Now the sting of death is sin: and the power of sin is the law.

“"Now the sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law." Seest thou how the discourse is of the death of the body? therefore also of the resurrection of the body. For if these bodies do not rise again, how is death "swallowed up?" And not this only, but how is "the law the power of sin?" For that "sin" indeed is "the sting of death," and more bitter than it, and by it hath its power, is evident; but how is "the law also the power" thereof? Because without the law sin was weak, being practised indeed, but not able so entirely to condemn: since although the evil took place, it was not so clearly pointed out. So that it was no small change which the law brought in, first causing us to know sin better, and then enhancing the punishment. And if meaning to check sin it did but develop it more fearfully, this is no charge against the physician, but against the abuse of the remedy. Since even the presence of Christ made the Jews' burden heavier, yet must we not therefore blame it, but while we the more admire it, we must hate them the more, for having been injured by things which ought to have profited them? Yea, to show that it was not the law of itself which gives strength to sin, Christ Himself fulfilled it all and was without sin. But I would have thee consider how from this topic also he confirms the resurrection. For if this were the cause of death, viz. our committing sin, and if Christ came and took away sin, and delivered us from it through baptism, and together with sin put an end also to the law in the transgression of which sin consists, why doubtest thou any more of the resurrection? For whence, after all this, is death to prevail? Through the law? Nay, it is done away. Through sin? Nay, it is clean destroyed.”

