word and by the Physician Christ, who came to show us our sins and to heal them for us. (T. H. Leary, D. C. L.)

Sin aroused by the law

A contented citizen of Milan, who had never passed beyond its walls during the course of sixty years, being ordered by the governor not to stir beyond its gates, became immediately miserable, and felt so powerful an inclination to do that which he had so long contentedly neglected, that on his application for a release from this restraint being refused, he became quite melancholy, and at last died of grief. How well this illustrates the apostles confession that he had not known lust, unless the law had said unto him, Thou shalt not covet! Sin, saith he, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Evil often sleeps in the soul, until the holy command of God is discovered, and then the enmity of the carnal mind rouses itself to oppose in every way the will of God. Without the law, says Paul, sin was dead. How vain to hope for salvation from the law, when through the perversity of sin it provokes our evil hearts to rebellion, and works in us neither repentance nor love. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The conviction of sin

I. What it includes.

1. Knowledge of sin.

2. Consciousness of it.

3. Sense of its demerit and punishment.

II. How it is produced–by the law, which–

1. Detects;

2. Exposes;

3. Condemns it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Pauls early experience

In this picture of his inner life Paul gives us, without intending it, a very high idea of the purity of his life as a child and a young man. He might, when confronted with the nine commandments, have to the letter claimed for himself the verdict, Not guilty, like the young man who said to Jesus, All these things have I kept from my youth up. But the tenth commandment cut short all this self-righteousness, and under this ray of the Divine holiness he was compelled to pass sentence of condemnation. Thus there was wrought in him, Pharisee though he was, without his suspecting it, a profound separation from ordinary Pharisaism, and a moral preparation which was to lead him to Christ and His righteousness. To this so mournful discovery was added ( Rom 7:8) by and by a second and more painful experience. (Prof. Godet.)

Sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

Sin and its work in relation to the law

I. Sin. Indwelling sin; depravity inherent in fallen humanity, personified as something living and intelligent.

II. Its occasion–the law, which shows it in its true character. Sin is in its nature opposition to God and His law (Rom 8:7). The presence of the law, therefore, is the occasion for sin to act. It is to sin as water to hydrophobia. Corruption arouses itself to resist the law which opposes it. Sick men and children often desire what is forbidden, because it is so. The law and sin act on each other as an acid and an alkali. The effect of the contact is like the effervescence of the mixture.

III. Its work.

1. Wrought, produced, called into operation. Sin is an active principle stirring up evil thoughts, etc. Its nature is to foam against the law as water against a barrier.

2. In me. Sins activity viewed as internal, not external.

3. All manner–both as to kind and degree. The heart is like a neglected garden full of all sorts of weeds. Lust may shrink into a dwarf or swell into a giant. Covetousness and lust are hydras, monsters with many heads.

4. Of concupiscence. Inordinate sinful desire. From sin springs lust, as the stream from the fountain. Evil desire not restrained brings forth sin in the act (Jam 1:15). Already in the heart it is excited by the law which forbids it. Weeds seeming dead in winter shoot up in the warmth of spring. Vipers torpid in the cold are excited to life and action by the fire. Like a revived viper, sin hisses against the law which disturbs it. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

The law irritates sin

A rock, flung into the bed of some headlong stream, would not arrest the stream, but only cause it, which ran swiftly yet silently before, now furiously to foam and fret round the obstacle which it found in its path. (Abp. Trench.)

Restraint quickens

The child is often most strongly tempted to open gates which have been specially interdicted. If nothing had been said about them, probably he would not have cared to open them.

The law rouses sin

Sin full-grown defies law because it is a law: resists restraint because it is restraint; contests authority with God because He is God. Says Cain, as depicted by Lord Byron in colloquy with Lucifer: I bend to neither God nor thee. Lord Byron knew whereof he affirmed. That is the legitimate heroism of sin. Sin runs to passion: passion to tumult in character: and a tumultuous character tends to tempests and explosions, which scorn secrecies and disguises. Then the whole man comes to light. He sees himself, and others see him, as he is in Gods sight. Those solemn imperatives and their awful responses: Thou shalt not–I will; Thou shalt–I will not–make up, then, all that the man knows of intercourse With God. This is sin, in the ultimate and finished type of it. This it what it grows to in every sinner, if unchecked by the grace of God. Every man unredeemed becomes a demon in eternity. (Austin Phelps.)

For without the law sin was dead.—

Unawakened

I. Without the law–in its application to the conscience, or in the knowledge of its spirituality and extent. It is easy to have the law and yet to be without it, which is the case of most. An unawakened man has the law in his hand; he reads it: an awakened man has it in his conscience; he feels it: a regenerate man has it in his heart; he loves it.

II. Sin was dead–

1. As to any consciousness of its existence.

2. Comparatively as to its activity.

3. As to any knowledge of its true character as opposed to Gods law.

The strong man armed keeps his house and goods in peace. The hearts opposition to the law only bound by its presence. Sin dead, and put to death, two different things; it is dead in the unawakened, but put to death in the believer. Sin never has more power over a man than when dead in him, is never less dead than when it appears or is felt to be so. It has to be aroused into life before it is actually put to death. Dead in the soul, it shows that the soul is dead in sin. Sin was alive in the Publican, but dead in the Pharisee (Luk 18:10-14). It must be roused to life and slain here, or live forever hereafter. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.—

The sinner without and under the law

I. Without the law.

1. Alive.

2. But sin is dead.

II. Under the law.

1. Dead.

2. But sin lives.

III. The rationale of the change.

1. A change not of moral condition but of moral consciousness.

2. Effected by the revelation of the law. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Paul without and under the law

I thought all was well with me. Was I not a Hebrew of the Hebrews? Was I not a Pharisee? Was I not strict and zealous? But all that time I was in reality without the law. I knew it then in the letter only, not in its spirit and power. But when the commandment came, when it was brought home to my conscience, when my eyes were opened, then, sin revived, gained a new vitality, sprang into life as a serpent that had been frozen and was thawed. I felt it in all its power; I knew it in its guilt and condemnation; I was as one who had received a death blow; I despaired, my heart died within me. (F. Bourdillon.)

Conscience quickened by the law

1. Paul had lived with a conscience, but one that was not rightly instructed. He had kept his conscience on his side, though he was living wickedly. But there came a time of revelation in which his conscience took sides against him. And the result was that right before him rose his whole lifetime of sin, by which, as it rushed upon him, he was swept away slain. I used, before I knew what Gods true light was, to be active and complacent; but when that spiritual law was revealed to me, all my life seemed like the unfolding of a voluminous history of transgression. And I fell down before the vision as one dead.

2. The difference between a man when his conscience is energised and when his conscience is torpid is a difference as great as that between a man that is dead and a man that is alive and excited to the utmost tension of endeavour.

3. Excitement is itself a matter of prejudice; but no one objects if it is the excitement of enterprise; if it is physical or civic excitement. When it becomes moral, then men begin to fear wild fires and fanaticisms.

4. Now excitement is only another name for vitality. Stones have no excitability. The vegetables rank higher, because they are susceptible of excitement, although they cannot develop it themselves. An animal ranks higher than a vegetable, because it has the power of receiving and developing excitability. Man is the highest; the capacity of excitability marks his position in the scale of being.

5. Now, when excitement is out of all proportion to the importance of the objects presented, or the motive powers, then there is an impropriety in it; and this prejudice against it has arisen from its abuse. There have been moral excitements that are disastrous; but these are effects of a prior cause, namely, absence of wholesome excitement before. You will find frequently where Churches are dead that there will come a period of fanatical revival influence. It is reaction, the violent attempt of life to reinstate itself. But at its worst this is far better than death.

I. Rational moral excitement leads men to apply to their life and conduct the only true standard, namely, that of night and wrong, upon a revealed ground.

1. Ordinarily, men judge their conduct by lower standards. Most men judge of what they are by the relations of their conduct to pleasure and pain, profit and loss; that is, by the law of interest. But if that is all, how mean it is! Men are apt to measure themselves as they stand related to favour. That is, they make others opinions of them the mirror in which to look upon their own faces. Now, it is true that a mans reputation is apt to follow closely upon his character, but there is an interval between that men skip. Men measure themselves by the law of influence, and by ambitious aspirations. Then public sentiment, fashions, customs, the laws of the community, are employed by men to give themselves a conception of what they are.

2. Now not one of these measurings is adequate. No man knows what he is that has only measured himself by them. A man desires to know what he is as a man, and he calls in his tailor. He only judges him as a man with clothes. He calls in his shoemaker. He only judges him with relation to shoes. He calls in the surgeon and the physician, and they, having examined him in every part, pronounce him sound and healthy. Is there nothing more? Yes, there are mental organs. Then call in the psychologist. Has the man yet come to a knowledge of what he is? Is there nothing to be conceived of as moral principle? Is there nothing called manhood, in distinction from the animal organism, etc.?

3. We need to go higher before we can consider this case settled. It must be submitted to the chief justice sitting in the court of the soul. Conscience calls in review all these prejudgments; not because they are wrong in themselves, but because they are inadequate. Conscience introduces the laws of God. Men are called to form a judgment of what they are, not so much from what they are to society as from what they are in the sight of God. You never can get this judgment except where conscience has been illuminated by the Divine Spirit. I am only measured when the soul is measured; and only can it be measured when it is put upon the sphere of the eternal world, and upon the law of God. This is the first great element that enters into moral excitability.

II. An increased sensibility of conscience is one of the most important results of general moral excitement.

1. The not using of ones conscience works lethargy and blindness. But when the conscience is fired by the Divine Spirit, it awakes and glows. You know what it is to have your hand numb; and what it is to have it acutely sensitive. You know what it is to have the eye blurred, and what it is to have it clear. So conscience may exist in a state in which things pass before it, and it does not see them; but lies at the door like a watchdog that is asleep, past which goes the robber into the house and commits his depredations undisturbed. It is a great thing for a man to have a conscience that rouses him up and makes him more and more sensitive; but just as soon as the conscience becomes sensitive, it brings a mans sins to a more solemn account than before.

2. There are many things that we adjudge to be sinful. A man says, Profanity or dishonesty is sinful; but, after all, he has a good natured way of dealing with these things. If men were as good-natured to their enemies as they are to their own sins, there would be much less conflict in the world, a man had a huge rock in his field. He did not want to waste time to remove it; he planted ivy, and roses, and honeysuckles about it, to cover it up; and he invited people to come and see how beautiful it is. A certain part of his farm was low, moist, and disagreeable; and, instead of draining it, he planted mosses, ferns, rhododendrons, etc., there; and now he regards that as one of the handsomest parts of his farm. And men treat their faults so. Here is a man that has a hard and ill temper; but he has planted all about it ivy and roses and honeysuckles. He thinks he is a better man because all his imperfections are hidden from his sight. Here is a man that does not drain his swamps of evil courses, but covers them over with mosses and various plants, and thinks he is better because he is more beauteous in his own eyes. Men lose their conviction of the hatefulness of sins, they get so used to them. But there come times when God makes sin in these respects appear so sinful that they tremble at it. You know how bonds go up. Today they are worth a hundred; tomorrow they are a hundred and five. And then when it is understood that they are going up, they begin to rush; and in the course of a few months they have got up to two or three hundred. When a man is running up values on his sins, they do not go down again. Under the power of an illuminated conscience a man says, first, Why, sin is sinful! Next, It is very sinful! Next, It is exceedingly sinful! Next, It is damnably sinful!

3. The next fact of this reviving of the conscience is that it brings into the category of sins a thousand things that before we never have called such. When gold comes into the assay office, they treat it as we do not treat ourselves. It is carefully weighed, and during the process it is worked up to the very last particle. Yea, the very sweepings of the floor are gathered and assayed again. Now men throw in their conduct in bulk, and do not care for the sweepings; and vastly the greatest portion of it comes out without being brought to any test. But it is to the last degree important that there should come periods in which men are obliged to bring into the category of sins those practices which otherwise they would call their faults, or weaknesses.

4. In New York there is a board of health. And how much dirt there was found the moment there was an authority to make men look for it. It is not half as dirty as it was a little while ago; but the dirt is more apparent, because it is stirred up. Only give a clearer sense of what is right to men, and they will instantly see in themselves much wrong that they have not before discovered. The probability is that now, in New York, there is more apprehension of danger from a want of cleanliness than there has been during the last twenty-five years put together. This has arisen from the increased sensibility of men on the subject, and the application of a higher test to it. There is special need of an awakened conscience to bring to light these things, that are not less dangerous because men do not know of them, but all the more dangerous.

III. An awakened conscience cannot find peace in any mere obedience. There is this benefit–that when once a mans conscience has begun to discriminate, he naturally betakes himself to reformation to satisfy his conscience. But his conscience becomes exacting faster than he can learn how to perform. So that the more he does, the less he is satisfied. Here stands an old house, that has been a hundred years without repair. The old master dies, and a new man comes in. He sends for the architect, who commences searching, and it is found that there is decay all through the building. Part leads to part, and disclosure to disclosure, and decay to decay; and it seems as though it were almost impossible ever to make it good. That is but a faint emblem of the work of reformation in the human soul. A house offers no resistance to his attempts to renovate it; but the human disposition is an ever-fertile, ever-growing, ever-recreating centre. And a man is conscious that the more he tries to regulate it, the harder it is to do it. A man who has been drinking all his life, and lost his name and his business, and nearly ruined his family, attempts to reform. After a month he says, I never had so much trouble in all my experience. It has seemed as though everything went against me, and was determined that I should not lead a good life, and I am almost in despair. Oh, yes. Laws are like fortifications. They are meant to protect all that are inside, and repel all that are outside; and, if a man gets outside and attempts to come back, he must do it against the crossfire of the garrison. No man departs from the path of rectitude that, when he comes back, does not come back by the hardest. There is the experience of the apostle, When I would do good, evil was with me. I perceived that the law was holy and just and good, and I approved it in the inward man. But the more I struggled to obey it the worse I was. O wretched man that I am, etc. Then rose up before him that which must rise up as the ground of comfort in every awakened soul–namely, Jesus Christ.

IV. The only refuge of an excited conscience, as a judge and schoolmaster, must be to bring the soul to Christ. A child is taken by a teacher out of the street, wretchedly clad, bad in behaviour, and woefully ignorant. The old nature is strong. Still he begins to study a little, while he plays more. He is fractious, and comes to grief every day; but by and by he comes to that point where he feels himself to be a bad scholar, and in a flood of tears goes to the teacher and says, It is useless to try and make anything out of me, I am so bad. The teacher puts his arm round the child, and says, Thomas, if I can bear with you, can you with me? I know how bad you have been. But I love you; and I will give you time, and you shall not be ruined. Cannot you conceive that, under such circumstances, there might spring up in the heart of the child an intense feeling of gratitude. And so the teacher carries the child from day to day. Now this is just the work that Gods great heart does for men. And where there is a man that has a rigorous conscience, let him take refuge with one that says, Shift the judgment seat. I will not judge you by the law of justice, but by the law of love and of patience. By faith and love in Christ Jesus we may find rest. (H. Ward Beecher.)

Place of the law in salvation of sinners

1. Salvation has been provided; the worlds chief need now is a sense of sin. Food is not wanting, but hunger. There is healing balm; where are the broken hearts? Christs work is complete; we need that of the Spirit.

2. This chapter is the history of a holy war, and in the text you have a birds-eye view of the whole campaign. In the books of Moses you may find the same three things it contains.

(1) In Egypt Israel were slaves, yet were satisfied with its carnal comforts. This is like Pauls first life, with which he was quite satisfied, I was alive, etc.

(2) The exodus, comprehending the Red Sea, the perils of the wilderness, and the passage of Jordan, correspond to Pauls escape, The commandment came, etc.

(3) The promised land, with its plenty, liberty, and worship, corresponds to Pauls new life in the kingdom of God. We have here–

I. A life which a man enjoys in and of himself before he knows God. I was alive without the law once.

1. The natural state of fallen man is here called life, and elsewhere death. In Gods sight it is death; in mans imagination life. Paul gives his view of his unconverted state when he was in it. Ask him now about it, and he will declare, I was dead in trespasses and sins.

2. But how could he be so blind as to count himself just with God while running counter to the law? The explanation is, he was alive without the law. He could not have lived with it. Why have men so much peace in sin? Because they live without Gods law. Daring speculators cook accounts in order to stave off the evil day. Bolder cheats modify the law of God, that its incoming may not disturb their repose. There is a malformation in some member of your body, and you are ordered to wear an instrument to bring it back to a normal condition. Dreading the pain of the anticipated operation, you secretly take a cast of your own crooked limb, and thereon mould the instrument. When the instrument so prepared is laid upon the limb, the limb will feel easy, but it will not be made straight. Thus men cast upon their own hearts their conception of the Divine law, and, for forms sake, apply the thing that is labelled Gods Word to their own hearts again, but the application never makes them cry, and the crooked parts are not made straight. The process is pleasant, and it serves the deceiver for a religion.

II. The escape from that false life by a dying: The commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

1. The commandment came.

(1) It is no longer an imitation law, but the unchanging will of the unchanging God, with the demand, Be ye holy, for I am holy; and the sentence, The soul that sinneth it shall die.

(2) This newcomer is felt an intruder within the conscience, and an authority over it. Hitherto the man had procured a painted fire, but now the law becomes a consuming fire, working its way into all the interstices of his heart and his history. This commandment came into the man, and found him enmity against God.

2. Sin revived at the entrance of this visitant, and thereby he first felt sin like a serpent creeping about his heart, and loathed its presence.

(1) Hitherto the disease was undermining his life, without giving him pain. The evil spirit met no opposition, and therefore produced no disturbance. The commandment (verse 7) did not cause but only detected sin. The course of his life was like a river, so smooth that an observer could not tell whether it is flowing at all. A rock revealed the current by opposing it. But the rock that detects the movement did not produce it; neither is it able to reverse it. The river rises to the difficulty, and rushes down more rapidly than before. It is thus with the commandment, it has power to disturb, but none to renew.

(2) The difference between a man who is without the law and a man into whose conscience the commandment has come, is not that the one continues sinning and the other has ceased to sin. It is rather that the one tastes the pleasures of sin, such as they are, while the other writhes at its bitterness.

(3) The coming of the commandment for the conviction of sin is not necessarily the work of a day or an hour. In Pauls case the process was short. During that journey to Damascus, it seems to have begun and ended. But in most cases the law enters the conscience as a besieging army wins a fortress, by slow and gradual approaches. Sometimes the will drives back the law; at other times the law, under cover, perhaps, of some providential chastening, renews the assault, and gains a firmer footing further in. But whether by many successive stages, or by one overwhelming onset, the issue is, Sin revived, and–

3. I died. The life in which he had hitherto trusted was extinguished then.

(1) Convictions rose and closed round like the waves of a flowing tide, until they quenched his vain hope. Departments of his heart and history, which till now he had thought good against the final judgment, were successively flooded by the advancing, avenging law. Prayers, penances, and a long catalogue of miscellaneous virtues, floating down the stream of daily life, had coalesced and consolidated, as wood, hay, stubble, stones, mud, carried down by a river sometimes aggregate into an island in the estuary. The heap seemed to afford a firm footing for the fugitive in any emergence.

(2) Upon this heap the commandment came with resistless power. It rose like the tide over the pieces of merit on which the man had taken his stand, and blotted them out. Where they lay, nothing now remains but a fearful looking for of judgment.

(3) But still the commandment comes. The convict, trembling now for his life, abandons all that seems doubtful, and hastily gathering the best and surest parts of his righteousness, piles them beneath his feet. He will no longer give himself out as a saint; he even owns that he is a sinner. He claims only to have sinned less than some he knows, and to have done some good things which might, at least, palliate the evil. The law pays no respect to this refuge of lies, and shows no pity to the fugitive. Wave follows wave, until the law of God has covered all the righteousness of men, and left it lying deep in everlasting contempt.

(4) This death of false hope is, as its name indicates, like the departure of the spirit. Disease having gained a footing, makes its approaches. Member after member is overtaken and paralysed. The soul abandons one by one the less defensible extremities, and seeks refuge in its own interior fastnesses. Still the adversary, holding every point that he has gained, presses on for more. To one remaining foothold the distressed occupant clings a while; but that refuge, too, the inexorable besieger takes at last. Chased by the strange usurper from every part of its long-cherished homer the life flickers over it a moment, like the flame of an expiring lamp, and then darts away into the unseen. So perished the hope of the self-righteous man. He died. What then?

III. He lives in another life.

1. No interval of time separated the two. The death that led from one life was the birth into another. We do not read, I am dead, but, I died. It is the voice, not of the dead, but of the living. The dead never tell us how they died. The death through which Paul passed at conversion is like that which lays a Christians weary body in the grave, and admits his spirit into the presence of the Lord. He that believeth on Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. The fact, like the person, has two sides. If you stand on this side and look, he dies. If you stand on that side and look, he is born.

2. Throughout the whole of his previous history, Paul had stood on the ground and breathed the atmosphere of his own merits. Probably, like other people, he had frequently to remove from place to place in that region. But even the law could not drive him forth. What the law could not do, God did by sending His Son. Christ brought His righteousness into contact with Pauls. Now, the law chasing him once more, chased him over. Out of his own merits went the man that moment, and into Christ. Then he died; and from the moment of his death he lived. Henceforth you find him continually telling of his life, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; Our life is hid with Christ in God.

3. Let the line be distinctly marked between what the law can, and what it cannot do. It may shake down all the foundations of a mans first hope, but it cannot bear away the stricken victim from the ruins. It can make the sinner more miserable, but it cannot make him more safe. It is only when Christ comes near with a better righteousness that even the commandment, raging in the conscience, can drive you from your own. We owe much to that flaming justice which made the old life die, but more to that love which received the dying as he fell into life eternal. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

The condemnatory power of the law

I. In the way of preliminary observation it may be noticed that by the law here mentioned we are to understand the moral law. It is the moral law which says, Thou shalt not covet, as we read in verse 7. It is by the moral law we arrive at the knowledge of sin, as we see from the text, compared with Rom 3:20. It is to the moral law, as a covenant of works, that believers are dead in consequence of their union with the living head of the Church. It is by the moral law that sin takes occasion to deceive and destroy mankind, as you read in Rom 3:11. And finally, it is the moral law which is holy, just, and good, in its precepts, promises, and even threatenings.

II. Consider the false opinion which Paul entertained of himself before his conversion. So completely was he blinded by sin, that he falsely imagined himself to be alive–that is, he thought that he had well-grounded hopes of the favour of God and of eternal life, while in reality he was dead in trespasses and in sins. He was therefore at that time under the influence of a strong delusion. It will be of great consequence here to mark out the circumstances which, through the blindness of his mind, occasioned his mistake, that so we may place a beacon upon the rock which, without the interposition of Divine grace, had proved fatal to the apostle. He laid great stress on his religious education (Act 22:3). Now, this was in itself a very distinguished privilege. But Paul in his unconverted state did not understand the proper improvement of it. Instead of rendering these advantages subservient to a higher end, he valued himself so much upon them that he thought they would contribute towards his acceptance with God. Another circumstance which, through the blindness of his mind, tended to mislead him was his full connection with the Jewish Church, whereby he was entitled to a variety of high external privileges. Had these things been kept in their proper place and rendered subservient to a higher end, they would have formed such beauties of character as to render it an object of admiration. But, alas! Paul being at this time under the influence of a self-righteous spirit, he considered these as constituting his title to eternal life, and so foolishly concluded that he was alive, while in reality he was under the sentence and the power of death, both spiritual and eternal. But further, Pauls delusion in his unconverted state was chiefly owing to his deep ignorance of the purity, spirituality, and extent of the holy law of God. A thorough, inward, deep, and personal conviction of sin is that which lies at the very foundation of vital Christianity, and all religion without this must be delusion for without a sense of sin men will not come to the Saviour, and unless they come to the Saviour they must be irrecoverably undone.

III. The means that were blessed of God for correcting the erroneous opinion which Paul entertained of his spiritual state while a Pharisee.

1. The first means employed by God for discovering his real character was the coming of the commandment. The Lord Jesus, appearing to him when he was near to Damascus, sent by His Spirit the law or commandment home to his conscience in the extent of its requisitions, with such light, authority, and energy as produced a complete revolution of sentiment. This discovery destroyed the very foundation of the delusive hopes of eternal life which he previously entertained.

2. Another means here mentioned which, under Divine influence, subserved the purpose of correcting the erroneous opinion which Paul, when a Pharisee, entertained of himself was the reviving of sin. In the apostles state of unregeneracy sin lived in its latent powers and principles; but through the blindness of his mind he did not perceive, its existence, neither was he sensible of its various operations in his soul. But when the commandment came with light, authority, and energy, he obtained such a view of the numberless evils of his own heart which he never saw before; that sin which once appeared to be dead, now revived. And this is the first view in which sin appears to be alive in the soul of a true penitent. Again, sin revived upon the coming of the commandment, because that commandment, being enforced by the power of the supreme Lawgiver, vested sin with a power to condemn. Sin revived in him on the coming of the commandment also, because the more the holy law urged obedience, the keener opposition did the heart naturally corrupted give to the requirements of the law. And now sin was found not only to exist, but to exist in all its power and strength.

3. The next means which, under Divine influence, corrected the mistaken apprehension which Paul once entertained of himself was that which is here mentioned, I died. The death here mentioned is nothing else than the death of legal hope; and yet no sinner will submit to this kind of death till the law is applied to his conscience by the Holy Ghost convincing him of guilt and of its tremendous demerit. (John Russell.)

The law and the gospel

The main design of the apostle in this chapter is to show that the law would not give peace of mind to the troubled sinner. Note mans condition–

I. Without the law. When I was unacquainted with its high, spiritual demands, I was peaceful and self-satisfied. I lived an earthly life, trusting to my own righteousness.

II. Under the law. When the law was revealed to me in its purity and integrity, I discovered my sinfulness, and fell down as one slain.

III. Above the law. Having found that there is no life in the law, I turned to the gospel. This is the purpose of the law–a schoolmaster. In Christ I found life. (D. Thomas, D. D)

Want of conviction the source of mistaken apprehensions

We have here–

I. The good opinion which Paul once had of himself, while he was in an unregenerate state. I was alive. This is no uncommon thing. Many have deceived themselves with a name to live, while they are dead. He doubtless refers to the time when he was a Pharisee; and there were such persons long before the Pharisees (Job 30:12; 2Ki 10:16-31; Isa 29:13; Isa 58:1-2; Isa 65:5). Concerning Paul himself, read Php 3:5. And yet, when it pleased God to call him by His grace, he saw himself the chief of sinners. What an amazing change was here! Though once alive in his presumptions and performances, he finds himself dead in law, dead in sin.

II. The ground of the apostles mistake. I was without the law.

1. Not that the apostle could be so ignorant as to imagine that he was without law; for as a Jew he had the written law, and as a Pharisee he made his boast of it, and expected life by his own obedience to it.

2. He means, I was alive without the law in its purity and spirituality. I only considered the letter, especially I fell in with the glosses of our Rabbins. But when I was led to view the law in all its extent and spirituality, I saw my mistake–I condemned myself as a most miserable sinner.

3. While men aim only at the external law, there is little difficulty in obeying its precepts; but when they consider it as the very image of God Himself, it is no wonder if their fears begin to be awakened. Without the law, separated from and uninfluenced by it, the sinner receives no uneasiness; but if it be impressed upon his conscience, all his vain hopes are at an end. So, then, the true reason of the apostles mistake was the want of better acquaintance with the law. They who have most light have the lowest thoughts of themselves. Hence we see–

(1) That there is much carnal security in every unregenerate man (Luk 11:21). The children of God may be often in fear and doubt. If they look to the glories of heaven they think themselves altogether unworthy of them: if they look to the horrors of hell their hearts die within them: while sinners have none of these sorrows; securely they live, and, very often, peacefully they die (Psa 73:4). Now and then their consciences may render them uneasy; but the old stupidity returns, and there may be little interruption as to their quiet. Oh, but it would be their greatest mercy to have it interrupted by the coming of the law in its purity and power.

(2) There is much presumption as the ground of their security (Joh 8:41; Joh 8:54-55).

(3) There is also much false joy, as the offspring of groundless hope, built upon their religious education, church privileges, pride, self-love, and their self-comparison with those that are more grossly wicked; but all this is being without the law, or the not judging of themselves by the right rule.

III. The means by which his mistake was rectified.

1. The commandment came, the law, in its pure and holy precepts. Now, if it be inquired how it is that the law comes home to the conscience, we answer, It is by the Spirit of the Lord. He opens the blind eye to discern the purity of the object presented, and exerts His almighty power to put the sinner upon comparing his heart and life with this law, and to hold him to it.

2. Sin revived.

(1) Sin more and more appeared, and made itself manifest.

(2) It awoke and more powerfully exerted itself. While Satan can keep men quiet in carnal security he is content; but no sooner does a man begin to be weary of his yoke and cry out for deliverance, than Satan apprehends the loss of a subject. Then he endeavours to excite and provoke his lusts to the uttermost, in order to overwhelm his soul with despair.

(3) It revived as to its guilt, or its condemning power. He once thought that sin was dead; but the law, when it came, plainly discovered to him its sting, For the sting of death is sin.

3. I died. I saw myself to be in a state of death and condemnation. I found myself insufficient to anything. All my attempts were fruitless, and I lay at the foot of mercy without any claim or plea. In this hopeless and helpless state does Christ find us when He comes to bring us salvation. Oh, how precious is pardon to the ungodly, hope to the hopeless, mercy to the miserable!

Conclusion: A word–

1. To such as are dead, while they think themselves alive, How necessary is self-examination! The apostle, having been convinced of his past mistake, earnestly recommends this (2Co 13:5).

2. Those that feel themselves dead, bless God for the discovery. Where God hath made this discovery of sin, He will lead the heart to Him who is able to subdue sin.

3. Let all who have received life from Christ seek daily supplies from Him. Guard against all sin as contrary to that new life you have in and from Christ (Col 3:1). (J. Stafford.)

The effect of law on obedience

The terrors of the law have much the same effect on our duty and obedience as frost has on a stream–it hardens, cools, and stagnates. Whereas, let the shining of Divine love rise upon the soul, repentance will then flow, our hardness and coldness thaw and melt away, and all the blooming fruits of godliness flourish and abound. (Toplady.)

Death of the moral sense

The gambler that can take anothers money, and feel no compunction of conscience at his villainy, who can continue to walk the streets as if he were an honest man, while all the time a gamblers money is in his pocket and a gamblers joy in his heart, illustrates how thoroughly sin can get the mastery of a human being. How many people can lie in the way of slander, in the way of innuendo, in the way of suspicion, and still sleep at night as if they were as innocent as babes. Such people are dead in trespasses and sins. You run a pin into your body and you scream, because it is a live body. And so, while conscience is alive, the thrust of a wicked thought through it causes exquisite torture. But when one can lie, and steal, and be drunken–when these barbed iniquities can be driven day by day into the very centre of a mans life, and conscience receives the stab without a spasm–then is it dead. And this is the law, that with whatever faculty you sin, the sin which that faculty commits kills the corresponding moral sense. Hence, sin is moral suicide; the drug works slowly but surely. The spirit which is compelled to eat of it is thrown gradually into a torpor, which deepens and deepens with every breath, until the capacity for inspiration is fatally weakened and the spirit dies. (W. H. H. Murray.)

Experience teaching the value of grace

In the olden time when the government of England resolved to build a wooden bridge over the Thames at Westminster, after they had driven one hundred and forty piles into the river, there occurred one of the most severe frosts in the memory of man, by means of which the piles were torn away from their strong fastenings, and many of them snapped in two. The apparent evil in this case was a great good; it led the commissioners to reconsider their purpose, and a substantial bridge of stone was erected. How well it is when the fleshly reformations of unregenerate men are broken to pieces, if thus they are led to fly to the Lord Jesus, and in the strength of His Spirit are brought to build solidly for eternity. Lord, if Thou sufferest my resolves and hopes to be carried away by temptations and the force of my corruptions, grant that this blessed calamity may drive me to depend wholly on Thy grace, which cannot fail me. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Moral life and death

The death of sin is the life of man; and the life of death is the sin of man. (Calvin.)

And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.–

The fatal effects of the law

Suppose a person liable to two bodily disorders of a different kind. He is weak, but the means taken to restore health and strength raise a fever in his veins. If we could keep him weak, he might live; as it is, he dies. So it might be said of the law, that it is too strong a medicine for the human soul. (Prof. Jowett.)

The original and the actual relation of man to law

1. The reader of St. Pauls Epistles is struck with the seemingly disparaging manner in which he speaks of the moral law. The law entered that the offence might abound; the law worketh wrath; sin shall not have dominion over the believer, because he is not under the law, has become dead to the law, is delivered from the law, and the strength of sin is the law. This phraseology sounds strange. Is the law sin? is a question which he himself asks, because aware that it will be likely to start in the mind of some of his readers.

2. The difficulty is only seeming, and the text explains it. The moral law is suited to produce holiness and happiness. It was ordained to life. If everything in man had remained as it was created, there would have been no need of urging him to become dead to the law, to be delivered from the law, etc.

3. The original relation between man and the moral law was precisely like that between nature and its laws. There has been no apostasy in the system of matter. The law of gravitation rules as it did on the morning of creation. The law here was ordained to life, and the ordinance still stands and will stand until a new system of nature and a new legislation for it are introduced. But the case is different with man. He is out of his original relations to the law and government of God, and therefore that which was ordained to him for life, he now finds to be unto death. The food which is suited to minister to the health of the well man, becomes death to the sick man.

4. Let us now consider some particulars in which the commandment is found to be unto death. The law of God shows itself in the human soul in the form of a sense of duty. Every man hears occasionally the words, Thou shalt; thou shalt not, and finds himself saying to himself, I ought; I ought not. This is the voice of law sounding in the conscience. Cut into the rock of Sinai or printed in our Bibles, it is a dead letter; but wrought into the fabric of our own constitution, and speaking to our inward being, the law is a possessing spirit, and according as we obey or disobey, it is a guardian angel or a tormenting fiend. We have disobeyed, and therefore the sense of duty is a tormenting sensation; the commandment which was ordained to life is found to be unto death, because–

I. It places man under a continual restraint.

1. To be reined in and thwarted renders a man uneasy. The universal and instinctive desire for freedom is a proof of this. Now, the sense of duty opposes the wishes, thwarts the inclination, and imposes a restraint upon the desires and appetites of sinful man. If his inclination were only in harmony with his duty, there would be no restraint from the law; in doing his duty he would be doing what he liked.

2. There are only two ways whereby contentment can be introduced into the soul. If the Divine law could be altered so that it should agree with mans sinful inclination, he could be happy in sin. But this method, of course, is impossible. The only other mode, therefore, is to change the inclination. Then the conflict between our will and our conscience is at an end. And this is to be happy.

3. But such is not the state of things in the unrenewed soul. Duty and inclination are in conflict. And what a dreadful destiny awaits that soul for whom the holy law of God, which was ordained to life and joy, shall be found to be unto death and woe immeasurable!

II. It demands a perpetual effort from him.

1. No creature likes to tug and to lift. Service must be easy in order to be happy.

(1) If you lay upon ones shoulders a burden that strains his muscles almost to the point of rupture, you put him in physical pain. His physical structure was not intended to be subjected to such a stretch. In Eden physical labour was pleasure because the powers were in healthy action. Before the Fall, man was simply to dress and keep a garden; but after, he was to dig up thorns and thistles, and cat his bread in the sweat of his face. And now the whole physical nature of man groaneth and travaileth in pain together, waiting for the redemption of the body from this penal necessity of perpetual strain and effort.

(2) The same fact meets us when we pass to the moral nature. By creation it was a pleasure for man to keep the law of God. Holy Adam knew nothing of effort in the path of duty. By apostasy, the obligation to keep the Divine law became repulsive. It was no longer easy for man to do right, and it has never been easy or spontaneous to him since.

2. Now in this demand for a perpetual effort, we see that the law which was ordained to life is found to be unto death. The commandment, instead of being a pleasant friend and companion, has become a rigorous taskmaster. It lays out an uncongenial work, and threatens punishment if not done. And yet the law is not a tyrant. It is holy, just, and good. This work which it lays out is righteous work, and ought to be done. The wicked disinclination has compelled the law to assume this attitude. That which is good was not made death to man by a Divine arrangement, but by mans transgression (verses 13, 14). For the law says to every man what St. Paul says of the magistrate: Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil, etc.

Conclusion: We are taught by the subject, as thus considered–

1. That the mere sense of duty is not Christianity. For this alone causes misery in a soul that has not performed its duty. The man that doeth these things shall indeed live by them; but he who has not done them must die by them. Great mistakes are made at this point. Men have supposed that an active conscience is enough, and have therefore substituted ethics for the gospel. I know, says Kant, of but two beautiful things: the starry heavens above, and the sense of duty within. But is the sense of duty beautiful to a being who is not conformed to it? Nay, if there be any beauty, it is the beauty of the lightnings, terrible. So long as man stands at a distance from the moral law, he can admire its glory and its beauty; but when it comes home to him and becomes a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, then its glory is swallowed up in its terror; then he who was alive without the law becomes slain by the law; then this ethical admiration of the Decalogue is exchanged for an evangelical trust in Jesus Christ.

2. The meaning of Christs work of redemption. The law for an alienated and corrupt soul is a burden. Christ is well named the Redeemer, because He frees the sinful soul from all this. He delivers it from the penalty by making satisfaction to the broken law. He delivers it from the restraint and irksome effort by so changing the heart that it becomes a delight to keep the law. Obedience then becomes a pleasure, and the service of God the highest liberty. (Prof. Shedd.)

Mistaken apprehensions of the law destructive to the souls of men

I. The law of God is one of the greatest blessings that He ever bestowed upon this world, for it was ordained unto life.

1. Our apostle refers to the true nature and use of the law when first given to man in his innocency. It proposed life upon reasonable terms, such as were in the power of man to give, and such as were proper for God to require and accept (Gal 3:12). Life is put for present happiness and future glory, and both might have been obtained by the law.

2. But perhaps it may be objected, whatever blessing it might have been to man obedient to all its requirements, could any blessing arise to him who found the commandment to be unto death? Yes, if by seeing himself lost and rained by the law, he sought salvation in Christ. Not that the law can bring man to Christ of itself, but as it shows a man his need of Christ.

II. The law, which might once have given life to the obedient, is now no longer able to do it. An objection has been started, taken from the case of the young man who inquired: Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? Christ refers him to the law; but it is very evident that our Lords immediate design was to convince him of sin. Had this young man been convinced of sin, Christ would probably have given him a more direct answer to his inquiry. Instead of this, lie was directed to the law, and not for justification but for conviction–to take off his heart from all legal expectations, that he might become a proper subject of Christs kingdom.

III. Sin must be the greatest and the worst of evils, as it turns the blessing into a curse. The commandment I found to be unto death. Nor is this the only instance. It aims at the same end in all its operations. Nor need we wonder at this; for if it hath done the greater, it will effect the less. Blessings still abound among us, but alas! how are they abused to the most licentious purposes! Or, on the other hand, if men do not presume, yet they are under the influence of a kind of secret despair. The blessings of the gospel are either too great to be obtained, or too good to be freely bestowed. In fine, what is there which is not abused to the worst of purposes? Wisdom, courage, riches, honours, pleasures, all excellent in their natures, yet sin, in the heart, turns all into a curse!

IV. Whether men look to the law for life or disregard it, they must equally find it death to their souls. It is true the apostle found that to be death from which he formerly expected life; but did this lead him to disregard the law? Far from it; he declares it to be holy and just and good. Nay, his complaints are all taken from his want of greater conformity to it.

V. If a poor sinner would obtain a title to eternal life, he must not seek it by obedience to the law, but by faith in Christ. (J. Stafford.)

For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.–

Sins use of the law

I. For deception. Sins nature, like Satans, is to deceive. Eve was seduced by Satan through the commandment (Gen 3:1-6). How intensely evil must that be which makes so vile a use of what is good. Sin–

1. Seduces men to break the law, and so works their ruin.

2. Persuades men to an equally fatal extent that they are able to keep it. A mans case is never worse than when expecting heaven from his works. Israel was thus deceived (Rom 10:3); and the Pharisee (Luk 18:11).

3. Excites to rebellion against it as if opposed to our good (verse 8).

II. For death. Sin, like Satan, only deceives to destroy. This death is–

1. Judicial death: the condemnation of the law.

2. Moral death: despair of ever being able to satisfy the requirements of the law.

3. Spiritual death: the execution of the sentence of the law. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

The deceitfulness and ruinousness of sin

The metaphor is taken from a robber who leads a man into some by-path and then murders him. The word principally denotes an innate faculty of deceiving. We read of the deceitfulness of riches (Mat 13:22); the deceitfulness of unrighteousness (2Th 2:10), which is their aptitude, considering the sinful state and the various temptations of men, to deceive them with vain hopes and to seduce them into crooked paths. Once it is put for sin itself (Eph 4:22). Here, as it is joined with sin, it denotes that habitual deceit that is in indwelling sin, whereby it seduceth men and draweth them off from God (Heb 12:13).

I. Sin is of a subtle and deceiving nature. Sin deceives the souls of men–

1. As it blinds their understandings (Rom 1:21-22; Eph 4:18). This blindness of the mind consists in ignorance of God and of our own interests, giving us light thoughts of sin and extenuating it.

2. As it presents various false appearances to the fancy in order to engage the affections. It allures with the specious prospect of riches, but it steals away our best treasure; it flatters us with hopes of honour and happiness, but rewards with disgrace and misery; it premises liberty, but binds us with fetters stronger than iron (Pro 16:25).

3. It has a great advantage in its very situation: it is within, ever present, and sometimes it makes a man become a tempter to himself. There is nothing either within or without but may be, and often is, turned into the nature of sin. The very heart is deceitful, and it aims to deceive the superior powers of the soul. Who can tell how many ways it has to deceive itself? It calls evil good, and good evil.

4. As it turns aside the thoughts from the punishment of sin.

5. Finally, as it sometimes lead men to think, that because they are sinners, the great God is become their enemy, and that there is no hope of reconciliation through Christ.

II. Where sin hath deceived it will also kill, either here or hereafter. The apostle intends that it brought him into a state of aggravated condemnation, or, as it were, delivered him over to eternal death, so that the more he reflected upon it, the more was he convinced that he had been grossly imposed upon by the fascinating power of sin (Job 20:12-14; Pro 20:17; Pro 6:32-33; Jam 3:15). Achan thought to obtain a goodly prize; but how did sin wound his conscience and at length slay his soul!

III. The deceitfulness of sin in the heart of man is unsearchable. The heart is deceitful above all things, and if the heart be so deceitful, what must sin be whorl it gets possession of such an heart! As we know not the hearts of one another, so neither do we fully know our own hearts. Who can tell how our hearts would act if suitable objects, inclinations, and temptations were to unite and concur at any time? (J. Stafford.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Rom 7:7-25

To whom does the passage refer?

To the unregenerate.–

It has been much discussed whether this section describes a justified man, or a man still unforgiven. The latter view was held by Origen and the Greek fathers generally. The former was adopted by Augustine and the Latin fathers generally. It was received in the West during the Middle Ages; and by the Reformers. It is now held, I believe, by most Calvinists. Among Arminians the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of remark that this is the older opinion, and was theirs who spoke the language in which this Epistle was written. That this section describes Pauls own experience before justification, I hold for the following reasons.

1. In the last section we saw a great change take place in Paul, a change from life to death. This change brought him into the state described in Rom 7:5. But in Rom 7:6, Paul says, and he never wearies to repeat it, that another change, as glorious as this was sad, had been wrought in him by the power of God. The completeness of this change has been frequently set before us (Rom 5:10; Rom 6:11; Rom 6:22; Rom 7:6). Paul is dead to sin, set free from its service, dead to the law which formerly bound him to a cruel master. This second change must be located between Rom 7:13, which gives the purpose of the first change, and Rom 8:1, which describes the state of those who enjoy the second. And since Rom 8:14-25 deal with one subject, we must put the second change either between Rom 8:13; Rom 14:1-23, or between chaps. 7 and 8. Now we have no hint whatever between Rom 8:13; Rom 14:1-23 of a change. But in Rom 8:1, the change is written in characters which no one can misunderstand. The words made me free from the law of sin proclaim in the clearest language that the bondage of Rom 8:23; Rom 8:25 has passed away.

2. Again, this section contradicts all that Paul says about himself and the Christian life. He here calls himself a slave of sin, and groans beneath its bondage. He is a calamity-stricken man. But in the last chapter he describes his readers as dead to sin, and set free from its service. In what sense could a Roman Christian dare to reckon himself dead to sin, if this section were a picture of the liberty from sin enjoyed by an apostle? Paul here says that sin dwelling in his flesh is the true author of his actions. But in the next chapter he says that they who live after the flesh will die. He here declares that he works out that which is bad. But in Rom 2:9, he teaches that upon all who do so the anger of God will fall. If these words refer to a justified person, they stand absolutely alone in the New Testament.

3. It has been objected that the language of this section is inapplicable to men not yet justified. But we find similar language in the lips of pagans. What is it that draws us in one direction while striving to go in another; and impels us towards that which we wish to avoid? (Seneca). We understand and know the good things, but we do not work them out (Euripides). I have evidently two souls for if I had only one it would not be at the same time good and bad; nor would it desire at the same time both honourable and dishonourable works, nor would it at the same time both wish and not wish to do the same things. But it is evident that there are two souls; and that when the good one is in power, the honourable things are practised; but when the bad, the dishonourable things are attempted (Xenophon). I know what sort of bad things I am going to do: but passion is stronger than my purposes. And this is to mortals a cause of very great evils (Euripides). I desire one thing: the mind persuades another. I see and approve better things: I follow worse things (Ovid). These passages prove that in many cases men are carried along against their better judgment to do bad things, and that even in pagans there is an inward man which approves what Gods law approves.

4. What Paul says elsewhere about his religious state before justification confirms the description of himself here given. He was a man of blameless morality (Php 3:6); it was in ignorance that he persecuted the Church (1Ti 1:13); he was zealous for God (Act 22:3); a Pharisee of the strictest sect (Act 26:5); no doubt he sought to set up a righteousness of his own (Rom 10:3). Of such a mans inner life we have a picture in this section. His conscience approves the law: he makes every effort to keep it: his efforts only prove his moral powerlessness, and reveal the presence of an enemy in whose firm grasp he lies: he seeks to conquer inward failure by strict outward observance, and perhaps by bloody loyalty to what he considers to be the cause of God. In the conscientious Pharisee we have a man who desires to do right, but actually does wrong. And the more earnestly a man strives to obtain the favour of God by doing right, the more painfully conscious will he be of his failure.

5. It has been objected to the view here advocated that all this is the experience of many justified persons. But this only proves that the change in us is not yet complete, and Paul makes this a matter of reproach (1Co 3:1-4). On the other hand, there are thousands who with deep gratitude acknowledge that, while this section describes their past, it by no means describes their present state. Day by day they are more than conquerors through Him that loved them.

6. Then why did Paul puzzle plain people by using the present tense instead of the past? Let the man who asks this question write out the section in the past tense. I was a man of flesh: I saw another law fighting against me, and leading me captive: I cried, Calamity-stricken man, etc. The life and reality of the section are gone. To realise past calamity, we must leave out of sight our deliverance from it. The language of the last section made it easy to do this. Pauls description of his murder by the hand of sin was so sad and so real that he forgot the life which followed. Hence when he came to speak of the state in which that murder placed him, it was easy to use the present tense. Of this change of the point of view we have already had other examples. In Rom 3:7, Paul throws himself into the position of one guilty of falsehood, and sets up for himself an excuse. In Rom 4:24, he stands by the writer of Genesis, and looks upon the justification of himself and his readers as still future. In Rom 5:1, he urges them to claim peace with God through justification. In Rom 5:14, after contemplating the reign of death from Adam to Moses, he looks forward to the future incarnation of Christ. In Rom 6:5, he speaks in the same way of the resurrection life in Christ. We shall also find him, in Rom 8:30, throwing himself into the far future, and looking back upon the nearer future as if already past. This mode of speech is common in all languages. But it is a conspicuous feature of the language in which this Epistle was written.

7. I cannot agree with those who say that Paul refers in this section to the state of babes in Christ (1Co 3:1); and in the next, to full salvation. The next chapter certainly describes Pauls own experience, which was that of full salvation. And the language of this section is frequently used by those who are only in part saved from sin. But the least babe in Christ has experienced a resurrection from the dead (Col 2:13), and a deliverance purchased with the blood of Christ. Of such resurrection and deliverance there is no hint in this section, till the last verse of it proclaims the dawn of a brighter day.

8. If the above interpretation be correct, we have in this section the fullest description in the Bible of the natural state of man. Even in the immoral there is an inner man which approves the good and hates the bad. But this inner man is powerless against the enemy who is master of his body, and who thus dictates his conduct. In spite of his better self the man is carried along the path of sin. This is not contradicted, nor its force lessened, by Pauls admission in Rom 2:26, that even pagans do sometimes what the law commands. Their obedience is only occasional and imperfect, whereas the law requires constant and complete obedience. A man who breaks the laws of his country is not saved from punishment by the occasional performance of noble and praiseworthy acts. Although men unforgiven sometimes perform that which deserves approbation, they are utterly powerless to rescue themselves from the power of sin, and to obtain by good works the favour of God. (Prof. J. A. Beet.)

The character described in the seventh chapter of Romans

Attend to–

I. The commencement of the struggle of sin in the very formation of the Christian character. In this process there are three features.

