Romans 7:7 · Bible study
Romans 7:7 Commentary: Law, Sin, and the Tenth Commandment
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul denies the law is sinful. It reveals and even stirs up sin, especially inward coveting. A study of the function of God's holy law.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul denies the law is sinful; it reveals sin and exposes inward coveting that would otherwise go unnoticed.
- Key words: νόμος (nomos, law), ἁμαρτία (hamartia, sin), ἐπιθυμία (epithumia, coveting/desire), γινώσκω (ginōskō, to come to know).
- Main debate: Whether Paul speaks autobiographically of his own pre-Christian experience or rhetorically in the person of a generic man under law.
- Theological theme: The holiness and goodness of the law in contrast to the power of indwelling sin that uses the law as an occasion.
- Best use: Explaining the pedagogical function of the law, it diagnoses sin and drives us to Christ, the only one who can break sin’s power.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
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.”
WEB World English Bible 2000
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.”
KJV King James Version 1769
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
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:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
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:
Darby Darby Bible 1890
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;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
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.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¿ Qué pues diremos? ¿ La ley es pecado? En ninguna manera. Empero yo no conocí el pecado sino|strong="G1487, G3361" por la ley: porque tampoco|strong="G5037, G3756" conociera la concupiscencia, si la ley no dijera: No codiciarás.
Que diremos, pois? É a Lei pecado? De maneira nenhuma! Todavia, eu não teria conhecido o pecado, se não fosse pela Lei; porque não conheceria a cobiça, se a Lei não dissesse: Não cobiçarás.
Que dirons-nous donc? La loi est-elle péché? Loin de là! Mais je n’ ai connu le péché que par la loi. Car je n’ aurais pas connu la convoitise, si la loi n’ eût dit: Tu ne convoiteras point.
Was wollen wir denn nun sagen? Ist das Gesetz Sünde? Das sei ferne! Aber die Sünde erkannte ich nicht, außer durchs Gesetz. Denn ich wußte nichts von der Lust, wo das Gesetz nicht hätte gesagt: “ Laß dich nicht gelüsten!”
Wat zullen wij dan zeggen? Is de wet zonde? Dat zij verre. Ja, ik kende de zonde niet dan door de wet; want ook had ik de begeerlijkheid niet geweten zonde te zijn, indien de wet niet zeide: Gij zult niet begeren.
Che diremo dunque? La legge è essa peccato? Così non sia; anzi io non avrei conosciuto il peccato, se non per mezzo della legge; poiché io non avrei conosciuto la concupiscenza, se la legge non avesse detto: Non concupire.
Cóż tedy rzeczemy? Iż zakon jest grzechem? Nie daj tego Boże! I owszemem grzechu nie poznał, tylko przez zakon; bo i o pożądliwości bym był nie wiedział, by był zakon nie rzekł: Nie będziesz pożądał.
Что же скажем? Неужели от закона грех? Никак. Но я не иначе узнал грех, как посредством закона. Ибо я не понимал бы и пожелания, если бы закон не говорил: не пожелай.
這樣，我們可說 甚麼呢？律法 是罪嗎？斷乎不是！只是 非 因 律法，我就不 知 何為罪。非 律法 說「不可 起貪心」， 我就不 知 何為貪心。
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.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Romans 7:7
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
All the commentators agree on a core point: Paul is not saying the law is sinful. He rejects the idea with the strongest Greek negative, μὴ γένοιτο, “may it never be.” Adam Clarke compares the law to a beam of sunlight that reveals dust already in the room; the light itself is not the dust. Calvin cites Ambrose’s phrase, Lex index peccati est, non genitrix, “the law is the discoverer, not the begetter of sin.” Barnes adds that the fault lies in human corruption, not in the holy command.
Paul then pivots with the Greek conjunction ἀλλά (“but,” not “nay”), moving from denial to a positive statement. He uses two different verbs for knowing: ἔγνων (an aorist, “I came to know”) and ᾔδειν (a pluperfect, “I had known”). Vincent’s Word Studies observes that the first person refers to Paul himself but represents universal experience under the law. The specific example is the tenth commandment against coveting, chosen because it addresses the inner heart, not just outward actions. As Wesley notes, Paul “had not known lust to be a sin” until the prohibition exposed it.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Autobiographical (Paul’s own pre-conversion experience): Paul writes “I” and uses his personal history (Philippians 3:5). Gill and Vincent hold that he is describing his own struggle as a Pharisee coming to understand the law’s spiritual demand.
- Rhetorical persona (speaking as every person under law): Wesley and many modern commentators argue Paul assumes a character — either the unregenerate man, Adam, or Israel at Sinai — to make his point universally. The sudden shift to first person at verse 7 supports this.
