Romans 7

Romans 7:1

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: 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? — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: “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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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. — To His Wife Book II

Tertullian: 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. — On Monogamy

Romans 7:2

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 36

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — QUESTIONS 66.1

Callistus I of Rome: 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.”

John Chrysostom: 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.” — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 6.3

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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). — On Monogamy

Romans 7:3

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 7:4

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Clement of Alexandria: 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. — The Stromata Book 3

Clement of Alexandria: 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. — The Stromata Book 3

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:5

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: “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. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:6

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.17

Gennadius of Constantinople: Paul sets “Spirit” against “letter,” “newness” against “oldness,” and by these names shows us how different the two things are. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: “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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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. — On Monogamy

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:7

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.1

Clement of Alexandria: 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.” — The Stromata Book 3

Cyril of Alexandria: 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. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Methodius of Olympus: 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.” — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Philoxenus of Mabbug: 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.” — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 12 – First Discourse on Fornication

Tertullian: 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. — AGAINST MARCION 5.13

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: “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. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 7:8

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 37

Augustine of Hippo: By “sin lies dead,” Paul means that it is “latent” in us. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.4

Augustine of Hippo: By “sin is dead” the apostle means that it is not “imputed” to us. — QUESTIONS 66.4

Cyril of Alexandria: 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. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: 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.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Methodius of Olympus: 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.” — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: “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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Philoxenus of Mabbug: 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.” — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 12 – First Discourse on Fornication

Pseudo-Clement: 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. — Second Epistle To The Corinthians (Pseudo-Clement)

Severian of Gabala: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 7:9

Augustine of Hippo: Nothing can be said to revive if it had not been previously alive. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.4

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — QUESTIONS 66.5

Basil of Caesarea: 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. — EXEGETIC HOMILIES 10.5

Cyril of Alexandria: 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. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Methodius of Olympus: 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.” — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: “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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Pseudo-Clement: 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] — Two Epistles on Virginity, Epistle 1

Theodoret of Cyrus: Adam had no fear of death before he sinned. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:10

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:11

Ambrosiaster: “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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 39

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — QUESTIONS 66.5

Didymus the Blind: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Jerome: 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” (Romans 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 (Psalms 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. — Letter 121, Chapter 8

John Chrysostom: You observe how he everywhere keeps to sin, and entirely clears the Law of accusation. And so he proceeds as follows. — Homily on Romans 12

Origen of Alexandria: 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.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:12

Ambrosiaster: Paul commends the law in this way so that no doubts about it might remain. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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 SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 9.6

Clement of Alexandria: 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 Stromata Book 4

Cyril of Alexandria: 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. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Gennadius of Constantinople: “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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Methodius of Olympus: “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. — From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 2.5.4

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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. — On Modesty

Theodore of Mopsuestia: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:13

Ambrosiaster: 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. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 40

Cyril of Alexandria: 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.” — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Didymus the Blind: 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. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Romans 12

Methodius of Olympus: 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. — From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: “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). — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: 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. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book V

Romans 7:14

Ambrosiaster: Paul is speaking here to those who were under the law. For they would not have submitted to it if they did not know that it was spiritual.… Paul calls man carnal, because he sins.To be sold under sin means to trace one’s origin to Adam, who was the first to sin, and to subject oneself to sin by one’s own transgression.… For Adam sold himself first, and because of this all his descendants are subjected to sin. The law is firm and just and without fault, but man is weak and bound either by his own or by his inherited fault, so that he cannot obey the law in his own strength. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: The law can only be fulfilled by spiritual men, and these only the grace of God can produce. For the man who has been made spiritual like the law will easily do what it commands. He will not be under the law but at one with it. He will also be someone who is not ensnared by temporal goods or frightened by temporal evils. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 41

Cyril of Alexandria: The will of the Spirit is one thing, that of the flesh is another. These two wills fight against each other and can never reach agreement. Man is carnal, but the law is spiritual. How then can the law ever become tolerable to those who struggle so hard against the sickness of sin? There is wisdom here, for if a man is carnal he is in some sense captive and reduced to the condition of slavery. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: The law is spiritual and makes the person who keeps it spiritual as well. It was given by the Holy Spirit so that those who obeyed it might receive the Spirit and be cleansed by the law’s teaching. Paul was not sold under sin by anyone else but by his own breaking of the law. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: After having said that great evils had taken place, and that sin, taking occasion by the commandment, had grown stronger, and the opposite of what the Law mainly aimed at had been the result, and after having thrown the hearer into a great deal of perplexity, he goes on next to give the rationale of these events, after first clearing the Law of any ill suspicion. For lest-upon hearing that it was through the commandment that sin took that occasion, and that it was when it came that sin revived, and through it deceived and killed-any one should suppose the Law to be the source of these evils, he first sets forth its defence with considerable advantage, not clearing it from accusation only, but encircling it also with the utmost praise. And this he lays down, not as granting it for his own part, but as declaring a universal judgment. “For we know,” he says, “that the Law is spiritual.” As if he had said, This is an allowed thing, and self-evident, that it “is spiritual,” so far is it from being the cause of sin, or to blame for the evils that have happened. And observe, that he not only clears it of accusation, but bestows exceeding great praise upon it. For by calling it spiritual, he shows it to be a teacher of virtue and hostile to vice; for this is what being spiritual means, leading off from sin of every kind. And this the Law did do, by frightening, admonishing, chastening, correcting, recommending every kind of virtue. Whence then, was sin produced, if the teacher was so admirable? It was from the listlessness of its disciples. Wherefore he went on to say, “but I am carnal;” giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law. “Sold under sin.” Because with death (he means) the throng of passions also came in. For when the body had become mortal, it was henceforth a necessary thing for it to receive concupiscence, and anger, and pain, and all the other passions, which required a great deal of wisdom to prevent their flooding us, and sinking reason in the depth of sin. For in themselves they were not sin, but, when their extravagancy was unbridled, it wrought this effect. — Homily on Romans 13

