CHAPTER VII.

VERSES 7-13.

THOUGH THE LAW NEITHER JUSTIFIES NOR SANCTIFIES, YET IT IS EXCELLENT, AND USEFUL IN OTHER WAYS. BUT MAN IS QUITE WRONG; AND HIS FALLEN NATURE PERVERTS THE LAW.

7 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.

7.

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. What shall we say then? This form of interrogation, after the main argument on a point is finished, is quite common with Paul, Rom. 3:27; 4:1; 6:1, 15. It clearly marks the close logical connection. Is the law sin? Those, who would make Paul a fautor of sin, can do so only by imputing to him sentiments of which he expresses abhorrence, yes, indignant abhorrence, as here. Compare Rom. 6: 1, 2, 11-15. Paul was no friend of loose living. Nor was he an enemy of the law. He never said the law was sin, or favored sin, or produced sin. It was not itself evil, nor did it countenance evil. Ambrose: "The law discovers sin, it does not beget sin." God forbid, let it not be. See above on Rom. 3:4. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law. So far

from the law favoring sin, it was the great reprover of sin. It made known its true nature, odiousness and guilt. The word rendered nay is in Rom. 3: 31 rendered yea; in Rom. 8:31 nay; in Rom. 5 14 nevertheless. It is a following up of the Let it not be with notice of further statement or argument. I had not known sin; Tyndale and Genevan: I knewe not what synne meant; Conybeare and Howson: I should not have known what sin was. The meaning seems to be this: I should never have understood the real nature of sin, the enormity of my guilt, nor the multitude of my offences but for the law. One way of discovering the uncleanness of an apartment in a house is to bring in a light. One way of discovering the crookedness of a wall is to apply the plumbline to it, Ps. 119: 105; Amos 7:7, 8. God's law is such a light 119:105; and such a line. Paul gives a particular illustration: I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. This tenth commandment was the key that unlocked the mystery of iniquity in the heart of the great apostle. It showed him the great storehouse of iniquity in his bosom. I had not known lust; Tyndale, Cranmer and Genevan: I had not knowne what lust had meant; Conybeare and Howson: I should not have known the sin of coveting; Locke: I had not known concupiscence to be sin; Bp. Hall: I had not known or observed lust to be a sin; Stuart: I had not known even inordinate desire. Calvin: "Municipal laws do indeed declare that intentions, and not results are to be punished. Philosophers also, with more refinement, place vices as well as virtues in the soul. But by this precept God 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. But Paul says 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." Evil desires are evil things. It is sinful to indulge or even have them.

8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. The word rendered occasion is found six times in the New Testament, twice in this chapter, and always rendered occasion, except in Gal. 5 13, where we read liberty. It never means impunity, as Grotius thinks it does here. There is no better rendering than occasion. So thought Wiclif, Coverdale, Tyndale, Cranmer, Genevan,

Rheims, Doway, and many others. Peshito: Sin found occasion. How sin flamed out so terribly is here declared. The precept and penalty of the law both offended the carnal heart by bringing to light and by stirring up its evil inclinations. Pride, self-will and enmity refused to be restrained by the law or by the curse. In previous chapters Paul had dropped a hint to the same effect, Rom. 4 15; 5: 20. Here he declares it in plain and strong terms. Chrysostom: "When we desire a thing, and then are hindered of it, the flame of the desire is but increased. Now this came not of the law; for it hindered us in a way to keep us off from it: but sin, that is, thy own listlessness and bad disposition used what was good for the reverse." Calvin: "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, 'It has discovered to me every lust or coveting, which, being hid, seemed somehow to have no existence.'" Stuart: "Opposition to the desires and passions of unsanctified men inflames them, and renders them more intense and unyielding." Hodge: "The effect of the law operating upon our corrupt hearts is to arouse their evil passions, and to lead to the desire of the very objects which the law forbids." Concupiscence, the same word rendered lust in v. 7, on which see above. It is sometimes used in a good sense for strong desire, Luke 22: 15; 1 Thess. 2: 17; but commonly in a bad sense; as lust of the eyes, wordly lusts, fleshly lusts, hurtful lusts, deceitful lusts, ungodly lusts. For without the law sin was dead. By dead Chrysostom understands "not so ascertainable;" Calvin: "Without the law sin is buried;" Locke: "Not able to hurt me;" Diodati: "As it were asleep and deaded, if it were not kindled again by the law working lively on the conscience;" Pool: "Comparatively dead;" Doddridge: "I was no more aware of any danger from it, or any power it had to hurt me, than if it had been a dead enemy;" Guyse: "Sin was a trivial harmless thing in my account: it did not terrify my conscience; but seemed, like a dead man, to have no strength in me, and to carry no danger in it;" Stuart: "Comparatively sluggish and inoperative;" Hodge: "Inactive, unproductive and unobserved." The principles involved in the exposition are these: 1. Where there is absolutely no law, there is absolutely no sin, Rom. 4:15. 2. But all men have some knowledge of right and wrong, and therefore some conscience of sin, Rom. 2:15. 3. Ignorance of law naturally begets low conceptions of sin. 4. In the absence of law, sin is not felt even where it does actually exist. 5. The clear shining of the law discovers sins where none were

