聖書注解書

この章において私たちは次のことを観察しうる。I. 私たちの律法からの自由が、聖化を私たちに迫る論拠としてさらに論じられていること（Ro 7:1-6）。II. それにもかかわらず、律法の卓越性と有用性が使徒自身の経験から主張され証明されていること（Ro 7:7-14）。III. 恵みと腐敗との心における戦いの描写（Ro 7:14-25）。

聖書の中で、この章ほど決定的に異なる解釈の対象となってきた章はほとんどない。学識者たちがこの章について書いてきたすべてにもかかわらず、使徒がこの章の主要な趣旨において、クリスチャンになる以前の自分自身の経験に言及しているのか、それとも新しくされた人の心の中の戦いに言及しているのかは、なお議論の対象となっている。これらの見解のどちらが正しいかについては、この章の各節の注解において述べることにする。この章の主要な目的を理解することは、それほど難しくない。それは明らかに、律法が悩める罪人に心の平安をもたらすには不十分であることを示すことにある。前の諸章において彼は、律法が義認をもたらしえないことを示した Romans 1-3。人々が信仰によって義と認められる道筋を示した Romans 3:21-31; Romans 4。またその計画がどのように平安をもたらし、アダムの堕落によってもたらされた悪に対処するかを示した Romans 5。

彼は、クリスチャンが義務の問題として律法から解放されていること、しかもこの自由が放縦な生活へと導かないことを示した Romans 6。そして今、彼はさらに進んで、自然の状態にある人にも恵みの状態にある人にも律法が及ぼす傾向を説明する。すなわち、ユダヤ人が主張したように平安を促進するどころか、悔い改めぬまま罪の自覚の下にある場合も、福音の下の恵みの状態にある場合も、人の現在の状態において律法の一貫した効果は、心を戦いと不安と苦悩へと駆り立てることを示すのである。使徒は前の論証において、ユダヤ人たちの特殊な見解のほぼすべてを打ち倒した。ここで彼はとどめの一撃を加え、実践的な問題としての律法の傾向がどこにおいても同じであったことを示す。それは実際には平安をもたらすのではなく、動揺、戦い、苦悩をもたらすものであった。しかしこれは、それ自体善である律法の過ちではなく、罪の過ちであった Romans 6:7-14。

私としては、この章が自然の状態、あるいは恵みの状態にあるパウロだけを指しているとはみなさない。この論議は、その点に特に言及することなく進められている。むしろこれは、人が罪の自覚の状態にある場合も恵みの状態にある場合も、人の生涯の諸行為を一つにまとめて、律法の効果がどこでも実質的に同じであることを示すことを意図したものである。律法は、平安と聖化をもたらすことにおいてどこにおいても等しく失敗する。律法の効力と、人の状態に対するその充足性に関するユダヤ人の論証は、義認、赦し、平安、罪の悪、そして人の胸の内で動揺し衝突する道徳的諸要素に関する一連の証拠によって、こうして打ち倒される。効果はどこでも同じである。その欠落は、人のすべての大きな関心事に関して明白である。そしてこれを示した後、使徒と読者は、これらすべての悪からの救いが主イエス・キリストの福音に由来するという、勝利と感謝の言葉を語る備えができているのである Romans 7:25; Romans 8。

The law has power over a man as long as he lives, Romans 7:1. And a wife is bound to her husband only as long as he lives, Romans 7:2, Romans 7:3. Christian believers are delivered from the Mosaic law by Christ Jesus, and united to God, Romans 7:5-7. By the law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 7:8. But it gives no power over it, Romans 7:9-11. Yet it is holy, just, and good, Romans 7:12. How it convinces of sin, and brings into bondage, Romans 7:13-24. No deliverance from its curse but by Jesus Christ, Romans 7:25.

The apostle having, in the preceding chapter, shown the converted Gentiles the obligations they were under to live a holy life, addresses himself here to the Jews who might hesitate to embrace the Gospel; lest, by this means, they should renounce the law, which might appear to them as a renunciation of their allegiance to God. As they rested in the law, as sufficient for justification and sanctification, it was necessary to convince them of their mistake. That the law was insufficient for their justification the apostle had proved, in chapters iii., iv., and v.; that it is insufficient for their sanctification he shows in this chapter; and introduces his discourse by showing that a believing Jew is discharged from his obligations to the law, and is at liberty to come under another and much happier constitution, viz. that of the Gospel of Christ, Romans 7:1-4. In Romans 7:5 he gives a general description of the state of a Jew, in servitude to sin, considered as under mere law. In Romans 7:6 he gives a summary account of the state of a Christian, or believing Jew, and the advantages he enjoys under the Gospel. Upon Romans 7:5 he comments, from Romans 7:7-25, and upon Romans 7:6 he comments, Romans 8:1-11.

