Fourth Section.—The transition, in principle and reality, of Christians from the service of the letter under the law into the service of the Spirit under grace, by virtue of the death of Christ. Believers should live in the consciousness that they are dead to the law.—Tholuck: “Your marriage with Christ, having taken the place of the dominion of the law, necessarily leads to such a dominion of God in a new life.”
Rom_7:1-6
1Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that [those who] know the law), how [omit how] that the law hath dominion over a man as long [
ἐö
̓
ὅóïí êñüíïí
,for as long time] as he liveth? 2For the woman which hath a husband [the married woman] is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth [to the living husband]; but if the husband be dead [have died], sheis loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead [have died], she is free from that law; so that she Isaiah 4 no [not an] adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore [Accordingly], my brethren, ye also are become [were made] dead to the law by [through] the body of Christ; [,] that [in order that] ye should be married to another, even to him who is [was] raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto [to] God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions [passions] of sins, which were by [by means of] the law, did work [
ἐíçñãåῖôï
,, wereefficient, wrought] in our members to bring forth fruit unto [to] death. 6But now we are [have been] delivered from the law, that being dead [having died to that] wherein we were held; that we should serve [so that we serve] in newness of spirit [the Spirit], and not in the oldness of the letter.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Summary.—a. The figure of marriage and the law of marriage to describe the relations of believers to the law (Rom_7:1-3); b. The application of the figure: the marriage did not remain pure, because sin, whose motions were by the law, insinuated itself. It is dissolved by death (Rom_7:4-6).
Rom_7:1. Know ye not. [̓̀
Ç ἀãíïåῖôå
. Comp. Rom_6:3. The particle
ἤ
implies a doubt, and connects always with some preceding categorical clause (Winer, p. 474).—On the connection. Meyer deems it a resumption of Rom_6:14, but immediately linked to last main thought (Rom_6:22), viz., that the Christian had his fruit unto holiness, and the end, eternal life (which is proved in Rom_6:23).—R.] Since the
ἤ
assumes a doubt at the beginning (Rom_3:29; Rom_6:3); the Apostle intimates that not all the believers in Rome are conscious of the whole conclusion, that the gospel has made them free from the service of the Mosaic law—a conclusion that he will now make clear to them by the figure of the law of marriage. Therefore the question, Should you not fully know the consequence of the right of marriage in case one of the couples dies? has this meaning: Should you not fully know the consequence of the death of believers by and for the law? The course of treatment is this: After having shown that they are no more under sin, with, more particular reference to the Gentiles, the Apostle now declares, with more particular reference to the Jews, that they too are no more under the law. The unity warranting this transition consists in the fact, that one cannot be under sin without being under the sense of the law, and that he cannot be under the law without being under the sense of sin. So far, therefore, our deduction extends back not only to Rom_6:14, but even to Rom_5:20; Rom_3:9; Rom_2:17. That is, the law comes into consideration here so far as it is the power of the letter, which kills (2Co_3:6)—the phenomenon is completed as the experience of sin (see Rom_7:24).
Singular views: 1. Reiche: The
êõñéåýåéí
. in Rom_7:1 refers to the
÷ýñéïò
in the concluding verse of chap. 6; 2. Meyer: The freedom of Christians from the law follows from the truth of the foregoing verse. But the Apostle’s transition consists in his design to show that Christians are just as dead to the law by baptism in the death of Christ, as they are dead to sin. This arises from the fact that they have received eternal life as the gift of God in Christ. They are therefore dead, by the death of Christ, to death, as a result of sin, as they are dead to death as a result of the law, according to Rom_7:24. [Meyer’s view in 4th edition is indicated above.—R.]
Brethren. Certainly not merely the Jewish Christians (according to Grotius, and others; also Tholuck, in a qualified way) are meant in this address (Meyer). Yet Meyer, in denying this, overlooks the fact that the Jewish Christians are regarded most prominently, because the point in question is respecting the law (see Rom_9:3). [The only limitation being “those who know the law,” it must be remembered that in the apostolic age, as well as since, the knowledge of the Old Testament on the part of Christians in general is presupposed.—R.]
For I speak to those who know the law. [Parenthetical, as in the E. V. Explanatory of brethren.—R.] Of what law does he speak? It must not be overlooked, that what the Apostle further adduces as the design of the law, already reminds of the law of nature. Therefore Koppe: every law is meant. Glöckler: the moral law. But though the Roman law might have a similar purport, the Apostle nevertheless means the Mosaic law itself; for the point of his argumentation is, that, according to the principles of the Mosaic law itself, Christians must be regarded as having been made free by this law. It is not necessary to prove that the Mosaic law in general, but not the law of marriage in particular (Beza, Carpzov [Bengel], and others), is meant here. The Jew did not have a separate marriage-law; yet the Mosaic law, with reference to the marriage-law, is meant.—And who are those who know the law? Explanations: 1. The Roman Christians, the majority of whom were Jewish Christans; 2. The Jewish-Christian portion, to whom Paul addresses himself in particular (Philippi, and others); 3. In addition to these, the Gentile Christians, who, as Jewish proselytes, had been entrusted with the law (De Wette, and others); 4. Tholuck calls to mind, that the Gentile Christians became acquainted with the law. [As the customs of the synagogue remained to a large extent those of the early Christian assemblies, the Old Testament was read to all believers, as indeed was necessary to their Christian instruction. One could not be a Christian even then, and remain ignorant of the law.—R.] The question in general here is not a difficult specialty of the Mosaic law, but a principle evidenced also by natural law, which, for this very reason, does not result from one passage, but from the connection of the Mosaic law. Tholuck: “One of the legal maxims current among the Jews; Este endeavors in vain to prove it from the Old Testament.” Yet the example of Ruth, Abigail, and even of the second marriage of Abraham, is more than one legal maxim current among the Jews. Moreover, the legal principle in Rom_6:7 is of kindred nature.
