Dead to the Law Through the Body of Christ; Not to Mingle Judaism (Romans 7:4–6)

Rom. 7:4. Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God.

Why did holy Paul do this? Holy Chrysostom says: “in order not to offend the Jews with his words.” Although the believers had renounced the Law, they still could not but have respect for it. The Apostle did not say directly: the Law has died or ceased; but he limited himself to an allusion to it that was equivalent to the unspoken word. For how can we not see that the Apostle makes it known here that the Law has already died? (holy Chrysostom). The same explanation is offered by blessed Theodoret: “It would have followed from the Apostle’s example to say: the Law has died – that is, ceased to have force; but he, condescending to the weakness of the Jews, because they deeply respected the Law, and in order not to give occasion to heretics attacking the Old Testament to condemn the Law, did not say that the Law ceased, but speaks: we died to the Law in redemptive baptism.”

We may suppose that holy Paul intended here to make an application also from the cessation of the Law, namely: so for you now the Law has died – ceased and made you free; but he did not do this, leaving it to the readers themselves to complete by the obviousness of the matter, and only focused attention on the application from this case – freedom from obligations when the wife dies – as this gave him greater facility to draw the truth which he wished to impress upon his disciples. What it became after ceasing was not important to him, but what the believers dead to it should become – namely: “that you should be married to another.” This is what he hastens to set forth.

Moreover, in the provision of the Law one speaks of natural death, but in the application it is a matter of moral death. But the latter is a breaking off of mutual relations; therefore it is always mutual. He who dies to something – for him that dies to which he dies. Therefore in the words: you are dead to the Law – is contained also the other: the Law is dead to you. The mutual relations between you are ended; you are free from the Law. “Both the Law itself has died, and we have died, and the power of the Law over us is doubly abolished” (holy Chrysostom).

That the Apostle wished to combine both in one expression can be inferred from how he presents believers as dead to the Law. “You are become dead,” he says, “by the body of Christ” – that is, by the coming of the Son of God in the flesh and by his death on the cross (holy Chrysostom). And by the power of this death the Law too has ceased, and all believers die to all the former in holy baptism. The whole Law was a shadow falling from the coming of the Lord in the flesh and dying on the cross. The Law is the shadow, but the body is Christ. When the body stands before you, who pays attention to the shadow? It no longer occupies attention, and everyone forgets it. So also with the coming of the Lord the Law is no longer needed; its power has ceased and been done away, namely by the Lord’s death. But by the power of this same death believers also die in baptism, in which they are buried with the Lord. If they die, then all their former relations are broken off. Consequently, their relations to the Law are also broken off: they also die to it. And it follows from the Apostle’s words that believers die to the Law by the same that the Law has died or ceased for them. And the Law dies when they die to it by the body of Christ. And so the expression of the Apostle, only apparently gives the thought that it does not answer the flow of the discourse; in substance, however, he expresses what is expected.

With the words: “you are become dead to the law by the body of Christ” – the application to the provision of the Law set forth above is complete. The Apostle hastens thereupon to the conclusion from it: “that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. That you should be married” – is so joined with “you are become dead” that both appear to have been accomplished in a single act. They died that they might be married to another; or they died because they gave themselves to another. In baptism this is done openly: “Are you united with Christ?” – “I am united.” Clearly, here a new marriage takes place: the soul unites with the Lord Christ – freely, willingly, but so decisively as death.

The words: “him who is raised from the dead” – show that the words “by the body of Christ” should be understood “of the death of the Master” (holy Chrysostom). He added them, moreover, so as to bring to mind what was said above: “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4); which he also expressed here, only in different words: “that we should bring forth fruit to God.” We have been freed from the Law, but at the same time have been united with the Lord Christ. We have passed from one marriage to another; from one set of obligations to another. But why should we have moved at all when this transition is not into freedom but into new obligations – from subjection to subjection, from work to work? For this reason: that in the new union we shall bear fruit “to God.” The former union did not make us fruitful: we were subject to it, we submitted to it, but bore no fruit; we were barren for God. Now, however, having united with “him who is raised from the dead,” we have obtained in him the power to “bring forth fruit” “to God.” This word is very powerful and required confirmation: how so – the Law is barren?

Rom. 7:5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which are by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.

Now we have obtained the ability to bring forth “fruit to God”; but what was it before? Before we bore fruit to death. Why so? Because then sinful passions held dominion over us and, causing us to commit unlawful deeds, put us to death through sin. This is what it was like when we were under the Law! – such is the thought of the present text. In this connection arise questions requiring an answer.

