Romans 7 commentary

A VERSE BY VERSE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS CHAPTER 7 DEALING WITH AN ILLUSTRATION FROM MARRIAGE,

1. ROMAS 7 COMMETARY
Written and edited by Glenn Pease
PREFACE
ITRODUCTIO
1. This passage of Scripture would be one of the first to come under the category,
"somethings hard to be understood," which Peter mentions in II Pet. 3:16 in
reference to the Epistles of Paul. There have been few other passages that have been
the subject of such a long historical controversy. The Greek fathers held a view that
the passage described an unregenerate man and the Latin fathers in general held a
view that it described the experience of a regenerate man. St. Augustine first held
the former view, but changed his mind after reading some of the church fathers who
held the latter view. Speaking of this change of mind he said, "Hence it was that I
came to understand these things, as Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and other holy an
known doctors of the church understood them, who thought that the Apostle himself
strenuously struggled against carnal lusts, which he was unwilling to have, and yet
had..."
There are many great names connected with both views, and so it is hard to prove
your position by appealing to authority. For example, some who hold the
unregenerate view are, Theodoret, Julius Muller, eander, Ewarld, Tholuck,
Bengal, Hahn, DeWette, Stier, Godet, Turner, Schaff. Some of those who hold the
regenerate view are, Jerome, Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Krumacher, Delitzsch,
Luther, Chalmers, Brown, Haldane, Forbes, Alford, Hodge, Shedd, Barnes, Boise.
There are also other commentators who take a middle position between these two
extremes. This being the situation, all one can do is to examine the different views
and make his own choice. The purpose of this commentary, therefore, is to present
the several views, and come to some conclusion as to the spiritual status of the
person described in this passage. The unregenerate view will be presented first,
then the regenerate view followed by the middle position view when there is one.
This procedure will be carried out verse by verse, skipping over those who are
repetitious, or which contain no new evidence to support a view. All must be fully
aware that being dogmatic about a text that has great minds all through history
divided is not a way of wisdom. We need to be aware that there is some aspect of the
truth in each view, and when we choose one it ought not to be so we can look down
our nose in pride at those who see it differently. Great men of God see it differently,
and many of them were far greater than any of us, so do not let pride go before your

2. fall in the study of this chapter. The study of the different views has been
incorporated into this commentary beginning with verse 14. It was a short study
that I did before I started this commentary, and so it is added to a great deal as I
will be quoting many more minds on the issue, but the conclusion will stay the same.
2. Barnes, “Few chapters in the Bible have been the subject of more decidedly
different interpretations than this. And after all that has been written on it by the
learned, it is still made a matter of discussion, whether the apostle has reference, in
the main scope of the chapter, to his own experience before he became a Christian,
or to the conflicts in the mind of a man who is renewed. Which of these opinions is
i!nh&$ddn&ih$OnhphG!vuuhnOAnv/$dhi$hGivinhmOhi!nhr$tes on the particular verses in the
chapter. The main design of the chapter is not very difficult to understand. It is
evidently to show the insufficiency of the law to produce peace of mind to a troubled
sinner.”
An Illustration From Marriage
1. Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking
to men who know the law—that the law has
authority over a man only as long as he lives?
This is obvious, for there are no laws that apply to dead people. Apply this to
believers who have been crucified with Christ, and are dead to the old life in him,
and you see that the old law does not apply to them as dead people. Those who are
still alive to the flesh are still under the law, but those who live according to the
spirit are free from it. Those who die in Christ, are dead to the law. All you have to
do to escape a life of bondage is to die, for once you are dead the law has no
authority to tell you what to do. You are free to follow a new authority.
Ironside comments that Paul's argument here is that the law has dominion over men
until death ends its authority or ends their relationship to it. But he has just been
showing us in the clearest possible way that we have died with Christ; therefore we
died not only to sin, but we have died to the law as a rule of life. Is this then to leave
'Ghuv(unGG?hr$ihvihvuu-h%$dh(nhvdnhO$(*hvGh!nhG!$(G elsewhere (
1Cor 9:21 ), "under
the law to Christ", or "enlawed" E that is, legitimately subject E to Christ our new
Head. He is husband as well as Head, even as Ephesians 5 so clearly shows.

3. rB13cBe2phhTe2p1’ekBhe(wse4akBeakvevkhpmeTh’.mTvEE o longer ruled by its harsh
commandsEE
I'm bound by Christ's love and am truly free To live and to act responsibly E D J De
Haan
That the law. The immediate reference here is probably to the Mosaic law. But what
is here affirmed is equally true of all laws.
Hath dominion. Greek, Rules; exercises lordship. The law is here personified, and
represented as setting up a lordship over a man, and exacting obedience.
Over a man. Over the man who is under it.
As long as he liveth. The Greek here may mean either as HE liveth," or "as it
liveth," that is, the law. But our translation has evidently expressed the sense. The
sense is, that death releases a man from the laws by which he was bound in life. It is
a general principle, relating to the laws of the land, the law of a parent, the law of a
contract, etc. This general principle the apostle proceeds to apply in regard to the
law of God.
xwK FyCe;
Know ye not - This is an appeal to their own observation respecting the 
relation between husband and wife. The illustration 
Rom_7:2-3 is designed simply to 
show that as when a man dies, and the connection between him and his wife is dissolved, 
his Law ceases to be binding on her, so also a separation has taken place between 
Christians and the Law, in which they have become dead to it, and they are not now to 
attempt to draw their life and peace from it, but from that new source with which they 
are connected by the gospel, Rom_7:4.
For I speak to them ... - Probably the apostle refers here more particularly to the 
Jewish members of the Roman church, who were qualified particularly to understand the 
nature of the Law, and to appreciate the argument. That there were many Jews in the 
church at Rome has been shown (see Introduction); but the illustration has no exclusive 
reference to them. The Law to which he appeals is sufficiently general to make the 
illustration intelligible to all people.
That the law - The immediate reference here is probably to the Mosaic Law. But 
what is here affirmed is equally true of all laws.
Hath dominion - Greek, Rules; exercises lordship. The Law is here personified, and 
represented as setting up a lordship over a man, and exacting obedience.
Over a man - Over the man who is under it.
As long as he liveth - The Greek here may mean either “as he liveth,” or” as it 
liveth,” that is, the law. But our translation has evidently expressed the sense. The sense 
is, that death releases a man from the laws by which he was bound in life. It is a general 
principle, relating to the laws of the land, the law of a parent, the law of a contract, etc. 
This general principle the apostle proceeds to apply in regard to the Law of God.
For I speak to them that know the law - This is a proof that the apostle directs this 
part of his discourse to the Jews.

4. As long as he liveth? - Or, as long as It liveth; law does not extend its influence to 
the dead, nor do abrogated laws bind. It is all the same whether we understand these 
words as speaking of a law abrogated, so that it cannot command; or of its objects being 
dead, so that it has none to bind. In either case the law has no force.
GILL, “Know ye not, brethren,.... The apostle having asserted, 
Rom_6:14, that the 
believing Romans were "not under the law"; which he knew would be displeasing to 
many, and excepted to by them, especially the Jews that were among them, who though 
they believed in Christ, yet were zealous of the law, takes it up again, and explains and 
defends it. That they were the Jewish converts at Rome he here particularly addresses, 
appears partly from his calling them "brethren", for they were so according to the flesh, 
as well as in a spiritual relation, and this he rather mentions to soften their resentments, 
and conciliate their minds to him; and partly from the words included in a parenthesis, 
for I speak to them that know the law; not the law of nature, but the law of Moses, 
as the Jews did, being trained up in the knowledge of it; to these he appeals, saying, 
"know ye not", for the truth of a principle or maxim he afterwards improves, which they 
could not be ignorant of, 
how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he, or "it", 
liveth; for the word "liveth" may refer either to man or to the law. The law may be said 
to live, when it is in full force, and to be dead, when it is abrogated and disannulled; now 
whilst it lives, or is in force, it has dominion over a man; it can require and command 
obedience of him, and in case of disobedience can condemn him, and inflict punishment 
on him: and this power it has also as long as the man lives who is under it, but when he is 
dead it has no more dominion over him; then "the servant is free from his master", 
Job_3:19; that is, from the law of his master; and children are free from the law of their 
parents, the wife from the law of her husband, and subjects from the law of their prince. 
This is so clear a point that none can doubt of it. The Jews have a saying (d), that 
"when a man is dead, he becomes Know yewny tnKyewy-FrIsypakkypahmy.TkylHdsyHiOypahmy.Tky
vhmmHiOAg??y
WF KICe;Among other arguments used in the foregoing chapter to persuade us against 
sin, and to holiness, this was one (
Rom_7:14), that we are not under the law; and this 
argument is here further insisted upon and explained (Rom_7:6): We are delivered 
from the law. What is meant by this? And how is it an argument why sin should not 
reign over us, and why we should walk in newness of life? 1. We are delivered from the 
power of the law which curses and condemns us for the sin committed by us. The 
sentence of the law against us is vacated and reversed, by the death of Christ, to all true 
believers. The law saith, The soul that sins shall die; but we are delivered from the law. 
The Lord has taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. We are redeemed from the curse of 
the law, Gal_3:13. 2. We are delivered from that power of the law which irritates and 
provokes the sin that dwelleth in us. This the apostle seems especially to refer to 
(Rom_7:5): The motions of sins which were by the law. The law, by commanding, 

5. forbidding, threatening, corrupt and fallen man, but offering no grace to cure and 
strengthen, did but stir up the corruption, and, like the sun shining upon a dunghill, 
excite and draw up the filthy steams. We being lamed by the fall, the law comes and 
directs us, but provides nothing to heal and help our lameness, and so makes us halt and 
stumble the more. Understand this of the law not as a rule, but as a covenant of works. 
Now each of these is an argument why we should be holy; for here is encouragement to 
endeavours, though in many things we come short. We are under grace, which promises 
strength to do what it commands, and pardon upon repentance when we do amiss. This 
is the scope of these verses in general, that, in point of profession and privilege, we are 
under a covenant of grace, and not under a covenant of works - under the gospel of 
Christ, and not under the law of Moses. The difference between a law-state and a gospel-
state he had before illustrated by the similitude of rising to a new life, and serving a new 
master; now here he speaks of is under the similitude of being married to a new 
husband.
I. Our first marriage was to the law, which, according to the law of marriage, was to 
continue only during the life of the law. The law of marriage is binding till the death of 
one of the parties, no matter which, and no longer. The death of either discharges both. 
For this he appeals to themselves, as persons knowing the law (Rom_7:1): I speak to 
those that know the law. It is a great advantage to discourse with those that have 
knowledge, for such can more readily understand and apprehend a truth. Many of the 
Christians at Rome were such as had been Jews, and so were well acquainted with the 
law. One has some hold of knowing people. The law hath power over a man as long as 
he liveth; in particular, the law of marriage hath power; or, in general, every law is so 
limited - the laws of nations, of relations, of families, etc. 1. The obligation of laws 
extends no further; by death the servant who, while he lived, was under the yoke, is freed 
from his master, Job_3:19
Gwogyn Ce;Rom_7:1-25. Subject from previous chapter continued.
Relation of Believers to the Law and to Christ (Rom_7:1-6).
Recurring to the statement of Rom_6:14, that believers are “not under the law but 
under grace,” the apostle here shows how this change is brought about, and what holy 
consequences follow from it.
I speak to them that know the law — of Moses to whom, though not themselves 
Jews (see on Rom_1:13), the Old Testament was familiar.
-w(Gg Ce;Though he had, in a brief manner, sufficiently explained the question respecting the
abrogation of the law; yet as it was a difficult one, and might have given rise to many other
questions, he now shows more at large how the law, with regard to us, is become abrogated; and
then he sets forth what good is thereby done to us: for while it holds us separated from Christ and
bound to itself, it can do nothing but condemn us. And lest any one should on this ACCOUNT 
blame the law itself, he takes up and confutes the objections of the flesh, and handles, in a striking
manner, the great question respecting the use of the law.
(201) 
1.Know ye not, etc. Let the GENERAL
 proposition be that the law was given to men for no other
end but to regulate the present life, and that it belongs not to those who are dead: to this he
afterwards subjoins this truth — that we are dead to it through the body of Christ. Some understand,
that the dominion of the law continues so long to bind us as it remains in force. But as this view is
rather obscure, and does not harmonize so well with the proposition which immediately follows, I

6. prefer to follow those who regard what is said as referring to the life of man, and not to the law. The
question has indeed a peculiar force, as it affirms the certainty of what is spoken; for it shows that it
was not a thing new or unknown to any of them, but acknowledged equally by them all.
(For to those who know the law I speak.) This parenthesis is to be taken in the same sense with the
question, as though he had said — that he knew that they were not so unskilful in the law as to
entertain any doubt on the subject. And though both sentences might be understood of all laws, it is
yet better to take them as referring to the law of God, which is the subject that is discussed. There
are some who think that he ascribes knowledge of the law to the Romans, because the largest part
of the world was under their power and government; but this is puerile: for he ADDRESSED in
part the Jews or other strangers, and in part common and obscure individuals; nay, he mainly
regarded the Jews, with whom he had to do respecting the abrogation of the law: and lest they
should think that he was dealing captiously with them, he declares that he took up a common
principle, known to them all, of which they could by no means be ignorant, who had from their
childhood been brought up in the teaching of the law.
(201)
 The connection of the beginning of this chapter with Rom_6:14  deserves to be noticed. He
says there, that sin shall not rule over us, because we are not under law, but under grace. Then he
asks, in Rom_6:15,
“ we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?”
This last subject, ACCORDING
 to his usual mode, he takes up first, and discusses it till the end
of the chapter: and then in this chapter he reassumes the first subject — freedom from the law. This
is a striking instance of the Apostle’ manner of writing, quite different from what is usual with us in
the present day. He mentions two things; he PROCEEDS with the last, and then goes back to the
first. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
This chapter relates closely to what Paul had
ALREADY written, especially with
reference to the law of Moses; and the problem to which he addressed these words was that of the
inordinate ATTACHMENT of many Jewish Christians to the law, and their determination to bind
certain provisions of it upon Gentile converts to Christ. This great problem, perhaps the greatest
problem of all that confronted that age of the church, was of overriding consequence anywhere it
surfaced; and Paul was certain that it would surface in Rome, hence the content of much of this
epistle. The great apostle, more than any other, was responsible for divorcing Christianity from
Judaism; and, but for his efforts, it was altogether possible that Christianity itself might have become
but an antechamber of Judaism. A full and constant attention to what the problem was should
accompany the study of this chapter.
Three times Paul had already indicated the severance of Christian faith from its Judaistic parent: (1)
In Romans 3:20@24, he had elaborated the truth that no flesh can be justified by the law, that the law
and the prophets themselves had foretold the new faith, and that God's grace had provided free and
full redemption "in Christ Jesus." (2) In Rom.5:20,21, he had shown the temporary nature of the law,
given primarily to expose sin, making it "abound," and that it was not true life at all but the means
through which "sin reigned in death." (3) In Romans 6:14, Paul flatly declared that Christians were
not under law at all, but under grace (a synecdoche for the entirely new system of Christianity).

reverse order, proving first (Romans 7:1@5) that Christians are not bound in any sense whatever to
the law of Moses, next showing holy the law made sin abound (Romans 7:6@13), and then
demonstrating why no flesh could be justified by the law (Romans 7:14@25).
Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath 
dominion over a man for so long a time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is 

7. These three verses have a bearing upon the Christian doctrine of marriage, as indicated by Hodge,
thus:
The doctrine concerning marriage, which is here incidentally taught, or rather which is assumed as
known by Christians and Jews is, that the marriage contract can only be dissolved by death. The
only exception to this rule is given by Christ (Matthew 5:32); unless indeed Paul (1 Corinthians 7:15)
recognizes willful and final desertion as a sufficient ground of divorce.[1]SIZE>
Regarding divorce, the Holy Scriptures teach that marriage is dissolved: (1) by death;
(2) by adultery; and (3) by desertion, the latter not being strictly considered

exceptions, his analogy depending upon death as the terminator of Israel's marriage
with God, and thus making the mention of any exceptions unnecessary.
Bearing in mind Paul's purpose in this paragraph of showing that Christians are no
longer under Moses' law, the thrust of his words is simple and dramatic. In the Old
Testament, God represented himself as being a husband to Israel and the relationship
between them and God as a marriage contract (Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 23, etc.). That
marriage contract is no longer in force, for God died to Israel in the person of his Son
upon Calvary! That really nullified the relationship between God and Israel. Thus, God
is represented as a husband whose death has broken the ties that bound him to the
Paul could have selected other grounds for affirming that God had annulled the
marriage contract with Israel, such as Israel's wanton disobedience and disregard of it
as set forth by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:32f); but Paul's choice of the astounding fact of
God's death in the person of his Son was a far more appropriate expression of the
absolute termination that had fallen upon Judaism. Israel's wanton rebellion against
God had come at last to full fruit when Christ himself was slain by them (see
under Romans 3:26); and therefore, as far as the whole system of Judaism is
concerned, it has exactly the same STATUS as a marriage contract after the
husband's funeral. Christ as God risen from the dead is married to another, the new
bride being his church (Ephesians 5:22@33); and what a preposterous thing it would be
to suppose that the new wife should abide by the terms of the marriage contract of the

Christians.
Macknight's discernment of Paul's purpose in this paragraph is seen in this:
pressing that law upon the Gentiles.[2]
Thus, it was the annulment of God's marriage contract with Israel through the death of
Christ that abrogated and terminated that entire system, finally and irrevocably. As
Paul himself expressed it: "He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians
2:14).
Scholars have made extensive efforts to view this chapter as APPLICABLE
primarily to Christians with a consequent perplexity as to the meaning here. Griffith
Thomas noted that "there are very few commentators clear on this point";[3] and even

their own death in the person of Christ; but to be "dead with Christ" and "in Christ" is to

8. have eternal life, a result which cannot be claimed upon behalf of the people who
rejected and crucified the Lord. The death of Christ did indeed have a consequence to
Israel, as seen below.
The death of Christ (God come in the flesh) meant that all things whatsoever that
pertained to God's relationship with Israel (viewed scripturally as a marriage contract),
including the law of Moses, circumcision, the sacrifices, and the whole theocratic
system perished on the cross of Jesus and were buried in the new tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea; and don't forget to include the sabbath day in all that. Thus, not even Israel,
much less Christians, had any further spiritual benefit to be procured through keeping
the religious regulations of the Old Testament. God was free of all prior obligations
resulting from the covenants with Israel, free to be married to another; but this meant
that Israel was also free of any further obligation or benefit in the law. The great
promise to Abraham was not annulled, but was shown to have been upon a higher
level and ultimately designed to include all the families of the earth, Jews and Gentiles

[1] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 220.
[2] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1960), p. 88.
[3] Griffith Thomas, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 183.
[4] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 90.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “ Know ye not, brethren … how that the law hath 
dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Believers not under the law as a covenant of works
I. All men are, naturally, under the law as a covenant of works.
1. As men. God made man capable of moral government; he was naturally bound to 
obey the will of his Maker. The moral law: perfect obedience to this law could never 
entitle him to any greater degree of happiness, yet God was pleased to superadd a 
promise of everlasting life upon obedience, to which He annexed His awful sanction, 
“In the day that thou sinnest, thou shalt surely die.” This is what we call a covenant: 
as such it was proposed on the part of God, and it was accepted on the part of man. 
Now as this covenant was made with Adam as the federal head, so all men are 
naturally under it.
2. As sinners. In this view sinners are under the law as a broken covenant, which 
therefore can afford no relief to them that seek salvation by it (Gal_3:10-12).
II. To be under the law, and especially as a broken covenant, is a most dreadful thing.
1. The law requires perfect, universal, and everlasting obedience of all that are under 
it. Now this law is not abolished or made void, either by Christ or by any of His 
apostles. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; for verily I say unto you, till heaven 
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be 
fulfilled” (Mat_5:17-18; Rom_3:31). How dreadful then is such a state, since no mere 
man can thus keep it. And while the Christian betakes himself to the mercy of God in 
Christ, as his only hope, the sinner supports his vain confidence in the supposition 
that God will not insist on His claim.

9. 2. It denounces against every transgressor the most awful curse (Jas_2:10-11; 
Gal_3:10).
III. Many have obtained a glorious deliverance out of this dreadful state. In Christ they 
are made brethren: “Know ye not, brethren.”
IV. They who are delivered from this state are to be distinguished from others in the 
ministry of the Word. Addressing himself to believers, Paul appeals to their spiritual 
knowledge and judgment, “Know ye not.”
1. There is a knowledge peculiar to the saints, whereby they know the things that are 
excellent; they have judgment to distinguish betwixt truth and error; an inward 
principle (1Jn_2:27; 1Jn 5:20) which teaches them the knowledge of every truth 
necessary for consolation or salvation.
2. One great reason why many know not the truth, is not merely owing to their 
ignorance of it, but often to their prejudice against it.
3. Sound and saving knowledge hath respect not only to the truth itself, but also to 
the use we are to make of it.
4. It is no inconsiderable part of our happiness when we are called to minister unto 
such as know the truth as it is in Jesus.
Conclusion:
1. If all men are naturally under the law as a covenant of works, who can wonder if 
they seek life by that covenant? Natural light, natural conscience can discover no 
other way of salvation.
2. If all are miserable who are under the law, especially as a broken covenant, this 
calls upon men who are under a profession of religion to examine themselves as to 
their state before God.
3. If believers are delivered from the law as a covenant, yet still let them remember, 
“They are under the law to Christ.”
4. If true believers are to be distinguished from others in the ministry of the Word, 
let them distinguish themselves, not only by a public profession, but also by a 
becoming walk and conversation. (J. Stafford.)
The believer’s relation to the law and to Christ
I. The believer’s former connection with the law.
1. The law, considered in the figurative capacity of a husband, had a right to full and 
implicit subjection. But alas! all mankind had violated the authority of this first 
husband; they had abused his rights, resisted his claims, and thus exposed 
themselves to the fatal consequences of his just denunciations.
2. Yet, miserable as this state is, men in general are insensible of it. They still show 
attachment to the law, despite their disobedience; and place, as a wife does on her 
husband, infatuated dependence. As God said to Eve, “Thy desire shall be to thy 
husband,” so it is with the sinner as to the law.
II. The dissolution of this connection. This consists in the sinner’s deliverance from the 
obligation to obedience as the condition of life, and from the curse attending 
disobedience.

10. 1. When and how does this take place? The answer is—“The law hath dominion over 
a man as long as he liveth.”… “Ye are become dead to the law.” Here is the decease of 
one of the parties, by which the union is dissolved.
2. This decease refers to the death of the believer in Christ (Rom_6:7-8), who bore 
the curse of the law in his stead (Gal_3:13). Thus the effects of the first husband’s 
displeasure cannot reach them.
3. And not only is the curse of the law removed, but our connection with it, as a 
condition of life, is forever done away, as effectually as the relation between husband 
and wife is dissolved by death.
III. He is then “married to another,” etc., which expresses the believer’s new relation 
with Jesus (see also Eph_5:30-32; Joh_3:29; Rev_21:2).
1. To this new husband all believers are subject. They feel his authority as that at 
once of rightful claim and of tender affection. They delight in obeying Him who loves 
them. And in Him they are truly blessed. He smiles upon them, and enriches them 
with a dowry of spiritual treasures.
2. This connection, being with “Him who is raised from the dead,” is indissoluble 
(Rom_6:9). The Husband never dies; nor do they ever die to whom He stands thus 
related. “Joined to the Lord, they are one spirit;” and the spiritual union is lasting as 
eternity.
IV. The consistency of this new connection with all the rights and claims of the first 
husband. These claims were just, and had a right to be fully implemented. The believer 
has not satisfied them in his own person; but his Substitute has by His obedience and 
death “magnified the law and made it honourable.” Hence the law’s claims upon him 
cease as completely as the claims of a husband when dead on the surviving wife.
V. The absolute necessity of the dissolution of all connection with the law, in order to a 
sinner’s being joined to Christ. The two connections cannot subsist together. The sinner 
who is joined to Christ must die completely to the law. While he retains any connection 
with it, in the way of seeking or expecting life from it, he is not united to Christ. As the 
worship of idols was styled adultery, when practised by that people whom Jehovah had 
espoused to Himself—so all such connection with the law is unfaithfulness to our Divine 
Husband. He must be “all our salvation, and all our desire.” Let no one, however, think 
that we are pleading for freedom from the law as the rule of life. Its obligation in this 
sense remains immutable (Rom_3:31; 1Co_9:21, etc.).
VI. The blessed effects of the dissolution of the connection with the law, and the 
formation of the union with Christ. The “bringing forth fruit unto God.” The fruit meant 
is, no doubt, holy obedience and service (Rom_6:22). Such fruit is as naturally the effect 
of union to Christ, as the fruit of the womb is the expected result of the marriage relation. 
No fruit acceptable in the sight of God can be produced while the former connection 
continued (Rom_7:5). They who are “under the law are in the flesh”; and can bring forth 
no fruit but “unto death.” All is devoid of the only principle of acceptable service—“faith 
working by love.” There is no true fruit unto God produced till the connection with the 
law has been dissolved, and that with Christ has been formed (Rom_7:6). The fears of 
the law, uniting with the pride of self-righteousness, may produce considerable outward 
conformity to the precepts of the law; whilst there is no true principle of godliness 
within. There may be much in the eyes of men that is amiable; while in the sight of God 
all the service is rendered in the “oldness of the letter”—under the influence of the 
principles of the old, is service in “newness of spirit,” i.e., to serve God in sincerity, under 
the influence of those principles and views and dispositions which constitute a mind 

11. renewed by the Spirit of God (Eze_36:26). (R. Wardlaw, D. D.)
True Christian liberty implies
I. Freedom from the compulsory action of law. It can neither—
1. Alarm;
2. Condemn;
3. Become a source of bondage.
II. The freedom of devoted love to Christ.
1. Who has won the heart;
2. Constrains our service;
3. By His death and resurrection. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Dead to the law, married to Christ
1. The apostle has illustrated the transference that takes place at conversion by the 
emancipation of a slave whose services are due to the lawful superior under whom he 
now stands enrolled. The apostle now turns to those who know the law, and deduces 
from the obligations which attach to marriage, the same result, i.e., an abandonment 
by the believer of those doings which have their fruit unto death, and a new service 
which has its “fruit unto God.”
2. There is a certain obscurity here arising from the apparent want of sustained 
analogy. True, the obligations of marriage are annulled by the death of one party; but 
Paul only supposes the death of the husband. Now the law is evidently the husband, 
and the subject the wife. So that, to make good the resemblance—the law should be 
conceived dead, and the subject alive. Yet, in reading the first verse, one would 
suppose that it was on the death of the subject, and not of the law, that the 
connection was to be dissolved. It is true that the translation might have run thus, 
“The law hath dominion over a man so long as it liveth”; but this does not suit so well 
with Rom_7:4, where, instead of the law having become dead unto us, we have 
become dead unto it; so that some degree of that confusion which arises from a 
mixed analogy appears unavoidable. It so happens, too, that either supposition 
stands linked with very important truth—so that by admitting both, this passage 
becomes the envelope of two important lessons.
I. The law may be regarded as dead; and he our former husband, now taken out of the 
way, has left us free to enter upon an alliance with Christ.
1. The death of the law did indeed take place at the death of Christ. It was then that 
He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us. It was then that the 
law lost its power as an offended Lord to take vengeance of our trespasses. Certain 
venomous animals expire on the moment that they have deposited their sting and its 
mortal poison in the body of their victim. And thus there ensues the death of both 
sufferer and assailant. And on the Cross there was just such a catastrophe.
2. Without Christ the law is in living force against us. Men under earnestness, who 
have not found their way to Christ, stand related to it as the wife does to an outraged 

12. husband: a state of appalling danger and darkness from which there is no relief, but 
in the death of that husband.
3. The illustration of our text opens a way for just such a relief as would be afforded 
by the death of the first tyrannical husband, and by the substitution of another in his 
place, who had cast the veil of oblivion over the past, and who admits us to a 
fellowship of love and confidence. Christ would divorce you, as it were, from your old 
alliance with the law; and welcome you, instead, to a new and friendly alliance with 
Himself. He bids you cease from the fellowship altogether.
4. And to deliver this contemplation from any image so revolting as that of our 
rejoicing in the death of a former husband; and finding all the relief of heaven in the 
society of another, you have to remember that the law has become dead—not by an 
act which has vilified the law or done it violence, but by an act which has magnified 
the law and made it honourable.
4. When a sense of the law brings remorse or fearfulness into your heart, transfer 
your thoughts from it as your now dead, to Christ as your now living husband.
II. The believer may be regarded as dead. The other way by which marriage may be 
dissolved is by the death of the wife. And so the relationship between the law and the 
subject may be dissolved by the death of the subject (Rom_7:4). The law has no more 
power over its dead subject than the husband has over his dead wife.
1. This brings us back to the conception already so abundantly insisted on, that in 
Christ we all died in law; so that the law can have no further reckoning with us, 
having already had that reckoning in the person of Him who was our Surety and our 
Representative. And just as the criminal law has done its utmost upon him whom it 
has executed, so the law can do no more in the way of vengeance with us, having 
already done all with Him who was smitten for our iniquities.
2. After our old relationship with the law is thus put an end to, the vacancy is 
supplied by Him who, after having removed the law through His death out of the 
station it had before occupied, then rose again and now stands in its place. The wife 
owes a duty to her second husband as well as her first. It is true that with the former 
the predominant feeling may have been that of obligation mixed with great 
fearfulness; and that, with the latter, the predominant feeling may be sweet and 
spontaneous affection. But still it is evident that there will be service, possibly much 
greater in amount and certainly far worthier in principle. Under the law we are 
bidden to do and live; under Christ we are bidden to live and do. In working to the 
law it is all for ourselves that we may earn a wage or a reward. In working to Christ it 
is all the freewill offering of love and thankfulness (2Co_5:16). (T. Chalmers, D. D.)
Marriage with Christ
1. The dissolution of the former marriage.
2. The new marriage.
3. Its fruits.
The believer, released from the law by dying in fellowship with the death of Christ, is free 
to enter into a new union with the risen Christ, in order to bring forth the fruits of 
holiness to God’s honour. (Archdeacon Gifford.)

13. HAWKER, “Romans 7:1-6
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath 
dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (2) 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. (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be 
married to another man, she shall be 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. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of 
Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, 
that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions 
of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 
(6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that 
we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
The Apostle is here particularly addressing the Jews, who were well acquainted with the 
binding obligation of the law. And he brings forward the marriage state, by way of 
illustrating his argument, that the obligation to the law, like that between a man and his 
wife, continued in full force the whole term of life. For, a woman which hath an husband, 
is bound to that husband during the whole of his life. But, if he dies, the obligation is 
cancelled. Her marrying then, becomes no breach of chastity: the former contract is done 
away. This is a well-known law in common life, and indeed is founded on the law of God. 
It can need no further illustration. From hence then, the Apostle argues, that believers in 
Christ being dead to the law as a covenant of works, and the law dead to them; they are 
both lawfully and honorably married to Christ: and the evidence of this union appears, 
from bringing forth fruit unto God, from the graces of the Spirit, which in regeneration 
they receive. Thus the legal right of the thing is fully proved, even when considered only 
under the common acceptation of the customs among men, which are going on every day 
in ordinary life.
But, we must not stop here, in our view of the Apostle’s figure. In the relation to Christ, 
and his Church, it ceaseth indeed to be a figure, for it is a blessed reality. The marriage 
between Christ and his Church, (of which every other among men is but a type,) carries 
the subject infinitely higher. For, the Son of God betrothed his Church to himself before 
the foundation of the world, and that forever, Hos_2:19; Eph_1:4. And God the Holy 
Ghost preached this great truth to the Church, from the beginning of the creation of God. 
And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an 
help meet for him. And, when the woman was created from the man, and brought unto 
him, and were married; this union was declared to be a type and figure of Christ’s union 
with his Church. So Paul was directed by the Holy Ghost, in after ages, to explain this 
wonderful subject. And so he hath done it, in his Epistle to the Ephesians. This is a great 
mystery, (saith the Apostle,) but I speak concerning Christ, and his Church, Compare 
Gen_2:18; Gen_2:21-25 with Eph_5:23 to the end.
Hence therefore, it will follow, that Christ and his Church were One before the 
foundation of the world: that the Church was raised up to be an help meet for him, 
through all the departments of nature, grace, and glory: and all this, in an union, never to 
be dissolved. So that in this senses as the Head, and Husband of his Church, he hath 
always lived, and is always living. And so it is written, For thy Maker is thine husband, 
the Lord of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the 
whole earth shall he be called, Isa_54:5.

14. Neither in this sense hath there ever been, or can be, a divorce. For, although we read of 
the continued provocations of the Church, by reason of her adulteries; and the Lord, 
(speaking after the manner of men, while beholding her in her whoredoms,) saith: Plead 
with you mother plead, for she is not my wife; neither am I her husband: yet in the same 
moment bids her return, because he had betrothed her to him forever, Ho 2, throughout. 
But we nowhere meet .with any bill of divorce, the Lord had given her to put her away, 
though he demands any to shew it. Yea, the Lord, in the after days of his flesh, when 
openly tabernacling among his people, declared, that the doctrine of divorce was from 
Moses, on account of the hardness of men’s hearts: but, (saith the Lord,) from the 
beginning of the creation it was not so. And, what God had joined together, no man 
should put asunder. It is Jehovah, in his threefold character of Persons, hath made Him, 
who is fellow to the Lord of Hosts, and the Church, one from everlasting: and nothing 
can arise in the time-state of the Church to separate. I cannot stay to write down all the 
scriptures which might be brought forward, in proof to this most blessed of all truths; 
but I earnestly beg the Reader, before he goes further, to turn to them in his Bible, 
according to the order in which I have marked them; and if the Lord be his teacher, the 
glorious doctrine will appear to him with full evidence, Pro_8:22-31; Eph_1:4; 2Ti_1:9; 
Psa_45:13; Eze 16 throughout; Hos_3:3; Isa_1:1; Rom_11:1-2; Mal_2:15-16 for 
treacherously, read as in the margin, unfaithfully; Mar_10:2-9; Jer_3:1 and Jer_3:14.
When this view of the original, and eternal marriage of Christ and his Church is well 
understood, and established by scriptural evidence in the mind; we then go on to 
prosecute the Apostle’s beautiful illustration of the subject, as it relates to the 
government of the Church, during the time state of the law. The law, (we are told by the 
same authority, in another part of his writings,) was added because of transgressions till 
the seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it acted as our Schoolmaster 
unto Christ. But when faith is come we are no longer under a Schoolmaster, Gal_3:19; 
Gal_3:24-25. Nothing could have been more happily chosen than this figure, to illustrate 
the great truth the Apostle had in hand. By the coming of Christ, the Church’s lawful 
husband, he demands his lawful wife. And, by the work of God the Spirit in her heart in 
regeneration, we are now delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; 
that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Sweet and 
precious thought! All the rigor of the law, all the threatenings of the law, its curse and 
condemnation, as the ministration of death; all are done away in Christ. Christ, as the 
Church’s husband, surety, and head, hath redeemed her from the curse of the law, being 
made a curse for her. And the Church, brought by sovereign grace to the knowledge and 
enjoyment of her high privileges in Christ, saith: I will go and return to my first husband, 
for then was it better with me than now, Gal_3:13; Hos_2:7. See Mr 10 with the 
Commentary.
2. For example, by law a married woman is bound
to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her
husband dies, she is released from the law of

15. marriage.
 1e4a2heavel13mTek1e.eTh.TeB3vl.mTfenmVhekBheB3vl.md is dead, so the law
concerning his rights are also dead. He cannot control her from the grave and
demand that she never fall in love with another man. She is no longer married to
him, and is free to stay single or remarry.
We are the married woman who has a first husband die, setting us free to remarry.
All Christians are not only born again, they are married again. They were wed to
the fleshEthe old manEthe old nature. But it was crucified on the cross, and that old
man died in the death of Jesus who died with all the sins of the adamic nature upon
him. He became sin for us. His death was the dying of husband number 1. But he
rose to become husband number 2 the perfect mate. So in dying he set us free from
a bad marriage, and thus, free from the law. Then he gave us a good marriage
based on grace. Those who are twice born are twice wed. The cross ended the first
marriage, for it was death to the law. The resurrection was the start of the second
marriageEthe life of love. The second marriage was not based on legalism where you
do what you have to do or suffer the penalty. It is based on doing for the husband
out of love and not fear of the law. The saint is to act in love and not because of law.
All Christians have been widowed from their first husbandEthe law. The cross left
us free to marry again. We had a hard and cruel mate, but the cross set us free to
marry one who is kind, gentle, and loving.
xwK FyCe;
For the woman - This verse is a specific illustration of the general 
principle in 
Rom_7:1, that death dissolves those connections and relations which make 
law binding in life. It is a simple illustration; and if this had been kept in mind, it would 
have saved much of the perplexity which has been felt by many commentators, and much 
of their wild vagaries in endeavoring to show that “men are the wife, the law of the 
former husband, and Christ the new one;” or that “the old man is the wife, sinful desires 
the husband, sins the children.” Beza. (See Stuart.) Such expositions are sufficient to 
humble us, and to make us mourn over the puerile and fanciful interpretations which 
even wise and good people often give to the Bible.
Is bound by the law ... - See the same sentiment in 1Co_7:39.
To her husband - She is united to him; and is under his authority as the head of the 
household. To him is particularly committed the headship of the family, and the wife is 
subject to his law, in the Lord, Eph_5:23, Eph_5:33.
She is loosed ... - The husband has no more authority. The connection from which 
obligation resulted is dissolved.
CLARKE, “For the woman which hath a husband - The apostle illustrates his 
meaning by a familiar instance. A married woman is bound to her husband while he 
lives; but when her husband is dead she is discharged from the law by which she was 
bound to him alone.

16. GILL, “For the woman which hath an husband ,.... The former general rule is here 
illustrated by a particular instance and example in the law of marriage; a woman that is 
married to a man, 
is bound by the law to her husband; to live with him, in subjection and obedience to 
him, 
so long as he liveth; except in the cases of adultery, Mat_19:9, and desertion, 
1Co_7:15, by which the bond of marriage is loosed, and for which a divorce or separation 
may be made, which are equal to death: 
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; the 
bond of marriage is dissolved, the law of it is abolished, and she is at entire liberty to 
marry whom she will, 1Co_7:39.
WF KICe;The condemnation of laws extends no further; death is the finishing of the 
law. Actio moritur cum personâ - The action expires with the person. The severest laws 
could but kill the body, and after that there is no more that they can do. Thus while we 
were alive to the law we were under the power of it - while we were in our Old Testament 
state, before the gospel came into the world, and before it came with power into our 
hearts. Such is the law of marriage (Rom_7:2), the woman is bound to her husband 
during life, so bound to him that she cannot marry another; if she do, she shall be 
reckoned an adulteress, Rom_7:3. It will make her an adulteress, not only to be defiled 
by, but to be married to, another man; for that is so much the worse, upon this account, 
that it abuses an ordinance of God, by making it to patronise the uncleanness. Thus were 
we married to the law (Rom_7:5): When we were in the flesh, that is, in a carnal state, 
under the reigning power of sin and corruption - in the flesh as in our element - then the 
motions of sins which were by the law did work in our members, we were carried down 
the stream of sin, and the law was but as an imperfect dam, which made the stream to 
swell the higher, and rage the more. Our desire was towards sin, as that of the wife 
towards her husband, and sin ruled over us. We embraced it, loved it, devoted all to it, 
conversed daily with it, made it our care to please it. We were under a law of sin and 
death, as the wife under the law of marriage; and the product of this marriage was fruit 
brought forth unto death, that is, actual transgressions were produced by the original 
corruption, such as deserve death. Lust, having conceived by the law (which is the 
strength of sin, 1Co_15:56), bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth 
forth death, Jam_1:15. This is the posterity that springs from this marriage to sin and the 
law. This comes of the motions of sin working in our members. And this continues 
during life, while the law is alive to us, and we are alive to the law.
VWS, “That hath a husband (
,,,,bfBuc12πανδροςπανδροςπανδρος)
Lit., under or subject to a husband. The illustration is selected to bring forward the 
union with Christ after the release from the law, as analogous to a new marriage 
(Rom_7:4).
Is loosed (κατήκατήκατήκατήργηταιργηταιργηταιργηται)

17. Rev., discharged. See on Rom_3:3, Lit., she has been brought to nought as respects 
the law of the husband.
The law of the husband
Her legal connection with him She dies to that law with the husband's death. There is 
an apparent awkwardness in carrying out the figure. The law, in Rom_7:1, Rom_7:2, is 
represented by the husband who rules (hath dominion). On the death of the husband the 
woman is released. In Rom_7:4, the wife (figuratively) dies. “Ye are become dead to the 
law that ye should be married to another.” But as the law is previously represented by 
the husband, and the woman is released by the husband's death, so, to make the figure 
consistent, the law should be represented as dying in order to effect the believer's 
release. The awkwardness is relieved by taking as the middle term of comparison the 
idea of dead in a marriage relation. When the husband dies the wife dies (is brought to 
nought) so far as the marriage relation is concerned. The husband is represented as the 
party who dies because the figure of a second marriage is introduced with its application 
to believers (Rom_7:4). Believers are made dead to the law as the wife is maritally dead 
- killed in respect of the marriage relation by her husband's death.
-w(Gg Ce;2.For a woman subject to a man, etc. He brings a similitude, by which he proves, that
we are so loosed from the law, that it does not any longer, properly and by its own right, retain over
us any authority: and though he could have proved this by other reasons, yet as the example of
marriage was very suitable to illustrate the SUBJECT
, he introduced this comparison instead of
evidence to prove his point. But that no one may be puzzled, because the different parts of the
comparison do not altogether correspond, we are to be reminded, that the Apostle designedly
intended, by a little change, to avoid the invidiousness of a stronger expression. He might have
said, in order to make the comparison complete, “ woman after the death of her husband is loosed
from the bond of marriage: the law, which is in the place of a husband to us, is to us dead; then we
are freed from its power.” But that he might not offend the Jews by the asperity of his expressions,
had he said that the law was dead, he adopted a digression, and said, that we are dead to the
law
(202) To some indeed he appears to reason from the less to the greater: however, as I fear that
this is too strained, I approve more of the first meaning, which is simpler. The whole argument then
is formed in this manner “ woman is bound to her living husband by the law, so that she cannot be
the wife of another; but after the death of her husband she is loosed from the bond of his law so,
that she is free to marry whom she PLEASES
.”
Then follows the application, 
— 
The law was, as it were our husband,
under whose yoke we were kept until it became dead to us:
After the death of the law Christ received us, that is, he joined us,
when loosed from the law, to himself:
Then being united to Christ risen from the dead,
we ought to cleave to him alone:
And as the life of Christ after the resurrection is eternal,
so hereafter there shall be no divorce. 

18. But further, the word law is not mentioned here in every part in the same sense: for in one place it
means the bond of marriage; in another, the authority of a husband over his wife; and in another,
the law of Moses: but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which
was peculiar to the dispensation of Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught
what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be
dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this
is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements,
and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what
belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute
perfection: for as we render not this perfection, it binds us under the sentence of eternal death. But
as it was not his purpose to decide here the character of the bond of marriage, he was not anxious
to mention the causes which releases a woman from her husband. It is therefore unreasonable that
anything decisive on this point should be sought here.
(202)
 This is a plausible reason, derived from [Theodoret
] and [Chrysostom ]; but hardly necessary.
Commentators have felt much embarrassed in applying the illustration given here. The woman is
freed by the death of the husband; but the believer is represented as freed by dying himself. This
does not correspond: and if we attend to what the Apostle says, we shall see that he did not
contemplate such a correspondence. Let us notice how he introduces the illustration; “ law,” he says
in the first verse, “ or exercises authority, over a man while he lives;” and then let us observe
the APPLICATION in Rom_7:4, where he speaks of our dying to the law The main design of the
illustration then was, to show that there is no freedom from a law but bydeath; so that there is no
necessity of a correspondence in the other parts, As in the case of man and wife, death destroys
the bond of marriage; so in the case of man and the law, that is, the law as the condition of life,
there must be a death; else there is no freedom. But there is one thing more in the illustration, which
the Apostle adopts, the liberty to marry another, when death has given a release: The bond of
connection being broken, a union with another is legitimate. So far only is the example adduced to
be APPLIED — death puts an end to the right and authority of law; and then the party released
may justly form another connection. It is the attempt to make all parts of the comparison to
correspond that has occasioned all the difficulty. —Ed.
 
3. So then, if she marries another man while her
husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.
But if her husband dies, she is released from that
law and is not an adulteress, even though she
marries another man.
This is often hard for grown children to understand. When mom decides to remarry
after 40 or more years with their dad, it seems like betrayal of their marriage even
though dad is dead. But this is trying to keep mom under the law of marriage when

19. she is not bound by that law. She is free to remarry, and it is not respecting that
freedom when children fight her choice to marry again. Freedom from the law gives
her that right, and it should be respected by all who love her.
xwK FyCe;
So then if ... - compare 
Mat_5:32.
She shall be called - She will be. The word used here χρη-ατίσει  chrēmatisei is often 
used to denote being called by an oracle or by divine revelation. But it is here employed 
in the simple sense of being commonly called, or of being so regarded.
CLARKE, “So then, if, while her husband liveth - The object of the apostle’s 
similitude is to show that each party is equally bound to the other; but that the death of 
either dissolves the engagement.
So - she is no adulteress, though she be married to another - And do not 
imagine that this change would argue any disloyalty in you to your Maker; for, as he has 
determined that this law of ordinances shall cease, you are no more bound to it than a 
woman is to a deceased husband, and are as free to receive the Gospel of Christ as a 
woman in such circumstances would be to remarry.
GILL, “So then if while her husband liveth,.... True indeed it is, that whilst her 
husband is alive, if 
she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; she will be 
noted and accounted of as such everybody, except in the above mentioned cases: 
but if her husband be dead; then there can be no exception to her marriage: 
she is free from the law; of marriage, by which she was before bound: 
so that she is no adulteress; nor will any reckon her such; she is clear from any such 
imputation: 
though she be married to another man; hence it appears that second marriages are 
lawful.
WF KICe; Our second marriage is to Christ: and how comes this about? Why,
1. We are freed, by death, from our obligation to the law as a covenant, as the wife is 
from her obligation to her husband, 
Rom_7:3. This resemblance is not very close, nor 
needed it to be. You are become dead to the law, Rom_7:4. He does not say, “The law is 
dead” (some think because he would avoid giving offence to those who were yet zealous 
for the law), but, which comes all to one, You are dead to the law. As the crucifying of 
the world to us, and of us to the world, amounts to one and the same thing, so doth the 
law dying, and our dying to it. We are delivered from the law (Rom_7:6), katērgēthēmen - 
we are nulled as to the law; our obligation to it as a husband is cassated and made void. 

20. And then he speaks of the law being dead as far as it was a law of bondage to us: That 
being dead wherein we were held; not the law itself, but its obligation to punishment 
and its provocation to sin. It is dead, it has lost its power; and this (Rom_7:4) by the 
body of Christ, that is, by the sufferings of Christ in his body, by his crucified body, 
which abrogated the law, answered the demands of it, made satisfaction for our violation 
of it, purchased for us a covenant of grace, in which righteousness and strength are laid 
up for us, such as were not, nor could be, by the law. We are dead to the law by our union 
with the mystical body of Christ. By being incorporated into Christ in our baptism 
professedly, in our believing powerfully and effectually, we are dead to the law, have no 
more to do with it than the dead servant, that is free from his master, hath to do with his 
master's yoke.
2. We are married to Christ. The day of our believing is the day of our espousals to the 
Lord Jesus. We enter upon a life of dependence on him and duty to him: Married to 
another, even to him who is raised from the dead, a periphrasis of Christ and very 
pertinent here; for as our dying to sin and the law is in conformity to the death of Christ, 
and the crucifying of his body, so our devotedness to Christ in newness of life is in 
conformity to the resurrection of Christ. We are married to the raised exalted Jesus, a 
very honourable marriage. Compare 2Co_11:2; Eph_5:29. Now we are thus married to 
Christ, (1.) That we should bring forth fruit unto God, Rom_7:4. One end of marriage is 
fruitfulness: God instituted the ordinance that he might seek a godly seed, Mal_2:15. The 
wife is compared to the fruitful vine, and children are called the fruit of the womb. Now 
the great end of our marriage to Christ is our fruitfulness in love, and grace, and every 
good work. This is fruit unto God, pleasing to God, according to his will, aiming at his 
glory. As our old marriage to sin produced fruit unto death, so our second marriage to 
Christ produces fruit unto God, fruits of righteousness. Good works are the children of 
the new nature, the products of our union with Christ, as the fruitfulness of the vine is 
the product of its union with the root. Whatever our professions and pretensions may be, 
there is no fruit brought forth to God till we are married to Christ; it is in Christ Jesus 
that we are created unto good works, Eph_2:10. The only fruit which turns to a good 
account is that which is brought forth in Christ. This distinguishes the good works of 
believers from the good works of hypocrites and self-justifiers that they are brought forth 
in marriage, done in union with Christ, in the name of the Lord Jesus, Col_3:17. This is, 
without controversy, one of the great mysteries of godliness. (2.) That we should serve in 
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter, Rom_7:6. Being married to a new 
husband, we must change our way. Still we must serve, but it is a service that is perfect 
freedom, whereas the service of sin was a perfect drudgery: we must now serve in 
newness of spirit, by new spiritual rules, from new spiritual principles, in spirit and in 
truth, Joh_4:24. There must be a renovation of our spirits wrought by the spirit of God, 
and in that we must serve. Not in the oldness of the letter; that is, we must not rest in 
mere external services, as the carnal Jews did, who gloried in their adherence to the 
letter of the law, and minded not the spiritual part of worship. The letter is said to kill 
with its bondage and terror, but we are delivered from that yoke that we may serve God 
without fear, in holiness and righteousness, Luk_1:74, Luk_1:75. We are under the 
dispensation of the Spirit, and therefore must be spiritual, and serve in the spirit. 
Compare with this 2Co_3:3, 2Co_3:6, etc. It becomes us to worship within the veil, and 
no longer in the outward court.

21. 4. So, my brothers, you also died to the law
through the body of Christ, that you might belong
to another, to him who was raised from the dead,
in order that we might bear fruit to God.
We were married to the law in the sense that it was our master, and we were to love
it until death do us part. Death did do us part in Christ, and now that we have died
to the law we are no longer under obligation to pretend that it is still our master. We
have a new master, and new husband in Christ. We have remarried, and are now
his bride. As his bride we may still look back at our old life of the flesh, but we are
committed to our new husband, and because we love him dearly, we avoid all of the
temptation to return to the old life. That is the way it is supposed to be, but Paul
goes on to tell us that it is a battle to resist the temptation to go back. We are ever in
danger of trying to raise our old self from the dead, and be unfaithful to our new
husband, the Lord Jesus. The only way to beat it is to grow more and more in love
with Him. That is how it works in marriage, and that is how it works in the spiritual
life. Love is the key to victory. Let love slide and the flame grow dim, and you begin
to slide back to the ways of the old man of sin.
We know from statistics that many Christian couples are getting divorced. It is on a
level with the world that this happens. It is obvious that love is a weak component in
marriage these days. People are obviously getting wed to get to bed, and so sex is the
primary motivation. It is a weak glue because maybe sex with someone else is even
better than with your mate. If sex is the key factor, why not move on to another is
there is the possibility of more and better sex. Love tells a different story, for love
says that we need to make sure that we give to each other all that can be possible for
a good relationship. Love works at being loving until it is worked out that the best is
possible. So it is with coming to Christ as part of his bride. It does not happen all at
once that Christ meets our every need, and we may be tempted to try some other
religion, or some other philosophy to have our needs met. Love is patient, and it
hangs in there until there is satisfaction in the relationship. Mates are too quick to
cast away what they have, and so are Christians. Lack of love is what destroys all
natural and spiritual relationships. When you escape from the bondage of law, it
will not be a never ending blessing until you enter fully into the bondage of love. It is
love that will bear permanent fruit for your marriage, and for the kingdom of God.
The testimony below reveals how we can destroy our relationships to God and
others by allowing legalism to dominate our lives rather than love.

22. Wayne Barber makes a confession that illustrates what we do when we base our
lives on law rather than love. He wrote, “I believe Paul, in Romans 7, is vividly
portraying for us the "frustration of trying to go back and live under law." For
years, I did not realize it, but not only was I living as if I was under the law, but I’m
sure that I also put others under it through my preaching.
I was miserable so much of the time and could not understand why. I was also
critical of those who did not live up to my convictions. For example, we were
convicted that TV had become an obsession to our whole family and so we gave it up
for over a year. I can still remember how proud I felt when I heard others who
watched what I wouldn’t watch. How spiritually superior I sometimes felt. You see,
living under the law makes you quick to judge anyone but yourself.
Living under the law doesn’t necessarily mean that you are under the Law of
Moses, the Ten Commandments, but you can be bound by the law of the
denomination you belong to, or the law that you impose on yourself. Living under
the law doesn’t mean that you are not determined, or self disciplined. It means
that you measure your spirituality by these things and if they are not done, then
you think you have failed to win the love and favor of God in your life.”
r$d)vOh4vddmG$Oh(d$in*h+pOhi!nhdn/nvunAh%v&ihi!vihselievers are married to the Son
of GodEChrist glorified in heaven yet living in usEwe have reached the high water
mark of teaching in the book of Romans. All that precedes leads up to, all that
follows flows from, this marvelous fact. Married to Christ! Ours is His name and
nature. We share His past triumphs, His present life, His future glory. The Father
has taken the hand of His only Begotten Son and the hand of His newEbegotten
child, and joined them together "for times and eternity." ..........Married, not to an
earl or duke, a prince or king of earth; but to the greatest, grandest person in all the
universe. This marriage to Christ is to produce fruit, that is, more children of God.
He is a husband who wants his wife to give him a large family. It certainly also
includes bearing the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22E23.”
Barnes, “This verse contains an application of the illustration in the two preceding.
The idea there is, that death dissolves a connection from which obligation resulted.
This is the single point of the illustration, and consequently there is no need of
inquiring whether by the wife the apostle meant to denote the old man, or the
Christian, etc. The meaning is, as death dissolves the connection between a wife and
her husband, and of course the obligation of the law resulting from that connection,
so the death of the Christian to the law dissolves that connection, so far as the scope
of the argument here is concerned, and prepares the way for another union, a union
with Christ, from which a new and more efficient obligation results. The design is to
show that the new connection would accomplish more important effects than the
old.
The connection between us and the law is dissolved, so far as the scope of the
apostle's argument is concerned. He does not say that we are dead to it, or released
from it as a rule of duty, or as a matter of obligation to obey it; for there neither is,

23. nor can be, any such release; but we are dead to it as a way of justification and
sanctification. In the great matter of acceptance with God, we have ceased to rely on
the law, having become dead to it, and having embraced another plan.
The sense is, therefore, that by the death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice; by his
suffering for us that which would be sufficient to meet the demands of the law; by
his taking our place, he has released us from the law as a way of justification, freed
us from its penalty, and saved us from its curse. Thus released, we are at liberty to
be united to the law of him who has thus bought us with h is blood.
That ye should be married to another. That you might be united to another, and come
under his law. This is the completion of the illustration in Romans 7:2,3. As the
woman that is freed from the law of her husband by his death, when married again
comes under the authority of another, so we who are made free from the law and its
curse by the death of Christ, are brought under the new law of fidelity and
obedience to him with whom we are thus united. The union of Christ and his people
is not infrequently illustrated by the most tender of all earthly connectionsEEthat of a
husband and wife, Ephesians 5:23E30; Revelation 21:9, "I will show thee the bride,
the Lamb's wife;" Revelation 19:7.
That we should bring forth fruit unto God. That we should live a holy life. This is the
point and scope of all this illustration. The new connection is such as will make us
holy. It is also implied that the tendency of the law was only to bring forth fruit unto
death, Romans 6:5 and that the tendency of the gospel is to make man holy and
pure. Comp. Galatians 5:22,23.”
CLARKE, “
Wherefore, my brethren - This is a parallel case. You were once under 
the law of Moses, and were bound by its injunctions; but now ye are become dead to that 
law - a modest, inoffensive mode of speech, for, The law, which was once your husband, 
is dead; God has determined that it shall be no longer in force; so that now, as a woman 
whose husband is dead is freed from the law of that husband, or from her conjugal vow, 
and may legally be married to another, so God, who gave the law under which ye have 
hitherto lived, designed that it should be in force only till the advent of the Messiah; that 
advent has taken place, the law has consequently ceased, and now ye are called to take on 
you the yoke of the Gospel, and lay down the yoke of the law; and it is the design of God 
that you should do so.
That ye should be married to another - who is raised from the dead - As 
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, the object of 
God in giving the law was to unite you to Christ; and, as he has died, he has not only 
abolished that law which condemns every transgressor to death, without any hope of a 
revival, but he has also made that atonement for sin, by his own death, which is 
represented in the sacrifices prescribed by the law. And as Jesus Christ is risen again 
from the dead, he has thereby given the fullest proof that by his death he has procured 
the resurrection of mankind, and made that atonement required by the law. That we 
should bring forth fruit unto God - we, Jews, who believe in Christ, have, in consequence 
of our union with him, received the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit; so that we bring 
forth that fruit of holiness unto God which, without this union, it would be impossible for 
us to produce. Here is a delicate allusion to the case of a promising and numerous 
progeny from a legitimate and happy marriage.

24. GILL, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also,.... Here the apostle accommodates the 
foregoing instance and example to the case in hand, showing, that the saints were not 
under the law, the power and dominion of it; since that, as when a man is dead, the 
woman is loosed from that law by which she was bound whilst he lived, that she may 
lawfully marry another man, and bear children to him without the imputation of 
adultery; so believers being dead to the law, and the law dead to them, which is all one, 
they are loosed from it, and may be, and are lawfully married to Christ, that they may 
bring forth the genuine fruits of good works, not in order to obtain righteousness and life 
by them, but for the honour and glory of God; in which account may be observed, an 
assertion that the saints and children of God 
are become dead to the law, and that to them, as in Rom_7:6, and can have no more 
power over them than a law can have over dead persons, or a dead abrogated law can 
have over living ones. They are represented as "dead to sin", and "dead with Christ", 
Rom_6:2; and here, "dead to the law", as in Gal_2:19, and consequently cannot be under 
it; are out of the reach of its power and government, since that only has dominion over a 
man as long as be lives the law is dead to them; it has no power over them, to threaten 
and terrify them into obedience to it; nor even rigorously to exact it, or command it in a 
compulsory way; nor is there any need of all this, since believers delight in it after the 
inward man, and serve it with their minds freely and willingly; the love of Christ, and not 
the terrors of the law, constrains them to yield a cheerful obedience to it; it has no power 
to charge and accuse them, curse or condemn them, or minister death unto them, no, not 
a corporeal one, as a penal evil, and much less an eternal one. And the way and means by 
which they become dead to the law, and that to them is, 
by the body of Christ; not by Christ, as the body or substance of the ceremonial law; 
see Col_2:17; since that is not singly designed, but the whole law of Moses; but by "the 
body of Christ", is either meant Christ himself, Heb_10:10, or rather the human nature 
of Christ, Heb_10:5, in which the law meets with every thing it can require and demand, 
as holiness of nature, which is the saints' sanctification in Christ; obedience of life, which 
is their righteousness; and sufferings of death, which is the penalty the law enjoins, 
whereby full expiation of sin is made, complete pardon is procured, and eternal 
redemption obtained; so that the law has nothing more to demand; its mouth is stopped, 
it is not in its power to curse and damn believers, they are dead to that, and that to them: 
the reason why the law is become so to them, and they to that, is, 
that ye should be married to another; or "that ye should be to another", or "be 
another's"; that is, that ye should appear to be so in a just and legal way; for they were 
another's, they were Christ's before by the Father's gift, and were secretly married to him 
in the everlasting covenant, before he assumed their nature, and in the body of his flesh 
bore their sins, satisfied law and justice, paid their debts, and so freed them from the 
power of the law, its curse and condemnation, or any obligation to punishment; all which 
was done in consequence of his interest in them, and their marriage relation to him; but 
here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in 
conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead, and 
they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable; 
who is very fitly described by him, 

25. who is raised from the dead; and is a living husband, and will ever continue so, will 
never die more; and therefore as the saints can never be loosed from the marriage bond 
of union between Christ and them, so they can never be loosed from the law of this 
husband; wherefore though they are dead to the law as a covenant of works, and as 
ministered by Moses, and are free from any obligation to it, as so considered, yet they are 
"under the law to Christ", 1Co_9:21; under obligation, by the ties of love, to obedience to 
it, and shall never be loosed from it. The end of being dead to the law, and of being 
married to Christ, is, 
that we should bring forth fruit unto God. The allusion is to children being called 
"the fruit of the womb", Psa_127:3, and here designs good works, the fruits of 
righteousness, which are brought forth by persons espoused to Christ, under the 
influence of the Spirit and grace of God; and they are "unto God", that is, for the honour 
and glory of God; meaning either Christ the husband of believers, who is God over all 
blessed for ever; or God the Father, to whose praise and glory they are by Christ; and 
which is a reason and argument which strongly excites and encourages the saints to the 
performance of them: and let it be observed, that as children begotten and born in lawful 
marriage are only true and legitimate, and all before marriage are spurious and 
illegitimate; so such works only are the true and genuine fruits of righteousness, which 
are in consequence of a marriage relation to Christ; are done in faith, spring from love, 
and are directed to the glory of God; and all others, which are done before marriage to 
Christ, and without faith in him, are like spurious and illegitimate children.
WF KICe;That we should bring forth fruit unto God, 
Rom_7:4. One end of marriage is 
fruitfulness: God instituted the ordinance that he might seek a godly seed, Mal_2:15. The 
wife is compared to the fruitful vine, and children are called the fruit of the womb. Now 
the great end of our marriage to Christ is our fruitfulness in love, and grace, and every 
good work. This is fruit unto God, pleasing to God, according to his will, aiming at his 
glory. As our old marriage to sin produced fruit unto death, so our second marriage to 
Christ produces fruit unto God, fruits of righteousness. Good works are the children of 
the new nature, the products of our union with Christ, as the fruitfulness of the vine is 
the product of its union with the root. Whatever our professions and pretensions may be, 
there is no fruit brought forth to God till we are married to Christ; it is in Christ Jesus 
that we are created unto good works, Eph_2:10. The only fruit which turns to a good 
account is that which is brought forth in Christ. This distinguishes the good works of 
believers from the good works of hypocrites and self-justifiers that they are brought forth 
in marriage, done in union with Christ, in the name of the Lord Jesus, Col_3:17. This is, 
without controversy, one of the great mysteries of godliness. (2.) That we should serve in 
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter, Rom_7:6. Being married to a new 
husband, we must change our way. Still we must serve, but it is a service that is perfect 
freedom, whereas the service of sin was a perfect drudgery: we must now serve in 
newness of spirit, by new spiritual rules, from new spiritual principles, in spirit and in 
truth, Joh_4:24. There must be a renovation of our spirits wrought by the spirit of God, 
and in that we must serve. Not in the oldness of the letter; that is, we must not rest in 
mere external services, as the carnal Jews did, who gloried in their adherence to the 
letter of the law, and minded not the spiritual part of worship. The letter is said to kill 
with its bondage and terror, but we are delivered from that yoke that we may serve God 
without fear, in holiness and righteousness, Luk_1:74, Luk_1:75. We are under the 
dispensation of the Spirit, and therefore must be spiritual, and serve in the spirit. 
Compare with this 2Co_3:3, 2Co_3:6, etc. It becomes us to worship within the veil, and 

26. no longer in the outward court.
Gwogyn Ce;Wherefore ... ye also are become dead — rather, “were slain.”
to the law by the body of Christ — through His slain body. The apostle here 
departs from his usual word “died,” using the more expressive phrase “were slain,” to 
make it clear that he meant their being “crucified with Christ” (as expressed in Rom_6:3-
6, and Gal_2:20).
that ye should be married to another, even to him that is — “was.”
raised from the dead — to the intent.
that we should bring forth fruit unto God — It has been thought that the apostle 
should here have said that “the law died to us,” not “we to the law,” but that purposely 
inverted the figure, to avoid the harshness to Jewish ears of the death of the law 
[Chrysostom, Calvin, Hodge, Philippi, etc.]. But this is to mistake the apostle’s design in 
employing this figure, which was merely to illustrate the general principle that “death 
dissolves legal obligation.” It was essential to his argument that we, not the law, should 
be the dying party, since it is we that are “crucified with Christ,” and not the law. This 
death dissolves our marriage obligation to the law, leaving us at liberty to contract a new 
relation - to be joined to the Risen One, in order to spiritual fruitfulness, to the glory of 
God [Beza, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, etc.]. The confusion, then, is in the expositors, not 
the text; and it has arisen from not observing that, like Jesus Himself, believers are here 
viewed as having a double life - the old sin-condemned life, which they lay down with 
Christ, and the new life of acceptance and holiness to which they rise with their Surety 
and Head; and all the issues of this new life, in Christian obedience, are regarded as the 
“fruit” of this blessed union to the Risen One. How such holy fruitfulness was impossible 
before our union to Christ, is next declared.
-w(Gg Ce;4.Through the body of Christ. Christ, by the glorious victory of the cross, first
triumphed over sin; and that he might do this, it was necessary that the handwriting, by which we
were held bound, should be cancelled. This handwriting was the law, which, while it CONTINUED
 
in force, rendered us bound to serve (203) sin; and hence it is called the power of sin. It was then
by CANCELLING this handwriting that we were delivered through the body of Christ — through
his body as fixed to the cross.
(204) But the Apostle goes farther, and says, that the bond of the law
was destroyed; not that we may live according to our own will, like a widow, who lives as she
pleases while single; but that we may be now bound to another husband; nay, that we may pass
from hand to hand, as they say, that is, from the law to Christ. He at the same time softens the
asperity of the expression, by saying that Christ, in order to join us to his own body, made us free
from the yoke of the law. For though Christ subjected himself for a time of his own ACCORD
 to
the law, it is not yet right to say that the law ruled over him. Moreover, he conveys to his own
members the liberty which he himself possesses. It is then no wonder that he exempts those from
the yoke of the law, whom he unites by a sacred bond to himself, that they may be one body in him.
Even his who has been raised, etc. We have already said, that Christ is substituted for the law, lest
any freedom should be pretended without him, or lest any, being not yet dead to the law, should
dare to divorce himself from it. But he adopts here a periphrastic sentence to denote the eternity of
that life which Christ attained by his resurrection, that Christians might know that this connection is
to be perpetual. But of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his Church he speaks more fully

27. in Eph_6:0 
That we may bring forth fruit to God. He ever annexes the final cause, lest any should indulge the
liberty of their flesh and their own lusts, under the pretense that Christ has delivered them from the
bondage of the law; for he has offered us, together with himself, as a sacrifice to the Father, and he
regenerates us for this end — that by newness of life we may bring forth fruit unto God: and we
know that the fruits which our heavenly Father requires from us are those of holiness and
righteousness. It is indeed no abatement to our liberty that we serve God; nay, if we desire to enjoy
so great a benefit as there is in Christ, it will not henceforth be right in us to entertain any other
thought but that of promoting the glory of God; for which purpose Christ has connected us with
himself. We shall otherwise remain the bond@slaves, not only of the law, but also of sin and of
death.
(203)
 “Obæ “ — debtors bound to serve their creditors until PAYMENT
 is made. — Ed. 
(204)
 That his crucified body is intended, is clear from what follows; for he is spoken of as having “
raised from the dead.” — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body 
of Christ; that ye should be JOINED to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, 
that we might bring forth fruit unto God.
Paul thus drew the conclusion from the premises stated above (which see). In the relationship of the
new institution, or church, to God, it was utterly incongruous to suppose that any of that old system
pertained to the new relationship, especially in view of the total rejection of Christ by the old
institution. Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile descent, had nothing, either of benefit or
blessing, in the old system. For Jewish Christians, Christ died to annul their old contract with God;
thus they were free to be united with Christ as a portion of his bride the church, this being the import
made repugnant to them because under the law, Christ himself was made a curse (Deuteronomy
21:23); and the epic fact of Jesus' suffering "without the gate" (Hebrews 13:12) symbolized the total
any regard for a system that crucified him, making him a curse, and casting him without the camp
and beyond the pale! The most astounding failure of the law of Moses was seen in that very thing,
that at last it cast forth upon what amounted to the city dump, the holy Christ himself, thus finalizing
and sealing forever the utmost incompatibility between the law and Jesus Christ. By definition, to be
"in Christ" is to be absolutely beyond and apart from the law and everything in it. Christians, all of
them, Jewish and Gentile, are recipients of unbounded freedom in Christ who rose from the dead, to
bring forth fruits of righteousness in him.
 