Methodius of Olympus: “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. “For we know that the law is spiritual; “and therefore it can in no respect be injurious to any one; for spiritual things are far removed from irrational lust and sin. “But I am carnal, sold under sin; “which means: But I being carnal, and being placed between good and evil as a voluntary agent, am so that I may have it in my power to choose what I will. For “behold I set before thee life and death; “meaning that death would result from disobedience of the spiritual law, that is of the commandment; and from obedience to the carnal law, that is the counsel of the serpent; for by such a choice “I am sold” to the devil, fallen under sin. — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: If perchance to anyone that exposition which we maintained concerning the diversity of laws seemed to be violently presumed, let him now observe in this chapter how not only a diversity of laws, but also of persons, is introduced. For Paul, who in other places said, “For we, walking in the flesh, do not war according to the flesh,” in the present passage says that he is carnal: and here he says that he has been sold under sin, he who in other places said: “You have been bought with a price;” and again: “Christ has redeemed us;” and once more elsewhere he says: “Yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me.” And again, he who says, “On account of his Spirit dwelling in us,” now says: “For there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, what is good.” But if the good does not dwell in his flesh, how does he say that our body is the temple of God, and the temple of the Holy Spirit? And moreover the rest, in which he confesses that by the law which is in his members, and which fights against the law of his mind, he is led captive in the law of sin — how will these things befit apostolic dignity, and especially Paul, in whom Christ both lives and speaks? But let us gather from these things how it is the custom of divine Scripture to change secretly both persons, and things, and the matters of which it seems to be speaking, and names — or rather, to use the same names in one set of things and another, as in the present passage the Apostle says: “For we know that the law is spiritual.” This much, that he said, “We know that the law is spiritual,” he pronounces with apostolic authority. For he who is carnal and sold under sin does not know that the law is spiritual; but he who has in himself the Spirit of God, he knows that the law is spiritual: which is fittingly said of the law of Moses. For it is that very law which, to him who understands it spiritually, is a spiritual law, and a Spirit giving life; but to him who understands it carnally, it is recorded to be a law of the letter, and a letter that kills. But as to what he says, “But I am carnal, sold under sin,” here he now, as a teacher of the Church, takes upon himself the person of the weak; on account of which he also said elsewhere: “I became weak to the weak, that I might gain the weak.” And here therefore, for whoever are weaker — that is, for the carnal, and for those who have been sold under sin — Paul becomes carnal and sold under sin, and he speaks those things which it is their custom to speak, whether under the pretext of excusing or of accusing themselves. He says therefore of himself, as though speaking in their person: “But I am carnal, sold under sin”: that is, living according to the flesh, and reduced by a price into the power of sin, of lust, and of concupiscence. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul says he was carnal because, although he accepted the law, he was in the habit of living carnally. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other good, when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both “just and good? “Then, again, when affirming the law to be “spiritual” he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodoret of Cyrus: Once again, Paul covers the law with praise. For what could be nobler than what he says about it here? He says in effect that the law was written by the Holy Spirit. Moses was given a share in his grace and thus wrote the law. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:15

Augustine of Hippo: This may appear to the less discerning to contradict [verse 13]. How can sin be made manifest if it is not understood? But here “I do not understand” means “I do not approve.” For instance, darkness cannot be seen, but it is perceived in contrast to light; in other words, to perceive darkness is not to see it. Likewise sin, because it is not made clear by the light of righteousness, is discerned by not understanding in the way that darkness is perceived by not seeing. “Who understands his own transgressions? — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 43.

Cyril of Alexandria: It appears that this refers to the ignorant Gentiles, whose thoughts Paul is reproducing. For having consigned their destiny and future to their own lusts even to the point of regarding vain idols as having some power over our lives, they deprive man of his glory, which is the ability to live freely, and to have full and complete control over his own will to do whatever he wishes.… It may be that someone who is forced to act against his will cannot be blamed for it, but at the same time no rational person will praise him for his godliness and righteousness either. For why should somebody be praised for doing things against his own will, even if he is forced to do so by a power over which he has no control? — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: Paul is not condemning himself here but describing the common lot of mankind, which he sees in himself. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: What does the “I know not” mean?-I am ignorant. And when could this ever happen? For nobody ever sinned in ignorance. Seest thou, that if we do not receive his words with the proper caution, and keep looking to the object of the Apostle, countless incongruities will follow? For if they sinned through ignorance, then they did not deserve to be punished. As then he said above, “for without the Law sin is dead,” not meaning that they did not know they were sinning, but that they knew indeed, but not so distinctly; wherefore they were punished, but not so severely: and again; “I should not have known lust;” not meaning an entire ignorance of it, but referring to the most distinct knowledge of it; and said, that it also “wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, not meaning to say that the commandment made the concupiscence, but that sin through the commandment introduces an intense degree of concupiscence; so here it is not absolute ignorance that he means by saying, “For what I do, I know not;” since how then would he have pleasure in the law of God in his inner man? What then is this, “I know not?” I get dizzy, he means, I feel carried away, I find a violence done to me, I get tripped up without knowing how. Just as we often say, Such an one came and carried me away with him, without my knowing how; when it is not ignorance we mean as an excuse, but to show a sort of deceit, and circumvention, and plot. “For what I would, that I do not: but what I hate, that I do.” How then canst thou be said not to know what thou art doing? For if thou willest the good, and hatest the evil, this requires a perfect knowledge. Whence it appears that he says, “that I would not,” not as denying free will, or as adducing any constrained necessity. For if it was not willingly, but by compulsion, that we sinned, then the punishments that took place before would not be justifiable. — Homily on Romans 13

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Come, let us now consider whether a teacher sent from heaven can fail to be perfect. Let us suppose that some one were to be sent from heaven to instruct the life of men in the first principles of virtue, and to form them to righteousness. No one can doubt but that this teacher, who is sent from heaven, would be as perfect in the knowledge of all things as in virtue, lest there should be no difference between a heavenly and an earthly teacher. For in the case of a man his instruction can by no means be from within and of himself. For the mind, shut in by earthly organs, and hindered by a corrupt body, of itself can neither comprehend nor receive the truth, unless it is taught from another source. How then can one practise what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and death. And thus I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue? — The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter XXIV

