Ro 7:1–25. Same
Subject Continued.
Relation
of Believers to the Law and to Christ
(Ro 7:1–6).
Recurring
to the statement of Ro 6:14, that believers are “not under the law but under
grace,” the apostle here shows how this change is brought about, and
what holy consequences follow from it.
1.
I speak to them that know the law—of
Moses to whom, though not themselves Jews (see on Ro 1:13), the Old Testament
was familiar.
2,
3. if her husband be dead—“die.” So
Ro 7:3.
3.
she be married—“joined.” So Ro 7:4.
4.
Wherefore … ye also are become dead—rather,
“were slain.”
to
the law by the body of Christ—through
His slain body. The apostle here departs from his usual word “died,” using the
more expressive phrase “were slain,” to make it clear that he meant their being
“crucified with Christ” (as expressed in Ro 6:3–6, and Ga 2:20).
that
ye should be married to another, even to him that is—“was.”
raised
from the dead—to the intent.
that
we should bring forth fruit unto God—It
has been thought that the apostle should here have said that “the law
died to us,” not “we to the law,” but that purposely inverted the figure, to
avoid the harshness to Jewish ears of the death of the law [Chrysostom, Calvin, Hodge, Philippi, &c.]. But this is to
mistake the apostle’s design in employing this figure, which was merely to
illustrate the general principle that “death dissolves legal obligation.”
It was essential to his argument that we, not the law, should be the
dying party, since it is we that are “crucified with Christ,” and not the law.
This death dissolves our marriage obligation to the law, leaving us at liberty
to contract a new relation—to be joined to the Risen One, in order to spiritual
fruitfulness, to the glory of God [Beza,
Olshausen, Meyer, Alford,
&c.]. The confusion, then, is in the expositors, not the text; and it has
arisen from not observing that, like Jesus Himself, believers are here viewed
as having a double life—the old sin-condemned life, which they lay down with
Christ, and the new life of acceptance and holiness to which they rise with
their Surety and Head; and all the issues of this new life, in Christian
obedience, are regarded as the “fruit” of this blessed union to the Risen One.
How such holy fruitfulness was impossible before our union to Christ, is next
declared.
5.
For when we were in the flesh—in
our unregenerate state, as we came into the world. See on Jn 3:6 and Ro 8:5–9.
the
motions—“passions” (Margin),
“affections” (as in Ga 5:24), or “stirrings.”
of
sins—that is, “prompting to the
commission of sins.”
which
were by the law—by occasion of the law, which
fretted, irritated our inward corruption by its prohibitions. See on Ro 7:7–9.
did
work in our members—the members of the body, as the
instruments by which these inward stirrings find vent in action, and become
facts of the life. See on Ro 6:6.
to
bring forth fruit unto death—death
in the sense of Ro 6:21. Thus hopeless is all holy fruit before union to
Christ.
6.
But now—On the same expression, see on Ro
6:22, and compare Jam 1:15.
we
are delivered from the law—The word
is the same which, in Ro 6:6 and elsewhere, is rendered “destroyed,” and is but
another way of saying (as in Ro 7:4) that “we were slain to the law by
the body of Christ”; language which, though harsh to the ear, is designed and
fitted to impress upon the reader the violence of that death of the
Cross, by which, as by a deadly wrench, we are “delivered from the law.”
that
being dead wherein we were held—It
is now universally agreed that the true reading here is, “being dead to that
wherein we were held.” The received reading has no authority whatever, and is
inconsistent with the strain of the argument; for the death spoken of, as we
have seen, is not the law’s, but ours, through union with the crucified
Saviour.
that
we should—“so as to” or “so that we.”
serve
in newness of spirit—“in the newness of the spirit.”
and
not in the oldness of the letter—not
in our old way of literal, mechanical obedience to the divine law, as a set of
external rules of conduct, and without any reference to the state of our
hearts; but in that new way of spiritual obedience which, through union to the
risen Saviour, we have learned to render (compare Ro 2:29; 2Co 3:6).
False Inferences regarding the Law Repelled (Ro
7:7–25).
And first,
Ro 7:7–13, in the case of the unregenerate.
