Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans John Calvin
John Calvin according to a certain kind of similarity, he gives this name to that dominion which iniquity exercises over a man not yet regenerated, as well as over the flesh of a regenerated man; for the laws even of tyrants, however iniquitous they may be, are called laws, though not properly. To correspond with this law of sin he makes the law of the members, that is, the lust which is in the members, on account of the concord it has with iniquity.
As to the first clause, many interpreters take the word law in its proper sense, and consider {κατὰ} or {διὰ} to be understood; and so Erasmus renders it, "by the law;" as though Paul had said, that he, by the law of God as his teacher and guide, had found out that his sin was innate. But without supplying anything, the sentence would run better thus, "While the faithful strive after what is good, they find in themselves a certain law which exercises a tyrannical power; for a vicious propensity, adverse to and resisting the law of God, is implanted in their very marrow and bones."
22. For I consent 230 to the law of God, etc. Here then you see what sort of division there is in pious souls, from which arises that contest between the spirit and the flesh, which Augustine in some place calls the Christian struggle (luctam Christianam.) The law calls man to the rule of righteousness; iniquity, which is, as it were, the tyrannical law of Satan, instigates him to wickedness: the Spirit leads him to render obedience to the divine law; the flesh draws him back to what is of an opposite character. Man, thus impelled by contrary desires, is now in a manner a twofold being; but as the Spirit ought to possess the sovereignty, he deems and judges himself to be especially on that side. Paul says, that he was bound a captive by his flesh for this reason, because as he was still tempted and incited by evil lusts; he deemed this a coercion with respect to the spiritual desire, which was wholly opposed to them. 231
230"Consentio," {συνήδομαι}: it is not the same verb as in Romans 7:16; this signifies more than consent, for it includes gratification and delight. See Psalm 1:2. The verb is found only here. Macknight's version, "I am pleased with," is very feeble and inexpressive; Stuart's is better, "I take pleasure in;" but our common version is the best, "I delight in." The {γὰρ} here would be better rendered "indeed:" the Apostle makes declaration as to his higher principle; and then in the next verse he states more fully what he had said in Romans 7:21. This exactly corresponds with his usual mode in treating subjects. He first states a thing generally, and afterwards more particularly, in more specific terms, and with something additional. — Ed.
231Some consider the conclusion of Romans 7:23, "to the law of sin which is in my members," as a paraphrase for "to itself;" as the Apostle describes it at the beginning as the law in his members: and the reason which may be assigned for the repetition is twofold, — to preserve the distinction between it and "the law of the mind" in the preceding clause, — and to give it a more distinctive character, by denominating it "the law of sin." We in fact find a gradation in the way in which it is set forth: in Romans 7:21, he calls it simply "a law;" in this verse he first calls it "another law in his members," and then, "the law of sin in his members." The construction of Romans 7:21, is difficult. Pareus quotes Chrysostom as supposing {σύμφηναι} from Romans 7:16, to be understood after "law," so as to give this rendering, "I find then that the law assents to me desiring to do good," etc., that is, that the law of God was on his side, "though evil was present with him." He then gives his own view, it being essentially that of Augustine: he supposes {ὅτι} {καλὸς} from Romans 7:16, to be understood after "law," and that {ὅτι}, in the last clause, is to be construed "though:" the verse is then to be rendered thus, — "I find then the law, that it is good to me desiring to do good, though evil is present with me;" The verse taken by itself may thus present a good meaning, but not one that harmonizes with the context, or that forms a part of the Apostle's argument. The only other construction that deserves notice is that of our own version, and of Calvin, and it is that alone which corresponds with the context. It has been adopted by Beza, Grotius, Venema, Turrettin, Doddridge, and others. This verse, and the two which follow, conclude the subject, and also explain what he had been saying about willing and doing. He in fact accounts here for the paradoxical statements which he had made,