Internet Verse Search Commentaries Word Analysis ITL - draft

Romans 7:7

Context
NET ©

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I 1  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 2  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” 3 

NIV ©

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

NASB ©

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."

NLT ©

Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is evil? Of course not! The law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

MSG ©

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.

BBE ©

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.

NRSV ©

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."

NKJV ©

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."


KJV
What
<5101>
shall we say
<2046> (5692)
then
<3767>_?
[Is] the law
<3551>
sin
<266>_?
God forbid
<3361> <1096> (5636)_.
Nay
<235>_,
I had
<1097> (0)
not
<3756>
known
<1097> (5627)
sin
<266>_,
but
<1508>
by
<1223>
the law
<3551>_:
for
<1063> <5037>
I had
<1492> (0)
not
<3756>
known
<1492> (5715)
lust
<1939>_,
except
<1508>
the law
<3551>
had said
<3004> (5707)_,
Thou shalt
<1937> (0)
not
<3756>
covet
<1937> (5692)_.
{lust: or, concupiscence}
NASB ©
What
<5101>
shall we say
<3004>
then
<3767>
? Is the Law
<3551>
sin
<266>
? May it never
<3361>
be! On the contrary
<235>
, I would not have come to know
<1097>
sin
<266>
except
<1508>
through
<1223>
the Law
<3551>
; for I would not have known
<3609>
about
<3609>
coveting
<1939>
if
<1487>
the Law
<3551>
had not said
<3004>
, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET
<1937>
."
GREEK
ti
<5101>
I-ASN
oun
<3767>
CONJ
eroumen
<2046> (5692)
V-FAI-1P
o
<3588>
T-NSM
nomov
<3551>
N-NSM
amartia
<266>
N-NSF
mh
<3361>
PRT-N
genoito
<1096> (5636)
V-2ADO-3S
alla
<235>
CONJ
thn
<3588>
T-ASF
amartian
<266>
N-ASF
ouk
<3756>
PRT-N
egnwn
<1097> (5627)
V-2AAI-1S
ei
<1487>
COND
mh
<3361>
PRT-N
dia
<1223>
PREP
nomou
<3551>
N-GSM
thn
<3588>
T-ASF
te
<5037>
PRT
gar
<1063>
CONJ
epiyumian
<1939>
N-ASF
ouk
<3756>
PRT-N
hdein
<1492> (5715)
V-LAI-1S
ei
<1487>
COND
mh
<3361>
PRT-N
o
<3588>
T-NSM
nomov
<3551>
N-NSM
elegen
<3004> (5707)
V-IAI-3S
ouk
<3756>
PRT-N
epiyumhseiv
<1937> (5692)
V-FAI-2S
NET © [draft] ITL
What
<5101>
shall we say
<2046>
then? Is the law
<3551>
sin
<266>
? Absolutely
<1096>
not
<3361>
! Certainly, I would not
<3756>
have known
<1097>
sin
<266>
except
<1487>
through
<1223>
the law
<3551>
. For
<1063>
indeed I would not
<3756>
have known what it means to desire
<1939>
something belonging to someone else if
<1487>
the law
<3551>
had
<3004>
not
<3361>
said
<3004>
, “Do
<1937>
not
<3756>
covet
<1937>
.”
NET ©

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I 1  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 2  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” 3 

NET © Notes

sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”

sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.



TIP #17: Navigate the Study Dictionary using word-wheel index or search box. [ALL]
created in 0.03 seconds
powered by bible.org