7,
8. What … then? Is the law sin? God forbid!—“I
have said that when we were in the flesh the law stirred our inward corruption,
and was thus the occasion of deadly fruit: Is then the law to blame for
this? Far from us be such a thought.”
Nay—“On the contrary” (as in Ro 8:37; 1Co 12:22; Greek).
I
had not known sin but by the law—It
is important to fix what is meant by “sin” here. It certainly is not “the
general nature of sin” [Alford,
&c.], though it be true that this is learned from the law; for such a sense
will not suit what is said of it in the following verses, where the meaning is
the same as here. The only meaning which suits all that is said of it in this
place is “the principle of sin in the heart of fallen man.” The sense,
then, is this: “It was by means of the law that I came to know what a virulence
and strength of sinful propensity I had within me.” The existence of
this it did not need the law to reveal to him; for even the heathens recognized
and wrote of it. But the dreadful nature and desperate power of it the law
alone discovered—in the way now to be described.
for
I had not known lust, except,
&c.—Here the same Greek word is unfortunately rendered 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 every outgoing of the heart towards anything forbidden, the sense
will best be brought out; thus, “For I had not known lust, except the law had
said, Thou shalt not lust; But sin, taking (‘having taken’) occasion by the
commandment (that one which forbids it), wrought in me all manner of lusting.”
This gives a deeper view of the tenth commandment than the mere words suggest.
The apostle saw in it the prohibition not only of desire after certain
things there specified, but of “desire after everything divinely
forbidden”; in other words, all “lusting” or “irregular desire.” It was
this which “he had not known but by the law.” The law forbidding all such
desire so stirred his corruption that it wrought in him “all manner of
lusting”—desire of every sort after what was forbidden.
8.
For without the law—that is, before its extensive
demands and prohibitions come to operate upon our corrupt nature.
sin
was—rather, “is”
dead—that is, the sinful principle of our nature lies so
dormant, so torpid, that its virulence and power are unknown, and to our
feeling it is as good as “dead.”
9.
For I was alive without the law once—“In
the days of my ignorance, when, in this sense, a stranger to the law, I deemed
myself a righteous man, and, as such, entitled to life at the hand of God.”
but
when the commandment came—forbidding
all irregular desire; for the apostle sees in this the spirit of the whole law.
sin
revived—“came to life”; in its malignity
and strength it unexpectedly revealed itself, as if sprung from the dead.
and
I died—“saw myself, in the eye of a law
never kept and not to be kept, a dead man.”
10,
11. And—thus.
the
commandment, which was,
&c.—designed
to—give
life—through the keeping of it.
I
found to be unto death—through
breaking it.
For
sin—my sinful nature.
taking
occasion by the commandment, deceived me—or
“seduced me”—drew me aside into the very thing which the commandment forbade.
and
by it slew me—“discovered me to myself to be a
condemned and gone man” (compare Ro 7:9, “I died”).
12,
13. Wherefore—“So that.”
the
law is—“is indeed”
good,
and the commandment—that one so often referred to,
which forbids all lusting.
holy,
and just, and good.
13.
Was then that which is good made—“Hath
then that which is good become”
death
unto me? God forbid—that is, “Does the blame of
my death lie with the good law? Away with such a thought.”
But
sin—became death unto me, to the end.
that
it might appear sin—that it might be seen in its true
light.
working
death in—rather, “to”
me
by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding
sinful—“that its enormous turpitude might
stand out to view, through its turning God’s holy, just, and good law into a
provocative to the very things which is forbids.” So much for the law in
relation to the unregenerate, of whom the apostle takes himself as the
example; first, in his ignorant, self-satisfied condition; next, under humbling
discoveries of his inability to keep the law, through inward contrariety to it;
finally, as self-condemned, and already, in law, a dead man. Some inquire to
what period of his recorded history these circumstances relate. But there is no
reason to think they were wrought into such conscious and explicit discovery at
any period of his history before he “met the Lord in the way”; and though,
“amidst the multitude of his thoughts within him” during his memorable three
day’s blindness immediately after that, such views of the law and of himself
would doubtless be tossed up and down till they took shape much as they
are here described (see on Ac 9:9) we regard this whole description of his
inward struggles and progress rather as the finished result of all his
past recollections and subsequent reflections on his unregenerate state, which
he throws into historical form only for greater vividness. But now the apostle
proceeds to repel false inferences regarding the law, secondly: Ro
7:14–25, In the case of the regenerate;
taking himself here also as the example.
