But we ought to notice carefully the meaning of the inner man and of the members; which many
have not rightly understood, and have therefore stumbled at this stone. The inner man then is not
simply the soul, but that spiritual part which has been regenerated by God; and the members signify
the other remaining part; for as the soul is the superior, and the body the inferior part of man, so
the spirit is superior to the flesh. Then as the spirit takes the place of the soul in man, and the flesh,
which is the corrupt and polluted soul, that of the body, the former has the name of the inner man,
and the latter has the name of members. The inner man has indeed a different meaning in 2
Corinthians 4:16; but the circumstances of this passage require the interpretation which I have
given: and it is called the inner by way of excellency; for it possesses the heart and the secret
feelings, while the desires of the flesh are vagrant, and are, as it were, on the outside of man.
Doubtless it is the same thing as though one compared heaven to earth; for Paul by way of contempt
designates whatever appears to be in man by the term members, that he might clearly show that
the hidden renovation is concealed from and escapes our observation, except it be apprehended by
faith.
Now since the law of the mind undoubtedly means a principle rightly formed, it is evident that
this passage is very absurdly applied to men not yet regenerated; for such, as Paul teaches us, are
destitute of mind, inasmuch as their soul has become degenerated from reason.
Romans 7:24-25
- Miser ego homo! quis me eripiet a
corpore mortis hoc? - O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?
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 μ 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 from Romans 7:16, to be understood after “law,” and that , 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, by mentioning the operation and working of
two laws, which were directly contrary to one another. It seems to be a mistake that he alludes to four laws; for the law of the
mind and the law of God are the same, under different names; it is that of the mind, because it belongs to and resides in the mind:
and it is the law of God, because it comes from him, and is implanted by his Spirit. To the other law he also gives two names,
the “law in his members,” and the “law of sin.” This view is confirmed by the last verse in the chapter, which contains a summary
of the whole.
The latter part of Romans 7:23 is in character with the Hebraistic style, when the noun is stated instead of the pronoun; see
Genesis 9:16; Psalm 50:23; and it is also agreeable to the same style to add the same sentiment with something more specific
appended to it. This part then might be rendered thus, — “and making me captive to itself, even to the law of sin, which is he
my members.” — Ed.