5. For when we were controlled by the sinful
nature,[ ] the sinful passions aroused by the law

were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit

28. for death.
When the sinful nature of our flesh was in control of our life, the law aroused our
passions and we brought forth sinful actions, and the wages of sin is death. The fruit
of our lives was fruit for judgment. It was sinful violation of the law worthy of God's
punishment, and not fruit that was of value for the pleasure of God or man. Our
lives were growing weeds rather than produce.
Barnes, “In the flesh. Unconverted; subject to the controlling passions and
propensities of a corrupt nature. Comp. Romans 7:8,9. The connection shows that
this must be the meaning here, and the design of this illustration is to show the effect
of the law before a man is converted, Romans 7:5E12. This is the obvious meaning,
and all the laws of interpretation require us so to understand it.
The motions of sins. This translation is unhappy. The expression "motions of sins"
conveys no idea. The original means simply the passions, the evil affections, the 
corrupt desires. The expression, passions of sins, is a Hebraism, meaning sinful
passions, and refers here to the corrupt propensities and inclinations of the unE
renewed heart.
Which were by the lawfe 1kekB.kekBhHe4hphe1pacam.khTe1peVph.khTelHekBheiaw; for a law
does not originate evil propensities, and a holy law would not cause sinful passions;
but they were excited, called up, inflamed by tile law, which forbids their
indulgence.
Did work in our members. In our body; that is, in us. Those sinful propensities made
use of our members as instruments to secure gratification. See Barnes "Romans
6:12,13". Comp. Romans 7:23.
To bring forth fruit unto death. To produce crime, agitation, conflict, distress, and to
lead to death. We were brought under the dominion of death; and the consequence
of the indulgence of those passions would be fatal.”
CLARKE, “
For, when we were in the flesh - When we were without the Gospel, in 
our carnal and unregenerated state, though believing in the law of Moses, and 
performing the rites and offices of our religion.
The motions of sins, which were by the law - 
GfybfxCRf3fy3!B 8-αρτιων, the 
passions of sins, the evil propensities to sins; to every particular sin there is a propensity: 
one propensity does not excite to all kinds of sinful acts; hence the apostle uses the plural 
number, the Passions or propensities of Sins; sins being not more various than their 
propensities in the unregenerate heart, which excite to them. These παθη-ατα, 
propensities, constitute the fallen nature; they are the disease of the heart, the pollution 
and corruption of the soul.

29. Did work in our members - The evil propensity acts 6By31D2 -ελεσιν, in the whole 
nervous and muscular system, applying that stimulus to every part which is necessary to 
excite them to action.
To bring forth fruit unto death - To produce those acts of transgression which 
subject the sinner to death, temporal and eternal. When the apostle says, the motion of 
sin which were by the law, he points out a most striking and invariable characteristic of 
sin, viz. its rebellious nature; it ever acts against law, and the most powerfully against 
known law. Because the law requires obedience, therefore it will transgress. The law is 
equally against evil passions and evil actions, and both these exert themselves against it. 
So, these motions which were by the law, became roused into the most powerful activity 
by the prohibitions of the law. They were comparatively dormant till the law said, thou 
shalt Not do this, thou shalt Do that; then the rebellious principle in the evil propensity 
became roused, and acts of transgression and omissions of duty were the immediate 
consequences.
GILL, “For when we were in the flesh,.... This respects not their being under the 
legal dispensation, the Mosaic economy; which lay greatly in meats and drinks, and 
divers washings, and carnal ordinances, such as regarded the flesh chiefly; so their meats 
and drinks concerned the body; their ablutions and washings sanctified to the purifying 
of the flesh; their circumcision was outward in the flesh; the several rituals of the law 
consisted in outward things, though typical of internal and spiritual ones; hence those 
that trusted in them trusted in the flesh: but to be "in the flesh" stands opposed, 
Rom_7:8; to a being "in the spirit"; whereas there were many under that legal and carnal 
dispensation who were in the spirit, and had the Spirit of God, as David and others; 
besides, the apostle must be thought to use the phrase in such a sense, as to include all 
the persons he is speaking of and writing to, who were both Jews and Gentiles, for of 
such the church at Rome consisted; and the sense is this, "for when we", Jews and 
Gentiles, who are now believers in Christ, "were" formerly, before our conversion to, and 
faith in Christ, "in the flesh", that is, in a corrupt, carnal, and unregenerate state and 
condition; in which sense the word "flesh" is frequently used in the next chapter: now not 
all such who have flesh, sin, or corrupt nature in them, must be reckoned to be in the 
flesh, for there is a difference between flesh being in persons, from which none are free 
in this life, and their being in the flesh; nor all such who commit sin, or do carnal things 
at times, for there is not a just man that doth good and sinneth not; but such who are as 
they were born, without any alteration made in them by the Spirit and grace of God; who 
have nothing but flesh in them, no fear of God, nor love to and faith in Christ, nor any 
experience of the work of the Spirit of God upon their souls; no true sight and sense of 
sin, nor any spiritual knowledge of salvation by Christ; in whom flesh is the governing 
principle, whose minds and principles are carnal, and their conversation wholly so; yea, 
persons may be in the flesh, in an unregenerate state, who may abstain from the grosser 
immoralities of life, and even make a profession of religion: now such these had been the 
apostle is speaking of and to, and tells how it was with them when in this state; 
the motions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members to 
bring forth fruit unto death: by "the motions of sin" are meant, the evil passions and 
affections of the mind, the lusts of the heart, sinful desires, evil thoughts, the 
imaginations of the thoughts of the heart, the first motions of the mind to sin: these 
"were by the law"; not as the efficient cause of them, that neither produces nor 

30. encourages them; it is holy, just, and good, requires truth in the inward parts, and not 
only forbids the outward acts of sin, but even covetous desires, and lustful thoughts: no, 
these inward motions of sin arise from a corrupt heart and nature; are encouraged and 
cherished by the old man that dwells there; and men are enticed by Satan to a 
compliance with them. Some think that the meaning of the phrase is, that these secret 
lusts of the heart are made known by the law, as in Rom_7:7, so they are, but not whilst a 
man is in the flesh, or in an unregenerate state, but when he comes to be wrought upon 
powerfully by the Spirit of God, who makes use of the law to such a purpose: but the true 
sense of it is, that these motions of sin are irritated, provoked, and increased, through 
the law's prohibition of them; which is not to be charged as a fault on the law, but to be 
imputed to the depravity and corruption of man; who is like to one in a burning fever, 
very desirous of drink, who the more it is forbid, the more eager is he of it; or like a 
mighty torrent of water, which rises, rages, flows, and overflows, the more any methods 
are taken to stop its current; or like a filthy dunghill, which when the sun strikes 
powerfully on it, it exhales and draws out its filthy stench; which nauseous smell is not to 
be imputed to the pure rays of the sun, but to the filthiness of the dunghill: these motions 
of sin are said to "work in our members"; in the members of our bodies, which these 
sinful affections of the soul make use of to put them into action, and so they bring forth 
fruit; very evil fruit indeed, for nothing else can be expected from such an evil tree as the 
corrupt nature of man is: and this fruit is "unto death": deadly fruit, worthy of death, and 
would issue in eternal death, if grace did not prevent: the rise, beginning, motion, 
progress, and issue of sin, are most exactly and beautifully described, agreeably to this 
account here, by the Apostle James, Jam_1:13.
Gwogyn Ce;For when we were in the flesh — in our unregenerate state, as we 
came into the world. See on Joh_3:6 and see on Rom_8:5-9.
the motions — “passions” (Margin), “affections” (as in Gal_5:24), or “stirrings.”
of sins — that is, “prompting to the commission of sins.”
which were by the law — by occasion of the law, which fretted, irritated our inward 
corruption by its prohibitions. See on Rom_7:7-9.
did work in our members — the members of the body, as the instruments by which 
these inward stirrings find vent in action, and become facts of the life. See on Rom_6:6.
to bring forth fruit unto death — death in the sense of Rom_6:21. Thus hopeless 
is all holy fruit before union to Christ.
VWS, “In the flesh (
:::qByByByBy3Uy:fcV73Uy:fcV73Uy:fcV73Uy:fcV7)
;5cEyflesh, occurs in the classics in the physical sense only. Homer commonly uses it 
in the plural as denoting all the flesh or muscles of the body. Later the singular occurs in 
the same sense. Paul's use of this and other psychological terms must be determined 
largely by the Old-Testament usage as it appears in the Septuagint.
1. In the physical sense. The literal flesh. In the Septuagint 3—yVc8fyflesh (plural) is 
used where the reference is to the parts of animals slain, and fLy:5cV62, flesh (plural) 
where the reference is to flesh as the covering of the living body. Hence Paul uses Vc8fyin 
Rom_14:21; 1Co_8:13, of the flesh of sacrificed animals. Compare also the adjective 
:5cVDR12yfleshy 2Co_3:3; and Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26, Sept.

31. 2. Kindred. Denoting natural or physical relationship, Rom_1:3; Rom_9:3-8; 
Rom_11:14; Gal_4:23, Gal_4:29; 1Co_10:18; Phm_1:16. This usage forms a transition to 
the following sense: the whole human body. Flesh is the medium in and through which 
the natural relationship of man manifests itself. Kindred is conceived as based on 
community of bodily substance. Therefore:
3. The body itself. The whole being designated by the part, as being its main 
substance and characteristic, 1Co_6:16; 1Co_7:28; 2Co_4:11; 2Co_7:5; 2Co_10:3; 
2Co_12:7. Rom_2:28; Gal_6:13, etc. Paul follows the Septuagint in sometimes using 
G0M,abody, and sometimes GUCNaflesh, in this sense, so that the terms occasionally seem 
to be practically synonymous. Thus 1Co_6:16, 1Co_6:17, where the phrase one body is 
illustrated and confirmed by one flesh. See Gen_2:24; Eph_5:28, Eph_5:31, where the 
two are apparently interchanged. Compare 2Co_4:10, 2Co_4:11; 1Co_5:3, and Col_2:5. 
Σάρξ, however, differs from G0M,ain that it can only signify the organism of an earthly, 
living being consisting of flesh and bones, and cannot denote “either an earthly organism 
that is not living, or a living organism that is not earthly” (Wendt, in Dickson). 50M,anot 
thus limited. Thus it may denote the organism of the plant (1Co_15:37, 1Co_15:38) or the 
celestial bodies (1Co_15:40). Hence the two conceptions are related as general and 
special: G0M,abody, being the material organism apart from any definite matter (not 
from any sort of matter), σάρξ, flesh, the definite, earthly, animal organism. The two are 
synonymons when G0M,ais used, from the context, of an earthly, animal body. Compare 
Phi_1:22; 2Co_5:1-8.
50M,abody, and not GUCNaflesh, is used when the reference is to a metaphorical 
organism, as the church, Rom_12:4 sqq.; 1Co_10:16; 12:12-27; Eph_1:23; Eph_2:16; 
Col_1:18, etc.
The GUCNais described as mortal (2Co_4:11); subject to infirmity (Gal_4:13; 
2Co_12:7); locally limited (Col_2:15); an object of fostering care (Eph_5:29).
4. Living beings generally, including their mental nature, and with a correlated 
notion of weakness and perishableness. Thus the phrase y8G,aGUCNaall flesh (Gen_6:12; 
Isa_49:26; Isa_49:23). This accessory notion of weakness stands in contrast with God. 
In Paul the phrase all flesh is cited from the Old Testament (Rom_3:20; Gal_2:16) and is 
used independently (1Co_1:29). In all these instances before God is added. So in 
Gal_1:16, flesh and blood implies a contrast of human with divine wisdom. Compare 
1Co_15:50; Eph_6:12. This leads up to
5. Man “either as a creature in his natural state apart from Christ, or the creaturely 
side or aspect of the man in Christ.” Hence it is correlated with KL"Czy4Paman, 1Co_3:3; 
Rom_6:19; 2Co_5:17. Compare Rom_6:6; Eph_4:22; Col_3:9; Gal_5:24. Thus the flesh 
would seem to be interchangeable with the old man.
It has affections and lusts (Gal_5:24); willings (Eph_2:3; Rom_8:6, Rom_8:7); a 
mind (Col_2:18); a body (Col_2:11).
It is in sharp contrast with yLOSM,aspirit (Gal_3:3, Gal_3:19; Gal_5:16, Gal_5:17, 
Gal_5:19-24; Gal_6:8; Rom_8:4). The flesh and the spirit are thus antagonistic. 5UCNa
flesh, before or in contrast with his reception of the divine element whereby he becomes 
a new creature in Christ: the whole being of man as it exists and acts apart from the 
influence of the Spirit. It properly characterizes, therefore, not merely the lower forms of 

32. sensual gratification, but all - the highest developments of the life estranged from God, 
whether physical, intellectual, or aesthetic.
It must be carefully noted:
1. That Paul does not identify flesh and sin. Compare, flesh of sin, Rom_8:3. See 
Rom_7:17, Rom_7:18; 2Co_7:1; Gal_2:20.
2. That Paul does not identify :5cEywith the material body nor associate sin 
exclusively and predominantly with the body. The flesh is the flesh of the living man 
animated by the soul (ψυχή) as its principle of life, and is distinctly used as coordinate 
with DBxc!b12yman. As in the Old Testament, “it embraces in an emphatic manner the 
nature of man, mental and corporeal, with its internal distinctions.” The spirit as well as 
the flesh is capable of defilement (2Co_7:1; compare 1Co_7:34). Christian life is to be 
transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom_12:2; compare Eph_4:23).
3. That Paul does not identify the material side of man with evil. The flesh is not the 
native seat and source of sin. It is only its organ, and the seat of sin's manifestation. 
Matter is not essentially evil. The logical consequence of this would be that no service of 
God is possible while the material organism remains. See Rom_12:1. The flesh is not 
necessarily sinful in itself; but as it has existed from the time of the introduction of sin 
through Adam, it is recognized by Paul as tainted with sin. Jesus appeared in the flesh, 
and yet was sinless (2Co_5:21).
The motions of sins (3—ybfx43—ybfx43—ybfx43—ybfx4Rf3fyRf3fyRf3fyRf3fy3JτBτB3JByByByByNRfc3DJ8-αρτιB8-αρτιB8-αρτιBνννν)
Motions used in earlier English for emotions or impulses. Thus Bacon: “He that 
standeth at a stay where others rise, can hardly avoid motions of envy” (“Essay” xiv.). 
The word is nearly synonymous with b5x12ypassion (Rom_1:26, note). From b5x6DByto 
suffer; a feeling which the mind undergoes, a passion, desire. Rev., sinful passions: 
which led to sins.
Did work (:νηργεH:νηργεH:νηργεH:νηργεHτοτοτοτο)
Rev., wrought. See 2Co_1:6; 2Co_4:12; Eph_3:20; Gal_5:6; Phi_2:13; Col_1:29. 
Compare Mar_6:14, and see on power, Joh_1:12.
-w(Gg Ce;5.For when we were, etc. He shows still more clearly by stating the contrary effect,
how unreasonably the zealots of the law acted, who would still detain the faithful under its dominion;
for as long as the literal teaching of the law, unconnected with the Spirit of Christ, rules and bears
sway, the wantonness of the flesh is not restrained, but, on the contrary, breaks out and prevails. It
hence follows, that the kingdom of righteousness is not established, except when Christ
emancipates us from the law. Paul at the same time reminds us of the works which it becomes us to
do, when set free from the law. As long, then, as man is kept under the yoke of the law, he can, as
he is sinning CONTINUALLY, procure nothing for himself but death. Since bondage to the law
produces sin only, then freedom, its opposite, must tend to righteousness; if the former leads to
death, then the latter leads to life. But let us consider the very words of Paul.
In describing our condition during the time we were subject to the dominion of the law, he says, that
we were in the flesh. We hence understand, that all those who are under the law attain nothing else
but this — that their ears are struck by its external sound without any fruit or effect, while they are
inwardly destitute of the Spirit of God. They must therefore necessarily remain altogether sinful and

33. perverse, until a better remedy succeeds to heal their diseases. Observe also this usual phrase of
Scripture, to be in the flesh; it means to be endued only with the gifts of nature, without that peculiar
grace with which God favors his chosen people. But if this state of life is altogether sinful, it is
evident that no part of our soul is naturally sound, and that the power of free will is no other than the
power of casting evil emotions as darts into all the faculties of the soul.
(205) 
The emotions of sins, (206) which are through the law, etc.; that is, the law excited in us evil
emotions, which exerted their influence through all our faculties; for there is no part which is not
subject to these depraved passions. What the law does, in the absence of the inward teacher, the
Spirit, is increasingly to inflame our hearts, so that they boil up with lusts. But observe here, that the
law is connected with the vicious nature of man, the perversity of which, and its lusts, break forth
with greater fury, the more they are CHECKED
 by the restraints of righteousness. He further
adds, that as long as the emotions of the flesh were under the dominion of the law they brought
forth fruit to death; and he adds this to show that the law by itself is destructive. It hence follows,
that they are infatuated, who so much desire this bondage which issues in death.
(205)
 To be “ the flesh” has two meanings, — to be unrenewed, and in our natural corrupt state, as
[Calvin
] says, see Rom_8:8, — and to be subject to external rites and ceremonies as the Jews
were, see Gal_3:3; Phi_3:4. Its meaning here, ACCORDING to [Beza ] and [Pareus ], is the first;
according to [Grotius ] and [Hammond ], the second; and according to [Turrettin ] and [Hodge ], both
are included, as the context, in their view, evidently shows. — Ed. 
(206)
 “Affectus peccatorum — affections of sins ;” τα παθήVατα etc., — “cupiditates — desires,” or
lusts, [Grotius
].. The word is commonly taken passively, as signifying afflictions,
sufferings; Rom_8:18; 2Co_1:5; Col_1:24; but here, and in Gal_5:24, it evidently means
excitements, commotions, emotions, lusts or lustings. “” in our language admits of two similar
meanings — suffering, and an excited feeling, or an inward commotion.
These “” are said to be through the law, — “ known by the law,” says [Chrysostom ] ; but “ by the
law,” is more correct, as it appears from Rom_7:8, or, “ to abound by the law,” as inRom_5:20. The
law, instead of making men holy, made them, through the perversity of human nature, to sin the
more. “ of sins” is an Hebraism for “ emotions” — “ members” are those of the “ man,” and not those
of the material body, though it is commonly thought that they are the latter, and mentioned, because
they are EMPLOYED as the instruments of sin: but there are many sins, and those of the worst
kind, which are confined to the mind and heart. It is therefore more consistent to regard them as the
members of “ body of sin,” Rom_6:6. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were through the 
law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Under Romans 7:4 Paul's teaching is viewed as APPLICABLE to both Jewish and Gentile
Christians, the same being essentially one "in Christ"; but this should not obscure the fact that the
Jewish element in the church was primarily in the focus of Paul's words here.

which was a mark in the flesh, that Paul had in view. It should be noted that Paul was not here
contrasting two methods of salvation in Christ, as sometimes alleged, but was contrasting life under
the law of Moses with the life of faith in Jesus Christ. Regarding the unbearable nature of Moses'
law, Peter said,
Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear (Acts 15:10).

34. The inability of the Mosaic system to give the worshiper any VALID victory over sin was due: (1)
to the fact that no forgiveness was possible, (2) that there was no impartation of the Holy Spirit, and
(3) that there was utterly no justification in the keeping of its precepts. No wonder that Peter referred
to it as a yoke of bondage.
6. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we
have been released from the law so that we serve
in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old
way of the written code.
Everything changed when we died to the law and came under the control of the
NfrfmejLepjlOegjReRseUtJsetecsRe—t;msrSetcletecsRemotivation. We do what is the
will of God not because we have to, but because we want to. We want to do what is
right and just and loving, not because the law says to do it or else, but because we
have the love of God in us, and desire to do these thing to please Him and be a
blessing to others.
"A plainly dressed woman was noticed to be picking up something on a poor slum
street where ragged barefooted little children were accustomed to play. The
policeman on the beat noticed the woman's action, and watched her very
suspiciously. Several times he saw her stoop and pick up something and hid it in her
apron. Finally he went up to her, and with a gruff voice demanded, "What are you
carrying off in your apron?" The timid woman did not answer at first, whereupon
the policeman, thinking she must have found something valuable, threatened her
with arrest if she did not show him what she had in her apron. The woman opened
her apron and revealed a handful of broken glass. "What do you want with that
stuff?" asked the policeman. The woman replied, "I just thought I would pick it up
so the glass would not hurt the children's feet." Here was service, not because of
any law, but because she had a spirit of love.” author unknown
Lovett writes, "Your child likes to run into the street. Put him in the back yard
;ErrjEclsleyxeteGUtfceqfc6eLscGsetcleUse i:11ebugi to go into the street. The
LscGseNrsJscm;eUf—SeyEmefmeljs;eghieGUtckseUf;els;fre. That is the relationship of
the law to the old nature. It tells a man what he dugghieljeyEmefmeljs;c@meGUtckse
Uf—Oee jeRUtmeljs;e;fcLEqe—tcelj0eeHsekfJs;eo:g:o.o compliance to the law.

35. Since his heart is not changed, he tries to get away with everything he can and yet
stay inside the Law. This is what the Pharsees did in Jesus' day. Blind to the
purpose of the Law, they tried to USE it to make themselves appear righteous.
Instead of seeing it as a mirror of their evil, they regarded it as a ladder to heaven.
But there is no Law for the new nature. When you LuGlwoutlunl*wI.Lw
automatically seek to please him. In stall rules between a newlywed couple and
you'll ruin their relationship. They serve each otxiWwgiSTLGiwdxiIws nawd.Ewwsi@Wiw
,nw2uGlwUrdxw5iGLGwTvbw4lwUrdxwLGEwwBLpiGwU.LpbwGm.il our delight in each other.
Besides, they aren't necessary. Christians are already directed by the law of
LOVE."
Barnes, “
But now. Under the gospel. This verse states the conse- quences of the gospel, in distinction 
from the effects of the law. The way in which this is accomplished the apostle illustrates more at length in 
Romans 8, with which this verse is properly connected. The remainder of Romans 7 is occupied in 
illustrating the statement in Romans 7:5, of the effects of the law; and after having shown that its effects 
always were to increase crime and distress, he is prepared in Romans 8, to take up the proposition in this 
verse, and to show the superiority of the gospel in producing peace. 
We are delivered. We who are Christians. Delivered from it as a means of justification, as a source of 
sanctification, as a bondage to which we were subjected, and which tended to produce pain and death. It 
does not mean that Christians are freed from it as a rule of duty. 
That being dead. Margin, "Being dead to that." There is a variation here in the Mss. Some read it, as in the 
text, as if the law was dead; others, as in the margin, as if we were dead. The majority are in favour of the 
reading as in the margin; and the connexion requires us to understand it in this sense. So the Syriac, the 
Arabic, the Vulgate, and the AEthiopic. The sentiment here, that we are dead to the law, is that which is 
expressed in Romans 7:4. 
Wherein we were held. That is, as captives, or as slaves. We were held in bondage to it, Romans 7:1. 
That we should serve. That we may now serve or obey God 
In newness of spirit. In a new spirit; or in a new and Spiritual manner. This is a form of expression 
implying, 
(1.) that their service under the gospel was to be of a new kind, differing from that under the former 
dispensation. 
(2.) That it was to be of a spiritual nature, as distinguished from that practised by the Jews. Comp. 
2     Corinthians 3:6    . See Barnes "Romans 2:28". See Barnes "Romans 2:29". The worship required 
under the gospel is uniformly described as that of the spirit and the heart, rather than that of form and 
ceremony. John 4:23, "The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." Philippians 
3:3. 
And not in the oldness of the letter. Not in the old letter. It is implied here in this, 
(1.) that the form of worship here described pertained to an old dispensation that had now passed away; and 
(2.) that that was a worship that was in the letter. To understand this, it is necessary to remember that the 
law which prescribed the forms of worship among the Jews, was regarded by the apostle as destitute of that 
efficacy and power in renewing the heart which he attributed to the gospel. It was a service consisting in 
external forms and ceremonies; in the offering of sacrifices and of incense, according to the literal 
requirement of the law, rather than the sincere offering of the heart. 2     Corinthians 3:6    , "The letter 
killeth; the spirit giveth life." John 6:63; Hebrews 10:1-4; 9:9,10. It is not to be denied that there 

36. were many holy persons under the law, and that there were many spiritual offerings presented; but it is at 
the same time true that the great mass of the people rested in the mere form; and that the service offered 
was the mere service of the letter, and not of the heart. The main idea is, that the services under the gospel 
are purely and entirely spiritual, the offering of the heart, and not the service rendered by external forms 
and rites. 
{1} "delivered from the law" or, "being dead to that"
CLARKE, “But now we are delivered from the law - We, who have believed in 
Christ Jesus, are delivered from that yoke by which we were bound, which sentenced 
every transgressor to perdition, but provided no pardon even for the penitent, and no 
sanctification for those who are weary of their inbred corruptions.
That being dead wherein we were held - To us believers in Christ this 
commandment is abrogated; we are transferred to another constitution; that law which 
kills ceases to bind us; it is dead to us who have believed in Christ Jesus, who is the end 
of the law for justification and salvation to every one that believes.
That we should serve in newness of spirit - We are now brought under a more 
spiritual dispensation; now we know the spiritual import of all the Mosaic precepts. We 
see that the law referred to the Gospel, and can only be fulfilled by the Gospel.
The oldness of the letter - The merely literal rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices are 
now done away; and the newness of the spirit, the true intent and meaning of all are now 
fully disclosed; so that we are got from an imperfect state into a state of perfection and 
excellence. We sought justification and sanctification, pardon and holiness, by the law, 
and have found that the law could not give them: we have sought these in the Gospel 
scheme, and we have found them. We serve God now, not according to the old literal 
sense, but in the true spiritual meaning.
GILL, “But now we are delivered from the law,.... From the ministration of it, by 
Moses; from it, as a covenant of works; from its rigorous exaction; from its curse and 
condemnation, all this by Christ; and from its being an irritating, provoking law to sin, 
through the corruption of nature, by the Spirit and grace of Christ; but not from 
obedience to it, as in the hands of Christ. The Vulgate Latin version, and some copies 
read, "from the law of death"; and the Ethiopic version renders it, "we are loosed from 
the law, and are delivered from the former doctrine"; the doctrine of the legal 
dispensation. 
That being dead; not sin, but the law: in what sense believers are dead to the law, and 
that to them; see Gill on 
Rom_7:4. 
Wherein we were held: as a woman is by the law to her husband, or as persons guilty, 
who are detained prisoners; so we were "kept under the law, shut up unto the faith", as in 
a prison, Gal_3:23; Now the saints deliverance from the law through the abrogation of it, 
that losing its former life, vigour, power, and dominion, is not that they may live a loose 
licentious life and conversation, but that they 
should serve the Lord their God without slavish fear, and with a godly one, acceptably, 
in righteousness and holiness, all the days of their lives; and their Lord and Master Jesus 
Christ, who is King of saints, lawgiver in his church, and whose commandments are to be 

37. observed from a principle of love, in faith, and to his glory; yea, even the law itself, as 
held forth by him, as the apostle says in the close of this chapter, "with the mind I myself 
serve the law of God", Rom_7:25, the manner in which this service is to be, and is 
performed, is, 
in newness of Spirit; under the influences of the Spirit of God, the author of 
renovation, of the new creature, or new man created in us, in righteousness and true 
holiness; and from a new heart, and new Spirit, and new principles of life, light, love, and 
grace, formed in the soul; and by walking in "newness of life", Rom_6:4, or by a new life, 
walk, and conversation: 
and not in the oldness of the letter; not in the outward observance of the law of 
Moses, which is the "letter"; not indulging the old man, or walking after the dictates of 
corrupt nature; nor behaving according to the old former course of living: on the whole it 
may be observed, that a believer without the law, being delivered from it, that being dead 
to him, and he to that, lives a better life and conversation under the influence of the 
Spirit of God, than one that is under the law, and the works of it, destitute of the grace of 
God; the one brings forth "fruit unto death", Rom_7:5, the other serves the Lord, "in 
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter".
Gwogyn Ce;But now — On the same expression, see on 
Rom_6:22, and compare 
Jam_1:15.
we are delivered from the law — The word is the same which, in Rom_6:6 and 
elsewhere, is rendered “destroyed,” and is but another way of saying (as in Rom_7:4) 
that “we were slain to the law by the body of Christ”; language which, though harsh to 
the ear, is designed and fitted to impress upon the reader the violence of that death of 
the Cross, by which, as by a deadly wrench, we are “delivered from the law.”
that being dead wherein we were held — It is now universally agreed that the 
true reading here is, “being dead to that wherein we were held.” The received reading has 
no authority whatever, and is inconsistent with the strain of the argument; for the death 
spoken of, as we have seen, is not the law’s, but ours, through union with the crucified 
Savior.
that we should — “so as to” or “so that we.”
serve in newness of spirit — “in the newness of the spirit.”
and not in the oldness of the letter — not in our old way of literal, mechanical 
obedience to the divine law, as a set of external rules of conduct, and without any 
reference to the state of our hearts; but in that new way of spiritual obedience which, 
through union to the risen Savior, we have learned to render (compare Rom_2:29; 
2Co_3:6).
-w(Gg Ce;6.But now we have been loosed from the law, etc. He pursues the argument derived
from the opposite effect of things, — “ the restraint of the law AVAILED so little to bridle the flesh,
that it became rather the exciter of sin; then, that we may cease from sin, we must necessarily be
freed from the law.” Again, “ we are freed from the bondage of the law for this end, that we may
serve God; then, perversely do they act who hence take the liberty to indulge in sin; and falsely do
they speak who teach, that by this means loose reins are given to lusts.” Observe, then, that we are
then freed from the law, when God emancipates us from its rigid exactions and curse, and endues

38. us with his Spirit, through whom we walk in his ways. (207) 
Having died to that, etc. This part contains a reason, or rather, indicates the manner in which we are
made FREE; for the law is so far abrogated with regard to us, that we are not pressed down by
its intolerable burden, and that its inexorable rigor does not overwhelm us with a curse.
(208) — In 
newness of spirit; He sets the spirit in opposition to the letter; for before our will is
formed ACCORDING
 to the will of God by the Holy Spirit, we have in the law nothing but the
outward letter, which indeed bridles our external actions, but does not in the least restrain the fury of
our lusts. And he ascribes newness to the Spirit, because it succeeds the old man; as the letter is
called old, because it perishes through the regeneration of the Spirit.
(207)
 That the moral, and not the ceremonial law, is meant here, is incontestably evident from what
the Apostle adds in the following verses. He QUOTES
 the moral law in the next verse; he calls
this law, in Rom_7:10, the commandment
 , την ἐντολὴν which was unto life, see Mat_19:16; and he
says, that “ it” sin “” him, which could not have been said of the ceremonial law. — Ed.
(208)
 Our common version is evidently INCORRECT
 as to this clause. The pronoun αὐτῷ
or ἐκεινῷ is to be supplied. There is an exactly similar ellipsis in Rom_6:21
 [Beza
] and several
others, as well as our version, have followed a reading
 , αποθανοντὀ which [Griesbach
] disregards
as of no authority; and it is inconsistent with the usual phraseology of the Apostle. SeeRom_7:4,
and Gal_2:19. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein 
we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Now that we have ... shows that Paul was here identifying himself as a former disciple of the law,
thus including himself with the Jewish Christians to whom he ADDRESSED this appeal. Paul's
use of the first person here should be noted.
Newness of the spirit ... oldness of the letter ... These phrases refer to the life "in Christ Jesus"
on the one hand, and to life under Moses' law on the other. "Oldness of the letter" is a reference to
exactly the same thing that that was signified by the use of "in the flesh" in the preceding verse.
Paul's various usage of the same phrase is again apparent in that. In this paragraph, "flesh" means
the covenant of flesh, or the law of Moses; in Galatians 2:20, it means alive in the physical body;
and in Romans 8:9, it has reference to living after the lusts of the flesh.
Sanday's exegesis on the meaning of this verse is,
The true reading runs thus: "But as it is, we were (we are) delivered from the Law, having died to
that wherein we were held. In the act of our baptism which united us to Christ, we obtained a
release from our old tyrant, the Law."[5]
The insinuation that "oldness of the letter" has reference to obeying the commandments of Christ,

[5] W. Sanday, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1959), p. 230.

39. Struggling With Sin
7.What shall we say, then? Is the law sin?
Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known
what sin was except through the law. For I would
not have known what coveting really was if the
law had not said, "Do not covet."[ ]
Where there is no law there cannot be any violation of it, and so the presence of law
that forbids things, makes us guilty of sin when we do what it forbids. The law is not
sin, but it does make sin a reality. If there is nowhere where coveting is forbidden, it
is not breaking any law to covet. So when the law says you are not to do it, then it
become wrong and sinful to do it. The law is what makes sin identifiable. You
cannot see sinful behavior and label it as such until the law says such behavior is
sinful. If there is no sign that says keep off the grass, you might think it is not a good
thing to do it as you see somebody walking across the grass, but it is only clearly
wrong to do so when that sign is right there forbidding such behavior. Laws make
sin easy to see, and make condemnation easy to express.
The law is good, for it defines sin so that we know we are lost and cannot save
ourselves. But it is inadequate, for it cannot save us. It can only help us see the
need for a Savior. The law does not make you holy. It reveals how unholy you are,
for when it says don't do this, you then have a desire to do it. You have a propensity
toward the forbidden. You desire to act contrary to the law. As soon as someone
says don't do it, your nature desires to do it. Because you have a sinful nature you
desire to do what is forbidden.
The law is not the problem. It is good, but it brings out the bad in you. Perfect
Adam and Eve had this potential to chose evil, and they did it because they were
made to desire the forbidden. If there is nothing forbidden, you cannot sin. So the
law does really create sin. God made sin possible by the law which forbids. Why?
Because there can be no righteousness if there is no choice to resist the forbidden.
Sin is simply a choice of saying no to a known law. It is a desire to rebell against
authority. The law was designed, not to heal, but to reveal just how sick man is. He
is by nature a law breaker.
Forrester wrote, "To one who expects the law to santify this must be disappointing.

40. Paul had suffered that disappointment; and everyone who expects in his own
strength to perfect his character is doomed sooner or later to a like disappointment.
Imagine what it is to have a physician to tell you exactly what is the matter with you
when you are sick, and to tell you at the same time that he cannot cure you. Such a
physician is the law. It tells you exactly what is the matter with you, but is utterly
unable to cure you.
Have you ever seen no drowning sign by a body of water? Of course not, for you
only see no swimming signs. A man was splashing in the water and the park keeper
shouted, "Hey, there is no swimming aloud." The man cried out, "I'm not
swimming, I'm drowning!" "Oh, that's alright then." Stupid, but the point is, there
was no law against drowning. It was not a violation of the law to drown, for the law
had not forbidden anyone to drown. Sin is a violation of law, and if there is no law
there can be no violation.
Barnes, “
What shall we say then? The objection which is here urged is one that would very naturally 
rise, and which we may suppose would be urged with no slight indignation. The Jew would ask, "Are we 
then to suppose that the holy law of God is not only insufficient to sanctify us, but that it is the mere 
occasion of increased sin? Is its tendency to produce sinful passions, and to make men worse than they 
were before?" To this objection the apostle replies with great wisdom, by showing that the evil was not in 
the law, but in man; that though these effects often followed, yet that the law itself was good and pure. 
Is the law sin? Is it sinful? Is it evil? For if, as it is said in 
Romans 7:5, the sinful passions were by the 
law," it might naturally be asked whether the law itself was not an evil thing? 
God forbid. See Barnes "Romans 3:4". 
mhgw.-.ehl.Un—.yUndU.oTU. The word translated nay (\~alla\~) means more properly but; and this would have 
more correctly expressed the sense, "I deny that the law is sin. My doctrine does not lead to that; nor do I 
affirm that it is evil. I strongly repel the charge; BUT, notwithstanding this, I still maintain 'hat it had an 
effect in exciting sins, yet so as that I perceived that the law itself was good," Romans 7:8-12. At the 
same time, therefore, that the law must be admitted to be the occasion of exciting sinful feelings, by 
crossing the inclinations of the mind, yet the fault was not to be traced to the law. The apostle in these 
verses refers, doubtless, to the state of his mind before he found that peace which the gospel furnishes by 
the pardon of sin. 
But by the law. Romans 3:20. By the law here, the apostle has evidently in his eye every law of God, 
however made known. He means to my that the effect which he describes attends all law, and this effect he 
illustrates by a single instance drawn from the tenth commandment. When he says that he should not have 
known sin, he evidently means to affirm, that he had not understood that certain things were sinful unless 
they had been forbidden; and having stated this, he proceeds to another thing, to show the effect of their 
being thus forbidden on his mind. He was not merely acquainted abstractly with the nature and existence of 
sin, with what constituted crime because it was forbidden, but he was conscious of a certain effect on his 
mind resulting from this knowledge, and from the effect of strong, raging desires when thus restrained, 
Romans 7:8,9. 
For I had not known lust. I should not have been acquainted with the nature of the sin of covetousness. The 
desire might have existed, but he would not have known it to be sinful, and he would not have experienced 
that raging, impetuous, and ungoverned propensity which he did when he found it to be forbidden. Man 
without law might have the strong feelings of desire. He might covet that which others possessed. He might 
take property, or be disobedient to parents; but he would not know it to be evil. The law fixes bounds to his 
desires, and teaches him what is right and what is wrong. It teaches him where lawful indulgence ends, and 
where sin begins. The word "lust" here is not limited as it is with us. It refers to all covetous desires; to all 
wishes for that which is forbidden us. 

41. Except the law had said. In the tenth commandment, Exodus 20:17. 
Thou shalt not covet. This is the beginning of the command, and all the rest is implied. The apostle knew 
that it would be understood without repeating the whole. This particular commandment he selected because 
it was more pertinent than the others to his purpose. The others referred particularly to external actions. But 
his object was to show the effect of sin on the mind and conscience. He therefore chose one that referred 
particularly to the desires of the heart. 
CLARKE, “Is the law sin? - The apostle had said, 
Rom_7:6 : The motions of sins, 
which were by the law, did bring forth fruit unto death; and now he anticipates an 
objection, “Is therefore the law sin?” To which he answers, as usual, RCy’6B1D31, by no 
means. Law is only the means of disclosing; this sinful propensity, not of producing it; as 
a bright beam of the sun introduced into a room shows; millions of motes which appear 
to be dancing in it in all directions; but these were not introduced by the light: they were 
there before, only there was not light enough to make them manifest; so the evil 
propensity was there before, but there was not light sufficient to discover it.
I had not known sin, but by the law - Mr. Locke and Dr. Taylor have properly 
remarked the skill used by St. Paul in dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the 
giving offense to the Jews: and this is particularly evident in his use of the word I in this 
place. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he 
says Ye; in the 4th verse he joins himself with them, and says we; but here, and so to the 
end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin and the inability of the law to 
subdue it, he appears to leave them out, and speaks altogether in the first person, though 
it is plain he means all those who are under the law. So, Rom_3:7, he uses the singular 
pronoun, why am I judged a sinner? when he evidently means the whole body of 
unbelieving Jews.
There is another circumstance in which his address is peculiarly evident; his 
demonstrating the insufficiency of the law under color of vindicating it. He knew that the 
Jew would take fire at the least reflection on the law, which he held in the highest 
veneration; and therefore he very naturally introduces him catching at that expression, 
Rom_7:5, the motions of sins, which were by the law, or, notwithstanding the law. 
“What!” says this Jew, “do you vilify the law, by charging it with favoring sin?” By no 
means, says the apostle; I am very far from charging the law with favoring sin. The law is 
holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good, Rom_7:12. Thus he writes in 
vindication of the law; and yet at the same time shows:
1. That the law requires the most extensive obedience, discovering and condemning 
sin in all its most secret and remote branches, Rom_7:7.
2. That it gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty of 
death, Rom_7:8-14. And yet,
3. supplies neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaves him under the power of sin, 
and the sentence of death, Rom_7:14, etc. This, says Dr. Taylor, is the most 
ingenious turn of writing I ever met with. We have another instance of the same 
sort, Rom_13:1-7.
It is not likely that a dark, corrupt human heart can discern the will of God. His law is 
his will. It recommends what is just, and right, and good and forbids what is improper, 
unjust, and injurious. If God had not revealed himself by this law, we should have done 
precisely what many nations of the earth have done, who have not had this revelation - 
put darkness for light, and sin for acts of holiness. While the human heart is its own 

42. measure it will rate its workings according to its own propensities; for itself is its highest 
rule. But when God gives a true insight of his own perfections, to be applied as a rule 
both of passion and practice, then sin is discovered, and discovered too, to be 
exceedingly sinful. So strong propensities, because they appear to be inherent in our 
nature, would have passed for natural and necessary operations; and their sinfulness 
would not have been discovered, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet; and thus 
determined that the propensity itself, as well as its outward operations, is sinful. The law 
is the straight edge which determines the quantum of obliquity in the crooked line to 
which it is applied.
It is natural for man to do what is unlawful, and to desire especially to do that which is 
forbidden. The heathens have remarked this propensity in man.
Thus Livy, xxxiv. 4: - 
Luxuria - ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irtitata.
“Luxury, like a wild beast, is irritated by its very bonds.”
Audax omnia perpeti
Gens humana ruit per vetitun; nefas.
“The presumptuous human race obstinately rush into prohibited acts of 
wickedness.”
Hor. Carm. lib. i. Od. iii. ver. 25.
And Ovid, Amor. lib. ii. Eleg. xix. ver. 3: - 
Quod licet, ingratum est; quod non licet, acrius urit.
“What is lawful is insipid; the strongest propensity is excited towards 
that which is prohibited.”
And again, Ib. lib. iii. E. iv. ver. 17: - 
Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.
“Vice is provoked by every strong restraint,
Sick men long most to drink, who know they mayn’t.”
The same poet delivers the same sentiment it another place: - 
Acrior admonitu est, irritaturque retenta
Et crescit rabies: remoraminaque ipsa nocebant.
Metam. lib. iii. ver. 566.
“Being admonished, he becomes the more obstinate; and his fierceness 
is irritated by restraints. Prohibitions become incentives to greater acts of 
vice.”
But it is needless to multiply examples; this most wicked principle of a sinful, fallen 
nature, has been felt and acknowledged by All mankind.

43. GILL, “What shall we say then? is the law sin?.... The apostle having said, that 
"the motions of sins were by the law", Rom_7:5, meets with an objection, or rather an ill 
natured cavil, "is the law sin?" if the motions sins are by it, then it instigates and prompts 
men to sin; it cherishes it in them; it leads them and impels them to the commission of it, 
and therefore must be the cause of sin; and if the cause of sin, then it must be sin, or 
sinful itself: "what shall we say then?" how shall we remove this difficulty, answer this 
objection, and silence this cavil? To this it is replied by way of detestation and 
abhorrence, 
God forbid! a way of speaking often made use of by the apostle, when any dreadful 
consequence was drawn from, or any shocking objection was made to his doctrine, and 
which was so monstrous as scarcely to deserve any other manner of refutation; see 
Rom_3:3; and next by observing the use of the law to discover sin; which it does by 
forbidding it, and threatening it with death; by accusing for it, convincing of it, and 
representing it in its proper colours, it being as a glass in which it may be beheld just as it 
is, neither greater nor less; which must be understood as attended with a divine power 
and light, otherwise as a glass is of no use to a blind man, so neither is the law in this 
sense, to a man in a state of darkness, until the Spirit of God opens his eyes to behold in 
this glass what manner of man he is: now since the law is so useful to discover, and so to 
discountenance sin, that itself cannot be sin, or sinful. The apostle exemplifies this in his 
own case, and says, 
nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; which he says not in the person of 
another, there is no room nor reason for such a fancy; but in his own person, and of 
himself: not of himself at that present time, as is evident from his way of speaking; nor of 
himself in his childhood, before he came to years of discretion to discern between good 
and evil; but as, and when he was a grown person, and whilst a Pharisee, Phi_3:5; he did 
not know sin during his being in that state till the law came, and entered into his 
conscience, and then, and by it, he knew sin, Rom_7:7, the exceeding sinfulness of it, 
Rom_7:13, and that he himself was the chief of sinners, 1Ti_1:15. Nay he goes on to 
observe, that by the law he came to know, not only the sinfulness of outward actions, but 
also of inward lusts; says he, 
for I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shall not covet: as it 
does in Exo_20:17. This is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they produce any 
passage out of the law, thus (e),   twIy tnK syJ.TkylHdyAHKAJsy(pyHiKhikyvhmkAy.hy)(lly.TkkLy
akpkaa(iWyk(.Tkay.hy1Sa_24:11yhayExo_22:1LyHiOyHyl(..lkyHp.kasyJ.TkylHdyAHKAJsyiHmklKsy(iyExo_3:5sy
JWX.yhppy.TKyAThkAypahmyhppy.TKypkk.JsyYvgyZKyJlXA.Jy(AymkHi.y.Tky(idHaOymh.(hiAyhpyA(iy(iy.TkyTkHa.sy
HiKyHiOyk[kaKyOkA(akyhpy.Tkym(iOyHp.kay(.Lyih.yhilKyA.XO(kOyHiOyvhivka.kOyAvTkmkAsyThdy.hy\a(iWy
H\hX.yHiOyvhmWHAAyHiyk[(lyHv.(hiLy\X.yk[kaKylhhAky[HWaHi.y.ThXWT.yhpyA(isyHiOy(ivl(iH.(hiy.hy(.Ly
KkHsyk[kaKy(mHW(iH.(hiyhpy.Tky.ThXWT.yhpy.TkyTkHa.sy\kphaky.Tky(mHW(iH.(hiy(AydkllyphamkOy(i.hyHy
.ThXWT.LyHiOyih.yhilKyHyOHllK(iWyd(.TyA(iy(iy.Tkym(iOsyOdkll(iWyXWhiy(.yd(.TyWlkHAXaky(iy.ThXWT.sy
\X.yk[kiyAXvTyAXOOkiymh.(hiAyHiOyA.Ha.Ayhpy.Tkym(iOy.hyA(isy.hydT(vTydkyW([kyihyHAAki.LyAXvTyHAy

44. .bva”m[cfXmu.bDraDv.ra7cmub.bDaucaudvaR”ffra\v”m6a…udvav[”faweweweweaRcXf_amcu…raRom_7:19ra.m_a.bva
_”:Wfv.:”m6a.m_ad.uvwXfaucaX:'audv:va.bvagv.mua\DafX:ura.m_aRd”7da\Daudvaf.Racwa`c_a.bvajmcRmauca
\va:”mwXfra.m_acmfDa\Daud.u2aadv:vaRvbvamcuajmcRmauca\va:ca\Daudva`vmu”fv:raRdcacmfDad._audvaf.Ra
.m_af”6duacwam.uXbv'amcba.bvaudvDa7cm_vgmv_ramcba.mDaWbc[”:”cmag._va.6.”m:uaudvgramcba7.maudvbva
\va.mDag._vra\Daudvaf.R:acwagvmXa.m_audcX6daudv:va”mR.b_afX:u:a.bva7cm_vgmv_a\Daudvaf.Racwa
`c_raDvua”m.:gX7da.:audvDaRvbvamcuaWXm”:d.\fva\Dagvmra.m_a7cXf_a\va7c[vbv_aR”udaudva6X”:vacwa.ma
vTuvbm.fab”6duvcX:mv::ragXfu”uX_v:aRdcaRvbva\cbmaXm_vbra.m_a\bcX6duaXWa”maud.uaf.RraRvbva:v7Xbva
.m_a”m_cfvmua.\cXuaudvgra_”_amcuafccjaXWcmaudvga.:a:”m:racba.:a.ua.ffa.wwv7u”m6audv”bab”6duvcX:mv::'a
\Xua”g.6”mv_aud.ura…ucX7d”m6audvab”6duvcX:mv::acwaudvaf.R…raudvDaRvbva…\f.gvfv::…raPhi_3:6'aRd”7da
R.:audva7.:vacwa.ffaudvabd.b”:vv:ra.m_acwaudva.Wc:ufvaRd”f:ua:X7dXa\XuaRdvmaudvaf.Ra7.gva.m_a
vmuvbv_ad”:a7cm:7”vm7vaR”udaWcRvba.m_af”6dua.uuvm_”m6a”uraudvmadva:.Rra:X7da”mmXgvb.\fva:R.bg:a
cwafX:u:a”mad”:adv.bura.m_audv:vauca\va:”mwXfraRd”7dadvamv[vba:.Ra.m_ajmvRa\vwcbvXadX:ua.:a”ma.a
:Xm\v.gaRva\vdcf_audc:vamXgvbcX:af”uufva\”u:acwa_X:uraRd”7dacudvbR”:va.bva”m_”:7vbm”\fva\DaX:2a
ecRa:”m7vaudvaf.Ra”:acwa:X7daX:vramcuacmfDauca_”:7c[vbaudva:”mwXfmv::acwacXuR.b_a.7u”cm:ra\Xua.f:cacwa
”mR.b_afX:u:a.m_a_v:”bv:raud.ua”u:vfwa7.mmcua\va:”mwXf2a
6l To)n5To what he had said in the former paragraph, the apostle here raises an 
objection, which he answers very fully: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? When he 
had been speaking of the dominion of sin, he had said so much of the influence of the law 
as a covenant upon that dominion that it might easily be misinterpreted as a reflection 
upon the law, to prevent which he shows from his own experience the great excellency 
and usefulness of the law, not as a covenant, but as a guide; and further discovers how 
sin took occasion by the commandment. Observe in particular,
I. The great excellency of the law in itself. Far be it from Paul to reflect upon the law; 
no, he speaks honourably of it. 1. It is holy, just, and good, 
Rom_7:12. The law in general 
is so, and every particular commandment is so. Laws are as the law-makers are. God, the 
great lawgiver, is holy, just, and good, therefore his law must needs be so. The matter of 
it is holy: it commands holiness, encourages holiness; it is holy, for it is agreeable to the 
holy will of God, the original of holiness. It is just, for it is consonant to the rules of 
equity and right reason: the ways of the Lord are right. It is good in the design of it; it 
was given for the good of mankind, for the conservation of peace and order in the world. 
It makes the observers of it good; the intention of it was to better and reform mankind. 
Wherever there is true grace there is an assent to this - that the law is holy, just, and 
good. 2. The law is spiritual (Rom_7:14), not only in regard to the effect of it, as it is a 
means of making us spiritual, but in regard to the extent of it; it reaches our spirits, it 
lays a restraint upon, and gives a direction to, the motions of the inward man; it is a 
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, Heb_4:12. It forbids spiritual 
wickedness, heart-murder, and heart-adultery. It commands spiritual service, requires 
the heart, obliges us to worship God in the spirit. It is a spiritual law, for it is given by 
God, who is a Spirit and the Father of spirits; it is given to man, whose principal part is 
spiritual; the soul is the best part, and the leading part of the man, and therefore the law 
to the man must needs be a law to the soul. Herein the law of God is above all other laws, 
that it is a spiritual law. Other laws may forbid compassing and imagining, etc., which 

45. are treason in the heart, but cannot take cognizance thereof, unless there be some overt 
act; but the law of God takes notice of the iniquity regarded in the heart, though it go no 
further. Wash thy heart from wickedness, Jer_4:14. We know this: Wherever there is 
true grace there is an experimental knowledge of the spirituality of the law of God.
II. The great advantage that he had found by the law. 1. It was discovering: I had not 
known sin but by the law, Rom_7:7. As that which is straight discovers that which is 
crooked, as the looking-glass shows us our natural face with all its spots and deformities, 
so there is no way of coming to that knowledge of sin which is necessary to repentance, 
and consequently to peace and pardon, but by comparing our hearts and lives with the 
law. Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the 
tenth commandment. By lust he means sin dwelling in us, sin in its first motions and 
workings, the corrupt principle. This he came to know when the law said, Thou shalt not 
covet. The law spoke in other language than the scribes and Pharisees made it to speak 
in; it spoke in the spiritual sense and meaning of it. By this he knew that lust was sin and 
a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never 
came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful. Paul had a very quick and piercing 
judgment, all the advantages and improvements of education, and yet never attained the 
right knowledge of indwelling sin till the Spirit by the law made it known to him. There is 
nothing about which the natural man is more blind than about original corruption, 
concerning which the understanding is altogether in the dark till the Spirit by the law 
reveal it, and make it known. Thus the law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, 
opens and searches the wound, and so prepares it for healing. Thus sin by the 
commandment does appear sin (Rom_7:13); it appears in its own colours, appears to be 
what it is, and you cannot call it by a worse name than its own. Thus by the 
commandment it becomes exceedingly sinful; that is, it appears to be so. We never see 
the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, 
and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing. 2. It 
was humbling (Rom_7:9): I was alive. He thought himself in a very good condition; he 
was alive in his own opinion and apprehension, very secure and confident of the 
goodness of his state. Thus he was once, 
pote - in times past, when he was a Pharisee; for 
it was the common temper of that generation of men that they had a very good conceit of 
themselves; and Paul was then like the rest of them, and the reason was he was then 
without the law. Though brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, though 
himself a great student in the law, a strict observer of it, and a zealous stickler for it, yet 
without the law. He had the letter of the law, but he had not the spiritual meaning of it - 
the shell, but not the kernel. He had the law in his hand and in his head, but he had it not 
in his heart; the notion of it, but not the power of it. There are a great many who are 
spiritually dead in sin, that yet are alive in their own opinion of themselves, and it is their 
strangeness to the law that is the cause of the mistake. But when the commandment 
came, came in the power of it (not to his eyes only, but to his heart), sin revived, as the 
dust in a room rises (that is, appears) when the sun-shine is let into it. Paul then saw that 
in sin which he had never seen before; he then saw sin in its causes, the bitter root, the 
corrupt bias, the bent to backslide, - sin in its colours, deforming, defiling, breaking a 
righteous law, affronting an awful Majesty, profaning a sovereign crown by casting it to 
the ground, - sin in its consequences, sin with death at the heels of it, sin and the curse 
entailed upon it. “Thus sin revived, and then I died; I lost that good opinion which I had 
had of myself, and came to be of another mind. Sin revived, and I died; that is, the 
Spirit, but the commandment, convinced me that I was in a state of sin, and in a state of 
death because of sin.” Of this excellent use is the law; it is a lamp and a light; it converts 
the soul, opens the eyes, prepares the way of the Lord in the desert, rends the rocks, 
levels the mountains, makes ready a people prepared for the Lord.

