羅馬書講道集 第 13 章 第 1/3 段

'For we know that the law is spiritual;'

'but I am carnal, sold under sin.'

Since he had said that great evils had come to pass, and that sin, seizing its occasion, had become mightier than the commandment, and that the very opposite of what the Law was striving for had come about, and had cast the hearer into much perplexity, he now goes on to state also the reasoning according to which these things had come to pass, having first freed the Law from the wicked suspicion cast upon it.

For lest, on hearing that through the commandment sin took its occasion, and that when it came sin revived, and that through it sin deceived and slew,

in order, then, that no one should suppose the Law to be the cause of these evils, he first sets forth the defense on its behalf with great abundance, not only clearing it of the accusation, but also weaving for it a most exalted encomium.

And this he sets down not as one bestowing a favor of his own, but as one pronouncing a verdict held in common.

'For we know,' he says, 'that the Law is spiritual.'

This is confessed and manifest, that it is spiritual;

so far is it from being the cause of sin, or answerable for the evils that have come to pass.

And observe how he not only clears it of the accusation, but also praises it with all excess of commendation.

For by calling it spiritual, he shows it to be a teacher of virtue and an enemy of vice;

for to be spiritual is to lead away from all sins;

which indeed is the very thing the Law did—terrifying, admonishing, chastising, correcting, and counseling all that pertains to virtue.

'Whence then,' he says, 'did sin come to be, if the teacher is so admirable?' From the sloth of the disciples.

Wherefore he added, saying, 'But I am carnal,' depicting the man who lives both under the Law and before the Law.

'Sold under sin.'

'For along with death,' he says, 'there entered in also the throng of the passions.'

For when the body became mortal, it necessarily received henceforth desire also, and anger and grief and all the rest, which stood in need of much philosophy, lest, overflowing within us, they should sink the reason into the deep abyss of sin.

For these things in themselves were not sin;

but their want of measure, when unbridled, was what wrought this.

For instance—that I may take one of them and treat it by way of example—desire is not sin; but when it falls into want of measure, unwilling to remain within the marriage bond of the Law, and leaping upon the wives of others, then thereafter the thing becomes adultery—yet not because of the desire, but because of its excess.

For having praised the Law, he ran at once to the earlier time, so that, by showing how our race was disposed even then, and at the time when it received the Law, he might declare that the abundance of grace was necessary;

which indeed he has been eager to establish everywhere.

For when he says, 'Sold under sin,' he speaks not only concerning those under the Law, but also concerning those who lived before the Law, and the men who existed from the beginning.

Then he tells also the manner of the selling and of the delivering over.

'For what I work out,' he says, 'I do not know.'

What is 'I do not know'? I am ignorant.

And when did this ever happen? For no one ever sinned in ignorance.

Do you see that, unless we pick out the expressions with fitting reverence and look to the Apostle's aim, countless absurdities will follow? For if men sinned in ignorance, they would not even be worthy to pay a penalty.

As, then, he said above, 'For apart from the Law sin is dead,'

not signifying by this that they did not know they were sinning, but that they knew indeed, yet not so exactly;

wherefore they were punished, yet not so severely;

and again, 'I had not known lust,' not signifying total ignorance, but manifesting the clearest knowledge;

for he said that 'it wrought in me all manner of lust,' not saying by this that the commandment produced the lust, but that sin, through the commandment, brought in the intensifying of the lust;

so also here he does not signify total ignorance when he says, 'For what I work out, I do not know';

since how could he delight in the Law of God according to the inner man? What then is 'I do not know'? 'I am darkened,' he says, 'I am carried away, I suffer violence, I know not how I am tripped up';

which we too are wont to say: 'I know not how so-and-so came and carried me off'—not putting forward ignorance, but manifesting some deception and circumstance and plot.

'For what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that I do.'

How then do you not know what you work out? For if you will the good and hate the evil, this belongs to a perfected knowledge.

Whence it is plain that he said 'What I would not' also, not doing away with free will, nor introducing any forced necessity.

For if we sin not willingly, but under compulsion, then again the matter of the punishments that took place aforetime would have no reason.

But just as, in saying 'I do not know,' he indicated not ignorance, but the things we have spoken of;

so also, in adding 'What I would not,' he signified not necessity, but the not approving of the things done;

since, if he had not meant to signify this by saying 'What I would not, that I do,' how is it that he did not add, 'But what I am compelled and forced to do, that I do'? For this is what stands opposed to willing and to freedom of choice.

But as it is, he did not say this; rather, in place of it he set 'What I hate,' that you might learn that even in saying 'What I would not,' he did not do away with freedom of choice.

What then is 'What I would not'? What I do not approve, what I do not accept, what I do not love;

by way of contrast with which he added also what follows, saying:

'If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the Law.'

Do you see for the time being the mind not corrupted, but preserving in the very deed its own nobility? For even if it does pursue vice, yet it pursues it while hating it—which would be the greatest encomium both of the natural law and of the written law.

'For that the Law is good,' he says, 'is plain from the very things whereof I accuse myself, in disobeying the Law and hating what has been done;

and yet, if the Law were the cause of sin, how, while delighting in it, should I hate the thing done that was commanded by it? For I consent unto the Law,' he says, 'that it is good.'

'But now it is no more I that work it out, but sin that dwells in me.'

'For I know that there dwells not in me'—that is, in my flesh—'anything good.'

Here those set upon it who slander the flesh and estrange it from the workmanship of God.

What then shall we say? The very things we said before when discoursing concerning the Law: that, just as there he says that the whole belongs to sin, so also here.

For he did not say that 'the flesh works it out,' but on the contrary, that 'It is no more I that work it out, but sin that dwells in me.'

And if he says that no good dwells in it, this is not yet an accusation of the flesh;

for the fact that good does not dwell in it does not show it to be evil.

We indeed confess the flesh to be inferior to the soul and of lesser account, yet not contrary nor at war nor evil, but subject to the soul as the lyre to the lyre-player, and as the ship to the pilot;

which things are not contrary to those who guide and use them, but rather are in full accord with them, though not of equal honor with the craftsman.

As, then, one who says that 'the art lies not in the lyre nor in the ship, but in the pilot and the lyre-player,' does not disparage the works, but shows how great is the interval between the art and the craftsman of the art;

so also Paul, in saying that 'there dwells no good in my flesh,' did not disparage the body, but showed the superiority of the soul.

For this it is that has been entrusted with the whole business of the steering and of the lyre-playing;

which very thing Paul here shows, laying down the sovereignty of the soul.

And having divided man into these two—soul and body—he says that the flesh is the more irrational, and devoid of understanding, and among the things led, but not among the things that lead;

but the soul is wiser, and able to discern what ought and what ought not to be done, yet not sufficient of itself to rule the horse as it wills;

which would be an accusation not of the flesh only, but also of the soul—which knows indeed the things it ought to do, but no longer carries into deed the things resolved upon.

'For to will is present with me,' he says, 'but how to work out the good I find not.'

Here again, in saying 'I find not,' he speaks not of ignorance, nor of perplexity, but of a certain insult and plot of sin;

which indeed he added, showing it yet more clearly;

'For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I practise.'

'Now if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that work it out, but sin that dwells in me.'

Do you see how, having freed both the substance of the soul and the substance of the flesh from all blame, he transferred the whole matter to the wicked deed? For if the soul does not will the evil, it is acquitted; and if a man does not himself carry it into effect, the body too is set free; and the whole thing belongs to the wicked choice alone.

For the substance of the soul is not the same thing as that of the body, nor as the will; but the former are works of God, while the latter is a motion arising from ourselves, directed toward whatever we may choose to bring it.

For the faculty of willing is something innate and from God;

but the willing of this or that particular thing is our own and belongs to our judgment.

I find then the law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me.

What then is meant by this? I approve the law, he says, according to my conscience, and I find it also to be an ally to me who desire to do good, and one that intensifies my resolve;

for just as I delight in it, so it too commends my judgment.

Do you see how he shows that the knowledge of good things and of things not such was laid within us from the beginning, and that the law of Moses commends this knowledge and is commended by it? For he did not say above, I am taught by the law, but, I consent unto the law;

nor did he say beforehand, I am instructed by it, but, I delight together with it.

But what is the meaning of, I delight together with it? It means, I acknowledge it as being good, just as it too acknowledges me who desire to do the good.

So that to will the good and not to will the evil was laid down within us from above from the beginning;

but the law, when it came, became in the case of evils an accuser of more of them, and in the case of good things a commender of greater ones.

Do you see that everywhere it bears witness to a certain intensifying and increase only, but nothing more? For even while it commends, and while I delight with it and will the good, the evil still lies close at hand, and the practice of it is not done away.

So that the law becomes an ally to him who has chosen to do some good only in this respect, in that it too wills the same things as he.

Then, since he had set this down obscurely, as he goes on he interprets it and makes it clearer, showing how the evil lies close at hand, and how the law is together with him who desires to do the good.

For I delight, he says, in the law of God after the inward man.

For I knew the good even before this, he says; but having found it also laid down in writing, I approve it.

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.

Here again he called sin a law that wars against us, not on account of its dignity, but on account of the vehement obedience of those who yield to it.

Just as, then, he calls mammon lord, and the belly god, not because of any dignity of their own, but because of the great servitude of those who are subject to them;

so here too he called sin a law, because of those who so serve it and are afraid to forsake it, just as those who have received the law dread to forsake the law.

This, then, he says, is set in opposition to the natural law;

for this is what is meant by, The law of my mind.

And he next introduces a battle array and a combat, and refers the whole struggle to the natural law.

For that of Moses was added afterwards, out of abundance;

yet nevertheless both this one and that, the one having taught and the other having commended what is fitting, accomplished nothing great in this battle;

so great was the tyranny of sin, conquering and prevailing.

And so Paul, making this plain and declaring the utter defeat, said:

But I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity.

For he did not say simply, Conquering, but, Bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.

He did not say, To the impulse of the flesh, nor, To the nature of the flesh, but, To the law of sin; that is, to its tyranny, its power.

How then does he say, To the law of sin which is in my members? And what does this mean? For it is not that this makes the members sin; rather it especially separates them from sin;

for the thing that is in something is different from the thing in which that other thing resides.

Just as, therefore, the commandment is not wicked because sin took occasion through it;

so neither is the nature of the flesh wicked, even if through it sin wages war against us;

since on that reckoning the soul too would be wicked, and much more so, inasmuch as it has the authority over what is to be done.

But these things are not so, they are not.

For neither, if a tyrant and a robber should seize a splendid house and royal halls, is what happens a slander against the dwelling; rather, all the blame belongs to those who plotted such things.

But the enemies of the truth, falling together with their impiety into much folly as well, do not perceive it.

For they accuse not only the flesh, but also slander the law;

and yet, if the flesh is wicked, the law is good;

for it wars against it and opposes it;

but if the law is not good, then the flesh is good;

for according to them it fights against it and makes war.

How then do they say that both belong to the devil, when they bring in things contrary to one another? Do you see how great the folly is, along with the impiety? But the doctrines of the Church are not such; rather she condemns sin alone, and declares that both laws, each given by God—both that of nature and that of Moses—are at war with this sin, not with the flesh;

for the flesh is not sin, but rather a work of God, exceedingly good, and well suited to virtue for us, if we are but watchful.

Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Do you see how great is the tyranny of vice, in that it conquers even the mind which delights in the law? For no one is able

to say, he means, that sin subdues me while I hate the law and turn away from it;

for I delight in it and consent to it and flee for refuge to it; yet nevertheless that law was not able to save even one who fled to it, whereas Christ saved even one who fled from Him.

Do you see how great is the surpassing abundance of grace? Yet the Apostle did not put it in this way;

but only having groaned aloud and lamented greatly, as in a wilderness devoid of any who might help, through his very perplexity he shows the power of Christ, and says:

Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The law had no strength, the conscience did not suffice;

and yet I approved the good things, and not only approved, but even fought against the contrary things.

For by saying, Warring against, he showed that he too was setting himself in array against it.

Whence then shall come the hope of salvation? I thank God, he says, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Do you see how he showed that the presence of grace was necessary, and that the good deeds are common to the Father and the Son? For even though he gives thanks to the Father, yet the Son also is the cause of this thanksgiving.

But when you hear him saying, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? do not suppose that he is accusing the flesh.

For he did not say a body of sin, but a body of death;

that is, the mortal body, the one that has been overpowered by death, not the one that gave birth to death;

which is a proof, not of the wickedness of the flesh, but of the outrage it has suffered.

Just as, if someone taken captive by barbarians were said to belong to the barbarians, not because he is a barbarian, but because he is held fast by them;

so too the body is called one of death, because it was held fast by death, not because it procured death.

Wherefore he himself too does not wish to be delivered from the body, but from the mortal body, hinting at what I have often said, that from its having become passible it also became easily assailable by sin.

And for what reason, he says, if the tyranny of sin was so great before grace, were sinners punished? Because such things were enjoined upon them as it was possible to accomplish even while sin held sway.

For it did not draw them to the highest way of life, but even permitted them to enjoy wealth, and did not forbid them to have many wives, and to gratify anger together with justice, and to make use of pleasure in due measure;

and so great was the condescension, that the written law even required less than the natural law had declared.

For the law of nature bade one man consort continually with one woman;

which is what Christ also declared when He said, He who made them at the beginning made them male and female.

But the law of Moses neither forbade to put away the one and bring in another in her place, nor prohibited having two at the same time.

And apart from this, one may see also many other of the things contained in the law achieved by those before it, who were being trained by the law of nature.

Those, then, who lived under the Old Covenant suffered no wrong, when a legislation thus proportioned to their strength was brought in for them.

But if even so they were not able to prevail, the charge of that lies against their own slothfulness.

For this reason Paul also gives thanks, because Christ, without exacting any strict account of these things, not only did not demand a reckoning of our former deeds, but also made us fit for a greater course.

Wherefore he says, 'I thank my God through Jesus Christ.'

And having left the salvation now confessed and acknowledged, he passes on from what has already been established to something yet further, saying that we have not only been delivered from our former sins, but have also become unconquerable with respect to the future.

For 'there is now no condemnation,' he says, 'to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh.'

But he did not say this before, until he had again reminded them of their former condition.

For having first said, 'So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin,' he then went on to add:

'There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.'

Then, since it was objected against him that many sin even after baptism, on this account he presses on to the point.

And he does not simply say, 'To them that are in Christ Jesus,' but, 'To them that walk not after the flesh.'

so that everything henceforth belongs to our own slothfulness.

For it is now possible not to walk after the flesh, whereas then it was difficult.

For he then establishes this in another way as well through what follows, saying:

'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free.'

Here calling the Spirit 'the law of the Spirit.'

For just as he calls sin 'the law of sin,' so he calls the Spirit 'the law of the Spirit.'

And yet he called the law of Moses thus as well, saying, 'For we know that the law is spiritual.'

What then is the difference? Great and infinite.

For that one is 'spiritual,' but this one is 'the law of the Spirit.'

And in what does this differ from that? In this, that the one was merely given by the Spirit, while this one abundantly supplied the Spirit as well to those who received it.

Therefore he also called it 'the law of life,' in contrast to that one of sin, not to the Mosaic law.

For when he says, 'It hath made me free from the law of sin and of death,' he does not here mean the law of Moses.

For nowhere does he call it a law of sin.

For how could that which he has often named righteous and holy, and destructive of sin, be so called? But he means that which wars against the law of the mind.

For it was this grievous war that the grace of the Spirit dissolved, by putting sin to death, and making the contest light for us, and crowning us beforehand, and then drawing us into the wrestling-matches with much alliance and aid.

And what he always does, passing from the Son to the Spirit, and from the Spirit to the Son and the Father, and ascribing all that comes from us to the Trinity;

this he does here as well.

For having said, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' he showed the Father doing this through the Son.

Then again the Holy Spirit together with the Son.

For 'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free,' he says.

Then again the Father and the Son.

'For what the law could not do,' he says, 'in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.'

Again he seems to be disparaging the law.

But if one attends carefully, he even exceedingly commends it, showing it to be in harmony with Christ, and to have chosen the same ends.

For he did not say, 'The wickedness of the law,' but, 'What it could not do.'

And again, 'In that it was weak,' not, 'In that it did mischief,' or 'plotted evil.'

And he does not even impute the weakness to it, but to the flesh, saying:

'In that it was weak through the flesh.'

Here again calling 'flesh' not the substance itself and the material subject, but the more carnal mind; by which words he acquits both the body and the law of the accusation.

And not by these words only, but also by those that follow.

For if the law were adverse, how did Christ come to its aid, and fulfil its requirement, and stretch out His hand, condemning sin in the flesh? For this was what remained, since the law had of old already condemned sin in the soul.

What then? Did the law accomplish the greater part, and the Only-begotten of God the lesser? By no means.

For most certainly it was God who wrought that too, who gave the natural law, and added the written one.

And otherwise the greater would have been of no profit, if the lesser had not been added to it.

For what profit is there in knowing what ought to be done, if one does not go after it? None; nay, rather a greater condemnation.

So then, He who saved the soul is the same who also rendered the flesh tractable.

For to teach is easy;

but to point out also some way by which these things could easily be accomplished, this is the wonderful thing.

And it was for this that the Only-begotten came, and did not depart before He had freed us from that difficulty.

And what is indeed the greater thing, the manner of the victory.

For He did not take other flesh, but this very same flesh that was worn down.

As if a man, seeing in the marketplace a mean and common woman being beaten, being himself a king's son, should declare himself to be her son, and thus deliver her from those who were maltreating her.

Which is what He Himself did, both confessing to be the Son of Man, and standing by her, and condemning sin.

It no longer dared, therefore, to strike her; or rather it did strike her, with the stroke of death.

But by this very act there was condemned and destroyed, not the flesh that was struck, but the flesh that struck.

which is the most wonderful of all.

For if the victory had not come about in the flesh, it would not have been so wonderful, since the law too accomplished this.

But the wonderful thing is that the trophy was set up together with the flesh, and that she who had ten thousand times been cast down by sin, this very one raised up a brilliant victory over it.

For see how many paradoxical things have come to pass;

one, that sin did not conquer the flesh;

another, that it was even conquered, and conquered by her;

for it is not the same thing not to be conquered, and to conquer her who was ever casting one down.

Third, that she not only conquered, but also punished;

for by not sinning she was not conquered;

but by dying she conquered and condemned it, showing to it the flesh to be fearful, which formerly had been contemptible.

Thus, at any rate, He both dissolved its power, and abolished the death that had been brought in through it.

For so long as it took hold of sinners, it brought in death according to the principle of justice;

but when it found a sinless body and delivered it up to death, it was condemned as having committed injustice.

Do you see how many triumphs there were: that the flesh was not vanquished by sin; that it even conquered and condemned it; that it did not simply condemn it, but condemned it as having sinned? For having first convicted it of having done wrong, He thus condemned it, not simply by strength and authority, but also by the principle of justice.

For this is what he showed when he said, concerning sin:

He condemned sin in the flesh;

as though he were saying that, having convicted it of having greatly sinned, he then also passed sentence upon it.

Do you see how everywhere it is sin that is condemned, not the flesh — indeed the flesh is even crowned, and pronounces the sentence against sin? But if he says that God sent the Son in the likeness of flesh, do not on that account suppose that that flesh was another kind of flesh;

for since he said 'of sin,' on that account he also added 'the likeness.'

For Christ did not have sinful flesh, but flesh like indeed to our sinful flesh, yet sinless, and in nature the same as ours.

So that from this too it is plain that the nature of the flesh was not evil.

For Christ, neither by taking another flesh in place of the former, nor by changing this same flesh in its very substance, thus prepared it to fight the battle anew;

but, allowing it to remain in the same nature, he made it bind on the crown against sin;

and then, after the victory, he raised it up and made it immortal.

'What then,' one says, 'is this to me, if these things were done in that flesh?' Nay, it is above all to you;

That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh.

What is 'the righteous requirement'? The end, the aim, the right accomplishment.

For what did the law will, and what did it ever command? To be sinless.

This, then, has now been accomplished for us through Christ;

and the resisting and the prevailing belonged to him;

but the enjoying of the victory is ours.

We shall not sin then any more, we shall not sin — unless we be exceedingly slack and supine.

'To those who walk not according to the flesh.'

For lest, upon hearing that Christ has delivered you from the war of sin, and that the righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in you, sin having been condemned in the flesh, you should relax all your discipline;

for this reason there too, having said 'There is therefore now no condemnation,' he added:

'To those who walk not according to the flesh;'

and here also, saying 'That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,' he subjoined this same thing;

or rather, not this only, but even much more.

For having said, 'That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh,' he added, 'But according to the Spirit;'

showing that it is not enough only to abstain from evil deeds, but that one must also abound in good.

For the giving you of the crown was his;

but the keeping of what was given is yours.

For that which was the righteous requirement of the law — namely, not to become liable to the curse — this Christ accomplished for you.

Do not, then, betray so great a gift, but continue guarding this goodly treasure.

For here he shows you that the washing does not suffice for our salvation, unless after the washing we display a life worthy of the gift.

So that again he pleads on behalf of the law by saying these things.

In order to be obedient to Christ, one must do and labor at everything, so that his righteous requirement which Christ fulfilled may remain in us, and not be destroyed.

For those who are according to the flesh, he says, mind the things of the flesh;

but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace.

Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God;

for it does not submit itself to the law of God;

But neither is this an accusation against the flesh.

For so long as it keeps its own proper rank, nothing amiss occurs;

but when we surrender everything to it, and it, overstepping its own bounds, rises up against the soul, then it ruins and corrupts all things — not by reason of its own nature, but by reason of the excess and the disorder that springs from it.

But those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit;

for the mind of the flesh is death.