Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:22
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
22. I delight in ] Lit. I delight with. The Law, as the will of God, is quasi-personified, and the regenerate soul “rejoices with it ” in its delight in holiness and truth. The Law’s loves and hatreds are those also of the soul. Cp. 1Co 13:6, where render, “rejoiceth with the Truth.”
the inward man ] The regenerate Self. Not that the phrase necessarily means the regenerate self, as does the phrase “the new man” (Eph 2:10; Eph 4:24). In itself it may mean (as Meyer holds) no more than “the rational and moral element in human nature.” But surely this does not, according to St Paul, “delight” with the delight of the will “with the Law,” until grace has rectified its fall. See Col 1:21, where “the mind ” is the seat of “ enmity.” The phrase in this context therefore points to the regenerate state; the self as it is by grace, distinguished from “the flesh.” A fit illustration of this verse is Psalms 119, where the inspired Saint indeed “delights with,” and in, the Law, and yet continually makes confession and entreaty as a sinner.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For I delight – The word used here Sunedomai, occurs no where else in the New Testament. It properly means to rejoice with anyone; and expresses not only approbation of the understanding, as the expression, I consent unto the law, in Rom 7:16, but more than that it denotes sensible pleasure in the heart. It indicates not only intellectual assent, but emotion, an emotion of pleasure in the contemplation of the Law. And this shows that the apostle is not speaking of an unrenewed man. Of such a man it might be said that his conscience approved the Law; that his understanding was convinced that the Law was good; but never yet did it occur that an impenitent sinner found emotions of pleasure in the contemplation of the pure and spiritual Law of God. If this expression can be applied to an unrenewed man, there is, perhaps, not a single mark of a pious mind which may not with equal propriety be so applied. It is the natural, obvious, and usual mode of denoting the feelings of piety, an assent to the divine Law followed with emotions of sensible delight in the contemplation. Compare Psa 119:97, O how love I thy law; it is my meditation all the day. Psa 1:2, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. Psa 19:7-11; Job 23:12.
In the law of God – The word law here is used in a large sense, to denote all the communications which God had made to control man. The sense is, that the apostle was pleased with the whole. One mark of genuine piety is to be pleased with the whole of the divine requirements.
After the inward man – In respect to the inward man. The expression the inward man is used sometimes to denote the rational part of man as opposed to the sensual; sometimes the mind as opposed to the body (compare 2Co 4:16; 1Pe 3:4). It is thus used by the Greek classic writers. Here it is used evidently in opposition to a carnal and corrupt nature; to the evil passions and desires of the soul in an unrenewed state; to what is called elsewhere the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. Eph 4:22. The inward man is called elsewhere the new man Eph 4:24; and denotes not the mere intellect, or conscience, but is a personification of the principles of action by which a Christian is governed; the new nature; the holy disposition; the inclination of the heart that is renewed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. I delight in the law of God after the inward man] Every Jew, and every unregenerate man, who receives the Old Testament as a revelation from God, must acknowledge the great purity, excellence and utility of its maxims, c., though he will ever find that without the grace of our Lord Jesus he can never act according to those heavenly maxims and without the mercy of God, can never be redeemed from the curse entailed upon him for his past transgressions. To say that the inward man means the regenerate part of the soul, is supportable by no argument. , and , especially the latter, are expressions frequently in use among the purest Greek ethic writers, to signify the soul or rational part of man, in opposition to the body of flesh. See the quotations in Wetstein from Plato and Plotinus. The Jews have the same form of expression; so in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 10, 3, it is said: The flesh is the inward garment of the man; but the SPIRIT is the INWARD man, the garment of which is the body; and St. Paul uses the phrase in precisely the same sense in 2Co 4:16, and Eph 3:16. If it be said that it is impossible for an unregenerate man to delight in the law of God, the experience of millions contradicts the assertion. Every true penitent admires the moral law, longs most earnestly for a conformity to it, and feels that he can never be satisfied till he awakes up after this Divine likeness; and he hates himself, because he feels that he has broken it, and that his evil passions are still in a state of hostility to it. (Ro 7:22-25 (note))
The following observations of a pious and sensible writer on this subject cannot be unacceptable: “The inward man always signifies the mind; which either may, or may not, be the subject of grace. That which is asserted of either the inward or outward man is often performed by one member or power, and not with the whole. If any member of the body perform an action, we are said to do it with the body, although the other members be not employed. In like manner, if any power or faculty of the mind be employed about any action, the soul is said to act. This expression, therefore, I delight in the law of God after the inward man, can mean no more than this, that there are some inward faculties in the soul which delight in the law of God. This expression is particularly adapted to the principles of the Pharisees, of whom St. Paul was one before his conversion. They received the law as the oracles of God, and confessed that it deserved the most serious regard. Their veneration was inspired by a sense of its original, and a full conviction that it was true. To some parts of it they paid the most superstitious regard. They had it written upon their phylacteries, which they carried about with them at all times. It was often read and expounded in their synagogues: and they took delight in studying its precepts. On that account, both the prophets and our Lord agree in saying that they delighted in the law of God, though they regarded not its chief and most essential precepts.” See farther observations on this point at the end of the chapter.