Methodius of Olympus: Hence evil, as though besieging me, cleaves to me and dwells in me, justice giving me up to be sold to the Evil One, in consequence of having violated the law. Therefore also the expressions: “That which I do, I allow not,” and “what I hate, that do I,” are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them. — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: “For what I work, I do not know. For I do not do what I will; but what I hate, this I do.” Now as to what he says, that “I do not know what I work,” it is not the thing itself which one works that he is ignorant of, though he be carnal, but he is said to be ignorant of the cause of the thing which he does. But as to what he says, “For I do not do what I will; but what I hate, that I do,” he shows that although he who speaks these things is carnal and sold under sin, nevertheless he also strives to resist his vices a little — by the prompting, that is, of the natural law — but is conquered by his vices and overpowered against his will: as often happens (for example) when someone resolves to bear patiently the one who provokes him, and in the end is conquered by anger, and suffers this against his will: he grows angry therefore even when he does not wish to grow angry. This same thing is also wont to happen through the vice of fear, so that against his will a man is terrified by dread and alarm; this also often occurs in the elation of a sudden or unexpected honor, so that he becomes more arrogant and more puffed up than he wishes. He therefore who is not yet spiritual is conquered in each of these things, even against his will: because that will of his is not yet so strong and so robust as to determine within itself that it must contend for the truth even unto death; nor is it such as to say, “It is, it is; no, no”; and therefore he cannot work the things he wills, but the things he does not will. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul says that he subjected himself to sin of his own accord and then, as if drunk, he did not know what he was doing. Or perhaps he meant that he did not understand that what he accepted against his will was evil. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: We do not sin from necessity or by compulsion; rather we are overcome by desire and do things which in principle we detest. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:16

Augustine of Hippo: The law is defended against every accusation, but we must be careful not to think that these words deny our free will, which is not true. The man being described here is under the law, before the coming of grace. Sin overpowers him when he attempts to live righteously in his own strength, without the help of God’s liberating grace. For by his free will a man is able to believe in the Deliverer and to receive grace. Thus with the deliverance and help of him who gives it, he will not sin and will cease to be under the law. Instead, being at one with the law or in the law, he will fulfill it by the love of God which he could not have done through fear. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 44

John Chrysostom: You see here, that the understanding is not yet perverted, but keeps up its own noble character even during the action. For even if it does pursue vice, still it hates it the while, which would be great commendation, whether of the natural or the written Law. For that the Law is good, is (he says) plain, from the fact of my accusing myself, when I disobey the Law, and hate what has been done. And yet if the Law was to blame for the sin, how comes it that he felt a delight in it, yet hated what it orders to be done? For, “I consent,” he says, “unto the Law, that it is good.” — Homily on Romans 13

Origen of Alexandria: Nevertheless, in that part by which he does not will the evil, he consents to the law of God that it is good, since it forbids evil; and the natural law is brought into a certain harmony with the law of God, so that they will the same things and do not will the same things. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul says that if he does not want to do the particular evil which he does, at least he agrees with the law, which does not desire evil and prohibits it. But it can also be understood thus: if a man sins, he subjects himself to the severity of the law. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul says that he learned to hate what he does from the law, and therefore he defends the law and says that it was right. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:17

Gennadius of Constantinople: All this is reminiscent of what was said by the Lord in the Gospels: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: On this text, those who find fault with the flesh, and contend it was no part of God’s creation, attack us. What are we to say then? Just what we did before, when discussing the Law: that as there he makes sin answerable for everything so here also. For he does not say, that the flesh worketh it, but just the contrary, “it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” But if he does say that “there dwelleth no good thing in it,” still this is no charge against the flesh. For the fact that “no good thing dwelleth in it,” does not show that it is evil itself. Now we admit, that the flesh is not so great as the soul, and is inferior to it, yet not contrary, or opposed to it, or evil; but that it is beneath the soul, as a harp beneath a harper, and as a ship under the pilot. And these are not contrary to those who guide and use them, but go with them entirely, yet are not of the same honor with the artist. As then a person who says, that the art resides not in the harp or the ship, but in the pilot or harper, is not finding fault with the instruments, but pointing out the great difference between them and the artist; so Paul in saying, that “in my flesh dwelleth no good thing,” is not finding fault with the body, but pointing out the soul’s superiority. For this it is that has the whole duty of pilotage put into its hands, and that of playing. And this Paul here points out, giving the governing power to the soul, and after dividing man into these two things, the soul and the body, he says, that the flesh has less of reason, and is destitute of discretion, and ranks among things to be led, not among things that lead. But the soul has more wisdom, and can see what is to be done and what not, yet is not equal to pulling in the horse as it wishes. And this would be a charge not against the flesh only, but against the soul also, which knows indeed what it ought to do, but still does not carry out in practice what seems best to it. “For to will,” he says, “is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not.” Here again in the words, “I find not,” he does not speak of any ignorance or perplexity, but a kind of thwarting and crafty assault made by sin, which he therefore points more clearly out in the next words. — Homily on Romans 13

Origen of Alexandria: But if according to our will we consent to the law of God, then the evil which we do, it is no longer we who work it, but the sin which is in us — that is, the law and the will of the flesh, which leads us captive in the law of sin which is in our members. And here indeed the carnal Paul says, “It is no longer I who work it, but the sin that dwells in me.” But the spiritual Paul says elsewhere, “I labored more abundantly than all of them; yet not I, but the grace of God with me.” Therefore, just as this one ascribes his labors not to himself, but to the grace of God which was working in him, so also that carnal one reckons his works, which are not good, not to himself, but to the sin which dwells and works in him. For this reason therefore he says: “It is no longer I who work it, but the sin that dwells in me.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul means that he did it willingly before it became a habit. Sin then lived in him as a guest or as one thing inside another … in other words, as an accidental quality, not as a natural one. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: “For the law,” says he, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death,” -that, surely, which he previously mentioned as dwelling in our members. Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Romans 7:18

