The following was translated using ChatGPT. Text in red are my additions.
Rom 7:1. Are you unaware, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the Law—that the Law has dominion over a person as long as he lives?
In the preceding chapter the Apostle taught that the faithful have been freed through Christ Jesus from the slavery of sin; in this chapter he teaches that through the same Christ they have been freed from the slavery of the Law. He directs his discourse to the Jews who professed the Christian religion. Can you be ignorant, he says, you who are imbued with knowledge of the Mosaic Law, that the Law rules over a person, or that a person is subject to the Law, only for as long as he lives? Once the Law is dead or abrogated, it no longer binds a person by its bond; the authority of the Law extends only over the living, not over the dead. For no law and no covenant extends its right beyond the limits of life—something he proves in the following verses from the law of marriage concerning adulterers.
Rom 7:2–3. For the woman who is under a husband is bound by the law while her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Thus a married woman is bound by the indissoluble bond of the conjugal law as long as her husband lives; but when the husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. The Apostle refers to the primordial law of marriage instituted in Paradise (Genesis 2:24): Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Explaining this, Christ adds (Matthew 19:6): So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. From this it is shown that marriage, by its very institution, is indissoluble, nor can it be dissolved for any cause—even for fornication—so long as the spouses live; so much so that what the Mosaic Law contains about the bill of divorce is permissive because of the hardness of heart of the Jews living under the Law, not approving.
Therefore, while her husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she is with another man. A woman, then, will be guilty of adultery if, while her husband is still alive, she is joined to another. But if her husband has died, she is freed from the law of her husband—released from the bond of marriage—and she is free so as not to be an adulteress if she is with another man, if she marries another husband. These words of the Apostle, so often repeated and so often impressed, are true, living, sound, and clear. No woman begins to be the wife of a later man unless she has ceased to be the wife of the former. And she ceases to be the wife of the former only if her husband dies, not if he commits fornication. Thus a spouse may be lawfully put away on account of fornication, but the prior bond remains; for this reason, whoever marries a dismissed woman—even on account of fornication—becomes guilty of adultery.
Just as, while the sacrament of regeneration remains in a person, one who is guilty of some crime is excommunicated and does not lose that sacrament even if he is never reconciled to God, so, while the bond of the conjugal covenant remains in a woman, she may be dismissed on account of fornication and yet will not be deprived of that bond; she will be deprived of it only if her husband has died. (Thus Theodoret.)
Rom 7:4. Therefore, my brothers, you also have been put to death to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we may bear fruit for God.
Therefore, you—my Jewish brothers according to the flesh, kin according to the faith and the Gospel—have also died to the Law, which has died for you through the passion and resurrection of Christ and has been abrogated. You are no longer under the Law: its threats, terrors, accusations, condemnation, and punishments no longer concern you. Freed from its yoke, this has happened precisely because, through saving baptism, you have been made one body with Christ. Hence you are joined to another, as to a husband—namely Christ Jesus, who rose from the dead—unto whom we must bring forth fruits of good works worthy of God.
Rom 7:5–6. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the Law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
When we were constituted under the Law, bound to the oldness of the letter—that state of a person living according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit—the affections and desires of sin, which were stirred by the Law by occasion, flourished and exercised their power in our members so as to produce works worthy of eternal death, namely sins. But now, through Christ, we have been freed from the Law that worked death through sin by giving it occasion. We have been released, I say, from the Law whose letter kills, which held the Jews bound to itself as a husband binds a wife by the bond of marriage.
The common reading of the present Greek manuscripts has ἀποτανόντες (“having died”); so read the Complutensian Bible and that of Robert Stephanus; so read Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius; so also the Syriac interpreter: Now we cease from the Law and have died to that which held us. Theodoret explains it thus: Released—that is, made inactive—from the Law. The Law, that is, has become inactive for us; for we no longer order our life from it. And how have we been released? By dying to that which held us. For when we were subject to the Law, we approached baptism; and at the same time, having died with Christ and rising with him, we were joined to the Lawgiver, and we no longer have need of a legal mode of life, for we have received the very grace of the Spirit. Hence the Apostle adds: so that we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. The newness of the Spirit is the newness of life which the Holy Spirit produces in us; the oldness of the letter is the oldness of the former life, which the written Law not only fails to remove but even increases by occasion. By the name letter he signifies the Law; by oldness, its cessation. For when the New Testament was instituted, the Old had to give way—figures and shadows to the truth (cf. Jeremiah 31:31).