supposed to exist. 6. The restraints of law are irksome to the carnal nature of man, and actually provoke his evil desires. 7. But this provoking of lusts is wholly chargeable to the evil nature of sin, and not at all to the law itself; the law merely showing us the nature, prevalence and power of sin. The question, most mooted respecting verses 7, 8, is whether Paul is here speaking of himself, or merely stating a general truth in the first person singular. Calvin: "I 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." Doddridge thinks the apostle is "personating another character." But is this so? 1. Paul uses the only form of speech he could use, if he were speaking of himself. He has I and me. 2. It must be admitted that in subsequent verses the apostle does speak of himself, and why not here? The general structure of these and of subsequent verses is the same. 3. One clause of v. 7 absolutely requires us to understand the apostle as revealing his personal experience. He says that the tenth commandment was the means in the hand of the Spirit of showing him the true nature of sin or of evil desires. The experience of every converted man is not that the tenth commandment first opened his eyes to a just view of his lost condition. God. often uses other portions of Scripture to bring about the same thing. 4. At some time Paul certainly had the experience here recorded, for it is substantially the experience of all God's people in the early stages of their religious impressions. That is, in some way, by some truth their eyes have been opened to see the number, heinousness and sinfulness of their sins. Paul was no exception.

9. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. The same experience in its consummation is related in Gal. 2: 19, and more fully in Phil. 34-10. I was alive without the law once; Wiclif: I lyued with outen the lawe sumtyme; Tyndale and Cranmer: I once lived with out lawe; Peshito: I, without the law, was alive formerly; Doway: I lived some time without the law; Stuart: I was alive, once, without the law. In the Greek the article is wanting before law. The chief difficulty arises from the word rendered was alive. Some think it means, I lived, that is, I had my earthly existence. Mr. Locke so understands it, and applies the whole verse to one, who lived before and after the giving of the law of Moses. But this does not at all agree with the context, nor with the facts in the case. The contrast is twofold. First, we have the antithesis

between was alive and died; and secondly, between without law and the commandment came. To be alive cannot mean natural life unless to have died means to have died a temporal death. In what sense then may we understand these terms? By being alive Chrysostom understands, "I was not so much condemned;" and by died, he understands that Paul was distinctly made acquainted with the fact that he had been sinning. Calvin: "When 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 my own. But the death of sin is the life of man, and again the life of sin is the death of man." Paul was bred a Pharisee, and was early made acquainted with the letter of the law. But the letter convinces none of sin. None were more self-righteous than the Pharisees. But when God's Spirit opens the eyes to see the extent and spirituality of the law, a very different state of things is produced in the mind of even a Pharisee. His self-esteem dies; his hope of heaven by his own. worthiness dies; his peace of mind leaves him; his false ideas of safety all forsake him. No man is absolutely without law. Paul certainly never was so. That phrase therefore here must point to the time, when spiritual blindness excluded from his mind just apprehensions of the holiness, strictness, extent and spirituality of the law. So when the commandment came points to the time when by the tenth precept of the law his eyes were opened to see how his thoughts, words and deeds were at war with the true intent and just demands of the law. Then sin revived, came to life, i. e. I became sensible of the number and power of my sins and then died, as a legalist. When this great change in Paul's views occurred, he does not here inform us. But it doubtless began about the time that Jesus arrested him on his way to Damascus. Something of this sort occurs in the case of all truly converted men, nor does the change thus indicated cease till sanctification is complete.

10. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. The commandment, either the last precept of the decalogue, or the whole law. Was ordained is added also by Tyndale, Cranmer, Genevan, Doway, Bp. Hall and others. The moral law is unto life among unsinning angels. It was unto life to our first parents till they ate the forbidden fruit. Had they and their posterity perfectly obeyed it, it would have been unto life to them all for ever. It is the law of heaven, and its observance there conduces to the highest good of that blessed society. But every man, who has had true conviction of sin, has, like Paul,