Ambrosiaster: Paul does not say that the flesh is evil, as some think, but that what dwells in the flesh is not good, i.e., sin. How does sin dwell in the flesh when it is not a substance but the perversion of what is good? Since the body of the first man was corrupted by sin and became dissolvable, this same corruption of sin remains in the body because of the state of transgression, retaining the strength of the divine judgment given in Adam, which is the sign of the devil, at whose prompting Adam sinned. Because of this sin is said to dwell in the flesh, to which the devil comes as if to his own kingdom. For the flesh is sinful and sin remains in it in order to deceive man by evil temptations, so that man will not do what the law commands.Man can agree that what the law commands is good; he can say that it naturally pleases him and that he wants to do it. But in spite of all that, the power and the strength to carry out his wishes is lacking because he is so oppressed by the power of sin that he cannot go where he wants nor can he make contrary decisions, because another power is in control of him. For man is burdened by his habit of sinning and succumbs to sin more readily than to the law, which he knows teaches what is good. For if he wants to do what is good, habit backed by the enemy prevents him. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: It is possible for a good to be performed when there is no yielding to evil lust, but the good is completed or perfected only when evil lust itself no longer exists. — On Continence 3.6

Augustine of Hippo: Paul says that the evil of the flesh is not good but that when this evil has ceased to exist the flesh will still be there, but … then it will not be defective or corrupt. — On Continence 8.19

Irenaeus: On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: “For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing,” showing that the “good thing” of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying, ] “The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.” And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says: ] “Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us.” Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3

Irenaeus: The parable of the two sons also: those who are sent into the vineyard, of whom one indeed opposed his father, but afterwards repented, when repentance profited him nothing; the other, however, promised to go, at once assuring his father, but he did not go (for “every man is a liar;” “to will is present with him, but he finds not means to perform”),-[this parable, I say], points out one and the same Father. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

Origen of Alexandria: For there is a certain weakness of this kind in those who receive the beginnings of conversion: that although one may wish to do at once everything that is good, the effect does not immediately follow the will. For a man, deliberating within himself, resolves (for example) not to grow angry, and he settles this in his will; but because by long use and lasting habit the vice of wrath has held dominion in him, it resists even his will and purpose, and, taking the path customary to it, the force of rage bursts out. The vice of lust acts in like manner. By an equal disease of habit a lie too creeps in, fear frightens him off; and in each of these that man who is now receiving the beginnings of conversion fittingly says that “to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good I find not. For the good that I will, this I do not; but the evil that I hate, that I do.” But if the will holds the judgment of what is good, while the habit of carnal vices — which has been called the law of the flesh or the law of the members — resists and creeps in, then from the fact that I bear the will of the good, though I do evils, yet because I do them unwillingly, “I consent unto the law of God, that it is good.” For I hate evils, and I desire to do the goods which the law commands. But if against my will I do evils, overcome by the habit of vices and by the practice of sinning, “it is no more I” — that is, the inner man — “who do the good I will; but sin that dwelleth in me.” For he has named the habit of sinning “sin.” “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” And in these words, as we have often noted above, we seem not to be fully unfolded in the expression, but to be hindered either by the abundance of the conjunctions or by their peculiarities. We ought therefore to read them in some such order as this, that the sense may become clearer: Therefore, because evil is present with me, willing to do good I find the law of God, and I delight in it according to the inner man. By this he shows that the inner man — that is, the will and the purpose which takes its beginning of being converted to the Lord — consents to the law of God and is delighted in it. But, as we said above, it is not immediately, as soon as one has the will to be converted to good things, that the practice of good work also follows. For the will is a swift thing, and is turned about without hindrance; but the work is slow, because it requires practice, and skill, and the labor of working. And that this may become more evident, let us use also the likeness of an example. For instance, someone wishes to become wise, and yet he is not made wise the moment he willed it; but the will indeed went before, nor can anyone become wise without the will; yet nevertheless, when the will is present, labor must be applied, and study, and carefulness, and vigils, and teaching, and instruction; and scarcely at some time, by long practice and continual meditation, is he made wise. This man, then, from the beginning indeed at once had the will to be wise, but the work of wisdom was not at once present to him. But even in that very process, while he is being trained that he may become wise, how many things has he done foolishly and contrary to wisdom! And yet he could indeed understand how foolishly he had acted, for he already had the pursuit of wisdom; but he was not yet so wise as to be able to take heed lest he commit anything unwisely. This same order must be held also concerning chastity: that not immediately when one has willed to profess chastity will he also fulfill it in work, so as to be agitated by no goads of concupiscence. So too must it be known concerning meekness, and concerning patience, and concerning each several virtue. In all of which it is fitting to say that “I delight in the law of God,” that is, in the virtues, “after 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.” What he had said above, “for to will the good is present with me,” he has here named the law of the mind, namely the will of the good; and this law of the mind agrees with the law of God, and consents to it. But again he calls the motions of the body and the desires of the flesh the law of the members, and the law of sin, which leads the soul captive and subjects it to its laws. For it is certain that the desires of the flesh drag the soul to sin and subject it to its laws; and just as the law of the mind, which consents with the law of God, if it can gain possession of the soul, leads it to the law of God, so also the law which is in the members, and the concupiscence of the flesh, if it seduces the soul, will subject it to the laws of sin. But when Paul, having assumed the person of the weaker man, had taught that these contests are held within a man, and had shown that even against the will, through the desires of the flesh, the soul is by the very practice of sinning snatched into the jurisdiction of sin, he uses an exclamation still in the person of him whom he has described, and says: “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” He sees himself wretched, within whom so many laws fight against one another, so many battles are stirred up: “the flesh fights against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh”; the law which is in the members fights against the law of the mind, and the soul is led captive in the law of sin and is brought under its yoke, even while the inner man is delighted with the law of God. How, amid so many and such evils as these, should a man not call himself wretched, and say that he dwells in a body of death? For deservedly is that called a body of death in which dwells the sin that is the cause of death. This exclamation, then, is made in the person of him whom the Apostle describes as having indeed received the beginnings of conversion, in that the will of the good is present with him, but he has not yet come into the effect of the good. For he does not find how to accomplish the good, because the practice and exercise of the virtues had not yet grown up in him. But an answer is given to him concerning what he had said, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” — no longer in that man’s person, but out of apostolic authority: “The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” From which it appears that the Apostle described all these things, and set forth the evils that were being wrought within us, for this reason: that at the last he might show and teach from how many evils and from how many deaths Christ has rescued us. But that it is the custom in the divine Scriptures for holy men to assume the persons of sinners, and for teachers to take upon themselves the infirmities of their disciples, we are most fully taught from the book of Psalms, when it says: “There is no peace in my bones because of my sins, for my iniquities are laid upon my head, and like a heavy burden they have weighed upon me. My scars have putrified and are corrupted because of my foolishness. I have been afflicted with miseries and bowed down even to the end,” and the rest, with which nearly this whole Psalm is written. But if perhaps it will seem to someone that David could have said these things rather concerning himself, on account of the things that had befallen him, than concerning others, what shall we also say about Daniel, of whom indeed no sin is recorded, yet a confession is described in fastings and sackcloth and ashes, and a prayer of this sort, in which among other things he also says: “We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted unjustly, we have committed impiety, and we have departed and turned aside from thy commandments and from thy judgments, and we have not hearkened to thy servants the prophets, who spoke to us in thy name, and to our kings, and to our princes, and to our fathers, and to all the people of the land? And to thee, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us confusion of face.” Who is there who could deny that in these words the person of sinners has been taken up by Daniel, on whose behalf he seems to say these things as though for himself? Whence it is fitting that we, when reading the sayings of the saints, whenever we see something of this kind said by them, should understand and perceive that they are describing in themselves our passions and our sins; and that they weep over these things for this reason, that by their weeping we may be invited to tears. For they considered that no one could be found so hard and ungrateful that, when he sees his own wounds bewailed by others, he himself should receive no feeling of grief over his own wounds. So therefore in the present chapter also the Apostle — lest any of us should blush at those things which he feels to be transacted within himself, or lest, even after being converted to the Lord and with his will already changed, he should despair on feeling these things still stirring within himself — himself described them as though they were transacted in himself, so that by the Apostle’s example no one might either be ashamed of the nature of the body, or despair of amendment, or be ignorant of the multitude of his own evils, from which he is set free through the grace of Christ. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: “For there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, what is good.” For Christ does not yet dwell in him, nor is his body the temple of God. Yet nevertheless he whose person is set forth here is not altogether a stranger to good things, but in purpose indeed and in will he has begun to seek the good, though he is not yet able to attain the good in deeds and works. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul does not say that his flesh is not good. The will is there but not the action, because carnal habit opposes the will. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Prosper of Aquitaine: Although Paul has received the knowledge of right willing, he cannot find in himself the power to do what he wills. It is not until he receives a good will as a gift that he finds the power for the virtues which he seeks. — GRACE AND FREE WILL 4.2