Tertullian also reads (On Monogamy, ch. 13): But now we have been made void of the Law, having died to that in which we were held. Nevertheless, the reading of our Vulgate is to be retained, since Saint Jerome, who rendered the New Testament faithfully from the Greek, read τῷ θανάτῳ (“to death”) in the better manuscripts and translated: But now we have been released from the Law of death. The Greek manuscripts Sangermanensis and Claromontanus read the same; so also Saint Augustine (Sermon 153 [formerly 4] On the Words of the Apostle).
NOTE: In spite of the fact that St Jerome had some good Greek manuscripts at his disposal which read "of death" (τῷ θανάτῳ) most manuscripts, including some very good ones, read, "having died" (ἀποτανόντες). Modern critical editions of the Greek NT (Nestle-Aland, UBS) read ἀποτανόντες (having died), a reading followed by the NABRE, NJB, RSVCE, ESVCE and the older Confraternity Edition (text is in right-hand column). The abundant manuscripts and the broader context supports these translations.
Via Anthropic Claude: The Complutensian Bible (more precisely, the Complutensian Polyglot) was a massive multilingual Bible published between 1514-1517 in Alcalá de Henares, Spain (Latin name: Complutum, hence "Complutensian"). It was one of the very first printed editions of the Greek New Testament, produced under the direction of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. The polyglot presented texts in multiple languages side by side—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.
Rom 7:7. What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? God forbid.
The Apostle anticipates an objection arising from abuse. Is the Law, then, the cause and teacher of sin, and evil in itself? By no means. Rather, it is good in itself, as having been given by God to direct man to good. Though it could not remove sin by itself, it nevertheless showed how grave an evil sin is and what severe punishments it deserves. But I did not know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the Law had said, “You shall not covet.” I would not have known that the depraved desires conceived in the heart are sins unless the Law had forbidden them by saying, You shall not covet. This most clear and salutary commandment (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21) is, says Saint Augustine, such that if anyone fulfills it, he will have absolutely no sin. The Apostle chose it because it is general and embraces all sins, as though it were the voice of the Law prohibiting every sin when the letter says, You shall not covet. For no sin is committed except by coveting.
Rom 7:8. But sin, taking occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For without the Law sin was dead.
Here and elsewhere the Apostle often speaks in the first person out of modesty when dealing with hateful matters, such as the depraved affections of corrupted nature. Sin—that is, habitual concupiscence lurking in me—taking occasion from the commandment, that is, from the Law’s prohibition, was more inflamed, because by a love of freedom we strive after what is forbidden; what is restrained by the command of the Law as by a bridle excites in us every kind of depraved desire and disordered motion. Without the Law, sin was lulled and, as it were, dead; but when the Law was given, concupiscence of every sort—every consent to depraved affections and motions that entice the will—was stirred up. Just as the force of waters becomes more violent when an obstacle is opposed, and if it overcomes the mass, it rushes down with greater accumulation and is driven more violently along the slope.
Rom 7:9. But I was once alive without the Law.
The Apostle in a certain way transfers to individuals the condition of the whole human race, which first lacked a written Law, then received the Law in the one Jewish people, and finally was called to the grace of the Gospel—three states: before the Law, under the Law, and under grace. Here he assumes the person of individuals: I, before the Law, when I did not recognize sin and followed carnal concupiscences, nevertheless seemed to myself to live, because sin lay hidden before the commandment.
But when the commandment came, sin revived. When the commandment came to my knowledge through the promulgation of the Law, sin began to appear and to be known as what had not been known before—as a transgression of the Law—before it was shown to be forbidden.
Rom 7:10. And I died; and the commandment that was meant for life I found to be for death.