46. Gwogyn Ce;Rom_7:7-25. False Inferences regarding the Law Repelled.
And first, Rom_7:7-13, in the case of the UNREGENERATE.
What ... then? Is the law sin? God forbid! — “I have said that when we were in 
the flesh the law stirred our inward corruption, and was thus the occasion of deadly fruit: 
Is then the law to blame for this? Far from us be such a thought.”
Nay — “On the contrary” (as in Rom_8:37; 1Co_12:22; Greek).
I had not known sin but by the law — It is important to fix what is meant by “sin” 
here. It certainly is not “the general nature of sin” [Alford, etc.], though it be true that 
this is learned from the law; for such a sense will not suit what is said of it in the 
following verses, where the meaning is the same as here. The only meaning which suits 
all that is said of it in this place is “the principle of sin in the heart of fallen man.” The 
sense, then, is this: “It was by means of the law that I came to know what a virulence and 
strength of sinful propensity I had within me.” The existence of this it did not need the 
law to reveal to him; for even the heathens recognized and wrote of it. But the dreadful 
nature and desperate power of it the law alone discovered - in the way now to be 
described.
for I had not known lust, except, etc. — Here the same Greek word is 
unfortunately rendered by three different English ones - “lust”; “covet”; “concupiscence” 
(Rom_7:8) - which obscures the meaning. By using the word “lust” only, in the wide 
sense of all “irregular desire,” or every outgoing of the heart towards anything forbidden, 
the sense will best be brought out; thus, “For I had not known lust, except the law had 
said, Thou shalt not lust; But sin, taking (‘having taken’) occasion by the commandment 
(that one which forbids it), wrought in me all manner of lusting.” This gives a deeper 
view of the tenth commandment than the mere words suggest. The apostle saw in it the 
prohibition not only of desire after certain things there specified, \ but of “desire after 
everything divinely forbidden”; in other words, all “lusting” or “irregular desire.” It was 
this which “he had not known but by the law.” The law forbidding all such desire so 
stirred his corruption that it wrought in him “all manner of lusting” - desire of every sort 
after what was forbidden.
-w(Gg Ce;7.What then shall we say? Since it has been said that we must be freed from the law,
in order that we may serve God in newness of spirit, it seemed as though this evil belonged to the
law, — that it leads us to sin. But as this would be above measure inconsistent, the Apostle rightly
undertook to disprove it. Now when he adds, Is the law sin? what he means is, “ it so produce sin
that its guilt ought to be imputed to the law?” — But sin I knew not, except through the law; sin then
dwells in us, and not in the law; for the cause of it is the depraved lust of our flesh, and we come to
know it by the knowledge of God’ righteousness, which is revealed to us in the law.
(210) You are
not indeed to understand, that no difference whatever can be known between right and wrong
without the law; but that without the law we are either too dull of apprehension to discern our
depravity, or that we are made wholly insensible through self@flattery, ACCORDING
 to what
follows, —
For coveting I had not known, etc. This is then an explanation of the former sentence, by which he
proves that ignorance of sin, of which he had spoken, consisted in this — that he perceived not his
own coveting. And he designedly referred to this one kind of sin, in which hypocrisy especially
prevails, which has ever connected with itself supine self@indulgence and false assurance. For men
are never so destitute of judgment, but that they retain a distinction in external works; nay, they are
constrained even to condemn wicked counsels and sinister purposes: and this they cannot do,

47. without ascribing to a right object its own praise. But coveting is more hidden and lies deeper; hence
no account is made of it, as long as men judge according to their perceptions of what is outward. He
does not indeed boast that he was free from it; but he so flattered himself, that he did not think that
this sin was lurking in his heart. For though for a time he was deceived, and believed not that
righteousness would be violated by coveting, he yet, at length, understood that he was a sinner,
when he saw that coveting, from which no one is free, was prohibited by the law.
[Augustine ] says, that Paul included in this expression the whole law; which, when rightly
understood, is true: for when Moses had stated the things from which we must abstain, that we may
not wrong our neighbor, he subjoined this prohibition as to coveting, which must be referred to all
the things previously forbidden. There is no doubt but that he had in the former precepts
condemned all the evil desires which our hearts conceive; but there is much difference between a
deliberate purpose, and the desires by which we are tempted. God then, in this last command,
requires so much integrity from us, that no vicious lust is to move us to evil, even when no consent
succeeds. Hence it was, that I have said, that Paul here ascends higher than where the
understanding of men can carry them. But civil laws do indeed declare, that intentions and not
issues are to be punished. Philosophers also, with greater REFINEMENT , place vices as well as
virtues in the soul. But God, by this precept, goes deeper and notices coveting, which is more
hidden than the will; and this is not deemed a vice. It was pardoned not only by philosophers, but at
this day the Papists fiercely contend, that it is no sin in the regenerate.
(211) But Paul says, that he
had found out his guilt from this hidden disease: it hence follows, that all those who labor under it,
are by no means free from guilt, except God pardons their sin. We ought, at the same time, to
remember the difference between evil lustings or covetings which gain consent, and the lusting
which tempts and moves our hearts, but stops in the midst of its course.
8.But an occasion being taken, etc. From sin, then, and the corruption of the flesh, PROCEEDS
 
every evil; the law is only the occasion. And though he may seem to speak only of that excitement,
by which our lusting is instigated through the law, so that it boils out with greater fury; yet I refer this
chiefly to the knowledge the law conveys; as though he had said, “ has discovered to me every lust
or coveting which, being hid, seemed somehow to have no existence.” I do not yet deny, but that
the flesh is more sharply stimulated to lusting by the law, and also by this means more clearly
shows itself; which may have been also the case with Paul: but what I have said of the knowledge it
brings, seems to harmonize better with the context;
(212)for he immediately subjoins —
(210)
 It was the saying of [Ambrose
], “Lex index peccati est, non genitrix — the law is the
discoverer, not the begetter of sin.” “ law,’ says [Pareus ], “ sin; it is not then the cause of it: sin is
made known by the law; it is not then by the law produced.” — Ed. 
(211)
 As an instance of the frivolous and puerile mode of reasoning adopted by the Papists, the
following may be adduced: QUOTING
 Jas_1:15, “ lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” they reason thus: — “ is not simply a sin, for it brings it
forth; and when it is sin, it is not mortal sin, for it afterwards brings forth death. “ advantage of a
metaphor, they APPLY it strictly and literally, without considering that the Apostle is only
exhibiting the rise, progress, and termination — of what? of sin no doubt. The like produces its like.
If lust were not sinful, it could not generate what is sinful. Such childish and profane reasoning is an
outrage both on common sense and on religion. — Ed. 
(212)
 Most commentators take the opposite view, — that the irritation of sin occasioned by the law
is more especially meant here. The two ideas, the knowledge and the excitement, or the increase of
sin by the law, are no doubt referred to by the Apostle in these verses. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known 
sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou 

48. shalt not covet.
Is the law sin ...? Paul here identified what law was his SUBJECT by appealing to the tenth
commandment in the law of Moses. How is it possible for people to affirm that Paul was speaking of
the commandments of Jesus Christ by his use of the term "law" in this chapter? As noted in the
paragraph heading this chapter, Paul here (Romans 7:7@13) expounded further the manner in which
the law of Moses made sin "abound" (Romans 5:20@23). Also, Paul had mentioned again, only a
moment earlier, that the law had wrought forth "in our members to bring forth fruit unto death"; and
in the next few verses Paul more fully explained what was meant. To be sure, he had not meant that
God's law was sin. However, there was a way for sin to take advantage of it. Thus:
The perverseness of human nature is such that the mere prohibition of an act suggests the desire to
do that which is prohibited. The act when done is invested with the character of sin which it hitherto
did not possess. It becomes a distinct breach of the law, where previously there had been no law to
break.[6]
It is exactly such facts regarding sin that may be observed in the example Paul gave from his own
experience. Before the giving of the law of Moses, there were doubtless many who desired their
neighbor's ox, or his ass, or his wife; but that was, at that time, a violation of no known law, the
inward desire of forbidden things having never been prohibited prior to the law of Moses. Paul here
stated, of that very sin, that he would never have known what it was except the law had said, "Thou
shalt not covet"!
ENDNOTE:
[6] Ibid., p. 231.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 7E13, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God 
forbid. .
The law
I. Its nature—
1. Moral.
2. Spiritual.
3. Exemplified by the particular commandment quoted.
II. Its use—
1. To describe the nature.
2. Detect the presence.
3. Reveal the sinfulness of sin. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The law vindicated and commended
I. The law vindicated. The apostle had affirmed that the law constituted that to be sinful, 
that without the law could have had no such character—nay, that the law called forth 
sinful affections which, but for its provocation, might have lain dormant. And he seems 
now to feel as if this might attach the same sort of odiousness to the law that is attached 
to sin itself. This he repels with the utmost vehemence.
1. The law acts as a discoverer of sin (Rom_7:7). But it is no impeachment against 
the evenness of a ruler, that by its application you can discover what is crooked. On 

49. the contrary, its very power of doing so proves how straight it is in itself. The light 
may reveal an impurity which could not be recognised at night; yet who would ever 
think of ascribing to light any of that pollution which it reveals. It were indeed 
strange if the dissimilarity of two things should lead us to confound them. When one 
man stands before you full of moral worth, and another full of vice, the presence of 
the first may generate a keener repugnancy towards the second; and this not surely 
because they have anything in common, but because they have everything in wide 
and glaring opposition. And the same of sin and of the law.
2. The law aggravates this deformity by making sin more actively rebellious 
(Rom_7:8). The law not curing the desire of man’s heart towards any forbidden 
indulgence, this desire is thereby exasperated. The man who sins and thinks no more 
of it may never repeat it till its outward influences have again come about him, it may 
be, long after; but the man who is ever brooding under a sense of guilt has the image 
of allurement present to his thoughts during the whole time when they are not 
present to his senses. And thus the law turns out an occasional cause, why with him 
there should be both a more intense fermentation of the sinful appetites than with 
another, who is reckless of law and undisturbed by its accusing voice. And what adds 
to the helplessness of this calamity is, that while the law thus gives a new assailing 
force to his enemies, it affords no force of resistance to the man himself. Depriving 
him of the inspiring energy that is in hope, it gives him in its place the dread and the 
desperation of an outlaw. And yet the law here is not in fault. It is sin which is in 
fault, which, at sight of law, strengthened itself the more in its own character.
3. And it is in this sense only that the law is the occasion of death.
(1) This sore infliction is due to sin, which taketh occasion by the law. The very 
company of a good man may so degrade in his own eyes a bad man as that, with 
the desperate feeling of an outcast he might henceforth give himself over to the 
full riot of villainy, and even become a murderer; and so entail upon himself a 
death of vengeance. But who would ever think of laying either his own blood, or 
the blood of his victim, to the door of him whose excellence had only called out 
into display the hatefulness of his own character?
(2) Then again, sin slays its victim by a process of deception of which the law is 
made the instrument. It may do this in various ways—
(a) As the man’s remorse broods over the transgression, so sin may take 
advantage by leading the man to dwell as constantly on the temptation which 
led to it.
(b) Or it may represent the man to himself as the doomed victim of a law that 
can never be appeased, and thus, through means of this law, may drive him 
onward to recklessness.
(c) Or it may soothe him by setting forth the many conformities to honesty, 
or temperance, or compassion, or courteousness, by which he still continues 
to do the law honour.
(d) It may even turn his very compunction into a matter of complacency, and 
persuade him that, in defect of his obedience to the law, he at least gives it the 
homage of his regret.
4. “For without the law sin is dead” (Rom_7:8)—dead in respect of all power to 
condemn, and in respect of its inability to stir up the alarms of condemnation: and as 
to its power of seducing or enslaving you by means of a remorse or terror. And in the 

50. next verse Paul is visited with the remembrance of his own former state, when, 
ignorant as he was of the exceeding breadth of God’s commandment, he looked 
forward to a life of favour here and of blessedness hereafter, on the strength of his 
many outward and literal observations. He was thus alive without the law once; and 
it was not till the commandment came—not till he was made to see what its lofty 
demands were, and what his wretched deficiencies therefrom, that sin revived in 
him, and dislodged him from his proud security, and made him see that, instead of a 
victorious claimant for the rewards of the law, he was the victim of its penalties. This 
state (see also Rom_7:9) is the prevalent state of the world. Men live in tolerable 
comfort and security because dead to the terrifying menaces of the law. It is because 
the sinner is thus without the law that he sees not the danger of his condition. And 
thus it is that it is so highly important when the Spirit lends His efficacy to the Divine 
law—when he thereby arouses the careless sinner out of his lethargies, and persuades 
him to flee for refuge to the hope set before him.
II. The law commended. The apostle having cleared the law from all charge of 
odiousness, now renders it the positive homage which was due to its real character—as 
the representation of all moral excellence. If the law be the occasion of death, or of more 
fell depravity, it is not because of any evil that is in its character, which is holy and just 
and good (Rom_7:12). This may lead to the solution of a question by which the legal 
heart of man often feels itself exercised. Why should the law, that is now deposed from 
its ancient office of minister unto life to that of minister unto death, still be kept up in 
authority, and obedience to it be as strenuously required? In order that God should will 
our obedience to the law, it is not necessary to give to it the legal importance and efficacy 
that it had under the old dispensation. At the outset of our present system, the Spirit of 
God moving upon chaos educed the loveliest forms of hill and dale and mighty ocean and 
waving forests, and all that richness of bloom and verdure which serves to dress the 
landscapes of nature. And it is said that God saw everything to be good. Now there was 
no legality in this process. The ornaments of a flower, or tree, or the magnificence of 
outspread scenery, cannot be the offerings by which inanimate matter purchases the 
smile of the Divinity. The Almighty Artist loves to behold the fair composition that He 
Himself has made; and wills each of His works to be perfect in its kind. And the same of 
the moral taste of the Godhead. He loves what is wise and holy and just and mood in the 
world of mind; and with a far higher affection. And the office of His Spirit is to evolve 
this beauteous exhibition out of the chaos of ruined humanity. And to forward this 
process it is not necessary that man be stimulated to exertion by the motives of legalism. 
All that is necessary is submission to the transforming operations of the Divine Spirit, 
and willingness to follow His impulses. And must God, ere He can gratify His relish for 
the higher beauties of morality and of mind, first have to make a bargain about it with 
His creatures? So, then, though the old relationship between you and the law is 
dissolved, still it is this very law with the requirements of which you are to busy 
yourselves in this world; and with the graces and accomplishments of which you must 
appear invested before Christ at the judgment seat. It was written first on tables of stone, 
and the process was then that you should fulfil its requisitions as your task, and be paid 
with heaven as a reward. It is now written by the Holy Ghost on the tablets of your heart; 
and the process is now that you are made to delight in it after the inward man. With gold 
you may purchase a privilege or adorn your person. You may not be able to purchase the 
king’s favour with it; but he may grant you his favour, and when he requires your 
appearance before him, it is still in gold he may require you to be invested. And thus of 
the law. It is not by your own righteous conformity thereto that you purchase God’s 
favour; for this has been already purchased by the pure gold of the Saviour’s 
righteousness, and is presented to all who believe on Him. But still it is with your own 

51. personal righteousness that you must be adorned. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)
The excellence of the law
I. It exposes sin.
1. Its nature.
2. Its existence in the heart.
3. Its activity (Rom_7:7-8).
II. It condemns the sinner.
1. Destroys his self-complacency.
2. Awakens conscience.
3. Pronounces sentence of death (Rom_7:9-10).
III. Demonstrates its own perfection.
1. By the display of its own nature, holy, just, good.
2. By exhibiting the exceeding sinfulness of sin. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Nay, I had not known sin but by the law.—
Revelation of sin by the law
Sin lies concealed in man, however fair and refined he may appear to the world, just as 
even in ice there exists hundreds of degrees of latent heat. The argument is that the law 
brings to light sin, and is not its parent nor in any sense responsible for its existence, as it 
is not its physician nor capable of removing its guilt and remedying its effects (chap. 
3:20). The law does not in any sense create or cause sin by exerting any deleterious 
influence, as the frost, by withdrawing the heat from water, freezes it. Nay, the function 
of the law is to reveal and expose sin, as the office of the sun is to bring to light the dust 
and dirt which existed, but escaped notice before its rays entered the apartment. (C. Neil, 
M. A.)
The mercifulness of the law in the revelation of sin
Just as a mirror is not an enemy to the ugly man, because it shows him his very self in all 
his ugliness, and just as a medical man is not an enemy to the sick man, because he 
shows him his sickness, for the medical man is not the cause of the sickness nor is the 
mirror the cause of the ugliness, so God is not the cause of the sickness of our sin or its 
ugliness, because He shows it to us in the mirror of His Word and by the Physician 
Christ, who came to show us our sins and to heal them for us. (T. H. Leary, D. C. L.)
Sin aroused by the law
A contented citizen of Milan, who had never passed beyond its walls during the course of 
sixty years, being ordered by the governor not to stir beyond its gates, became 

52. immediately miserable, and felt so powerful an inclination to do that which he had so 
long contentedly neglected, that on his application for a release from this restraint being 
refused, he became quite melancholy, and at last died of grief. How well this illustrates 
the apostle’s confession that he had not known lust, unless the law had said unto him, 
“Thou shalt not covet!” “Sin,” saith he, “taking occasion by the commandment, wrought 
in me all manner of concupiscence.” Evil often sleeps in the soul, until the holy command 
of God is discovered, and then the enmity of the carnal mind rouses itself to oppose in 
every way the will of God. “Without the law,” says Paul, “sin was dead.” How vain to hope 
for salvation from the law, when through the perversity of sin it provokes our evil hearts 
to rebellion, and works in us neither repentance nor love. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The conviction of sin
I. What it includes.
1. Knowledge of sin.
2. Consciousness of it.
3. Sense of its demerit and punishment.
II. How it is produced—by the law, which—
1. Detects;
2. Exposes;
3. Condemns it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Paul’s early experience
In this picture of his inner life Paul gives us, without intending it, a very high idea of the 
purity of his life as a child and a young man. He might, when confronted with the nine 
commandments, have to the letter claimed for himself the verdict, Not guilty, like the 
young man who said to Jesus, “All these things have I kept from my youth up.” But the 
tenth commandment cut short all this self-righteousness, and under this ray of the 
Divine holiness he was compelled to pass sentence of condemnation. Thus there was 
wrought in him, Pharisee though he was, without his suspecting it, a profound 
separation from ordinary Pharisaism, and a moral preparation which was to lead him to 
Christ and His righteousness. To this so mournful discovery was added (u6yRom_7:8) by 
and by a second and more painful experience. (Prof. Godet.)
Sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in  me all manner of 
concupiscence.
Sin and its work in relation to the law
I. Sin. Indwelling sin; depravity inherent in fallen humanity, personified as something 
living and intelligent.
II. Its occasion—the law, which shows it in its true character. Sin is in its nature 

53. opposition to God and His law (Rom_8:7). The presence of the law, therefore, is the 
occasion for sin to act. It is to sin as water to hydrophobia. Corruption arouses itself to 
resist the law which opposes it. Sick men and children often desire what is forbidden, 
because it is so. The law and sin act on each other as an acid and an alkali. The effect of 
the contact is like the effervescence of the mixture.
III. Its work.
1. “Wrought,” produced, called into operation. Sin is an active principle stirring up 
evil thoughts, etc. Its nature is to foam against the law as water against a barrier.
2. “In me.” Sin’s activity viewed as internal, not external.
3. “All manner”—both as to kind and degree. The heart is like a neglected garden full 
of all sorts of weeds. Lust may shrink into a dwarf or swell into a giant. Covetousness 
and lust are hydras, monsters with many heads.
4. “Of concupiscence.” Inordinate sinful desire. From sin springs lust, as the stream 
from the fountain. Evil desire not restrained brings forth sin in the act (Jas_1:15). 
Already in the heart it is excited by the law which forbids it. Weeds seeming dead in 
winter shoot up in the warmth of spring. Vipers torpid in the cold are excited to life 
and action by the fire. Like a revived viper, sin hisses against the law which disturbs 
it. (T. Robinson, D. D.)
The law irritates sin
A rock, flung into the bed of some headlong stream, would not arrest the stream, but 
only cause it, which ran swiftly yet silently before, now furiously to foam and fret round 
the obstacle which it found in its path. (Abp. Trench.)
Restraint quickens
The child is often most strongly tempted to open gates which have been specially 
interdicted. If nothing had been said about them, probably he would not have cared to 
open them.
The law rouses sin
Sin full-grown defies law because it is a law: resists restraint because it is restraint; 
contests authority with God because He is God. Says Cain, as depicted by Lord Byron in 
colloquy with Lucifer: “I bend to neither God nor thee.” Lord Byron knew whereof he 
affirmed. That is the legitimate heroism of sin. Sin runs to passion: passion to tumult in 
character: and a tumultuous character tends to tempests and explosions, which scorn 
secrecies and disguises. Then the whole man comes to light. He sees himself, and others 
see him, as he is in God’s sight. Those solemn imperatives and their awful responses: 
“Thou shalt not”—“I will”; “Thou shalt”—“I will not”—make up, then, all that the man 
knows of intercourse With God. This is sin, in the ultimate and finished type of it. This it 
what it grows to in every sinner, if unchecked by the grace of God. Every man 
unredeemed becomes a demon in eternity. (Austin Phelps.)
For without the law sin was dead.—

54. Unawakened
I. Without the law—in its application to the conscience, or in the knowledge of its 
spirituality and extent. It is easy to have the law and yet to be without it, which is the case 
of most. An unawakened man has the law in his hand; he reads it: an awakened man has 
it in his conscience; he feels it: a regenerate man has it in his heart; he loves it.
II. Sin was dead—
1. As to any consciousness of its existence.
2. Comparatively as to its activity.
3. As to any knowledge of its true character as opposed to God’s law.
The strong man armed keeps his house and goods in peace. The heart’s opposition to the 
law only bound by its presence. Sin dead, and put to death, two different things; it is 
dead in the unawakened, but put to death in the believer. Sin never has more power over 
a man than when dead in him, is never less dead than when it appears or is felt to be so. 
It has to be aroused into life before it is actually put to death. Dead in the soul, it shows 
that the soul is dead in sin. Sin was alive in the Publican, but dead in the Pharisee 
(Luk_18:10-14). It must be roused to life and slain here, or live forever hereafter. (T. 
Robinson, D. D.)
For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin 
revived, and I died.—
The sinner without and under the law
I. Without the law.
1. Alive.
2. But sin is dead.
II. Under the law.
1. Dead.
2. But sin lives.
III. The rationale of the change.
1. A change not of moral condition but of moral consciousness.
2. Effected by the revelation of the law. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Paul without and under the law
I thought all was well with me. Was I not a Hebrew of the Hebrews? Was I not a 
Pharisee? Was I not strict and zealous? But all that time I was in reality “without the 
law.” I knew it then in the letter only, not in its spirit and power. But “when the 
commandment came,” when it was brought home to my conscience, when my eyes were 
opened, then, “sin revived,” gained a new vitality, sprang into life as a serpent that had 
been frozen and was thawed. I felt it in all its power; I knew it in its guilt and 
condemnation; I was as one who had received a death blow; I despaired, my heart died 
within me. (F. Bourdillon.)

55. Conscience quickened by the law
1. Paul had lived with a conscience, but one that was not rightly instructed. He had 
kept his conscience on his side, though he was living wickedly. But there came a time 
of revelation in which his conscience took sides against him. And the result was that 
right before him rose his whole lifetime of sin, by which, as it rushed upon him, he 
was swept away slain. “I used, before I knew what God’s true light was, to be active 
and complacent; but when that spiritual law was revealed to me, all my life seemed 
like the unfolding of a voluminous history of transgression. And I fell down before 
the vision as one dead.”
2. The difference between a man when his conscience is energised and when his 
conscience is torpid is a difference as great as that between a man that is dead and a 
man that is alive and excited to the utmost tension of endeavour.
3. Excitement is itself a matter of prejudice; but no one objects if it is the excitement 
of enterprise; if it is physical or civic excitement. When it becomes moral, then men 
begin to fear wild fires and fanaticisms.
4. Now excitement is only another name for vitality. Stones have no excitability. The 
vegetables rank higher, because they are susceptible of excitement, although they 
cannot develop it themselves. An animal ranks higher than a vegetable, because it 
has the power of receiving and developing excitability. Man is the highest; the 
capacity of excitability marks his position in the scale of being.
5. Now, when excitement is out of all proportion to the importance of the objects 
presented, or the motive powers, then there is an impropriety in it; and this prejudice 
against it has arisen from its abuse. There have been moral excitements that are 
disastrous; but these are effects of a prior cause, namely, absence of wholesome 
excitement before. You will find frequently where Churches are dead that there will 
come a period of fanatical revival influence. It is reaction, the violent attempt of life 
to reinstate itself. But at its worst this is far better than death.
I. Rational moral excitement leads men to apply to their life and conduct the only true 
standard, namely, that of night and wrong, upon a revealed ground.
1. Ordinarily, men judge their conduct by lower standards. Most men judge of what 
they are by the relations of their conduct to pleasure and pain, profit and loss; that is, 
by the law of interest. But if that is all, how mean it is! Men are apt to measure 
themselves as they stand related to favour. That is, they make others’ opinions of 
them the mirror in which to look upon their own faces. Now, it is true that a man’s 
reputation is apt to follow closely upon his character, but there is an interval between 
that men skip. Men measure themselves by the law of influence, and by ambitious 
aspirations. Then public sentiment, fashions, customs, the laws of the community, 
are employed by men to give themselves a conception of what they are.
2. Now not one of these measurings is adequate. No man knows what he is that has 
only measured himself by them. A man desires to know what he is as a man, and he 
calls in his tailor. He only judges him as a man with clothes. He calls in his 
shoemaker. He only judges him with relation to shoes. He calls in the surgeon and 
the physician, and they, having examined him in every part, pronounce him sound 
and healthy. Is there nothing more? Yes, there are mental organs. Then call in the 
psychologist. Has the man yet come to a knowledge of what he is? Is there nothing to 

56. be conceived of as moral principle? Is there nothing called manhood, in distinction 
from the animal organism, etc.?
3. We need to go higher before we can consider this case settled. It must be 
submitted to the chief justice sitting in the court of the soul. Conscience calls in 
review all these prejudgments; not because they are wrong in themselves, but 
because they are inadequate. Conscience introduces the laws of God. Men are called 
to form a judgment of what they are, not so much from what they are to society as 
from what they are in the sight of God. You never can get this judgment except where 
conscience has been illuminated by the Divine Spirit. I am only measured when the 
soul is measured; and only can it be measured when it is put upon the sphere of the 
eternal world, and upon the law of God. This is the first great element that enters into 
moral excitability.
II. An increased sensibility of conscience is one of the most important results of general 
moral excitement.
1. The not using of one’s conscience works lethargy and blindness. But when the 
conscience is fired by the Divine Spirit, it awakes and glows. You know what it is to 
have your hand numb; and what it is to have it acutely sensitive. You know what it is 
to have the eye blurred, and what it is to have it clear. So conscience may exist in a 
state in which things pass before it, and it does not see them; but lies at the door like 
a watchdog that is asleep, past which goes the robber into the house and commits his 
depredations undisturbed. It is a great thing for a man to have a conscience that 
rouses him up and makes him more and more sensitive; but just as soon as the 
conscience becomes sensitive, it brings a man’s sins to a more solemn account than 
before.
2. There are many things that we adjudge to be sinful. A man says, “Profanity or 
dishonesty is sinful”; but, after all, he has a good natured way of dealing with these 
things. If men were as good-natured to their enemies as they are to their own sins, 
there would be much less conflict in the world, a man had a huge rock in his field. He 
did not want to waste time to remove it; he planted ivy, and roses, and honeysuckles 
about it, to cover it up; and he invited people to come and see how beautiful it is. A 
certain part of his farm was low, moist, and disagreeable; and, instead of draining it, 
he planted mosses, ferns, rhododendrons, etc., there; and now he regards that as one 
of the handsomest parts of his farm. And men treat their faults so. Here is a man that 
has a hard and ill temper; but he has planted all about it ivy and roses and 
honeysuckles. He thinks he is a better man because all his imperfections are hidden 
from his sight. Here is a man that does not drain his swamps of evil courses, but 
covers them over with mosses and various plants, and thinks he is better because he 
is more beauteous in his own eyes. Men lose their conviction of the hatefulness of 
sins, they get so used to them. But there come times when God makes sin in these 
respects appear so sinful that they tremble at it. You know how bonds go up. Today 
they are worth a hundred; tomorrow they are a hundred and five. And then when it is 
understood that they are going up, they begin to rush; and in the course of a few 
months they have got up to two or three hundred. When a man is running up values 
on his sins, they do not go down again. Under the power of an illuminated conscience 
a man says, first, “Why, sin is sinful!” Next, “It is very sinful!” Next, “It is exceedingly 
sinful!” Next, “It is damnably sinful!”
3. The next fact of this reviving of the conscience is that it brings into the category of 
sins a thousand things that before we never have called such. When gold comes into 
the assay office, they treat it as we do not treat ourselves. It is carefully weighed, and 

57. during the process it is worked up to the very last particle. Yea, the very sweepings of 
the floor are gathered and assayed again. Now men throw in their conduct in bulk, 
and do not care for the sweepings; and vastly the greatest portion of it comes out 
without being brought to any test. But it is to the last degree important that there 
should come periods in which men are obliged to bring into the category of sins those 
practices which otherwise they would call their faults, or weaknesses.
4. In New York there is a board of health. And how much dirt there was found the 
moment there was an authority to make men look for it. It is not half as dirty as it 
was a little while ago; but the dirt is more apparent, because it is stirred up. Only give 
a clearer sense of what is right to men, and they will instantly see in themselves much 
wrong that they have not before discovered. The probability is that now, in New York, 
there is more apprehension of danger from a want of cleanliness than there has been 
during the last twenty-five years put together. This has arisen from the increased 
sensibility of men on the subject, and the application of a higher test to it. There is 
special need of an awakened conscience to bring to light these things, that are not 
less dangerous because men do not know of them, but all the more dangerous.
III. An awakened conscience cannot find peace in any mere obedience. There is this 
benefit—that when once a man’s conscience has begun to discriminate, he naturally 
betakes himself to reformation to satisfy his conscience. But his conscience becomes 
exacting faster than he can learn how to perform. So that the more he does, the less he is 
satisfied. Here stands an old house, that has been a hundred years without repair. The 
old master dies, and a new man comes in. He sends for the architect, who commences 
searching, and it is found that there is decay all through the building. Part leads to part, 
and disclosure to disclosure, and decay to decay; and it seems as though it were almost 
impossible ever to make it good. That is but a faint emblem of the work of reformation in 
the human soul. A house offers no resistance to his attempts to renovate it; but the 
human disposition is an ever-fertile, ever-growing, ever-recreating centre. And a man is 
conscious that the more he tries to regulate it, the harder it is to do it. A man who has 
been drinking all his life, and lost his name and his business, and nearly ruined his 
family, attempts to reform. After a month he says, “I never had so much trouble in all my 
experience. It has seemed as though everything went against me, and was determined 
that I should not lead a good life, and I am almost in despair.” Oh, yes. Laws are like 
fortifications. They are meant to protect all that are inside, and repel all that are outside; 
and, if a man gets outside and attempts to come back, he must do it against the crossfire 
of the garrison. No man departs from the path of rectitude that, when he comes back, 
does not come back by the hardest. There is the experience of the apostle, “When I would 
do good, evil was with me. I perceived that the law was holy and just and good, and I 
approved it in the inward man. But the more I struggled to obey it the worse I was.” “O 
wretched man that I am,” etc. Then rose up before him that which must rise up as the 
ground of comfort in every awakened soul—namely, Jesus Christ.
IV. The only refuge of an excited conscience, as a judge and schoolmaster, must be to 
bring the soul to Christ. A child is taken by a teacher out of the street, wretchedly clad, 
bad in behaviour, and woefully ignorant. The old nature is strong. Still he begins to study 
a little, while he plays more. He is fractious, and comes to grief every day; but by and by 
he comes to that point where he feels himself to be a bad scholar, and in a flood of tears 
goes to the teacher and says, “It is useless to try and make anything out of me, I am so 
bad.” The teacher puts his arm round the child, and says, “Thomas, if I can bear with 
you, can you with me? I know how bad you have been. But I love you; and I will give you 
time, and you shall not be ruined.” Cannot you conceive that, under such circumstances, 
there might spring up in the heart of the child an intense feeling of gratitude. And so the 

58. teacher carries the child from day to day. Now this is just the work that God’s great heart 
does for men. And where there is a man that has a rigorous conscience, let him take 
refuge with one that says, “Shift the judgment seat. I will not judge you by the law of 
justice, but by the law of love and of patience.” By faith and love in Christ Jesus we may 
find rest. (H. Ward Beecher.)
Place of the law in salvation of sinners
1. Salvation has been provided; the world’s chief need now is a sense of sin. Food is 
not wanting, but hunger. There is healing balm; where are the broken hearts? 
Christ’s work is complete; we need that of the Spirit.
2. This chapter is the history of a holy war, and in the text you have a bird’s-eye view 
of the whole campaign. In the books of Moses you may find the same three things it 
contains.
(1) In Egypt Israel were slaves, yet were satisfied with its carnal comforts. This is 
like Paul’s first life, with which he was quite satisfied, “I was alive,” etc.
(2) The exodus, comprehending the Red Sea, the perils of the wilderness, and the 
passage of Jordan, correspond to Paul’s escape, “The commandment came,” etc.
(3) The promised land, with its plenty, liberty, and worship, corresponds to 
Paul’s new life in the kingdom of God. We have here—
I. A life which a man enjoys in and of himself before he knows God. “I was alive without 
the law once.”
1. The natural state of fallen man is here called life, and elsewhere death. In God’s 
sight it is death; in man’s imagination life. Paul gives his view of his unconverted 
state when he was in it. Ask him now about it, and he will declare, “I was dead in 
trespasses and sins.”
2. But how could he be so blind as to count himself just with God while running 
counter to the law? The explanation is, he was alive “without the law.” He could not 
have lived with it. Why have men so much peace in sin? Because they live without 
God’s law. Daring speculators cook accounts in order to stave off the evil day. Bolder 
cheats modify the law of God, that its incoming may not disturb their repose. There is 
a malformation in some member of your body, and you are ordered to wear an 
instrument to bring it back to a normal condition. Dreading the pain of the 
anticipated operation, you secretly take a cast of your own crooked limb, and thereon 
mould the instrument. When the instrument so prepared is laid upon the limb, the 
limb will feel easy, but it will not be made straight. Thus men cast upon their own 
hearts their conception of the Divine law, and, for form’s sake, apply the thing that is 
labelled God’s Word to their own hearts again, but the application never makes them 
cry, and the crooked parts are not made straight. The process is pleasant, and it 
serves the deceiver for a religion.
II. The escape from that false life by a dying: “The commandment came, sin revived, and 
I died.”
1. “The commandment came.”
(1) It is no longer an imitation law, but the unchanging will of the unchanging 
God, with the demand, “Be ye holy, for I am holy”; and the sentence, “The soul 

59. that sinneth it shall die.”
(2) This newcomer is felt an intruder within the conscience, and an authority 
over it. Hitherto the man had procured a painted fire, but now the law becomes a 
consuming fire, working its way into all the interstices of his heart and his 
history. This commandment came into the man, and found him “enmity against 
God.”
2. “Sin revived” at the entrance of this visitant, and thereby he first felt sin like a 
serpent creeping about his heart, and loathed its presence.
(1) Hitherto the disease was undermining his life, without giving him pain. The 
evil spirit met no opposition, and therefore produced no disturbance. The 
commandment (verse 7) did not cause but only detected sin. The course of his life 
was like a river, so smooth that an observer could not tell whether it is flowing at 
all. A rock revealed the current by opposing it. But the rock that detects the 
movement did not produce it; neither is it able to reverse it. The river rises to the 
difficulty, and rushes down more rapidly than before. It is thus with the 
commandment, it has power to disturb, but none to renew.
(2) The difference between a man who is “without the law” and a man into whose 
conscience “the commandment has come,” is not that the one continues sinning 
and the other has ceased to sin. It is rather that the one tastes the pleasures of 
sin, such as they are, while the other writhes at its bitterness.
(3) The coming of the commandment for the conviction of sin is not necessarily 
the work of a day or an hour. In Paul’s case the process was short. During that 
journey to Damascus, it seems to have begun and ended. But in most cases the 
law enters the conscience as a besieging army wins a fortress, by slow and gradual 
approaches. Sometimes the will drives back the law; at other times the law, under 
cover, perhaps, of some providential chastening, renews the assault, and gains a 
firmer footing further in. But whether by many successive stages, or by one 
overwhelming onset, the issue is, “Sin revived, and”—
3. “I died.” The life in which he had hitherto trusted was extinguished then.
(1) Convictions rose and closed round like the waves of a flowing tide, until they 
quenched his vain hope. Departments of his heart and history, which till now he 
had thought good against the final judgment, were successively flooded by the 
advancing, avenging law. Prayers, penances, and a long catalogue of 
miscellaneous virtues, floating down the stream of daily life, had coalesced and 
consolidated, as wood, hay, stubble, stones, mud, carried down by a river 
sometimes aggregate into an island in the estuary. The heap seemed to afford a 
firm footing for the fugitive in any emergence.
(2) Upon this heap “the commandment came” with resistless power. It rose like 
the tide over the pieces of merit on which the man had taken his stand, and 
blotted them out. Where they lay, nothing now remains but a fearful looking for 
of judgment.
(3) But still the commandment comes. The convict, trembling now for his life, 
abandons all that seems doubtful, and hastily gathering the best and surest parts 
of his righteousness, piles them beneath his feet. He will no longer give himself 
out as a saint; he even owns that he is a sinner. He claims only to have sinned less 
than some he knows, and to have done some good things which might, at least, 
palliate the evil. The law pays no respect to this refuge of lies, and shows no pity 

60. to the fugitive. Wave follows wave, until the law of God has covered all the 
righteousness of men, and left it lying deep in everlasting contempt.
(4) This death of false hope is, as its name indicates, like the departure of the 
spirit. Disease having gained a footing, makes its approaches. Member after 
member is overtaken and paralysed. The soul abandons one by one the less 
defensible extremities, and seeks refuge in its own interior fastnesses. Still the 
adversary, holding every point that he has gained, presses on for more. To one 
remaining foothold the distressed occupant clings a while; but that refuge, too, 
the inexorable besieger takes at last. Chased by the strange usurper from every 
part of its long-cherished homer the life flickers over it a moment, like the flame 
of an expiring lamp, and then darts away into the unseen. So perished the hope of 
the self-righteous man. He died. What then?
III. He lives in another life.
1. No interval of time separated the two. The death that led from one life was the 
birth into another. We do not read, “I am dead,” but, “I died.” It is the voice, not of 
the dead, but of the living. The dead never tell us how they died. The death through 
which Paul passed at conversion is like that which lays a Christian’s weary body in 
the grave, and admits his spirit into the presence of the Lord. “He that believeth on 
Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” The fact, like the person, has two sides. If 
you stand on this side and look, he dies. If you stand on that side and look, he is born.
2. Throughout the whole of his previous history, Paul had stood on the ground and 
breathed the atmosphere of his own merits. Probably, like other people, he had 
frequently to remove from place to place in that region. But even the law could not 
drive him forth. What the law could not do, God did by sending His Son. Christ 
brought His righteousness into contact with Paul’s. Now, the law chasing him once 
more, chased him over. Out of his own merits went the man that moment, and into 
Christ. Then he died; and from the moment of his death he lived. Henceforth you 
find him continually telling of his life, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me”; “Our 
life is hid with Christ in God.”
3. Let the line be distinctly marked between what the law can, and what it cannot do. 
It may shake down all the foundations of a man’s first hope, but it cannot bear away 
the stricken victim from the ruins. It can make the sinner more miserable, but it 
cannot make him more safe. It is only when Christ comes near with a better 
righteousness that even the commandment, raging in the conscience, can drive you 
from your own. We owe much to that flaming justice which made the old life die, but 
more to that love which received the dying as he fell into life eternal. (W. Arnot, D. 
D.)
The condemnatory power of the law
I. In the way of preliminary observation it may be noticed that by the law here 
mentioned we are to understand the moral law. It is the moral law which says, “Thou 
shalt not covet,” as we read in verse 7. It is by the moral law we arrive at the knowledge 
of sin, as we see from the text, compared with Rom_3:20. It is to the moral law, as a 
covenant of works, that believers are dead in consequence of their union with the living 
head of the Church. It is by the moral law that sin takes occasion to deceive and destroy 
mankind, as you read in Rom_3:11. And finally, it is the moral law which is holy, just, 
and good, in its precepts, promises, and even threatenings.

61. II. Consider the false opinion which Paul entertained of himself before his conversion. 
So completely was he blinded by sin, that he falsely imagined himself to be alive—that is, 
he thought that he had well-grounded hopes of the favour of God and of eternal life, 
while in reality he was dead in trespasses and in sins. He was therefore at that time 
under the influence of a strong delusion. It will be of great consequence here to mark out 
the circumstances which, through the blindness of his mind, occasioned his mistake, that 
so we may place a beacon upon the rock which, without the interposition of Divine grace, 
had proved fatal to the apostle. He laid great stress on his religious education (Act_22:3). 
Now, this was in itself a very distinguished privilege. But Paul in his unconverted state 
did not understand the proper improvement of it. Instead of rendering these advantages 
subservient to a higher end, he valued himself so much upon them that he thought they 
would contribute towards his acceptance with God. Another circumstance which, 
through the blindness of his mind, tended to mislead him was his full connection with 
the Jewish Church, whereby he was entitled to a variety of high external privileges. Had 
these things been kept in their proper place and rendered subservient to a higher end, 
they would have formed such beauties of character as to render it an object of 
admiration. But, alas! Paul being at this time under the influence of a self-righteous 
spirit, he considered these as constituting his title to eternal life, and so foolishly 
concluded that he was “alive,” while in reality he was under the sentence and the power 
of death, both spiritual and eternal. But further, Paul’s delusion in his unconverted state 
was chiefly owing to his deep ignorance of the purity, spirituality, and extent of the holy 
law of God. A thorough, inward, deep, and personal conviction of sin is that which lies at 
the very foundation of vital Christianity, and all religion without this must be delusion 
for without a sense of sin men will not come to the Saviour, and unless they come to the 
Saviour they must be irrecoverably undone.
III. The means that were blessed of God for correcting the erroneous opinion which Paul 
entertained of his spiritual state while a Pharisee.
1. The first means employed by God for discovering his real character was the coming 
of the commandment. The Lord Jesus, appearing to him when he was near to 
Damascus, sent by His Spirit the law or commandment home to his conscience in the 
extent of its requisitions, with such light, authority, and energy as produced a 
complete revolution of sentiment. This discovery destroyed the very foundation of 
the delusive hopes of eternal life which he previously entertained.
2. Another means here mentioned which, under Divine influence, subserved the 
purpose of correcting the erroneous opinion which Paul, when a Pharisee, 
entertained of himself was the reviving of sin. In the apostle’s state of unregeneracy 
sin lived in its latent powers and principles; but through the blindness of his mind he 
did not perceive, its existence, neither was he sensible of its various operations in his 
soul. But when the commandment came with light, authority, and energy, he 
obtained such a view of the numberless evils of his own heart which he never saw 
before; that sin which once appeared to be dead, now revived. And this is the first 
view in which sin appears to be alive in the soul of a true penitent. Again, sin revived 
upon the coming of the commandment, because that commandment, being enforced 
by the power of the supreme Lawgiver, vested sin with a power to condemn. Sin 
revived in him on the coming of the commandment also, because the more the holy 
law urged obedience, the keener opposition did the heart naturally corrupted give to 
the requirements of the law. And now sin was found not only to exist, but to exist in 
all its power and strength.
3. The next means which, under Divine influence, corrected the mistaken 

62. apprehension which Paul once entertained of himself was that which is here 
mentioned, “I died.” The death here mentioned is nothing else than the death of legal 
hope; and yet no sinner will submit to this kind of death till the law is applied to his 
conscience by the Holy Ghost convincing him of guilt and of its tremendous demerit. 
(John Russell.)
The law and the gospel
The main design of the apostle in this chapter is to show that the law would not give 
peace of mind to the troubled sinner. Note man’s condition—
I. Without the law. When I was unacquainted with its high, spiritual demands, I was 
peaceful and self-satisfied. I lived an earthly life, trusting to my own righteousness.
II. Under the law. When the law was revealed to me in its purity and integrity, I 
discovered my sinfulness, and fell down as one slain.
III. Above the law. Having found that there is no life in the law, I turned to the gospel. 
This is the purpose of the law—a schoolmaster. In Christ I found life. (D. Thomas, D. D)
Want of conviction the source of mistaken apprehensions
We have here—
I. The good opinion which Paul once had of himself, while he was in an unregenerate 
state. “I was alive.” This is no uncommon thing. Many have deceived themselves with a 
name to live, while they are dead. He doubtless refers to the time when he was a 
Pharisee; and there were such persons long before the Pharisees (Job_30:12; 2Ki_10:16-
31; Isa_29:13; Isa_58:1-2; Isa_65:5). Concerning Paul himself, read Php_3:5. And yet, 
when it pleased God to call him by His grace, he saw himself “the chief of sinners.” What 
an amazing change was here! Though once alive in his presumptions and performances, 
he finds himself dead in law, dead in sin.
II. The ground of the apostle’s mistake. “I was without the law.”
1. Not that the apostle could be so ignorant as to imagine that he was without law; for 
as a Jew he had the written law, and as a Pharisee he made his boast of it, and 
expected life by his own obedience to it.
2. He means, “I was alive without the law in its purity and spirituality. I only 
considered the letter, especially I fell in with the glosses of our Rabbins. But when I 
was led to view the law in all its extent and spirituality, I saw my mistake—I 
condemned myself as a most miserable sinner.”
3. While men aim only at the external law, there is little difficulty in obeying its 
precepts; but when they consider it as the very image of God Himself, it is no wonder 
if their fears begin to be awakened. Without the law, separated from and 
uninfluenced by it, the sinner receives no uneasiness; but if it be impressed upon his 
conscience, all his vain hopes are at an end. So, then, the true reason of the apostle’s 
mistake was the want of better acquaintance with the law. They who have most light 
have the lowest thoughts of themselves. Hence we see—
(1) That there is much carnal security in every unregenerate man (Luk_11:21). 
The children of God may be often in fear and doubt. If they look to the glories of 

63. heaven they think themselves altogether unworthy of them: if they look to the 
horrors of hell their hearts die within them: while sinners have none of these 
sorrows; securely they live, and, very often, peacefully they die (Psa_73:4). Now 
and then their consciences may render them uneasy; but the old stupidity 
returns, and there may be little interruption as to their quiet. Oh, but it would be 
their greatest mercy to have it interrupted by the coming of the law in its purity 
and power.
(2) There is much presumption as the ground of their security (Joh_8:41; Joh 
8:54-55).
(3) There is also much false joy, as the offspring of groundless hope, built upon 
their religious education, church privileges, pride, self-love, and their self-
comparison with those that are more grossly wicked; but all this is being without 
the law, or the not judging of themselves by the right rule.
III. The means by which his mistake was rectified.
1. The commandment came, the law, in its pure and holy precepts. Now, if it be 
inquired how it is that the law comes home to the conscience, we answer, It is by the 
Spirit of the Lord. He opens the blind eye to discern the purity of the object 
presented, and exerts His almighty power to put the sinner upon comparing his heart 
and life with this law, and to hold him to it.
2. Sin revived.
(1) Sin more and more appeared, and made itself manifest.
(2) It awoke and more powerfully exerted itself. While Satan can keep men quiet 
in carnal security he is content; but no sooner does a man begin to be weary of his 
yoke and cry out for deliverance, than Satan apprehends the loss of a subject. 
Then he endeavours to excite and provoke his lusts to the uttermost, in order to 
overwhelm his soul with despair.
(3) It revived as to its guilt, or its condemning power. He once thought that sin 
was dead; but the law, when it came, plainly discovered to him its sting, “For the 
sting of death is sin.”
3. “I died.” “I saw myself to be in a state of death and condemnation. I found myself 
insufficient to anything. All my attempts were fruitless, and I lay at the foot of mercy 
without any claim or plea.” In this hopeless and helpless state does Christ find us 
when He comes to bring us salvation. Oh, how precious is pardon to the ungodly, 
hope to the hopeless, mercy to the miserable!
Conclusion: A word—
1. To such as are dead, while they think themselves alive, How necessary is self-
examination! The apostle, having been convinced of his past mistake, earnestly 
recommends this (2Co_13:5).
2. Those that feel themselves dead, bless God for the discovery. Where God hath 
made this discovery of sin, He will lead the heart to Him who is able to subdue sin.
3. Let all who have received life from Christ seek daily supplies from Him. Guard 
against all sin as contrary to that new life you have in and from Christ (Col_3:1). (J. 
Stafford.)

64. The effect of law on obedience
The terrors of the law have much the same effect on our duty and obedience as frost has 
on a stream—it hardens, cools, and stagnates. Whereas, let the shining of Divine love rise 
upon the soul, repentance will then flow, our hardness and coldness thaw and melt away, 
and all the blooming fruits of godliness flourish and abound. (Toplady.)
Death of the moral sense
The gambler that can take another’s money, and feel no compunction of conscience at his 
villainy, who can continue to walk the streets as if he were an honest man, while all the 
time a gambler’s money is in his pocket and a gambler’s joy in his heart, illustrates how 
thoroughly sin can get the mastery of a human being. How many people can lie in the 
way of slander, in the way of innuendo, in the way of suspicion, and still sleep at night as 
if they were as innocent as babes. Such people are dead in trespasses and sins. You run a 
pin into your body and you scream, because it is a live body. And so, while conscience is 
alive, the thrust of a wicked thought through it causes exquisite torture. But when one 
can lie, and steal, and be drunken—when these barbed iniquities can be driven day by 
day into the very centre of a man’s life, and conscience receives the stab without a spasm
—then is it dead. And this is the law, that with whatever faculty you sin, the sin which 
that faculty commits kills the corresponding moral sense. Hence, sin is moral suicide; the 
drug works slowly but surely. The spirit which is compelled to eat of it is thrown 
gradually into a torpor, which deepens and deepens with every breath, until the capacity 
for inspiration is fatally weakened and the spirit dies. (W. H. H. Murray.)
Experience teaching the value of grace
In the olden time when the government of England resolved to build a wooden bridge 
over the Thames at Westminster, after they had driven one hundred and forty piles into 
the river, there occurred one of the most severe frosts in the memory of man, by means 
of which the piles were torn away from their strong fastenings, and many of them 
snapped in two. The apparent evil in this case was a great good; it led the commissioners 
to reconsider their purpose, and a substantial bridge of stone was erected. How well it is 
when the fleshly reformations of unregenerate men are broken to pieces, if thus they are 
led to fly to the Lord Jesus, and in the strength of His Spirit are brought to build solidly 
for eternity. Lord, if Thou sufferest my resolves and hopes to be carried away by 
temptations and the force of my corruptions, grant that this blessed calamity may drive 
me to depend wholly on Thy grace, which cannot fail me. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Moral life and death
The death of sin is the life of man; and the life of death is the sin of man. (Calvin.)
And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
—
The fatal effects of the law

65. Suppose a person liable to two bodily disorders of a different kind. He is weak, but the 
means taken to restore health and strength raise a fever in his veins. If we could keep 
him weak, he might live; as it is, he dies. So it might be said of the law, that it is too 
strong a medicine for the human soul. (Prof. Jowett.)
The original and the actual relation of man to law
1. The reader of St. Paul’s Epistles is struck with the seemingly disparaging manner 
in which he speaks of the moral law. “The law entered that the offence might 
abound”; “the law worketh wrath”; “sin shall not have dominion” over the believer, 
because he is “not under the law,” has “become dead to the law,” is “delivered from 
the law,” and “the strength of sin is the law.” This phraseology sounds strange. “Is the 
law sin?” is a question which he himself asks, because aware that it will be likely to 
start in the mind of some of his readers.
2. The difficulty is only seeming, and the text explains it. The moral law is suited to 
produce holiness and happiness. It was ordained to life. If everything in man had 
remained as it was created, there would have been no need of urging him to “become 
dead to the law,” to be “delivered from the law,” etc.
3. The original relation between man and the moral law was precisely like that 
between nature and its laws. There has been no apostasy in the system of matter. The 
law of gravitation rules as it did on the morning of creation. The law here was 
ordained to life, and the ordinance still stands and will stand until a new system of 
nature and a new legislation for it are introduced. But the case is different with man. 
He is out of his original relations to the law and government of God, and therefore 
that which was ordained to him for life, he now finds to be unto death. The food 
which is suited to minister to the health of the well man, becomes death to the sick 
man.
4. Let us now consider some particulars in which the commandment is found to be 
unto death. The law of God shows itself in the human soul in the form of a sense of 
duty. Every man hears occasionally the words, “Thou shalt; thou shalt not,” and finds 
himself saying to himself, “I ought; I ought not.” This is the voice of law sounding in 
the conscience. Cut into the rock of Sinai or printed in our Bibles, it is a dead letter; 
but wrought into the fabric of our own constitution, and speaking to our inward 
being, the law is a possessing spirit, and according as we obey or disobey, it is a 
guardian angel or a tormenting fiend. We have disobeyed, and therefore the sense of 
duty is a tormenting sensation; the commandment which was ordained to life is 
found to be unto death, because—
I. It places man under a continual restraint.
1. To be reined in and thwarted renders a man uneasy. The universal and instinctive 
desire for freedom is a proof of this. Now, the sense of duty opposes the wishes, 
thwarts the inclination, and imposes a restraint upon the desires and appetites of 
sinful man. If his inclination were only in harmony with his duty, there would be no 
restraint from the law; in doing his duty he would be doing what he liked.
2. There are only two ways whereby contentment can be introduced into the soul. If 
the Divine law could be altered so that it should agree with man’s sinful inclination, 
he could be happy in sin. But this method, of course, is impossible. The only other 
mode, therefore, is to change the inclination. Then the conflict between our will and 

66. our conscience is at an end. And this is to be happy.
3. But such is not the state of things in the unrenewed soul. Duty and inclination are 
in conflict. And what a dreadful destiny awaits that soul for whom the holy law of 
God, which was ordained to life and joy, shall be found to be unto death and woe 
immeasurable!
II. It demands a perpetual effort from him.
1. No creature likes to tug and to lift. Service must be easy in order to be happy.
(1) If you lay upon one’s shoulders a burden that strains his muscles almost to 
the point of rupture, you put him in physical pain. His physical structure was not 
intended to be subjected to such a stretch. In Eden physical labour was pleasure 
because the powers were in healthy action. Before the Fall, man was simply to 
dress and keep a garden; but after, he was to dig up thorns and thistles, and cat 
his bread in the sweat of his face. And now the whole physical nature of man 
groaneth and travaileth in pain together, waiting for the redemption of the body 
from this penal necessity of perpetual strain and effort.
(2) The same fact meets us when we pass to the moral nature. By creation it was 
a pleasure for man to keep the law of God. Holy Adam knew nothing of effort in 
the path of duty. By apostasy, the obligation to keep the Divine law became 
repulsive. It was no longer easy for man to do right, and it has never been easy or 
spontaneous to him since.
2. Now in this demand for a perpetual effort, we see that the law which was ordained 
to life is found to be unto death. The commandment, instead of being a pleasant 
friend and companion, has become a rigorous taskmaster. It lays out an uncongenial 
work, and threatens punishment if not done. And yet the law is not a tyrant. It is 
holy, just, and good. This work which it lays out is righteous work, and ought to be 
done. The wicked disinclination has compelled the law to assume this attitude. That 
which is good was not made death to man by a Divine arrangement, but by man’s 
transgression (verses 13, 14). For the law says to every man what St. Paul says of the 
magistrate: “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil,” etc.
Conclusion: We are taught by the subject, as thus considered—
1. That the mere sense of duty is not Christianity. For this alone causes misery in a 
soul that has not performed its duty. The man that doeth these things shall indeed 
live by them; but he who has not done them must die by them. Great mistakes are 
made at this point. Men have supposed that an active conscience is enough, and have 
therefore substituted ethics for the gospel. “I know,” says Kant, “of but two beautiful 
things: the starry heavens above, and the sense of duty within.” But is the sense of 
duty beautiful to a being who is not conformed to it? Nay, if there be any beauty, it is 
the beauty of the lightnings, terrible. So long as man stands at a distance from the 
moral law, he can admire its glory and its beauty; but when it comes home to him 
and becomes a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, then its glory is 
swallowed up in its terror; then he who was alive without the law becomes slain by 
the law; then this ethical admiration of the Decalogue is exchanged for an evangelical 
trust in Jesus Christ.
2. The meaning of Christ’s work of redemption. The law for an alienated and corrupt 
soul is a burden. Christ is well named the Redeemer, because He frees the sinful soul 
from all this. He delivers it from the penalty by making satisfaction to the broken 
law. He delivers it from the restraint and irksome effort by so changing the heart that 

67. it becomes a delight to keep the law. Obedience then becomes a pleasure, and the 
service of God the highest liberty. (Prof. Shedd.)
Mistaken apprehensions of the law destructive to the souls of men
I. The law of God is one of the greatest blessings that He ever bestowed upon this world, 
for “it was ordained unto life.”
1. Our apostle refers to the true nature and use of the law when first given to man in 
his innocency. It proposed life upon reasonable terms, such as were in the power of 
man to give, and such as were proper for God to require and accept (Gal_3:12). Life 
is put for present happiness and future glory, and both might have been obtained by 
the law.
2. But perhaps it may be objected, whatever blessing it might have been to man 
obedient to all its requirements, could any blessing arise to him who found the 
commandment to be unto death? Yes, if by seeing himself lost and rained by the law, 
he sought salvation in Christ. Not that the law can bring man to Christ of itself, but as 
it shows a man his need of Christ.
II. The law, which might once have given life to the obedient, is now no longer able to do 
it. An objection has been started, taken from the case of the young man who inquired: 
“Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” Christ refers him 
to the law; but it is very evident that our Lord’s immediate design was to convince him of 
sin. Had this young man been convinced of sin, Christ would probably have given him a 
more direct answer to his inquiry. Instead of this, lie was directed to the law, and not for 
justification but for conviction—to take off his heart from all legal expectations, that he 
might become a proper subject of Christ’s kingdom.
III. Sin must be the greatest and the worst of evils, as it turns the blessing into a curse. 
“The commandment I found to be unto death.” Nor is this the only instance. It aims at 
the same end in all its operations. Nor need we wonder at this; for if it hath done the 
greater, it will effect the less. Blessings still abound among us, but alas! how are they 
abused to the most licentious purposes! Or, on the other hand, if men do not presume, 
yet they are under the influence of a kind of secret despair. The blessings of the gospel 
are either too great to be obtained, or too good to be freely bestowed. In fine, what is 
there which is not abused to the worst of purposes? Wisdom, courage, riches, honours, 
pleasures, all excellent in their natures, yet sin, in the heart, turns all into a curse!
IV. Whether men look to the law for life or disregard it, they must equally find it death to 
their souls. It is true the apostle found that to be death from which he formerly expected 
life; but did this lead him to disregard the law? Far from it; he declares it to be holy and 
just and good. Nay, his complaints are all taken from his want of greater conformity to it.
V. If a poor sinner would obtain a title to eternal life, he must not seek it by obedience to 
the law, but by faith in Christ. (J. Stafford.)
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew 
me.—
Sin’s use of the law
I. For deception. Sin’s nature, like Satan’s, is to deceive. Eve was seduced by Satan 

68. through the commandment (Gen_3:1-6). How intensely evil must that be which makes 
so vile a use of what is good. Sin—
1. Seduces men to break the law, and so works their ruin.
2. Persuades men to an equally fatal extent that they are able to keep it. A man’s case 
is never worse than when expecting heaven from his works. Israel was thus deceived 
(Rom_10:3); and the Pharisee (Luk_18:11).
3. Excites to rebellion against it as if opposed to our good (verse 8).
II. For death. Sin, like Satan, only deceives to destroy. This death is—
1. Judicial death: the condemnation of the law.
2. Moral death: despair of ever being able to satisfy the requirements of the law.
3. Spiritual death: the execution of the sentence of the law. (T. Robinson, D. D.)
The deceitfulness and ruinousness of sin
The metaphor is taken from a robber who leads a man into some by-path and then 
murders him. The word principally denotes an innate faculty of deceiving. We read of the 
deceitfulness of riches (Mat_13:22); the deceitfulness of unrighteousness (2Th_2:10), 
which is their aptitude, considering the sinful state and the various temptations of men, 
to deceive them with vain hopes and to seduce them into crooked paths. Once it is put for 
sin itself (Eph_4:22). Here, as it is joined with sin, it denotes that habitual deceit that is 
in indwelling sin, whereby it seduceth men and draweth them off from God (Heb_12:13).
I. Sin is of a subtle and deceiving nature. Sin deceives the souls of men—
1. As it blinds their understandings (Rom_1:21-22; Eph_4:18). This blindness of the 
mind consists in ignorance of God and of our own interests, giving us light thoughts 
of sin and extenuating it.
2. As it presents various false appearances to the fancy in order to engage the 
affections. It allures with the specious prospect of riches, but it steals away our best 
treasure; it flatters us with hopes of honour and happiness, but rewards with disgrace 
and misery; it premises liberty, but binds us with fetters stronger than iron 
(Pro_16:25).
3. It has a great advantage in its very situation: it is within, ever present, and 
sometimes it makes a man become a tempter to himself. There is nothing either 
within or without but may be, and often is, turned into the nature of sin. The very 
heart is deceitful, and it aims to deceive the superior powers of the soul. Who can tell 
how many ways it has to deceive itself? It calls evil good, and good evil.
4. As it turns aside the thoughts from the punishment of sin.
5. Finally, as it sometimes lead men to think, that because they are sinners, the great 
God is become their enemy, and that there is no hope of reconciliation through 
Christ.
II. Where sin hath deceived it will also kill, either here or hereafter. The apostle intends 
that it brought him into a state of aggravated condemnation, or, as it were, delivered him 
over to eternal death, so that the more he reflected upon it, the more was he convinced 
that he had been grossly imposed upon by the fascinating power of sin (Job_20:12-14; 
Pro_20:17; Pro 6:32-33; Jas_3:15). Achan thought to obtain a goodly prize; but how did 

69. sin wound his conscience and at length slay his soul!
III. The deceitfulness of sin in the heart of man is unsearchable. “The heart is deceitful 
above all things,” and if the heart be so deceitful, what must sin be whorl it gets 
possession of such an heart! As we know not the hearts of one another, so neither do we 
fully know our own hearts. Who can tell how our hearts would act if suitable objects, 
inclinations, and temptations were to unite and concur at any time? (J. Stafford.)
Romans 7:7-25
To whom does the passage refer?
To the unregenerate.—
It has been much discussed whether this section describes a justified man, or a man still 
unforgiven. The latter view was held by Origen and the Greek fathers generally. The 
former was adopted by Augustine and the Latin fathers generally. It was received in the 
West during the Middle Ages; and by the Reformers. It is now held, I believe, by most 
Calvinists. Among Arminians the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of 
remark that this is the older opinion, and was theirs who spoke the language in which 
this Epistle was written. That this section describes Paul’s own experience before 
justification, I hold for the following reasons.
1. In the last section we saw a great change take place in Paul, a change from life to 
death. This change brought him into the state described in Rom_7:5. But in 
Rom_7:6, Paul says, and he never wearies to repeat it, that another change, as 
glorious as this was sad, had been wrought in him by the power of God. The 
completeness of this change has been frequently set before us (Rom_5:10; Rom 6:11; 
Rom 6:22; Rom 7:6). Paul is dead to sin, set free from its service, dead to the law 
which formerly bound him to a cruel master. This second change must be located 
between Rom_7:13, which gives the purpose of the first change, and Rom_8:1, which 
describes the state of those who enjoy the second. And since Rom_8:14-25 deal with 
one subject, we must put the second change either between Rom_8:13; Rom 14:1-23, 
or between chaps. 7 and 8. Now we have no hint whatever between Rom_8:13; Rom 
14:1-23 of a change. But in Rom_8:1, the change is written in characters which no 
one can misunderstand. The words “made me free from the law of sin” proclaim in 
the clearest language that the bondage of Rom_8:23; Rom 8:25 has passed away.
2. Again, this section contradicts all that Paul says about himself and the Christian 
life. He here calls himself a slave of sin, and groans beneath its bondage. He is a 
calamity-stricken man. But in the last chapter he describes his readers as dead to sin, 
and set free from its service. In what sense could a Roman Christian dare to reckon 
himself dead to sin, if this section were a picture of the liberty from sin enjoyed by an 
apostle? Paul here says that sin dwelling in his flesh is the true author of his actions. 
But in the next chapter he says that they who live after the flesh will die. He here 
declares that he works out that which is bad. But in Rom_2:9, he teaches that upon 
all who do so the anger of God will fall. If these words refer to a justified person, they 
stand absolutely alone in the New Testament.
3. It has been objected that the language of this section is inapplicable to men not yet 
justified. But we find similar language in the lips of pagans. “What is it that draws us 
in one direction while striving to go in another; and impels us towards that which we 

70. wish to avoid?” (Seneca). “We understand and know the good things, but we do not 
work them out” (Euripides). “I have evidently two souls for if I had only one it would 
not be at the same time good and bad; nor would it desire at the same time both 
honourable and dishonourable works, nor would it at the same time both wish and 
not wish to do the same things. But it is evident that there are two souls; and that 
when the good one is in power, the honourable things are practised; but when the 
bad, the dishonourable things are attempted” (Xenophon). “I know what sort of bad 
things I am going to do: but passion is stronger than my purposes. And this is to 
mortals a cause of very great evils” (Euripides). “I desire one thing: the mind 
persuades another. I see and approve better things: I follow worse things” (Ovid). 
These passages prove that in many cases men are carried along against their better 
judgment to do bad things, and that even in pagans there is an inward man which 
approves what God’s law approves.
4. What Paul says elsewhere about his religious state before justification confirms 
the description of himself here given. He was a man of blameless morality (Php_3:6); 
it was in ignorance that he persecuted the Church (1Ti_1:13); he was zealous for God 
(Act_22:3); a Pharisee of the strictest sect (Act_26:5); no doubt he sought to set up a 
righteousness of his own (Rom_10:3). Of such a man’s inner life we have a picture in 
this section. His conscience approves the law: he makes every effort to keep it: his 
efforts only prove his moral powerlessness, and reveal the presence of an enemy in 
whose firm grasp he lies: he seeks to conquer inward failure by strict outward 
observance, and perhaps by bloody loyalty to what he considers to be the cause of 
God. In the conscientious Pharisee we have a man who desires to do right, but 
actually does wrong. And the more earnestly a man strives to obtain the favour of 
God by doing right, the more painfully conscious will he be of his failure.
5. It has been objected to the view here advocated that all this is the experience of 
many justified persons. But this only proves that the change in us is not yet complete, 
and Paul makes this a matter of reproach (1Co_3:1-4). On the other hand, there are 
thousands who with deep gratitude acknowledge that, while this section describes 
their past, it by no means describes their present state. Day by day they are more 
than conquerors through Him that loved them.
6. Then why did Paul puzzle plain people by using the present tense instead of the 
past? Let the man who asks this question write out the section in the past tense. “I 
was a man of flesh: I saw another law fighting against me, and leading me captive: I 
cried, ‘Calamity-stricken man,’” etc. The life and reality of the section are gone. To 
realise past calamity, we must leave out of sight our deliverance from it. The language 
of the last section made it easy to do this. Paul’s description of his murder by the 
hand of sin was so sad and so real that he forgot the life which followed. Hence when 
he came to speak of the state in which that murder placed him, it was easy to use the 
present tense. Of this change of the point of view we have already had other 
examples. In Rom_3:7, Paul throws himself into the position of one guilty of 
falsehood, and sets up for himself an excuse. In Rom_4:24, he stands by the writer of 
Genesis, and looks upon the justification of himself and his readers as still future. In 
Rom_5:1, he urges them to claim peace with God through justification. In Rom_5:14, 
after contemplating the reign of death from Adam to Moses, he looks forward to the 
future incarnation of Christ. In Rom_6:5, he speaks in the same way of the 
resurrection life in Christ. We shall also find him, in Rom_8:30, throwing himself 
into the far future, and looking back upon the nearer future as if already past. This 
mode of speech is common in all languages. But it is a conspicuous feature of the 
language in which this Epistle was written.

71. 7. I cannot agree with those who say that Paul refers in this section to the state of 
babes in Christ (1Co_3:1); and in the next, to full salvation. The next chapter 
certainly describes Paul’s own experience, which was that of full salvation. And the 
language of this section is frequently used by those who are only in part saved from 
sin. But the least babe in Christ has experienced a resurrection from the dead 
(Col_2:13), and a deliverance purchased with the blood of Christ. Of such 
resurrection and deliverance there is no hint in this section, till the last verse of it 
proclaims the dawn of a brighter day.
8. If the above interpretation be correct, we have in this section the fullest 
description in the Bible of the natural state of man. Even in the immoral there is an 
inner man which approves the good and hates the bad. But this inner man is 
powerless against the enemy who is master of his body, and who thus dictates his 
conduct. In spite of his better self the man is carried along the path of sin. This is not 
contradicted, nor its force lessened, by Paul’s admission in Rom_2:26, that even 
pagans do sometimes what the law commands. Their obedience is only occasional 
and imperfect, whereas the law requires constant and complete obedience. A man 
who breaks the laws of his country is not saved from punishment by the occasional 
performance of noble and praiseworthy acts. Although men unforgiven sometimes 
perform that which deserves approbation, they are utterly powerless to rescue 
themselves from the power of sin, and to obtain by good works the favour of God. 
(Prof. J. A. Beet.)
The character described in the seventh chapter of Romans
Attend to—
I. The commencement of the struggle of sin in the very formation of the Christian 
character. In this process there are three features.
1. The rectification of our judgment on the subject of our relation to God. This is 
what is called conviction of sin. It arises from a perception of the meaning of the law 
of God, attention to the Scriptures. Things once deemed innocent are now seen to be 
evil, and sins once deemed trifling are now fell to be awful. The law appears with its 
avenging eye, and reiterating its demands. The mind is stripped of its vain hope of 
escaping Divine justice. This conviction may be produced gradually, or suddenly. It 
may be attended with terror, or it may be serene.
2. A strife on the part of the mind to get out of the state. That conviction of sin which 
has no influence on the conduct, is not a true conviction. Now the most painful part 
of the Christian life commences. The individual, from a perception of the holiness of 
God and the evil of sin, sets himself to avoid sin. But sin, indignant at the restraint, 
like a mighty torrent before a feeble barrier, collects all its strength, and bears all 
down before it. It makes him sensible of its strength by the vanity of his efforts to 
check it. Temptation takes him as easily as a whirlwind lifts a straw. He returns to 
renew his defeated resolutions, but only to have them defeated again. In what a state 
must this leave the mind!
3. A clear discovery of the gospel mode of deliverance, and the full application of the 
mind to it. Now commences the life of faith; for as that which is sown is not 
quickened except it die, so the faith that gives the mind up to Christ, to be saved by 
His merits and sanctified by His grace, arises out of the death of self-conflict. What is 
the consequence? Peace takes possession of the mind. There is a principle formed in 

72. the mind, and fixed there, directly opposed to sin, and getting the mastery over it. 
The struggle may be violent, but grace is sure to prevail, and every fresh victory leads 
to a further one; until the very habits and tastes of the mind become on the side of 
piety, and the man feels as in the firm grasp of the hand of his God. This is 
regeneration.
II. The illustration and confirmation of all this in the chapter before us.
1. The opinion of several eminent commentators is that Paul here refers to himself 
and men generally in an unconverted state, and under the law, and of that natural 
approbation which they have of what is good, though quite unable to follow it. They 
maintain that the language would not suit any other than an unconverted man, 
inasmuch as in the conflict sin is represented in every instance as getting the victory. 
But I think this opinion to be wrong, for—
(1) It is contrary to all that we know of the apostle and his history. When was he 
ever in this state of bondage to sin? Before conversion he was a Pharisee of the 
strictest sort: he was not only in his own opinion free from this miserable 
bondage, but he imagined that he was able to keep all the law of God.
(2) The language employed is far too strong for any man in an unconverted state. 
Can any such man say, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man”?
2. There is another opinion totally adverse to this, viz., that the apostle is speaking in 
his state as a Christian at the time he wrote this Epistle. This opinion, however, I 
conceive to be equally wrong.
(1) It does not agree with the design of the apostle, which was to convince that 
the law of God was neither an instrument of justification nor of sanctification; but 
the gospel of both. He has shown in the previous chapters that it was not an 
instrument of justification. In this chapter he begins to show, that neither was the 
law an instrument of sanctification, in that it was “weak through the flesh”; that it 
could only stir and goad sin by being used to oppose it; that, therefore, we must 
look out for something else, the gospel of Christ. Now how would it have accorded 
with this design, to have shown that the mature Christian would not be able to 
keep the law, nor to become sanctified? That would be proving too much, in that 
not only the law but the gospel could not be the instrument of sanctification, and 
would be quite foreign to his design.
(2) And as it does not conform to his design, so neither does it agree with the 
progressive representations of this and the following chapters. The seventh 
chapter should never have been separated from the eighth. And who does not see 
that the man in the eighth chapter is in a very different state from the man in the 
seventh, though the same man?
(3) It is not agreeable to truth and experience. It is not true of confirmed 
Christians that they always do the evil they would not, and fail to do the good that 
they would. Some half-hearted and sluggish Christians may be “carnal, sold 
under sin”; their “old man” may be as strong in them at the last as it is at the first. 
But it is not true of such Christians as Paul, who tells us that he “kept under his 
body,” and “brought it into subjection.” It is not true of such Christians as John 
describes when he says, “Whoso is born of God, doth not commit sin.” Nay, David 
says of good men that “they do no iniquity; they walk in Thy way.”
3. Then what is the alternative? Look at the person whom I described in the incipient 
stages of the formation of the Christian character. See if his case does not agree with 

73. every part of the representation and design of the apostle. There is one objection, 
however. Was he not Paul a Pharisee up to the time of his conversion? And did not 
that in one instant change him into a decided disciple of Jesus Christ? How then can 
the representations of this chapter be true of him in this point of view? Answer:
(1) He is speaking of what is common to converted persons at large. If, therefore, 
his extraordinary conversion had not allowed him to go through that precise 
experience, he would not be prevented from speaking of himself in this manner, 
as that which belongs to all converted persons. Such a mode of speaking is 
common in the Scriptures.
(2) It is not improbable that the apostle did go through something of this kind 
during the interval which elapsed between his saying, “What wilt Thou have me 
to do?” and Ananias coming to give him sight along with the gift of the Holy 
Spirit. He might learn in those three days and nights all that about sin, about the 
excellence of the law, about human imbecility, and about the mode of Divine 
deliverance which he here describes, and which many often do not learn in as 
many years. Conclusion: Is it asked, Why dwell on such minute parts of Christian 
experience? We think them of importance to correct false views of religion. How 
many are apt to suppose that religion consists in a few feelings and sentiments of 
a religious nature, and in a superficial change of the mind and of the behaviour! 
But religion is a change of character; it is the death of sin in the soul, 
commencing with a painful conflict, but proceeding to an habitual and a general 
victory: and nothing short of this will warrant the hope of a state of salvation. (J. 
Leifchild, D. D.)
The moral history of the inner man illustrated by this passage
At the outset we observe two remarkable things.
1. Two distinct forces (verse 15), represented as if they were two Egos, the one hating 
what the other does, the one willing to do what the other strenuously refuses. What 
are these?
(1) The moral desire, going ever with the law of God—which is “holy, just, and 
good.”
(2) The animal choice following ever the “law of sin in the members.” The choice 
and the desire, which ought ever to be one in the one being, are in man’s case 
two. All are bound to admit the existence of this fact, however they may differ in 
their methods of explaining it.
2. The development of these two powers in the same person. The language shows a 
kind of underlying personality in which these two selves live—“the wretched man” 
(verse 24); “the inner man,” the moral core of our nature—the man of the man. That 
there should be an opposition between the desire and the choice of different men is a 
remarkable fact. But that each man should be a self-divided kingdom, a self-created 
battleground on which heaven and hell fight their campaigns, is a fact as wonderful 
as it is evident. Here we have the inner man—
I. In absolute subjection to the flesh—thoroughly animalised. It is the state prior to the 
advent of the commandment (verse 10), when “sin was dead,” and the man fancied 
himself morally “alive.” The soul of infants, of course, is in this state. It is the creature of 
bodily appetites and desires. It seems wise and kind that the mind should for a time lie 

74. dormant in these frail organisations—that the muscles, limbs, and nerves might get 
strength. But the language is evidently intended to apply to adults. And are not millions 
walking after the flesh, and living to the flesh? the great question of their existence being
—“What shall we eat, and what shall we drink, and wherewithal shall we be clothed?” 
The passage teaches that the state of the soul in this stage of its history is—
1. A state of unconscious sin. “Without the law sin was dead.” It produced no 
compunction. The soul was “dead in trespasses and sin.” There is no moral struggle 
against it. Still, though sin is not a matter of consciousness, it is sin.
(1) It is a violation of our constitution. Were we like the brute, without intellect 
or conscience, it would be proper to give full play to all our animal impulses and 
desires. But as we have souls connecting us with moral law, whose well-being 
consists in the possession of virtue, and which outlive the body, to allow the body 
a mastery over the soul is a more monstrous anomaly than the enthroning of a 
ruthless savage as the monarch of a civilised people.
(2) It is a violation of the design of our being. Why are we thus organised? That 
our spiritual nature might be buried in the material, that the Divine spark might 
be extinguished, or even clouded by the animal nature? No. The body is designed 
as a temple in which the soul is to worship, an organ by which the soul is to 
subordinate the material universe to its service.
(3) It is a violation of Biblical injunctions. We are commanded “to mortify the 
flesh,” etc., to keep in subjection our bodies, etc.
2. A state of false life. “I was alive without the law once”—without the understanding 
of the law. In this fleshy stage of being, man is so destitute of all sense of 
responsibility, and all convictions of sin, that he fancies everything right. He lives, it 
is true. See him revelling in pleasure, or bustling in business. There is life, but it is a 
false life; not that of an intelligent moral being, made to act to the glory of God. It is 
the life of a dying man, who in his delirium fancies himself strong and hale; it is the 
life of a maniac who acts under the impression that he is a king. Such, then, is the 
state of man in the first stage of his soul’s history.
II. In violent battlings with the flesh (verses 9-24). In the first stage the conscience was 
asleep. Not so now. A new era has dawned—conscience is roused from her long 
slumbers, and a scene of terrible conflicts has commenced. This second stage—
1. Is introduced by a spiritual revelation of the Divine law. “The commandment 
came.” The law of God flashed on the conscience and revealed the true moral 
position. The bodily eye would never be developed without light. It would of course 
be a perfect organism, but it would not yield the sensation of sight. So with the 
conscience. It is a perfect organism, but without God’s law it will never see. Bring 
“the commandment” upon it, and it will give the man a new world. When the beams 
of morning play upon the eyeball, the slumbering tribes awake; so when the light of 
God’s law breaks on the conscience, the man awakes to his true condition. The 
revelation gives him three horrific feelings.
(1) The feeling of utter wrongfulness. He looks within and finds “no good thing.” 
He feels towards the commandment as Hamlet’s wicked mother felt towards her 
reproving son—“Thou turn’st mine eyes into my very soul,” etc.
(2) The feeling of miserable slavery.
(a) In corporeal slavery the soul may rise on the wings of devotion, may revel 
in thought: but here the spiritual faculties are manacled.

