"And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good".
Quare "lex quid era est sancta, et man datum sanctum, et just urn, et bonum.".
Wherefore the law is productive of the emotion of fear. "So that the law is holy "and in truth "spiritual".
Jesus, accordingly, does not charge him with not having fulfilled all things out of the law, but loves him, and fondly welcomes his obedience in what he had learned; but says that he is not perfect as respects eternal life, in as much as he had not fulfilled what is perfect, and that he is a doer indeed of the law, but idle at the true life. Those things, indeed, are good. Who denies it? For "the commandment is holy"
This is true as far as a sort of training with fear and preparatory discipline goes, leading as it did to the culmination of legislation and finally to grace.
About that (law) the same David (says) again: "The law of the Lord (is) unblameable converting souls; the statutes of the Lord (are) direct, delighting hearts; the precept of the Lord far-shining, enlightening eyes." Thus, too, the apostle: "And so the law indeed is holy, and the precept holy and most good" -"Thou shalt not commit adultery," of course.
If the law is found to be good, undoubtedly we shall believe that he who gave it is a good God. If, however, it is just rather than good, we shall think of God as a just lawgiver. But Paul the apostle says in no roundabout terms: “The commandment is holy and just and good.” It is plain from this that Paul has not learned the doctrines of those [Gnostics] who separate the just from the good. Rather, he had been instructed by that God and illuminated by the Spirit of that God, who is holy and good and just at the same time.
But, if you be so minded, we will bring before you the language of those who wrest these declarations. For this will make our own statements clearer. For there are some that say, that he is not here saying what he does of the Law of Moses, but some take it of the law of nature; some, of the commandment given in Paradise. Yet surely Paul's object everywhere is to annul this Law, but he has not any question with those. And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace. But it does not appear that he has ever called the commandment in Paradise "Law" at all; no, nor yet any other writer. Now to make this plainer from what he has really said, let us follow out his words, retracing the argument a little. Having then spoken to them about strictness of conversation, he goes on to say, "Do you not know, brethren, how that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? Wherefore you have become dead to the Law." Therefore if these things are said about the natural law, we are found to be without the natural law. And if this be true, we are more senseless than the creatures which are without reason. Yet this is not so, certainly. For with regard to the law in Paradise, there is no need to be contentious, lest we should be taking up a superfluous trouble, by entering the lists against things men have made up their minds upon. In what sense then does he say, "I should not have known sin but by the Law?" He is speaking, not of absolute want of knowledge, but of the more accurate knowledge. For if this were said of the law of nature, how would what follows suit? "For I was alive," he says, "without the Law once." Now neither Adam, nor any body else, can be shown ever to have lived without the law of nature. For as soon as God formed him, He put into him that law of nature, making it to dwell by him as a security to the whole kind (Gr. Nature, see p. 365). And besides this, it does not appear that he has anywhere called the law of nature a commandment. But this he calls as well a commandment, and that "just and holy," as a "spiritual law." But the law of nature was not given to us by the Spirit. For barbarians, as well as Greeks and other men, have this law. Hence it is plain, that it is the Mosaic Law that he is speaking of above, as well as afterwards, and in all the passages. For this cause also he calls it holy, saying, "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." For even though the Jews have been unclean since the Law, and unjust and covetous, this does not destroy the virtue of the Law, even as their unbelief does not make the faith of God of none effect. So from all these things it is plain, that it is of the Law of Moses that he here speaks.
Some people say that here Paul is not talking about the law of Moses but rather about the law of nature or of the commandment given in paradise. But surely Paul’s aim is to reach beyond the authority of the law of Moses; he has no quarrel with the other two. And rightly so, for it was because the Jews feared the abolition of their law that they so obstinately opposed the working of grace. Moreover, it does not appear that Paul ever called the commandment given in paradise a law, nor has any other writer. Following Paul’s logic, let us pursue the argument a little further. Having spoken to the Romans about proper standards of behavior, Paul goes on to say: “Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? But you are discharged from the law.” … Now if these things had been said about the natural law, we would now be without it. And if that were true, we would be more senseless than the irrational creatures are. But surely this is not so.
Contrary to those who attack the law and those who separate justice from goodness, the law is called a good and holy grace as well as a just grace. God is regularly called “good” in the Old Testament and “just” in the New. This contradicts the Marcionites.
Paul calls the law “holy” because it gives us the principles on which to tell the difference between good and evil, … “just” because after showing us what is good it necessarily points out the punishment for the transgressor, but also “good” because it is the source of good things, showing us what they are and persuading us that they are desirable.
Man needed to be shown the foulness of his malady. Against his wickedness not even a holy and good commandment could avail; by it the wickedness was increased rather than diminished.
The law is what was given to Moses; the commandment, what was given to Adam. What Paul praises so highly the average person condemns. For those who have given themselves over to idleness and run away from the works of righteousness blame God for having given a commandment in the first place. They say that, if God did not know what was going to happen, how can he be God? And if he did know that men would sin but nevertheless gave the commandment, then he is himself the cause of sin. But these people ought to realize that the knowledge of good and evil belongs to all who have the gift of reason. Only those without reason lack the ability to distinguish one from the other. The wolf is vicious, the lion devours, and bears and leopards do the same sort of thing but they have no sense of sin, nor do they have a conscience which is offended by their actions. But men are ashamed even if nobody else sees what they do and are afraid to admit what they have done. For their conscience accuses them. How could this be if they lived without any law? But God gave them a commandment so that they would recognize their own rational nature and fear the lawgiver. Yet they knew that the lawgiver was merciful and that the law was not difficult to keep.The commandment is “holy” because it teaches what is right. It is “just” because it pronounces the correct sentence on those who break it. But it is also “good” because it prepares eternal life for those who keep it.
“Law” and “commandment” are synonymous in this case. The commandment is called “holy” because it takes us away from sin and sets us apart from evil; “just” because with its righteousness it honors those who obey it and punishes those who transgress it; “good” because it leads us to the good, and this because of the goodness given by God. The law is not sin just because it shows me what is evil but the opposite.
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 7:12
Quare "lex quid era est sancta, et man datum sanctum, et just urn, et bonum.".
Wherefore the law is productive of the emotion of fear. "So that the law is holy "and in truth "spiritual".
Jesus, accordingly, does not charge him with not having fulfilled all things out of the law, but loves him, and fondly welcomes his obedience in what he had learned; but says that he is not perfect as respects eternal life, in as much as he had not fulfilled what is perfect, and that he is a doer indeed of the law, but idle at the true life. Those things, indeed, are good. Who denies it? For "the commandment is holy"