That the law hath dominion. We must not connect
ὁ íüìïò ôïῦ ἀíèñþðïõ
(Mosheim, and others), but
íüìïò
with
êõñéåýåé
. Man is certainly, however, the man in question placed under the law. [Wordsworth explains: “The law (of Moses) is lord over the man—the human creature—whether man or woman. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine.” This takes the verb in the literal sense: to be lord, and introduces the figure of the marriage at once, thus avoiding any difficulty about the special law, for the whole law is personified. Meyer seems to favor this view also.—R.]
For as long time as he liveth [
ἐö
’
ὅóïí ÷ñüíïí æῇ
]. According to Rom_7:2-4, the
æῇ
evidently refers to the man himself, and not to the law, so that, in a metaphorical sense, it would have the force (as Origen, Erasmus, Bengel, and others think) of making the figure itself plainer. This would have been to prove first that the law has no more force. Philippi understands the
æῇí
to be the old, natural life. See Tholuck on the contrary: in this case the appeal to legal knowledge would be inappropriate, and the figure already violated. The law is personified as master, just as sin is in the foregoing section. [And the point of the figure is not affected by referring the verb to the man, for whichever party dies, the relation ceases. Comp. Hodge.—R.] Meyer gives prominence to the point, that
ἐö
̓
ὅóïí ÷ñüíïí
is emphatic.
Rom_7:2. For the married woman is bound by the law to the living husband [
ἡ ãὰñὕðáíäñïò ãõíὴ ôῷ æῶíôé ἀíäñὶ äÝäåôáéíüìù
̣. A concrete explanation of the proposition of Rom_7:1 (Meyer), introduced by
ãÜñ
, which has here the force of for example (Hodge, Alford). The perfect
äÝäåôáé
here denotes the continuing character of the binding (Winer, p. 255), which agrees with the emphatic
ἐö
’
ὅóïí ÷ñüíïí
(Rom_7:1). ̔̔̔́
Õðáíäñïò
, subject to the man, married, only here in the New Testament, but current in later Greek authors.—R.] The figure in Rom_7:2-3 is quite clear, but its application is difficult. Since the law is compared with the first man, and Christ with the second, this seemed to be the application that should follow: The law, as the first man of the theocratic Church, is dead; now, the Church can be freely married to Christ. Therefore even Usteri, Rückert, and others, have remarked that the figure is not clearly carried out; and Chrysostom took the view, that Paul, through forbearance toward the Jews, reversed the relation in his application, and that, instead of saying, the law or the husband is dead, he says, You who were formerly bound by the law are dead. [So Wordsworth, who, however, joins with it several other reasons.—R.] Meyer, with Fritzsche, thus relieves the difficulty: In consequence of the unity of the matrimonial relation, death is an event common to both parties; when the husband is dead, the wife is legally dead to the husband. We may in this case ask, Why did not the Apostle conform his figure to the application, and designate the wife herself as the dead part? Clearly, because of the second marriage. This explanation of Fritzsche and Meyer (concinnity) is established by the Apostle, and also rendered emphatic by his language. As the woman is not dead, but is killed in respect to her marriage relation, or is situated as dead, by the natural death of her husband, so believers have not died a natural death, but are made dead to the law, since they are crucified to the law with Christ. The idea, dead in a marriage. relation is therefore the tertium comparationis. The
èáíáôïῦóèáé
in Rom_7:4 is therefore like the
êáôáñãåῖóèáé
of a widow, in which also a death-like orphanage is indicated. That the law itself is also dead, as a letter, by its statutory application to the crucifixion of Christ, follows, without any thing further, from what has been said. Tholuck, not being satisfied with Meyer’s removal of the difficulty, seems desirous of placing himself on the side of those who give an allegorical interpretation to the passage commencing with Rom_7:2. Explanations:
1. The wife is the soul, the husband is sin; sin dies in the fellowship of believers with Christ’s death (Augustine, and others; Olshausen).
2. Only the
íüìïò
can be regarded as the husband (Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, Philippi). Likewise, with special reference to the sense of guilt (Luther); with special reference to sin (Spener).