1. The rectification of our judgment on the subject of our relation to God. This is what is called conviction of sin. It arises from a perception of the meaning of the law of God, attention to the Scriptures. Things once deemed innocent are now seen to be evil, and sins once deemed trifling are now fell to be awful. The law appears with its avenging eye, and reiterating its demands. The mind is stripped of its vain hope of escaping Divine justice. This conviction may be produced gradually, or suddenly. It may be attended with terror, or it may be serene.

2. A strife on the part of the mind to get out of the state. That conviction of sin which has no influence on the conduct, is not a true conviction. Now the most painful part of the Christian life commences. The individual, from a perception of the holiness of God and the evil of sin, sets himself to avoid sin. But sin, indignant at the restraint, like a mighty torrent before a feeble barrier, collects all its strength, and bears all down before it. It makes him sensible of its strength by the vanity of his efforts to check it. Temptation takes him as easily as a whirlwind lifts a straw. He returns to renew his defeated resolutions, but only to have them defeated again. In what a state must this leave the mind!

3. A clear discovery of the gospel mode of deliverance, and the full application of the mind to it. Now commences the life of faith; for as that which is sown is not quickened except it die, so the faith that gives the mind up to Christ, to be saved by His merits and sanctified by His grace, arises out of the death of self-conflict. What is the consequence? Peace takes possession of the mind. There is a principle formed in the mind, and fixed there, directly opposed to sin, and getting the mastery over it. The struggle may be violent, but grace is sure to prevail, and every fresh victory leads to a further one; until the very habits and tastes of the mind become on the side of piety, and the man feels as in the firm grasp of the hand of his God. This is regeneration.

II. The illustration and confirmation of all this in the chapter before us.

1. The opinion of several eminent commentators is that Paul here refers to himself and men generally in an unconverted state, and under the law, and of that natural approbation which they have of what is good, though quite unable to follow it. They maintain that the language would not suit any other than an unconverted man, inasmuch as in the conflict sin is represented in every instance as getting the victory. But I think this opinion to be wrong, for–

(1) It is contrary to all that we know of the apostle and his history. When was he ever in this state of bondage to sin? Before conversion he was a Pharisee of the strictest sort: he was not only in his own opinion free from this miserable bondage, but he imagined that he was able to keep all the law of God.

(2) The language employed is far too strong for any man in an unconverted state. Can any such man say, I delight in the law of God after the inward man?

2. There is another opinion totally adverse to this, viz., that the apostle is speaking in his state as a Christian at the time he wrote this Epistle. This opinion, however, I conceive to be equally wrong.

(1) It does not agree with the design of the apostle, which was to convince that the law of God was neither an instrument of justification nor of sanctification; but the gospel of both. He has shown in the previous chapters that it was not an instrument of justification. In this chapter he begins to show, that neither was the law an instrument of sanctification, in that it was weak through the flesh; that it could only stir and goad sin by being used to oppose it; that, therefore, we must look out for something else, the gospel of Christ. Now how would it have accorded with this design, to have shown that the mature Christian would not be able to keep the law, nor to become sanctified? That would be proving too much, in that not only the law but the gospel could not be the instrument of sanctification, and would be quite foreign to his design.

(2) And as it does not conform to his design, so neither does it agree with the progressive representations of this and the following chapters. The seventh chapter should never have been separated from the eighth. And who does not see that the man in the eighth chapter is in a very different state from the man in the seventh, though the same man?

(3) It is not agreeable to truth and experience. It is not true of confirmed Christians that they always do the evil they would not, and fail to do the good that they would. Some half-hearted and sluggish Christians may be carnal, sold under sin; their old man may be as strong in them at the last as it is at the first. But it is not true of such Christians as Paul, who tells us that he kept under his body, and brought it into subjection. It is not true of such Christians as John describes when he says, Whoso is born of God, doth not commit sin. Nay, David says of good men that they do no iniquity; they walk in Thy way.

3. Then what is the alternative? Look at the person whom I described in the incipient stages of the formation of the Christian character. See if his case does not agree with every part of the representation and design of the apostle. There is one objection, however. Was he not Paul a Pharisee up to the time of his conversion? And did not that in one instant change him into a decided disciple of Jesus Christ? How then can the representations of this chapter be true of him in this point of view? Answer:

(1) He is speaking of what is common to converted persons at large. If, therefore, his extraordinary conversion had not allowed him to go through that precise experience, he would not be prevented from speaking of himself in this manner, as that which belongs to all converted persons. Such a mode of speaking is common in the Scriptures.

(2) It is not improbable that the apostle did go through something of this kind during the interval which elapsed between his saying, What wilt Thou have me to do? and Ananias coming to give him sight along with the gift of the Holy Spirit. He might learn in those three days and nights all that about sin, about the excellence of the law, about human imbecility, and about the mode of Divine deliverance which he here describes, and which many often do not learn in as many years. Conclusion: Is it asked, Why dwell on such minute parts of Christian experience? We think them of importance to correct false views of religion. How many are apt to suppose that religion consists in a few feelings and sentiments of a religious nature, and in a superficial change of the mind and of the behaviour! But religion is a change of character; it is the death of sin in the soul, commencing with a painful conflict, but proceeding to an habitual and a general victory: and nothing short of this will warrant the hope of a state of salvation. (J. Leifchild, D. D.)

The moral history of the inner man illustrated by this passage

At the outset we observe two remarkable things.

1. Two distinct forces (verse 15), represented as if they were two Egos, the one hating what the other does, the one willing to do what the other strenuously refuses. What are these?

(1) The moral desire, going ever with the law of God–which is holy, just, and good.

(2) The animal choice following ever the law of sin in the members. The choice and the desire, which ought ever to be one in the one being, are in mans case two. All are bound to admit the existence of this fact, however they may differ in their methods of explaining it.

2. The development of these two powers in the same person. The language shows a kind of underlying personality in which these two selves live–the wretched man (verse 24); the inner man, the moral core of our nature–the man of the man. That there should be an opposition between the desire and the choice of different men is a remarkable fact. But that each man should be a self-divided kingdom, a self-created battleground on which heaven and hell fight their campaigns, is a fact as wonderful as it is evident. Here we have the inner man–

I. In absolute subjection to the flesh–thoroughly animalised. It is the state prior to the advent of the commandment (verse 10), when sin was dead, and the man fancied himself morally alive. The soul of infants, of course, is in this state. It is the creature of bodily appetites and desires. It seems wise and kind that the mind should for a time lie dormant in these frail organisations–that the muscles, limbs, and nerves might get strength. But the language is evidently intended to apply to adults. And are not millions walking after the flesh, and living to the flesh? the great question of their existence being–What shall we eat, and what shall we drink, and wherewithal shall we be clothed? The passage teaches that the state of the soul in this stage of its history is–

1. A state of unconscious sin. Without the law sin was dead. It produced no compunction. The soul was dead in trespasses and sin. There is no moral struggle against it. Still, though sin is not a matter of consciousness, it is sin.

(1) It is a violation of our constitution. Were we like the brute, without intellect or conscience, it would be proper to give full play to all our animal impulses and desires. But as we have souls connecting us with moral law, whose well-being consists in the possession of virtue, and which outlive the body, to allow the body a mastery over the soul is a more monstrous anomaly than the enthroning of a ruthless savage as the monarch of a civilised people.

(2) It is a violation of the design of our being. Why are we thus organised? That our spiritual nature might be buried in the material, that the Divine spark might be extinguished, or even clouded by the animal nature? No. The body is designed as a temple in which the soul is to worship, an organ by which the soul is to subordinate the material universe to its service.

(3) It is a violation of Biblical injunctions. We are commanded to mortify the flesh, etc., to keep in subjection our bodies, etc.

2. A state of false life. I was alive without the law once–without the understanding of the law. In this fleshy stage of being, man is so destitute of all sense of responsibility, and all convictions of sin, that he fancies everything right. He lives, it is true. See him revelling in pleasure, or bustling in business. There is life, but it is a false life; not that of an intelligent moral being, made to act to the glory of God. It is the life of a dying man, who in his delirium fancies himself strong and hale; it is the life of a maniac who acts under the impression that he is a king. Such, then, is the state of man in the first stage of his souls history.

II. In violent battlings with the flesh (verses 9-24). In the first stage the conscience was asleep. Not so now. A new era has dawned–conscience is roused from her long slumbers, and a scene of terrible conflicts has commenced. This second stage–

1. Is introduced by a spiritual revelation of the Divine law. The commandment came. The law of God flashed on the conscience and revealed the true moral position. The bodily eye would never be developed without light. It would of course be a perfect organism, but it would not yield the sensation of sight. So with the conscience. It is a perfect organism, but without Gods law it will never see. Bring the commandment upon it, and it will give the man a new world. When the beams of morning play upon the eyeball, the slumbering tribes awake; so when the light of Gods law breaks on the conscience, the man awakes to his true condition. The revelation gives him three horrific feelings.

(1) The feeling of utter wrongfulness. He looks within and finds no good thing. He feels towards the commandment as Hamlets wicked mother felt towards her reproving son–Thou turnst mine eyes into my very soul, etc.

(2) The feeling of miserable slavery.

(a) In corporeal slavery the soul may rise on the wings of devotion, may revel in thought: but here the spiritual faculties are manacled.

(b) Death puts an end to physical and political slavery; but this spiritual slavery, death has no power to destroy.

(3) The feeling of moral death. Sin woke into consciousness, and I died. The law was found to be unto death. It slew him. What is the feeling of the criminal, who has been cheering his doleful state with the delusive hope of pardon, when the executioner tells him the fatal hour is come? What is the feeling of the young man whose blood is warm, heart buoyant, and hopes high, when the physician tells him that a fatal plague has seized him? The feeling of death! What is it? The question produces a cold shiver throughout the frame. But the feeling of death in relation to the soul, what can be more horrific?

2. Is characterised by a struggle to get deliverance by the law. In the first stage the law was disobeyed, but then there was no feeling about it; it was done mechanically. But now there is a struggle for a deliverance by the law.

(1) And this is futile, because the revelation of the law stimulates the tendency to disobey it. It wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Without the law sin was dead. To our depraved nature, stolen waters are sweet. The moment a thing is prohibited our desire to obtain it is increased.

(2) And the struggle is painful, because whilst the law stimulates the tendency to sin, it deepens the impression of its enormity. It is when conscience approves of what we practically oppose that our life becomes intolerable. Thus the sinner in this state cries out, O wretched man that I am, etc. This, then, is the second stage of the souls history. Some reach it and agonise there forever. Cain, Belshazzar, Judas, did. Some reach it as did the thousands on the day of Pentecost, and thence pass on to the peaceful and perfect stage of being.

III. In victorious sovereignty over the flesh. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1. The deliverance comes not by the law. The law brought on the conflict. The law exposed the disease, but had no remedy; the slavery, but it could not emancipate; the danger, but it could not deliver.

2. As an illustration of the enormity of sin. It is sin that has reduced man to this state in which he cries out, O wretched man that I am, etc.

3. As a proof of the glory of the gospel. Science, education, law, the utmost human ingenuity and effort, none of these can deliver man. The gospel alone can do it, has done it, does it, and will do it. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 7. Is the law sin?] The apostle had said, Ro 7:6: The motions of sins, which were by the law, did bring forth fruit unto death; and now he anticipates an objection, “Is therefore the law sin?” To which he answers, as usual, , by no means. Law is only the means of disclosing; this sinful propensity, not of producing it; as a bright beam of the sun introduced into a room shows; millions of motes which appear to be dancing in it in all directions; but these were not introduced by the light: they were there before, only there was not light enough to make them manifest; so the evil propensity was there before, but there was not light sufficient to discover it.

I had not known sin, but by the law] Mr. Locke and Dr. Taylor have properly remarked the skill used by St. Paul in dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the giving offence to the Jews: and this is particularly evident in his use of the word I in this place. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he says YE; in Ro 7:4 the 4th verse he joins himself with them, and says we; but here, and so to the end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin and the inability of the law to subdue it, he appears to leave them out, and speaks altogether in the first person, though it is plain he means all those who are under the law. So, Ro 3:7, he uses the singular pronoun, why am I judged a sinner? when he evidently means the whole body of unbelieving Jews.

There is another circumstance in which his address is peculiarly evident; his demonstrating the insufficiency of the law under colour of vindicating it. He knew that the Jew would take fire at the least reflection on the law, which he held in the highest veneration; and therefore he very naturally introduces him catching at that expression, Ro 7:5, the motions of sins, which were by the law, or, notwithstanding the law. “What!” says this Jew, “do you vilify the law, by charging it with favouring sin?” By no means, says the apostle; I am very far from charging the law with favouring sin. The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good, Ro 7:12. Thus he writes in vindication of the law; and yet at the same time shows:

1. That the law requires the most extensive obedience, discovering and condemning sin in all its most secret and remote branches, Ro 7:7.

2. That it gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death, Ro 7:8-14. And yet,

3. supplies neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaves him under the power of sin, and the sentence of death, Ro 7:14, c. This, says Dr. Taylor, is the most ingenious turn of writing I ever met with. We have another instance of the same sort, Ro 13:1-7.

It is not likely that a dark, corrupt human heart can discern the will of God. His law is his will. It recommends what is just, and right, and good and forbids what is improper, unjust, and injurious. If God had not revealed himself by this law, we should have done precisely what many nations of the earth have done, who have not had this revelation-put darkness for light, and sin for acts of holiness. While the human heart is its own measure it will rate its workings according to its own propensities for itself is its highest rule. But when God gives a true insight of his own perfections, to be applied as a rule both of passion and practice, then sin is discovered, and discovered too, to be exceedingly sinful. So strong propensities, because they appear to be inherent in our nature, would have passed for natural and necessary operations; and their sinfulness would not have been discovered, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet; and thus determined that the propensity itself, as well as its outward operations, is sinful. The law is the straight edge which determines the quantum of obliquity in the crooked line to which it is applied.

It is natural for man to do what is unlawful, and to desire especially to do that which is forbidden. The heathens have remarked this propensity in man.

Thus LIVY, xxxiv. 4:-

Luxuria-ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irtitata.

“Luxury, like a wild beast, is irritated by its very bonds.”

Audax omnia perpeti

Gens humana ruit per vetitun; nefas.

“The presumptuous human race obstinately rush into prohibited acts of wickedness.”

HOR. Carm. lib. i. Od. iii. ver. 25.

And OVID, Amor. lib. ii. Eleg. xix. ver. 3:-

Quod licet, ingratum est; quod non licet, acrius urit.

“What is lawful is insipid; the strongest propensity is excited towards that which is prohibited.”

And again, Ib. lib. iii. E. iv. ver. 17:-

Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.

“Vice is provoked by every strong restraint,

Sick men long most to drink, who know they mayn’t.”

The same poet delivers the same sentiment it another place:-

Acrior admonitu est, irritaturque retenta

Et crescit rabies: remoraminaque ipsa nocebant.

METAM. lib. iii. ver. 566.

“Being admonished, he becomes the more obstinate; and his fierceness is irritated by restraints. Prohibitions become incentives to greater acts of vice.”

But it is needless to multiply examples; this most wicked principle of a sinful, fallen nature, has been felt and acknowledged by ALL mankind.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Is the law sin? God forbid: here is another anticipation of an objection, which might arise from what the apostle had said, Rom 7:5, that sin was powerful in us by the law. Some might object and say, that the law then was sin, i.e. that it was the cause of it, and a factor for it. To this he answers, by his usual note of detestation, God forbid.

Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; i.e. I had not known it so clearly and effectually, so as to humble and drive me to Christ; for otherwise, nature itself teachs a difference of good and evil in many things. He adds this as a reason why the law cannot be the cause of sin, because it discovers and reproves sin, it detects and damns it; and that it so doth, he proves from his own experience.

For I had not known lust; i.e. I had not known it to be sin. By lust here some understand that concupiscence which the school men call unformed concupiscence, which hath not the consent of the will: for the concupiscence to which we consent, the heathens themselves know to be sinful; but that which hath not the consent of the will, or the first motions to sin, they held to be no sin; as neither did the Pharisees, amongst whom Paul lived; nor do the papists to this very day. Some by lust understand original sin, which is the fountain from whence all particular lusts flow; the hot furnace from which all sinful motions, as so many sparks, continually arise: this is called lust, likewise, in Jam 1:14; and this is forbidden in every commandment; for where any of sin is prohibited, there the root also is prohibited; but more particularly it is forbidden in the tenth commandment.

Except the law that said, Thou shalt not covet: some understand the law in general; but the article used in the Greek seems to restrain it to a particular precept. Besides, they are the very words of the tenth commandment. But why doth he not mention the objects that are specified in that commandment, as, thy neighbours house, wife, & c.? The answer is: That that was not material; for the apostle speaking of inward concupiscence, which without the law is latent and undiscovered, it was enough to name the sin itself, seeing the objects about which it is conversant are of all sorts, and can hardly be numbered.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

7, 8. What . . . then? Is the lawsin? God forbid!“I have said that when we were in theflesh the law stirred our inward corruption, and was thus theoccasion of deadly fruit: Is then the law to blame for this?Far from us be such a thought.”

Nay“On thecontrary” (as in Rom 8:37;1Co 12:22; Greek).

I had not known sin but bythe lawIt is important to fix what is meant by “sin”here. It certainly is not “the general nature of sin”[ALFORD, c.], though it betrue that this is learned from the law for such a sense will not suitwhat is said of it in the following verses, where the meaning is thesame as here. The only meaning which suits all that is said of it inthis place is “the principle of sin in the heart offallen man.” The sense, then, is this: “It was by means ofthe law that I came to know what a virulence and strength of sinfulpropensity I had within me.” The existence of this it didnot need the law to reveal to him; for even the heathens recognizedand wrote of it. But the dreadful nature and desperate power of itthe law alone discoveredin the way now to be described.

for I had not known lust,except, c.Here the same Greek word is unfortunatelyrendered by three different English ones”lust” “covet”;”concupiscence” (Ro 7:8)which obscures the meaning. By using the word “lust”only, in the wide sense of all “irregular desire,” or everyoutgoing of the heart towards anything forbidden, the sense will bestbe brought out; thus, “For I had not known lust, except the lawhad said, Thou shalt not lust; But sin, taking (‘having taken’)occasion by the commandment (that one which forbids it), wrought inme all manner of lusting.” This gives a deeper view of the tenthcommandment than the mere words suggest. The apostle saw in it theprohibition not only of desire after certain things therespecified, but of “desire after everything divinelyforbidden“; in other words, all “lusting” or”irregular desire.” It was this which “he had notknown but by the law.” The law forbidding all such desire sostirred his corruption that it wrought in him “all manner oflusting”desire of every sort after what was forbidden.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

What shall we say then? is the law sin?…. The apostle having said, that “the motions of sins were by the law”, Ro 7:5, meets with an objection, or rather an ill natured cavil, “is the law sin?” if the motions sins are by it, then it instigates and prompts men to sin; it cherishes it in them; it leads them and impels them to the commission of it, and therefore must be the cause of sin; and if the cause of sin, then it must be sin, or sinful itself: “what shall we say then?” how shall we remove this difficulty, answer this objection, and silence this cavil? To this it is replied by way of detestation and abhorrence,

God forbid! a way of speaking often made use of by the apostle, when any dreadful consequence was drawn from, or any shocking objection was made to his doctrine, and which was so monstrous as scarcely to deserve any other manner of refutation; see Ro 3:3; and next by observing the use of the law to discover sin; which it does by forbidding it, and threatening it with death; by accusing for it, convincing of it, and representing it in its proper colours, it being as a glass in which it may be beheld just as it is, neither greater nor less; which must be understood as attended with a divine power and light, otherwise as a glass is of no use to a blind man, so neither is the law in this sense, to a man in a state of darkness, until the Spirit of God opens his eyes to behold in this glass what manner of man he is: now since the law is so useful to discover, and so to discountenance sin, that itself cannot be sin, or sinful. The apostle exemplifies this in his own case, and says,

nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; which he says not in the person of another, there is no room nor reason for such a fancy; but in his own person, and of himself: not of himself at that present time, as is evident from his way of speaking; nor of himself in his childhood, before he came to years of discretion to discern between good and evil; but as, and when he was a grown person, and whilst a Pharisee, Php 3:5; he did not know sin during his being in that state till the law came, and entered into his conscience, and then, and by it, he knew sin, Ro 7:7, the exceeding sinfulness of it, Ro 7:13, and that he himself was the chief of sinners, 1Ti 1:15. Nay he goes on to observe, that by the law he came to know, not only the sinfulness of outward actions, but also of inward lusts; says he,

for I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shall not covet: as it does in Ex 20:17. This is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they produce any passage out of the law, thus e,

, “the law says”, if anyone comes to kill thee; referring either to 1Sa 24:11 or Ex 22:1; and a little after, “the law says”, namely, in Ex 3:5, “put off thy shoes from off thy feet”, c. By “lust” is meant the inward motions of sin in the heart, any and every desire of the mind after it not only studied and concerted schemes, how to bring about and compass an evil action; but every loose vagrant thought of sin, and inclination to it; yea, every imagination of the thought of the heart, before the imagination is well formed into a thought; and not only a dallying with sin in the mind, dwelling upon it with pleasure in thought, but even such sudden motions and starts of the mind to sin, to which we give no assent; such as are involuntary, yea, contrary to the will, being “the evil [we] would not”, Ro 7:19, and are displeasing and hateful to us; these are meant by lust, and which by the law of God are known to be sinful, and only by that. These were not known to be so by the Gentiles, who only had the law and light of nature; nor are they condemned, nor any provision made against them, nor can there be any made, by the laws of men: and though these inward lusts are condemned by the law of God, yet inasmuch as they were not punishable by men, and could be covered with the guise of an external righteousness, multitudes who were born under, and brought up in that law, were secure and indolent about them, did not look upon them as sins, or as at all affecting their righteousness; but imagined that, “touching the righteousness of the law”, they were “blameless”, Php 3:6; which was the case of all the Pharisees, and of the apostle whilst such: but when the law came and entered his conscience with power and light attending it, then he saw, such innumerable swarms of lusts in his heart, and these to be sinful, which he never saw and knew before: just as in a sunbeam we behold those numerous little bits of dust, which otherwise are indiscernible by us. Now since the law is of such use, not only to discover the sinfulness of outward actions, but also of inward lusts and desires, that itself cannot be sinful.

e T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 62. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Excellency of the Law; Usefulness of the Law.

A. D. 58.

      7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.   8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.   9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.   10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.   11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.   12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.   13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.   14a For we know that the law is spiritual:–

      To what he had said in the former paragraph, the apostle here raises an objection, which he answers very fully: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? When he had been speaking of the dominion of sin, he had said so much of the influence of the law as a covenant upon that dominion that it might easily be misinterpreted as a reflection upon the law, to prevent which he shows from his own experience the great excellency and usefulness of the law, not as a covenant, but as a guide; and further discovers how sin took occasion by the commandment. Observe in particular,

      I. The great excellency of the law in itself. Far be it from Paul to reflect upon the law; no, he speaks honourably of it. 1. It is holy, just, and good, v. 12. The law in general is so, and every particular commandment is so. Laws are as the law-makers are. God, the great lawgiver, is holy, just, and good, therefore his law must needs be so. The matter of it is holy: it commands holiness, encourages holiness; it is holy, for it is agreeable to the holy will of God, the original of holiness. It is just, for it is consonant to the rules of equity and right reason: the ways of the Lord are right. It is good in the design of it; it was given for the good of mankind, for the conservation of peace and order in the world. It makes the observers of it good; the intention of it was to better and reform mankind. Wherever there is true grace there is an assent to this–that the law is holy, just, and good. 2. The law is spiritual (v. 14), not only in regard to the effect of it, as it is a means of making us spiritual, but in regard to the extent of it; it reaches our spirits, it lays a restraint upon, and gives a direction to, the motions of the inward man; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, Heb. iv. 12. It forbids spiritual wickedness, heart-murder, and heart-adultery. It commands spiritual service, requires the heart, obliges us to worship God in the spirit. It is a spiritual law, for it is given by God, who is a Spirit and the Father of spirits; it is given to man, whose principal part is spiritual; the soul is the best part, and the leading part of the man, and therefore the law to the man must needs be a law to the soul. Herein the law of God is above all other laws, that it is a spiritual law. Other laws may forbid compassing and imagining, c., which are treason in the heart, but cannot take cognizance thereof, unless there be some overt act but the law of God takes notice of the iniquity regarded in the heart, though it go no further. Wash thy heart from wickedness, Jer. iv. 14. We know this: Wherever there is true grace there is an experimental knowledge of the spirituality of the law of God.

      II. The great advantage that he had found by the law. 1. It was discovering: I had not known sin but by the law, v. 7. As that which is straight discovers that which is crooked, as the looking-glass shows us our natural face with all its spots and deformities, so there is no way of coming to that knowledge of sin which is necessary to repentance, and consequently to peace and pardon, but by comparing our hearts and lives with the law. Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the tenth commandment. By lust he means sin dwelling in us, sin in its first motions and workings, the corrupt principle. This he came to know when the law said, Thou shalt not covet. The law spoke in other language than the scribes and Pharisees made it to speak in; it spoke in the spiritual sense and meaning of it. By this he knew that lust was sin and a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful. Paul had a very quick and piercing judgment, all the advantages and improvements of education, and yet never attained the right knowledge of indwelling sin till the Spirit by the law made it known to him. There is nothing about which the natural man is more blind than about original corruption, concerning which the understanding is altogether in the dark till the Spirit by the law reveal it, and make it known. Thus the law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, opens and searches the wound, and so prepares it for healing. Thus sin by the commandment does appear sin (v. 13); it appears in its own colours, appears to be what it is, and you cannot call it by a worse name than its own. Thus by the commandment it becomes exceedingly sinful; that is, it appears to be so. We never see the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing. 2. It was humbling (v. 9): I was alive. He thought himself in a very good condition; he was alive in his own opinion and apprehension, very secure and confident of the goodness of his state. Thus he was once, pote—in times past, when he was a Pharisee; for it was the common temper of that generation of men that they had a very good conceit of themselves; and Paul was then like the rest of them, and the reason was he was then without the law. Though brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, though himself a great student in the law, a strict observer of it, and a zealous stickler for it, yet without the law. He had the letter of the law, but he had not the spiritual meaning of it–the shell, but not the kernel. He had the law in his hand and in his head, but he had it not in his heart; the notion of it, but not the power of it. There are a great many who are spiritually dead in sin, that yet are alive in their own opinion of themselves, and it is their strangeness to the law that is the cause of the mistake. But when the commandment came, came in the power of it (not to his eyes only, but to his heart), sin revived, as the dust in a room rises (that is, appears) when the sun-shine is let into it. Paul then saw that in sin which he had never seen before; he then saw sin in its causes, the bitter root, the corrupt bias, the bent to backslide,–sin in its colours, deforming, defiling, breaking a righteous law, affronting an awful Majesty, profaning a sovereign crown by casting it to the ground,–sin in its consequences, sin with death at the heels of it, sin and the curse entailed upon it. “Thus sin revived, and then I died; I lost that good opinion which I had had of myself, and came to be of another mind. Sin revived, and I died; that is, the Spirit, but the commandment, convinced me that I was in a state of sin, and in a state of death because of sin.” Of this excellent use is the law; it is a lamp and a light; it converts the soul, opens the eyes, prepares the way of the Lord in the desert, rends the rocks, levels the mountains, makes ready a people prepared for the Lord.

      III. The ill use that his corrupt nature made of the law notwithstanding. 1. Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, v. 8. Observe, Paul had in him all manner of concupiscence, though one of the best unregenerate men that ever was; as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless, and yet sensible of all manner of concupiscence. And it was sin that wrought it, indwelling sin, his corrupt nature (he speaks of a sin that did work sin), and it took occasion by the commandment. The corrupt nature would not have swelled and raged so much if it had not been for the restraints of the law; as the peccant humours in the body are raised, and more inflamed, by a purge that is not strong enough to carry them off. It is incident to corrupt nature, in vetitum niti–to lean towards what is forbidden. Ever since Adam ate forbidden fruit, we have all been fond of forbidden paths; the diseased appetite is carried out most strongly towards that which is hurtful and prohibited. Without the law sin was dead, as a snake in winter, which the sunbeams of the law quicken and irritate. 2. It deceived men. Sin puts a cheat upon the sinner, and it is a fatal cheat, v. 11. By it (by the commandment) slew me. There being in the law no such express threatening against sinful lustings, sin, that is, his won corrupt nature, took occasion thence to promise him impunity, and to say, as the serpent to our first parents, You shall not surely die. Thus it deceived and slew him. 3. It wrought death in me by that which is good, v. 13. That which works concupiscence works death, for sin bringeth forth death. Nothing so good but a corrupt and vicious nature will pervert it, and make it an occasion of sin; no flower so sweet by sin will such poison out of it. Now in this sin appears sin. The worst thing that sin does, and most like itself, is the perverting of the law, and taking occasion from it to be so much the more malignant. Thus the commandment, which was ordained to life, was intended as a guide in the way to comfort and happiness, proved unto death, through the corruption of nature, v. 10. Many a precious soul splits upon the rock of salvation; and the same word which to some is an occasion of life unto life is to others an occasion of death unto death. The same sun that makes the garden of flowers more fragrant makes the dunghill more noisome; the same heat that softens wax hardens clay; and the same child was set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel. The way to prevent this mischief is to bow our souls to the commanding authority of the word and law of God, not striving against, but submitting to it.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Is the law sin? ( ?). A pertinent query in view of what he had said. Some people today oppose all inhibitions and prohibitions because they stimulate violations. That is half-baked thinking.

I had not known sin ( ). Second aorist indicative of , to know. It is a conclusion of a second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Usually is used in the conclusion to make it plain that it is second class condition instead of first class, but occasionally it is not employed when it is plain enough without as here (John 16:22; John 16:24). See on Ga 4:15. So as to

I had not known coveting (lust), . But all the same the law is not itself sin nor the cause of sin. Men with their sinful natures turn law into an occasion for sinful acts.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

I had not known [ ] . Rev., correctly, I did not know. See on Joh 2:24. The I refers to Paul himself. He speaks in the first person, declaring concerning himself what is meant to apply to every man placed under the Mosaic law, as respects his relation to that law, before and after the revolution in his inner life brought about through his connection with that law. His personal experience is not excluded, but represents the universal experience. 39 Lust [] . Rev., coveting. See on Mr 4:19.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “What shall we say then?” (ti oun eroumen); ‘What therefore shall we say;- shall we condemn the law, as if it were wrong-? No, in obeying Jesus Christ, as believers, we fulfill the moral and ethical requirements of the Law, Mat 5:19-20.

2) “Is the law sin?” (ho nomos hamartia) “is the law sin?” or sinful in nature? was something wrong with the Law of Moses which God gave? Psa 119:160; the law was by Nature good, when accepted and used lawfully, 1Ti 1:8.

3) “God forbid,” (me genoito) “May it not be so,” or “may it not be considered as sinful.” Really the law was holy and just and good, reflecting the very nature and attributes of God who gave it, Exo 20:1-2; Rom 7:12; Psa 19:8.

4) “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law,” (alla ten hamartian ouk egnon ei me dia nomou) “But I did not recognize sin, except through the law;” The law was a yardstick, a measuring rod, that revealed what sin was in desires? and dead in comparison with holiness, Gal 3:19; Gal 3:22; Gal 3:24; Rom 3:20.

5) “For I had not known lust,” (ten te gar epithumian ouk edein) “Because I did not recognize lust,” and would not have, except I had been told it by the Law. The law did not create lust, pride, greed, etc., but it did reveal that the desire of lust, pride, greed etc., were wrong. Rom 13:9.

6) “Except the law had said, thou shalt not covet,” (ei me ho nomos elegen ouk epithumeseis) “Except the law declared thou shalt not lust or covet,” that which belongs to another, Exo 20:17. It was not the law that was sinful, weak, or bad, but the nature and disposition or inclination of the inherent will of man that was declared by the law to be sinful. Deu 5:21; Act 20:33.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

7. What then shall we say? Since it has been said that we must be freed from the law, in order that we may serve God in newness of spirit, it seemed as though this evil belonged to the law, — that it leads us to sin. But as this would be above measure inconsistent, the Apostle rightly undertook to disprove it. Now when he adds, Is the law sin? what he means is, “Does it so produce sin that its guilt ought to be imputed to the law?” — But sin I knew not, except through the law; sin then dwells in us, and not in the law; for the cause of it is the depraved lust of our flesh, and we come to know it by the knowledge of God’s righteousness, which is revealed to us in the law. (210) You are not indeed to understand, that no difference whatever can be known between right and wrong without the law; but that without the law we are either too dull of apprehension to discern our depravity, or that we are made wholly insensible through self-flattery, according to what follows, —

For coveting I had not known, etc. This is then an explanation of the former sentence, by which he proves that ignorance of sin, of which he had spoken, consisted in this — that he perceived not his own coveting. And he designedly referred to this one kind of sin, in which hypocrisy especially prevails, which has ever connected with itself supine self-indulgence and false assurance. For men are never so destitute of judgment, but that they retain a distinction in external works; nay, they are constrained even to condemn wicked counsels and sinister purposes: and this they cannot do, without ascribing to a right object its own praise. But coveting is more hidden and lies deeper; hence no account is made of it, as long as men judge according to their perceptions of what is outward. He does not indeed boast that he was free from it; but he so flattered himself, that he did not think that this sin was lurking in his heart. For though for a time he was deceived, and believed not that righteousness would be violated by coveting, he yet, at length, understood that he was a sinner, when he saw that coveting, from which no one is free, was prohibited by the law.

[ Augustine ] says, that Paul included in this expression the whole law; which, when rightly understood, is true: for when Moses had stated the things from which we must abstain, that we may not wrong our neighbor, he subjoined this prohibition as to coveting, which must be referred to all the things previously forbidden. There is no doubt but that he had in the former precepts condemned all the evil desires which our hearts conceive; but there is much difference between a deliberate purpose, and the desires by which we are tempted. God then, in this last command, requires so much integrity from us, that no vicious lust is to move us to evil, even when no consent succeeds. Hence it was, that I have said, that Paul here ascends higher than where the understanding of men can carry them. But civil laws do indeed declare, that intentions and not issues are to be punished. Philosophers also, with greater refinement, place vices as well as virtues in the soul. But God, by this precept, goes deeper and notices coveting, which is more hidden than the will; and this is not deemed a vice. It was pardoned not only by philosophers, but at this day the Papists fiercely contend, that it is no sin in the regenerate. (211) But Paul says, that he had found out his guilt from this hidden disease: it hence follows, that all those who labor under it, are by no means free from guilt, except God pardons their sin. We ought, at the same time, to remember the difference between evil lustings or covetings which gain consent, and the lusting which tempts and moves our hearts, but stops in the midst of its course.

8. But an occasion being taken, etc. From sin, then, and the corruption of the flesh, proceeds every evil; the law is only the occasion. And though he may seem to speak only of that excitement, by which our lusting is instigated through the law, so that it boils out with greater fury; yet I refer this chiefly to the knowledge the law conveys; as though he had said, “It has discovered to me every lust or coveting which, being hid, seemed somehow to have no existence.” I do not yet deny, but that the flesh is more sharply stimulated to lusting by the law, and also by this means more clearly shows itself; which may have been also the case with Paul: but what I have said of the knowledge it brings, seems to harmonize better with the context; (212) for he immediately subjoins —

(210) It was the saying of [ Ambrose ], “ Lex index peccati est, non genitrix — the law is the discoverer, not the begetter of sin.” “The law,’ says [ Pareus ], “prohibits sin; it is not then the cause of it: sin is made known by the law; it is not then by the law produced.” — Ed.

(211) As an instance of the frivolous and puerile mode of reasoning adopted by the Papists, the following may be adduced: quoting Jas 1:15, “When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” they reason thus: — “Lust is not simply a sin, for it brings it forth; and when it is sin, it is not mortal sin, for it afterwards brings forth death. “Taking advantage of a metaphor, they apply it strictly and literally, without considering that the Apostle is only exhibiting the rise, progress, and termination — of what? of sin no doubt. The like produces its like. If lust were not sinful, it could not generate what is sinful. Such childish and profane reasoning is an outrage both on common sense and on religion. — Ed.

(212) Most commentators take the opposite view, — that the irritation of sin occasioned by the law is more especially meant here. The two ideas, the knowledge and the excitement, or the increase of sin by the law, are no doubt referred to by the Apostle in these verses. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom. 7:7.I had not known the specific character and peculiar nature of lust. The law of God proclaims to man non concupisces, and thus he learns that concupiscence is sin. The meaning must be that he would not have known sin in any such manner and measure as he then actually did had it not been for the law.

Rom. 7:8. ( and , to excite); , first stirring in the soulinstinct, wish, resolve; , the place from which one goes out, the outgoing itself, material, occasion.

Rom. 7:9.Conscience not disturbed because ignorant of the disease. Was wretched, and lost my own proper being. Fell under the sentence of sin (Wordsworth).

Rom. 7:10., slew all my self-righteous hopes, and brought me into deeper condemnation. He who follows the law for its own sake (and not for the sake of reward) is not slain by the evil principle.

Rom. 7:11.As a rapidly flowing stream rolls calmly on so long as no object checks it, but foams and roars so soon as any hindrance stops it, just as calmly does the sinful element hold its course through the man so long as he does not stem it; but if he would realise the divine commandments, he begins to feel the force of the element, of whose dominion he had as yet no boding (Olshausen).

Rom. 7:12.Demand only what is just and due. Whatever ground of exegesis one takes as to chap. 7 in general, the principle that Paul speaks of himself only as an example of what others are in like circumstances must of course be admitted. Compare 1Co. 4:6, where he explicitly asserts such a principle. Even Reiche, who represents the as the commonwealth of the Jews under the law, and the better I as the ideal Jew without sin, is still obliged to concede that Paul appropriates to himself what belongs to others, or represents them in his own person.

Rom. 7:13. , made manifest as exceeding sinful, be recognised in its entire abominableness. Is then the law of God chargeable with my condemnation? Not so. It would be a conclusion as unjust as irreverent. It is not the law. It is sin which wrought the ruinsin, that it might be displayed in its true light as sin, as a thing so malignant that it can even use that which is good as an instrument of destruction.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Rom. 7:7-13

A lifes experiencesSt. Paul divides his life into three sections:

1. When he was alive, and sin was dead;
2. When sin was alive, and he was dead;
3. When he lived again in Christ.

1. Rom. 7:8-9 : Before he realises the law. He never thought of law, or sinonly of pleasure. Sin, to him, was not; law was not.

2. Rom. 7:9-11 : Between realisation of law and conversion. He examines law; finds himself a sinner, and powerless; sin lives, he dies.

3. Rom. 8:2 : He finds Christ; asks and gains His aid; lives again. Righteousness is by Christ

(1) imputed, and

(2) imparted, to him.

Three considerations arising from this history:

I. Knowledge of Gods law, by itself, does not save.Illustrations: Chinese traveller in Europe, who comes back to China and reports that Europeans have good laws, which they do not obey, and a beautiful religion, which they do not keep. Red Indian chief, who hears a white preacher upbraiding the Indians for their sins, and says: We know we are bad already; tell us how to get rid of our badness.

II. What knowledge of law cannot do, knowledge of Christ can do.Other religions lay down laws of conduct; Christianity alone lays down law, and gives power to keep law (Holy Spirit).

III. Meditation for each.Either I am triumphing over sin, or sin is triumphing over mewhich? Christ and the evil spirit are each doing all that they can to enrol me as a follower. Which am I following? In each case, no alternatives.

Resolutions:

1. Devotion to Christ;
2. Thank for law;
3. Ask grace to keep it.Dr. Springett.

The laws power.St. Paul had just before declared that the true Christian is dead to the law and is delivered from it. Here he puts before us, in the form of a question, an inference which might at first sight suggest itself, that this law from which we are happily delivered is an evil thinga thing of sin. Is the law sin? This question is at once answered with an emphatic denial God forbid. Then follows a vindication of the law from such a suggestion; its operation in contact with mans fallen nature is exhibited; and the reason why, though good in itself, it brings with it condemnation and death is clearly shown.

The vindication of the law of God:

1. The law produces in man the knowledge of sin.St. Paul had previously said (Rom. 3:20), By the law is the knowledge of sin; and now, referring to what he had experienced in his own case, he repeats the assertion as a personal fact, I had not known sin but by the law. He takes the commandment, Thou shalt not covet, as an example of the whole law, and affirms that he would not have known lust or coveting but for this prohibitionthat is, he would not have known any desires or propensities in their true moral nature, would not have recognised them as sins, and the carrying out of such propensities into action would not have troubled his conscience or produced any sense of guilt. The truth of this is plainly seen in St. Pauls own life; for after his conversion, though he acknowledged that he had been a blasphemer and persecutor and injurious, yet he could still affirm that he had lived in all good conscience before God (Act. 23:1).

2. Besides this the law has even the effect of stirring up and inflaming the evil propensities of man, and of adding force to the urgency of their demands.When anything is forbidden by Gods law, there is a natural tendency in the heart of fallen man to desire all the more strongly to do it. Sin, so to speak, uses the commandment as an occasion, a base of operations, a convenient instrument, for gaining a stronger hold upon the man and enhancing its power over him. By a mysterious perversity of the human heart an object forbidden engages his more lively attention; it becomes in his sight more attractive; he is deceived by its seeming desirableness; he resents the restraint imposed upon his desires; his sinfulness assumes a rebellious form. This attractiveness of forbidden objects, and the desire to do what is forbidden because it is forbidden, was often noticed by heathen moralists, and numerous citations to this effect have been collected from Greek and Latin authors. It seems to be inherent in the fallen nature of man.

3. There was a time when St. Paul (to use his own striking words) was alive without the law.He was indeed living under the Mosaic law, and well acquainted with its outward form; but he knew not its spiritual nature or the breadth of its application. He was full of confidence in himself (see Php. 3:4-6), and in his own righteousness he felt perfectly secureno misgivings, no sense of sin. Sin, as far as he was concerned, was to all appearance dead. But when the law in all its spiritual depth and fulness was borne in upon his heart and conscience, how great a change! Sin revived, and he died. His self-confidence was gone, the whole foundation on which he rested gave way; sin reappeared in all its evil power, and wrought all the more violently in him, until he cast himself, as it were, at the feet of that Jesus whom he had persecuted, and found peace in Him. May we not rightly judge that the spiritual conflict alluded to in this scripture was experienced by St. Paul during the three days when he lay at Damascus in bodily blindness, but with awakened conscience and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?

4. So then the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.True it brings condemnation and death to man; but that is the fault, not of the law, but of sinsin is the cause, the law only exhibits the effect. The law brings sin to light, and shows its vileness. This vileness is made the more apparent from the fact that sin is not overcome, but rather is made more rebellious, by the application of the law. Its exceeding sinfulness is detected and exposed by its turning the law, designed to be a holy rule of life, into a condemnationby its working death in man by that which is good.

5. We see how the law may by sin be turned from good to evil, from life to death.Let us learn to use it for the best and wisest purposes. The law is good, if a man use it lawfully (1Ti. 1:3). Two lawful uses are available for us:

(1) Let us use it to convince us of sin, and to show us that we can have no righteousness of our own, that so it may bring us unto Christ to be justified by faith in Him (Gal. 3:26).

(2) When we have found righteousness and peace in Christ, let us use it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as our rule of life, seeing that we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and it is the very purpose of God that the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4).Dr. Jacob.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom. 7:7-13

Law convicts.But the expression without the law might also be understood as denoting without a proper knowledge of the law. And in this sense the apostles remark would apply to mankind universally, and might be thus paraphrased: Formerly, when I was without a proper knowledge of the divine law, I was aliveI thought myself entitled to life and all its blessings, not being aware of the sins which disqualified me for the favour of Heaven. But when the commandment came, when the divine law touched my conscience, and I became fully sensible of its extent, and found that it prohibits, not only outward trangressions, but also all inward affections which tend to produce sin, then sin revived. I became sensible that it exerted its full sway over my mind and conduct, and I died. I felt that I was exposed to death as the wages of iniquity. Such is the view which may be taken of this sentence. While we are unacquainted with the law of God, or think not of it, we are apt to entertain a favourable opinion of our moral condition; we feel no compunction for sins of which we are not properly aware. But when we come to understand and feel the extent and obligation of the law of God, we are forced to form a very different judgment of ourselves, and to acknowledge that we are actually obnoxious to that punishment from which we had formerly thought ourselves secure. It deserves the serious consideration of every man whether he may not labour under some degree of this delusion in regard to his own moral condition. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. This is a repetition of the sentiment expressed in the eighth verse. To see the force of it, we must bear in mind that the apostle is defending the law from the objection stated in the seventh verse, of its being calculated to promote sin; and showing how, though perfectly unexceptionable in its own nature, it had become the occasion of the fatal effects that resulted from it. In this illustration he continues to consider the sinful propensities of the mind as a living and active power continually striving to bring men under its dominion. These propensities took occasion, by means of the commandment, to deceive men. Although the law showed their evil nature, it could not restrain them; and they deceived men by means of the commandment, because, in spite of the clear knowledge of the nature of sin which the law afforded, they still seduced men into actual transgressions. The clear prohibition of the divine law rendered these transgressions more heinous; and thus the commandment was the occasion of men being guilty of more aggravated sins than they could have committed had they wanted the knowledge of the law. But there is also another sense in which our sinful propensities deceive us by the commandmentnot indeed by anything in the nature of the commandment itself, but by the perversity of human nature operating by means of the commandment. For the mere circumstance of certain things being forbidden is apt to increase the desire of them, and thus lead the corrupt heart to transgress the law in order to obtain them. Sin having deceived me by means of the commandment, it also slew me. By the sins which it tempted me to commit, it rendered me obnoxious to death.Ritchie.

Belief in the law is to feel condemnation.Unbelief in the law is as common as unbelief in the gospel. If men believe in the gospel, they soon feel the power of it. So of the law; if they truly believe it, they will feel the power of its condemning voice. No man can be found who will deny that he has sinned. Let a man, then, only believe in reality that death eternal is, according to the law of God, annexed to his sin as a punishment, and he will be afraidhis heart will sink within him. He will have no rest, he will have fearful forebodings of wrath; and if this be not the case, then plainly he does not believe the law. To hear the law, and yet be as hopeful and merry-hearted and unconcerned as if the law were an idle tale or a mere man of straw, that shows a most miserable state of blindness and want of feelinga state which can be accounted for only by the fact that the law is not credited, that its threatenings are not believed at all. The law not only shows us our sin, but makes us feel that we are lostas good as dead. A man is in a room during the dark; he sees nothing, but imagines that he is safe. At length the day breaks. Through the window of his apartment sunlight enters; and behold, he is, though he knew not till now, in the midst of wild beasts, which, like himself, have been asleep. They awake, and put on a threatening aspect. There is a serpent uncoiling its horrid length, and there a tiger watching its opportunity for a fatal spring. The light has come, and the man now sees his dangerhe is but a dead man. So when the law comes, there is seen guilt now in the past life in every part of it. There is felt now sin in the present condition of the heart. Every moment there is a discovery of sin. Everything past and present cries, as it were, for vengeance. Death everywhere stares him in the face.Hewitsons Remains.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.The conclusion from the foregoing exhibition of the effect of the law is, that it is not to be blamed for the evil which it incidentally produces. In Rom. 7:9 Paul uses the words law and commandment as perfectly synonymous; here they are distinguished. The law collectively, and each command separately, are alike holy, etc. The word holy in the first clause expresses general excellence, freedom from all fault; and contains all that is expressed by the three terms of the second clause, where holy means pure, just means reasonable, and good, benevolent or tending to happiness. The law is in every way excellent. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid, etc. With a view to prevent the possibility of its being supposed that he thought disrespectfully of this holy law of God, the apostle again denies that it is directly the cause of sin, but shows that our own corruption is the real source of the evil. Made death, agreeably to what has been said above, means made the cause of sin and misery. The law is not this cause.Hodge.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Text

Rom. 7:7-12. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: Rom. 7:8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting; for apart from the law sin is dead. Rom. 7:9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; Rom. 7:10 and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: Rom. 7:11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. Rom. 7:12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

REALIZING ROMANS, Rom. 7:7-12

279.

If the power of sin is the law, why not do away with all law so we would have no sin?

280.

If the law causes sin, is it not itself some form of sin?

281.

In just what way does sin or Satan find an occasion in the law?

282.

There must be a very personal Devil, for how else would he be able to approach our spirits through the law? Do you believe this is a fair deduction?

283.

When was Paul ever alive apart from the law?

284.

In what sense did the commandment come to Paul?

285.

What death did Paul die as a result of his personal sin?

286.

In what sense did sin revive? cf. Rom. 7:9 b.

287.

Verse ten states the purpose of the law. What was it?

288.

Just what was, or is, the occasion of Rom. 7:11 a?

289.

Paul was beguiled or deceived by sin through the commandment. How?

290.

In what sense are we to understand Rom. 7:12? The law is holy, In what respect?

291.

Is the commandment different from the law? Explain. Answer all of these questions with your present knowledge. You are directly responsible to God and directly responsible to the word of God. These words were written to the Christians in Rome, who had no more ability to understand than you do, yet God expected them to understand by reading and thought. He expects the same thing of each of us.

Paraphrase

Rom. 7:7-12. What then do I say when I affirmed, Rom. 7:5. that, under the law, our sinful passions wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death? Do I say that the law is a bad institution? By no means. Nay, I could not have known sin in its extent and demerit, unless through law. For even strong desire of things sinful, I could not have known to be sin punishable with death, unless the law of Moses had said, thou shalt not covet.

Rom. 7:8 But I say that sin, taking opportunity under the law to kill me by its curse, wrought effectually in me the strongest desire of things forbidden, and thereby subjected me to death, (Rom. 7:5) For without the law, sin is dead; hath no power to kill the sinner.

