Commentari biblici

Ch. Romans 7:1-6. The same subject. Illustration from matrimony

1. Know ye not, &c.] The passage from hence to end of Romans 7:7 is closely connected with the last chapter. By a perfectly new simile (marriage), it illustrates further what has been just illustrated by the metaphor of slavery, and (in the first part of ch. 6) by the union of the justified with Christ;—namely the Christian’s entire disconnexion from the claims, and so from the ruling influence, of sin, in virtue of the new and sacred union.

to them that know the law] Lit. law; without article. But the immediate context shews that the Mosaic Law, (and probably especially its sanctions regarding marriage), is meant. The whole Roman Church, whether Jewish or Gentile, would be familiar with it; many of them having been disciples of the synagogue, and all being directed constantly to the use of the Old Testament by apostolic precept and example. See on Romans 4:18.—This brief parenthesis is quite in keeping with the courtesy of St Paul’s writings.

hath dominion] i.e. has a claim on him; same word as Romans 6:9, where see note.

a man] Lit. the man; the individual, as the second party in any given case—the Law being the first party.

as long as he liveth] Not “only as long as he liveth,” as this is sometimes explained. The emphasis is on the abiding claim of the Law up to death, which alone can cancel it. This general and certain principle is now at once applied to the special case at which St Paul aims in illustration—the case of marriage.

2. to her husband so long, &c]. Lit. to the living husband. So it should be rendered; q. d., “to the present, not to a past or future, husband.”

she is loosed] Lit. she has been cancelled from, &c. The perfect tense indicates the ipso facto character of the release. The obvious equivalent of the phrase is, “the law of her husband has been cancelled ipso facto in respect of her.”

the law of the husband] i.e. “that special part of the law which affects her husband and his claim;” viz. the sanctions of marriage.

3. she shall be called] The Gr. verb indicates a deliberate “calling;” the winning of a title. Same word as Acts 11:26.

that law] Lit. the law; i.e. of her husband.

married] Lit., in this ver. and 4, the verb is merely be, or become: if she be [joined] to another husband—lawfully or not.

4. Wherefore] The word marks transition from the facts to the spiritual inference.

are become dead] Lit., and better, were made dead; a passive verb, suggesting the external, objective work which caused their “death;” viz., the Death of their Representative and Head, the Second Adam.

to the law] To its claim on you as a covenant of salvation.

by the body of Christ] Which was slain for you. No reference to the mystical Body, the Church, (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10; Eph.; Col.;) is to be sought here. The word “body” is used, instead of “death,” probably to remind the readers that the Lord “took our nature upon Him” expressly in view of His death. (See Hebrews 2:14.) Meanwhile the truth of the connexion between believers and their Head, their Second Adam, is still full in view. By virtue of it the death of the Lord counts as the death of His brethren, in respect of the claim of the Law upon them—here figured as the claim of one marriage-partner over the other, to be broken only by the death of one of the two.

to another] i.e., another than the Law, now regarded as defunct in respect of its claim on them. Observe that the metaphorical language here is not strictly consistent. In Romans 7:2-3, the death of the husband is contemplated; in Romans 7:4 the death of the wife. The change may be explained partly by St Paul’s desire to avoid an expression so easily misunderstood as the death of the Law (see on Romans 7:6); and partly by the unique character of the spiritual fact illustrated here by a new marriage; viz. the death and resurrection (in her Representative, who now becomes her Husband also,) of the mystical Bride.—The change in the metaphor, whatever its cause, leaves it unchanged as an illustration.—The figure of Marriage, passingly employed here, (and still more so, Galatians 4:21-31,) is worked out more fully in Ephesians 5:23, &c., and in the Revelation. It is largely foreshadowed in O. T.; e.g. in Psalms 45; Canticles; Isaiah 54; Jeremiah 3; and in the many passages where idolatry is pictured by sin against wedlock.

to him who is raised] The Lord’s resurrection is here brought in, because the “death” (in Him) of His people has just been mentioned. The thought suggests both that they are “risen in Him” to the life of peace with God, and that they partake with Him, as their Risen Head, “the power of an endless life.”

fruit] offspring. The metaphor is carried into detail. (See for a parallel of more elaboration, James 1:15.) The “offspring” here is, obviously, the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22), Christian virtues; just as the “offspring” of the former marriage had been acts of sin (Romans 7:4).

unto God] The Father, not Christ. The phrase does not suggest the bearing children to a Husband, but the bearing children to be then dedicated to God. So Hannah bore Samuel “unto God.”

