Romans 7:1–13

In order to strengthen their minds in the divine teaching, Paul uses an example drawn from human law, in order once again to argue for heavenly things on the basis of earthly ones, just as God also is known by the creation of the world.

Since then he had said, we are "dead to sin," he here shows that not sin only, but also the Law, hath no dominion over them. But if the Law hath none, much less hath sin: and to render his language palatable, he uses a human example to make this plain by. And he seems to be stating one point, but he sets down at once two arguments for his proposition. One, that when a husband is dead, the woman is no longer subject to her husband, and there is nothing to prevent her becoming the wife of another man: and the other, that in the present case it is not the husband only that is dead but the wife also. So that one may enjoy liberty in two ways. Now if when the husband is dead, she is freed from his power, when the woman is shown to be dead also, she is much more at liberty. For if the one event frees her from his power, much more does the concurrence of both. As he is about to proceed then to a proof of these points, he starts with an encomium of the hearers, in these words, "Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the Law, that is, I am saying a thing that is quite agreed upon, and clear, and to men too that know all these things accurately, "How that the Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?" He does not say, husband or wife, but "man," which name is common to either creature; "For he that is dead," he says, "is freed from sin." The Law then is given for the living, but to the dead it ceaseth to be ordained. Do you observe how he sets forth a twofold freedom?

But now, repeating what has been said, let us examine them one by one. "Or are you ignorant," he says, "brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" He has a hyperbaton at once at the beginning, which is thus resolved: "Or are you ignorant, brothers, that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" and after this is restored that which was inserted in the middle: "For I speak to those who know the law." Now what he said, "I speak to those who know the law," is like that which he says a little later: "But we know that the law is spiritual." That the law is spiritual, however, not Paul alone knew, but also those who were instructed by him — those, that is, who were spiritual, of whom he says: "But the spiritual man examines all things." For concerning the Galatians I cannot declare that they know the law to be spiritual, of whom he says: "O foolish Galatians." Unless perhaps they knew it then when they had begun with the spirit; but they did not remain in this knowledge, because they were made complete in the flesh. But the teaching of the apostles, and of those who were trained by them for teaching, was such as would teach men to serve the law "not in the oldness of the letter," but "in the newness of the spirit." Which I think not only the apostles, but also the prophets, and any who were then wise among the people of God, perceived — that the law is spiritual — although for the sake of the multitude they seemed to keep the carnal observance as well. Nor is this to be wondered at, since Paul himself says: That "I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." Thus therefore many in the former people were advancing in spiritual knowledge, and saw the glory of the Word of God, just as Isaiah is written to have seen the glory of the Son of God, as John testifies when he says: "But these things Isaiah said, when he saw his glory." Therefore Paul speaks to those who know the law — that is, to those who know what in the law is the oldness of the letter, and what the newness of the spirit; and he who knows this well knows doubtless that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives, just as a husband over a woman; and just as by the death of her husband the woman is freed from the law of wedlock, and receives liberty to be joined to another husband, so also the soul whose husband is the law, when it has detected the oldness of the letter in the law — since what grows old is near to destruction — the law according to the letter being as it were dead to it, receives the power of marrying another husband, who is the spirit of the law: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." But what he said, "The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives," refers not to the man, but to the law.

"Or are you ignorant, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who is under a husband is bound by the law while her husband lives. But if her husband dies, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she be with another man. But if her husband dies, she is freed from the law of her husband, so that she is no longer an adulteress if she be with another man. And so, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may belong to another, who rose from the dead, that we may bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the vices of sins, which were through the law, worked in our members, so that they bore fruit unto death. But now we have been loosed from the law, being dead to that in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of the letter." Discoursing more broadly in the preceding passages about faith and the law, he shows that faith is in all things to be preferred — the faith, that is, only of those who believe "in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." After this he adds what sort of conduct theirs ought also to be, in which he discoursed both about the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ; but he also disputed about servitude and liberty, by which one either serves righteousness and is free from sin, or serves sin and is free from righteousness. Now therefore, after a certain rather extended digression, he returns once more to the treatment of the law and of Christ, discoursing in the present passage in some such manner as this: which things, repeating them a little, we shall first attempt to open up according to the sequence of the letter; and then also, as far as our strength allows, we shall inquire what power each saying holds. I speak, he says, to you who have knowledge of the law, and know that its meaning lies not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit: that is, "I speak to those who know the law," and I call you, on account of this knowledge of the law, "brothers"; and I say: Surely you are not ignorant that the law has dominion over each one who is made over to it and serves it, just as a husband over the woman joined to him? And just as throughout all his life he has dominion over the woman joined to him by laws, so also the law has dominion over the man who is under the law, as long as it lives and is in force. But just as, if it should happen that the husband to whom the woman had been joined by laws dies, the woman becomes free and is released from the husband's power, so also he who is under the law, if it should happen that the law dies, becomes free from the works of the law; and just as the woman who has been released from the laws of her former husband has liberty to be joined to another man, so also he who has lived under the power of the law, when he sees the letter dead, has the power to be united to the living Word as to a husband. But if the woman should wish to leave her former husband while he is still living, and to be united to another, she will doubtless be called an adulteress. And this falls in like fashion also upon him who deserts the law as a living husband, and is joined to another. But this, as I said, "I speak to those who know the law, brothers," so that you may understand that you also have left the law as a dead husband. Now its death is through the coming of Christ and the assumption of his body, through which you have been made another's — that is, joined to another husband, namely to him who rose from the dead, and does not again take on death, which that former husband, that is, the law, took on. You therefore have now been made the bride of that husband who rose from the dead; and therefore you ought to live according to his will, since we are no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit, even if at one time, placed in the flesh, we were pressed by the passions of sin and of the flesh; which passions, by occasion of the law, bore fruit in our members, not to God, but to death — to that death which God did not make. Now therefore, just as when the husband dies the woman is free and released from the law of her husband, so we also have been made free from the law which seemed to have dominion over us as a husband. To which law doubtless we too have died, and are estranged from that condition "in which we were held," so that now after this "we may serve not in the oldness of the letter" as before, but "in newness of spirit" — which spirit we have received from our Bridegroom as a nuptial pledge, just as he says elsewhere: "Who gave us the pledge of the Spirit." This is the order of the discourse, and this the framework of the apostolic saying.

Now Paul begins to point out problems with the law in order to encourage his readers to move over to grace without the fear which belongs to the law.

Add to this the fact that the apostle, with regard to widows and the unmarried, advises them to remain permanently in that state, when he says, "But I desire all to persevere in (imitation of) my example: " but touching marrying "in the Lord," he no longer advises, but plainly bids. Therefore in this case especially, if we do not obey, we run a risk, because one may with more impunity neglect an "advice" than an "order; "in that the former springs from counsel, and is proposed to the will (for acceptance or rejection): the other descends from authority, and is bound to necessity. In the former case, to disregard appears liberty, in the latter, contumacy.

Accordingly, it will be without cause that you will say that God wills not a divorced woman to be joined to another man "while her husband liveth," as if He do will it "when he is dead; " whereas if she is not bound to him when dead, no more is she when living.

Having left moral teaching, he returns to dogmatic teaching and proves that his listeners should no longer remain under the law. The law, he says, as you yourselves know, has authority over a person as long as the person remains alive; for it does not extend to the dead. So you too, he says, have died to the law, and therefore it no longer had authority over you.

After showing that we are set free from sin through the grace of Christ, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from slavery to the law. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; second, he excludes an objection, at what shall we say, then (Rom 7:7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the slavery of the law; second, that this liberation is useful, at that we may bring forth fruit to God. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes a statement from which he argues to his proposition; second, he clarifies it, at for the woman who has a husband; third, he concludes, at therefore, my brethren. The statement he makes is presented as something known to them. Hence he says, do you not know, brethren? As if to say: you should not be ignorant of this. But if any man does not know, he will not be known (1 Cor 14:38). The reason they should not be ignorant of it is shown when he says, for I speak to those who know the law. But since the Romans were gentiles and ignorant of the law of Moses, it seems that what is said here does not apply to them. Therefore, some explained this as referring to the natural law, of which the gentiles were not ignorant, as he said earlier: when the gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves (Rom 2:14). Hence it is added: that the law has dominion over a man, i.e., the natural law, as long as he lives, i.e., the law in man. And it lives as long as natural reason functions efficaciously in a person; but it dies, as long as natural reason succumbs to the passions: they have broken the everlasting covenant (Isa 24:5), i.e., of the natural law. But this interpretation does not seem to agree with the intention of the Apostle who always has in mind the law of Moses, when he speaks of the law with no modifying qualifications. Therefore, it is better to say that the Roman believers were not only gentiles; there were many Jews among them. Hence it says that Paul found at Corinth a certain Jew named Aquila, who had recently arrived from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2). Therefore, the law is binding on a person as long as he lives. For the law was given to direct man in the way of this life, as it says in the Psalm: he will instruct him in the way that he should choose (Ps 25:12). Therefore, the obligation of the law is dissolved by death.

This law comes from the gospel, not from Moses or from human justice. For those who learned something from the guidance of nature and those who learned something from the law of Moses have both been made perfect by the gospel of Christ.

Note how this analogy is different from the subject it refers to. Paul says that the husband dies, so that the woman, freed from the law of her husband, can marry whomever she likes. Paul compares the soul to the woman and thinks of the husband as the passions of sin which work in our members to produce the fruits of death, which are the offspring worthy of such a marriage. The law is given not to take away sin nor to deliver us from it but to reveal what sin is before grace comes. The result is that those who are placed under the law are seized by an even stronger desire to sin and sin even more because of the trespass. But in making this triple analogy—the soul as the woman, the passions of sin as the man and the law as the law of the husband—Paul does not conclude that the soul is set free when its sins are put to death in the way that the woman is set free when her husband is dead. Rather, he says that the soul itself dies to sin and is set free from the law in order that it might belong to another husband, who is Christ. The soul has died to sin, but in a sense sin is still alive. Thus it happens that although desires and certain encouragements to sin remain in us, we do not obey or give in to them because we have died to sin and now serve the law of God.

The apostle says that as long as a man lives in sin he lives under the law, just as the woman lives under her husband's law as long as he is alive.

Wherefore the apostle says: "The wife is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if he be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."

Now when we pass from loyalty to the nation to loyalty to the family, there can be no doubt about the first and plainest difference. The difference is that the family is a thing far more free. The vow is a voluntary loyalty; and the marriage vow is marked among ordinary oaths of allegiance by the fact that the allegiance is also a choice. The man is not only a citizen of the city, but also the founder and builder of the city. He is not only a soldier serving the colours, but he has himself artistically selected and combined the colours, like the colours of an individual dress. If it be admissible to ask him to be true to the commonwealth that has made him, it is at least not more illiberal to ask him to be true to the commonwealth he has himself made. If civic fidelity be, as it is, a necessity, it is also in a special sense a constraint. The old joke against patriotism, the Gilbertian irony, congratulated the Englishman on his fine and fastidious taste in being born in England. It made a plausible point in saying "For he might have been a Russian"; though indeed we have lived to see some persons who seemed to think they could be Russians when the fancy took them. If commonsense considers even such involuntary loyalty natural, we can hardly wonder if it thinks voluntary loyalty still more natural. And the small state founded on the sexes is at once the most voluntary and the most natural of all self-governing states. It is not true of Mr. Brown that he might have been a Russian; but it may be true of Mrs. Brown that she might have been a Robinson.

Now it is not at all hard to see why this small community, so specially free touching its cause, should yet be specially bound touching its effects. It is not hard to see why the vow made most freely is the vow kept most firmly. There are attached to it, by the nature of things, consequences so tremendous that no contract can offer any comparison. There is no contract, unless it be that said to be signed in blood, that can call spirits from the vasty deep; or bring cherubs (or goblins) to inhabit a small modern villa. There is no stroke of the pen which creates real bodies and souls, or makes the characters in a novel come to life. The institution that puzzles intellectuals so much can be explained by the mere material fact (perceptible even to intellectuals) that children are, generally speaking, younger than their parents. "Till death do us part" is not an irrational formula, for those will almost certainly die before they see more than half of the amazing (or alarming) thing they have done.

Next, after hinting this at the commencement, he carries on what he has to say by way of proof, in the woman's case, in the following way. "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the Law to her husband, so long as he liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the Law of her husband. So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she is called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." He keeps continually upon this point, and that with great exactness, since he feels quite sure of the proof grounded on it: and in the husband's place he puts the Law, but in the woman's, all believers. Then he adds the conclusion in such way, that it does not tally with the premiss; for what the context would require would be, "and so, my brethren, the Law doth not rule over you, for it is dead." But he does not say so, but only in the premiss hinted it, and in the inference, afterwards, to prevent what he says being distasteful, he brings the woman in as dead by saying, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law." As then the one or the other event gives rise to the same freedom, what is there to prevent his showing favor to the Law without any harm being done to the cause? "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the Law to her husband as long as he liveth." What is become now of those that speak evil of the Law? Let them hear, how even when forced upon it, he does not bereave it of its dignity, but speaks great things of its power; if while it is alive the Jew is bound, and they are to be called adulterers who transgress it, and leave it whiles it is alive. But if they let go of it after it has died, this is not to be wondered at. For in human affairs no one is found fault with for doing this: "but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."