Rom. 7:9 Accordingly, I was in my own imagination entitled to life, while without the knowledge of law formerly: but when the commandment, with its curse, came to my knowledge in their full extent, sin, which I fancied had no existence in me, lived again, and I died by the curse.

Rom. 7:10 And so the commandment written on the hearts of men, and published in the law of Moses, which was intended for giving life, the same was found by me, in my present state, to be the occasion of death.

Rom. 7:11 For as law neither remedies the weakness of human nature, nor subdues its evil appetites, sin, taking opportunity while I was under the commandment to kill me, deceived me into the commission of evil actions by its specious allurements, and through the commandment slew me.

Rom. 7:12 Wherefore, the law indeed, as it restrains us from sin by the fear of punishment, is holy even in its curse, and the moral commandment is holy, and just, and good.

Summary

The law is neither sinful nor the cause of sin. On the contrary, sin becomes known by the law. As proof, I had never known desire to be sin, but for the precept of the law forbidding it. But so soon as the precept was given, sin took advantage of the circumstance to work up desire in me, the very thing the law forbade; and thus I fell under the condemnation of the law. Without law sin is dead or powerless to kill. Accordingly, before the law I was alive or uncondemned, but when the precept came I broke it. Thus sin arose, and for it I was condemned to die. It was in this way that a precept which was designed for life turned out to end in death. The law then is not sin; but is holy in all its parts.

Comment

a.

The Objection Stated: Since it is so desirable to be released from the law, is the law a form of sin? Rom. 7:7 a

b.

The answer is given. Rom. 7:7 b Rom. 7:12

The apostle, in this instance as in the former two, first states the objection then immediately denies it. Then follow the reasons for his refusal to accept the validity of the objection. Rom. 7:7 b

Since the subjects of sin and law have been brought together, Paul takes this opportunity to explain the relationship of the law to sin and vice versa.

(1) His first observation is that although the law of itself is not sin, it does make sin known. In other words, it defines sin. As an illustration of this thought Paul says, I would never have known it was a sin to covet unless the law had been given. In the law I was informed that a condition of covetousness was a condition of sin. Rom. 7:7 c

(2) His second thought is to describe the work of sin (or Satan, as sin is here personified) in its relation to the commandment. When the commandment was given it afforded an occasion to Satan for temptation. Even as Satan took the command of God in the garden and, appealing to the power of choice, tempted Eve, so now he comes to you and me and says, even as of old, Yea, hath God said? In the case cited by the inspired writer he would have said: Yea, hath God said, Thou shalt not covet? Thus when man makes the wrong choice, all manner of coveting is given entrance to his heart. We can see then indeed that apart from the law sin (or Satan) is dead or powerless. Rom. 7:8

144.

State in your own words the thought of the objection concerning the law in respect to sin.

145.

What is the relationship of the law to sin (cp. 1Co. 15:56)?

146.

Describe briefly the work of Satan in respect to the law.

(3) The third point in this discussion recalls the days of innocent childhood, before the demands of the law were comprehended or ere the light of reason shone upon its penalties. Regarding his childhood state Paul could truly say, I was alive (or happy, living in blissful unconsciousness of moral responsibility) apart from the law. But when I became conscious of Gods demands upon my soul, when I understood Gods will for my life, no sooner had this taken place, than sin (or Satan) came alive and I died. How his death took place has already been described. Rom. 7:9

(4) Further describing the work of the commandment: it was given to point men to a life in God. But tragic as it may sound, I found it to result only in death. It is even as I have already observed, that Satan found an occasion through and by the commandment to beguile me, even as he in his craftiness did beguile Eve. Thus we see that Satan actually used the commandment as a death weapon in his hands to slay me. Rom. 7:10-11

(5) So, in conclusion, and in direct answer to your objection, I can say that the law is not a form of sin. The commandment bears no vestige of sin. The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. From what I have said, you know the true relation of the law and sin. Rom. 7:12

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(7) What shall we say then?The Apostle had spoken in a manner disparaging to the Law, and which might well give offence to some of his readers. It was necessary to correct this. And so now he proceeds to lay down more precisely in what it was that the Law was defective, and what was its true function and relation to the history and struggles of humanity.

In what follows the Apostle speaks throughout in the first person. He is really making a general statement which applies to all mankind; but this statement is based upon his own personal experience. Self-analysis is at the bottom of most profound psychology. The Apostle goes back in thought to the time before he had embraced Christianity, and treats his own case as typical. There can be little question that the description which follows to the end of Rom. 7:24 is a description of the unregenerate state of man. It is one prolonged crisis and conflict, which at last finds its solution in Christ.

Is the law sin?The Law had just been described as stimulating and exciting the motions of sins. Was this true? Was the Law really immoral? No, that could not be.

Nay.Rather, howbeit (Ellicott), nevertheless. The Law is not actually immoral, but it is near being made so. It is not itself sin (sinful), but it reveals, and so in a manner incites to, sin.

I had not known.Strictly, I did not know. I had no acquaintance with sin except through the Law. Before the introduction of law, acts that are sinful in themselves, objectively viewed, may be done, but they are not sinful with reference to the person who does them. He has no knowledge or consciousness of what sin is until it is revealed to him by law.

Sin.Here a sort of quasi-personification. The principle or power of sin into contact and acquaintance with which the Apostle was brought for the first time by the Law.

I had not known lust.The Apostle introduces an illustration from a special lawthe Tenth Commandment. Lust is here to be taken in the special sense of covetousness, desire for that which is forbidden. Doubtless there would be many before the giving of the Law who desired their neighbours wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, &c.; but this would not be coveting, it would not be desire of that which was forbidden, for the simple reason that it was not forbidden. Covetousness, then, as a sin, the Apostle did not know until he was confronted with the law against it.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

c. But the law is to be exculpated from blame , Rom 7:7-25 .

The new Church is freed from law as a woman from an oppressive husband, and the apostle is about to picture the bliss of that emancipation when he is interrupted by two questions, and compelled to postpone that picture to the next chapter. Those questions and their answers (7-12 and 13-25) occupy the remainder of this entire chapter.

The Jew, made jealous for the law by Rom 7:5, demands: “ Is the law sin?” No, the apostle answers; the law is the detection of sin, and is good, and sin the only murderer, 7-12.

But, then, is this law, maintained by you to be good, the cause of death? No, but sin, defeating every effort of the awakened self to be holy, becomes a body of death, 13-25.

These two paragraphs, therefore, are entirely occupied in showing how the man in the flesh and under law (Rom 7:5) is dealt with by the law.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

First question Is the law sin? 7-12.

7. Is the law sin? In thus making deliverance from law the Christian principle, do you identify the law as sin? Not only as satisfying the sensitive Jew, but as a neutralizer of all antinomianism, (which abolishes obligation to holiness,) the apostle must honour the divine law.

Had not known sin So far from being sin, the law is the detecter of sin, revealing its existence and odiousness to the moral consciousness of the unreflecting sinner. Sin, like a heinous monster in the dark, lies concealed in the soul; the law comes like the sun and reveals his awful deformity.

Shalt not covet Shalt not entertain the evil desire of the heart. The sinner knew external crime against human law, against society, against honour. But sin, the motion of the inner man infringing God’s law, he was ignorant of, or unconsciously ignored. We need not go to childhood, as many commentators do, to find this state of darkness and unconsciousness. It is the state of the world. With the busy worldly world the law of God has gone up into invisibility in the skies; and the world-law, that knows only crime and not sin, is solely and persistently known.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not.’

The vital question is put. If the Law has to be treated in the same way as the principle of sin within, by our being put to death to it (Rom 6:2; Rom 7:4); by our being freed from it (Rom 6:18; Rom 6:22; Rom 7:6); and by our being delivered from under its rule (Rom 6:14 a; Rom 7:1); does this make the Law sin? Does it equate the two? And his immediate response is, ‘certainly not.’ Indeed he brings out that they were to be seen as opposites. Sin was to be seen as an enemy, a master tyrant, and as on the side of evil, whilst the Law exposed sin as what it was, and was thus on the side of good, although being manipulated by sin. But the problem then lay in the fact that the Law had to apply its own standards. It had to bring under condemnation those who were in subjection to sin. And that includes all of us.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘However, I had not known (egnown) sin, except through the law. For I had not known (edein) coveting, except the law had said, “You shall not covet,” ’

For it was through the Law that Paul had come to ‘know sin as a personal experience’ (egnown). The Law had taught him intellectually the essential nature of ‘coveting’ (following illicit desire) in such a way that he had come to understand it in his mind (edein), as found in Exo 20:17, and as a consequence he had come to recognise it personally in his own experience. For once the Law had taught him the essential nature of coveting he had soon had brought home to him that it was prevalent in his own life. He had begun to recognise his own covetous nature and his own illicit desires. And as a consequence he had thus found himself guilty as a Law-breaker. He who had so earnestly striven to keep the Law, had suddenly found himself condemned by the Law. It had been a time of great, but devastating, illumination. But it did mean that the Law, which had once been his seeming friend, had now become in some way his adversary. And once this had happened he had suddenly began to see more and more of the sins that the Law exposed, and to recognise thereby his own increasing guilt. We are not told at what stage in his life this illumination had come, although it was probably pre-conversion. But it had clearly been very vivid. And it would explain why he had redoubled his efforts to achieve ‘righteousness’ by persecuting the hated Nazarenes (the church).

Paul is no doubt expecting his hearers (as the letter is read out) to apply this to themselves on the basis of the ten commandments as interpreted by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, commandments which they no doubt knew well, and some of which they had broken. But he does not press the application.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul’s Initial Experience Of The ‘Slaying’ Power Of The Law (7:7-13).

Having demonstrated that much of what sin does in chapter 6, the Law does in Rom 7:1-6 (see introduction to chapter 7 above), Paul now faces up to the shocking question as to whether that means that he equates the Law to sin. And, knowing what the horrified reaction of his hearers would be he immediately says, ‘Certainly not!’ For many of them saw the Law as something to be greatly revered, both because it had come from Moses (and therefore from God), and because they had been taught its huge religious importance. And this would be equally so among his wider readership. (He expected his letters to be passed on to other churches to be read. See Col 4:16). So he then points out to them from his own experience that it is not that the Law is sinful (it is holy and just and good), but nevertheless that it stirs up sin, and as a result brings us under sentence of death.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul’s Personal Experience Of The Law, Used As An Illustration In Order That The Roman Christians Might Also Apply It To Themselves, Demonstrating Both The Holiness And The Powerlessness of The Law; The Sinfulness Of Our Flesh, Even Though Redeemed; The Transformation Of The Redeemed Mind; And The Way Of Release Through Jesus Christ Our Lord And The Law Of The Spirit Of Life In Christ Jesus (7:7-8:2).

Paul now gives what we might see as a personal testimony (note the singular personal pronouns which continue on to Rom 8:2 where they abruptly cease). His purpose, however, is not in order to inform them about his own problems, or to excuse himself, but in order that they might think along with him and see its application in their own lives, and recognise the way of deliverance by Jesus Christ our LORD (Rom 7:25), and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:2). His purpose is to teach, and make them think about the Law in relation to themselves, rather than to confess on his own behalf. He is using himself as an illustration. We should end up, not by saying ‘now isn’t that interesting about Paul’, but by saying, ‘this is so illuminating. It is the story of my Christian life’.

The first thing to notice here is the change in Paul’s address to ‘I’ (ego). Previously he has spoken of ‘we, us’ and he will return to speaking of ‘we, us’ in chapter Rom 8:3. But in Rom 7:7 to Rom 8:2 he speaks of ‘I, me’. Note especially the change from ‘we’ to ‘I’ in Rom 7:14 which emphasises this. It is clear therefore that what he has to say is very much to be seen as an aspect of his own experience. We must remember when interpreting this that he was expecting his letter to be read out to the churches, and to be understood by his hearers as they heard it, so that any subtle meaning to ‘I, me’ must be ruled out. This is not a piece of Greek literature, intended to be read by the intelligentsia, and ruminated over in order to discover hidden meanings, but a down to earth letter intended for all. Nor are there any good reasons why the hearers should have seen him as using ‘I’ to mean ‘we Jews’ (it might have been different had he used ‘we’). In view of the sudden transition any hearer would immediately assume that Paul was talking about himself. After all, if he meant ‘we Jews’, why did he not say so? And this is especially brought out in the cry of his heart, ‘O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me –.’ This the cry of an individual in pain, not of a hypothetical nation.

It is true that a close examination of the text does reveal that Paul probably has in mind more than just his own experience, and that he possibly sees his own experience as reflecting both the experience of Adam, and the experience of Israel in the wilderness. In other words as reflecting the experience of all men. But he does it by speaking about is his own experience, as one who participates in the run of history. Thus he considers that both the experience of Adam and the experience of Israel are reflected in his own life and the life of his hearers. We must remember in this regard the Jewish belief that their own history was a continuation of the past to such an extent that they actually saw themselves as involved in the past. Thus when they met at Passover they were not just remembering what had happened to their forefathers long before, they actually felt that they were themselves were becoming a part of that wonderful deliverance. They were themselves partaking in it. It had happened to them.

In the same way, Paul, as he outlines his own experience, possibly does so in terms of the history of his forefathers. It may be (although it is questionable) that when he said, ‘I was alive apart from the Law once’, he saw himself as having been innocent and as having himself sinned with Adam. It may be (although again it is questionable) that when he said, ‘when the commandment came sin revived and I died’, he saw himself as receiving the revelation of the Law. In other words that he saw his life as a reflection of his forefathers. This would help to explain the vivid language that he uses in the initial verses. But the experience that he is describing is not theirs but his, and that of all men. We should remember in this regard that the vivid references to being dead and being alive are also referred to sin (Rom 7:8-9). Thus the vividness is no indication of literalness.

But we may ask, why does Paul switch so unusually to speaking of himself? It was certainly in order to convey a message, but why else?

It might suggest that he saw what he was about to say as a message of such delicacy that he did not want to apply it too directly to his hearers, recognising that it might arouse strong personal feelings within them. By referring it to himself he took away its sting while getting over his point. (After all his aim was to keep on good relations with the church at Rome, and he was not over well known to most of them). And it may be that he feared that some of them at least might not have recognised it all in themselves, due to a weak sense of what was sin. By applying it to himself he would make them think more carefully. And certainly part of the material very much expresses an individual experience (Rom 7:7-13), even though it is a personal experience which has a message to convey.

It might suggest that he did not want them to make what he said an excuse for ‘living in sin’. He might well have felt that if he had told them ‘it is no longer you who do it but sin which dwells in you’, it could well have triggered the wrong kind of reactions. He would know that he himself would never excuse his own sin on the grounds of ‘sin dwelling in him’, but he could not be so certain about others.

It might suggest that he wanted to present his message in such a way that it helped those who felt that they had experienced what he had, whilst not making all feel that they ought to be experiencing the same. Different Christians were at different levels. He would not want to encourage ‘copycat’ sin.

It might suggest, and this may possibly be seen as the most prominent reason, that it was in order to bring out what he was saying in all its vividness, a vividness that might have been lost in a general application. He may well have hoped that as his hearers listened they would find themselves caught up in his struggles, recognising it as a part of their own experience.

So there may have been a number of reasons for him making it personal, although in the end we can only surmise, for we do not know of a certainty why it was.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Sanctification Confirms the Law – We must first reckon ourselves dead to sin (Rom 6:1-14) and free from the Law (Rom 6:15 to Rom 7:6). Paul then takes a moment to explain that the Law is holy as evidenced by our struggle to overcome the very sins that are declared by the Law (Rom 7:7-25).

For example, our two little children did not know that it was wrong to hit each other until Mom and Dad told them that it was against the rules. They thought that they could say “No!” to us when they felt like it and it was ok, until we laid down the law and punished them for not obeying. The older they get, the more they learn what is right and wrong (Rom 7:7).

Unfortunately, even when children are told what is right and wrong, their inborn sinful nature often rules them and they yield to their flesh, rather than to their conscience. Sin takes advantage of the fleshly make-up of man, and tempts him contrary to his heart (Rom 7:8).

When young children die, they die in innocence and go to heaven. But as they grow older, they learn between right and wrong, and become more and more accountable the older they get. As some age of accountability, God sees their sin and holds them accountable. At that time, they must repent under the shed blood of Jesus, or face hell. Therefore, Rom 7:9 says that we were alive at one time, but when the commandment, sin and its accountability also rose up, and condemned us to death; for we broke the laws we were given.

Thus, it appears that the very laws that were given to us to keep us from death were used to condemn us in our sins (Rom 7:10). Sin itself, using these commandments, let us deceitfully into our transgressions and separated us from God (Rom 7:11).

Our very sins demonstrate that the commandments were correct, even though we did not obey them (Rom 7:12). In fact, our very sins were revealed to be exceeding sinful because they were declared so in the commandments (Rom 7:13).

Although we have been born again in the spirit, we still live in this fleshly body, which is still bound and subject to sinful desires (Rom 7:14). Therefore, we sometimes yield to the flesh and sin, although in our hearts we know that it is wrong. This can often confuse us in our walk with the Lord (Rom 7:15). But these sins serve to demonstrate that the Word of God is holy and pure, while our transgressions are sinful (Rom 7:16).

For we soon realize that it is not our hearts that are desiring sinful acts, but it is a result of yielding to our fleshly nature that causes us to sin (Rom 7:17-18). In this struggle to do right, we as Christians come face to face with the reality that our flesh is at war with our spirits (Rom 7:19-21). We see that the inward man, our spirit, always desires the ways of God (Rom 7:22), but the outward body of flesh always desires the things of this world (Rom 7:23). This is discussed further in Gal 5:16-18.

Our conscience condemns us for our actions of yielding to the flesh (Rom 2:15) and we cry out for a way to overcome this struggle (Rom 7:24). Thank God that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit into our hearts to lead us through this dilemma. We now know that with our minds, we can choose to yield to the flesh or to the spirit (Rom 7:25). Thus, when we choose to walk in the spirit, our conscience no longer condemns us of sin (Rom 8:1).

Rom 7:7  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:7 Comments – Under the Law the Jew had to become conscience of each and every sin, so that he prepared the proper sacrifices, since each sin required a specific sacrifice. This meant that the Jews were constantly reminded of their sins. The Law even made provision on the day of Atonement for dealing with any sins that were overlooked during the course of the year. The Law made people recognize their sinful nature so that they would look to God for redemption, since no one was able to keep the Law perfectly (Gal 3:24).

Gal 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Rom 7:8  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Rom 7:8 “wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” Word Study on “concupiscence” Strong says the Greek word “concupiscence” ( ) (G1939) means, “a longing.” Webster says the English word “concupiscence” means, “ Sexual lust; morbid carnal passion.”

Comments Covetousness can be directed in many directions. It can penetrate every area of our lives. Within the context of the epistle of Romans, it refers to the continual cravings of the flesh.

Rom 7:8 “For without the law sin was dead” Comments Before the time of the giving of the Law, we observe in the book of Genesis that God did not judge individual sins of men, although He did bring judgment upon mankind as a group when they reached certain levels of sin.

Scripture References – Note:

Joh 15:22-24, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.”

Rom 4:15, “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

1Co 15:56, “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

Rom 7:9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Rom 7:9 Comments The term “age of accountability” refers to the age of a person when he begins to leave childhood and becomes responsible for his own actions. Paul seems to be describing such a transition in his life. As a child he lived in innocence; however, he was taught the Law and soon became accountable for its rules and regulations.

Rom 7:10  And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Rom 7:11  For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Rom 7:11 Comments Before Israel came under the Law at Mount Sinai, they were murmuring and complaining in sin, yet no one died. As soon as Moses came down from the mount with the tablets of the Law, God judged Israel through the sword of the Levites as they slew three thousand men (Exo 32:28). Israel continued to break the Law and God continued to judge them until Jerusalem was finally destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians. As long as Israel was under the Law, their sins were before God, and God was just in bringing judgment upon His children.

Exo 32:28, “And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

Rom 7:12  Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Rom 7:12 Comments – In Rom 7:12 Paul gives the concluding answer to the question in verse 7, which asks, “Is the Law sin?” He has shown that the Law is in fact holy. The Law is like a mirror that allows man to see himself in comparison to a holy God. This reflection of the law on the heart of man reveals human depravity because the Law itself is pure and holy.

Within the immediate context of Rom 7:12, which describes the characteristics of the Law, Paul has cited the tenth commandment, “thou shalt not covet” (Rom 7:4). However, Paul’s discussion of the Law in this passage of Scripture allows us to understand that all of the commandments contained within the Law are “holy, and just, and good.

Goodspeed translates this verse, “So the Law itself is holy, and each command is holy, just, and good.” Thus, the phrase “the law” refers to the entire Mosaic Law, while the phrase “the commandment” refers to any particular part of the Law.

Rom 7:12 Scripture References – Note:

Neh 9:13, “Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments :”

Rom 7:13  Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 7:13 “Was then that which is good made death unto me?” – Comments We can paraphrase this statement and say, “Did that which is good, i.e., the law and commandments, work, or cause, death in me?”

Rom 7:13 “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful” – Comments Through the Law, which is God’s Word, sin becomes very sinful, that is, it shows God’s righteousness, and man in his deep depravity of sin.

1. The law is made for the lawless, etc, and any man who lives contrary to sound doctrine.

1Ti 1:9-10, “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

2. It was added because of transgressions, i.e., because man was sinful.

Gal 3:19, “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

3. It was added, or given, to show how very sinful the acts of sin are.

Rom 7:13, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

4. The law speaks to those under the law.

Rom 3:19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

Rom 7:13 “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful” Scripture References – Note:

Rom 3:19-20, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God . Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Gal 3:22, “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin , that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

Rom 7:14  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom 7:14 “For we know that the law is spiritual” Comments – The Law exhibits divine characteristics. Love is the fulfilling of the Law (Rom 13:10). The law is good and is from God. It deals with the heart of man.

Rom 13:10, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

The Ten Commandments Exo 1:1-17 records the Ten Commandments that Moses received on Mount Sinai. The heart of these laws serves as the foundation of the man’s faith in God in both the old and new covenants. They establish the divine principles by which man should live throughout the ages, from Genesis to Revelations.

The major theme of the Pentateuch is the delivering of the Mosaic Law to the children of Israel. On Mount Sinai, Moses gave the people the Ten Commandments, which can be referred to as the “Moral Law.” He then delivered to them many statutes and ordinances regarding daily living and service in the Tabernacle. This set of rules and regulations can be referred to as the “Civil Laws.” The Ten Commandments became the foundation for the Jewish civil laws. Thus, the Ten Commandments dealt with a man’s heart, while the civil laws dealt with a man’s actions. When a man held the moral laws within his heart, he would then be willing to follow the civil laws. Moses repeats the giving of the Ten Commandments in Deu 5:1-22 to the new generation of people who will go in to possess the Promised Land.

When questioned by the Jews about the greatest commandment, Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments into two great commandments, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” (Mar 12:30-32) Thus, we can understand that the first four commandments deal with our relationship to God. Jesus summed these four up with the statement that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

1st Commandment (Exo 20:3) – No other Gods before Me. Love God with all your heart.

2nd Commandment (Exo 20:4-6) – No worship of graven images. Love God with all your soul.

3rd Commandment (Exo 20:7) – Do not take God’s name in vain. Love God with all your mind.

4th Commandment (Exo 20:8-11) – Keep the Sabbath. Love God with all your strength.

This order of heart, soul, mind and strength helps us to understand our make-up. When we set our heart on something or someone (1 st commandment), we begin to think about it (2 nd commandment). Our thoughts lead us to speak about it (3 rd commandment). Our words direct our actions (4 th commandment). The last six commandments deal with our relationship with our fellow man:

5th Commandment (Exo 20:12) – Honour father and mother.

6th Commandment (Exo 20:13) – Do not murder.

7th Commandment (Exo 20:14) – Do not commit adultery.

8th Commandment (Exo 20:15) – Do not steal.

9th Commandment (Exo 20:16) – Do not bear false witness.

10th Commandment (Exo 20:17) – Do not covet.

In Rom 13:9-10 Paul summed up these last six commandments with the same statement that Jesus had taught, which says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Rom 13:9-10, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Rom 7:14 “but I am carnal” – Comments – The word carnal means, “fleshly, consisting of flesh.” Paul says, “I am a creature that has to live in the flesh and deal with this flesh.”

Rom 7:14 “sold under sin” – Comments – NIV Thayer translates this phrase, “Entirely under the control of loving sin” (see ). The NIV reads, “sold as a slave to sin.”

1Ki 21:20, “And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee: because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the LORD.”

1Ki 21:25, “But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.”

2Ki 17:17, “And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.”

Rom 7:14 Comments – The two phrases “sold under sin” (Rom 7:14) and “bringing me into captivity” (Rom 7:23) explain one another. The fleshly part of us has an indwelling law of sin that wars against the law of our mind and tries to get us in bondage to sin.

Rom 7:23, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”

Paul is saying that the Law is inspired by God and exhibits a character of divine love, but he is a mortal man and his body is sold in bondage to sin.

Rom 7:22 Comments – The phrase “the inward man” seems to show that Paul is speaking here as a born-again believer, a new creation (Eph 3:16, 2Co 4:16).

Eph 3:16, “That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man”

2Co 4:16, “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”

Rom 7:24 “O wretched man that I am” – Word Study on “wretched” Strong says the Greek word “wretched” (G5005) means, “enduring trial, miserable.”

Rom 7:24 “who shall deliver me from the body of this death” Comments – Paul asks “Who”, and not “What.” In other words, it is not a technique or a program that must be followed that will deliver you from the bondages of sin. It is only in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is our deliverer. Note a similar prayer in the Lord’s Prayer, Mat 6:13, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:”

Rom 7:24 Comments – Any Christian struggling for sanctification has felt like crying out this phrase from his spirit, or inner man. Praise God. When we do, we know that there is now presently no condemnation on us.

Rom 7:24 shows us that a born-again believer who continues in sin is a most unhappy creature. He does not really “enjoy the pleasures of sin” any more deep down inside. A Christian seeks to be delivered from this miserable condition of sin. So, we groan within ourselves (i.e., in the inner man) wanting to be redeemed from this body.

Rom 8:23, “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

Rom 7:25 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” Word Study on “I thank God” The Greek construction ( ) or ( ) [171] or some variation of this phrase is found no less than thirteen times in the Greek New Testament (Luk 17:9, Rom 6:17; Rom 7:25, 1Co 10:30; 1Co 15:57, 2Co 2:14; 2Co 8:16; 2Co 9:15, Col 3:16, 1Ti 1:12 , 2Ti 1:3, Phm 1:7 [t.r.], Heb 12:28). It is properly translated in a variety of ways; “I am grateful to God,” or “I thank God,” “Let’s give thanks,” or “with thanks to the Lord.”

[171] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, M. Robinson, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 2006), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), Romans 7:25.

Comments – Under the Mosaic Law, man’s sinful nature ruled him so that he was unable to serve the Lord. We thank God that our ability to serve the Lord is now through the power of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ dwelling within us. Rom 8:13 says, “If ye through the Spirit (i.e., Spirit of Jesus) do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Rom 7:25 “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” – Comments – The mind refers to “the understanding” of man. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:44 says that we can pray in the spirit without the understanding; so, the mind is in the soul, and not in spirit. If we are serving the God’s law with the mind (part of the soul), then it is a renewed mind (Rom 12:2). This phrase “with the mind” is the spiritual-mindedness that is referred to in Rom 8:6, “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” It is the renewed mind that is able to make a decision between right and wrong. Jesus Christ is the answer for our deliverance from the carnal mindset of the flesh as we mortify the deeds of the body through the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:13).

1Co 14:14, “For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.”

Rom 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Rom 8:13, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Note also:

Rom 1:9, “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;”

Rom 7:25 Comments There are a number of the passages in the New Testament that deal with the Christian’s battle with his own fleshly lusts (for example, Rom 7:23, Gal 5:17, Jas 1:14-15).

Rom 7:23, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”

Gal 5:17, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

Jas 1:14-15, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

The Will of Man:

In Gen 3:1 Adam yielded to temptation. In contrast, Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the wilderness after forty days is an example of victory of His own will. After studying the illustrations of the temptations of Adam and Eve and of Jesus, we see that, since man is a 3-fold creature; spirit, soul, body, the will is in the soul. Man’s born-again spirit desires God’s will, but the flesh of body desires sin. So if a man is carnal minded, he will follow the flesh. If he is spiritual minded, he will follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The soul determines which direction the person will go, and the devil knows this is so. The struggle is not fought in the realm of the spirit, or in the realm of the flesh, although these two realms are contrary to each other. The struggle takes place in the realm of the soul, where decisions are made.

What about Jas 4:17, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Why? Because the ultimate choice is determined by a man’s will. Webster defines will power as “the strength of will, mind, or determination.” [172]

[172] Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1960), 1673.

Mar 14:36, “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt .”

1Co 7:36-37, “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will , he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will , and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.”

1Co 9:17, “For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will , a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.”

The Will of Man and the Fear of God:

Jesus choose to say, “nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt,” (Mar 14:36) because He feared God.

Mar 14:36, “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”

Jesus chose God’s will because he feared God.

Heb 5:7, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared ;”

The fear of God guides the man of God:

Isa 29:13, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”

Heb 12:21, “And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)”

Conclusion:

Ecc 12:13, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

Few Christians dig into the Word of God enough to come out with a dose of Godly fear. Yet those Christians who do this appear to be the only ones not overcome in the Parable of the Sower (Mar 4:1-20).

Pro 1:7, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Pro 3:7, “Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.”

Pro 14:26-27, “In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge. The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.”

Pro 16:6, “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”

How does fear come? See Pro 2:1-5:

Pro 2:1-5, “My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD , and find the knowledge of God.”

Illustration – Peter’s temptation in Luk 22:31 was a spiritual battle. Peter was willing (Luk 22:33), but his flesh was weak.

Luk 22:31-33, “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.”

Two factors play a part in winning the victory over temptation:

Mat 26:41, “ Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

1. Watchfulness or alertness.

1Pe 5:8, “ Be sober, be vigilant ; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:”

BDAG says the Greek word “sober” ( ) (G3525) means, “free from every mental and spiritual ‘drunkenness,’ from excess, passion, rashness, confusion, etc, well balanced, self-controlled.”

BDAG says the Greek word “vigilant” ( ) (G1127) means, ‘to keep or be awake.”

Peter is telling us that we have to be spirit-minded, or notice that spiritual things are having a factor on this physical earth in people and circumstances. Illustration – I was told the story that in Africa, there was a tree (somewhat small) that could not be pushed over for construction by a bulldozer. The reason why was because of the demonic realm and witchcraft in that area.

1Th 5:8, “But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.”

This has to do with the armor of Eph 6:14-17. The armor is a way of illustrating soberness and watchfulness and readiness.

2. Prayer.

Mat 6:13, “ And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil : For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”

2Th 3:2, “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.”

Also, note in Psalms David’s prays to God for help.

Rom 7:24-25 Scripture References – Note:

1Co 15:56-57, “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Purpose of the Law and Its Effect.

The object of the Law:

v. 7. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? God forbid! Nay, I had not known sin but by the Law; for I had not known lust except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

v. 8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the Law sin was dead.

v. 9. For I was alive without the Law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

v. 10. And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death.

v. 11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

v. 12. Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

In the previous section the apostle had testified to the Christians that they had been freed both from sin and from the Law, thus placing emancipation from the slavery of sin and from the yoke of the Law on the same level. He now finds it necessary to meet a false conclusion which might be drawn from these statements: What inference shall we draw then? Is the Law sin; is it evil in itself? Does it produce harm? St. Paul answers with an emphatic: Most certainly not! And yet, though the Law is not in itself evil, it stands in a certain relation to sin. It is the source and the only source of the knowledge of sin: I should not have come to know sin but through the Law; as also I should have had no knowledge of lust if the Law had not said: Thou shalt not covet. Paul is here speaking from the standpoint of the regenerated believer, and is recounting his experiences, such as are common to the experience of men just before and at the time of their conversion. What he says, in effect, is this: Every person lives in errors, trespasses, and sins from the hour of his birth: but will admit nothing but natural weaknesses, small mistakes, such as every person is liable to make; it is only when the Law opens his eyes that he sees his sin to be what it really is, a godless conduct, an insult to the holiness and purity of the Lord. And in gaining this knowledge, the command not to covet is of great importance. That command shows to man the consciousness of his desire, as it strives against the Law. For since the evil desires and lusts for all sins are revealed as a transgression of the Law, as an evil in the sight of God, therefore their presence reveals to man the evil source whence they spring. In this way a person is convicted of the fact that all the desires, imaginations, lusts, and thoughts of his heart by nature are opposed to the will of God.

But there is another point to be remembered in regard to the relation between the Law and sin. The Law not only serves for the knowledge of sin, but assists also in bringing forth evil desires: But sin, taking an incitement through the commandment, worked in me lust of every kind; for without the Law sin was dead. When the Law is held before the eyes of the sinner, the result is that it acts as a stimulus, an incitement, an offense to his sinful heart. Brought face to face with sin as it really exists, and with the wrath and condemnation of God, the heart of man will be filled with resentment against God and His Law, with hatred against Him who, by this revelation of sin, brings discomfort and the feeling of guilt to the sinner. The sin, then, the depravity of nature, brings about every form of lust and evil desire, and finally also every kind of sinful deed.

In just what way sin, the perverse tendency of man’s naturally evil will, uses the commandment as a stimulus and incitement to evil lust, the apostle explains: For without the Law sin was dead; I, however, once lived without the Law; but when the commandment came, sin revived. Where there is no law, there is no sin, and therefore a person could not be aware of its existence: and where there is no knowledge of the Law of God, there is no knowledge of sin. Sin is unknown, is not recognized as such, until it is brought to light by the Law. And Paul says, using his own example for that of all regenerated persons that have had a similar experience, that, while unconscious of the Law, he lived his life without the Law and sinned in ignorance of his real culpability: he had no painful consciousness of sin, even though his conscience may have bothered him more or less. But when the commandment was brought to his attention, when the Law was revealed to him in its full extent and in the spirituality of its demands, then sin revived, it regained its real vitality and power in its enmity toward God, in its activity in opposition to His holy will. Just because there is a definite prohibition, the natural heart of man resents the command as an unwarranted interference with his rights, like a wild mountain stream that finds its path obstructed by a dam. There is no essential difference, in this case, whether a person actually shows his resentment in deliberate works of sin, or whether he is influenced by external considerations to exhibit a Pharisaical righteousness, while the heart incidentally is a tumult of the wildest lusts and desires.

What the result of this revelation of sin was in his own case St. Paul openly states: But I died, and it was found that, so far as I was concerned, the commandment, really designed for life, in my case resulted in death. For sin, in taking offense at the command, deceived me and through it killed me. With the sense of conscious guilt the sense of the penalty of death makes its appearance. If a person could keep the Law, then he could live through the Law. But this object cannot be realized; on the contrary, the sinner, face to face with the condemnation of the Law, begins to feel the terror of death and hell. He realizes his utter inability to fulfill the Law as God demands it, and that consciousness draws the picture of death before his eyes. Sin, in its foolish resentment against the Law of God. attempts to portray the forbidden joys and pleasures as a most desirable gain, as great happiness. But all that is base deceit, for the forbidden fruit contains the germ of death and destruction in itself, and every one that yields to the tempting pleading will find himself under the condemnation of death, a candidate of eternal damnation. The same result must be recorded if sin tries to persuade a person to exert his own strength in defiance of God; every effort to attain to perfection by means of the Law only aggravates the sinner’s guilt and misery.

And so the apostle draws a conclusion which almost sounds like a paradox: And thus the Law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. The Law in itself is holy according to its entire content, with all its demands it is a revelation of the holiness of God, and every one of its mandates is holy, right, and excellent, demanding from man only what is just, good, and praiseworthy. Nan’s weal, not his woe, is its natural object and end. Thus Paul averts a possible misunderstanding of his position over against the Law of God. Note: Christians are not Antinomians, they do not reject the Law of God; but, with Paul, they make a very careful distinction between being under the Law and being under grace.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Rom 7:7. Is the law sin? Unrighteousness?as giving any allowance, or contributing any thing to sin. See Rom 7:12. The skill which St. Paul uses in dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the giving offence to the Jews, is very visible in the word I, in this verse. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge in the law, he says ye; in the 4th verse, he joins himself with them and says we; but here, and so on to the end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin among the Jews, and the inability of their law to subdue it, he leaves them out, as it were, and speaks altogether in the first person; though it is plain, he means all those who were under the law. So chap. Rom 3:7 he uses the singular pronoun I, when he evidently means the whole body of the unbelieving Jews. We may also observe here another masterly stroke of honest art; namely, his demonstrating the insufficiency of the law, under colour of vindicating it. He knew the Jew would take fire at the least reflection upon the law, which he held in the highest veneration; and therefore he very naturally introduces him catching at that expression, Rom 7:5 the motions of sins, &c. “What!” says he, “do you vilify the law, by charging it with favouring sin?””By no means,”answers the Apostle. “I am very far from charging the law with favouring sin; the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good;” Rom 7:12. Thus he writes in vindication of the law, and yet at the same time sets forth its deficiency. See the note on the first verse of this chapter. We have another instance of the same ingenious turn of writing, chap. Rom 13:1-7. Some read the second clause of the verse, By no means, but I should not have known sin, had it not been for the law, &c.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 7:7 . ;] Is the law sin? a something, whose ethical nature is immoral? Comp. Tittmann, Synon . p. 46; Winzer, Progr . 1832, p. 5; also Fritzsche, Rckert, de Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi. For the contrast see Rom 7:12 , from which it at once appears that the formerly current interpretation, still held by Reiche and Flatt, “originator of sin” ( , Gal 2:17 ), is, from the connection, erroneous; as indeed it would have to be arbitrarily imported into the word, for the appeal to Mic 1:5 overlooks the poetical mode of expression in that passage. The substantive predicate (comp. Rom 8:10 ; 2Co 5:21 , al. ) is more significant than an adjectival expression ( ), and in keeping with the meaning of the remonstrant, whom Paul personates. The question is not to be supposed preposterous, setting forth a proposition without real meaning (Hofmann), since it is by no means absurd in itself and, as an objection, has sufficient apparent ground in what precedes

After we are no more to understand again (Hofmann) than before . ., for which there is no ground (it is otherwise at Rom 9:30 ). On the contrary, this , but , brings in the real relation to sin, as it occurs in contrast to that inference which has just been rejected with horror: , , , Theophylact.

. , . ] Sin I have not become acquainted with, except through the law . The is sin as an active principle in man (see Rom 7:8-9 ; Rom 7:11 ; Rom 7:13-14 ), with which I have become experimentally acquainted only through the law (comp. the subsequent ), so that without the intervention of the law it would have remained for me an unknown power; because, in that case (see the following, and Rom 7:8 ), it would not have become active in me through the excitement of desires after what is forbidden in contrast to the law. The . ., therefore, is not here to be confounded with the . in Rom 3:20 , which in fact is only attained through comparison of the moral condition with the requirements of the law (in opposition to Krehl); nor yet is it to be understood of the theoretic knowledge of the essence of sin, namely, that the latter is opposition to the will of God (Tholuck, Philippi; comp. van Hengel and the older expositors), against which view Rom 7:8 ( . ) and Rom 7:9 are decisive. The view of Fritzsche is, however, likewise erroneous (see the following, especially Rom 7:8 ): I should not have sinned , “ cognoscit autem peccatum, qui peccat.”

is to be rendered simply, with the Vulgate: non cognovi . The sense: I should not have known , would anticipate the following clause, which assigns the reason.

The is nothing else than the Mosaic law , not the moral law generally in all forms of its revelation (Olshausen); for Paul is in fact declaring his own experimental consciousness, and by means of this , as it developed itself under Judaism , presenting to view the moral position (in its general human aspect) of those who are subject to the law of Moses.

. . . .] for the desire (after the forbidden) would in fact be unknown to me , if the law did not say, Thou shalt not covet . The reason is here assigned for the foregoing: “with the dawning consciousness of desire conflicting with the precept of the law, I became aware also of the principle of sin within me, since the latter (see Rom 7:8-9 ) made me experimentally aware of its presence and life by the excitement of desire in presence of the law.” What the law forbids us to covet (Exo 20:17 ; Deu 5:21 ), was no concern of the apostle here, looking to the universality of his representation; he could only employ the prohibition of sinful desire generally and in itself, without particular reference to its object.

On , for indeed , comp. Rom 1:26 ; it is not to be taken climactically (van Hengel), as if Paul had written . or . . To the , however, corresponds the following in Rom 7:8 , which causes the chief stress of the sentence assigning the reason to fall upon Rom 7:8 (Stallb. ad Plat. Polit . p. 270D); therefore Rom 7:8 is still included as dependent on . Respecting the imperative future of the old language of legislation, see on Mat 1:21 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Fifth Section.Synopsis: The law, in its holy design, by the feeling of death, to lead to the new life in grace. The development of the law from externality to inwardness. The experience of Paul a sketch from life of the conflict under the law, as well as of the transition from the old life in the law to the new life in the Spirit.

Rom 7:7-25

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. [Let it not be!] Nay, [but] I had not known [i. e., recognized] sin, but by [except through] the law: for I had not known lust [evil desire],17 except the law had [if the lawhad not] said, Thou shalt not covet. 8But sin, taking occasion [,] by the commandment, [omit comma] wrought in me all manner of concupiscence [evil desire]. 9For without the law sin was [is] dead. For [Now] I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived [sprang into life], andI died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to [was unto]18 life, Ifound [the same, or, this, was found by me] to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion [,] by the commandment, [omit comma] deceived me, and by it slew me.12Wherefore [So that] the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13Was [Did] then that which is good made [become]19 death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in [to] me by [through] that which is good; [,] that sin by [through] the commandment might become exceeding [exceedingly] sinful.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal,20 sold under sin.15For that which I do [perform],21 I allow [know] not: for what I would, that do I not [not what I wish,22 that I practise]; but what I hate, that do I.16If then I do that which I would not [But if what I wish not, that I do], Iconsent unto [I agree with] the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more18[longer] I that do [perform] it, but sin that dwelleth [dwelling] in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing [good doth not dwell]: for to will [wish] is present with me; but how [omit how] to performthat which is good I find not [or, is not].23 19For the good that I would [wish],20I do not: but the evil which. I would [wish] not, that I do [practise]. Now [But] if I do that I24 would [wish] not, it is no more [longer] I that do21[perform] it, but sin that dwelleth [dwelling] in me. I find then a [the] law,that, when I would [wish to] do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delightin the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to25 the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of thisdeath [or, this body of death]?26 25I thank God [or, Thanks to God]27 through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself [I myself with the mind]28 serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

A.The development of life under the law as development of the knowledge of sin.

Summary.1. The law in relation to sin; Rom 7:12-13. a. The holiness of the law in its relation to the sinfulness of man; Rom 7:7-12. b. The effect of the law in harmony with its design: Disclosure of the deadly effect of sin, in causing it to complete itself as well in facts as in the consciousness; Rom 7:13.2. The sinner in relation to the law; Rom 7:14-23. a. The revelation of mans carnal nature or tendency in general under the spirituality of the law; Rom 7:14. b. The disclosure of the sinful obscuration of the understanding; or the dispute of knowledge; Rom 7:15-16. c. The disclosure of the sinful obscuration of the will; or the dispute of the will; Rom 7:17-18. d. Disclosure of the sinful obscuration of feeling; or of the unconscious ground of life; Rom 7:19-20. e. Disclosure of the darkening of the whole human consciousness by the opposition of Gods law and a mere seeming law; or the deadly rent in the whole man; Rom 7:2123.3. The unhappy premonition of death, in the sense of the entanglement by the (seeming) body of death, and the release from it; Rom 7:24. 4. The transition from death to life; Rom 7:25. a. The redemption, in the former half of the verse. b. Conclusion in relation to the starting-point of the new life; second half of Rom 7:25.

B.The same development as transition from the law to the Gospel, from ruin to salvation.

(Eph 5:13 : But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.) a. The holy design of the law to discover the root of sin, and with the sense of guilt to awaken the sense of death; Rom 7:7-12.b. The wholesomeness of this complete unmasking of sin in its absolute sinfulness; Rom 7:13.c. View of the conflict between the spiritual and divine character of the law, and the carnal character of the sinner; Rom 7:14.d. Consciousness of the want of clearness and supremacy of understanding; Rom 7:15-16.e. Consciousness of the want of firmness and energy of will; Rom 7:17-18.f. Consciousness of the weakness of the nobler sentiments, and the superior power of the lower; Rom 7:19-20.g. The consciousness of the chasm between the inner man and the outward life; of the rent between the two reciprocally contradictory laws; Rom 7:21-23.h. The fruit of this development: the consummated consciousness of the necessity of deliverance; Rom 7:24i. Deliverance and the new law of life: clear distinction between knowledge and flesh; Rom 7:25. The I is distinguished, first from sin in knowledge, then in the will, then in the, feeling then in the whole consciousness of the inward nature, but finally in the inquiring cry for the Redeemer.

General Preliminary Remarks.We come first of all to the question, In what sense does the Apostle speak in the first person singular? what does the mean? Different views: The expression is a , see 1Co 4:6that is, the representation of one figure in another. Thus the Greek fathers applied the passage to the fall of Adam, or of the human race (Tholuck: By way of example, the introduction of man into the paradisaical condition).Others believed the Jewish people before and under the law denoted (Chrysostom, Turretin, Wetstein, Reiche). The view of the Socinians and Arminians (Grotius, and others) was a modification of this one, that the homines plerique are meant, who, under the legal economy, have surrendered themselves to a gross life of sin. But the Apostle evidently speaks of a human condition of soul, in which the inward conflict of life is very earnest and great; and the language of his own experience is unmistakable. Even if he spoke of the human race in general, or of the Israelitish people in particular, he could not speak of a mere , which would be excluded from the organic connection by the Apostles theological view. But since the Apostle uses the most forcible language of his own experience, his expression is (); that is, he expresses in his experience a universal human experience of the relation of man to the law (Meyer, and others).29 For it is self-evident that the Apostle could have no occasion to describe a special experience concerning himself alone.

But now the second question arises: What state of the soul has the Apostle portrayed? Does this passage refer to the condition of the unregenerate, or of the regenerate?

Views.1. The unregenerate: The Greek fathers, Augustine before his controversy with the Pelagians (prop. 44 in Ep. ad Rom.); also Jerome, Abelard (to a certain extent), and Thomas Aquinas; then Erasmus, Bucer, Musculus, Ochino, Faustus Socinus, Arminius (on Affelman, see Tholuck, p. 328); the Spener school (according to the suggestions of Spener); and later exegetical writers. [Among these, Julius Mller, Neander, Nitzsch, Hahn, Tholuck, Krehl, Hengstenberg, Rckert, De Wette, Ewald, Stier, Stuart, Ernesti, Messner, Schmid, Lechler, Kahnis, and Meyer (most decidedly). Some of these, however, really support the modified view upheld below (4).R.].

2. The regenerate: Methodius in the Origenianis (see Tholuck, p. 336); Augustine in the controversy with the Pelagians (on account of Rom 7:17-18; Rom 7:22; Rom 7:25 : Retract. i. 23, &c.);30 Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Beza, the orthodox school; recently Kohlbrgge, Das 7te Kapitel des Briefes an die Rmer (1839).

3. The first section, from Rom 7:7-13, treats of the unregenerate; Rom 7:14-25, of the regenerate: Philippi [whose careful and thorough discussion (Comm., pp. 249258) is one of the ablest in favor of this reference.R.]. The identity of the subject is against this view. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. p. Rom 469: The Apostle does, indeed, speak of his present condition, but apart from the moral ability to which he had grown in Christ. According to Meyer, this is the earlier Augustinian view (of the unregenerate); but it seems to be scarcely an intelligible one. [This view (referring only Rom 7:14-25 to the regenerate) is that of most Scotch expositors (latterly Brown, Haldane, Forbes); of Delitzsch (Bibl. Psychol., pp. 368 ff., 2d ed.), and is ably defended by Dr: Hodge. As the current Calvinistic interpretation, it requires further consideration. Mention must be made also of the modified form of it held by Alford.31 The arguments in favor of making the sharp transition at Rom 7:14, are as follows, as urged by Hodge: (1) The onus probandi is on the other side (on account of the first person and present tense). (2) There is not an expression, from the beginning to the end of the section, Rom 7:14-25, which the holiest man may not and must not adopt. (3) There is much which cannot be asserted by any unrenewed man. (4) The context is in favor of this interpretation. The positions (2) and (3) must be discussed in the exegesis of the verses as they occur (especially Rom 7:14-15; Rom 7:22). It will be found that there is very great difficulty in applying all the terms in their literal sense exclusively to either class. Philippi is most earnest in upholding the 3d position of Hodge. In regard to (1), it may be observed, that the first person is used in Rom 7:7-13, so that the change from the past to the present tense alone enters into the discussion. Is this change of tense sufficient to justify so marked a change in the subject? A consistent attempt to define the subject throughout on this theory, leads to the confusion, which Alford admits in the view he supports.The context, it may readily be granted, admits of this view; for in chaps. 5. and 6. the result of justification, the actual deliverance from sin, has been brought into view, and Rom 7:6 says: we serve, &c. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that Rom 7:7-13 recur to the ante-Christian, legal position. Not until Rom 7:2532 is there a distinct Christian utterance, while chap. 8 sounds like a new song of triumph. If the Apostle is holding the distinctively Christian aspect of the conflict in abeyance, though describing the experience of a Christian, in order that he may give it more force in chap. 8., he is doing what is not usual with him as a writer, still less with a struggling believer in his daily experience. The context, we hold, points most plainly to the view given next, and adopted by Dr. Lange.R.]