Tertullian: I Fully confess unto the Lord God that it has been rash enough, if not even impudent, in me to have dared compose a treatise on Patience, for practising which I am all unfit, being a man of no goodness; whereas it were becoming that such as have addressed themselves to the demonstration and commendation of some particular thing, should themselves first be conspicuous in the practice of that thing, and should regulate the constancy of their commonishing by the authority of their personal conduct, for fear their words blush at the deficiency of their deeds. — Of Patience

Tertullian: “For as ye have tendered your members to servile impurity and iniquity, so too now tender them servants to righteousness unto holiness.” For even if he has affirmed that “good dwelleth not in his flesh,” yet (he means) according to “the law of the letter,” in which he “was: “but according to “the law of the Spirit,” to which he annexes us, he frees us from the “infirmity of the flesh. — On Modesty

Romans 7:19

Ambrose of Milan: In fact, I would not have known sin if the law had not said: You shall not covet. And further: Without the law, sin is dead. For what benefit is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What benefit is it to me to know that the law of my flesh opposes me? Paul is opposed, and he sees the law of his flesh resisting the law of his mind, and he is held captive under the law of sin, and does not presume of his own conscience; but by the grace of Christ, he trusts that he will be liberated from the body of death: and do you think that anyone who knows cannot sin? Paul says: For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want, that I do: and do you think that knowledge benefits man, which increases envy of sin? — On Paradise, Chapter 12

Ambrosiaster: Paul repeats this often in order to make it clear. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: Do you see, how he acquits the essence of the soul, as well as the essence of the flesh, from accusation, and removes it entirely to sinful actions? For if the soul willeth not the evil, it is cleared: and if he does not work it himself, the body too is set free, and the whole may be charged upon the evil moral choice. For willing is indeed natural, and is from God: but willing on this wise is our own, and from our own mind. — Homily on Romans 13

Methodius of Olympus: Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, “The good that I would, I do not; “for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is altogether innocent. But “the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do; “not willing to think, and yet thinking what I do not will. And consider whether it was not for these very things that David entreated God, grieving that he thought of those things which he did not will: “O cleanse Thou me from my secret faults. Keep Thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me; so shall I be undefiled, and innocent from the great offence.” And the apostle too, in another place: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Pelagius: Think of someone who has sworn so much for such a long time that now he does it even when he does not want to. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 7:20

Ambrosiaster: Is the sinner compelled to sin by a power outside himself? Not at all. For it was by his own fault that these evil things began, for whoever binds himself to sin voluntarily is ruled by its law. Sin persuades him first, and when it has conquered him it takes control. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Clement of Alexandria: 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.” In what follows he continues, “But if I do that which I do not wish to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me,” which being at war with the law of God and “of my mind,” he says, “makes me captive by the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death.” And again (for he does not become in the least weary of being helpful) he does not hesitate to add, “For the law of the Spirit has set me free from the law of sin and death,” since by his Son “God condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” In addition to this he makes the point still clearer by saying emphatically, “The body is dead because of sin,” indicating that if it is not the temple, it is still the tomb of the soul. For when it is dedicated to God, he adds, “the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, who shall also make alive your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you.” — The Stromata Book 3

Pelagius: What was once an act of will has become so habitual that now it is involuntary. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and through sin condemned sin in the flesh " -not the flesh in sin, for the house is not to be condemned with its inhabitant. He said, indeed, that “sin dwelleth in our body.” But the condemnation of sin is the acquittal of the flesh, just as its non-condemnation subjugates it to the law of sin and death. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Romans 7:21

Ambrosiaster: Paul says that the law of Moses agrees with his will against sin, which dwells in his flesh and forces him to do something other than what he and the law want to do. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Cyril of Alexandria: If sin inheres in my flesh and corrupts it, it may well be that the law offers help and gives advice, but even so it does not set me free from sin. Yet for those who are bound by the weakness of sin, it is hardly enough to know that they should be doing better; what they need is the strength to do what is right and in accordance with the law. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