I became liable to eternal death through the transgression of the Law; and by the very outcome it was discovered that the commandment which God had given to direct man to eternal life became, for him, death—through the misuse of it, as concupiscence grew and transgression accumulated guilt.
Rom 7:11. For sin, taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
That tinder of sin—concupiscence inherent in depraved nature—taking occasion through the commandment (which, when imposed, made it blaze more fiercely), deceived me and through it killed me. What is forbidden is sweeter by reason of desire; hence even sins done secretly are sweeter, though that sweetness is deadly. Thus, under the image of deceitful teaching, the woman sitting and inviting the foolish to come to her says in Solomon: Stolen waters are sweeter, and bread eaten in secret is more pleasant. This sweetness is the occasion for sin found through the commandment; when it is desired, it surely deceives and turns into greater bitterness—death.
Rom 7:12–13. So then the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Holy insofar as it sanctions the duties of religion toward God; just insofar as it decrees the duties of justice toward one’s neighbor; and good insofar as it establishes order within ourselves, than which nothing can be more useful to us. Did what is good then become death to me? God forbid. Rather, sin—so that it might appear as sin—worked death in me through what is good. The tinder of sin, concupiscence, took occasion from the commandment, which is good in itself, and produced death in me, so that its viciousness might be more clearly seen—so that sin might become exceedingly sinful through the commandment. Concupiscence, made more lively by occasion of the commandment, bursts forth into new and graver sins.
The Apostle describes sin as though it were a kind of prince who intercepts the forces of his enemies and converts them to the strengthening of his own rule. Thus concupiscence converts to its own use the power of its enemy—that is, the Law—seizing from its prohibition an occasion to multiply and aggravate sin to a greater degree.
Rom 7:14. For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
The Law is spiritual because it was given by God, who is pure Spirit, in order to direct man to His worship—not merely external, but above all interior. It is spiritual because it cannot be fulfilled except through the grace of the Holy Spirit and by spiritual persons. It is spiritual because it prescribes spiritual things, that is, it commands the pursuit of virtues and the avoidance of vices. But I, although regenerated in Christ and justified by His grace, am carnal by reason of the concupiscence that remains in me and resists the spirit, sold under sin, held under the yoke of sin, detained in its old servitude, and thus like a vile slave.
In the interpretation of this verse and of those that follow, the ancient Fathers disagreed. Some judged that Saint Paul speaks in the person of an unregenerate man constituted under the Law: Origen, Saint John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius; among the Latins, Saint Jerome inclines to this view in his Epistle to Algasia and in his commentaries on Habakkuk chapter 1 and Daniel chapter 3. Saint Augustine himself adopted this interpretation in his earlier writings, when the issue had not yet become clear to him against the Pelagians—namely in the Exposition of the Propositions of this Epistle (Props. 41, 42, 45), in the Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians chapter 5, book 1, To Simplicianus question 1, and in the Book of Eighty-Three Questions, question 66, no. 5. Pelagius followed this opinion as being more useful for defending his heresy, and Ambrosiaster and Sedulius descended into the same view.
Nevertheless, the contrary opinion—namely that the Apostle in this verse and those following speaks of a regenerate man, constituted under grace and righteous—was held by Methodius the Martyr (cited by Saint Epiphanius), by Epiphanius himself in Heresy 64 (that of the Origenists), by Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his First Apology on His Flight, by Saint Hilary on Psalm 118 (at verses 18 and 115) and in his exposition of Psalm 1, and by Saint Ambrose in On Paradise, chapters 11 and 12. Their testimonies are brought forward by Saint Augustine against Julian the Pelagian in book 2. Saint Jerome likewise in his Epistle to the Virgin Eustochium and in book 2 of his Dialogue against the Pelagians.
