the Week of Christ the King / Proper 29 / Ordinary 34
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
King James Version
Romans 7:7
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- BridgewayEncyclopedias:
- InternationalParallel Translations
You might think I am saying that sin and the law are the same. That is not true. But the law was the only way I could learn what sin means. I would never have known it is wrong to want something that is not mine. But the law said, "You must not want what belongs to someone else."
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
What shall we saye then? is ye lawe synne? God forbid: but I knewe not what synne meant but by the lawe. For I had not knowne what lust had meant excepte the lawe had sayde thou shalt not lust.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn't have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn't have known coveting, unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
What should we say, then? Is the law sinful? Of course not! In fact, I wouldn't have known sin if it had not been for the law. For I wouldn't have known what it means to covet if the law had not said, "You must not covet."Exodus 20:17">[fn]Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21; Acts 20:33; Romans 3:20; 13:9;">[xr]
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
You might think I am saying that sin and the law are the same thing. That is not true. But the law was the only way I could learn what sin meant. I would never have known what it means to want to take something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, "You must not want to take your neighbor's things."
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nevertheless, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, You shall not covet:
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? By no means. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
What will we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn't have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn't have known coveting, unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
What shall we say then? That the law is sin? God forbid. Yea, I should not have known sin, but for the law. I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
What follows? Is the Law itself a sinful thing? No, indeed; on the contrary, unless I had been taught by the Law, I should have known nothing of sin as sin. For instance, I should not have known what covetousness is, if the Law had not repeatedly said, "Thou shalt not covet."
What therfor schulen we seie? The lawe is synne? God forbede. But Y knew not synne, but bi lawe; for Y wiste not that coueitynge was synne, but for the lawe seide, Thou schalt not coueyte.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
Does this mean that the Law is sinful? Certainly not! But if it had not been for the Law, I would not have known what sin is really like. For example, I would not have known what it means to want something that belongs to someone else, unless the Law had told me not to do that.
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, if it had not been for the Law, I would not have recognized sin. For I would not have known [for example] about coveting [what belongs to another, and would have had no sense of guilt] if the Law had not [repeatedly] said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
What then is to be said? is the law sin? in no way. But I would not have had knowledge of sin but for the law: for I would not have been conscious of desire if the law had not said, You may not have a desire for what is another's.
Therefore, what are we to say? That the Torah is sinful? Heaven forbid! Rather, the function of the Torah was that without it, I would not have known what sin is. For example, I would not have become conscious of what greed is if the Torah had not said, "Thou shalt not covet."
What shall we say then? [is] the law sin? Far be the thought. But I had not known sin, unless by law: for I had not had conscience also of lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust;
What then, say we the law is sin ? Not so. But sin I had not learned (to know) but by the law: for I had not known concupiscence (to be sinful), but (by) the law, which hath said, Thou shalt not covet.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin?, Far be it. For I had not learned sin, except by means of the law: for I had not known concupiscence, had not the law said, Thou shalt not covet:
What shall wee say then? is the law sinne? God forbid. Nay, I had not knowen sinne, but by the lawe: for I had not knowen lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not couet.
Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, "You must not covet."
Then what are we saying? Is the Law sinful? No, not at all! But it was the Law that showed me what sin is. I did not know it was sin to follow wrong desires, but the Law said, "You must not follow wrong desires."
What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
What shall we say then? Is the Lawe sinne? God forbid. Nay, I knewe not sinne, but by the Lawe: for I had not knowen lust, except the Lawe had sayd, Thou shalt not lust.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far be it. I would not have known the meaning of sin, except by means of the law: for I would never have known the meaning of lust, except the law said, Thou shalt not covet.
What, then, shall we say? Is the law sin? Far be it! On the contrary, I had not discovered, sin, save through law, for even, of coveting, I had not been aware if, the law, had not kept on saying - Thou shall not covet;
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid! But I do not know sin, but by the law. For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet.
What shall we say then? Is the lawe sinne? God forbyd. Neuerthelesse, I knewe not sinne, but by the lawe: For I had not knowen lust, except the lawe had sayde, thou shalt not lust.
Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, "Do not desire what belongs to someone else," I would not have known such a desire.
What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, Do not covet.
What then shall we say? Is the law sin? May it never be! But I would not have known sin except through the law, for I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through Law; for also I did not know lust except the Law said, "You shall not lust." Ex. 20:17
What, then, shall we say? the law [is] sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said:
What shal we saye then? Is the lawe synne? God forbyd: Neuertheles I knewe not synne, but by ye lawe. For I had knowne nothinge of lust, yf the lawe had not sayde: Thou shalt not lust.
