Romans 7:8Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Rather, sin, that is, your carelessness and your evil will, used the good for evil. If medicine is used badly, the physician is not at fault, but the sick man. God did not give the law in order to inflame coveting by it, but in order to extinguish it.

The opposite happened, but the fault is not His, but ours. It would be unjust to accuse someone who refuses a fevered sick man a cold drink at the wrong time, even if by this he intensifies the man's passion for that harmful pleasure.

It is the physician's task only to forbid. The sick man himself must abstain. What follows if sin received an occasion from the law? Many evil people increase their own wickedness even through good commands.

Thus the devil destroyed Judas, casting him into love of money and urging him to steal what belonged to the poor. Yet the fact that the money box was entrusted to him did not make him such. The wickedness of his will did.

This same wickedness drove Adam and Eve out of paradise by urging them to taste from the tree. The tree was not at fault, although the occasion was given through it.

Do not be surprised that Paul used very strong expressions when speaking of the law. He confines himself to what is necessary. He deprives those who think otherwise of the possibility of finding occasion for objection in his words, and he shows great care to portray the matter correctly.

Therefore do not assess the present discourse merely in itself. Look into the reason that compelled the Apostle to speak this way. Set before yourself the frenzy of the Jews and their invincible obstinacy, which he was trying to overcome.

He seems to say much against the law, but not in order to accuse the law. He does this in order to destroy the obstinacy of the Jews. If it is counted against the law that sin received occasion through it, then the same will prove to have happened in the New Testament.

In the New Testament also there are countless laws, and concerning many very important matters. Anyone can see that the same thing happens here, not only with respect to coveting, but generally with respect to every vice.

"If I had not come and spoken to them," Christ says, "they would not have had sin" (Jn 15:22). Thus here also sin found nourishment for itself, and the punishment became greater.

Likewise Paul, speaking of grace, says: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has trampled the Son of God?" (Heb 10:29). Therefore the worse punishment also took occasion from this, from the greater benefaction.

Similarly the Apostle says about the Gentiles that they became without excuse. They were endowed with reason, contemplated the beauty of nature, and could by this way be guided to the Creator. Yet they did not use God's wisdom as they ought.

Observe that in many cases good actions served as an occasion for greater punishment for the wicked. Of course, we shall not blame God's benefactions for this. On the contrary, after this we shall marvel at them all the more.

We shall condemn the disposition of those who used the good for contrary purposes. Let us do the same with respect to the law. All this is easy and readily understood. Only the following difficulty arises.

Why does the Apostle say, "I did not know coveting unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom 7:7)? If man did not know coveting before receiving the law, then why did the flood happen? Why was Sodom burned?

What then does the Apostle mean? He means intense coveting. Therefore he did not say, "It produced coveting in me," but "every coveting," hinting here at its strong development.

What benefit, you ask, came from the law if it intensified the passion? None, but rather great harm. Yet the law is not at fault. The carelessness of those who received the law is at fault.

Coveting was produced by sin, and through the law, but at the very time when the law was not concerned with this, but with the opposite. Thus sin became much stronger than the law. Yet again the fault lies not with the law, but with human ingratitude.

"For apart from the law sin is dead," that is, it is not so clearly known. Those who lived before the law knew that they were sinning, but after the giving of the law they knew it fully.

As a result, from that time they became subject to greater condemnation. It is not the same thing to have nature as one's accuser, or to have, together with nature, the law, which gives clear prescriptions about everything.

For when something is forbidden to someone, he rages all the more. Thus sin is revealed when the law has been transgressed. For apart from the law, sin is dead, that is, it is not considered to exist.

But when there is a law prescribing what ought to be done, sin lives. That is, it exists and appears as sin to those who transgress the law and sin knowingly.

When it fulfills lusts, it lives as it wishes and remains undisturbed. But when it cuts them off, it endures the fiercest assault of the passions. No one desires what is available. Everyone desires what is forbidden.

Therefore, if the law forbade what causes harm, the weak received an occasion to desire it still more.

He confirms this further on by saying, "but sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in me through what is good." Thus the law is good, but without grace it only shows sins. It does not remove them.

When Paul says, "for apart from the law sin is dead," he means that sin is in us, and for that reason is considered dead.

"Apart from the law sin is dead. I once lived apart from the law." What Paul here calls dead is what above was indicated as not imputed. But sin existed.

He wanted to turn man away from the law and make him do what was forbidden, so that he would again insult God and again fall under the power of sin. Then the devil began not to command, but to deceive subtly.