4. The Apostle is not describing a quiescent state, but the process in which man is driven from the law to Christ, and an unregenerate person becomes a regenerate one. So Olshausen: The state under the law cannot coxist with regeneration, and without question, thereforeas Rom 7:24 is to express the awakened need of redemption, and Rom 7:25 the experience of redemption itself

Rom 7:14-24 are to be referred to a position before regeneration, and to be understood as a description of the conflict within an awakened person. Since, however, the Apostle makes use of the present for this section, while before and afterwards he applies the aorist, we are led to the idea that he does not intend to have this state of conflict regarded as concluded with the experience of redemption. In the description (Rom 7:14-24) itself, also, as will afterwards be more particularly shown, an advance in the conflict with sin is clearly observable; the better I stand out in the man, more and more the pleasure in Gods law gradually increases. This is the case in a still higher degree, as Rom 7:25 expresses, after the experience of the redeeming power of Christ, where the conflict with sin is described as for the most part victorious on the side of the better part in man. But a battle still continues, even after the experience of regeneration, &c.In all this, the antithesis, under the law and being free from the law, does not bear being confounded. It only admits of the condition, that the Christian must again feel that he is weak, so far as he falls momentarily under the law of the flesh, and thereby under the law of death. Even Bengel finds in this section a progress, but he does not correctly describe it: Sensim suspirat, connititur, enititur ad libertatem. Inde paulatim serenior fit oratio. But after the combatant experiences deep conviction, he declines, rather, into despair; but then this is the way to complete deliverance.

Tholuck properly remarks: As the question is usually raised, whether the regenerate or the unregenerate person is spoken of, it produces misunderstanding so far as the status irregenitorum comprehends in itself the very different states of soul of the status exlex carnalis and of the status legalis; then, how far the relation of Old Testament believers to law and regeneration is regarded differently; and finally, how far the idea of regeneration has been a self-consciously variable one.

[This view is, on the whole, the most satisfactory. It admits the conflict after regeneration, but guards against the thought that this is a description of distinctively Christian experience. It is rather that of one under the pedagogy of the law unto Christ, whether for the first time or the hundredth time. It is the most hopeful state of the unregenerate man; the least desirable state of the regenerate man. Of course, it cannot be admitted that there is a third class, a tertium quid, the awakened. This view seems to be the one which will harmonize the polemics of the past. Jowett adopts it, Schaff also, while Delitzsch, after advocating (3), says: He speaks of himself the regeneratei. e., of experiences still continuing, and not absolutely passed awaybut he does not speak of himself qu regeneratei. e., not of experiences which he has received by the specifically New Testament grace of regeneration. He further admits that such experiences might occur in the heathen world, according to Rom 2:15. The advantages of this view are very numerous. It relieves the exegesis of a constant constraint, viz., the attempt to press the words into harmony with certain preconceived anthropological positions. It agrees best with the context. Its practical value is beyond that of any other. See Doctr. Notes.R.]

On the literature, see the Introduction. Also Tholuck, p. 339, where the explanations of Hunnius and Aretius may also be found. Winzer, Programm, 1832. A treatise in Knapp, Scripta varii argumenti.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

First Paragraph, Rom 7:7-12

Rom 7:7. What shall we say then? [ ; see the note on this expression, Rom 3:5, p. 118. Comp. also Rom 9:30, where the use is different.R.] Intimation that another false conclusion must be prevented. Though the Christian be dead to the law, it does not follow that the law is not holy. But it belongs to a preceding stage of development.

Is the law sin [ ]? Origen [Jerome]: the lex naturalis. Tholuck: the Mosaic law. Certainly the question is respecting the justification of the latter. [Jowett paraphrases: Is conscience sin?which seems almost an exegetical caprice. His reason for it, that the consciousness of sin, rather than a question of new moons and Sabbaths, is under consideration, betrays an entire misapprehension of the ethical purpose of the law of Moses. It may be admitted that an inferential reference to all law can be found here, but the passage is an account of an historical experience, which took place under the Mosaic law.R.]

Sin. The usual interpretation: cause of sin. Metonymically, the operation named, instead of the cause, as 2Ki 4:40; Mic 5:1 : Samaria is sin for Jacob. On the other hand, De Wette and Meyer say: Is the law sinful, immoral? After what precedes, it may well mean: Is it the real cause of sin, and, as such, itself sinful? [Bengel: causa peccati peccaminosa. itself being abstract, that which is predicated of it is abstract also (Alford).R.] Even this conclusion is repelled by the Apostle with abhorrence, .

Nay, but. The is taken by some in the sense of : but certainly. He repels the thought that the law is sin, but yet he firmly holds that it brought injury (Stuart, Kllner, and others; Meyer, Hofmann). Tholuck, on the other hand (with Theodore of Mopsvestia, Abelard, and others), sees, in what is here said, the expression of the opposite, viz., that the law first brought sin to consciousness. It may be asked whether this alternative is a real one. If the law be really holy, because it has driven sin from its concealment and brought it fully to manifestation, then there is no alternative here. [This seems decisive against Stuarts view. Meyer (4th ed.) renders , sondern. The law is not sin, but its actual relation to sin is that of discoverer of sin. This is much simpler than Alfords view: I say not that, but what I mean is that. The objection that this implies a praise of the law (De Wette) is without force. He might well praise it as leading toward Rom 7:25; Rom 8:1.R.]

But it may be asked, in connection with this view, How are the words, I had not known sin [ ], to be explained? According to Cyril, Winzer, De Wette, Philippi, and Tholuck, this refers to the knowledge of sin alone; but, according to Meyer, and others, it refers to the becoming acquainted with sin by experience. Meyer: The principle of sin in man, with which we first become experimentally acquainted by the law, and which would have remained unknown to us without the law, because then it would not have become active by the excitement of desires for what is forbidden, in opposition to the law. This explanation lays too much stress upon the second point of view. According to Rom 5:20; Rom 6:15, and Rom 7:8 of this chapter, it is, however, not doubtful that the Apostle has here in mind not only the knowledge of sin, but also the excitement of sin. But he does not have it in mind as the increase of sin in itself, but as the promotion of its manifestation and form for the judgment.

Except through the law [ ]. Olshausen: The law in all the forms of its revelation. Meyer properly rejects this. Although the law further appears as immanent in man, yet, ever since the Mosaic law, by which it was awakened, it has the character of the second, threatening, and deadly law. The moral law of nature, ideally conceived, is one with human nature. [The citation from the Decalogue, immediately following, shows what the reference is.R.]

For I had not known evil desire [ . See Textual Note1. confirmatory, not = for example. On , see Tholuck, Stuart, Winer, p. 404. It is untranslatable in English; here a sign of close logical connection. On the distinction between the verbs, Bengel says: majus est, minus. Hinc posterius, cum etiam minor gradus negatur, est in incremento. The verb is strengthened also, in this conditional clause, by the absence of , which would usually be inserted.R] We cannot translate this, with Meyer: For I would not have known desire, &c. This would make the law the producer of lust, which is not the Apostles meaning. That lust was present without the law, he had sufficiently asserted in chaps.1. and 5. But now he has become acquainted with the corrupting and condemnatory character of wicked lust, under the prohibition:

Thou shalt not covet (Exo 20:17), [ . On the prohibitory future of the law, as quoted in the New Testament, see Winer, p. 296; Buttmann, N. T. Gramm., p. 221.R.] As this was to him the principal thing in the law, he thus first understood the inner character of the law and the inward nature of sin; but thus also was the propensity to evil first excited, in the most manifold way, by the contradiction in him. The desire was now to him universally and decisively the principal and decisive thing. The first view of the inner life, or of the interior of life, had now occurred. Tholuck remarks, that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas regarded the concupiscentia as the generale peccatum from which all the others proceeded; but he observes, on the contrary, that the in the sentence suggests rather a subordinate relation. But is the subordinated or separated in relation to the whole sentence? For I never once understood the meaning of wicked lust without the law.

To what period of Pauls life does this belong? To the time of his childhood (Origen); or of his Pharisaical blindness (the elder Lutheran and Reformed exegesis down to Carpzov)? Tholuck gives reasons for the latter. According to Matt. v., Pharisaism was narrowed to the act. He cites pertinent expressions of Kimchi, and other Jewish writers (see also the note, p. 352). In Jarchi, the explanation of the Tenth Commandment is wanting; in Aben Ezra there is a dwarfish construction. But then he raises the objection, that a person like Paul must have earlier come to a knowledge of the sinfulness of the . But the knowledge of the sinfulness of the has its first awakening significance, when wicked lust is recognized as the root of supposed good works, and thereby leads to a revolution of the old views on good works themselves. Even the fanatic rejects not only wicked works in themselves, but also their rootwicked desires. But he defines wicked desires and good affections according to evil and good works, while the awakened one begins to proceed from the judgment on inward affections, and afterwards to define the works. Therefore we cannot say, that and stand here merely hypothetically; the question as to the subject of this declaration must be raised first in Rom 7:9 (Tholuck). Rom 7:7; Rom 7:9 denote the same experience through which Paul, as the representative of all true contestants, passed under the law: Rom 7:7 on the side of the perception of sin, Rom 7:9 on the side of the excitement of sin.

Rom 7:8. But sin. The is, indeed, continuative (Meyer), [not adversative (Webster and Wilkinson).R.], yet not in reference to the history of the development of the sinful experience, but so far as its second stage is given.Sin, ; that is, sin inwardly present as peccability; the , as it was just shown to be sin. [The principle of sin in man, as in Rom 7:7. To admit a personification, as held by Fritzsche and Stuart,33 is unnecessary; to refer it to actual sin (Reiche), is contrary to the context. Comp. Olshausen, Koppe, Philippi, Hodge.R.]

Taking occasion [ ]. The denotes the external impulse or occasion, in opposition to the inner. [Not merely opportunity; it indicates the furnishing the material and ground of attack, the wherewith and whence to attack (Alford). Its position is emphatic, though the whole phrase is probably thus rendered prominent.R.] The in , as free, moral activity, must be made emphatic here. Therefore Reiche says, incorrectly: it received occasion.

By the commandment wrought in me [ ]. The . must be connected with . (Rckert, Tholuck, Meyer), and not with . (Luther, Olshausen, Tholuck).34 The sentence contains the declaration how sin took an occasion for itself. It operated just by the commandment [the single precept referred to Rom 7:7], since it regarded the categorical commandment as a hostile power, and struggled and rebelled against it.

The immediate design of the commandment in itself was the subjection of the sinner; but the prospective result was the rising of sin, and this result should bring sin clearly to the light in order to capacitate the sinner for deliverance. Meyer says ambiguously: Concupiscence is also without law in man, but yet it is not concupiscence for what is forbidden. Certainly the positive prohibition first appears with the law; but the variance of the sinner with the inner law of life is already perfectly present. But now refractoriness toward the positive command makes its appearance, and enhances and consummates sin.

All manner of evil desire [ ]. The was already present; but it now first unfolded and extended itself to the contrast. Zwingli, and others, interpret this as the knowledge of lust; Luther, Calovius, Philippi, and others, interpret it properly as the excitement of lust. Tholuck: According to Rom 7:11, sin deceives, as is exhibited in the history of the fall of man; to man every thing forbidden appears as a desirable blessing; but yet, as it is forbidden, he feels that his freedom is limited, and now his lust rages more violently, like the waves against the dyke; see 1Co 15:46. [Philippi well says of this: An immovably certain psychological fact, which man can more easily reason away and dispute away, than do away.35R.]

For without the law sin is dead [ . A general proposition, hence, with the verb omitted. Beza and Reiche incorrectly supply ; so E. V., was. It will readily be understood that is not used in an absolute, but relative sense, = inoperative (or unobserved, if the reference be limited to the knowledge of sin). Against this the antithesis of the following verse may be urged.R.] Meyer, incorrectly: not actively, because that is wanting whereby it can take occasion to be active. Rather, sin cannot mature in its root; it cannot come to . Man has, to a certain extent, laid himself to rest with it upon a lower bestial stage, which is apparently nature; the commandment first manifests the demoniacal contradiction of this stage, the actual as well as the formal contradiction to God and what is divine (see Rom 8:3). It is incorrect to limit the statement, with Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, to knowledgeit was not known; or, with Calovius, to the conscience (terrores conscienti); or, finally, to limit the idea to the sphere of desire (Tholuck). It has not yet acquired its most real, false life, in the . Reference must here be made to the antithesis: Sin was dead, and I was alive. [The clauses, however, are not strictly antithetical.R.]

Rom 7:9. Now I was alive without the law once [ . For (E. V.) is incorrect; must then be rendered but or now (i. e., moreover), as it is taken to be adversative or continuative. The latter is to be preferred, on the ground that this clause continues a description of the state without the law, while the real antithesis occurs in the following clause, for which the particle but should be reserved.R.] In order to define the sense, we must apply the twofold antithesis. Paul could only have lived first in the sense in which sin was dead in him, and also be dead in the sense in which sin was alive in him.

I was alive. The I must be emphasized: the whole expression is pregnant (Reiche, on the contrary, merely ).

Explanations: 1. Videbar mihi vivere (Augustine, Erasmus [Barnes], and others).

2. Securus eram (Melanchthon, Calvin, Bengel [Hodge], and others), I lived securely as a Pharisee.

3. Meyer says, to the contrary: Paul means the life of childlike innocence which is free from death (Rom 7:10), (comp. Winzer, p. 11; Umbreit in the Studien und Kritiken, 1851, p. 637 f.), where (as this condition of life, analogous to the paradisaical state of our first parents, was the cheerful ray of his earliest recollection) the law had not yet come to knowledge, the moral spontaneity had not yet occurred, and therefore the principle of sin was still in the slumber of death. This is certainly a status securitatis, but not an immoral one.36 Tholuck reminds us of the fact, that the Jewish child was not subject to the law until his thirteenth year; but he accedes (and properly so) to the views of the elder expositors. Paul first perceived the deadly sting of the law when he was forbidden to lust. The child, as a child, has childish devices; 1 Corinthians 13; but it can here come into consideration only so far as its religious and moral consciousness began to develop. But the status securitatis of which the Apostle here speaks, first begins where the innocent childs status securitatis ceases. It consists in the sinful life being taken, after the course of the world, as naturalness instead of unnaturalness. And this can also continue under the law, so long as the law is regarded as something external, and is referred to mere action. The Apostle first dates the true existence of the law for man from the understanding of the Thou shalt not covet. As, therefore, Meyer has above given too Augustinian a view of original sinfulness, so he here construes it too much on the opposite side.

In a historical reference, this text, according to Rom 5:13, has especially in view the period from Adam to Moses. It has, therefore, even been said that Paul here speaks, in the name of his people, of the more innocent and pure life of the patriarchs and Israelites before the gift of the law (Grotius, Lachmann, Fritzsche, and others). Undoubtedly, that historical stage is included; yet here the psychological point of view predominates: the life of the individual up to the understanding of the Mosaic expression, Thou shalt not covet. The law also points, by the ., beyond itself; as the sacrificial offering, &c.

Now I was alive. This means, according to Meyer, Man, during the state of death (Todtsein) of the principle of sin, was not yet subject to eternal death. Certainly he became subject to physical death by the sin of Adam. We have already refuted this distinction. The condemned are first actually subject to death at the final judgment; in principle, the children of Adam are subject to it; but the living man, of whom Paul here speaks, had not yet fallen into it, in the personal consciousness of guilt and the personal entanglement in the .

But when the commandment came [ . The specific command, not the whole law. Camei. e., was brought home to me.At this point the older Lutheran and Calvinistic expositors found a reference to the conviction of sin immediately preceding conversion. But the use of is against this, as well as the drift of the whole passage. A writer, so loving in his repetition of the name of Christ, and in direct reference to the work of Christ, would not have left such a meaning obscure. Comp. Philippi on the psychological objections.R.] When its inward character became known. This certainly has an historical application to the gift of the Mosaic law (Reiche, Fritzsche), but a psychological application to the designated moments of introspection.

Sin sprang into life [ ]. The explanation of the , revived (in Rckert, De Wette, and others. Tholuck:37 The stands, as elsewhere in compound words, in the strengthened meaning of sursum; comp. , in Joh 9:11, &c), is opposed by Meyer, in accordance with the elder expositors, and by Bengel and Philippi. Bengel makes this explanation: sicut vixerat, cum per Adamum intrasset in mundum. Certainly the became perfectly alive first in Adam as , and then as such , until the gift of the Mosaic law again brought it to life. But this is also repeated psychologically in the individual so far as the Adamic is psychologically reflected more or less strongly in his first offences; thus an individual . of the fall takes place, but then, until the awakening light, of the law penetrates the conscience, a false state of nature enters, connected with an active sense of life. [Here, too, must be included both the knowledge of and excitement to sin.R.]Some Codd. read , because the expression did not occur in the classical Greek and in the Septuagint. Origen thought there was here a reminder of a pre-terrestrial fall. Cocceius: evidentius apparuit.

And I died [ ]. In the same sense as sin became alive, did the sinner die. That is, with the sense of conscious [and increasing] guilt, the sense of the penalty of death has made its appearance. Meyer makes an inadequate distinction here: We must understand neither physical nor spiritual death (Semler, Bhme, Rckert, and others), but eternal death, as the antithesis, , requires. The sense of the penalty of death makes no distinction of this kind. [The aorist points to a definite occurrence. He entered into a certain spiritual state, which he calls death. Calvin: Mors peccati vita est hominis; sursum vita peccati mors hominis.R.]

Rom 7:10. And the commandment, which was unto life, the same was found by me to be unto death [ , . introduces the verse as an epexegesis of died, with the addition of a new circumstance (Stuart).R.] Supply before unto life. In what sense was the commandment thus found? The commandment has certainly promised life to the one observing the law; Lev 18:5; Deu 5:33; Mat 19:17. It is, however, easily misunderstood when there is such a general explanation as this: the promise of life was connected with the observance of the Mosaic commandments (Meyer). The sense is rather from the beginning, that the kind of promise is conditional on the kind of observance. External obedience has also only an external promise, or a promise of what is external (Exo 20:12). But this is, for the pious, only the figure of a higher obedience and promise. The self-righteous man, on the other hand, made a snare for himself out of that promise. Now, in the highest sense, life according to the law of the Spiritthat is, in faith (which is the end of the law)results in the . Only the transition from death to life lies between the two. It is just the most intense effort to fulfil the law that results in death. This is a circumstance which seems to contradict the , and yet it does not contradict it, but is quite in harmony with it.

The same. We hold that, according to the sense, we must read (with Lachmann, De Wette, Philippi), and not with Meyer and Tischendorf [Alford, Tregelles]. For the law has only temporarily become transformed, as the same law of life, into a law of death; it has not permanently become a law of death.38

Rom 7:11. For sin, &c. [ , … The introduces an explanation of Rom 7:10. The first words are similar to Rom 7:8, but here stands emphatically first. The position of is also slightly emphatic.R.] Not the commandment in itself has become a commandment unto death; sin has rather made it thus. How far? Sin took occasion, or made itself an occasion. That it took it of the commandment, is assumed, and is explained by what follows. The following , &c., favors the connection of the with , deceived me. It first made the commandment a provocation, and then a means of condemnation. Thus what applies to Satan, that he was first mans tempter, and then his accuser, applies likewise to sin. This passage calls to mind the serpent in Paradise, as 2Co 11:3. But in what did the deception of sin consist? Philippi: Since sin made me pervert the law, in which I thought that I had a guide to righteousness, into a means for the promotion of unrighteousness.39 Not clear. It deceived me, in that it represented the law to me as a limit which seemed to separate me from my happiness. Behind that limit it charmed me to transgression by a phantom of happiness. Accordingly, it is not satisfactory to explain the following clause: And by it slew me [ ], thus: sin gave me over to the law, so that it slew me. In this respect sin rather falsified the law, since it represented to me my well-merited death as irremediable, or my judge as my enemy (see Genesis 3; Heb 2:15; 1Jn 3:20). [Brought me into the state of sin and misery, already referred to in Rom 7:10. The allusion to the temptation is to be admitted here also.R.] Tholuck: Decision of Simeon Ben Lachish: The wicked nature of man rises every day against him, and seeks to slay him (Vitringa, Observ. Sacr., 2:599); also by the is denoted the angel of death.

Rom 7:12. So that the law is holy, &c. [ . The introduces the result of the whole discussion, Rom 7:7-11. It is not = ergo, yet of a more general conclusive character. To , the corresponding is wanting. The antithesis we should expect, according to Meyer, is: but sin brought me to death through the law, which was good in itself. This is the thought of Rom 7:13; but as the form is changed, does not appear.R.] Not only innocent (Tholuck), but also absolutely separated from, and opposed to, sin. And this applies not only to the law in general, but also to its explanation in the single commandment.

[And the commandment holy and just and good, .] The commandment is first holy in its origin as Gods commandment; secondly, just, as the individual determination of the law of the system of righteousness (Meyer:40 rightly constituted, just as it should be); and goodthat is, not in the vague sense of excellent (Meyer, Philippi, and others), but according to the idea of what is good: beneficial promotion of life in itself, in spite of its working of death in me; indeed, even by its working of death. The term good refers to the blessed result of divine sorrow, and to the gospel.41 The elaborate apology for the commandment is certainly (according to Meyer) occasioned by the fact that the has been described as precisely the object of sin, in Rom 7:7.

Second Paragraph (Rom 7:13)

The Law in relation to the Sinner

Rom 7:13. Did then that which was good become death unto me? [ ; See Textual Note 3.] Tholuck: The in Rom 7:12 prepared for the antithesis … Yet the Apostle again presents his thoughts in the form of a refutation of an antagonistic consequence. The should lead us to expect only wholesome fruits. Undoubtedly, the expression (Rom 7:12) is the new problem now to be slved. It was not so much to be wondered at that the commandment, as holy and just, brought death; but it was an enigma that it, as , should bring forth death. The explanation of this enigma will also show how the law has brought about the great change: Through Death to Life! Was that which is good, of itself and immediately, made death unto me? This conclusion, again, is to be repelled by Let it not be! .

But sin [ (supply ). So all modern commentators.R.] Namely, that was made death unto me. The construction of Luther, Heumann, Carpzov, &c., is totally wrong: () (Meyer); so also the Vulgate.

That it might appear sin [ The is telic; , be shown to be (Alford). This second is a predicate; anarthrous, therefore, and also as denoting character.R.] This was therefore the most immediate design of the law: Sin should appear as sin (Eph 5:13; Genesis 3 : Adam, where art thou?).

[Working death to me, by that which is good, .] The idea of perfectly disclosed sin is just this: that it works death by the misconstruction and abuse of what is good. Thus the law is first made to serve as a provocation to sin unto death; second, the gospel is made a savor of death; and third, the truth is made a mighty anti-christian lie (2Th 2:11). Tholuck: The nature of sin should thereby become manifest, that it should appear as something which makes use of what is even good as a means of ruin, and in this manner the commandment should become a means of exhibiting sin in all the more hideous light. Scholium of Matthus: , . In addition to this, these pertinent words: In fact, as it is the sovereign right of good to overrule evil results for good, so is it the curse of sin to pervert the effects of what is good to evil. Thus an emphasis rests on the , for which reason it comes first.

Meyer correctly urges, against Reiche, that this is telic, in opposition to the ecbatie view. Death was already present before the law, but sin completed it by the law; . The law is not sin; sin disclosed itself completely as sin in making what is good a means of evil.

That sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful [ . Parallel clause to the last, of increased force: Observe the pithy, sharp, vividly compressed sketch of the dark figure (Meyer).R.] . Frequently used by Paul; 2Co 1:8; 2Co 4:17; Gal 1:13. The appears to be an intimation that sin, as an imaginary man, should be driven from real human nature to destruction. [The telic force of these clauses is thus expanded by Dr. Hodge: Such is the design of the law, so far as the salvation of sinners. It does not prescribe the conditions of salvation. Neither is the law the means of sanctification. It cannot make us holy. On the contrary, its operation is to excite and exasperate sinto render its power more dreadful and destructive.R.]

[Excursus on Biblico-Psychological Terms.The exact significance of the terms and , as used so frequently by the Apostle in this and the eighth chapters, requires careful consideration at this point. But such a discussion must necessarily be preceded by some remarks on the words, , , , body, soul, and spirit, as used by Paul in a strictly anthropological sense.

I. , Body. This term is readily understood as generally used in the New Testament. Still it refers, strictly speaking, to the bodily organism, and has a psychological meaning almost = sense, the sensational part of mans nature. As distinguished from (in its physiological sense), it means the organism, of which is the material substance. ( differs from , in not including the idea of an organism.) That must not be restricted to the material body, irrespective of its organism and vital union with the immaterial part of mans nature, is evident from the numerous passages (Rom 12:5; 1Co 7:27; Eph 1:23; Col 1:18, &c.), where the Church is called the body of Christ. This expression would convey little meaning, if had not this psychological sense. No difficulty arises in regard to this term, except in the interpretation of a few passages which seem to imply an ethical sense; e. g., Rom 6:6 (q. v.); Rom 7:24; Rom 8:10; Rom 8:13; Col 2:11. It must be remarked, that in most of these the ethical force really belongs to some attributive word, being in itself indifferent. We may explain most of these cases by giving the word a figurative sense, the organism of sin (Rom 6:6; Rom 7:24; Col 2:11), analogous to the old man; or by admitting a reference to the body as the chief organ of the manifestation of sin. The term , members (which is usually associated with , rather than with , because the idea of an organism is more prominent in the former term), must be interpreted accordingly (see Col 3:5; Bibelwerk, p. 64, Amer. ed.). In any case, the thought that the body is the chief source and seat of sin, must be rejected as unscriptural, unpauline, and untrue. We must also avoid a dualistic sundering of the material and immaterial in mans nature.

II. , Soul. This term is from , to breathe, to blow and, like , its Hebrew equivalent, originally means animal life (see the New Testament usage, especially in the Gospels), but, like the Hebrew word, it also is frequently referred to the whole immaterial part of mans nature, in distinction from . By synecdoche, it is put for the whole man, in enumeration (Act 2:41 : about three thousand souls), and in the phrase, , every soul. As the word occurs but four times in the Epistle to the Romanstwice in the sense of life, and twice in the phrase, every soulit would not be necessary to discuss it further, did not the precise meaning of depend upon a further discrimination. Twice in the New Testament (1Th 5:23; Heb 4:12) the word is distinguished from . As both passages may be regarded as Pauline, the one occurring in his earliest written Epistle, and the other in an Epistle of much later date, which is Pauline, even if not written by Paul, the question of a Pauline trichotomy cannot be avoided. The fuller discussion will be found under , below, but here we must define more closely. Although it is true that the term does mean the animal soul, it is very doubtful whether it means simply this in the two passages above referred to. If animal soul be restricted to the principle of life, then , in such a connection, should include this; and a wish that the principle of life be preserved blameless, is singular, to say the least. If, however, animal soul be taken to include more than thisviz., what we share with the brutesthen it is highly probable that this largely includes the intellectual part of our nature, and must then be = the seat of the Understanding, in distinction from the Reason. That some wide sense is involved, is evident both from 1Co 15:45, the first Adam was made a living soul, and from 1Co 2:14, where the adjective undoubtedly includes the intellectual part of mans nature. In both these cases the antithesis is in the ethical sense; hence the greater necessity for enlarging the idea of .42 Passing over many distinctions which have been made, we consider the view of Olshausen, who makes the centre of our personality, the battlefield of the flesh and human spirit. In this view, also, and are almost identical, though he admits that, in the unrenewed man, the is under the dominion of the . It excludes the from the , making it the organ of activity for the human spirit. This view still restricts too much, even admitting the trichotomy.43 It confuses psychological and ethical terms. It leans toward the error which makes the body the source of sin, while, on the other hand, it excludes the human spirit from the dominion of sin (and its organ, the ). It cannot be justified by Pauls language, for the very passages which indicate a trichotomy imply the sinfulness of the human spirit, while it is altogether unpauline, as already remarked, to refer sin to the body as its source. The use of the word , as quoted above, is equally opposed to this view, which probably grows out of the attempt to find in and , terms analogous to the Understanding and Reason. We therefore object to this view, and claim a still wider sense for . How much can be claimed for it, will appear from what follows.

III. , Spirit. This term, from , to blow, to breathe, means (like the Hebrew ) breath, then wind, then anima, lastly animus, spirit, in all the various meanings we give that word. It must first be discussed in its strictly psychological meaning.

A. Besides the secondary meaning, temper, disposition, it is used by most of the New Testament writers to denote mans immaterial nature, including, together with (Rom 8:10; 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:34), and also with (2Co 7:1; Col 2:5), the whole man. In the phrase, gave up the ghost, it is doubtful whether it means the whole immaterial nature, or simply life; in Luk 23:46; Act 7:59, the former seems to be the meaning. But there are a number of passages where the exact signification turns on the previous question: Do the Scriptures assume or teach a trichotomy in human nature?that man is a unity made up of body, soul, and spirit? It is essential to the proper understanding of chaps. 7. and 8. that this question be discussed.44

1. First of all, it must be admitted as a fact that the Scriptures recognize the dualism of spirit and matter, and that man is both material and immaterial, without any tertium quid, which is neither material nor immaterial. The presumption, then, is against the trichotomy, so far as it would ignore this fact. The presumption is also against any view which classes soul under the material part of the complex nature, since both soul and spirit are used to include the whole immaterial part of man.

On the other hand, Plato and Aristotle undoubtedly held that there was a trichotomy (for their views, see Delitzsch, p. 93; Eng. ed. p. 212). This fact may be used to explain 1Th 5:23 as popular language, but we must needs turn to the Holy Scriptures, and accept without prejudice what it answers to us, be it Platonic or anti-Platonic. Some such view was held by Origen, by the Apollinarians and semi-Pelagians. All these, like the modern rationalistic notions on the subject, were extenuations of human corruption. Vain speculations on the subject are abundant, but this should not be to the prejudice of truth.45

Turning to 1Th 5:23, we find a distinct assumption of a tripartite nature in man, all the more weighty because it is not in didactic form. To say that this is merely popular language, does not meet the case. For, while it may be said that Paul does not profess to teach metaphysics, the question then recurs: Was the popular language of that day correct, or that of another age? Besides, it is a hazardous method of dealing with a writer so uncommonly exact, and with a book which concerns itself with human salvation. Experience has proven how largely the diffusion and acceptance of biblical truth are dependent on correct anthropological views. If we believe that Paul chose his words wittingly, much more, if we hold them to be inspired, this text, taken by itself, assumes that in the original structure of man there is somethingyet remaining, needing and capable of sanctificationcorresponding to the three terms, body, soul, and spirit.46 The same is implied in Heb 4:12.

Leaving these passages, we find little else in the New Testament to support this view. Of course, when accepted, it must modify to some extent the signification given to these terms in other places; but there is no other passage in the New Testament which could be relied on to prove the trichotomy were these absent. Hence we infer that the distinction, if real, is not of such importance as has been thought, and cannot be made the basis of the startling propositions which human speculation has deduced from it. This does not deny that, from other sources, the trichotomy may receive important support; it refers simply to the place it should take in biblical psychology. Judging from the rare allusions to it, the prevailing dichotomic tone of the Scriptures, we infer that, while it may be necessary, in order to explain these passages, to accept a trichotomy, the advantages of so doing are incidental, rather than of the first moment.47

2. Admitting that there is a tripartite nature in man, the main difficulty is a precise definition of these three parts. Here the German authors are in a very Babel of confusion. For the sake of clearness, we first of all reject
(a.) All views of the human spirit which make it the real soul over against a brute soul, termed , for the reasons given above under II.

(b.) All views of the human spirit which make it a higher unfallen part of mans nature, over against a soul under the power of the . This, which is the view of Olshausen, and, with modifications, of many others, is not borne out by the anthropology of Scripture; is contradicted by the very passages which alone can establish a trichotomy, and is in the very face of 2Co 7:1, where filthiness, , defilement, stain, is attributed to the human spirit. Did such an unfallen spirit, in any sense, exist in man, we might expect that term to be used in this chapter instead of and , whatever the reference may be. Jul. Mller (i. p. 450) well remarks: in this anthropological sense is itself exposed to pollution (2Co 7:1), and needs sanctification and cleansing just as and (1Th 5:23; 1Co 7:34); this spiritual sphere of life is the one which, in the work of regeneration, most needs to be renewed (Eph 4:23, compared with Rom 12:2). The notion that mans spirit cannot be depravedthat it is only limited in its activity from withoutand that sin is the consequence of this limitation, cannot be attributed to the Apostle. This excludes, also, the view of Schberlein and Hofmann (since given up by him), that the third term of the trichotomy is the Spirit of God immanent in the soul.

(c.) But this would also exclude the view of Philippi, Schmid (apparently of Tholuck, Romans, p. 301), that the third term is the pneumatic nature imputed to the believer at regeneration. If it be this, how can it need sanctification? Besides, this involves the theory of regeneration, which makes it the impartation of an entirely new nature, not in soul and body, but in addition to soul and body, as the third term in the complex being. This view cannot satisfactorily explain the trichotomy in 1Th 5:23; Heb 4:12.

(d.) There remains, then, this view, which meets all the requirements of exegesis: that man has a body in vital connection with his soul, which latter term includes all the powers of mind and heart, having as their object the world and self (hence including and in this chapter). That, besides, he has, in his unity of nature, a spirit which is of the same nature as the soul, of a higher capacity, yet not separated or separable from it. This spirit is the capacity for God, God-consciousness (Heard); but in mans present condition it is dormant, virtually dead in its depravity, needing the power of the Holy Spirit to renew it. After such renewal it becomes spirit in the sense intended in the proposition: that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Joh 3:6). This seems to be, in substance, the view of Mller, Delitzsch, and Heard.48 It admits a dichotomy, and also a trichotomy; claims that the soul is spiritual rather than material; that there is no gulf between soul and spirit; that the human spirit is powerless for good, yet that here, where depravity is really most terrible, redemption begins. In consequence of sin, the human spirit is absorbed into soul and flesh, and man, who ought to pass over from the position of the into the position of the , has become, instead of , a being and ; and further, just for that reason, because the spirit stands in immediate causal relation to God, all the Divine operations having redemption in view, address themselves first of all to the , and thence first attain to the ; for when God manifests himself, He appeals to the spirit of man (Bibl. Psych., p. 96, Eng. ed., p. 117). It may be urged that this presents no real distinction; I reply, that it is not claimed that the distinction is of essential importance. But as Paul uses the word in preference to , when he speaks of mans immaterial nature, especially as regenerated by the Spirit of God, there seems to be no other way of accounting for it except on this view. (The objections to that of Philippi have been considered above.) Delitzsch very properly remarks: Should any prefer to say, that the Apostle, by and , is distinguishing the internal condition of mans life, and especially of the Christians life, in respect of two several relations, even this would not be false. It is, indeed, the nearest expression of the truth; for the human spirit is not brought into any special prominence by Paul, save as in a given relation in the Christians life. Hence we have a second meaning of .

B. The human spirit as acted upon by the Holy Spirit, and thus becoming the seat of those Divine impulses, which are the means of redeeming the whole man. Of course, as opinions differ respecting the first meaning, they will vary from our definition. Philippi makes this identical with A, while others would claim that we should distinguish here rather a new principle of life (Lange), than a part of our renewed nature. Dr. Lange seems to prefer this meaning throughout chap. 8. There, however, the reference seems to be mainly to the Holy Spirit, the objective agent. In Rom 7:10; Rom 7:16, the subjective meaning is undoubtedly the correct one, as in Joh 3:6; Joh 4:23-24 (so Rom 2:29, see p. 115, where Dr. Lange gives a different view), 1Co 6:17; Php 3:3. In many other passages this meaning is implied, as indeed it is even in 1Th 5:23, though this cannot be explained satisfactorily, without presupposing a human spirit antecedent to regeneration.

C. The most common use of the term is obviously the strictly theological one: the Holy Spirit. Opinions vary as to the propriety of this meaning in certain passages. No definite rule can be laid down. The absence of the article is by no means a certain indication that the reference is subjective (against Harless). The reason for preferring this meaning, rather than spiritual life-principle (Lange), in chap. 8., is that, in Rom 7:2, the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly referred to, over against sin and death. When, then, afterwards occurs as the antithesis to , there is still more reason for taking the latter term as the Holy Spirit, since the is, as it were, personified and externalized, and the correct antithetical term must be an objective agent. We can thus far more definitely fix the meaning of , since to admit any subjective antithesis, compels us to admit also some remnant of unfallen nature in the subject, for which the use of the word in the New Testament gives no ground whatever.

IV. , Flesh. This term is used by the LXX. to translate the Hebrew word . This Hebrew word, in its simplest meaning, is applied to the material substance of the body, then occasionally to the human body itself. Out of this grows the application to all terrestrial beings who possess sensational life. But a more frequent use is in the sense of human nature, with the personal life attached to it (Gen 6:12; Deu 5:26; Ps. 78:39; 144:21; Isa 49:26; Isa 66:16; Isa 66:23-24, and in numerous other passages). In Deu 5:26; Isa 31:3; Jer 17:5; Psa 56:5, human nature is contrasted with God, His Spirit, eternity, and omnipotence, and the more prominent thought is therefore that of the weakness, the frailty, the transitoriness of all earthly existence (J. Mller). We reach, then, this sense: Man with the adjunct notion of frailty (Tholuck). There does not appear, however, any distinct ethical sense, still less any implication that mans sensuous nature is the seat of sin, or of opposition to his spirit.

1. Passing to the New Testament, we find also the narrower physiological meaning (1Co 15:39; Eph 5:29; in the phrase, flesh and blood, Mat 16:17; 1Co 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12). It is also used as = body, the sensational part of mans nature, in Rom 2:18; 1Co 5:5; 1Co 7:28; 2Co 4:11; 2Co 7:1; 2Co 7:5; 2Co 12:7, &c, the antithesis being spirit, or the immaterial part of mans nature, never, however, with a distinctly ethical import. The prevailing use of the word in the New Testament undoubtedly is, that which corresponds with the wider meaning of , human nature, sometimes, as Mller holds, with a reference to the earthly life and relations (Gal 2:20; 2Co 10:3; Php 1:22; Php 1:24; Col 1:22; Eph 2:15, and a number of other passages, where the whole earthly side of mans life are contrasted with his relation to God in Christ); but also in the sense of man, with the idea of frailty more or less apparent (Rom 3:20; 1Co 1:29; Gal 2:16; Act 2:17, which is a citation of in this sense; Joh 17:2; Luk 3:6). Here we must class those passages which refer to the human nature of Christ: Joh 1:14; Rom 1:3; Rom 9:5;49 1Ti 3:16; 1Jn 4:2 (comp. p. 61). This list might be enlarged, but it is only necessary to establish the New Testament use of in the wide sense of the Hebrew equivalent. Up to this point we find no distinct ethical meaningonly a basis for it.

2. The ethical sense. Our inquiry here is of a twofold nature. A. How much is included under the term? B. What is its precise significance?

A. How much is included under this term? (1) If we choose a few passages where the ethical sense is admitted by all commentators, such as Rom 8:4, or Rom 7:14. (); Rom 8:8, and attempt to substitute body, or sensational nature, for , it will be evident that such a meaning does not at all meet the case. It is not only contrary to the scriptural anthropology throughout, but in the passages themselves the antitheses are not of a character to justify it, especially in view of the wide meaning of , already established. (2) Nor can we limit it to the body and soul, and exclude the human spirit. It has already been shown how little prominence is given to this distinction in the New Testament, how there is no evidence whatever that the spirit is not under the dominion of the sarcical tendency, but that, on the contrary, an immoral tendency is implied.50 Nor will this view find support in the use of the adjective in an ethical sense as = ; for in the only case where such an ethical sense is undoubted (1Co 2:14), the antithesis is not simply (applied to spiritual things and persons as proceeding from, or influenced by, the Holy Ghost), but also the things of the Spirit of God. (3) Whatever ethical sense is to be attributed to the word , must include the whole man, body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit. This agrees with the scriptural delineations of human nature, the use of the word above referred to, and its usual antithesis, when the ethical meaning is intended, viz., the Spirit of God; never the human spirit irrespective of the influence of the Spirit of God. This antithesis is not always expressed, but it is invariably implied. (Comp. Rom 7:5; Rom 8:3-4 ff.; Gal 3:3; Gal 5:16-17; Gal 5:19; Gal 5:24; Gal 6:8; Col 2:18; Col 2:23.) If it be claimed that, in Rom 7:18; Rom 7:25, the expressed antithesis is, in the former case, the inward man (Rom 7:22), then we reply, that the real antithesis is stated in Rom 7:14 : spiritual, carnal, and that, under the influence of this spiritual law, any antagonism to the has been awakened. Of course, if the reference to the regenerate be admitted, this objection disappears. So in Rom 7:25, although is the expressed antithesis, it is the under the influence either of the Holy Spirit, or the spiritual law. , in its ethical sense, therefore, means, not merely an earthly or fleshly tendency, or direction of life, but the whole human nature; not, as Olshausen thinks, so far as it is separated from God, but as it is separated from God, body, soul, and spirit, as sinful. Being in the flesh, is being in an ungodly state, a state of sin. (This view has obtained from the times of Augustine until now, among the mass of theologians.)

B. What, then, is the precise significance of this ethical sense of ?

1. Its usual antithesis indicates what the Scripture doctrine of sin so strongly asserts, that human nature, thus described, has become alienated from God. As love to God is the only true moral impulse, apostasy from God is sin, and the natural, carnal condition, is thus to be regarded. The Decalogue, Rom 1:5, are sufficient to support this position. In the law, holy, just, and good, love to God is the chief requirement; in Rom 1:21, wilful rejection of God is described as the seed of all the vices, subsequently catalogued, ending in the most fearful sensual excesses; in Rom 5:12-21, sin is described as entering through one man, through his act of disobedience, and this is the immediate cause of the carnal condition of humanity. Yet this does not exhaust the meaning; it is rather its negative expression.

2. The positive principle of sin and the ruling principle of the flesh is undoubtedly selfishness, for, God being rejected, some personal object is required by the human personality. It is found in self; its interests become paramount. This is not, however, very prominent in the ethical term under consideration, but must be assumed in order to reach the further idea which it involves.

3. The human nature, thus alienated from God, with selfishness as its ruling principle, must, however, seek gratification. There is but one resource, the creature. As means man in his entire earthly relations, which are relations to the creature, its moral significance must include devotion to the creature, if the use of the term is to be fully justified. This, then, implies slavery to the creature in the search for self-gratification. Carnality, then, is as truly the moral state of one absorbed in intellectual and sthetic pursuits, as of one sunk in sensuality. But as sensuous and sensual are cognate terms, so we find, not only in the teachings of the Scripture, but in the history of humanity, that the development of selfish devotion to the creature is in the direction of sensuality (fleshly sins, in a narrower sense). Without God, has, as its positive expression, in the world (Eph 2:12). And the very want of satisfaction in worldly things leads to ever fiercer longing after the creature, to sin in its lowest forms. Sinking God in the material, or natural world, over which He rules, is, in effect, sinking man into the deepest slavery to the creature. To be in the flesh, is therefore to be under the law of sin and death. Sin is not, in its essence, devotion to the sensuous, nor is carnality essentially sensuality, but toward these as their manifestations they inevitably tend. We thus guard against both asceticism and materialism.

Flesh is, then, the whole nature of man, turned away from God, in the supreme interest of self, devoted to the creature. It is obvious that this is biblical, in linking together godliness and morality, ungodliness and sin, in implying both the inability of the law, and the necessity of the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit, in order to human holiness. Hence the propriety of the choice of this term to express mans sinful nature in this part of the Epistle, where sanctification and glorification are the themes.

On , see J. Mller, Christliche Lehre von der Snde, especially pp. 434 ff.; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, pp. 373 ff.; Tholuck, Rmerbrief, pp. 288 ff.; Wieseler, Galaterbrief, pp. 443 ff. (a very clear discussion); Langes commentary on Galatians, p. 142, Amer. ed. This list might be increased by referring to works on Doctrinal Theology and Ethics, but it is limited to discussions of an exegetical character.R.]

Third Paragraph, Rom 7:14-23

The Sinner in relation to the Law

Rom 7:14. For we know. , not (Jerome, &c). [The former reading is almost universally adopted. Dr. Hodge, who inclined to the latter in earlier editions, now rejects it, on the ground that there is no: to correspond with . The singular would imply that the subject was aware of the spiritual nature of the law at the time of the conflict; hence it would favor the reference to the regenerate. The plural, we know, simply means that Christians recognize this.R.]

That the law is spiritual [ ]. It is the specific knowledge peculiar to Christians that religion is inwardness; that the law is incorrectly understood, when it is changed by the of external feeling into a of external preceptsa complication of finite objects, while its nature is of a spiritual character; that is, revealing in every tittle the infinity of Gods Spirit, and relating to the Spirit. The declares the stiff-necked and malignant nature of sin. The law is only in form; its nature is divine and spiritual (Meyer). Explanations:

1. Inspired by the Holy Spirit (Theodoret).
2. Requiring a heavenly and angelic righteousness (Calvin).
3. Relating to the higher spiritual nature of man (in different applications, by Beza, Reiche, De Wette, and Rckert).
4. In suo genere prclarum et egregium (Koppe, and others).

5. The spiritual, and not the literal sense of the law, is meant (Origen).
6. Operating spiritually, , &c. (Chrysostom).

7. Presupposing the presence of the Spirit as the condition of its fulfilment (Tholuck).
8. Identical in its spirit with that of the Holy Spirit (Meyer). describes its whole spirituality (Jam 2:10), the absolute unity of its origin, its elements, and its purpose in the Divine Spirit (which reveals itself in the human spirit), in contrast with the presupposition of its finite force, its finite and sundered parts of membership, and its finite design. [The view of Meyer is the simplest and best: in its nature it is divine. (So Hodge.) This undoubtedly accords best with the antithesis, , made of flesh.R.]

But I am carnal [ . See Textual Note4, and below.] The , in accordance with the mentioned above, is Paul himself, in the exhibition of his standpoint under the law, for the exhibition of the historical development of man standing under the law. Meyer: The still undelivered , which, in the great need that presses upon it in opposition to the law, groans for deliverance; Rom 7:24. The same writer properly maintains, against Philippi, that the subject is identical through the entire section. On the other hand, Meyer incorrectly distinguishes the past tenses of Rom 7:7-13, and the present tenses of Rom 7:14 ff., by saying that, in the former case, Paul has described his psychological history before and under the law, and in the latter, that he portrays his nature standing in opposition to the spiritual character of the law. But down to Rom 7:13 he has rather portrayed the genesis of the really internal and legal standpoint. But after Rom 7:14, he describes the whole development of this standpoint; that is, the inward conflict of the sinner who has perceived the inward character of the law.

Carnal (fleischern). , made of flesh, like flesh (2Co 3:3; 1Co 3:1). The word could also be translated fleshly, if this were not a conventional term for carnally minded, . Meyer thinks that gives a deeper shade than , with reference to Joh 3:6; but the case is about the reverse, since we must understand by , carnally minded, and by , carnally formed, inclined, and disposed; a being whose natural spontaneity and view of things are external, according to the . (On the opposition of the readings, comp. Tholuck, p. 363.)51 The is immediately afterwards explained as:

Sold under sin [ ]. On the one hand, this state of slavery declares the complete subjection of the sinner to sin; but, on the other, we must not overlook his unwillingness and opposition to his being sold. This will probably be the case, if, with Tholuck and Meyer, we regard the merely as a higher degree of . Therefore Tholuck regards Bengels expression as too refining: Servus venditus miserior est quam verna, et venditus dicitur homo, quia ab initio non fuerat servus. Meyer correctly observes, that this opinion is in conflict with Augustines explanation of the passage, as referring to the regenerate. Similar passages, 2Ki 17:17; 1Ma 1:15.

Revelation of the obscuration of perception (Rom 7:15-16).

Rom 7:15. For that which I perform I know not [ ]. There is wanting in this condition the authority of the conscious spirit; but the consciousness of this want has made its appearance. Meyer calls up the analogy of the slave, who acts as the instrument of his master, without knowing the real nature and design of what he does. But this slave here is not altogether in such a condition, for he knows at least that he cannot effect () what he will, or would like, and that he rather does () what he hates. Thus one thing dawns upon himthat he acts in gloomy self-distraction, and in contradiction of a better but helpless desire and repugnance. The sense of the passage is removed, if, with Augustine, Beza, Grotius, and others, we explain to be, I approve of.52 (Appeal to Mat 7:23; Joh 10:14; 2Ti 2:19, and elsewhere.) Here, moreover, the emphasis does not yet rest on the (which Tholuck applies to a mere velleitas, and Meyer to a real and decided wish, but which, after all, remains only theory!) and , but on the .

[For not what I wish, that I practise; but what I hate, that do I. , , , . Although is explanatory of the preceding clause, there seems to be an advance here, a step toward the light of self-knowledge.The meaning of is open to discussion. It means, I will (within the sphere of spontaneity, Dr. Hitch cock claims). The two questions to be decided are: (1) Has it here a reference to the will in the strict sense (either = velleitas, Tholuck, and others, or = a full determination of the will, Philippi); or does it mean, I desire, wish? The former is, perhaps, favored by the psychological character of the whole passage; but the latter is preferable, since is so opposed, that both words must be referred to the same faculty; and it is easier to class within the region of the emotions, than to transfer to that of the will. (2) How intense is its meaning? Here is undoubtedly in itself a stronger word. Perhaps the use of two different verbs (, ) in the main clauses would justify a difference of intensity in the antithetical verbs , (i. e., the desire for good is less strong than the hatred of evil); or may be taken as = (I do not wish.). Rom 7:16 strongly favors the latter. Either of these views is preferable to that which strengthens the antithesis into I love, I hate (Hodge). For this forces a meaning upon which the Apostle could have expressed far more plainly by another term.R.]

