성경 주석서

우리는 이 장에서 다음 내용을 살펴볼 수 있다. I. 율법에서 우리가 자유롭게 되었다는 사실이, 우리에게 성화(聖化)를 촉구하는 논거로서 더욱 강조된다(롬 7:1-6). II. 그럼에도 불구하고 율법의 탁월함과 유익함이, 사도 자신의 경험으로부터 주장되고 입증된다(롬 7:7-14). III. 마음속에서 일어나는 은혜와 부패 사이의 갈등에 대한 묘사(롬 7:14-25).

성경에서 이 장만큼 결정적으로 서로 다른 해석의 대상이 된 장은 거의 없다. 학자들이 이 장에 대해 쓴 모든 것에도 불구하고, 사도가 이 장의 주된 범위에서 그리스도인이 되기 전 자기 자신의 경험을 가리키는지, 아니면 새롭게 된 사람의 마음속 갈등을 가리키는지는 여전히 논의의 문제가 되고 있다. 이 견해들 중 어느 것이 옳은지는 이 장의 개별 절들에 대한 주석에서 말하려고 한다. 이 장의 주된 목적은 이해하기가 그리 어렵지 않다. 그것은 분명히 율법이 괴로워하는 죄인에게 마음의 평화를 낳기에 불충분하다는 것을 보이는 데 있다. 앞 장들에서 그는 율법이 칭의를 낳을 수 없음을 보였다. 로마서 1-3장. 그는 사람들이 믿음으로 의롭다 하심을 받는 방식을 보였다. 로마서 3:21-31; 로마서 4장. 그는 그 계획이 어떻게 평화를 낳고 Adam의 타락으로 도입된 악들을 대하는지 보였다. 로마서 5장.

그는 그리스도인들이 의무의 문제로서 율법에서 해방되었으나, 이 자유가 방종한 삶으로 이끌지 않는다는 것을 보였다. 로마서 6장. 그리고 이제 그는 자연 상태와 은혜 상태 양쪽에 있는 사람에게 율법이 미치는 경향을 더 설명하기 시작한다. 곧 유대인이 주장한 것처럼 평화를 증진하기는커녕, 회개하지 않았지만 죄를 깨닫는 상태에 있든, 복음 아래 은혜의 상태에 있든, 사람의 현재 상태에서 율법의 일관된 효과는 마음을 갈등과 불안과 괴로움으로 자극하는 것임을 보이려는 것이다. 사도는 앞선 논증에서 유대인들의 거의 모든 특수 견해를 무너뜨렸다. 여기서 그는 마무리 일격을 가하며, 실제 문제로서 율법의 경향이 어디서나 동일했다는 것을 보인다. 그것은 실제로 평화를 낳는 것이 아니라 동요와 갈등과 괴로움을 낳는 것이었다. 그러나 이것은 그 자체로 선한 율법의 잘못이 아니라 죄의 잘못이었다. 로마서 6:7-14.

나는 이 장이 자연 상태 또는 은혜 상태에 있는 Paul만을 배타적으로 가리킨다고 보지 않는다. 논의는 그 점을 특별히 가리키지 않고 진행된다. 오히려 그것은 사람이 죄에 대한 확신의 상태에 있든 은혜의 상태에 있든, 사람의 삶의 행동들을 함께 묶어 보여 주며, 율법의 효과가 어디서나 본질적으로 동일하다는 것을 보이도록 의도된 것이다. 율법은 어디서나 평화와 성화를 낳는 데 똑같이 실패한다. 율법의 효력과 사람의 상태에 대한 충분성에 관한 유대인의 논증은, 칭의와 용서와 평화와 죄의 악들과 사람의 가슴속에서 동요하고 충돌하는 도덕적 요소들에 관한 일련의 증거들로 이렇게 무너진다. 효과는 어디서나 동일하다. 그 결핍은 사람의 모든 큰 관심사와 관련하여 명백하다. 그리고 이것을 보인 뒤, 사도와 독자는 이 모든 악에서의 건짐이 주 예수 Christ의 복음에서 비롯된다는 승리와 감사의 언어를 말할 준비가 된다. 로마서 7:25; 로마서 8장.