So far, then, is it from being true that none but a REGENERATE man can delight in the law of God, we find that even a proud, unhumbled PHARISEE can do it; and much more a poor sinner, who is humbled under a sense of his sin, and sees, in the light of God, not only the spirituality, but the excellence of the Divine law.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This shows yet more expressly that the apostle speaketh in the person of a regenerate man, or of himself as regenerate. Certainly, to
delight in the law of God is an inseparable property of such a one: see Psa 1:2, and Psa 119:77,111.
The inward man; i.e. the new man, or regenerate part within me: this is called
the hidden man of the heart, 1Pe 3:4; see Rom 2:29; 2Co 4:16.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. For I delight in the law of Godafter the inward man“from the bottom of my heart.”The word here rendered “delight” is indeed stronger than”consent” in Ro 7:16;but both express a state of mind and heart to which the unregenerateman is a stranger.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For I delight in the law of God,…. This an unregenerate man cannot do; he does not like its commands, they are disagreeable to his corrupt nature; and as it is a threatening, cursing, damning law, it can never be delighted in by him: the moralist, the Pharisee, who obeys it externally, do not love it, nor delight in it; he obeys it not from love to its precepts, but from fear of its threatenings; from a desire of popular esteem, and from low, mercenary, selfish views, in order to gain the applause of men, and favour of God: only a regenerate man delights in the law of God; which he does, as it is fulfilled by Christ, who has answered all the demands of it: and as it is in the hands of Christ, held forth by him as a rule of holy walk and conversation; and as it is written upon his heart by the Spirit of God, to which he yields a voluntary and cheerful obedience: he serves it with his mind, of a ready mind freely, and without any constraint but that of love; he delights together with the law, as the word here used signifies; the delight is mutual and reciprocal, the law delights in him, and he delights in the law; and they both delight in the selfsame things, and particularly in the perfect obedience which the Son of God has yielded to it. The apostle adds,
after the inward man; by which he means the renewed man, the new man, or new nature, formed in his soul; which had its seat in the inward part, is an internal principle, oil in the vessel of the heart, a seed under ground, the kingdom within us, the hidden man of the heart, which is not obvious to everyone’s view, it being not anything that is external, though never so good: this in its nature is agreeable to the law of God, and according to this a regenerate man delights in it: but then this restrictive limiting clause supposes another man, the old man, the carnal I, according to which the apostle did not delight in the law of God; and proves, that he speaks of himself as regenerate, and not as unregenerate, or as representing an unregenerate man, because no such distinction is to be found in such a person; nor does such a person delight at all, in any sense, upon any consideration in the law of God, but is enmity against it, and not subjected to it; nor can he be otherwise, without the grace of God.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For I delight in ( ). Old verb, here alone in N.T., with associative instrumental case, “I rejoice with the law of God,” my real self “after the inward man” ( ) of the conscience as opposed to “the outward man” (2Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I delight in [] . Lit., I rejoice with. Stronger than I consent unto (ver., 16). It is the agreement of moral sympathy.
The inward man [ ] . The rational and moral I, the essence of the man which is conscious of itself as an ethical personality. Not to be confounded with the new man (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). 41 It is substantially the same with the mind (ver. 23).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For I delight in the law of God,” (sunedomai gar to nomo tou theou) “For I delight in the law of God,” which is “true from the beginning,” Psa 119:160. True people of God rejoice in and feast on his word and divine law and guide they are under, Psa 119:1-5; Psa 119:130; 2Ti 3:16-17; 1Pe 3:15; Heb 4:12.