De Wette and Meyer have properly rejected the introduction of allegory in Rom_7:2-3; it destroys all legal evidence of the figure. The Apostle did not avoid saying
ἐèáíáôþèç ὁ íüìïò
because he wished to give a more pregnant expression to the thought, and to include in one the other side also, but because
èáíáôïῦóèáé
is different from a simple
ἀðïèíÞóêåéí
, and because the retroactive inference from the act which the administration of the law has committed on the body of Christ is proximate to the dying of the law (according to Heb_8:13; decayed and waxed old). The gospel is eternally new, because it refers to only eternal relations. The law grows old from the beginning, because, in its outward and national character, it relates to transitory and ever-changing relations. Application to Catholicism and Protestantism. (All they that take the sword, &c.) ̔́
Õðáíäñïò
, viro subjecta; the wife had no right to separate herself.
But if the husband have died, she is loosed from the law of her husband [
ἐὰí äὲ áðïèÜíῃ ὁ ὰíÞñ
,
êáôÞñãçôáé ἀðὸ ôïῦíüìïõôïῦ ἀíäñüò
. On the conditional clause, see Textual Note2. On the verb, comp. Gal_5:4, Lange’s Comm., p. 127. The genitive is one of reference, of the object respecting which, see Winer, p. 177.—R.] That is, which relates to her husband. On the relationship of the expression
÷áôÞñãçôáé
to the
ἐèáíáôþèçôå
, comp. Meyer’s translation: “She has become undone, and thereby free and absolved from the law which related to her husband (united her to him).” (See Gal_5:4.)
Rom_7:3. She shall be called an adulteress. She receives the name in a formal and legal way. And therewith she is subject to the severest punishment of the law—stoning. [Lev_21:10; comp. Joh_8:5.]
[She is free from that law,
ἐëåõèÝñáἐóôὶí ἀðὸ ôïῦ íüìïõ
. The article shows that the reference is to the law of the husband, hence the E. V.: that law, is correct.—R.]
So that she is not an adulteress. Meyer insists upon the idea of design: in order that she be no adulteress; and declares this to be the design of the Divine legal ordinance—which Tholuck there pedantically finds. Yet the expression here might certainly have been chosen with reference to this application. The Judaists assuredly charged the believing Jews with apostasy, and therefore with religious adultery. Hence Paul says
åἶíáé
instead of
÷ñçìáôßæåé
; and Fritzsche has strikingly made the
ôïῦ ìὴ åἶíáé
dependent on
ἐëåõèÝñá
. [All these views are alike grammatical. That of Fritzsche is harsh, however, while Meyer’s seems to be adopted more to prepare the way for the parallel he makes (Rom_7:4): in order that ye should be married to another. It is not necessary to press the figure to this extent, however.—R.]
Rom_7:4. Accordingly, my brethren. [̔́
Ùóôå
, see Winer, p. 283.—R.] The explanation follows here first; this is not allegorical, but symbolical, because marriage represents, in the external sphere of life, what religion does in the inward and higher (Eph_5:32).—Ye also, as the widowed wife.—Were made dead to the law [
ἐèáíáôþèçôåô ῷ íüìù
. See Textual Note4. The verb is aorist, referring to a definite act in the past, viz., the release from the law at justification.—R.] That is, in relation to the marriage-covenant. The expression
ἐèáíáôþèçôå
is chosen, not merely because Christ’s death was a violent one, but also because it describes the death of Christians to the law as a death incurred by virtue of the administration of the law.
Through the body of Christ [
äéὰ ôïῦóþìáôïò ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ
]. In, and, at the same time, with Him, as He was put to death. The atoning effect of the sacrificial death cannot, at all events, be the premise here, although it is included. [The aorist shows that the reference is definite; the proposition indicates the means of the death to the law. Two opinions prevail: (1) That it refers to the atoning death of Christ as the ground of justification. So Hodge, and others. It may be urged in favor of this, that this is the means or ground of justification, and that thus the antithesis to “was raised” is preserved. But the Apostle generally speaks of the death of Christ in plain terms, when he refers to it. Col_1:22, which Hodge quotes as an instance of “His body,” meaning His death, adds the qualifying phrases, “of His flesh,” “through death.” (2) With Tholuck, Meyer, Lange, and others, it may be referred to the fellowship with Christ in His death. This view accords better with the point which the Apostle has reached in his argument, as well as the idea of union with Christ underlying this passage. This does not deny, but implies the atoning efficacy of His death, which is always latent, if not patent, in the Apostle’s argument. It has been the fault of some commentators, to insist en finding an expression of it, where it is only implied.—R.]
Christians are dead, buried (chap. 6.), and risen (Col_3:1) with Christ; indeed, they are even, in principle, transported to heaven (Php_3:20). But since they are dead with Him, they are, like Him, dead “to the law through the law” (Gal_2:19). [Comp. Commentaryin loco, pp. 50, 51.—R.] Calvin, Grotius, Koppe, and others, have explained, that the
ἐèáíáôþèç ôῶ íüìῳ
is a milder expression for
ὁ íüì
.