Therefore the law of the letter must first die, so that at last the soul, now free, may wed the spirit and obtain the marriage of the new testament.

For he indicates this also in what follows, where he says: "While her husband lives, she is bound to the law;" and the very order of the example that has been taken up declares the same thing more fully: for he has put the law in the place of the husband, and concerning it he says: "But if her husband dies, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Yet if these things be understood as spoken of the apostles, or of those who believed from the circumcision, no question will be stirred up: for it is clear that these had the law as a husband, under whose authority they were living. But when the fullness of times came, the law began to be weakened in the flesh, and death followed upon its weakness; and if any had lived under the authority of this husband, they — like a woman, once the letter is dead — are wedded to the spirit by believing in Christ. But those who from among the Gentiles believed in the Lord will not appear to have lived under this husband, that is, under the authority of the law, nor to have had the word of the law as a husband. And Isaiah declares the testimony of this matter — namely, that those who are of the circumcision were under a husband, while those from the Gentiles were without a husband — saying: "Rejoice, O barren one who dost not bear; break forth and cry out, thou who dost not travail; for many are the children of the deserted one, more than of her who has a husband." He says that the children of the deserted one are more numerous than those of her who has a husband, because far more believed from the Gentiles than from the circumcision; and he shows that she who has a husband is the Synagogue, which has the law; but that the deserted one, wandering and living without any authority of law, is the multitude of the Gentiles, which was also barren, putting forth no shoot of any lawful word. Therefore in these passages a man who lives under the law is set down by the Apostle as a woman who is under a husband. But he sets down as the husband the word of the law, which husband nevertheless he calls dead — that is, the word of the law according to the letter. But in what way this husband is dead must be thoroughly examined. He can indeed be seen as dead in this respect also, when the spiritual understanding shuts out and as it were slays the bodily understanding, and shows that the letter which kills is to be fled from, and the spirit which gives life is to be followed. But in this way too it will be more evidently proved that this husband is dead. For as long as the law bore the shadow of good things to come, and in the earthly Jerusalem the type and image of the heavenly worship was carried on, and the altar remained, and the priesthood, the word of the law — that is, the letter — seemed to be alive. For Christ had not yet entered into the holy places not made with hands, nor had he approached the inner veil, which the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, interprets as the flesh of Christ. But when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," by his presence the earthly Jerusalem, with its temple and altar and all that was carried on there, was overthrown. Then her husband died — that is, the law according to the letter. Or is not the word of the law rightly said to be dead in this respect, when no sacrifices, no priesthood, no ministries of the Levitical order are rendered to it? It cannot punish a murderer, nor stone an adulteress: for these things the power of the Romans claims for itself; and dost thou still doubt whether the law according to the letter is dead? No male goes up three times a year to appear before the Lord; no sheep is slaughtered at the festival of the Passover in the city which the Lord God is thought to have chosen; the sheaves of first fruits are not offered, no oblation is celebrated; no leprosy, no uncleanness is purged. And can it be doubted, in all these matters, that the letter of the law is dead? Since therefore it has become clear through all these things that the former husband is dead, it is no transgression to be joined to Christ as to a second husband, just as it is no crime for a woman, when her former husband is dead, to enter upon a second marriage.

Why Christ should not take "a harlot" and a "rejected" soul "and a polluted" one into marriage, it is no labor to expound; but why a "widow" should not be received must be more diligently considered. Paul the Apostle, writing to the Romans, calls "the law the husband of the soul", and declares "that she, when the husband is dead, is loosed from the law of the husband, so that she is no longer an adulteress, if she has married Christ". But if it should happen that the law of the soul itself dies to it — that is, that the soul departs from the law and yet does not bind itself with the disciplines of a chaster wedlock, and, departing from the law, does not take up the yoke of the evangelical teaching: this soul will not be able to "marry Christ", having sought the wantonness of liberty, not the cultivation of a virginal and simple faith.

By analogy, Paul calls the commandment of the law a "husband" in order to demonstrate that, without the power to punish, the law (being already dead, as it were) cannot stop us (who have already been put to death) from going over completely to Christ, who has risen from the dead. For the law would quite rightly go on living in us if it could find something in us to punish.

If, however, the husband shall have died, she has been freed from (his) law, (so) that she is not an adulteress if made (wife) to another husband." But read the sequel as well in order that this sense, which flatters you, may evade (your grasp).

He hints at this at the beginning, and further on speaks of it from another side. Namely: when the husband dies, the wife has the right to join in marriage with another.

Then he clarifies what he had said with an example from the law of marriage, when he says for the woman who has a husband: first, he gives the example; second, he clarifies it by a sign, at therefore, while. In regard to the first he does two things. First, in the example he states how the obligation endures during life, saying, for the woman who has a husband, i.e., who is under the power of a man, is, from the divine law, in which it is said: your husband shall rule over you (Gen 3:16), bound to the law, namely, in which it is obligatory to live with the man: what God has joined together, let no man put asunder (Matt 19:6). And this indissolubility of marriage is especially considered, inasmuch as it is the sacrament of the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, or of the Word and human nature in the person of Christ: this is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). Second, he shows in the example how the obligation of the law is dissolved by death, saying, but if her husband dies, she, after the death of the husband, is loosed from the law of her husband, i.e., from the law of marriage by which she is obliged to the husband. For since, as Augustine says in his book On Marriage and Concupiscence, marriage is a good of mortal man, its obligation does not extend beyond mortal life. For this reason in the resurrection, when life will be immortal, they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt 22:30). From this it is plain that if a person were to die and be restored to life, as Lazarus was, the one who had been his wife is no longer so, unless he marries her again. But against this one might bring in what is stated in Hebrews: women received their dead by resurrection (Heb 11:35). But one should realize that the women received not their husbands but their sons, as the woman in 1 Kings 17 through Elijah, and another in 2 Kings 4 through Elisha. The case is different with sacraments which imprint a character, which is a consecration of an immortal soul. Now every consecration endures as long as the consecrated thing lasts, as is plain in the consecration of a church or altar. Therefore, if a baptized or confirmed or ordained person were to die and rise again, he would not have to repeat these sacraments.

For just as a woman is freed by the death of her husband from the law of her husband but not from the law of nature, so also they will be set free by the grace of God from the law by which they were held captive, so that it will be dead for them and they will not be adulterers by being joined to Christianity. For if the law lives in them they are adulterers and have no right to be called Christians, since they will be subject to punishment. Nor will he who is joined to the gospel after the death of the law and later returns to the law be an adulterer to the law but to the gospel. For when the law's authority ceases, it is said to be dead.

And for this reason he says: "Therefore, while her husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she be with another man," so as to show that the soul of a man too, if it has now come to Christ and has been joined to Christ as to a second husband, must in no way have the oldness of the letter — which is as it were the former husband — living in it, lest perchance, if it should have him living within it, she become an adulteress, having been so joined to the second that the former was still alive to her. This is what he said above under another figure, that one must first die and thus be buried together with Christ.

As long as her husband is alive, a woman must live according to his will alone, but once he is dead and she is married to another man, she should no longer live in the manner of her former husband.

Here he likened the husband to the law, and the wife to his listeners. Then he should have said: therefore, brethren, the law has no authority over you, for it has died. But the apostle did not say this, so as not to grieve the Jews, but instead presents the wife as having died, that is, the Jews themselves, who therefore enjoy a twofold freedom. For if the wife is free from the authority of the law when her husband dies, how much more is she free when she herself has died.

Then he clarifies what he had meant by a sign, when he says therefore, while her husband. And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife while her husband lives. The sign of this is that she will be called an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., as wife and husband, while her husband lives: if a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, would not she be polluted and contaminated? (Jer 3:1). Second, he adduces a sign of the fact that the obligation of the law of marriage is dissolved by death, saying, but if her husband dies, she is delivered from the law by which she is bound to the husband, so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., carnally united to another man, particularly if she has married him: if the husband dies, namely, the woman's, she is free to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39). This shows that second, third, or fourth marriages are lawful of themselves, and not only by dispensation as Chrysostom seems to say, when he says that just as Moses permitted a bill of divorce, so the Apostle permitted second marriages. For there is no reason, if the marriage law is dissolved by death, why the survivor may not marry again. It is not because second marriages are illicit that the Apostle says: a bishop should be married only once (1 Tim 3:2), but on account of the sacramental sign: for he would not be one of one, as Christ is the spouse of one Church.

Since the Savior allowed the devil to crucify his body knowing that this was for us and against him, Paul says that we have been saved by the body of Christ. For to die to the law is to live to God, since the law rules over sinners. Therefore the one whose sins are forgiven dies to the law; this is what it means to be set free from the law. We receive this blessing through the body of Christ, for by giving up his body the Savior conquered death and condemned sin. The devil sinned against him when it killed him even though he was innocent and entirely without sin. For when the devil claims a man for himself because of sin, he is found to be guilty of the thing he accuses him of. Thus it happens that all who believe in Christ are delivered from the law, because sin has been condemned. For sin, which is of the devil, has been conquered by the body of Christ. Now he has no authority over those who belong to Christ, by whom he has been conquered. For because Christ was sinless yet was killed as if he were guilty, he conquered sin by sin—that is to say, he defeated the devil by his own sin. And what he allowed to get into the devil he condemned, thereby destroying the penalty which had been decreed because of the sin of Adam. When he rose again from the dead an image of new life was stamped upon those who believe in him, so that they cannot be bound by the second death. For this reason we have died to the law by the body of Christ. Thus whoever has not died to the law is still guilty, and whoever is guilty cannot escape the second death.… Whoever perseveres in the grace of Christ belongs to God and is worthy of the promised resurrection.

But "we are dead to the law by the body of Christ, that we should belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead" and was prophesied by the law: "that we might bear fruit unto God." Therefore "the law is holy and the commandment holy, righteous, and good." We, then, are dead to the law, that is to sin of which the law makes us aware; the law indicates it, it does not give rise to it; by telling us what we ought to do and prohibiting what we ought not to do, the law shows up the sin which lies underneath "that sin may be manifest." But if marriage according to the law is sin, I do not know how anyone can say he knows God when he asserts that the command of God is sin. If the law is holy, marriage is holy. This mystery the apostle refers to Christ and the Church.

Moreover in the former passage he says, "You are dead to the law," not to marriage, "that you may belong to another who was raised from the dead," as Bride and Church. The Church must be chaste, both from inward thoughts contrary to the truth and from outward tempters, that is the adherents of the sects who would persuade her to commit fornication against her one husband, Almighty God, lest as the serpent deceived Eve, who is called Life, we too should be led to transgress the commandments by the lewd craftiness of the sects.

Now it is not on this only he grounds his exhortation, but also on the superiority of this second husband. And so he proceeds: "that ye should be married to another, even to Him Who is raised from the dead." Then to prevent their saying, If we do not choose to live with another husband, what then? For the Law does not indeed make an adulteress of the widow who lives in a second marriage, but for all that it does not force her to live in it. Now that they may not say this, he shows that from benefits already conferred, it is binding on us to choose it: and this he lays down more clearly in other passages, where he says, "Ye are not your own;" and, "Ye are bought with a price;" and, "Be not ye the servants of men"; and again, "One died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them." This is then what he here alludes to in the words, "By the Body." And next he exhorts to better hopes, saying, "That we should bring forth fruit unto God." For then, he means, ye brought forth fruit unto death, but now unto God.

Finally he adds this also in what follows: "And so, my brethren, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, that you may belong to another, who rose from the dead, that we may bear fruit to God." You see how, although a diversity of figures appears, yet all are brought back to a single sense. For also when he says that the law is dead to us, he wishes this same thing to be understood, namely, that we too have died to the law through the body of Christ, in which body "he bore our iniquities and carried our sins," and in which he stripped off "the principalities and powers, triumphing over them in himself." We must hasten, therefore, to that second marriage, which is far more blessed than the first. And consider whether perhaps even then the law was foreshadowing some such thing in this, when it commanded that a woman, upon the death of her former husband, from whom she had received no seed (for such had he been, that he could not bring forth fruit), should be ordered to marry his brother. For the law according to the spirit seems to be the brother of the letter of the law, so that from him rather the woman may bring forth fruit. But these things will be inquired into more fully in their own places. But now, as we have said, one must first die to the law of the letter, that so we may be able to be joined to Christ, who rose from the dead. And it can be that this is understood not only of the law of Moses which is according to the letter, but of every man: since it is certain that by whatever institutions, by whatever customs a man is governed, he must be believed to live as it were under this law which he uses; to which assuredly either he himself must die, or it must die to him, lest perchance the soul, placed under another husband, in coming to Christ should seem not so much to enter upon marriage with him as to become an adulteress, since indeed it still lives by the laws of the former husband.

Paul was reluctant to tell the Jews that the law was dead, but what he dared not say out loud he leaves to be understood.… A man bears fruit for God when his works of righteousness like fruit break out in blossom, then grow into fruit, and finally become fully ripe, for no fruit is forever in blossom.

Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ," His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. For he says that "we are dead to the law." It may be contended that Christ's body is indeed a body, but not exactly flesh.

Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death.