The wish here is the better desire and effort of the man awakened to his inward state. First of all, the sinner becomes a gloomy enigma to himself in the contradictions of his doing and leaving undone. (See Meyer on the odd explanation of Reiche, that the sinful Jew does the wickedness which the sinless Jew does not approve of. Also on statements kindred to the foregoing, in Epictetus: ( ) , , ; and in Ovid: Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Still other examples in Tholuck, p. 366.) On Philippis interpretation of this passage as applicable to the regenerate, see Tholuck, p. 355.53 The choice of the expressions is very delicate; from the real in spirit he does not come to the consistent and vigorous ; but even the cannot prevent a weaker of the rebellious one.

Rom 7:16. But if what I wish not, that I do [ , . is perhaps logical, and marks a step in self-discovery with respect to the law.R.] The mental consent to the law now appears above the perceived dissension between willing and doing. As the sinner places himself, with his judgment, on the side of his awakened will, he places himself, with his judgment, on the side of the law.

[I agree with the law that it is good, . The verb may not here imply more than an intellectual acquiescence in the high moral character of the law, yet that acquiescence extends as far as the . That this must be actual in the case of an awakened man, is evident. How, else, could the sense of sin arise?R.] This is the first step on the way of self-knowledge: Acquiescence in the law in opposition to his own actions. But at the same time, the law is acknowledged to be good in an eminent sense, as noble, standing ideally above the life. Meyer: The usual construction, I grant that the law is good, neglects the . Against the reference of the to , see Tholuck; see him also for quotations from Chrysostom and Hugo St. Victor on the innate nobility of the soul.

The illumination of the darkness of the will (Rom 7:17-18).

Rom 7:17. Now then it is no longer I that perform it [ . is logical, not temporal (so all modern commentators). If temporal, then it might mark the transition into a state of grace. The same is true of . See Winer, p. 574. Since I consent to the law, that it is good, it can no longer be affirmed that I, &c. (Meyer).R.] Tholuck: Nuvi Aug. nunc in statu gratirather a designation of the inference. But it denotes not merely a continued movement in the treatment, but also in the subject discussed. The understanding has first entered upon the side of the law; now this is done also by the real will of the ego. The sinner distinguishes between his egowhich now emerges from the darkness of the personalityand the sin [the principle of sin personified] dwelling in himnow like a foreign and wicked co-habitant. He places himself, with his ego and his will, on the side of the law, and abjures the bad part of his condition. The , as well as the , must be emphasized. The is that which he, according to Rom 7:16, now no more wills with his real will. [As yet, however, there is no indication that this state of things does or can lead to what is good, save in powerless desire, even if, with Meyer, we take the ego here as = the moral self-consciousness. Rom 7:18 acknowledges this.R].

But sin dwelling in me [ ]. The Apostle distinguishes between the and an individuality in a wider sense, described by in me, in which sin dwells. [Stuart takes in me as referring, not to the wider individuality, but to the carnal self, which here begins to appear over against the better self. It may be doubted whether there is such a better self as is referred to in the first clause of this verse, in the unregenerate man. But all men under the law feel such a discord as this.As the attributing of the doing to indwelling sin by the Christian is not a denial of responsibility, so, in the case of one not yet a Christian, it is not the assumption of a power to do right. There is no sign of release as yet. Even if we limit in me to the narrower sense it has in Rom 7:18, the whole personality seems to be under the power of sin.Wordsworth finds here, and in the succeeding verses, a vindication of God from the charge of being the author of sin!R.]

Rom 7:18. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good doth not dwell [ , ; . For I know, is regarded by Philippi as an expression of Christian consciousness; yet some such consciousness is the very result which the law is designed to produce.R.] More special definition of the dwelling of sin in him. This arises from the fact that good does not dwell in himthat is, in his flesh. The negative expression is noteworthy: If in a moral being no good dwells, the opposite (sin) does dwell in him. The is here established as the other side of the ego, which, with this, constitutes the whole man. But we cannot identify the , either with the body, or with the lusts of the body alone (the Greek fathers). Tholuck cites, in favor of this view, the different expressions, in my members, body of death, Rom 7:24. But these terms must not be understood materially. The is the external, finite nature and mode of relation and view; it is the finite tendency in both its immaterial and sensuous character, which certainly has its substantial basis in the external . Calvin interprets here as human nature. It would be better to say: in my naturalness.

[See, on , the Excursus above. The word may be here used in the physiological sense (Wieseler). But this seems strangely out of place. It is assumed to escape the difficulty that arises, if the reference to the unregenerate be held. In the case of a Christian, the limitation is made, because he has a spiritual nature, over against his carnal nature, in which good does dwell. But since , in the ethical sense, includes the whole natural man, why should any limitation be made, if the reference be to the unregenerate? The grave objection must be admitted; but if the verse be referred to the regenerate man, why this studious avoidance of mentioning the ? and why such a powerlessness as is expressed in the next clause? The only satisfactory explanation is, that the distinction between unregenerate and regenerate is not in question, but the man of the law is here represented as conscious of being , made so more fully by the conflict which the law has awakened. The immediate antithesis (which is not strongly marked here) is simply the better desire, the ego longing to be better, powerless, however, in every case, until escaping from the law to Christ; yet this implies, as the real ethical antithesis, the spiritual law here acting on the man.R.] The Apostles declaration is far removed from the Flacian, Gnostic, and Manichean definitions. He could not have sought a real moral willing and doing (Meyer) as good in his flesh, but only religious morality and excellence. But he does not even find this in it; and hence there arises the contrary propensity, a pseudo-plastic will of the flesh.

For to will is present with me [ ]. Not, is present in me, as Meyer says, but who corrects himself when he also says: Paul represents the matter as if he were looking about after it in his personalityas if seeking himself in a spacious sphere. The is present with himbefore his gaze. To will is immediately before his eyes, but he can nowhere find the treasure of performing that which is good.

[To perform that which is good I find not, . See Textual Note7. If the briefer reading be accepted, must be supplied. The meaning is then obvious.R.] Explanations: I do not gain it; I can not, &c. (Estius, Flatt, &c.). We must first emphasize the , and secondly, the . The question is not concerning the justitia civilis, but the carrying out of the ideal. The is not yet the new man of the spirit (Philippi); it is the better self as an awakened moral will, from which the aim is removed and the way stopped up by the accustomed propensity of the flesh.

The revelation of the obscuration and dispension in the unconscious ground of lifethat is, in the life of feeling (Rom 7:19-20). According to Tholuck and Meyer, we have in these verses only proofs of the preceding. Meyer: Rom 7:19 is a proof of Rom 7:18, and Rom 7:20 of Rom 7:17. [Stuart: If what I have said in Rom 7:18-19 be true, then what I have affirmed in Rom 7:17 must be true. R.]

Rom 7:19. [For the good, &c. is confirmatory. I find not, is proved by acts which are not according to the better desire. Dr. Hodge presses the meaning of . That Paul, as a Christian, would mean more by these words than Seneca or Epictetus, is undoubtedly true; but whether he does mean more than is true in every case, to a certain extent, of a man awakened under the law, is very doubtful.R.]But the evil which I wish not, that I practise, , . This strong expression is new. It points to a fountain of wicked action which proceeds immediately from the unconscious life in opposition. And this is the darkness of the sensuous [the carnal] life.

Rom 7:20. [Now if I do that I would not, , . = since, then, hypothetical only in form. On , see Textual Note8. There is undoubtedly a progress in thought. Alford thinks the ego is here perceived to be the better ego of the inward man; but this progress is perceptible in the case of the awakened, only, however, to produce the cry of Rom 7:24.R.] This verse, then, specifies also the real author of these actions of the man against his will: it is sin dwelling in me [ ], the habitual life of sense [i. e., of the flesh]. This, in its obscurity, he now renounces in his consciousness; in his I. But now, to a certain degree or apparently, a foreign personality with a foreign law arises in him, against the awakening personality of his inner man. [The condition is not in itself, as yet, more hopeful. The progress is still toward wretchedness, despite or even because of the better desire.R.]

Disclosure of the inward rent in man in general; the dissension between the true personality and the false personality with its false law (Rom 7:21-22).

Rom 7:21. I find then the law [ ]. The difficulty of the passage has led Chrysostom to call it , and Rckert to give up its explanation.

Explanations: a. The Mosaic law is meant; for because. I find, then, the law for me, so far as I am willing to do good, because evil is present with me. That is, the law is designed for me, because I have the will to do good, but evil, &c. (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsvestia, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; Meyer,54 and even Ulfilas. See Tholucks Note, p. Rom 372: Invenio nunc legem, volenti mihi bonum facere, nam mihi adest malum). We may say, in favor of this, that it certainly describes also the, origin of the law; that contradiction has made the law necessary.

Still, this exposition is thoroughly untenable.

1. Since the beginningthat is, from Rom 7:7the speaker has known that the law is appointed for him.

2. Here the question is no more concerning the law for the sinner, but the relation of the sinner to the law; the explanation is thus totally against the connection.
3. The explanation, now I have discovered the law to be a law for me, would be strange.

4. The law is previously for him also, whose willingness to do what is good has not yet developed, while the legal stage for the condition here described soon terminates. Hofmanns modification does not help the matter: That to do evil is ever present with me, shows me that the law is good to me, who am willing to do it. He has already said this more plainly in Rom 7:12. But, strictly, it is not yet decided here that the law is also good to him. Another view of the Mosaic law: I find, then, for me, who am willing to do the law, the good (namely, the law), that evil is present before me (Homberg, Knapp, Klee, Olshausen,55 Fritzsche, &c). Unimportant repetition of the foregoing. Likewise the must not be separated.

b. The law denotes here a general rule, a necessity. I find, then, for me, who am willing to do goodthe lawthat evil is present with me (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and many others; De Wette and Philippi [Stuart, Hodge]). Thus the sense would be the same as in the expression, . Meyer remarks, on the other hand, that, according to

the whole context, can be nothing else than the Mosaic law. Another law appears first in Rom 7:23. Also, the could not be described as ; it is something empiricala phenomenon. But why, then, can the Apostle call even the motions in the members a law? Why can he call the old man, who is nevertheless not a man, a man?

Accepting this view in general, we may ask whether the sense is: I find in me, or, for me, willing to do goodthe law, &c.as formerly; or, I find the law, that, when I would do good, &c. (Grotius, Limborch, Winer).56 This construction is decidedly preferable, because it suits the expression as well as the sense. For here the one law resolves itself even into a group of laws. The law of God now becomes to the Apostle the law of his mind; the foreign law in his members becomes in its effect the law of sin. But this antagonism of law to law is so fearfully strong, that it appears to the Apostle himself as in itself a law of moral contradiction; and this a terribly strong contradiction, for, just when he would do what is good, and high, and great (for example, protect the Old Testament theocracy), evil is present to him (persecution of the Christians). Therefore the one law is resolved into two.

[This view involves a slight trajection of , and then the dative is not governed by , but an anacoluthon is accepted, which causes the repetition of . Though, in general, the view is the same as that of Luther and Calvin, yet this law is thus distinguished as neither the law of the mind nor the law in the members, but the contradiction of the two. Rom 7:22-23, taking up, as they do, the two sides of this contrariety, favor our view also. It may be added: (1) The presence of the article does not decide that the Mosaic law is meant; for the article occurs in Rom 7:23, where it is certainly not meant. (2) The article has a sufficiently demonstrative force (this law) without being inserted. (3) The phrase, law of God (Rom 7:22), seems, by its definiteness, to point to another sense here. Our English version, therefore, presents the best sense.R.]

Rom 7:22. For I delight in the law of God [ . The introduces the two verses as an antithetical explanation of Rom 7:20. The in is as in , Mar 3:5, after the analogy of , = apud animum (Tholuck). No thought of delighting with, as Meyer holds. It is undoubtedly stronger than , Rom 7:16 (against Stuart). It belongs to the sphere of feeling. See further below.R.] Tholuck: The two contending forces in the one personality (Rom 7:17) are locally divided, one being in the inward man, the other in the outward members; the will is taken captive in the way from the inward to the outward manthat is, to the executing organs. But the powers named here assume a concrete form. The moral judgment, in Rom 7:15-16, the moral will, or the I, in Rom 7:17-18, and the moral inwardness, in Rom 7:19-20, have now become the inner man, who delights in the law of God. But just now sin in the members comes in, with the power of a strange law, so that a chasm pervades his whole being, in which even he, who at the beginning of the process was a slave, is now, in consequence of his helpless resistance, become a military captive of sin.

[After the inward man, .] The is not so much the or (Theod. and Gaunad.) itself, as the man choosing in the his standpoint, his principle (which is not really gained until the conclusion of Rom 7:25). It is also so far the inner man as that he withdraws almost desperately from the outwork of his external life. Lyra explains similarly to the Greek writers: In homine duplex pars, ratio et sensualitas, qu aliter nominantur caro et spiritus, homo interior et exterior. This reminds us of the Platonic use of language: In Plato and Plotinus we find the termini, , ., . Tholuck, on the other hand, understands by the ., after the analogy of ., .. (1Pe 3:4), rather the inward I of the man than a single attributethe inward man, who permits himself to be controlled by his conscience, the man of conscience. But this does not remove the difficulty. For the question is not, that the real and true man is created for God; for this holds good of flesh and blood, ontologically considered. But it may be asked, What actual standpoint does the Apostle here denote? According to his antithesis, it is this: he distinguishes his inward nature, as the true man, from the antagonism and conflict of the law in his members. It is in this self-comprehension that he now has his delight in the law, which is more than the of Rom 7:16. Meyer also sees in the , the law designated as also rejoicing with him; on which, see Tholuck, p. 367. Luther, Calvin, and others, have thought the new-born man here described. The standpoint here denoted is true as a point of transition, yet the dualists have erroneously attempted to establish it as theory and fundamental law.

[The strong expression, , seems to indicate that the inward man is the new man, under the influence of the Spirit (see Philippi, Hodge, Alford in loco), but this view is beset with difficulties also. Why is this influence purposely kept in the background? Alford answers: To set the conflict in the strongest light. But that is not like Paul, who can hardly refrain from his references to grace in Christ. As a matter of fact, the conflict under the law produces a divided state, where something in the man does not only consent to the law, but, in aroused feeling, delights in the law. Such a state may be the result of gratia prveniens, or may always result in deliverance; but its present effect, as here described, is only captivity, helplessness. An abnormal condition in the case of the Christian, though his delight, even in this introspective quasi-legal condition, is more pronounced. This inward man, independently of gracious influences, leads only to misery. Notice, too, that when, as here, an apparent reference to the Christian occurs, it is immediately followed by language that seems totally inapplicable to him. This confirms the view that this distinction is not prominent.R.]

Rom 7:23. But I see another law [ . Paul here represents himself as a looker-on upon his own personality (Meyer). adversative or disjunctive.R.] His seeing indicates his surprise. Gal 1:6-7 serves to explain how the is here distinguished from the . As there the . is not a true gospel, so this is not a true . How could the one real law of God be in perpetual conflict with the other? [As indicated above (Rom 7:21), this is not the law there found, but that law is the rule of contradiction between the two here referred to.R.]

In my members [ . This is to be joined with , rather than with the participle .R]. Namely, operative in my members. Fritzsche construes thus: Which opposes in my members. Incorrectly: For the conflict is not decided in the members. The , which, being spiritually disordered, has become the basis of the desires, has its essence in its dismemberment, in the division of its members; therefore the false law is operative in the members.57

[Warring against the law of my mind, . The form belongs to later Greek (Meyer). See Winer, p. 61.R.] Earlier, this law was master, and the servant; now, after the has become distinct from the sinful as the inner man of himself, sin carries on a formal war by the members, but with the force of a law which it describes as the law of nature, or one similar to it. Simultaneously with the fact that the combatant has recognized the Mosaic law again as the expression of his inward steadiness, and has made it the of his , of his personal consciousness, sin has assumed the semblance of a law of nature dominant in the members.

[And bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. See Textual Note58. The participle (later Greek: to take by the spear in war, to take prisoner) is very strong.R.] Sin, in this semblance, opposes the inward man, and conquers him; the I finds itself the captive of another law, which now audaciously appears as the law of sin; that is, sin will now assert itself as an insurmountable fatality.Meyer will not accept the genitive as subjective, but local. He would distinguish it further from the (against Usteri, Kllner, &c.), without observing that the law of God has reproduced itself in the law of the mind. [The difference is thus expressed by Bengel: dictamen mentis me lege divina delectat. There seems to be two pairs of laws here, each pair closely related: The law of God, with its answering law in the mind (taken locally); the law in the members, subservient and causing subserviency to the law of sin. The parallelism is not strict, for the conflict is evoked by the law of God, and ends in the law of sin. It is unlikely that this is a peculiarly Christian state.R.]

The denotes the thinking and moral consciousness, which constitutes the essence of personality. [Meyer: the reason in its practical activity. Olshausen, and others, find here the organ of the unfallen spirit; the Augustinian interpreters, the organ of the renewed man, the spiritual nature; all agree that it answers to the inward man (Rom 7:22). If that means renewed nature, we would expect here some expression of the Spirits influence. The choice of another word, as well as of another phrase than the law of God here, where it would seem so appropriate were the reference to a Christian, confirms the view held throughout in our exegesis.R.]

Meyer says further: The inward man is not brought into captivity, for he, considered in and of himself, always remains in the service of Gods law (Rom 7:25); but the apparent man is. Then the warfare would be carried on by the apparent man! It is indeed correct, that in the dative is not instrumental (according to Chrysostom, and others), but is dat. commodi.59

On the different distinctions between the law in the members and the law of sin, see Meyer, p. 288 (Kllner: Demands of the desires, and the desires themselves). We distinguish between the first appearance and the final manifestation: The law in the members passes itself off for, or appears to the sinner first as, the law of nature; therefore it brings him into captivity, and appears to him finally as the law of sinthe law of anomy, of unnaturalness. Pareus understanding of the as the pars nondum regenita, coincides with the reference to the new-born man. When Calovius and Socinius held that the facultates interiores are included, they intimated that not the of itself, but only in connection with spiritual dispositions, could form the semblance of another and wicked law.

Fourth Paragraph (Rom 7:24-25)

The Transition from the Law to the Gospel

It is a characteristic of the interpretation of this passage, that some have made Rom 7:24-25 parenthetical down to ; Grotius and Flatt, Rom 7:25 to . Tholuck: As, in the case of the morally fickle, such an experience, daily renewed, calls forth the renunciatory exclamation to virtue, Thou art too hard for me; take away my crown, and let me sin; so, from the morally earnest warrior, is there called forth the cry of distress for deliverance and the power of victory. He adds to this: Knight Michaelis gives this cry of distress a very moderate sound: It is the lamentation of a distressed Jew which Paul answers thus: I thank God that I do not have to lament so.But the deeply moral warrior, who has once arrived at this degree, does not readily turn back. De Wette says, very pertinently: From what has occurred, there now follows the need of deliverance, which has been satisfied by the grace of God.

Rom 7:24. O wretched man [ ]. , strictly, exhausted by hard labor ( , callum pati). Similar to the expressions in Mat 11:28. [The nominative is the nominative of exclamation (Philippi, Meyer). The word occurs only here and Rev 3:17 (of the Laodicean church); there joined with , to which it is almost equivalent in popular usage. The corresponding verb occurs in Jam 4:9, and the noun, Rom 3:16; Jam 5:1. From these passages it would seem that here the prominent idea is of helplessness and misery; the cry for help from without follows. Bengel is certainly incorrect: me miscrum, qui homo sim!R.] It is the desperate cry for personal righteousness, and also of the completed repentance now about to be transformed into faithbut a faith which the law cannot give. Repentance asks, faith responds. (Reiches explanation: The cry of Jewish humanity for help, to which a delivered one responds in Rom 8:1. With this view, the passage from to is said to be a gloss.)

Who shall deliver me [ . Simple future. Not = would that I were delivered. Calvin thinks it expresses no doubt, but only the absence of the deliverance at the time. Yet Olshausen seems nearer right in making it imply: who can, with a reference to a personal deliverer.R.] , Septuagint for , , &c. It refers both to the fundamental deliverance (as in the present passage), and to the continued and final deliverance; Mat 6:13. [Comp. Col 1:13, where the reference is to a definite act of deliverance.R.]

From this body of death? [ ;]. Explanations: Connection of the with .

1. The universitas vitiorum (Ambrose, Calvin); mors velut corpus quasi res per se subsistens (Piscator, Crell). As the Rabbinical corpus mortis pro ipsa morte (Socinius, Schttgen). Wolf: mortifera peccata massa. Flatt: The system of sensuous affections, which is the cause of death. Tholuck observes, against these explanations: But the reader will suppose that is meant in no other sense than as , ; Rom 6:12. We have already remarked, however, that these two ideas are radically different. The explanation before us needs, however, a more exact proof.

2. The same connection of the with . The sense: Mortal body. a. Longing for death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Koppe, and others), according to Meyer. Tholuck, on the other hand, thus sets him right: They have not intended, on the negative side, the wish for deliverance from the body of death, but, on the positive side, the wish for the glorification and clothing-upon of the body. b. Olshausen: the spirit would like to make the mortal body living, &c.

3. Death as a monster personified with a body, which threatens to swallow up the (Reiche).

Connection of the with .

From the body of this death. (Vulgate, Ulfilas, Luther, Fritzsche, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer.) [So E. V., Hodge, Alford, Jowett.] a. is the same as vitiositas (Calvin, and others); b. He means here that death is the misery and labor endured in conflict with sin (Luther); c. De Wette: Who will deliver me from the body of this death? that is, from the body which, in consequence of sin dwelling or reigning in it, is subject to death and misery. Reference to 2 Corinthians 5. Fritzsche similarly. d. Meyer gives as much as two explanations: Who will deliver me, so that then I shall be no more dependent upon the body, which serves as the seat for so ignominious a death? Or, in other words: Who will deliver me from dependence upon the law of sin to moral freedom, so that then my body will no more serve as the seat of so ignominious a death? If we understand the body to be a real body, with all these contortions, we do not find our way out of the external desire of death.

Of the expositors under 1, Krehl approaches nearest to our view. The body is the organism of sin. [The most natural construction is: the body of this death. The stress, then, lies on the word death. The context forbids a reference to physical death and future glorification, which would be far-fetched. Death seems to mean: the whole condition of helplessness, guilt, and misery just described, which is, in effect, spiritual death. How, then, shall body be understood? Rejecting the allusion to the custom of chaining a living man to a corpse, but two views remain:

(a.) The literal sense, the body as the seat of this death; against this is the fact that this gives the word an ethical sense, which is unpauline. In its favor is the preceding phrase: the law of sin in my members. If it be adopted, we must limit the meaning thus: the body whose subjection to the law of sin brings about this state of misery (Alford); but this is really a desire for death.

(b.) We prefer the figurative sense (with Calvin, Hodge, and others); this death has an organism, which is not only like a body in its organism, but in its close clinging to me; from this death (thus represented) who shall deliver me? The genitive is then possessive; the unity of the thought is preserved, and many difficulties avoided. This figurative sense of is certainly more Pauline than the ethical one (comp. Excursus above, and Rom 6:6; Rom 8:10).R.]

We here group the single elements of the idea of a pseudo-plasmatic human image, which sin has set up as a power that has become inherent in human nature:

1. The old man, who is not a real man; Rom 6:6, and elsewhere.

2. The , which is not a real ; Col 2:18.

3. The , which is not a real ; Rom 8:6.

4. The , which is not a real ; Rom 6:6.

5. The , which is not a real ; the present passage.

6. The , which is not a real ; Rom 7:23.

7. The , which are not real ; Col 3:5.

8. The , which is something else than the external ; Rom 8:8.

9. The , which is something else than physical death; Rom 8:6.60

Tholuck: On the exclamation of Rom 7:24 : The exclamation does not appear to us explicable merely from transition to earlier occurrences, but only because the continuously felt reaction of the old man has, so to speak, set off the preceding description. [Alford thinks, with De Wette, that the cry is uttered in full consciousness of the deliverance which Christ has effected, and as leading to the expression of thanks which follows. A turning-point is reached, whatever be the reference, and no view is correct which does not admit that Paul here expresses what he feels, as well as what he has felt.R.]

Rom 7:25. Thanks to God [ , or, I thank God, . See Textual Note61]. This reading corresponds to the previous exclamation much better than does. Those who continue the reference to the unregenerate to the conclusion, get into difficulty with this second exclamation. Hence the adoption of a parenthesis (Rckert, Fritzsche), or of a conditional construction (Erasmus, Semler). If that had not taken place, I would have been snatched asunder, with the spirit to serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Meyer observes: For what he thanks God, is not mentioned. But the for what is plainly enough indicated by the context, as Meyer himself subsequently brings out. It is also indicated by his thanking God through Jesus Christ.

So then I myself with the mind [ ]. In the consideration of this difficult passage there are two questions: 1. Is what is here said connected with the previous thanksgiving, or with Rom 7:24? 2. What, accordingly, is the meaning of ?

1. Some think that the thanksgiving does not come at all into consideration; the words are connected with Rom 7:24 (Rckert, Fritzsche). This makes the passage only a final opinion on the miserable condition under the law, a declaration of the consummated dissension in which man is situated under the law. Others (De Wette, Meyer, and others), on the contrary, very properly take the thanksgiving also into consideration, although both De Wette and Meyer find in the passage only a recapitulation of what has been said from Rom 7:14-24, which, according to Meyer, should follow from the immediately preceding . But the Apostles language does not declare the dissension previously described, but the alternative now finally established. By accepting the probable breviloquence, and supplying the words which are at hand, we are relieved even here of the apparent obscurity. We read () ; the Apostle has even omitted the from the a proof that both can be mentally supplied. Thus: If I serve in the , then I serve in the law of God; but if I serve (or, I would serve) in the flesh, then I serve the law of sin. Either, or! This is favored, first of all, by the . A recapitulation of the foregoing cannot be united with this view. For in Rom 7:20 we read: , &c. (comp. Rom 7:20). The following is the inference from the previous verses: that now there is a definite distinction between standing in the (that is, in the principle of the ) and standing in the flesh (that is, in the principle of the flesh); but that, through Christ, he has gained the power to stand in the principle of the . From this there arises the following thesis: I, the same man, can have a double standpoint. If I live with the , I serve the law of God in truth; but if I live in the flesh, even in the form of the service of the law, I serve the (false) law of sin. In other words, the life in the is the life in Christ, the life in the Spirit, and, like love, the fulfilment of the law (see Rom 13:8). It follows, therefore, on the one hand, that there is nothing condemnatory in the man of this standpoint. But there also follows the conclusion that they must live decidedly in harmony with their principle. But if they live purely in the , the body, as a principle, must be deadthat is, rendered merely indifferent as a principle, and have nothing to say, on account of the sinfulness inherent in it (see Rom 8:10). But this applies only to the present body, which is burdened with the propensity to sin. It is not to be trusted; it is devoid of pure harmony with the law of the Spirit, and therefore the Christian must keep it, as a bondservant, under discipline and oversight. But this order is also temporary, so far as mortal bodies shall again be made alive by the Spirit of the risen Christ. As now the resurrection itself belongs to the future and the one period, so also does the completion of the purity of the body, its removal to the glorious liberty of the children of God, belong to the same future. But as the germ of the resurrection-body has already been made alive and increased in the believer in this life, so is it also the case with religious and moral purity in his body. In every conflict of the body with the law of the Spirit this alone should be decided; yet not carnally, in legal mortifications, but spiritually, in a dynamical reckoning of ourselves to be dead (see Rom 6:1 ff.). That is, in a powerful departure beyond the of the body with the works of the Spirit (see Rom 8:13).

2. Different explanations of the . (1) I myself, Paul. The Apostles description of himself as an example for others (Cassian, Pareus, Umbreit); (2) Ego idem. The dissension in one and the same man made prominent (Erasmus, Calvin, and others); (3) Ille ego. Reference to what he had earlier said of himself (Fritzsche, De Wette); (4). I alone; that is, so far as I am without the mediation of Christ (Meyer, Baur, Hofmann); (5) What he had heretofore described as the experience of mankind, he now describes as his own (Kllner).62

Olshausens explanation is the nearest approach to correctness: He thanks the Author of the work of redemption, God the Father, through Christ, whom he can now call his Lord from the heart. With this experience there now appears a totally changed condition in the inward life of the man, whose nature the Apostle describes in what follows, until its perfect completion, even the completion of the mortal body (Rom 8:11). He further holds, that the Divine law was reflected in the ; and in the inward man there arose the wish, yea, even the joy, to be able to observe it; but the principal thing was wantingthe . But by experiencing the redeeming power of Christ, by which the is strengthened, man finds himself able, at least by the highest and noblest power of his nature, to serve the Divine law. Yet the still remains subject to the law of sin. Therefore the conflict in the regenerate still continues, but yet it is generally victorious in the strength of Christ. Here Olshausen is led, to a certain extent, away from the Apostles train of thought. As the Christian should die on the supposition of his being dead with Christ, so should he live on the supposition of his resurrection with Christ, and therefore he should fight on the supposition of victory (see 1Jn 5:4). This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. If the watchword for the sanctification of the Christian gains its point, to fight for victory, it is nevertheless in conformity with the gospel standpoint that this takes place on the supposition of fighting from victory, or in conformity with the principle, . But Olshausen, not without reason, regards Rom 7:25 as the beginning of the section commencing with the first of chap. 8.; it constitutes, at least, the transition to it.

Serve the law of God [ ]. It is when man has become free from the law in its external form, that he truly serves the law of God in its real import (see Rom 3:31; Rom 13:8). (Reiche: the is the ideal Jew; the flesh, as it were, is the empirical Jew.) Yet we may remark, that the expresses the fact, that the time for decision is now come. A vacillation between the better and the false could take place under the law; but, after acquaintance with Christ, the real and complete will live either in the , or in the flesh; will either serve God, or sin. But external legality, placed over against Christ, is now also a life in the flesh (see Rom 6:14; Gal 5:3 ff.; Col 2:18).

[Note on the final sentence of Rom 7:25. The interpretation is beset with difficulties.

1. Taking as summing up the whole preceding section, and referring it to the regenerate, the service with the mind is of course the result of the new spiritual life, and, with the flesh, the result of indwelling sin. But why such a statement as this between the thanksgiving and the triumphant utterances of chap. 8.? It looks like taking this discord as the normal condition of the Christian life. If I myself be taken, with Meyer, and others, as opposed to in Christ Jesus, then Forbes explanation is satisfactory: I in myself, notwithstanding whatever progress in righteousness the Spirit of Christ may have wrought in me, or will work in this life, am still most imperfect; with my mind indeed I serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin; and, tried by the law, could not be justified, but would come under condemnation, if viewed in myself, and not in Christ Jesus. But this view of I myself is somewhat forced, as De Wette, who formerly adopted it, confesses. On doctrinal grounds, this interpretation is open to the same objections as those which refer the section to the unregenerate.

2. We may, with Lange, accept a future reference, in consequence of the turning-point being reached in the thanksgiving. But this requires us to supply a great deal, and to force the alternative meaning on , . It also confuses; for and , already used in contrast, on this view present a new distinction; and yet that new distinction is immediately afterwards repeatedly set forth by the terms, spirit, flesh. The only escape from this confusion is the assumption that, all along, the was really in the interest of spiritual life, and now, being delivered, it acts out its impulses. This, for obvious reasons, we reject.

3. We may take So then, as summing up the preceding (as is done by the Augustinian expositors), I myself as the same mani. e., I, the man there described, under the law, with my mind, &c. It is not necessary to suppose a parenthesis; but, having depicted the experience up to, and inclusive of, the deliverance, he gathers up in meaning words the whole conflict, to contrast with it the normal state of the Christian; chap. 8. To this it will, of course, be objected, that with my mind I serve the law of God is too strong an expression to be referred to the man of the law; but it is precisely this service to the law that is the aim of the awakened conscience, the better desire, and it is precisely this he finds he cannot do, because the flesh is the ruling power by which he is brought into captivity, in every case where the mere service of law, even of the law of God, is all that is sought for. Should he seem to reach this aim, and be touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless (Php 3:6), yet the service of the mind is not, by any means, the service of the Spirit. And, moreover, we must expect to find here, even after the thanksgiving, a quasi-confession of defeat as the point of connection with, There is now, therefore, no condemnation, &c. Were the reference previously solely to the Christian, this would seem unnecessary. There are difficulties attending this view, it must be granted, but they are not so numerous as those I find in the others. The whole passage seems, by its alternations, its choice of words, as well as its position in the Epistle, to point to an experience which is produced by the holy, just, and good law of God, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ; so that even the outburst of Christian gratitude is followed by a final recurrence to the conflict, which is, indeed, ever-recurring, so long as we seek holiness through the law rather than through Christ. See Doctr. Note1.R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the above Summary; also the Preliminary Remarks.

[Paul here enters into a very remarkable psychological analysis of the working of the law, in order to show that it, although holy and good in itself, cannot effect the sanctification of man, on account of the power of indwelling sin, which can be overcome only through redeeming grace. He gives a chapter out of his own experience, especially out of the transition period from the law to the gospel. In this experience, however, is reflected, to a certain extent, the history of the religious development of humanity as a whole. What is here so vividly individualized, repeats itself also in the experience of every earnest Christian. The law, instead of slaying sin, first brings it to a full manifestation (Rom 7:7-13); in the internal contest it is proven powerless; it but leads to the painful confession of helplessness (Rom 7:14-24); no other hope remains, save the grace of Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25).

Those expositors who follow the later Augustinian view, refer Rom 7:14-25 to the regenerate, because they are unwilling to ascribe to the natural man even this powerless longing after higher and better things.63 On the other hand, those who refer them to the unregenerate, urge this reason, that the regenerate man is not so powerless, so captive to sin, as the person here described, but has overcome the dominion of sin, as the Apostle clearly indicates both in chaps. 6. and 7. The correct interpretation lies between these two. Paul describes his state, not when sunk in sin, but when awakened to earnest struggles against sin under the scourge of the law, under preparation for a state of gracei. e., in the period of transition from the law to the gospel, in the Judaico-legalistic state of awakening.

Thus much, however, must be conceded to the Augustinian view, that this contest is repeated in modified form in the regenerate. So long as they are in the flesh, the old life of Adam rules beside the new life in Christ. Temptations from the world, assaults of Satan, disturb; not unfrequently sin overcomes, and the believer, feeling deeply and painfully his own helplessness, turns in penitence to Christs grace, to be the victor at last. It must be remembered, too, that there are many legal, despondent, melancholy Christians, who never pass out of the contest here described into the triumph of grace, the full freedom, the peace with God and assurance of salvation. The temperament and physical condition have a great influence in many such cases, but the main reason is, that such Christians depend too much upon themselves, and do not look sufficiently to the cross of Christ.P. S.]
2. According to the above, the passage treats throughout neither of the unregenerate nor the regenerate, nor partially of the former and of the latter; but it describes the process, the living transition, of a man from the unregenerate to the regenerate state, who inwardly, and therefore properly, understands the law, and regards the commandment, Thou shalt not covet, as the root of all commandments. The question is not concerning a permanent condition, but a movement and a crisis; therefore first in the preterite, then in the present tense. The coperation of the promise as well as the hope in this process of death which leads to life, is indeed assumed, but not described with it, because, to the combatant of the law, every thing, even the promise, the gospel-element itself, is transformed first of all into law; while, reversely, the finally triumphant faith, and then even the law (according to Origen), are transformed into pure gospel.

3. We must not overlook the fact that the Apostle here describes a gradation, whose stages are brought out prominently in the explanationsa gradation which apparently leads backward to despair and the sense of death, but, at the same time, truly upward to the true life. It is the way of godly sorrow to salvation; according to Luther, the descent of self-knowledge into hell, which is the preliminary condition to ascension to heaven with Christ. Alas, what am I, my Redeemer? I find my state of soul daily worse. The full appearance of the leprosy on the surface of the body is the symptom of its healing.
[Paul means to show how utterly unavailing are all efforts to get rid of sin by mere nature, however much intensified by views of law and the actings of conscience, until the power of sin is broken by faith in the Source of spiritual life. No convictions of the excellence of the law, no acknowledgment of its purity and rightful obligation, no assent or consent to it as good, no approbation of it in the real ego, no preference for it nor temporary delight in it as commending itself to the judgment, and no strivings after obedience to its precept nor fear of its penalty admitted to be just, will avail against the law of sin and death, till it is superseded by another law of spiritual life derived from Christ by faith.R.]

4. The law effects not only the knowledge, but also the revelation of sinits full development and manifestation, but not its genesis. It accelerates its process to judgment, in order to make the sinner susceptible of, and fully in need of, deliverance. Thus it corresponds with the trials and appointments of Gods government, which also impel man more and more to the development of his inward standpoint. The only difference is, that the law, as a spiritual effect, impels to the ideal saving judgment (for if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged), while the guidance of man by trials and temptations results principally in real condemnatory judgments. But here, too, Gods law and ordination agree. To the elect, the ray of the law becomes a flash of lightning which prostrates them before the throne of grace; to harder natures, the flash of lightning which destroys their earthly glory must first become, in many forms, an illuminating beam. It is a fundamental thought of the Apostle, that the , which has unmasked itself in the nature of man, is compelled by the law to reveal itself in human life as as deadly unnaturalness. Thus the law drives the serpent from its concealment.

5. On the different definitions of the idea of the unregenerate and the regenerate, see Tholuck, p. 344. From Romans 8. it is plain that the is the result of the original new birth, which is thus decided by justification. This new birth must be distinguished prospectively from the broader and final new birth in the resurrection (Mat 19:28), and retrospectively from the spiritual production of man by the word of God as the seed of the new birth, which begins with the strong and penetrating call of man by law and gospel (1Pe 1:23). It must be distinguished laterally from its sacramental symbolization and sealing, which is, at the same time, its normal foundation, as the ideal and social new birth, as in the apostolical sphere it coincided identically with it, and it accords with it in normal ecclesiastical relations, but, amid ecclesiastical corruptions, can also go to ruin with it.

6. A description of three stages of the vita sanctorum, in Bucer, see Tholuck, p. 337. See also the views on the practical effects of the twofold exposition of this passage, as applying to the regenerate and the unregenerate, in the note, p. 338. Also, a further treatment of this question, Tholuck, p. 341 ff.

[Dr. Hodge rightly reprobates the saying of Dr. A. Clarke (quoted approvingly by Tholuck in the note referred to by Lange): This opinion has most pitifully and shamefully not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. The danger from an exclusive reference to the unregenerate, is discouragement to weak believers; but that from the other reference is not false security in sin, so much as a tendency to keep the Christian under the scourge of the law. It does encourage a morbid, unrelieved state of conscience, and legal efforts after sanctification. (Comp. the latter part of Doctr. Note1.) To refer it to a movement possible both before and after conversion, a state with reference to the law, encourages unbelievers to go to Christ, and rouses believers to go to Him, since the existence of the conflict shows that the schoolmaster is nearer than the delivering Master. Here Delitzsch is excellent: Every Christian is compelled to confirm what the Apostle here says, from his own personal experience. And well for him if he can also confirm the fact that Gods law, and therefore Gods will, is his delightthat he desires the good, and hates the evil; and, indeed, in such a way that the sin to which, against his will, he is hurried away, is foreign to his inmost nature. But woe to him, if, from his own personal experience, he could confirm only this, and not also the fact that the spirit of the new life, having its source in Christ Jesus, has freed him from the urgency of sin and the condition of death, which were not abrogated through the law, but only brought to light; so that his will, which, although powerless, was by the law inclined toward what is good, is now actually capable of good, and opposed to the death still working in him, as a predominating, overmastering power of life, to be finally triumphant in glory.R.]

7. The prohibition, Thou shalt not covet (Rom 7:7), is known to be of very great weight in dividing the Ten Commandments. If it be divided into two commandments, the objects of the lust (coveting) are the principal thing. But the Apostle views it as a prohibition of wicked lust itself, and thereby it becomes a complete commandment, which extends, in sense, even through all the commandments. (Comp. Tholuck, p 350.) On the shallow constructions of the doctrine of the sinfulness of wicked lust, by the Rabbins, see the same, p. 351. In a similar way, a regard for a life of feeling recedes to an ever-increasing distance in the dogmatics of the Middle Ages, in consequence of the stress laid on the merit of good works.

8. On Rom 7:8. Different variations of the nitimur in vetitum among the classical writers (see Tholuck, p. 353, note; Pro 9:17). The law produces reflection on the forbidden object, curiosity, doubt, distrust of the lawgiver, imaginations, lusts, susceptibility of the seed of temptation, and of seduction, and, finally, the production of rebellionthe . The history of childhood, of Israel, and the Antinomianism of the early Christian period (Nitzsch, Die Gesammterscheinung des Antinomismus); the history of Antinomianism in the time of the Reformation (the Mnster Anabaptists, the Genevan Libertines, &c.); and the whole history of Divine and human legislation furnishes proof of the Apostles proposition (Balaamites, Nicolaitans). Nevertheless, the law is holy, just, and good (see the Exeg. Notes); its design and operation are saving. Because Christ was the law of God personified, He has experienced in Himself the full Divine revelation of the opposition of sinful humanity to the law; He was proscribed as if He had been sin personified. But with this complete revelation of the power of sin, grace attained its still more powerful revelation.

9. On the reference of Rom 7:9 to the age of childhood, see Tholuck, p. 356, and the above Exeg. Notes.

10. On Rom 7:13. On the different meanings of the commandment, This do, and thou shalt live, see the Exeg. Notes. This do, and thou shalt live, means: 1. Living in the outward blessing of external obedience; 2. Dying in order to live; 3. First really living after this death.

11. The law is holy in its principle (the will of God); just in its method (establishing and administering justice); good in its design (promoting life itself by the ideal death in self-knowledge). The sinner had to be delivered from death by deathobjectively by the death of Christ, subjectively by the reception of the death of Christ in his own lifeby his spiritual dying. Calovius: Sancta dicitur lex ratione caus efficientis et materialis: quia a deo sanctissimo est et circa objecta sancta occupatur; justa est formaliter: quia justiti divin , nostr regula est; bona est ratione finis, quia bona temporalia et terna promittit. The last definition is the weakest. Of justa, Tholuck uses these words: more correctly, since it produces righteousness.

12. On the manner in which sin misconstrues the law, in order to make it minister to its own ends, and also on the gradual development of self-knowledge, see the Exeg. Notes.

13. Unless we have a definite idea of the false forms in organic life, we cannot gain the Apostles complete view, which we have sketched in the Exeg. Notes. Either the individual figures in question are volatilized into hyperbolical metaphors, or people have fallen into dualistic and Manichan notions, which have been made to underlie the Apostles thoughts, now in order to appeal to him, now to govern him. See Sydenham, by Jahn, Eisenach, 1840, p. Rom 56: As diseases in the vegetable world are known to show themselves in inferior and parasitical organisms (fungi, mosses, mistletoes, &c.), so does disease in man show a lower, half-independent vital process and inferior organism, secreted like a germ and parasite in the original life. Similar expressions by Paracelsus, on the inferior organisms undermining the healthy life.Comp. Schuhs Pathologie und Therapie der Pseudoplasmen, Vienna, 1854.False organic forms pervert the functions and material substance of natural life into noxious shapes and poisons. The false spiritual formsinperverts the true life of man into a luxuriant growth of false spiritual images of this life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Acquaintance with sin is effected by the law, so far, 1. as the law, as a prohibition, provokes sin; 2. but also that the consciousness of sin be complete (Rom 7:7-12).What does sin take from and give to man? 1. It takes life from him; 2. It gives him death (Rom 7:7-12).The abuse of what is holy, 1. is indeed horrible, but yet, 2. what is holy is not itself destructive (Rom 7:7-12).The destruction of the state of innocence: 1. Apparently produced by the Divine prohibition; 2. Actually produced by human sin (Rom 7:7-12).How the best teacher can become a tempter against his will, when he, 1. exempts from a well-meant prohibition; 2. but when this very prohibition awakens the desire for transgression (Rom 7:7-12).We should not prohibit children from too much.The best thing we have is corrupted by sin (Rom 7:10).The fearful deception of sin (Rom 7:11).The holiness of the Divine law. It is shown to us when we, 1. look at the lawgiver; 2. carefully prove the principal statements of the commandments; 3. have in mind the design for which it was given (Rom 7:12).Whence does it come that what is good is made death unto me? 1. The fault does not lie in the law, which is spiritual; but, 2. in me, who am carnal (properly, flesh-like), sold under sin (Rom 7:13-14).Proof of how sin, aiming at the ruin of man, prepares its own overthrow (Rom 7:13).What is, to be sold under sin? 1. Not to know what we doblindness of self-knowledge; 2. Not to do what we will, but to do what we hateperversion of our own spontaneity (Rom 7:14-15).Even in his sin, man must testify to the goodness of the law (Rom 7:16).In the flesh there dwelleth no good thing (Rom 7:16).To will and to perform! 1. How near the willing of what is good is to us; 2. But how far from us is the performance of it (Rom 7:18-19)!The deep sorrow expressed in the confession, for to will is present with me, but how to perform, &c.; because we then say as much as: 1. I wish the good very much; but, 2. I am just as much devoid of the power to do it (Rom 7:18).The surprising discovery of man on the way to his conversion (Rom 7:21).The double law in man: 1. The true law in the mind; 2. The false law in the members (Rom 7:22-25).The divided state of the human heart: 1. Caused by sin (Rom 7:13-20); 2. Manifesting itself in the conflict of the two laws (Rom 7:22-23; Rom 7:25); 3. Calling forth the longing for deliverance (Rom 7:24).The thanksgiving of the Apostle for the peace of deliverance (Rom 7:25; comp. Rom 1:25).

Luther: To do does not mean here to perform the work, but to feel the excitement of the lusts. But to perform, is to live without lust, totally pure; this does not take place in this life (Rom 7:18-19).He here calls death the misery and pains endured in the conflict with sin (as Exo 10:17). Pharaoh says: That he may take away from me this death only (this was the locusts).

Starke: The natural man is like the earth since the curse has been pronounced upon it. The earth has the seeds of all kinds of weeds in it; and although they seem, in Winter, to lie perfectly dead in the earth, yet, by the warm rain in the Spring, they will again germinate and grow (Rom 7:8).Sin is a real highway robber; it associates in a friendly way with us, and strives to lead us off from the right road, but afterwards kills us (Rom 7:11).When sin has become suddenly powerful, do not despond; God does not wish the death of the sinner. Flee in penitence to Christ, and you shall be holy (Rom 7:13).Believers do many good works, but not all that they should; and what they do, is far from being as perfect as it should be (Rom 7:18).Believing Christians lament more over the weaknesses still cleaving to them, than over temporal torments, chains, and bonds (Rom 7:20).

Osiander: The law is a beautiful mirror, which shows us our sins, in order that, when we perceive such great evil, we may get counsel and help from Christ (Rom 7:7).If believers sin, and it occurs against their will, they do not lose the favor of God (Rom 7:17).Cramer: Innate wicked lust a fountain of all sins, and it is also against Gods law; we should not allow ourselves to lust at all (Rom 7:7).There are two characteristics of true Christians, so long as they are in the world: they give themselves trouble about their wretchedness, but they rejoice and take comfort because of the deliverance (redemption) that has taken place through Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25).Nova Bibl. Tb.: There is nothing so good that it cannot become evil by abuse. In this way the blessed gospel becomes to many a savor of death unto death (Rom 7:10).Spener: Our nature is so sinful that we do not take as much pleasure in any thing as in what is forbidden (Rom 7:8).It is a most eminent attainment, and one necessary for a right understanding of the law and sin, that we properly understand the spiritual character of the law (Rom 7:14).Those can profit by this Pauline example (Rom 7:25) who strive with all earnestness to do what is good; but those who do not stride with all earnestness to do what is good, but still sin frequently with the will, cannot employ the language of Paul, for they are not in harmony with his example.In short, if one will have a pattern, let him take this: No one must lay claim to any comfort in this chapter whose counterpart is found in chaps. 6. or 8.; but these three chapters must harmonize.

Bengel: We have here a figure from military life: The soul is the king, the members are the subjects, and sin is the enemy whom the king has admitted. The king is now punished by the insurrection of his subjects, who rise in rebellion With the enemy.Gerlach: The law is spiritual, means: it is an emanation from God, who is a Spirit (Joh 4:24); that is, omnipotent, personal, and holy love. It is, further, spiritual in its importthat is, divine and holy. It pertains to the inmost being of man, which it would fully conform to God.There stands in opposition to it the carnal sense of man; that is, his desire, which is directed, by virtue of sin, to the world, finiteness, and sensuousness, and makes him who is sundered from his Creator a servant of the creature (Rom 7:14).An Apostle glowing with love, like Paul, humbles himself, and trembles and groans under the law of sin; and shall we, who are like ice in comparison with him, foolishly expose ourselves, and boast of whatever can awaken lust in us? (Rom 7:14.)The incapacity of man to do good, is an incapacity of the will; this, and not an incapacity of spiritual disposition, has necessitated it; it is therefore a weakness, which is continually attended by the sense of guilt (Rom 7:18).The exclamation of the Apostle is the cry for help of all humanity, which, in despair of all help through and of itself, looks for aid from without. The law leads to this desire, but it cannot deliver from the wretchedness (Rom 7:24).He who sighs most deeply over the bondage in the body of this death, stands nearest to deliverance (Rom 7:24).