75. (b) Death puts an end to physical and political slavery; but this spiritual 
slavery, death has no power to destroy.
(3) The feeling of moral death. Sin woke into consciousness, and “I died.” The 
law was “found to be unto death.” It “slew” him. What is the feeling of the 
criminal, who has been cheering his doleful state with the delusive hope of 
pardon, when the executioner tells him the fatal hour is come? What is the feeling 
of the young man whose blood is warm, heart buoyant, and hopes high, when the 
physician tells him that a fatal plague has seized him? The feeling of death! What 
is it? The question produces a cold shiver throughout the frame. But the feeling of 
death in relation to the soul, what can be more horrific?
2. Is characterised by a struggle to get deliverance by the law. In the first stage the 
law was disobeyed, but then there was no feeling about it; it was done mechanically. 
But now there is a struggle for a deliverance by the law.
(1) And this is futile, because the revelation of the law stimulates the tendency to 
disobey it. “It wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.” Without the law sin 
was dead. To our depraved nature, “stolen waters are sweet.” The moment a thing 
is prohibited our desire to obtain it is increased.
(2) And the struggle is painful, because whilst the law stimulates the tendency to 
sin, it deepens the impression of its enormity. It is when conscience approves of 
what we practically oppose that our life becomes intolerable. Thus the sinner in 
this state cries out, “O wretched man that I am,” etc. This, then, is the second 
stage of the soul’s history. Some reach it and agonise there forever. Cain, 
Belshazzar, Judas, did. Some reach it as did the thousands on the day of 
Pentecost, and thence pass on to the peaceful and perfect stage of being.
III. In victorious sovereignty over the flesh. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our 
Lord.”
1. The deliverance comes not by the law. The law brought on the conflict. The law 
exposed the disease, but had no remedy; the slavery, but it could not emancipate; the 
danger, but it could not deliver.
2. As an illustration of the enormity of sin. It is sin that has reduced man to this state 
in which he cries out, “O wretched man that I am,” etc.
3. As a proof of the glory of the gospel. Science, education, law, the utmost human 
ingenuity and effort, none of these can deliver man. The gospel alone can do it, has 
done it, does it, and will do it. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
EBC 7E25, “THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL LIFE
THE Apostle has led us a long way in his great argument; through sin, propitiation, faith, 
union, surrender, to that wonderful and "excellent mystery," the bridal oneness of Christ 
and the Church, of Christ and the believer. He has yet to unfold the secrets and glories of 
the experience of a life lived in the power of that Spirit of whose "newness" he has just 
spoken. But his last parable has brought him straight to a question which has repeatedly 
been indicated and deferred. He has told us that the Law of God was at first, ideally, our 
mystic husband, and that we were unfaithful in our wedded life, and that the injured lord 
sentenced to death his guilty spouse, and that the sentence was carried out-but carried 
out in Christ. Thus a death divorce took place between us, the justified, and the Law, 
regarded as the violated party in the covenant-"Do this and live."

76. Is this ancient husband then a party whom we are now to suspect, and to defy? Our 
wedlock with him brought us little joy. Alas, its main experience was that we sinned. At 
best, if we did right, (in any deep sense of right,) we did it against the grain; while we did 
wrong, (in the deep sense of wrong, difference from the will of God,) with a feeling of 
nature and gravitation. Was not our old lord to blame? Was there not something wrong 
about the Law? Did not the Law misrepresent God’s will? Was it not, after all "Sin itself 
in disguise," though it charged us with the horrible guilt of a course of adultery with Sin?
We cannot doubt that the statement and the treatment of this question here are in effect 
a record of personal experience. The paragraph which it originates, this long last passage 
of chapter 7, bears every trace of such experience. Hitherto, in the main, he has dealt 
with "you" and "us"; now he speaks only as "I," only of "me," and of "mine." And the 
whole dialect of the passage, so to say, falls in with this use of pronouns. We overhear the 
colloquies, the altercations, of will with conscience, of will with will, almost of self with 
self, carried on in a region which only self-consciousness can penetrate, and which only 
the subject of it all can thus describe. Yes, the person Paul is here, analysing and 
reporting upon himself; drawing the veil from his own inmost life, with a hand firm 
because surrendered to the will of God, who bids him, for the Church’s sake, expose 
himself to view. Nothing in literature, no "Confessions" of an Augustine, no "Grace 
Abounding" of a Bunyan, is more intensely individual. Yet on the other hand nothing is 
more universal in its searching application. For the man who thus writes is "the chosen 
vessel" of the Lord who has perfectly adjusted not his words only but his being, his 
experience, his conflicts and deliverances, to the manifestations of universal spiritual 
facts.
We need hardly say that this profound paragraph has been discussed and interpreted 
most variously. It has been held by some to be only St. Paul’s intense way of presenting 
that great phenomenon, wide as fallen humanity-human will colliding with human 
conscience, so that "no man does all he knows." Passages from every quarter of 
literature, of all ages, of all races, have been heaped around it, to prove, (what is indeed 
so profoundly significant a fact, largely confirmatory of the Christian doctrine of Original 
Sin,) that universal man is haunted by undone duties; and this passage is placed as it 
were in the midst, as the fullest possible confession of that fact, in the name of humanity, 
by an ideal individual. But surely it needs only an attentive reading of the passage, as a 
part of the Epistle to the Romans, as a part of the teaching of St. Paul, to feel the extreme 
inadequacy of such an account. On the one hand, the long groaning confession is no 
artificial embodiment of a universal fact; it is the cry of a human soul, if ever there was a 
personal cry. On the other hand, the passage betrays a kind of conflict far deeper and 
more mysterious than merely that of "I ought" with "I will not." It is a conflict of "I will" 
with "I will not"; of "I hate" with "I do." And in the later stages of the confession we find 
the subject of the conflict avowing a wonderful sympathy with the Law of God; recording 
not merely an avowal that right is right, but a consciousness that God’s precept is 
delectable. All this leads us to a spiritual region unknown to Euripides, and Horace, and 
even Epictetus.
Again it has been held that the passage records the experiences of a half-regenerate soul; 
struggling on its way from darkness to light, stumbling across a border zone between the 
power of Satan and the kingdom of God; deeply convinced of sin, but battling with it in 
the old impossible way after all, meeting self with self, or, otherwise, the devil with the 
man. But here again the passage seems to refuse the exposition, as we read all its 
elements. It is no experience of a half-renewed life to "take delight with the law of God 
after the inner man." It is utterly unlawful for a half-regenerate soul to describe itself as 
so beset by sin that "it is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me." No more dangerous form of 

77. thought about itself could be adopted by a soul not fully acquainted with God.
Again, and quite on the other hand, it has been held that our passage lays it down that a 
stern but on the whole disappointing conflict with internal evil is the lot of the true 
Christian, in his fullest life, now, always, and to the end; that the regenerate and 
believing man is, if indeed awake to spiritual realities, to feel at every step, "O wretched 
man that I am"; "What I hate, that I do"; and to expect deliverance from such a 
consciousness only when he attains his final heavenly rest with Christ. Here again 
extreme difficulties attend the exposition; not from within the passage, but from around 
it. It is liberally encircled with truths of liberty, in a servitude which is perfect freedom; 
with truths of power and joy, in a life which is by the Holy Ghost. It is quite incongruous 
with such surroundings that it should be thought to describe a spiritual experience 
dominant and characteristic in the Christian life.
"What shall we say then?" Is there yet another line of exegesis which will better satisfy 
the facts of both the passage and its context? We think there is one, which at once is 
distinctive in itself, and combines elements of truth indicated by the others which we 
have outlined. For those others have each an element of truth, if we read aright. The 
passage has a reference to the universal conflict of conscience and will. It does say some 
things quite appropriate to the man who is awake to his bondage but has not yet found 
his Redeemer. And there is, we dare to say, a sense in which it may be held that the 
picture is true for the whole course of Christian life here on earth; for there is never an 
hour of that life when the man who "says he has no sin" does not "deceive himself". 
(1Jn_1:8) And if that sin be but simple defect, a falling "short of the glory of God"; nay, if 
it be only that mysterious tendency which, felt or not, hourly needs a divine 
counteraction; still, the man "has sin," and must long for a final emancipation, with a 
longing which carries in it at least a latent "groan." So we begin by recognising that Paul, 
the personal Paul, speaking here to all of us, as in some solemn "testimony" hour, takes 
us first to his earliest deep convictions of right and wrong, when, apparently after a 
previous complacency with himself, he woke to see-but not to welcome-the absoluteness 
of God’s will. He glided along a smooth stream of moral and mental culture and 
reputation till he struck the rock of "Thou shalt not covet," "Thou shalt not desire," 
"Thou must not have self-will." Then, as from a grave, which was however only an 
ambush, "sin" sprang up; a conscious force of opposition to the claim of God’s will as 
against the will of Paul; and his dream of religious satisfaction died. Till we close ver. 11 
(Rom_7:11), certainly, we are in the midst of the unregenerate state. The tenses are past; 
the narrative is explicit. He made a discovery of law which was as death after life to his 
then religious experience. He has nothing to say of counter facts in his soul. It was 
conviction, with only rebellion as its issue. Then we find ourselves, we hardly know how, 
in a range of confessions of a different order. There is a continuity. The Law is there, and 
sin is there, and a profound moral conflict. But there are now counter facts. The man, the 
Ego, now "wills not," nay, "hates," what he practises. He wills what God prescribes, 
though he does it not. His sinful deeds are, in a certain sense, in this respect, not his own. 
He actually "delights, rejoices, with the Law of God." Yet there is a sense in which he is 
"sold," "enslaved," "captured," in the wrong direction.
Here, as we have admitted, there is much which is appropriate to the not yet regenerate 
state, where however the man is awakening morally, to good purpose, under the hand of 
God. But the passage as a whole refuses to be satisfied thus, as we have seen. He who can 
truly speak thus of an inmost sympathy, a sympathy of delight, with the most holy Law of 
God, is no half-Christian; certainly not in St. Paul’s view of things.
But now observe one great negative phenomenon of the passage. We read words about 

78. this regenerate sinner’s moral being and faculties; about his "inner man," his "mind," 
"the law of his mind,"; about "himself" as distinguished from the "sin" which haunts him. 
But we read not one clear word about that eternal Spirit, whose glorious presence we 
have seen: (Rom_7:6) characterising the Gospel, and of whom we are soon to hear in 
such magnificent amplitude. Once only is He even distinctly indicated; "the Law is 
spiritual" (Rom_7:14). But that is no comfort, no deliverance. The Spirit is indeed in the 
Law; but He must be also in the man, if there is to be effectual response, and harmony, 
and joy. No, we look in vain through the passage for one hint that the man, that Paul, is 
contemplated in it as filled by faith with the Holy Ghost for his war with indwelling sin 
working through his embodied conditions.
But he was regenerate, you say. And if so, he was an instance of the Spirit’s work, a 
receiver of the Spirit’s presence. It is so; not without the Spirit, working in him, could he 
"delight in the Law of God," and "with his true self serve the law of God." But does this 
necessarily mean that he, as a conscious agent, was fully using his eternal Guest as his 
power and victory?
We are not merely discussing a literary passage. We are pondering an oracle of God 
about man. So we turn full upon the reader-and upon ourselves-and ask the question, 
whether the heart cannot help to expound this hard paragraph. Christian man, by grace, 
-that is to say, by the Holy Spirit of God, -you have believed, and live. You are a limb of 
Christ, who is your life. But you are a sinner still; always, actually, in defect, and in 
tendency; always, potentially, in ways terribly positive. For whatever the presence of the 
Spirit in you has done, it has not so altered you that, if He should go, you would not 
instantly "revert to the type" of unholiness. Now, how do you meet temptation from 
without? How do you deal with the dread fact of guilty imbecility within? Do you, if I 
may put it so, use regenerate faculty in unregenerate fashion, meeting the enemy 
practically alone, with only high resolves, and moral scorn of wrong, and assiduous 
processes of discipline on body or mind? God forbid we should call these things evil. 
They are good. But they are the accidents, not the essence, of the secret; the wall, not the 
well, of power and triumph. It is the Lord Himself dwelling in you who is your victory; 
and that victory is to be realised by a conscious and decisive appeal to Him. "Through 
Him you shall do valiantly; for He it is that shall tread down your enemies." (Psa_60:12) 
And is not this verified in your experience? When, in your regenerate state, you use the 
true regenerate way, is there not a better record to be given? When, realising that the 
true principle is indeed a Person, you less resolve, less struggle, and more appeal and 
confide-is not sin’s "reign" broken, and is not your foot, even yours, because you are in 
conscious union with the Conqueror, placed effectually on "all the power of the enemy"?
We are aware of the objection ready to be made, and by devout and reverent men. It wilt 
be said that the Indwelling Spirit works always through the being in whom He dwells; 
and that so we are not to think of Him as a separable Ally, but just to "act ourselves," 
leaving it to Him to act through us. Well, we are willing to state the matter almost exactly 
in those last words, as theory. But the subject is too deep-and too practical-for neat 
logical consistency. He does indeed work in us, and through us. But then-it is He. And to 
the hard-pressed soul there is an unspeakable reality and power in thinking of Him as a 
separable, let us say simply a personal, Ally, who is also Commander, Lord, Life-Giver; 
and in calling Him definitely in.
So we read this passage again, and note this absolute and eloquent silence in it about the 
Holy Ghost. And we dare, in that view, to interpret it as St. Paul’s confession, not of a 
long-past experience, not of an imagined experience, but of his own normal experience 
always-when he acts out of character as a regenerate man. He fails, he "reverts," when, 

79. being a sinner by nature still, and in the body still, he meets the Law, and meets 
temptation, in any strength short of the definitely sought power of the Holy Ghost, 
making Christ all to him for peace and victory. And he implies, surely, that this failure is 
not a bare hypothesis, but that he knows what it is. It is not that God is not sufficient. He 
is so, always, now, forever. But the man does not always adequately use God; as he ought 
to do, as he might do, as he will ever rise up afresh to do. And when he does not, the 
resultant failure-though it be but a thought of vanity, a flush of unexpressed anger, a 
microscopic flaw in the practise of truthfulness, an unhallowed imagination, darting in a 
moment through the soul-is to him sorrow, burthen, shame. It tells him that "the flesh" 
is present still, present at least in its elements, though God can keep them out of 
combination. It tells him that, though immensely blest, and knowing now exactly where 
to seek, and to find, a constant practical deliverance (oh, joy unspeakable!), he is still "in 
the body," and that its conditions are still of "death." And so he looks with great desire 
for its redemption. The present of grace is good, beyond all his hopes of old. But the 
future of glory is "far better."
Thus the man at once "serves the Law of God," as its willing bondman (δουλευω, 
Rom_7:25), in the life of grace, and submits himself, with reverence and shame, to its 
convictions, when, if but for an hour, or a moment, he "reverts" to the life of the flesh.
Let us take the passage up now for a nearly continuous translation.
What shall we say then, in face of the thought of our death divorce, in Christ, from the 
Law’s condemning power. Is the Law sin? Are they only two phases of one evil? Away 
with the thought! But-here is the. connection of the two-I should not have known, 
recognised, understood, sin but by means of law. For coveting, for example, I should not 
have known, should not have recognised as sin, if the Law had not been saying, "Thou 
shalt not covet." But sin, making a fulcrum of the commandment, produced, effected, in 
me all coveting, every various application of the principle. For, law apart, sin is dead-in 
the sense of lack of conscious action. It needs "a holy Will," more or less revealed, to 
occasion its collision. Given no holy will, known or surmised, and it is "dead" as 
rebellion, though not as pollution. But I, the person to whom it lay buried, was all alive, 
conscious and content, law apart, once on a time (strange ancient memory in that 
biography!). But when the commandment came to my conscience and my will, sin rose to 
life again, ("again"; so it was no new creation after all) and I-died; I found myself legally 
doomed to death, morally without life power, and bereft of the self-satisfaction that 
seemed my vital breath. And the commandment that was lifewards, prescribing nothing 
but perfect right, the straight line to life eternal, proved for me deathwards. For sin, 
making a fulcrum of the commandment, deceived me, into thinking fatally wrong of God 
and of myself, and through it killed me, discovered me to myself as legally and morally a 
dead man. So that the Law, indeed, is holy, and the commandment, the special precept 
which was my actual death blow, holy, and just, and good. (He says, "the Law, indeed," 
with the implied antithesis that "sin, on the other hand," is the opposite; the whole fault 
of his misery beneath the Law lies with sin.) The good thing then, this good Law, has it to 
me become death? Away with the thought! Nay, but sin did so become that it might come 
out as sin, working out death for me by means of the good Law-that sin might prove 
overwhelmingly sinful, through the commandment, which at once called it up, and, by 
awful contrast, exposed its nature. Observe he does not say merely that sin thus 
"appeared" unutterably evil. More boldly, in this sentence of mighty paradoxes, he says 
that it "became" such. As it were, it developed its "character" into its fullest "action," 
when it thus used the eternal Will to set creature against Creator. Yet even this was 
overruled; all happened thus "in order," so that the very virulence of the plague might 

80. effectually demand the glorious remedy.
For we know, we men with our conscience, we Christians with our Lord’s light, that the 
Law, this Law which sin so foully abused, is spiritual, the expression of the eternal 
Holiness, framed by the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit; but then I, I Paul, taken as a 
sinner, viewed apart from Christi am fleshly, a child of self, sold to be under sin; yes, not 
only when, in Adam, my nature sold itself at first, but still and always, just so far as I am 
considered apart from Christ, and just so far as, in practice, I live apart from Christ, 
"reverting," if but for a minute, to my self-life. For the work I work out, I do not know, I 
do not recognise; I am lost amidst its distorted conditions; for it is not what I will that I 
practice, but it is what I hate that I do. But if what I do is what I do not will, I assent to 
the Law that it, the Law, is good; I show my moral sympathy with the precept by the 
endorsement given it by my will, in the sense of my earnest moral preference. But now, 
in this state of facts, it is no longer I who work out the work, but the indweller in me-Sin.
He implies by "no longer" that once it was otherwise; once "the central" choice was for 
self, now, in the regenerate life, even in its conflicts, yea, even in its failures, it is for God. 
A mysterious "other self" is latent still, and asserts itself in awful reality when the true 
man, the man as regenerate, ceases to watch and to pray. And in this sense he dares to 
say "it is no more I" It is a sense the very opposite to the dream of self-excuse; for though 
the Ego as regenerate does not do the deed, it has, by its sleep, or by its confidence, 
betrayed the soul to the true doer. And thus he passes naturally into the following 
confessions, in which we read at once the consciousness of a state which ought not to be, 
though it is, and also the conviction that it is a state "out of character" with himself, with 
his personality as redeemed and new-created. Into such a confession there creeps no 
lying thought that he "is delivered to do these abominations"; (Jer_7:10) that it is fate; 
that he cannot help it. Nor is the miserable dream present here that evil is but a phase of 
good, and that these conflicts are only discordant melodies struggling to a cadence where 
they will accord. It is a groan of shame and pain, from a man who could not be thus 
tortured ii he were not born again. Yet it is also an avowal, - as if to assure himself that 
deliverance is intended, and is at hand, -that the treacherous tyrant he has let into the 
place of power "is an alien" to him as he is a man regenerate. Not for excuse, but to clear 
his thought, and direct his hope, he says this to himself, and to us, in his dark hour.
For I know that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, good; in my personal life, so 
long, and so far, as it "reverts" to self as its working centre, all is evil, for nothing is as 
God would have it be. And that "flesh," that self-life, is ever there, latent if not patent; 
present in such a sense that it is ready for instant reappearance, from within, if any 
moral power less than that of the Lord Himself is in command. For the willing lies at my 
hand; but the working out what is right, does not. "The willing," as throughout this 
passage, means not the ultimate fiat of the man’s soul, deciding his action, but his 
earnest moral approbation, moral sympathy, "the convictions" of the enlightened being. 
For not what I will, even good, do I; but what I do not will, even evil, that I practice. Now 
if what I do is what I do not will, no longer, as once, do I work it out, but the indweller in 
me, Sin.
Again his purpose is not excuse, but deliverance. No deadly antinomianism is here, such 
as has withered innumerable lives, where the thought has been admitted that sin may be 
in the man, and yet the man may not sin. His thought is, as all along, that it is his own 
shame that thus it is; yet that the evil is, ultimately, a thing alien to his true character, 
and that therefore he is right to call the lawful King and Victor in upon it.
And now comes up again the solemn problem of the Law. That stern, sacred, monitor is 
looking on all the while, and saying all the while the things which first woke sin from its 

81. living grave in the old complacent experience, and then, in the regenerate state, 
provoked sin to its utmost treachery, and most fierce invasions. And the man hears the 
voice, and in his new-created character he loves it. But he has "reverted," ever so little, to 
his old attitude, to the self-life, and so there is also rebellion in him when that voice says 
"Thou shalt." So I find the Law-he would have said, "I find it my monitor, honoured, aye 
and loved, but not my helper"; but he breaks the sentence up in the stress of this intense 
confession; so I find the Law-for me, me with a will to do the right, -that for me the evil 
lies at hand. For I have glad sympathy with the Law of God; what He prescribes I endorse 
with delight as good, as regards the inner man, that is, my world of conscious insight and 
affection in the new life; but I see (as if I were a watcher from without) a rival law, 
another and contradictory precept, "serve thyself," in my limbs, in my world of sense and 
active faculty, at war with the law of my mind, the Law of God, adopted by my now 
enlightened thinking power as its sacred code, and seeking to make me captive in that 
war to the law of sin, the law which is in my limbs.
Unhappy man am I Who will rescue me out of the body of this death, out of a life 
conditioned by this mortal body, which in the Fall became Sin’s especial vehicle, directly 
or indirectly, and which is not yet (Rom_7:23) actually "redeemed"? Thanks be to God, 
who giveth that deliverance, in covenant and in measure now, fully and in eternal 
actuality hereafter, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So then, to sum the whole phenomenon of the conflict up, leaving aside for the moment 
this glorious hope of the issue, I, myself, with the mind indeed do bond service to the law 
of God, but with the flesh, with the life of self, wherever and whenever I "revert" that 
way, I do bond service to the law of sin.
Do we close the passage with a sigh, and almost with a groan? Do we sigh over the 
intricacy of the thought, the depth and subtlety of the reasoning, the almost fatigue of 
fixing and of grasping the facts below the terms "will," and "mind," and "inner man," and 
"flesh," and "I"? Do we groan over the consciousness that no analysis of our spiritual 
failures can console us for the fact of them, and that the Apostle seems in his last 
sentences to relegate our consolations to the future, while it is in the present that we fail, 
and in the present that we long with all our souls to do, as well as to approve the will of 
God?
Let us be patient, and also let us think again. Let us find a solemn and sanctifying peace 
in the patience which meekly accepts the mystery that we must needs "wait yet for the 
redemption of our body"; that the conditions of "this corruptible" must yet for a season 
give ambushes and vantages to temptation, which will be all annihilated hereafter. But 
let us also think again. If we went at all aright in our remarks previous to this passage, 
there are glorious possibilities for the present hour "readable between the lines" of St. 
Paul’s unutterably deep confession. We have seen in conflict the Christian man, 
regenerate, yet taken, in a practical sense, apart from his Regenerator. We have seen him 
really fight, though he really fails. We have seen him unwittingly, but guiltily, betray his 
position to the foe, by occupying it as it were alone. We have seen also, nevertheless, that 
he is not his foe’s ally but his antagonist. Listen; he is calling for his King.
That cry will not be in vain. The King will take a double line of action in response. While 
his soldier-bondservant is yet in the body, "the body of this death," He will throw 
Himself into the narrow hold, and wonderfully turn the tide within it, and around it. And 
hereafter, He will demolish it. Rather He will transfigure it, into the counterpart-even as 
it were into the part-of His own body of glory; and the man shall rest, and serve, and 
reign forever, with a being homogeneous all through in its likeness to the Lord.

82. HAWKER 7E13, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not 
known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt 
not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner 
of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (9) For I was alive without the law 
once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (10) And the 
commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (11) For sin, taking 
occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (12) Wherefore the law 
is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (13) Was then that which is 
good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death 
in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding 
sinful.
The Apostle, all the way along is expecting, from Pharisaical pride and carnal reasoning, 
continual objections to those precious truths; and therefore stops to answer all, that such 
men may bring. You will say perhaps, (saith he,) that under such views, is it not making 
God’s holy law the foundation for sin, when you charge it as exciting motions of sin in 
our members, to bring forth fruit unto death? If the law of God stirs up in me, a 
disposition to offend; is not this charging the law as the cause of sin? To which Paul 
answers, with an holy warmth of indignation, God forbid! The law, by acting as a bridle 
to restrain, when it gives out its commands and threatenings, can never surely be 
charged as the cause to evil, because our corruptions are thereby more provoked to 
offend. When a man throws up a fence, to check the torrent of waters; his wisdom is not 
impeachable, because those waters swell, and rage the more by the opposition. The sun 
is not chargeable with improperly shedding its warmth and sweet influences, because 
reptiles take advantage thereof, to bring their spawn into life, under its incubation. In 
like manner, the holy law of God loseth nothing of its holiness, because our ruined, 
undone, and unholy nature finds occasion, from the purity of its precepts, to manifest 
the greater opposition to it, by our impurities. - Reader! pause a moment to observe, and 
to observe with great solemnness, to what an awful state our whole nature is reduced by 
the fall! To such an extent indeed, that the very means the Lord hath adopted to shew to 
man his misery, the sinner perverts into a greater occasion of testifying the desperately 
wicked state of his heart! Oh! who knows, who can calculate, or fathom the depth of 
human depravity? What man hath ever arrived at the bottom of it, so as to have equal 
apprehensions to what it really is, of the plague of his own heart? Reader! If you and I 
ever make any progress, under divine teachings, in this first, and most important of all 
sciences; we must not wait to learn our lessons from discoveries of common sins, and 
transgressions. These, through grace, may be learnt daily, and alas! too often there is 
occasion afforded to learn them hourly in the events of life. For a just man falleth seven 
times, and riseth up again, Pro_24:16. But, when the Lord layeth judgment to the line 
and righteousness to the plummet, in our most holy things; who shall calculate the 
iniquity found there? Isa_28:17. Sir! It is a solemn thought, but as certain as it is solemn, 
that were it not for our Almighty High Priest (as Aaron represented him of old,) bearing 
away the iniquity of our offerings to the Lord ; the best services, and the best prayers, 
presented by any of the Adam - nature in our fallen state, would call forth everlasting 
condemnation! Exo_28:38. Jehovah hath said: I will be sanctified in them that come 
nigh me. Sanctified by them in Christ, or sanctified upon them in their destruction, as 
Nadab and Abihu were, when offering strange fire, Lev_10:1-3. Oh! the unspeakable 
mercy of Heaven, that sin-bearing Lamb of God to bear away the iniquity of our most 
holy things into a land not inhabited! Lev_16:21-22. Oh! the grace, and to the praise of 
the glory of that grace, which hath made us accepted in the Beloved! Eph_1:6.

83. The Apostle prosecutes the subject yet further, under the same view, of the holiness of 
God’s law condemning the sinner; and to take off all possible objections in the 
illustration of the doctrine, he brings forth the argument as if against himself. I had not 
known sin (saith he) but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, 
thou shall not covet. Paul here speaks in his own person, and of himself, looking back to 
the days of his Pharisaical righteousness. The time when he had a very high opinion of 
himself; and as he saith, he was alive without the law once. Not that he was ignorant of 
the law of God from his youth: for he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught 
according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers; and was zealous towards God, 
Act_22:3. But the meaning is, that he had not, in those days, the least knowledge of the 
spirituality of God’s law. He was alive, in a cheerful confidence of his good estate before 
God; and by an outward attention to things, as they appeared before men, he considered 
himself very praise-worthy, and within a few steps of Heaven. Reader! if there be a 
delusion upon earth, one more common than another, this is the one! How little do such 
men know of the plague of their own heart!
But Paul goes on. When the commandment came, (saith he,) sin revived, and I died. 
What doth he mean? When the commandment came! Why the commandment was in the 
world ages before Paul was born. He could not mean, therefore, that he had never heard 
the commandment before! But the sense is, that the law was never brought home to his 
conscience by the powerful hand of God the Holy Ghost until his memorable conversion. 
Then the Lord, for the first time, opened his eyes to the right apprehension of the law, 
and to the right knowledge of himself, as a sinner before God: and the consequence was, 
that all those high towering thoughts which he had conceived of his own goodness, fell to 
the ground, and he himself fell with them a self-condemned sinner before God. Reader! 
what know you personally of these things? Hath the same Lord which taught Paul, taught 
you? Hath God the Holy Ghost brought you acquainted with the anatomy of your own 
heart, and dissected to your view all its foldings? Hath the Lord laid open the workings of 
it, and made you out of love with it, as he did Paul? If so, you will find cause to bless the 
Lord for such a portrait as he hath caused the Apostle here to draw of himself; in which 
every man, taught by the same Almighty Master, and brought up in the same school, may 
discover his own features. For, (as the wise man saith,) as in water face answereth to 
face, so the heart of man to man, Pro_27:19.
8.But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by
the commandment, produced in me every
kind of covetous desire. For apart from law,
sin is dead.
Where there is no law sin is dead, for you cannot see it without the law. Bring forth

84. the law that says do not covet, and do not lust after your neighbor's wife, and
suddenly you can see your sinful desires as the wicked product of your fleshly
nature.
Sin seizes the opportunity. It does not waste opportunities like we often do. Sin is
clever because it is Satan in action, and he is clever. Forrester writes, "Witness is
borne to this teaching of the Apostle by the common experience of mankind.
"Stolen waters," observes the proverb, "are sweet and bread eaten in secret is
pleasant." We often wish for things we cannot get because we cannot get them.
Prohibited things are often the things we most desire. Human nature is such that a
prohibitory command will excite desire for the thing prohibited unless the force of
the prohibition is neutralized by some other force like love or loyalty to the one who
issues the prohibitory command."
Barnes, “
But sin. To illustrate the effect of the law on the mind, the apostle in this verse depicts its 
influence in exciting to evil desires and purposes. Perhaps nowhere has he evinced more consummate 
knowledge of the human heart than here. He brings an illustration that might have escaped most persons, 
but which goes directly to establish his position that the law is insufficient to promote the salvation of man. 
Sin here is personified. It means not a real entity; not a physical subsistence; not something independent of 
the mind, having a separate existence, and lodged in the soul; but it means the corrupt passions, 
inclinations, and desires of the mind itself. Thus we say that lust burns, and ambition rages, and envy 
corrodes the mind, without meaning that lust, ambition, or envy are any independent physical subsistences; 
but meaning that the mind that is ambitious, or envious, is thus excited. 
Taking occasion. The word occasion--(\~aformhn\~) properly denotes any material, or preparation, for 
accomplishing anything; then any opportunity, occasion, etc. of doing it. Here it means that the law was the 
exciting cause of sin; or was that which called the sinful principle of the heart into exercise. But for this, the 
effect here described would not have existed. Thus we say that a tempting object of desire presented is the 
exciting cause of covetousness. Thus an object of ambition is the exciting cause of the principle of 
ambition. Thus the presentation of wealth, or of advantages possessed by others which we have not, may 
excite covetousness or envy. Thus the fruit presented to Eve was the exciting cause of sin; the wedge of 
gold to Achan excited his covetousness. Had not these objects been presented, the evil principles of the 
heart might have slumbered, and never have been called forth. And hence no men understand the full force 
of their native propensities until some object is presented that calls them forth into decided action. The 
occasion which called these forth in the mind of Paul was the law crossing his path, and irritating and 
exciting the native strong inclinations of the mind. 
By the commandment. By all law appointed to restrain and control the mind. 
Wrought in me. Produced or worked in me. The word used here means often to operate in a powerful and 
efficacious manner. (Doddridge.) 
All manner of. Greek, "All desire." Every species of unlawful desire. It was not confined to one single 
desire, but extended to everything which the law declared to be wrong. 
Concupiscence. Unlawful or irregular desire. Inclination for unlawful enjoyments. The word is the same 
which in 
Romans 7:7 is rendered lust. If it be asked in what way the law led to this, we may reply, that 
the main idea here is, that opposition by law to the desires and passions of wicked men only tends to 
inflame and exasperate them. This is the case with regard to sin in every form. An attempt to restrain it by 
force; to denounce it by laws and penalties; to cross the path of wickedness; only tends to irritate, and to 
excite into living energy, that which otherwise would be dormant in the bosom. This it does, because 
(1.) it crosses the path of the sinner, and opposes his intention, and the current of his feelings and his life. 
(2.) The law acts the part of a detector, and lays open to view that which was in the bosom, but was 
concealed. 

85. (3.) Such is the depth and obstinacy of sin in man, that the very attempt to restrain often only serves to 
exasperate, and to urge to greater deeds of wickedness. Restraint by law rouses the mad passions; urges to 
greater deeds of depravity; makes the sinner stubborn, obstinate, and more desperate. The very attempt to 
set up authority over him throws him into a posture of resistance, and makes him a party, and excites all the 
feelings of party rage. Any one may have witnessed this effect often on the mind of a wicked and obstinate 
child. 
(4.) This is particularly true in regard to a sinner. He is calm often, and apparently tranquil; but let the law 
of God be brought home to his conscience, and he becomes maddened and enraged. He spurns its authority, 
yet his conscience tells him it is right; he attempts to throw it off, yet trembles at its power; and, to show his 
independence, or his purpose to sin, he plunges into iniquity, and becomes a more dreadful and obstinate 
sinner. It becomes a struggle for victory, and in the controversy with God he resolves not to be overcome. It 
accordingly happens that many a man is more profane, blasphemous, and desperate when under conviction 
for sin than at other times. In revivals of religion it often happens that men evince violence, and rage, and 
cursing, which they do not in a state of spiritual death in the church; and it is often a very certain indication 
that a man is under conviction for sin when he becomes particularly violent, and abusive, and outrageous in 
his opposition to God. 
(5.) The effect here noticed by the apostle is one that has been observed at all times, and by all classes of 
writers. Thus Cato says, (Livy, xxxiv. 4,) "Do not think, Romans, that it will be hereafter as it was before 
the law was enacted. It is more safe that a bad man should not be accused, than that he should be absolved; 
and luxury not excited would be more tolerable than it will be now, by the very chains irritated and excited 
as a wild beast." Thus Seneca says, (de Clementia, i. 23,) "Parricides began with the law." Thus Horace; 
(Odes, i. 3,) "The human race, bold to endure all things, rushes through forbidden crime." Thus Ovid, 
(Amor. iii. 4,) "We always endeavour to obtain that which is forbidden, and desire that which is denied." 
(These passages are quoted from Tholuck.) See also Proverbs 9:17, "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread 
eaten in secret is pleasant." If such be the effect of the law, then the inference of the apostle is unavoidable, 
that it is not adapted to save and sanctify man. 
For without the law. Before it was given; or where it was not applied to the mind. 
Sin was dead. It was inoperative, inactive, unexcited. This is evidently in a comparative sense. The 
connexion requires us to understand it only so far as it was excited by the law. Men's passions would exist; 
but without law they would not be known to be evil, and they would not be excited into wild and 
tumultuous raging. 
CLARKE, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment - I think the pointing, 
both in this and in the 11th verse, to be wrong: the comma should be after occasion, and 
not after commandment. But sin taking occasion, wrought in me by this commandment 
all manner of concupiscence. There are different opinions concerning the meaning of the 
word 
αφορ-η, which we here translate occasion. Dr. Waterland translates the clause, Sin, 
taking Advantage. Dr. Taylor contends that all commentators have mistaken the 
meaning of it, and that it should be rendered having received Force. For this acceptation 
of the word I can find no adequate authority except in its etymology - απο, from, and 
gρ-η, impetus. The word appears to signify, in general, whatsoever is necessary for the 
completion or accomplishment of any particular purpose. Xenophon uses ff1cRfDy6D2y31By
βιον to signify whatever is necessary for the support of life. There is a personification in 
the text: sin is, represented as a murderer watching for life, and snatching at every 
means and embracing every opportunity to carry his fell purpose into effect. The 
miserable sinner has a murderer, sin, within him; this murderer can only destroy life in 
certain circumstances; finding that the law condemns the object of his cruelty to death, 
he takes occasion from this to work in the soul all manner of concupiscence, evil and 

86. irregular desires and appetites of every kind, and, by thus increasing the evil, exposes the 
soul to more condemnation; and thus it is represented as being slain, Rom_7:11. That is, 
the law, on the evidence of those sinful dispositions, and their corresponding practices, 
condemns the sinner to death: so that he is dead in law. Thus the very prohibition, as we 
have already seen in the preceding verse, becomes the instrument of exciting the evil 
propensity; for, although a sinner has the general propensity to do what is evil, yet he 
seems to feel most delight in transgressing known law: stat pro ratione voluntas; “I will 
do it, because I will.”
For without the law, sin was dead - Where there is no law there is no 
transgression; for sin is the transgression of the law; and no fault can be imputed unto 
death, where there is no statute by which such a fault is made a capital offense.
Dr. Taylor thinks that M!cD2yB1R1G, without the law, means the time before the giving of 
the law from Mount Sinai, which took in the space of 430 years, during which time the 
people were under the Abrahamic covenant of grace; and without the law that was given 
on Mount Sinai, the sting of death, which is sin, had not power to slay the sinner; for, 
from the time that Adam sinned, the law was not re-enacted till it was given by Moses, 
Rom_5:13. The Jew was then alive, because he was not under the law subjecting him to 
death for his transgressions; but when the commandment came, with the penalty of 
death annexed, sin revived, and the Jew died. Then the sting of death acquired life; and 
the Jew, upon the first transgression, was dead in law. Thus sin, the sting of death, 
received force or advantage to destroy by the commandment, Rom_7:8, Rom_7:11.
All manner of concupiscence - It showed what was evil and forbade it; and then 
the principle of rebellion, which seems essential to the very nature of sins rose up against 
the prohibition; and he was the more strongly incited to disobey in proportion as 
obedience was enjoined. Thus the apostle shows that the law had authority to prohibit, 
condemn, and destroy; but no power to pardon sin, root out enmity, or save the soul.
The word επιθυ-ια, which we render concupiscence, signifies simply strong desire of 
any kind; but in the New Testament, it is generally taken to signify irregular and unholy 
desires. Sin in the mind is the desire to do, or to be, what is contrary to the holiness and 
authority of God.
For without the law, sin was dead - This means, according to Dr. Taylor’s 
hypothesis, the time previous to the giving of the law. See before. But it seems also 
consistent with the apostle’s meaning, to interpret the place as implying the time in 
which Paul, in his unconverted Jewish state, had not the proper knowledge of the law - 
while he was unacquainted with its spirituality. He felt evil desire, but he did not know 
the evil of it; he did not consider that the law tried the heart and its workings, as well as 
outward actions. This is farther explained in the next verse.
GILL, “But sin taking occasion by the commandment ,.... By "the 
commandment" is meant, either the whole moral law, or that particular commandment, 
"thou shalt not covet", 
Exo_20:17, which, the Jews say, comprehends all; 
"God, (say they (f),) caused them (the Israelites) to hear the ten words, which he 
concluded with this word, "thou shalt not covet"; niyj-nkKyjknlFsyJphayHllyhpy.TkmyOkWkiOyhiy
.TH.JRyHiOy.hy(i.(mH.ksy.TH.ydThk[kay)kkWAy.T(AyvhmmHiOmki.sy(.y(AyHAy(pyTky)kW.y.TkydThlkylHdsy

87. .m_aRdcv[vbaub.m:6bv::v:aud”:ra”ua”:a.ffacmva.:a”wadvaub.m:6bv::v_audvaRdcfvaf.R'--a
.m_amca_cX\ua\Xua”ua_cv:abvwvbauca.mDaXmf.RwXfaudcX6duacwra_v:”bva.wuvbra.m_a”m7f”m.u”cmauca.mDud”m6a
wcb\”__vma”maudvacudvba7cgg.m_gvmu:2aZDa…:”m…a”:agv.muramcuaudva_v[”fra.:a:cgvacwaudva.m7”vmu:a
udcX6du'a\Xuaudva[”u”c:”uDa.m_a7cbbXWu”cmacwam.uXbvra”m_Rvff”m6a:”mraudvaf.Ra”maudvagvg\vb:aud.ua
uccja…c77.:”cm…a\Daudvaf.Racwa`c_'a:caud.uaudvaf.Ra.uagc:ua7cXf_acmfDa\va.mac77.:”cmramcuaudva
7.X:vacwa:”mra.m_a\v:”_v:raud”:aR.:a.mac77.:”cmamcua6”[vma\Daudvaf.Rra\Xuau.jvma\Da:”m'a:caud.ua”uaR.:a
:”mra.m_amcuaudvaf.RraRd”7da
RbcX6dua”maRbcX6dua”maRbcX6dua”maRbcX6dua”mahimhimhimhima.ffag.mmvbacwa7cm7XW”:7vm7va.ffag.mmvbacwa7cm7XW”:7vm7va.ffag.mmvbacwa7cm7XW”:7vm7va.ffag.mmvbacwa7cm7XW”:7vm7v2aadvaf.Rawcb\”__”m6av[vbDaXm7fv.maudcX6dura.m_a
7c[vucX:a_v:”bvacwaXmf.RwXfac\dv7u:ra:”mauccja.mac77.:”cmaudbcX6daudv:vaWbcd”\”u”cm:aucaRcbja”ma
d”gra:u”baXWa.m_avT7”uva7cm7XW”:7vm7vrav[”fa_v:”bva.wuvba.ffag.mmvbacwaud”m6:awcb\”__vma\Daudvaf.R'a
dvm7va”ua”:a7fv.baud.uamcuaudvaf.Rra\Xua:”mra”:avT7vv_”m6a:”mwXfXa
wcbaR”udcXuaudvaf.Ra:”maR.:a_v._wcbaR”udcXuaudvaf.Ra:”maR.:a_v._wcbaR”udcXuaudvaf.Ra:”maR.:a_v._wcbaR”udcXuaudvaf.Ra:”maR.:a_v._'amcuaud.ura\vwcbvaudvaf.Racwamc:v:aR.:a6”[vmra:”maf.Da_v._a.m_a
XmvTvbuv_rawcba_Xb”m6aud.ua”muvb[.fa\vuRvvman_.ga.m_amc:v:a:”maR.:ra.m_af”[v_a.m_abv”6mv_ra.m_a
_v.uda\Da”ura.:agX7da.:a.ua.mDacudvbau”gv'a\XuaRdvmaudva.Wc:ufvaR.:aR”udcXuaudvaf.Rraud.ua”:ra
R”udcXuaudvajmcRfv_6vacwaudva:W”b”uX.f”uDacwa”ura\vwcbva”ua7.gvaR”udaWcRvba.m_af”6dua”mucad”:adv.bua
.m_a7cm:7”vm7vra:”maf.Da.:audcX6da”uaR.:a_v._'a”uaR.:a:ca”mad”:a.WWbvdvm:”cmradvaw.m7”v_ad”g:vfwa
wbvvawbcga”ura.m_aud.uadvaR.:aWvbwv7ufDab”6duvcX:2a
6l To)n5 The ill use that his corrupt nature made of the law notwithstanding. 1. Sin, 
taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, 
Rom_7:8. Observe, Paul had in him all manner of concupiscence, though one of the best 
unregenerate men that ever was; as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless, 
and yet sensible of all manner of concupiscence. And it was sin that wrought it, 
indwelling sin, his corrupt nature (he speaks of a sin that did work sin), and it took 
occasion by the commandment. The corrupt nature would not have swelled and raged so 
much if it had not been for the restraints of the law; as the peccant humours in the body 
are raised, and more inflamed, by a purge that is not strong enough to carry them off. It 
is incident to corrupt nature, in vetitum niti - to lean towards what is forbidden. Ever 
since Adam ate forbidden fruit, we have all been fond of forbidden paths; the diseased 
appetite is carried out most strongly towards that which is hurtful and prohibited. 
Without the law sin was dead, as a snake in winter, which the sunbeams of the law 
quicken and irritate. 2. It deceived men. Sin puts a cheat upon the sinner, and it is a fatal 
cheat, Rom_7:11. By it (by the commandment) slew me. There being in the law no such 
express threatening against sinful lustings, sin, that is, his won corrupt nature, took 
occasion thence to promise him impunity, and to say, as the serpent to our first parents, 
You shall not surely die. Thus it deceived and slew him. 3. It wrought death in me by 
that which is good, Rom_7:13. That which works concupiscence works death, for sin 

88. bringeth forth death. Nothing so good but a corrupt and vicious nature will pervert it, 
and make it an occasion of ins; no flower so sweet by sin will such poison out of it. Now 
in this sin appears sin. The worst thing that sin does, and most like itself, is the 
perverting of the law, and taking occasion from it to be so much the more malignant. 
Thus the commandment, which was ordained to life, was intended as a guide in the way 
to comfort and happiness, proved unto death, through the corruption of nature, 
Rom_7:10. Many a precious soul splits upon the rock of salvation; and the same word 
which to some is an occasion of life unto life is to others an occasion of death unto death. 
The same sun that makes the garden of flowers more fragrant makes the dunghill more 
noisome; the same heat that softens wax hardens clay; and the same child was set for the 
fall and rising again of many in Israel. The way to prevent this mischief is to bow our 
souls to the commanding authority of the word and law of God, not striving against, but 
submitting to it.
Gwogyn Ce;For without the law — that is, before its extensive demands and 
prohibitions come to operate upon our corrupt nature.
sin was — rather, “is”
dead — that is, the sinful principle of our nature lies so dormant, so torpid, that its 
virulence and power are unknown, and to our feeling it is as good as “dead.”
-w(Gg Ce;8.For without the law, etc. He expresses most clearly the meaning of his former
words; for it is the same as though he had said, that the knowledge of sin without the law is buried.
It is a general truth, which he presently applies to his own case. I hence wonder what could have
come into the minds of interpreters to render the passage in the preterimperfect tense, as though
Paul was speaking of himself; for it is easy to see that his purpose was TO BEGIN
 with a general
proposition, and then to explain the subject by his own example.
-nAAow Ce;
But sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all 
manner of coveting: for APART from the law sin is dead.
This verse identifies sin in the human heart as the primary cause of violating God's law; but, in the
sense of multiplying violations, the law itself is an ally of sin. Thus it is true that "through the
of sin "abounding."
9. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the

89. commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

I was doing great, and feeling good about myself, but then the law showed me all the
things I wanted that were forbidden and I saw myself as a mass of sinfulness, and
my good image of myself was dead and gone for good. My sinfulness was clearly
identified by the commandments of the law, and my self image of being good and
alive was shattered to the point that I died to that image and became a wretched
sinner. Someone said, “The law was like a traffic light. It is for getting people half
way across the street safely.”
Barnes, “
For I. There seems to be no doubt that the apostle here refers to his own past experience. Yet in 
this he speaks the sentiment of all who are unconverted, and who are depending on their own righteousness. 
Was alive. This is opposed to what he immediately adds respecting another state, in which he was when he 
died. It must mean, therefore, that he had a certain kind of peace; he deemed himself secure; he was free 
from the convictions of conscience and the agitations of alarm. The state to which he refers here must be 
doubtless that to which he himself elsewhere alludes, when he deemed himself to be righteous, depending 
on his own works, and esteeming himself to be blameless, 
Philippians 3:4-6 Acts 23:1; 26:4,5. It 
means, that he was then free from those agitations and alarms which he afterwards experienced when he 
was brought under conviction for sin. At that time, though he had the law, and was attempting to obey it, 
yet he was unacquainted with its spiritual and holy nature. He aimed at external conformity. Its claims on 
the heart were unfelt. This is the condition of every self-confident sinner, and of every one who is 
unawakened. 
Without the law. Not that Paul was ever really without the law--that is, without the law of Moses; but he 
means before the law was applied to his heart in its spiritual meaning, and with power. 
But when the commandment came. When it was applied to the heart and conscience. This is the only 
intelligible sense of the expression; for it cannot refer to the time when the law was given. When this was, 
the apostle does not say. But the expression denotes whenever it was so applied; when it was urged with 
power and efficacy on his conscience, to control, restrain, and threaten him, it produced this effect. We are 
unacquainted with the early operations of his mind, and with his struggles against conscience and duty. We 
know enough of him before conversion, however, to be assured that he was proud, impetuous, and 
unwilling to be restrained. See Acts 8:1-9:43. In the state of his self-confident righteousness and 
impetuosity of feeling, we may easily suppose that the holy law of God, which is designed to restrain the 
passions, to humble the heart, and to rebuke pride, would produce only irritation, and impatience of 
restraint, and revolt. 
Sin revived. Lived again. This means that it was before dormant, Romans 7:8 but was now quickened 
into new life. The word is usually applied to a renewal of life, Romans 14:9; Luke 15:24,32 but here it 
means substantially the same as the expression in Romans 7:8, "Sin--wrought- in me all manner of 
concupiscence." The power of sin, which was before dormant, became quickened and active. 
I died. That is, I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery. It stands opposed to "I was alive," and 
must mean the opposite of that; and evidently denotes that the effect of the commandment was to bring him 
under what he calls death, Romans 5:12,14,15 that is, sin reigned, and raged, and produced its 
withering and condemning effects; it led to aggravated guilt and misery. It may also include this idea: that 
before, he was self-confident and secure; but that by the commandment he was stricken down and humbled, 
his self-confidence was blasted, and his hopes were prostrated in the dust. Perhaps no words would better 
express the humble, subdued, melancholy, and helpless state of a converted sinner than the expressive 
phrase "I died." The essential idea here is, that the law did not answer the purpose which the Jew would 

90. claim for it, to sanctify the soul and to give comfort, but that all its influence on the heart was to produce 
aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe. 
CLARKE, “I was alive without the law once - Dr. Whitby paraphrases the verse 
thus: - “For the seed of Abraham was alive without the law once, before the law was 
given, I being not obnoxious to death for that to which the law had not threatened death; 
but when the commandment came, forbidding it under that penalty, sin revived, and I 
died; i.e. it got strength to draw me to sin, and to condemn me to death. Sin is, in 
Scripture, represented as an enemy that seeks our ruin and destruction; and takes all 
occasions to effect it. It is here said to war against the mind, 
Rom_7:23; elsewhere, to 
war against the soul, 1Pe_2:11; to surround and beset us, Heb_12:1; to bring us into 
bondage and subjection, and get the dominion over us, Rom_6:12; to entice us, and so to 
work our death, Jam_1:14-16; and to do all that Satan, the grand enemy of mankind, 
doth, by tempting us to the commission of it. Whence Chrysostom, upon those words, 
Heb_12:4 : Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, bc12y3CB 8-αρτιαν ανταγωνιζο-ενοι, 
striving against sin; represents sin as an armed and flagrant adversary. When, therefore, 
it finds a law which threatens death to the violator of it, it takes occasion thence more 
earnestly to tempt and allure to the violation of it, that so it may more effectually subject 
us to death and condemnation on that account; for the sting of death is sin, and the 
strength of sin is the law, condemning us to death for transgressing it. Thus, when God 
had forbidden, on pain of death, the eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Satan 
thence took occasion to tempt our first parents to transgress, and so slew them, or made 
them subject to death; εξηπατησε, he deceived them, Gen_3:13; 1Ti_2:14; which is the 
word used Rom_7:11. The phrase, without the law, sin was dead, means, that sin was 
then (before the law was given) comparatively dead, as to its power of condemning to 
death; and this sense the antithesis requires; without the law, NRfc3DfyB6Vcfsy6’!yu6 εζων, 
sin was dead, but I was living; but when the commandment came, (i.e. the law), sin 
revived, and I died. How were men living before the law, but because then no law 
condemned them? Sin, therefore, must be then dead, as to its condemning power. How 
did they die when the law came but by the law condemning them to death? Sin therefore 
revived, then, as to its power of condemning, which it received first from the sin of 
Adam, which brought death into the world; and next, from the law of Moses, which 
entered that the offense might abound, and reign more unto death, Rom_5:20, 
Rom_5:21. For though sin was in the world from Adam to Moses, or until the law was 
given, yet it was not imputed unto death, when there was no law that did threaten death; 
so that death reigned from that interval by virtue of Adam’s sin alone; even over them 
who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, i.e. against a positive 
law, forbidding it under the penalty of death; which law being delivered by Moses, sin 
revived; i.e. it had again its force to condemn men as before to death, by virtue of a law 
which threatened death. And in this sense the apostle seems to say, Gal_3:19, the law 
was added because of transgressions, to convince us of the wrath and punishment due to 
them; and that the law, therefore, worketh wrath, because where no law is there is no 
transgression, Rom_4:15, subjecting us to wrath; or no such sense of the Divine wrath as 
where a plain Divine law, threatening death and condemnation, is violated.” See Whitby, 
in loco.
GILL, “For I was alive without the law once,.... The apostle says this, not in the 

91. person of Adam, as some have thought; who lived indeed, in a state of innocence, a 
perfectly holy and righteous life, but not without the law, which was the rule of his 
actions, and the measure of his obedience; he had the law of nature written upon his 
heart, and a positive law respecting the forbidden fruit given him, as a trial of his 
obedience; and though when he transgressed he became mortal, yet sin could not be said 
to revive in him, which never lived before; nor does the apostle speak in the person of a 
Jew, or the whole body of the people of Israel before the law was given on Mount Sinai; 
before that time the sons of Abraham did not live without a law; for besides the law of 
nature, which they had in common with others, they were acquainted with other laws of 
God, as the laws of circumcision, sacrifices, and the several duties of religion; see 
Gen_18:19; and when the law did come from Mount Sinai, it had not such effects upon 
them as are here expressed: but the apostle is speaking of himself, and that not as in his 
state of infancy before he could discern between good and evil, but when grown up, and 
whilst a Pharisee; who, though he was born under the law, was brought up and more 
perfectly instructed in it than the common people were, and was a strict observer of it, 
yet was without the knowledge of the spirituality of it; he, as the rest of the Pharisees, 
thought it only regarded the outward actions, and did not reach to the spirits or souls of 
men, the inward thoughts and affections of the mind; the law was as it were at a distance 
from him, it had not as yet entered into his heart and conscience; and whilst this was his 
case he was "alive", he did not know that he "was dead in trespasses and sins", Eph_2:1, 
a truth he afterwards was acquainted with; nor that he was so much as disordered by sin; 
he thought himself healthful, sound, and whole, when he was diseased and full of 
wounds, bruises, and sores, from head to foot; he lived in the utmost peace and 
tranquillity, without the least ruffle and uneasiness, free from any terror or despondency, 
and in perfect security, being in sure and certain hope of eternal life; and concluded if 
ever any man went to heaven he certainly should, since, as he imagined, he lived a holy 
and righteous life, free of all blame, and even to perfection; 
but when the commandment came ; not to Adam in the garden of Eden; nor to the 
Israelites on Mount Sinai; but into the heart and conscience of the apostle, with power 
and light from above: 
sin revived; it lift up its monstrous head, and appeared in its ugly shape, exceeding 
sinful indeed; it grew strong and exerted itself; its strugglings and opposition, its 
rebellion and corruption were seen and felt, which show that it was not dead before, only 
seemed to be so; it was in being, and it lived and acted before as now; the difference was 
not in that, but in the apostle's sense and apprehension of it, who upon sight of it died 
away: 
and I died; he now saw himself a dead man, dead in sin, dead in law, under a sentence 
of death which he now had within himself; he saw he was deserving of eternal death, and 
all his hopes of eternal life by his obedience to the law of works died at once; he now 
experimentally learnt that doctrine he so much insisted afterwards in his ministry, and 
to the last maintained, that there can be no justification of a sinner by the deeds of the 
law, since by it is the knowledge of sin.
Gwogyn Ce;For I was alive without the law once — “In the days of my ignorance, 
when, in this sense, a stranger to the law, I deemed myself a righteous man, and, as such, 
entitled to life at the hand of God.”
but when the commandment came  — forbidding all irregular desire; for the 

92. apostle sees in this the spirit of the whole law.
sin revived — “came to life”; in its malignity and strength it unexpectedly revealed 
itself, as if sprung from the dead.
and I died — “saw myself, in the eye of a law never kept and not to be kept, a dead 
man.”
-w(Gg Ce;9.For I was alive, etc. He means to intimate that there had been a time when sin was
dead to him or in him. But he is not to be understood as though he had been without law at any
time, but this wordI was alive has a peculiar import; for it was the absence of the law that was the
reason why he was alive; that is, why he being inflated with a conceit as to his own righteousness,
claimed life to himself while he was yet dead. That the sentence may be more clear, state it thus, “ I
was formerly without the law, I was alive.” But I have said that this expression is emphatic; for by
imagining himself great, he also laid claim to life. The meaning then is this, “ I sinned, having not the
knowledge of the law, the sin, which I did not observe, was so laid to sleep, that it seemed to be
dead; on the other hand, as I seemed not to myself to be a sinner, I was satisfied with myself,
thinking that I had a life of mine own.” But the death of sin is the life of man, and again the life of sin
is the death of man.
It may be here asked, what time was that when through his ignorance of the law, or as he himself
says, through the absence of it, he confidently laid claim to life. It is indeed certain, that he had been
taught the doctrine of the law from his childhood; but it was the theology of the letter, which does not
humble its disciples, for as he says elsewhere, the veil interposed so that the Jews could not see
the light of life in the law; so also he himself, while he had his eyes veiled, being destitute of the
Spirit of Christ, was satisfied with the outward mask of righteousness. Hence he represents the law
as absent, though before his eyes, while it did not really impress him with the consciousness of
God’ judgment. Thus the eyes of hypocrites are covered with a veil, that they see not how much that
command requires, in which we are forbidden to lust or covet.
But when the commandment came, etc. So now, on the other hand, he sets forth the law as coming
when it began to be really understood. It then raised sin as it were from be dead; for it discovered to
Paul how great depravity abounded in the recesses of his heart, and at the same time it slew him.
We must ever remember that he speaks of that inebriating confidence in which hypocrites settle,
while they flatter themselves, because they overlook their sins.
-nAAow Ce;
And I was alive APART from the law once: but when the commandment 
came, sin revived, and I died.
Alive apart from the law ... has reference to a state of innocence, or unconscious morality, as yet
without instruction, and uncondemned, which condition may be assumed as a description of Paul's
childhood innocence; but, after being instructed in the law, that is, "when the commandment came,"
sin revived in him, and he fell into the deadness of transgression and sin. Significantly, the last two
clauses show that the state of innocence was merely relative; sin had been there all along, from the
date of ACCOUNTABILITY , but more or less dormant. Seizing the occasion of the
commandment, sin leaped up and thrust Paul through with all manner of violations; as a result of
which, he became consciously guilty and subject to the penalty of eternal death, that being the
import of "I died.