First. Why did the Apostle not say: when we were under the Law – but says: “when we were in the flesh”? There is suggested the thought that to be in the flesh, according to the Apostle, is the same as to be under the Law. This thought is confirmed by the following verse: “but now we are delivered from the law” – that is, we have ceased to be in the flesh. In what sense then can living under the Law be called being in the flesh? It can be – in the sense that service under the Law was especially fleshly – bodily, material, leading to fleshly purity, without cleansing or correcting the soul and heart. So understands blessed Theodoret: “‘when we were in the flesh’ – that is, when we led a life under the Law; for the Apostle named by “flesh” the laws given for the flesh concerning food, drink, leprosy and the like.” But further, precisely because the Law, as a material and bodily service, leads only to fleshly purity without correcting the heart and consequently leaving sin and passions to rule there – living under the Law is equivalent to living a fleshly life, a lustful and self-indulgent life. So understands holy Chrysostom: “‘in the flesh’ – that is, in evil deeds, in fleshly life: for he does not mean to say that until now we have been in the flesh, but now have become incorporeal.” Whether one accepts the one or other meaning, the thought of the word is the same. The Apostle wished to express the spirit and force of the Law and the character of life under the Law; therefore he said: “in the flesh” – instead of: under the Law. Holy Chrysostom says that he did this so as not to give any occasion to heretics who judged wrongly of the Law.

Second. What do the words mean: “the motions of sins, which are by the law, did work”? How are sinful passions through the Law? – Aroused, countenanced, given strength?! Did the Law incline to passions or indulge them?! On the contrary, it condemned them, forbidding even wicked desires. How then do sinful passions come through the Law?

“Sinful passions are not implanted in us by the Law. God created our nature pure from passions. But when we fell away from God and, stopping at ourselves instead of God, began to love ourselves and please ourselves in all ways, then in this selfishness we received all the passions which root in it and are born from it. The Law came afterward, not in order to indulge the passions but to restrain them: for it contained prescriptions directly opposed to the passions, saying, for instance: you shall not kill, or you shall not steal, or you shall not commit adultery, and even you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. How then are sinful passions through the Law? The Apostle said only: through the Law – leaving us to complete the thought ourselves: through the Law – what? Not born through the Law; not indulged through the Law. What then – ‘through the Law’? Revealed, known, exposed. So all our holy interpreters. Holy Chrysostom says: the ‘Law’ fulfilled the duty of a strict exposer and revealed sins. Therefore the Apostle did not say: ‘sinful passions,’ – existing under the Law; but says: ‘which are by the law’ – that is, revealed by the Law, or known through it.” Blessed Theodoret writes: “the Law did not impel to sin but condemned in sin; but sin made bad use of what was good.”

With this understanding of the words: “the motions of sins, which are by the law, did work in our members” – we can paraphrase it differently thus: the motions of sins revealed and known by the Law, or, despite the fact that they were revealed, exposed, and known by the Law – worked in our members. The passions are portrayed as some kind of masters over which there was no control. As spasms or convulsions come from some external force entering into our members and twisting them at will; so passions work in our members when they are aroused arbitrarily. But where then are freedom and self-activity? Here as well: a man freely gave himself to the passions and himself acted with intensity to satisfy them. Did not man see the evil from the passions? And what of conscience? Conscience, strengthened and supported by the Law, rose up against the passions, and man himself saw their destructive action – and yet willingly gave himself to the passions and gave them power to work arbitrarily in his members. In the passions dwells the sweetness of sin, and fallen man has adopted self-indulgence as his principle, which is always allied with the sweetness of sin. Therefore, as soon as any passion arises with its inherent sweetness, self-indulgence immediately takes its side, drawing along consciousness, freedom, and self-activity before conscience has time to give its sobering voice. When such a union of the human person with passion occurs before the voice of conscience, then afterward, whatever conscience may say, man rushes headlong to act according to the passion. This is what the Apostle depicts, saying: “the motions of sins… did work in our members” – like masters or tyrants. Theodoret writes: “not our members produced sin, but in our members the inclination of the soul toward evil gave freedom to the activity of sin. And, living under the Law (or despite the force of the Law), we suffered the strongest impulses of sin, because the Law showed what ought to be done but, in order to do it, offered no help.” And holy Chrysostom speaks more fully: “The Apostle does not blame even the flesh, did not say: passions which were produced by the members – but: ‘which did work’ in our members. By this he shows that in man there is another source of depravity, namely: not the uncontrolled members, but the controlling thoughts. The soul was as if a musician, and the bodily nature – a harp; it produced such sounds as the musician caused it to produce. Therefore the discordant playing should be blamed not on the harp but on the player.”

What then was the consequence of such a state of affairs? That we by our life and by our deeds only brought forth fruit to death, so that it might seem as though the purpose of such an order (intentional) was that we should bring forth fruit to death: “that we should bring forth fruit to death.” But this only appears so in the expression; the Apostle’s thought is merely to show what was the consequence of the dominion of passions over us. Otherwise one can paraphrase it thus: and thus we only brought forth fruit to death. This is in contrast to what was said in the preceding verse, that we have been united with the Lord Saviour to bring forth fruit to God. He seems to answer the question: united with the Lord to “bring forth fruit” “to God,” but what was it before? Before, he says, sinful passions worked in our members, despite the exposure and prohibition of the Law, and we only did one thing – brought forth fruit to death.

The expression: “bring forth fruit to death” – means: to do such works as only deadened rather than gave life. It means moral death, which directly flowed from the discord that reigned inside man because of the dominion of the passions. The Law exposed the passions, conscience agreed with this exposure and gave its voice to the words of the Law, and man was persuaded by the word of the Law and the voice of conscience; but whenever a passion arose, he, in defiance of the Law and conscience, consciously and willingly gave himself to the passion. By this he mercilessly struck and killed himself morally. Every sin, as an act to gratify passion against conscience, is a death blow to our spirit. Blow after blow – and finally death, that is, such a state when good impulses no longer arise from the heart.

Rom. 7:6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

But now – upon the completion of the gracious economy of salvation, upon our entry into it and upon our union with Christ the Saviour. In verses 5 and 6 the Apostle explains how it came to pass that, having been united with the Lord, we obtained the ability to “bring forth fruit” “to God.” In verse 5 he explained what was in us before this union – that then the passions worked despite their exposure by the Law, and only death-bringing results did they produce in us. In verse 6 he shows what has become of us through such a union and as a consequence of it – “but now. But now” – indicates not merely the ordering of salvation in the Lord but rather the obtaining of it by each person. The Apostle refers to experience, speaking as if: look at what is in you and judge. For saving grace is always present in the truly faithful and with its fruits.

“‘We are delivered from the law,’ κατηργήθημεν – we are abolished, freed, severed. The thought is: we have no more need of the Law. The Law was given to restrain the passions by the severity of its prescriptions and by fear of temporal and eternal punishments. This it succeeded in doing, but it did not remove the passions themselves; they remained in the heart even under it and drew toward the unlawful. Those under the Law are like a child. A child reaches for what is harmful; the mother strikes its hands – and it hides them; but it keeps looking at what it reached for and, if the mother were not striking its hands, would certainly seize that harmful thing – which it does as soon as it sees there is no mother. So too the law-bound, drawn by passions, reached toward the unlawful. The Law by fear of judgment restrained these attempts – and, while the memory of this was alive, the law-bound refrained from unlawful deeds, yet continued to sympathize with them and desire them. But as soon as this memory faded, unlawful deeds immediately followed. Such is the general character of life under the Law. ‘But now,’ says the Apostle, it is quite different: we no longer need such a guardian and restrainer – we are freed and delivered from it. Why? Because there is no longer in us that which it was appointed to restrain – in us dwells a new beginning of life – true, spiritual.”

“‘Being dead wherein we were held,’ – having died to that which held us. What held us? Self-will, or self-indulgence, which, uniting with the sweetness inherent in the sinful passions born from it, held us in its bonds, not allowing higher aspirations to arise and suppressing those that did arise. The grace of God, through faith in the Lord, dwelling in true Christians through the mysteries, by arousing complete self-denial mortifies self-will, and by the granting of a living sensation of higher goods defeats the sweetness of sin and thus delivers us from that which holds us before the reception of grace. Here we die to that which held us, and that which held us dies in us.”

But this is only one side: “being dead.” In material nature death is the negation of life: the living ceases to live. In spiritual life dying is not a cessation of life but the birth of new principles of life, which reject the former. Self-denial kills self-will or self-indulgence; what then? Nothing? No, not nothing. He who has denied himself or cut off self-indulgence in himself does not pass into emptiness, but at the same time as he denies himself he turns toward God, and at the same time as he kills in himself self-indulgence, he is reborn in himself with a zeal for pleasing God; likewise, when the sweetness of sin in the passions is destroyed, at the same time is born a sensation of the sweetness of the highest spiritual blessings, a sweetness with which no sweetness of sin can be compared. And it is even because the former departs that the latter enters. All this is produced by divine grace, which regenerates to new life.

Thus believers in the Lord, having died to that which held them, are at the same time enlivened by the opposite spiritual principles: instead of self-indulgence – zeal for pleasing God, instead of the sweetness of sin – inexpressible spiritual sweetness, which silences the sweetness of sin. The presence of these principles brings it about that believers no longer live for themselves but for God, finding in this joy and sweetness. This is what the Apostle expresses when he says: “so that we serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. In newness of spirit” – he calls precisely the presence in us of these new, formed by divine grace and operating in us principles of spiritual life, and by “oldness of the letter” – the prescriptions of the Law: do not do this, do not touch that. Now, he says, we are so constituted that we can serve God by impulses arising from within from our renewed spirit, and not by outward instructions. These latter were necessary before, but now they are superfluous – “we are delivered from the law” by this very fact that we ourselves and wish to and can do all that the Law required. The Apostle called this “serving God”: for in Christ Jesus all proceeds from God and all returns to God, inasmuch as all is done by him.

Let us note that it is unjust that many interpreters refer the words: “wherein we were held” – to the Law and in their translations make rearrangements that confuse the Apostle’s words and thereby obscure the meaning. Our interpreters understand by the one who held us not the Law but sin. We cite the words of holy Chrysostom: “but how then are ‘we delivered’? Thus, the old man, possessed by sin, has died and been buried. The Apostle expressed this, saying: ‘being dead wherein we were held.’ By this he seems to say: the bond by which we were held is given to corruption and has dissolved; so that the one holding us, that is, sin, has nothing left to hold.” Thus Theophylact, Oecumenius and others.