Lisco: What Paul here makes clear in itself, is a truth of universal human experiencenamely, that there are two successive states (the third is described in chap. 8.): one (Rom 7:9), where sin slumbers in us, because we are not fully conscious of the moral law; the other (Rom 7:14-24), where, having a clear knowledge of the law, but yet without the grace of redemption, we become acquainted with the profound corruption of our heart, which is opposed to the law of God, and feel wretched in this condition.The conflict described in Rom 7:14-25 occurs, before the new birth, in the heart of a man awakened by the law; yet, in the life of the regenerate person, similar conflicts and phenomena arise, in which, however, he is ever triumphant.The Apostle was far from holding the erroneous view, that sin dwells only in mans body, and not also in his soul (Rom 7:24).I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! Through Him, He has delivered me in and from all this wretchedness (Rom 7:25).Heubner: The best thing can be made an injury to the wicked will (Rom 7:13).Every thing becomes impure in the impure heart. Corruptio optimi est generatio pessimi (Rom 7:13).Description of the evil propensity (Rom 7:14-25).It is the best people who confess, that strong sensuous impulses in them are sinful (Rom 7:14).The inward contradiction of man with himself. The conflict between knowing, willing, and doing (Rom 7:15).Even the immoral man feels that it would have been better if he had kept the law (Rom 7:16).

Besser: The twofold way in which sin becomes exceeding sinful by the commandment: 1. Its wicked, ungodly nature, plays a prominent part in the transgression of the plain commandment; 2. The sentence of death which transgression effects, drives sin into the conscience of man, so that he feels and perceives it to be a horror and abomination before God (Rom 7:13).The conflict between spirit and flesh in believers (Rom 7:14-25).Believers know and feel, says Luther (Works, viii., 2747), that no good thing dwells in their flesh, so that they may become more humble, and let their peacock-tail fall; that is, do not depend on their own righteousness and good works, &c. (Rom 7:18).

Lange: The way of the law from sin to grace: 1. Apparently, ever darker and deeper toward death; 2. Really, always nearer to light and life.The sad revelation of sin a preliminary condition of the joybringing revelation of salvation.The development of self-knowledge under the law: 1. Clear view which reason has of the authority of the law; 2. Earnest wrestling of the will; 3. Outburst of deeply-affected feeling (oh, wretched man that I am).How the proverb, Mans extremity is Gods opportunity, is most gloriously verified in the conversion of man.The struggle between sin and the law: 1. The deception which sin practises with the law; 2. The unmasking effected by the law through the apparent charm of sin.How the law becomes always more inward to the candid person, until he has perceived it as his spiritual I, his consciousness, his reason.The fearful, false power of evil: 1. It assumes all the features of personal life; 2. In order to exhaust and destroy personal life in all its features.The cry for deliverance occurs in close proximity with thanksgiving and praise to God.On Rom 7:25 : Either, or!

[Jeremy Taylor (condensed from sermon on the Christians Conquest over the Body of Sin, Rom 7:19): The evil natures, principles, and manners of the world are the causes of our imperfect willings and weaker actings in the things of God. Let no man please himself with perpetual pious conversation or ineffective desires of serving God; he that does not practise, as well as talk, and do what he desires and ought to do, confesses himself to sin greatly against his conscience; and it is a prodigious folly to think that he is a good man, because, though he does sin, it was yet against his mind to do so. Every good man can watch always; running from temptation is a part of our watchfulness; every good employment is a second and great part of it; and laying in provisions of reason and religion beforehand is a third part of it; and the conversation of Christians is a fourth part of it.Matt. Henry, on Rom 7:24-25 : When, under the sense of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall see reason to bless God through Christ and for Christ. Through Christs death, an end will be put to all our complaints, and we shall be wafted to an eternity without sin or sigh.It is a special remedy against fears and sorrows, to be much in praise.Scott: A proper knowledge of the holy law of God is the two-edged sword which gives the death-wound to self-righteousness and to Antinomianism; for it is perfectly fit to be the rule of our duty, written in our hearts, and obeyed in our lives.Clarke: We never find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. The law is the grand instrument, in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken sinners; and he may safely show that every sinner is under the law, and consequently under the curse, who has not fled for refuge to the hope held out by the gospel.Hodge: It is an evidence of an unrenewed heart to express or feel opposition to the law of God, as though it were too strict; or to be disposed to throw the blame of our want of conformity to the Divine will from ourselves upon the law, as unreasonable.The Christians victory over sin cannot be achieved by the strength of his resolutions, nor by the plainness and force of moral motives, nor by any resources within himself. He looks to Jesus Christ, and conquers in His strength. The victory is not obtained by nature, but by grace.Barnes: We have here: 1. A view of the sad and painful conflict between sin and God. They are opposed in all things; 2. We see the raging, withering effect of sin on the soul. In all circumstances it tends to death and wo; 3. We see the feebleness of the law and of conscience to overcome this. The tendency of both is to produce conflict and wo; 4. We see that the gospel only can overcome sin. To us it should be a subject of ever-increasing thankfulness, that what could not be accomplished by the law, can be thus effected by the gospel; and that God has devised a plan that thus effects complete deliverance, and gives to the captive in sin an everlasting triumph.J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[17]Rom 7:7.[The E. V. renders here lust, in Rom 7:8, concupiscence, and the verb , covet. In order to preserve the correspondence, the Amer. Bible Union translates the noun coveting in both places. We are forced to retain covet in rendering the verb, but it seems better to give the noun a more exact translation, even at the cost of variation from the verb. Lust is too specific, concupiscence too rare, desire would be indefinite without the adjective evil. The misfortune is that we have no English noun that corresponds well to the generic sense of the verb covet (Stuart).

[18]Rom 7:10.[The italics of the E. V. are virtually a gloss. Was only need be supplied. For is a favorite emendation, but unto brings out the telic force of quite as well.The passive form of the Greek is restored in the second clause.

[19]Rom 7:13.[. A. B. C. D. E., Lachmann, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles, read instead of (Rec., K. L.). The correction probably arose from not understanding the historical aorist (Alford). The Amer. Bible Union follows the latter reading, which is now considered incorrect.

[20]Rom 7:14.[1. A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, Meyer, Wordsworth, Tregelles, and Lange, read instead of (Rec., 3. K. L.); the latter being very naturally substituted to correspond with . It was also more familiar. On the meaning, see Exeg. Notes.

[21]Rom 7:15.[Three Greek verbs of kindred signification: , , , occur in this verse, recurring throughout the section. The E. V. renders all three, do, except in Rom 7:18, where the first verb is translated, perform. It is better to retain this throughout, and render , practise, as etymologically exact. Alford denies any distinction between the last two verbs.

[22]Rom 7:15.[Would (E. V.) is an inexact rendering of . The choice lies between will and wish. The former is to be preferred, if the idea of simple, spontaneous volition is deemed the prominent one; the latter is favored by the presence of , indicating an emotional feature in the volition. See Exeg. Notes.

[23]Ver 18.[. A. B. C., many versions and fathers, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, omit . It is inserted in D. F. K. L., Rec., by many fathers, Meyer, Wordsworth, Lange, and others. Meyer deems the omission due to the transcribers hastily passing over from to at the beginning of Rom 7:19. Lange holds that would disappear, as soon as the sententious antithesis (To will is immediately present, but the carrying out of that which is good I can never find) was no longer understood.

[24]Rom 7:20.[. A. K. L., insert after . Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, and others, follow B. C. D. F. in omitting it. The analogy of Rom 7:15; Rom 7:18 is against it, but Lange deems it important to mark a progress in the thought.

[25]Rom 7:23.[. B. D. F. K., and some cursives, insert before . Omitted in Rec., A. C. L., fathers. Most modern editors reject it. Tregelles retains it. If retained, it cannot mean by means of (see Alford).

[26]Rom 7:24.[On these two renderings, see Exeg. Notes.

[27]Rom 7:25.[There is considerable variation here. The Rec., 1. A. K. L., read . B. has , which is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. We find also: and . Meyer contends for the reading of the Recepta, which certainly has the best MSS. support.

[28] Rom 7:25.[Forbes:

,

, .

So then I myself
With my mind serve the law of God,
But with my flesh the law of sin.
Lange, however, seems to take as = either or. See Exeg. Notes.R.]

[29][Wordsworth, less correctly, says: By the pronoun 1. the holy Apostle personifies Human Nature, and identifies it with himself, and says, in his own name and person, what he means to be applied to Mankind generally, in their unregenerate state. This author follows his usual patristic bent, in implying that this is a description, not of what was, but might have been Pauls experience. This zeal for the honor of the holy Apostle is undoubtedly at the expense of his sincerity.R.]

[30][Tholuck, Stuart (Meyer, Lange, apparently), attribute the change in Augustines views to the Pelagian controversy; Dr. Hodge, on the other hand: to a deeper insight into his own heart, and a more thorough investigation of the Scriptures. In the Expositio Quarundam Prop. Ep. Rom. Prop. 45 (not the incomplete commentary) the earlier view is stated (394). It is repeated in Ad Simp. (397), Conf. vii. 21 (400). The Pelagian controversy began about 412. It is not until 420 that the other view is presented (Contra duas Epistolas Pel. ad Bonifac., i. 12). It is repeated in Retractationes, i. 23, i. 1 (427), and in Contra Jul., vi. 13 (about the same time). The language of Augustine is as follows (in Retrac.): qu postea lectis quibusdam divinorum tractatoribus etoquiorum, quorum me moveret auctoritas, consideravi diligentius et vidi etiam de ipso apostolo posse intelligi quod ait (Rom 7:14); quod in eis libris quos contra Pelagianos nuper scripsi, quantum potui diligenter ostendi. The tone of the whole section is polemic. This fact, in connection with the dates above given, shows that the probabilities are strongly in favor of the view of Stuart. A general change may have been going on, but, as regards this passage, the change seems due to the exigencies of the controversy. Comp. Mignes edition Augustini Opera, i. 620, iii. 2071, &c.; also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, iii. pp. 988 ff.R.]

[31][This view is as follows: From Rom 7:7-13 is historical, carnal self under the convictions of sin in the transition state. Rom 7:14 is still of the carnal self, but Paul, in passing forward, transfers himself into his present position by the change of tense. Speaking in this tense, he begins to tell of the motions of the will toward God (Rom 7:15, which is true only of the regenerate). Then an apparent verbal confusion arises, the ego having a wider meaning in Rom 7:17 than in Rom 7:18, &c. After Rom 7:20, the subject is the actual then existing complex self of Paul in his state of conflict. This view is more easily justified by the exegesis of separate verses than that of Dr. Hodge, yet the confusion is greatR.]

[32][Forbes defends this view, however, from the parallelism in the latter part of Rom 7:25.R.]

[33][Stuart makes here almost = (Rom 7:14 ff.). If an equivalent is necessary, is a preferable one. For full, almost fanciful, notes on the presumed personification, see Wordsworth in loco.R.]

[34][The proof of this connection is, that is never joined with . . ( is usual); that Rom 7:11; Rom 7:13 seem to require it.R.]

[35] [The following citations from the classics support the universality of the principle set forth in this verse (comp. Pro 9:17):

Cato (Livy 34:4): Nolite eodem loco existimare, Quirites, futurom rem, quo fuit, antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem improbum non accusare tutuis est, quam absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior esset, quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia irritata, deinde emissa. Seneca (de Clementia, Rom 1:23): Parricid cum lege cperunt, et illis facinus pna monstravit. Horace (Carm., i. 3):

Audax omnia perpeti
Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas.

Ovid (Amor., 2, 19, 3): Quod licet ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit; (3, 4) Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata.

To this may well be added the remark of Goethe (in a letter to Lavater): Ich mchte das Element woraus des Menschen Seele gebildet ist und warin sie lebt, ein Fegfeuer nennen, worin alle hllischen und himmlischen Krfte durcheinander gehen und wirken (I might call the element, out of which the soul of man is formed and in which it lives, a purgatory, in which all hellish and heavenly powers confusedly walk and work).R.]

[36][The legitimate result of this interpretation is Jowetts position: The state which the Apostle describes is in some degree ideal and imaginary. There is no such time of innocence, but rather a time of security, before the deeper energies of the moral nature are aroused. All that period, in the individual consciousness, as well as secondarily in the historical development of redemption, is referred to by . Granting, as a fair exegesis of the whole context compels us to do, that the termination of this period was not at the entrance of Christian knowledge of the law, we may well include the thought urged so strongly by Prof. Stuart: Before an individual has a distinct and vivid perception of the nature and spirituality and extent of the Divine law, he is less active and desperate in his sin and guilt than after he comes to such a knowledge. The view of Rom 7:7-8, as including excitement of sin, commits us in advance to this position.R.]

[37][So Stuart: to gather new life, to show additional vigor, not merely a renewal of life which had before existed. On the lexical objections to this view, see Philippi in loco.R.]

[38][It is more difficult than important to decide this point. , hc, this; , ipsa, the same. The former, though not in itself so emphatic, here takes the preceding subject, this very commandment, giving it a tragical force (so Meyer and Philippi, whom Lange cites in favor of the other view). The analogy of Rom 7:15-16; Rom 7:19-20 () is against Langes preference.R.]

[39][So Hodge: The reference is not to the promised joys of sin, which always mock the expectation and disappoint the hopes, but rather to the utter failure of the law to do what he expected from it. This view consists with the assumption, that the point in experience here reached is one necessarily and immediately preceding conversion. Dr. Hodge does not thus assume, yet he appeals to Christian experience in confirmation. If the excitement to sin be allowed throughout these verses, the other interpretation, adopted by Dr. Lange, is preferable. Comp., however, a beautiful setting forth of the first view in Neander, Pflanzung, 2:681 (quoted in Tholuck).R.]

[40][This is a mistake. The quotation is from Philippi. Meyer says: right, with respect to its requirement, which corresponds exactly with holiness.R.]

[41][Bengel is excellent: Sancta, justa; bona, ratione caus efficientis, form, finis. His second view is less exact: respectu officiorum erga Deum, respectu, proximi, respectu natur me. Comp. Calovius (in Tholuck and Philippi), and Theodoret (in Alford).R.]

[42][Akin to the view under discussion is that of Gschel: that the soul proceeds at once from body and spirit to unite the two. This contradicts, or, at least, confuses the immateriality of the soul, and makes a living body antecedent thereto. Hegelianism regards the soul as only the band that connects body and spirit.R.]

[43][Against so limited a view of , see Tholuck, p. 302, who includes under it the and . Comp. Irenus, c. hres., v. 304.R.]

[44][On the trichotomy, see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., pp. 8498; Olshausen, Romans, pp. 271, 272, 2d ed.; De natur hum. trichotomia, &c., Opuscc. Theol., Berlin, 1834, pp. 143 ff.; Messner, Die Lehre des Apostel, Leipzig, 1856, p. 207; Bishop Ellicott, Sermon on the Destiny of the Creation; Notes on 1Th 5:23; Langes Comm. on Genesis, pp. 212 f., 285 f.; Tholuck, Romans, pp. 288302; J. B. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 2d ed., Edinb., 1868; Lange, Dogmatik, pp. 307, 1243.R.]

[45][The anthropology of Swedenborg assumes a trinity rather than a trichotomy, and by his doctrine of correspondences, spirit seems to lose its real significance.R.]

[46][It must be noted how this passage assumes (1), that the spirit needs sanctification; (2) that body and soul are also to be preserved for God; thus guarding against Pelagianism and rationalism on the one hand, and asceticism and mysticism on the other.R.]

[47][Any argument from the analogy of the Trinity must be left out of view, since it can prove nothing, though it may be pleasing to some minds to trace such an analogy.R.]

[48][Of course, the term will be given a more or less extended meaning by different authors; but if the two positions be held fast: (1) That this spirit is the point of contact with Divine influences; (2) That it, too, has been depraved, all erroneous conclusions will be avoided. Dr. Lange (Genesis, p. 213) seems to coincide with the view here presented: It must be held fast, that man could not receive the Spirit of God, if he were not himself a spiritual being; yet it is a supposition of the Scripture, that, since the fall, the spiritual nature is bound in the natural man, and does not come to its actuality.R.]

[49][In Rom 8:3, where the term occurs three times, it is highly probable that in the last two cases this sense is the more correct one.R.]

[50][Comp. Delitzsch, Bib. Psych., pp. 374 f., Eng. ed., pp. 440 ff., against the view of Gnther, that there is a fleshly soul in distinction from the spiritual soul.R.]

[51][The Greek adjectives ending in – (with the accent on the antepenult) describe the material out of which any thing is made (comp. the English -en, wooden, earthen). is therefore carneus, made of flesh; , carnalis, fleshly, of this character. Adopting the former reading, three modes of view present themselves: (1) That the Apostle has here purposely chosen the stronger word (so Meyer), and thus a reference to the regenerate, spiritual man is necessarily excluded. (2) That here, = . (So Lange.) This is also adopted in the interest of the reference to the believer. (3) Delitzsch even finds the former the weaker word: is one who has in himself the bodily nature and the sinful tendency inherited with it; but is one whose personal fundamental tendency is this sinful impulse of the flesh. I prefer (1); but (3) should be adopted by those who insist on the Augustinian view. Otherwise, the first time the present tense, upon which so much stress is laid as indicating a change in the state of the subject, occurs, the predicate must be tampered with, and made to mean, not simply, I am carnal, but, I was, I am so to a certain extent, I am still carnal, though not as formerly. Dr. Hodge deems the extreme (i.e., simple) sense of the words, inconsistent with the context, but the immediate context has to be limited in the same way to make this applicable, especially exclusively applicable, to a regenerate person.R.]

[52][This interpretation is altogether untenable on philological grounds. Dr. Hodge justifies it, by saying: With regard to moral objects, knowledge is not mere cognition. It is the apprehension of the moral quality, and involves, of necessity, approbation or disapprobation. But a correct inference is not always a correct interpretation.R.]

[53][Dr. Hodge is certainly correct in saying, that every Christian can adopt the language of this verse; but when Alford (following Philippi) asserts, that no such will exists in the carnal, unregenerate man, the remark is incorrect, unless be referred either to a full determination of the will, or to the strongest possible desire. That neither of these is a necessary conclusion, is evident not only from the language of Epictetus, but from the close connection with Rom 7:14 ( ), as well as from Rom 7:16, where is evidently used as explaining . It is a gratuitous inference, that a reference of this verse to the unregenerate implies a contradiction of the depravity of the human will.R.]

[54][Meyer (4th ed.) holds that the article requires us to understand the Mosaic law, but his view of the construction is as follows: the law is joined with the participle, the infinitive is the infinitive of design, and the last clause introduced by is the object of I find: I find, then, while my will is directed to the law in order to do good, that evil is present with me. As be well adds: What deep misery! But this seems forced, and is only an attempt to preserve consistently his dictum, that must mean the Mosaic law. See, however, his full grammatical justification.R.]

[55][Olshausen (2d ed., p. 280) rejects this view as harsh; but what his precise opinion is, is not very obvious.R.]

[56][Winer (7th ed.) favors the other view (that of Luther), while Tholuck (5th ed.), Philippi (2d ed.), and apparently Olshausen (2d ed.), adopt this, which is that of the E. V. Our English and American commentaries combat many authors, who have already given up the opposed opinions on this verse.R.]

[57][Philippi holds that members here has a meaning between the physiological and ethical. Hodge makes it = in my flesh; but the phrase seems purposely chosen to indicate the locality where the opposing law is most evident, rather than its precise seat.R.]

[58]Rom 7:23.[. B. D. F. K., and some cursives, insert before . Omitted in Rec., A. C. L., fathers. Most modern editors reject it. Tregelles retains it. If retained, it cannot mean by means of (see Alford).

[59][If be accepted in the text, then this would not be instrumental, but describe the department in which the taking captive has place (Alford).R.]

[60][Many will feel that Dr. Lange here gives an explanation which is not a real explanation. Sin, and flesh, and the old man, are real enough; but if he means that over against them is something, which is the ideal man, to be made real through the grace of Christ, then his remarks are significant. That the true explanation of this passage is to he sought in a discovery of modern science, anticipated by Paul, is improbable. Comp. Doctr. Note12.R.]

[61]Rom 7:25.[There is considerable variation here. The Rec., 1. A. K. L., read . B. has , which is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. We find also: and . Meyer contends for the reading of the Recepta, which certainly has the best MSS. support.

[62][The explanation of Jowett is altogether untenable: I in my true self serve the law of God; the remainder of the sentence may be regarded as an afterthought. The presence of totally overthrows this. Jowett accepts it in his text, too, without even taking advantage of its omission in . F., to give a seeming propriety to his interpretation!R.]

[63][Hence the Arminian controversy really began upon the exegesis of this passage. It cannot be doubted that this controversy has led to extreme views in both directions respecting the meaning of this chapter.R.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1852
THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE LAW

Rom 7:7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shall not covet.

THERE is not any thing, however good, which has not been abused to the vilest purposes. The blessings of providence are rendered subservient to intemperance. The Holy Scriptures also are often wrested to support error. But we must blame not the things that are perverted, but the persons who pervert them. We must estimate things by their use, and not by their abuse. To this effect the Apostle speaks respecting the law of God [Note: He had spoken of the law as the accidental occasion of sin and death, ver. 5. From hence he supposes that some would object against it as the cause of sin and death. But, shuddering at such a blasphemous thought, he refutes the objection; and shews that, instead of being a promoter of sin, it discovered and prohibited sin in its first and most secret workings.]; and, in his vindication of it, he opens to us,

I.

Its nature

The law here spoken of must be the moral law, because it is that which forbids inordinate desire. Its spirituality may be seen by considering,

1.

The commandments in general

[Our Lord comprises them all in two, namely, love to God, and love to man [Note: Mat 22:37-40.]. Our love to God must be supreme, without intermission or reserve. The smallest defect in the degree or manner of our love is a violation of our duty towards him: our love to our neighbour must resemble our love to ourselves: it must be as extensive, as constant, as uniform, as influential. This is transgressed, not by overt acts only, but by secret thoughts. In this extent our Lord himself explains those very commandments, which we should be most ready to limit and restrict [Note: Mat 5:21-22; Mat 5:27-28.]: hence it appears, that we may be blameless respecting the outward breach of the law, and yet have transgressed every one of the commandments throughout our whole lives.]

2.

The particular commandment before us

[This, in the very letter of it, extends to our inclinations and desires: it prohibits all dissatisfaction with our own state or lot; it prohibits all envy at the prosperity of others; it prohibits all desire of any evil or forbidden object; it prohibits all inordinate love even of good and lawful objects; it does not say, that we must not indulge a wrong desire, but that we must not have it. Well therefore does David say respecting the law, Thy commandment is exceeding broad [Note: Psa 119:96.].]

It may seem unjust in God to publish such a law, seeing that man in his present fallen state cannot keep it one single hour. But God could not, consistently with his own honour and our good, publish a less spiritual law than this; and this will be found both just and good [Note: ver. 12.], if we consider,

II.

Its use

Many are the uses of this law both to saints and sinners, but there is one use in particular mentioned in the text; and to that we shall confine our attention. The nature of sin is but little understood
[The generality think that sin consists only in the outward act. Hence they suppose themselves in a good and safe state. This was the case with St. Paul himself before his conversion. And it is equally the case with every unconverted man.]
But the law is intended to discover sin to us in its true colours
[Like a perfect rule, it leads to a discovery of our smallest obliquities. When applied to our motives, and principles, and to the manner and measure of our duties, it shews us that our very best actions are extremely defective. Thus it plucks up by the roots all conceit of our own goodness, and causes us to lie low before God as miserable sinners. It was to a view of the law that St. Paul owed his knowledge of his own sinfulness [Note: The text.]. And it is by this light that we must see the evil of our state.]

Application
1.

What know we of sin?

[Have we ever seen the spirituality and extent of the law? Have we ever laid the law as a line to our consciences? Have we ever discovered by it the obliquity of our best actions? Have we ever been bowed down under the weight of our transgressions? Have we ever felt the impossibility of being justified by the law? No attainments in knowledge or goodness will profit us without this. Paul himself, though he thought well of his own state, was really dead while he was ignorant of the law; and when the spirituality of the law was revealed to him, then he saw and confessed himself an undone sinner [Note: ver. 9.]. Let us then seek increasing views of the law, that we may be made truly humble and contrite.]

2.

What know we of the Deliverer from sin?

[There is One who has fulfilled the demands of the law. His obedience and righteousness will avail for us. Have we fled to him as the fulfiller of the law for us? Have we take refuge in him who bore its curse for us? Do we see the need of him to bear the iniquity of our holy things? Let us then bless God for such a Saviour, and cleave to him with full purpose of heart.]

3.

What regard are we yet daily shewing to the law?

[We are indeed delivered from its penal sanctions; nor ought we to regard it any longer as a covenant. But we are still subject to its commands, and ought to receive it as a rule of life. If we are sincere, we shall not account even the strictest of its commandments grievous [Note: 1Jn 5:3.]. Let us then remember that it still says to us, Thou shalt not covet. Let us, in obedience to it, mortify all discontent and envy, all improper and inordinate desire: and let it be the labour of our lives to glorify God by our professed subjection to it.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The Apostle, all the way along is expecting, from Pharisaical pride and carnal reasoning, continual objections to those precious truths; and therefore stops to answer all, that such men may bring. You will say perhaps, (saith he,) that under such views, is it not making God’s holy law the foundation for sin, when you charge it as exciting motions of sin in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death? If the law of God stirs up in me, a disposition to offend; is not this charging the law as the cause of sin? To which Paul answers, with an holy warmth of indignation, God forbid! The law, by acting as a bridle to restrain, when it gives out its commands and threatenings, can never surely be charged as the cause to evil, because our corruptions are thereby more provoked to offend. When a man throws up a fence, to check the torrent of waters; his wisdom is not impeachable, because those waters swell, and rage the more by the opposition. The sun is not chargeable with improperly shedding its warmth and sweet influences, because reptiles take advantage thereof, to bring their spawn into life, under its incubation. In like manner, the holy law of God loseth nothing of its holiness, because our ruined, undone, and unholy nature finds occasion, from the purity of its precepts, to manifest the greater opposition to it, by our impurities. – Reader! pause a moment to observe, and to observe with great solemnness, to what an awful state our whole nature is reduced by the fall! To such an extent indeed, that the very means the Lord hath adopted to shew to man his misery, the sinner perverts into a greater occasion of testifying the desperately wicked state of his heart! Oh! who knows, who can calculate, or fathom the depth of human depravity? What man hath ever arrived at the bottom of it, so as to have equal apprehensions to what it really is, of the plague of his own heart? Reader! If you and I ever make any progress, under divine teachings, in this first, and most important of all sciences; we must not wait to learn our lessons from discoveries of common sins, and transgressions. These, through grace, may be learnt daily, and alas! too often there is occasion afforded to learn them hourly in the events of life. For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, Pro 24:16 . But, when the Lord layeth judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet, in our most holy things; who shall calculate the iniquity found there? Isa 28:17 . Sir! It is a solemn thought, but as certain as it is solemn, that were it not for our Almighty High Priest (as Aaron represented him of old,) bearing away the iniquity of our offerings to the Lord ; the best services, and the best prayers, presented by any of the Adam – nature in our fallen state, would call forth everlasting condemnation! Exo 28:38 . Jehovah hath said: I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. Sanctified by them in Christ, or sanctified upon them in their destruction, as Nadab and Abihu were, when offering strange fire, Lev 10:1-3 . Oh! the unspeakable mercy of Heaven, that sin-bearing Lamb of God to bear away the iniquity of our most holy things into a land not inhabited! Lev 16:21-22 . Oh! the grace, and to the praise of the glory of that grace, which hath made us accepted in the Beloved! Eph 1:6 .

The Apostle prosecutes the subject yet further, under the same view, of the holiness of God’s law condemning the sinner; and to take off all possible objections in the illustration of the doctrine, he brings forth the argument as if against himself. I had not known sin (saith he) but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shall not covet. Paul here speaks in his own person, and of himself, looking back to the days of his Pharisaical righteousness. The time when he had a very high opinion of himself; and as he saith, he was alive without the law once. Not that he was ignorant of the law of God from his youth: for he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers; and was zealous towards God, Act 22:3 . But the meaning is, that he had not, in those days, the least knowledge of the spirituality of God’s law. He was alive, in a cheerful confidence of his good estate before God; and by an outward attention to things, as they appeared before men, he considered himself very praise-worthy, and within a few steps of Heaven. Reader! if there be a delusion upon earth, one more common than another, this is the one! How little do such men know of the plague of their own heart!

But Paul goes on. When the commandment came, (saith he,) sin revived, and I died. What doth he mean? When the commandment came! Why the commandment was in the world ages before Paul was born. He could not mean, therefore, that he had never heard the commandment before! But the sense is, that the law was never brought home to his conscience by the powerful hand of God the Holy Ghost until his memorable conversion. Then the Lord, for the first time, opened his eyes to the right apprehension of the law, and to the right knowledge of himself, as a sinner before God: and the consequence was, that all those high towering thoughts which he had conceived of his own goodness, fell to the ground, and he himself fell with them a self-condemned sinner before God. Reader! what know you personally of these things? Hath the same Lord which taught Paul, taught you? Hath God the Holy Ghost brought you acquainted with the anatomy of your own heart, and dissected to your view all its foldings? Hath the Lord laid open the workings of it, and made you out of love with it, as he did Paul? If so, you will find cause to bless the Lord for such a portrait as he hath caused the Apostle here to draw of himself; in which every man, taught by the same Almighty Master, and brought up in the same school, may discover his own features. For, (as the wise man saith,) as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man, Pro 27:19 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

XVII

SAUL’S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION

Act 9:1-19 ; Act 22:5-16 ; Act 26:12-20 ; 1Co 1:1 ; 1Co 9:1 ; 1Co 15:7-10 ; Rom 7:7-25 .

In commencing this chapter, I call attention to my address called, “The Greatest Man in History,” which you will find in The Southwestern Theological Review, Vol. I, No. II. There are ten special scriptures which bear upon the conversion of Saul, and most of them upon his call to the apostleship. The accounts given are as follows: (1) By Luke, Act 9:1-9 , A.D. 36; (2) by Barnabas, Act 9:26-28 , A.D. 39; (3) by Paul at Corinth, Gal 1:15-16 , A.D. 57; (4) by Paul at Ephesus, 1Co 15:8-10 , A.D. 57; (5) by Paul at Corinth, Rom 7:7-25 , A.D. 58; (6) by Paul at Jerusalem, Act 22:1-16 , A.D. 59; (7) by Paul at Caesarea, Act 26:1-19 , A.D. 60; (8) by Paul at Rome, Phi 3:4-14 , A.D. 62; (9) by Paul in Macedonia, 1Ti 1:12-16 , A.D. 67; (10) by Paul at Rome, 2Ti 1:9-12 , A.D. 68. In order to understand the conversion of Saul of Tarsus we must be able to interpret these ten scriptures.

To prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion I submit two scriptures: (1) The words that Jesus said to him when he met him, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” (2) What he says about his experience in Rom 7:7-25 , that he was alive without the law until the commandment came, when sin revived and he died.

As to the time and place of Paul’s conversion, the argument is overwhelming that he was converted outside Damascus. In the first place, the humility with which he asked the question, “Who art thou, Lord?” Second, the spirit of obedience which instantly followed: “Whereupon, O King Agrippa, Is was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Again he says, “When God called me by his grace, he revealed Christ in me.” So we may count it a settled question that Paul was converted out there on the road, when the light above the brightness of the midday sun shone about him, and he fell to the ground.

The proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state, is found in 1Co 9:1 , and also 1Co 15:8 , in which he expressly affirms that he had seen Jesus, and puts it in the same class with the appearances of Jesus to the other disciples, after his resurrection from the dead. It was not simply an ecstasy, nor a trance, nor a mere mental state, but he actually met Jesus, and saw him. Jesus appeared to him, not in the flesh, as on earth before his death, but in the glory of his risen body. He and Paul actually met. There was a necessity for his actually seeing the Lord. He could not otherwise have been an apostle, for one of the main functions of the apostolic office was to be an “eyewitness” that Jesus had risen from the dead. So Peter announces when Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas that he must be one who had continued with them from the time of the baptism of John until the Lord was taken up into the heavens, and that he must be one eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ. Other passages also bearing on his apostolic call, are, one particularly, 1Co 9:1-9 , and then what he says in the beginning of his letters: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, not of man.” I need not cite all of these beginnings. You can trace these out yourself. The second particular passage that I cite, to be put by the side of 1Co 9:1-9 , is Gal 1:15-16 .

Let us distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this point experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience, and what the elements of his Christian experience. When I was interested in the subject of my salvation, to me, a sinner and an outsider, the distinction between Saul’s conversion and his call to the apostleship was very clear. You must understand that the light above the brightness of the midday sun was the glory of the appearance of the risen Lord to Saul, in order that he might see him to become an apostle, and the shock which Paul experienced by thus seeing the risen Lord was the shock that knocked him down, but it was not a part of his Christian experience it was a part of his call to the apostleship. You must not expect anything of that kind in order to your conversion, nor must you teach other people to expect it. But the elements of his Christian experience were these: (1) He was convicted that he was a sinner; (2) Christ was revealed to him; (3) he did believe on the Christ thus revealed as his Saviour; (4) he did then and there receive the remission of his sins, which remission was pictorially set forth in his baptism three days later.

Here it is well for us to define a Christian experience. I was once present when a man came to unite with the church, and the first question propounded to him was, “Please tell us in your own way why you think you are a Christian.” “Well,” he commenced in a sort of “sing-song” manner, “one day ah, about five o’clock ah, I just took a notion to walk around the work-fence ah, and I thought maybe I’d better take my rifle along ah, for I might see a squirrel ah,” and he went on just that way. I myself have heard, in a Negro protracted meeting on the Brazos, about eight miles below Waco, candidate after candidate tell their experiences. They commenced this way: “Well, about last Sunday night ah,” following the same “sing-song” manner, “something seemed to drop down on me like a falling star ah, and I heard the angel Gabriel toot his horn ah; I went down in the valley to pray ah,” and so on.

Therefore, I say that we ought to define accurately the Christian experience. This is a Christian experience: All those convictions, emotions, and determinations of the soul wrought by the Spirit of God in one’s passage from death unto life. That may sound like a strange definition of a Christian experience. It has in it a conviction and certain emotions, also certain determinations, or choices, and those convictions and emotions are not excited by seeing a squirrel, not in imagining that you heard Gabriel blow his horn, for it is not Gabriel that is going to blow the horn. Michael is the horn-blower. But this conviction, this emotion and the determinations of the will, are all Spirit-wrought. And a Christian experience covers every one of those in the passage from death unto life.

There are varied uses which the New Testament makes of Paul’s experience:

1. As soon as he was converted, and yet outside Damascus or at least as soon as he had entered Damascus, the Lord tells Paul’s Christian experience to Ananias in order to induce that disciple to go to him. That disciple says, “Lord, I know this man. Why, he is a holy terror! He just kills us wherever he finds us.” But the Lord says, “I tell you he is a chosen vessel unto me, and you go to him.” So the Lord made use of Paul’s experience to prepare Ananias to accept Paul, and to minister to him what ought to be ministered to him, just as God made use of the experience of Cornelius related by himself to Peter in order to prepare Peter to perceive that God was no respecter of persons.

2. The second use made is by Barnabas in Act 9:26-28 . Paul came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and essayed to join himself to the disciples, but they would not receive him: “You? Take you? Accept you? Why, this whole city is full of the memories of your persecutions.” But Barnabas took up for him, and related how this Saul had met Jesus, and how he was a believer in this gospel, and a preacher. And the relating of Saul’s experience to the Jerusalem church removed all of their objections to him, and prepared them to receive him among them, so the record says, “he went in and out among them.”

It is for such objects that the Christian experience should be related to the church. God requires it as the second ceremonial act that the man shall publicly confess the change that has taken place in him before he can be received into the church, and I will be sorry whenever, if ever, the Baptists leave that out. A man must not only be converted inside, but in order to join the church there must be a confession of that conversion.

In this particular case it was exceedingly appropriate for Barnabas to relate it, as they would not be disposed to believe Paul. The general rule should be that each candidate tell his own experience. It is better to let the candidate just get up and tell the church why he thinks he is a Christian, in his own way. Some people object to it. They say it is too embarrassing to the women. I have never found it so, but Is have seen men so “shaky” when they went to get married that they answered so low I could hardly hear them. But women are always assertive. A woman knows she loves him. She knows what she is doing, and she doesn’t mind saying so.

I remember a Christian experience related to our old First Church at Waco. A Mrs. Warren gave it. I talked with her privately, saying, “When you come before the church, don’t let anybody suggest to you what you are to say, and don’t you say anything because somebody else has said it; you just simply say what has happened to you.” When I put the question to her, she opened her Bible and put her finger on the passage from which she heard a sermon, and showed how that sermon took hold of her; told how it led her to pray; she then turned to another passage, showing that through faith she believed in Jesus Christ; and she thus turned from passage to passage. I considered her’s the most intelligent and the most impressive Christian experience I had ever heard. That kind of testimony does a world of good.

3. The third use of it Paul himself makes in his letter to the Galatians. He says, “God, who separated me even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.” Thus he goes on to make use of his Christian experience. He says, “Therefore, now first I was converted, and then called as an independent apostle. That is why I do not go to Jerusalem to submit my experience to Peter or John, having derived this direct authority from God, from Christ, who alone can call an apostle. That is why I did not submit to the instruction of man.”

4. The next use he makes of it is what is told in Rom 7 , and he there tells his experience in order to show the use of the law in the conversion of a man that the law does not convert the man; that it discovers sin to him: “I had not known sin except the law said, Thou shall and shalt not do this or that. I was not even conscious that I was a sinner until the law showed me I was a sinner. Apart from the law I felt all right, about as good as anybody, but when the law came, sin revived and I died.” And then he goes on to show that this mere sight of sin through the law cannot put one at peace with God, neither can it deliver one; it does not enable one to follow the right that he sees in order to evade the wrong that he would not; that it leads one to cry out, “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?” But when he says, “I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord,” he then shows how his conversion, through faith in Jesus Christ was led up to by the law: the law was a schoolmaster to lead him to Christ.

5. In the letter to the Corinthians he makes another use of it. He explains that he is so different from what he was, saying, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” In other words, “You need not come to me and say, ‘Why, Paul, when did you commence to do better, to work out your own righteousness? You are so different from what you were when I first heard of you; you then were breathing out threatenings,’ for I say to you, By the grace of God I am what I am.”

6. We see another when he stands on the stairway in Jerusalem, giving an explanation as to why he quit one crowd and then went to another crowd. They were howling against him for going over to the Christians after being so zealous as a Jew, and he asked the brethren to hear him. He admits all that they said as to what he had been, and to justify his occupying the position he now occupies, he says, “I will tell you my Christian experience,” and he proceeds to do it. If a leader of wild young men, up to all sorts of mischief and devilment, should go off for a few days, and come back changed, and the boys say, “Come down to the saloon tonight, and let us have a good time,” and he would then say, “No,” they would wonder what had come to him and would ask, “What has come over you lately? Come and let us have a game of cards.” But, “No,” he says, “boys, I will tell you why I cannot do that.” Then he explains why, and he leaves that crowd because he can’t stay with it any more. So Paul explained why he left the persecuting crowd, and could not go with them any more. He had had a Christian experience.

7. In Act 26 there is another instance recorded in which he made use of it. He was at Caesarea, arraigned on trial for his life, before Festus and King Agrippa. He is asked to speak in his own defense. In defending himself against the accusations of his enemies he relates his Christian experience.

8. In the letter to the Philippians he relates his Christian experience in order to show the impossibility of any man’s becoming righteous through his own righteousness, and to show that Christ laid hold of him. He uses his own experience now to show that his righteousness can never save him, and that though regenerate, he cannot claim to be perfectly holy and sinless.

9. In 1Ti 1:12-16 he relates his Christian experience in order to explain two poles of those who are salvable: (a) “God forgave me because I did it through ignorance,” and (b) to show that any man who has not committed the unpardonable sin, may be saved, since he, the chief of sinners, was saved.

10. Then, in the last letter to Timothy, and just before he died, he recites his Christian experience. He says, “I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day,” i.e., “I committed my soul to him on that day when he came to me and met me; I knew him before I committed it to him, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep it.” He made that use of his Christian experience because he was under the sentence of death, expecting in a few hours to be executed. This is his farewell to earth and to time, so he closes his letter with the statement that the time of his exodus is at hand; that he is ready to be poured out as a libation; that he has fought a good fight, has kept the faith, and that he feels sure that there is laid up for him a crown which God the righteous Judge will give to him at his appearing, i.e., the appearing of Jesus. The relating of that experience came from the lips of a dying man, showing that the ground of his assurance gives calmness the calmness of God’s peace.

A startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience. We do not find many uses of Peter’s experience, or John’s, or Matthew’s, or Mark’s, or Luke’s. Paul is the only man in the New Testament whose experience is held up before us in ten distinct passages of scripture. To account for the fact, let us expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ), in which he says, “Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief [of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample, . . .” the conclusion of which is this: All these uses are made of Paul’s experience because as Abraham had the model faith, which is the pattern for all generations, so Paul is a model in Christian experience he is the pattern. If you preach on the faith of Abraham you have the model faith of the world; if you preach on the experience of Saul of Tarsus you have the model experience of the world.

The principal lesson to us is that as it was in the particular case of Paul, so it is in our case, that the most stupendous fact in our history is not when we were born according to the flesh, but when we were born according to the Spirit. That is our real birthday. It is the most significant and the most far-reaching fact of anybody’s lifetime and an abundant use may be made of it.

For instance, John Jasper, the Negro preacher, with his Christian experience could always reply to any atheist even to President Eliot, of Harvard, about a new religion. He would say to President Eliot, “When you say there is no such thing as the religion that has been preached, you ought to say, ‘Not as you knows of.’ I have it, and since I have got it and you haven’t, I am higher authority on that than you.”

In Edward Eggleston’s Circuit Rider is the story of a fighting preacher, who was going to his appointment, and certain rough men stopped him on the way and told him that he must turn round and go home, and not fill that appointment. “No,” he said, “I am going to fill it; I’m not going home.” “Well, then, we will take you down from your horse and give you such a beating that you will not feel like preaching.” “Well, you ought not to do that,” he said. “You get down,” they said. He got down and whipped both of them outrageously, but in the fight he got his jaw badly bruised and marred, and when he got to where he was to preach he could not preach. There was a big crowd, and no preacher who could preach. So he looked around and took a poor, thin, long-haired, black-eyed young fellow who had been very wild, but who had just been converted just a boy. The preacher said, “Ralph, get up here and preach.” “Why,” he says, “I am no preacher; I have not been a Christian long; I have not been licensed, nor ordained.” “But,” said the preacher, “get up here and preach.” “Why,” said the boy, “I do not know any sermons.” “Well, if you try to make a sermon and fail, then throw your sermon down, and tell your Christian experience before this crowd.” So that boy got up and made a failure of trying to preach a sermon like preachers preach. Then, weeping, he said, “Brethren, I can tell you how God for Christ’s sake forgave my sins,” and he became more eloquent in telling his experience than Demosthenes or Cicero, and that whole crowd was weeping under the power of the boy’s simple recounting of the salvation of his soul. He could not possibly have done any better than just what he did that day.

There is a myth that when Jupiter made a man he put a pair of saddlebags on his shoulders. In one of the saddlebags was the man’s own sins and in the other were the sins of his neighbors, and when the man threw the saddlebags on his shoulder the sins of his neighbors were in front of him and the other saddlebag with his own sins was behind him so that he could not see them, but his eyes were always on the sins of his neighbors. But when conversion comes God reverses the saddlebags, and putting the man’s own sins in front, he places the sins of his neighbors behind him, so that he never thinks about what a sinner A, B or C is, but, “Oh,” he says, “what a sinner I am!” That is the way of it in the Christian experience. Some think that it was the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., that it was because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people. My belief is that all of us feel that way the first time we quit looking at our neighbors’ sins and begin looking at our own sins, but it is not the explanation of Paul’s statement, because that does not make a pattern of the case. He says, “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief: howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life.” Note that his case was a pattern to them that should thereafter believe. That was the reason, and not simply that of looking at his own sins instead of his neighbors.

What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, is e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious? No. I have showed in a previous chapter that Louis XIV and Alva in the lowlands persecuted worse than all. Others have gone before him in blaspheming, and there have been more injurious men than he. The answer is this: He was a “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” that is, he was an extremist, going to the fine points of Pharisaism, the acme, the pinnacle, the apex of Pharisaism, which is self-righteousness, and Paul was the most self-righteous man in the world. What is the sin of self-righteousness? It says, “I am not depraved by nature; I do not need the new birth, the re-birth of the Holy Spirit; I need no atonement; I am the ‘pink of perfection.’ ” That is the greatest sin that man ever committed, because it rejects the Father’s love. It rejects the Saviour’s expiatory death, and his priesthood. It rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Hence it is the culmination of sin. While other people are self-righteous, Paul was the outside man, which means that if all the sinners from Adam to the end of the world were put in a row and graded according to their heinousness, this one a sinner) this one more a sinner, that one even more, and to the outside man, the worst, the one next to hell, that man was Saul of Tarsus. That is what is meant by being the outside man as a pattern. He topped them all, to be held up before other sinners, so as to say, “If the outside man was saved, you need not despair.” The value of this man’s conversion to the church and to the world is very great. It marked the turning point in the direction of the labors of the church in a worldwide way, and it established forever the foundations of the new covenant as against the old covenant.

His apostolic call and independent gospel knocks the foundation out from under the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope, because it shows that he did not derive from Peter his apostolic authority; that he did not even go to see Peter before he commenced exercising his call; that he did not get from Peter one syllable of his gospel; and whenever an issue came up between him and Peter the latter went down and not Paul. That one fact destroys the entire claim of the papacy that Peter was the first Pope.

There are some things in this connection that need explanation. First, the falling of the scales from his eyes. Literally, there was no falling of the scales from his eyes, but the glory of Christ blinded him. His physical eyes could not see. It was not his soul that was blinded, but his physical eyes; and “the scales” that fell from his eyes was this temporary suspension of sight caused by this glory of the Lord. If you hold your eye open a little and let me put a red hot iron, not against your eye, but close to it, it will make you as blind as a bat, but if you shut your eye it won’t do it, because the tears in your eyes will break the conduction of the heat. Paul’s case is just as when you are standing out of doors on a dark night and there comes an intense flash of lightning. When it is gone you cannot see for a moment. That is the scales.

Second, Paul was unable to eat and drink for three days. The experience that had come to him was turning the world upside down. He had meat to eat that the ordinary man knows not of. The disciples were astonished that Jesus, sitting at the well of Sychar, was not hungry. He says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” Hundreds of times I have been in that condition, after a great illumination in God’s work, and some powerful demonstration in a meeting, that I could not eat anything. The things of heaven tasted so much better than the things of earth. No man eats for a while in the shock of such tremendous experience as that Paul passed through.

Third, the Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” The question arises, What was he praying for? What do you pray for? You are converted. The Lord said to Ananias, “Paul prayeth.” It was used as a proof that he was converted, and, “therefore Ananias, you may go to him.” Ananias was afraid to go. So the Lord said, “Why, you need not be afraid to go; he is not persecuting now, he is praying; there has a change come over him.” I do more praying and quicker praying after an extraordinary visitation of God’s grace than at any other time.

QUESTIONS 1. What address commended for study in connection with this chapter, and have you read it?

2. What the scriptures bearing on the theme, and what the corresponding date of each?

3 Prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion?

4. Through whose ministry was Paul convicted?

5. At what point in the story was he converted when he met Jesus outside Damascus, at the end of three days in Damascus, or at his baptism?

6. What the proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state?

7. What was the necessity for his actually seeing the Lord?

8. Cite other passages also bearing on his apostolic call.

9. Distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this joint experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience.

10. Define a Christian experience.

11. What varied uses does the New Testament make of Paul’s experience?

12. What startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience?

13. To account for the fact expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ) in which be says, “Howbeit Is obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample, etc.”

14. What the lessons to us of the use to be made of our experience, and what illustration of it?

15. Cite the myth of Jupiter concerning the man and the saddlebags.

16. Was it the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people? Explain fully.

17. What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious?

18. What is the value of this man’s conversion to the church and the world?

19. What is the bearing of his apostolic call and his independent gospel on the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope?

20. Explain the falling of the scales from his eyes.

21. Explain his not eating and drinking for three days.

22. The Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” What was he waiting for?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Ver. 7. I had not known lust ] Involuntary evil motions. The apostle calleth concupiscence sin, saith Possevine the Jesuit, but we may not say so. Most of the most dangerous opinions of Popery spring from hence, that they have slight conceits of concupiscence, as a condition of nature. But inward bleeding will kill a man, so will concupiscence, if not bewailed. The Council of Trent saith, that it is not truly and properly a sin, albeit it be so called, because it proceeds from sin, and inclines a man to sin. Neither want there among us that say, that original sin is not forbidden by the law; directly indeed, and immediately, it is not; but forbidden it is, because cursed and condemned by the law.

I had not known sin ] The law of nature discovers not original sin with its evil lusts. True it is that a philosopher could say (Timon apud Laertium),

,

Concupiscence is the root of all evil; but whether he understood what himself said, I greatly question. Erras, si tecum vitia nasci putas, saith Seneca; supervenerunt, ingesta sunt: Thou mistakest if thou thinkest that thy vices were born with thee, they came in since, they were brought into thee. Tam sine vitio quam sine virtute nascimur, saith another; We were born as well without vice as without virtue. Quintilian saith it is more marvel that one man sinneth, than that all men should live honestly; sin is so against the nature of man.

