(7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from it, ^o,. The apostle asks whether it is to be inferred, either from the general doctrine of the preceding section, respecting the necessity of deliverance from the law, or from the special declaration made in v. 5, respecting the law's producing sin, that the law was itself evil % He answers, by no means ; and shows, in the next verse, that the eflfect ascribed to the law, in v. 5, is merely incidental. Is the law sin ? means either, Is the law evil ? or is it the cause of sin ; see Micah 1:5,' Samaria is the sin of Jacob.' The former is best suited to the context, because Paul admits that the law is incidentally productive of sin.
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law. The word rendered nay very often signifies on the contrary, and may be so translated here. * So far from the law being evil, it is, on the contrary, of the greatest use, for I had not known sin, but by the law.' I had not known sin. The will of God, which is the rule of right and wrong, is the source of all know- ledge of what is morally good or evil. This law is revealed partially in the very constitution of our nature; and more fully in the Scriptures. The more enlarged and spiritual our views of this law, the clearer our knowledge of the extent and evil of sin.
For I had not known lust, except the law had said thou shall not covet. The meaning of this member of the sentence depends upon the sense given to for. It maybe confirmatory, or merely illustrative. If the former, the sense is, ' I had not known sin, but by the law,/or I had not known that the mere inw^ard desire was evil, had not the law said,' &c. Or retaining the same force of this particle, ' I had not known the real inward fountain of sin, viz. concupiscence, except the law had said,' &c. According to this view, which is the one most commonly adopted, the word rendered lust refers to the corrupt disposition of the heart, considered as the root or source of sin. If for (ydp) be considered as merely illus- trative, the sense is this : ' I had not known sin except by the law ; for example, 1 had not known concupiscence, had not the law said,' &c. According to this view, concupiscence does not differ from the more gene- ral term sin, except as being adduced as an example of the evils to the knowledge of which the law leads. It seems probable that the first inter- pretation is the more correct of the two. At least, that the apostle design- edly referred to an inward, spiritual sin, in order the more clearly to con- firm his declaration. That certain outward actions were wrong, he and all other Pharisees knew, and were ready to admit ; but that God took cognizance of the heart, and of its most secret workings, and even of its habits or dispositions, they were less disposed to imagine ; and were, therefore, deplorably ignorant of the extent and turpitude of their depravity in his sight.
(8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me ah manner of concupiscence, &c. This verse is not to be connected logically