93. 10. I found that the very commandment that was
intended to bring life actually brought death.
I thought that getting God's restrictions would be a blessing and help me live the
good life, but instead, they made me see how far short of the good life I have fallen,
and so the law actually brought death rather than life. God so often bring good out
of evil, but here we see that the law can also produce evil out of the good. The
paradox works both ways.
2. Here is the paradox of the good leading to bad, and the helpful being hurtful.
Good intentions can lead to bad consequences. For example, Robert Dale in his
book Keeping The Dream Alive writes, "Blind attachment to the passed causes
persons and organizations to make shaky decisions and do unwise things. One
historic example of this phenomena is Franklin D. Roosevelt's order not to bomb
Kyoto, Japan, during World War II. Before the war, President and Mrs Roosevelt
had visited Kyoto while on vacation. They had fallen in love with the city.
Consequently, American planes were forbidden to attack Kyoto. A giant engine
plant was located in this peaceful, rural, shrine city. This factory became Japan's
major aircraft manufacturer during the war. As soon as Japanese military
intelligence learned about the president's order, they built there primary aircraft
plant in a place where it's safely was guaranteed." What was meant for life and
good lead to death for Americans.”
Barnes, “
And the commandment. The law to which he had referred before. 
Which was ordained to life. Which was intended to produce life, or happiness. Life here stands opposed to 
death, and means felicity, peace, eternal bliss. See Barnes "
John 3:36". When the apostle says that it was 
ordained to life, he probably has reference to the numerous passages in the Old Testament which speak of 
the law in this manner. Leviticus 18:5, "Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments; which if a man do, 
he shall live in them," Ezekiel 20:11 Ezekiel 20:11,13,21; 18:9,21. The meaning of these passages, 
in connexion with this declaration of Paul, may be thus expressed: 
(1.) The law is good; it has no evil, and is itself fitted to produce no evil. 
(2.) If man was pure, and it was obeyed perfectly, it would produce life and happiness only. On those who 
have obeyed it in heaven, it has produced only happiness. 
(3.) For this it was ordained; it is adapted to it; and when perfectly obeyed, it produces no other effect. But, 
(4.) man is a sinner; he has not obeyed it; and in such a case the law threatens woe. It crosses the inclination 
of man; and instead of producing peace and life, as it would on a being perfectly holy, it produces only woe 
and crime. The law of a parent may be good, and may be appointed to promote the happiness of his 

94. children; it may be admirably fitted to it if all were obedient; yet in the family there may be one obstinate, 
self-willed, and stubborn child, resolved to indulge his evil passions, and the results to him would be woe 
and despair. The commandment, which was ordained for the good of the family, and which would be 
adapted to promote their welfare, he alone, of all the number, would find to be unto death. 
I found. It was to me. It produced this effect. 
Unto death. Producing aggravated guilt and condemnation, Romans 7:9.
CLARKE, “And the commandment - Meaning the law in general, which was 
ordained to life; the rule of righteousness teaching those statutes which if a man do he 
shall live in them, Lev_18:5, I found, by transgressing it, to be unto death; for it only 
presented the duty and laid down the penalty, without affording any strength to resist sin 
or subdue evil propensities.
GILL, “And the commandment which was ordained to life ,.... The law which 
promised a continuance of an immortal life to Adam, in case of perfect obedience to it; 
and which was appointed to the Israelites, that by the observation of it they might live in 
the land of Canaan, and in the quiet and full possession of their privileges and 
enjoyments; but was never ordained to eternal life, or that men should obtain that by 
their obedience to it; since eternal life is the free gift of God, without respect to any works 
of men; see 
Gal_3:21; This same law, the apostle says, 
I found to be unto death; as it was an occasion, through the vitiosity of nature, of 
stirring up sin in him, which brought forth fruit unto death; as it convinced him that he 
was a dead man and worthy of death; as it threatened him with it, and struck all his 
hopes of eternal life dead, and left him in this condition without giving him the least 
direction or assistance whereby to obtain life.
Gwogyn Ce;And — thus.
the commandment, which was, etc.  — designed
to — give
life — through the keeping of it.
I found to be unto death — through breaking it.
For sin — my sinful nature.
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me  — or “seduced me” - drew 
me aside into the very thing which the commandment forbade.
and by it slew me — “discovered me to myself to be a condemned and gone man” 
(compare 
Rom_7:9, “I died”).
-w(Gg Ce;10.Was FOUND by me, etc. Two things are stated here — that the commandment
shows to us a way of life in the righteousness of God, and that it was given in ORDER that we by
keeping the law of the Lord might obtain eternal life, except our corruption stood in the way. But as
none of us obey the law, but, on the contrary, are carried headlong on our feet and hands into that
kind of life from which it recalls us, it can bring us nothing but death. We must thus distinguish
between the character of the law and our own wickedness. It hence follows, that it is incidental that

95. the law inflicts on us a deadly wound, as when an incurable disease is more exasperated by a
healing remedy. I indeed allow that it is an inseparable incident, and hence the law, as compared
with the gospel, is called in another place the ministration of death; but still this remains unaltered,
that it is not in its own nature hurtful to us, but it is so because our corruption provokes and draws
upon us its curse.
dhvvougSe)
And the commandment, which was unto life, this I FOUND to be unto 
death.
The commandment ... is another synonym for Moses' law; and by such an expression as this, that
the law is "unto life," he wished to soften the impact of what he had said about the law bringing
death and causing sin to abound. Paul had the utmost respect for the old law. Who but himself
could have said that he "had lived in all good conscience" with reference to it? Paul here recognized

human nature. Although the law had indeed been given to people that they might keep it and live,
they were unable to do it; and thus they found, as did Paul, that it was not "unto life," but "unto
death."
11. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by
the commandment, deceived me, and through the
commandment put me to death.
Sin very cleverly saw the opportunity to use good for evil. It used the good word of
the law designed to protect people from sinful behavior to deceive me into showing
that I desired that very sinful behavior, and thus being worthy of death. The wages
of sin is death, but had there been no law against sin, I would have been free to be
tqfJseRfmUe—xe;fcOegjRemUseqtReUt;e—tlsefmeGqstremUat I am a sinner, and dead to the
ideal I thought was the good me.
“In the legend, the Duchess Isabella, wishing earnestly to obtain some object, was
instructed by the craftily court astrologer to kiss day by day for a 100 days a certain
beautiful picture and she would receive the fulfillment of her wish. It was a sinister
trick, for the picture contained a subtle poison which stained her lips with every
salutation. Little by little the golden tresses of the queenly woman turned white, her
eyes became dim, her color faded, her lips became black; but, infatuated, the

96. suicidal kiss was continued until before the 100 days were complete the royal dupe
lay dead. So we yield ourselves to the sorcery of sin. Despite many mornings we
persist in our fellowship with what seems truth, beauty, liberty, pleasure, until our
whole soul is poisoned and destroyed. Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death."
W. L. Watkinson.
xwK FyCe;
For sin - This verse is a repetition, with a little variation of the sentiment in 
Rom_7:8.
Deceived me - The word used here properly means to lead or seduce from the right 
way; and then to deceive, solicit to sin, cause to err from the way of virtue, Rom_16:18; 
1Co_3:18; 2Co_11:3, “The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,” 2Th_2:3. The 
meaning here seems to be, that his corrupt and rebellious propensities, excited by the 
Law, led him astray; caused him more and more to sin; practiced a species of deception 
on him by urging him on headlong, and without deliberation, into aggravated 
transgression. In this sense, all sinners are deceived. Their passions urge them on, 
deluding them, and leading them further and further from happiness, and involving 
them, before they are aware, in crime and death. No being in the universe is more 
deladed than a sinner in the indulgence of evil passions. The description of Solomon in a 
particular case will apply to all, Pro_7:21-23.
“With much fair speech she caused him to yield,
With the flattering of her lips she forced him.
He goeth after her straightway,
As an ox goeth to the slaughter,
Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
Till a dart strike through his liver,
As a bird hasteth to the snare.”
By it - By the Law, Rom_7:8.
Slew me - Meaning the same as “I died,” Rom_7:8.
CLARKE, “Sin, taking occasion - Sin, deriving strength from the law, threatening 
death to the transgressor, (see Clarke’s note on Rom_7:8), deceived me, drew me aside 
to disobedience, promising me gratification honor, independence, etc., as it promised to 
Eve; for to her history the apostle evidently alludes, and uses the very same expression, 
deceived me, 6ECbf3C:6yR6p  See the preceding note; and see the Septuagint, Genesis 3:13.
And by it slew me - Subjected me to that death which the law denounced against 
transgressors; and rendered me miserable during the course of life itself. It is well known 
to scholars that the verb αποκτεινειν signifies not only to slay or kill, but also to make 
wretched. Every sinner is not only exposed to death because he has sinned, and must, 
sooner or later, die; but he is miserable in both body and mind by the influence and the 
effects of sin. He lives a dying life, or a living death.
GILL, “For sin taking occasion by the commandment ,.... As in 
Rom_7:8, 

97. deceived me; either by promising pleasure or impunity: the same effect is ascribed by 
the Jews to the evil imagination or corruption of nature, which they say is called an 
enticer, jqIy KrwFsyJ.TH.yOkvk([kAymHiJy(g)Ry
HiOy\Ky(.yAlkdymkHiOy\Ky(.yAlkdymkHiOy\Ky(.yAlkdymkHiOy\Ky(.yAlkdymkLymha.HllKydhXiOkOymkRyih.y.TkylHdsy\X.yA(iy\Ky.TkylHdsyOkvk([kOyHiOyAlkdyT(mLy
Ahy.TH.yHAy\kphaksy.TkylHdy(AyvlkHakOypahmy\k(iWy.TkyvHXAkyhpyA(isyAhyTkaksypahmy\k(iWy.TkyvHXAkyhpy
OkH.TLyphay.ThXWTy.TkylHdy(AyHy)(ll(iWylk..kasy.Tkym(i(A.aH.(hiyhpyvhiOkmiH.(hiyHiOyOkH.TsyKk.y(.y(Ay
ih.y.TkyvHXAkyhpy(.Ly\X.yA(isydT(vTy(AyHy.aHiAWakAA(hiyhpy.TkylHdsy(Ay.TH.ydT(vTyOkvk([kAyhaylkHOAyhX.y
hpy.TkydHKsyHAy.TkydhaOyA(Wi(p(kAsyHiOy.Tkiy)(llAgyaTkymk.HWThay(Ay.H)kiypahmyHy.T(kpyhayHyah\\kasy
dThylkHOAyHymHiyhX.yhpy.TkydHKy(i.hyAhmky\KWH.TsyHiOy.TkiymXaOkaAyT(mgy
Gwogyn Ce;And — thus.
the commandment, which was, etc.  — designed
to — give
life — through the keeping of it.
I found to be unto death — through breaking it.
For sin — my sinful nature.
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me  — or “seduced me” - drew 
me aside into the very thing which the commandment forbade.
and by it slew me — “discovered me to myself to be a condemned and gone man” 
(compare 
Rom_7:9, “I died”).
-w(Gg Ce;11.Led me out of the way, etc. It is indeed true, that while the will of God is hid from
us, and no truth shines on us, the life of men goes wholly astray and is full of ERRORS; nay, we
do nothing but wander from the right course, until the law shows to us the way of living rightly: but
as we begin then only to perceive our erroneous course, when the Lord loudly reproves us, Paul
says rightly, that we are led out of the way, when sin is made evident by the law. Hence the
verb, ἐξαπατᾷν, must be understood, not of the thing itself, but of our knowledge; that is, that it is
made manifest by the law how much we have departed from the right course. It must then be
necessarily rendered, led me out of the way; for hence sinners, who before went on heedlessly,
loathe and abominate themselves, when they perceive, through the light which the law throws on
the turpitude of sin, that they had been hastening to death. But he away introduces the word
occasion, and for this purpose — that we may know that the law of itself does not bring death, but
that this happens through something else, and that this is as it were adventitious.
(215) 
(215) This verse will be better understood if we consider it as in a manner a repetition, in another
form, of what the former verse contains, and this is perfectly consistent with the usual manner of the
Apostle. His object seems to have been to prevent a misapprehension of what he had said, that the
commandment which was for life proved to be unto death. He hence says, that sin AVAILED
 

98. itself of the commandment, and by it deceived him, that is, promised him life, and then by it killed
him, that is, proved fatal to him. There is a correspondence in meaning between the commandment
unto life and deceiving, and between death and killing. In Rom_7:8, sin, as a person, is said to take
advantage of the commandment to work every kind of sinful desires: but it is said here to take this
advantage to deceive by promising life, and then to destroy, to expose, and SUBJECT him to
death and misery. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
For sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and 
through it slew me.
The reaction of sinful people to God's commandments is not due to the evil of the commandment
but to the evil of human hearts. The sinful mind lyingly represents God's commandments as being
opposed to human freedom, to human interests, and as being barriers to legitimate human desires
and needs. The command of God, as in Eden itself, is made to appear as a frustration of something
that man might rightfully have expected, or as the prohibition of some achievement people might
have attained, had it not been for the commandment! All such thoughts, and countless other
falsehoods, appear as the deceitfulness of sin, causing the poor violator to fall into the ways of
death.
Lenski has the following perceptive word regarding this:
The commandment is lyingly made to appear as a disagreeable obstacle to the
gratification of our desires, to our "free self@expression," to our "living our own lives."
Forbidden fruits are sweet; and the commandment which forbids them is thus used as
an impetus by the sin power to make us reach out after those fruits just because they
are forbidden. Hid from us by the lying deception are the consequences, that once
tasted, those fruits turn to ashes in our mouths, or that we can escape the bitter results
as little as all the millions that have tried it, or that we can atone for our passions by
doing some good. Ovid writes, "The permitted is unpleasing; the forbidden consumes
us fiercely," and again, "We strive against the forbidden and ever desire what
is DENIED ."[7]
Regarding the manner in which the commandment becomes an occasion for sin, Whiteside has
this:
Concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God said to Adam and
Eve, "Thou shalt not eat of it." By his lying speech, Satan deceived Eve. He did not
deceive her by means of the commandment; but he took the commandment as an
occasion to approach her, and deceive her into believing that it would be greatly to her

by his artful speech deceived her, and by the command slew her.[8]
[7] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 468.
[8] Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton,
Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 153.
SBC, “I. The sentiment of law, nowadays, is killing the living consciousness in man; it 
was so, it has been so, in all ages; man is not only in danger from the great majesties of 
nature, he is in danger not less from himself and from his own works. In many directions 
they are assuming proportions not less than terrible to him. He may say with the Apostle, 
"The law slew me." What, then, did the word law mean to St. Paul? What did he find in 
it? The whole Epistle to the Romans is an exhibition of the reconciliation made by God, 
of man with His law. It is to us a cold, hard word; but it represents that which is highest 
in God—order, holiness, rectitude. The moderns think they have advanced far, when they 
discover that the universe moves upon the wheels of law. Paul plainly enough declares 
that, and he further opens his epistle declaring that man alone breaks through the 

99. barriers of law. This is the subject of the first chapter. Immoral is unlawful.
II. I conceive, then, that so long as we limit the Pauline conception of the word law to the 
legalism of Judaism, we do injustice, not only to the argument of the Apostle, but still 
more injustice to the scope and intention of the Christian system. When I hear Paul 
speak of the law of God, I understand by it God’s expressed will. But then we know that 
will is the expression of God’s character. God is a sovereign, but He has a law in His own 
being, beyond and beneath which He cannot go. He can do nothing unholy. He can do 
nothing wrong, nothing beneath the character of God.
III. The law of consciousness is used by the Apostle, when he rises from the review of the 
symmetry of things to the conditions of character by which God has made Himself 
known to us. But the birth of consciousness in the soul is the awakening of conscience; 
and while consciousness broods over matter, as a master over a slave, conscience, a still 
more inexorable master, broods over the consciousness. Law is still a terror, that which 
is fixed; the rigid hard law of things is still a sentence and a doom. But the law becomes 
our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. He is a new force in the soul. Terrified by what is 
fixed and arbitrary in law, I wanted to find the security of the law of permanence 
transcended by the law of change, and I find it here. I discover how "the law and the 
Spirit of life sets free from the law of sin," that is conscience, "and of death," that is 
nature.
E. Paxton Hood, Dark Sayings on a Harp, p. 173.
12. So then, the law is holy, and the
commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Everything about the law is good, for it is from God's holy and righteous nature. It
is his creation, and all he made is good.
xwK FyCe;
Wherefore - So that. The conclusion to which we come is, that the Law is 
not to be blamed, though these are its effects under existing circumstances. The source of 
all this is not the Law, but the corrupt nature of man. The Law is good; and yet the 
position of the apostle is true, that it is not adapted to purify the heart of fallen man. Its 
tendency is to excite increased guilt, conflict, alarm, and despair. This verse contains an 
answer to the question in 
Rom_7:7, “Is the law sin?”
Is holy - Is not sin; compare Rom_7:7. It is pure in its nature.
And the commandment - The word “commandment” is here synonymous with the 
Law. It properly means what is enjoined.
Holy - Pure.

100. Just - Righteous in its claims and penalties. It is not unequal in its exactions.
Good - In itself good; and in its own nature tending to produce happiness. The sin 
and condemnation of the guilty is not the fault of the Law. If obeyed, it would produce 
happiness everywhere. See a most beautiful description of the law of God in Psa_19:7-11.
CLARKE, “Wherefore the law is holy - As if he had said, to soothe his countrymen, 
to whom he had been showing the absolute insufficiency of the law either to justify or 
save from sin: I do not intimate that there is any thing improper or imperfect in the law 
as a rule of life: it prescribes what is holy, just, and good; for it comes from a holy, just, 
and good God. The Law, which is to regulate the whole of the outward conduct, is holy; 
and the Commandment, Thou shalt not covet, which is to regulate the heart, is not less 
so. All is excellent and pure; but it neither pardons sin nor purifies the heart; and it is 
because it is holy, just, and good, that it condemns transgressors to death.
GILL, “Therefore the law is holy,.... This is a conclusion or inference drawn from 
the preceding discourse, in commendation of the law; that standing clear of any charge 
or imputation of sin, as being the cause of it. This epithet the apostle gives to the law is 
what the Jews frequently give it; worthy are the Israelites, say they 
(h), 
"to whom is given yIF-qtyIK--tnI J.TkyThlKylHdJLy(iydT(vTy.TkKyA.XOKyOHKyHiOyi(WT.g??y
ZKyJ.TkylHdJy(AymkHi.y.TkydThlky\hOKyhpy.TkyWakvkW.Ayhpy(.y(iyWkikaHlLyHiOy\Ky
.TkyvhmmHiOmki..TkyvhmmHiOmki..TkyvhmmHiOmki..TkyvhmmHiOmki.syk(.Tkay.TkyAHmksyhayk[kaKhikyhpy.TkyvhmmHiOmki.Ay(iyWHa.(vXlHasyHiOy
kAWkv(HllKy.TH.ydT(vTy(Ayv(.kOsyJ.ThXyATHllyih.yvh[k.JgyNhmkyTH[ky.ThXWT.y.TH.y.Tky.TakkyWahWka.(kAy
hpy(.yOkA(Wiy.Tky.TakkphlOyO([(A(hiyhpy.TkylHdLyHiOyAXWWhAky.TH.y\Ky.TH.ydT(vTy(AyJThlKJy(AymkHi.y.Tky
vkakmhi(HlylHdsydT(vTyAHiv.(p(kOy.hy.TkyWXa(pK(iWyhpy.TkyplkATLy\Ky.TH.ydT(vTy(AyJdXA.Jsy.TkydXO(v(Hly
lHdsydT(vTyWh(i.kOyhX.y.hy.Tkyukd(ATyvhmmhidkHl.TydTH.ydHAya(WT.yHiOydahiWLyHiOy\Ky.TH.ydT(vTy
(AyJWhhOJsy.TkymhaHlylHdy(iyHlly(.AyWakvkW.ARy\X.yih.T(iWy(Aymhakyvka.H(isy.THiy.TH.y.TkymhaHlylHdy(Ay
hilKyAWh)kiyhpy(iy.T(Ayvhi.kT.sydT(vTymHKy\kyAH(Oy.hy\ky
holyholyholyThlKsy\kvHXAkyhpy(.AyHX.Thasy.TkyThlKy`hOsypahmydThmyih.T(iWyvHiyvhmky\X.ydTH.y(AyThlKLyHiOy
\kvHXAkyhpy.TkymH..kayhpy(.sy(.y(AyHy.aHiAva(W.yhpy.TkyThlKyiH.Xakyhpy`hOsyHyOkvlHaH.(hiyhpyT(AyThlKy
d(llLy(.yakvX(akAyThl(ikAAy\h.TyhpyTkHa.yHiOyl(pkLy(.ypha\(OAydTH.k[kay(AyXiThlKsyHiOyvhmmHiOAy
ih.T(iWy\X.ydTH.y(AyThlKLy(.y.kHvTkAymkiy.hyl([kyThlKsyAh\kasya(WT.khXAsyHiOyWhOlKyl([kAgyw.ymHKy\ky
.aXlKyvHllkOy

101. justjustjustdXA.syhaya(WT.khXAsyHAy(.yOkmHiOAyWkapkv.yh\kO(kivky.hyHlly(.AyWakvkW.Asyhay(.yd(llyih.yHOm(.yhpy(.yHAyHy
a(WT.khXAikAALyHAy(.yWahihXivkAyWX(l.KsyvXaAkAyHiOyvhiOkmiAyphayk[kaKyO(Ah\kO(kivkyhpy(.LyHAy(.y
OkHlAy(mWHa.(HllKyd(.TyWkaAhiAy.Tky.aHiAWakAAhaAyhpy(.LyHiOyHAy(.yHvvX(.Ay\kl(k[kaAyXWhiy.Tkyphh.yhpy
.Tkya(WT.khXAikAAyhpyxTa(A.sy.TkypXlp(ll(iWykiOyhpy(.gyw.y(Aya(WT.lKyvHllkOy
goodgoodgoodWhhOsypahmy.TkyHX.Thayhpy(.sy`hOsypahmydThmyk[kaKyWhhOy.T(iWyvhmkAsyHiOyih.T(iWyklAkLypahmy.Tky
mH..kayhpy(.syHiOypahmy.TkyXAkyhpy(.y\h.Ty.hyAH(i.AyHiOyA(iikaAgy
Gwogyn Ce;Wherefore — “So that.”
the law is — “is indeed”
good, and the commandment  — that one so often referred to, which forbids all 
lusting.
holy, and just, and good.
-w(Gg Ce;12.So then the law is indeed holy, etc. Some think that the
words law and commandment is a repetition of the same thing; with whom I AGREE
; (216) and I
consider that there is a peculiar force in the words, when he says, that the law itself and whatever is
commanded in the law, is holy, and therefore to be regarded with the highest reverence, — that it
isjust, and cannot therefore be charged with anything wrong, — that it is good, and hence pure
and FREE from everything that can do harm. He thus defends the law against every charge of
blame, that no one should ascribe to it what is contrary to goodness, justice, and holiness.
(216)
 This is doubtless true, and it is an example of what the Apostle’ manner of writing is, it being
that of the ancient prophets. How various are the words used in the Psa_119:0
 to designate the law
or the revealed will of God? and two different words are often used in the same verse.
Having spoken of the law in CONNECTION
 with sin, the Apostle may be supposed to have had
the character of sin in view in characterizing the law. Sin works depraved desires and lusts; the law
is holy: sin deceives and ACTS the traitor, the law is plain@dealing and just: sin leads to death
and misery; the law is good and leads to happiness. The last contrast is evident from what follows in
the next verse, “ that which is good made death unto me?” — Ed.
 
-nAAow Ce;
So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous and good.
The law of Moses was holy because it came from God, righteous because of the justice of its
precepts, and good because of the benefit intended for mankind through the Father's giving of it.
This high estimate of Moses' law will be further justified in the subsequent verses of this chapter, in
which, not the law itself, but the sinful bent of human nature, will be shown as bearing the blame for
the sin and death that abounded under God's law. Again, from the homely wisdom of Whiteside,
A good law is not to blame, if people disobey it and bring punishment upon themselves.[9]
If there had been any doubt whatever of which law Paul spoke in this chapter, it would have been
resolved in this. Of what other law could it ever have been said by an apostle that it was holy,
righteous, and good? This overriding fact must be kept in view for a clear understanding of this

102. chapter, where Paul was speaking of the law of Moses and its ineffectiveness as a power
to ENABLE people to live above sin.
The law ... and the commandment ... actually may not require that a distinction between these
entities be made, although one is possible, the first having reference to the whole Mosaic system,
and the latter toSPECIFIC laws. As Barrett noted,
[9] Ibid., p. 155.
[10] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1957), p. 140.
SBC, “It is plain that the revelation of the law is made to assist us in copying the pattern 
which is there set before us. Consider the defect of character which is the natural 
consequence of not being fully impressed with each one of these three characteristics of 
God’s government and His creation.
I. A man may be deficient in a sense of the holiness of the law. Of course he who does not 
feel the holiness of the law will not fully feel its goodness, still less its justice. The defect 
of such a man’s character is a tendency to be earthly. To have his hopes, his aims, his 
labours, bounded by this present life; to lose all hold of the heavenly, unearthly side of 
religion; to be much more moral than devotional; to cut out all his duties by an earthly 
pattern. This defect of character admits of many degrees. But it is plain that such a man 
is not fashioned on the highest type. His service may be genuine as far as it goes; but it is 
imperfect, not only as all human service is imperfect in the execution, but imperfect in 
the very conception and idea.
II. Again, a man may not have a strong sense of the goodness of God’s law. Such a man, 
of course, has but a poor and narrow idea of holiness. But still he may have much more 
sense of that than of God’s goodness. He shuts himself out from much that is tender, 
much that touches the heart, much that softens and blesses, because he will not open his 
senses to receive the gifts of his Maker.
III. Lastly, a man may be wanting in a sense of the justice of God’s government. And 
perhaps for us imperfect creatures this is the most dangerous deficiency of all. Such a 
one generally shows his want by a weak desire to bury the past. He has no sense of a sin 
once done being a substantive thing tied inevitably to substantive consequences. And for 
this very reason he cannot feel any need for a Redeemer or a redemption. And so he 
never comes with a full acknowledgment of his guilt to the foot of the Cross, resigning 
soul and body to Him who alone can cleanse.
Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, p. 111.
13. Did that which is good, then, become death to
me? By no means! But in order that sin might be

103. recognized as sin, it produced death in me through
what was good, so that through the commandment
sin might become utterly sinful.
This is a complex paradox where the good law both did not become death to me, and
yet did produce death in me. The bottom line is that the good of the law was so
brilliantly white that it made the blackness of our sinful nature stand out as ghastly
darkness. The law fulfilled it purpose for good by making sin so completely
conspicuous that there could no longer be any doubt about what was evil. That was
the good purpose of the law. It was good, but it made the bad look so bad that it
could be easily identified.
Dirt on the ground does not look bad at all, in fact, it looks just fine. But put some
on your ice cream and you are repulsed by it. How you see sin all depends upon the
context and association. Dirt is fine in its place, but when it gets on your carpet it is
not okay. The law takes what is natural behavior and makes it look bad. The pagan
does not see it, but the one under the law sees how awful it is. The law make sin
come alive like dirt on a white shirt.
xwK FyCe;
Was then that which is good ... - This is another objection which the 
apostle proceeds to answer. The objection is this, “Can it be possible that what is 
admitted to be good and pure, should be changed into evil? Can what tends to life, be 
made death to a man?” In answer to this, the apostle repeats that the fault was not in the 
Law, but was in himself, and in his sinful propensities.
Made death - 
Rom_7:8, Rom_7:10.
God forbid - Note, Rom_3:4.
But sin - This is a personification of sin as in Rom_7:8.
That it might appear sin - That it might develope its true nature, and no longer be 
dormant in the mind. The Law of God is often applied to a man’s conscience, that he may 
see how deep and desperate is his depravity. No man knows his own heart until the Law 
thus crosses his path, and shows him what he is.
By the commandment - Note, Rom_7:8.
Might become exceeding sinful - In the original this is a very strong expression, 
and is one of those used by Paul to express strong emphasis, or intensity Vfxyyyzb6ch1P{By
)H.TyTXWka\hlSi by hyperboles. In an excessive degree; to the utmost possible extent, 
1Co_12:31; 2Co_1:8; 2Co_4:7; 2Co_12:7; Gal_1:13. The phrase occurs in each of these 
places. The sense here is, that by the giving of the command, and its application to the 
mind, sin was completely developed; it was excited, inflamed, aggravated, and showed to 
be excessively malignant and deadly. It was not a dormant, slumbering principle; but it 
was awfully opposed to God and His Law. Calvin has well expressed the sense: “It was 
proper that the enormity of sin should be revealed by the Law; because unless sin should 
break forth by some dreadful and enormous excess (as they say,) it would not be known 
to be sin. This excess exhibits itself the more violently, while it turns life into death.” The 

104. sentiment of the whole is, that the tendency of the Law is to excite the dormant sin of the 
bosom into active existence, and to reveal its true nature. It is desirable that that should 
be done, and as that is all that the Law accomplishes, it is not adapted to sanctify the 
soul. To show that this was the design of the apostle, it is desirable that sin should be 
thus seen in its true nature, because,
(1) Man should be acquainted with his true character. He should not deceive himself.
(2) Because it is one part of God’s plan to develope the secret feelings of the heart, and 
to show to all creatures what they are.
(3) Because only by knowing this, will the sinner be induced to take a remedy, and 
strive to be saved. So God often allows people to plunge into sin; to act out their 
nature, so that they may see themselves, and be alarmed at the consequences of 
their own crimes.
CLARKE, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? - This is the 
question of the Jew, with whom the apostle appears to be disputing.
“Do you allow the law to be good, and yet say it is the cause of our death?” The apostle 
answers: - God forbid! 
RCy’6B1D31, by no means: it is not the law that is the cause of your 
death, but sin; it was sin which subjected us to death by the law, justly threatening sin 
with death: which law was given that sin might appear - might be set forth in its own 
colors; when we saw it subjected us to death by a law perfectly holy, just, and good; that 
sin, by the law, might be represented what it really is: - καθ’yzb6ch1PCB 8-αρτωλος, an 
Exceeding Great and deadly evil.
Thus it appears that man cannot have a true notion of sin but by means of the law of 
God. For this I have already given sufficient reasons in the preceding notes. And it was 
one design of the law to show the abominable and destructive nature of sin, as well as to 
be a rule of life. It would be almost impossible for a man to have that just notion of the 
demerit of sin so as to produce repentance, or to see the nature and necessity of the 
death of Christ, if the law were not applied to his conscience by the light of the Holy 
Spirit; it is then alone that he sees himself to be carnal, and sold under sin; and that the 
law and the commandment are holy, just, and good. And let it be observed, that the law 
did not answer this end merely among the Jews in the days of the apostle; it is just as 
necessary to the Gentiles to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes 
place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the 
Gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly. The 
law, therefore, is the grand instrument in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and 
awaken sinners; and he may safely show that every sinner is under the law, and 
consequently under the curse, who has not fled for refuge to the hope held out by the 
Gospel: for, in this sense also, Jesus Christ is the End of the Law for justification to them 
that believe.
GILL, “Was then that which is good, made death unto me?.... An objection is 
started upon the last epithet in commendation of the law; and it is as if the objector 
should say, if the law is good, as you say, how comes it to pass that it is made death, or is 
the cause of death to you? can that be good, which is deadly, or the cause of death? or can 

105. that be the cause of death which is good? This objection taken out of the mouth of 
another person proceeds upon a mistake of the apostle's meaning; for though he had said 
that he died when the commandment came, and found by experience that it was unto 
death, yet does not give the least intimation that the law was the cause of his death; at 
most, that it was only an occasion, and that was not given by the law, but taken by sin, 
which, and not the law, deceived him and slew him. Nor is it any objection to the 
goodness of the law, that it is a ministration of condemnation and death to sinners; for 
"lex non damnans, non est lex", a law without a sanction or penalty, which has no power 
to condemn and punish, is no law, or at least a law of no use and service; nor is the judge, 
or the sentence which he according to law pronounces upon a malefactor, the cause of 
his death, but the crime which he is guilty of; and the case is the same here, wherefore 
the apostle answers to this objection with abhorrence and detestation of fixing any such 
charge upon the law, as being the cause of death to him, saying, 
God forbid; a way of speaking used by him, as has been observed, when anything is 
greatly disliked by him, and is far from his thoughts. Moreover, he goes on to open the 
true end and reason of sin, by the law working death in his conscience; 
but sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; 
that is, the vitiosity and corruption of nature, which is designed by sin, took an occasion, 
"by that which is good", that is, the law, through its prohibition of lust, to work in me all 
maimer of concupiscence, which brought forth fruit unto death; wherefore, upon the 
law's entrance into my heart and conscience, I received the sentence of death in myself, 
that so sin by it, "working death in me, might appear sin" to me, which I never knew 
before. This end was to be, and is answered by it, yea, 
that sin by the commandment might become exceeding  sinful; that the 
corruption of nature might not only be seen and known to be sin, but exceeding sinful; as 
being not only contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, but as taking occasion by the 
pure and holy law of God to exert itself the more, and so appear to be as the words Vfxy
Gb6ch1PCByfRfc3!P12, may be rendered, "exceedingly a sinner", or "an exceeding great 
sinner"; that being the source and parent of all actual sins and transgressions; wherefore 
not the law, but sin, was the cause of death, which by the law is discovered to be so very 
sinful.
Gwogyn Ce;Was then that which is good made — “Hath then that which is good 
become”
death unto me? God forbid — that is, “Does the blame of my death lie with the 
good law? Away with such a thought.”
But sin — became death unto me, to the end.
that it might appear sin — that it might be seen in its true light.
working death in — rather, “to”
me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become 
exceeding sinful — “that its enormous turpitude might stand out to view, through its 
turning God’s holy, just, and good law into a provocative to the very things which is 
forbids.” So much for the law in relation to the unregenerate, of whom the apostle takes 
himself as the example; first, in his ignorant, self-satisfied condition; next, under 
humbling discoveries of his inability to keep the law, through inward contrariety to it; 

106. finally, as self-condemned, and already, in law, a dead man. Some inquire to what period 
of his recorded history these circumstances relate. But there is no reason to think they 
were wrought into such conscious and explicit discovery at any period of his history 
before he “met the Lord in the way”; and though, “amidst the multitude of his thoughts 
within him” during his memorable three day’s blindness immediately after that, such 
views of the law and of himself would doubtless be tossed up and down till they took 
shape much as they are here described (see on Act_9:9) we regard this whole description 
of his inward struggles and progress rather as the finished result of all his past 
recollections and subsequent reflections on his unregenerate state, which he throws into 
historical form only for greater vividness. But now the apostle proceeds to repel false 
inferences regarding the law, secondly: Rom_7:14-25, in the case of the REGENERATE; 
taking himself here also as the example.
du1W:gSe)13.Has then what is good, etc. He had hitherto defended the law from calumnies, but
in such a manner, that it still remained doubtful whether it was the cause of death; nay, the minds of
men were on this point perplexed, — how could it be that nothing but death was gained from so
singular a gift of God. To this objection then he now gives an answer; and he denies, that
death PROCEEDS
 from the law, though death through its means is brought on us by sin. And
though this answer seems to militate in appearance against what he had said before — that he had
found the commandment, which was given for life, to be unto death, there is yet no contrariety. He
had indeed said before, that it is through our wickedness that the law is turned to our destruction,
and that contrary to its own character; but here he denies, that it is in such a sense the cause of
death, that death is to be imputed to it. In 2Co_3:0
 he treats more fully of the law. He there calls it
the ministration of death; but he so calls it according to what is commonly done in a dispute, and
represents, not the real character of the law, but the false opinion of his opponents.
(217) 
But sin, etc. With no intention to offend others, I must state it as my opinion, that this passage ought
to be read as I have rendered it, and the meaning is this, — “ is in a manner regarded as just before
it is discovered by the law; but when it is by the law made known, then it really obtains its own name
of sin; and hence it appears the more wicked, and, so to speak, the more sinful, because it turns the
goodness of the law, by perverting it, to our destruction; for that must be very pestiferous, which
makes what is in its own nature salutary to be hurtful to us.” The import of the whole is — that it was
necessary for the atrocity of sin to be discovered by the law; for except sin had burst forth into
outrageous, or, as they say, into enormous excess, it would not have been acknowledged as sin;
and the more outrageous does its enormity appear, when it converts life into death; and thus every
excuse is taken away from it.
(218) 
(217) This can hardly be admitted. The Apostle in Corinthians evidently states a fact, as he often
does, without going into an explanation; and the fact was, that the law proved to be the ministration
of death: but it proved to be so through the sin and wickedness of man. — Ed. 
(218)
 [Erasmus
], [Beza ], [Pareus ], [Stuart ], and others, make up the ellipsis by putting in, “ made
death to me,” after “” But there is no need of adding anything. The sentence throughout is
thoroughly Hebraistic. What is partially announced in the words, “ it might appear sin,” or, to be sin,
etc., is more fully stated in the last clause; and the participle, “
 ” — κατεργαζοVένη is used instead
of a verb, the auxiliary verb being understood. See similar instances in Rom_14:9
 [Calvin
] ’ version
is no doubt the CORRECT one. What follows the last ἵνα more fully explains what comes after
the first. — Ed.
 

107. dhvvougSe)Did then that which is good become death to me? God forbid. But sin, that it 
might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; - that through 
the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.
Here again, as often in Romans, the old diatribe style of discourse is followed, the objection Paul
addressed being this: "Paul, you have praised the law as righteous and good; but since it has
brought death, how can you say it is good?" Paul's answer was his favorite "God forbid." Certainly

Paul simply states that sin led to death @ the doom of creation separated from the Creator; and that
this happened that sin might stand out in its true colors. The serpent had promised Eve that men
should be as God (Genesis 3:5); but the rebellion begun with the highest conceivable hope ended in
condemnation and death. Sin might appear as human progress, or in any other attractive guise; but
death proved it to be nothing but sin. The most damning feature of its disclosure was the fact that
sin had used in its death@dealing work God's gift, the law.[11]
The exceedingly sinful and destructive nature of sin is supremely exhibited in this, that through
deceit, seduction, and falsehood, sin (here personified) induces the sinner to break God's
commandment, thereby using the commandment which had been given and was intended solely for
man's good, to become the instrument of the sinner's death, thus (in a figure) slaying the sinner with
God's own commandment, death ensuing from the penalty inherent in the broken commandment.
ENDNOTE:
[11] Ibid., p. 145.
SBC, “I. What is sin? Rebellion—the resistance of a human mind against the sovereignty 
of its Creator. It little matters, in comparison, what may be the act by which a rebel 
shows that he is a rebel; the fact is the important thing—that he is in a state of rebellion. 
Man measures sin by the degree of the injury which a sin inflicts on society, or upon the 
man who does it. God measures sin by the degree of the rebellion which He sees in that 
sin against Himself. What we call the sin is in His sight only the index of the sinfulness 
which lies deep down in the heart.
II. No sin is single, no sin is solitary, there are no islands in sin. The principle of 
obedience is a single thing; the man that has broken one law has violated the principle of 
obedience, and therefore he is as much a breaker of the law as if he had broken a 
thousand things. Again, all God’s law is one law. It resolves itself into one—Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God. He that hath done one sin did not love God; therefore by his want 
of love he has brought himself guilty to the count of all the law—for the law is love.
III. Every sin which a man does, lies in a series—in which that one sin is a link, and none 
can calculate what will be the chain of repetitions and the chain of consequences, which 
shall stretch on and on from sin to sin, from person to person, from circle to circle, from 
age to age—beyond time into eternity. The sins that we do very soon pass out of our 
memory, in the crowd of new and pressing engagements and thoughts which come 
around us; we perhaps very little realise now the sins which once pressed very heavily 
and were very vivid to our consciences. But with God’s view each one sin is as green and 
fresh as at the moment when it was done. Let us try then to look on sin as God looks on 
it, and we shall better appreciate the infinite grace of Him who was made sin for us.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 319.
References: Rom_7:13.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xix., No. 1095; Ibid., Morning by 
Morning, p. 71; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., P. 103.

108. 14. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am
unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
The law came from God who is Spirit, and so it too was spiritual. I as a sinner am
not spiritual, but just the opposite, for I am a slave to sin, which means that I am of
the flesh and not of the spirit.
UREGEERATE VIEW: Here and throughout this passage a problem arises
because "...some of the expression used seem to rise above the experience of any
unregenerate person, while other expressions seem to fall below the experience of
the Christian." In this verse it is the expression, "I am carnal, sold under sin," that
supports this view that the man was unregenerate. In fact, it is considered by some
to be their strongest argument, and the hardest to reconcile with the regenerate
view. It is believed that Paul states here in the beginning of the passage that he will
now be describing himself when in his carnal state. The carnal man is the very
opposite of the regenerate man, for the carnal "Mind the things of the flesh" (8:5),
and are "enmity against God" (8:7). There work is "to make provision for the flesh
to fulfill the lust thereof" (13:14). "By this first sentence, accordingly, Paul declares
the "I" to be so thoughly carnal as to justify the expression made of the evil
principle." It is impossible that these statements could apply to one who is born
anew and led by the Spirit.
REGEERATE VIEW: Paul had to be speaking of himself, and after his
conversion, because of the abundant use of the first person, and because in this
verse he suddenly begins to speak in the present tense. Between verses 7 and 13
inclusive, there are 13 instances of the use of the verb and participle in narration, all
in the past tense; between verses 14 and 25 inclusive there are 26 instances of the use
of the finite verb, and 6 of the participle, all in the present tense. It is generally
agreed by most commentators that the first part of the chapter is speaking about the
unregenerate under the law, and so the change to the present tense is a good
indication that Paul is now speaking of his own present experience. Those opposed
to this say that the use of the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle
throws himself back into the time which he is describing. This explanation,
however, seems unlikely because hitherto, Paul has been using the pronouns "ye"
and "you", and "we" and "us". ow it is "I" and "me" and "mine". It is a
striking fact that the pronoun "I" is used 28 times in these verses, while in chapter 8
the pronoun "I" occurs only twice, and then in a different sense. This is too much

109. evidence to ignore, and say that Paul was speaking of another person, or just a
certain type of man in general as some believe. Bishop Moule says, "othing in
literature, no confession of an Augustine, no "Grace Abounding" of a Bunyan, is
more intensely individual."

Another point they bring out to support their view is that Paul states that "We
know that the law is spiritual," and they say that none but the regenerate can know
this. He uses the "we" in reference to himself and the Christians to whom he is
writing, and so declares himself to be a regenerate man. In answer to those who
then say how can a regenerate man say that he is carnal, they put forth several
arguments. Compared to the spiritual law of God, even the Christian falls short
and is carnal. In I Cor. 3:1E3, Paul refers to the Christians as carnal, because the
old nature was still ruling in their lives. "The old nature is not made holy, but a
new nature is communicative." This seems to indicate that sanctification is a
process in which the new nature is continually struggling with the old, and by the
grace of God becomes master over it. Those who say the Christian cannot be carnal
take for granted that this implies the height of wickedness, but this is not the case at
all.
Harold J. Ockenga in Everyone That Believeth writes, "The description must refer
to an experience after the Damascus Road conversion, either before Ananias
brought full enlightenment or during the Arabian sojourn when Paul learned the
truth of Romans 6 concerning his sanctification, namely that he was delivered from
sin by dying with Christ. Once Paul fully grasped this truth, he never went back
into the terrible state of conflict described in chapter 7. This is the story of Paul's
experience as a converted Jew, still believing himself to be under the law. Since
there is still so much legalism in Christiandom, it aptly describes the state of
multitudes of Christians today, and is of highest value for our consideration.
MIDDLE VIEW: Those who do not want to go to one extreme or the other feel that
the best position is somewhere in the middle. Ripley tries to reconcile the two
extremes by saying, "A carnal, or unspiritual mind is affirmed of all persons,
whether regenerate or unregenerate, so far as they are not in subjection to the Holy
Spirit in their feelings and conduct." If this be true, and it seems likely, then there
is no basis for argument, because the verse can be applied to either position with
validity.
Chuck Swindoll feels this is a picture of Paul after he is saved. It is a Christian
struggle. The flesh just will not cooperate with the spirit, even if you are an Apostle.
We are only theoretically perfect in the eyes of God. We just cannot live up to our
position in the flesh. He tells of how for years he drove past oranges laying on the
ground and thought what a waste, but never thought of picking them up. But when
he heard it was against the law to pick them up, he felt an urge to do so. He had to
drive a different way to avoid the temptation. The law revealed a dark spot in him.

110. The law does not put the spot there but just reveals it, as an xEray does not make the
tumor, but just exposes it and reveals it.
John Phillips says the purpose of the passage is to show that no system of human
effort can sustain a victorious Christian life. Jesus is the only answer, but even
Christians often think they can do it on their own. The law reveals the sinful nature
and even revives it, but it cannot remove it. The law does not reward, it only
punishes. o policeman will ever stop you and give you coupons for free gas because
you stopped at all the stop signs and obeyed the speed limit. There is no reward
from the law, it will only punish when it is disobeyed. Grace, however, does reward.
He gives this outline:
The Spiritual man is delivered from the law.
The atural man is doomed by the law.
The Carnal man is defeated by the law.
I am not spiritual says Paul, and if we study different kinds of sin we can see how
this is possible even for a Christian. There is the sin of the prodigal and the sin of his
older brother. Henry Drummond points out the difference as he writes, "The
younger son sinned low down in his flesh, in his lusts and appetites. The elder
brother sinned high up in his disposition, in his bad temper, his lack of love, in his
smallness of soul, in his lack of willingness to coEoperate and forgive. ow, the sins
of the flesh are despised by us. They are not respectable. But the sins of the
disposition are sometimes highly respectable. If a man commits adultery in his flesh,
we have a church council and we put him out. But if he sins in his dispositionEif he is
badEtempered and selfish, we have a church council and we make him a member!
And yet it is quite probable that the sins of the disposition do as much harm to the
Kingdom of God as the sins of the flesh. Perhaps more. BadEtempered, touchy and
quarrelsome religious people do as much harm to the Kingdom of God as
drunkards or adulterers. Suppose the younger brother had met the elder brother on
the road to his father's house? One look and he would have turned back to the far
country. Driven back by a wrong spirit.
Emily Dickinson said, "Consider the liliesEthat is the only commandment I haven't
broken." One night a little girl prayed, "And dear Lord, please send the beautiful
snow to keep the little flowers warm through the winter." Climbing into bed she
confided, "That time I fooled Him. I want the snow so I can go sledding with my
new sled." Here we see the unspiritual nature of the soEcalled innocent child. It
reveals there is a selfEcenteredness in all of us, and it can even lead to insincere
prayer.
D.L. Moody once was warned that some people tended to leave the service before
the sermon was ended. He got up and said, "I am going to speak to two classes of
people this morning: first to the sinners and then to the saints." He proceeded to
address the sinners for awhile, then said they could leave. For once every member of
the congregation stayed to the end of the sermon. o one wants to admit they are
sinners, but the fact is all are.

111. Paul is here insulting himself. He calls himself unspiritual or carnal. He is like the
comedian who said, "I hit senility 30 years ahead of schedule." As the planets all
revolve around the sun, so all of our plans are to revolve around Christ, but the fact
is even very spiritual people do not always put Christ first and foremost, but have
their own agenda that sometimes can be very selfEcentered. Paul was honest enough
to admit that he was not 100% Christ centered. He was still climbing and seeking to
be totally committed. He knew the prayer that Jesus gave to the church that
says,"forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." He knew that the
prayer was for him as well as every other Christian. The law of sin in us is like
gravity and will not be done away with until the rapture.
"sT la)n5
The remainder of this chapter has been the subject of no small degree of 
controversy. The question has been whether it describes the state of Paul before his 
conversion, or afterward. It is not the purpose of these notes to enter into controversy, or 
into extended discussion. But after all the attention which I have been able to give to this 
passage, I regard it as describing the state of a man under the gospel, as descriptive of 
the operations of the mind of Paul subsequent to his conversion. This interpretation is 
adopted for the following reasons:
(1) Because it seems to me to be the most obvious. It is what will strike plain people as 
being the natural meaning; people who do not have a theory to support, and who 
understand language in its usual sense.
(2) Because it agrees with the design of the apostle, which is to show that the Law is 
not adapted to produce sanctification and peace. This he had done in regard to a man 
before he was converted. If this relates to the same period, then it is a useless discussion 
of a point already discussed, If it relates to that period also, then there is a large field of 
action, including the whole period after a man’s conversion to Christianity, in which the 
question might still be unsettled, whether the Law there might not be adapted to 
sanctify. The apostle therefore makes thorough work with the argument, and shows that 
the operation of the Law is everywhere the same.
(3) Because the expressions which occur are such as cannot be understood of an 
impenitent sinner; see the notes at 
Rom_7:15, Rom_7:21.
(4) Because it accords with parallel expressions in regard to the state of the conflict in 
a Christian’s mind.
(5) Because there is a change made here from the past tense to the present. In 
Rom_7:7, etc. he had used the past tense, evidently describing some former state. In 
Rom_7:14 there is a change to the present, a change inexplicable, except on the 
supposition that he meant to describe some state different from that before described. 
That could be no other than to carry his illustration forward in showing the inefficacy of 
the Law on a man in his renewed state; or to show that such was the remaining depravity 
of the man, that it produced substantially the same effects as in the former condition.
(6) Because it accords with the experience of Christians, and not with sinners. It is just 
such language as plain Christians, who are acquainted with their own hearts, use to 
express their feelings. I admit that this last consideration is not by itself conclusive; but if 
the language did not accord with the experience of the Christian world, it would be a 
strong circumstance against any proposed interpretation. The view which is here 
expressed of this chapter, as supposing that the previous part Rom_7:7-13 refers to a 

112. man in his unregenerate state, and that the remainder describes the effect of the Law on 
the mind of a renewed man, was adopted by studying the chapter itself, without aid from 
any writer. I am happy, however, to find that the views thus expressed are in accordance 
with those of the late Dr. John P. Wilson, than whom, perhaps, no man was ever better 
quailfled to interpret the Scriptures. He says, “In the fourth verse, he (Paul) changes to 
the first person plural, because he intended to speak of the former experience of 
Christians, who had been Jews. In the seventh verse, he uses the first person singular, 
but speaks in the past tense, because he describes his own experience when he was an 
uncoverted Pharisee. In the fourteenth verse, and unto the end of the chapter, he uses 
the first person singular, and the present tense, because he exhibits his own experience 
since he became a Christian and an apostle.”
We know - We admit. It is a conceded, well understood point.
That the law is spiritual - This does not mean that the Law is designed to control 
the spirit, in contradistinction from the body, but it is a declaration showing that the 
evils of which he was speaking were not the fault of the Law. That was not, in its nature, 
sensual, corrupt, earthly, carnal; but was pure and spiritual. The effect described was not 
the fault of the Law, but of the man, who was sold under sin. The word “spiritual” is often 
thus used to denote what is pure and hoy, in opposition to that which is fleshly or carnal; 
Rom_8:5-6; Gal_5:16-23. The flesh is described as the source of evil passions and 
desires; The spirit as the source of purity; or as what is agreeable to the proper influences 
of the Holy Spirit.
But I am - The present tense shows that he is describing himself as he was at the time 
of writing. This is the natural and obvious construction, and if this be not the meaning, it 
is impossible to account for his having changed the past tense Rom_7:7 to the present.
Carnal - Fleshly; sensual; opposed to spiritual. This word is used because in the 
Scriptures the flesh is spoken of as the source of sensual passions and propensities, 
Gal_5:19-21. The sense is, that these corrupt passions still retained a strong and 
withering and distressing influence over the mind. The renewed man is exposed to 
temptations from his strong native appetites; and the power of these passions, 
strengthened by long habit before he was converted, has traveled over into religion, and 
they continue still to influence and distress him. It does not mean that he is wholly under 
their influence; but that the tendency of his natural inclinations is to indulgence.
Sold under sin - This expression is often adduced to show that it cannot be of a 
renewed man that the apostle is speaking. The argument is, that it cannot be affirmed of 
a Christian that he is sold under sin. A sufficient answer to this might be, that in fact, this 
is the very language which Christians often now adopt to express the strength of that 
native depravity against which they struggle, and that no language would better express 
it. It does not, mean that they choose or prefer sins. It strongly implies that the 
prevailing bent of their mind is against it, but that such is its strength that it brings them 
into slavery to it. The expression used here, “sold under sin,” is “borrowed from the 
practice of selling captives taken in war, as slaves.” (Stuart.) It hence, means to deliver 
into the power of anyone, so that he shall be dependent on his will and control. 
(Schleusner.) The emphasis is not on the word “sold,” as if any act of selling had taken 
place, but the effect was as if he had been sold; that is, he was subject to it, and under its 
control, and it means that sin, contrary to the prevailing inclination of his mind 
Rom_7:15-17, had such an influence over him as to lead him to commit it, and thus to 
produce a state of conflict and grief; Rom_7:19-24. The verses which follow this are an 
explanation of the sense, and of the manner in which he was “sold under sin.”

113. CLARKE, “For, we know that the law is spiritual - This is a general proposition, 
and probably, in the apostle’s autograph, concluded the above sentence. The law is not to 
be considered as a system of external rites and ceremonies; nor even as a rule of moral 
action: it is a spiritual system; it reaches to the most hidden purposes, thoughts, 
dispositions, and desires of the heart and soul; and it reproves and condemns every 
thing, without hope of reprieve or pardon, that is contrary to eternal truth and rectitude.
But I am carnal, sold under sin - This was probably, in the apostle’s letter, the 
beginning of a new paragraph. I believe it is agreed, on all hands, that the apostle is here 
demonstrating the insufficiency of the law in opposition to the Gospel. That by the 
former is the knowledge, by the latter the cure, of sin. Therefore by I here he cannot 
mean himself, nor any Christian believer: if the contrary could be proved, the argument 
of the apostle would go to demonstrate the insufficiency of the Gospel as well as the law.
It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or 
prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, 
in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion 
has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, 
but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. It requires but little knowledge of 
the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, 
either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own 
state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be 
justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, 
that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, 
and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Act_9:17.
In this and the following verses he states the contrariety between himself, or any Jew 
while without Christ, and the law of God. Of the latter he says, it is spiritual; of the 
former, l am carnal, sold under sin. Of the carnal man, in opposition to the spiritual, 
never was a more complete or accurate description given. The expressions, in the flesh, 
and after the flesh, in Rom_7:5, and in Rom_8:5, Rom_8:8, Rom_8:9, etc., are of the 
same import with the word carnal in this verse. To be in the flesh, or to be carnally 
minded, solely respects the unregenerate. While unregenerate, a man is in a state of 
death and enmity against God, Rom_8:6-9. This is St. Paul’s own account of a carnal 
man. The soul of such a man has no authority over the appetites of the body and the lusts 
of the flesh: reason has not the government of passion. The work of such a person is to 
make provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof, Rom_13:14. He minds the things 
of the flesh, Rom_8:5; he is at enmity with God. In all these things the spiritual man is 
the reverse; he lives in a state of friendship with God in Christ, and the Spirit of God 
dwells in him; his soul has dominion over the appetites of the body and the lusts of the 
flesh; his passions submit to the government of reason, and he, by the Spirit, mortifies 
the deeds of the flesh; he mindeth the things of the Spirit, Rom_8:5. The Scriptures, 
therefore, place these two characters in direct opposition to each other. Now the apostle 
begins this passage by informing us that it is his carnal state that he is about to describe, 
in opposition to the spirituality of God’s holy law, saying, But I am carnal.
Those who are of another opinion maintain that by the word carnal here the apostle 
meant that corruption which dwelt in him after his conversion; but this opinion is 
founded on a very great mistake; for, although there may be, after justification, the 
remains of the carnal mind, which will be less or more felt till the soul is completely 
sanctified, yet the man is never denominated from the inferior principle, which is under 
control, but from the superior principle which habitually prevails. Whatever epithets are 
given to corruption or sin in Scripture, opposite epithets are given to grace or holiness. 

114. By these different epithets are the unregenerate and regenerate denominated. From all 
this it follows that the epithet carnal, which is the characteristic designation of an 
unregenerate man, cannot be applied to St. Paul after his conversion; nor, indeed, to any 
Christian in that state.
But the word carnal, though used by the apostle to signify a state of death and enmity 
against God, is not sufficient to denote all the evil of the state which he is describing; 
hence he adds, sold under sin. This is one of the strongest expressions which the Spirit of 
God uses in Scripture, to describe the full depravity of fallen man. It implies a willing 
slavery: Ahab had sold himself to work evil, 1Ki_21:20. And of the Jews it is said, in their 
utmost depravity, Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, Isa_50:1. They 
forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and Were Sold to do 
mischief, 1 Maccabees 1:15. Now, if the word carnal, in its strongest sense, had been 
sufficiently significant of all he meant, why add to this charge another expression still 
stronger? We must therefore understand the phrase, sold under sin, as implying that the 
soul was employed in the drudgery of sin; that it was sold over to this service, and had no 
power to disobey this tyrant, until it was redeemed by another. And if a man be actually 
sold to another, and he acquiesce in the deed, then he becomes the legal property of that 
other person. This state of bondage was well known to the Romans. The sale of slaves 
they saw daily, and could not misunderstand the emphatical sense of this expression. Sin 
is here represented as a person; and the apostle compares the dominion which sin has 
over the man in question to that of a master over his legal slave. Universally through the 
Scriptures man is said to be in a state of bondage to sin until the Son of God make him 
free: but in no part of the sacred writings is it ever said that the children of God are sold 
under sin. Christ came to deliver the lawful captive, and take away the prey from the 
mighty. Whom the Son maketh free, they are free indeed. Then, they yield not up their 
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; for sin shall not have the 
dominion over them, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made them 
free from the law of sin and death, Rom_6:13, Rom_6:14; Rom_8:2. Anciently, when 
regular cartels were not known, the captives became the slaves of their victors, and by 
them were sold to any purchaser; their slavery was as complete and perpetual as if the 
slave had resigned his own liberty, and sold himself: the laws of the land secured him to 
his master; he could not redeem himself, because he had nothing that was his own, and 
nothing could rescue him from that state but a stipulated redemption. The apostle 
speaks here, not of the manner in which the person in question became a slave; he only 
asserts the fact, that sin had a full and permanent dominion over him. - Smith, on the 
carnal man’s character.
I am carnal, sold under sin - I have been the more particular in ascertaining the 
genuine sense of this verse, because it determines the general scope of the whole 
passage.
GILL, “For we know that the law is spiritual,.... We who have a spiritual 
understanding of the law, who have been led into the true nature of it by the Spirit of 
God, know by experience that that itself is "spiritual"; and therefore can never be the 
cause of sin or death: the law may be said to be "spiritual", because it comes from the 
Spirit of God; and reaches to the spirit of man; it requires truth in the inward parts; 
spiritual service and obedience; a serving of it with our minds; a worshipping of God in 
spirit and truth; a loving of him with all our hearts and souls, as well as a performance of 
all the outward acts of religion and duty; and because it cannot be truly obeyed and 

115. conformed to without the assistance of the Spirit of God. To this spirituality of the law 
the apostle opposes himself, 
but I am carnal, sold under sin: from hence to the end of the chapter many are of 
opinion, that the apostle speaks in the person of an unregenerate man, or of himself as 
unregenerate; but nothing is more clear, than that he speaks all along of himself in the 
first person, "I am carnal":, &c. fG312y6’!, "I myself", as in Rom_7:25, and in the present 
tense of what he then was and found; whereas, when he speaks of his unregenerate state, 
and how it was with him under the first convictions of sin, he speaks of them as things 
past, Rom_7:5; besides, several things which are said by the apostle can neither agree 
with him, nor any other, but as regenerate; such as to "hate evil", "delight in the law of 
God", and "serve it with the mind", Rom_7:15. Moreover, the distinctions between flesh 
and spirit, the inward and the outward man, and the struggle there is between them, are 
to be found in none but regenerate persons; and to say no more, the thanksgiving for 
deliverance from sin by Christ can only come from such; nor are any of the things said 
inapplicable to men that are born again, as will appear by the consideration of them as 
they follow: for when the apostle says, "I am carnal"; his meaning is, either that he was 
so by nature, and as he saw himself when sin through the law became exceeding sinful to 
him; or as he might be denominated from the flesh or corruption of nature which was 
still in him, and from the infirmities of the flesh he was attended with; just as the 
Corinthians, though sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, are said to be 
"carnal" on account of their envying, strife, and divisions, 1Co_3:1, or in comparison of 
the "spiritual" law of God, which was now before him, and in which he was beholding his 
face as in a glass, and with which when compared, the holiest man in the world must be 
reckoned carnal. He adds, "sold under sin"; he did not "sell himself" to work wickedness, 
as Ahab, 1Ki_21:25, and others; he was passive and not active in it; and when at any time 
he with his flesh served the law of sin, he was not a voluntary, but an involuntary 
servant; besides, this may be understood of his other I, his carnal I, his unrenewed self, 
the old man which is always under sin, when the spiritual I, the new man, is never under 
the law of sin, but under the governing influence of the grace of God.
Gwogyn Ce;For we know that the law is spiritual — in its demands.
but I am carnal — fleshly (see on 
Rom_7:5), and as such, incapable of yielding 
spiritual obedience.
sold under sin — enslaved to it. The “I” here, though of course not the regenerate, is 
neither the unregenerate, but the sinful principle of the renewed man, as is expressly 
stated in Rom_7:18.
-w(Gg Ce;14.For we know that the law, etc. He now begins more closely to compare the law with
what man is, that it may be more clearly understood whence the evil of death PROCEEDS. He
then sets before us an example in a regenerate man, in whom the remnants of the flesh are wholly
contrary to the law of the Lord, while the spirit would gladly obey it. But first, as we have said, he
makes only a comparison between nature and the law. Since in human things there is no greater
discord than between spirit and flesh, the law being spiritual and man carnal, what agreement can
there be between the natural man and the law? Even the same as between darkness and light. But
by calling the law spiritual, he not only means, as some expound the passage, that it requires the
inward affections of the heart; but that, by way of contrast, it has a contrary import to the

116. word carnal  (219) These interpreters give this explanation, “ law is spiritual, that is, it binds not only
the feet and hands as to external works, but regards the feelings of the heart, and requires the real
fear of God.”
But here a contrast is evidently set forth between the flesh and the spirit. And further, it is sufficiently
clear from the context, and it has been in fact already shown, that under the term flesh is included
whatever men bring from the womb; and flesh is what men are called, as they are born, and as long
as they retain their natural character; for as they are corrupt, so they neither taste nor desire
anything but what is gross and earthly. Spirit, on the contrary, is renewed nature, which God forms
anew after his own image. And this mode of speaking is adopted on this ACCOUNT — because
the newness which is wrought in us is the gift of the Spirit.
The perfection then of the doctrine of the law is opposed here to the corrupt nature of man: hence
the meaning is as follows, “ law requires a celestial and an angelic righteousness, in which no spot
is to appear, to whose clearness nothing is to be wanting: but I am a carnal man, who can do
nothing but oppose it.”
(220) But the exposition of [Origen
], which indeed has been approved by
many before our time, is not worthy of being refuted; he says, that the law is called spiritual by Paul,
because the Scripture is not to be understood literally. What has this to do with the present
subject?
Sold under sin. By this clause he shows what flesh is in itself; for man by nature is no less the slave
of sin, than those bondmen, bought with money, whom their masters ill treat at their pleasure, as
they do their oxen and their asses. We are so entirely controlled by the power of sin, that the whole
mind, the whole heart, and all our actions are under its influence. Compulsion I always except, for
we sin spontaneously, as it would be no sin, were it not voluntary. But we are so given up to sin,
that we can do willingly nothing but sin; for the corruption which bears rule within us thus drives us
onward. Hence this comparison does not import, as they say, a forced service, but a voluntary
obedience, which an inbred bondage inclines us to render.
(219)
 This is evidently the case here. Ascarnal means what is sinful and corrupt, so spiritual imports
what is holy, just, and good. As the works of the flesh are evil and depraved works, so the fruits of
the Spirit are good and holy fruits. See Gal_5:19, and particularly Joh_3:6. — Ed. 
(220)
 “ is ‘’ in exact proportion to the degree in which he falls short of perfect conformity to the law
of God.” — [Scott
]
It has been usual with a certain class of divines, such as [Hammond ] and Bull, to hold that all the
Fathers before [Augustine ] viewed Paul here as not speaking of himself. But this is plainly
contradicted by what [Augustine ] declares himself in several parts of his writings. In his
[Retractations, B. 1, chapter 23 ], he refers to some authors of divine discourses (quibusdam 
divinorum tractatoribus eloquiorom ) by whose authority he was induced to change his opinion, and
to regard Paul here as speaking of himself. He alludes again in his work against [Julian ], an
advocate of Pelagianism, B. 6, CHAPTER 11, to this very change in his view, and ascribes it to
the reading of the works of those who were better and more intelligent than himself, (melioribus et 
intelligentioribus cessi .) Then he refers to them by name, and says, “ it was that I came to
understand these things, as [Hilary ], [Gregory ], [Ambrose ], and other holy and known DOCTORS
 of the Church, understood them, who thought that the Apostle himself strenuously struggled
against carnal lusts, which he was unwilling to have, and yet had, and that he bore witness as to
this confiict in these words,” (referring to this very text,) — Hinc factum est. ut sic ista intelligerem, 
quemadmodum intellexit Hilarius, Gregorius, Ambroslus, et cœ Ecclsiœ sancti notique DOCTORES
, qui et ipsum Apostolum adversus carnales concupiscentias, quas habere nolebat, et tamen 
habebat, strenue conflixisse, eundemque conflictum suum illis suis verbis contestatum fuisse 

117. senserunt — Ed. 
dhvvougSe)For we know that the law is spiritual but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Paul here began consideration of a third element in the law of Moses that made it an absurdity to
accept the law as binding upon Christians, that being the fact that justification was absolutely
impossible under that system. See paragraph heading this chapter. If proof had been wanting that it
is the law of Moses under consideration, here it is again. Of what other law could it have been said
that "it is spiritual"? Paul's experience as a Christian is the last thing that could be considered as the
topic here. "I am carnal, sold under sin ..." Are such words as these any fit comment of any child of
God who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ? To use Paul's words, God forbid! To refer
these words to Paul's status as a Christian, or to the status of any other Christian, is to torture the
word of God. Such a construction upon these words approaches blasphemy Paul had just finished
saying that Christians are "dead to sin" and "alive unto God" in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:11); and to
apply these words to Christians is to contradict what had just been stated.
What was Paul's meaning? The grammatical impossibility of using this verse to CANCEL
Romans 6:11, coupled with the fact that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this chapter, the latter
fact especially, provide the most eloquent proof possible that the conflict noted in the following
verses resulted, not from any Christian experience whatever, but from the tragic efforts of truly
noble souls (of whom Paul himself was numbered) who had diligently sought to PLEASE God
under the old institution.
All of the commentators who have APPLIED the latter words of this verse to the redeemed in
Christ have misunderstood the apostle. For example, Hodge has this: "Every Christian can adopt
the language of this verse."[12] But, pray tell how can it ever be accepted as fact that a true
Christian, one forgiven of all past sins, endowed with the Holy Spirit (conspicuously not mentioned
here), dead to sin, alive unto God, risen with Christ, walking in newness of life, possessing all

the end of the chapter) as a Christian experience; but Paul's thought here was retrospective, despite
the present tense. The author of Hebrews (probably the same apostle) used the present tense and
first person in Romans 6:1of that epistle accommodatively, as is undoubtedly done here.
A HISTORY teacher's instruction of a class studying the American Revolution might say of
Washington's winter at Jockey Hollow:
We are now with Washington's army west of the great swamp in New Jersey. Cold and hunger are
our enemies. Disease stalks us; desertion is increasing; and there is even mutiny.
In such a presentation, the first person present tense cannot indicate the present time at all; and we
are certain that Paul's present condition when he wrote Romans was absolutely not indicated by his
use of first person present tense in Romans 7:14ff.
But there is an even stronger reason for rejecting the APPLICATION of this latter part of Romans
7 to the Christian and the construing of these words as a description of the Christian's inner struggle
over sin. That reason is grounded in the magnificent scope and sweeping comprehension of the
word "NOW" inRomans 8:1, immediately after this passage. Paul's reverberating "now" in that place
imposes its antithesis "then" upon this whole passage. What Paul was speaking of here was a past
condition. He was speaking of the fruitless struggle of noble souls under the law of Moses who,
despite their efforts, found no justification thereunder. "THEN" is the word that flies like a banner
over this part of Romans. True, it is not spoken here. but it is more than implied; it is demanded by
the antithetical "now" that opens the eighth chapter.

to Jews under the law. The advocates of false teaching, if permitted to preempt this passage
through distortion of its meaning, use it to shore up the crumbling structure of their theory. For
example, note this:
It is plain, therefore, that Paul here means by THE LAW, the will of God as a rule of duty, no matter

118. how revealed. From this law, as prescribing the terms of our acceptance with God, Christ has
delivered us. It is the legal system, which says, "Do this and live," that Christ has abolished, and
introduced another, which says, "He that believes shall be saved."[13]
In these astounding words of Hodge, the scandal of the "faith only" heresy is concisely stated,
including its invariable corollary that even the benevolent terms of the gospel of the Lord Jesus,
constituting the ground of our acceptance with God, and delivered by the Christ himself @ that even
all this is abolished (!) by Jesus Christ. In such views as illustrated by the quotation above, Christ is
represented not merely as abolishing his own terms of entry into the eternal kingdom, but as
introducing "another" system. And what could that be? "He that believes shall be saved"! Of course,
that is nothing but a misquotation of Christ's words, as follows:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).

prevalent interpretation of Paul's words here as a picture of "Christian experience." No
interpretation, however plausible (and theirs is not even plausible), could be correct if it can be
made to support such a corrupt deduction as Hodge's "He that believes shall be saved." Such a
deduction is the noisome bubble that rises to the surface of the pond, betraying the rotten carcass
on the bottom.


personification of the legal Jew, the man who, being neither hardened in self@
righteousness, nor given over to a profane and carnal spirit, seeks sincerely to fulfill
the law without ever being successful in satisfying his conscience.[14]
The "large number of commentators" mentioned by Godet includes most of the Ante@Nicene Fathers
and a dozen other names of the most able commentators of a thousand years. Any thought that the
view advocated in this commentary is novel or unusual is erroneous. It is the view of making this
passage a description of Christian experience that is novel and opposed to thought which prevailed
for centuries before Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification by "faith only." How did the change
in style of interpreting this passage come about?
Godet affirmed that Augustine changed from the historical interpretation to the new position "after

Augustine's change came after the dispute with Pelagius, insisting that it came "long before the

this passage as a Christian experience received its first great impetus in the teachings of Augustine;
and thus the interpretation came at a date far too late (Augustine lived 354@430 A.D.) to be
persuasive. Unless a person is prepared to throw the rest of the New Testament away, along with
most of Romans, he simply cannot base a doctrine of salvation "by faith alone" on this epistle.
Upon the basis of considerations set forth above, the premise accepted here is that Paul, using the
example of such a person ever to live on earth. Who but Paul could have said that he had lived "in
all good conscience before God"?
[12] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 231.
[13] Ibid., p. 217.
[14] F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1970), p. 271.
[15] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 239.