ἐèáíáôþèç
,
ἀðÝèáíåí ὑìῖí
. This explanation does not regard the difference between natural and violent death, nor self-destruction. The law could not be dead; this would have been revolution. As a Divine form of revelation, it had to grow old and vanish away (Heb_8:13); but as a human ordinance it has itself inflicted death. Therefore the law still retained its former historical and ethical (not religious and essential) force toward those who were not dead to it by the fellowship of Christ.
Through the body of Christ,
äéὰ ôïῦ óþìáôïò èáíáôùèÝíôïò
. It may be asked, in what relation this being dead with the body of Christ stands to the being reconciled by the body of Christ. Tholuck: “Fellowship with the death of Christ includes freedom from the
êáôáñÜ
of the law (Gal_3:10), and this latter, which is brought to pass by thankful love in return, includes the death of the old man to sin (Rom_6:6) and strengthening to a new life.” The becoming free from the
íüìïò
is consummated with the development of repentance and faith—that is, with justification; the having become free from the old law is decided when the new law, the law of the Spirit, the righteousness of faith, appears (Eph_2:16).
In order that ye should be married to another [
åἰò ôὸ ãåíÝóèáé ὑìᾶò ἕôåñù
. The clause seems to be final. In order that; the purpose of the death to the law was union to Christ.—R.]
Ãßíåóèáé ôßíïò
, to become the possession of a husband. The figure of conjugal communion of the believing Church with the Lord (2Co_11:2; Eph_5:2; Eph_5:5; Rev_21:8). To another. The stronger
ἕôåñù
̣ is here used. [And it is more closely defined, even to him who was raised from the dead,
ôῷ ἐê íåêñῶí ἐãåñèÝíôé
.—With good reason is this added.—R.] Not only do Christians belong to the risen Christ because He has acquired them by His death (1 Peter i.), but also because they themselves, having been dead with Him, have become a heavenly race, a super-terrestrial people, who, as risen ones, can be united only with the Risen One; therefore their continued connection with the law of this life would be a misalliance. The common element of this new communion is the new life.
That we should bring forth fruit to God [
ἵíáêáñðïøïñÞóùìåí ôῶ
̣
èåῶ
. Final clause (so Tholuck, Meyer, De Wette, Alford). The dative is dat. commodi apparently.—R.] The figure of marriage leads to that of the fruit of marriage (Theodoret, Erasmus, Meyer, and others). Tholuck, on the contrary: “Since a reference to
êáñðüò
(Rom_6:22) occurs, and since
êáñðὸí ðïéåῖí
,
øÝñåéí
, and even
êá
̇
ñðïøïñåῖí
(Mar_4:20; Luk_8:15; Col_1:10), frequently occur in a metonyme derived from the fruits of the field, as a technical Christian phrase for the practical effects of the life of faith, and the allusion recurs in Rom_7:6, where the figure is not that of marriage, it seems very unsafe to accept the figure of the fruit of children.” Reiche and Fritzsche have even rejected this interpretation, because an undignified allegory arises; they have therefore construed the figure as referring to the field, or fruits of the field. Philippi likewise; De Wette, on the contrary, accepts the former view. But the allegory of an unfruitful marriage cannot be more dignified than that of a fruitful one. Yet the spiritual fruit of righteousness, in accordance with its supersensuous nature, is produced for God, for glorifying God. [The figure must not be so pressed as to make the fruit of the marriage to God, as Father; to His glory, is the meaning.—R.]
Rom_7:5. For when we were in the flesh [
ὅôå ãὰñ ἦìåí ἐí ôῇ óÜñêé
. Meyer: “The positive and characterizing expression for the negative: when we were not yet made dead to the law.” Alford: “Virtually = ‘under the law. ” Hodge; “When in your unrenewed and legal state.” For a more thorough discussion, see the Excursus in the next section.—R.] The antithesis of Rom_7:5 should serve to explain the last conclusion in Rom_7:4. The
ãÜñ
tells us: According as we were situated in our fleshly tendency, we must now also be situated in the Divine tendency. The
åἶíáé
denotes the stand point of personality; the outward tendency of life from a definite principle. Here, therefore, the tendency of life is from the principle of the flesh. Explanations: 1. Meyer: The
óÜñî
, the humanity in us (what, then, would not be human in us?), in its opposition to the Divine will; the element of life in which we exist. The opposite to the
ἀðïèáíüíôåò
of Rom_7:6. 2. Theodoret, Œcumenius: In the
êáôὰíüìïõ ðïëíôåßá
. The flesh is the material and external part of the body and the life. Therefore, since we stood in this external tendency, which, as an external and analytical form of life (dependent on the individual
ἐðéèõìßáé
), also in its better form, took the law as a combination of external and analytical precepts. [Of these, (1) is much to be preferred. Dr. Lange does not make it clear whether he adopts the view of flesh, given immediately above. There are very strong objections to it in any case.—R.]
