CONTENTS.
THE apostle, having shown in the preceding chapter that the doctrines of grace do not give liberty to sin, but, on the contrary, are productive of holiness, in this chapter first illustrates and confirms his position, that we are not under the law, but under grace, and shows the consequences of this change in our relation to God. While under the law, we brought forth fruit unto sin; when under grace, we bring forth fruit unto righteousness. This occupies the first section, vs. 1—6. The second, vs. 7—25, contains an exhibition of the operation of the law, derived from the apostle’s own experience, and designed to show its insufficiency to produce sanctification, as he had before proved it to be insufficient for justification. This section consists of two parts, vs. 7—13, which exhibit the operation of the law in producing conviction of sin; and vs. 14—25, which show that in the inward conflict between sin and holiness, the law cannot afford the believer any relief. His only hope of victory is in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
ROMANS VII. 1—6.
ANALYSIS.
THIS section is an illustration of the position assumed in ver. 14 of the preceding chapter: we are not under law, but under grace. Paul remarks, as a general fact, that the authority of laws is not perpetual, ver. 1. For example, the law of marriage binds a woman to her husband only so long as he lives. When he is dead, she is free from the obligation which that law imposed, and is at liberty to marry another man, vs. 2, 3. So we, being free from the law, which was our first husband, are at liberty to marry another, even Christ. We are freed from the law by the death of Christ, ver. 4. The fruit of our first marriage was sin, ver. 5. The fruit of the second is holiness, ver. 6.
The apparent confusion in this passage arises from the apostle’s not carrying the figure regularly through. As a woman is free from obligation to her husband by his death, so we are free from the law by its death, is obviously the illustration intended. But the apostle, out of respect probably to the feelings of his readers, avoids saying the law is dead, but expresses the idea that we are free from it, by saying, we are dead to the law by the body of Christ. “Cæterum nequis conturbetur, quod inter se comparata membra non omnino respondent: præmonendi sumus, apostolum data opera voluisse exigua inversione deflectere asperioris verbi invidiam. Debuerat dicere, ut ordine similitudinem contexeret: Mulier post mortem viri soluta est a conjugii vinculo, Lex, quæ locum habet mariti erga nos, mortua est nobis: ergo sumus ab ejus potestate liberi. Sed ne offenderet Judæos verbi asperitate, si dixisset legem esse mortuam, deflectione est usus, dicens nos legi esse mortuos.” Calvin.
COMMENTARY.
VERSE 1. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? In the English version of the words ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε, the particle ἢ, or, is overlooked. As that particle is almost always used in reference to the immediately preceding context. Meyer and others insist on connecting this verse with vi. 23. ‘The gift of God is eternal life; or are ye ignorant.’ That is, you must recognize eternal life as a gift, unless ye are ignorant that the law does not bind the dead. But this is evidently forced. The idea which ἢ is used to recall, is that in vi. 14: “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” This is the main idea in the whole context, and is that which the following passage carries out and enforces. The thing to be proved is, that we are not under the law. The proof is, that the law does not bind the dead. But we are dead, therefore we are free from the law. This idea, that the law binds a man only so long as he lives, is presented as a general principle, and is then illustrated by a specific example. That example is the law of marriage, which ceases to bind the parties when one of them is dead. So the law, as a covenant of works, ceases to bind us when death has loosed its bonds. We are as free as the woman whose husband is dead. “Sit generalis propositio,” says Calvin, “legem non in alium finem latam esse hominibus, quam ut præsentem vitam moderetur: apud mortuos nullum ei superesse locum. Cui postea hypothesin subjiciet, nos illi esse mortuos in Christi corpore.” Brethren; a mode of address applicable to all believers. He speaks to his spiritual brethren, and not to the Jewish converts alone, his brethren according to the flesh. For I speak to them that know the law. That is, I speak to you as to persons who know the law; not, I speak to those among you who know the law. He does not distinguish one class of his readers from another. That would require the participle in the dative, τοῖς γινώσκουσιν, to the knowers, as opposed to those among them who did not know. He assumes that all his readers were fully cognizant of the principle, that the law has dominion over a man so long as he liveth. What law does the apostle here refer to it? It may be understood of law without any restriction. Law, all laws, (in the aspect in which they are contemplated,) bind a man only so long as he lives. Or, it may mean specifically the Mosaic law; or, more definitely still, the marriage law. There is no reason for these limitations. The proposition is a general one; though the application is doubtless to the law of which he had been speaking, and specially to the law referred to in vi. 14, from which he says we are now free. That certainly is not the Mosaic law considered as a transient economy, or as a system of religious rites and ceremonies designed for one people, and for a limited period. It is the Mosaic law considered as a revelation of the moral law, which is holy, just, and good, and which says, “Thou shalt not covet.” He illustrates the mode of our deliverance from that law, as a covenant of works, by a reference to the admitted fact, that law has no dominion over the dead. The original leaves it doubtful whether the last clause of the verse is to be rendered “as long as he lives,” or “as long as it lives.” The decision of this point depends on the context. In favour of the latter, it may be said, 1. That it is better suited to the apostle’s design, which is to show that the law is dead or abrogated. 2. That in verse 6 (according to the common reading) the law is spoken of as being dead. 3. And, especially, that in vs. 2, 3, the woman is said to be free from the law, not by her own, but by her husband’s death; which would seem to require that, in the other part of the comparison, the husband (i. e. the law) should be represented as dying, and not the wife, that is, those bound by the law. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the law lives, and the law dies, are very unusual modes of expression, and perfectly unexampled in Paul’s writings, if the doubtful case in ver. 6 be excepted. 2. This interpretation is inconsistent with ver. 2. It is not the law that dies: “The woman is bound to her husband as long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,” &c. 3. Throughout the passage it is said that we are dead to the law (ver. 4,) delivered from the law (ver. 6,) and not that the law is dead. The common interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred: ‘The law has dominion as long and no longer than the person lives, to whom it has respect. For example, the law of marriage ceases to be binding when one of the parties is dead.’ Instead of understanding the words, as long as he liveth, of the natural or physical life, as is done by the great body of interpreters, Philippi and others say the meaning is, ‘That the law binds a man so long as his natural, corrupt, unregenerated life continues. When the old man is crucified, he is free from the law.’ We have here, he says, the same idea as is expressed above, vi. 7, ‘He that dieth is justified from sin.’ This interpretation is not only unnatural, but it necessitates a forced allegorical interpretation of the following verses.