Augustine himself, having become more learned, in the books written against the Pelagians—namely Against Two Letters of the Pelagians book 1, chapters 10 and 11; On Marriage and Concupiscence book 1, chapter 27; Against Julian book 3, last chapter; book 6, chapter 23; On Continence chapter 8; Sermon 154 (formerly 5) On the Words of the Apostle; book 1 of the Retractions, chapters 23 and 26; book 2, chapter 1; On the Predestination of the Saints chapter 4; and Against Julian book 6, chapter 23—responds to Julian, who objected that he understood this passage otherwise than it ought to be understood, as follows:
“I am not alone nor the first to have understood this passage in this way, by which your heresy is overturned, as it truly must be understood. Indeed, I myself once understood it differently—or rather, did not understand it at all, as some writings of mine from that time testify. For it did not seem to me that the Apostle could say of himself, But I am carnal, when he was spiritual, and that he was led captive under the law of sin which was in his members. For I thought that such things could be said only of those whom the concupiscence of the flesh so enslaved that they did whatever it compelled—which it would be madness to believe of the Apostle, since even an innumerable multitude of saints, in order not to fulfill the concupiscences of the flesh, desire by the Spirit against the flesh. But afterward I yielded to better and more intelligent teachers—or rather, to the truth itself, which must be confessed—so that I might see in the words of the Apostle the groaning of the saints who fight against carnal concupiscences. Though they are spiritual in mind, yet, being corrupted by this body which weighs down the soul, they are rightly understood to be carnal, because they will also be spiritual in body when the animal body that is sown rises a spiritual body; and they are rightly still understood to be captive under the law of sin in that part which is subject to the movements of desires to which they do not consent.”
From this it came about that Augustine understood these words as Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and the other holy and renowned Doctors of the Church understood them—namely, that the Apostle himself struggled fiercely against the carnal concupiscences which he did not wish to have and yet did have, and that he bore witness to this very struggle in these words.
Moreover, the truth of the Augustinian interpretation is also proved by reasons drawn from the very substance of the chapter itself.
First, the scope of the Apostle, who proposes to teach that a man regenerated in Christ and constituted under grace is no longer subject to condemnation, even though he still serves the law of sin in the flesh, provided that with the mind he serves the law of God and does not walk according to the flesh—see verse 25 of this chapter and verse 1 of the following chapter.
Second, the change of tense of the verbs shows that the Apostle is speaking of a man placed under a different state. For in verses 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 he uses the past tense, because he assumes the person of a man before the Law or under the Law, that is, of a sinful man: I did not know sin except through the Law; sin worked in me through the commandment all manner of concupiscence; I was alive without the Law once; I died; the commandment which was unto life I found to be unto death; sin, taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. But from verse 14 onward he speaks of himself in the present tense: But I am carnal, and so forth. By this manner of speaking he indicates that he is speaking of himself and of all the regenerate who, having been transferred from the state of sin and servitude to the Law into the state of grace, nevertheless experience the daily battle of the flesh against the spirit. Compare the parallel passage in Galatians 5:17, where he addresses those reborn and constituted under grace: For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, so that you do not do whatever you wish.
Third, what the Apostle says here in his own person and in that of others—that he wills the good, hates evil, does not do the good he wills; that he consents to and delights in the law of God; that he serves the law of God with the mind; that he does not do what in his flesh he experiences as contrary to the law of God; and that cry, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?—all these belong to the person of a man constituted under grace, not under the Law. The exposition of Saint Augustine is followed by Saint Prosper (Against the Collator chapter 4), by Saint Gregory (Morals book 19, chapter 5, and book 29, chapter 15), by the Venerable Bede, and by Saint Thomas.
Rom 7:15. For what I do, I do not understand—that is, I do not approve, I do not consent, I do not do. This must be referred to affection, not to intellect; otherwise the Apostle would contradict himself, since above he said, Through the Law comes knowledge of sin, and I did not know sin except through the Law, and Sin, that it might appear as sin, worked death in me through what is good. For how did he know sin through the Law if he did not understand it? How does sin appear if it is not known? Thus, I do not understand means I do not do, because I commit it with no consent of my own—just as the Lord will say to the wicked, I never knew you, whom nothing can possibly escape; and as it is said of Him, He who knew no sin, that is, He did not commit it, though He certainly knew what He reproved.
For I do not do the good that I will, but the evil that I hate, that I do. I would not even wish, in the flesh, to experience concupiscence or rebellious movements of desire; yet that is not within my power. But to deny consent is within my power, and this I provide, resisting desire with my mind. Therefore, he says that he does evil—not by consenting affection and by carrying it out, but by the very motion of concupiscence itself, as Saint Augustine explains.