The passions of sins [
ôὰ ðáèÞìáôáôῶí ἁìáñô éῶí
]. According to Meyer and Tholuck, the genitive of object. “From which the sins arose.” Tholuck cites Jam_1:15 as proof. We hold, however, that sins are here denominated producers of the passions. For the passions,
ðáè
., are not, as Tholuck holds, the same as the
ἐðéèõìßáé
(according to which Luther translates lusts), but they are the
ἐðéèõìßáé
enhanced by the impulse of the law. Then, in the case of sins arising as consequences of the
ðáèÞì
., the idea would follow that abortions to death have been produced from the marriage-bond of the law itself with man. The connection with the law assumes, therefore, at the same time, a connection with the
ἁìáñôßá
(see Rom_6:13), and this, in the isolation of individual
ἁìáñôßáé
, was operative as producer by the sinful passions excited by the law in the members. The law itself did not bring forth the fruit of death; but it stirred up sin, so that the latter made the
ἐðéèõìßáé
into
ðáèÞìáôá
, and thus into productive forces. [Either view is preferable to the Hendiadys: sinful feelings (Olshausen, Hodge), which is forbidden by the plural
ἁìáñôéῶí
.
Ð
·
áèÞìáôá
is passive (comp. Gal_5:24), and hence it is perhaps better to take the genitive, as that of the object (which led to sins), so as to accord with what is predicated in
ἐíçñãåῖôï
.—R.]
Which were by means of the law.
Ôὰäéὰ ôïῦ íüìïõ
. Grotius supplies
øáéíüìåíá
, which is too little; Meyer, sc.,
ὄíôá
, which is far too much. According to Rom_7:9,
ἀíáæþíôá
. Tholuck: “Many of the older commentators, in order not to let the law appear in too unfavorable a light, explained thus: of the knowledge of sin communicated by the law (thus Chrysostom, Ambrose, Bullinger, and others). Yet, thus construed,
äéὰ íüìïõ
would stand beyond the pragmatism of the passage.” Tholuck, like Meyer, would also supply the verb. subst. [The proximity of Rom_7:7 supports the obvious meaning: occasioned by the law (Meyer: vermittelt), not caused, however.—R.]
Wrought [
ἐíçñãåῖôï
]. Middle. Were efficient in a fruitful manner.
In our members [
ἐí ôï
·
ῖò ìåëåóéí ἡìῶí
. Hodge weakens the force, by making this almost = in us.—R.] Single productions between individual passions and individual members, in which the central consciousness was enslaved for the production of individual miscarriages.
To bring forth fruit to death [
åἰò ôὸêáñðïøïñῆóáé ôῶ
̣
èáíÜôù
. This clause expresses not merely the result (Hodge), but the final object of the energizing (Meyer, Alford,), being parallel to the last clause of Rom_7:4.—R.] Meyer: To lead a life terminating in death. Expressing but little, almost nothing, here. That false fruit, abortions, or miscarriages, might arise (wherefore the subst.
êáñðüò
itself must be avoided). Erasmus: ex infelici matrimonio infelices fœtus sustutimus, quidquid nasceretur morti exiltoque gignentes. Luther: Where the law rules over people, they are indeed not idle; they bring forth and train up many children, but they are mere bastards, who do not belong to a free mother. Meyer would also here limit death to the idea of eternal death; see above. [He also carries out the figure of progeny, which Lange retains here, so far as to make “death” here a personification. This is less justifiable than the reference to eternal death, which conveys a truth, and forms a fitting antithesis to
ôῷ èåῷ
(Rom_7:4).—R.]
Rom_7:6. Bat now we have been delivered from the law [
íõíὶ äὲ
(antithesis to
ὅôå
, Rom_7:5)
êáôçñãÞèçìåí ἀðὸ ôïῦ íüìïõ
. Notice the aorist, which Paul uses so constantly in reference to the accomplished fact of justification.—R.] We are annulled in relation to the law, and therewith the law is annulled to us. (On the reading
ἀðïèáíüíôïò
, see the Critical Note on the Text; also Tholuck, p. 330.)
Having died to that wherein we were held [
ἀðïèáíüíôåò ἐí ᾧ êáôåé÷üìåèá
]. We must understand
ôïýôù
̣ before
ἐí ᾧ
. Meyer explains: in which we were confined as in a prison. More in harmony with the former view is this: whereby we were chained as by a legal and even matrimonial obligation. Wherefore we certainly do not need to refer
ἐí ᾧ
merely to
íüìïò
(with Origen, Koppe, De Wette, Philippi [Hodge], and others). Tholuck: “The law, therefore, is regarded as
÷áôÝ÷ùí
, as a chain, analogously to the
ἐøñïõñïýìåèá óõã÷å÷ëåéóìÝíïé
, Gal_3:23, so far as it holds its subjects in
äïõëåßá
(Rom_8:15; 2Ti_1:7). The direct reference of the
ἐí ᾧ
to sin (according to Chrysostom, Œcumenius, and others) is too strong on the opposite side.”—The cause of the chaining of man by sin on one side, as well as by the law on the other, was the totality of the
åἶíáé ἐí ôῇ
, as it expressed itself in mere divisions of lust and legality. This is clear from what follows: in the oldness of the letter.