5. when we were in the flesh] For illustration of this important phrase see especially Romans 8:8-9. St Paul here assumes of Christians (1) that they were once “in the flesh;” (2) that they are so no longer. To be “in the flesh” thus describes the man’s condition previous to the special gift of the Holy Spirit connected with justification; (see ch. Romans 5:5, and Galatians 4:6;) the condition in which the dominant element was the very antithesis of the Spirit—the “carnal mind.” (See on Romans 8:6-7.) Such passages as Galatians 2:20 shew that “in the flesh” may, with a proper context, mean no more than “in the body,” “in the surroundings of material, earthly, life.” But when, as here, the context points to a contrast between “the flesh” and better things, it is plain that the essential idea of “the flesh” is that it is the special vehicle of sin.

It is most needful to observe that, according to St Paul, the dominance of this element is the invariable condition of man before special grace.

motions] Lit. passions, as marg. E. V.; instincts of evil.

by the law] i.e., to which the law, as calling out the rebellion of the carnal will, gave special direction and energy. See below on Romans 7:7-8.

did work] were active. The Gr. verb is the original of “energize.”

in our members] i.e. in our body, viewed in the variety of its parts and powers. See on Romans 6:13.

unto death] The doleful parallel to “unto God” in Romans 7:4. Death was, as it were, the Power to which the results of the unregenerate life were dedicated. He “who had the power of death” (Hebrews 2:14) was the usurping god.

6. now] as the fact stands.

are delivered] Lit., and better, were delivered; by our Representative’s death ideally, and actually through faith in Him.

delivered] Lit. cancelled, abolished. This peculiar expression confirms the remark above on Romans 7:4, that St Paul designedly avoids the idea of the Law’s death, though the metaphor in strictness suggests it. Here, similarly, in strictness, the Law “was cancelled from us;” but we are said to be “cancelled from the Law.”—“From the Law:”—a pregnant phrase=so as to be free from it.

that being dead] i.e. the Law. But a better-supported reading (with a change of one letter only in the Gr.) gives, we being dead to that wherein, &c. This precisely accords with the evident avoidance hitherto of the idea of the Law’s death; for our death (in Christ) to the claim of the Law is thus put where we should expect to read of the death of its claim to us.

we were held] Lit. held down; i.e. from freedom; both as to the claim of the law and as to the consequent influence of sin.

that we should serve] Here the metaphor of marriage gives way to that of bondservice once more. The obedience of the wife is the connecting idea of the two.

newness of spirit] Better, of the Spirit; though the word is without article. The contrast of Spirit and letter has occurred Romans 2:29, (see too Romans 2:27,) and occurs also 2 Corinthians 3:6, twice. Comparing those passages, we find that the practical meaning here of “the letter” is the Law (as a covenant), and that of “the Spirit,” the Gospel. The common ground on which they are compared and contrasted is that of Obedience; at which both Law and Gospel ultimately aim. The Law does so “by the letter,” by prescribing its own inexorable terms. The Gospel does so “by the Spirit;” by the Divine plan of Redemption, which brings direct on the soul the influence of “the Spirit of the Son of God,” who “pours out the love of God in the heart” (ch. Romans 5:5). The Gospel thus both intends, and effects, the submission of the will to the will of God; a submission absolute and real; a bondservice. But the bond is now the power of adoring and grateful love.—It will be seen that we take “Spirit” here to mean the Holy Paraclete. The Gr. word rarely, if ever, bears our modern sense of “the spirit of a law, of an institution, &c.” It must here be, then, either the human spirit or the Divine Spirit. And as the idea of “the letter” is that of an objective ruling power, so it is best to explain “the Spirit” as objective also to the man, and therefore here the Divine Spirit.—We may now paraphrase the last words, “so that we might live as bondmen still, but in the sacred novelty of the bondservice which the Holy Ghost constrains, not in the now-obsolete way of the bondservice prescribed by the covenant of merit”.

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 Romans 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 (Romans 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 Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23,) is the Moral Law, with a special, but not exclusive, understanding of the Mosaic Code. See above on ch. Romans 5:13.

God forbid] See on Romans 3:4.—The vehement negative is, of course, only in keeping with the many incidental assertions hitherto (e.g. Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Exodus 20:17; where the terms of the commandment illustrate the meaning of the word “desire” here.

8. But] This word refers to the statement “I had not known lust;” and this verse explains the action of the law in causing (indirectly) the knowledge of sin.

sin] As a principle, “working” evil desires as its result.

occasion] The Gr. word = the French point d’appui. The positive inexorable precept, presented to the fallen will, became the fulcrum for the energy of the evil principle.

concupiscence] The same word as that just rendered “lust.”—The verb is aorist; wrought; but the reference is not necessarily to any single crisis of the past. St Paul probably views the whole past action of the Commandment and of Sin respectively as, in idea, one thing. Not, however, that there may not have been a crisis of “fierce temptation” in his recollection.—These remarks apply to Romans 7:9-11 also.

sin was dead] The context explains this phrase. Sin, as sin, as resistance to God, (see fourth note on Romans 7:7,) was torpid till the Law called it out. It was present; for certainly he does not mean that he was once sinless; but it was present as a blind negative bias rather than otherwise.