119. HENRY 14@25, “Here is a description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the 
heart, between the law of God and the law of sin. And it is applicable two ways: - 1. To the 
struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate, in the person of whom it is 
supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the struggles that are in a renewed sanctified 
soul, but yet in a state of imperfection; as other apprehend. And a great controversy 
there is of which of these we are to understand the apostle here. So far does the evil 
prevail here, when he speaks of one sold under sin, doing it, not performing that which is 
good, that it seems difficult to apply it to the regenerate, who are described to walk not 
after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and yet so far does the good prevail in hating sin, 
consenting to the law, delighting in it, serving the law of God with the mind, that it is 
more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate that are dead in trespasses and sins.
I. Apply it to the struggles that are felt in a convinced soul, that is yet in a state of sin, 
knows his Lord's will, but does it not, approves the things that are more excellent, being 
instructed out of the law, and yet lives in the constant breach of it, Rom_2:17-23. Though 
he has that within him that witnesses against the sin he commits, and it is not without a 
great deal of reluctancy that he does commit it, the superior faculties striving against it, 
natural conscience warning against it before it is committed and smiting for it 
afterwards, yet the man continues a slave to his reigning lusts. It is not thus with every 
unregenerate man, but with those only that are convinced by the law, but not changed by 
the gospel. The apostle had said (Rom_6:14), Sin shall not have dominion, because you 
are not under the law, but under grace, for the proof of which he here shows that a man 
under the law, and not under grace, may be, and is, under the dominion of sin. The law 
may discover sin, and convince of sin, but it cannot conquer and subdue sin, witness the 
predominancy of sin in many that are under very strong legal convictions. It discovers 
the defilement, but will not wash it off. It makes a man weary and heavy laden 
(Mat_11:28), burdens him with his sin; and yet, if rested in, it yields no help towards the 
shaking off of that burden; this is to be had only in Christ. The law may make a man cry 
out, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me? and yet leave him thus fettered 
and captivated, as being too weak to deliver him (Rom_8:3), give him a spirit of bondage 
to fear, Rom_8:15. Now a soul advanced thus far by the law is in a fair way towards a 
state of liberty by Christ, though many rest here and go no further. Felix trembled, but 
never came to Christ. It is possible for a man to go to hell with his eyes open (Num_24:3, 
Num_24:4), illuminated with common convictions, and to carry about with him a self-
accusing conscience, even in the service of the devil. He may consent to the law that it is 
good, delight to know God's ways (as they, Isa_58:2), may have that within him that 
witnesses against sin and for holiness; and yet all this overpowered by the reigning love 
of sin. Drunkards and unclean persons have some faint desires to leave off their sins, and 
yet persist in them notwithstanding, such is the impotency and such the insufficiency of 
their convictions. Of such as these there are many that will needs have all this 
understood, and contend earnestly for it: though it is very hard to imagine why, if the 
apostle intended this, he should speak all along in his own person; and not only so, but in 
the present tense. Of his own state under conviction he had spoken at large, as of a thing 
past (Rom_7:7, etc.): I died; the commandment I found to be unto death; and if here he 
speaks of the same state as his present state, and the condition he was now in, surely he 
did not intend to be so understood: and therefore,
II. It seems rather to be understood of the struggles that are maintained between grace 
and corruption in sanctified souls. That there are remainders of indwelling corruption, 
even where there is a living principle of grace, is past dispute; that this corruption is daily 

120. breaking forth in sins of infirmity (such as are consistent with a state of grace) is no less 
certain. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 1Jo_1:8, 1Jo_1:10. That true 
grace strives against these sins and corruptions, does not allow of them, hates them, 
mourns over them, groans under them as a burden, is likewise certain (Gal_5:17): The 
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary 
the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. These are the 
truths which, I think, are contained in this discourse of the apostle. And his design is 
further to open the nature of sanctification, that it does not attain to a sinless perfection 
in this life; and therefore to quicken us to, and encourage us in, our conflicts with 
remaining corruptions. Our case is not singular, that which we do sincerely strive 
against, shall not be laid to our charge, and through grace the victory is sure at last. The 
struggle here is like that between Jacob and Esau in the womb, between the Canaanites 
and Israelites in the land, between the house of Saul and the house of David; but great is 
the truth and will prevail. Understanding it thus, we may observe here,
1. What he complains of - the remainder of indwelling corruptions, which he here 
speaks of, to show that the law is insufficient to justify even a regenerate man, that the 
best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him 
according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, 
which cannot fulfil the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this 
discourse shows how much Paul's heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep 
his sentiments were. Observe the particulars of this complaint. (1.) I am carnal, sold 
under sin, Rom_7:14. He speaks of the Corinthians as carnal, 1Co_3:1. Even where there 
is spiritual life there are remainders of carnal affections, and so far a man may be sold 
under sin; he does not sell himself to work wickedness, as Ahab did (1Ki_21:25), but he 
was sold by Adam when he sinned and fell - sold, as a poor slave that does his master's 
will against his own will - sold under sin, because conceived in iniquity and born in sin. 
(2.) What I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I, Rom_7:15. And to the same 
purport, Rom_7:19, Rom_7:21, When I would do good, evil is present with me. Such 
was the strength of corruptions, that he could not attain that perfection in holiness which 
he desired and breathed after. Thus, while he was pressing forward towards perfection, 
yet he acknowledges that he had not already attained, neither was already perfect, 
Phi_3:12. Fain he would be free from all sin, and perfectly do the will of God, such was 
his settled judgment; but his corrupt nature drew him another way: it was like a clog, 
that checked and kept him down when he would have soared upward, like the bias in a 
bowl, which, when it is thrown straight, yet draws it aside. (3.) In me, that is in my flesh, 
dwelleth no good, Rom_7:18. Here he explains himself concerning the corrupt nature, 
which he calls flesh; and as far as that goes there is no good to be expected, any more 
than one would expect good corn growing upon a rock, or on the sand which is by the 
sea-side. As the new nature, as far as that goes, cannot commit sin (1Jo_3:9), so the 
flesh, the old nature, as far as that goes, cannot perform a good duty. How should it? For 
the flesh serveth the law of sin (Rom_7:25), it is under the conduct and government of 
that law; and, while it is so, it is not likely to do any good. The corrupt nature is 
elsewhere called flesh (Gen_6:3, Joh_3:6); and, though there may be good things 
dwelling in those that have this flesh, yet, as far as the flesh goes, there is no good, the 
flesh is not a subject capable of any good. (4.) I see another law in my members warring 
against the law of my mind, Rom_7:23. The corrupt and sinful inclination is here 
compared to a law, because it controlled and checked him in his good motions. It is said 
to be seated in his members, because, Christ having set up his throne in his heart, it was 
only the rebellious members of the body that were the instruments of sin - in the 
sensitive appetite; or we may take it more generally for all that corrupt nature which is 
the seat not only of sensual but of more refined lusts. This wars against the law of the 

121. mind, the new nature; it draws the contrary way, drives on a contrary interest, which 
corrupt disposition and inclination are as great a burden and grief to the soul as the 
worst drudgery and captivity could be. It brings me into captivity. To the same purport 
(Rom_7:25), With the flesh I serve the law of sin; that is, the corrupt nature, the 
unregenerate part, is continually working towards sin. (5.) His general complaint we 
have in Rom_7:24, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death? The thing he complains of is a body of death; either the body of flesh, which 
is a mortal dying body (while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with 
corruption; when we are dead, we shall be freed from sin, and not before), or the body of 
sin, the old man, the corrupt nature, which tends to death, that is, to the ruin of the soul. 
Or, comparing it to a dead body, the touch of which was by the ceremonial law defiling, if 
actual transgressions be dead works (Heb_9:14), original corruption is a dead body. It 
was as troublesome to Paul as if he had had a dead body tied to him, which he must have 
carried about with him. This made him cry out, O wretched man that I am! A man that 
had learned in every state to be content yet complains thus of his corrupt nature. Had I 
been required to speak of Paul, I should have said, “O blessed man that thou art, an 
ambassador of Christ, a favourite of heaven, a spiritual father of thousands!” But in his 
own account he was a wretched man, because of the corruption of nature, because he was 
not so good as he fain would be, had not yet attained, neither was already perfect. Thus 
miserably does he complain. Who shall deliver me? He speaks like one that was sick of it, 
that would give any thing to be rid of it, looks to the right hand and to the left for some 
friend that would part between him and his corruptions. The remainders of indwelling 
sin are a very grievous burden to a gracious soul.
2. What he comforts himself with. The case was sad, but there were some allays. Three 
things comforted him: - 
(1.) That his conscience witnessed for him that he had a good principle ruling and 
prevailing in him, notwithstanding. It is well when all does not go one way in the soul. 
The rule of this good principle which he had was the law of God, to which he here speaks 
of having a threefold regard, which is certainly to be found in all that are sanctified, and 
no others. [1.] I consent unto the law that it is good, Rom_7:16, sumphēmi - I give my 
vote to the law; here is the approbation of the judgment. Wherever there is grace there is 
not only a dread of the severity of the law, but a consent to the goodness of the law. “It is 
a good in itself, it is good for me.” This is a sign that the law is written in the heart, that 
the soul is delivered into the mould of it. To consent to the law is so far to approve of it as 
not to wish it otherwise constituted than it is. The sanctified judgment not only concurs 
to the equity of the law, but to the excellency of it, as convinced that a conformity to the 
law is the highest perfection of human nature, and the greatest honour and happiness we 
are capable of. [2.] I delight in the law of God after the inward man, Rom_7:22. His 
conscience bore witness to a complacency in the law. He delighted not only in the 
promises of the word, but in the precepts and prohibitions of the word; 
:Xm“_cg.”a
expresses a becoming delight. He did herein concur in affection with all the saints. All 
that are savingly regenerate or born again do truly delight in the law of God, delight to 
know it, to do it - cheerfully submit to the authority of it, and take a complacency in that 
submission, never better pleased than when heart and life are in the strictest conformity 
to the law and will of God. After the inward man; that is, First, The mind or rational 
faculties, in opposition to the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh. The soul is the 
inward man, and that is the seat of gracious delights, which are therefore sincere and 
serious, but secret; it is the renewing of the inward man, 
2Co_4:16. Secondly, The new 
nature. The new man is called the inner man (Eph_3:16), the hidden man of the heart, 
1Pe_3:4. Paul, as far as he was sanctified, had a delight in the law of God. [3.] With the 

122. mind I myself serve the law of God, Rom_7:25. It is not enough to consent to the law, 
and to delight in the law, but we must serve the law; our souls must be entirely delivered 
up into the obedience of it. Thus it was with Paul's mind; thus it is with every sanctified 
renewed mind; this is the ordinary course and way; thitherward goes the bent of the soul. 
I myself - 
.Xuc:av6|, plainly intimating that he speaks in his own person, and not in the 
person of another.
(2.) That the fault lay in that corruption of his nature which he did really bewail and 
strive against: It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. This he mentions 
twice (
Rom_7:17, Rom_7:20), not as an excuse for the guilt of his sin (it is enough to 
condemn us, if we were under the law, that the sin which does the evil dwelleth in us), 
but as a salvo for his evidences, that he might not sink in despair, but take comfort from 
the covenant of grace, which accepts the willingness of the spirit, and has provided 
pardon for the weakness of the flesh. He likewise herein enters a protestation against all 
that which this indwelling sin produced. Having professed his consent to the law of God, 
he here professes his dissent from the law of sin. “It is not I; I disown the fact; it is 
against my mind that it is done.” As when in the senate the major part are bad, and carry 
every thing the wrong way, it is indeed the act of the senate, but the honest party strive 
against it, bewail what is done, and enter their protestation against it; so that it is no 
more they that do it. - Dwelleth in me, as the Canaanites among the Israelites, though 
they were put under tribute: dwelleth in me, and is likely to dwell there, while I live.
(3.) His great comfort lay in Jesus Christ (Rom_7:25): I thank God, through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. In the midst of his complaints he breaks out into praises. It is a special 
remedy against fears and sorrows to be much in praise: many a poor drooping soul hath 
found it so. And, in all our praises, this should be the burden of the son, “Blessed be God 
for Jesus Christ.” Who shall deliver me? says he (Rom_7:24), as one at a loss for help. At 
length he finds an all-sufficient friend, even Jesus Christ. When we are under the sense 
of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall see reason to bless God through 
Christ (for, as he is the mediator of all our prayers, so he is of all our praises) - to bless 
God for Christ; it is he that stands between us and the wrath due to us for this sin. If it 
were not for Christ, this iniquity that dwells in us would certainly be our ruin. He is our 
advocate with the Father, and through him God pities, and spares, and pardons, and lays 
not our iniquities to our charge. It is Christ that has purchased deliverance for us in due 
time. Through Christ death will put an end to all these complaints, and waft us to an 
eternity which we shall spend without sin or sigh. Blessed be God that giveth us this 
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
HAWKER 14E25, “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under 
sin. (15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, 
that do I. (16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 
(17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (18) For I know that 
in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but 
how to perform that which is good I find not. (19) For the good that I would I do not: but 
the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that 
do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil 
is present with me. (22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (23) But I 
see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me 

123. into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (24) O wretched man that I am! 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (25) I thank God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law 
of sin.
I have not interrupted the Reader with making observations as we have passed through 
those verses, for they are too plain to need any; but in the close, I would now gather the 
whole into one view, and ask, if there can be a more humiliating account given of human 
nature, than what the Apostle hath here opened of himself? Let the Reader notice the 
strength of the expressions, sold under sin; consenting unto the law that it is good, but in 
the same moment acting in direct opposition to it; delighting in the law of God after the 
inward man, but with the flesh serving the law of sin. Some have thought, (that is, such 
as were never taught, as Paul was, the plague of their own heart), that the Apostle could 
not be speaking of himself, but of some other person : or, if of himself, that he referred 
back to the days of his unregeneracy. But, nothing can be more plain, than that it is 
Paul’s own history he writes, and his own experience in the very moment of writing; and 
which the Holy Ghost taught him to instruct the Church concerning. And sure I am, that 
every child of God, savingly called of God, and long taught of God, as Paul was when he 
thus committed to writing what daily passed in his heart, will not only bear testimony to 
the same; but bless God the Holy Ghost for the history, for it is most precious.
Let any, yea, let every child of God, in whose spirit the Holy Ghost bears witness that he 
is born of God, examine what passeth daily in the workings of his own breast, and see 
whether be is not conscious, as Paul was, of the two different principles by which he is 
directed. The I, the Apostle speaks of, that is, the unrenewed body of sin and death, 
which is carnal, and sold under sin: and the I, that is the inner man, which is regenerated 
and renewed day by day! Surely there is not a man alive, truly born of God, and savingly 
called by the Holy Ghost, but must be conscious of those two distinct and opposite 
principles in himself. And indeed the Holy Ghost hath taught the Church to judge of his 
Almighty work of regeneration, by this very conflict between nature and grace, between 
flesh and spirit. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: 
and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would, 
Gal_5:17. So far is this statement the Apostle hath made of himself to be supposed as 
referring to the days of his unregeneracy, that until he was regenerate he had no 
consciousness of any warfare, neither indeed was there in his life, or can there be in any 
man’s life, while remaining in the state of an unawakened nature. Paul saith himself in 
this very Chapter, that he was alive once, before the commandment came in this 
convincing light in which he saw it by regeneration. It was then only, when brought 
under the teachings of God the Spirit, that the commandment came, and all Paul’s self-
righteousness fell to the ground!
Pause, Reader! and take a leisurely review of the whole. Here is the great Apostle Paul, 
mourning and groaning over a body of sin and death; in which he declares, dwelt no 
good thing. He had been savingly converted, and miraculously called by the Lord himself 
before this, for more than twenty years. He had, during that time, been caught up to the 
third heaven, and heard unspeakable words, 2Co_12:2. He had been called by Christ, as 
a chosen vessel, to bear the Lord’s name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children 
of Israel, Act_9:15. And he had been especially ordained to the ministry by the Holy 
Ghost, Act_8:2. Such was the man, whose history we have been reading in this Chapter. 
And what is the sum and substance to be gathered from the whole under divine teaching, 
but this: (and which most plainly the Lord the Spirit’ designed for the instruction of the 
Church from it:) all the Lord’s people, after all their attainments, are in themselves 
nothing. In the Lord alone have we righteousness and strength! It is very blessed to learn 

124. our own nothingness, that we may the better know how to value Christ’s all-sufficiency!
We must not conclude our view of the Apostle here, without first noticing the lamentable 
cry he put up, in the contemplation of his sinful nature. Oh! wretched man that I am, 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? He did not thus exclaim, as if at the 
time unconscious how, or by whom, he should be delivered from it. For he immediately 
adds, I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And long before this, he had told the 
Churches of his safety in Christ. He knew whom he had believed. His hope in Christ was 
blessed. His crown of righteousness was always in prospect before him, Php_1:20-21; 
Tit_2:13; 2Ti_4:6-8. But, while he was perfectly assured of his everlasting safety in 
Christ, he could not but daily mourn under the remains of in-dwelling corruption, which 
followed him as the shadow doth the substance. There is a great beauty in the Apostle’s 
expression, in calling sin the body of this death, if it be as hath been said, that Paul then 
writing as he did to the Romans, alluded to a well-known custom among that people, 
who in cases of murder, punished the murderer by fastening the body of the person he 
had killed to his own; so that he was compelled to drag it about with him wherever he 
went. It lay down with him, and he raised it with him when he arose: so that it haunted 
his guilty conscience, and poisoned the air he breathed, by day and night. And such is the 
case of sin. For, every sinner is a soul-murderer, for he hath by sin destroyed himself. 
Hos_13:9. And, when God the Spirit hath convinced of sin, of righteousness, and of 
judgment, every child of God, made thoroughly acquainted, as Paul was, with the plague 
of his own heart, is conscious of carrying about with him a body of death; and, from the 
breakings forth of sin in the unrenewed part, is haunted daily with the spectre of his own 
creating, and in breathing the effluvia of his own corruption. And although, like Paul, he 
knows his deliverance to be com pleat in Christ; yet while he remains in the present 
time-state of the Church, he groans under the burden of a body of sin, which will never 
cease under one form or other, manifesting forth its in-bred evil, until it drops into the 
dust. Reader! these are blessed discoveries, however humiliating. They do indeed damp 
the pride of the Pharisee, and contradict the doctrine of what some men teach, but no 
man ever found in his own heart inherent holiness. But they endear Christ. They preach 
daily the necessity of coming to him the last hour of the believer’s life, as he came the 
first hour of his conversion. They prove, yea, practically prove, that salvation, from 
beginning to end, is all of grace. They give God all the glory, and cause the soul to lay low 
in the dust before God. So Paul was commissioned to teach the Church. And so Paul 
found. To win Christ and be found in him, Php_3:8-14.
15. I do not understand what I do. For what I
want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
3 TlRl lTstln!2lrMnn2vnb7nWqbvcn4fGb4q7nv4nvL47cn(Lo hold this view that a
statement like this can only be "The natural result of the union of a partially

125. enlightened conscience with a thoroughly deprived heart, "says John Brown. When
the opposition denies this they bring forth quotes from heathen authors who make
similar statements. Two of these come from the list which Adam Clarke gives.
      Ovid wrote, "My reason this, my passion that persuades;
                           I see the right, and I approve it too;
                           Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.
               
      Euripides, "But I am overcome by sin,
And I well understand the evil which I presume to commit.
Passion, however, is more powerful than by reason;
Which is the cause of the greatest evils to mortal men.
How could this verse possibly be the experience of St. Paul in his Christian state
when even the enlightened heathen have attained it?
 tqtUt .htd'wtoBddh:p,dp,dfvDuH,dr:sp,lpvidT45TspTice of struggle between the
old and new man. It is universal experience of Christians that they fail to
accomplish what their spirit is willing to do. As for the heathen quotations, there is
a misunderstanding. It is true that the heathen does what he knows to be wrong,
but his inconsistency arises from his love of the evil, whereas Paul hates the evil he
does. The man who here "does what he hates" is one who has so felt the absolute
sanctity of God and of His law as to see sin in the slightest deviations of will and
affection from its standard. See Calvins commentary on Romans page 263 for a
complete discussion of the difference between the heathen quotes and the Christian
struggle.
MIDDLE VIEW: Some who hold to a middle position say that Paul is describing a
man who is in a transition state between the unregenerate and the regenerate. The
Spirit of God is working in him for his conversion, but the man is pulled back from
this decision by his desires for evil. He doesn't know which way to turnEto sin or to
God.
Another middle position which leans toward the regenerate view is this: The man
is a believer who is convicted for holiness after his conversion. He realizes he is not
walking in holiness, and seeks deliverance from sin by compelling the flesh to
conform to God's law, which is an impossible state. It is a Christian trying in his
own power to become sanctified.
Life is filled with things we do not understand. Like, why can't a little child walk
around a puddle when they are wearing their new shoes? Why is everything I try to
fix put together by the Incredible Hulk, so that nothing will come loose? Or what
about the songE"I don't know why I love you like I do, I don't know why, I just
do."Paul did not know all, and this was a comfort to Swindoll, and should be to all
of us. There are mysteries about all of us that are hard to understand. On the other
hand, we do stupid and sinful things because we do not understand until after the
folly is done. Jim Baker, for example writes of his fall into sin:

126. "I knew that what I was doing went directly against everything I believed as a
Christian. I had never cheated on my wife in all our years of marriage. Jessica
Hahn, however, seemed quite comfortable with the situation. I simply abandoned
myself to the moment. We did not make love; we had sex. When it was over, I
quickly left the room, and in a daze, hurried to the elevator and pressed the button
marking the eighth floor. The winter afternoon sun was already beginning to slide
down on the horizon as I stepped inside my room. I was horrified. Oh, God! What
have I done? I had not considered the consequences of my absurd attempt to make
Tammy Faye jealous. I had not even paused to think of the potential ramifications
of my actions while I was giving in to the temptation of having sex with a woman
other than my wife. I had simply reacted. I had opened the door to attack on the
ministry I headed, my family, and me personally. Worse yet, the devil had not made
me do any of it; I had done it of my own stubborn will. I disrobed and immediately
stepped into the shower, turning the water on as hot as I could stand it. I never felt
so dirty in all my life. Maybe if I make the water hotter, it will wash it all away, I
thought.
EE Jim Bakker, I Was Wrong, (elson, 1996), p. 21.
Charles Finney says that men often desire what they do not choose. The desire and
the will are opposed. I desire the body of another, but I will choose to be faithful to
my mate. The choice is what determines my destiny. The desire often makes me go
against my will, and I let feelings override my intellect and persuade the will to
choose what I wish I would not have chosen. The Christian life is often a civil war
between the self that says no and the one that says yes. We are not just one, we are
several in one.
Within my earthly temple there's a crowd.
There's one of us that's humble; one that's proud,
There's one that's brokenEhearted for his sins,
And one who, unrepentant, sits and grins.
There's one who loves his neighbor as himself,
And who cares for nought but fame and pelf.
From much corroding care would I be free
If once I could determine which is me.
Douglas Gwinn has collected a host of quotes giving the views of many godly
authors on the site, I am quoting a few of them below to show the common view
that this passage does apply to the believer.
Donald Grey Barnhouse, “The law has entered and done its work in the believer. He
still possesses the Adamic nature even though he has been declared justified and
joined to Christ in His resurrection . . . . When we are born again new desires are
implanted along with the divine nature. However intense these new desires may be,
within ourselves is still a principle that is contrary to the will of God; this principle
of evil, which opposes every claim of God, hinders and impairs every effort to please
Him . . . . Even though the believer can live in triumph over eruptions of sin, the old

127. carnal nature is still within, contaminating everything . . . . my illustration in no way
supports the false doctrine of the eradication of the old nature . . . . The believer in
Christ is given power to overcome the outbreaks of Adamic nature, but its presence
constantly contaminates his life on earth.”
C.K. Barrett expresses the paradox like this: “the Christian . . . has died with Christ
to sin, and been raised with him to live a new life. Yet true as this is, it is still
necessary for the apostle to urge him to do what he has already done EE to die to sin,
and to offer himself to God as one whom God has raised from the dead. He is, and
he is not, free from sin; he lives, and he does not live, for God; he is at the same time
a righteous man and a sinner. This ambiguous personal position reflects the
eschatological situation. The Age to Come has dawned, in the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus; but the present age has not passed. The two exist uneasily side
by side, and Christians still look earnestly for the redemption of the body (8:23),
knowing that they have been saved in hope (8:24) . . . ourselves also groan inwardly,
while we still look forward to our adoption as God's children, the redemption of our
body (8:23).”
James Montgomery Boice , “ Some have maintained that there is no conflict within
the Christian because of the supposition that the old nature governed by the flesh
has been eradicated. But this is not true according to this and other passages.
 .k3p.iiHekBhe2ihvBeavek1elhV1’heamVph.vamciHev3lT3ed as the Christian learns by
grace to walk in the Spirit. But it is never eliminated. So the Christian is never
released from the necessity of consciously choosing to go in God's way. There is no
escape from the need to depend on God's grace “
Henry G. Bosch, “ Being a Christian does not mean that we will be carried through
life on "flowery beds of ease." As members of a fallen race, we are subjected to
sickness, accidents, and tragedy like everyone else. Furthermore, we encounter the
added struggle of spiritual conflict with the Evil One and the lifelong battle against
our own sinful tendencies. Yet the Lord always sustains us through each trial and
works to bring good out of the most trying circumstances.”
xwK FyCe;
For that which I do - That is, the evil which I do, the sin of which I am 
conscious, and which troubles me.
I allow not - I do not approve; I do not wish it; the prevailing bent of my inclinations 
and purposes is against it. Greek, “I know not;” see the margin. The word “know,” 
however, is sometimes used in the sense of approving, 
Rev_2:24, “Which have not 
known (approved) the depths of Satan;” compare Psa_101:4, I will not know a wicked 
person.” Jer_1:5.
For what I would - That which I approve; and which is my prevailing and 
established desire. What I would wish always to do.
But what I hate - What I disapprove of: what is contrary to my judgment; my 
prevailing inclination; my established principles of conduct.
That do I - Under the influence of sinful propensities, and carnal inclinations and 
desires. This represents the strong native propensity to sin; and even the power of 
corrupt propensity under the restraining influence of the gospel. On this remarkable and 

128. important passage we may observe,
(1) That the prevailing propensity; the habitual fixed inclination of the mind of the 
Christian, is to do right. The evil course is hated, the right course is loved. This is the 
characteristic of a pious mind. It distinguishes a holy man from a sinner.
(2) The evil which is done is disapproved; is a source of grief; and the habitual desire of 
the mind is to avoid it, and be pure. This also distinguishes the Christian from the sinner.
(3) There is no need of being embarrassed here with any metaphysical difficulties or 
inquiries how this can be; for.
(a) it is in fact the experience of all Christians. The habitual, fixed inclination and 
desire of their minds is to serve God. They have a fixed abhorrence of sin; and yet they 
are conscious of imperfection, and error, and sin, that is the source of uneasiness and 
trouble. The strength of natural passion may in an unguarded moment overcome them. 
The power of long habits of previous thoughts may annoy them. A man who was an 
infidel before his conversion, and whose mind was filled with scepticism, and cavils, and 
blasphemy, will find the effect of his former habits of thinking lingering in his mind, and 
annoying his peace for years. These thoughts will start up with the rapidity of lightning. 
Thus, it is with every vice and every opinion. It is one of the effects of habit. “The very 
passage of an impure thought through the mind leaves pollution behind it,” and where 
sin has been long indulged, it leaves its withering, desolating effect on the soul long after 
conversion, and produces that state of conflict with which every Christian is familiar.
(b) An effect somewhat similar is felt by all people. All are conscious of doing that, 
under the excitement of passion and prejudice, which their conscience and better 
judgment disapprove. A conflict thus exists, which is attended with as much 
metaphysical difficulty as the struggle in the Christian’s mind referred to here.
(c) The same thing was observed and described in the writings of the heathen. Thus, 
Xenophon (Cyrop. vi. 1), Araspes, the Persian, says, in order to excuse his treasonable 
designs,” Certainly I must have two souls; for plainly it is not one and the same which is 
both evil and good; and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to do it. Plainly 
then, there are two souls; and when the good one prevails, then it does good; and when 
the evil one predominates, then it does evil.” So also Epictetus (Enchixid. ii. 26) says, “He 
that sins does not do what he would, but what he would not, that he does.” With this 
passage it would almost seem that Paul was familiar, and had his eye on it when he 
wrote. So also the well-known passage from Ovid, Meta. vii. 9.
Aliudque Cupido,
Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque,
Deteriora sequor.
“Desire prompts to one thing, but the mind persuades to another. I see the good, and 
approve it, and yet pursue the wrong.” - See other passages of similar import quoted in 
Grotius and Tholuck.
CLARKE, “For, that which I do, I allow not, etc. - The first clause of this verse is a 
general assertion concerning the employment of the person in question in the state 
which the apostle calls carnal, and sold under sin. The Greek word 
κατεργαξο-αι which is 
here translated I do, means a work which the agent continues to perform till it is 
finished, and is used by the apostle, Phi_2:12, to denote the continued employment of 
God’s saints in his service to the end of their lives. Work Out your own salvation; the 

129. word here denotes an employment of a different kind; and therefore the man who now 
feels the galling dominion of sin says, What I am continually labouring at I allow not, 1Gy
γινωσκω, I do not acknowledge to be right, just, holy, or profitable.
But what I hate, that do I - I am a slave, and under the absolute control of my 
tyrannical master: I hate his service, but am obliged to work his will. Who, without 
blaspheming, can assert that the apostle is speaking this of a man in whom the Spirit of 
the Lord dwells? From Rom_7:7 to this one the apostle, says Dr. Taylor, denotes the Jew 
in the flesh by a single I; here, he divides that I into two I’s, or figurative persons; 
representing two different and opposite principles which were in him. The one I, or 
principle, assents to the law that it is good, and wills and chooses what the other does not 
practice, Rom_7:16. This principle he expressly tells us, Rom_7:22, is the inward man; 
the law of the mind, Rom_7:23; the mind, or rational faculty, Rom_7:25; for he could 
find no other inward man, or law of the mind, but the rational faculty, in a person who 
was carnal and sold under sin. The other I, or principle, transgresses the law, Rom_7:23, 
and does those things which the former principle allows not. This principle he expressly 
tells us, Rom_7:18, is the flesh, the law in the members, or sensual appetite, Rom_7:23; 
and he concludes in the last verse, that these two principles were opposite to each other; 
therefore it is evident that those two principles, residing and counteracting each other in 
the same person; are reason and lust, or sin that dwells in us. And it is very easy to 
distinguish these two I’s, or principles, in every part of this elegant description of 
iniquity, domineering over the light and remonstrances of reason. For instance, 
Rom_7:17 : Now then, it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me. The I he 
speaks of here is opposed to indwelling or governing sin; and therefore plainly denotes 
the principle of reason, the inward man, or law of the mind; in which, I add, a measure of 
the light of the Spirit of God shines, in order to show the sinfulness of sin. These two 
different principles he calls, one flesh, and the other spirit, Gal_5:17; where he speaks of 
their contrariety in the same manner that he does here.
And we may give a probable reason why the apostle dwells so long upon the struggle 
and opposition between these two principles; it appears intended to answer a tacit but 
very obvious objection. The Jew might allege: “But the law is holy and spiritual; and I 
assent to it as good, as a right rule of action, which ought to be observed; yea, I esteem it 
highly, I glory and rest in it, convinced of its truth and excellency. And is not this enough 
to constitute the law a sufficient principle of sanctification?” The apostle answers, “No; 
wickedness is consistent with a sense of truth. A man may assent to the best rule of 
action, and yet still be under the dominion of lust and sin; from which nothing can 
deliver him but a principle and power proceeding from the fountain of life.” The 
sentiment in this verse may be illustrated by quotations from the ancient heathens; many 
of whom felt themselves in precisely the same state, (and expressed it in nearly the same 
language), which some most monstrously tell us was the state of this heavenly apostle, 
when vindicating the claims of the Gospel against those of the Jewish ritual! Thus Ovid 
describes the conduct of a depraved man: - 
Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido,
Mens aliud suadet.  Video meliora, proboque;
Deteriora sequor.
Ovid, Met. lib. vii. ver. 19.
My reason this, my passion that persuades;
I see the right, and I approve it too;
Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.

130.  - indignum facinus! nunc ego et
Illam scelestam esse, et me miserum sentio:
Et taedet: et amore ardeo: et prudens, sciens,
Vivus, vidensque pereo: nec quid agam scio.
 - Terent. Eun. ver. 70.
An unworthy act! Now I perceive that she is wicked, and I am wretched. 
I burn with love, and am vexed at it. Although prudent, and intelligent, 
and active, and seeing, I perish; neither do I know what to do.
Sed quia mente minus validus, quam corpore toto,
Quae nocuere, sequar; fugiam, quae profore credam.
Hor. Ep. lib. i. E. 8, ver. 7.
More in my mind than body lie my pains:
Whate’er may hurt me, I with joy pursue;
Whate’er may do me good, with horror view.
Francis.
}yO;aI,Caga9M,Cq,LzLa4!a"OAO;a9M,Cq,LO;Lra,AA,aJ,q4C"zG,;ak)A4Lagq;raga
MOLa"OAO;ra4!ay4;O;raJ,;agM)a"OAO;ray4;O;.
Arrian. Epist. ii. 26.
For, truly, he who sins does not will sin, but wishes to walk uprightly: yet it is manifest 
that what he wills he doth not; and what he wills not he doth.
 - ,AA,aL;JzM,;aJ,J4;Pr
~,;aM,L",LzaMOLra4H,aq4AM)GzaJ,J,
Θυ-οςδεκρεισσ?ντωνε-ωνβουλευ-ατων,
?σπερ-εγιστωναιτοςκακωνβροτοις.
 - Eurip. Med. v. 1077.
 - But I am overcome by sin,
And I well understand the evil which I presume to commit.
Passion, however, is more powerful than my reason;
Which is the cause of the greatest evils to mortal men.
Thus we find that enlightened heathens, both among the Greeks and Romans, had that 
same kind of religious experience which some suppose to be, not only the experience of 
St. Paul in his best state, but to be even the standard of Christian attainments! See more 
examples in Wetstein.
The whole spirit of the sentiment is well summed up and expressed by St. Chrysostom: 
gq,Laq;L4PaOy;"!MzMOLraO;qO κωλυω-εθα,αιρεται-αλλοντηςεπιθυ-ιας?φλοξ. If we lust after 
any thing which is afterwards prohibited, the flame of this desire burns the more fiercely.

131. GILL, “For that which I do, I allow not,.... The apostle having cleared the law from 
the charge of being the cause either of sin or death, and taken the blame to himself, 
proceeds to give an account of the struggle and combat he found in himself between the 
flesh and spirit; "that which I do, I allow not". That which he did was evil, since he 
allowed not of it; but this is to be understood not of any notorious crime committed by 
him, and repeated again and again; nor of a sinful course of life, for before his conversion 
he was not a profane man, but externally moral; and after his conversion, had his 
conversation in the world by the grace of God in righteousness and holiness; a vicious 
course of life being contrary to the grace of God implanted in him, and the doctrines of 
grace professed by him; but of internal lusts, the workings of corruptions in his heart, 
and which are real actions of the mind, together with the various frailties and infirmities 
of life: when that apostle says that what he did, γινωσκω, "I know not": his meaning is, 
not that he was utterly ignorant of them, of their nature and operations; that he was 
insensible of their motions, and unconcerned about them; for his sense of them, and 
concern for them, are expressed by him in the strongest terms, "I know", "I find", "I see", 
"O wretched man", &c. Rom_7:18; but either that the efforts and effects of sin in him 
were so sadden, and at an unawares, that he was sometimes overtaken and held captive, 
before he knew well where he was, or, what he was doing; or the sense is, that he had not 
a full knowledge of the evil of his heart, the corruptions of his nature, nor did he 
understand all his infirmities and the errors of his life; or else the meaning is, I own it 
not as right, but confess it to be wrong, I do not acknowledge these actions as the 
productions of the new man, they are alien to him, but as the deeds of the old man; or 
rather, "I do not approve" of them, I dislike, abhor, and detest them; I cannot excuse or 
palliate them, but must condemn them; so words of knowledge in the Hebrew language 
are expressive of love, liking, and approbation; see Psa_1:6; on which last text, "I know 
him", says Jarchi, y iIyenFksyJ(.y(Ay.TkylHiWXHWkyhpylh[kJsyhayHyWTaHAkykTWakAA([kyhpyA.ahiWy
Hppkv.(hiLyHiOyAhyTkaksywy)ihdyih.sywyOhyih.yl()ksylh[ksyHiOyHWWah[kyhpy.TkAky.T(iWAsyhaywyOhyih.y
JHllhdJyhpy.TkmsyHiOy(iOXlWkymKAklpy(iy.TkmsywylhH.Tky.TkmyHiOymKAklpyphay.TkmLyHiOy(Ay.T(Ay.Hl)(iWy
l()kyHiyXiakWkikaH.kymHiƒyvHiy(.y\ky.ThXWT.y.TH.y.TkyHWhA.lkyAWkH)AyhpyT(mAklpyHAyXiakWkikaH.ksy
hayakWakAki.AyAXvTyHymHiƒy
phaydTH.ywydhXlOsy.TH.yOhywyih.phaydTH.ywydhXlOsy.TH.yOhywyih.phaydTH.ywydhXlOsy.TH.yOhywyih.phaydTH.ywydhXlOsy.TH.yOhywyih.LydTH.yTkyOkA(akOyHiOyd(llkOydHAyWhhOsy.ThXWTyTkyO(Oy(.yih.LyHiOyAhy
.Tky„XlWH.ky…H.(iy[kaA(hiyakHOAsyJphayih.y.TkyWhhOydT(vTywydhXlOsywyOhJRyHiOyAhy.TkyikT.yvlHXAksy
J\X.y.Tkyk[(lydT(vTywyTH.ksywyOhJRyHiOydTH.ydHAy.TH.ƒyTkydhXlOyTH[kyTHOyT(Ay.ThXWT.AyHldHKAy
kmWlhKkOyH\hX.y.Tky\kA.y.T(iWALyTkydhXlOyTH[kyTHOyT(AyHppkv.(hiAyvhi.(iXHllKyHiOyHlhikyAk.yhiy
`hOsyxTa(A.syHiOy.Tky.T(iWAyhpyHih.TkaydhalOLyTkydhXlOyTkydHAyOkA(ahXAy.hy)kkWy.TkydThlkylHdyhpy
`hOsyHiOyOhy.TkydThlkyd(llyhpy`hOsyHiOyl([kyd(.ThX.yA(isyHiOyHAy.TkyHiWklAyOhy(iyTkH[kiRyihdyAXvTy
Hyd(llyHAy.T(Ay(Ayik[kay.hy\kyphXiOy(iyXiakWkikaH.kyWkaAhiALy.T(Ay(Aypahmy`hOsyHiOy.TkyWhdkayhpyT(Ay
WaHvkRydTkiyTkyAHKAyTkyO(Oyih.ydTH.yTkyd(llkOsydTH.yTkydHAyOkA(ahXAyhpsyHiOy\ki.yXWhisyT(AyAkiAky
(Asyih.y.TH.yTkyik[kayO(OyHiKyWhhOy.T(iWyTkyd(llkOLyphayTkyO(OymHiKyWhhOy.T(iWAsyHAyk[kaKyWhhOymHiy
OhkAsy\X.yTkyO(Oyih.yHldHKAyOhy.TkyWhhOyTkyd(llkOsyHiOyik[kayWkapkv.lKsyihayHiK.T(iWyd(.ThX.yWaHvky
HiOyA.akiW.TypahmyxTa(A.RyTkyHOOAsy

132. \X.ydTH.ywyTH.ksy.TH.yOhyw\X.ydTH.ywyTH.ksy.TH.yOhyw\X.ydTH.ywyTH.ksy.TH.yOhyw\X.ydTH.ywyTH.ksy.TH.yOhywLyA(iydHAydTH.yTkyTH.kOLy(.y\k(iWyvhi.aHaKy.hy.TkyWXakyHiOyThlKyiH.Xakyhpy
`hOsy.hy.TkyWhhOyHiOya(WT.khXAylHdyhpy`hOsyHiOydHAy(iy(.Aklpsy.hyT(Ay[(kdsykTvkkO(iWyA(ipXlRyTky
TH.kOy[H(iy.ThXWT.AsyXivlkHiyOkA(akAsyak[kiWkpXlylXA.Asy.TkyAkvak.ymh.(hiAyhpyHllyA(iy(iyT(AyTkHa.sy
HiOy.Tky[Ha(hXAyk[(lyHv.(hiAyhpyl(pkLydT(vTyvHiyik[kay\kyAH(OyhpyHiyXiakWkikaH.kymHiLydThylh[kAy
A(isyOkl(WT.Ay(iy(i(vX(.KsyHiOy.H)kAyWlkHAXaky(iy.Tkmy.TH.yOhy(.LyHiOyKk.ydTH.y.TkyHWhA.lkyTH.kOyTky
O(OLyTkydahXWT.yd(.TyT(AyvHaiHlywsyT(AyplkATsyHiOy.TahXWTy.TkyWhdkayhpy(.syHiOyphavkyhpy.kmW.H.(hisy
.ThXWTyih.yd(.ThX.yaklXv.HivksyakmhaAksyHiOyakWki.HivkgyaTky†HaH(.kyukdAsydT(vTydkaky.Tky
\k..kayAha.yhpy.TkmsyAHKyHiOyThlOyAhmky.T(iWAsyih.ymXvTyXil()ky.hydTH.y(AyTkakyOkl([kakOLy
J.ThXWTyHymHiyrAHKy.TkKy(i)syAThXlOy.aHiAWakAAyAhmkyhpy.TkyvhmmHiOmki.Asyhay.Tky
vhmmHiOmki.Ay(iyWHa.sy‡rI yqoykˆyIky nIKyKtni‰KksyJ.TahXWTy.TkyA.akiW.TyhpylXA.syHiOyih.yhiy
HvvhXi.yhpsyhayd(.TyWlkHAXakyih.yOkl(WT.JsyTkyATHlly\kyhikyhpy.ThAky.TH.yATHllyki.kay(i.hyWHaHO(Akg??y
Gwogyn Ce;For, etc. — better, “For that which I do I know not”; that is, “In obeying 
the impulses of my carnal nature I act the slave of another will than my own as a 
renewed man?”
for, etc. — rather, “for not what I would (wish, desire) that do I, but what I hate that I 
do.”
-w(Gg Ce;15.For what I do I know not, etc. He now comes to a more particular case, that of a
man already regenerated;
(221) in whom both the things which he had in view appear more clearly;
and these were, — the great discord there is between the Law of God and the natural man, — and
how the law does not of itself produce death. For since the carnal man rushes into sin with the
whole propensity of his mind, he seems to sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his
power to govern himself; so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men —
that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can choose what he pleases.
But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of
nature appears conspicuously; for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the
case of a regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much is the
contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law. From this case, also, a proof as to
the other clause may more fitly be sought, than from the mere consideration of human nature; for
the law, as it produces only death in a man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is
doubtful whence the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man it brings forth salutary fruits; and hence it
appears, that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life: so far it is from producing death of
itself.
That the whole, then, of this reasoning may be more fully and more distinctly understood, we must
observe, that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed
by the Spirit of God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his lusts without any
resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and cannot take such
delight in their vices, but that they have some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude,
either that evil is hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to be thus

133. tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment; but not to imbue them either with
the love of righteousness or with the hatred of sin.
There is then this difference between them and the faithful — that they are never so blinded and
hardened, but that when they are reminded of their crimes, they condemn them in their own
conscience; for knowledge is not so utterly extinguished in them, but that they still retain the
difference between right and wrong; and sometimes they are shaken with such dread under a sense
of their sin, that they bear a kind of condemnation even in this life: nevertheless they approve of sin
with all their heart, and hence give themselves up to it without any feeling of genuine repugnance;
for those stings of conscience, by which they are harassed, proceed from opposition in the
judgment, rather than from any contrary inclination in the will. The godly, on the other hand, in
whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that with the chief desire of the heart they
aspire to God, seek celestial righteousness, hate sin, and yet they are drawn down to the earth by
the relics of their flesh: and thus, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own nature, and
nature fights against them; and they condemn their sins, not only as being constrained by the
judgment of reason, but because they really in their hearts abominate them, and on their ACCOUNT
 loathe themselves. This is the Christian conflict between the flesh and the spirit of which Paul
speaks in Gal_5:17.
It has therefore been justly said, that the carnal man runs headlong into sin with the approbation
and consent of the whole soul; but that a division then immediately begins for the first time, when he
is called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit. For regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of
the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest
against the Spirit.
The inexperienced, who consider not the subject which the Apostle handles, nor the plan which he
pursues, imagine, that the character of man by nature is here described; and indeed there is a
similar description of human nature given to us by the Philosophers: but Scripture philosophizes
much deeper; for it finds that nothing has remained in the heart of man but corruption, since the
time in which Adam lost THE IMAGE of God. So when the Sophisters wish to define free@will, or
to form an estimate of what the power of nature can do, they fix on this passage. But Paul, as I have
said already, does not here set before us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes
what is the weakness of the faithful, and how great it is. [Augustine ] was for a time involved in the
common error; but after having more clearly examined the passage, he not only retracted what he
had falsely taught, but in his first book to Boniface, he proves, by many strong reasons, that what is
said cannot be applied to any but to the regenerate. And we shall now endeavor to make our
readers clearly to see that such is the case.
I know not. He means that he acknowledges not as his own the works which he did through the
weakness of the flesh, for he hated them. And so [Erasmus ] has not unsuitably given this
rendering, “ approve not,” (non probo .)
(222) We hence conclude, that the doctrine of the law is so
consentaneous to right judgment, that the faithful repudiate the transgression of it as a thing wholly
unreasonable. But as Paul seems to allow that he teaches otherwise than what the law prescribes,
many interpreters have been led astray, and have thought that he had assumed the person of
another; hence has arisen the common error, that the character of an unregenerate man is
described throughout this portion of the chapter. But Paul, under the idea of transgressing the law,
includes all the defects of the godly, which are not inconsistent with the fear of God or with the
endeavor of acting uprightly. And he denies that he did what the law demanded, for this reason,
because he did not perfectly fulfil it, but somewhat failed in his effort.
For not what I desire, etc. You must not understand that it was always the case with him, that he
could not do good; but what he complains of is only this — that he could not perform what he
wished, so that he pursued not what was good with that alacrity which was meet, because he was
held in a manner bound, and that he also failed in what he wished to do, because he halted through
the weakness of the flesh. Hence the pious mind performs not the good it desires to do, because it

134. proceeds not with due activity, and doeth the evil which it would not; for while it desires to stand, it
falls, or at least it staggers. But the expressions to will and not to will must be applied to the Spirit,
which ought to hold the first place in all the faithful. The flesh indeed has also its own will, but Paul
calls that the will which is the chief desire of the heart; and that which militates with it he represents
as being contrary to his will.
We may hence learn the truth of what we have stated — that Paul speaks here of the
faithful,
(223) in whom the grace of the Spirit exists, which brings an agreement between the mind
and the righteousness of the law; for no hatred of sin is to BE FOUND
 in the flesh.
(221)
 It appears from this, that [Calvin
] did not apply the foregoing words, “ am carnal, sold under
sin,” in the same way: but they are evidently connected together. They are indeed strong words,
and some explain them in such a way as to be wholly unsuitable to a renewed man; but we ought to
take the explanation as given by the Apostle himself in what follows, for he handles the subject to
the end of the chapter.
Various fictions have been resorted to by critics on this point. The Apostle has been supposed by
some to speak of himself as under the law, or as [Stuart ] terms it, “ a law state,” and such is the
scheme of [Hammond ] Others have imagined, that he personates a Jew living during the time
between Abraham and the giving of the law; and this was [Locke ] ’ idea. A third party have
entertained the notion, that the Apostle, speaking in his own person, represents, by a sort of fiction,
as [Vitringa ] and some others have imagined, the effects of the law in Jews and proselytes, as
opposed to the effects of the gospel, as delineated in the next chapter. And a fourth party maintain,
that the Apostle describes a man in a transition state, in whom God’ Spirit works for his conversion,
but who is as yet doubtful which way to turn, to sin or to God.
All these conjectures have arisen, because the language is not taken in its obvious meaning,
and ACCORDING  to the Apostle’ own explanation. As soon as we depart from the plain meaning
of the text and the context, we open a door to endless conjectures and fictions. The Apostle says
nothing here of himself, but what every real Christian finds to be true. Is not a Christian, yea, the
best, in this world carnal, as well as spiritual? Is he not “ under sin?” that is, subjected to a condition,
in which he is continually annoyed, tempted, hindered, restrained, CHECKED, and seduced by
the depravity and corruption of his nature; and in which he is always kept far below what he aims at,
seeks and longs for. It was the saying of a good man, lately gone to his rest, whose extended
pilgrimage was ninety@three years, that he must have been often swallowed up by despair, had it
not been for the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The best interpreter of many things
in Scripture is spiritual experience; without it no right judgment can be formed. Hence it is that the
learned often stumble at what is quite plain and obvious to the illiterate when spiritually enlightened.
Critics sometimes find great difficulties in what is fully understood by a simpler minded Christian,
taught from above. “ men” are far better divines than any of the learned, who possess nothing more
than natural talents and natural acquirements. — Ed. 
(222)
 “Pii quod perpetrant non agnoscunt, non approbant, non excusant, non palliant;” — “ the
godly do [amiss,] they know not, approve not, excuse not, palliate not.” — [Pareus
]
The verb
 γινώσκω is used here in the sense of the Hebrew verb עדי which is often so rendered by
the Septuagint. See Psa_1:6; Hos_8:4; and Mat_7:23. — Ed. 
(223)
 “ the Apostle was far more enlightened and humble than Christians in GENERAL
 are,
doubtless this clog (indwelling sin) was more uneasy to him than it is to them, though most of us find
our lives at times greatly embittered by it. So that this energetic language, which many imagine to

135. describe an unestablished believer’ experience, or even that of an unconverted man, seems to have
resulted from the extraordinary degree of St. Paul’ sanctification, and the depth of his self@
abasement and hatred of sin; and the reason of our not readily understanding him seems to be,
because we are far beneath him in holiness, humility, acquaintance with the spirituality of God’ law,
and the evil of our own hearts, and in our degree of abhorrence of moral evil.” — [Scott ]
“ some mistake as the evidence of a spiritual decline on the part of the Apostle, was in fact the
evidence of his growth. It is the effusion of a more quick and cultured sensibility than fell to the lot of
ordinary men.” — [Chalmers ] 
dhvvougSe)For that which I do I know not; for not what I would, that do I practise; but 
what I hate, that I do.
Perhaps the RSV is nearest the true meaning of this first clause with "I do not understand my own

third clauses mean that under the law of Moses, wherein was no promise of forgiveness and no
impartation of the Holy Spirit, the best of human intentions fell far short of the worshiper's intentions,
to say nothing of the absolute perfection required by the law. The worshiper under that system was
powerless to attain any success in doing either what he wished to do, on one hand, or in refraining
from what he did not wish to do, on the other hand.
SBC 14E25, “Dualism in the Life.
I. This is the earliest place in this Epistle where the two terms "flesh and spirit" occur in 
clear contrast, with the peculiar ethical sense conferred upon them by one another. In 
the next chapter we find them in constant use, as the key words of his argument. The 
point of St. Paul here is that the law of God partakes of His own nature. It, too, is 
spiritual. It reflects the Divine character, for it expresses the Divine will, and therefore 
between it and the nature of man, as man now is, there holds precisely the same 
incompatibility which our Lord affirmed between what is born of the flesh and what is 
born of the spirit. In this sad closing picture of his own experience, even after his mind 
had become reconciled to the law, St. Paul has made himself a mirror in which men of 
earnest holiness and habits of self-scrutiny have in every age seen themselves reflected. 
Such an internal dualism—such a strife of opposites—such a comparative impotency to 
realise the good they propose, are standing characteristics of saintliness, if we may judge 
saints by their most secret confessions and self-examinations.
II. St. Paul speaks of the law in his members as waging such successful war, that it even 
carried him off at times into captivity, like a prisoner of war. For the sinful principle 
which has its seat in an inborn disposition makes sudden sallies when a soul is off its 
guard, then leaps on with some gust of passion, and before it can gather itself up to resist 
it is swept forward by the unexpected pressure and is lost. So anger overtakes some, so 
lust others. Let us entreat God for a watchful temper. In Christ Jesus is a spirit of life. 
What the law never could do, because it was weak through the flesh, God has done in 
Christ. The Spirit whom we have received in Christ is the true answer to every "Who shall 
deliver?" Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 211.

136. 16. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree
that the law is good.
There is little argument over this verse. Some who hold the regenerate view say that
only the Christian would declare the law to be good, but this is doubtful, for when
Paul was under the law he surely thought it to be good.
xwK FyCe;
I consent unto the law - The very struggle with evil shows that it is not 
loved, or approved, but that the Law which condemns it is really loved. Christians may 
here find a test of their piety. The fact of struggling against evil, the desire to be free from 
it, and to overcome it, the anxiety and grief which it causes, is an evidence that we do not 
love it, and that there. fore we are the friends of God. Perhaps nothing can be a more 
decisive test of piety than a long-continued and painful struggle against evil passions and 
desires in every form, and a panting of the soul to be delivered from the power and 
dominion of sin.
CLARKE, “If then I do that which I would not, etc. - Knowing that the law 
condemns it, and that therefore it must be evil. I consent unto the law; I show by this 
circumstance that I acknowledge the law to be good.
GILL, “If then I do that which I would not,.... This is a corollary, or an inference 
from what he had related of his own experience; that since what he did, though it was 
contrary to the law of God, yet was what he did not will nor allow of, but hated, it must 
be a clear point, that he 
consented to the law, that it was good; lovely and amiable; that it forbad those 
things which were hateful, and commanded those things which were desirable to a good 
man; and so is acknowledged to be a very beautiful rule of obedience, walk, and 
conversation.
Gwogyn Ce;If then I do that which I would not — “But if what I would not that I 
do,”
I consent unto the law that it is good — “the judgment of my inner man going 
along with the law.”

137. du1W:gSe)16.But if what I desire not, I do, I consent to the law, etc.; that is, “ my heart
acquiesces in the law, and is delighted with its righteousness, (which certainly is the case when it
hates the transgression of it,) it then perceives and acknowledges the goodness of the law, so that
we are fully convinced, experience itself being our teacher, that no evil ought to be imputed to the
law; nay, that it would be salutary to men, were it to meet with upright and pure hearts.” But this
consent is not to be understood to be the same with what we have heard exists in the ungodly, who
have expressed words of this kind, “ see better things and approve of them; I follow the worse.”
Again, “ is hurtful I follow; I shun what I believe would be profitable.” For these ACT under a
constraint when they subscribe to the righteousness of God, as their will is wholly alienated from it,
but the godly man consents to the law with the real and most cheerful desire of his heart; for he
wishes nothing more than to mount up to heaven.
(224)  
dhvvougSe)
But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good.
This is an appeal to the conscience as a witness that God's law is holy and good, as affirmed
in Romans 7:12. When people violate God's law, the inevitable feelings of guilt are sufficient
evidence that the law is spiritual and holy. Hodge made the consent mentioned in this verse, the
of hardening, had such an inner witness of God's righteousness and of the justice of his laws (see
under Romans 2:15):
Barrett understood this verse thus:
The very fact that I am unhappy about my own deeds CONFIRMS that the law is
just and good. Is the law sin? Certainly not; it is confirmed by conscience.[16]
ENDNOTE:
[16] C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 147.
17. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it
is sin living in me.
.gT,p,g,Tui,eW:,bIeeiUsxe—srsqxe;mtmseUsrsemUtmemUs "I" is that which
constitutes reason and conscience in the unregenerate man. Sin in them darkens
their understanding and perverts their judgment. This is the enlightened heathen
argument again. Their reason tells them the right, but their passions have dominion
over their reason, and so they do the wrong.
T,p,g,Tui,eW:,bIeeHsef—Nqfs;eyxeBcjeqjcksrBemUtmejcce it was otherwise; once
the central choice was for self, but now in the regenerate life, even in its conflicts,

138. yea, even in its failures, it is for God. The following argument is typical of these
commentators. "If a crowd be standing on the brink of a precipice, someone by
pushing me may cause me to fall on another person who, by my fall, is plunged into
the abyss. If my will has done all in its power to avert this calamity, it would not be
I, but another power that is responsible, so, if a man does not sin willingly and
knowingly, but against his will and inmost desire, the power whence the sin comes
must be foreign to his personality, deeply rooted though it be in his nature. Paul
says this, not to excuse himself, but to show the great power of indwelling sin, which,
against his most earnest efforts, nevertheless, asserts itself, and, every now an then
when he if off his guard, gains the upper hand."
The real self of the Christian is distinct from the sin principle, and that is why they
are enemies. We have an alien force in us. We are invaded by it, and we are often
under its spell against our will. We do not have the ability to fight it on our own,
and that is why we are dependent upon Christ.
xwK FyCe;
It is no more I that do it - This is evidently figurative language, for it is 
really the man that sins when evil is committed. But the apostle makes a distinction 
between sin and what he intends by the pronoun “I”. By the former he evidently means 
his corrupt nature. By the latter he refers to his renewed nature, his Christian principles. 
He means to say that he does not approve or love it in his present state, but that it is the 
result of his native propensities and passions. In his heart, and conscience, and habitual 
feeling, he did not choose to commit sin, but abhorred it. Thus, every Christian can say 
that he does not choose to do evil, but would wish to be perfect; that he hates sin, and yet 
that his corrupt passions lead him astray.
But sin - My corrupt passions and native propensities.
That dwelleth in me - Dwelling in me as its home. This is a strong expression, 
denoting that sin had taken up its habitation in the mind, and abode there. It had not 
been yet wholly dislodged. This expression stands in contrast with another that occurs, 
where it is said that “the Spirit of God dwells” in the Christian, 
Rom_8:9; 1Co_3:16. The 
sense is, that he is strongly influenced by sin on the one hand, and by the Spirit on the 
other. From this expression has arisen the phrase so common among Christians, in-
dwelling sin.
CLARKE, “Now then it is no more I - It is not that I which constitutes reason and 
conscience, but sin-corrupt and sensual inclinations, that dwelleth in me - that has the 
entire domination over my reason, darkening my understanding, and perverting my 
judgment; for which there is condemnation in the law, but no cure. So we find here that 
there is a principle in the unregenerate man stronger than reason itself; a principle 
which is, properly speaking, not of the essence of the soul, but acts in it, as its lord, or as 
a tyrant. This is inbred and indwelling sin - the seed of the serpent; by which the whole 
soul is darkened, confused, perverted, and excited to rebellion against God.

139. GILL, “Now then, it is no more I that do it,.... This is another inference, deduced 
from what is before said, that since he did not approve, but hated what he did, and willed 
the contrary, it was not he as spiritual, as born again, as a new man, a new creature, that 
did it; see 1Jo_3:9. He says, 
But sin that dwelleth in me; the old man, the carnal I, the evil present with him, the 
law in his members; which not only existed in him, and wrought in him, and that at 
times very strongly, but dwelt in him, had its abode in him, as it has in all regenerate 
persons, and will have, as long as they are in the body.
Gwogyn Ce;Now then it is no more I — my renewed self.
that do it — “that work it.”
but sin which dwelleth in me — that principle of sin that still has its abode in me. 
To explain this and the following statements, as many do (even Bengel and Tholuck), of 
the sins of unrenewed men against their better convictions, is to do painful violence to 
the apostle’s language, and to affirm of the unregenerate what is untrue. That 
coexistence and mutual hostility of “flesh” and “spirit” in the same renewed man, which 
is so clearly taught in 
Rom_8:4, etc., and in Gal_5:16, etc., is the true and only key to the 
language of this and the following verses. (It is hardly necessary to say that the apostle 
means not to disown the blame of yielding to his corruptions, by saying, “it is not he that 
does it, but sin that dwelleth in him.” Early heretics thus abused his language; but the 
whole strain of the passage shows that his sole object in thus expressing himself was to 
bring more vividly before his readers the conflict of two opposite principles, and how 
entirely, as a new man - honoring from his inmost soul the law of God - he condemned 
and renounced his corrupt nature, with its affections and lusts, its stirrings and its 
outgoings, root and branch).
-w(Gg Ce;17.Now it is no more I who do it, etc. This is not the pleading of one excusing himself,
as though he was blameless, as the case is with many triflers who think that they have a sufficient
defense to cover all their wickedness, when they CAST
 the blame on the flesh; but it is a
declaration, by which he shows how very far he dissented from his own flesh in his spiritual feeling;
for the faithful are carried along in their obedience to God with such fervour of spirit that they deny
the flesh.
This passage also clearly shows, that Paul speaks here of none but of the godly, who have
been ALREADY born again; for as long as man remains like himself, whatsoever he may be, he
is justly deemed corrupt; but Paul here denies that he is wholly possessed by sin; nay, he declares
himself to be exempt from its bondage, as though he had said, that sin only dwelt in some part of
his soul, while with an earnest feeling of heart he strove for and aspired after the righteousness of
God, and clearly proved that he had the law of God engraven within him.
(225) 
(225) The last clause of this verse is worthy of notice, as the expression “ sin” seems to have arisen
from the words
 ἡ οἰκουσα ἐν ἐVοὶ — “ dwells in me.” Sin was in him as in a house or dwelling; it was
an in@habiting sin, or that which is in@abiding or resident. — Ed.
 
-nAAow Ce;
So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.