The author of the Vulgate added the words good and evil for greater explanation, although nothing corresponds to them in the Greek text, nor in the Syriac version. Indeed, even in the Divine Library published under the name of Saint Jerome, this reading as found in our Vulgate does not appear. In his Epistle to Ctesiphon against Pelagius, he omits these two words and cites the passage thus: For what I will, this I do not do; but what I do not will, that I do. Saint Augustine reads it the same way, as does Ambrosiaster.
Rom 7:16–17. If then I do what I do not will, I consent to the Law that it is good.
If I experience in the flesh a concupiscence which I would not wish to have, having been taught by the Law You shall not covet, I consent to the Law and conform myself to it with a right and whole will, acknowledging that it is good. Now then it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. Now, constituted under grace—which has freed the delight of the will from consent to lust—I no longer do those depraved movements of concupiscence, because I do not consent to them nor present my members as instruments of iniquity to sin; rather, the concupiscence dwelling in me produces them.
The impure Quietists vainly draw this passage to the defense of their error. For if a man both desires, consents, and acts, how does he not himself do it, even if he laments that he does it and groans heavily under defeat? A man is greatly deceived if, consenting to the concupiscence of his flesh and deciding to do what it desires, he thinks he may still say, It is no longer I who do it, even if he hates it—because he consents. Both are present at once: he hates it because he knows it is evil, and he does it because he has resolved to do it. And if he adds what Scripture forbids, saying, Do not present your members as instruments of iniquity to sin, so that what he has resolved in his heart he also carries out in the body, and then says, It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me, because what he resolves and does displeases him—he is so mistaken that he does not even recognize himself, when in fact he himself is wholly there, both in the heart that resolves and in the body that carries out the act. Therefore, he who says, It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me, speaks truly only if he merely experiences concupiscence; not if he decides by consent of the heart or completes it by the ministry of the body.
Rom 7:18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.
By experience I know that, insofar as I am carnal according to the old corruption—of which Christ the Lord said, That which is born of the flesh is flesh—no good dwells in me. For to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good I do not find. To will the good—even perfectly—through Christ renewed and assisted is now present with me; for I wish not to covet, not even in the flesh. But to bring to completion all the good that I will, I do not attain, because the flesh places an obstacle. According to the Greek text it should be translated: To will is present with me, but not to accomplish the good. He does not say to do the good, but to accomplish the good; for to do good is not to follow concupiscences, but to accomplish the good is not to experience concupiscence at all. This corresponds to Galatians: Do not fulfill the desires of the flesh. Here it is the opposite: To accomplish the good I do not find. Nor are those desires perfected in evil when the assent of our will does not join them; nor is our will perfected in good as long as the movement to which we do not consent remains.
To will is present with me, but to accomplish the good I do not find. Cassian interpreted this as though, by a good of nature granted by the beneficence of the Creator, beginnings of good wills sometimes arise, which nevertheless cannot reach the consummation of virtues unless they are directed by God. Saint Prosper refutes that Semipelagian interpretation:
“The blessed Apostle indeed said, For to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good I do not find; but the same Apostle also said, Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God; and again he said, For it is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Therefore the Apostle is not contradicting himself. Rather, although the good will has been given to us, we do not at once find the power to act, unless—by asking, seeking, and knocking—the One who gave the desire also grants its effect.”
This voice saying, For to will is present with me, but to accomplish it I do not find, belongs to one who has been called and already constituted under grace, who indeed delights in the law of God according to the inner man, yet sees another law in his members resisting the law of his mind and leading him captive under the law of sin. And although he has received knowledge of right willing and virtue, he does not find within himself the power to perform the things he longs for, until—on account of the good will he has undertaken—he merits to find the capacity for virtues which he seeks.
Rom 7:19–20. For I do not do the good that I will, but the evil that I do not will, that I do. But if I do what I do not will, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
He presses this point further, which he had already said in verses 15 and 17, to show that in this mortal life he does not attain to perfecting what he wills—namely, not to covet at all.