Thou shalt not covet ] The word concupisco is inceptive: to show (saith one) that the very first motion is sin, though no consent be yielded.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

7 25 .] An explanation of the part which the law has in bringing out sin, by example of the Apostle’s own case . In this most important and difficult passage, it is of the first consequence to have a clear view of the form of illustration which the Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he adopts it . The former has been amply treated of by almost all Commentators: the latter, too generally, has escaped their enquiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily treated, a key to the other. I ask then first, why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the first person ? And the answer is, because he is about to draw a conclusion negativing the question ( 😉 upon purely subjective grounds, proceeding on that which passes within , when the work of the law is carried on in the heart. And he is about to depict this work of the law by an example which shall set it forth in vivid colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin in a man. What example then so apposite, as his own ? Introspective as his character was, and purified as his inner vision was by the Holy Spirit of God, what example would so forcibly bring out the inward struggles of the man which prove the holiness of the law, while they shew its inseparable connexion with the production of sin?

If this be the reason why the first person is here assumed (and I can find no other which does not introduce into St. Paul’s style an arbitrariness and caprice which it least of all styles exhibits), then we must dismiss from our minds all exegesis which explains the passage of any other , in the first instance, than of Paul himself : himself indeed, as an exemplar , wherein others may see themselves: but not himself in the person of others, be they the Jews , nationally or individually, or all mankind , or individual men . This being done, there arises now a question equally important, Of what self is it that he speaks throughout this passage? Is it always the same ? If so, is it always the carnal, unregenerate self? or always the spiritual, regenerate ? Clearly not the latter always ; for to that self the historical account of Rom 7:7-13 will not apply, and still less the assertion, in the present , of Rom 7:14 . Clearly not the former always : for to that the assertion of Rom 7:22 will not apply, nor that of Rom 7:25 . Is it always the complex self , made up of the prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the remains of the carnal-unregenerate? Not always this : although this seems nearer to satisfying the conditions: for in the description Rom 7:9 , , and in . . . Rom 7:14 , there is no complexity, but the is clearly the carnal man . Therefore not always the same. If not always the same, where is the distinction ? If we look carefully, the Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having carried on the unqualified and unexplained till Rom 7:18 , he there has occasion to say . But he is conscious that, as he had written to the Cor. ( 1Co 3:16 ), : he therefore finds it necessary to correct himself by an explanation, what he meant , and adds to , . So that there is equivalent to , i.e. ‘myself in my state of life to the law and sin, and acting according to the motions of sin.’ Again, when the approval of the law of God is affirmed (not the mere , which I will treat by and by), it is not barely , but to avoid confusion, in Rom 7:22 the Apostle adds , and in Rom 7:25 , prefixes ; in both cases shewing that (see notes below) he speaks of the complex man , himself made up of an , and an , of and . Are we then justified in assuming, that up to Rom 7:22 the carnal-unregenerate self is spoken of, but after that the complex self? Such a supposition would not be consistent with the assertion of the from Rom 7:15 onwards: no such will existing in the carnal-unregenerate man . I believe the true account will be nearly as follows: from Rom 7:7-13 incl. is historical , and the there is the historical self , under the working of conviction of sin, and shewing the work of the law; in other words, the carnal self in the transition state , under the first motions towards God generated by the law, which the law could never have perfected. Then at Rom 7:14 , Paul, according to a habit very common to him, keeps hold of the carnal self, and still having it in view, transfers himself into his present position , altering the past tense into the present, still however meaning by (in Rom 7:14 ), . But, having passed into the present tense, he immediately mingles with this mere action of the law upon the natural conscience, the motions of the will towards God which are in conflict with the motions towards sin in the members. And hence arises an apparent verbal confusion, because the e.g. in Rom 7:17 , of whom it is said, , being the entire personality, the complex self , is of far wider extent than the of whom it is said , , . But the latter , in this part of the chapter, is shewn to be (Rom 7:17 ; Rom 7:20 ) no longer properly , but , and so it passes altogether out of sight after Rom 7:20 , and its place is taken by the actual then existing complex self of Paul, compounded of the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing with God’s law, serving God’s law, in conflict with the still remaining though decadent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve the law of sin, to bring captive to the law of sin. This state of conflict and division against one’s self would infallibly bring about utter ruin, and might well lead to despair ( Rom 7:24 ), but for the rescue which God’s grace has provided by Jesus Christ our Lord. And this rescue has been such, that I, the of Rom 7:25 , the real self , the nobler and better part of the man, serve, with the (see there), the law of God: whereas it is only with the flesh, according to which (ch. Rom 8:4 ) I do not walk , but overcome and mortify it, that I serve (am still subject to) the law of sin. Then this subjection of the flesh to the law of sin, to the , is fully set out, in its nature, consequences to the carnal , and uses to the spiritual , in ch. 8.

Any thing like a summary of the exegesis of this passage would be quite beyond my limits. I must refer the student to commentaries on this epistle alone , and especially to that of Tholuck, where a complete and masterly history is given. It may suffice here to say, that most of the ancients suppose to represent mankind , or the Jews generally , and the whole to be taken chronologically, to Rom 7:9 as before the law, after Rom 7:9 as under the law. This was once Augustine’s view, Prop. 44 in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards changed it (Retract. i. 23, vol. i. p. 620) and adopted in the main that advocated above.

The default of a history of the exegesis will be found to be in some measure compensated by the account of opinions given under the separate verses below.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

7. ] ., see note, ch. Rom 6:1 .

. ; ] Is the law (not, as Jowett, ‘ conscience ,’ but in our case, the revealed law of God, which awoke the conscience to action) sin ? not ‘ the cause of sin ,’ which in one sense the Apostle would not have denied, but sin , abstract for concrete, sinful , or, as Bengel, ‘causa peccati peccaminosa.’ itself being abstract, that which is predicated of it is abstract also. The contrast is, , Rom 7:12 . The question itself refers back to Rom 7:5 , . It is asked, not by an objector , but by the Apostle himself, in anticipation of an objection.

] Is but here in contrast to . ., meaning, ‘so far from that,’ or is it a qualification of , meaning ‘but still it is true, that ?’ Neither explanation exactly suits the context, which is, by a proper elucidation of the law’s working as regards sin, to prove it to be holy. I would rather understand , but what I mean is , I say not that, but There surely is no contrast to . , see Rom 7:8 .

] ‘non cognoscebam, ni ,’ I was living in a state of ignorance of sin, were it not This construction comprehends in it as a consequence, and is therefore often said to be put for it; but it has its propriety, as here, where a historical state is being described, and the unconditional indicative is more appropriate. Tholuck makes it = ‘non cognoveram, ni ’ in which case the indic, expresses more plainly than the conjunctive the absolute dependence of the fact on the condition.

There is some difficulty in understanding the mutual relation of the clauses, . , and . . It is well known that differs from , in not coupling things co-ordinate , but attaching things subordinate , to a former. Thus Thucyd. i. 9 begins , on which Poppo remarks (cited by Thol.), ‘Sequitur exemplum auct Grcorum opulenti ductum ex rebus Agamemnonis et causis expeditionis Trojan;’ an example being a subordinate verification of a general categorical statement. The also shews that the second clause is subordinated to, and aileged in substantiation of the first. Then what is ? Is it sin in act , or sin in principle , the principle of sin? Not sin in act , so that . . should mean, ‘ I had not entered into contact with sin ,’ i.e. ‘ had not sinned :’ as Fritz.: for then the law would have truly and actually been the cause of sin: nor, sin in act , so that the meaning were, ‘ I had not known the nature of a sinful act :’ for this would not agree with the subordination of below: the . being more general ( .) than the particular acts which it induced. But the reference must be to sin in principle , the principle of sin: I had not recognized such a thing as sin, but by means of the law . So Calv., Melancth., Calov., Rckert, Klln., Olsh., Thol., De Wette.

The law here is in the full sense of the Mosaic law as regarded himself , not excluding the wider sense on which I have insisted in the former part of the Epistle when applied to others .

] For neither (‘neque enim’) had I known (by experience: ‘known any thing of’) coveting (the motions of the flesh towards sin, whether acted on or not, whether consented to or not: this motion he would not have perceived , because he was simply moving with it ) if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet (reff. Exod. Deut.). ‘ Covet ,’ in the above sense. The Apostle omits all the objects there specified, and merely lays hold of the idea contained in . And it may well be said and strictly, that the ‘coveting’ there spoken of would lead to all kinds of sin therefore murder, adultery, &c., if carried out: and that the prohibition of desire there serves as an example of what the law actually forbids elsewhere.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 7:7-13 . The actual working of the law. A very close connection between the law and sin is implied in all that has preceded: especially in Rom 6:14 , and in such an expression as in Rom 7:5 . This connection has to be examined more closely. The object of the Apostle, according to Weiss, is not to answer a false inference from his teaching, viz. , that the law is sin, but to conciliate for his own mind the idea of liberation from the law with the recognition of the O.T. revelation. But the difficulty of conciliating these two things is not peculiar to the Apostle; it is because we all feel it in some form that the passage is so real to us. Our experience of law has been as tragic as his, and we too ask how this comports with the idea of its Divine origin. The much discussed question, whether the subject of this passage (Rom 7:7-24 ) is the unregenerate or the regenerate self, or whether in particular Rom 7:7-13 refer to the unregenerate, and Rom 7:14-24 to the regenerate, is hardly real. The distinction in its absolute form belongs to doctrine, not to experience. No one could have written the passage but a Christian: it is the experience of the unregenerate, we may say, but seen through regenerate eyes, interpreted in a regenerate mind. It is the Apostle’s spiritual history, but universalised; a history in which one stage is not extinguished by the next, but which is present as a whole to his consciousness, each stage all the time determining and determined by all the rest. We cannot date the things of the spirit as simply as if they were mere historical incidents. , cf. Rom 6:1 : What inference then shall we draw? sc . from the relations of sin and law just suggested. Is the law sin? Paul repels the thought with horror. : may continue the protest = On the contrary, I should not have known sin, etc.; or it may be restrictive, abating the completeness of the negation involved in the protest. The law is not sin God forbid; but, for all that, there is a connection: I should not have known sin but by the law. The last suits the context better: see Rom 7:21 . On without , see Winer, 383: it is possible, however (Gifford), to render simply, I did not know sin except through the law; and so also with . : of course he thinks of the Mosaic law, but the absence of the article shows that it is the legal, not the Mosaic, character of it which is in view; and it is this which enables us to understand the experience in question. . . .: the desire for what is forbidden is the first conscious form of sin. For the force of here see Winer, p. 561. Simcox, Language of the N.T ., p. 160. In the very similar construction in 2Co 10:8 Winer suggests an anacoluthon: possibly Paul meant here also to introduce something which would have balanced the (I should both have been ignorant of lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust, and ignorant of other forms of sin unless the law had prohibited them). But the one instance, as he works it out, suffices him. It seems impossible to deny the reference to the tenth commandment (Exo 20:17 ) when the words are quoted from “the law”; but the special modes of prohibited are of no consequence, and it is beside the mark to argue that Paul’s escape from pharisaism began with the discovery that a feeling, not an outward act only, might be sinful. All he says is that the consciousness of sin awoke in him in the shape of a conflict with a prohibitive law, and to illustrate this he quotes the tenth commandment. Its generality made it the most appropriate to quote.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 7:7-12

7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Rom 7:7 “What shall we say then” Paul is returning to his use of diatribe (cf. Rom 6:1; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:1; Rom 7:13).

“Is the Law sin” One of the paradoxes of revelation is that God used the holiness and goodness of the Law as a mirror to reveal sin, so as to bring fallen mankind to the place of repentance and faith (cf. Rom 7:12-13; Galatians 3). Also surprisingly the Law continues to function in sanctification but not in justification (see Special Topic: Paul’s Views of Mosaic Law at Rom 13:9.

“May it never be” Paul’s characteristic rejection of a false assertion (cf. Rom 7:13; Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6; Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2; Rom 6:15; Rom 9:14; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11; Gal 2:17; Gal 3:21).

“on the contrary” Paul’s literary style in Romans uses strong contrasts to make his points (cf. Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6; Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:13; Rom 9:14; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11).

“I” Mark in your Bible the number of times the personal pronouns “I,” “my,” or “me” appear in the context of Rom 7:7-25. It will amaze you. It is something over forty times.

“I would not have come to know sin except through the Law” This is one of the key passages which reveal the concept of the Mosaic Law functioning as a mirror to reveal personal sin (cf. Rom. 3:20; 4:65; Rom 5:20; Gal 3:14-29, especially Rom 7:24). To break the Law one time was to break the Covenant and, thereby, to bear its consequences (cf. Rom 7:10 and Jas 2:10)!

“except through the Law” This is a second class conditional sentence which is called “contrary to fact.” Paul was convicted of sin. This is the only example of this grammatical feature in Romans. Paul does use it in Gal 1:10; Gal 3:21, as well as 1Co 2:8; 1Co 5:10; 1Co 11:31; and 2Co 12:11.

“You shall not covet” This is a quote of the last command of the Ten Commandments (cf. Exo 20:17; Deu 5:21). This last commandment focuses on proper attitude, which is really the essence of them all (cf. Matthew 5-7). The Law is often referred to as “the commandment” (cf. Rom 7:8-9; Rom 7:11-13).

The term “covet” meant “to set one’s heart on” or “to desire strongly.” God has given humans (lost and saved) many good things through creation, but humans tend to take God’s gifts beyond the God-given bounds. “More-and-more for me at any cost” becomes their motto! Self is a terrible tyrant! See Special Topic: Notes on Exo 20:17 at Rom 13:8-9.

Rom 7:8

NASB, NKJV”taking opportunity”

NRSV”seizing an opportunity”

TEV”found its chance”

NJB”took advantage of”

This was a military term that was used of a beach-head or base of operations (cf. Rom 7:8; Rom 7:11). It is personalized in this context (cf. Rom 7:9; Rom 7:11). Sin was characterized as a military operation (cf. v.11) led by a military leader (cf. Rom 7:11; Rom 7:17; Rom 6:12; Rom 6:14; Rom 6:16).

“for apart from the Law sin is dead” Sin is rebellion against God’s will (cf. Rom 4:15; Rom 5:13; 1Co 15:56). There is no verb in this phrase; one must be supplied. If one supplies a present tense, it implies that this is a universal principle. If one supplies an aorist tense, it referred to Paul’s life specifically.

Rom 7:9 “I was once alive” This could refer to Paul as (1) a child during the age of innocence (i.e., before Bar Mitzvah) or (2) as a committed Pharisee before the truth of the gospel broke into his heart (cf. Act 23:1; Php 3:6; 2Ti 1:3). The first represents “the autobiographical theory” of interpretation of Romans 7 and the second “the representative theory” of interpretation of Romans 7.

“when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died” Mankind’s rebellious spirit is energized by prohibitions. The “do not” of God’s Law triggers the self-directing pride of fallen humanity (cf. Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:1-6). Notice how sin continues to be personified, as in Rom 5:21; Rom 7:8; Rom 7:11; Rom 7:17; Rom 7:20.

Rom 7:10 “the commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me” This is probably a reference to the promise of Lev 18:5; Deu 4:1; or possibly Rom 2:13. The Law promised what it could not fulfill, not because it was sinful, but because humanity is weak and rebellious. The Law became a death sentence (cf. Gal 3:13; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14).

Rom 7:11 “deceived me and through it killed me” These are both aorist active indicative verbs. This term, “deceived,” is used of the serpent deceiving Eve in the Septuagint (LXX) of Gen 3:13. Paul uses this verb several times (cf. Rom 16:18; 1Co 3:18; 2Co 11:3; 2Th 2:3; 1Ti 2:14). Adam and Eve’s problem was also coveting (cf. 2Co 11:3; 1Ti 2:14). Adam and Eve died spiritually by disobeying God’s command (now revealed in the Law, cf. 1Co 15:56), and so did Paul and so do all humans (Rom 1:18 to Rom 3:20).

Rom 7:12 This is Paul’s affirmation of the goodness of the Law. It is not the problem. However Paul’s parallel structure, using “sin” in Romans 6 and “law” in Romans 7, must have upset the legalistic Jewish believers (the weak of Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13) in the Roman church.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

What, &c. See Rom 3:5.

God forbid. See Rom 3:4.

known. App-132.

but. Literally if (App-118) not (App-105).

known = recognized (it as). App-132.

lust = desire, i.e. of the old nature. See Joh 8:44.

except. Same as “but”.

covet. Greek. epithumeo. Quoted here and Rom 13:9 from the Septuagint of Exo 20:17. The word is used of any strong desire, and applies to the desires of the new nature as well as to those of the old. Compare Gal 1:5, Gal 1:17.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

7-25.] An explanation of the part which the law has in bringing out sin, by example of the Apostles own case. In this most important and difficult passage, it is of the first consequence to have a clear view of the form of illustration which the Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he adopts it. The former has been amply treated of by almost all Commentators: the latter, too generally, has escaped their enquiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily treated, a key to the other. I ask then first, why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the first person? And the answer is, because he is about to draw a conclusion negativing the question ( 😉 upon purely subjective grounds, proceeding on that which passes within, when the work of the law is carried on in the heart. And he is about to depict this work of the law by an example which shall set it forth in vivid colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin in a man. What example then so apposite, as his own? Introspective as his character was, and purified as his inner vision was by the Holy Spirit of God, what example would so forcibly bring out the inward struggles of the man which prove the holiness of the law, while they shew its inseparable connexion with the production of sin?

If this be the reason why the first person is here assumed (and I can find no other which does not introduce into St. Pauls style an arbitrariness and caprice which it least of all styles exhibits), then we must dismiss from our minds all exegesis which explains the passage of any other, in the first instance, than of Paul himself: himself indeed, as an exemplar, wherein others may see themselves: but not himself in the person of others, be they the Jews, nationally or individually, or all mankind, or individual men. This being done, there arises now a question equally important,-Of what self is it that he speaks throughout this passage? Is it always the same? If so, is it always the carnal, unregenerate self? or always the spiritual, regenerate? Clearly not the latter always; for to that self the historical account of Rom 7:7-13 will not apply, and still less the assertion, in the present, of Rom 7:14. Clearly not the former always: for to that the assertion of Rom 7:22 will not apply, nor that of Rom 7:25. Is it always the complex self, made up of the prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the remains of the carnal-unregenerate? Not always this: although this seems nearer to satisfying the conditions: for in the description Rom 7:9, , and in … Rom 7:14, there is no complexity, but the is clearly the carnal man. Therefore not always the same. If not always the same, where is the distinction? If we look carefully, the Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having carried on the unqualified and unexplained till Rom 7:18, he there has occasion to say . But he is conscious that, as he had written to the Cor. (1Co 3:16), : he therefore finds it necessary to correct himself by an explanation, what he meant, and adds to ,- . So that there is equivalent to , i.e. myself in my state of life to the law and sin, and acting according to the motions of sin. Again, when the approval of the law of God is affirmed (not the mere , which I will treat by and by), it is not barely , but to avoid confusion, in Rom 7:22 the Apostle adds , and in Rom 7:25, prefixes ; in both cases shewing that (see notes below) he speaks of the complex man, himself made up of an , and an , of and . Are we then justified in assuming, that up to Rom 7:22 the carnal-unregenerate self is spoken of, but after that the complex self? Such a supposition would not be consistent with the assertion of the from Rom 7:15 onwards: no such will existing in the carnal-unregenerate man. I believe the true account will be nearly as follows:-from Rom 7:7-13 incl. is historical, and the there is the historical self, under the working of conviction of sin, and shewing the work of the law; in other words, the carnal self in the transition state, under the first motions towards God generated by the law, which the law could never have perfected. Then at Rom 7:14, Paul, according to a habit very common to him, keeps hold of the carnal self, and still having it in view, transfers himself into his present position,-altering the past tense into the present, still however meaning by (in Rom 7:14), . But, having passed into the present tense, he immediately mingles with this mere action of the law upon the natural conscience, the motions of the will towards God which are in conflict with the motions towards sin in the members. And hence arises an apparent verbal confusion, because the e.g. in Rom 7:17, of whom it is said, , being the entire personality, the complex self, is of far wider extent than the of whom it is said , , . But the latter , in this part of the chapter, is shewn to be (Rom 7:17; Rom 7:20) no longer properly , but ,-and so it passes altogether out of sight after Rom 7:20, and its place is taken by the actual then existing complex self of Paul, compounded of the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing with Gods law, serving Gods law, in conflict with the still remaining though decadent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve the law of sin, to bring captive to the law of sin. This state of conflict and division against ones self would infallibly bring about utter ruin, and might well lead to despair (Rom 7:24), but for the rescue which Gods grace has provided by Jesus Christ our Lord. And this rescue has been such, that I, the of Rom 7:25, the real self, the nobler and better part of the man, serve, with the (see there), the law of God: whereas it is only with the flesh, according to which (ch. Rom 8:4) I do not walk, but overcome and mortify it, that I serve (am still subject to) the law of sin. Then this subjection of the flesh to the law of sin, to the , is fully set out, in its nature,-consequences to the carnal,-and uses to the spiritual,-in ch. 8.

Any thing like a summary of the exegesis of this passage would be quite beyond my limits. I must refer the student to commentaries on this epistle alone,-and especially to that of Tholuck, where a complete and masterly history is given. It may suffice here to say, that most of the ancients suppose to represent mankind, or the Jews generally, and the whole to be taken chronologically,-to Rom 7:9 as before the law, after Rom 7:9 as under the law. This was once Augustines view, Prop. 44 in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards changed it (Retract. i. 23, vol. i. p. 620) and adopted in the main that advocated above.

The default of a history of the exegesis will be found to be in some measure compensated by the account of opinions given under the separate verses below.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

This is Pauls own account of his inward conflicts. He longed to conquer sin. He wanted to become a free man, and live always a godly and holy life, but he found that there was a battle within his nature.

Rom 7:7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

There are some who hope to overcome their evil propensities by the law. They think that if they can know and feel the authority of the law of God, that will have an awe over their minds, and they shall become holy. Now the law is in itself supremely holy. It cannot be improved. We could not add to it, or take from it without injuring it. It is a perfect law. But what is its effect upon the mind? When it comes into an unrenewed mind, instead of checking sin, it causes sin. The apostle says that he not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. There is a something about us which rebels against law the moment we come to it. There are some things we should never think of doing if we were not prohibited from them, and then there becomes a tendency at once in this vile nature of ours to break the law.

Rom 7:8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

If there had never been any law, there could not have been any sin, because sin is a breaking of law. The law is good. We are not speaking about that. The law is necessary, but, still such is our nature that the very existence of law argues and creates the existence of sin. And when the law comes, then sin comes immediately. Without the law sin was dead.

Rom 7:9. For I was alive without the law once;

I thought that I was everything that was good. I imagined that I was doing everything that was right. I felt no rebellion in my heart. I was alive.

Rom 7:9. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

I kicked at that commandment. My holiness was soon gone. The excellence which I thought I had in my character soon vanished for I found myself breaking the law.

Rom 7:10-13. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But, sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good: that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

There was sin in his nature, but he did not know it. But when the commandment came, then that evil nature said, I wont keep that commandment, and it took occasion at once to show itself by breaking that commandment. It was something like a medicine which many a wise physician has given to his patient. There is a deadly disease in the internals of the man, and he gives him a medicine that throws it out. You see it on the skin. You feel the pain of it. It would have been his death anyhow. It can only be his death now; but now it is a part of the process of the cure to bring the disease where it can be seen. And so the law comes into a mans heart, and because of the rebellion of his nature, he kicks against the law and sins. It does not make him sinful. It only shows that he was sinful, for a perfect law would not make a perfect man sin. It would lead and guide him in the way of holiness. But a perfect law coming into contact with an imperfect nature soon creates rebellion and sin. It is an illustration that is not good throughout, but still it is of some use. You have seen quicklime; and you throw water on it. The water is of a cooling nature. There is nothing in the water but that which would quench fire, and yet when it is thrown upon the lime the consequence is a burning heat. So is it with the law cast upon mans nature. It seems to create sin. Not that the law does it of itself, but, coming into contact with the vicious principles of our nature, sin becomes the product of it. It is the only product. You may preach up the law of God till everybody becomes worse than he was before. You may read the ten commandments till men learn what to do in order to provoke God. The law does not create holiness. It never can.

Rom 7:14. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal,

Fleshly.

Rom 7:14. Sold under sin.

Even now that I have become a Christian and am renewed by grace.

Rom 7:15. For that which I do I allow not:

I often do that which I do not justify, which I do not wish to do again, which I abhor myself for doing.

Rom 7:16. For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

This is the believers riddle. To say that this is not a believers experience is to prove that the man who says it does not know much about how believers feel. We hate sin, and yet, alas! alas! we fall into it! We would live perfect lives if we could, we that are renewed. We make no justification for our sin: it is evil and abominable; yet do we find these two things warring and fighting within.

Rom 7:16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

My inmost heart, says the law, is good, though I have not kept it as I wish I had, yet my very wish to keep it is the consent of my nature to goodness of that law, and proves that there is a vitality about me which will yet throw out the disease, and make me right in the sight of God.

Rom 7:17. Now then it is no more I that do it,

The real I, the true I, the new-born ego. Thank God for thatto have a will to do good, to have a strong, passionate desire to be holy. To will is present with me.

Rom 7:17. But sin that dwelleth in me.

I would be earnest in prayer, and my thoughts are distracted. I would love God with all my heart, and something else comes in and steals away a part of it. I would be holy as God is holy, but I find myself falling short of my desires. So the apostle means.

Rom 7:18-20, For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me: but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it,

The true and real I.

Rom 7:20. But sin that dwelleth in me.

Oh! this accursed indwelling sin! Would God it were driven out. We do not say this to excuse ourselves-God forbidbut to blame ourselves that we permit this sin to dwell within us. Yet must we rejoice in God that we are born again, and that this new I the true I, will not yield to sin, but fights against it.

Rom 7:21. I find then a law,

Or rule.

Rom 7:21-24. That, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Now, the more holy a man gets the more he cries in this fashion. While he is low down in the scale, he puts up with sin, and he is uneasy, but when he gets to see Christ and get somewhat like him, the more nearly he approximates to the image of his Master, the more the presence of the least sinful thought is horrifying to him. He would, if he could, never look on sin againnever have the slightest inclination to it, but he finds his heart getting abroad and wandering when he would tether it down, if he could, to the cross and crucify it there. And so the more happy he is in Christ the more desperately does he cry against the wretchedness of being-touched with sin, even in the least degree. Oh! wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Rom 7:25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It will be done. I shall be delivered. I shall be perfect.

Oh, blissful hour! oh, sweet abode!

I shall be near and like my God.

Oh! to be without fault before the throne, without tendency to sin without the possibility of it, immaculately clean, with a heart that sends forth pure waters like the river of life that flows from beneath the throne of God! This is our portion. We are looking for it, and we will never rest until we get it, blessed be his name. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 7:25. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God;

With the new mature.

Rom 7:25. But with the flesh the law of sin.

With the fleshthis old rubbishing stuff that must die and be buried, and the sooner the better. With my old corrupt nature I serve the law of sin. But what a mercy it is that the next verse is, that, notwithstanding that, There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

This exposition consisted of readings from Psalms 51. and Rom 7:7-25.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Rom 7:7. ; is the law sin?) He, who has heard the same things predicated of the law and of sin, will perhaps make this objection: is, then, the law sin, or the sinful cause of sin? comp. Rom 7:13, note.- , sin) We must again observe the propriety of the terms, and the distinction between them:

.

the law;

.

sin;

, (from ) , (from .) is the greater, the less. Hence the latter, since even the less degree is denied, is expressive of increase.[69] , sin, is as it were sinful matter, from which all manner of [The all taken from , Rom 7:8] disease and paroxysm of concupiscence [Rom 7:8] originates.- , I had not known) Paul often sets forth his discourse indefinitely in the first person, not only for the sake of perspicuity, but from the constant application of what is said to himself; see 1Co 5:12; 1Co 6:12. And so also in this passage.- , for even lust) , sin, is more deeply seated [inward] and recondite: , lust, rather assails [rushes into] the sense, and at the same time betrays [the inwardly seated] sin, as smoke does fire. The particles , for even indicate this , this contra-distinction; and sin, that one indwelling evil, works out [produces] a variety of lust [all manner of concupiscence]: see what follows; and again lust brings forth sin consummated [finished], Jam 1:15. [Sin lies concealed in man, as heat in drink, which, if we were to judge by mere sensation, may possibly at the time be very cold, V. g.]- , I had not known) lust to be an evil; or rather, I had not known [even the existence of] lust itself; its motion at length [when the law came, then and not till then] met the eye.-, said) Moreover it said so, [first] by itself; then, [also] in my mind: comp. when the law came, Rom 7:9.lust.the fact of the law saying [Taken out of, Except the law had said].

[69] The increase in force is this; I had not full knowledge () of sin, nay I had not even been at all sensible () of lust.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 7:7

Rom 7:7

What shall we say then?-Inasmuch as he had said that the law excited sin by its prohibitions, without manifestations of mercy and love to conquer them, what judgment shall we pass, or what objection make?

Is the law sin?-Is the law the cause of sin?

God forbid.-No, assuredly. To unveil sin is really, in some respects, the opposite of producing it.

Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law:- The law commanded holiness, yet he would not have known sin as sin except by the law which forbade it. [Had God kept silent in regard to sin and never communicated unto man upon it in the form of law defining what things are sins, the conception of sin would never have been in the human mind.]

for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:-Although there was coveting in the heart, he would not have known it as sin if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. [Paul and all the Pharisees knew and were ever ready to admit that certain outward actions were wrong; but that God took cognizance of the heart and of its most secret workings, and even of its habits or dispositions, they were less disposed to imagine, and were, therefore, deplorably ignorant of the extent and turpitude of their sinful condition in his sight.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

sin

Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

What: Rom 3:5, Rom 4:1, Rom 6:15

is the law: Rom 7:8, Rom 7:11, Rom 7:13, 1Co 15:56

I had: Rom 7:5, Rom 3:20, Psa 19:7-12, Psa 119:96

lust: or, concupiscence, Rom 7:8, 1Th 4:5

Thou shalt: Rom 13:9, Gen 3:6, Exo 20:17, Deu 5:21, Jos 7:21, 2Sa 11:2, 1Ki 21:1-4, Mic 2:2, Mat 5:28, Luk 12:15, Act 20:33, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, 1Jo 2:15, 1Jo 2:16

Reciprocal: Lev 13:3 – shall look 1Ki 21:3 – The Lord 2Ch 34:19 – the words Psa 19:8 – enlightening Pro 16:2 – the ways Jer 42:6 – it be good Mal 2:9 – but Luk 18:20 – knowest Rom 2:12 – in the law Rom 3:4 – God forbid Rom 3:8 – Let us Rom 3:31 – yea Rom 4:15 – Because Rom 7:12 – the commandment Rom 8:7 – for it 1Co 6:15 – God Gal 2:19 – through Gal 3:19 – then Gal 3:21 – the law Gal 3:24 – the law Gal 5:17 – and these Heb 11:32 – what shall Jam 2:9 – transgressors Jam 4:11 – speaketh evil of the law 1Jo 3:4 – for

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Inward Conflict

Rom 7:7-25

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

The first part of the seventh of Romans presents the illustration of a woman with two husbands. It tells us that the woman which hath a husband, is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Then the conclusion is drawn, that we are “become dead to the Law by the body of Christ; that [we] should be married to Another, even to Him who is raised from the dead.”

Here is a happy message from God to men.

1. The impossibilities of freedom and peace under our first husband, the Law. The Law was just and holy and good, but it was impossible, because we are, by nature, neither just, or holy, or good. How then can two walk together when they are not agreed?

The Law put the woman, or wife, under many obligations, hard for her to bear. It laid down a course of action that was a yoke that could not be worn. Thus, friction was ever present. The woman was brought under bondage, a bondage that galled her and denied unto her any liberty of action. What could she do? She was bound helplessly and hopelessly.

2. The day when her husband died. She had been bound under the iron hand of the Law, to her husband, until, one glad day, her husband died; then she was free.

It may seem strangely put, but it is true: the Law died to us the moment the One who had perfectly met the Law’s every requirement, and satisfied its every claim against us, died. Now the Law no longer holds a legal sway over us, for all its claims against us were met by Christ. For, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”

What else is ours? We who have been redeemed from the curse of the Law have the placing of sons. Let us never turn again to bondage. Rather, we will stand fast in the liberty wherewith, we have been made free.

If we step under the Law, we step under the curse. If we step under the Law, we become subjects of wrath; for, whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

3. Now we are married to another Husband, even unto Christ. We could not marry Christ as long as we were married to the Law, and were under the Law. However, the Law being dead, through the body of Christ, we are married to Him.

How blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven. How thrice blessed is the man who is married to Another. As long as the Law lived, and we were tinder its rule and condemnation, God could not then grant us marriage to the Son; but when every demand of the Law was met, through the Blood of Christ, and in Him the Law was dead to us and its sway broken, we became married to Christ How glorious is this new relationship!

Without the least entanglement to the sway of bondage, we are in liberty and love joyously keeping the Law. Yea, we are going the Law one better, for whereas we gingerly and grudgingly went one mile, under the Law, we find that under love we are going the first mile easily, and are going also the second mile-and going both miles with smiles.

This is, as clearly as we are able to unfold it, the deeper meaning of the illustrative message given us by the Spirit in the opening verses of Rom 7:1-25.

I. THE PROVINCE OF THE LAW (Rom 7:7-11)

1. A vital question: “Is the Law sin?” Far from it, for it is written; “I had not known sin, but by the Law.” The Law could not be sin, for it is the revealer of sin; It is so holy and so true that it exposes sin-makes one to see himself a sinner. It is a plumb line so straight that it reveals all crookedness. It is a purity so white that it makes black all iniquity. Sin is the breaking of the Law, but sin is not the Law. The reason that men do not keep the Law is because the Law presents a standard of righteousness that none can attain unto,

2. A true answer: “Without the Law sin was dead”; that is, Paul never realized that he was a sinner until the Law flashed its light into his inner soul. He had thought himself without sin. That is true of many. It is the “Thou shalt not” of the Law that reveals to the sinner the state of his sinful heart. When the Law came, with it came a deeper sense of the sinfulness of sin. Here is the Word: “For I was alive without the Law once: but when the Commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

It is as though one were unconscious of his sickness, then some restorative was given, and with returning consciousness came the knowledge of one’s true condition.

It is as though one were on a wrong road, hastening on, thinking himself on his way home, then suddenly there flashed across his pathway a sign which showed him he was wrong.

Mark you, to think oneself right does not make one right. Not at all. The Law is like the thermometer that reveals the fever; it is like the color of the eye, that shows a languid liver.

3. “The Commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” Of course, if life could have come by the Law, then Christ had not died. And the Law would have been unto life, if man could have kept the Law. Thus it was because of sin that the Law became the sentence of death. The law of the land is no terror for the righteous and the law-abiding citizen. Under all the waving of the law flag, the righteous never quails. It is only the guilty who fear the law. So where sin is, the Law becomes at. once the harbinger of death.

II. WHEREIN SIN BECOMES EXCEEDING SINFUL (Rom 7:12-13)

1. The Law is not the destroyer of the wicked. One had as well claim that the law is the executioner of a murderer. Not at all. The law slays no man. There is just as much law overhanging the best of citizens as the worst. There is just as much of threatening vengeance to one as to another. It is the same law to all. The only difference is in the individual. If all have sinned, then all are under condemnation. If none have sinned, then none are condemned.

“Where is the sane man who would say, “Down with the law”? It is far better to say, “Obey the law.” The law is not to make any man’s life miserable, it is for his protection and safety; it is for his good. Sometimes the sinner cries out “Down with God,” as though God were responsible for the sinner’s fate. To the contrary, God, like the Law, does not wish the death of any one, but would that all men might live. God is a Giver of life, a God of love.

2. The Law came that sin might appear sin. The Law came to reveal to the sinner that sin (not the Law) was working death in him. The Law came to show man his sin, that he might escape the Avenger, and flee to Christ. The Law says, “Death is working in you! Seek life!” It says, “You are lost. Seek the Saviour.”

The Law, therefore, takes the providence of the looking-glass; it is not provided as a solution, wherewithal a man may cleanse himself; it is provided to show man his sinful heart. It is a schoolmaster, to rush us to the Lord Jesus.

3. The Law makes sin exceeding sinful. It does not merely show us our sinful selves, but it shows us how sinful we are. We are not only sinful, but we are helplessly sinful. We are not only lost, but we are hopelessly lost. We are sinners beyond human repair. We are sinners with no star of promise shining in our sky. We are sinners with a “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” over our heads.

The Law makes sin exceeding sinful. It shuts up every mouth, and makes the sinner stand condemned before God. To the sinner upon whom the Law shines the holiness of God and His just demands, there comes the sense that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. It shows that the sinner is an unclean thing, full of wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.

How the words ring out-“exceeding sinful”! Let no one ever justify himself. Let none speak lightly of sin.

III. A STRIKING CONTRAST (Rom 7:14)

1. The Law is spiritual. Whatever else we do, let us in no wise condemn the Law for our sinful acts. The Law is not sinful, even though it shows us that we are sinful. The Law is spiritual, because it breathes out the holiness of God; it proclaims the standards of His righteousness. The Law is spiritual, because God is spiritual, and the Lord Jesus is spiritual, and the Holy Spirit is spiritual. The Law is spiritual because it is not carnal, nor sensual, nor ungodly. It is spiritual because it is the pathway to spiritual vision, and because it brings a comprehension of the attributes of God.

2. Man is carnal. He is carnal because he is sinful, earthly, worldly, self-centered. Man is carnal because the flesh is carnal, and man walks after his flesh.

Even a Christian may be deemed carnal if he fails to walk in the Spirit, that he may fulfill the Law. He is carnal when he lives for temporals instead of eternals; when he looks at the things which are seen instead of at the things which are not seen; when he lays up his treasures upon earth instead of in Heaven.

3. The contrast between the just requirements of the Law and the carnal individual. The text says, “The Law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.” Now comes the beginning of the great conflict between the spiritual Law and the carnal flesh. The conflict lies in the incompatibility of each to the other. The Law can never relinquish its just requirements; it can never set aside its lofty spiritual standards. On the other hand, the flesh can never scale the heights of the Law’s just demands. It is ever impotent to measure up, and it has no means of helping itself.

Think you that God can justify the guilty? Not so long as He is a just God. Think you that God can welcome into His hallowed presence the unholy and unclean? Not so long as God is holy. Man, in his self-life, can never lift himself up; and the Law, in its righteousness, can never let itself down. The honor and the majesty and the integrity of the God-given must be sustained at all costs.

IV. THE EFFORT OF THE SELF-LIFE TO REACH THE GOAL OF HOLY LIVING (Rom 7:15-18)

1. There is the acknowledgment that the Law is good. With that acknowledgment comes the end of self-vindication. It is a blessed step toward victory, when one comes to the moment of acknowledged self-deficiency. There is left no desire to blame anything, or anyone, for our defeat.

2. There is the acknowledgment of indwelling sin. Here is the statement: “Sin * * dwelleth in me.” Peter was in grave danger when he said to Christ, “Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended.” Self-confidence was in his certain undoing. Pride or self-trust always is a forerunner of a fall.

Paul said, “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing.” Let us not call black white; nor evil good. We may exercise ourselves always to have a conscience void of offense; we may even assert that sin shall not have the dominion over us, and that we have put off the old man, and put on the new.

3. There is the confession of defeat. “That which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not.” Here is, alas, the lot of many, many saints. To will is present with them, but how to perform that which is right they know not. Thus the confession still runs on, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

With this sense of defeat comes the admission, “Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” So a new law comes to the surface; “When I would do good, evil is present with me.”

Thus far there is not one word of how the power of one’s sinful self may be overthrown, and the Law of God fully met.

V. A STUDY IN SEVERAL KINDS OF LAWS (Rom 7:21-23)

1. The Law of the conflict between the two natures in the Christian. “I find then a Law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.” The young Christian is very apt to find this law at work soon after he or she is saved. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” Let victorious saints warn younger and less mature saints of the dangers by the way, lest when they find the working within them of this law, and their prone-ness to yield to sin, they become discouraged, perhaps even doubting their salvation.

2. The law of God after the inward man. This is the law of a new life-the call to holier and higher things. In this law the regenerate soul delights. He knows it is laid down for his advancement and betterment.

3. The law in his members. This is the law of one’s old sinful self. It is the law that controls the conflict and forces the issue, seeking to work the defeat and undoing of the saint.

4. The law of his mind. There is another law which grips the Christian. It is the law of his mind-a desire for the things of God. It comes from a life which has been enlightened by the Spirit.

5. There is the law of sin. This law is situated in his members. It is the power that controlled his life in the old days of his sinnerhood, when he knew not God. He hoped it would be gone, but he finds it still within him.

What a confusion is all this to the saint, who struggles on-five laws, all hid away in one struggling life. Some think that this whole message (in chapter 7) describes an unsaved man trying to be saved by the Law. We can hardly agree. Some of these laws do not fit in with an unregenerated heart. Others say that it is the story of a Jew trying to be saved by the Law. Perhaps so, yet there is something beyond even this. It must be a saint trying to reach the glorious doctrine of victory over sin and self, as set down in the 6th chapter, but utterly failing. In his struggle to reach victory, he finds so many things at work within him that he is heading toward certain despair.

VI. THE CRY OF DEFEAT (Rom 7:24)

1. This cry is a clue to what the struggle really was. Here is the cry: “O wretched man. that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” It is the cry, not ox a sinner seeking salvation, but of a. struggling saint seeking deliverance from the carnalities of his sinful self. He has tried and failed. Now, forlorn and forespent, he faces defeat over his sinful self.

2. This cry presents what we have heard many, many times from honest but disheartened Christians. Some have struggled on for years, and no one has told them the way to victory.

We are by no means excusing the defeated Christian, for all the time God had His way of victory within an easy grasp. Perhaps the defeated Christian has not sought as diligently as he should have sought for the path to victory. Perhaps he rather liked to pamper his flesh. Yet, withal, there are many who have tried and failed, and tried again and again, only to cry out in the words of our verse, “O wretched man that I am!”

3. The cry calls the “ego” “The body of this death.” The disappointed, crushed, and defeated Christian is, indeed, in a slough of despond. He hardly knows which way to turn, or what to do. He feels that he is dragging around with him a dead body that is full of stench and shame. He offers no excuse for his evil self; he does not linger to excuse his sinful propensities. He simply acknowledges his sin, and its heinousness.

How hopeless is the one who tries to find anything good in his old man, his self, his body of sin.

VII. EUREKA-THE PATH OF VICTORY IS FOUND (Rom 7:25)

Here is the refreshing voice of victory: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

1. Instead of a groan there is thanksgiving. “I thank God.” Yes, it is a time for praise when one arrives at the starting point of the overcoming life. What a relief! What a new vista of triumph!

2. Instead of self, Christ now takes the throne. “Through Jesus Christ our Lord.” When we come to the end of selftrust and self-trying, we are ready to turn to Christ, the One who holds the keys of victory in His hand. He at once begins to lead us in the train of His triumph; His victory is ours, and it is a victory that abides. As we begin to grasp the impotency of the flesh to conquer itself; let us look away to the potency of the Spirit. Let us let go of the flesh, and let God.

3. Instead of the old slavery to the flesh, there is a new allegiance to God. A new life enters in to hold sway. It is the life of the risen and exalted Christ our Lord. We give Him rule in our hearts, and He comes in to reign.

Bless God, we are not left to be forever the slave of a fallen and debased sinful self, after the Adamic line. We are, at last, on the higher plane of a God-filled, and God-endued life. No longer need we continue in sin; no longer need we dwell in the sorrow of despair and defeat. Sin shall no more have dominion over us.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Much of the testings which befall us come from the sins of our own flesh-it is, as it were, flesh echoing back to flesh.

“A little boy once went home to his mother and said, ‘Mother, sister and I went out into the garden, and we were calling about, and there was some boy mocking us.’ ‘How do you mean, Johnny?’ said his mother, Why,’ said the child, ‘I was calling out “Ho!” and this boy said “Ho!” So I said to him, “Who are you?” and he answered, “Who are you?” I said, “What is your name?” He said, “What is your name?” And I said to him, “Why don’t you show yourself?” He said “Show yourself.” I jumped over the ditch, and I went into the wood, and I could not find him, and I came back and said, “If you don’t come out I will punch your head”; and he said, “I will punch your head.”‘ His mother said, ‘Ah, Johnny, if you had said, “I love you.” he would have said, “I love you.” If you had said. “Your voice is sweet,” he would have said, “Your voice is sweet.” Whatever you said to him he would have said back to you.’ ‘With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again’ (Mat 7:2).”

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

7:7

Rom 7:7. The foregoing does not blame the law for the existence of sin; it only revealed it and thus made man responsible. But it could not clear man of guilt by its virtue, hence it was necessary for the law of Christ to come in, to accomplish that which “the law could not do” (Rom 8:3).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 7:7. What shall we say then? Comp. chap. Rom 3:5. The Apostle proposes to consider the wrong inference which arises in many minds, that because the law works as described in Rom 7:5-6, it is itself wrong.

Is the law sin? Because, on account of it, we sin, as already described, is it of an immoral nature? This the Apostle indignantly denies, with the usual formula: Let it never be; and then proceeds to show how the good law occasions these results in us.

Nay, but I had not known sin. The law discovers sin, and in a measure incites to it, but it is not itself sin nor the cause of sin. We take but as but on the contrary, for if it were not opposed to sin it would not discover it. Howbeit is objectionable, since it concedes too much: as does Alfords view: I say not that, but what I mean is that Known sin points to both theoretical and experimental knowledge of sin; the latter includes the excitement to sin which every human being feels, to some extent, when confronted with a positive precept.

Except through the law. The article is wanting, and the principle applies in part to law in general, but the next clause shows that the Mosaic law is meant.

For I had not known. This confirms the previous statement; the verb is different from that which precedes, suggesting a slighter knowledge; even this is denied.

Evil desire; or, coveting, to correspond with the similar verb which follows. Lust is too specific.

Thou shalt not covet. From Exo 20:17. The objects of the coveting are omitted, for it was the evil desire itself which was made known to him by the commandment forbidding it.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

VICTORY AND SECURITY

That part of chapter 7 on which we now enter is biographical, giving Pauls experience at a period when, though, regenerated, he was still living under the law and in ignorance of the deliverance to be had in Christ. It is a revelation that the believer possesses two natures that of the first Adam received at his physical birth, and that of the second Adam received in regeneration by the Holy Spirit through faith. The man here described has been baptized into Jesus Christ, is judicially free from the law, and is walking in newness of life, and yet sin reigns more or less in his mortal body. How is he to be delivered from it? In chapter 6 Paul taught that it was by yielding oneself to God, as the result of which sin would not have dominion over him. In chapter 7 he shows in his own person the need of doing this, while in chapter 8 he describes the Divine process by which the change from defeat to victory is thus produced.

He makes clear that the Christian believer is not made holy by the law (7:7-14). At one time, as a Jew, he thought he had kept the law (Php 3:6), but now as a regenerated Christian he had come to see the law in a new light, i.e., as spiritual, and that which was not sin theretofore now became so. He had thought himself alive in a spiritual sense, but now he perceived that he was really dead.

He shows the conflict of the two natures under the law (Rom 7:15-25). He spoke of himself as carnal (Rom 7:14), by which he meant that, as a believer, he was still more or less under the power of his fallen nature. He did things that were wrong and yet it was not the new Paul that was doing them but the old Paul, sin that dwelleth in me (Rom 7:17; Rom 7:20). This sin, this old man was like a dead body lashed to his back. Was there no deliverance from it? He thanked God that there was such deliverance through Jesus Christ.

This deliverance he now reveals (Rom 8:1-27): (1) It is through the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer who sets him free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2-4). In his fallen state he was subject to a bias or tendency towards sin, the outcome of which was death. But now as a regenerated man that bias or tendency is broken; (2) The Holy Spirit also gives him a spiritual mind to desire this new freedom (Rom 8:5-10); (3) And the spiritual power to exercise the desire (Rom 8:11-13); (4) And the spiritual motive to lay hold of the power (Rom 8:14-25); and (5) And the spiritual wisdom to appreciate the motive (Rom 8:26-27). The spiritual motive to lay hold of the power of the Holy Spirit for a life of victory, is that of our relationship to God as His children, which implies joint heirship with Christ. This heirship is so glorious in its full manifestation that the whole creation is groaning for it, because it means its deliverance from bondage.

The practical conclusion to be drawn from all this on the part of the believer is stated in Rom 8:28, a conclusion which reaches into the glorified state (Rom 8:29-30). The man whom God has called in Christ to be his, is already considered glorified, so certain is that event to follow in his experience. No wonder that the challenges of verses 31-35 should follow. Read them in the Revised Version.

QUESTIONS

1. How is the latter half of chapter 7 described?

2. Of what is it a revelation?

3. What does chapter 8 describe?

4. What does Rom 7:7-14 make clear, and how?

5. What is shown in Rom 7:15-25, and how?

6. By whom is deliverance from the power of sin wrought in the believer? 7. Name the five-fold process by which this is done.

8. What is the spiritual motive for a life of victory?

9. Quote the practical conclusion of Rom 8:28.

10. How far does this extend in its application?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Observe here, 1. The objection (which the apostle answers) that some were ready to make against the holiness of the law. He had affirmed at that the motions of sin were stirred up by the law. Rom 7:5 “If so, say some, then the law may seem to be the cause of sin;” God forbid: says the apostle. the thought of such a conclusion ought to be abhorred.

Hence learn, 1. That the holiest doctrines and truths of God are subject to be perverted and abused, and to have absurd inferences and conclusions drawn from them.

2. That the ministers of Christ must be able and careful, not only to propound the truth soundly, but to defend it solidly, against all cavils, and wicked objections whatsoever, and to declare their utter detestation and utmost abhorrency of any such opinion as reflects dishonour upon the holy law of God.

