Homilies on Romans (complete)

Having ended here the moral discourse, he goes back again to the doctrines, saying thus: “Or do you not know, brothers — for I speak to those who know the law?” For since he had said that we died to sin, he shows here that not only does sin not rule over them, but not even the law. And if the law does not rule, much less does sin. And, to sweeten his discourse, he makes this clear from a human example. And he seems to be saying one thing, but he sets down two proofs of the point before him: one, that when the husband has died the wife is not subject to the law of the husband, nor is there anyone to prevent her becoming another man's wife; another, that here not only has the husband died, but the wife too, so that she enjoys a double freedom. For if, when the husband has died, she is released from his authority, when she herself too is shown to have died, much more has she been set free. For if one event releases her from the authority, much more both together. Being about, then, to enter on the proof of these things, he begins with praise of the hearers, saying: “Or do you not know, brothers — for I speak to those who know the law?” That is, I am saying something very much agreed upon and clear, and they know all these things exactly: “that the law rules over a person as long as he lives.” He did not say “the husband” nor “the wife,” but “the person,” which is the name common to both. “For the one who has died,” he says, “has been justified from sin.” The law, then, is laid down for the living, but no longer gives orders to the dead. Do you see how he showed the freedom to be double? Then, having hinted at this in the opening, he carries on the argument in the proof by the case of the wife, saying thus: “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives; but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband. So then, while the husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man's.” He turns it over continually, and with great exactness, since he is very confident of what he is proving. And he puts the law in the place of the husband, and all who have believed in the place of the wife. Then he draws the conclusion not in agreement with the premise; for the consistent thing would have been to say: “So, my brothers, the law will not rule over you, for it has died.” But he did not say so; in the premise he hinted at this, but in the conclusion, to make the discourse inoffensive, he brings in the wife as having died, saying: “So, my brothers, you too were put to death to the law.” For when both this and that, if they happen, give the same freedom, what prevents him from showing favour to the law, when the matter suffers no harm at all? “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives.” Where now are those who slander the law? Let them hear how, even when he had fallen into a necessity, he does not pull down its dignity, but speaks greatly of its authority, if indeed, while it lives, the Jew is bound, and those who transgress it and leave it while it lives are called adulterers; but if he left it once it had died, that is no wonder; for even among men the one who does this is not blamed. “But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband.”

Do you see how in the example he shows the law as having died? But in the conclusion he does not do this. “So then, while the husband lives, the wife will be called an adulteress.” See how he lingers on the charges against those who transgress the law while it lives. And since he has made it cease, he then, with all security, shows it favour, without harming the faith by this. “For while the husband lives,” he says, “the wife will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. So, my brothers, you too.” The consistent thing would have been to say: “Since the law has died, you are not judged guilty of adultery when you become another man's.” But he did not say so; how then? “You were put to death to the law.” If you have become dead, you are not under the law. For if, when the husband has died, the wife is not liable, much more, when she herself has died, is she released from it. Do you see Paul's wisdom, how he showed that the law itself wished this, that one should depart from it and become another man's? For it does not prevent, he says, being with another husband when the former has died. How could it, when it permits it even while he lives, to a woman who has received a bill of divorce? But he does not set this down, since it was rather a charge against the women; for even if it had been allowed, it was nevertheless not free of blame. For when he has the victory from what is necessary and approved, he does not seek what is superfluous; for he is not petty. The wonderful thing, then, is this, that the law itself releases us from the charges when we have departed from it, so that it is its own will that we should become Christ's. For both it has died and we have died, and its authority has been removed in two ways. And he is not content with these alone, but adds the cause too; for he has not simply set down death, but has again brought in the cross that wrought these things, and in this way makes us answerable to him. For he does not simply say, “You were released,” but “through the Lord's death.” “For you were put to death,” he says, “to the law through the body of Christ.”