14.
For we know that the law is spiritual—in
its demands.
but
I am carnal—fleshly (see on Ro 7:5), and as
such, incapable of yielding spiritual obedience.
sold
under sin—enslaved to it. The “I” here,
though of course not the regenerate, is neither the unregenerate,
but the sinful principle of the renewed man, as is expressly stated in Ro
7:18.
15,
16. For, &c.—better, “For that which I
do I know not”; that is, “In obeying the impulses of my carnal nature I act the
slave of another will than my own as a renewed man?”
for, &c.—rather, “for not what I would (wish, desire) that
do I, but what I hate that I do.”
16.
If then I do that which I would not—“But
if what I would not that I do,”
I
consent unto the law that it is good—“the
judgment of my inner man going along with the law.”
17.
Now then it is no more I—my
renewed self.
that
do it—“that work it.”
but
sin which dwelleth in me—that
principle of sin that still has its abode in me. To explain this and the
following statements, as many do (even Bengel
and Tholuck), of the sins of
unrenewed men against their better convictions, is to do painful violence to
the apostle’s language, and to affirm of the unregenerate what is untrue. That
coexistence and mutual hostility of “flesh” and “spirit” in the same renewed
man, which is so clearly taught in Ro 8:4, &c., and in Ga 5:16, &c., is
the true and only key to the language of this and the following verses. (It is
hardly necessary to say that the apostle means not to disown the blame of yielding
to his corruptions, by saying, “it is not he that does it, but sin that
dwelleth in him.” Early heretics thus abused his language; but the whole strain
of the passage shows that his sole object in thus expressing himself was to
bring more vividly before his readers the conflict of two opposite principles,
and how entirely, as a new man—honoring from his inmost soul the law of God—he
condemned and renounced his corrupt nature, with its affections and lusts, its
stirrings and its outgoings, root and branch).
18.
For, &c.—better, “For I know that
there dwelleth not in me, that is in my flesh, any good.”
for
to will—“desire.”
is
present with me; but how to perform that which is good—the supplement “how,” in our version, weakens the
statement.
I
find not—Here, again, we have the double
self of the renewed man; “In me dwelleth no good; but this corrupt self is
not my true self; it is but sin dwelling in my real self, as a renewed man.”
19,
21. For, &c.—The conflict here
graphically described between a self that “desires” to do good and a self that
in spite of this does evil, cannot be the struggles between conscience and
passion in the unregenerate, because the description given of this
“desire to do good” in Ro 7:22 is such as cannot be ascribed, with the least
show of truth, to any but the renewed.
22.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man—“from the bottom of my heart.” The word here rendered
“delight” is indeed stronger than “consent” in Ro 7:16; but both express a
state of mind and heart to which the unregenerate man is a stranger.
23.
But I see another—it should be “a different”
law
in my members—(See on Ro 7:5).
warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members—In this
important verse, observe, first, that the word “law” means an inward
principle of action, good or evil, operating with the fixedness and regularity
of a law. The apostle found two such laws within him; the one “the law of
sin in his members,” called (in Ga 5:17, 24) “the flesh which lusteth against
the spirit,” “the flesh with the affections and lusts,” that is, the sinful
principle in the regenerate; the other, “the law of the mind,” or the holy
principle of the renewed nature. Second, when the apostle says he “sees” the one
of these principles “warring against” the other, and “bringing him into
captivity” to itself, he is not referring to any actual rebellion going on
within him while he was writing, or to any captivity to his own lusts then
existing. He is simply describing the two conflicting principles, and
pointing out what it was the inherent property of each to aim at bringing
about. Third, when the apostle describes himself as “brought into captivity”
by the triumph of the sinful principle of his nature, he clearly speaks in the
person of a renewed man. Men do not feel themselves to be in captivity
in the territories of their own sovereign and associated with their own
friends, breathing a congenial atmosphere, and acting quite spontaneously. But
here the apostle describes himself, when drawn under the power of his sinful
nature, as forcibly seized and reluctantly dragged to his enemy’s camp, from
which he would gladly make his escape. This ought to settle the question,
whether he is here speaking as a regenerate man or the reverse.
