John Calvin on Romans 7:6

6. But now we have been loosed from the law, etc. He pursues the argument derived from the opposite effect of things, — “If the restraint of the law availed so little to bridle the flesh, that it became rather the exciter of sin; then, that we may cease from sin, we must necessarily be freed from the law.” Again, “If we are freed from the bondage of the law for this end, that we may serve God; then, perversely do they act who hence take the liberty to indulge in sin; and falsely do they speak who teach, that by this means loose reins are given to lusts.” Observe, then, that we are then freed from the law, when God emancipates us from its rigid exactions and curse, and endues us with his Spirit, through whom we walk in his ways. That the moral, and not the ceremonial law, is meant here, is incontestably evident from what the Apostle adds in the following verses. He quotes the moral law in the next verse; he calls this law, in Romans 7:10, the commandment, την ἐντολὴν, which was unto life, see Matthew 19:16; and he says, that “by it” sin “slew” him, which could not have been said of the ceremonial law. — Ed.

Having died to that, etc. This part contains a reason, or rather, indicates the manner in which we are made free; for the law is so far abrogated with regard to us, that we are not pressed down by its intolerable burden, and that its inexorable rigor does not overwhelm us with a curse. Our common version is evidently incorrect as to this clause. The pronoun αὐτῷ or ἐκεινῷ, is to be supplied. There is an exactly similar ellipsis in Romans 6:21 Beza and several others, as well as our version, have followed a reading, αποθανοντὀ, which Griesbach disregards as of no authority; and it is inconsistent with the usual phraseology of the Apostle. See Romans 7:4, and Galatians 2:19. — Ed. — In newness of spirit; He sets the spirit in opposition to the letter; for before our will is formed according to the will of God by the Holy Spirit, we have in the law nothing but the outward letter, which indeed bridles our external actions, but does not in the least restrain the fury of our lusts. And he ascribes newness to the Spirit, because it succeeds the old man; as the letter is called old, because it perishes through the regeneration of the Spirit.

Romans 7:7-8

7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet Perhaps the sentence ought to have been rendered, For lust (concupiscentiam) I had not known, except the law had said, “Thou shalt not lust” (non concupisces.) Then the word “coveting” in the next verse should be “lust” (concupiscentiam.) But “Thou shalt not covet,” is the commandment; and to retain a similarity of idea, for the lack of a more suitable word, it seems necessary to have coveting, as covetousness has not the meaning here intended. There is the same correspondence in the words in Greek as in Calvin’s Latin. The noun is rendered first in our version “lust,” and then “concupiscence;” and the same is done by Doddridge; the “strong desire” of Macknight is by no means suitable; the “inordinate desire” of Stuart is better, though “Thou shalt not lust” cannot be approved. By ἐπιθυμία, desire, is meant the inward propensity that is sinful, It is called “sin” in the preceding clause; and, according to the usual stage of the Apostle, to show what sin was intended, it is called here desire: it is then sin in the wish, in the inclination or disposition within. And this very sinful desire the tenth commandment distinctly forbids. — Ed.

7. Quid ergo dicemus? Lex peccatum est? Absit: sed peccatum non cognovi nisi per Legem: concupiscentiam enim non noveram, nisi Lex diceret, Non concupisces

8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. ...

8. Occasione autem sumpta, peccatum per mandatum effecit in me omnem concupiscentiam.