140. In using the conscience of the inner man to affirm the justice of the law, Paul raised another
problem which Barrett paraphrased thus:
We find man in a state of rebellion against God, and under sentence of death. For this
unhappy situation, the law is not to blame; but neither, it now appears, am "I," for
I AGREE with the law and disapprove of the sins I commit. Who then is to blame?
[17]

Master relative to the prodigal son, of whom it was said that "when he came to himself, etc."
It is in this verse that the theory of APPLYING these words to Christians relies on the fact that the
conscience, or inner self, of the person spoken of approves of God's law; but again, there is enough
of the divine image left in every man, regardless of how reprobate, to produce this inward approval
of God's law (see under preceding verse). That Paul was still speaking of the noble Jew under the
law is still evident, as attested by Brunner:
this.[18]
And yet it is also a fact that there is an inward conflict in every man, as proved by the pangs of
conscience upon wrongdoing; but the inward conflict in Christians is fantastically diminished and
cannot be thought of in the terms used here. That there is in the child of God, even the best and
truest, disturbing echoes of the old conflict is certain; and it may even be that Paul here fused the
consideration of the two conflicts (the savage one under the law, and the far milder one for the
Christian), speaking in a certain sense of both of them. In the same paragraph of Brunner's
quotation just cited, that author said,
Of which (conflict) is Paul speaking? Does he speak of that experience which Ovid has expressed,
"I perceive the better and approve of it but I follow that which is worse"? Yes, and no. Of course,
Paul speaks of this contradiction in man, of him who is under the Law, who does not know Christ.
Only he who disrupts the order of the verses can deny this. And yet, the Christian Paul speaks quite
differently from the heathen Ovid of the misery of man under the Law! Paul thus does not speak of
what man outside Christ knows of himself but of how matters really stand with the godless man
outside Christ. This is one thing upon which the blunt Yes or No is wrecked.[19]

observed: by Brunner would be more difficult. Significantly, Paul's words here go far beyond any
analysis of the conflict under law that could have been made without the knowledge imparted
through the acceptance and obedience of Christ. Thus, through his greater knowledge as a
Christian, Paul was dealing here with the inward conflict of the legal Jew in terms of the way it
actually was, rather than in terms of the legal Jew's perception of it. Thus, if there is any reference
whatever in this passage to the conflict within Christians (and this author cannot believe that there
is), then it would have to be in the sense suggested here by Brunner. In any case, Paul's analysis
here is even far too strong a statement of even the Jew's knowledge of his conflict, and thus even
further removed from being a statement of any so@called Christian experience.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 63.
[19] Ibid., p. 64.
18. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in

141. my sinful nature.[ ] For I have the desire to do
what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
, KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReerBheyuapake12ed1TeT4hiive4akBam the regenerate man, so
it can only be an unregenerate man that speaks here and says that no good thing
dwells in him. He is saying, "I've learned by experience that in an unregenerate
man there is no good. There is no principle by which the soul can be brought into
the light; no principle by which it can be restored to purity: fleshly appetites alone
prevail; and the brute runs away with the man." They explain the second part of
the verse by saying again that there are faculities in the natural man that have not
become totally depraved by the fall. Even the most unconcerned about spiritual
things have understanding, judgment, reason, and will. The natural man does have
the power to will the right, but he cannot perform it.
KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReerBhvheV1’’hmk.k1pvev.HekB.kekBhe.bove interpretation
ignores the phase, "That is, in my flesh." This they say changes the meaning a great
deal. Paul realizes that the Spirit of God dwells within him, and so he makes his
statement specific by saying that it is only in his flesh that corruption reigns. The
struggle he has in doing what he wills is the common experience of the regenerate.
The will to do good is present, but how to perform it the man knows not, for the
body is the instrument of the spirit, but the body is corrupt and weak, and cannot
rise to the heights of the spirit, or fly with the swiftness of the spirit, or watch with
the wakefulness of the spirit. The illustration of all this is the slumber of the
Apostles in Gethsemane. "The spirit truly is willing but the flesh is weak."
"For I know that in me..." Then an explanation: "TB.keavCeame’He2ihvBfffDee 14eBhe
couldn't just say "in me," because Christ is in him. So he has to explain it. "For I
know that in me..." parenthesis "...(that is, in my flesh)..." that part of me
"...dwelleth is no good thing." That's the negative view of man. That is saying flesh
is no good, and inside this flesh there isn't one good thing. That's a negative
view.""And, if you want to know why the Christians were killed by the thousands
the first three centuries, that was the main reason. The main reason was that they
were accused of hating mankind." author unknown
xwK FyCe;
For I know - This is designed as an illustration of what he had just said, 
that sin dwelt in him.
That is, in my flesh - In my unrenewed nature; in my propensities and inclinations 
before conversion. Does not this qualifying expression show that in this discussion he 
was speaking of himself as a renewed man? Hence, he is careful to imply that there was 
at that time in him something that was right or acceptable with God, but that that did not 
pertain to him by nature.
Dwelleth - His soul was wholly occupied by what was evil. It had taken entire 

142. possession.
No good thing - There could not be possibly a stronger expression of belief of the 
doctrine of total depravity. It is Paul’s own representation of himself. It proves that his 
heart was wholly evil. And if this was true of him, it is true of all others. It is a good way 
to examine ourselves, to inquire whether we have such a view of our own native 
character as to say that we know that in our flesh there dwelleth no good thing. The sense 
here is, that so far as the flesh was concerned, that is, in regard to his natural inclinations 
and desires, there was nothing good; all was evil. This was true in his entire conduct 
before conversion, where the desires of the flesh reigned and rioted without control; and 
it was true after conversion, so far as the natural inclinations and propensities of the 
flesh were concerned. All those operations in every stake were evil, and not the less evil 
because they are experienced under the light and amidst the influences of the gospel.
To will - To purpose or intend to do good.
Is present with me - I can do that. It is possible; it is in my power. The expression 
may also imply that it was near to him παράκειται  parakeitai, that is, it was constantly 
before him; it was now his habitual inclination and purpose of mind. It is the uniform, 
regular, habitual purpose of the Christian’s mind to do right.
But how - The sense would have been better retained here if the translators had not 
introduced the word “how.” The difficulty was not in the mode of performing it, but to do 
the thing itself.
I find not - I do not find it in my power; or I find strong, constant obstacles, so that I 
fail of doing it. The obstacles are not natural, but such as arise from long indulgence in 
sin; the strong native propensity to evil.
CLARKE, “For I know that in me, etc. - I have learned by experience that in an 
unregenerate man there is no good. There is no principle by which the soul can be 
brought into the light; no principle by which it can be restored to purity: fleshly appetites 
alone prevail; and the brute runs away with the man.
For to will is present with me - Though the whole soul has suffered indescribably 
by the Fall, yet there are some faculties that appear to have suffered less than others; or 
rather have received larger measures of the supernatural light, because their concurrence 
with the Divine principle is so necessary to the salvation of the soul. Even the most 
unconcerned about spiritual things have understanding, judgment, reason, and will. And 
by means of these we have seen even scoffers at Divine revelation become very eminent 
in arts and sciences; some of our best metaphysicians, physicians, mathematicians, 
astronomers, chemists, etc., have been known - to their reproach be it spoken and 
published - to be without religion; nay, some of them have blasphemed it, by leaving God 
out of his own work, and ascribing to an idol of their own, whom they call nature, the 
operations of the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Most High. It is true that many of 
the most eminent in all the above branches of knowledge have been conscientious 
believers in Divine revelation; but the case of the others proves that, fallen as man is, he 
yet possesses extra-ordinary powers, which are capable of very high cultivation and 
improvement. In short, the soul seems capable of any thing but knowing, fearing, loving, 
and serving God. And it is not only incapable, of itself, for any truly religious acts; but 
what shows its fall in the most indisputable manner is its enmity to sacred things. Let an 
unregenerate man pretend what he pleases, his conscience knows that he hates religion; 
his soul revolts against it; his carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 

143. can it be. There is no reducing this fell principle to subjection; it is Sin, and sin is 
rebellion against God; therefore sin must be destroyed, not subjected; if subjected, it 
would cease to be sin, because sin is in opposition to God: hence the apostle says, most 
conclusively, it cannot be subjected, i.e. it must be destroyed, or it will destroy the soul 
for ever. When the apostle says, to will is present with me, he shows that the will is on 
the side of God and truth, so far that it consents to the propriety and necessity of 
obedience. There has been a strange clamor raised up against this faculty of the soul, as if 
the very essence of evil dwelt in it; whereas the apostle shows, throughout this chapter, 
that the will was regularly on God’s side, while every other faculty appears to have been 
in hostility to him. The truth is, men have confounded the will with the passions, and laid 
to the charge of the former what properly belongs to the latter. The will is right, but the 
passions are wrong. It discerns and approves, but is without ability to perform: it has no 
power over sensual appetites; in these the principle of rebellion dwells: it nills evil, it 
wills good, but can only command through the power of Divine grace: but this the person 
in question, the unregenerate man, has not received.
GILL, “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh,.... The apostle goes on to give 
some further account of himself, what he knew, and was fully assured of by long 
experience; as that 
dwelleth no good thing in him, that is, in his flesh, or carnal self; for otherwise there 
were many good things dwelt in him; there was the good work of grace, and the good 
word of God in him, and even Father, Son, and Spirit, dwelt in him; but his meaning is, 
that there was no good thing naturally in him; no good thing of his own putting there; 
nothing but what God had put there; no good thing, but what was owing to Christ, to the 
grace of God, and influence of the Spirit; or as he himself explains it, there was no good 
thing in his "flesh"; in the old man that was in him, which has nothing in his nature 
good; no good thing comes out of him, nor is any good thing done by him: and this 
explanative and limiting clause, "that is, in my flesh", clearly proves, that the apostle 
speaks of himself, and as regenerate; for had he spoke in the person of an unregenerate 
man, there would have been no room nor reason for such a restriction, seeing an 
unregenerate man is nothing else but flesh, and has nothing but flesh, or corrupt nature 
in him; and who does not know, that no good thing dwells in such persons? whereas the 
apostle intimates by this explication, that he had something else in him beside flesh, and 
which is opposed to it; and that is spirit, or the new man, which is of a spiritual nature, 
and is seated in the spirit, or soul, and comes from the Spirit of God; and in this spiritual 
man dwell good things, for "the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and 
truth"; so that though there was no good thing dwelling in his flesh, in the old than, yet 
there were good things dwelling in his spirit, in the new and spiritual man, the hidden 
man of the heart: and he adds, 
to will is present with me; which must be understood, not of the power and faculty of 
the will, with respect to things natural and civil, which is common to all men; nor of a 
will to that which is evil, which is in wicked men; but of a will to that which was good, 
which he had not of himself, but from God, and is only to be found in regenerate 
persons; and denotes the readiness of his mind and will to that which is spiritually good, 
like that which Christ observes of his disciples, when he says, "the spirit is willing, but 
the flesh is weak", 
Mat_26:41, which may serve much to illustrate the passage before us: 
since it follows, 

144. but how to perform that which is good, I find not; he found he had no strength of 
himself to do what he willed; and that he could do nothing without Christ; and that what 
he did by the strength and grace of Christ, he did not do perfectly. To will to live without 
sin, not to have a lustful or a revengeful thought in his breast, was present with him, but 
how to perform, how to live in this manner, which was so desirable to him, being born 
again, he found not. It may be asked, how does this agree with what the apostle says, "it 
is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure?" Phi_2:13. To 
this it may be replied, that when God does work in his people both to will and to do, he 
does not work both equally alike, or to the same degree, so that the work answers to the 
will; God never works in them so to do, as to will, for when they are wrought in, acted 
upon, and influenced to do the most, and that in the best manner, they never do all that 
they would; and sometimes God works in them to will, when he does not work in them to 
do; as in the case of the disciples of Christ, in whom he worked to will to watch with 
Christ an hour, but did not work in them to do, Mat_26:40; and whenever he works in 
the saints, whether to will or to do, or both, it is always of his own good pleasure.
Gwogyn Ce;For, etc. — better, “For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is in my 
flesh, any good.”
for to will — “desire.”
is present with me; but how to perform that which is good — the supplement 
“how,” in our version, weakens the statement.
I find not — Here, again, we have the double self of the renewed man; “In me 
dwelleth no good; but this corrupt self is not my true self; it is but sin dwelling in my real 
self, as a renewed man.”
-w(Gg Ce;18.For I know, etc. He says that no good by nature dwelt in him. Then in me, means
the same as though he had said, “ far as it regards myself.” In the first part he indeed arraigns
himself as being wholly depraved, for he confesses that no good dwelt in him; and then he subjoins
a modification, lest he should slight the grace of God which also dwelt in him, but was no part of his
flesh. And here again he confirms the fact, that he did not speak of men in GENERAL
, but of the
faithful, who are divided into two parts — the relics of the flesh, and grace. For why was the
modification made, except some part was exempt from depravity, and therefore not flesh? Under
the term flesh, he ever includes all that human nature is, everything in man, except the sanctification
of the Spirit. In the same manner, by the term spirit, which is commonly opposed to the flesh, he
means that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so re@formed, and purified from corruption,
that God’ image shines forth in it. Then both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the
latter to that part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural
character.
(227) 
To will is present, etc. He does not mean that he had nothing but an ineffectual desire, but his
meaning is, that the work really done did not correspond to his will; for the flesh hindered him from
doing perfectly what he did. So also understand what follows, The evil I desire not, that I do: for the
flesh not only impedes the faithful, so that they can not run swiftly, but it sets also before them many
obstacles at which they stumble. Hence they do not, because they accomplish not, what they would,
with the alacrity that is meet. This, to will, then, which he mentions, is the readiness of faith, when
the Holy Spirit so prepares the godly that they are ready and strive to render obedience to God; but

145. as their ability is not equal to what they wish, Paul says, that he FOUND not what he desired,
even the accomplishment of the good he aimed at.
(227)
 The Apostle here is his own interpreter; he explains who the I is that does what the
other I disapproved, and who the I is that hates what the other I does. He tells us here that it is not
the same I, though announced at first as though it were the same. The one I, he informs us here,
was his flesh, his innate sin or Corruption, and the other I, he tells us in Rom_7:22, was “ inner
man,” his new nature. The “ man,” as [Calvin
] will tell us presently, is not the soul as distinguished
from the body, but the renewed man as distinguished from the flesh. It is the same as the “ man” as
distinguished from “ old man.” See Eph_4:22; Rom_6:6; 2Co_5:17. But “ inward man,” and “
outward man,” in 2Co_4:16, are the soul and the body; and “ inner man,” in Eph_3:16, the same
expression as in Rom_7:22, means the soul, as it is evident from the context. The same is meant by
“ hidden man of the heart,” in 1Pe_3:4. — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will 
is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.
Paul in this verse did not DENY to man under the law of Moses any intention of doing right, for
the power "to will" is allowed; only the ability to deliver on the good intention is denied. Here it is well
to note some of the distinctions which theologians like to make when discussing such a thing as the
will. Paul did not always use such terms in the sense of definitions accepted by people. Thus:
When Luther and Calvin deny a good will to man under the Law, they understand by it something
entirely different from what is meant here.[20]

Paul made in earlier chapters (Romans 2:14 etc.) that he did not deny a certain "good will" even to
the reprobate Gentiles. Again from Brunner:
The Gentile as well as the atheist knows something of this delight in the good, this approval of the
Law, even though he swears a thousand times that he does not believe in God. We are not here
concerned with the atheist; but one thing is clear: Just as Paul does not entirely deny the Gentile the
knowledge of the Law, so he also does not deny him a certain delight in the Law, a certain approval
of it; in which case, the Gentile, of course, does not know whose law it is. Paul the Christian knows.
[21]

nothing like that outlined here) in the heart even of Christians, this latter conflict being in the
background of Paul's thought here, but certainly not the topic of his argument.
[20] Ibid., p. 65.
[21] Ibid.
19. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no,
the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

146. , KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReerBhHeV1mkam3heBhphek1elpamce21pth the enlightened
heathen argument. The struggle between passion and will.
KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReeDWheave.kekBhev.’heka’he63vka2ahT and yet a sinner," says
Luther. He goes on, "But in as much as he resists the evil, it is not the whole person
who sins, but only a part of the person (his corrupt nature)." In answer to those
who say this was Paul's conflict when under the law, Barrett says, "In passages
where Paul certainly describes his life before his conversion there is no trace of
spiritual conflict, or of a divided self. Gal. 1:13 and Phil. 3:4 depick a Jew
practicing his religion more successfully than any of his contemporaries, blameless
in his observance of the law, and entirely satisfied with his own righteousness."
Scott says, "As the Apostle was far more enlightened and humble than Christian in
general are, doubtless this clog (indwelling sin) was more uneasy to him than it is to
them, though most of us find our lives at times greatly embittered by it. So that this
energetic language, which many imagine to describe and unestablished believer's
experience, or even that of an unregenerate man, seems to have resulted from the
extraordinary degree of St. Paul's sanctification, and the depth of his selfEabasement
and hatred of sin, and the reason of our not readily understanding him seems to be
because we are far beneath him in holiness, humanity, acquaintance with the
spirituality of God's law, and the evil of our own hearts, and in our degree of
adhorrence of moral evil."
MIDDLE VIEW: It has been held that this struggle was the "...experience of a halfE
regenerate soul; struggling on its way from darkness to light, stumbling across a
boarderEzone between the power of Satan and the kingdom of God; deeply
convicted of sin, but battling with it in the old impossible way after all, meeting self
with self, or, otherwise, the devil with the man."
xwK FyCe;
For the good ... - This is substantially a repetition of what is said in 
Rom_7:15. The repetition shows how full the mind of the apostle was of the subject; and 
how much inclined he was to dwell upon it, and to place it in every variety of form. It is 
not uncommon for Paul thus to express his intense interest in a subject, by placing it in a 
great variety of aspects, even at the hazard of much repetition.
CLARKE, “For the good that I would I do not - Here again is the most decisive 
proof that the will is on the side of God and truth.
But the evil which I would not - And here is equally decisive proof that the will is 
against, or opposed to evil. There is not a man in ten millions, who will carefully watch 
the operations of this faculty, that will find it opposed to good and obstinately attached 
to evil, as is generally supposed. Nay, it is found almost uniformly on God’s side, while 
the whole sensual system is against him. - It is not the Will that leads men astray; but the 
corrupt Passions which oppose and oppress the will. It is truly astonishing into what 

147. endless mistakes men have fallen on this point, and what systems of divinity have been 
built on these mistakes. The will, this almost only friend to God in the human soul, has 
been slandered as God’s worst enemy, and even by those who had the seventh chapter to 
the Romans before their eyes! Nay, it has been considered so fell a foe to God and 
goodness that it is bound in the adamantine chains of a dire necessity to do evil only; and 
the doctrine of will (absurdly called free will, as if will did not essentially imply what is 
free) has been considered one of the most destructive heresies. Let such persons put 
themselves to school to their Bibles and to common sense.
The plain state of the case is this: the soul is so completely fallen, that it has no power 
to do good till it receive that power from on high. But it has power to see good, to 
distinguish between that and evil; to acknowledge the excellence of this good, and to will 
it, from a conviction of that excellence; but farther it cannot go. Yet, in various cases, it is 
solicited and consents to sin; and because it is will, that is, because it is a free principle, it 
must necessarily possess this power; and although it can do no good unless it receive 
grace from God, yet it is impossible to force it to sin. Even Satan himself cannot do this; 
and before he can get it to sin, he must gain its consent. Thus God in his endless mercy 
has endued this faculty with a power in which, humanly speaking, resides the salvability 
of the soul; and without this the soul must have eternally continued under the power of 
sin, or been saved as an inert, absolutely passive machine; which supposition would go 
as nearly to prove that it was as incapable of vice as it were of virtue.
“But does not this arguing destroy the doctrine of free grace?” No! it establishes that 
doctrine.
1. It is through the grace, the unmerited kindness, of God, that the soul has such a 
faculty, and that it has not been extinguished by sin.
2. This will, though a free principle, as it respects its nilling of evil and choosing good, 
yet, properly speaking, has no power by which it can subjugate the evil or perform 
the good.
We know that the eye has a power to discern objects, but without light this power is 
perfectly useless, and no object can be discerned by it. So, of the person represented here 
by the apostle, it is said, To will is present with me, q4aI,Ca"OAO;L y,C,JO;q,;aM4;. To will is 
ever in readiness, it is ever at hand, it lies constantly before me; but how to perform that 
which is good, I find not; that is, the man is unregenerate, and he is seeking justification 
and holiness from the law. The law was never designed to give these - it gives the 
knowledge, not the cure of sin; therefore, though he nills evil and wills good, yet he can 
neither conquer the one nor perform the other till he receives the grace of Christ, till he 
seeks and finds redemption in his blood.
Here, then, the free agency of man is preserved, without which he could not be in a 
salvable state; and the honor of the grace of Christ is maintained, without which there 
can be no actual salvation. There is a good sentiment on this subject in the following 
words of an eminent poet: - 
Thou great first Cause, least understood;
Who all my sense confined
To know but this, that thou art good;
And that myself am blind.
Yet gave me in this dark estate
To see the good from ill;
And binding nature fast in fate,

148. Left free the human will.
Pope’s Universal Prayer.
GILL, “For the good that I would, I do not,.... The apostle here repeats what he 
had delivered in 
Rom_7:15 to strengthen and confirm this part of his experience; that 
though he had a will to that which was good, yet he wanted power, and had none of 
himself to perform; and therefore often did what he would not, and what he would he did 
not.
Gwogyn Ce;For, etc. — The conflict here graphically described between a self that 
“desires” to do good and a self that in spite of this does evil, cannot be the struggles 
between conscience and passion in the unregenerate, because the description given of 
this “desire to do good” in 
Rom_7:22 is such as cannot be ascribed, with the least show 
of truth, to any but the renewed.
-w(Gg Ce;19.The same view is to be taken of the expression which next follows, — that he did 
not the good which he desired, but, on the contrary, the evil which he desired not: for the faithful,
however rightly they may be influenced, are yet so conscious of their own infirmity, that they can
deem no work PROCEEDING
 from them as blameless. For as Paul does not here treat of some
of the faults of the godly, but delineates in general the whole course of their life, we conclude that
their best works are always stained with some blots of sin, so that no reward can be hoped, unless
God pardons them.
He at last repeats the sentiment, — that, as far as he was endued with celestial light, he was a true
witness and subscriber to the righteousness of the law. It hence follows, that had the pure integrity
of our nature remained, the law would not have brought death on us, and that it is not adverse to the
man who is endued with a sound and right mind and abhors sin. But to restore HEALTH is the
work of our heavenly Physician.
 
-nAAow Ce;
For the good which I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I 
practise.
This knowledge of what it means to be out of Christ and under the law of Moses is imparted to us,
not from the standpoint of the intellectual pagan, but from the viewpoint of the great Christian
apostle who saw much more clearly than any unregenerated man could have seen it, just what an
awful state of wretchedness and misery must ever pertain to the man who is unredeemed, who is
not "in Christ." Apart from Jesus Christ, there is no way by which even the best intentioned of
unregenerates could exist in any other state than the one depicted here. That wretchedness, truly
considered, is the perfect description of every man who is out of Christ, whether or not he might be
less or more aware of it; and it is also a description of the true state of every Christian who for any
reason whatever failed to abide "in Christ." The interpretation which would make this marvelous
description of every non@Christian to be a description of the true life in our blessed Lord partakes of
the genius of the evil one himself, and it should be rejected out of hand. Think what a terrible
description of humanity apart from the Saviour this passage presents. It is a picture of humanity

149. undesirable and reprehensible even by the victims themselves. If this is not a good description of
our own sinful generation which has turned away from God to walk in their own foolish ways, where
is there a better one?
(9OegjRefLe:eljeRUtme:eljecjmeRtcmemjeljSefmef;ecje
longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that
does it.
Because these verses 21 and 22 are a repetition of what has already been said, there
is no need for further comment from the different viewpoints so far followed.
Something being true does not make it right. It is true he does what he does not
want to do, but it is still wrong even though he chooses to do it against his will and
better judgment. A teacher asked her class, "Why do geese fly South for the
winter?" One little girl said, "Because walking would take too long." That is true,
but it is not right. It is not the correct answer even though it is true. A true answer
can be false. Is Paul being the master of rationalizing here and denying that he is
the one responsible for his bad behavior?
You can find an argument to justify anything, like the landlady who raised the rent
of a roomer who lived in the attic. When he protested that he was the only one
being given a raise in rent, his landlady replied, "Well, why not? You use more
stairs than anyone else in the building."
After teaching on mental temptation one evening, a man came to me with a common
problemEand an interesting solution. He pondered why evil thoughts come with
strange force to a good person, one who desires God's best. Startled at the
compelling power of evil he asked, "Where are these thoughts coming from? How
can this be? This is not like me." Then he began to play a mental game that made
all the difference. "When these thoughts come into my mind," he reported, "I say to
myself, that is not me. So I assign the thought to an imaginary gorilla. Then I say to
the Lord, "Take that gorilla back into the woods. Get him out of here!" and He
runs it off. Once in a while the gorilla pokes his head out of the woods again. I just
ask the Lord to take him away again and He does."

150. xwK FyCe;Now if I do ... - This verse is also a repetition of what was said in 
Rom_7:16-17.
CLARKE, “It is no more I - My will is against it; my reason and conscience condemn 
it. But sin that dwelleth in me - the principle of sin, which has possessed itself of all my 
carnal appetites and passions, and thus subjects my reason and domineers over my soul. 
Thus I am in perpetual contradiction to myself. Two principles are continually 
contending in me for the mastery: my reason, on which the light of God shines, to show 
what is evil; and my passions, in which the principle of sin works, to bring forth fruit 
unto death.
This strange self-contradictory propensity led some of the ancient philosophers to 
imagine that man has two souls, a good and a bad one; and it is on this principle that 
Xenophon, in his life of Cyrus, causes Araspes, a Persian nobleman, to account for some 
misconduct of his relative to Panthea, a beautiful female captive, whom Cyrus had 
entrusted to his care: - “O Cyrus, I am convinced that I have two souls; if I had but one 
soul, it could not at the same time pant after vice and virtue; wish and abhor the same 
thing. It is certain, therefore, that we have two souls; when the good soul rules, I 
undertake noble and virtuous actions; but when the bad soul predominates, I am 
constrained to do evil. All I can say at present is that I find my good soul, encouraged by 
thy presence, has got the better of my bad soul.” See Spectator, vol. viii. No. 564. Thus, 
not only the ancients, but also many moderns, have trifled, and all will continue to do so 
who do not acknowledge the Scriptural account of the fall of man, and the lively 
comment upon that doctrine contained in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the 
Romans.
GILL, “Now if I do that I would not,.... The same conclusion is formed here, as in 
Rom_7:17, not with any view to excuse himself from blame in sinning, but to trace the 
lusts of his heart, and the sins of his life, to the source and fountain of them, the 
corruption of his nature; and to ascribe them to the proper cause of them, which was not 
the law of God, nor the new man, but sin that dwelt in him.
SBC, “What are the lessons of life which we have to deduce from the doctrine of original 
sin?
I. First, of course, there is that dependence on God’s help, which we can never too often 
repeat to our hearts as our only stay. We have to learn not merely as an abstract truth but 
as a living fact, as a principle which will check and control, and yet uphold our hearts 
throughout the day, that we are in God’s hands and not our own. We are not the real 
combatants in the great battle; rather our souls are the battle-field, and Christ and sin 
fight there for supremacy, and we can but surrender ourselves to one of the two. We are 
weak and helpless, except in as much as God may help us. If we would ask what are the 
tokens of our having learnt the lesson, the answer is, that besides the quiet trust in God, 
the chief token of our having learnt to lean on God, and not on ourselves, is the 
avoidance of all unnecessary temptation.
II. As on the one hand we learn our absolute dependence on God, so do we learn and get 

151. comfort in our Christian warfare. We learn that there is a sense in which we can, like the 
Apostle, disclaim our own faults and say as he did, "It is not I that do it, but sin that 
dwelleth in me." In so far as we do not consent to our own faults, in so far they are not 
our own; in so far as we yield to them, they are ours. And God who is greater than our 
hearts, and knoweth all things, can see when we have honestly striven, and assuredly will 
not deny His help in such a struggle.
III. We must not be disappointed, or cast down, or disheartened, because we find our 
self-improvement very much slower than we expect or like. The evil to be cured is past 
human remedy. God will cure it if we wish. But He will cure it in His own way, and at His 
own time. We must be content to fight the battle in His name and strength, and leave the 
issue in His hands.
Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, p. 122.
References: Rom_7:21.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 262. Rom_7:21-25.—A. D. 
Davidson, Lectures and Sermons, p. 458.
dhvvougSe)
But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which 
dwelleth in me.
Humanity is helpless to live CORRECTLY until the sin@problem is solved. All of the enlightenment
and lofty aspirations of all the ages go for naught, as long as sin dwells in human hearts. This verse,
far from being a statement of the way it is with Christians, is the way it is with everyone on
earth EXCEPTChristians. In the unregenerated man, sin reigns in his mortal body (Romans 6:12);
and, until that sin is washed away and the man stands justified in Christ Jesus, this verse is the

the type of life that would be acceptable to the inner conscience of the victim himself is simply not in
him, for, until he is redeemed in Christ, he is still a slave of sin; and he will never be anything else
until he is made free "in Christ Jesus."
This verse has the effect of softening somewhat the condemnation of sinners: it is not really they,

was the term "fool" or its equivalent. Thus the Saviour spoke of the foolish builder (Matthew 7:26),
the foolish virgins (Matthew 25:2), the fool whose soul was required of him that night (Luke 12:20)
and the foolish disciples who did not believe the prophets (Luke 24:25); etc. Even in the Old
Testament, the denier of God is called "the fool" (Psalms 14:1).
This verse is one of the great ones in all the word of God. While not denying that unregenerated
people (particularly those under Moses' law) have certain knowledge of what is right and wrong and
possess certain characteristics of nobility; such persons are absolutely incapable of overcoming sin.
They are carnal, sold under sin, servants of the evil one, subject to the reign of sin in their mortal
bodies; and the power to rise above their wretchedness can be imparted to them only if they shall
receive the Lord Jesus Christ, die to sin, through union with him; and then only may they rise to
walk in newness of life. It is the unspeakable victory of the Christian that he has the power to say
"NO" to sin. See under Romans 6:15ff. Absolutely nothing has ever been more hurtful to Christianity
than the allegations of so@called Christian teachers to the effect that the child of God "cannot help
sinning," this verse itself being QUOTED as teaching that! God forbid. It is true that the
unregenerated cannot help it; but the child of God can live above sin, not in any absolutely perfect
sense, of course, but practically.
On this verse, Adam Clarke wrote:
We find here that there is a principle in the unregenerate man stronger than reason
ACTS
To this student of God's word, the allegations of expositors to the effect that the awful conflict

152. depicted here, with its inevitable fruition in sin and failure, is the norm of Christian experience is as
near an approach to blasphemy as may BE FOUND in modern writings. If this is the norm of
Christian experience, to be owned by all as the state of being Christ's disciples, then the Christian
redemption is a farce. Why? Look at Romans 7:19 again. The person described here is a practicing
sinner. "I practice!" The elements of good will, knowledge of the law, approval of good and
abhorrence of sin @ these attributes mentioned in this passage refer to the elemental endowments of
all human life; and Paul's teaching here showed that not even the existence of such inherent
attributes could deliver from the practice of sin; only Christ can do that! The conflict is exactly that
described by the pagan writers themselves; and the curious reader is referred to the writings of Dr.
Adam Clarke (Vol. VI, p. 88) for a list of statements similar to Paul's words here, by such pagan
writers as Euripides, Francis, Horace, Ovid, and others. If this is normal Christianity, the Christians
are not a white above the pagans. The strong language of this verse led some ancient speculators
to suppose that man had two souls, a good soul and a bad soul; and the counterpart of this has
existed in the church throughout the ages in the aberrations of those who supposed that they could
live in sin without incurring guilt, since it was their "baser selves" that did the wrong!
Commenting upon such trifling improvisations upon God's word by speculators, Adam Clarke wrote:
Thus not only the ancients, but many moderns, have trifled; and all will CONTINUE
to do so who do not acknowledge the Scriptural ACCOUNT of the fall of man, and
the lively comment upon that doctrine contained in the seventh chapter of the epistle to
the Romans.[23]
[22] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI,
p. 79.
[23] Ibid, p. 90.
21. So I find this law at work: When I want to do
good, evil is right there with me.
xwK FyCe;I find then a law - There is a law whose operation I experience whenever I 
attempt to do good. There have been various opinions about the meaning of the word 
“law” in this place. It is evident that it is used here in a sense somewhat unusual. But it 
retains the notion which commonly attaches to it of what binds, or controls. And though 
this to which he refers differs from a law, inasmuch as it is not imposed by a superior, 
which is the usual idea of a law, yet it has so far the sense of law that it binds, controls, 
influences, or is that to which he was subject. There can be no doubt that he refers here 
to his carnal and corrupt nature; to the evil propensities and dispositions which were 
leading him astray. His representing this as a law is in accordance with all that he says of 
it, that it is servitude, that he is in bondage to it, and that it impedes his efforts to be holy 
and pure. The meaning is this, “I find a habit, a propensity, an influence of corrupt 
passions and desires, which, when I would do right, impedes my progress, and prevents 
my accomplishing what I would.” Compare 
Gal_5:17. Every Christian is as much 
acquainted with this as was the apostle Paul.
Do good - Do right. Be perfect.
Evil - Some corrupt desire, or improper feeling, or evil propensity.

153. Is present with me - Is near; is at hand. It starts up unbidden, and undesired. It is 
in the path, and never leaves us, but is always ready to impede our going, and to turn us 
from our good designs; compare Psa_65:3, “Iniquities prevail against me.’ The sense is, 
that to do evil is agreeable to our strong natural inclinations and passions.
CLARKE, “I find then a law - I am in such a condition and state of soul, under the 
power of such habits and sinful propensities, that when I would do good - when my will 
and reason are strongly bent on obedience to the law of God and opposition to the 
principle of sin, evil is present with me, 
VfV1BybfcfV6D3fD, evil is at hand, it lies 
constantly before me. That, as the will to do good is constantly at hand, Rom_7:18, so the 
principle of rebellion exciting me to sin is equally present; but, as the one is only will, 
wish, and desire, without power to do what is willed, to obtain what is wished, or to 
perform what is desired, sin continually prevails.
The word νο-ος, law, in this verse, must be taken as implying any strong or confirmed 
habit, συνηθεια, as Hesychius renders it, under the influence of which the man generally 
acts; and in this sense the apostle most evidently uses it in Rom_7:23.
GILL, “I find then a law,.... This is to be understood either of the corruption of 
nature, which he found by experience to be in him; and which, because of its force, 
power, and prevalence it sometimes had in him, he calls "a law"; it forcibly demanding 
compliance with its lusts; and is the same with what he calls "evil", and which the Jews 
so frequently style ˆt yto- J.Tkyk[(ly(mHW(iH.(hiJsy\KydT(vTy.TkKymkHiy.TkyvhaaXW.(hiyhpyiH.XakLy
HiOyhikyhpy.TkyAk[kiyiHmkAsyHiOy.Tkyp(aA.yhpy.Tkmsy\KydT(vTy(.y(AyvHllkOsy.TkKy.kllyXAy(k)sy(Asyyˆtsy
Jk[(lJLy.Tky[kaKyiHmky(.yWhkAy\KyTkaksyHiOydT(vTy.TkKyAHKy`hOyvHllAy(.syGen_6:5LyHiOydkllymHKy(.y\ky
AhyvHllkOsyA(ivky(.y(Ayha(W(iHllKsyiH.XaHllKsyHiOyvhi.(iXHllKyk[(lLy(.y(Ayk[(ly(iy(.AyiH.XakyHiOy
vhiAkvXkivkALy(.y(Ay.TkyAhXavkyHiOyAWa(iWyhpyHllyk[(lRy
.TH.ydTkiywydhXlOyOhyWhhO.TH.ydTkiywydhXlOyOhyWhhO.TH.ydTkiywydhXlOyOhyWhhO.TH.ydTkiywydhXlOyOhyWhhOLyAHKAy.TkyHWhA.lksyHAyAhhiyHAyHiKyWhhOy.ThXWT.yHa(AkAy(iymksyHiKyWhhOy
akAhlX.(hiy(Ayki.kakOy(i.hy\KymksyhaywyHmyH\hX.y.hyOhyHiK.T(iWy.TH.y(AyWhhOsy
evilevilevilk[(lsy.Tky[(.(hA(.KyhpyiH.Xaksy
(AyWakAki.yd(.Tymk(AyWakAki.yd(.Tymk(AyWakAki.yd(.Tymk(AyWakAki.yd(.TymksyHiOyT(iOkaAymkLy(.yvHmky(i.hy.TkydhalOyd(.TymksyHiOy(.yTHAyvhi.(iXkOyd(.Tymky
k[kayA(ivkLy(.yvlkH[kAyvlhAkyXi.hymksy(.yl(kAy[kaKyi(WTymksyHiOydTkik[kay.Tkaky(AyHiKymh.(hiy.hy.TH.y
dT(vTy(AyWhhOsy(.yA.Ha.AyXWsydT(vTyAkkmkOy.hyl(kyHAlkkWy\kphaksyHiOykTka.Ay(.AklpsyAhy.TH.ywyvHiih.yOhy
.TkyWhhOywydhXlOgyaTkyukdAyAHKy(l)sy.TkakyHakyyKniiky-KFsyJ.dhyTkHa.AJy(iymHisy.TkyWhhOy

154. (mHW(iH.(hisyHiOy.Tkyk[(ly(mHW(iH.(higyaTkyHWhA.lkyTkakyAWkH)AyHAyhpy.dhyd(llAy(iyakWkikaH.kymkisy
hiky.hyWhhOsyHiOyHih.Tkay.hyk[(lRyhay.T(AymHKy\kyXiOkaA.hhOyhpy.TkylHdyhpy`hOsydT(vTyTkyphXiOy
HWakkOyd(.TyT(Aym(iOsyd(ll(iWy.TH.ydT(vTy(AyWhhOsy.ThXWTyA(iylHKyAhyikHay.hyT(mLyhayTkyphXiOy.TH.y
d(ll(iWy.TH.ydT(vTydHAyWhhOydHAy.TkylHdyhpy`hOsy[kaKyHWakkH\lky.hy(.LyHiOy.TH.y.TkylHdydHAyhiyT(Ay
A(OksypH[hXa(iWyT(msykivhXaHW(iWyT(my.hy.TH.ydT(vTy(AyWhhOsy.ThXWTyA(iy)kW.yAhyvlhAky.hyT(mLy.hy
dT(vTyAkiAkyHWakky.Tkyphllhd(iWydhaOAgy
Gwogyn Ce;For, etc. — The conflict here graphically described between a self that 
“desires” to do good and a self that in spite of this does evil, cannot be the struggles 
between conscience and passion in the unregenerate, because the description given of 
this “desire to do good” in 
Rom_7:22 is such as cannot be ascribed, with the least show 
of truth, to any but the renewed.
CALVIN, “21.I find then, etc. Here Paul supposes a fourfold law. The first is the law of God, which
alone is properly so called, which is the rule of righteousness, by which our life is rightly formed. To
this he joins the law of the mind, and by this he means the prompt readiness of the faithful mind to
render obedience to the divine law, it being a certain conformity on our part with the law of God. On
the other hand, he sets in opposition to this the law of unrighteousness; and according to a certain
kind of similarity, he gives this name to that dominion which iniquity exercises over a man not yet
regenerated, as well as over the flesh of a regenerated man; for the laws even of tyrants, however
iniquitous they may be, are called laws, though not properly. To correspond with this law of sin he
makes the law of the members, that is, the lust which is in the members, on ACCOUNT
 of the
concord it has with iniquity.
As to the first clause, many interpreters take the word law in its proper sense, and consider κατὰ
or διὰ to be understood; and so [Erasmus ] renders it, “ the law;” as though Paul had said, that he,
by the law of God as his teacher and guide, had FOUND out that his sin was innate. But without
supplying anything, the sentence would run better thus, “ the faithful strive after what is good, they
find in themselves a certain law which exercises a tyrannical power; for a vicious propensity,
adverse to and resisting the law of God, is implanted in their very marrow and bones.”
 
-nAAow Ce;
I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.
The law spoken of here, which compels the unregenerate to do evil, is the rule of Satan in the soul
of the unredeemed. Regardless of whatever high ideals and aspirations may be in the unregenerate
heart, as long as Satan is the master within, evil will continue to be present. Not even the
knowledge of God's good law can change the bondage to which the sinner is sold. Christ can make
him free, but nothing else can.
Barrett and other commentators identified the controlling "law" which bound the sinner to sin as
"self@righteousness";[24] and Adam Clarke thought it was
Any strong and CONFIRMED habit, under the influence of which the man generally
acts.[25]
but the more reasonable identification of that force which binds the unregenerate to the mast of sin
would be to refer it to Satanic power over the unsaved. After all, the great force of evil in this world
is personal. Self@righteousness and bad habits are deplorable; but there is a power of evil
mentioned in this verse which is beyond all such things, and from which man, alone, is utterly
incapable of extricating himself.

155. [24] C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 149.
[25] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 90.
22. For in my inner being I delight in God's law;
, KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReeDshe’3vkelh4.phe12eV1m23vamcekBe inward man with
the new man. It means the organ man is given to perceive the truth and good, and
to distinguish them fromt he bad and false." One of the basic arguments of this
position on the whole passage is that there is nothing said here which could not be
said by an enlightened heathen, or a man under law.
KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReesB1el3kekBhephchmhp.kheThiacBkeam the law of God? This
delight expresses the deep joy of the whole spiritual and emotional man. The inner
self or inward man is a term used in II Cor. 4:16 and Eph. 3:16. In these passages it
refers to the interior Christian life.
xwK FyCe;
For I delight - The word used here 
Συνήδο-αι  Sunēdomai, occurs no where 
else in the New Testament. It properly means to rejoice with anyone; and expresses not 
only approbation of the understanding, as the expression, “I consent unto the law,” in 
Rom_7:16, but more than that it denotes sensible pleasure in the heart. It indicates not 
only intellectual assent, but emotion, an emotion of pleasure in the contemplation of the 
Law. And this shows that the apostle is not speaking of an unrenewed man. Of such a 
man it might be said that his conscience approved the Law; that his understanding was 
convinced that the Law was good; but never yet did it occur that an impenitent sinner 
found emotions of pleasure in the contemplation of the pure and spiritual Law of God. If 
this expression can be applied to an unrenewed man, there is, perhaps, not a single mark 
of a pious mind which may not with equal propriety be so applied. It is the natural, 
obvious, and usual mode of denoting the feelings of piety, an assent to the divine Law 
followed with emotions of sensible delight in the contemplation. Compare Psa_119:97, 
“O how love I thy law; it is my meditation all the day.” Psa_1:2, “but his delight is in the 
law of the Lord.” Psa_19:7-11; Job_23:12.
In the law of God - The word “law” here is used in a large sense, to denote all the 
communications which God had made to control man. The sense is, that the apostle was 
pleased with the whole. One mark of genuine piety is to be pleased with the whole of the 
divine requirements.
After the inward man - In respect to the inward man. The expression “the inward 
man” is used sometimes to denote the rational part of man as opposed to the sensual; 
sometimes the mind as opposed to the body (compare 2Co_4:16; 1Pe_3:4). It is thus 
used by the Greek classic writers. Here it is used evidently in opposition to a carnal and 

156. corrupt nature; to the evil passions and desires of the soul in an unrenewed state; to 
what is called elsewhere “the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” 
Eph_4:22. The “inward man” is called elsewhere “the new man” Eph_4:24; and denotes 
not the mere intellect, or conscience, but is a personification of the principles of action by 
which a Christian is governed; the new nature; the holy disposition; the inclination of the 
heart that is renewed.
CLARKE, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man - Every Jew, and 
every unregenerate man, who receives the Old Testament as a revelation from God, must 
acknowledge the great purity, excellence and utility of its maxims, etc., though he will 
ever find that without the grace of our Lord Jesus he can never act according to those 
heavenly maxims; and without the mercy of God, can never be redeemed from the curse 
entailed upon him for his past transgressions. To say that the inward man means the 
regenerate part of the soul, is supportable by no argument. 
? 6:!yfBxc!b12, and gy6B312y
ανθρωπος, especially the latter, are expressions frequently in use among the purest Greek 
ethic writers, to signify the soul or rational part of man, in opposition to the body of 
flesh. See the quotations in Wetstein from Plato and Plotinus. The Jews have the same 
form of expression; so in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 10, 3, it is said: The flesh is the inward 
garment of the man; but the Spirit is the Inward man, the garment of which is the body; 
and St. Paul uses the phrase in precisely the same sense in 2Co_4:16, and Eph_3:16. If it 
be said that it is impossible for an unregenerate man to delight in the law of God, the 
experience of millions contradicts the assertion. Every true penitent admires the moral 
law, longs most earnestly for a conformity to it, and feels that he can never be satisfied 
till he awakes up after this Divine likeness; and he hates himself, because he feels that he 
has broken it, and that his evil passions are still in a state of hostility to it.
The following observations of a pious and sensible writer on this subject cannot be 
unacceptable: “The inward man always signifies the mind; which either may, or may not, 
be the subject of grace. That which is asserted of either the inward or outward man is 
often performed by one member or power, and not with the whole. If any member of the 
body perform an action, we are said to do it with the body, although the other members 
be not employed. In like manner, if any power or faculty of the mind be employed about 
any action, the soul is said to act. This expression, therefore, I delight in the law of God 
after the inward man, can mean no more than this, that there are some inward faculties 
in the soul which delight in the law of God. This expression is particularly adapted to the 
principles of the Pharisees, of whom St. Paul was one before his conversion. They 
received the law as the oracles of God, and confessed that it deserved the most serious 
regard. Their veneration was inspired by a sense of its original, and a full conviction that 
it was true. To some parts of it they paid the most superstitious regard. They had it 
written upon their phylacteries, which they carried about with them at all times. It was 
often read and expounded in their synagogues: and they took delight in studying its 
precepts. On that account, both the prophets and our Lord agree in saying that they 
delighted in the law of God, though they regarded not its chief and most essential 
precepts.” See farther observations on this point at the end of the chapter, (Rom_7:22-25 
(note)).
So far, then, is it from being true that none but a Regenerate man can delight in the 
law of God, we find that even a proud, unhumbled Pharisee can do it; and much more a 
poor sinner, who is humbled under a sense of his sin, and sees, in the light of God, not 
only the spirituality, but the excellence of the Divine law.

157. GILL, “For I delight in the law of God,.... This an unregenerate man cannot do; he 
does not like its commands, they are disagreeable to his corrupt nature; and as it is a 
threatening, cursing, damning law, it can never be delighted in by him: the moralist, the 
Pharisee, who obeys it externally, do not love it, nor delight in it; he obeys it not from 
love to its precepts, but from fear of its threatenings; from a desire of popular esteem, 
and from low, mercenary, selfish views, in order to gain the applause of men, and favour 
of God: only a regenerate man delights in the law of God; which he does, as it is fulfilled 
by Christ, who has answered all the demands of it: and as it is in the hands of Christ, held 
forth by him as a rule of holy walk and conversation; and as it is written upon his heart 
by the Spirit of God, to which he yields a voluntary and cheerful obedience: he serves it 
with his mind, of a ready mind freely, and without any constraint but that of love; he 
delights together with the law, as the word here used signifies; the delight is mutual and 
reciprocal, the law delights in him, and he delights in the law; and they both delight in 
the selfsame things, and particularly in the perfect obedience which the Son of God has 
yielded to it. The apostle adds, 
after the inward man; by which he means the renewed man, the new man, or new 
nature, formed in his soul; which had its seat in the inward part, is an internal principle, 
oil in the vessel of the heart, a seed under ground, the kingdom within us, the hidden 
man of the heart, which is not obvious to everyone's view, it being not anything that is 
external, though never so good: this in its nature is agreeable to the law of God, and 
according to this a regenerate man delights in it: but then this restrictive limiting clause 
supposes another man, the old man, the carnal I, according to which the apostle did not 
delight in the law of God; and proves, that he speaks of himself as regenerate, and not as 
unregenerate, or as representing an unregenerate man, because no such distinction is to 
be found in such a person; nor does such a person delight at all, in any sense, upon any 
consideration in the law of God, but is enmity against it, and not subjected to it; nor can 
he be otherwise, without the grace of God.
Gwogyn Ce;For I delight in the law of God after the inward man — “from the 
bottom of my heart.” The word here rendered “delight” is indeed stronger than “consent” 
in 
Rom_7:16; but both express a state of mind and heart to which the unregenerate man 
is a stranger.
-w(Gg Ce;22.For I consent (230) to the law of God, etc. Here then you see what sort of division
there is in pious souls, from which arises that contest between the spirit and the flesh, which
[Augustine
] in some place calls the Christian struggle (luctam Christianam .) The law calls man to
the rule of righteousness; iniquity, which is, as it were, the tyrannical law of Satan, instigates him to
wickedness: the Spirit leads him to render obedience to the divine law; the flesh draws him back to
what is of an opposite character. Man, thus impelled by contrary desires, is now in a manner a
twofold being; but as the Spirit ought to possess the sovereignty, he deems and judges himself to
be especially on that side. Paul says, that he was bound a captive by his flesh for this reason,
because as he was still tempted and incited by evil lusts; he deemed this a coercion with respect to
the spiritual desire, which was wholly opposed to them.
(231) 
But we ought to notice carefully the meaning of the inner man and of the members; which many

158. have not rightly understood, and have therefore stumbled at this stone. The inner man then is not
simply the soul, but that spiritual part which has been regenerated by God; and the members signify
the other remaining part; for as the soul is the superior, and the body the inferior part of man, so the
spirit is superior to the flesh. Then as the spirit takes the place of the soul in man, and the flesh,
which is the corrupt and polluted soul, that of the body, the former has the name of the inner man,
and the latter has the name of members. The inner man has indeed a different meaning
in 2Co_4:16; but the circumstances of this passage require the interpretation which I have given:
and it is called the inner by way of excellency; for it possesses the heart and the secret feelings,
while the desires of the flesh are vagrant, and are, as it were, on the outside of man. Doubtless it is
the same thing as though one compared heaven to earth; for Paul by way of contempt designates
whatever appears to be in man by the term members, that he might clearly show that the hidden
renovation is concealed from and escapes our observation, except it be apprehended by faith.
Now since the law of the mind undoubtedly means a principle rightly formed, it is evident that this
passage is very absurdly APPLIED to men not yet regenerated; for such, as Paul teaches us, are
destitute of mind, inasmuch as their soul has become degenerated from reason.
(230)
 “Consentio ,” συνήδοVαι it is not the same verb as in Rom_7:16; this signifies more than
consent, for it includes gratification and delight. See Psa_1:2. The verb is found only here.
[Macknight
] ’ version, “ am PLEASED with,” is very feeble and inexpressive; [Stuart ] ’ is better,
“ take pleasure in;” but our common version is the best, “ delight in.”
The
 γὰρ here would be better rendered “” the Apostle makes declaration as to his higher principle;
and then in the next verse he states more fully what he had said in Rom_7:21. This exactly
corresponds with his usual mode in treating subjects. He first states a thing generally, and
afterwards more particularly, in more specific terms, and with something additional. — Ed. 
(231)
 Some consider the conclusion of Rom_7:23, “ the law of sin which is in my members,” as a
paraphrase for “ itself;” as the Apostle describes it at the beginning as the law in his members: and
the reason which may be assigned for the repetition is twofold, — to preserve the distinction
between it and “ law of the mind” in the preceding clause, — and to give it a more distinctive
character, by denominating it “ law of sin.” We in fact find a gradation in the way in which it is set
forth: in Rom_7:21, he calls it simply “ law;” in this verse he first calls it “ law in his members,” and
then, “ law of sin in his members.”
The construction of Rom_7:21, is difficult. [Pareus
] QUOTES [Chrysostom ] as
supposing
 σύVφηναι from Rom_7:16, to be understood after “” so as to give this rendering, “ find
then that the law assents to me desiring to do good,” etc., that is, that the law of God was on his
side, “ evil was present with him.” He then gives his own view, it being essentially that of
[Augustine
] : he supposes ὅτι καλὸς from Rom_7:16, to be understood after “” and that  ὅτι in the
last clause, is to be construed “” the verse is then to be rendered thus, — “ find then the law, that it
is good to me desiring to do good, though evil is present with me;” The verse taken by itself may
thus present a good meaning, but not one that harmonizes with the context, or that forms a part of
the Apostle’ argument. The only other construction that deserves notice is that of our own version,
and of [Calvin ], and it is that alone which corresponds with the context. It has been adopted by
[Beza ], [Grotius ], [Venema ], [Turrettin ], [Doddridge ], and others.
This verse, and the two which follow, conclude the subject, and also explain what he had been
saying about willing and doing. He in fact ACCOUNTS here for the paradoxical statements which
he had made, by mentioning the operation and working of two laws, which were directly contrary to
one another. It seems to be a mistake that he alludes to four laws; for the law of the mind and the
law of God are the same, under different names; it is that of the mind, because it belongs to and
resides in the mind: and it is the law of God, because it comes from him, and is implanted by his
Spirit. To the other law he also gives two names, the “ in his members,” and the “ of sin.” This view

159. is CONFIRMED by the last verse in the chapter, which contains a summary of the whole.
The latter part of Rom_7:23
 is in character with the Hebraistic style, when the noun is stated instead
of the pronoun; see Gen_9:16; Psa_50:23; and it is also agreeable to the same style to add the
same sentiment with something more specific appended to it. This part then might be rendered
thus, — “ making me captive to itself, even to the law of sin, which is he my members.” — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.
This is said to be the verse, beyond all others, which shows that Paul was speaking of Christians in

man "rested upon the law, gloried in God, knew his will, approved the things that are excellent,
being instructed out of the law," etc. In fact, Paul's description of the legal Jew in that passage is
even more flattering than his description here, where a relatively mild "I delight in the law of God" is
used. Since the meaning in Romans 2:17@20 is most certainly the legal Jew, it is mandatory to
assume that exactly the same person is in view here.
Again we have recourse to the exegesis of the inimitable Adam Clarke, whose words on this verse
are not merely good exegesis, but are also a refutation of the prejudice which affirms, quite
inaccurately, that "all of the greats since Luther have construed this passage as a description of
Christian experience." Clarke said:
Every Jew and every unregenerated man, who receives the Old Testament as a revelation from
God, must acknowledge the great purity, excellence, and utility of its maxims; and without the mercy
of God can never be redeemed from the curse entailed upon him for his past transgressions.
[26]SIZE>
The inward man ... does not mean regenerated man, or the regenerated portion of a

Clarke. He further stated:
"The inward man" as used here means the mind, without regard to the
state, whether unregenerated or renewed. To say that the inward man
means the regenerate part of the soul is supportable by no argument.[27]
[26] Ibid., p. 89.
[27] Ibid.
23. but I see another law at work in the members
of my body, waging war against the law of my
mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin
at work within my members.

160. UREGEERATE VIEW: "He does not here speak of an occasional advantage
gained by sin. It was a complete and final victory gained by corruption." "Is it for
one moment to be admitted that the Apostle Paul taught or could teach that
practically a Christian's course on earth was one continuous defeatEand
uninterrupted failure? How is the promise, 'sin shall not have dominion over you,'
fulfilled in a man who confesses to be brought into captivity to the law of sin."
REGEERATE VIEW: "The very fact that he fights is proof that a higher force
than sin is at work within him, however hard the battle goes." "For regeneration
only begins in this life, the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own
corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the spirit."
Paul does not say his penis, but that is one of his members most likely to reveal the
other law, the law of lust. Lust can be like a volcano lying still when all of the
sudden the slumbering giant erupts with such force that the Christian is blown away
by it, and does what is very destructive of his wife and family, and his testimony.
You need to be aware you are living with such a force for potential evil. The best of
men are capable of the worst. David's lust; oah's drunkenness; Abraham's lies
about Sarah, and Peter's denial are just some examples.
Stuart Briscoe , “The believer who holds the law of God in high regard will, like
Paul, find himself in something of a battle. One part of him will give assent to the
goodness of the law, but another part of him will rebel against it. In response to the
principles of God outlined in the law, one part of the believer will aspire to great
deeds, but another part will pull him back from achieving them. Challenged by the
law to be done with lesser things, the believer may resolve to change his ways only to
find that, like the dog which returns to its vomit, he goes back to do again the things
he loathes. Paul, in three great cycles establishes this to be his own experience and
draws some important conclusions. First, the law is good; second, he is bad. (To use
the words of the Lord Jesus, he finds that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is
weak.") Third, he attributes his failure to the presence of sin dwelling in his
members.”
Calvin, “Thus, then are the children of God freed through regeneration from
bondage to sin. yet they do not obtain full possession of freedom so as to feel no
more annoyance from their flesh, but there still remains in them a continuing
occasion for struggle whereby they may be exercised; and not only be exercised, but
also better learn their own weakness. In this matter all writers of sounder judgment
agree that there remains in a regenerate man a smoldering cinder of evil, from
which desires continually leap forth to allure and spur him to commit sin. They also
admit that the saints are as yet so bound by that disease of concupiscence that they
cannot withstand being at times tickled and incited either to lust or to avarice or to
ambition, or to other vices. . . . .We accordingly teach that in the saints, until they
are divested of mortal bodies, there is always sin; for in their flesh there resides that
depravity of inordinate desiring which contends against righteousness.”