Do we then conclude, that the law is the cause of sin? by no means; but I should not have had such a notion of sin, had it not been for the law: for I should not have known concupiscence was a sin, unless the law had said, "thou shalt not covet."
But I can hear you say, "If the law code was as bad as all that, it's no better than sin itself." That's certainly not true. The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, " Do not covet ."
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21">[fn]
So, does all of this mean the Code is sinful? Of course not! It was the Code that showed me my sins. If the Code had not said, "Don't jack with another man's Jenny," I wouldn't have known this was a sin.
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! Rather, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
What: Romans 3:5, Romans 4:1, Romans 6:15
is the law: Romans 7:8, Romans 7:11, Romans 7:13, 1 Corinthians 15:56
I had: Romans 7:5, Romans 3:20, Psalms 19:7-12, Psalms 119:96
lust: or, concupiscence, Romans 7:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:5
Thou shalt: Romans 13:9, Genesis 3:6, Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21, Joshua 7:21, 2 Samuel 11:2, 1 Kings 21:1-4, Micah 2:2, Matthew 5:28, Luke 12:15, Acts 20:33, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1 John 2:15, 1 John 2:16
Reciprocal: Leviticus 13:3 - shall look 1 Kings 21:3 - The Lord 2 Chronicles 34:19 - the words Psalms 19:8 - enlightening Proverbs 16:2 - the ways Jeremiah 42:6 - it be good Malachi 2:9 - but Luke 18:20 - knowest Romans 2:12 - in the law Romans 3:4 - God forbid Romans 3:8 - Let us Romans 3:31 - yea Romans 4:15 - Because Romans 7:12 - the commandment Romans 8:7 - for it 1 Corinthians 6:15 - God Galatians 2:19 - through Galatians 3:19 - then Galatians 3:21 - the law Galatians 3:24 - the law Galatians 5:17 - and these Hebrews 11:32 - what shall James 2:9 - transgressors James 4:11 - speaketh evil of the law 1 John 3:4 - for
Cross-References
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
What shall we say then? is the law sin?.... The apostle having said, that "the motions of sins were by the law", Romans 7:5, meets with an objection, or rather an ill natured cavil, "is the law sin?" if the motions sins are by it, then it instigates and prompts men to sin; it cherishes it in them; it leads them and impels them to the commission of it, and therefore must be the cause of sin; and if the cause of sin, then it must be sin, or sinful itself: "what shall we say then?" how shall we remove this difficulty, answer this objection, and silence this cavil? To this it is replied by way of detestation and abhorrence,
God forbid! a way of speaking often made use of by the apostle, when any dreadful consequence was drawn from, or any shocking objection was made to his doctrine, and which was so monstrous as scarcely to deserve any other manner of refutation; see Romans 3:3; and next by observing the use of the law to discover sin; which it does by forbidding it, and threatening it with death; by accusing for it, convincing of it, and representing it in its proper colours, it being as a glass in which it may be beheld just as it is, neither greater nor less; which must be understood as attended with a divine power and light, otherwise as a glass is of no use to a blind man, so neither is the law in this sense, to a man in a state of darkness, until the Spirit of God opens his eyes to behold in this glass what manner of man he is: now since the law is so useful to discover, and so to discountenance sin, that itself cannot be sin, or sinful. The apostle exemplifies this in his own case, and says,
nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; which he says not in the person of another, there is no room nor reason for such a fancy; but in his own person, and of himself: not of himself at that present time, as is evident from his way of speaking; nor of himself in his childhood, before he came to years of discretion to discern between good and evil; but as, and when he was a grown person, and whilst a Pharisee, Philippians 3:5; he did not know sin during his being in that state till the law came, and entered into his conscience, and then, and by it, he knew sin, Romans 7:7, the exceeding sinfulness of it, Romans 7:13, and that he himself was the chief of sinners, 1 Timothy 1:15. Nay he goes on to observe, that by the law he came to know, not only the sinfulness of outward actions, but also of inward lusts; says he,
for I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shall not covet: as it does in Exodus 20:17. This is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they produce any passage out of the law, thus e,
התורה אמרה, "the law says", if anyone comes to kill thee; referring either to 1 Samuel 24:11 or Exodus 22:1; and a little after, "the law says", namely, in Exodus 3:5, "put off thy shoes from off thy feet", c. By "lust" is meant the inward motions of sin in the heart, any and every desire of the mind after it not only studied and concerted schemes, how to bring about and compass an evil action; but every loose vagrant thought of sin, and inclination to it; yea, every imagination of the thought of the heart, before the imagination is well formed into a thought; and not only a dallying with sin in the mind, dwelling upon it with pleasure in thought, but even such sudden motions and starts of the mind to sin, to which we give no assent; such as are involuntary, yea, contrary to the will, being "the evil [we] would not", Romans 7:19, and are displeasing and hateful to us; these are meant by lust, and which by the law of God are known to be sinful, and only by that. These were not known to be so by the Gentiles, who only had the law and light of nature; nor are they condemned, nor any provision made against them, nor can there be any made, by the laws of men: and though these inward lusts are condemned by the law of God, yet inasmuch as they were not punishable by men, and could be covered with the guise of an external righteousness, multitudes who were born under, and brought up in that law, were secure and indolent about them, did not look upon them as sins, or as at all affecting their righteousness; but imagined that, "touching the righteousness of the law", they were "blameless", Philippians 3:6; which was the case of all the Pharisees, and of the apostle whilst such: but when the law came and entered his conscience with power and light attending it, then he saw, such innumerable swarms of lusts in his heart, and these to be sinful, which he never saw and knew before: just as in a sunbeam we behold those numerous little bits of dust, which otherwise are indiscernible by us. Now since the law is of such use, not only to discover the sinfulness of outward actions, but also of inward lusts and desires, that itself cannot be sinful.
e T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 62. 2.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
What shall we say then? - The objection which is here urged is one that would very naturally rise, and which we may suppose would be urged with no slight indignation. The Jew would ask, “Are we then to suppose that the holy Law of God is not only insufficient to sanctify us, but that it is the mere occasion of increased sin? Is its tendency to produce sinful passions, and to make people worse than they were before?” To this objection the apostle replies with great wisdom, by showing that the evil was not in the Law, but in man; that though these effects often followed, yet that the Law itself was good and pure.
Is the law sin? - Is it sinful? Is it evil? For if, as it is said in Romans 7:5, the sinful passions were “by the law,” it might naturally be asked whether the Law itself was not an evil thing?
God forbid - Note, Romans 3:4.
Nay, I had not known sin - The word translated “nay” ἀλλὰ alla means more properly but; and this would have more correctly expressed the sense, “I deny that the Law is sin. My doctrine does not lead to that; nor do I affirm that it is evil. I strongly repel the charge; but, notwithstanding this, I still maintain that it had an effect in exciting sins, yet so as that I perceived that the Law itself was good;” Romans 7:8-12. At the same time, therefore, that the Law must be admitted to be the occasion of exciting sinful feelings, by crossing the inclinations of the mind, yet the fault was not to be traced to the Law. The apostle in these verses refers, doubtless, to the state of his mind before he found that peace which the gospel furnishes by the pardon of sins.
But by the law - Romans 3:20. By “the law” here, the apostle has evidently in his eye every law of God, however made known. He means to say that the effect which he describes attends all law, and this effect he illustrates by a single instance drawn from the Tenth Commandment. When he says that he should not have known sin, he evidently means to affirm, that he had not understood that certain things were sinful, unless they had been forbidden; and having stated this, he proceeds to another thing, to show the effect of their being thus forbidden on his mind. He was not merely acquainted abstractly with the nature and existence of sin, with what constituted crime because it was forbidden, but he was conscious of a certain effect on his mind resulting from this knowledge, and from the effect of strong, raging desires when thus restrained, Romans 7:8-9.
For I had not known lust - I should not have been acquainted with the nature of the sin of covetousness. The desire might have existed, but he would not have known it to be sinful, and he would not have experienced that raging, impetuous, and ungoverned propensity which he did when he found it to be forbidden. Man without law might have the strong feelings of desire He might covet what others possessed. He might take property, or be disobedient to parents; but he would not know it to be evil. The Law fixes bounds to his desires, and teaches him what is right and what is wrong. It teaches him where lawful indulgence ends, and where sin begins. The word “lust” here is not limited as it is with us. It refers to all covetous desires; to all wishes for what is forbidden us.
Except the law had said - In the tenth commandment; Exodus 20:17.
Thou shalt not covet - This is the beginning of the command, and all the rest is implied. The apostle knew that it would be understood without repeating the whole. This particular commandment he selected because it was more pertinent than the others to his purpose. The others referred particularly to external actions. But his object was to show the effect of sin on the mind and conscience. He therefore chose one that referred particularly to the desires of the heart.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Romans 7:7. Is the law sin? — The apostle had said, Romans 7:6: The motions of sins, which were by the law, did bring forth fruit unto death; and now he anticipates an objection, "Is therefore the law sin?" To which he answers, as usual, μηγεςοιτο, by no means. Law is only the means of disclosing; this sinful propensity, not of producing it; as a bright beam of the sun introduced into a room shows; millions of motes which appear to be dancing in it in all directions; but these were not introduced by the light: they were there before, only there was not light enough to make them manifest; so the evil propensity was there before, but there was not light sufficient to discover it.
I had not known sin, but by the law — Mr. Locke and Dr. Taylor have properly remarked the skill used by St. Paul in dexterously avoiding, as much as possible, the giving offence to the Jews: and this is particularly evident in his use of the word I in this place. In the beginning of the chapter, where he mentions their knowledge of the law, he says YE; in Romans 7:4 the 4th verse he joins himself with them, and says we; but here, and so to the end of the chapter, where he represents the power of sin and the inability of the law to subdue it, he appears to leave them out, and speaks altogether in the first person, though it is plain he means all those who are under the law. So, Romans 3:7, he uses the singular pronoun, why am I judged a sinner? when he evidently means the whole body of unbelieving Jews.
There is another circumstance in which his address is peculiarly evident; his demonstrating the insufficiency of the law under colour of vindicating it. He knew that the Jew would take fire at the least reflection on the law, which he held in the highest veneration; and therefore he very naturally introduces him catching at that expression, Romans 7:5, the motions of sins, which were by the law, or, notwithstanding the law. "What!" says this Jew, "do you vilify the law, by charging it with favouring sin?" By no means, says the apostle; I am very far from charging the law with favouring sin. The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good, Romans 7:12. Thus he writes in vindication of the law; and yet at the same time shows:
1. That the law requires the most extensive obedience, discovering and condemning sin in all its most secret and remote branches, Romans 7:7.
2. That it gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death, Romans 7:8-14. And yet,
3. supplies neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaves him under the power of sin, and the sentence of death, Romans 7:14, c. This, says Dr. Taylor, is the most ingenious turn of writing I ever met with. We have another instance of the same sort, Romans 13:1-7.
It is not likely that a dark, corrupt human heart can discern the will of God. His law is his will. It recommends what is just, and right, and good and forbids what is improper, unjust, and injurious. If God had not revealed himself by this law, we should have done precisely what many nations of the earth have done, who have not had this revelation-put darkness for light, and sin for acts of holiness. While the human heart is its own measure it will rate its workings according to its own propensities for itself is its highest rule. But when God gives a true insight of his own perfections, to be applied as a rule both of passion and practice, then sin is discovered, and discovered too, to be exceedingly sinful. So strong propensities, because they appear to be inherent in our nature, would have passed for natural and necessary operations; and their sinfulness would not have been discovered, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet; and thus determined that the propensity itself, as well as its outward operations, is sinful. The law is the straight edge which determines the quantum of obliquity in the crooked line to which it is applied.
It is natural for man to do what is unlawful, and to desire especially to do that which is forbidden. The heathens have remarked this propensity in man.
Thus LIVY, xxxiv. 4:-
Luxuria-ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irtitata.
"Luxury, like a wild beast, is irritated by its very bonds."
Audax omnia perpeti
Gens humana ruit per vetitun; nefas.
"The presumptuous human race obstinately rush into prohibited acts of wickedness."
HOR. Carm. lib. i. Od. iii. ver. 25.
And OVID, Amor. lib. ii. Eleg. xix. ver. 3:-
Quod licet, ingratum est; quod non licet, acrius urit.
"What is lawful is insipid; the strongest propensity is excited towards that which is prohibited."
And again, Ib. lib. iii. E. iv. ver. 17:-
Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.
"Vice is provoked by every strong restraint,
Sick men long most to drink, who know they mayn't."
The same poet delivers the same sentiment it another place:-
Acrior admonitu est, irritaturque retenta
Et crescit rabies: remoraminaque ipsa nocebant.
METAM. lib. iii. ver. 566.
"Being admonished, he becomes the more obstinate; and his fierceness is irritated by restraints. Prohibitions become incentives to greater acts of vice."
But it is needless to multiply examples; this most wicked principle of a sinful, fallen nature, has been felt and acknowledged by ALL mankind.