John Chrysostom: What he says is not very clear. What then is it that is said? I praise the law, he says, in my conscience, and I find it pleads on my side so far as I am desirous of doing what is right, and that it invigorates this wish. For as I feel a pleasure in it, so does it yield praise to my decision. Do you see how he shows, that the knowledge of what is good and what is not such is an original and fundamental part of our nature, and that the Law of Moses praises it, and getteth praise from it? For above he did not say so much as I get taught by the Law, but “I consent to the Law;” nor further on that I get instructed by it, but “I delight in” it. Now what is “I delight?” It is, I agree with it as right, as it does with me when wishing to do what is good. And so the willing what is good and the not willing what is evil was made a fundamental part of us from the first. But the Law, when it came, was made at once a stronger accuser in what was bad, and a greater praiser in what was good. Do you observe that in every place he bears witness to its having a kind of intensitiveness and additional advantage, yet nothing further? For though it praises and I delight in it, and wish what is good the “evil is” still “present with me,” and the agency of it has not been abolished. And thus the Law, with a man who determines upon doing anything good, only acts so far as auxiliary to him, as that it has the same wish as himself. Then since he had stated it indistinctly, as he goes on he gives a yet more distinct interpretation, by showing how the evil is present, how too the Law is a law to such a person only who has a mind to do what is good. — Homily on Romans 13

Pelagius: Paul means that he has a law which will help him do good, even though “evil lies close at hand.” — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul says that “evil lies close at hand” because our body is mortal and passible, and our soul is sluggish and weak. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:22

Ambrosiaster: Paul says that the mind delights in the things which are taught by the law. This is “our inmost self,” because sin does not dwell in the mind but in the flesh.… It is prevented from dwelling in the mind by free will. Therefore sin dwells in the flesh, at the door of the soul as it were, so as to prevent the soul from doing what it wants to do. If it dwelt in the mind it would derange it, so that man would not know himself. As it is, he does know himself and takes delight in the law of God. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: See wherein we are free, wherein we are delighted with the law of God. Freedom delights. For as long as you do what is just out of fear, God does not delight you. As long as you do it still a slave, he does not delight you. Let him delight you and you are free. — TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF John 41.10.3

Diodorus of Tarsus: Here Paul is describing the common lot of man. For the ordinary person can see in his mind what ought to be done but cannot achieve it. But the man who has believed in Christ with his mind can achieve it with the help of the Holy Spirit. Such a person is therefore called “spiritual.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: He means, for I knew even before this what was good, but when I find it set down in writing, I praise it. — Homily on Romans 13

Methodius of Olympus: And the same is denoted by the words, “For I delight in the law of God after 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 shall deliver me from the body of this death? “By which he does not mean that the body is death, but the law of sin which is in his members, lying hidden in us through the transgression, and ever deluding the soul to the death of unrighteousness. And he immediately adds, clearly showing from what kind of death he desired to be delivered, and who he was who delivered him, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ.” — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: Scripture says that in man there are two: “For though our outer man is being destroyed, yet our inner man is renewed day by day”; and also: “I delight in the law of God according to the inner man.” The Apostle everywhere presents these two men as distinct. It seems to me that he does not presume to invent this teaching for himself, but rather, releasing what is expressed obscurely in the Scriptures, he sets it forth openly. — DIALOGUE WITH HERACLIDES

Pelagius: Paul’s “inmost self” is the rational and intelligent soul which agrees with the law of God, for its law is to live rationally and not to be led about by the passions of irrational animals.The outer self, on the other hand, is the body. Its law is the wisdom of the flesh, which instructs one to eat and drink and enjoy the other sensual pleasures. These war against reason, and if they gain the upper hand, subject it to the law of sin. For if it is true that we do what we do not want to do, Paul would not have said that he sees another law in his members, fighting against the law of his mind. He agrees to the law with his mind. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: The “inmost self” is the mind. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:23

Ambrosiaster: Paul mentions two laws here. One of these he sees in his members, i.e., in the outer self, which is the flesh or the body. This law is hostile to us. It wars with his mind, leading him captive in a state of sin and preventing him from getting out of it and finding help. The other law is the law of the mind, which is either the law of Moses or the law of nature which is innate in the mind. This law is attacked by the violence of sin and by its own negligence, for in that it loves evil it subjects itself to sin and is held captive by the habit of sinning. For man is a creature of habit.For Paul, there are here four kinds of law. The first is spiritual. This is the law of nature, which was reworked by Moses and made authoritative; it is God’s law. Then there is the law of the mind, which agrees with God’s law. Third, there is the law of sin, which is said to dwell in man’s members because of the transgression of the first man. The fourth appears in our members and tempts us to sin, before retreating. But these four laws can be reduced to two—the law of good and the law of evil. For the law of the mind is the same as the spiritual law or the law of Moses, which is called the law of God. But the law of sin is the same as the law which appears in our members, which contradicts the law of our mind. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Everyone is bound by carnal habit to the law of sin. Paul says that this law wars against his mind and captures him under the law of sin, by which it may be understood that the man being described here is not yet under grace. For if carnal habit were merely to wage war but not to triumph, there would be no condemnation. Condemnation lies in the fact that we freely submit to and serve depraved carnal lusts. But if such lusts exist and we do not give in to them, then we are not ensnared by them, and are under grace instead. Paul speaks of this grace when he calls upon the Deliverer and pleads for his help, that love might accomplish by grace what fear could not achieve through the law. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 45-46

Augustine of Hippo: In this life it cannot happen to anyone that a law warring against the law of the mind should be entirely absent from his members, because that law would still be waging war even if man’s spirit were offering it such resistance as not to fall into line with it. — THE RETRACTIONS 1.19.1

Augustine of Hippo: Paul sees another law in his members fighting against the law of his mind. He sees it is there, not remembers that it was there. He is pressed by what is present, not recalling what is past. And he not only sees this law warring against him but even taking him captive to the law of sin, which is (not was) in his members. — ON NATURE AND GRACE 55.65

Augustine of Hippo: Paul perceives imprisonment where righteousness has not been fulfilled; for when he is delighted with the law of God he is not a prisoner but a friend of the law and thus free, because he is a friend. — TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF John 41.11.1

Augustine of Hippo: Look what damage has been done to human nature by the disobedience of the will! — ON NATURE AND GRACE 53.62