2) “After the inward man,” (kata ton eso anthropon) “According to the (nature of) the inner man;” the new creature, 2Co 5:21. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned – this is why the redeemed delight in prayer, fellowship one with another, songs of praise, worshipping in Spirit and truth and giving to God’s cause, Joh 4:24; 1Jn 4:15; Rom 5:5; Joh 16:24; Rom 8:1-2. “The Way Upward.” – Beecher.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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)
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 2Co 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.
(230) “ Consentio,” συνήδομαι: it is not the same verb as in Rom 7:16; this signifies more than consent, for it includes gratification and delight. See Psa 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 Rom 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.
(231) Some consider the conclusion of Rom 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 Rom 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 Rom 7:21, is difficult. [ Pareus ] quotes [ Chrysostom ] as supposing σύμφηναι from Rom 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 Rom 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, 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 Rom 7:23 is in character with the Hebraistic style, when the noun is stated instead of the pronoun; see Gen 9:16; Psa 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.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) I delight.I delight in (and with) the Law of God. I sympathise with and approve of it after the inward man, i.e., in the higher part of my being. The inward man corresponds nearly, though not quite, to the law of my mind, in the next verse. It stands rather midway between it and the spirit. The mind is the moral and rational faculties considered as moral and rational. The inward man is the higher part of mans nature considered as capable of receiving the divine grace. The spirit is the same when actually brought into communion with God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Delight Rather, regard with complacency. The ordinary conscience even of the natural man, as all moral philosophers maintain, feels an emotion of gratification in seeing right and justice done.
The inward man the ethical nature.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Rom 7:22-23 . Antithetical illustration of Rom 7:21 .
. . ] The compound nature of the verb is neither to be overlooked (as by Beza and others, including Rckert and Reiche), nor to be taken as a strengthening of it (Kllner), or as apud animum meum laetor (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi). It means: I rejoice with , which sense alone consists with linguistic usage (Plat. Rep . p. 462 E; Dem. 519. 10, 579. 19; Soph. Oed. C . 1398; Eur. Med . 136; Sturz, Lex. Xen . IV. p. 184; Reisig, Enarr. Soph. Oed. C . 1398). By this, however, we are not to understand the joy over the law, shared with others (van Hengel and others) an idea here foreign to the connection; nor yet the joyful nature of taking part in the law (Hofmann), whereby the necessary conception of joy in common falls away; but rather: I rejoice with the law of God , so that its joy (the law being personified) is also mine . It is the agreement of moral sympathy in regard to what is good. Comp. on in Rom 7:16 . So also , , . . .; similarly , Mar 3:5 . Rightly given in the Vulgate: “condelector legi (not lege ) Dei.” Comp. 1Co 13:6 : . The Mosaic law is described as (genit. auctoris) in contrast to the , which is the law opposed to God.
. .] The rational and moral nature of man, determined by conscience (Rom 2:15 ), is, as the inward man , distinguished from the outward man that appears in the body and its members. in its contrast to designates the same thing a potiori; see on Eph 3:16 , 2Co 4:16 ; also 1Pe 3:4 , and Huther in loc . Philo (p. 533, Mang.) terms it .
] Here also Paul represents himself as a spectator of his own personality, and as such he sees , etc.
] a law of another nature , not . Comp. Rom 7:4 , and on Gal 1:6 .
] sc . , correlative, even by its position, with . Fritzsche and Hofmann join . ., whereby, however, the importance of the added elements . . . . is more subordinated to the . . , and the symmetry of the discourse unnecessarily disturbed; comp. below, . . The members , as the instruments of activity of the , are, seeing that the itself is ruled by sin (Rom 7:18 ; Rom 7:25 ), that in which the power of sin (the dictate of the sin-principle, .) pursues its doings. This activity in hand, eye, etc. (comp. Rom 6:13 ; Rom 6:19 ), is directed against the dictate of the moral reason, and that with the result of victory; hence the figures drawn from war, . and also .
The in which the genitive is neither to be taken as that of the subject (Fritzsche: “quam mens mea constituit;” comp. Hofmann, “which man gives to himself”), nor epexegetically (Th. Schott), but locally , corresponding to the . is not identical with the . in Rom 7:22 (Usteri, Kllner, Olshausen, and others), just because the latter is the positive law of God, the law of Moses; but it is the regulator of the (Rom 7:22 ), implied in the moral reason anal immanent in the . As to , which is here, in accordance with the connection, the reason in its practical activity, the power of knowledge in its moral quality as operating to determine the moral will, see Stirm in the Tb. Zeitschr . 1834, 3, p. 46 ff.; Beck, bibl. Seelenl . p. 49 ff.; Delitzsch, p. 179; Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th . 1871, p. 327. The form belongs to the later Greek. See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 453.
. . . .] and makes me prisoner-of-war to the law of sin (makes me subject to the power of the sin-principle) which is in my members . The does not denote the inner man, the (Olshausen), for it, regarded in itself, continues in the service of the law of God (Rom 7:25 ); but the apparent man , who would follow the leading of the . He it is, for the control of whom the law of sin contends with the moral law. The former conquers, and thereby, while the moral law has lost its influence over him, makes him its prisoner-of-war (Luk 21:24 ; 2Co 10:5 ); so that he is now to express the same idea by another figure
. , Rom 7:14 , a trait of the gloomy picture, which likewise does not apply to the condition of the redeemed, Rom 8:2 .
.] is identical with the that was previously, without more precise definition, called . Instead, namely, of saying: “and made me its prisoner,” Paul characterizes as he could not avoid doing in order to complete the antithesis the victorious law, not previously characterized, as that which it is , and says: . . . Here . . is the genitivus auctoris; . , however, is not instrumental (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), but can only be taken as the dative of reference (commodi). The observation , emphatically added to make the disgrace more palpably felt, obviates the misconception that a power different from the was meant. We must dismiss, therefore, the distinctions unsupported by evidence that (following Origen, Jerome, and Oecumenius, but not Ambrosiaster) have been attempted; e.g. recently by Kllner, who thinks that the means the demands of the sensuous nature, so far as they manifest themselves in individual cases as bodily lusts, while the . . is the sensuous nature itself conceived as a sinful principle; or by de Wette, who thinks that the former is the proneness to sin which expresses itself in the determinableness of the will by the sensuous nature, while the latter is the same proneness, so far as it conflicts with the law of God, and by the completed resolution actually enters into antagonism thereto (comp. Umbreit); or by Ewald (comp. also Grotius and van Hengel), who thinks that Paul here distinguishes two pairs of kindred laws: (1) the eternal law of God , and alongside of it, but too weak in itself, the law of reason; and (2) the law of desire , and along with it, as still mightier, the law of sin . Similarly also Delitzsch, Reithmayr, and Hofmann. The latter distinguishes the law of sin from the law in the members , in such a way that the former is prescribed by sin, as the lawgiver, to all those who are subject to it; the latter , on the contrary, rules in the bodily nature of the individual , as soon as the desire arises in him.
belongs to the age of Diodorus, Josephus, etc. ( is still later). See Thom. Mag. p. 23; Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 442.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Ver. 22. I delight ] Germanicus reigned in the Romans’ hearts, but Tiberius in the provinces. So here.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22, 23 .] Explanation of the conflict above alleged to exist . For I delight in ( not signifying participation with others, but as perhaps in , Mar 3:5 , and in the phrase ; denoting ‘apud animum meum.’ Thol.
is a stronger expression than , Rom 7:16 ) the law of God after the inner man (= , Rom 7:25 , see reff. and compare Peter’s , ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental and reasoning part of man : for that surely does not delight in the law of God: it is absolutely necessary to presuppose the influence of the Holy Spirit , and to place the man in a state of grace before this assertion can be true . And it is surprising to find Commentators like Tholuck and De Wette, while they acknowledge that is stronger than , yet denying the gradual introduction of the spiritual man in the description of this conflict. True, THE SPIRIT is not yet introduced, because purposely kept back until treated of as the great deliverer from this state of death; the man is as yet described as compounded of the outer and inner man, of and , and the operations of the two are detailed as if unassisted , even the term for the human spirit being as yet avoided, but all this is done, because the object is to set the conflict and misery, as existing even in the spiritual man, in the strongest light , so that the question in Rom 7:24 may lead the way to the real uses and blessed results of this conflict in ch. 8); but I see (= ‘ find :’ as if he were a spectator of that which is going on within) a different law (differing in kind and aim, not = merely) in my members (= , Rom 7:18 ), warring against ([in continual dissension and conflict with] . is not to be joined with so as to = , though that would be an allowable construction, see Act 8:23 ; 1Co 8:10 , but forms an independent sentence antithetic to ) the law of my mind (the consent viz., to the law of God, which my mind yields; not = the law of God, any more than the different law in my members = the law of sin, but both meaning the standard or rule set up, which inclination follows: the one in the , in harmony with the law of God , the other in the or , subservient , and causing subservience, to the principle or law of sin ), and bringing me (the whole complex self the ‘me’ of personality and action) into captivity with ( , not exactly ‘ by means of ,’ but pointing out the department in which, the investiture with which, the taking captive has place. Nor would the simple dative be ‘ by means of ,’ as Chrys, Theodoret, Theophyl., but merely ‘ to :’ the dat. commodi aft. .) the law of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to God’s law, as awakened and set energizing, Rom 7:9 , by that law) which is in my members.
Commentators have much disputed whether the , and the ., both , are different , or the same . The former view is held by Calv., Beza, Kllner, Rckert, De W.: the latter by Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It appears to me (see above) that the identity cannot be maintained without introducing great confusion into the sentence.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 7:22 f. Further explanation: the incongruity between inclination and action has its roots in a division within man’s nature. The law of God legislates for him, and in the inner man (Eph 3:16 ) he delights in it. The inner man is not equivalent to the new or regenerate man; it is that side of every man’s nature which is akin to God, and is the point of attachment, so to speak, for the regenerating spirit. It is called inward because it is not seen. What is seen is described in Rom 7:23 . Here also is not used in the modern physical sense, but imaginatively: “I see that a power to legislate, of a different kind (different from the law of God), asserts itself in my members, making war on the law of my mind”. The law of my mind is practically identical with the law of God in Rom 7:22 : and the itself, if not identical with , is its chief organ. Paul does not see in his nature two normal modes in which certain forces operate; he sees two authorities saying to him, Do this, and the higher succumbing to the lower. As the lower prevails, it leads him captive to the law of Sin which is in his members, or in other words to itself; “of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”. The end therefore is that man, as a creature of flesh, living under law, does what Sin enjoins. It is the law of Sin to which he gives obedience.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
delight. Greek. sunedomai. Only here. Compare Psa 1:2; Psa 112:1; Psa 119:35 (Septuagint)
inward. Greek. eso. Adverb used as Adjective. Compare 2Co 4:16. Eph 3:16. 1Pe 3:4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22, 23.] Explanation of the conflict above alleged to exist. For I delight in ( not signifying participation with others, but as perhaps in , Mar 3:5, and in the phrase ; denoting apud animum meum. Thol.
is a stronger expression than , Rom 7:16) the law of God after the inner man (= , Rom 7:25,-see reff.-and compare Peters , ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental and reasoning part of man:-for that surely does not delight in the law of God:-it is absolutely necessary to presuppose the influence of the Holy Spirit, and to place the man in a state of grace before this assertion can be true. And it is surprising to find Commentators like Tholuck and De Wette, while they acknowledge that is stronger than , yet denying the gradual introduction of the spiritual man in the description of this conflict. True, THE SPIRIT is not yet introduced, because purposely kept back until treated of as the great deliverer from this state of death; the man is as yet described as compounded of the outer and inner man, of and , and the operations of the two are detailed as if unassisted,-even the term for the human spirit being as yet avoided,-but all this is done, because the object is to set the conflict and misery, as existing even in the spiritual man, in the strongest light, so that the question in Rom 7:24 may lead the way to the real uses and blessed results of this conflict in ch. 8); but I see (= find:-as if he were a spectator of that which is going on within) a different law (differing in kind and aim, not = merely) in my members (= , Rom 7:18), warring against ([in continual dissension and conflict with] . is not to be joined with so as to = , though that would be an allowable construction, see Act 8:23; 1Co 8:10,-but – forms an independent sentence antithetic to -) the law of my mind (the consent viz., to the law of God, which my mind yields; not = the law of God, any more than the different law in my members = the law of sin,-but both meaning the standard or rule set up, which inclination follows:-the one in the , in harmony with the law of God,-the other in the or , subservient, and causing subservience, to the principle or law of sin), and bringing me (the whole complex self-the me of personality and action) into captivity with (, not exactly by means of, but pointing out the department in which, the investiture with which, the taking captive has place. Nor would the simple dative be by means of, as Chrys, Theodoret, Theophyl.,-but merely to: the dat. commodi aft. .) the law of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to Gods law, as awakened and set energizing, Rom 7:9, by that law) which is in my members.
Commentators have much disputed whether the , and the ., both , are different, or the same. The former view is held by Calv., Beza, Kllner, Rckert, De W.: the latter by Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It appears to me (see above) that the identity cannot be maintained without introducing great confusion into the sentence.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 7:22. , I delight) This too is already a further step in advance than , I consent, Rom 7:16.- , the inward) He already upholds the name and character of the inward, but not yet however of the new man; so also in Rom 7:25 he says, with my mind, not, with my spirit.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 7:22
Rom 7:22
For I delight in the law of God-He not only approved the law, but he delighted in it, being instructed out of it. (Rom 2:18).
after the inward man;-[This delight was not in that which was outward in doing it, but in the inward man-in his wish, in his consent, in his hate of what the law condemns. He proved his delight in the law by his persistent effort to keep it notwithstanding his constant failure.] The inward man is the mind (Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25), the spirit of man (1Co 2:11), as contrasted with the outward man- the body, or flesh. This hidden man of the heart (1Pe 3:4), without which man would not be man, is the spiritual, willing, reasoning being.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
I delight: Rom 8:7, Job 23:12, Psa 1:2, Psa 19:8-10, Psa 40:8, Psa 119:16, Psa 119:24, Psa 119:35, Psa 119:47, Psa 119:48, Psa 119:72, Psa 119:92, Psa 119:97-104, Psa 119:111, Psa 119:113, Psa 119:127, Psa 119:167, Psa 119:174, Isa 51:7, Joh 4:34, Heb 8:10
inward: Rom 2:29, 2Co 4:16, Eph 3:16, Col 3:9, 1Pe 3:4
Reciprocal: Lev 13:39 – if the bright Job 22:26 – shalt thou Job 33:27 – right Psa 51:6 – inward Psa 62:4 – inwardly Psa 68:30 – delight Psa 112:1 – delighteth Psa 119:5 – General Psa 119:25 – soul Psa 119:70 – but I Psa 119:128 – I esteem Psa 119:140 – pure Pro 21:15 – joy Son 5:3 – have put Jer 6:10 – delight Jer 31:33 – I will Amo 5:15 – Hate Mat 11:28 – all Rom 3:31 – yea Rom 7:14 – but Rom 7:16 – I consent Rom 12:2 – good 1Co 9:21 – not 2Co 3:7 – was Gal 2:19 – through Phi 1:10 – ye 1Ti 1:8 – the law Jam 1:25 – the perfect 1Jo 5:3 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:22
Rom 7:22. This is direct proof of the foregoing description of the “inner man.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 7:22. For I delight in the law of God. For introduces an explanation of Rom 7:21. Delight in is stronger than agree with (Rom 7:16), but must not be pressed too far, since Rom 7:21, of which this is an explanation, is a summing up of the experience in Rom 7:14-20. Meyer explains: I rejoice with the law of God, so that its joy (the law being personified) is also mine. But this is not necessary, and too strong.
After the inward man. Those who refer the experience to the regenerate man consider this phrase as identical with the new man, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But why is the influence of the Spirit so carefully kept out of view? Some say: Because Paul would set the conflict in the strongest light. But it is unlike him to keep Christ and the Holy Spirit in the background. We prefer, then, to distinguish between the inward man and the new man. The former is the internal sphere of spiritual influence where the law operates: in the regenerate man this has become the new man, but before renewal by the Holy Spirit the inner man, despite all its agreement with the law, even when in aroused feeling it might be said to delight in the law of God, is in a helpless condition, all the more miserable, because of its approval of the law. When the Christian is under the law, his delight may be more pronounced, but so long as he seeks sanctification through the law, he is quite as helpless. The inward man here is nearly equivalent to mind in Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25; and also to spirit, so far as that term exclusively applies to the highest part of mans nature, irrespective of the inworking of the Holy Spirit. (See Excursus below.)
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
If by the inward man we understand the mind and understanding of a man only, then the unregenerate person may be said to delight in the all of God, with Ezekiel’s hearers, Eze 33:32; with Herod, Mar 6:20; with the stony ground, Mat 13:20. That is, they delight and satisfy themselves with the bare hearing of the word, and with a notional and speculative knowledge of their duty; either the eloquence of the preacher whom they hear, or the pleasingness of some truths which they hear, affect them with a sudden joy: they delight to hear the word, but they take no delight to do it. It is neither a spiritual delight, nor an abiding delight, that such men take in the law of God.
If by the inward man we understand that which St. Peter calls the hidden man of the heart, the new man, or the regnerate part in man, as being seated in the inward powers and faculties of the soul; then, to delight in the law of God, is to love it for its purity and spirituality, becausse it makes holiness our duty; to take pleasure in the knowledge of the law, in meditating upon it, and in practising every good duty contained in it, and enjoined by it.
Thus David did delight to do the will of God, because the law of God was within his heart. Where there is lex in corde, there will be cor in lege; where the law of God is in the heart, there the heart will be engaged in that obedience which is by the law required, and by the Christians performed. He delights in the law, and the law is delighted by him.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rom 7:22. For I delight in the law of God On this verse, chiefly, rests the opinion that the apostle, in the latter part of this chapter, is describing the character of a regenerate man. Its votaries think they find in this verse all the marks of a Christian. In general they assert, to have our inward man, our mind and heart, delighted in the law of God, is to have our souls delighted in a conformity to him; it is to love God himself, to love to be like him in the inward man, having his law written on our hearts, which they say is the sum of all religion. This is not reasoning, it is mere assertion; it is not to be inferred from this passage, and is plainly contradicted by the context. All judicious commentators will allow, that if any passage of the Scriptures appears obscure or susceptible of two senses, it must be explained in a consistency with what precedes and follows, and that interpretation must be chosen which agrees best therewith. Therefore, though it be true, in the fullest sense, that regenerated persons delight in the law of God after the inward man; yet, since the general scope of the paragraph, and the connection of this sentence with the context, show that Paul is here speaking of his unconverted state, our interpretation of it must be regulated by its connection with the whole passage. Those who maintain that Paul is here speaking of his state after his conversion, assert, that by the inward man is meant, the new man, or man of grace, spoken of Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. Did the context lead to that sense, it might be admitted. But the general sense of the whole passage leads us to understand the expression of the rational part of man, in opposition to the animal, which is its usual signification, as has been shown by several authors. The phrase occurs in two other passages of the New Testament, namely, 2Co 4:16; Eph 3:16; in the former, the apostles words are, We faint not, though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day; where the inward man must signify the mind or soul, which is renewed, or created anew in its faculties, in proportion as it grows in grace. In the other passage the apostle prays for the Ephesians that they might be strengthened with might, not in the outward man, the body, which was not a matter of much importance, but in the inward man, the soul; that it might become strong in faith, fervent in love, and conformed to the divine image; and that Christ, by his Spirit, might dwell in it. The inward man, therefore, always signifies the mind, which either may or may not be the subject of grace. That which is asserted of either the inward or outward man, is often performed by one member or power, and not with the whole man. If any member of the body perform an action, we are said to do it with the body, although the other members be not employed. In like manner, if any power or faculty of the mind be employed about any action, the soul is said to act: [and with still greater propriety, as] our souls are not, like our bodies, made of many members; they are pure spirits, and indivisible. If the mind wills, it is the spirit willing; if it hates, it is the soul hating; if it loves, it is the soul loving; if conscience reprove or excuse, it is the inward man accusing or excusing. This expression, therefore, I delight in the law of God after the inward man, can mean no more than this, that there are some inward faculties in the soul which delight in the law of God. The expression is particularly adapted to the principles of the Pharisees, of whom Paul was one before his conversion. They received the law as the oracles of God, and confessed that it deserved the most serious regard. Their veneration was inspired by a sense of its original, and a full conviction that it was right. To some parts of it they paid the most superstitious regard. They had it written upon their phylacteries, and carried these about with them at all times. It was often read and expounded in their synagogues, and they took some degree of pleasure in studying its precepts. On that account, the prophets and our Saviour agree in saying, that they delighted in the law of God, though they regarded not its chief and most essential precepts. Smith, On the Carnal Mans Character.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 22, 23. For I applaud the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
The verb strictly signifies: I rejoice with. Does it mean, as van Hengel thinks: with other persons, who like me take pleasure in the law? Or as Meyer understands it, with the law itself, which as well as myself takes pleasure in the good it prescribes? The first idea is not supported by the context, and the second is unnatural; for the law is not the subject, but the object of , of the feeling of joy spoken of by the apostle. We must therefore apply the , with, to the inwardness of the feeling experienced: I rejoice in and with myself, that is to say, in the inmost chamber of my being. This term is still stronger than the , to agree with, of Rom 7:16. The latter merely signified: What the law declares good, I declare good along with it, while here we have an eager and even delighted adherence.
The complement of God, added to the law, brings out the moral elevation of the rule, and so justifies the assent indicated by the verb , I applaud.
The last words: after the inward man, expressly remind us that it is only to a part of his being that we must apply what Paul here says of himself. We must beware of confounding the inward man with the new man ( ). Paul means to speak only of that which he calls, Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25, the understanding, the , the organ with which the human soul is endowed to perceive the true and good, and to distinguish them from the bad and false. Here especially is the action of the moral consciousness, that faculty which has little more than a theoretic character, and which in practice exercises no control over the will sufficient to constrain it to do what it approves. The outward man, the acting phenomenal personality, remains under the dominion of another power which draws it on the other side (Rom 7:23). Again, in 2Co 4:16 we come upon the contrast between the inward and the outward man, but modified by the context. The first in this passage denotes the whole man morally regarded, the will as well as the understanding, and the second, physical man only.
We have already shown, on occasion of the expressions used, Rom 7:16, that nothing affirmed by Paul here passes in the least beyond what Jesus Christ Himself ascribes to man unconverted, but desirous of goodness and placed under the influence of the divine law and of the prevenient grace which always accompanies it; comp. Joh 3:21. St. Paul in chap. 2 had already recognized not only the existence of moral conscience in the Gentiles, but the comparative rightness with which they often apply this divine rule in the practice of life.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
22. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. This inspired affirmation sweeps from the field all who would identify this chapter with a sinners experience, from the simple and undeniable fact, patent to all Bible readers, that the sinner has no inward man, which is none other than the new creature created in the heart by the Holy Ghost in regeneration. A sinner is but an incarnate devil, and utterly destitute of the new creation, which the Holy Ghost never imparts till the condemnation is removed by free justification, transplanting him from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God. Hence you see the utter untenability of the dogma which would identify the testimony of this chapter with a sinner. I do not wonder that Clarke, Wesley, and other noble spirits of bygone ages, so construed, because they did not have the corrected Greek, the Sinaitic manuscript, a copy of which I hold in my hand, and which has thrown a flood of light on New Testament exegesis, not having been discovered until A. D. 1859, when Dr. Tischendorf, the great German, after forty years of earnest search in the Bible lands for everything that could throw light on the Holy Scriptures, providentially discovered it in the Convent of St.
Catherine on Mt. Sinai, which had been erected in the second century, and in whose archives God has kept this complete copy of the New Testament from the apostolic age, lying hidden and secure during the long roll of the Dark Ages. While a thousand years of Satans midnight passed over the world, during which not one man in a thousand could read or write, while blood and barbarism ran riot in every land, and the vandals especially did their utmost to destroy, not only all the Bibles, but all other books, obliterating the last spark of light and civilization from the earth, God, in great mercy, hid away this copy of the New Testament, and thus preserved it from the errors and interpolations incident to that long period of darkness and ignorance, bringing it to light A. D. 1859, just in time to shine out the morning star and felicitous harbinger of the present Holiness Movement, which is, I know, none other than the John the Baptist preceding the second coming of our glorious King to girdle the globe with His Millennial Theocracy and reign forever.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 22
I delight, &c. They who interpret this passage as above explained, consider this expression, and the others which imply feelings of approbation towards the law of God, as in Romans 7:16,25 &c., as referring to the approving testimony borne by conscience in favor of the excellence of the law, even in wicked men. Others think that these expressions prove that the subject of this description must be a soul renewed. The question in regard to the true interpretation of the passage is admitted to be a very difficult one.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the {b} inward man:
(b) The inner man and the new man are the same, and are compared and contrasted with the old man; and neither do these words “inward man” signify man’s mind and reason, and the “old man” the physical body that is subject to them, as the philosophers imagine: but by the outward man is meant whatever is either without or within a man from top to bottom, as long as that man is not born again by the grace of God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Intellectually Paul argued that he should obey the Mosaic Law (Rom 7:22), but morally he found himself in rebellion against what he knew was right.
"In the light of Rom 8:7-8 it is difficult to view the speaker here [in Rom 7:22] as other than a believer." [Note: Bruce, p. 146.]
This natural rebelliousness was something he could not rid himself of. Perhaps Paul used the term "law of the mind" because the mind has the capacity to perceive and make moral judgments. [Note: Witmer, p. 468.]
"It is because people do not recognize their all-badness that they do not find Christ all in all to them." [Note: Newell, p. 278.]
Happily, Paul explained in chapter 8 that someone with infinite power can enable us to control our rebelliousness.