ACC ~ Romans 7 v7

WHETHER THE LAW AS SUCH IS SIN. TERTULLIAN: The apostle refrains from any criticism of the law. … What high praise of the law we get from the fact that by it the latent presence of sin becomes manifest! It was not the law which led me astray but sin. AGAINST MARCION 5.13.

NO KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. ORIGEN: What Paul is really saying here is this: “Understand what law this is which I am talking about, which if it did not exist, no one would recognize sin.” Was it by the law of Moses that Adam recognized his sin and hid himself from the face of God? Was it by the law of Moses that Cain recognized his sin … or Pharaoh? … This is the law of which we have often spoken, which is written in men’s hearts not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, and which teaches everyone what he should and should not do. This is the law by which a man recognizes his sin. Here Paul says openly that the natural law was unknown to us until we were old enough to know the difference between good and evil and to hear our conscience tell us what it was.

It is not that we did not have sin in us before this, but we did not know what it was. But when natural law and reason implanted itself in us as we were growing up, it began to teach us what was good and forbid us to do what was bad. Thus when it said: “You shall not covet,” we learned what we did not previously know, viz., that covetousness is wrong. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

LAW DEFINES WHAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. DIODORE: It is clear from Romans [2:14] that even without the law the Gentiles knew what was required of them. It must therefore be accepted that they knew, though they did not know everything. For there are things which some Gentiles regard as good and proper while others reject them as bad and unlawful. Therefore the giving of the law was necessary to define for us what should and should not be done, outlining for us and showing us what the behavior of a righteous person is. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.

LEARNING WHAT IT IS TO COVET. AMBROSIASTER: Paul shows that the law is not sin but the yardstick of sin. For Paul demonstrated that sins lie dormant in us and that they will not go unpunished by God. When a man finds this out he becomes guilty and thus does not thank the law. For who would be grateful to someone who tells him that he is running the risk of punishment? But he gives thanks to the law of faith, because the man who was made guilty by the law of Moses has been reconciled to God by the law of faith, even though the law of Moses is just and good in itself (because it is good to show that danger is near). . . .

Paul takes on a particular role in order to expound a general principle. For the law forbids covetousness, but because it is a matter of desire it was not previously thought to be sin. For nothing could be easier than to covet something which belongs to a neighbor; it is the law which called it sin. For to men of the world nothing seems more harmless and innocent than desire. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

GUARDING AGAINST MANICHEAN ANTINOMIANISM. CHRYSOSTOM: Note how Paul gradually shows how the law was not merely an accuser of sin but to some extent its producer as well. This was not from any fault in it but from the disobedience of the Jews … for he has taken care to guard against the attacks of the Manichaeans, who accuse the law of being evil in itself. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 12.

CONVERTING THE SOUL BY ANXIETY. AUGUSTINE: In this passage [to v. 25], it seems to me that the apostle is portraying himself as a man set under the law and that he speaks in that role.

The law was given not to introduce sin nor to extirpate it but simply to make it known; by the demonstration of sin to give the human soul a sense of its guilt in place of the assurance of its innocence. Sin cannot be overcome without the grace of God, so the law was given to convert the soul by anxiety about its guilt, so that it might be ready to receive grace. … Desire was not implanted in him by the law but was made known to him. TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.1.

HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE LAW. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Paul wants to show that the weakness of the law was not in the attempt to keep it but in human nature. For in saying: “If it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin,” Paul assumed the role of a child who is not bound to keep the law because of the weakness of his age, but when he grows up, he knows what the commandments are and begins to be under the law. THE HOLY LETTER OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

NOT KNOWN COVETING WITHOUT THE LAW. PELAGIUS: From here on Paul speaks as one who accepts the law, i.e., of one who first comes to know God’s commandants while he is still in the habit of breaking them. Paul does not say that without the law he would not have been in the habit of coveting, nor does he say that he would not have done it; rather, he says that he would not have known that coveting was a sin. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: We often covet the things of this life, not merely food and drink and sex but fame and fortune as well. We have these desires inside us and would never know there was anything wrong with them unless the law told us so. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.

MAKING SIN KNOWN. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: Paul did not say that he had no sin apart from the law but rather that he was unaware of it. Therefore the law is not the cause of sin but rather the instrument which points it out, making it clear to those who did not know what it was. It did not do this in order that, once sin was made known, those who committed it should continue in what they were doing. … On the contrary, its intention was to convert people to better things by making their sins known to them. EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

Rom