Augustine of Hippo: See what a fight we have with our dead sins, as that active soldier of Christ and faithful teacher of the church shows. For how is sin dead when it works many things in us while we struggle against it? What are these many things except foolish and harmful desires which plunge those who consent to them into death and destruction? And to bear them patiently and not give into them is a struggle, a conflict, a battle. And between what parties is this battle if not between good and evil, not of nature against nature but of nature against fault, which is already dead but still to be buried, that is, entirely healed? — AGAINST JULIAN 2.9.32

Caesarius of Arles: This law in me was born when the former law was transgressed; it was born, I repeat, when the former law was despised. — SERMON 177.1

Desert Fathers: Antony said, ‘I think that the body has a natural movement within itself, which obeys the orders of the mind, a kind of inclination of which the body’s actions are only symptoms. There is a second movement in the body, caused by eating and drinking, by which the blood is heated and excited. That is why St Paul said, ‘Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess’ (Eph. 5:18), and again the Lord commanded his disciples in the Gospel, ‘See that your hearts be not overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness’ (Luke 21:34). There is a third movement which comes from the deceit and envy of demons against those who are trying to live a good life. It is a help to know that there are three bodily inclinations – from nature, from too much food, and from the demons.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Jerome: If Paul the apostle, the vessel of election, chastised his body and brought it into subjection, lest, having preached to others, he himself should be found a castaway: if he says ‘But I see another law resisting the law of my mind and leading me into captivity,’ and afterward says ‘Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ — if he fears the snares of the body, are we secure? — Homily 41, on Psalms 119

John Chrysostom: Here again he calls sin a law warring against the other, not in respect of good order, but from the strict obedience yielded to it by those who comply with it. As then it gives the name of master to Mammon, and of god to the belly, not because of their intrinsically deserving it, but because of the extreme obsequiousness of their subjects; so here he calls sin a law, owing to those who are so obsequious to it, and are afraid to leave it, just as those who have received the Law dread leaving the Law. This then, he means, is opposed to the law of nature; for this is what is meant by “the law of my mind.” And he next represents an array and battle, and refers the whole struggle to the law of nature. For that of Moses was subsequently added over and above: yet still both the one and the other, the one as teaching, the other as praising what was right, wrought no great effects in this battle; so great was the thraldom of sin, overcoming and getting the upper hand as it did. And this Paul setting forth, and showing the decided victory it had, says, “I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity.” He does not use the word conquering only, but “bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” He does not say the bent of the flesh, or the nature of the flesh, but “the law of sin.” That is, the thrall, the power. In what sense then does he say, “Which is in my members?” Now what is this? Surely it does not make the members to be sin, but makes them as distinct from sin as possible. For that which is in a thing is diverse from that wherein it is. As then the commandment also is not evil, because by it sin took occasion, so neither is the nature of the flesh, even if sin subdues us by means of it. For in this way the soul will be evil, and much more so too, since it has authority in matters of action. But these things are not so, certainly they are not. — Homily on Romans 13

Methodius of Olympus: For the apostle here sets forth clearly, as I think, three laws: One in accordance with the good which is implanted in us, which clearly he calls the law of the mind. One the law which arises from the assault of evil, and which often draws on the soul to lustful fancies, which, he says, “wars against the law of the mind.” And the third, which is in accordance with sin, settled in the flesh from lust, which he calls the “law of sin which dwells in our members; “which the Evil One, urging on, often stirs up against us, driving us to unrighteousness and evil deeds. For there seems to be in ourselves one thing which is better and another which is worse. And when that which is in its nature better is about to become more powerful than that which is worse, the whole mind is carried on to that which is good; but when that which is worse increases and overbalances, man is on the contrary urged on to evil imaginations. — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Pelagius: The law of natural conscience, or the divine law which resides in the mind, fights against habitual desires. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be “the law of sin dwelling in his members,” and “warring against the law of the mind.” On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin “-here is the corruption; “and the strength of sin is the law” -that other law, no doubt, which he has described “in his members as warring against the law of his mind,” -meaning, of course, the actual power of sinning against his will. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul was right to refer to his members here, because sin takes many forms according to the nature of our members. There are sins of the eyes, sins of the tongue, sins of other parts of the body as well. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 7:24

Ambrose of Milan: We have a physician—let us follow his remedy! Our remedy is the grace of Christ, and the body of death is our body. Let us therefore be exiled from the body lest we be exiled from Christ. Even if we are in the body let us not follow what is of the body. Let us not neglect the rights of nature, but let us prefer the gifts of grace. — On the Death of Satyrus 2.41

Ambrosiaster: Paul says that a man born in sin is wretched. For indeed how could man not be wretched when he has succeeded to this inheritance of sin, having this enemy sin with him, through which Satan has access to him? For Adam invented steps by which the despoiler came up to his descendants. Yet the most merciful God, moved by pity, gave us his grace through Christ so that it might be revealed that the human race, once it accepted the forgiveness of sins, might repent and put sin to death. For a man who is pardoned for his sins and cleansed can resist the power of the enemy which is aimed against him, provided that God continues to help him. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Here Paul begins to describe the man renewed under grace, the third of the four states we distinguished above. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 45-46

Gennadius of Constantinople: Paul did not say “bad” or “evil man” but rather “wretched man” … for having shown that this person contemplated the good with his mind but was drawn toward evil by the passion of the flesh, he presents him as more deserving of mercy than of punishment. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Irenaeus: On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: “For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing,” showing that the “good thing” of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying, ] “The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.” And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says: ] “Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us.” Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3

Jerome: Paul uses the term “the body of death” because the body is subject to vices and sickness, disorders and death until it rises in glory with Christ, and what was once fragile clay is purified in the fire of the Holy Spirit into a very solid rock, changing its glory, not its nature. — Against Rufinus 1.25

John Chrysostom: Do you notice what a great thraldom that of vice is, in that it overcomes even a mind that delighted in the Law? For no one can rejoin, he means, that I hate the Law and abhor it, and so sin overcomes me. For “I delight in it, and consent to it,” and flee for refuge to it, yet still it had not the power of saving one who had fled to it. But Christ saved even one that fled from Him. See what a vast advantage grace has! Yet the Apostle has not stated it thus; but with a sigh only, and a great lamentation, as if devoid of any to help him, he points out by his perplexity the might of Christ, and says, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” The Law has not been able: conscience has proved unequal to it, though it praised what was good, and did not praise it only, but even fought against the contrary of it. For by the very words “warreth against” he shows that he was marshalled against it for his part. From what quarter then is one to hope for salvation? — Homily on Romans 13

