Romans 7:23Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The Law of Moses was given later, as a kind of addition. Yet neither law accomplished anything great in this struggle, neither the one that taught the good nor the one that praised it. Such is the conquering and surpassing power of sin.

Depicting this, and speaking of defeat in relation to its force, Paul said, "I see another law warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity."

He did not simply say, "overcoming," but "bringing me into captivity by the law of sin." Nor did he say, "by the attraction of the flesh" or "by the nature of the flesh," but "by the law of sin," that is, by authority and force.

How does he say, "which is in my members"? What does this mean? He does not call the members sin, but completely separates them from sin. For that which dwells in something is one thing, and that in which it dwells is another.

Just as the commandment is not evil, although sin took occasion through it, so the nature of the flesh is not evil, although sin wars against us through it.

Otherwise the soul also would be evil, and even more so, insofar as it has authority over what must be done. But this is not so, not at all.

If a tyrant or robber seizes some splendid building or royal palace, what has happened cannot be a condemnation of the house. All the blame falls on those who carried out the plot.

The enemies of the truth do not understand this. Along with impiety, they fall into complete madness. They not only accuse the flesh, but also slander the law.

Yet if the flesh is evil, the law is good, because it wars against it and resists it. But if the law is not good, then the flesh is good, since, according to them, it fights against the law and is hostile to it.

How then do they say that both the flesh and the law are from the devil, while introducing things opposed to each other?

Do you see what irrationality accompanies impiety? The teaching of the Church is not such. It condemns sin alone.

It affirms that both laws given by God, the natural and the Mosaic, are at enmity with sin, not with the flesh.

The flesh is not sin, but God's creation. It is very useful for us even in the struggles of virtue, if we keep watch.

Therefore the flesh is not to blame for this. If a robber occupies a royal palace, the palace is not at all guilty. So here also, if sin dwells in my members, the flesh is not thereby evil.

Some observe here four laws. One is God's, which teaches us what is fitting. Another is the law that wars against us, coming to us through the action of the devil.

The third is the law of the mind, that is, the natural law. The last is the law found in our members, namely a sin-loving choice and inclination toward evil.

Through habit this makes us insensible and hardened in heart.

Paul delights in the law of God according to the inward man, but sees another law in his members, warring against the law of the mind.

He sees it now. He does not say that it once was. He is burdened by the present, not remembering the past.

He sees a law that not only wars against him, but also makes him captive to the law of sin, which is in his members, though it was not in them.

Paul admits captivity where righteousness has not been fulfilled. For where he delights in the law of God, he is not a captive, but a friend of the law, and therefore free.

Behold what harm the disobedience of the will inflicted on human nature.

This is the struggle we wage with our mortal sins, as this bold warrior of Christ and eternal teacher of the Church shows.

How, then, is sin dead, when it acts upon us in many things, and when we fight against it? What are these many things, if not foolish and harmful desires, which condemn those who consent to them to death and perdition?

To endure them and not yield to them is struggle, combat, and battle. Between whom is the battle, if not between good and evil?

It is not nature against nature, but nature against vice. Vice is already dead, yet it must still be buried, that is, finally healed.

Then there is the law of reason, which agrees with the law of God. The third is the law of sin, which dwells in man's members because of the fall of the first man.

The fourth appears in our members, tempting us to sin, and then departs.

But these four laws may be reduced to two, the laws of good and evil. For the law of reason is the same as the spiritual or Mosaic law, which is called the law of God.

The law of sin is the same law that appears in our members, contradicting the law of our reason.

The flesh, from being the instrument of the spirit, became its master. It even drew the spiritual faculties into devising various means to satisfy its needs. It became weak in serving spiritual demands, and even hostile to them.

The Mosaic Law, given to define the action of the will, could only reveal more clearly the inward division and impotence of fallen man. It could also awaken in him a thirst for gracious help.

This Law assisted the natural law of man's conscience. By positive external punishments it restrained man's sinful inclinations, and by rewards it encouraged the fulfillment of good.

But the weaknesses of the flesh, inborn inclinations, and acquired habits of sin became so usual and constant that the Apostle directly calls them, taken together, the law of sin.

From the chief place of their activity, he calls them the law of the flesh, the law of the members, which opposes the law of the mind, or conscience.

The opposition of this law to the law of the mind is so strong that man does what he does not want. For what he does want, he does not find sufficient strength within himself.

