John Calvin Commentary Exodus 20:17

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor`s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor`s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor`s." — Exodus 20:17 (ASV)

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. There is no question that this Commandment also extends to those that have preceded it. God had already sufficiently forbidden us from setting our hearts on the property of others, attempting the seduction of their wives, or seeking gain at another’s loss and inconvenience. Now while He enumerates oxen and asses, and all other things as well as their wives and servants, it is very clear that His precept is directed to the same things, but in a different way, namely, to restrain all ungodly desires for either fornication or theft.

The question, however, arises: since it has been said before that, according to the nature of the Lawgiver, inward purity of heart is everywhere required—and therefore, under the category of adultery, not only are all filthy acts prohibited, but also secret unchastity; and under the category of theft, all unlawful desire for gain—why does God now forbid His people the lust for theft and fornication? For it seems to be a superfluous repetition, which would be very absurd in ten short precepts in which God has encompassed the whole rule of life, so that their very brevity might render them easy to learn and better attract readers.

Still, on the other hand, it must be remembered that although it was God’s design, through the whole Law, to arouse their feelings to sincere obedience to it, yet such is their hypocrisy and indifference that it was necessary to stimulate them more sharply and press them more closely, lest they seek subterfuges under the pretext of the doctrine’s obscurity. For if they had only heard, You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor steal, they might have supposed their duty would have been fully performed by mere outward observance. It was not then in vain that God, after having treated piety and justice, should give a separate admonition that they were not only to abstain from evil-doing, but also that what He had previously commanded should be performed with sincere affection of the heart.

Hence Paul gathers from this Commandment that the whole Law is spiritual (Romans 7:7, 14), because God, by His condemnation of lust, sufficiently showed that He not only imposed obedience on our hands and feet, but also put restraint upon our minds, lest they desire to do what is unlawful. Paul also confesses that while he previously slept in easy self-deceit, he was awakened by this single word. For since he was blameless in the eyes of men, he was persuaded that he was righteous before God. He says that he was once alive, as if the Law were absent or dead, because, being puffed up with confidence in his righteousness, he expected salvation by his works. But when he perceived what the Commandment, You shall not covet, meant, the dead Law was, as it were, raised to life, and he died; that is, he was convinced he was a transgressor and saw the sure curse overhanging him.

Nor did he perceive himself to be guilty of only one or two sins. Instead, he was finally shaken out of his torpor when he recognized that all the evil desires of which he was conscious must be accounted for before God, whereas he had previously been satisfied with the mere outward appearance of virtue. We now perceive, therefore, that there is nothing inappropriate in the general condemnation of concupiscence by a distinct commandment. For after God has broadly and popularly laid down rules for moral integrity, He finally ascends to the fountain itself and, at the same time, points out with His finger, as it were, the root from which all evil and corrupt fruits spring forth.

It must here be added that something more is expressed by the words coveting and wishing for, or desiring, than a desiderium formatum, as it is commonly called. For the flesh often tempts us to wish for this or that, so that evil concupiscence betrays itself, even though consent may not yet be added. Since, therefore, the sin¹⁷¹ of the will had already been condemned, God now proceeds further and puts a restraint upon evil desires before they prevail.¹⁷²

James points out these progressive steps, where he says that lust conceives before it begets sin; and then sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (James 1:15). For the begetting of which he speaks is not only in the external act but in the will itself, before it has assented to the temptation. I admit, indeed, that the corrupt thoughts which arise spontaneously and then vanish before they affect the mind do not come into account before God. Yet, even if we do not actually acquiesce in the evil desire, if it affects us pleasantly, it is still sufficient to render us guilty.

So that this may be better understood, all temptations are, as it were, so many fans: if they hurry us into consent, the fire is lit; but if they only awaken the heart to corrupt desires, concupiscence betrays itself in these sparks, even though it neither acquires its full warmth nor breaks forth into a flame. Concupiscence, therefore, is never without desire (affectu), even though the will may not altogether yield. Hence it appears what complete perfection of righteousness we must bring to satisfy the Law, since we are commanded not only to will nothing except what is right and pleasing to God, but also that no impure desire should affect our hearts.

Nor would Paul have laid such great stress upon this precept if the Law condemned no concupiscence except that which takes such hold on a person's mind as to exercise dominion over it. For the sin of the will must always be condemned even by pagan philosophers, and indeed by earthly legislators also. But he says that the Law, by resisting concupiscence, makes sin become exceeding sinful (Romans 7:13). Now, it is not credible that, at the time when he confesses that he did not know what concupiscence was, he was so senseless and stupid as to think no harm of wishing to kill a man, or of being inclined through lust to commit adultery with his brother’s wife. But if he was not unaware that the will to sin was vicious, it follows that the concupiscence in which he saw no harm was some more hidden disease.

Hence, too, it is evident under what delusion Satan must have held all the Popish schools¹⁷³ through which this axiom echoes: that concupiscence is no sin in the baptized because it is a stimulus to the exercise of virtue. This is as if Paul did not openly condemn concupiscence, which entraps us in its snares, even though we do not altogether assent to it.

¹⁷¹ “Mala voluntas.” — Lat. “Toutes mauvaises affections.” — . “Toutes mauvaises affections.” — Fr..

¹⁷² “Derant qu’ils ayent gagne pour venir en propos delibere;” before they have gone so far as to arrive at a deliberate purpose. — Fr..

¹⁷³ See the first decree of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, together with C.’.’s remarks amongst his Tracts. — Calvin Society edition, vol. 3, pp. 78-88. remarks amongst his Tracts. — Calvin Society edition, vol. 3, pp. 78-88.