Pelagius: Who will set me free, says Paul, prisoner that I am, from this fatal habit of the body? — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Philoxenus of Mabbug: And again that Apostle saith from the whole person of his human nature, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?” And after he has asked questioningly who is able to deliver him, he revealeth, and confesseth and teacheth by his word Who He is that shall deliver him from the old and mortal nature, saying, “I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ Who hath delivered me from this body of death.” — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 9 – Second Discourse on Poverty

Severian of Gabala: Having considered the struggle which was taking place in the body against the soul and how man was imprisoned by this, Paul now seeks a way to escape and tries to rescue man, so that the body of death may be transformed into a body of life.… For Paul wants his body to be a body of life and not a body of death or of sin. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul calls the body a “body of death” because it has been made subject to death and is therefore mortal. The soul, on the other hand, is immortal. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 7:25

Ambrosiaster: “The law of God” means both the law of Moses and the law of Christ.… A free mind which has been called back to good habits by the help of the Holy Spirit can repulse evil temptations. For it has recovered its power to resist the enemy. If it is no longer subject then Satan cannot appear uninvited. Flesh, though, has no judgment, nor is it able to discern anything, because it is brute nature. It cannot close the door to the enemy, nor can it come in and persuade the mind to do the opposite to what the mind intends.Because man consists of both soul and flesh, the part which knows serves God and the part which is mute serves the law of sin. But if man perseveres in the form in which he was created, the enemy would have no power to reach the flesh and persuade it to act against the will of the soul. But because the whole man was not restored to his pristine state by the grace of Christ the sentence pronounced on Adam remains in force, for it would be unjust to abolish a sentence which was rightly pronounced. So although the sentence remains in force, a cure has been found by the providence of God, so that the salvation which man had lost by his own fault might be given back to him. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Though his carnal desires still exist, the man who is renewed by grace by not giving in to sin does not serve them. With his mind he serves the law of God, even though with his flesh he serves the law of sin. Paul calls the law of sin the mortal condition which stems from the transgression of Adam, because of which we are born mortal. It is because the flesh has fallen that the lusts of the flesh entice us. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 45-46

Augustine of Hippo: These are the words of one who is now under grace but still battling against his own lust, not so that he consents and sins but so that he experiences desires which he resists. — AGAINST JULIAN 6.23.73

Book of Steps: We should be eager to try to become without any sins, asking our Lord to deliver us from sin. — LIBER GRADUUM 2.2

Caesarius of Arles: The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord will free you from the body of this death; it will deliver you from the law of death. But … this is going to take place at the resurrection, when you will possess a body in which no evil inclination remains. — SERMON 177.4

John Chrysostom: Observe how he shows the necessity of having grace present with us, and that the well-doings herein belong alike to the Father and the Son. For if it is the Father Whom he thanketh, still the Son is the cause of this thanksgiving. But when you hear him say, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” do not suppose him to be accusing the flesh. For he does not say “body of sin,” but “body of death:” that is, the mortal body-that which hath been overcome by death, not that which gendered death. And this is no proof of the evil of the flesh, but of the marring it has undergone. As if any one who was take captive by the savages were to be said to belong to the savages, not as being a savage, but as being detained by them: so the body is said to be of death, as being held down thereby, not as producing it. Wherefore also it is not the body that he himself wishes to be delivered from, but the mortal body, hinting, as I have often said, that from its becoming subject to suffering, it also became an easy prey to sin. — Homily on Romans 13

Methodius of Olympus: And the same is denoted by the words, “For I delight in the law of God after 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 shall deliver me from the body of this death?” By which he does not mean that the body is death, but the law of sin which is in his members, lying hidden in us through the transgression, and ever deluding the soul to the death of unrighteousness. And he immediately adds, clearly showing from what kind of death he desired to be delivered, and who he was who delivered him, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ.” And it should be considered, if he said that this body was death, O Aglaophon, as you supposed, he would not afterwards mention Christ as delivering him from so great an evil. For in that case what a strange thing should we have had from the advent of Christ? And how could the apostle have said this, as being able to be delivered from death by the advent of Christ; when it was the lot of all to die before Christ’s coming into the world? And, therefore, O Aglaophon, he says not that this body was death, but the sin which dwells in the body through lust, from which God has delivered him by the coming of Christ. — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Origen of Alexandria: “Therefore I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” Perhaps someone will say that the Apostle, who up to this point has been speaking not as it were in his own person but having assumed the person of another, now, as though marking a change of person, says, “I myself,” so as to show that these things which are to be said pertain to that same Apostle himself. And he says that with the mind he serves the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin — as if so great were the force of sinning, so great the tyranny of the flesh, that not even the Apostle could escape it; and for this reason he said in another place that “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a reprobate.” But whoever takes these things as spoken in the person of the Apostle seems to me to strike despair into every soul, on the ground that there is absolutely no one who does not sin in the flesh. For this is what it is to serve the law of sin with the flesh. To me, therefore, it rather seems that he is still maintaining the person of the man whom above he described in himself: one who by will and purpose has already been turned toward better things, and who serves the law of God with mind and spirit, yet has not yet obtained this, that he should bring even the obedience of the flesh into agreement with the mind. For indeed in the preceding passages he had discoursed on the mortification of the body, and had taught that we must die together with Christ; in these present words he seems to show how this work is not idle, and to teach that it is not the case that, as soon as someone wills, and as soon as he has purposed the good, it is straightway also fulfilled in deed; but that either so great is the force of habit, or so great the sweetness of the vices, that although the spirit already strains toward virtue and determines to serve the law of God, nevertheless the desires of the flesh persuade it to serve sin and to obey sin’s laws. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Grace sets free the man whom the law could not free. Was Paul at this time not yet set free by the grace of God? Of course! This shows that here he is speaking of somebody else. He then reviews the main points in order to conclude his argument. In a sense the carnal person is made up of two people and is divided within himself. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS