Commentary on Romans 5.10–6.2

“But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him, knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more; death will no longer have dominion over him. For in that he died to sin, he died once; but in that he lives, he lives to God.” In all that the Apostle said above, he wished to show this: that if Christ first died to sin, we too have died to sin with him. And when he says, “We were baptized in his death,” and, “We have been planted together in the likeness of his death,” by all these he shows that we have died to sin with Christ, because Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and from his own death he has given to each believer the death of sin, as a kind of gift of faith; namely, to those who believe that they have died with him and been crucified and buried with him; and through this, sin cannot work in them, as in the dead, and so they are said to be dead to sin. For this reason, then, in the present words the Apostle makes a conclusion of all that he had established above, and says: “But if we have died with Christ,” namely through the things which we have shown above, “we believe that we shall also live with him.” He did not say, “and we have lived with him,” as he said, “we have died,” but “we shall live with him,” to show that death works in the present, but life in the future; namely then, when Christ shall appear, who is our life hidden in God. Now, then, as Paul himself teaches, death works in us.

But this very death which works in us seems to me to have certain differences. For as in Christ there was one time of death, of which it is said, “And crying out with a loud voice he breathed his last”; and another when he lay placed in the tomb with the door shut; and another when he was sought in the tomb and was not found, because he had already risen, and the beginning of his resurrection was visible to no man: so also in us who believe in him this threefold account of death must be held. First, the death of Christ must be shown in us by the confession of the voice, since “with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Secondly, in the putting to death of our members which are upon the earth, when we now always carry about the putting to death of Christ in our body; and this is what he says, that death works in us. Thirdly, when we now rise from the dead and walk in newness of life. And to explain it more briefly and clearly: the first day of death is to have renounced the world; the second, to have renounced also the vices of the flesh; but the fullness of perfection in the light of wisdom is the third day, that of the resurrection. Yet these differences in each believer, and the degrees of progress, he alone can know and discern to whom alone the secrets of the heart are open.

But see Paul’s wisdom in writing. Writing to Timothy he said that “if we die with him, we shall also live with him”; and he who there joined, as consequent and necessary, that those who die with Christ live with him, here added “we believe,” to show that, although it is consequent and necessary that one who dies with him lives with him, nevertheless this is accomplished by means of faith and belief; “being sure,” he says, “and knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more.” For if he were to die again, just as we showed it to be consequent and necessary that those who die with him also live with him, so without doubt it would seem to follow that, if after the resurrection and life he were to die again, those too who live with him would die again with him as he died. For this reason, then, the Apostle lays down in an absolute sentence that Christ dies no more, so that those who live with him may be secure of the eternity of life.

After this (to use the very words of the Apostle, in which he says, “But Isaiah is bold and says”), I too say: But Paul is bold and says, “Death will no longer have dominion over him.” Did you dare, O Paul, to say this of Christ, “Death will no longer have dominion over him,” as though it once had dominion? He whose voice in the Gospel is carried through the whole body of the Church, clearer than light, in which he says: “No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down; and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.” Do you say that death had dominion over him who not only laid down his soul by his will, but took it up again by his power? Who alone was free among the dead, and whom alone death could not hold? These things, I suppose, and things like them, will be urged against Paul by those who are held by a tender affection toward Jesus and cannot bear to hear anything lowly, anything unworthy, said of him. But we too … [the scan has lost text here] … who could surpass him in love of Christ; whence he must not be thought to have spoken anything of him other than is worthy of him. And therefore let us search more subtly, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, the word of wisdom by which we may perceive the sense of Paul, or rather the sense of Christ that is in him, according to what he himself professes: “But we have the mind of Christ.”

Someone, then, may say more briefly in these words that here he speaks of this common and intermediate death, by which he died, as the same Apostle says, “according to the Scriptures”; and it will seem nothing absurd if he who had taken the form of a servant endured the dominion of death, which without doubt has dominion over all who, placed in the flesh, are counted under the form of a servant. And this too would help this assertion: that this form of a servant, that is, our very flesh, is sown in corruption so that it may rise in incorruption, and is sown in weakness so that it may rise in power, and is sown in dishonor so that it may rise in glory, and is sown a natural body so that it may rise a spiritual body, without doubt so that death may no longer have dominion over it, which had dominion over it while it was in weakness and dishonor and corruption. For of such flesh as is still in these vices of the passions Paul himself says: “That flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God, nor will corruption possess incorruption.” And what the same Apostle elsewhere named “the body of death,” he who maintains this says is to be understood of this intermediate death, which has dominion over a body of this kind until … [the scan has lost text here] … is said to be the enemy to be destroyed, and sometimes, too, he will confirm that the place of hell, in which the devil is said to have the power of death, is named by the Apostle. And here, then, he will confirm that what he says, “Death will no longer have dominion over him,” is said of that death by which Christ is believed to have died in common with all. How sound this assertion is, let the reader test.

But another, who beholds in the power of the Spirit the deeper sense of Paul in these words, will say that the death here, of which it is said that it will no longer have dominion over Christ, is to be understood as that very last enemy which bore the figure of that sea monster that swallowed Jonah, of which it is written in Job: “But let him curse it who cursed that day, he who is about to slay the great sea monster.” Into this death Christ entered as Jonah into the belly of the sea monster, namely into that place which the Savior himself named the heart of the earth, in which he says the Son of Man would spend three days and three nights after the example of Jonah, so as to deliver those who were held there by death. For this reason he had taken the form of a servant, so that he could enter that very place where death held its kingdom; according to what the prophet too says in his person: “And I was counted with those who go down into the pit”; and again: “What profit is there in my blood, while I go down into corruption?”

So that this may be grasped still more plainly, we shall use again a comparison of this kind. Let us suppose a just and noble king, wishing to wage war against some unjust tyrant in such a way that he may not seem to have won by a violent and bloody conflict, because those serving under the tyrant were his own, whom he wished not to destroy but to free. By a better counsel, therefore, he takes the dress of those who were with the tyrant and becomes like them in appearance in all things, until, placed under the dominion of the tyrant, he might persuade those who obeyed him to depart and return to the lawful kingdom, and at a fitting time might bind the strong one himself and strip him of his powers and principalities, and draw away the captivity which was held by him, torn from him. In this way, then, Christ too then emptied himself by his will and took the form of a servant, and endured the dominion of the tyrant, having become obedient unto death; through which death he destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, so as to free those who were held by death. For having bound the strong one and triumphed over him on his cross, he went on also into his house, into the house of death, into hell, and from there plundered his goods, that is, drew out the souls which he held. And this is what he himself spoke in riddles in the Gospel, saying: “Who can enter the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?” First, then, he bound him on the cross, and so entered his house, that is, hell, and from there, ascending on high, led captivity captive, namely those who rose with him and entered the holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem. Hence the Apostle rightly says in the present place that death will no longer have dominion over him. For he will no longer give himself into the dominion of the tyrant, nor will he again empty himself to take the form of a servant and become obedient unto death; lest again, placed in the form of a servant, though by will and not by necessity, he should nevertheless endure the dominion of the tyrant and of death.

Hence I wonder that some wish to maintain, against this most evident sentence of Paul, that in the ages to come Christ must again suffer the same or similar things, so that those too may be freed whom the medicine of his dispensation could not heal in the present life. For they say: “Can there be some age in the future in which nothing either good or evil is done, but things stand still and deep silences remain?” This, they maintain, seems absurd. “We shall grant, then, that something is done. And where something is done,” they say, “it is necessary that some things be done rightly and some less rightly, and that in the very doing some make progress and become better, others worse. For freedom of choice will always remain to the rational nature; and just as it was possible for him too who, for the splendor of his glory, was Lucifer, and because of the light of knowledge rose in the morning, to be changed from his glory and become darkness because of the wickedness he received; and for him who was spotless from his birth and dwelt with … [the scan has lost text here] … it may be that, in whatever state the soul is, and in whatever perfection of virtues, since virtue is changeable, it may incur a fall, so that, as it is turned from vices to virtue, so also it may be turned from virtues to vices. And if this is so, it will seem to follow that a physician is needed where there is sickness, because, according to the voice of the Savior himself, there is need of a physician for those who are ill.” Putting forward these and similar things, then, they think that the same dispensations are to be repeated by Christ in the ages to come too.