The phrase "in order that we" should be read as: "and so we shall".… For Paul wants to say that once we have been established in this life we shall bear the fruits of righteousness for God, since we have been changed from our behavior under the law.It is most remarkable that Paul says that we have died not through baptism but through the body of Christ. For Adam was the beginning of this life, and Christ is the beginning of the life to come. So, just as in this life we have everything in common with Adam, so also in the next life we shall have everything in common with Christ, beginning with his resurrection. We are said to be a part of the Lord's body because we share this with him. So just as we have been metaphorically born again by baptism, Paul says that we have become a part of Christ's body by sharing in the resurrection which is typified by baptism.

In order not to offend the Jews or to give those heretics who reject the Old Testament any encouragement, Paul did not say that the law had come to an end but rather that we have died to the law by the saving grace of baptism.

If you have died, he says, then you are not under the law. For if a wife after the death of her husband is not subject to liability, then all the more is she free from the yoke of the law when she herself has died. Notice how wisely he proves that the law itself wants people to leave it. And so you also were freed from the law through the body of Christ, crucified for us. For the body was put to death for this very reason, that you might die to the law and be under the authority of another, who died for you and then rose again. For the law does not live after it has died, but Christ lives even after He died, so that you have no right to depart from Him who lives. And what is the benefit of this? "That we should bear fruit to God," that is, so that from that marriage in which we were united with Christ, we might bear children to God, that is, good works.

Then when he says, therefore, my brethren, he concludes to his main proposition, saying, therefore, my brethren, you also have died to the law, by the body of Christ, i.e., in becoming members of the body of Christ, dying and being buried with him, as stated above; you have died to the law in the sense that the obligation of the law ceases in you, so that you may belong to another, namely, Christ, in whom, through rising with him, you have received a new life. Hence you are held obliged not by the law of the former life but by the law of the new life. But this application seems awkward, because in the preceding example the man died and the woman remarried without obligation of the law. But here the one released from obligation is said to die. However, if we consider it another way, there is a parallel, because since marriage is between two, it makes no difference which one dies. In either case the law of marriage is taken away by death. Hence the obligation of the old law ceases in virtue of the death by which we die with Christ. Then he shows the utility of this liberation, when he says, that we may bear fruit. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the utility, saying: that we may bear fruit to God. For if we have been made members of Christ and abide in Christ, we can bear fruit, i.e., good works, for the honor of God: as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine (John 15:4).

Although he is in the flesh Paul denies that he is "living in the flesh," even though he is in the body. In this passage "living in the flesh" means following something which is forbidden by the law. Therefore "living in the flesh" can be understood in many different ways. For every unbeliever is in the flesh, i.e., is carnal. A Christian living under the law is in the flesh. Anyone who puts his trust in men is in the flesh. Anyone who does not properly understand Christ is in the flesh. If a Christian leads an extravagant life he is in the flesh. Nevertheless, in this passage we should understand "being in the flesh" as meaning that before we believed we were under the power of the flesh. For then we lived under the flesh, i.e., following our carnal desires we were subject to wickedness and sin. For the mind of the flesh is not to understand spiritual things, e.g., that a virgin might conceive without intercourse with a man, that a man may be born again of water and the Spirit, and that a soul delivered from the bondage of the flesh may rise again in it. Anyone who doubts these things is in the flesh.It is clear that whoever does not believe acts under sin and is led by his captivity to indulge in wickedness and to bear fruit worthy of the second death. When such a person sins, death makes a profit. This discussion concerns the Jews and all those who say they are Christians yet still want to live under the law. Its purpose is to teach them that they are carnal so that they will abandon the law. Nevertheless, Paul says that the sins which rule over those who commit them in the flesh are revealed by the law; they are not caused by the law. For the law is the yardstick of sin, not its cause, and it makes sinners guilty.

You see then the gain to be got from the former husband! And he does not say when we were in the Law, so in every passage shrinking from giving a handle to heretics; but "when we were in the flesh," that is, in evil deeds, in a carnal life. What he says then is, not that they were in the flesh before, but now they went about without any bodies; but by saying what he does, he neither says that the Law is the cause of sins, nor yet frees it from odium. For it held the rank of a bitter accuser, by making their sins bare: since that, which enjoins more to him who is not minded to obey at all, makes the offence greater. And this is why he does not say, the "motions of sins" which were produced by the Law, but which "were through the Law," without adding any "produced," but simply "through the Law," that is to say, which through the Law were made apparent, were made known. Next that he might not accuse the flesh either; he does not say which the members wrought, but "which did work (or were wrought) in our members," to show that the origin of the mischief was elsewhere, from the thoughts which wrought in us, not from the members which had them working in them. For the soul ranks as a performer, and the fabric of the flesh as a lyre, sounding as the performer obliges it. So the discordant tune is to be ascribed not to the latter, but to the former sooner than to the latter.

Yet the Apostle brings this same sense of the exposition forward again under another figure. For he adds: "For when we were in the flesh, the vices of sins which were through the law worked in our members so as to bear fruit unto death. But now we, having died, are loosed from the law in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." Here too it appears — as we said above by the example of a certain comparison — that Paul passes from one chamber into another by uncertain and hidden steps. For when he had discussed in the foregoing the law of the letter, which certainly would seem to pertain only to those who had believed from the circumcision, now by a hidden turn he examines the law of the flesh and of the vices, doubtless to this end, that this treatment may seem to pertain to other men as well, and not to those alone who are of the circumcision. He says, then: "For when we were in the flesh." And indeed, so far as the matter itself is concerned, he was surely speaking these things while set in the flesh; but "when we were in the flesh," that is, when we were living according to the flesh, "the vices of sins which were through the law worked in our members." What, then, is this law through which the vices of sin work? Can it be that the law of Moses, even if it be observed according to the letter, generates the vices of sins? But it is plain that he is speaking of that law in the members which resists the law of the mind, concerning which we have also treated earlier, when we discussed how "the law entered in secretly, that sin might abound." It is therefore this very law which causes the vices of sins to abound in those who live according to the flesh, so that they bear fruit unto death. For that law is in our members for this very purpose, that by resisting against the law of the mind it may lead us captive to sin and offer these fruits to death.

When we were still living carnally the passion of lust worked in our eyes, and the other passions worked in the rest of our bodies. It was the law which showed us that these passions were sinful, and the severity of the law killed us.

Holy Scripture sometimes calls our human nature "flesh," and sometimes it goes beyond this and includes the concept of mortality as well.… In any case, the flesh is never said to inherit or to be capable of inheriting eternal life in the age to come.

"In the flesh" means "under the law." Paul calls those laws regarding food, drink, leprosy and so on "flesh." … Paul teaches us that before grace came, while we were still under the law, we suffered ever more serious attacks of sin because, although the law showed us what it was we should be doing, it did not give us any help in doing it.

Proving that the law in no way helps us in avoiding fleshly passions, but only reveals them, he says: when we were in the fleshly life and in evil deeds, the sinful passions, exposed by the law and made known through the law, were at work in our members. He did not say that the members produce vices, lest he give occasion for blaming the flesh. For the soul is like a musician, and the members are a lyre. If the musician plays poorly, then the lyre also produces bad sounds. So then, when we were under the law and could not escape the passions, we bore forth death through evil deeds.

The second is at for when we were in the flesh. He shows that this fruit was impeded when we were under the slavery of the law, saying, for when we were in the flesh, i.e., subject to the concupiscences of the flesh. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit (Rom 8:9). Our passions, however, and affections of sins, which were either explained or rather are occasionally adduced as proof by the law, are accustomed to work in our members, i.e., moved our members: what causes wars and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions? (Jas 4:1). And this to bear fruit unto death, i.e., so that they would cause the fruit of death: sin when it is full-grown brings forth death (Jas 1:15).

The law is called the "law of death" because it punishes the guilty and puts sinners to death. It is therefore not evil but righteous. For although evil is inflicted on its victims by the law, the law itself is not evil, because it executes wrath justly. Therefore it is not evil to sinners but just. But to good people it is spiritual. For who would doubt that it is spiritual to forbid sin? But because the law could not save men by forgiving sin the law of faith was given, in order to deliver believers from the power of sin and bring those whom the law had held in death back to life. For to them it is a law of death and it works wrath in them because of sin.Although Paul regards the law as inferior to the law of faith, he does not condemn it.… The law of Moses is not called old because it is evil but because it is out of date and has ceased to function.… The old law was written on tablets of stone, but the law of the Spirit is written spiritually on the tables of the heart that it might be eternal, whereas the letter of the old law is consumed with age. There is another way of understanding the law of the Spirit, which is that, where the former law restrained evil deeds, this law which says that we ought not to sin even in our hearts is called "the law of the Spirit," because it makes the whole person spiritual.

The law is only a written code to those who do not fulfill it in the spirit of charity to which the New Testament belongs.

Paul sets "Spirit" against "letter," "newness" against "oldness," and by these names shows us how different the two things are.

See how he again in this place spares the flesh and the Law. For he does not say that the Law was made of no effect, or that the flesh was made of no effect, but that we were made of no effect (i.e., were delivered). And how were we delivered? Why by the old man, who was held down by sin, being dead and buried. For this is what he sets forth in the words, "being dead to that, wherein we were held." As if he had said, the chain by which we were held down was deadened and broken through, so that that which held down, namely sin, held down no more. But do not fall back or grow listless. For you have been freed with a view to being servants again, though not in the same way, but "in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Now what does he mean here? for it is necessary to disclose it here, that when we come upon the passage, we may not be perplexed with it. When then Adam sinned (he means), and his body became liable to death and sufferings, it received also many physical losses, and the horse became less active and less obedient. But Christ, when He came, made it more nimble for us through baptism, rousing it with the wing of the Spirit. And for this reason the marks for the race, which they of old time had to run, are not the same as ours. Since then the race was not so easy as it is now. For this reason, He desires them to be clear not from murder only, as He did them of old time, but from anger also; nor is it adultery only that He bids them keep clear of, but even the unchaste look; and to be exempt not from false swearing only, but even from true. And with their friends He orders them to love their enemies also.

"But now we have been loosed from the law, having died to that in which we were held." From this law, then, in which we were held, we have now been loosed. "Now." When? Without doubt when we died with Christ, and were buried together with him through baptism, and were crucified with him; and therefore he says, "We have been loosed from the law, having died." For unless a man has died with Christ, he is not loosed from that law. I know that in other copies it is written, "from the law of death, in which we were held"; but this reading, that is, "having died," is both truer and more correct. But as for what he adds in the conclusion, "So that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter," which without doubt seems to be said concerning the law of the letter, this can be understood in the following consequent manner. Set indeed in the flesh, and living according to the flesh, we could not serve the newness of the spirit — because of the vices of sins which that law which was in our members nourished, so that they might bear fruit unto death — so long as that law of the members lived in us; or rather, so long as we lived according to it. But when Christ died for us, and we died with him to sin, we were set free through him from the law of sin in which we were held, and we are now able to serve the law of God; and to serve, moreover, in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter. For Christ did not draw us away from the law of sin in order that we should serve the oldness of the letter, that is, that we should receive circumcision, and Sabbaths, or the other things which the oldness of the letter of the law contains; but that we should keep the law of God in newness of spirit, that is, that out of all the things which are written in it we should grasp the spiritual sense, the Spirit granting it, as the same Apostle says in another place, that "a veil is placed upon the face of Moses; but when anyone shall have turned to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." I know indeed that certain persons, understanding this "newness of spirit" badly, have dragged it in such a direction as to say that the Spirit is new, as though he had not existed before, nor been known to the ancients; and they do not know that in this they blaspheme most gravely. For the Spirit himself is in the law, he himself is in the Gospel, he himself is always with the Father and the Son, and always is, and was, and will be, just as the Father and the Son. Therefore he himself is not new, but he makes believers new, when he leads them from their old evils to a new life and to the new observance of the religion of Christ, and makes them spiritual out of carnal.

We have died to the sin for which we were held by the law, and now we serve according to the demands of spiritual grace, not according to the written law.

For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin, which (passions) used to be efficiently caused through the law, (wrought) in our members unto the bearing of fruit to death; but now we have been emancipated from the law, being dead (to that) in which we used to be held, unto the serving of God in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Now everything has changed, Paul says. We have died to this life and are no longer under any obligation to keep the law. Our life no longer has anything in common with that, because we have been renewed by the power of the Spirit and have become different people. We have crossed over from this present life to life eternal and cannot tolerate any captivity of the flesh.… What is more, we who follow Christ are much better off than those who are governed by the law.

Paul continues in his cautious manner, for he does not say that the law is abolished but rather that we have been set free from it.

So as not to grieve the Jews, he did not say: the law has been abolished, but: "we have been released from it," that is, we have been set free, liberated, died and became dead and motionless with respect to that bond which held us. And this bond is sin; for we were held by it as by a chain. And we died to sin, so that we might "serve God in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." In ancient times virtue was difficult, because Adam received in his mortal body a multitude of natural deficiencies; but now by the grace of Christ in baptism our nature has received help from the Spirit, Who made us new and young and freed us from the oldness and weakness of the letter. Therefore in the time of the law virginity was a rarity, but now in the Church there are thousands who piously lead a virginal life. The same must be said also concerning contempt for death.

The third is at but now we are loosed. He shows that this usefulness is acquired by those freed from the slavery of the law, saying, but now we are loosed by the grace of Christ from the law of death, i.e., from the slavery of the law of Moses, which is called the law of death, because it killed violators without mercy (Heb 10:28). Or better, it is called the law of death because if offered the occasion for spiritual death: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). In which law we were detained, as though servants under the law: before faith came we were confined under the law (Gal 3:23). We have been freed in such a way so that we should serve in newness of spirit, i.e., renewed in the spirit through the grace of Christ: a new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you (Ezek 36:26); not in the oldness of the letter, i.e., not according to the old law. Or not in the old written code of sin which the letter of the law could not remove: I have grown weak in the midst of all my foes (Ps 6:7).