But when his law was given, the devil lost dominion over men, knowing that man is subject to God's judgment.

"For apart from the law, sin is dead." This must be understood in two ways. You should know that by sin the devil is meant, but also sin itself.

It is said that the devil died because before the coming of the law he did not attempt to deceive man and was at rest, since he was confident that he possessed him.

Paul says that sin is dead because it was thought not to be imputed before God. Therefore it was also dead for man, since it was thought possible to sin with impunity.

Yet sin was not absent, as I said above. It was simply not taken into account that God would judge men. With the appearance of the law it became evident that sin had come alive.

But how could it come alive if it had not lived before? After man's fall it was considered dead, but in reality it lived. It was considered not imputed, while at that very time it was being imputed. Thus what was living was considered dead.

Here are examples of the Apostle's paraphrases: "Sin, taking occasion through the commandment, produced in me every desire" (Rom 7:7). "When the commandment came, sin revived" (Rom 7:9). "Sin, taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me" (Rom 7:11).

"Sin becomes exceedingly sinful through the commandment" (Rom 7:13), and the like. The holy Apostle uses all these expressions for one purpose. He wishes to arouse and direct our hatred not against the law, but against sin.

Through the law, sin has been accused and revealed in all its poison and harmfulness.

Concerning the law itself, he speaks thus: "The law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good. Has then what is good become death to me? By no means!" (Rom 7:12-13).

The Apostle wishes to free the law from blame and even to inspire respect for it in us. Being perfect and spiritual, it speaks to men as though they were pure spirits.

It is not the law's fault if it became clear that man is "fleshly and sold under sin" (Rom 7:14).

Although those who received the law, that is, the people of the Old Testament, became worse, St. Chrysostom says in explanation of the Apostle's words: Consider that the law not only did not wish to increase evil, but on the contrary sought to cut off the evil that existed before it. And if it could not accomplish this, crown it for its intention.

The sin dwelling in me lies as if dead, so long as it does not hear a law opposed to itself. But as soon as it hears it, it awakens and begins to rage, inflaming desires. It resembles a poisonous serpent or a bloodthirsty beast. They lie quietly in their hole or lair, as if they were not there, until they sense that someone has entered their domain. As soon as they sense this, they rise at once in all their ferocity and attack the disturber of their rest.

Here, in the Apostle, sin is the sin dwelling in us, or the law of self-pleasing which has seized our fallen nature. According to it, one deems it indispensable to do only what pleases oneself, regardless of anything inward or outward that opposes it, however worthy of respect it may be. Because self-pleasing has so vast a domain, it is silent, as though not knowing toward what to turn, as though satisfied. But when it hears the prohibition of something sweet to it, it immediately rushes to defend it, unwilling to part with it.

Even the pagans observed this law of self-pleasing. They said that we usually reach after what is forbidden and burn with still greater desire for what is denied us. Self-pleasing lies at the foundation, in the depth of sinfulness. It gives birth to desires, now one, now another, now a third, depending on what commandment forbidding something it encounters. Desires are not very numerous. They are the passions. But the deeds that satisfy each desire or passion are many.

The Apostle speaks of desires and passions as the sources of deeds. Every desire or passion, or all desires and passions together, proceed in him from the sin dwelling in us. This is the root of why sins multiply despite the commandments, or even because of the commandments themselves.

Blessed Theodoret writes: “By all this the Apostle tries to prove that the law is not subject to accusation. Since he said that with the issuing of the law sins multiplied, lest someone think that the law was the cause, he necessarily shows the way sin worked. It turned the issuing of the law into an occasion for battle and overcame the weak thought.” Theophylact explains: “He did not say, ‘The law produced desire,’ but ‘sin’ did. The inclination toward pleasure, that is, self-pleasing, and the striving toward what is worse used the very instruction of the law for evil.”

Saint Chrysostom sets forth more fully the whole production of sinfulness under the law: “Do you see how he removed the blame from the law? Sin, says the Apostle, and not the law, increased desire. The opposite of what the law desired took place. This proves the weakness of the law, not its wickedness. When we nourish desire for something and it is forbidden to us, then the fire of desire burns more strongly. But this does not come from the law. The law forbade in order to turn one away from desire. Sin, that is, your carelessness and your evil will, used the good itself for evil. When medicine is used badly, the physician is not at fault, but the sick man. God did not give the law in order to inflame desire by it, but in order to quench it. Though the opposite occurred, the law is not to blame, but we are. It would be unjust to blame the one who does not allow a fevered sick man, who is glad to drink cold water continually, to drink much, and by this intensifies in him a desire so destructive to him. The physician’s work is only to forbid. The sick man himself must be temperate.