So that we serve [
ὥóôå äïõëåýåéí ἡìᾶò
. The clause is not final, as the E. V. indicates; the service is a present state, already resulting from the accomplished fact of deliverance from and death to the law. Serve God, is the meaning, the omission of
èåῷ
being due to the self-evident difference of reference in the two phrases which follow. The consciousness of the readers would tell them that the old service was one to sin, the new one to God (so Meyer).—R.] The
äïõëåýåéí
can be spoken ironically in only a conditional manner. We have really our external life to enslave, but not after the old way, in single portions and acts, according to individual precepts, motives, and affections, but in the newness of the Spirit; therefore by virtue of the perfect principle of the Spirit, which is ever new, and always assuming a new form. The
ἐí
denotes not merely the sphere of activity (Meyer), but the power, the principle of activity itself.
In newness of the Spirit [
ἐí êáéíüôçôå ðíåýìáôïò
. Untenable views: That
ἐí
is redundant, and the dative the object of the verb
äïõëåýåéí
; that there is a Hendiadys (new spirit, Hodge). The E. V. is fond of Hendiadys, and very often misconstrues
ἐí
, but has avoided these mistakes in the present instance. Alford correctly remarks, that the datives “are not” as in Rom_6:4, attributes of the genitives which follow them, but states in which those genitives are the ruling elements.—What is the precise force of
ðíåýìáôïò
?—R.] Meyer: “It is the Holy Spirit, as the operative principle of the Christian life.” Clearly, it is the spirit as itself the inward Christian principle of life, which is certainly not to be thought of without the communion of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit as
ðíåῦìá
simply, operating objectively, was also the producer of the
ãñÜììá
, which here constitutes the antithesis. This principle is itself an eternal newness, and has, as a result, an eternal newness as the principle of the absolute renewal. Tholuck: “The spirit of grace produced by God’s gracious deed.” [With Meyer, Alford, and others, it seems best to refer this to the Holy Spirit. The absence of the article is not against this view; as the opinion of Harless, that
ð
·
íåῦìá
without the article is subjective, is not well established. (Comp. Meyer on Rom_8:4; Harless, Eph_2:22; Lange’s Comm., Gal_5:16, p. 137.) This passage seems to point to chap. 8, where
ðíåῦìá
occurs so frequently, in the sense of the Holy Spirit; the more so as
óÜñî
occurs just before (Rom_7:5). The objection, that the Holy Spirit, working objectively, was the author of the letter, and hence that the antithesis requires another meaning, has not much weight. See notes on Rom_8:4 ff.—R.]
And not in the oldness of the letter [
êáὶ ïὐ ðáëáéüôçôé
(only here)
ãñÜììáôïò
. Not = old letter (Hodge), nor yet = under the law, in the flesh, though these latter thoughts are implied. The genitive seems to be gen. auctoris, as
ðíåýìáôïò
in the previous clause.—R.] On the
ãñÜììá
, see Rom_2:29; 2Co_3:6. The law viewed externally, and, by its historical and subjective externalization, become an old and dying object,
ðáëáéüôçò
. Meyer writes somewhat unintelligibly: The
ðáëáéüçò
, according to the nature of the relation in which the
ãñÜììá
stands to the principle of sin in man, was necessarily sinful (see Rom_7:7 ff.), as, on the other hand, the
÷áéíüôçò
must be necessarily moral in consequence of the vitally influencing
ðíåῦìá
. [The service which resulted from the rule of the letter, was not merely their old service, but a service having in it an element of decay. The service under the law, precisely the written law (when viewed as the
ãñÜììá
), was a killing yoke, is still, when the service is in the oldness of the letter. Meyer evidently means, that a law with external precepts, of the letter, necessarily so acts upon man’s sinfulness, that the very service he attempts to render is sinful. The letter killeth (2Co_3:6).—Such a characterization of the service under the law forms a fitting warning against a return to legalism—an appropriate conclusion to this section, and a point of connection with Rom_7:7.—R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The connection with sin, according to Rom_6:12-23, was a slavish state; the connection with the law, on the other hand, according to the present section, was comparable to an earthly marriage-state. The connection of believers with Christ now appears, in comparison with this, as a super-terrestrial marriage-covenant (see Eph_5:32).
2. It is only by keeping the figure of the law of marriage free from an allegorical interpretation, and by distinguishing between the figure itself and its historical application, that the evidence clearly appears which the argumentation of the Apostle contemplated, and particularly for the Jewish Christians. But this evidence still continues in force. The standpoint of external legality, and that of living faith, cannot be confused as religious principles. Both standpoints are sundered by the death of Christ. Where they seem to be united, the confession of the law, or the legal confession of faith, is the dominant religious principle; while the opposite principle has the meaning only of a historical and ethical custom, which, from its nature as a legal custom, as much limits the Catholic man of faith, as it, in the character of an evangelical custom, burdens the legal, Romanizing Protestant.