Paul shows that the law is not sin but the yardstick of sin. For Paul demonstrated that sins lie dormant in us and that they will not go unpunished by God. When a man finds this out he becomes guilty and thus does not thank the law. For who would be grateful to someone who tells him that he is running the risk of punishment? But he gives thanks to the law of faith, because the man who was made guilty by the law of Moses has been reconciled to God by the law of faith, even though the law of Moses is just and good in itself (because it is good to show that danger is near).…Paul takes on a particular role in order to expound a general principle. For the law forbids covetousness, but because it is a matter of desire it was not previously thought to be sin. For nothing could be easier than to covet something which belongs to a neighbor; it is the law which called it sin. For to men of the world nothing seems more harmless and innocent than desire.

In this passage [to v. 25], it seems to me that the apostle is portraying himself as a man set under the law and that he speaks in that role.The law was given not to introduce sin nor to extirpate it but simply to make it known; by the demonstration of sin to give the human soul a sense of its guilt in place of the assurance of its innocence. Sin cannot be overcome without the grace of God, so the law was given to convert the soul by anxiety about its guilt, so that it might be ready to receive grace.… Desire was not implanted in him by the law but was made known to him.

While on this point I think I must not commit mention of the fact that the apostle declares that the same God is the God of the law, the prophets, and the gospel. In the Epistle to the Romans he quotes the gospel saying "Thou shalt not lust" as if it were from the law, knowing that it is the one Father who is preached by the law and the prophets. For he says: "What shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid. I had not known sin except through the law; and I had not known lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust." Even if the heretics who are opposed to the Creator suppose that in the next sentence Paul was speaking against him when he says, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, there dwells no good thing," yet let them read what precedes and follows this. For before it he says, "But sin which dwells in me," which explains why it was appropriate for him to say, "in my flesh dwells no good thing."

Paul did not say that he had no sin apart from the law but rather that he was unaware of it. Therefore the law is not the cause of sin but rather the instrument which points it out, making it clear to those who did not know what it was. It did not do this in order that, once sin was made known, those who committed it should continue in what they were doing.… On the contrary, its intention was to convert people to better things by making their sins known to them.

It is clear from Romans [2:14] that even without the law the Gentiles knew what was required of them. It must therefore be accepted that they knew, though they did not know everything. For there are things which some Gentiles regard as good and proper while others reject them as bad and unlawful. Therefore the giving of the law was necessary to define for us what should and should not be done, outlining for us and showing us what the behavior of a righteous person is.

Even before this he had been saying, that "the motions of sins, which were by the Law did work in our members": and, "sin shall have no dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law." And that "where no law is, there is no transgression." And, "but the Law came in, that the offence might abound"; and, "the Law worketh wrath." Now as all these things seem to bring the Law into disrepute, in order to correct the suspicion arising from them, he supposes also an objection, and says, "What then, is the Law sin? God forbid." Before the proof he uses this adjuration to conciliate the hearer, and by way of soothing any who was troubled at it. For so, when he had heard this, and felt assured of the speaker's disposition, he would join with him in investigating the seeming perplexity, and feel no suspicions of him. Wherefore he has put the objection, associating the other with him. Hence, he does not say, What am I to say? but "What shall we say then?" As though a deliberation and a judgment were before them, and a general meeting called together, and the objection came forward not of himself, but in the course of discussion, and from real circumstances of the case. For that the letter killeth, he means, no one will deny, or that the Spirit giveth life; this is plain too, and nobody will dispute it. If then these are confessedly truths, what are we to say about the Law? that "it is sin? God forbid." Explain the difficulty then. Do you see how he supposes the opponent to be present, and having assumed the dignity of the teacher, he comes to the explaining of it. Now what is this? Sin, he says, the Law is not. "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Law." Notice the reach of his wisdom! What the Law is not, he has set down by way of objection, so that by removing this, and thereby doing the Jew a pleasure, he may persuade him to accept the less alternative. And what is this? Why that "I had not known sin, but by the Law. For I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Do you observe, how by degrees he shows it to be not an accuser of sin only, but in a measure its producer? Yet not from any fault of its own, but from that of the froward Jews, he proves it was, that this happened.

Because one cannot lust after those things from which he is not restrained, and even if he lusted after them, he would not be blamed. For lust is not directed to things which are before us, and subject to our power, but to those which are before us, and not in our power. For how should one care for a thing which is neither forbidden nor necessary to him? And for this reason it is said, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." For when (our first parents) heard, "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die," then they conceived lust, and gathered it. Therefore was it said, I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; nor would they have desired to eat, except it had been said, "Thou shalt not eat of it."

When we are set in passages such as these, it is repeatedly necessary for us to give a reminder concerning the diversities of laws. For this is what Paul intends, who under the one name of "law" transfers the sense from one law to another by silent indications, with that purpose, as I judge, by which the prophetic Scriptures also stand. It is not the case that, just as "law" is a single name, so the discourse of Scripture about the law is everywhere one and the same. Wherefore in each single passage it is needful to pursue and contemplate it accurately, and to weigh now what is signified by the name of law, now what that other thing may be. But in very many other words as well this must be held to. For there are in Scripture words which have been allotted the same appellation for signifying different things, and these confuse those who suppose that, just as the word is one, so also the thing signified is one, wherever that name has its place. Now that the word "law" is not set down to signify one and the same thing, but several, we shall set forth — passing over many matters which would demand labor and study to resolve the obstructed senses they contain — those things which can satisfy anyone, namely, that the word "law" is set down for several things: as when in the Epistle to the Galatians it is said, "For whoever are of the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written: Accursed is he who does not adhere to all the things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." It is plain that by these words is signified that of Moses. Yet these things ought not to be set out in the open, and handed over, so to speak, to be trampled underfoot; but rather that, according to those things which we said above by means of a certain likeness, the mystery of its King might come through to few, and more secretly. And so he says: "What then shall we say? Is the law sin?" Did you suppose, he says, that I was speaking of the law of Moses, that it is sin? "God forbid, God forbid." Let it suffice against both suppositions that I am neither speaking of the law of Moses, nor saying of it that it is sin; but rather, "I did not know sin except through the law. For I would not have known concupiscence, unless the law had said: You shall not covet." Understand, he says, of what law I am speaking, without which no one would know sin. Is it perhaps the law of Moses through which Adam knew his own sin, and hid himself from the face of the Lord? Is it the law of Moses through which Cain knew his own sin and said, "My sin is greater than that I should be pardoned"? Or through which Pharaoh knew his own sin and said, "The Lord is just, but I and my people are impious"? But if all these, and countless others before the law of Moses, knew their own sin, without doubt it will not be the law of Moses of which the Apostle speaks when he says that "I did not know sin except through the law"; and of which he says, "I would not have known concupiscence, unless the law had said: You shall not covet." Rather it is that law of which we have frequently spoken, which "is written in the hearts of men, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God," and which teaches each one what is to be done and what is to be avoided. This, then, is the law through which a man knows his own sin. Here he plainly says that the natural law is unknown to us for just so long as, with the advance of age, reason has not yet come. For "harvest" too is named twice: the former indeed refers to the bodily harvest, but the latter to the harvest of the spirit, as when he says: "Are there not yet four months, and then comes the harvest? Lift up your eyes, and see the regions, for they are already white unto the harvest." And you will find something similar in the case of the man blind from his very birth who was healed, to whom he speaks these words while he was still blind in body: "I came into this world for judgment, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." So too: "But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has appeared, foretold by the testimony of the law and of the prophets"; and I would say to those who hesitate to admit a twofold signification of "law," whether the same law is understood both in this place, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has shone forth," and in that one, "proclaimed beforehand by the law and the prophets." If it has appeared apart from the law, it is not foretold by the testimony of the law; but if it is confirmed by the testimony of the law, it was not declared apart from the law. Accordingly, the law of nature by no means confirms by its own testimony that righteousness of God which was declared in Jesus Christ, for it is lesser than it. But the law of Moses does — not the letter, but the spirit — and the prophets who answer to the spirit of the law, and the spiritual words that are in them. Wherefore he who pores over the divine Scriptures must diligently observe that they do not always use the same words of the same things: which they do sometimes through likeness of naming, sometimes by the principle of figurative speech, sometimes on account of the context of the expression, which demands that a word be employed otherwise in some places than as it is set down in others. And if we observe this attentively, we shall avoid many lapses and sinister interpretations. It must therefore be known that "he saw" is not always set down with the same signification, but sometimes refers to the sight of the body, while at other times it is the same as "to understand." For this must be known universally: that since it has been decreed for the Spirit who speaks in the prophets to conceal, and not openly to set forth, the meanings of the truth — just as also for the word of Christ in the apostles — often it is even intermingled beneath the mode of speech, and is not woven together as under a single continuous sequence of discourse, lest, of course, the unworthy find, unto the judgment of their own soul, those things which have been hidden from them so far as the letter is concerned. And this is for the most part the reason why the Scriptures seem not to cohere with sufficiently fitting composition and sequence — but most of all, as we said above, the prophetic and apostolic writings, and especially the Epistle to the Romans, in which the things said about the law are said in diverse ways and applied to diverse matters, so that Paul seems in that Epistle not to follow through the matter he has proposed. And so we have come to know how to discern between good and evil, and have heard from our own conscience. For it speaks to us within the conscience, and says: "You shall not covet." But since this law is not always found in a man, nor from the beginning as soon as a man is born, but for some while, as long as his age does not yet allow it, life is lived without this law — as Paul himself confesses when he says, "But I was living once without the law" — in that time in which we lived without the law, we did not know concupiscence. He did not say, "I did not have it," but says, "I did not know it" — as though the thing indeed existed, yet it was not known that it was concupiscence. But when reason came, and the natural law with the advance of years found a place in us, it began to teach us what things were good, and to forbid us from evils. Therefore, while this law says, "You shall not covet," we learned from it what we did not know before, that concupiscence is evil.

From here on Paul speaks as one who accepts the law, i.e., of one who first comes to know God's commandants while he is still in the habit of breaking them. Paul does not say that without the law he would not have been in the habit of coveting, nor does he say that he would not have done it; rather, he says that he would not have known that coveting was a sin.

In this manner, then, is also the lust for carnal intercourse. And well was it implanted in our nature, for it stablisheth the world, and is the root and fruit of human nature, and it bringeth back and giveth unto the race of the children of men that of which the death of the penalty despoiled them and took away. But consider well, O disciple, that although it hath been implanted in our nature, yet was it stirred up by the transgression of the commandment, and by the eating of the fruit did its motion appear, that, as in a parable, it might be known beforehand that it had power only over carnal beings, being absolutely useless unto the world of spiritual beings. For the types of two kinds of life appeared in the heads of our race, the spiritual and the carnal, the world of the spirit and the world of the body, the first Adam and the last Adam. Before they ate the food of the transgression of the law wherefrom was moved also the lust which was hidden in the members, their whole rule and conduct of life were spiritual, and in everything were they moved spiritually, in holy thoughts, and pure minds, in the knowledge which was worthy of God, in the understanding which was clean and pure from the abominable motions of lust, and after the manner of the spiritual hosts was their dwelling in Paradise—for they only appeared in the form of the body, because by the knowledge of the spirit they were secretly dwelling in heaven. And the Creator made Adam first of all to experience spiritual things, because He wished him to be the heir thereof, but the freedom of Adam lusted after the things of the world, although they came into existence and were established by the word of the Creator, and his will desired them, and he went forth after them; now this is evident from the eating of the fruit which took place by the transgression of the command. For the eating of that fruit was the beginning of all lusts, according to the word of our teacher the Apostle, who said, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust, and in this commandment I found an occasion of sin, and every lust was perfected in me."

The apostle refrains from any criticism of the law.… What high praise of the law we get from the fact that by it the latent presence of sin becomes manifest! It was not the law which led me astray but sin.

But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: "What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid." Fie on you, Marcion.

"God forbid!" (See how) the apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law. But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin! It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment.

We often covet the things of this life, not merely food and drink and sex but fame and fortune as well. We have these desires inside us and would never know there was anything wrong with them unless the law told us so.

The Apostle said many things that could have appeared to be an accusation against the law: namely, "sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace" (Rom. 6:14), and "the law came in besides, and so the transgression was multiplied" (Rom. 5:20), and also "the old letter" (Rom. 7:6). Therefore, in order to remove such a suspicion, he introduces an objection in the form of a question and says: what then shall we say about the law? Is it that the law is sin? Then he resolves this objection, first answering in the negative, as he usually speaks of what is utterly absurd, and then offering proofs. The law, he says, is not sin, but an indicator of sin; for I would not have known desire "if the law had not said: you shall not desire." But then how did the flood come about? How was Sodom burned, if before the law they did not know that desire is evil? They knew even then, but at that time desire had not been intensified, and therefore they did not recognize it with the same thoroughness with which they came to understand it when the law was given. Originally they knew desire only through the natural law, but afterward also through the written law, which is why it became an occasion for greater punishment; and this came about not from the teachings of the law, but from the carelessness of those who paid no heed to the precepts of the law, as the Apostle shows further on.

After showing that through Christ's grace we are freed from the slavery of the law, and that this liberation is useful, the Apostle now answers an objection which arises from the foregoing, namely, that the old law seems not to be good. In regard to this he does two things. First, he solves the objection through which it seems that the old law is not good; second, he shows that the law is good, at for we know (Rom 7:14). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he sets out the objection with regard to the law; second, he solves it, at wherefore the law indeed. First, therefore, he says: I have said that sinful passions existed by means of the law and that it is a law of death. What shall we say, then follows from such statements? Shall we say that the law is sin? This can be taken in two ways. In one way, that the law teaches sin: the laws of the people are vain (Jer 10:3), namely because they teach vanity. In another way, that the law is called sin, because the one who gave the law sinned by decreeing such a law. These two follow one from the other, because if the law teaches sin, the lawgiver sins by decreeing the law: woe to them that make wicked laws (Isa 10:1). Now it seems that the law does teach sin, if the sinful passions come through the law, and if the law leads to death. Then when he says, God forbid, he solves the aforesaid objection. Concerning this it should be noted that if the law per se and directly caused sinful passions or death, it would follow that the law is sin in either of the two ways mentioned; but not if the law were the occasion of sinful passions and death. In regard to this he does two things. First, he shows what the law does per se; second, what follows from it as from an occasion, at but sin, taking occasion. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he answers the question, saying, God forbid, namely that the law be sin. For it does not teach sin: the law of the Lord is perfect (Ps 19:7). Nor has the lawgiver sinned as though decreeing an unjust law: by me kings reign and lawgivers decree just things (Prov 8:15). Second, at but I would not have known sin, he indicates what pertains per se to the law, namely, to make sin known and not to remove it. And that is what he says: but I would not have known sin, except through the law: through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). This is clear if it is understood of the natural law, because man distinguishes between good and evil through the natural law: he filled their heart with wisdom and showed them both good and evil (Sir 17:6). But here the Apostle seems to be speaking of the old law, which he signified above when he said the oldness of the letter (Rom 7:6). One should say therefore that without the law sin could be known insofar as it has the character of ignobility, i.e., as something contrary to reason, but not inasmuch as it is an offense against God, because through the laws divinely decreed, man learns that human sins displease God, since he forbids them and commands that they be punished. Third, at for I would not have known concupiscence, he proves what he had said, saying, for I would not have known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet. In regard to this it should be noted that his statement, I would not have known sin, except through the law, could be interpreted as referring to the sinful act which the law brings to man's attention, when it forbids it. This, of course, is true in some cases, for it is said, a woman shall not lie down with a beast (Lev 18:23). But that this is not the Apostle's meaning is clear from what he says here. For no one is unaware of the act of concupiscence, since all experience it. Therefore, it must be interpreted as saying that, as was stated above, it is only through the law that sin is recognized as something subject to punishment and an offense against God. He uses concupiscence to prove this, because corrupt concupiscence is common to all sins. Hence a Gloss says, with Augustine, here the Apostle chose a general sin, i.e., concupiscence. Therefore the law is good, because when it forbids concupiscence, it forbids all evils. It might be supposed that concupiscence is a general sin according as it is taken for the desire for something illicit, which is of the essence of any sin. This is not the way Augustine called concupiscence a general sin, but because the root and cause of every sin is some special concupiscence. Hence a Gloss says that concupiscence is a general sin from which all sins come. For the Apostle quotes a precept from Exodus: you shall not covet your neighbor's property (Exod 20:17). This is the concupiscence involved in avarice, about which it is said: the love of money is the root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10), because all things obey money (Eccl 10:19). Therefore, the concupiscence about which he is now speaking is a general evil, not with the commonness of a genus or species but with the commonness of causality. Nor is this contrary to what is stated in Sirach, that pride is the beginning of all sin (Sir 10:15). For pride is the beginning of sin on the side of turning away; but covetousness is the beginning of sins on the side of turning toward a changeable good. But it can be said that the Apostle takes covetousness to clarify his proposition, because he wants to show that without the law sin was not known, i.e., its aspect as offense against God. This is particularly clear from the fact that the law forbids covetousness, which is not forbidden by man. For God alone considers man guilty for coveting with the heart: man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart (1 Sam 16:17). But the reason God's law forbade coveting another's property, which is taken by stealing, and another's wife, who is violated by adultery, and not the coveting involved in other sins is that the former sins involve a pleasure in the very coveting, which does not happen in other sins.

By "all kinds of covetousness" Paul means every sin. [In the last verse] he mentioned covetousness according to the law, and now by adding other sins he shows that all covetousness works in man by the impulse of the devil, whom he calls "sin," so that the law was given to man to promote the opposite. For when the devil saw the help provided by the law for man, whom he was delighted to have snared as much by his own sin as by the sin of Adam, he realized that this was done against him. For when he saw man placed under the law he knew that he would escape from his control, for now man knew how to escape the punishment of hell. For this reason his wrath was kindled against man, in order to turn him away from the law and get him to do what was forbidden, so that he would again offend God and fall back into the devil's power."Apart from the law sin lies dead." This is to be understood in two ways. First, you should realize that the devil is meant when the word sin is used and that it also refers here to sin itself. The devil is said to have died because before the law came he did not conspire to deceive man and was quiet, as if unable to possess him. But, second, "sin was also dead," because it was thought that it would not be reckoned by God. For that reason it was dead as far as natural man was concerned, as if he could sin without being punished. In fact sin was not absent, as I have already indicated, but this was not realized until it became clear by the giving of the law, i.e., that sin would revive. But how could it revive unless it had previously been alive and after the fall of man was thought to be dead when in fact it was still living? People thought that sin was not being reckoned to them, when in fact it was. Thus something which was alive was assumed to be dead.

Not every sort of lust existed before the prohibition increased it. For since the prohibition increases lust when the Deliverer's grace is missing, it is clear that not all lust existed beforehand. But when, in the absence of grace, lust was forbidden, it grew so much that it reached its own kind of completeness, to the point that it appeared in opposition to the law and added criminal offense to the transgression. When Paul says: "Apart from the law sin lies dead," he does not mean that it does not exist but rather that it lies hidden. He makes this clear [in verse 13]. The law is therefore good, but without grace it only reveals sins; it does not take them away.

By "sin lies dead," Paul means that it is "latent" in us.

By "sin is dead" the apostle means that it is not "imputed" to us.

At a later point, the illuminating Law was given, and yet their infirmities were multiplied, and there was an opportunity for a greater transgression of the Law, for "sin, having thus found an occasion, worked in me by means of the commandment all manner of lust." And therefore man had to be convicted of weakness or impotency.

By a sheer mistake — and I still believe it to have been an honest mistake — in spiritual technique I had rendered my private practice of that religion a quite intolerable burden. Like everyone else I had been told as a child that one must not only say one's prayers but think about what one was saying. Accordingly, when I came to a serious belief, I tried to put this into practice. At first it seemed plain sailing. But soon the false conscience (St. Paul's "Law", Herbert's "prattler") came into play. One had no sooner reached "Amen" than it whispered, "Yes. But are you sure you were really thinking about what you said?"; then, more subtly, "Were you, for example, thinking about it as well as you did last night?" The answer, for reasons I did not then understand, was nearly always No. "Very well," said the voice, "hadn't you, then, better try it over again?" And one obeyed; but of course with no assurance that the second attempt would be any better.

I set myself a standard. No clause of my prayer was to be allowed to pass muster unless it was accompanied by what I called a "realisation", by which I meant a certain vividness of the imagination and the affections. My nightly task was to produce by sheer will-power a phenomenon which will-power could never produce, which was so ill-defined that I could never say with absolute confidence whether it had occurred, and which, even when it did occur, was of very mediocre spiritual value. If only someone had read to me old Walter Hilton's warning that we must never in prayer strive to extort "by maistry" what God does not give! But no one did; and night after night, dizzy with desire for sleep and often in a kind of despair, I endeavoured to pump up my "realisations". The thing threatened to become an infinite regress. One began of course by praying for good "realisations". But had that preliminary prayer itself been "realised"?... This ludicrous burden of false duties in prayer provided, of course, an unconscious motive for wishing to shuffle off the Christian faith.

I think that what Paul means here is something like this: Even though the person who sins in ignorance is guilty, there will be a harsher punishment for the one who sins knowingly.

By "sin," Paul presumably means the devil. For just as Scripture sometimes calls the Savior "life" and "righteousness" because he is the source of life and righteousness, so it calls the opposing power by what it causes—sometimes "sin," sometimes "lie," sometimes "death."

Do you see how he has cleared it of all blame? For "sin," he says, "taking occasion by the commandment," it was, and not the Law, that increased the concupiscence, and the reverse of the Law's intent was brought about. This came of weakness, and not of any badness. For when we desire a thing, and then are hindered of it, the flame of the desire is but increased. Now this came not of the Law; for it hindered us (endeavored) of itself to keep us off from it; but sin, that is, thy own listlessness and bad disposition, used what was good for the reverse. But this is no fault in the physician, but in the patient who applies the medicine wrongly. For the reason of the Law being given was, not to inflame concupiscence, but to extinguish it, though the reverse came of it. Yet the blame attaches not to it, but to us. Since if a person had a fever, and wanted to take cold drink when it was not good for him, and one were not to let him take his fill of it, and so increase his lust after this ruinous pleasure, one could not deservedly be found fault with. For the physician's business is simply prohibiting it, but the restraining himself is the patient's. And what if sin did take occasion from it? Surely there are many bad men who by good precepts grow in their own wickedness. For this was the way in which the devil ruined Judas, by plunging him into avarice, and making him steal what belonged to the poor. However it was not the being entrusted with the bag that brought this to pass, but the wickedness of his own spirit. And Eve, by bringing Adam to eat from the tree, threw him out of Paradise. But neither in that case was the tree the cause, even if it was through it that the occasion took place.

For it was thence that sin took occasion to deceive me. For when the law was given, the devil had it in his power to work lust in me; "for without the law, sin was dead; " which means "when the law was not given, sin could not be committed."

"But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all manner of concupiscence." That law of which he says, "I did not know concupiscence, unless the law had said: You shall not covet," is itself also called a commandment. He says, then, that by occasion of this commandment, by which we are forbidden to covet, sin blazed up in us more violently, and worked in us all manner of concupiscence. For in that respect in which the flesh lusts against the spirit — that is, against the law which says, "You shall not covet" — it is also set against it and wages, as it were, a contest, so that it may not only satisfy the concupiscence but may even conquer its adversary. This, then, is the occasion which he says comes from the commandment. For, somehow or other, the things that are forbidden are more ardently desired; and therefore, since the commandment is holy and just and good (for what forbids evil is necessarily good), yet while by forbidding concupiscence it rather provokes and inflames it, through what is good it worked death in me. Nevertheless the Apostle indicates in these words that the origin of sin has arisen from concupiscence, since, when the law forbids — whether the law of Moses, which says, "You shall not covet," or also, as we expounded above, the natural law — what is forbidden is sought after all the more contentiously. It must indeed be understood that concupiscence is here set down as blameworthy. But in many cases it is also praiseworthy, as we showed above.

In this manner, then, is also the lust for carnal intercourse. And well was it implanted in our nature, for it stablisheth the world, and is the root and fruit of human nature, and it bringeth back and giveth unto the race of the children of men that of which the death of the penalty despoiled them and took away. But consider well, O disciple, that although it hath been implanted in our nature, yet was it stirred up by the transgression of the commandment, and by the eating of the fruit did its motion appear, that, as in a parable, it might be known beforehand that it had power only over carnal beings, being absolutely useless unto the world of spiritual beings. For the types of two kinds of life appeared in the heads of our race, the spiritual and the carnal, the world of the spirit and the world of the body, the first Adam and the last Adam. Before they ate the food of the transgression of the law wherefrom was moved also the lust which was hidden in the members, their whole rule and conduct of life were spiritual, and in everything were they moved spiritually, in holy thoughts, and pure minds, in the knowledge which was worthy of God, in the understanding which was clean and pure from the abominable motions of lust, and after the manner of the spiritual hosts was their dwelling in Paradise—for they only appeared in the form of the body, because by the knowledge of the spirit they were secretly dwelling in heaven. And the Creator made Adam first of all to experience spiritual things, because He wished him to be the heir thereof, but the freedom of Adam lusted after the things of the world, although they came into existence and were established by the word of the Creator, and his will desired them, and he went forth after them; now this is evident from the eating of the fruit which took place by the transgression of the command. For the eating of that fruit was the beginning of all lusts, according to the word of our teacher the Apostle, who said, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust, and in this commandment I found an occasion of sin, and every lust was perfected in me."

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus.

It is not reasonable to condemn completely someone who has sinned in ignorance. But when the law was given and revealed sin, it gave sin power. This was not a condemnation of the law but a punishment of the contempt shown by those who did not keep it. For if it is true that without the law sin lies dead, it is also true that sin is dead when the law is kept.

But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin! It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment." Why then do you, (O Marcion, ) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its commandment just and good.

Paul says that without the law to define it sin would not be effective. Why? Because it is not the deed by itself which is sin but rather doing something when you know that it is wrong.

He did not say that the law "produced the desire," but rather "sin" (which, according to Chrysostom, is a careless and corrupted will), and the devil (for some understood sin to refer to him), or the inclination toward pleasure and the tendency toward what is worse, used the very instruction of the law for evil. It would be unjust to blame a physician who, when a patient with a fever is ready to drink water unceasingly, does not allow him to drink, and thereby intensifies his desire to drink; for it is the physician's task to forbid, while it is the patient himself who must refrain from drinking. So too the law intended through its instruction to draw man away from desire, but the sin-loving will intensified the desire and produced not just one, but every kind of desire, straining to do evil. For when someone is forbidden something, he rages all the more. Thus sin is revealed when the law has been transgressed. "For without the law sin is dead," that is, it is not considered to exist. But when there is a law prescribing what is proper, then sin lives, that is, it exists and is recognized as sin by those who transgress the law and sin knowingly.

Then he shows what follows from the law by way of opportunity, when he says, but sin, taking the occasion. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies it, at for without the law. First, therefore, he says that sin, taking occasion by the commandment of the law forbidding sin, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. By sin can be understood the devil, because he is the beginning of sin; and according to this he works all kinds of covetousness in man: he who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning (1 John 3:8). But because the Apostle had not mentioned the devil here, it can be said that each actual sin, as apprehended in thought, works in man a desire for it, as it says in James: each one is tempted by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin (Jas 1:14). But it is better to say that this refers to the sin he described above as entering this world through one man (Rom 5:12), namely, original sin, which before the grace of Christ is in men according to guilt and punishment. But with the coming of grace its liability to punishment passes, although it abides with respect to inclination or habitual covetousness, which works in man every act of covetousness, whether it be the kinds of covetousness involved in various sins (for the covetousness involved in stealing is not the same as that in adultery) or the various degrees of covetousness as found in thought, pleasure, consent, and deed. But to work this effect in man sin finds opportunity in the law. And that is what he says: taking occasion. Or because with the coming of the precept the aspect of transgression is added, for where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom 4:15); or because desire for the forbidden sin increases, for the reasons given above. It should be noted that he does not say that the law gave the opportunity for sin, but that sin itself found opportunity by reason of the law. For one who gives an opportunity scandalizes and, as a consequence, sins. This happens when someone commits an unrighteous act by which his neighbor is offended or takes scandal; for example, if someone frequents places of evil even with no evil intention. Hence he says below: but decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (Rom 14:13). But if someone does a just act, for example, if he gives alms, by which someone else is scandalized, he is not giving an opportunity for scandal; hence he neither gives scandal nor sins, but the one scandalized finds the act an opportunity for taking scandal and sins. Thus, therefore, the law did what is right, because it forbade sin; hence it gave no opportunity for sinning, but man takes opportunity from the law. For this reason it follows that the law is not sin, but rather that sin is on the part of man. Consequently, sinful passions, which pertain to the covetousness involved in sin, do not exist in virtue of the law as though the law wrought them, but sin causes them, taking occasion from the law. And for the same reason it is called a law of death, not because the law begets death, but because sin begets death by finding occasion in the law. Now in the same sense the words can be arranged another way to say that sin worked all concupiscence through the command of the law, and this by taking occasion from the command; but the first exposition is simpler and better. Then when he says, for without the law, he clarifies what he had said; and this through experience of the effect: first, he mentions the effect; second, he repeats the cause, at for sin. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes conditions before the law; second, under the law, at but when the commandment came; third, from a comparison of the two conditions he concludes to the outcome of the law, at and the commandment that was ordained to life. First, therefore, he says, but sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. This is obvious from the fact that for without the law sin was dead, not as though sin did not exist, because through one man sin entered this world before the law (Rom 5:12), but in the sense that it was dead either with respect to man's knowledge, which did not know that certain things forbidden by the law were sins, for example, covetousness; or because it was dead as compared to what it was later. For it did not have as much power to lead men to death as it had later, when it took opportunity from the law. For that is considered dead whose strength is weakened: mortify your members which are on earth (Col 3:5). This, therefore, was the condition before the law as far as sin was concerned.

Nothing can be said to revive if it had not been previously alive.

When he says "I died," Paul means that he realized that he was already dead, because one who sees through the law what he should do but does not do it sins with transgression.

When the commandment, i.e., the power of the discernment of the good, came, the mind did not prevail over the baser thoughts but permitted its reason to be enslaved by the passions. Then sin revived but the mind died, suffering death because of its transgressions.

We were not righteous before the law came, but given that sin was dead as long as there was no law to condemn it, we lived having the excuse that we did not know what it was that we ought to be doing.

If sin "revived" it is clear that it must have been alive at some earlier point and then died. When was that? It was when the devil deceived and defeated Adam, who had received the commandment and knew what transgression meant. Cain too knew that he was sinning, having been commanded not to murder his brother. It was after that that there was no commandment and no law, and so sin was knocked out by the ignorance of those who committed it.

Therefore, of course, this law itself was as much demonstrated in the breach as in the observance. If Tom Jones violated morality, so much the worse for Tom Jones. Fielding did not feel, as a melancholy modern would have done, that every sin of Tom Jones was in some way breaking the spell, or we may even say destroying the fiction of morality. Men spoke of the sinner breaking the law; but it was rather the law that broke him.

When, pray, was that? Before Moses. See how he sets himself to show that it, both by the things it did, and the things it did not do, weighed down human nature. For when "I was alive without the Law," he means, I was not so much condemned. "But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This seems indeed to be an accusing of the Law. But if any one will look closely at it, it will be seen to be even an encomium of it. For it did not give existence to sin that before was not, but only pointed out what had escaped notice. And this is even a praise of the Law, if at least before it they had been sinning without perceiving it. But when this came, if they gained nothing besides from it, at all events this they were distinctly made acquainted with, the fact that they had been sinning. And this is no small point, with a view to getting free from wickedness. Now if they did not get free, this has nothing to do with the Law; which framed everything with a view to this end, but the accusation lies wholly against their spirit, which was perverse beyond all supposition.

Let us see, then, what it is that we have endeavoured to say respecting the apostle. For this saying of his, "I was alive without the law once," refers to the life which was lived in paradise before the law, not without a body, but with a body, by our first parents, as we have shown above; for we lived without concupiscence, being altogether ignorant of its assaults. "But I was alive and blameless before the law, having no commandment in accordance with which it was necessary to live; "but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." For after God had given the law, and had commanded me what I ought to do, and what I ought not to do, the devil wrought lust in me. For the promise of God which was given to me, this was for life and incorruption, so that obeying it I might have ever-blooming life and joy unto incorruption; but to him who disobeyed it, it would issue in death. But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me to disobedience, deceived and slew me, thus rendering me subject to the condemnation, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die."

"For without the law sin was dead. But I was alive without the law once. Yet when the commandment came, sin revived. But I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, was found by me to be unto death." Concerning nearly all these matters full treatment has already been given in what precedes; and so, that we may not turn over the same things again and again, we shall briefly recall to memory the things that were said. Now, that sin is dead in us without the law — that is, before a rational understanding grows strong within us through age — we have shown, when we also brought forward the example of a boy who strikes his father or his mother, or curses them. In which case, according to the law that forbids a father or mother to be struck or cursed, a sin does indeed seem to be committed; but that sin is said to be dead, because the law is not yet present in the boy, the law which would teach him that what he does is not permitted to be done. And it is certain that both Paul and all men have at some time lived without this law, that is, in the age of boyhood. For all alike, throughout that period, are not yet capable of this natural law. For otherwise Paul's declaration on this point would not seem to be true. For how shall it be proved that Paul at some time lived without the law of Moses, when he himself confesses that he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and circumcised on the eighth day according to the precepts of the law? But in the manner we have said, he too at some time lived in boyhood without the natural law. And of that time he did not say that there was no sin in the man, but that it was dead, and that afterward it revived, when the natural law, coming upon him, began to forbid concupiscence: which law, as it were, raised up sin that had been dead. For this is the nature of sin: if that be done which the law forbids to be done. Therefore, when sin came to life again, "I," he says, "died." "I" — who? The soul, without doubt, which had done what the law forbade to be done: for "the soul that sins," as the prophet says, "shall itself die." Therefore the commandment which had been given unto life — that is, to the soul, that it might teach it the works of life — was found to have turned out for it unto death, since it does not so much flee from what is forbidden as more ardently seek after it. Yet in these words it troubles me how he could say that sin was dead and revived. For it seems that nothing can be said to be dead except what at some time lived, and afterward lacked life. And this very word which he uses, "revived," teaches that it is not a life newly given, but a former life restored: for the very expression "revived" signifies to have lived again. If, then, sin is said to have revived in the soul, how do these people, from this saying of the Apostle in which he says, "But I was alive without the law once," introduce the doctrine of transmigration of bodies — which teaches that the souls of men were previously in beasts, or birds, or fishes, and so came to men: and that for this reason the Apostle said, "But I was alive without the law once," as though he, before he came into this human body, had lived in that order (for example) either of birds or of animals, where no law was had? How, I say, will they be able to answer this, when he says that sin revived in the soul — not that it newly arose, but that what was dead came to life? And it is certain that whatever revives has at some time lived. Never, then, will the soul appear to have been in that order, where sin without law could neither have been nor have lived. Let these things be said against those who drag the Apostle's word to an impious doctrine. But we say that this death of sin was granted by the kindness of God at that time in which we lived without the law.

Paul means either that he once imagined that he lived as a righteous and free person or that he was alive, at least for the present life. But when the commandment arrived to put an end to forgetfulness, sin was once again recognized, so that everyone who commits it knows that he is dead. Because sin had lived by natural knowledge and died through forgetfulness, it is said to have come back to life through the law.

For, "he that is born of the flesh is flesh; and he that is of the earth speaketh of the earth," and his thoughts are of the earth. And "the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God. For it does not submit itself to the law of God; for it cannot do so," because it is in the flesh, "in which dwells no good," because the Spirit of God is not in it. For this cause justly does the Scripture say regarding such a generation as this: "My Spirit shall not dwell in men for ever, because they are flesh." "Whosoever, therefore, has not the Spirit of God in him, is none of His:" as it is written, "The Spirit of God departed from Saul, and an evil spirit troubled him, which was sent upon him from God." [1 Samuel 16:14]

Adam had no fear of death before he sinned.

Before Moses, he says, I lived without the law, which is why I was not subject to strict condemnation (here in his own person he means human nature); but when the commandment came, it was revealed that sin is sin: for although people sinned even before, they were not aware of it. And this is precisely the benefit of the law, that it made people conscious that they are sinning.

But the condition so far as man was concerned is indicated when he says, and I lived some time without the law. This can also be understood in two ways; in one way with respect to the fact that it seemed to man that he was alive, so long as he did not know that sin was that by reason of which he was dead: you have the name of being alive, but you are dead (Rev 3:1). Or in another way, this is said in comparison to the death which followed by occasion of the law. For those who sin less are said to be alive in comparison to those who sin more. Then he describes conditions under the law, when he says, but when the commandment came. First, in regard to sin when he says: but when the commandment came, i.e., after the law was decreed, sin revived. This can be understood in two ways: in one way with respect to the knowledge of man, who began to know that sin existed in him, which he did not know before: after I was instructed, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed and confounded (Jer 31:19). He says, revived because in paradise man had full knowledge of sin, although he did not have it through experience. Or, in another way, sin revived as to its power, because after the law was given, the opportunity was given for the power of sin to increase: the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56). Second, with respect to man himself; hence he says, and I died. This can also be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to man's knowledge, so that I died means that I knew myself dead. In another way in comparison to the previous state, so that the sense is: I died, i.e., I was more bound to death than before. Hence what was said to Moses and Aaron is somewhat true: you have killed the Lord's people (Num 16:13).

Man died when he realized that he was guilty before God when he had previously thought that he would not be held accountable for the sins which he committed. It is true that the law was given for life, but because it made man guilty, not only for the sins which he committed before the coming of the law but also for those which he committed afterward, the law which was given for life turned out to bring death instead. But as I have said, this was for the sinner, because for those who obeyed, it led to eternal life.

For what took place was not the natural thing,-their being injured by things profitable. And this is why he says "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." He does not say, "it was made," or "it brought forth" death, but "was found," so explaining the novel and unusual kind of discrepancy, and making the whole fall upon their own pate. For if, he says, you would know the aim of it, it led to life, and was given with this view. But if death was the issue of this, the fault is with them that received the commandment, and not of this, which was leading them to life.

Paul says that he died because then he transgressed knowingly. The commandment which would have led to life had it been kept in fact led to death, because it was disregarded.

As soon as God gave Adam and Eve the commandment concerning the trees, the devil came to Eve in the form of a serpent and lied to her. When she saw the beauty of the fruit she ate of it, being overcome by desire, and broke the commandment. Both she and Adam were immediately placed under sentence of death, for Adam too ate the fruit along with her.

The words "I died" should be understood in two ways — both thus: "I sinned," and thus: "I became liable to greater punishment," for which not the law is to blame, but the one who heeds it. Consider, for example: someone is sick and does not realize that he is sick; then a physician comes to the sick man and reveals to him that he is sick, and that he ought to abstain from such-and-such food, as it aggravates the illness; the sick man did not listen to the physician and died. He did not say: the commandment became death for me, but: "it served," thereby explaining the extraordinariness and strangeness of such an incongruity. The purpose of the commandment is to lead to life, for which reason it was also given.

Then he concludes from the comparison between the two states the outcome of the law, saying that the commandment that was ordained to life . . . was found according to the intention of the lawgiver; second insofar as it pertains to the honesty and devotion of the one subject to the mandate: I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances by whose observance man shall live (Ezek 20:11) proved to be an occasion unto death to me, i.e., through sin which existed in man: his food is turned in his stomach, it is the gall of asps within him (Job 20:14).

"Sin" in this verse is to be understood as the devil, who is the author of sin. He found an opportunity through the law to satisfy his cruelty by the murder of man, so that as the law threatened sinners, man by instinct always did what was forbidden. By offending God he incurred the penalty of the law, so that he was condemned by that which had been given to him for his own good. For as the law was given to man without his asking for it, it inflamed desires to man's disadvantage in order to stain him even more with sinful lusts, and he could not escape its hands.

Paul means by this that the fruit of a forbidden desire is sweeter. For this reason, sins committed in secret are sweeter, even if this sweetness is deadly.… It deceives us and turns into very great bitterness.

Paul means either that pleasure's persuasion to sin is more powerful when something is forbidden or else that, even if a man did do something in accordance with the law's requirements, if there is as yet no faith resting in grace, then he endeavors to attribute this to himself and not to God, and he sins all the more because of pride.

The word sin does not refer to a particular substance but to the manner and life of one who has sinned.… Paul calls nothing sin except the one who is the source and begetter of sin, viz., the devil.

What does the Apostle mean when he writes to the Romans: "For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me" (Rom 7:11)? Let us examine the whole passage and, with the help of Christ, try to understand its meaning. We do not wish to impose upon you our interpretation, but only to explain briefly what seems to us to be the true sense of the words. So what shall we say? Is the Law sin? Certainly not! Yet, I would not have known sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the Law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 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 in order for sin to appear sin, it worked death to me through what is good, so that sin by the commandment might become utterly sinful. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So I find the law, that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God according to 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 will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! How can medicine not be a cause of death, if it reveals deadly poisons, although evil people abuse them for death, either by killing themselves or lying in wait for their enemies: thus the Law was given, to show the poisons of sins; and to hold back the man who abuses his freedom, who before was thoughtless and stumbled dangerously, with the reins of the law, and to teach him to walk by rules so that we may serve in the newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter, that is, we live by the command which we previously called in the manner of brute animals; Let's eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (1 Cor. 15:32). But if, under the influence of the Law (which teaches us what we ought to do and prohibits what we ought not to do), we are carried away by our fault and incontinence against legal precepts, it seems that the Law causes sin: since while prohibiting desire, it is known to kindle it in a certain manner. The secular opinion among the Greeks is: Whatever is allowed is desired less. Therefore, on the contrary, whatever is not allowed receives the fuel of desire. Hence, Tullius also denies having written about the punishments of the parricides in Athens by Solon, so that he may not seem to prohibit so much as to admonish. Therefore, the law, disregarded by lawbreakers and those trampling on its precepts, seems to be the occasion for offenses: by forbidding what they do not wish to be done, it binds them with the chains of commandments; whereas, prior to sinning without law, they were not held guilty. We have said these things, understanding the Law which was given through Moses. But because it is written in the subsequent writings: the Law of God and the law of the flesh and members, which fights against the Law of our mind and leads us captive in the Law of sin, and that four laws, contending against each other, are known to be written in one place, I consider it not irrelevant if I inquire how many kinds of law are remembered in the Holy Scriptures. It is said that the Law, which was given through Moses, is cursed according to what is written to the Galatians: For all who are of the works of the Law are under a curse. For it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them" (Gal. 3:10). And again in the same epistle: The Law was established for transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise was made, having been arranged through angels by the hand of a mediator (Galatians 3:19). And again: Therefore the Law was our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith which is in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:24, etc.). Also, the history which does not contain orders, but reports what has been done, is called the Law by the Apostle. "Tell me," he said, "you who want to be under the Law, have you not read the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, but the son of the free woman was born by promise (Ibid. 4.22-23). And the Psalms are also called Law: May the word written in their Law be fulfilled: They hated me without reason (Ps. 68.5). Isaiah's prophecy, the Apostle calls the Law: In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and they will not even hear me, saith the Lord." (Isai. 21). This is the same passage which I find written in Hebrew in the book of Isaiah; and the Law also is styled the mystical intelligence of the Scriptures: "For we know that the Law is spiritual." (Rom. 7. 14). Besides all this, the Apostle tells us that the natural law is written on our hearts: For when the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things that are of the Law, they are a Law to themselves, who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them. (Rom. 2. 14 et 15). This law which is written in the heart contains all nations: and there is no human who does not know this law. Therefore, the just judgment of God is upon the human race; "What you do not want to happen to yourself, do not do to others." For who is unaware that murder, adultery, theft, and every form of desire are evil, because he would not want them to be done to himself? For if he were unaware that they were evil, he would not be pained by them being inflicted upon himself. Through this natural law, Cain also knew his sin, saying: "My punishment is greater than I can bear." Adam and Eve also knew their sin, and therefore they hid under the tree of life. Pharaoh before the law was given through Moses, confessed his sins, and said: The Lord is just, but I and my people are wicked. This law is unknown in childhood, ignored in infancy, and sinning without command, one is not held by the law of sin. He curses his father and mother, and beats his parents, and because he has not yet received the law of wisdom, sin is dead within him. But when the command comes, that is, the time when one seeks good and avoids evil, then sin begins to revive, and he dies, guilty of sin. And so it happens, that the time of understanding, in which we know the commandments of God, that we might attain to life, works death in us: if we act more negligently, and occasion seduces and supplants us with wisdom, and leads us to death. Not that understanding is sin (for the Law of Understanding is holy and just and good), but through understanding of sins and virtues, sin is born in me, which before I understood, I did not know it was sin. And thus it has become, that what was given to me for good, is changed through my fault into evil; and that I may use a new word to explain my meaning: sin, which before I had understanding, was without sin, by the transgression of the commandment, becomes more sinful to me. Before, let us ask what this desire is, of which the Law says: Thou shalt not covet. Some think that the command in the Decalogue "You shall not covet your neighbor's goods" (Deut. 5:21) means. But we consider all disturbances of the soul, by which we grieve and rejoice, fear and desire, to be covetousness. And this Apostle, vessel of election, whose body was the temple of the Holy Spirit, and who said, " Do you seek proof of the Christ who speaks in me?" (1 Cor. 13:3)? And in another place: "Christ redeemed us" (Gal. 3:13). And again: "But I now live, not I, but Christ lives in me" (Ibid. 2:20), he speaks not of himself but of Him who wills to do penance after sins, and, under his own person, describes the frailty of the human condition, which perpetuates the wars between two men, who are internal and external, and fighting with each other. The inner man agrees with both written and natural law, that it is good, and holy, and just, and spiritual. The outer [man], I say, is carnal, sold under sin. For I do not know what I am working, and I do not do what I will, but what I hate (Rom. 7. 14). But if the outer [man] does what he does not want, and works what he hates, he shows that the commandment is good, and that he does not do what is evil; but sin dwells in his flesh: this is the vices of the body, and the desire for pleasure, which is implanted in human bodies for descendants and offspring; and if it goes beyond its limits, it turns into sin. Let every person consider and accuse themselves, and manage the incentives to their vices: how often they speak, think, and suffer in the heat of the body what they do not want; I do not want to say that they should do it, lest I seem to accuse holy men, of whom it is written: "This man was true and unblemished, a worshipper of God, shunning every evil work" (Job 1.1). And of Zacharias and Elizabeth: "They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1.6). And it was commanded to the Apostles: Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:46). But He never would have commanded it unless He knew man was capable of being perfect. Unless perhaps we should say that departing from all evil means improvement and transition from the errors of childhood and the vices of a licentious age to correction and virtues; and that righteousness, as preached in Zacharias and Elizabeth, is external; and that the concupiscence that is said to dwell in our members now abides within us. But it is not only to boys, but already to those of robust age, that the apostles are commanded to take on the perfection which we ourselves confess to be in perfect age. Nor saying this, do we flatter vices; but we follow the authority of the scriptures, which says no man is without sin, but that God has included all under sin; that He may have mercy on all. (Gal. 3.22): except Him alone, who has not sinned, nor has deceit been found in His mouth. (Isaiah 53). From there, it is also said by Solomon, 'that the tracks of the serpents are not found in the rock.' (Prov. 30) And the Lord further said of himself, "Behold, the ruler of this world is coming, and there is nothing in me that he can use (John 14:30)," that is, of his own work and his own trace. For this reason, we are commanded not to reproach those who turn away from their sins and not to despise the Egyptians for they themselves were once in Egypt, and we built cities out of mud and bricks for the Pharaoh (Deut. 23). And we were taken captive to Babylon because of the law of sin that resided in our bodies. And when it seemed that there was extreme despair, indeed an open confession, that every man was ensnared by the snares of the devil, the Apostle, rather the man under whose person the Apostle speaks, turns to give thanks to the Savior, that he was redeemed by his blood, and that he has shed the filth in baptism, and that he has taken up the new garment of Christ, and having put to death the old man, a new man was born who says: Miserable man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom. 7. 24) I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has freed me from this body of death. If anyone does not see that the Apostle is speaking about others in his own person, let him explain how Daniel, whom we know to have been just, speaks as if of himself when he pleads for others: We have sinned, we have acted unjustly, we have done wickedly, we have departed and have gone away from thy commandments and thy judgments; and we have not listened to thy servants the prophets, who spoke in thy name to our kings, to our princes, to our fathers, and to all the people of the land. To thee, O Lord, belongs justice, but to us confusion (Dan. 3:29 et seqq.). Also, what is said in the thirty-first Psalm: I have made known to you my sin, and I have not hidden my iniquity. I said: I will confess my injustice to the Lord, and you forgave the impiety of my sin. For this let every holy one pray to you in an opportune time (Psalm 31:5) - not David, or a just man, or (to speak plainly) a Prophet, whose words are narrated, but it fits with the sinner. And when the righteous man, under the guise of a penitent, has uttered such utterances, he deserves to hear from God: I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. (Ibid. 8) In the thirty-seventh Psalm also, the title of which is In Remembrance, that we may be taught to be always mindful of our sins, and to repent of them, we read as follows: There is no peace for my bones, because of my sins. "Since my iniquities have risen above my head, like a heavy burden they weigh upon me. My wounds have become corrupt and have festered because of my foolishness. I am troubled and bowed down to the end." (Psalms 38:5-6 in the Vulgate) This whole passage of the Apostle, both in the preceding and in the following, nay, his whole Epistle to the Romans, is wrapped in too many obscurities, and if I wished to discuss everything, it would not be one book for me, but large, and there would be many volumes to be written.

You observe how he everywhere keeps to sin, and entirely clears the Law of accusation. And so he proceeds as follows.

And even if, when the commandment comes — which is "holy and just and good" — sin revives in us and slays us ("for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me"), it is no accusation of the commandment that he says the occasion by which sin slew me came from the commandment; but this is the logical consequence of that saying. That is called law which teaches what ought to be done and what avoided; and it is necessary that it should also teach of what sort that is which it says must be avoided, so that thereby it may the more easily be avoided. For no one can shun what he does not know. If, then, someone, having been taught by the law of what sort that is which he ought to avoid, does not so much avoid it as rather do it, he will indeed appear to have received, by occasion of the law, the knowledge of the thing that was not to be done: but the law had not taught him for this purpose, that he should do what he ought not, and die; but that he should not do it, and should live. Thus, then, "sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." Or else, certainly, since he said, "Sin by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me," he may here by "sin" have meant the very author of sin, of whom it is written, "The serpent deceived me"; or he may have fashioned a personification of sin, which is seen to have deceived the man by occasion of the commandment, so as to make concupiscence sweet, and that the soul, while it is delighted by the sweetness of concupiscence, might die by transgressing the commandment which said, "You shall not covet."

But if death resulted from it, the commandment is not to blame for this: for sin deceived me and put me to death through the commandment, that is, the inclination toward the worse and the corrupt and sin-loving heart, or rather — pleasure. For if there were no commandment showing sin, then I would not have been regarded as one committing sin, nor would I have been subject to punishment; for the word "put to death" should be understood in both senses, both of sin and of punishment, as was also said above concerning the word "I died." The entire essence of the apostle's thought is this: when there is no law, sin is not imputed; but when the law came and was transgressed, sin was revealed and came to life, so that through the transgression of the commandment, sin—that is, the exposure and condition of sin—emerges, whereas before it neither existed nor was imputed, because there was no law either. Therefore the law in itself was not the cause of sin; but neither could it deliver from sin, so that because of this weakness of the law we came to have need of grace.

Then when he says, for sin, he repeats the cause as though intending to clarify it by the outcome of the law, saying: this happened, namely, that the commandment which promised life proved to be death, for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me through the covetousness it wrought in me. Beauty has deceived you and lust has perverted your heart (Dan 13:56), and by it, namely, the commandment, sin took occasion to kill me: the letter kills (2 Cor 3:6).

Paul commends the law in this way so that no doubts about it might remain.

Man needed to be shown the foulness of his malady. Against his wickedness not even a holy and good commandment could avail; by it the wickedness was increased rather than diminished.

The commandments of God are irreproachable, because they contain nothing unjust: whence the Apostle: "The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."

The second appropriation is made to the Eternal Sun insofar as it is the medium that governs all things. In this regard, three [attributes] are appropriated, to wit, piety, truth, and holiness, for all [rightful] governing and law-giving is pious, true, and holy. As it is said in Romans: The law indeed is holy and the commandment holy and just and good. Out of these three come forth three laws, and there cannot be more; that is, [the laws] of nature, of Scripture, and of grace. The law of nature is appropriated to the Father, the law of Scripture to the Word, and the law of grace to the Holy Spirit.

And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Wherefore the law is productive of the emotion of fear. "So that the law is holy," and in truth "spiritual," according to the apostle.

The law was holy because it testified that those who kept it were holy, righteous and good and were not guilty of sin in any way whatsoever.

"Law" and "commandment" are synonymous in this case. The commandment is called "holy" because it takes us away from sin and sets us apart from evil; "just" because with its righteousness it honors those who obey it and punishes those who transgress it; "good" because it leads us to the good, and this because of the goodness given by God. The law is not sin just because it shows me what is evil but the opposite.

But, if ye be so minded, we will bring before you the language of those who wrest these declarations. For this will make our own statements clearer. For there are some that say, that he is not here saying what he does of the Law of Moses, but some take it of the law of nature; some, of the commandment given in Paradise. Yet surely Paul's object everywhere is to annul this Law, but he has not any question with those. And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace. But it does not appear that he has ever called the commandment in Paradise "Law" at all; no, nor yet any other writer. Now to make this plainer from what he has really said, let us take up the phrase itself again, and sift it more thoroughly. "Know ye not, brethren, how that the Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Wherefore ye are become dead to the Law." Therefore if these things are said about the natural law, we are found to be without the natural law. And if this be true, we are more senseless than the creatures which are without reason. Yet this is not so, certainly. For with regard to the law in Paradise, there is no need to be contentious, let we should be taking up a superfluous trouble, by entering the lists against things men have made up their minds upon. In what sense then does he say, "I should not have known sin but by the Law?" He is speaking, not of absolute want of knowledge, but of the more accurate knowledge. For if this were said of the law of nature, how would what follows suit? "For I was alive," he says, "without the Law once." Now neither Adam, nor any body else, can be shown ever to have lived without the law of nature. For as soon as God formed him, He put into him that law of nature, making it to dwell by him as a security to the whole kind. And besides this, it does not appear that he has anywhere called the law of nature a commandment. But this he calls as well a commandment, and that "just and holy," as a "spiritual law." But the law of nature was not given to us by the Spirit. For barbarians, as well as Greeks and other men, have this law. Hence it is plain, that it is the Mosaic Law that he is speaking of above, as well as afterwards, and in all the passages. For this cause also he calls it holy, saying, "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." For even though the Jews have been unclean since the Law, and unjust and covetous, this does not destroy the virtue of the Law, even as their unbelief doth not make the faith of God of none effect. So from all these things it is plain, that it is of the Law of Moses that he here speaks.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good; " because it was given, not for injury, but for safety; for let us not suppose that God makes anything useless or hurtful.

If the law is found to be good, undoubtedly we shall believe that he who gave it is a good God. If, however, it is just rather than good, we shall think of God as a just lawgiver. But Paul the apostle says in no roundabout terms: "The commandment is holy and just and good." It is plain from this that Paul has not learned the doctrines of those [Gnostics] who separate the just from the good. Rather, he had been instructed by that God and illuminated by the Spirit of that God, who is holy and good and just at the same time.

But lest anyone should ascribe to the commandment of the law the fact that by occasion of the precept the soul was deceived by sin and slain, the Apostle adds and says: "And so the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." For the commandment is good, and the law is holy. For it enjoins good things, and commands the observance of good things.

Contrary to those who attack the law and those who separate justice from goodness, the law is called a good and holy grace as well as a just grace. God is regularly called "good" in the Old Testament and "just" in the New. This contradicts the Marcionites.

About that (law) the same David (says) again: "The law of the Lord (is) unblameable converting souls; the statutes of the Lord (are) direct, delighting hearts; the precept of the Lord far-shining, enlightening eyes." Thus, too, the apostle: "And so the law indeed is holy, and the precept holy and most good" -"Thou shalt not commit adultery," of course.

Paul calls the law "holy" because it gives us the principles on which to tell the difference between good and evil, … "just" because after showing us what is good it necessarily points out the punishment for the transgressor, but also "good" because it is the source of good things, showing us what they are and persuading us that they are desirable.

The law is what was given to Moses; the commandment, what was given to Adam. What Paul praises so highly the average person condemns. For those who have given themselves over to idleness and run away from the works of righteousness blame God for having given a commandment in the first place. They say that, if God did not know what was going to happen, how can he be God? And if he did know that men would sin but nevertheless gave the commandment, then he is himself the cause of sin. But these people ought to realize that the knowledge of good and evil belongs to all who have the gift of reason. Only those without reason lack the ability to distinguish one from the other. The wolf is vicious, the lion devours, and bears and leopards do the same sort of thing but they have no sense of sin, nor do they have a conscience which is offended by their actions. But men are ashamed even if nobody else sees what they do and are afraid to admit what they have done. For their conscience accuses them. How could this be if they lived without any law? But God gave them a commandment so that they would recognize their own rational nature and fear the lawgiver. Yet they knew that the lawgiver was merciful and that the law was not difficult to keep.The commandment is "holy" because it teaches what is right. It is "just" because it pronounces the correct sentence on those who break it. But it is also "good" because it prepares eternal life for those who keep it.

Here he very clearly shut the mouths of the Marcionites, Manichaeans, Simonians, and all who condemn the Old Testament; for he clearly proclaims that the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good. He distinguishes the law from the commandment as the general from the particular; for in the law, one part constitutes doctrines and another commandments. Thus, both the doctrines of the law are holy, and the commandments concerning conduct are holy and just and good. Consequently, they are the ordinances of a good and righteous God, even though the aforementioned heretics blaspheme that the law originates from an evil god.

Then when he says, wherefore the law, he reaches the main conclusion, namely, that the law is not only not sin but furthermore is good, making sin to be known and forbidding it. First he concludes with respect to the whole law, saying: as is clear from the foregoing, the law indeed is holy: the law of the Lord is without blemish (Ps 19:7); we know that the law is good (1 Tim 1:8). Second, with respect to the particular commandments of the law, saying: and the commandment of the law is holy in regard to the ceremonial precepts by which men are directed in the worship of God: be holy because I am holy (Lev 20:7) and just, in regard to the judicial precepts by which man is ordered to his neighbor in the proper way: the ordinances of the Lord are true and just altogether (Ps 19:9); and good, in regard to the moral precepts: the law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces (Ps 119:72). Yet, because all the commandments ordain us to God, he called the whole law holy.

Although even before the law came, the devil obtained death for man because of the first sin of Adam, nevertheless, after the law came he found still greater punishments for him in hell, where death followed him. For to have sinned before the coming of the law was a lesser crime than to have sinned after it.The wording here suggests that a limit was imposed on transgressors when they were forbidden to sin.… What the apostle means is that sinning after the law came was much more serious than sinning before it. He means that after the law came the attacks and tricks of Satan grew worse.

Here Paul elaborates on what he said [in verse 8]. It is not that a good thing (i.e., the law) had become death for him but rather that sin worked death through the law's goodness, i.e., that it became apparent whereas without the law it had lain hidden. For everyone recognizes that he is dead if he cannot fulfill a precept which he recognizes as just, and because of the criminal offense of the trespass he sins even more than he would have if it had not been forbidden. Before the coming of the law the offense was less, because without the law there is no transgression.

Even those who do not know God's will deserve God's punishment because they sin, even if it is in ignorance. Nevertheless, they have some excuse, for when the law is explained to them they will probably excuse themselves in front of those who are under the law, on account of their ignorance. But those who have chosen to sin and do so not out of ignorance have committed a crime of madness and have completely rejected God. Such people are said to be "sinful beyond measure." Someone who sins in ignorance is still sinful, but he is not, nor is he said to be, "sinful beyond measure."

Here Paul is expounding the person of Adam. For although he had the image of God dwelling in him, he turned away from true life and chose death instead. Moreover, this death was not just the common death of our bodily members but the spiritual death of disobedience as well.

That is, that it might be shown what great evil sin is, namely, a listless will, an inclinableness to the worse side, the actual doing, and the perverted judgment. For this is the cause of all the evils; but he amplifies it by pointing out the exceeding grace of Christ, and teaching them what an evil He freed the human race from, which, by the medicines used to cure it, had become worse, and was increased by the preventives. Wherefore he goes on to say: "That sin, by the commandment, might become exceeding sinful." Do you see how these things are woven together everywhere? By the very means he uses to accuse sin, he again shows the excellency of the Law. Neither is it a small point which he has gained by showing what an evil sin is, and unfolding the whole of its poison, and bringing it to view. For this is what he shows, by saying, "that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." That is, that it may be made clear what an evil sin is, what a ruinous thing. And this is what was shown by the commandment. Hereby he also shows the preeminence of grace above the Law, the preeminence above, not the conflict with, the Law. For do not look to this fact, that those who received it were the worse for it, but consider the other, that the Law had not only no design of drawing wickedness out to greater lengths, but even seriously aimed at hewing down what already existed. But if it had no strength, give to it indeed a crown for its intention, but adore more highly the power of Christ, which abolished, cut away: and plucked up the very roots an evil so manifold and so hard to be overthrown. But when you hear me speak of sin, do not think of it as a substantial power, but evil doing, as it comes upon men and goes from them continually, and which, before it takes place, has no being, and when it has taken place, vanishes again.

What thou? "Was then that which is good made death unto me? " namely, that which was given as a law, that it might be the cause of the greatest good? "God forbid." For it was not the law of God that became the cause of my being brought into subjection to corruption, but the devil; that he might be made manifested who, through that which is good, wrought evil; that the inventor of evil might become and be proved the greatest of all sinners.

"That, then, which is good," he says, "is it death to me? God forbid!" He refutes an objection that necessarily arises, and says: It is not that the good of the law and of the commandment brought death upon me; "but sin," he says, "that it might appear" how wicked it is, "through what is good wrought death in me." For the commandment is good when it is kept: but if it is not kept, it will necessarily be an evil to him who has lost the good. Therefore "sin itself becomes a sinner beyond measure" by occasion of the commandment. We said above too that he fashioned, as it were, a personification of sin, and says of it that sin itself — of whose person he speaks — was made a sinner beyond measure by occasion of the commandment. For it is less of a sin if you commit what is not forbidden. But if you commit things vetoed and prohibited, you are, so to speak, a sinner beyond measure: because you have not only done what you ought not, but you have also transgressed a precept. But as for our saying "sin is a sinner," we preferred to admit a fault of language rather than not express the Apostle's meaning in its entirety: because in the Latin tongue the noun for sin (peccatum) has confined us, since it is declined in the neuter gender, whereas in Greek it is feminine; and therefore we have called it a sinner in the masculine (peccator): for there it can be called a sinner in the feminine (peccatrix).

The law does not become for me the actual cause of death, but I do when I encounter death by sinning. Sin was revealed through the law, which is itself good, and was also punished by it. Before the law came sin was limited because of ignorance, but when it is committed knowingly these limitations are taken away.

Why then do you, (O Marcion, ) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its commandment just and good." Now if he thus reverences the Creator's law, I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself.

The Law, he says, did not become death for me, but sin put me to death, so that it would become clear what an evil sin is, and that despite the healing provided by the Law, it became worse. And by sin, as we said above, understand both the will inclined toward pleasure, and the inclination toward sin, and therefore the devil, and the very activity driven by pleasure. Thanks be to Christ, who freed us from such evil! What a ruin sin is, this was revealed through the commandment; for sin took advantage of the commandment unto death. So also concerning a disease, when it through medical remedies comes to a worse condition, one can say that it revealed its malignancy by means of the medical art, although it received no benefit from it.

Then, when he says, did that then which is good, he raises a question in regard to the effect of the law. First, the question, saying, did that then which is good, namely, in itself, bring death unto me, i.e., act as a per se cause of death? For someone could falsely gather this from what he stated above, namely, that the commandment that was ordained to life . . . was found to be unto death to me. Second, he answers negatively, saying, God forbid. For that which in itself is good and life-giving cannot be the cause of evil and death, because a good tree cannot bear evil fruit (Matt 7:18). Third, at but sin, he shows that what he is now saying is in agreement with what he had said above. For the commandment itself does not bring death; but sin, finding occasion in the commandment, brings death. And that is what he says: but sin, that it may appear sin, through the good of the law, wrought death in me, i.e., through the commandment of the law, because the law is good by the very fact that it brings knowledge of sin. And this occasionally, as it makes sin manifest. This does not mean that sin worked death through the law, as though there was no death without the law. For it was stated above that death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14), i.e., before the law was given. This should be understood to mean that sin worked death through the law, because the condemnation of death was increased when the law came. And this is what he says: I say that the working of sin is death through good, that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful, that is, as if, on occasion, it makes one sin on account of the precept of the law. And this above measure either because the liability for transgression grew or because the inclination to sin increased with the coming of the law's prohibitions. As stated above, sin here means the devil, or rather the inclination to sin.