The interpretation timeline

Rom 7:3

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

3 Patristic · 1 Orthodox · 1 Catholic

Patristic before A.D. 750
254
A.D.
Origen
c. A.D. 184–253
“Did not the law itself contain a foreshadowing of something like this when it commanded that a widow who was childless (for her husband had been impotent) should marry his brother? For the law of the Spirit is the brother of the law of the letter, and the woman will be better able to bear fruit from him.”
166 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
420
A.D.
706 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1126
A.D.
Theophylact of Ohrid
c. 1055–1107
“Here he likened the husband to the law, and the wife to his listeners. Then he should have said: therefore, brethren, the law has no authority over you, for it has died. But the apostle did not say this, so as not to grieve the Jews, but instead presents the wife as having died, that is, the Jews themselves, who therefore enjoy a twofold freedom. For if the wife is free from the authority of the law when her husband dies, how much more is she free when she herself has died.”
1274
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas
1225–1274
“Then he clarifies what he had meant by a sign, when he says therefore, while her husband. And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife while her husband lives. The sign of this is that she will be called an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., as wife and husband, while her husband lives: if a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, would not she be polluted and contaminated? (Jer 3:1). Second, he adduces a sign of the fact that the obligation of the law of marriage is dissolved by death, saying, but if her husband dies, she is delivered from the law by which she is bound to the husband, so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., carnally united to another man, particularly if she has married him: if the husband dies, namely, the woman's, she is free to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39). This shows that second, third, or fourth marriages are lawful of themselves, and not only by dispensation as Chrysostom seems to say, when he says that just as Moses permitted a bill of divorce, so the Apostle permitted second marriages. For there is no reason, if the marriage law is dissolved by death, why the survivor may not marry again. It is not because second marriages are illicit that the Apostle says: a bishop should be married only once (1 Tim 3:2), but on account of the sacramental sign: for he would not be one of one, as Christ is the spouse of one Church.”
Undated date unknown
Ambrosiaster
fl. c. A.D. 366–384
“For just as a woman is freed by the death of her husband from the law of her husband but not from the law of nature, so also they will be set free by the grace of God from the law by which they were held captive, so that it will be dead for them and they will not be adulterers by being joined to Christianity. For if the law lives in them they are adulterers and have no right to be called Christians, since they will be subject to punishment. Nor will he who is joined to the gospel after the death of the law and later returns to the law be an adulterer to the law but to the gospel. For when the law's authority ceases, it is said to be dead.”
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.