“What of it if sin received an occasion through the law? For an evil man, even a good command often serves as an occasion to become more corrupt. Thus the devil destroyed Judas, casting him into love of money and making him a thief of what belonged to the poor. But the money box entrusted to him was not the cause of his destruction. His evil disposition of will was.

“Do not marvel that Paul, speaking of the law, used very strong expressions. He confines himself to what is most necessary. As much as he refuses to allow his words to serve as an occasion for understanding the matter otherwise, so much does he take care to correct those who already understand it wrongly. Therefore do not consider the bare words here. Look into the cause that compelled the Apostle to speak this way. Set before yourself the fury of the Jews and their invincible stubbornness, which he strove to overcome. When he seems to say much against the law, he does not blame the law, but only casts down the stubbornness of the Jews.

“If it is set down as a fault of the law that sin received an occasion through it, you will find that the very same thing happened in the New Testament. For in the New Testament there are also thousands of laws, which concern many things, even the greatest things. Everyone sees that the same thing happens here, not only regarding desire, but regarding every vice in general. ‘If I had not come and spoken to them,’ says Christ, ‘they would not have had sin’ (Jn 15:22). Therefore sin found for itself here too both an occasion and a greater punishment. Likewise Paul, speaking about grace, says: ‘How much worse punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God?’ (cf. Heb 10:29). Therefore the greater benefaction served for the heavier punishment. Similarly, the Apostle says of the Gentiles that they became without excuse, because, being endowed with reason and able through studying the beauties of creation to rise in mind to the Creator, they did not use God’s wisdom as they ought. Do you see that good actions, that is, God’s benefactions, have always served the corrupt as occasions to be punished more severely? But certainly we shall not blame God’s benefactions for this. On the contrary, in spite of all this we shall marvel at them still more. We shall condemn those who turned the good itself into evil. Let us act in exactly the same way regarding the law.

“Notice that the Apostle did not simply say, ‘It produced desire in me,’ but ‘every desire,’ thereby indicating the excessiveness of desire. You ask, ‘What benefit is there in the law, if passion was intensified by it?’ None, and on the contrary, even greater harm. So it turned out. But the law is not to blame for this. The carelessness of those who received the law is to blame. For desire was produced by sin, and though through the law, yet at the very time when the law cared not for this, but for the opposite. Therefore sin became much stronger than the law. Yet this too must again be blamed not on the law, but on human ingratitude.”

What does “For without the law sin is dead” mean? He does not say “was,” but “is.” Therefore he expresses a general rule. It is always so, he says, that until the law is issued, sin is dead. But what does this deadness signify? It means that before the law, sin is not recognized as sin. People sin, but do not know that they sin, and they remain at peace. But when the law clearly says that this and that are sin, then sin is seen, as though it comes forth out of some hidden place.

Yet since the Apostle’s preceding thought is that sin dwelling in us produced every desire because of the law, and therefore was as though awakened by the law, would it not be better to understand “dead” as “inactive,” as though sleeping and motionless? Both understandings are found in our interpreters. Blessed Theodoret writes: “So long as there is no law showing what must be done and forbidding what must not be done, sin has no place.” Blessed Theophylact continues this line of thought: “That is, it is not considered to exist, or is not recognized. But when there is a law prescribing what is due, then sin lives. That is, it exists and appears as sin to those who transgress the law and sin consciously.”

The same thought is found in Ambrosiaster: “The Apostle called sin dead because it was thought that, since before the law it was not imputed by God, it was dead among men in the sense that one sinned by it as though without punishment. In reality, sin was not hidden under a bushel. But it was not known that God would judge for it. Therefore, when after the issuing of the law it became manifest, sin as though came to life. It lived before, but because of men’s carelessness it was considered dead, though in fact it was living. They thought that it was not imputed, whereas it was imputed. That is, though living, it was considered dead.”

Oecumenius, however, understands inactivity by deadness. “Sin is dead, that is, inactive. Although it acted even before the law, it did not act with such force. Many sins, he says, seemed to sleep or be frozen. I did not know many things, and, doing lawless things in ignorance, I did not sin so heavily. Nor did sin then attack me so fiercely. But when the law came, it was enraged against me.”