Therefore the Apostle cries out on behalf of all suffering humanity: "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

The Western Church, following the opinion of Augustine, Ambrose, and others, confirmed by the decrees of the Council of Trent, applies the condition described above to regeneration.

Yet even among Western interpreters, some, such as Calmet, Allioli, and Bisping, rely on Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and other Eastern Fathers. They find it more consistent to see here man's condition before regeneration.

The law of the mind, or spirit, is composed of the demands of the fear of God and of conscience. Conscience contains the natural law and receives the written law into itself. By the action of the fear of God, conscience takes under its care every action it recognizes as lawful and stands for it.

The consequence of this is delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But when this takes place, our evil rises up against this law of the mind and begins to war against it. It arouses sympathies and delights opposed to it.

This, the Apostle says in the person of fallen man, I see in myself: “I see another law in my members.” He does not see a law of the members, but a law in the members, as something that has come in from outside. The natural law belonging to the members is not another law than the law of the mind, and it does not war against it. What wars against it is the law in the members, which appeared contrary to nature, as something alien.

In the words that follow, the Apostle calls it the law of sin. This law truly entered nature from outside and began to turn the members into instruments for itself. It is therefore another law in the members, alongside the laws of the members.

One may restate it thus: I see sin acting in my members and warring against the law of the mind. St. Chrysostom says: “Here again the Apostle calls sin a law, not according to its dignity, but because of the excessive obedience of those who submit to it.

“As he calls mammon a master and the belly a god, not according to their own dignity, but because of the great servility of those subjected to them, so here he called sin a law. Men serve it and fear to abandon it as much as those who received the law fear not fulfilling the law.” Men themselves raised it into a law for themselves.

What, then, is the consequence of this warfare? Captivity to sin: “bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” The Apostle does not say how the advantage passes to this side. He only testifies that this is what happens.

But how does it happen? There is law there, and law here. There is desire there, and here there is an offer, perhaps even less. There is delight there, and here contrary delight. Everything is equal. Why then does the advantage pass to this evil side and not to the good?

Above, the Apostle mentioned that this happens because sin deceives (cf. Rom 7:11). By what does it deceive? By sinful sweetness. This sinful sweetness is implied here in the words, “warring against the law of the mind.” Since this warfare is called forth by delight in the law, it could not appear otherwise than as a contrary delight in what is lawless.

But as soon as such delight in lawlessness appears, it immediately draws the will to its side. In the very act of its appearance, it overshadows delight in the law and occupies the heart in its place. The heart then passes over to its side.

Sin bribes free choice with sweetness, and it inclines toward sin. It bribes it because, at the beginning, in the fall, free choice yielded to such a bribe. Sin uses this first error as a contract. For sin, it became as though a right, and for the fallen, a law.

By “the law of sin which is in the members,” one may understand precisely this sweetness of sin, which promises to feed our self-pleasing. Though this sweetness always proves illusory and disappears at once in the very act of sin, every time it appears, it again draws us away. This is captivity.

The holy Apostle James derives the disagreements that arise among men from pleasures that war in the members (cf. Jas 4:1). If even those disagreements come from pleasures, though in themselves they contain a certain bitterness, then certainly, according to this Apostle, the same source produces all other sins.

A question arises. Is such a course of things sealed in us by unavoidable necessity, so that once sinful sweetness has arisen, sin inevitably follows? There is no necessity at all. This happens because of our weakness and corruption.

It became a law, as St. Chrysostom said, because we ourselves raised it into a law for ourselves, or rather, because we raise it into a law each time. Sinful sweetness can be anticipated and not allowed into the heart. Or it can be kept from entering the heart to such a degree that it drives out delight in the law of the mind.

Even after this sweetness seizes the heart, it is possible to drive it out again and restore delight in the good, though this is quite difficult. Our misery is that we do not wish to do this. Because of the self-pleasing and love of pleasure ruling in us, we do not wish to struggle with ourselves or cause ourselves pain by refusal.

Sin takes power in us through this weakness of ours. Someone will say, “But how is that? The law of the mind is also recognized there.” Sin does not reject this law and does not demand its abolition. It only draws a person to sin this once.

The man who sins sins only this once, and afterward he plans always to act according to the law. For now he excuses himself by saying that sweetness has taken hold. What can one do?

By these two moments, sweetness and the fact that the law is not rejected forever, sin always prevails and draws one into sinful deeds. It always takes captive.