In explaining his position in Romans 7:5 he shows:

1. That the law reaches to all the branches and latent principles of sin, Romans 7:7.

2. That it subjected the sinner to death, Romans 7:8-12, without the expectation of pardon.

3. He shows the reason why the Jew was put under it, Romans 7:13.

4. He proves that the law, considered as a rule of action, though it was spiritual, just, holy, and good in itself, yet was insufficient for sanctification, or for freeing a man from the power of inbred sin.

For, as the prevalency of sensual appetites cannot wholly extinguish the voice of reason and conscience, a man may acknowledge the law to be holy, just, and good, and yet his passions reign within him, keeping him in the most painful and degrading servitude, while the law supplied no power to deliver him from them, Romans 7:14-24, as that power can only be supplied by the grace of Jesus Christ, Romans 7:25. See Taylor.

INTRODUCTION TO Romans 7

The Apostle, in this chapter, discourses concerning the freedom of justified and regenerated persons from the law, and concerning the nature, use, and excellency of it; in which he removes several objections to it, and gives an account from his own experience of the struggle and combat there is between flesh and spirit in a regenerate person; and which shows, that though believers are justified from sin, yet still sin remains in them, and is the complaint of their souls. Whereas he had in Romans 6:14, of the preceding chapter, asserted that believers are not under the law, but under grace: he knew that this would be matter of offence to the believing Jews, who still retained an high opinion of the law; wherefore he takes it up in the beginning of this chapter, and explains his meaning, and shows in what sense justified ones are delivered from it; and first observes a known maxim, which everyone, especially such as know anything of the nature of laws, must allow of; that the law has power over a man as long as he lives, and no longer, Romans 7:1, and then particularly instances in the law of marriage, Romans 7:2, which is in force as long as both parties live and no longer: during the husband's life the wife is bound, but when dead she is loosed, and which is further explained, Romans 7:3, that should she marry another while her husband is alive, she would be an adulteress; but he being dead, should she marry, she is liable to no such imputation: this the apostle accommodates, Romans 7:4, to the case of the law, and the saints' deliverance from it, in which he asserts that they are dead to the law, and that to them, as in Romans 7:6, by the body of Christ; and therefore the law could have no dominion over them, as is the case of all laws when men are dead; and so they might be lawfully married to another, to bring forth fruit to God, according to the particular law of marriage. This is illustrated by the different state and condition of God's elect, before and after conversion; whilst in an unconverted state the law irritates indwelling sin, and the lusts of it, and by the members of the body operates to the bringing forth the deadly fruit of sin, Romans 7:5, but when delivered from the irritating power of the law, that being dead in consequence of the sufferings and death of Christ, they are both in a capacity, and under an obligation to serve the Lord, in a new and spiritual manner, Romans 7:6, and whereas he had said that the motions of sin are stirred up by the law, Romans 7:5, he saw that an objection might be raised against the law, as if that was sinful; this he removes by expressing his abhorrence of such a thought, by pointing out the law as that which makes known sin, and by the experience he himself had of it, making known indwelling sin to him, Romans 7:7, when he goes on to give an account of the workings of corrupt nature in him, under the prohibition of the law; how it was with him before it entered into his conscience, and how it was with him afterwards; that before he thought himself alive, and in a fair way to eternal life; but afterwards, as sin appeared to him more vigorous than ever, he found himself a dead man, and dead to all hope of life by the law, being killed by it, or rather by sin which worked by it, Romans 7:8, and therefore he vindicates the law as holy, just, and good, Romans 7:12, and answers an objection that might be formed from what he had said concerning the effect the law had upon him, as if it was made death unto him; whereas the office it did was to show him the exceeding sinfulness of sin, which, and not the law, was the cause of death, Romans 7:13, for to it with other saints he bears this testimony, that it is spiritual, though in comparison of it he was carnal and sold under sin, Romans 7:14, and from henceforward to the end of the chapter, he gives an account of the force and power of indwelling sin in him, and the conflict there was in him between grace and corruption: he had knowledge of that which is good, approved of it, and yet did it not, hated sin and yet committed it, Romans 7:15, but however, his desire after that which was good, and his approbation of it, showed that he agreed to this, that the law was good, Romans 7:16, nor was his commission of sin to be imputed to his renewed self, but to indwelling corruption, Romans 7:17, the fleshly part in him, in which was no good thing, Romans 7:18, he found he had a will to that which is good, but not power to perform it; which was abundantly evident by his practice, seeing what he would he did not, and what he would not he did. Romans 7:19, from whence he concludes again, Romans 7:20, as in Romans 7:17, that the evil he did was to be reckoned not to his spiritual, or renewed self, but to his corrupt nature; which he found, as a law that had power to command and to cause to obey, always at hand, close by him when he was desirous of doing good, Romans 7:21, and yet amidst all these workings of sin in him, he found a real delight and pleasure in the holy law of God, as he was renewed in the spirit of his mind, Romans 7:22, upon the whole he perceived there were two contrary principles in him, which militated one against the other, and sometimes so it was, that through the strength of corrupt nature in him, he was made a captive to the law of sin and death, Romans 7:23, which fetched from him a doleful lamentation and complaint, as if his case was desperate, and there was no deliverance for him, Romans 7:24, and yet upon a view of his great Redeemer and Saviour, Jesus Christ, he takes heart, and thanks God that there was, and would be a deliverance for him through Christ, Romans 7:25, and then closes the account which stood thus in his experience, and does in the experience of every regenerate man; that with his renewed mind he served the holy law of God from a principle of grace, and with his fleshly and carnal part the law of sin.

CHAPTER 7.

The subject of chap. 6 is continued. The Apostle shows how by death the Christian is freed from the law, which, good as it is in itself and in the Divine intention, nevertheless, owing to the corruption of man’s nature, instead of helping to make him good, perpetually stimulates sin. Romans 7:1-6 describe the liberation from the law; Romans 7:7-13, the actual working of the law; in Romans 7:14-25 we are shown that this working of the law is due not to anything in itself, but to the power of sin in the flesh.

CHAPTER 7

Romans 7:6. ἀποθανόντες] Elz. reads ἀποθανόντες, which was introduced as a conjecture by Beza, without critical evidence, solely on account of some misunderstood words of Chrysostom (see Mill, Bengel, Appar., and especially Reiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 50 ff.). The ἀποθανόντες, adopted by Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, and Tisch., following Erasmus and Mill, is the reading in A B C K L P א, min[1503], and most vss[1504] and Fathers. D E F G Vulg. It. codd[1505] in Ruf. and Latin Fathers read τοῦ θανάτου. Preferred by Reiche. But especially when we consider its merely one-sided attestation (the Oriental witnesses are wanting), it seems to be a gloss having a practical bearing (see Romans 7:5) on τοῦ νόμου, which has dispossessed the participle regarded as disturbing the construction.

Romans 7:13. γέγονε] Lachm. and Tisch. (8), following A B C D E P א, 47, 73, 80, Method. Damasc. read ἐγένετο. Some Latin codd[1506] have est. F G have no verb at all. With the preponderance, thus all the more decisive, of the witnesses which favour ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ, it is to be preferred.

Romans 7:14. ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌς] The ΣΆΡΚΙΝΟς adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, and Tisch. is attested by A B C D E F G א*, min[1507], and several Fathers. For this reason, and because the ending κός was easily suggested by the preceding ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς, as in general ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌς was more familiar to the copyists (Romans 15:27; 1 Corinthians 9:11; 2 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:11) than ΣΆΡΚΙΝΟς (2 Corinthians 3:3), the latter is to be assumed as the original reading.

Romans 7:17. ΟἸΚΟῦΣΑ] Tisch. (8) reads ἘΝΟΙΚΟῦΣΑ, which would have to be received, if it were attested in more quarters than by B א.

Romans 7:18. ΟὐΧ ΕὙΡΊΣΚΩ] A B C א, 47, 67**, 80, Copt. Arm. Procl. in Epiph. Method. Cyr. codd[1508] Gr. ap. Aug. have merely οὔ. Approved by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But if there had been a gloss, the supplement would have been παράκειται. The omission on the other hand is explained by the copyist’s hurrying on from ΟΥΧ to the ΟΥ at the beginning of Romans 7:19.

Romans 7:20. θέλω ἐγώ] Since ἐγώ is wanting in B C D E F G, min[1509], Arm. Vulg. It. and several Fathers, but is found in 219, Clem, after τοῦτο, in Chrys. before οὐ; and since it is, according to the sense and the analogy of Romans 7:15; Romans 7:19, inappropriate, it has rightly been deleted by Lachm. and Fritzsche, and is to be regarded as a mechanical addition from what immediately follows. If ἐγώ were original (and had been omitted in accordance with Romans 7:15; Romans 7:19), it must have had the emphasis of the contrast, which however it has not.