“Here the Apostle sets forth the necessity of the effect of resurrection as it proceeds from its very cause. And concerning this he sets forth two things corresponding to the two things he had set forth in the progression of effects from the cause itself. The first was general to all, namely that the dead will rise incorrupt. And so, first, as to this he says it is necessary that this corruptible put on incorruption. The second was special to the apostles and to the good, namely and we shall be changed, and so, second, as to this he says and this mortal put on immortality. For since corruptible is opposed to incorruptible, and in the state of the present life we are subject to corruption, therefore he says that when we rise again, this corruptible must, etc., by a necessity, namely, of fittingness. And this for three reasons. First, on account of the completion of human nature. For, as Augustine also says, the soul as long as it is separated from the body is imperfect, not having the perfection of its own nature, and therefore it does not exist in as great a beatitude while separated as it will be when united to the body in the resurrection. In order, then, that it may enjoy perfect beatitude, this corruptible, that is, the body, must put on, as an adornment, incorruption, so that further it may in no way be harmed, being mortal. Second, on account of the requirement of divine justice, namely that those who did good or evil in the body may be rewarded or punished also in their very bodies. Third, on account of the conformity of the members to the head; that as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life, Rom. VI, 4. It should be noted, moreover, that he likens incorruption or immortality itself to a garment, when he says put on. For a garment is present to the one clothed and is absent, while the substance of the one clothed remains numerically the same, so that by this he may show that the same bodies numerically will rise, and the same men numerically will exist in the state of incorruption and immortality, in which they now are. Whence by this the error of those who say that bodies will not rise the same in number is excluded. Whence he says pointedly it is necessary that this corruptible, namely the body, since the soul is not corruptible. Also excluded is the error of those who say that glorified bodies will not be the same as these, but heavenly ones, and concerning this manner something similar is found in II Cor. V, 2: for in this we groan, etc.; Is. LII, 1: put on the garments of your glory; Job XL, 5: gird on beauty for yourself, and so forth. But against this it is objected, since it seems impossible that this corruptible should put on incorruption, that is, that bodies should rise the same in number, because it is impossible for things which differ in genus or species to be the same in number; but corruptible and incorruptible differ not only in species but in genus; therefore it is impossible for the bodies of those rising to be incorruptible, and yet remain the same in number. Furthermore, the Philosopher says that it is impossible that those things whose corruptible substance has been moved should be reintegrated the same in number, but the same in species; but the substance of human bodies is corruptible, therefore it is impossible for it to be reintegrated the same in number. I answer. It must be said, as to the first, that each thing follows genus and species from its own nature and not from something extrinsic to its nature, and therefore I say that if the future resurrection of bodies were to come from the principles of the nature of bodies, it would be impossible for bodies to rise the same in number. But I say that the incorruption of rising bodies will be given from another principle than from the nature of the bodies themselves, namely from the glory of the soul, from whose beatitude and incorruption the whole beatitude and incorruption of bodies will be derived. Just as, then, free choice is of the same nature and the same in number, both while it is capable of turning to either side and when it will be made firm in the last end, so also the body will be of the same nature and the same in number, which now is corruptible and then, when it will be made firm through free choice by the glory of the soul, will be incorruptible. To the second it must be said that the reasoning of the Philosopher proceeds against those who held that all things, in these lower realms, are caused from the motion of the heavenly bodies, and that when the same revolutions of the higher bodies have been revolved, the same effects in number would follow, which had once been. Whence they said that Plato would still one day read the same in number at Athens and would have the same schools, and the same hearers whom he had had. And so the Philosopher argues against them, that although the same heaven in number, and the same sun, is in the same revolutions, nevertheless the effects which thence proceed do not follow an identity in number, but in species, and this according to the way of nature. Likewise I say that if bodies were to put on incorruption, and rise according to the way of nature, they would not rise the same in number, but the same in species. But since reintegration and resurrection, as has been said, come about by divine power, we say that bodies will be the same in number, since the individuating principles of this man are nothing other than this soul and this body. In the resurrection, moreover, the same soul in number will return, since it is incorruptible, and this same body in number from the same dust into which it was dissolved, repaired by divine power, so the same man in number will rise. Nor do I press the point regarding intermediate forms, because I do not posit that there is any other substantial form in man except the rational soul, from which the human body has it that it is animated by sensible and vegetable nature and that it is rational. Accidental forms indeed in no way impede the numerical identity which we posit. Consequently, when he says but when this corruptible, etc., he confirms what he had said by an authority. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets forth the authority; second from it he concludes three things, at where is, death, etc. He says therefore first: I said that this corruptible must put on, etc., but when this mortal shall have put on immortality, then, namely in the future — which is against those who say the resurrection has already happened — will come to pass the saying that is written, namely, is swallowed up, etc. This, according to our translation, is not found in any book of the Bible; if, however, it is found in the translation of the Seventy, it is not certain whence it was taken. It can, however, be said that this is taken from Is. XXVI, 19: the dead shall live, etc., and XXV, 8: he will cast down death forever. Hosea XIII, 14, where we have: I will be your death, O death, the Seventy have: death is swallowed up in victory, that is, on account of the victory of Christ. And he puts the past for the future, on account of the certainty of prophecy. I Peter III, 22: swallowing up death, and so forth. Consequently, when he says where is, death, your victory? etc., he concludes three things from the aforesaid authority: the taunting of the saints against death, thanksgivings to God, at but thanks be to God, and his admonition to the Corinthians, at therefore, my brethren, and so forth. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the taunting, second he expounds it, at but the sting, and so forth. The Apostle, then, speaking of the victory of Christ against death, as though placed in a certain special joy, assumes the person of the men rising again, saying where is, death, your victory? This is not found in any place of sacred Scripture; but whether the Apostle had this from himself, or from elsewhere, is uncertain. If, however, he had taken it from elsewhere, he seems to have taken it from Is. XIV, 4: how has the exactor ceased, the tribute rested, and so forth. He says therefore where is, death, your victory? etc., namely your victory of corruption, that is, the power by which you were laying low the whole human race, by which you were triumphing over all. II Kings XIV, 14: we all die, etc., Job XVIII, v. 14: the king of destruction shall trample over him, and so forth. Where is, death, your sting? What, moreover, the sting is he consequently expounds, saying but the sting, and so forth. Whence he sets forth two things: one by which he expounds what he said; the other by which he excludes an objection, at the power of sin, and so forth. It should be known, moreover, that the sting of death can be said to be either that which stings toward death, or that which death uses or makes; but the literal sense is the sting of death, that is, that which stings toward death, because man through sin is impelled and cast down to death. Rom. V, 23: the wages of sin is death, and so forth. But because someone might object that this sting is removed through the law, therefore the Apostle consequently excludes this, adding but the power, that is, the increase, of sin is the law, as if to say: sin is not removed through the law, rather the law is the power of sin, that is, an increase occasionally, namely not that it induced to sin but insofar as it gave occasion of sin and did not confer grace; from which concupiscence was rather brought nearer to sinning. Rom. V, 20: the law entered in, that offense might abound. Rom. VII, 8: occasion being taken, sin through the commandment, and so forth. There is, however, another sense, but not the literal one, that the sting of death be said to be that which death uses. And thus by death is understood the Devil. Apoc. VI, 8: his name was death. And thus the sting of death is the temptation of the Devil. And thus everything that is said about death is expounded of the Devil, as is held in the Gloss. Or the sting of death, that is, made by death, that is, by carnal concupiscence. James I, 15: when concupiscence has conceived, and so forth. For concupiscence first entices the willing, as in the intemperate; second it drags the resisting, as in the incontinent; afterward it strives, but does not conquer, as in the continent; afterward its striving is weakened, as in the temperate, and lastly it fails altogether, as in the blessed, to whom it is fitting to say: where is, death, your striving or victory? Since, therefore, the sting of death was destroyed not through the law, but through the victory of Christ, therefore thanksgivings are to be rendered to God. And this is what he says but thanks be to God, namely I give, or let us give, who gave us the victory, over death and sin, through Jesus Christ, not through the law. I John V, 4: this is the victory, and so forth. Rom. VII, 24: who shall deliver me, and so forth. The grace of God, and so forth. For what was impossible, and so forth. Consequently, when he says therefore, my brethren, etc., he adds the admonition. For as has been said, the pseudo-apostles were corrupting the Corinthians by denying the resurrection, and therefore, after he has now established the faith of the resurrection, and shown it through examples, he admonishes them to conduct themselves well, lest they be seduced by the pseudo-apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First indeed he confirms them in faith, saying therefore, namely the resurrection now having been shown, my brethren, through faith, by which we are all sons of God, John I, 12: he gave them power, etc., most beloved, through charity by which we ought to love one another, I John IV, 21: this commandment we have from God, etc., be steadfast, namely in the faith of the resurrection, lest you depart from the faith, Eph. IV, 14: let us not be like little children tossed about, etc., and immovable, lest namely you be seduced by others, Col. I, 23: founded in faith, steadfast, and immovable, and so forth. Second he induces them to good works, saying abounding in every good work always, Gal. ult.: while we have time, and so forth. Prov. XV, 5: in abundant justice. Third he strengthens them through hope, saying knowing that your labor, etc., Wis. III, 15: for of good labors the fruit is glorious.”

