I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh. Here ἀνθρώπινον λέγω ("I speak humanly") may be taken as referring to the expression immediately preceding, viz. ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ.
St. Paul may mean, "In saying you were made slaves to righteousness, I am using human language not properly applicable to your spiritual relations. For you are not really in bondage now; you have been emancipated from your former bondage to sin, and are now called upon to render a free willing allowance to righteousness; being, in fact, sons, not slaves."
This view of the true position of the Christian being one of freedom recurs so often and so forcibly with St. Paul that it is peculiarly likely to be the thought before him here; the very word ἐδουλώθητε would be likely to suggest it (cf.
Romans 8:15, seq.; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 4:4-7; Galatians 5:1, Galatians 5:13). If (he would say) you fully realized your position as sons of God, you would feel it impossible even to think of sinning willingly; but, in accommodation to your human weakness, I put the case as if you had only been transferred from one bondage to another, so as to show that, even so, you are under an obligation not to sin.
According to this view of the meaning of the passage, "the infirmity of your flesh" has reference to dulness of spiritual perception, σάρξ being opposed in a general sense to πνεῦμα. Had they been πνευματικοὶ, they would have discerned τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ without need of any such human view of the matter being put before them (cf.
1 Corinthians 2:14). Some, however, taking ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς to denote moral weakness, which renders the attainment of holiness difficult for man, understand ἀνθρώπινον λέγω as meaning, "I require of you no more than is possible Ñ for your frail humanity; for I call on you only to render to righteousness the same allegiance you once rendered to sin."
This interpretation gives a totally different meaning to the clause. It has the support of Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Wetstein, and others; but it does not appear so natural or probable as the other, which is accepted by most modern commentators.
For as ye yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto sanctification (rather than holiness, as in the Authorized Version; the word is ἁγιασμός, always so translated elsewhere).
This is a setting forth of what must follow in practice from the view that has been taken of the change in the Christian's position resembling the transference of bondservants from one master to another.
They must devote their members (see above on Romans 6:13) to the service of the new master in the same way as they had done to that of the old one; the aims or results of the two services being also intimated.
The old service was in giving themselves up to uncleanness (with reference to sins of sensuality), and generally to ἀνομίᾳ, i.e. lawlessness, or disregard of duty; and its result is expressed by a repetition of the latter word.
For sin leads to nothing positive; lawless conduct only results in a habit or state of lawlessness; whereas the service of righteousness in itself leads to sanctification to the abiding result of participation in the holiness of God.
"Qui justitiae serviunt, proficiunt; ἄνομοι, iniqui, sunt iniqui, nil amplius" (Bengel).