24.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?—The apostle speaks of the “body” here with reference to
“the law of sin” which he had said was “in his members,” but merely as the
instrument by which the sin of the heart finds vent in action, and as itself
the seat of the lower appetites (see on Ro 6:6, and Ro 7:5); and he calls it
“the body of this death,” as feeling, at the moment when he wrote, the
horrors of that death (Ro 6:21, and Ro 7:5) into which it dragged him down. But
the language is not that of a sinner newly awakened to the sight of his lost
state; it is the cry of a living but agonized believer, weighed down under a
burden which is not himself, but which he longs to shake off from his renewed
self. Nor does the question imply ignorance of the way of relief at the time
referred to. It was designed only to prepare the way for that outburst of
thankfulness for the divinely provided remedy which immediately follows.
25.
I thank God—the Source.
through
Jesus Christ—the Channel of deliverance.
So
then—to sum up the whole matter.
with
the mind—the mind indeed.
I
myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin—“Such then is the unchanging character of these two
principles within me. God’s holy law is dear to my renewed mind, and has the
willing service of my new man; although that corrupt nature which still remains
in me listens to the dictates of sin.”
Note, (1) This whole chapter was of essential service to the
Reformers in their contendings with the Church of Rome. When the divines of
that corrupt church, in a Pelagian spirit, denied that the sinful principle in
our fallen nature, which they called “Concupiscence,” and which is commonly
called “Original Sin,” had the nature of sin at all, they were
triumphantly answered from this chapter, where—both in the first section of it,
which speaks of it in the unregenerate, and in the second, which treats of its
presence and actings in believers—it is explicitly, emphatically, and
repeatedly called “sin.” As such, they held it to be damnable.
(See the Confessions both of the Lutheran and Reformed churches). In the
following century, the orthodox in Holland had the same controversy to wage
with “the Remonstrants” (the followers of Arminius), and they waged it on the
field of this chapter. (2) Here we see that Inability is consistent with
Accountability. (See Ro 7:18; Ga 5:17). “As the Scriptures constantly
recognize the truth of these two things, so are they constantly united in
Christian experience. Everyone feels that he cannot do the things that he
would, yet is sensible that he is guilty for not doing them. Let any man test
his power by the requisition to love God perfectly at all times. Alas! how
entire our inability! Yet how deep our self-loathing and self-condemnation!” [Hodge]. (3) If the first sight of the
Cross by the eye of faith kindles feelings never to be forgotten, and in one
sense never to be repeated—like the first view of an enchanting landscape—the
experimental discovery, in the latter stages of the Christian life, of its
power to beat down and mortify inveterate corruption, to cleanse and heal from
long-continued backslidings and frightful inconsistencies, and so to triumph
over all that threatens to destroy those for whom Christ died, as to bring them
safe over the tempestuous seas of this life into the haven of eternal rest—is
attended with yet more heart—affecting wonder draws forth deeper thankfulness,
and issues in more exalted adoration of Him whose work Salvation is from first to
last (Ro 7:24, 25). (4) It is sad when such topics as these are handled as mere
questions of biblical interpretation or systematic theology. Our great apostle
could not treat of them apart from personal experience, of which the facts of
his own life and the feelings of his own soul furnished him with illustrations
as lively as they were apposite. When one is unable to go far into the
investigation of indwelling sin, without breaking out into an, “O wretched man
that I am!” and cannot enter on the way of relief without exclaiming “I thank
God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” he will find his meditations rich in fruit
to his own soul, and may expect, through Him who presides in all such matters,
to kindle in his readers or hearers the like blessed emotions (Ro 7:24, 25). So
be it even now, O Lord!
Excerpt from:
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Rick Meyers.
e-Sword ®: www.e-sword.net
