Romans 7:14

“ For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under the power of sin. ”

We have in this cycle, Romans 7:14, an affirmation: “I acknowledge that the law...but I am captive;” then the demonstration of this fact (Romans 7:15-16); finally, Romans 7:17, the conclusion, which is merely the reaffirmation of the thesis now demonstrated.

The reading of some MSS. οἴδαμεν δέ, then, or but we know, has no meaning. We must read γάρ, for, with the majority of the Mjj. and versions. This for might signify: The case was really so; for witness my state as it resulted from this fatal crisis. The law slew me, and what proves it is the state of death in which I found myself involved from that time. But it is more natural to understand the transition from the preceding passage to this somewhat differently. Holstein seems to me to put it well when he says: From the historical phenomenon, described Romans 7:7-13, Paul now ascends to its real moral nature, which explains it: “The law produced on me the effect which I have just described, because there is an opposition between its nature which is holy, and mine which is corrupt.” This transition includes what we have presented in the first place, for the state in which the law involves us is only the continuation of that in which it had found us. It finds us diseased, and leaves us so. If this is the explanation of the for, we need not be surprised at the use of the present in the verbs which follow. We do not certainly say with Hodge: Paul speaks of the regenerate man abstractly from his faith for the time; but we say: Paul speaks of the unregenerate man without concerning himself with the question how far the unregenerate heart still remains in the regenerate believer. He describes man as he is by nature, man as he knew him, and still finds him in himself, every time that his natural character shows itself. Here is the permanent essence of human nature since the fall outside the action of faith. Thus is explained the use of the present, without our saying that Paul describes his present state.

Some commentators, such as Jerome, Hofm., Schott, write οἴδα μέν : I know undoubtedly. But after that should we not have had simply εἰμι δέ, but I am, instead of ἐγὼ δὲ... εἰμι : “but as for me, I am”...? In point of fact, this form implies a very marked contrast between the I thus emphasized, and some other subject in the preceding context. And this subject to which the I, ἐγώ, forms an antithesis, can only be the subject of the preceding verb we. We are thus led to regard the ordinary reading as necessary: οἴδαμεν, we know. In this we, Paul no doubt includes with himself all believers who have passed through the same experiences, and even the Jews who are at one with Christians regarding the truth affirmed by him.

The knowing, of which he here speaks, is more than a matter of understanding; the sequel shows that it implies a cordial adhesion to that truth (comp. the verbs σύμφημι, συνήδομαι, Romans 7:16; Romans 7:22): “We know and heartily own that the law is excellent.”

The epithet spiritual, applied to the law, has been understood by many, Beza for example, in this sense, that the law is suited to the spiritual nature of man (the πνεῦμα, the spirit, in man); whence it follows that it demands not only external observance, but also the obedience of the heart. But the term πνευματικός, spiritual, is usually connected with the idea of the Divine Spirit; and as in chap. Romans 8:4, Paul says himself that what is demanded by the law is wrought in them who walk after the Spirit (evidently God's Spirit), it is more exact to understand here by spiritual: agreeable to the impulse or tendency of the Divine Spirit. What the law commands is nothing else than what the Holy Spirit works in the heart where He dwells. There is a complete identity between the external precept of the law and the internal working of the Spirit. The idea found here by Calvin, that the law cannot be fulfilled except through the Spirit, follows indeed from the expression used by Paul, but does not express its meaning.

But, says Paul, returning upon himself, of what avail practically is this knowledge which we all have of the holy spirituality of the law? By the use of the pronoun I, he here contrasts with this collective acknowledgment (we know) the wholly individual experience of his carnal state; and in this latter he finds the invincible obstacle to the fulfilment of the law, however it may be recognized, as perfect in theory. The reading of the T. R. and of the Byzs., σαρκικός, and that of the Mjj. of the two other families, σαρκινός, have almost the same meaning: carnal. But the first adjective denotes carnal activity, the second the carnal substance, and by metonymy the carnal nature. As the apostle in this passage is contrasting with the essentially good law not only his own sinful action, but his corrupt nature, the form σαρκινός is certainly preferable.

The notion flesh is here taken in its moral sense, and embraces, as it does in all cases where the flesh is opposed to God, or to what is divine, the whole human person. Paul feels his natural self controlled by the flesh, that is to say, by self-complacency, the inclination to seek self-satisfaction in everything. This tendency is what determines his natural will. And hence the incompatibility between his nature and that of the law, which demands absolute self-consecration.

He adds in explanation of the term carnal, the words: sold to sin, literally, “ under sin.” Thereby he compares himself to a slave bought for money. The seller is the flesh, and the buyer, who has become his master, sin. In fact, a fatal contract, as it were, has taken effect on us, whereby the violence of the flesh has given over our will to the power of sin. The expression sold under is stronger than the usual form sold to; it includes the idea of the shameful state of servitude which has followed the act of sale.