Rom 7:21–22. I find then a law, that when I will to do good, evil is present with me.
When I will to do good, I experience an inclination toward evil innate within me; I find the law of the tinder of sin, the law of concupiscence, opposing the law of God. It is called a “law” because by its motions it urges toward sin, just as a law invites to duty by promises and threats. Or again: I find the law to be good for me who will to do what the Law commands—not the Law itself, which says You shall not covet, but rather that evil is present with me, unwillingly, because even when I do not will it, I still experience concupiscence.
The Syriac version can shed some light on this verse: I find, therefore, this law agreeing with my mind when I will to do good, that evil is close at hand. That is, from the conflict continually waged between conscience enlightened by the Law and the concupiscence that clings to me, I discover that the law agrees with my mind, which wills to do good and denies its consent to depraved affections and sudden motions of concupiscence.
For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man.
I not only approve the law of God as good, just, and holy, but I love it and delight in its observance according to reason and will—the inner man renewed by the grace of Christ.
Rom 7:23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.
I sense in my flesh another law—a foul law, a wretched law—namely concupiscence, resisting the law of my mind, rebelling against the rule of reason enlightened by the divine law, and waging continual war against it, and leading me captive—or attempting to lead me captive—under the law of sin which is in my members. That is, it strives to subject me to itself as a captive.
And it leads me captive in the flesh, not in the mind; by movement, not by consent. And it is said to lead me captive because even in the flesh it is not a foreign nature, but our own. Hence the Apostle said above: I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. Therefore this is what is held captive under the law of sin, in which no good dwells—namely, the flesh.
Yet he now calls “flesh” that morbid affection of the flesh, not the bodily structure itself. For as regards bodily substance and nature itself, in faithful men—whether married or continent—it is already the temple of God. Still, if absolutely nothing of our flesh were held captive—not indeed under the devil, for there too remission of sins has taken place so that sin is not imputed, which is properly called the law of sin—but if our flesh were not in some measure held captive under this law of sin, that is, under concupiscence, how would it be true what the same Apostle says: Waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body? Therefore, the redemption of our body is still awaited insofar as it is still in some part held captive under the law of sin.
Rom 7:24–25. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Who will deliver me from this mortal body, from this body subject to rebellious movements of concupiscence? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. The gratuitous goodness of God, through Jesus Christ, will someday deliver me from this corruption, from this captivity. For when this very body is received incorruptible, liberation from this body of death will be complete—a liberation not granted to those who will rise for punishment.
Thus it belongs to this “body of death” that another law is in the members, indeed resisting the law of the mind, yet not reigning in our mortal body if we do not obey its desires. For enemies against whom battle is waged, even when inferior and defeated, often hold something captive; so too in our flesh, although it is held under the law of sin, it is nevertheless in hope of redemption. For that vicious concupiscence itself will remain no more at all, and our flesh—healed of that plague and disease, wholly clothed in immortality—will remain in eternal beatitude.
The Greek manuscripts read Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ, that is, I give thanks to God, with which the Syriac version agrees. The sense is: I give thanks to God, who through Jesus Christ will at last deliver me from this body of death and from the law of sin. And although the Divine Library under the name of Saint Jerome presents the reading of our Vulgate, Jerome himself in his Epistle to Algasia reads it in the Greek manner:
“When there seemed to be extreme despair—indeed, an open confession that every man is ensnared by the devil’s traps—the Apostle, or rather the man in whose person the Apostle speaks, turns to himself and gives thanks to the Savior that he has been redeemed by His blood, has laid aside his filth, has put on the new garment of Christ, and, with the old man dead, has been born a new man, who says: Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who will deliver me from this body of death.”
Therefore I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh the law of sin.
Paul himself, as long as he is held in this mortal body and full liberation is delayed, serves the law of God with his mind by not consenting to the law of sin; but with the flesh he serves the law of sin by having sinful desires, from which—although he does not consent—he is not yet wholly free.
From this Saint Augustine concludes that the Apostle signifies not only himself in his own person but also others constituted with him, who are not yet established in that perfect peace in which death will be swallowed up in victory.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment