Verses 14-25: The remainder of this chapter has been the subject of no small degree of controversy. The question has been whether it describes the state of Paul before his conversion, or afterwards. It is not the purpose of these Notes to enter into controversy, or into extended discussion. But after all the attention which I have been able to give to this passage, I regard it as describing the state of a man under the gospel, as descriptive of the operations of the mind of Paul subsequent to his conversion. This interpretation is adopted for the following reasons:

(1.) Because it seems to me to be the most obvious. It is that which will strike plain men as being the natural meaning; men who have not a theory to support, and who understand language in its usual sense.

(2.) Because it agrees with the design of the apostle, which is to show that the law is not adapted to produce sanctification and peace. This he had done in regard to a man before he was converted. If this relates to the same period, then it is a useless discussion of a point already discussed. If it relates to that period also, then there is a large field of action, including the whole period after a man's conversion to Christianity, in which the question might still be unsettled, whether the law there might not be adapted to sanctify. The apostle therefore makes thorough work with the argument, and shows that the operation of the law is everywhere the same.

(3.) Because the expressions which occur are such as cannot be understood of an impenitent sinner. See Barnes "Ro 7:15, See Barnes "Ro 7:22".

(4.) Because it accords with parallel expressions in regard to the state of the conflict in a Christian's mind.

(5.) Because there is a change made here from the past tense to the present. In Ro 7:7, etc., he had used the past tense, evidently describing some former state. In Ro 7:14 there is a change to the present, a change inexplicable, except on the supposition that he meant to describe some state different from that before described. That could be no other than to carry his illustration forward in showing the inefficacy of the law on a man in his renewed state; or to show that such was the remaining depravity of the man, that it produced substantially the same effects as in the former condition.

(6.) Because it accords with the experience of Christians, and not with sinners. It is just such language as plain Christians, who are acquainted with their own hearts, use to express their feelings. I admit that this last consideration is not by itself conclusive; but if the language did not accord with the experience of the Christian world, it would be a strong circumstance against any proposed interpretation. The view which is here expressed of this chapter, as supposing that the previous part (Ro 7:7-13) refers to a man in his unregenerate state, and that the remainder describes the effect of the law on the mind of a renewed man, was adopted by studying the chapter itself, without aid from any writer. I am happy, however, to find that the views thus expressed are in accordance with those of the late Rev. Dr. J.P. Wilson, than whom, perhaps, no man was ever better qualified to interpret the Scriptures. He says,

"In the fourth verse, he (Paul) changes to the first person

plural, because he intended to speak of the former

experience of Christians, who had been Jews. In the seventh

verse he uses the first person singular, but speaks in the

past tense, because he describes his own experience when he

was an unconverted Pharisee. In the fourteenth verse, and

unto the end of the chapter, he uses the first person

singular, and the present tense, because he exhibits his

own experience since he became a Christian and an apostle."

Verse 14. We know. We admit. It is a conceded, well-understood point.

That the law is spiritual. This does not mean that the law is designed to control the spirit, in contradistinction from the body, but it is a declaration showing that the evils of which he was speaking were not the fault of the law. That was not, in its nature, sensual, corrupt, earthly, carnal; but was pure and spiritual. The effect described was not the fault of the law, but of the man, who was sold under sin. The word spiritual is often thus used to denote that which is pure and holy, in opposition to that which is fleshly or carnal, Ro 8:5,6; Ga 5:16-23. The flesh is described as the source of evil passions and desires; the spirit as the source of purity, or as that which is agreeable to the proper influences of the Holy Spirit.

But I am. The present tense shows that he is describing himself as he was at the time of writing. This is the natural and obvious construction; and if this be not the meaning, it is impossible to account for his having changed the past tense (Ro 7:7) to the present.

Carnal. Fleshly; sensual; opposed to spiritual. This word is used because in the Scriptures the flesh is spoken of as the source of sensual passions and propensities, Ga 5:19-21. The sense is, that these corrupt passions still retained a strong, and withering, and distressing influence over the mind. The renewed man is exposed to temptations from his strong native appetites; and the power of these passions, strengthened by long habit before he was converted, has travelled over into religion, and they continue still to influence and distress him. It does not mean that he is wholly under their influence; but that the tendency of his natural inclinations is to indulgence.

Sold under sin. This expression is often adduced to show that it cannot be of a renewed man that the apostle is speaking. The argument is, that it cannot be affirmed of a Christian that he is sold under sin. A sufficient answer to this might be, that, IN FACT, this is the very language which Christians often now adopt to express the strength of that native depravity against which they struggle, and that no language would better express it. It does not mean that they choose or prefer sins. It strongly implies that the prevailing bent of their mind is against it, but that such is its strength that it brings them into slavery to it. The expression here used, "sold under sin," is "borrowed from the practice of selling captives taken in war, as slaves." (Stuart.) It hence means to deliver into the power of any one, so that he shall be dependent on his will and control. (Schleusner.) The emphasis is not on the word sold, as if any act of selling had taken place, but the effect was as if he had been sold; i.e., he was subject to it, and under its control, and it means that sin, contrary to the prevailing inclination of his mind, (Ro 7:15-17) had such an influence over him as to lead him to commit it, and thus to produce a state of conflict and grief, Ro 7:19-24. The verses which follow this are an explanation of the sense, and of the manner in which he was "sold under sin."

{s} "sold under sin" 2 Ki 17:17