Anf-02 vi.iv.iii Pg 167.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.iii Pg 175.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.iii Pg 179.1
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 43
Rom. vii. 4; also Gal. ii. 19. This (although a quotation) is here a Marcionite argument; but there is no need to suppose, with Pamelius, that Marcion tampers with Rom. vi. 2. Oehler also supposes that this is the passage quoted. But no doubt it is a correct quotation from the seventh chapter, as we have indicated.
It may be contended that Christ’s body is indeed a body, but not exactly5826 5826 Statim (or, perhaps, in respect of the derivation), “firmly” or “stedfastly.”
flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions “the body of Christ,”5827 5827 Ejus.
whom he immediately after states to have been “raised from the dead,”5828 5828
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 46
Rom. vii. 4.
none other body can be understood than that of the flesh,5829 5829
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 48
Compare the first part of ver. 4 with vers. 5 and 6 and viii. 2; 3.
But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: “What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid.”5831 5831
Edersheim Bible History
Lifetimes ix.xv Pg 22.1
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 7
VERSE (4) - :6; 6:14; 8:2 Ga 2:19,20; 3:13; 5:18 Eph 2:15 Col 2:14,20