“The sting of death is sin. Theophylact says that the sting by which death chiefly hurts and pierces us is like the sting of the scorpion, which, though a tiny animal, slays by its sting. So death slays all by sin, and would be powerless without sin. Moreover, death stings and pierces us by sin and by knowledge of sin as his sting, saying to the soul, as it were : “ You die; you suffer deservedly, because you have sinned.” The strength of sin is the law. Sin gains its strength chiefly through the law. The prohibitions of the law are the occasions of sin, for we always strive after what is forbidden and long for what is denied us Cf. notes to Rom. viii. 8 and 13. Cf. also Theodoret, Theophylact, Ambrose, Anselm”

“The sting of death is sin - The apostle explains himself particularly here: death could not have entered into the world if sin had not entered first; it was sin that not only introduced death, but has armed him with all his destroying force; the goad or dagger of death is sin; by this both body and soul are slain. The strength of sin is the law - The law of God forbids all transgression, and sentences those who commit it to temporal and eternal death. Sin has its controlling and binding power from the law. The law curses the transgressor, and provides no help for him; and if nothing else intervene, he must, through it, continue ever under the empire of death.”

“If there were no sin, there would be no death. Man's transgression of the law gives death its lawful power. strength of sin is the law--Without the law sin is not perceived or imputed (Rom 3:20; Rom 4:15; Rom 5:13). The law makes sin the more grievous by making God's will the clearer (Rom 7:8-10). Christ's people are no longer "under the law" (Rom 6:14).”