But to this we shall answer briefly, as we can. We do not deny that free choice always remains to the rational nature; but we assert that so great is the power of the cross of Christ, and of this death which he undertook at the end of the ages, that it suffices for the healing and remedy not only of the present and the future, but also of past ages, and not only for this human order of ours, but also for the heavenly powers and orders. For according to the sentence of the apostle Paul himself, Christ made peace through the blood of his cross not only for the things that are on earth, but also for those that are in heaven. And what it is that will hold the freedom of choice in the ages to come, so that it does not fall again into sin, the Apostle teaches us in a brief word, saying: “Love never falls.” For this reason love is said to be greater than both faith and hope, because it alone will be that through which one can no longer sin. For if the soul has ascended to such perfection that it loves God with its whole heart and its whole soul and its whole strength, and its neighbor as itself, where will there be a place for sin? For this reason, indeed, in the law too this is said to be the first commandment, and in the Gospels love is commanded above all else; and when the chief charge of feeding the sheep was handed to Peter, and the Church was founded upon him as upon the earth, the confession of no other virtue than love … [the scan has lost text here] … “that neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor angels, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” From all of which it is plainly shown that, if all these things which the Apostle enumerated cannot separate us from the love of God, when someone has ascended to that summit of perfection, much less will freedom of choice be able to separate us from his love. For although this too is a power and remains in our nature, yet so great is the force of love that it draws all things to itself and associates and claims all powers to itself; especially since God first gave us the causes of love, “who did not spare his only Son, but handed him over for us all,” and with him has given us all things. Hence, whether it be he who was Lucifer and rose in heaven, or he who was spotless from his birth and, placed with the cherubim, could fall before he was bound by the bonds of love toward the benefits of the Son of God, yet after the love of God has begun to be poured out in the hearts of all through the Holy Spirit, what the Apostle pronounced will be certain, that love will never fall.

These things we have said, as we could, about the questions stirred in this place, so that it might become more clearly evident how Christ died to sin once and dies no more, and that in that he lives, he lives to God. And to live to God is to be understood thus: as though, having fulfilled that work in which, being in the form of God, he emptied himself and took the form of a servant and became obedient unto death, he remains again in the form of God and equal to the Father. Hence he rightly sets down in what follows: “So also you, consider yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord”; that is, that by imitation of Christ we may die to sin, made strangers to it, and live to God, joining ourselves to him and made one spirit with him. And not without reason did he say, “Consider yourselves dead to sin,” which is better in the Greek: “Think yourselves to be dead to sin.” For the matter spoken of consists rather in thought and reason, because a death of this kind is to be held not in effect but in thought. For he who thinks or considers within himself that he is dead does not sin. For example: if desire for a woman draws me, if the lust of silver, of gold, of an estate knocks at me, and I set in my heart that I have died with Christ, and think of death, at once the desire is quenched and sin is put to flight. Or if, inflamed with hatred or anger, I am roused to the slaughter of my enemy, if I consider myself dead with Christ and set thoughts of death in my mind, without doubt the fury is quenched, the hatred ceases, the anger subsides, no place is given to sin; and in this way one is found to die to sin and live to God. And this too which he added, “alive to God in Christ Jesus,” does not seem to me idle. For I think it is as though he had said: alive to God in wisdom, in peace, in righteousness, in sanctification, all of which Christ is. To live to God in these, then, is to live to God in Christ Jesus. And if without righteousness, without peace, without sanctification and the other virtues no one lives to God, it is certain that no one lives to God except in Christ Jesus. Amen.

“Therefore let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its desires; nor present your members as weapons of iniquity to sin; but present yourselves to God as living from the dead, and your members as weapons of righteousness to God. For sin will not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.” Above he says, “As sin reigned in death.” But now he did not say, “Therefore let not sin reign in death,” but he says, “Therefore let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its desires”; teaching by this that sin has a kind of seat and kingdom in the body. This is what he said elsewhere too: “The prudence of the flesh is hostile to God”; and again: “The prudence of the flesh is death.” And the Apostle declares all sins to be works of the flesh, which he says are sexual immorality, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, shamelessness, idolatry, sorceries, enmities, strifes, jealousy, fury, contentions, dissensions, heresies, envy, drunkenness, revelings, and things like these. And if you ask how heresies too are numbered among the works of the flesh, you will find that they proceed from the mind of the flesh. For so the Apostle says of a certain man: “Vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding the head.” We have said these things so that it might become more clearly understood how … [the scan has lost text here] … “the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are opposed to each other.”

Yet notice this: showing that it is placed in our power that sin should not reign in our mortal body, the Apostle gives a precept, saying: “Therefore let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its desires.” For unless it were in our power that sin should not reign in us, he certainly would not have given a precept. How, then, is it possible that sin should not reign in our flesh? If we do what the same Apostle says, “Put to death your members which are upon the earth,” and if we always … [the scan has lost text here] … For it is certain that where the death of Christ is carried about, sin cannot reign. For so great is the power of the cross of Christ that, if it is set before the eyes and faithfully held in the mind, so that the eye of the mind looks intently on the very death of Christ, no desire, no lust, no fury, no envy can overcome; but at its presence that whole army of sin and the flesh which we enumerated above is at once put to flight; and sin itself does not even subsist, since its substance is nowhere except in works and deeds.

There is in us, then, both the desire of sin, which has its kingdom in the flesh, and the desire of the spirit, which has its kingdom in the mind, according to what we said above, that the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. When, then, we desire what is not lawful, or what is not fitting, or what is not expedient, it is the desire of the flesh. But when our soul desires and faints to see the salvation of God, this desire is of the spirit. Hence it appears that the soul is in a way in the middle between flesh and spirit; and if it joins itself to the flesh to obey the desires of sin, it is made one body with it; but if it joins itself to God, it is made one spirit with him; according to what was said: “For he who joins himself to a prostitute is one body; but he who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit.” And do not wonder if he calls the flesh a prostitute, which lies subject to all those vices and sins which we enumerated above as to the foulest of lovers.

But I ask why he added “in your mortal body,” when it would certainly have sufficed to say, “Therefore let not sin reign in your body.” Why did he add “mortal,” as if anyone doubted that the body is mortal? But it seems to me that he did not add this without cause either. For by it he reminded us how sin can not reign in the body, according to what he himself had said elsewhere: “The body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness.” If, then, we know that our body can be put to death and be dead to sin, it may come about that sin does not reign in it. For according to this, that it is dead, it is said to be justified from sin. For a dead man does not desire, or grow angry, or rage, or plunder the goods of others. If, then, we restrain the body from all these desires, the body is said to be dead to sin. And this is what this addition of the Apostle, saying “in your mortal body,” seems to urge in the present place. Another will perhaps say that it is to distinguish it from another body which is im… [the scan has lost text here] … to sin; but present yourselves to God as living from the dead, and your members rather as weapons of righteousness to God.”

Look at the wisdom of Paul in each point, how he uses necessary distinctions. Where he says weapons are not to be offered to sin or iniquity, he sets down not ourselves but our members; but where he urges us to present ourselves to God, he wishes not our members but ourselves first to be presented to God, that is, our soul or our purpose; so that, when we have first presented ourselves to God and cleaved to him, so at last we may make our members too weapons of righteousness to God. For as hands are called holy which have served holy works, as the Apostle says, “lifting up pure hands without anger and disputing”; and again hands are called full of blood which have served the shedding of blood: so also in the present place the members which serve sin and iniquity are called weapons of iniquity; and again, if we put to death the desire of sin in our mortal body and labor in the work of righteousness and serve righteousness with all our members, we are made as living from the dead, namely dead to sin and living to righteousness; and consequently our members too become weapons of righteousness to God. And he has well kept the metaphor proposed above, so that, since he had said that sin reigns, he named the members weapons of sin, and again our members become weapons of righteousness to God the king.

After this follows: “For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under the law, but under grace.” Here too look at the wonderful caution in the Apostle’s words. When he speaks of us, he says, “Sin will not have dominion over you”; when he was speaking of the Savior, he did not say, “Sin will not have dominion” (for it was not fitting to say so of him), but he says: “Death will no longer have dominion over him.” For in him there was place for death, none for sin. But on the contrary, it was not fitting to say of us, “Death will not have dominion over you,” for this we cannot avoid; but, “Sin will not have dominion over you,” which without doubt he knew we can avoid, according to what we said above, if we put to death the desires of the flesh, in which sin could have dominion. For this reason he adds: “For you are not under the law, but under grace”; and he plainly shows by this that we are not under that law which he says is set in the members and fights against the law of the mind; because it is certain that he who puts his members to death is not under the law of the members but under the grace of God. Of this law he says elsewhere too that “the power of sin is the law.” But if anyone wishes to take these words of the law of Moses, he will without doubt say this: that we are not under the law of the letter, which kills, but under the law of the spirit, which gives life, which here he named grace.

“What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Far from it.” This seems like that saying which we expounded above: “What then shall we say? Shall we remain in sin that grace may abound? Far from it”; and therefore one and the same explanation may suffice for both places. This alone seems to make a difference: that above, where he says, “What then? Shall we remain in sin?”, it seems to be said as to those who have not yet departed from sin, that they should not remain in that in which they still seemed to be; but here the question seems to be put as by those who have already departed from sin; and there it was “that grace,” as though not yet present, “might abound”; but here he speaks as though grace were already present, saying that “we are not under the law but under grace.”