Romans 7:25. εὐχαριστῶ] Lachm. and Tisch. read χάρις, which Griesb. also approved of, following B and several min[1510], vss[1511] and Fathers. Fritzsche reads χάρις δέ in accordance with C**, א **, min[1512], Copt. Arm. and Fathers. Both are taken from the near, and, in the connection of ideas, analogous Romans 6:17 (not εὐχαρ. from Romans 1:8). The reading ἡ χάρις τ. Θεοῦ (D E and some Fathers), or ἡ χ. τ. κυρίου (F G), is manifestly an alteration, in order to make the answer follow the preceding question.

[1503] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1504] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[1505] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1506] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1507] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1508] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1509] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1510] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1511] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[1512] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

CHAPTER 7

Romans 7:7-13. How easily might the Jewish Christian, in his reverence for the law of his fathers, take offence at Romans 7:5 (τὰ διὰ τ. νόμου) and 6, and draw the obnoxious inference, that the law must therefore be itself of immoral nature, since it is the means of calling forth the sin-affections, and since emancipation from it is the condition of the new moral life! Paul therefore proposes to himself this possible inference in Romans 7:7, rejects it, and then on to Romans 7:13 shows that the law, while in itself good, is that which leads to acquaintance with sin, and which is misused by the principle of sin to the destruction of men.

Paul conducts the refutation, speaking throughout in the first person singular (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 13:11). This mode of expression, differing from the μετασχηματισμός (see on 1 Corinthians 4:6), is an ἰδίωσις; comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 7:8 : τὸ ἐν ἐμοὶ ὅτε λέγει, τὸ κοινὸν λέγει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and Theophylact on Romans 7:9 : ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ δὲ προσώπῳ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν λέγει. Thus he declares concerning himself what is meant to apply to every man placed under the Mosaic law generally, in respect of his relation to that law—before the turning-point in his inner life brought about through his connection with that law, and after it. The apostle’s own personal experience, so far from being thereby excluded, everywhere gleams through with peculiarly vivid and deep truth, and represents concretely the universal experience in the matter. The subject presenting itself through the ἐγώ is therefore man in general, in his natural state under the law, to which he is bound, as not yet redeemed through Christ and sanctified through the Spirit (for which see chap. 8); without, however, having been unnaturally hardened by legal righteousness or rendered callous and intractable through despising the law, and so estranged from the moral earnestness of legal Judaism. Into this earlier state, in which Paul himself had been before his conversion, he transports himself back, and realizes it to himself with all the vividness and truth of an experience that had made indelible impression upon him; and thus he becomes the type of the moral relation, in which the as yet unregenerate Israelite stands to the divine law. “He betakes himself once more down to those gloomy depths, and makes all his readers also traverse them with him, only in order at last to conclude with warmer gratitude that he is now indeed redeemed from them, and thereby to show what that better and eternal law of God is which endures even for the redeemed,” Ewald. Augustine (prop. 45 in ep. ad Rom.; ad Simplic. i. 91; Conf. vii. 21), in his earlier days, acknowledged, in harmony with the Greek Fathers since Irenaeus, that the language here is that of the unregenerate man; though later, in opposition to Pelagianism (especially on account of Romans 7:17-18; Romans 7:22; see Retract. i. 23, 26, ii. 3; c. duas ep. Pel. i. 10; c. Faust. xv. 8), he gave currency to the view that the “I” is that of the regenerate. In this he was followed by Jerome, who likewise held a different opinion previously; and later by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza (not by Bucer and Musculus), Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quenstedt and many others, more, however, among Protestant than among Catholic commentators (Erasmus says of him: “dure multa torquens;” and see especially Toletus). On the other hand, the Socinians and Arminians, as also the school of Spener, returned to the view of the Greek Fathers, which gradually became, and has down to the present day continued, the dominant one. See the historical elucidations in Tholuck and Reiche; also Knapp, Scr. var. arg. p. 400 ff. The theory that Paul is speaking simply of himself and exhibiting his own experiences (comp. Hofmann), must be set aside for the simple reason, that in that case the entire disquisition, as a mere individual psychological history (7–13) and delineation (Romans 7:14 ff.), could have no general probative force whatever, which nevertheless, from the connection with what goes before and follows (Romans 8:1), it is intended to have. Others, like Grotius, who correctly referred it to the state anterior to regeneration, and among them recently Reiche in particular, represent Paul as speaking in the person of the Jewish people as a people.1 But, so far as concerns Romans 7:7-13, it is utterly untrue that the Jewish nation previous to the law led a life of innocence unacquainted with sin and evil desire; and as concerns Romans 7:14 ff., the explanation of the double character of the “I,” if we are to carry out the idea of referring it to the nation, entangles us in difficulties which can only force us to strange caprices of exegesis, such as are most glaringly apparent in Reiche. Fritzsche also has not consistently avoided the reference of the “I” to the people as such, and the impossibilities that necessarily accompany it, and, in opposition to the Augustinian interpretation, has excluded, on quite insufficient grounds, the apostle himself and his own experience. Paul, who had himself been a Jew under the law, could not describe at all otherwise than from personal recollection that unhappy state, which indeed, with the lively and strong susceptibility of his entire nature and temperament, he must have experienced very deeply, in order to be able to depict it as he has done. Testimonies regarding himself, such as Php 3:6, cannot be urged in opposition to this, since they do not unveil the inward struggle of impulses, etc. Similarly with Paul, Luther also sighed most deeply just when under the distress of his legal condition, before the light of the gospel dawned upon him, and he afterwards lamented that distress most vividly and truly. Philippi has rightly apprehended the “I” coming in at Romans 7:7 as that of the unregenerate man; but on the other hand, following the older expositors, has discovered from Romans 7:14 onwards the delineation of the regenerate state of the same “I,”—a view inconsistent in itself, opposed to the context (since Paul does not pass on to the regenerate till Romans 8:1), and, when applied to the details, impossible (see the subsequent exposition). Hammond very truly observes: “Nihil potest esse magis contrarium affectioni animi hominis regenerati, quam quae hic in prima persona Ego exprimuntur.” Still Umbreit, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 633 ff., has substantially reverted, as regards the entire chapter, to the Augustinian view, for which he especially regards Romans 7:25 (αὐτὸς ἐγώ) as decisive; and no less have Delitzsch (see especially his Psychol. p. 387 ff.); Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 86; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 275 f.; Jatho; Krummacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 119 ff.; and also Luthardt, v. freien Willen, p. 404 f., adopted this view with reference to Romans 7:14 ff. Hofmann, who in his Schriftbew. I. p. 556 to all appearance, though he is somewhat obscure and at variance with himself (see Philippi, p. 285 f., and Glaubenslehre, III. p. 243), had returned to the pre-Augustinian interpretation, in his N. T., hampers a more clear and candid understanding of the passage by the fact that, while he decidedly rejects the theory that the “I” of Romans 7:7 is that of the unregenerate man, he at the same time justly says that what is related of that “I” (which is that of the apostle) belongs to the time which lay away beyond his state as a Christian; and further, by the fact, that he represents Romans 7:14-24 as spoken from the same present time as Romans 7:25, but at the same time leaves the enigma unsolved how the wretched condition described may comport with that present; and in general, as to the point in question about which expositors differ, he does not give any round and definite answer. For if Paul is to be supposed, according to Hofmann, in Romans 7:14 ff., not to treat of the natural man, and nevertheless to depict himself in the quality of his moral state apart from his life in Christ, we cannot get rid of the contradiction that the “I” is the regenerate man apart from his regeneration, and of the obscuring and muffling up of the meaning thereby occasioned. The view which takes it of the unregenerate is followed by Julius Müller, Neander, Nitzsch, Hahn, Baur, Tholuck, Krehl, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, Th. Schott, Ernesti, Lipsius, Mangold, Messner (Lehre der Ap. p. 220), and many others, including Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 262; Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 338; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 97; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 595; the anonymous writer in the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1863, p. 377 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 95; Märcker, p. 23; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. II. p. 126. The just remark, that the apostle depicts the future present of the state (Th. Schott) does not affect this view, since the future state realized as present was just that of the unregenerate Israelite at the preliminary stage of moral development conditioned by the law. Compare Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 70 f.; Achelis, l.c. p. 678 ff.; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul u. Petr. p. 406.

Ro 7:1-25.

同じ主題の続き。

信者と律法およびキリストとの関係（Ro 7:1-6）。

使徒は

Ro 6:14

の、信者は「律法の下ではなく、恵みの下にある」という述べたことに立ち返り、ここではこの変化がどのようにしてもたらされるか、またそれに伴ってどのような聖なる結果が生じるかを示している。

1. 私は律法を知っている人々に語ります——モーセの律法に（彼ら自身はユダヤ人ではないが、Ro 1:13

の註解を参照）、

旧約聖書の親しんでいた者たちに。