율법은 사람이 살아 있는 동안만 그 사람을 주관한다, 로마서 7:1. 아내도 남편이 살아 있는 동안만 남편에게 매여 있다, 로마서 7:2, 로마서 7:3. 그리스도 신자들은 그리스도 예수로 말미암아 모세 율법에서 벗어나 하나님께 연합된다, 로마서 7:5-7. 율법으로 말미암아 죄를 알게 된다, 로마서 7:8. 그러나 율법은 죄를 이길 능력을 주지 못한다, 로마서 7:9-11. 그럼에도 율법은 거룩하고 의로우며 선하다, 로마서 7:12. 율법이 어떻게 죄를 깨닫게 하고 종살이로 이끄는가, 로마서 7:13-24. 그 저주에서의 구원은 오직 예수 그리스도로 말미암는다, 로마서 7:25.

사도는 앞 장에서 회심한 이방인들이 거룩한 삶을 살아야 할 의무 아래 있음을 보인 뒤, 여기서는 복음을 받아들이기를 주저할 수 있는 유대인들에게 말한다. 그들이 복음을 받아들이면 율법을 버리는 것이 되고, 그것이 하나님께 대한 충성을 버리는 일처럼 보일 수 있었기 때문이다. 그들은 칭의와 성화에 충분한 것으로 율법을 의지했으므로, 그들의 착각을 깨우쳐 줄 필요가 있었다. 율법이 그들의 칭의에 충분하지 않다는 것은 사도가 3장, 4장, 5장에서 이미 입증했다. 이 장에서는 율법이 그들의 성화에도 충분하지 않음을 보인다. 그는 먼저 믿는 유대인이 율법에 대한 의무에서 해방되어, 다른 더 복된 제도, 곧 그리스도의 복음 아래 들어갈 자유를 얻었다는 사실로 논의를 시작한다, 로마서 7:1-4. 로마서 7:5에서는 단순히 율법 아래 있는 것으로 간주되는, 죄의 종살이 가운데 있는 유대인의 상태를 일반적으로 묘사한다. 로마서 7:6에서는 그리스도인, 곧 믿는 유대인의 상태와 그가 복음 아래서 누리는 유익을 요약한다. 로마서 7:5에 대해서는 로마서 7:7-25에서 해설하고, 로마서 7:6에 대해서는 로마서 8:1-11에서 해설한다.

로마서 7:5의 명제를 설명하면서 그는 다음을 보인다.

1. 율법은 죄의 모든 갈래와 숨어 있는 원리에까지 미친다, 로마서 7:7.

2. 율법은 죄인을 죽음 아래 두되, 용서의 기대를 주지 않는다, 로마서 7:8-12.

3. 그는 유대인이 왜 율법 아래 놓였는지를 보인다, 로마서 7:13.

4. 행위의 규범으로 간주된 율법은 그 자체로는 신령하고 의롭고 거룩하고 선하지만, 성화에는, 곧 사람을 내재하는 죄의 권세에서 자유롭게 하는 데에는 충분하지 않음을 입증한다.

감각적 욕망의 우세가 이성과 양심의 소리를 완전히 꺼뜨릴 수는 없으므로, 사람은 율법이 거룩하고 의롭고 선하다고 인정하면서도 정욕이 그 안에서 왕 노릇하여 가장 고통스럽고 품위를 떨어뜨리는 종살이에 붙들려 있을 수 있다. 율법은 그 정욕들에서 그를 건져 낼 능력을 주지 못한다, 로마서 7:14-24. 그 능력은 오직 예수 그리스도의 은혜로만 주어질 수 있다, 로마서 7:25. 테일러를 보라.

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.

롬 7:1-25.

같은 주제의 계속.

신자들과 율법 및 그리스도의 관계

(롬 7:1-6).

롬 6:14의 진술, 곧 신자들은 ‘율법 아래 있지 않고 은혜 아래 있다’는 말을 다시 들어, 사도는 여기서 이 변화가 어떻게 이루어지는지와 그로부터 어떤 거룩한 결과가 따르는지를 보여 준다.

1. 내가 율법을 아는 자들에게 말하노니--그들 자신이 유대인은 아니었지만(롬 1:13 주석을 보라) 구약에 익숙했던 사람들에게 모세의 율법을 두고 말한다.