161. xwK FyCe;But I see another law - Note, Rom_7:21.
In my members - In my body; in my flesh; in my corrupt and sinful propensities; 
Note, Rom_6:13; compare 1Co_6:15; Col_3:5. The body is composed of many members; 
and as the flesh is regarded as the source of sin Rom_7:18, the law of sin is said to be in 
the members, that is, in the body itself.
Warring against - Fighting against; or resisting.
The law of my mind - This stands opposed to the prevailing inclinations of a corrupt 
nature. It means the same as was expressed by the phrase “the inward man,” and denotes 
the desires and purposes of a renewed heart.
And bringing me into captivity - Making me a prisoner, or a captive. This is the 
completion of the figure respecting the warfare. A captive taken in war was at the 
disposal of the victor. So the apostle represents himself as engaged in a warfare; and as 
being overcome, and made an unwilling captive to the evil inclinations of the heart. The 
expression is strong; and denotes strong corrupt propensities. But though strong, it is 
believed it is language which all sincere Christians can adopt of themselves, as expressive 
of that painful and often disastrous conflict in their bosoms when they contend against 
the native propensities of their hearts.
CLARKE, “But I see another law in my members - Though the person in question 
is less or more under the continual influence of reason and conscience, which offer 
constant testimony against sin, yet as long as help is sought only from the law, and the 
grace of Christ in the Gospel is not received, the remonstrances of reason and conscience 
are rendered of no effect by the prevalence of sinful passions; which, from repeated 
gratifications, have acquired all the force of habit, and now give law to the whole carnal 
man.
Warring against the law of my mind - There is an allusion here to the case of a 
city besieged, at last taken by storm, and the inhabitants carried away into captivity; 
αντιστρατευο-ενον, carrying on a system of warfare; laying continual siege to the soul; 
repeating incessantly its attacks; harassing, battering, and storming the spirit; and, by all 
these assaults, reducing the man to extreme misery. Never was a picture more 
impressively drawn and more effectually finished; for the next sentence shows that this 
spiritual city was at last taken by storm, and the inhabitants who survived the sackage 
led into the most shameful, painful, and oppressive captivity.
Bringing me into captivity to the law of sin - He does not here speak of an 
occasional advantage gained by sin, it was a complete and final victory gained by 
corruption; which, having stormed and reduced the city, carried away the inhabitants 
with irresistible force, into captivity. This is the consequence of being overcome; he was 
now in the hands of the foe as the victor’s lawful captive; and this is the import of the 
original word, αιχ-αλωτιζοντα, and is the very term used by our Lord when speaking of 
the final ruin, dispersion, and captivity of the Jews. He says, αιχ-αλωτισθησονται, they 
shall be led away captives into all the nations, Luk_21:24. When all this is considered, 
who, in his right mind, can apply it to the holy soul of the apostle of the Gentiles? Is there 
any thing in it that can belong to his gracious state? Surely nothing. The basest slave of 
sin, who has any remaining checks of conscience, cannot be brought into a worse state 
than that described here by the apostle. Sin and corruption have a final triumph; and 
conscience and reason are taken prisoners, laid in fetters, and sold for slaves. Can this 

162. ever be said of a man in whom the Spirit of God dwells, and whom the law of the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus has made free from the law of sin and death? See Rom_8:2.
GILL, “But I see another law in my members,.... That is, he saw, he perceived it by 
experience; he felt the force and power of inbred corruption working in him, and as a law 
demanding obedience to it; and which he might well call "another law", it being not only 
distinct from, but opposite to the law of God he delighted in; the one is good, the other 
evil; this other law is a transgression of the law of God, and which he observed to be "in 
his members", i.e. in the members of his body; not that it had its seat only, or chiefly in 
his body, and the parts of it, but because it exerted itself by them, it made use of them to 
fulfil its lusts: the same phrase is used in the Targum on Psa_38:3; which renders the 
words there thus, there is no peace, y-tiIisyJ(iymKymkm\kaAJy\kvHXAkyhpymKyA(iRyihdy.T(AylHdy
dHAsyAHKAyTksy
dHaa(iWyHWH(iA.y.TkylHdyhpymKym(iOdHaa(iWyHWH(iA.y.TkylHdyhpymKym(iOdHaa(iWyHWH(iA.y.TkylHdyhpymKym(iOdHaa(iWyHWH(iA.y.TkylHdyhpymKym(iOLy\Ky.TkyJlHdyhpyhishishishisym(iOJy(AymkHi.syk(.Tkay.TkylHdyhpy`hOy
da(..kiyhiyT(Aym(iOy(iyvhi[kaA(hisyHiOydT(vTyTkyOkl(WT.kOy(isyHiOyAka[kOyd(.TyT(Aym(iOsyHAy
akikdkOy\Ky.TkyNW(a(.yhpy`hOLyhay.TkyikdyiH.Xaky(iyT(msy.TkyWa(iv(WlkyhpyWaHvkydahXWT.y(iyT(Ay
m(iOsyvHllkOyJ.TkylHdJyhpy(.sy\kvHXAky(.ydHAy.TkyWh[kai(iWyWa(iv(Wlky.TkakLydT(vTyak(WiAsyHiOyd(lly
ak(Wiy(iyk[kaKyakWkikaH.kyWkaAhiy.TahXWTya(WT.khXAikAAsyXi.hyk.kaiHlyl(pksy.ThXWTy.TkylHdyhpyA(iy
hWWhAkAyHlly(.AyphavkyHiOyWhdkayHWH(iA.y(.Ly.TH.y(Ayih.yhilKyvhi.aHaKy.hy(.sylXA.AyHWH(iA.y(.sy\X.ydHaAsy
HiOyvhmm(.AyHv.AyhpyThA.(l(.KyHWH(iA.y(.Ry.TkyA.H.kyhpyakWkikaH.kyWkaAhiAy(AyHydHapHaksy.TkKyTH[ky
mHiKykikm(kAy.hyvhm\H.yd(.TsyHAyNH.HiyHiOy.TkydhalOLy\X.y.ThAkyhpy.Tk(ayhdiyThXAkThlOsyd(.T(iy
.TkmAkl[kAsy(iy.Tk(ayhdiyTkHa.AsyHaky.TkydhaA.yhpyHllLy.Tkaky(AyHyv([(lydHay(iy.TkmsyHAy(.ydkakyHy
vhmWHiKyhpy.dhyHam(kAsyplkATyHiOyAW(a(.syA(iyHiOyWaHvksyvhm\H.(iWy.hWk.TkaLyHiOyAhy(.yd(lly\kyHAy
lhiWyHAy.T(Ayl(pkylHA.ALyAhy.aXky(Ay.TH.yAHK(iWyhpy.TkyukdAy(m)sy(iydT(vTy.TkKyHWakkyd(.Ty.TkyHWhA.lksy
JHAylhiWyHAy.Tkya(WT.khXAyl([ksyyeto-yjˆyj-wIkŠsyJ.TkKyHakyH.ydHayd(.Ty.TkyvhaaXW.(hiyhpy.Tk(ayiH.XakJLy
dTkiy.TkKyO(ky.TkKyHakyH.yakA.R??y
TkivkydkyakHOyhpyˆt yeo-yKwIkwsyJ.TkydHayhpy.Tkyk[(ly(mHW(iH.(hiJy(n)Ry\X.ydTH.y(AydhaA.yhpyHllsy.T(Ay
(AyAhmk.(mkAy
\a(iW(iWy\a(iW(iWy\a(iW(iWy\a(iW(iWythemthemthemthemy(i.hyvHW.([(.Ky.hy.TkylHdyhpyA(isydT(vTy(Ay(iyy(i.hyvHW.([(.Ky.hy.TkylHdyhpyA(isydT(vTy(Ay(iyy(i.hyvHW.([(.Ky.hy.TkylHdyhpyA(isydT(vTy(Ay(iyy(i.hyvHW.([(.Ky.hy.TkylHdyhpyA(isydT(vTy(Ay(iytheirtheirtheirtheirymkm\kaAymkm\kaAymkm\kaAymkm\kaALy.TH.y(Asy.hy(.AklpLyphay.Tky
lHdy(iy.Tkymkm\kaAsyHiOy.TkylHdyhpyA(iy(iy.Tkymkm\kaAsymXA.y\ky.TkyAHmkRyHiOy(.ymHKy\kyAH(Oy.hy
\a(iWy(i.hyvHW.([(.Ky.hy(.AklpsydTkiy(.yhilKykiOkH[hXaAy.hyOhy(.sy.ThXWTy(.yOhkAyih.ykppkv.y(.Lyphay
Ahmk.(mkAydhaOAydT(vTykTWakAAyHiykppkv.yhilKyOkA(Wiy.TkykiOkH[hXay.hykppkv.sy\X.yih.y.TH.y(.AklpLy

163. AkkyyEze_24:13gyZX.yHOm(..(iWy.TH.y.T(AyWTaHAky(i.kiOAy.TkyakHlyHiOyHv.XHlykppkv.(iWyhpy(.sy(.y(Ay.hy\ky
XiOkaA.hhOyhpyHyvHW.([(.Ky.hyA(isyO(ppkaki.ypahmy.TH.yHiyXiakWkikaH.kymHiy(Ay(iLydThy(AyHy[hlXi.HaKy
vHW.([ky.hyA(iyHiOyNH.HisyW([kAyXWyT(mAklpy.hyAXvTyAlH[kaKyHiOy\hiOHWksyHiOyaH.TkayWhkAsy.THiy(Ay
\ahXWT.yhayvHaa(kOy(i.hy(.LydTkakHAyHyakWkikaH.kymHiy(Asy.TahXWTy.TkyphavkyhpyA(isyHiOyWhdkayhpy
.kmW.H.(hisy[(hlki.lKyOaHdiyHiOyvHaa(kOy(i.hyvHW.([(.KLy(iydT(vTyTky(AyTklOyHWH(iA.yT(Ayd(llsyHiOy.hy
T(AyWakH.yXikHA(ikAARy\kA(OkAsy.T(AykTWakAA(hiyOhkAyih.yOkih.kyH\AhlX.kyOhm(i(hisydT(vTyA(iyTHAy
ih.yh[kayHyakWkikaH.kymHiLyihay(Ay(.yX..kalKy(ivhiA(A.ki.yd(.TyT(AyvTHaHv.kayHAyAXvTLyphayHAyHyAX\dkv.y
hpyhikyiH.(hiymHKy\ky.H)kiyHyWa(AhikasyHiOy\kyvHaa(kOyvHW.([ky(i.hyHih.TkayiH.(hisyHiOyKk.yakmH(iy
HyAX\dkv.ydTkakyTkydHAsyHiOyOhkAyih.y\kvhmkyhikyhpy.TH.yvhXi.aKyhpydT(vTyTky(AyvHaa(kOyvHW.([kLy
AhyHyakWkikaH.kymHisy\k(iWyvHaa(kOyvHW.([ky\KyA(isyOhkAyih.yvhmkyXiOkay.TkyH\AhlX.kyOhm(i(hiyhpy
A(isyhayvkHAky.hy\kyHyAX\dkv.yhpy.Tky)(iWOhmyhpyWaHvksyhay(iyh.TkaydhaOAsyHyakWkikaH.kyWkaAhiRy
mhakh[kasy.Tky[kaKyWTaHAkyhpyJ\a(iW(iWy(i.hyvHW.([(.KJyAXWWhAkAy.TH.y.TkyWkaAhiy\kphakydHAyih.yHy
vHW.([kLydTkakHAyk[kaKyXiakWkikaH.kymHiyhiksydHAyHldHKAyAhsyHiOyik[kayh.Tkad(AkRyHOOy.hyHlly.T(Asy
.TH.y.T(AyvHW.([(.KydHAy[kaKyO(A.akAA(iWyHiOyXikHAKy.hy.TkyWkaAhisyHiOymH)kAyT(myvaKyhX.syJŒy
dak.vTkOymHiJsyYvgydTkakHAy.TkyvHW.([(.KyhpyHiyXiakWkikaH.kyWkaAhiy(Ay[kaKyHWakkH\lky.hyT(mLyTky
l()kAyT(AyWa(AhisyTkylh[kAyT(AyvTH(iAsyHiOyOhyih.yvThhAky.hy\ky(iyHiKyh.TkayA.H.kyHiOyvhiO(.(hiLy
.ThXWTsyHAy.TkyukdAy(o)yAHKsy.Tkaky(AyihyvHW.([(.Ky wFŠ yKnk‰lsyJl()ky.TkyvHW.([(.Kyhpy.TkyAhXlJLyHiOy
ih.T(iWyAhyWa(k[(iWyHiOyHppl(v.([ky.hyHyWhhOymHiyHAy.TH.y(AgyaTkyHWhA.lkyXAkAymXvTyAXvTylHiWXHWky
HAyT(AyvhXi.aKmkiyOhsydThypakvXki.lKyakWakAki.ymHiyHAyTH[(iWy.dhyWa(iv(WlkAy(iyT(msy.Tkyhiky
WhhOsy.Tkyh.Tkay\HOLy.Tkyhiky.TkKyvHllyˆt yto-syJ.Tkyk[(ly(mHW(iH.(hiJsyhayvhaaXW.(hiyhpyiH.XakLy.Tky
h.Tkay.TkKyvHllyin• yto-syJ.TkyWhhOy(mHW(iH.(hiJsyhayWa(iv(WlkyhpyWaHvkyHiOyWhhOikAALydT(vTy.TkKy
AHKy(p)syHakyH.yvhi.(iXHlydHayd(.TykHvTyh.TkasyHiOy.Tkyhiky(AyAhmk.(mkAyy iFŠsyJvHaa(kOyvHW.([kJy\Ky
.Tkyh.TkagyaTkyWhhOy(mHW(iH.(hisy.TkKyAHKy(q)sy(Ayl()ky.hyhiky.TH.ye-tnŽIIyK-iiyFniIsyJ(Ay\hXiOy(iyHy
Wa(AhiJLyHAy(.y(AyAH(OsyJhX.yhpyWa(AhiyTkyvhmk.Ty.hyak(WiJLy.hydT(vTyHWakkAydTH.y.TkKyAHKy(r)sy
JThdyATHllywyAka[kymKyxakH.haydT(lA.ywyHmyy-to-yt-ŽIsyJHyvHW.([ky.hymKyvhaaXW.(hiJsyHiOyHyAka[Hi.y.hy
mKylXA.ƒ??y
Gwogyn Ce;But I see another — it should be “a different”
law in my members — (See on 
Rom_7:5).
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
law of sin which is in my members — In this important verse, observe, first, that the 
word “law” means an inward principle of action, good or evil, operating with the 
fixedness and regularity of a law. The apostle found two such laws within him; the one 
“the law of sin in his members,” called (in Gal_5:17, Gal_5:24) “the flesh which lusteth 
against the spirit,” “the flesh with the affections and lusts,” that is, the sinful principle in 

164. the regenerate; the other, “the law of the mind,” or the holy principle of the renewed 
nature. Second, when the apostle says he “sees” the one of these principles “warring 
against” the other, and “bringing him into captivity” to itself, he is not referring to any 
actual rebellion going on within him while he was writing, or to any captivity to his 
own lusts then existing. He is simply describing the two conflicting principles, and 
pointing out what it was the inherent property of each to aim at bringing about. Third, 
when the apostle describes himself as “brought into captivity” by the triumph of the 
sinful principle of his nature, he clearly speaks in the person of a renewed man. Men do 
not feel themselves to be in captivity in the territories of their own sovereign and 
associated with their own friends, breathing a congenial atmosphere, and acting quite 
spontaneously. But here the apostle describes himself, when drawn under the power of 
his sinful nature, as forcibly seized and reluctantly dragged to his enemy’s camp, from 
which he would gladly make his escape. This ought to settle the question, whether he is 
here speaking as a regenerate man or the reverse.
VWS, “I see (
βλέβλέβλέβλέπωπωπωπω)
See on Joh_1:29. Paul is a spectator of his own personality.
Another (????τεροντεροντεροντερον)
See on Mat_6:24.
Warring against (?ντιστρατευό?ντιστρατευό?ντιστρατευό?ντιστρατευό-ενον-ενον-ενον-ενον)
Only here in the New Testament. Taking the field against.
The law of my mind (3’yB‘R€y31EyB1‘3’yB‘R€y31EyB1‘3’yB‘R€y31EyB1‘3’yB‘R€y31EyB1‘2yR1G2yR1G2yR1G2yR1G)
“1E2ymind, is a term distinctively characteristic of Paul, though not confined to him. 
See Luk_24:45; Rev_13:18; Rev_17:9.
Paul's usage of this term is not based, like that of spirit and flesh, on the Septuagint, 
though the word occurs six times as the rendering of 
lebh heart, and once of ruach spirit.
He uses it to throw into sharper relief the function of reflective intelligence and 
moral judgment which is expressed generally by 
Vfcu7fyheart.
The key to its Pauline usage is furnished by the contrast in 1Co_14:14-19, between 
speaking with a tongue and with the understanding (τ?νοιʷ́), and between the spirit and 
the understanding (1Co_14:14). There it is the faculty of reflective intelligence which 
receives and is wrought upon by the Spirit. It is associated with ’B!R4yopinion, resulting 
from its exercise, in 1Co_1:10; and with Vc7B6Dyjudgeth in Rom_14:5.
Paul uses it mainly with an ethical reference - moral judgment as related to action. 
See Rom_12:2, where the renewing of the B1E2ymind is urged as a necessary preliminary 
to a right moral judgment (“that ye may prove,” etc.,). The B1E2ywhich does not exercise 
this judgment is ?δόκι-οςnot approved, reprobate. See note on reprobate, Rom_1:28, 
and compare note on 2Ti_3:8; note on Tit_1:15, where the B1E2yis associated with the 
conscience. See also on Eph_4:23.
It stands related to bB6ERfyspirit, as the faculty to the efficient power. It is “the faculty 

165. of moral judgment which perceives and approves what is good, but has not the power of 
practically controlling the life in conformity with its theoretical requirements.” In the 
portrayal of the struggle in this chapter there is no reference to the bB6ERfyspirit, which, 
on the other hand, distinctively characterizes the christian state in ch. 8. In this chapter 
Paul employs only terms pertaining to the natural faculties of the human mind, and of 
these B1E2ymind is in the foreground.
Bringing into captivity (α?χ-αλωτία?χ-αλωτία?χ-αλωτία?χ-αλωτίζονταζονταζονταζοντα)
Only here, 2Co_10:5, and Luk_21:24. See on captives, Luk_4:18. The warlike figure 
is maintained. Lit., making me prisoner of war.
Law of sin
The regime of the sin-principle. sin is represented in the New Testament as an 
organized economy. See Ephesians 6.
The conflict between the worse and the better principle in human nature appears in 
numerous passages in the classics. Godet remarks that this is the passage in all Paul's 
epistles which presents the most points of contact with profane literature. Thus Ovid: 
“Desire counsels me in one direction, reason in another.” “I see and approve the better, 
but I follow the worse.” Epictetus: “He who sins does not what he would, and does what 
he would not.” Seneca: “What, then, is it that, when we would go in one direction, drags 
us in the other?” See also the passage in Plato (“Phaedrus,” 246), in which the human 
soul is represented as a chariot drawn by two horses, one drawing up and the other 
down.
SBC, “Romans 7:22-23
Victory amid Strife.
I. There are, says an ancient father, four states of man. In the first, man struggles not, 
but is subdued; in the second, he struggles and is still subdued; in the third, he struggles 
and subdues; in the fourth, he has to struggle no more. The first state of heavy sluggish 
acquiescence in sin is man’s condition when not under the law of God. The second, of a 
fruitless, ineffectual struggle, is his state under the law, but not with the fulness of Divine 
grace. The third, wherein he is in the main victorious, is under the full grace of the 
gospel. The fourth, of tranquil freedom from all struggle, is in the blessed and everlasting 
peace. Three of these states there are now. However any be under the power of grace, 
they, while in the flesh, must have conflict still. It would not be a state of trial without 
conflict. And this conflict is within, as well as without. This very condition of our being 
must be good for us, since God, after He has redeemed, regenerated, renewed us, has 
given us of His Spirit, and made us members of His Son, united us to Christ, and made 
us temples of the Holy Ghost, but still leaves more or less responsibility in those whom 
He willed to sit on His right hand and on His left in His kingdom.
II. This conflict is continual. It spreads through the whole life and through every part in 
man. Man is besieged on all sides. No power, no faculty, no sense, is free from this 
warfare. Every sense is tempted or tempts to sin; the law of sin is found, although by 
God’s grace it reigns not, in all our members. But though the whole man is besieged thus 
within and without, his inward self, his life, his soul, where God dwells, whereby he is 
united to God, is hemmed in, but not overcome, unless his will consents. "Sin lieth at the 
door." The will holds the door closed; the will alone opens the door. If thou open not the 
door thyself, sin cannot enter in. Resist the very first motions. It is then that thou art 

166. most in thy own power. Be not weary of resisting, although the temptation come again 
and again. Each such resistance is an act of obedience to God; each, done by His grace, 
draws down more of His grace to thee; in each His good pleasure will the more rest upon 
thee; by each thou wilt become more a vessel of His grace and love, more fitted and 
enlarged for His everlasting love.
E. B. Pusey, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 327.
References: Rom_7:22, Rom_7:23.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1062; A. P. 
Peabody, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 397.
Romans 7:22-25
I. When a man begins to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and, discontented with 
himself, attempts to improve himself, he soon begins to find a painful truth in many a 
word of the Bible to which he gave little heed, as long as he was contented with himself 
and with doing just what pleased him, right or wrong. He soon finds out the meaning 
and the truth of that terrible struggle between the good in him and the evil in him, of 
which St. Paul speaks so bitterly in the text. How, when he tries to do good, evil is 
present with him. How he delights in the law of God with his inward mind, and yet finds 
another law in his body warring against the law of God, and bringing him into captivity 
to the law of sin. How he is crippled by old habits, weakened by cowardice, by laziness, 
by vanity, by general inability of will, till he is ready—disgusted at himself and his own 
weakness—to cry, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
II. Let him but utter that cry honestly; let him once find out that he wants something 
outside himself to help him, to deliver him, to strengthen him, to stir up his weak will, to 
give him grace and power to do what he knows instead of merely admiring it and leaving 
it undone; let a man only find out that; let him see that he needs a helper, a deliverer, a 
strengthener, in one word a Saviour, and he will find one. Like St. Paul, after crying "O 
wretched man that I am!" he will be able to answer himself, "I thank God—God will 
deliver me, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Christ will stir up this weak will of mine, 
Christ will give me strength and power, faithfully to fulfil all my good desires, because He 
Himself has put them into my heart—not to mock me, not to disappoint me, not to make 
me wretched with the sight of noble graces and virtues to which I cannot attain, but to 
fulfil His work in me."
C. Kingsley, All Saints’ Day, p. 41.
-nAAow Ce;
But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, 
and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
This "different law" is generally identified somewhat as follows: The nobler type of unregenerate,
knowing about God's law, approving of it, and deciding to live by it, has only himself to rely upon,
because he does not know Christ. Regardless of his efforts, he cannot attain salvation, or even a

rule of conduct for his life. Although such a view as this appears reasonable, it is the conviction here
that the dominating power in unregenerated people is none other than Satan; and the different law
mentioned here has reference to Satan's rule in people's hearts. The mention of a "warring" against

167. the sinner requires that personal intelligence be understood as a part of the conflict, and that
consideration points squarely at Satan.
The tremendous figure of speech employed in this verse is that of the investment, siege, capture,
and destruction of an ancient city, all of this being implied by such a term as "warring." First, the soul
is surrounded with evil, the very nature of the mortal pilgrimage being that it shall be enacted among

are a normal accompaniment of all life on earth. Every soul is thus surrounded. The opposition is
not merely tacit, or theoretical, but it is a warfare. Great engines of destruction were deployed
against ancient cities; and so it is with every soul. Great battering rams, catapults, excavators, and
demolishers of every description are brought forward by the enemy to do battle against the soul. It is
a cruel, heartless, "no quarter" contest. In the verse before us, the soul resisted the siege, but to no
final effect; it was taken by storm. The city fell; its inhabitants were carried into captivity and made
the permanent slaves of the enemy. Such is the awful and inevitable fate of every soul which is not
saved "in Jesus Christ." In Christ indeed is victory; out of him there is nothing but frustration, defeat,
slavery, and death. No wonder that Paul cried out in the following verse with a cry that voices the
agony and despair of unsaved humanity!
24. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue
me from this body of death?
.gT,p,g,Tui,eW:,bIeeuLmsremUseEcrskscsrtmse—tc@;eGjntinued struggle, he
realizes "...that the law can afford him no deliverance, and he despairs of help from
any human being, but while he is emitting his last, or almost expiring groan, the
redemption by Christ Jesus is proclaimed to him..."
T,p,g,Tui,eW:,bIeeBbUtme;j—se—f;mt6set;emUsesJflscGe of a spiritual decline
on the part of the Apostle, was in fact the evidence of his growth. It is the effusian of
a more quick and cultured sensibility that fell to the lot of ordinary men." Another
example they quote is, "sins infinite upon infinite, infinite upon infinite...", which is
not the words of a vile sinner, but is the confession of the elder Edwards, one of the
holiest men in Christianity.
Here is Christian honesty about the Christians potential for sin. This destroys all
hypocrisy and makes one humble and dependent on God, and, therefore, a source of
great joy. McCheyne wrote, "Ah! Brethren, do you know anything of a believer's
wretchedness? If you do not, you will never know his joy." It is the man who
knows he is capable of great evil who is most likely to escape it. He knows he is
capable of an affair, and so he cries out to God to give him wisdom to avoid it. He

168. seeks to prevent his body leading him to destructive behavior. He feels his
helplessness, and so depends upon God.
We need to have both love for good and hate for evil, and only Jesus can give this
balance. A group of college students toured the slums of a city. One of the girls saw
a little child playing in the dirt and she asked the guide, "Why does not her mother
clean her up?" "Madam," he replied, "That girls mother probably loves her, but
she does not hate dirt. You hate dirt but you do not love her enough to go down
there and clean her up. Until hate for dirt and love for that child are in the same
person, that little girl is likely to remain as she is.
"It was the Saturday before August Bank Holiday when the Polish S.S. Dabrowski
berthed by London Bridge, and English stevedores moving the cargo found the
Polish stowaway, Anthoni Klimowicz. Fainting with hunger and thirst, he just
managed to cry, "Tell the English police!" When the captain and the political
Commissar siezed him, and locked him in a cabin. Saturday, Sunday, and Bank
Holiday Monday, the London newspaper bore sensational headlines, "Can
Klimowicz be saved?" It appeared there were diplomatic difficulties. The Polish
captain refused to surrender him. Thousands of Polish refugees swelled a fund to
engage the best lawyers.
But on Monday, the captive stowaway felt the ship casting off, and soon, to his
dismay, he saw the Thames growing wider and wider as the ship went down towards
the sea. Soon the friendly shores of Britain would disappear, and then it would be
the open seaEand what beyond? Imprisonment, perhaps worse!
And yet, salvation was near. The greatest legal mind in the landEthat of Lord
Goddare, the Lord Chief Justice, had been searching for a way to be just and the
justifier of the man who had appealed for mercy. It was discovered that on a
previous visit Antoni Klimowicz as a sailor, at attempted to smuggle something, and
the police had refrained from prosecuting. So he could be lawfully brought to a
British court of law to answer for his misdeed.
Four hundred policemen raced down the Thames, and boarded the Polish ship. The
cabin door was broken down. Did the poor stowaway protest that he was innocent
of the charge of smuggling? Did he "go about to establish his own righteousness?
o, he gladly submitted to justice. "Guilty! Find one farthing! Ten thousand
refugees in Britain would willingly have paid his fine ten thousand times. Antoni
Klimowicz walked out of the courtEback to bondage? o! For what his own
fulfilling of the law could never do, mercy had doneEgaining him liberty and a new
life in Britain. He was free.
God strengthen me to bear myself;
That heaviest weight of all to bear,
Inalienable weight of care.

169. God harden me against myself,
This coward with pathetic voice
Who craves for ease, and rest, and joys.
Myself, archEtrader to myself;
My hollowest friend, my deadliest foe,
My clog whatever road I go.
Yet One there is can curb myself,
Can roll the strangling load from me,
Break off the yoke and set me free. Christina Rossetti.
xwK FyCe;
O wretched man that I am! - The feeling implied by this lamentation is 
the result of this painful conflict; and this frequent subjection to sinful propensities. The 
effect of this conflict is,
(1) To produce pain and distress. It is often an agonizing struggle between good and 
evil; a struggle which annoys the peace, and renders life wretched.
(2) It tends to produce humility. It is humbling to man to be thus under the influence 
of evil passions. It is degrading to his nature; a stain on his glory; and it tends to bring 
him into the dust, that he is under the control of such propensities, and so often gives 
indulgence to them. In such circumstances, the mind is overwhelmed with wretchedness, 
and instinctively sighs for relief. Can the Law aid? Can man aid? Can any native strength 
of conscience or of reason aid? In vain all these are tried, and the Christian then calmly 
and thankfully acquiesces in the consolations of the apostle, that aid can be obtained 
only through Jesus Christ.
Who shall deliver me - Who shall rescue me; the condition of a mind in deep 
distress, and conscious of its own weakness, and looking for aid.
The body of this death - Margin, “This body of death.” The word “body” here is 
probably used as equivalent to flesh, denoting the corrupt and evil propensities of the 
soul; Note, 
Rom_7:18. It is thus used to denote the law of sin in the members, as being 
that with which the apostle was struggling, and from which he desired to be delivered. 
The expression “body of this death” is a Hebraism, denoting a body deadly in its 
tendency; and the whole expression may mean the corrupt principles of man; the carnal, 
evil affections that lead to death or to condemnation. The expression is one of vast 
strength, and strongly characteristic of the apostle Paul. It indicates,
(1) That it was near him, attending him, and was distressing in its nature.
(2) An earnest wish to be delivered from it.
Some have supposed that he refers to a custom practiced by ancient tyrants, of binding 
a dead body to a captive as a punishment, and compelling him to drag the cumbersome 
and offensive burden with him wherever he went. I do not see any evidence that the 
apostle had this in view. But such a fact may be used as a striking and perhaps not 
improper illustration of the meaning of the apostle here. No strength of words could 
express deeper feeling; none more feelingly indicate the necessity of the grace of God to 
accomplish that to which the unaided human powers are incompetent.

170. CLARKE, “O wretched man that I am, etc. - This affecting account is finished 
more impressively by the groans of the wounded captive. Having long maintained a 
useless conflict against innumerable hosts and irresistible might, he is at last wounded 
and taken prisoner; and to render his state more miserable, is not only encompassed by 
the slaughtered, but chained to a dead body; for there seems to be here an allusion to an 
ancient custom of certain tyrants, who bound a dead body to a living man, and obliged 
him to carry it about, till the contagion from the putrid mass took away his life! Virgil 
paints this in all its horrors, in the account he gives of the tyrant Mezentius. Aeneid, lib. 
viii. ver. 485.
Quid memorem infandas caedes? quid facta tyranni?
Mortua quin etiam jungebat corpora Vivis,
Componens manibusque manus, atque oribus ora;
Tormenti genus! et sanie taboque fluentes
Complexu in misero, longa sic morte necabat.
What tongue can such barbarities record,
Or count the slaughters of his ruthless sword?
‘Twas not enough the good, the guiltless bled,
Still worse, he bound the living to the dead:
These, limb to limb, and face to face, he joined;
O! monstrous crime, of unexampled kind!
Till choked with stench, the lingering wretches lay,
And, in the loathed embraces, died away!
Pitt.
Servius remarks, in his comment on this passage, that sanies, mortui est; tabo, 
viventis scilicet sanguis: “the sanies, or putrid ichor, from the dead body, produced the 
tabes in the blood of the living.” Roasting, burning, racking, crucifying, etc., were 
nothing when compared to this diabolically invented punishment.
We may naturally suppose that the cry of such a person would be, Wretched man that I 
am, who shall deliver me from this dead body? And how well does this apply to the case 
of the person to whom the apostle refers! A body - a whole mass of sin and corruption, 
was bound to his soul with chains which he could not break; and the mortal contagion, 
transfused through his whole nature, was pressing him down to the bitter pains of an 
eternal death. He now finds that the law can afford him no deliverance; and he despairs 
of help from any human being; but while he is emitting his last, or almost expiring groan, 
the redemption by Christ Jesus is proclaimed to him; and, if the apostle refers to his own 
case, Ananias unexpectedly accosts him with - Brother Saul! the Lord Jesus, who 
appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me unto thee, that thou mightest receive thy 
sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. He sees then an open door of hope, and he 
immediately, though but in the prospect of this deliverance, returns God thanks for the 
well-grounded hope which he has of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
GILL, “O wretched man that I am,.... Not as considered in Christ, for as such he was 
a most happy man, being blessed with all spiritual blessings, and secure from all 
condemnation and wrath; nor with respect to his inward man, which was renewing day 

171. by day, and in which he enjoyed true spiritual peace and pleasure; nor with regard to his 
future state, of the happiness of which he had no doubt: he knew in whom he had 
believed; he was fully persuaded nothing could separate him from the love of God; and 
that when he had finished his course, he should have the crown of righteousness laid up 
for him: but this exclamation he made on account of the troubles he met with in his 
Christian race; and not so much on account of his reproaches, persecutions, and 
distresses for Christ's sake; though these were many and great, yet these did not move or 
much affect him, he rather took delight and pleasure in them; but on account of that 
continual combat between, the flesh and spirit in him; or by reason of that mass of 
corruption and body of sin he carried about with him; ranch such a complaint Isaiah 
makes, Isa_6:5, which in the Septuagint is,  !y3fPf2y6’!, "O miserable I". This shows him 
to be, and to speak of himself as a regenerate man; since an unregenerate man feels no 
uneasiness upon that score, or makes any complaint of it, saying as here, 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? or "this body of death"; by 
which some understand, this mortal body, or the body of flesh subject to death for sin; 
and suppose the apostle expresses his desire to quit it, to depart out of it, that he might 
enjoy an immortal life, being weary of the burden of this mortal body he carried about 
with him: so Philo the Jew (s) represents the body as a burden to the soul, which 
νεκροφορουσα, "it carries about as a dead carcass", and never lays down from his birth till 
his death: though it should be observed, that when the apostle elsewhere expresses an 
earnest longing after a state of immortality and glory, some sort of reluctance and 
unwillingness to leave the body is to be observed, which is not to be discerned here; and 
was this his sense, one should think he would rather have said, when shall I be delivered? 
or why am I not delivered? and not who shall deliver me? though admitting this to be his 
meaning, that he was weary of the present life, and wanted to be rid of his mortal body, 
this did not arise from the troubles and anxieties of life, with which he was pressed, 
which oftentimes make wicked men long to die; but from the load of sin, and burden of 
corruption, under which he groaned, and still bespeaks him a regenerate man; for not of 
outward calamities, but of indwelling sin is he all along speaking in the context: 
wherefore it is better by "this body of death" to understand what he in Rom_6:6 calls 
"the body of sin"; that mass of corruption that lodged in him, which is called "a body", 
because of its fleshly carnal nature; because of its manner of operation, it exerts itself by 
the members of the body; and because it consists of various parts and members, as a 
body does; and "a body of death", because it makes men liable to death: it was that which 
the apostle says "slew" him, and which itself is to a regenerate man, as a dead carcass, 
stinking and loathsome; and is to him like that punishment Mezentius inflicted on 
criminals, by fastening a living body to a putrid carcass (t): and it is emphatically called 
the body of "this death", referring to the captivity of his mind, to the law of sin, which 
was as death unto him: and no wonder therefore he so earnestly desires deliverance, 
saying, "who shall deliver me?" which he speaks not as being ignorant of his deliverer, 
whom he mentions with thankfulness in Rom_7:25; or as doubting and despairing of 
deliverance, for he was comfortably assured of it, and therefore gives thanks beforehand 
for it; but as expressing the inward pantings, and earnest breathings of his soul after it; 
and as declaring the difficulty of it, yea, the impossibility of its being obtained by himself, 
or by any other than he, whom he had in view: he knew he could not deliver himself from 
sin; that the law could not deliver him; and that none but God could do it; and which he 
believed he would, through Jesus Christ his Lord. 

172. Gwogyn Ce;O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body 
of this death? — The apostle speaks of the “body” here with reference to “the law of 
sin” which he had said was “in his members,” but merely as the instrument by which the 
sin of the heart finds vent in action, and as itself the seat of the lower appetites (see on 
Rom_6:6, and see on Rom_7:5); and he calls it “the body of this death,” as feeling, at the 
moment when he wrote, the horrors of that death (Rom_6:21, and Rom_7:5) into which 
it dragged him down. But the language is not that of a sinner newly awakened to the 
sight of his lost state; it is the cry of a living but agonized believer, weighed down under a 
burden which is not himself, but which he longs to shake off from his renewed self. Nor 
does the question imply ignorance of the way of relief at the time referred to. It was 
designed only to prepare the way for that outburst of thankfulness for the divinely 
provided remedy which immediately follows.
-w(Gg Ce;24.Miserable, etc. He closes his argument with a vehement exclamation, by which he
teaches us that we are not only to struggle with our flesh, but also with CONTINUAL
 groaning to
bewail within ourselves and before God our unhappy condition. But he asks not by whom he was to
be delivered, as one in doubt, like unbelievers, who understand not that there is but one real
deliverer: but it is the voice of one panting and almost fainting, because he does not find immediate
help,
(232) as he longs for. And he mentions the word rescue, (233) in order that he might show,
that for his liberation no ordinary exercise of divine power was necessary.
By the body of death he means the whole mass of sin, or those ingredients of which the whole man
is composed; except that in him there remained only relics, by the captive bonds of which he was
held. The pronoun τούτου this, which I APPLY
, as [Erasmus ] does, to the body, may also be fitly
referred to death, and almost in the same sense; for Paul meant to teach us, that the eyes of God’
children are opened, so that through the law of God they wisely discern the corruption of their
nature and the death which from it PROCEEDS. But the word body means the same as
theexternal man and members; for Paul points out this as the origin of evil, that man has departed
from the law of his creation, and has become thus carnal and earthly. For though he still excels
brute beasts, yet his true excellency has departed from him, and what remains in him is full of
numberless corruptions so that his soul, being degenerated, may be justly said to have passed into
a body. So God says by Moses,
“ more shall my Spirit contend with man, for he is even flesh,” (Gen_6:3  :)
thus stripping man of his spiritual excellency, he compares him, by way of reproach, to the brute
creation.
(234) 
This passage is indeed remarkably fitted for the purpose of beating down all the glory of the flesh;
for Paul teaches us, that the most perfect, as long as they dwell in the flesh, are exposed to misery,
for they are subject to death; nay, when they thoroughly examine themselves, they find in their own
nature nothing but misery. And further, lest they should indulge their torpor, Paul, by his own
example, stimulates them to anxious groanings, and bids them, as long as they sojourn on earth, to
desire death, as the only true remedy to their evils; and this is the right object in desiring death.
Despair does indeed drive the profane often to such a wish; but they strangely desire death,
because they are weary of the present life, and not because they loathe their iniquity. But it must be
added, that though the faithful level at the true mark, they are not yet carried away by an unbridled
desire in wishing for death, but submit themselves to the will of God, to whom it behoves us both to
live and to die: hence they clamor not with displeasure against God, but humbly DEPOSIT
 their

173. anxieties in his bosom; for they do not so dwell on the thoughts of their misery, but that being
mindful of grace received, they blend their grief with joy, as we find in what follows.
(232)
 Ταλαίπωρος miser, æ; “ denotes,” says [Schleusner
], “ who is broken down and wearied with
the most grievous toils.” It is used by the Septuagint for the word דודש, wasted, spoiled, desolated.
See Psa_137:8; Isa_33:1. — Ed. 

(234)
 “ body of death” is an evident Hebraism, meaning “ deadly or mortiferous body;” which is not
the material body, but the body of “ old man,” Rom_7:6; called the “ of sin,” when its character is
described, and the “ of death,” when the issue to which it leads is intended: it conducts to death,
condemnation, and misery. — Ed.
 
-nAAow Ce;
Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death!
This is the cry of every man who is not saved. In the large view, it is the agonizing cry of all the
world, especially of the benighted populations of the pre@Christian ages. Victory was impossible until
Jesus came. The law of Moses was indeed a beautiful and spiritual law, but it did not provide people
with the power to keep its noble precepts. This failure was due to the fact that the great ENABLING
Act of man's redemption had not then taken place. The Saviour had not come. Indeed, there
were learned pagans, as well as noble and upright Jews, who tried vainly to live as God directed,
whether from their own inadequate notions of what God taught, or, as in the case of the Jew, from
contemplating the higher and better revelation through Moses; but in every case, and without
distinction, all fell short of the glory of God; all failed to acquire holiness; all were unable to achieve
justification, sanctification, righteousness, or holiness. It was all a losing battle, start to finish; and
the condition of the whole human race in those long pre@Christian ages was one of the uttermost
pathos and misery. It was the long, long night of earth' darkness, during which people turned their
eager faces to the stars and prayed for daylight. It was truly a night of sin and death, during which
the wretchedness of that disastrous defeat in Eden was communicated to every man that ever lived.
Hopelessness, despair, shame, misery and death @ what a legacy of the reign of the evil one @ and
then Jesus came!
Body of this death ... is one of the most terrible metaphors in the Bible. The besieged soul resisted
only to be overthrown. He was captured, enslaved, borne away in sorrow; but that was not all. He
was chained to a dead body! Bruce, Clarke and others have explained the metaphor thus:
There seems to be here an allusion to an ancient custom of some tyrants, who bound
a dead body to a living man, and obliged him to carry it about, until the contagion from
ACCOUNT
The body of death to which every unregenerate is chained is that of his own unregenerated nature.
It is his freedom from that, that a man must have to escape the wretchedness mentioned here.
Acceptance of the gospel of Christ, through obedient faith, cuts the chains that bind people to their

during the Christian pilgrimage (1 John 1:7).
ENDNOTE:
[28] Ibid.
VWS, “Wretched (ταλαίταλαίταλαίταλαίπωροςπωροςπωροςπωρος)
Originally, wretched through the exhaustion of hard labor.

174. Who (τίτίτίτίςςςς)
Referring to a personal deliverer.
Body of this death (31Ey:—31Ey:—31Ey:—31Ey:—Rf312yRf312yRf312yRf312y31EyxfB531EyxfB531EyxfB531EyxfB531Gy31Gy31Gy31Gy31˜τούτούτούτουτουτουτου)
The body serving as the seat of the death into which the soul is sunk through the 
power of sin. The body is the literal body, regarded as the principal instrument which sin 
uses to enslave and destroy the soul. In explaining this much-disputed phrase, it must be 
noted: 1. That Paul associates the dominion and energy of sin prominently with the body, 
though not as if sin were inherent in and inseparable from the body. 2. That he 
represents the service of sin through the body as associated with, identified with, tending 
to, resulting in, death. And therefore, 3. That he may properly speak of the literal body as 
a body of death - this death, which is the certain issue of the abject captivity to sin. 4. 
That Paul is not expressing a desire to escape from the body, and therefore for death. 
Meyer paraphrases correctly: “Who shall deliver me out of bondage under the law of sin 
into moral freedom, in which my body shall no longer serve as the seat of this shameful 
death?” Ignatius, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, speaks of one who denies Christ's 
humanity, as B6Vc1f‘c12yone who carries a corpse.
I myself
The man out of Christ. Looking back and summing up the unregenerate condition, 
preparatory to setting forth its opposite in ch. 8. Paul says therefore, that, so far as 
concerns his moral intelligence or reason, he approves and pays homage to God's law; 
but, being in bondage to sin, made of flesh, sold under sin, the flesh carries him its own 
way and commands his allegiance to the economy of sin.
25. Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our
Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to
God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the
law of sin.
, KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReerBhHekpHek1eh)ui.amekBave:hpvheaway because it has many
problems which cannot be reconciled with their view. Some try to get rid of the first
part by saying we should "...regard the thanksgiving as a parenthetical exclamation,
anticipating for a moment chapter 8."
KFdF FKwrFeGgFsReeD-.meakelhev3uu1vhTekB.keamev.Hamg, 'I myself,' the Apostle
meant another man, or that, in using the present time, he refers to a former period?
Of what value is language if it can be so tortured as to admit of an interpretation at

175. direct variance with its obvious meaning."
We must now come to a conclusion. I feel that the most logical, and the one for
which there is the most evidence is the regenerate view. However, I feel that the
controversy has been over done, and would rather take the position of Dr. Griffith
Thomas who wrote, "The fact of so much difference of opinion suggests the wisdom
of avoiding the question altogether, and of seeking another and better solution. The
one point of the passage is that it describes the man who is trying to be good and
holy by his own efforts and is beaten back every time by the power of indwelling sin.
This is the experience of any man who tries the experiment whether he be
regenerate or unregenerate.
Under the law with its tenEfold lash,
Learning alas how true
That the more I tried, the sooner I died,
While the law cried: You! You! You!
Hopelessly still did the battle rage,
"Oh wretched man," my cry,
And deliverance I sought by some penance bought,
While my soul cried: I! I! I!
Then came a day when my struggling ceased,
And trembling in every limb
At the foot of the tree where One died for me,
I sobbed out! Him ! Him! Him!
The war has been won by Christ on the cross, but there are still battles to be fought.
A great historical illustration of this is in the book Finding The Goal Posts by
Lawrence Howe. He writes, "..There is a strange story connected with the famous
Battle of ew Orleans. That engagement took place on Jan. 8, 1815, more than two
weeks after a settlement of peace had been agreed upon by the British and
American delegates in conference at Ghent. But neither MajorEGeneral Andrew
Jackson of the American forces, nor General Sir Edward Pakenham, CommanderE
inEChief of the British forces, had any knowledge of the treaty that had been signed.
And thus, what was a decisive military victory for the States, was after all
unnecessary, for the war was already over. But that did not dim the glory that
rested upon the head of the victor of ew Orleans, and as a recognition of his
achievement, he was to be made Military General of Florida, and later was to be
elevated to the presidency of the United States."
F. W. Farrar, “Here he writes as it were with his very heart's blood; he dips his pen
in his inmost experience. He is not here dealing with the ideal or with the abstract,

176. but with the sternest facts of actual daily life. There have been endless discussions as
to whether he has in view the regenerate or the unregenerate man. Let even good
men look into their own hearts and answer. Ideally, the Christian is absolutely one
with Christ, and dead to sin; in reality, as again and again St. Paul implies even of
himself, his life is a warfare in which there is no discharge. There is an Adam and a
Christ in each of us. "The angel has us by the hand, and the serpent by the heart" . .
. When we have once realized that the "I" of the passage is used in different senses E
sometimes of the flesh, the lower nature, in the contemplation of which St. Paul
could speak of himself as the chief of sinners; sometimes of the higher nature, which
can rise to those full heights of spiritual life which he has been recently
contemplating; sometimes generically of himself as a member of the human race E it
is then easy to follow his history of the soul. [in a footnote re: 7:25 he says, "An
'infection of nature' remains even in the regenerate."
D. Martyn LloydEJones, “....Scripture makes it very plain and clear that there is no
part of this Christian life which is without its dangers. othing is so false to the
teaching of the ew Testament as to give the impression that the moment you
believe and are converted, all your troubles are at an end and you will never have
another problem. Alas, that is not true, and it is not true because we have an enemy,
the Adversary of our souls. But not only do we have to contend with the enemy,
there is still the old nature within, and these two together make it certain that we
shall have troubles and difficulties; and it is our business to understand the teaching
of the scripture with respect to these, lest we be caught by the guile and the subtlety
of the enemy....Scripture makes it very plain and clear that there is no part of this
Christian life which is without its dangers. othing is so false to the teaching of the
ew Testament as to give the impression that the moment you believe and are
converted, all your troubles are at an end and you will never have another problem.
Alas, that is not true, and it is not true because we have an enemy, the Adversary of
our souls. But not only do we have to contend with the enemy, there is still the old
nature within, and these two together make it certain that we shall have troubles
and difficulties; and it is our business to understand the teaching of the scripture
with respect to these, lest we be caught by the guile and the subtlety of the enemy.”
Luther, “In 7:25 the Apostle writes: "With the mind I myself serve the law of God;
but with the flesh the law of sin." This is the clearest passage of all, and from it we
learn that one and the same (believing) person serves at the same time the Law of
God and the Law of sin. He is at the same time justified and yet a sinner . . . the
whole man, one and the same person, is in this twofold servitude. For this reason he
thanks God that he serves the Law of God and he pleads for mercy for serving the
Law of sin. But no one can say of a carnal (unconverted) person that he serves the
Law of God. The Apostle means to say: You see, it is just so as I said before: The
saints (believers) are at the same time sinners while they are righteous, because they
believe in Christ, whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them. But they
are sinners, inasmuch as they do not fulfill the law, and still have sinful lusts. They
are like sick people who are being treated by a physician. They are really sick, but
hope and are beginning to get, or be made, well. They are about to regain their

177. health. Such patients would suffer the greatest harm by arrogantly claiming to be
well, for they would suffer a relapse that is worse (than their first illness.”
Anders ygren,result, then, is that chapter 7:14E25 does not refer to the preE
Christian life . . . Like the rest of these chapters, chapter 7 treats of the Christian
life. . .But if we are right in holding that he is here speaking of the Christian life, it
must be affirmed with utmost emphasis that, according to Paul, the soul of the
Christian is not characterized by division and discord. As we saw above, the idea of
the divided will E that man both wills and does not will the good, that he desires both
the good and the evil E is not at home in the mind of Paul. It is falsely read into his
words. . . . He has in mind the tension which exists, in the Christian life, between will
and action, between intention and performance. With that dualism in the Christian
life Paul is well acquainted. . . . "in Christ" he is "free from sin"; and yet sin has not
vanished from his life. He still lives "in the flesh", and there sin finds its point of
contact. The Christian is not only a member "in Christ", but he continues to be also
a member "in Adam." Therefore his life is a constant battle against sin. The
situation is the same here, when Paul speaks of the Christian's relation to the law.
The same dualism obtains here. When finally the new aeon has come to
consummation, there will be no tension between will and performance. But as long
as the Christian is not only "in Christ," but also "in the flesh," that tension remains.
The will to do the right is always present in him; but he steadily falls short in
performance. The Christian's yearning and prayer are that the will of God may "be
done on earth as it is in heaven." But in all that he does, experience shows it does
not happen that way on earth. . . For he is speaking just of the Christian; nor is this
the only place where he says the same. See, for instance, Galatians 5:17, where there
is no doubt that he refers to the Christian: "The desires of the flesh are against the
Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to
each other, to prevent you from doing what you would." Since Paul, in Galatians,
can say that about the Christian, why should it be impossible for him to say it in
Romans 7:14E25?”
Charles Swindoll, “Moses acted in the flesh as he killed an Egyptian . . . Before you
get too pious and judgmental with Moses, just think about . . . your life. Call to mind
a few of the times you knew what was best and you did what was worst . . . Want to
know why you did it? Because you're depraved . . .
I ask you, how could a man as godly as David fall as far as he did with
Bathsheba? . . . The answer is going to sound terribly familiar E he is depraved. He
has a nature that will never improve. He has lust, just like every man and woman
reading these words right now. And he yielded to it . . . He was responsible, just as
you and I are every time we yield.
Most of us have been down the pike far enough to know that we cannot trust our
sinful nature . . . Why did Peter do that? (deny Christ) . . . I repeat, at the risk of
sounding like a broken record, you and I are prone to wander, prove to leave the
God we love because of the depravity of humanity.
Can it be that a man as fine as Paul would be included? Romans, chapter 7, I think,
is the finest explanation of humanity's depraved nature found anywhere in the

178. scriptures . . . Listen to the personal testimony of a great man of God . . . Read
Paul's admission slowly and thoughtfully . . . [he then quotes Romans 7:15E24] . . . I
hardly need to amplify. Paul's testimony is everyone's testimony. That's why we sin .
. . Even though we wish to do good, evil is present in us. . .
We really have two options. First, we can choose to live as victims of our
depravity . . . "for evil is present in me", as Paul wrote. Or second, we can choose to
live as victors through the power of Jesus Christ.”
Billy Graham, “The flesh is that evil tendency of your inward self. Even after you
are converted, sometimes your old, sinful cravings will return. You become startled
and wonder where they come from. The Bible teaches that the old nature, with all
its corruption, is still there and that these evil temptations come from nowhere else.
In other words, "a traitor is living within." "That wretched bent toward sin is ever
present to drag you down." War has been declared! You now have two natures in
conflict, and each one is striving for dominance.
The Bible teaches "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh"
(Galatians 5:17). It is the battle of the selfElife and the ChristElife. This old nature
cannot please God. It cannot be converted, or even patched up. Thank God, when
Jesus died He took you with Him, and the old nature can be made inoperative and
you can "consider yourselves to be dead unto sin" (Romans 6:11). This is done by
faith.”
xwK FyCe;
I thank God - That is, I thank God for effecting a deliverance to which I am 
myself incompetent. There is a way of rescue, and I trace it altogether to his mercy in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. What conscience could not do, what the Law could not do, what 
unaided human strength could not do, has been accomplished by the plan of the gospel; 
and complete deliverance can be expected there, and there alone. This is the point to 
which all his reasoning had tended; and having thus shown that the Law was insufficient 
to effect this deliverance. he is now prepared to utter the language of Christian 
thankfulness that it can be effected by the gospel. The superiority of the gospel to the 
Law in overcoming all the evils under which man labors, is thus triumphantly 
established; compare 
1Co_15:57.
So then - As the result of the whole inquiry we have come to this conclusion.
With the mind - With the understanding, the conscience, the purposes, or intentions 
of the soul. This is a characteristic of the renewed nature. Of no impenitent sinner could 
it be ever affirmed that with his mind he served the Law of God.
I myself - It is still the same person, though acting in this apparently contradictory 
manner.
Serve the law of God - Do honor to it as a just and holy law Rom_7:12, Rom_7:16, 
and am inclined to obey it, Rom_7:22, Rom_7:24.
But with the flesh - The corrupt propensities and lusts, Rom_7:18,
The law of sin - That is, in the members. The flesh throughout, in all its native 
propensities and passions, leads to sin; it has no tendency to holiness; and its 
corruptions can be overcome only by the grace of God. We have thus,

179. (1) A view of the sad and painful conflict between sin and God. They are opposed in all 
things.
(2) We see the raging, withering effect of sin on the soul. In all circumstances it tends 
to death and woe.
(3) We see the feebleness of the Law and of conscience to overcome this. The tendency 
of both is to produce conflict and woe. And,
(4) We see that the gospel only can overcome sin. To us it should be a subject of 
everincreasing thankfulness, that what could not be accomplished by the Law, can 
be thus effected by the gospel; and that God has devised a plan that thus effects 
complete deliverance, and which gives to the captive in sin an everlasting triumph.
CLARKE, “I thank God through Jesus Christ - Instead of 
ευχαριστωτ? Θε?, I 
thank God, several excellent MSS., with the Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and several 
of the fathers, read ?χαριςτουΘεου, or του Κυριου, the grace of God, or the grace of our 
Lord Jesus Christ; this is an answer to the almost despairing question in the preceding 
verse. The whole, therefore, may be read thus: O wretched man that I am, who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death? Answer - The grace of God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Thus we find that a case of the kind described by the apostle in the 
preceding verses, whether it were his own, before he was brought to the knowledge of 
Christ, particularly during the three days that he was at Damascus, without being able to 
eat or drink, in deep penitential sorrow; or whether he personates a pharisaic yet 
conscientious Jew, deeply concerned for his salvation: I say, we find that such a case can 
be relieved by the Gospel of Christ only; or, in other words, that no scheme of 
redemption can be effectual to the salvation of any soul, whether Jew or Gentile, but that 
laid down in the Gospel of Christ.
Let any or all means be used which human wisdom can devise, guilt will still continue 
uncancelled; and inbred sin will laugh them all to scorn, prevail over them, and finally 
triumph. And this is the very conclusion to which the apostle brings his argument in the 
following clause; which, like the rest of the chapter, has been most awfully abused, to 
favor anti-evangelical purposes.
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God - That this clause contains 
the inference from the preceding train of argumentation appears evident, from the fcfy
ουν, therefore, with which the apostle introduces it. As if he had said: “To conclude, the 
sum of what I have advanced, concerning the power of sin in the carnal man, and the 
utter insufficiency of all human means and legal observances to pardon sin and expel the 
corruption of the heart, is this: that the very same person, the fG312y6’!, the same I, 
while without the Gospel, under the killing power of the law, will find in himself two 
opposite principles, the one subscribing to and approving the law of God; and the other, 
notwithstanding, bringing him into captivity to sin: his inward man - his rational powers 
and conscience, will assent to the justice and propriety of the requisitions of the law; and 
yet, notwithstanding this, his fleshly appetites - the law in his members, will war against 
the law of his mind, and continue, till he receives the Gospel of Christ, to keep him in the 
galling captivity of sin and death.”
1. The strong expressions in this clause have led many to conclude that the apostle 

180. himself, in his regenerated state, is indisputably the person intended. That all that 
is said in this chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, 
no man can doubt: that what is here said can ever be with propriety applied to Paul 
the Apostle, who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here 
said would be monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous.
2. But it is supposed that the words must be understood as implying a regenerate 
man, because the apostle says, Rom_7:22, I delight in the law of God; and in this 
verse, I myself with the mind serve the law of God. These things, say the objectors, 
cannot be spoken of a wicked Jew, but of a regenerate man such as the apostle then 
was. But when we find that the former verse speaks of a man who is brought into 
captivity to the law of sin and death, surely there is no part of the regenerate state 
of the apostle to which the words can possibly apply. Had he been in captivity to 
the law of sin and death, after his conversion to Christianity, what did he gain by 
that conversion? Nothing for his personal holiness. He had found no salvation 
under an inefficient law; and he was left in thraldom under an equally inefficient 
Gospel. The very genius of Christianity demonstrates that nothing like this can, 
with any propriety, be spoken of a genuine Christian.
3. But it is farther supposed that these things cannot be spoken of a proud or wicked 
Jew; yet we learn the contrary from the infallible testimony of the word of God. Of 
this people in their fallen and iniquitous state, God says, by his prophet, They Seek 
me Daily, and Delight to know my ways, as a nation that did Righteousness, and 
Forsook not the Ordinances of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of Justice, 
and Take Delight in approaching to God, Isa_58:2. Can any thing be stronger than 
this? And yet, at that time, they were most dreadfully carnal, and sold under sin, as 
the rest of that chapter proves. It is a most notorious fact, that how little soever the 
life of a Jew was conformed to the law of his God, he notwithstanding professed 
the highest esteem for it, and gloried in it: and the apostle says nothing stronger of 
them in this chapter than their conduct and profession verify to the present day. 
They are still delighting in the law of God, after the inward man; with their mind 
serving the law of God; asking for the ordinances of justice, seeking God daily, and 
taking delight in approaching to God; they even glory, and greatly exult and glory, 
in the Divine original and excellency of their Law; and all this while they are most 
abominably carnal, sold under sin, and brought into the most degrading captivity 
to the law of sin and death. If then all that the apostle states of the person in 
question be true of the Jews, through the whole period of their history, even to the 
present time; if they do in all their professions and their religious services, which 
they zealously maintain, confess, and conscientiously too, that the law is holy, and 
the commandment holy, just, and good; and yet, with their flesh, serve the law of 
sin; the same certainly may be said with equal propriety of a Jewish penitent, 
deeply convinced of his lost estate, and the total insufficiency of his legal 
observances to deliver him from his body of sin and death. And consequently, all 
this may be said of Paul the Jew, while going about to establish his own 
righteousness - his own plan of justification; he had not as yet submitted to the 
righteousness of God - the Divine plan of redemption by Jesus Christ.
4. It must be allowed that, whatever was the experience of so eminent a man, 
Christian, and apostle, as St. Paul, it must be a very proper standard of 
Christianity. And if we are to take what is here said as his experience as a Christian, 
it would be presumption in us to expect to go higher; for he certainly had pushed 
the principles of his religion to their utmost consequences. But his whole life, and 
the account which he immediately gives of himself in the succeeding chapter, prove 
that he, as a Christian and an apostle, had a widely different experience; an 

181. experience which amply justifies that superiority which he attributes to the 
Christian religion over the Jewish; and demonstrates that it not only is well 
calculated to perfect all preceding dispensations, but that it affords salvation to the 
uttermost to all those who flee for refuge to the hope that it sets before them. 
Besides, there is nothing spoken here of the state of a conscientious Jew, or of St. 
Paul in his Jewish state, that is not true of every genuine penitent; even before, and 
it may be, long before, he has believed in Christ to the saving of his soul. The 
assertion that “every Christian, howsoever advanced in the Divine life, will and 
must feel all this inward conflict,” etc., is as untrue as it is dangerous. That many, 
called Christians, and probably sincere, do feel all this, may be readily granted; and 
such we must consider to be in the same state with Saul of Tarsus, previously to his 
conversion; but that they must continue thus is no where intimated in the Gospel 
of Christ. We must take heed how we make our experience, which is the result of 
our unbelief and unfaithfulness, the standard for the people of God, and lower 
down Christianity to our most reprehensible and dwarfish state: at the same time, 
we should not be discouraged at what we thus feel, but apply to God, through 
Christ, as Paul did; and then we shall soon be able, with him, to declare, to the 
eternal glory of God’s grace, that the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has 
made us free from the law of sin and death. This is the inheritance of God’s 
children; and their salvation is of me, saith the Lord.
I cannot conclude these observations without recommending to the notice of my 
readers a learned and excellent discourse on the latter part of this chapter, preached by 
the Rev. James Smith, minister of the Gospel in Dumfermline, Scotland; a work to which 
I am indebted for some useful observations, and from which I should have been glad to 
have copied much, had my limits permitted. Reader, do not plead for Baal; try, fully try, 
the efficiency of the blood of the covenant; and be not content with less salvation than 
God has provided for thee. Thou art not straitened in God, be not straitened in thy own 
bowels.
GILL, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord,.... There is a different 
reading of this passage; some copies read, and so the Vulgate Latin version, thus, "the 
grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord"; which may be considered as an answer to 
the apostle's earnest request for deliverance, "who shall deliver me?" the grace of God 
shall deliver me. The grace of God the Father, which is communicated through Christ the 
Mediator by the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ, the principle of 
grace formed in the soul by the Spirit of God, which reigns in the believer as a governing 
principle, through righteousness unto eternal life, will in the issue deliver from 
indwelling sin, and all the effects of it: but the more general reading is, "thanks be to 
God", or "I thank God"; the object of thanksgiving is God, as the Father of Christ, and the 
God of all grace: the medium of it is Christ as Mediator, through whom only we have 
access to God; without him we can neither pray to him, nor praise him aright; our 
sacrifices of praise are only acceptable to God, through Christ; and as all our mercies 
come to us through him, it is but right and fitting that our thanksgivings should pass the 
same way: the thing for which thanks is given is not expressed, but is implied, and is 
deliverance; either past, as from the power of Satan, the dominion of sin, the curse of the 
law, the evil of the world, and from the hands of all spiritual enemies, so as to endanger 
everlasting happiness; or rather, future deliverance, from the very being of sin: which 

182. shows, that at present, and whilst in this life, saints are not free from it; that it is God 
only that must, and will deliver from it; and that through Christ his Son, through whom 
we have victory over every enemy, sin, Satan, law, and death; and this shows the 
apostle's sure and certain faith and hope of this matter, who concludes his discourse on 
this head thus: 
so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the 
law of sin; observe, he says, "I myself", and not another; whence it is clear, he does not 
represent another man in this discourse of his; for this is a phrase used by him, when he 
cannot possibly be understood of any other but himself; see Rom_9:3; he divides himself 
as it were into two parts, the mind, by which he means his inward man, his renewed self; 
and "the flesh", by which he designs his carnal I, that was sold under sin: and hereby he 
accounts for his serving, at different times, two different laws; "the law of God", written 
on his mind, and in the service of which he delighted as a regenerate man; "and the law 
of sin", to which he was sometimes carried captive: and it should be taken notice of, that 
he does not say "I have served", as referring to his past state of unregeneracy, but "I 
serve", as respecting his present state as a believer in Christ, made up of flesh and spirit; 
which as they are two different principles, regard two different laws: add to all this, that 
this last account the apostle gives of himself, and which agrees with all he had said 
before, and confirms the whole, was delivered by him, after he had with so much faith 
and fervency given thanks to God in a view of his future complete deliverance from sin; 
which is a clinching argument and proof that he speaks of himself, in this whole 
discourse concerning indwelling sin, as a regenerate person.
Gwogyn Ce;I thank God — the Source.
through Jesus Christ — the Channel of deliverance.
So then — to sum up the whole matter.
with the mind — the mind indeed.
I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin — “Such then 
is the unchanging character of these two principles within me. God’s holy law is dear to 
my renewed mind, and has the willing service of my new man; although that corrupt 
nature which still remains in me listens to the dictates of sin.”
Note,
(1) This whole chapter was of essential service to the Reformers in their contendings 
with the Church of Rome. When the divines of that corrupt church, in a Pelagian spirit, 
denied that the sinful principle in our fallen nature, which they called “Concupiscence,” 
and which is commonly called “Original Sin,” had the nature of sin at all, they were 
triumphantly answered from this chapter, where - both in the first section of it, which 
speaks of it in the unregenerate, and in the second, which treats of its presence and 
actings in believers - it is explicitly, emphatically, and repeatedly called “sin.” As such, 
they held it to be damnable. (See the Confessions both of the Lutheran and Reformed 
churches). In the following century, the orthodox in Holland had the same controversy to 
wage with “the Remonstrants” (the followers of Arminius), and they waged it on the field 
of this chapter.
(2) Here we see that Inability is consistent with Accountability. (See 
Rom_7:18; 
Gal_5:17). “As the Scriptures constantly recognize the truth of these two things, so are 
they constantly united in Christian experience. Everyone feels that he cannot do the 
things that he would, yet is sensible that he is guilty for not doing them. Let any man test 
his power by the requisition to love God perfectly at all times. Alas! how entire our 

183. inability! Yet how deep our self-loathing and self-condemnation!” [Hodge].
(3) If the first sight of the Cross by the eye of faith kindles feelings never to be 
forgotten, and in one sense never to be repeated - like the first view of an enchanting 
landscape - the experimental discovery, in the latter stages of the Christian life, of its 
power to beat down and mortify inveterate corruption, to cleanse and heal from long-
continued backslidings and frightful inconsistencies, and so to triumph over all that 
threatens to destroy those for whom Christ died, as to bring them safe over the 
tempestuous seas of this life into the haven of eternal rest - is attended with yet more 
heart - affecting wonder draws forth deeper thankfulness, and issues in more exalted 
adoration of Him whose work Salvation is from first to last (Rom_7:24, Rom_7:25).
(4) It is sad when such topics as these are handled as mere questions of biblical 
interpretation or systematic theology. Our great apostle could not treat of them apart 
from personal experience, of which the facts of his own life and the feelings of his own 
soul furnished him with illustrations as lively as they were apposite. When one is unable 
to go far into the investigation of indwelling sin, without breaking out into an, “O 
wretched man that I am!” and cannot enter on the way of relief without exclaiming “I 
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” he will find his meditations rich in fruit to his 
own soul, and may expect, through Him who presides in all such matters, to kindle in his 
readers or hearers the like blessed emotions (Rom_7:24, Rom_7:25). So be it even now, 
O Lord!
du1W:gSe)25.I thank God; etc. He then immediately subjoined this thanksgiving, lest any should
think that in his complaint he perversely murmured against God; for we know how easy even in
legitimate grief is the transition to discontent and impatience. Though Paul then bewailed his lot,
and sighed for his departure, he yet confesses that he acquiesced in the good pleasure of God; for
it does not become the saints, while examining their own defects, to forget what they
have ALREADY
 received from God. (235) 
But what is sufficient to bridle impatience and to cherish resignation, is the thought, that they have
been received under the protection of God, that they may never perish, and that they have already
been favored with the first@fruits of the Spirit, which make certain their hope of the eternal
inheritance. Though they enjoy not as yet the promised glory of heaven, at the same time, being
content with the measure which they have obtained, they are never without reasons for joy.
So I myself, etc. A short epilogue, in which he teaches us, that the faithful never reach the goal of
righteousness as long as they dwell in the flesh, but that they are running their course, until they put
off the body. He again gives the name of mind, not to the rational part of the soul which
philosophers extol, but to that which is illuminated by the Spirit of God, so that it understands and
wills aright: for there is a mention made not of the understanding alone, but CONNECTED with it
is the earnest desire of the heart. However, by the exception he makes, he confesses, that he was
devoted to God in such a manner, that while creeping on the earth he was defiled with many
corruptions. This is a suitable passage to disprove the most pernicious dogma of the Purists,
(Catharorum ,) which some turbulent spirits attempt to revive at the present day.
(236) 
(235) There is a different reading for the first clause of this verse  , χάρις τῳ Θέω “ to God,” which,
[Griesbach
] says, is nearly equal to the received text; and there are a few copies which haveἡ χάρις
κυρίου “ grace of our Lord,” etc.; which presents a direct answer to the foregoing question: but a
considerable NUMBER more have ἡ χάρις του θέου “ grace of God,” etc.; which also gives an
answer to the preceding question. But the safest way, when there is no strong reason from the

184. context, is to follow what is mostly sanctioned by MSS. Taking then the received text, we shall find a
suitable answer to the foregoing question, if we consider the verb used in the question to be here
understood, a thing not unusual; then the version would be, “ THANKGod,who will deliver 
me through Jesus Christ our Lord;” not as [Macknight ] renders the verb, “ delivers me;” for the
answer must be in the same tense with the question. — Ed. 
(236)
 “Idem ego — the same I,” or, “ the same ;” αὐτὸς ἐγὼ [Beza
] renders it the same — “idem
ego,” and makes this remark, “ was suitable to what follows, by which one man seems to have been
divided into two.” Others render it, “ipse ego — I myself,” and say that Paul used this dictlon
emphatically, that none might suspect that he spoke in the person of another.
See Rom_9:3;2Co_10:1. The phrase imports this, “ is myself, and none else.”
He terms his innate sin “ flesh.” By the flesh, says [Pareus ], “ not meant physically the muscular
substance, but theologically the depravity of nature, — not sensuality alone, but the unregenerated
reason, will, and affections.” — Ed.
 
dhvvougSe)
I THANK God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the 
mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord ... stands as the answer of the agonizing question of
the previous verse respecting delivery from the body of death; and, although it is not framed
grammatically as the answer to anything, the quality of its constituting an answer is inherent in the
context. If there had been no answer, there would have been no reason to thank God; and this
outburst of praise, somewhat like a stroke of lightning, illuminates the darkness of this terrible
chapter, and permits a fleeting glance at all that Paul was about to say in the eighth. But, before
proceeding to that, Paul was about to state formally, once more, the conclusion so carefully derived
from the discourse in this chapter, namely this, that, regardless of how the unregenerated man
might serve God with his mind, unless he had found refuge in Christ, he was yet chained to the
body of death, and in consequence of that, he would serve the law of sin with his flesh. It is
imperative to note that the last sentence of this verse is still dealing with the same subject as the
whole seventh chapter, and that it does not APPLY to Paul as a Christian.
Wuest noted that:
This last summation does not describe Paul after he had found the way of deliverance through
Jesus Christ, but is a recurrence to his discussion of his state before he found the victory, and
closes the discussion with the question, "Is the law sin?"[29]
Greathouse concurred in this thus:
The BALANCE of this verse summarizes the dreary state of man in the flesh, as set
forth in the preceding section.[30]
In Phillips' and Moffatt's TRANSLATIONS , the last sentence is placed adjacent to Romans 7:24,
leaving the final words of the chapter, "I thank God ..." One must admit that such
an ARRANGEMENT seems logical and would help men to outline what Paul wrote; but the fact
remains that Paul did not slavishly follow the rules of grammarians. Bruce Barton once described
Paul's words and sentences as "tumbling all over each other, like hot rocks out of a volcano"!
In the exegesis attempted in this chapter, it may appear shocking to some that the usual ascription
of the depressions and conflicts of this chapter to the normal experience of Christians has been
rejected; but it is the deepest conviction of this writer that incredible harm has derived from what has
grown to be (since the Reformation) the usual method of explaining this chapter. True, great and
learned men have taken the position rejected here; but others just as great and learned have
opposed them, some of them in the most emotional way, and with as much feeling as possible; and
this chapter will be closed with a quotation from Adam Clarke whose skill and understanding of the
scriptures are certainly not surpassed by any in the other school of expositors, and who so
accurately expressed what is in the heart of this student of God's word, as pertaining to this
question.

185. The strong expressions in chapter seven have led many to conclude that the apostle
himself in his regenerated state is the person intended. That all that is said in this
chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, no man can
doubt; that what is said here can ever with propriety be applied to Paul the apostle,
who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here said would be
monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous. ... If we are to take what is said here as his
(Paul's) experience as a Christian, it would be presumptuous in us to expect to go

himself in the succeeding chapter, proves that he, as a Christian and as an apostle,
had a widely different experience; an experience which amply justifies that superiority
which he attributed to the Christian religion over the Jewish; and demonstrates that it is
not only well@calculated to perfect all preceding dispensations, but that it affords
salvation to the uttermost to all those who flee for refuge to the hope that is set before
them. Besides, there is nothing here spoken of the state of a conscientious Jew, or of
St. Paul in his Jewish state, that is not true of every genuine penitent; even before, and
it may be, long before, he has believed in Christ to the saving of his soul. The assertion
that every Christian, howsoever advanced in the divine life, will and musk feel all this
inward conflict, is as untrue as it is dangerous. That many so@called Christians, and
probably sincere, do feel all this may be readily granted; and such we must consider to
be in the same state with Saul of Tarsus previous to his conversion; but that they must
continue thus is nowhere intimated in the gospel of Christ. We must take heed how we
make our experience, which is the result of our unbelief and unfaithfulness, the
standard for the people of God, and LOWER down Christianity to OUR most
reprehensible and dwarfish state.[31]
One other word from Clarke regarding the opinion that would refer the conflict of Romans 7 to the

This opinion (that of referring the conflict in chapter seven to the norm of Christian experience) has
most pitifully and shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its
influence and disgraced its character.[32]
[29] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 126.
[30] William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press,
1968), p. 157.
[31] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 93.
[32] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 241.
Footnotes: 
  Or the flesh; also in verse 25 
  Exodus 20:17; Deut. 5:21 
  Or my flesh