3. Tholuck: “The law is annulled in relation to believers, not in its moral import, but, as Calovius remarks, quoad rigorem exactionis, quoad maledictionem, et quoad servilem coactionem.” According to the Sermon on the Mount, as well as according to Paul, it is done away so far as it is fulfilled; it is annulled in a negative sense so far as it is annulled in Christian principle, the law of the Spirit. An inward principle has come from the external precept; an inward rule from the external form; an inward tendency from the external law; a unity from multiplicity; a synthesis from the analysis; and from the ordinance, “Do this and live,” the order, “Live and do this.” It must be borne in mind, that Paul here speaks of the finite, formal character of the law, and not of the law as a type of the New Testament, as it has become transformed into the law of the Spirit. [Comp. Doctrinal Notes on Galatians, Gal_3:19-29, pp. 88, 89.—R.]
4. The figure of marriage, which extends through the Old Testament in typical forms, is here employed in reference to the relation between Christ and the whole body of believers. The individual believer participates freely in the marriage-bond of this body, yet not in a mystical, separatistic isolation of his relation to Christ.
5. In Rom_7:5 Paul speaks especially concerning the passions of sins, which are excited and occasioned by the law; and there is no reason for understanding among them the abnormal forms of passionate excitement. The history of Pharisaism, and of fanaticism in general, from the crucifixion of Christ down to the present day, teaches us how very much additional weight is also added by the normal forms. In this direction there has arisen the odium generis humani, as well as the increasingly strong warfare of hierarchical or ecclesiastical party-law against the eternal moral laws of humanity, in which the nature of God himself is represented, while in the statute only the distorted apparent image of the Church, and not its eternal pith, is reflected.
6. The abortions of ordinances at enmity with the gospel and humanity reached the centre of their manifestation in the crucifixion of Christ; but they everywhere reappear, where Christ is again crucified, in a grosser or more refined sense. And this not only occurs where the written revealed law is perverted into fanatical ordinances, but also where the ideals of the natural law (Rom_2:14) are distorted to fanatical caricatures, as is shown in the history of the Revolution of 1848.
7. On Rom_7:6. Tholuck: “
ãñÜììá
,
ðíåῦìá
(Rom_2:29). The former is chiefly a designation of the external principle; the latter, of the inwardly operative principle. And this inwardly operative principle is the gracious spirit produced by God’s gracious act. Calvin: Spiritum litterœ opponit, quia antequam ad dei voluntatem voluntas nostra per spiritum sanctum formata sit, non habemus in lege nisi externam litteram, quœ frœnum quidem externis nostris actionibus injicit, concupiscentiœ autem nostrœ furorem minime cohibet. And Melanchthon: Ideo dicitur littera, quia non est verus et vivus motus animi, sed est otiosa imitatio interior vel exterior, nec ibi potest esse vera invocatio, ubi cor non apprehendit remissionem peccatorum.”
8. How the law, in its letter or finite relation, began to grow old immediately after the beginning of legislation, is shown to us clearly by the history of the Israelites; and Deuteronomy even gives the canonical type of this truth. The history of the Christian Church teaches, on the other hand, how the newness of the spiritual life becomes constantly newer in its power of renewal. But the same antithesis is again manifested in the continual obsolescence of the Church in the Middle Ages, and in the continued rejuvenating of the evangelical Church.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
On Rom_7:1-6
As Christians, we belong no more to the law, but to Christ. 1. Because we are dead to the law by Jesus, who abolished the power of the law; 2. Because we are united to Him by the same fact, in order to bring forth fruit to God (Rom_7:1-6).—Marriage as a type of spiritual relations: 1. As a type of our relation to the law; 2. As a type of our relation to Christ (Rom_7:1-6).—As the relation of man to Christ is altogether different from that to the law, so is Christian marriage, on the other hand, altogether different from that of the Old Testament (Rom_7:1-6).—How death divides, but also unites (Rom_7:4).—Union of heart with Christ the Risen One is the condition of the happy union of human hearts with each other so as to bring forth fruit unto God (Rom_7:4).—How miserable it was to live under the law in the flesh; how happifying it is to live under grace in the Spirit! Proof: 1. Description of the state under the law: a. we were in bondage; b. sinful lusts worked in our members to bring forth fruit unto death; c. we served the letter. 2. Description of the condition under grace: a. we are free; b. the newness of the Spirit incites us to bring forth fruit unto God; c. we serve the Spirit, and not the letter any more (Rom_7:5-6).
Starke: As a thistle-bush is full of thistles, so are unconverted and carnal men full of the fruits of the flesh (Rom_7:5).—Christ frees us from the burden of the law, that we may take His yoke upon us (Rom_7:6).—Hedinger: We are free from the law, not as a precept of duty—which remains perpetually—but in its condemnation, compulsion, and sharpness (Rom_7:1).—Where there is not a heart and ready will, there is only external labor and weariness; where conversion of the life and spiritual increase are not exhibited in the inner man, it is lost work and the service of the letter, even if one should wear out the temple-floor with his knees, give his body to be burned, and become a beggar and a hermit!
Spener: Our perverted nature is such, that, when any thing is forbidden, we have all the greater desire to have it. We have often seen children think less of, and have no desire for, a certain thing, for which they have all the more desire when forbidden. So, when the law forbids this and that, we are prompted toward it by our wicked nature (Rom_7:5).—We are not so free that we do not have to serve any more; only the kind of service is different. Formerly it was compulsory, now it is rendered with a joyful will; then it was the letter, now it is the spirit (Rom_7:6).—Roos: The truth which Paul here portrays (Rom_7:1-4) is this: that nothing but death annuls the dominion of the law.
Lisco: The complete freedom of man from the law promotes his true sanctification (Rom_7:1-6).—The relation of man to the law.—Application of this relation to believers (Rom_7:4).—Advantages of the new state above the old one under the law (Rom_7:5-6).
Heubner: The Christian is free from the coercion of the law (Rom_7:1-6).—The death of Christ became freedom from the compulsory power and curse of the law: 1. As abrogation of the Levitical sacrificial system; 2. As inducement toward free and thankful love toward God (Rom_7:4).—Irreligious politicians express only their ignoble and servile manner of thinking, when they deem all religion to be only of service as a bridle for the people (Rom_7:4).—The nature of the Christian is spirit: 1. In reference to faith; 2. In reference to action. The latter stands in contrast with this spirit in these same respects (Rom_7:6).
Besser: Here, for the first time since Rom_1:13, Paul addresses the saints at Rome as brethren—brethren “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom_7:1).—”But now”—this now is an evangelical key-note of the Epistle to the Romans; comp. Rom_3:21, and other places (Rom_7:6).
Lange: The death of Christ a serious boundary between the legal and the evangelical, believing, standpoints: 1. The meaning of this boundary itself; 2. The application: no religious confusions of the two standpoints. By a customary connection of them, one is made to mean only a moral limitation, which, after all, is not in conformity with the internal relations.—The sensuous power and spiritual weakness of legalism consists in its being an earthly relation, confined to this life, though in the fear of God (in this life the head, the city of God, the apparent image of the kingdom, &c).—The marriage-bond of the free Church of God is a super-terrestrial relation, and therefore the power of the renewal of the earthly life: a. Christ in the next life and in this one; b. Faith also; c. The Church as well.—The reciprocal action between the law and sin unto death, a counterpart to the reciprocity between the Spirit of Christ and faith unto new life.—The contrast between the Old and New Testament in its full meaning: 1. The Old Testament growing old and making old from the beginning; 2. The New Testament renewing itself and the world from the beginning.—But a New Testament is in the essence of the Old, as well as an Old is in the manifestation of the New.
[Burkitt: All the wisdom of the heathen, and of the wisest persons in the world, was never able to discover the first sinful motions arising from our rebellious natures; only the holy law of God makes them known, and discovers them to be sin. Such is the holiness of the law of God, that it requires not only the purity of our actions, but also the integrity of all our faculties.—Scott: Self-righteous pride and antinomian licentiousness are two fatal rocks on which immense multitudes are continually wrecked, and between which none but the Holy Spirit can pilot us; and the greatest objections of open enemies to the doctrines of grace derive their greatest plausibility from the unholy lives of many professed friends.—Clarke: The law is only the means of disclosing our sinful propensity, not of producing it; as a bright beam of the sun introduced into a room shows millions of motes in all directions—but these were not introduced by the light, but were there before, only there was not light enough to make them manifest—so the evil propensity was in the heart before, but there was not light sufficient to discover it.
Literature, chiefly Homiletical, on the 7 th of Romans: Arminius, Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of Romans VII., Works, 2, 471; E. Elton, Complaint of a Sanctified Sinner Answered, or Explanation of the 7th Chapter of Romans, London, 1618; J. Stafford, Scripture Doctrine of Sin Considered, in Twenty-five Discourses on Romans VII., London, 1772; J. Glas, The Flesh and the Spirit, Works, 3, 142; J. Fraser, Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification; A. Knox, Letter to J. S. Harford, Esq., on the Seventh Chapter to the Romans, Remains, 3, 409.—J. F. H.]
Footnotes:
Rom_7:2.—[The E. V. renders
ὕðáíä ñïò
: which hath a husband; which is less forcible than the single word married. It is true that neither renderings convey the exact sense of the original, so well as: das dem Manne unterthänige Weib (Lange); yet, as the idea of subjection, expressed in the Greek, is still, to some extent, implied in married, it is the best rendering that can be given.—The periphrasis: so long as he liveth, is altogether unnecessary; the living husband, is both more forcible and more exact.
Rom_7:2.—[The active verb die should be substituted for be dead. The question arises, How can we best express the delicate shade of the Greek conditional proposition:
ἐὰíäὲ ἀðï èÜíῃ
. Alford gives: have died; Wordsworth: shall have died; Amer. Bible Union: die. The first seems preferable; the second is strictly literal, since the aorist implies something which takes place antecedent to what is affirmed in the apodosis, but is not so elegant; the last is that bald conditional form, which should be reserved for the equivalent Greek form (
åἰ
with the optative or indicative). These remarks apply to the same clause, as it occurs in ver 3.
Rom_7:3.—[The negative belongs to the verb, and is joined to the noun, at the expense of forcibleness. Forbes remarks, that here the E. V. destroys the regularity of the parallelism. The first, second, and third lines in the original correspond exactly to the fourth, fifth, and sixth respectively.