Observe, 2. The apostle’s argument to confute this wicked notion of the law’s being the cause of sin: I had not known sin, but by the law. As if the apostle had said, “That which forbids sin discovers and condemns sin, cannot be the cause of sin; but so doth the holy law of God: It makes sin manifest in and to the conscience of the sinner; therefore the law is not sin, no exciter to it, or cause of it.”

Learn hence, That the law of God is so far from being the cause of sin, that by it men came to a more clear, full, distinct, and effectual, knowledge of sin; I had not known sin, but by the law. That is, not so clearly and effectually, so as to be duly humbled for it, and turned from it.

The light of nature shews a difference between good and evil, but the law of God represents sin as the evils of evils. In it, as in a glass, we behold the foul face of sin, and are convinced by it of the monstrous evil that it is.

Observe, 3. How the apostle produces his own experience in this matter, and gives a particular instance in himself, that he had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; that is, he should not have understood that the first irregular motions of the heart, the first inclinations and desires of the soul towards sin, (though not consented to by the will) were evil, had he not, by a more attentive consideration of the tenth commandment, found that they were so.

Learn hence, 1. That lust or concupiscence is sin; that is, original lust, the first motions of corrupt and rebellious nature, whereby our inclinations are towards evils, though our wills do not fully consent to evil.

Learn, 2. That so holy and spiritual is the law of God, that it discovers the sin of nature, and condemns the first motions and inclinations of the soul to sin, even to the pit of hell. All the wisdom of the heathen, yea, of the wisest and most learned persons in the world, was never able to discover the first motions arising from our rebellious natures to be sin; only the holy law of God makes them known, and discovers them to be sins. I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Such is the holiness of the law of God, that it requires not only the purity of our actions, but also the integrity of all our faculties.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 7:7-8. What shall we say then? This, to the beginning of the next chapter, is a kind of digression, wherein the apostle, in order to show, in the most lively manner, the weakness and inefficacy of the law, changes the person, and speaks as of himself. This he frequently does when he is not speaking of his own person, but only assuming another character. See Rom 3:7; 1Co 10:30; 1Co 4:6. The character here assumed is that of an unrenewed, unregenerated man; first, ignorant of the spirituality and holiness of the law, then acquainted therewith, and convinced of his depravity and weakness thereby, and sincerely but ineffectually striving to serve God. To have spoken this of himself, or of any true believer, would have been foreign to the whole scope of his discourse; nay, utterly contrary thereto, as well as to what is expressly asserted Rom 8:2. Is the law sin? Macknight connects this with the preceding words thus: What then, do we say that the law is sin? is a bad institution, that causes or encourages sin? that there is any moral evil in it, or that it is intended by God, or adapted in its own nature, to lead men into sin? That this is the apostles meaning is plain from Rom 7:12, where he mentions, by way of inference, the proposition which his reasoning was designed to prove, namely, the law is holy, &c. God forbid We revere the high authority by which it was given too much to insinuate any thing of that kind. Nay, I had not known sin Either not at all, or not clearly and fully: I had not known its evil nature and destructive consequences; nor, in many instances, what really was sin; but by the law As the apostle is speaking of the law of Moses, and, as appears from the last clause of the verse, of the moral law, the quotation there being from the tenth commandment, his words must not be understood universally. For it is not to be supposed that the reason and conscience of the heathen gave them no knowledge at all of their sins; the contrary is affirmed by the apostle, Rom 2:14. Nevertheless, the most enlightened among them had but an imperfect knowledge of the nature and demerit of sin in general, and of the number and aggravations of their own sins in particular, compared with the knowledge of these things which they would have derived from revelation. The truth is, they fancied many things to be innocent which were real enormities; and many things trivial sins which were very heinous, as is evident from their writings. The inference to be drawn, therefore, is, that since the law discovers, or forbids and condemns sin, in order that it may be avoided, it does not directly promote it, but only by accident, by reason of the corruption of our nature. For I had not known lust To be sin; , desire That is, the desire of an unlawful thing, or the inordinate desire of what is lawful. The word signifies desire, or, as Dr. Macknight renders it, strong desire, whether good or bad. Here it is used in the bad sense, as it is likewise 1Jn 2:16; , the lust of the flesh. But it signifies strong desire of a good kind also, Luk 22:15 : , I have strongly desired to eat this passover. 1Th 2:17, Endeavoured the more abundantly, , with great desire, to see your face. Except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet In this commandment, the desire that is forbidden is of what belongs to others. Now, as the operation of such a desire is to prompt men to acts of injustice, the existence of it in the mind is obviously sin, because it could not hold its place there for any length of time, unless it were indulged. However, the knowledge that strong desire, not exerted in outward actions, is sin, is not very obvious; and therefore the apostle ascribes it to the information given us by the revealed law of God. But sin But what I say is, not that the law is sin, but that sin, namely, the corrupt inclination of fallen nature; taking occasion by the commandment Forbidding but not subduing it, and being excited, quickened, and drawn forth into action by it; wrought in me While unrenewed; all manner of concupiscence Every kind of evil desire; inclinations to sins of all sorts. This evil principle in human nature is acknowledged even by heathen, whose words are frequently quoted in illustration of it:

Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas: Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.

Mankind rush into wickedness, and always desire what is forbidden.

The reader will observe, that this, which appears to be the true sense of the words, namely, that the prohibitions of the law awaken and irritate mens evil desires, supposes such desires to exist in the mind previous to these prohibitions, and that these desires, with other evil dispositions, prompt men to make trial of things forbidden, the inclination of human nature being too generally like that of a froward child, who will do a thing because it was forbidden; and perhaps is, as it were, reminded of an evil, on hearing it mentioned in a prohibition. It must not, however, be supposed, that all evil desire arises from hence; for fleshly appetites, and other strong desires, which prevail in mens minds, do not owe either their existence or their operation to the prohibitions and penalties of the law, or to the knowledge thereof; but only their power to kill, of which, therefore, Macknight interprets the words. For without the law sin was dead Neither so apparent nor so active; nor was I under the least apprehension of any danger from it. Sin, which he still represents as a person, would have had no being, or at least no strength to kill men, had not the law, revealed or natural, existed; for the essence of sin consists in its being a violation of law. Though the apostle speaks this primarily and directly of the law of Moses, it is equally true of the law of nature, and may be applied to the state of mankind before the law of Moses was given. For unless there had been a law written in mens hearts, sin would have been dead, or have had neither existence nor power to kill.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Second Section (7:7-25). Powerlessness of the Law to Sanctify Man.

Sixteenth Passage (Vers. 7-25.)

The essential ideas of this passage are the following: After having involved man in death (Rom 7:7-13), the law leaves him to struggle in this state which cleaves to his nature, and from which it has no power to extricate him (Rom 7:14-23). It cannot bring him farther than to sigh for deliverance (Rom 7:24-25).

But in developing this theme of the powerlessness of the law, is not the apostle turning backward? Was not this subject treated already in chap. 3? It seems so, and this is one of the reasons why Reuss thinks that our Epistle is deficient in systematic order. But what Paul proved in chap. 3 was the insufficiency of the law to justify; the demonstration to be given in the part relative to justification by faith. What he proves here is its powerlessness to sanctify, which is entirely different, at least in the eyes of the apostle, and of all those who do not confound justification and sanctification.

It is perfectly intelligible how, after displaying the sanctifying power of the gospel (Rom 6:1 to Rom 7:6), the apostle should take a look backward to consider the work of the law, and describe it from this point of view. This retrospective glance at the part played by an institution which he regards as divine, and which had ruled so important a part of his life, does not at all, as has been thought, assume Judaizing readers, or even such as were of Jewish-Christian origin. The question of the influence of the law was of general interest; for the new gospel revelation appeared everywhere as a competitor with the ancient revelation of the law, and it concerned all to know their respective value in the work of man’s sanctification; some, on the one side, wishing to know if they should remain under the law; others, if they should place themselves under its discipline.

The following section consists of only one passage, divided into two parts. In the first (Rom 7:7-13), the apostle proves from experience that the law can only kill man morallythat is to say, separate him from God; in the second, from Rom 7:14, he shows its powerlessness to extricate him from the sad state into which he is plunged. The passage has this peculiarity, that the theses demonstrated are not expounded in a general way, but in a purely personal form; Rom 7:7 : I had not known…; Rom 7:8 : Sin wrought in me…; Rom 7:9 : I was alive…I died…; Rom 7:11 : Sin deceived me; Rom 7:14 : I am carnal; Rom 7:15 : What I would, that I do not; Rom 7:22 : I delight in the law of God; Rom 7:24 : Who shall deliver me? Rom 7:25 : I thank God. This style continues even into the beginning of the following chapter, Rom 8:2 : The law of the spirit of life hath made me free. The question is, who is the personage denoted throughout this whole piece by the , I? Commentators have indulged in the most varied suppositions on this point.

1. Some Greek commentators (Theoph., Theod. of Mops.) have thought that Paul was here speaking of himself as representing the whole race of mankind from the beginning of its existence, and was thus relating the great moral experiences of the human race up to the time of its redemption.

2. Others (Chrys., Grot., Turret., Wetst., Fritzs.) apply this description to the Jewish nation. Apostolus hic sub prim person describit hebraeum genus, says Grotius. The experiences here described (see below) are referred to the different phases of their history.

3. A large number of commentators (most of the Fathers, Er., the Pietistic school, the rationalistic critics, Beng., Thol., Neand., Olsh., Baur, Mey., Th. Schott, Holst., Bonnet, etc.), consulting the context more strictly, think that the apostle, in virtue of his past history, is here introducing himself as the personification of the legal Jew, the man who, being neither hardened in self-righteousness, nor given over to a profane and carnal spirit, seeks sincerely to fulfil the law without ever being successful in satisfying his conscience.

4. After his dispute with Pelagius, Augustine, who had formerly adhered to the previous opinion, gave currency to another explanation. He expounded the passage, especially from Rom 7:14, as referring to the converted Christian; for he only can be so profoundly in sympathy with the divine law as Paul describes himself in the passage, and on the other hand every believer in the course of his life has those profound experiences of his misery which are here described by the apostle. This opinion was followed by Jerome, then adopted by the Reformers, and defended in our time by Philippi, Delitzsch, Hodge, etc.

5. Only two commentators, so far as known to us, restrict the application of the passage to the apostle’s own person. Hofmann, who, if we understand rightly, refers it to Paul as a Christian, but such as he finds himself when he abstracts for a moment from his faith, and Pearsall Smith, who thinks that Paul is here relating a painful experience of his Christian life, in consequence of a relapse under the yoke of the law; after which chap. 8, he thinks, sets forth his return to the full light of grace.

We shall not pronounce on what we believe to be the true sense of the apostle till we have studied this controverted passage in all its details. The first part extends to the end of Rom 7:13. It explains the effects of the first living contact between the divine law and the carnal heart of man. Sin is unveiled, Rom 7:7, and in consequence of this discovery it gathers strength and grows (Rom 7:8-9), so that man, instead of finding life in his relation to the law, finds death (Rom 7:10-11). But this tragical result must be ascribed not to the law itself, but to sin, which uses the law to this end.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said [Exo 20:17; Deu 5:21], Thou shalt not covet:

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

7. Then what shall we say? is the law sin? it could not be so; but I had not known sin except through law; for indeed I had not known lust unless the law said: Thou shalt not covet. While as he here affirms it is impossible for the law to be sin, because it is the very radiation of the divine purity and glory; yet from the very fact that the law is Gods light, revealing to us sin that we may fly from it, it follows as a legitimate sequence that if we do not walk in the light and avoid sin, but on the contrary yield to temptation and commit sin, our responsibility is infinitely intensified and our criminality correspondingly aggravated; the law, which God in mercy gave to light us to heaven, bearing witness against us, and thus infinitely augmenting our condemnation.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Rom 7:7-23. Autobiography of the Man under Law.What it means to be in bondage to the old letter (6), the apostle will show from his own experience. That the following description belongs to Pauls legal past appears from ch. 6, and from the contrastive now of Rom 8:1. Failing to reckon himself dead unto sin, the believer may, doubtless, relapse into the misery of Rom 7:24.

Rom 7:7 f. The legalist interjects: What shall We say then? is the law sin? Paul has, indeed, in a sense, identified it with sin (Rom 5:20, Rom 6:14; cf. 1Co 15:56); he explains by expounding Rom 3:20, Through law comes the knowledge of sin. Take, for instance, the command, Thou shalt not covet, the hearing of which awakened slumbering desire.

Rom 7:9-11. At that moment sin came to life, and the innocent child I was died, slain by the very law which pointed the way to lifea result due to the deceit of sin, which got through the command a fatal leverage upon me.

Rom 7:12 f. In making this deadly use of a thing so holy and good, sin unmasked itself.

Rom 7:14. The abuse was possible through the fault of my nature: The law is spiritual; I am a creature of flesh (cf. Rom 8:7 f.). In adding sold under sin the apostle recalls Rom 5:12-14 : the child of Adam is compromised by his heredity. Sold, he needs redemption (Rom 3:24).

Rom 7:15-20. A struggle ensues between duty and desire: young Saul finds himself doing what he would not, what he loathes. In conviction he agrees with the law, delights in it. The will to obey is there, the operative power is wanting; a hostile force lodged in his flesh determines his action.

Rom 7:21-23. Another (the de facto) law rules in my members, which dictates evil for good; from this fortress the law of sin wages war against the law of God, the law of my reason, making me its captive.

Rom 7:24-25 a. As the prisoner cries for deliverance, Jesus Christ comes to his rescue!

Rom 7:25 b. The conclusion of the whole matter: I by myself (without Christ; contrast Gal 2:20) with my reason serve Gods law, but with my flesh sins law; in theory the former is sovereign, in practice the latter.The body of this death (Rom 7:24) is the actual body (cf. Rom 7:18; Rom 7:23; also Rom 6:6; Rom 6:12), whose mortality (cf. Rom 5:21) betokens the death of the whole man (cf. Eph 2:1-5); when sin came to life (Rom 7:9), this (conscious) death began. Cf. Rom 5:12*.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 7

Nay, I had not known sin, &c., that is, the law, instead of being in itself sin, is the great means of exposing sin.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 21 YET THE LAW IS NOT BAD

CH. 7:7-12

What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Be it not so. Nevertheless, I had not known sin except through law: for I should not know desire except the Law said, Thou shalt not desire. But sin, having taken occasion, through the commandment worked out in me every desire. For apart from law sin is dead. Moreover, I was alive apart from law once. But when the commandment came, sin returned to life; and I died. And to me the commandment which was for life, this was found to be for death. For sin, having taken occasion, through the commandment deceived me and through it slew me. So that on the one hand the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good:

Rom 6:7. What then shall we say? What inference shall we draw? as in Rom 6:1; Rom 4:1.

The Law: of Moses, from which Paul quotes the tenth commandment.

Sin: an embodiment of sin; cp. 2Co 5:21; Rom 8:7. In Rom 7:5, Paul gave as a reason why we were put to death to the Law that through the Law came the emotions of sins which were at work in our bodily powers with deadly purpose. He now asks, Are we to infer from this that the Law itself is essentially hostile to God? and thus suggests a most serious objection to his foregoing teaching. This inference, Paul meets with an emphatic negative; and then gives the correct inference. He did not say, nor do his words imply, that the Law is the voice of an enemy; nevertheless, he does say that, had there been no law as an avenue of approach, there had been no sin. To this reply and the following argument, Paul gives great reality and force by narrating his own experience: I had not known sin. That he narrates it in proof of a general principle, implies that it is the experience of all. The word law does not limit this experience to Jews: for the great principles of morality which underlie all law are written (see Rom 2:14) in the hearts of all men. But Paul, writing as a Jew, has in his mind the Law in that form in which he received it, viz. the voice of Sinai and the books in which from childhood that voice had spoken to him. Hence, as a sample of the Law, he quotes the tenth commandment. To know sin, denotes, not as in Rom 3:20 a consciousness of having sinned, but that acquaintance with the nature and power of sin which is an immediate and terrible result of committing sin. This deeper meaning is involved in the further description given in Rom 7:8. In this sense, the forbidden tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Christ (2Co 5:21) knew no sin; but (Isa 53:3) He knew grief; and Paul knew(2Co 5:11) the fear of the Lord.

Through law: recalling same words in Rom 7:5. The foregoing statement, Paul proves by quoting, as a fair example, one of the many commands of the Law: thou shalt not desire: word for word (LXX.) from Exo 20:17.

Desire: as in Rom 1:24; Rom 6:12 : not necessarily bad desire. The tenth commandment forbids, not all desire, but desire of other mens goods. Paul takes for granted that we know the rest of the passage. That he refers throughout Rom 7:7-8 to evil desire, is made clear by the whole context. In proof of the general statement I had not know sin, he quotes the commandment most easily and frequently broken, the breach of which leads to that of all others. Had it not been for the Law, Paul would have been a stranger even to the beginnings of sin in wrong desire.

Rom 6:8. Occasion: Luk 11:54; 2Co 5:12; 2Co 11:12 : a starting-point, the first step in a line of action. In the tenth commandment (cp. Rom 13:9) sin found a starting-point for deadly activity; and through it worked-out (as in Rom 1:27; Rom 2:9; Rom 4:15; Rom 5:3) in Paul every kind of desire. Sin thus made itself known to him. This is what Paul meant in Rom 7:5 by the emotions of sins which were through the Law. Notice the contrast of working-in and working-out in Rom 7:5; Rom 7:8 : so Php 2:12-13. The one denotes inward activity; the other, actual result.

For apart etc.: a general principle proving the foregoing. Notice a further personification of sin. We have seen it as a king enthroned in the bodies of men, making unrighteous war, using men as weapons and paying them wages, cherishing and working out purposes of death. Paul now proves that only through the Law were sinful desires wrought in him, by saying that apart from law sin is dead. Since sin is here personified as active and powerful, to say that it is dead, is to say that it is inactive and powerless. Just so a dead lion has claws and sinews, but no strength or activity. In Jas 2:17-26, a dead faith is one which produces no results: contrast a living hope and living word of God in 1Pe 1:3; 1Pe 1:23.

The principle here stated and the argument built upon it demand further study. Sin is lawlessness: 1Jn 3:4. It is doing what God has forbidden. Consequently, had not certain objects been marked off as forbidden, there could not have been even wrong desire: for all desires would have been right. Therefore, but for the Law, we should never have known what it is to desire forbidden things; nor have known by experience the depraving effects of such desires. There would have been no moral character, and no sin. This we may illustrate from the story of Paradise. If God had given no prohibition, the tempter would have had no weapon of attack; and our parents would have been utterly beyond his reach. He brought in his mouth a command of God, and used it as a weapon of deception and murder evoking first desire and then actual sin. Only thus can we conceive sin entering into human life. In this sense, sin is powerless apart from law; and all sinful emotions come through law. So 1Co 15:56 : The power of sin is the Law.

Rom 6:9-11. Further description and fatal result of the personal experience narrated in Rom 7:8. Paul says, Once, in a day gone by, I was alive or living, without law, having no command requiring obedience. Then the commandment, the 10th or others, came: at its coming sin lived-again, as a dead body waking up into life: and I died. On this event Paul makes the sad comment, the commandment which was designed for life, i.e. to give or maintain life, this was found by me to be for death. [Notice the preposition , which always denotes tendency, denoting first purpose, as usually, and then result. This different use of the same preposition in the same short sentence is made easy by the personification of sin. For, if sin be personified, we may speak of its tendency as a purpose.] The commandment given in Paradise was designed to save life by guarding our parents from the tree of death. The Law of Moses had the same purpose: Lev 18:5; Deu 5:33. Indeed, all that comes from the Author of Life, is designed to give or maintain life. In those who believe, the Law attains its end by leading them to Christ: Gal 3:24.

Then follows, in Rom 7:11, a sad restatement, in almost the same words, of the great calamity stated in Rom 7:8. An added detail is that sin deceived me: so Gen 3:13. Same strong word in 2Co 11:3 (cp. 1Ti 2:14), in reference to Eve; also Rom 16:18; 1Co 3:18. Sin kills by persuading that the forbidden object is good; so Gen 3:5.

Slew me: restating Rom 7:9, I died. It is a result of the desire evoked by sin: Rom 7:8. While sin lay dead or dormant, Paul was alive: but at the voice of the Law it woke up to life, and slew him.

We have seen, under Rom 7:9, that to Paul sin was once dead in the sense of being powerless and inoperative; and that at the coming of the Law it sprang into life in the sense that in the commands of the Law it found a starting-point for activity and effect. We now ask, In what sense was Paul himself once alive or living, apart from law, and in what sense at the coming of the Law can it be said that he died? These words, when applied to Paul, a man capable of life and death in the fullest sense, must have a meaning far deeper than they can have when applied to sin, a mere abstract principle. But this deeper meaning must be in harmony with the essential significance of the words and with Pauls argument.

The sadness of Rom 7:9-11 implies that the death which Paul died was a great calamity. It was wrought by sin using the Law as a weapon. Already in Rom 6:16; Rom 6:21; Rom 6:23 we have learnt that death is a result of sin. This can be no other than the destruction or ruin (see under Rom 2:12) which awaits sinners beyond the grave, destruction of body and soul. Now in Rom 8:10 Paul speaks of the body as already dead, because already doomed inevitably to the grave; and in Eph 2:1; Eph 2:5; 1Ti 5:6 of sinners as already dead by means of their sins. So 1Jn 3:14. This language is easily explained.

We constantly speak of that which is inevitable as though it had actually taken place: for the future tense suggests uncertainty. The bad man is not dying but dead. For a dying man may recover by his own vital force, or a doctor may save him: but no power can save a bad man from the awful penalty of sin and give him moral life except that of Him who raises the dead. This language is the more appropriate because the sinner is in a very real sense separated from God the Source of life, destitute of the Holy Spirit who is the breath of the new life of the sons of God, and is, like a corpse, in a state of progressive (moral) corruption.

In this sense, in spite of the outward morality mentioned in Php 3:6, Paul was dead before (Rom 8:2) the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus made him free. Just as Lazarus could look back to a time when his body lay rotting in the grave, so Paul remembered a time when he was in a state which, but for the life-giving power of God, would have inevitably developed into eternal death.

Of this death, the Law was the instrument. For, had there been no prohibition, Paul could not have sinned and thus fallen under the death-penalty of sin.

When was Paul alive, without law? Not while he was persecuting the Church and thus fighting against God. For he was then (Rom 2:12; Rom 6:14, 1Co 9:20) in law and under law: and indisputably (Eph 2:1-5) he was spiritually dead. To say that he was then alive, is utterly alien from the thought of Paul and of the entire New Testament. But at a still earlier day, in infancy before the age of responsibility, he possessed a real though immature life which death of the body could not destroy. However deeply a man be sunk in sin, however completely under its power to-day, he can look back to the early dawn of memory and say, In those days God smiled on me, and in the full sense of the word I was alive: and this is the saddest thought the bad man can have. But the infant grew to boyhood. Through his mothers lips, the commandment came to him; and he learnt that God had forbidden him to do this and that. Now awoke to activity the innate but slumbering power of sin. Following the guidance of nature, like other men, he fell under the anger of God and became dead by means of his trespasses: Eph 2:3; Eph 2:5. His death was loss of the life he possessed in the days of innocence, was wrought by sin, and by means of the law.

The above exposition is the only one possible. For in no sense can a man be called alive when he is asleep in sin, or be said to die when he wakes up to consciousness of his awful position. Nor could the loss of such life, or such moral awakening, be spoken of in the tone of sadness which breathes in Rom 7:9; Rom 7:11. For such awakening, however painful, was not a calamity, but the dawn of a new life.

On the other hand, the metaphorical language used here and in Eph 2:1-5 must be interpreted with utmost caution. The mortality of infancy reminds us that by birth we are in some measure heirs of the penalty of Adams sin: and in Eph 2:3; Joh 3:6 we find an inborn defect leading to actual sin and making needful a new birth. The passage before us is simply a pathetic picture, in the vivid thought of Paul, of a part of his own experience.

That the term alive is never elsewhere in the N.T. applied to infants, is no serious objection to the above exposition. For we read very little about their spiritual position. The sacred volume does not gratify our curiosity in this direction. But the term life is frequently used to describe those on whom God smiles; and our Lords reception of little children proves that God smiles on them. Nor is this exposition inconsistent with the probably greater prevalence of sin among the Gentiles than among the Jews. For the Gentiles have the law written in every mans heart. Moreover, the fuller revelation of God to Israel evoked a spiritual life, which finds expression in the Psalms, far above the highest spiritual life of the Gentiles, and which could not but bear fruit in a higher morality.

Rom 6:5 has now been explained and proved, and the Law has been vindicated. It is merely a weapon with which sin slew Paul. But we do not blame a sword because in the hands of an enemy it has slain the man for whose defence it was made. His death only reveals the strength of the foe who tore it from his grasp and used it for his destruction. Take an illustration. A man is condemned for murder. The law against murder was designed to save his life, by keeping others from killing him. It will now destroy his life. But this is no proof that the law is bad, or that it was enacted by an enemy: it proves only the strength of the evil disposition which, in spite of the law, drove the man to murder and to the gallows. Similarly Pauls case is inexpressibly sad; but the fault is not with the Law, but with sin. Thus, while explaining and justifying Rom 7:5, Paul has really cleared the Law from a charge which that verse seemed to bring against it, and his own teaching from the charge of antagonism to the Law of God.

Rom 6:12. So that etc.: result of the foregoing argument. [The particle without following indicates that the sentence is broken off, like Rom 5:12, and that only a preliminary part of the result is here stated. The remainder we shall find in Rom 7:13.] Paul has not actually proved that the Law is holy; but has shown that Rom 7:5 does not imply that it is unholy.

The Law the commandment: recalling Rom 7:7-8.

Holy: cp. Rom 1:2 : in definite relation to God and tending to work out His purposes.

Commandment: the 10th, quoted in Rom 7:7. It is a specification of that part of the Law which actually slew Paul. He therefore lingers over it, and expounds what is implied in its being holy.

Righteous: in harmony with the essential principles of right and wrong.

Good: beneficial in its working. Such is whatever is holy, i.e. belonging to God. The word good sounds so strange to one to whom the Law has been the means of death that at this point Paul breaks off and asks a question which will become a starting-point for other teaching. In the answer to this question, he will state more fully the result of the foregoing argument.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

7:7 {4} What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known {o} lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

(4) An objection: What then? Are the law and sin the same thing, and do they agree together? No, he says: sin is reproved and condemned by the law. But because sin cannot abide to be reproved, and was not in a manner felt until it was provoked and stirred up by the law, it takes occasion by this to be more outrageous, and yet by no fault of the law.

(o) By the word “lust” in this place he does not mean evil lusts themselves, but the fountain from which they come, for the heathen philosophers themselves condemned wicked lusts, though somewhat poorly. But as for the fountain of lust, they could not so much as determine it, and yet it is the very seat of the natural and unclean spot and filth.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. The law’s activity 7:7-12

Paul wrote that the believer is dead to both sin (Rom 6:2) and the Law (Rom 7:4). Are they in some sense the same? The answer is no (Rom 7:7). The apostle referred to the relationship between sin and the Law in Rom 7:5, but now he developed it more fully. Essentially his argument was that the Law is not sinful simply because it makes us aware of what is sinful (cf. Rom 3:20). The Law is similar to an X-ray machine that reveals a tumor. The machine itself is not bad because it reveals something bad.

The apostle probably appealed to his own personal experience. The main alternative views are that he was speaking of Adam’s experience, Israel’s experience, or the experience of everyman. [Note: See Moo, pp. 425-31, and Cranfield, 1:342-47, for explanations of these other views.] Paul broadened his own experience into a more general picture of the struggle that every person faces (Rom 7:7-13) and the struggle that every believer encounters when he or she tries to serve God by obeying the Law (Rom 7:14-25). Others hold that Paul was describing only the experience of an unbeliever. Discussion of these views will follow. Every believer, particularly, feels frustrated by the operation of his or her sinful human nature.

"Before beginning the study of this great struggle of Paul’s, let us get it settled firmly in our minds that Paul is here exercised not at all about pardon, but about deliverance: ’Who shall deliver me from this body of death?’ The whole question is concerning indwelling sin, as a power; and not committed sins, as a danger." [Note: Newell, p. 261.]

"He gives a picture of all men under law in order to show why death to law is a part of the Gospel." [Note: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle . . ., p. 186.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul’s example of the Law, the tenth commandment, clarifies that by "the Law" he was not referring to the whole Old Testament. He meant the Mosaic Law and particularly the moral part of it, namely, the Ten Commandments. 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. [Note: E.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:458-60.] However here Paul, arguing that the Christian is dead to the Law, used one of the Ten Commandments as an example of the Law. He was not saying, however, that immoral behavior is all right for the Christian (cf. Rom 8:4).

Paul’s use of "sin" in this paragraph shows that he was thinking of sin as a force within everyone, our sinful human nature. He was not thinking of an act of sin. It is that force or sin principle that the Law’s prohibitions and requirements arouse. The basic meaning of the Greek word translated "sin" (hamartia) is "falling short." We see that we fall short of what God requires when we become aware of His laws.

"The Law is a mirror that reveals the inner man and shows us how dirty we are (Jas 1:22-25)." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:535.]

The demands of the Law, in this case, "Thou shalt not covet," make us consciously aware of our sin. Probably Paul selected the tenth commandment for his illustration because it deals with desires (i.e., illicit desires of every kind). Our desires are the roots of our actions. The tenth commandment is also the most convicting commandment. Everyone who is honest would have to admit that he or she has broken it.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 16

THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

Rom 7:7-25

THE Apostle has led us a long way in his great argument; through sin, propitiation, faith, union, surrender, to that wonderful and “excellent mystery,” the bridal oneness of Christ and the Church, of Christ and the believer. He has yet to unfold the secrets and glories of the experience of a life lived in the power of that Spirit of whose “newness” he has just spoken. But his last parable has brought him straight to a question which has repeatedly been indicated and deferred. He has told us that the Law of God was at first, ideally, our mystic husband, and that we were unfaithful in our wedded life, and that the injured lord sentenced to death his guilty spouse, and that the sentence was carried out-but carried out in Christ. Thus a death divorce took place between us, the justified, and the Law, regarded as the violated party in the covenant-“Do this and live.”

Is this ancient husband then a party whom we are now to suspect, and to defy? Our wedlock with him brought us little joy. Alas, its main experience was that we sinned. At best, if we did right, (in any deep sense of right,) we did it against the grain; while we did wrong, (in the deep sense of wrong, difference from the will of God,) with a feeling of nature and gravitation. Was not our old lord to blame? Was there not something wrong about the Law? Did not the Law misrepresent Gods will? Was it not, after all “Sin itself in disguise,” though it charged us with the horrible guilt of a course of adultery with Sin?

We cannot doubt that the statement and the treatment of this question here are in effect a record of personal experience. The paragraph which it originates, this long last passage of chapter 7, bears every trace of such experience. Hitherto, in the main, he has dealt with “you” and “us”; now he speaks only as “I,” only of “me,” and of “mine.” And the whole dialect of the passage, so to say, falls in with this use of pronouns. We overhear the colloquies, the altercations, of will with conscience, of will with will, almost of self with self, carried on in a region which only self-consciousness can penetrate, and which only the subject of it all can thus describe. Yes, the person Paul is here, analysing and reporting upon himself; drawing the veil from his own inmost life, with a hand firm because surrendered to the will of God, who bids him, for the Churchs sake, expose himself to view. Nothing in literature, no “Confessions” of an Augustine, no “Grace Abounding” of a Bunyan, is more intensely individual. Yet on the other hand nothing is more universal in its searching application. For the man who thus writes is “the chosen vessel” of the Lord who has perfectly adjusted not his words only but his being, his experience, his conflicts and deliverances, to the manifestations of universal spiritual facts.

We need hardly say that this profound paragraph has been discussed and interpreted most variously. It has been held by some to be only St. Pauls intense way of presenting that great phenomenon, wide as fallen humanity-human will colliding with human conscience, so that “no man does all he knows.” Passages from every quarter of literature, of all ages, of all races, have been heaped around it, to prove, (what is indeed so profoundly significant a fact, largely confirmatory of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin,) that universal man is haunted by undone duties; and this passage is placed as it were in the midst, as the fullest possible confession of that fact, in the name of humanity, by an ideal individual. But surely it needs only an attentive reading of the passage, as a part of the Epistle to the Romans, as a part of the teaching of St. Paul, to feel the extreme inadequacy of such an account. On the one hand, the long groaning confession is no artificial embodiment of a universal fact; it is the cry of a human soul, if ever there was a personal cry. On the other hand, the passage betrays a kind of conflict far deeper and more mysterious than merely that of “I ought” with “I will not.” It is a conflict of “I will” with “I will not”; of “I hate” with “I do.” And in the later stages of the confession we find the subject of the conflict avowing a wonderful sympathy with the Law of God; recording not merely an avowal that right is right, but a consciousness that Gods precept is delectable. All this leads us to a spiritual region unknown to Euripides, and Horace, and even Epictetus.

Again it has been held that the passage records the experiences of a half-regenerate soul; struggling on its way from darkness to light, stumbling across a border zone between the power of Satan and the kingdom of God; deeply convinced of sin, but battling with it in the old impossible way after all, meeting self with self, or, otherwise, the devil with the man. But here again the passage seems to refuse the exposition, as we read all its elements. It is no experience of a half-renewed life to “take delight with the law of God after the inner man.” It is utterly unlawful for a half-regenerate soul to describe itself as so beset by sin that “it is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me.” No more dangerous form of thought about itself could be adopted by a soul not fully acquainted with God.

Again, and quite on the other hand, it has been held that our passage lays it down that a stern but on the whole disappointing conflict with internal evil is the lot of the true Christian, in his fullest life, now, always, and to the end; that the regenerate and believing man is, if indeed awake to spiritual realities, to feel at every step, “O wretched man that I am”; “What I hate, that I do”; and to expect deliverance from such a consciousness only when he attains his final heavenly rest with Christ. Here again extreme difficulties attend the exposition; not from within the passage, but from around it. It is liberally encircled with truths of liberty, in a servitude which is perfect freedom; with truths of power and joy, in a life which is by the Holy Ghost. It is quite incongruous with such surroundings that it should be thought to describe a spiritual experience dominant and characteristic in the Christian life.

“What shall we say then?” Is there yet another line of exegesis which will better satisfy the facts of both the passage and its context? We think there is one, which at once is distinctive in itself, and combines elements of truth indicated by the others which we have outlined. For those others have each an element of truth, if we read aright. The passage has a reference to the universal conflict of conscience and will. It does say some things quite appropriate to the man who is awake to his bondage but has not yet found his Redeemer. And there is, we dare to say, a sense in which it may be held that the picture is true for the whole course of Christian life here on earth; for there is never an hour of that life when the man who “says he has no sin” does not “deceive himself”. {1Jn 1:8} And if that sin be but simple defect, a falling “short of the glory of God”; nay, if it be only that mysterious tendency which, felt or not, hourly needs a divine counteraction; still, the man “has sin,” and must long for a final emancipation, with a longing which carries in it at least a latent “groan.” So we begin by recognising that Paul, the personal Paul, speaking here to all of us, as in some solemn “testimony” hour, takes us first to his earliest deep convictions of right and wrong, when, apparently after a previous complacency with himself, he woke to see-but not to welcome-the absoluteness of Gods will. He glided along a smooth stream of moral and mental culture and reputation till he struck the rock of “Thou shalt not covet,” “Thou shalt not desire,” “Thou must not have self-will.” Then, as from a grave, which was however only an ambush, “sin” sprang up; a conscious force of opposition to the claim of Gods will as against the will of Paul; and his dream of religious satisfaction died. Till we close ver. 11 (Rom 7:11), certainly, we are in the midst of the unregenerate state. The tenses are past; the narrative is explicit. He made a discovery of law which was as death after life to his then religious experience. He has nothing to say of counter facts in his soul. It was conviction, with only rebellion as its issue. Then we find ourselves, we hardly know how, in a range of confessions of a different order. There is a continuity. The Law is there, and sin is there, and a profound moral conflict. But there are now counter facts. The man, the Ego, now “wills not,” nay, “hates,” what he practises. He wills what God prescribes, though he does it not. His sinful deeds are, in a certain sense, in this respect, not his own. He actually “delights, rejoices, with the Law of God.” Yet there is a sense in which he is “sold,” “enslaved,” “captured,” in the wrong direction.

Here, as we have admitted, there is much which is appropriate to the not yet regenerate state, where however the man is awakening morally, to good purpose, under the hand of God. But the passage as a whole refuses to be satisfied thus, as we have seen. He who can truly speak thus of an inmost sympathy, a sympathy of delight, with the most holy Law of God, is no half-Christian; certainly not in St. Pauls view of things.

But now observe one great negative phenomenon of the passage. We read words about this regenerate sinners moral being and faculties; about his “inner man,” his “mind,” “the law of his mind,”; about “himself” as distinguished from the “sin” which haunts him. But we read not one clear word about that eternal Spirit, whose glorious presence we have seen: {Rom 7:6} characterising the Gospel, and of whom we are soon to hear in such magnificent amplitude. Once only is He even distinctly indicated; “the Law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14). But that is no comfort, no deliverance. The Spirit is indeed in the Law; but He must be also in the man, if there is to be effectual response, and harmony, and joy. No, we look in vain through the passage for one hint that the man, that Paul, is contemplated in it as filled by faith with the Holy Ghost for his war with indwelling sin working through his embodied conditions.

But he was regenerate, you say. And if so, he was an instance of the Spirits work, a receiver of the Spirits presence. It is so; not without the Spirit, working in him, could he “delight in the Law of God,” and “with his true self serve the law of God.” But does this necessarily mean that he, as a conscious agent, was fully using his eternal Guest as his power and victory?

We are not merely discussing a literary passage. We are pondering an oracle of God about man. So we turn full upon the reader-and upon ourselves-and ask the question, whether the heart cannot help to expound this hard paragraph. Christian man, by grace, -that is to say, by the Holy Spirit of God, -you have believed, and live. You are a limb of Christ, who is your life. But you are a sinner still; always, actually, in defect, and in tendency; always, potentially, in ways terribly positive. For whatever the presence of the Spirit in you has done, it has not so altered you that, if He should go, you would not instantly “revert to the type” of unholiness. Now, how do you meet temptation from without? How do you deal with the dread fact of guilty imbecility within? Do you, if I may put it so, use regenerate faculty in unregenerate fashion, meeting the enemy practically alone, with only high resolves, and moral scorn of wrong, and assiduous processes of discipline on body or mind? God forbid we should call these things evil. They are good. But they are the accidents, not the essence, of the secret; the wall, not the well, of power and triumph. It is the Lord Himself dwelling in you who is your victory; and that victory is to be realised by a conscious and decisive appeal to Him. “Through Him you shall do valiantly; for He it is that shall tread down your enemies.” {Psa 60:12} And is not this verified in your experience? When, in your regenerate state, you use the true regenerate way, is there not a better record to be given? When, realising that the true principle is indeed a Person, you less resolve, less struggle, and more appeal and confide-is not sins “reign” broken, and is not your foot, even yours, because you are in conscious union with the Conqueror, placed effectually on “all the power of the enemy”?

We are aware of the objection ready to be made, and by devout and reverent men. It wilt be said that the Indwelling Spirit works always through the being in whom He dwells; and that so we are not to think of Him as a separable Ally, but just to “act ourselves,” leaving it to Him to act through us. Well, we are willing to state the matter almost exactly in those last words, as theory. But the subject is too deep-and too practical-for neat logical consistency. He does indeed work in us, and through us. But then-it is He. And to the hard-pressed soul there is an unspeakable reality and power in thinking of Him as a separable, let us say simply a personal, Ally, who is also Commander, Lord, Life-Giver; and in calling Him definitely in.

So we read this passage again, and note this absolute and eloquent silence in it about the Holy Ghost. And we dare, in that view, to interpret it as St. Pauls confession, not of a long-past experience, not of an imagined experience, but of his own normal experience always-when he acts out of character as a regenerate man. He fails, he “reverts,” when, being a sinner by nature still, and in the body still, he meets the Law, and meets temptation, in any strength short of the definitely sought power of the Holy Ghost, making Christ all to him for peace and victory. And he implies, surely, that this failure is not a bare hypothesis, but that he knows what it is. It is not that God is not sufficient. He is so, always, now, forever. But the man does not always adequately use God; as he ought to do, as he might do, as he will ever rise up afresh to do. And when he does not, the resultant failure-though it be but a thought of vanity, a flush of unexpressed anger, a microscopic flaw in the practise of truthfulness, an unhallowed imagination, darting in a moment through the soul-is to him sorrow, burthen, shame. It tells him that “the flesh” is present still, present at least in its elements, though God can keep them out of combination. It tells him that, though immensely blest, and knowing now exactly where to seek, and to find, a constant practical deliverance (oh, joy unspeakable!), he is still “in the body,” and that its conditions are still of “death.” And so he looks with great desire for its redemption. The present of grace is good, beyond all his hopes of old. But the future of glory is “far better.”

Thus the man at once “serves the Law of God,” as its willing bondman (, Rom 7:25), in the life of grace, and submits himself, with reverence and shame, to its convictions, when, if but for an hour, or a moment, he “reverts” to the life of the flesh.

Let us take the passage up now for a nearly continuous translation.

What shall we say then, in face of the thought of our death divorce, in Christ, from the Laws condemning power. Is the Law sin? Are they only two phases of one evil? Away with the thought! But-here is the. connection of the two-I should not have known, recognised, understood, sin but by means of law. For coveting, for example, I should not have known, should not have recognised as sin, if the Law had not been saying, “Thou shalt not covet.” But sin, making a fulcrum of the commandment, produced, effected, in me all coveting, every various application of the principle. For, law apart, sin is dead-in the sense of lack of conscious action. It needs “a holy Will,” more or less revealed, to occasion its collision. Given no holy will, known or surmised, and it is “dead” as rebellion, though not as pollution. But I, the person to whom it lay buried, was all alive, conscious and content, law apart, once on a time (strange ancient memory in that biography!). But when the commandment came to my conscience and my will, sin rose to life again, (“again”; so it was no new creation after all) and I-died; I found myself legally doomed to death, morally without life power, and bereft of the self-satisfaction that seemed my vital breath. And the commandment that was lifewards, prescribing nothing but perfect right, the straight line to life eternal, proved for me deathwards. For sin, making a fulcrum of the commandment, deceived me, into thinking fatally wrong of God and of myself, and through it killed me, discovered me to myself as legally and morally a dead man. So that the Law, indeed, is holy, and the commandment, the special precept which was my actual death blow, holy, and just, and good. (He says, “the Law, indeed,” with the implied antithesis that “sin, on the other hand,” is the opposite; the whole fault of his misery beneath the Law lies with sin.) The good thing then, this good Law, has it to me become death? Away with the thought! Nay, but sin did so become that it might come out as sin, working out death for me by means of the good Law-that sin might prove overwhelmingly sinful, through the commandment, which at once called it up, and, by awful contrast, exposed its nature. Observe he does not say merely that sin thus “appeared” unutterably evil. More boldly, in this sentence of mighty paradoxes, he says that it “became” such. As it were, it developed its “character” into its fullest “action,” when it thus used the eternal Will to set creature against Creator. Yet even this was overruled; all happened thus “in order,” so that the very virulence of the plague might effectually demand the glorious remedy.

For we know, we men with our conscience, we Christians with our Lords light, that the Law, this Law which sin so foully abused, is spiritual, the expression of the eternal Holiness, framed by the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit; but then I, I Paul, taken as a sinner, viewed apart from Christi am fleshly, a child of self, sold to be under sin; yes, not only when, in Adam, my nature sold itself at first, but still and always, just so far as I am considered apart from Christ, and just so far as, in practice, I live apart from Christ, “reverting,” if but for a minute, to my self-life. For the work I work out, I do not know, I do not recognise; I am lost amidst its distorted conditions; for it is not what I will that I practice, but it is what I hate that I do. But if what I do is what I do not will, I assent to the Law that it, the Law, is good; I show my moral sympathy with the precept by the endorsement given it by my will, in the sense of my earnest moral preference. But now, in this state of facts, it is no longer I who work out the work, but the indweller in me-Sin.

He implies by “no longer” that once it was otherwise; once “the central” choice was for self, now, in the regenerate life, even in its conflicts, yea, even in its failures, it is for God. A mysterious “other self” is latent still, and asserts itself in awful reality when the true man, the man as regenerate, ceases to watch and to pray. And in this sense he dares to say “it is no more I” It is a sense the very opposite to the dream of self-excuse; for though the Ego as regenerate does not do the deed, it has, by its sleep, or by its confidence, betrayed the soul to the true doer. And thus he passes naturally into the following confessions, in which we read at once the consciousness of a state which ought not to be, though it is, and also the conviction that it is a state “out of character” with himself, with his personality as redeemed and new-created. Into such a confession there creeps no lying thought that he “is delivered to do these abominations”; {Jer 7:10} that it is fate; that he cannot help it. Nor is the miserable dream present here that evil is but a phase of good, and that these conflicts are only discordant melodies struggling to a cadence where they will accord. It is a groan of shame and pain, from a man who could not be thus tortured ii he were not born again. Yet it is also an avowal, – as if to assure himself that deliverance is intended, and is at hand, -that the treacherous tyrant he has let into the place of power “is an alien” to him as he is a man regenerate. Not for excuse, but to clear his thought, and direct his hope, he says this to himself, and to us, in his dark hour.

For I know that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, good; in my personal life, so long, and so far, as it “reverts” to self as its working centre, all is evil, for nothing is as God would have it be. And that “flesh,” that self-life, is ever there, latent if not patent; present in such a sense that it is ready for instant reappearance, from within, if any moral power less than that of the Lord Himself is in command. For the willing lies at my hand; but the working out what is right, does not. “The willing,” as throughout this passage, means not the ultimate fiat of the mans soul, deciding his action, but his earnest moral approbation, moral sympathy, “the convictions” of the enlightened being. For not what I will, even good, do I; but what I do not will, even evil, that I practice. Now if what I do is what I do not will, no longer, as once, do I work it out, but the indweller in me, Sin.

Again his purpose is not excuse, but deliverance. No deadly antinomianism is here, such as has withered innumerable lives, where the thought has been admitted that sin may be in the man, and yet the man may not sin. His thought is, as all along, that it is his own shame that thus it is; yet that the evil is, ultimately, a thing alien to his true character, and that therefore he is right to call the lawful King and Victor in upon it.

And now comes up again the solemn problem of the Law. That stern, sacred, monitor is looking on all the while, and saying all the while the things which first woke sin from its living grave in the old complacent experience, and then, in the regenerate state, provoked sin to its utmost treachery, and most fierce invasions. And the man hears the voice, and in his new-created character he loves it. But he has “reverted,” ever so little, to his old attitude, to the self-life, and so there is also rebellion in him when that voice says “Thou shalt.” So I find the Law-he would have said, “I find it my monitor, honoured, aye and loved, but not my helper”; but he breaks the sentence up in the stress of this intense confession; so I find the Law-for me, me with a will to do the right, -that for me the evil lies at hand. For I have glad sympathy with the Law of God; what He prescribes I endorse with delight as good, as regards the inner man, that is, my world of conscious insight and affection in the new life; but I see (as if I were a watcher from without) a rival law, another and contradictory precept, “serve thyself,” in my limbs, in my world of sense and active faculty, at war with the law of my mind, the Law of God, adopted by my now enlightened thinking power as its sacred code, and seeking to make me captive in that war to the law of sin, the law which is in my limbs.

Unhappy man am I Who will rescue me out of the body of this death, out of a life conditioned by this mortal body, which in the Fall became Sins especial vehicle, directly or indirectly, and which is not yet {Rom 7:23} actually “redeemed”? Thanks be to God, who giveth that deliverance, in covenant and in measure now, fully and in eternal actuality hereafter, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So then, to sum the whole phenomenon of the conflict up, leaving aside for the moment this glorious hope of the issue, I, myself, with the mind indeed do bond service to the law of God, but with the flesh, with the life of self, wherever and whenever I “revert” that way, I do bond service to the law of sin.

Do we close the passage with a sigh, and almost with a groan? Do we sigh over the intricacy of the thought, the depth and subtlety of the reasoning, the almost fatigue of fixing and of grasping the facts below the terms “will,” and “mind,” and “inner man,” and “flesh,” and “I”? Do we groan over the consciousness that no analysis of our spiritual failures can console us for the fact of them, and that the Apostle seems in his last sentences to relegate our consolations to the future, while it is in the present that we fail, and in the present that we long with all our souls to do, as well as to approve the will of God?

Let us be patient, and also let us think again. Let us find a solemn and sanctifying peace in the patience which meekly accepts the mystery that we must needs “wait yet for the redemption of our body”; that the conditions of “this corruptible” must yet for a season give ambushes and vantages to temptation, which will be all annihilated hereafter. But let us also think again. If we went at all aright in our remarks previous to this passage, there are glorious possibilities for the present hour “readable between the lines” of St. Pauls unutterably deep confession. We have seen in conflict the Christian man, regenerate, yet taken, in a practical sense, apart from his Regenerator. We have seen him really fight, though he really fails. We have seen him unwittingly, but guiltily, betray his position to the foe, by occupying it as it were alone. We have seen also, nevertheless, that he is not his foes ally but his antagonist. Listen; he is calling for his King.

That cry will not be in vain. The King will take a double line of action in response. While his soldier-bondservant is yet in the body, “the body of this death,” He will throw Himself into the narrow hold, and wonderfully turn the tide within it, and around it. And hereafter, He will demolish it. Rather He will transfigure it, into the counterpart-even as it were into the part-of His own body of glory; and the man shall rest, and serve, and reign forever, with a being homogeneous all through in its likeness to the Lord.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary