14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: [193] for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

14. Peccatum enim vobis non dominabitur, non enim estis sub Lege, sed Sub gratia.

15. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

15. Quid ergo? Peccabimus, quia non sumus sub Lege, sed sub gratia? Absit:

16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

16. Nescitis quod cui exhibuistis vos servos in obedientiam, ejus servi estis cui obeditis, sive peccati in mortem, sive obedientiæ in justitiam?

17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

17. Gratia autem Deo, quod fuistis servi peccati, obeditis, vero ex animo typo doctrinæ in quem traducti estis:

18. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

18. Manumissi vero peccato, servi facti estis justitiæ.

14. For sin shall not rule over you, etc. It is not necessary to continue long in repeating and confuting expositions, which have little or no appearance of truth. There is one which has more probability in its favor than the rest, and it is this -- that by law we are to understand the letter of the law, which cannot renovate the soul, and by grace, the grace of the Spirit, by which we are freed from depraved lusts. But this I do not wholly approve of; for if we take this meaning, what is the object of the question which immediately follows, "Shall we sin because we are not under the law?" Certainly the Apostle would never have put this question, had he not understood, that we are freed from the strictness of the law, so that God no more deals with us according to the high demands of justice. There is then no doubt but that he meant here to indicate some freedom from the very law of God. But laying aside controversy, I will briefly explain my view.

It seems to me, that there is here especially a consolation offered, by which the faithful are to be strengthened, lest they should faint in their efforts after holiness, through a consciousness of their own weakness. He had exhorted them to devote all their faculties to the service of righteousness; but as they carry about them the relics of the flesh, they cannot do otherwise than walk somewhat lamely. Hence, lest being broken down by a consciousness of their infirmity they should despond, he seasonably comes to their aid, by interposing a consolation, derived from this circumstance -- that their works are not now tested by the strict rule of the law, but that God, remitting their impurity, does kindly and mercifully accept them. The yoke of the law cannot do otherwise than tear and bruise those who carry it. It hence follows, that the faithful must flee to Christ, and implore him to be the defender of their freedom: and as such he exhibits himself; for he underwent the bondage of the law, to which he was himself no debtor, for this end -- that he might, as the Apostle says, redeem those who were under the law.

Hence, not to be under the law means, not only that we are not under the letter which prescribes what involves us in guilt, as we are not able to perform it, but also that we are no longer subject to the law, as requiring perfect righteousness, and pronouncing death on all who deviate from it in any part. In like manner, by the word grace, we are to understand both parts of redemption -- the remission of sins, by which God imputes righteousness to us, -- and the sanctification of the Spirit, by whom he forms us anew unto good works. The adversative particle, [alla, but,] I take in the sense of alleging a reason, which is not unfrequently the case; as though it was said -- "We who are under grace, are not therefore under the law."

The sense now is clear; for the Apostle intended to comfort us, lest we should be wearied in our minds, while striving to do what is right, because we still find in ourselves many imperfections. For how much soever we may be harassed by the stings of sin, it cannot yet overcome us, for we are enabled to conquer it by the Spirit of God; and then, being under grace, we are freed from the rigorous requirements of the law. We must further understand, that the Apostle assumes it as granted, that all who are without the grace of God, being bound under the yoke of the law, are under condemnation. And so we may on the other hand conclude, that as long as they are under the law, they are subject to the dominion of sin. [194]

15. What then? As the wisdom of the flesh is ever clamorous against the mysteries of God, it was necessary for the Apostle to subjoin what might anticipate an objection: for since the law is the rule of life, and has been given to guide men, we think that when it is removed all discipline immediately falls to the ground, that restraints are taken away, in a word, that there remains no distinction or difference between good and evil. But we are much deceived if we think, that the righteousness which God approves of in his law is abolished, when the law is abrogated; for the abrogation is by no means to be applied to the precepts which teach the right way of living, as Christ confirms and sanctions these and does not abrogate them; but the right view is, that nothing is taken away but the curse, to which all men without grace are subject. But though Paul does not distinctly express this, yet he indirectly intimates it.

16. By no means: know ye not? This is not a bare denial as some think, as though he preferred to express his abhorrence of such a question rather than to disprove it: for a confutation immediately follows, derived from a contrary supposition, and to this purpose, "Between the yoke of Christ and that of sin there is so much contrariety, that no one can bear them both; if we sin, we give ourselves up to the service of sin; but the faithful, on the contrary have been redeemed from the tyranny of sin, that they may serve Christ: it is therefore impossible for them to remain bound to sin." But it will be better to examine more closely the course of reasoning, as pursued by Paul.

To whom we obey, etc. This relative may be taken in a causative sense, as it often is; as when one says, -- there is no kind of crime which a parricide will not do, who has not hesitated to commit the greatest crime of all, and so barbarous as to be almost abhorred even by wild beasts. And Paul adduces his reason partly from the effects, and partly from the nature of correlatives. For first, if they obey, he concludes that they are servants, for obedience proves that he, who thus brings one into subjection to himself, has the power of commanding. This reason as to service is from the effect, and from this the other arises. "If you be servants, then of course sin has the dominion."

Or of obedience, etc. The language is not strictly correct; for if he wished to have the clauses correspondent, he would have said, "or of righteousness unto life" [195] But as the change in the words does not prevent the understanding of the subject, he preferred to express what righteousness is by the word obedience; in which however there is a metonymy, for it is to be taken for the very commandments of God; and by mentioning this without addition, he intimated that it is God alone, to whose authority consciences ought to be subject. Obedience then, though the name of God is suppressed, is yet to be referred to him, for it cannot be a divided obedience.

17. But thanks be to God, etc. This is an application of the similitude of the present subject. Though they were only to be reminded that they were not now the servants of sin, he yet adds a thanksgiving; first, that he might teach them, that this was not through their own merit, but through the special mercy of God; and secondly, that by this thanksgiving, they might learn how great was the kindness of God, and that they might thereby be more stimulated to hate sin. And he gives thanks, not as to that time during which they were the servants of sin, but for the liberation which followed, when they ceased to be what they were before. But this implied comparison between their former and present state is very emphatical; for the Apostle touches the calumniators of the grace of Christ, when he shows, that without grace the whole race of man is held captive under the dominion of sin; but that the kingdom of sin comes to an end, as soon as grace puts forth its power. [196]

We may hence learn, that we are not freed from the bondage of the law that we may sin; for the law does not lose its dominion, until the grace of God restores us to him, in order to renew us in righteousness: and it is hence impossible that we should be subject to sin, when the grace of God reigns in us: for we have before stated, that under this term grace, is included the spirit of regeneration.

You have obeyed from the heart, etc. Paul compares here the hidden power of the Spirit with the external letter of the law, as though he had said, "Christ inwardly forms our souls in a better way, than when the law constrains them by threatening and terrifying us." Thus is dissipated the following calumny, "If Christ frees us from subjection to the law, he brings liberty to sin." He does not indeed allow his people unbridled freedom, that they might frisk about without any restraint, like horses let loose in the fields; but he brings them to a regular course of life. -- Though Erasmus, following the old version, has chosen to translate it the "form" (formam) of doctrine, I have felt constrained to retain type, the word which Paul uses: some may perhaps prefer the word pattern. [197] It seems indeed to me to denote the formed image or impress of that righteousness which Christ engraves on our hearts: and this corresponds with the prescribed rule of the law, according to which all our actions ought to be framed, so that they deviate not either to the right or to the left hand.

18. And having been made free from sin, etc. The meaning is, "It is unreasonable that any one, after having been made free, should continue in a state of bondage; for he ought to maintain the freedom which he has received: it is not then befitting, that you should be brought again under the dominion of sin, from which you have been set at liberty by Christ." It is an argument derived from the efficient cause; another also follows, taken from the final cause, Ye have been liberated from the bondage of sin, that ye might pass into the kingdom of righteousness; it is hence right that you should wholly turn away from sin, and turn your minds wholly to righteousness, into the service of which you have been transferred."

It must be observed, that no one can be a servant to righteousness except he is first liberated by the power and kindness of God from the tyranny of sin. So Christ himself testifies,

"If the Son shall free you, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36.)

What are then our preparations by the power of free will, since the commencement of what is good proceeds from this manumission, which the grace of God alone effects?

---

Footnotes:

[193] "Vobis non dominabitur," ou kurieusei -- shall not be a lord over you, shall not have power or authority or control over you; or, it may mean, shall not domineer over you, so as to retain you, as it were by force, under its power: and the reason given favors this idea; for he says, "Ye are not under law, but under grace." Law is the strength of sin; and by law it binds its subjects under its service. -- Ed.

[194] The word "law" here, is taken by Scott and others, indefinitely, as meaning law as the ground of the covenant of works, written or unwritten; and the literal rendering is, "under law" -- hupo nomou; and it is the same in the next verse, "under law." -- Ed.

[195] Beza's remark on this is, -- that obedience is not the cause of life, as sin is of death, but is the way to life: and hence the want of correspondence in the two clauses. But others, such as Venema, Turrettin, and Stuart, consider that the clauses really correspond. They take eis thanaton -- "unto death," as signifying, unto condemnation; and eis dikaiosunen, they render "unto justification;" and hupakoe, "obedience," is in their view the obedience of faith. This construction might be admitted, were it not for the last clause of Romans 6:18, where we have, "Ye became the servants of righteousness," the same word, dikaiosune; except we consider that also, as Venema does, as signifying the righteousness of faith, by a sort of personification: and if so, we must attach the same meaning to "righteousness" dikaiosune, in Romans 6:19, which issues in, or leads to holiness; and also to "righteousness," dikaiosune, in verse 20. As the Apostle personifies sin, he may also be supposed to personify righteousness, that is, the righteousness of faith. In this case, we might as well retain the word "righteousness" in this verse, and not justification, which it never strictly means; for the correspondence in the terms would be still essentially preserved, as with the righteousness of faith eternal life is inseparably connected. -- Ed.

[196] Our version of this verse conveys the idea, that the Apostle gave thanks that they had been the servants of sin; but hoti is often rendered for, as in Matthew 5:3, 4; Luke 10:13; and in Matthew 6:5, followed by de as here, in Romans 6:6. The rendering may be this, -- But thanks be to God; for ye have been the servants of sin, but have obeyed the form of doctrine, in which ye have been taught. -- Ed.

[197] The version of Calvin is, "Obedistis vero et animo typo doctrinæ in quem traducti estis." The word tupos, is rendered in John 20:25, print, that is, of the nails, -- in Acts 7:43, in the plural, fiqures, that is, images, -- in Acts 7:44, fashion, that is, pattern or model, -- in Hebrews 8:5, pattern, -- in Acts 23:25, manner, that is, form, -- in Romans 5:14, figure, that is, representative, -- in Titus 2:7, pattern; and in all other instances in which it occurs, except in this place, it is rendered example, and in the plural, examp1es, as afforded by the conduct of others, or by events; see 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Peter 5:3. The idea of mould, which some give to it, is without an example in the New Testament. Our version is that of Castellio, in the meaning of which most critics agree. Grotius gives this paraphrase, "Obedistis ad eum modum quem doctrina evangelii præscribit -- Ye became obedient to that rule which the doctrine of the gospel prescribes." Wolfius quotes from Iamblichus, in his life of Pythagoras, passages in which tupos is used for form, model, or manner, --"tos paideuseos ho tupos -- the form of instruction;" and "tupos didaskalias -- the form or manner of teaching." The grammatical difficulty is best removed by Stuart, who considers tupon to be for tupo, the case being changed by the preceding pronoun, no uncommon thing in Greek: the literal rendering would then be, --"Ye have obeyed the form of doctrine, respecting which (or, in which, see Mark 5:34) ye have been instructed." -- Ed.