What is clear: The law is not sinful; it is holy, and it functions to reveal and expose sin in human hearts, especially the inward sin of covetousness.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Is the law sin? | All traditions agree the law is not sinful. It is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12). | Christians differ on how the law “stirs up” sin. Some emphasize that sin takes opportunity through the law (the law is innocent but sin uses it). Others argue that the law’s prohibition itself provokes rebellion in fallen human nature, but this is not a defect in the law. |
| Paul’s use of the first person “I” | Commentators agree Paul speaks representatively, not merely autobiographically. He describes an experience common to people under law. | Some (like Gill and Vincent) hold that Paul is recounting his own pre-conversion experience as a Pharisee. Others (like Wesley and many modern interpreters) see a rhetorical device: Paul assumes a persona, either of the unregenerate man, or of Adam, or of Israel at Sinai. The Cambridge Bible treats it as “subjective truth” that may be universal. |
| Meaning of “I had not known sin” | All agree Paul means an experiential, not merely intellectual, knowledge. The law made him aware of sin’s presence and power in his own heart. | A subtle difference: some say he did not know the sinfulness of certain actions (like coveting) until the law labeled them. Others say he knew the actions were wrong but did not know the depth of indwelling sin until the prohibition stirred it up. The Cambridge Bible distinguishes between the law “detecting sin” and “evoking its power.” |
| The tenth commandment as the test case | All note that Paul chooses the command “You shall not covet” because it addresses internal desire, not just outward acts. It shows sin begins in the heart. | Some commentators (e.g., JFB) argue that Paul saw in this command the prohibition of all “irregular desire”, not just the specific objects listed in Exodus 20. This broad interpretation highlights the radical demand of the law. Others do not push it beyond the plain sense of coveting a neighbor’s property or spouse. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Romans 7:7 sits inside Paul’s larger argument about the relationship between believers and the law. In verses 5, 6 he wrote that “sinful passions which were through the law worked in our members.” A Jewish reader would bristle at that language. The law is the treasured gift of God’s covenant. If the law stirs up sin, the natural objection follows: is the law itself evil? Paul must answer carefully, and he does.
Paul writes in the first person, “I had not known sin,” a move Clarke explains as “dexterously avoiding giving offense to the Jews.” He shifts from “we” to “I” so that he seems to speak about his own experience rather than indicting the law itself. But the experience is representative. The Cambridge Bible notes that here Paul moves from objective truth about redemption into “subjective truth; the inner experience of the conflict of the soul.”
The test case is the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21), which forbids coveting. This is no accident. Coveting is an inside sin, a desire of the heart that may never become an outward act. The law that says “Do not covet” confronts a person with the very thing they cannot control. The Greek word ἐπιθυμία covers all longing for what is forbidden; it is the root of many other sins. By picking this command, Paul shows that the law’s function is to diagnose the depth of the disease, not to create it. As Calvin says, the law “detects sin, but does not produce it.”
Textual Notes
The Greek text of Romans 7:7 is well established with no significant variants. The phrase μὴ γένοιτο appears in all major manuscripts. A few scribal tendencies may have added or omitted the conjunction γάρ (“for”) after τε, but the meaning is unaffected. The consulted sources note no textual issues that change the interpretation of the verse.
Reception History
Romans 7:7 has been central to Christian reflection on the purpose of the law. Augustine of Hippo used this verse (and the surrounding passage) to argue that the law cannot justify; it only makes sin known, which then drives the sinner to grace. Later Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther distinguished three uses of the law, with this verse supporting the first or “pedagogical” use: the law holds a mirror to our sin and leads us to Christ.
In Catholic tradition, the verse upholds the goodness of the law while acknowledging that fallen human nature is weak. The Council of Trent cited Romans 7:7 to affirm that the law is not sin itself but that sin uses the law to produce death. Eastern Orthodox interpreters have often read the passage in light of the spiritual warfare described by Paul, the law as a schoolmaster that exposes passions rooted in the heart.
Across traditions, this verse has been sung in hymns of confession and quoted in sermons on the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through the written Word.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The objection defused, Paul anticipates a charge: if the law arouses sin, then the law itself is sin. He rejects the premise emphatically. The law is holy, just, and good. The problem is sin that lives in us.
- The law’s diagnostic role, The law does not create sin; it reveals it. Paul’s language (“I would not have known sin”) points to an experiential, not merely theoretical, knowledge. The law brings hidden corruption into the light.
- The tenth commandment as a case study, The command “You shall not covet” strikes at the heart. It tells us that our desires themselves can be wrong, even when no outward act follows. This pinpoints the human condition: we are not simply rule-breakers; we are desire-disordered.
Five-point outline
- Paul fields the charge: “Is the law sin?” (v.7a)
- He denies it with holy revulsion: “God forbid!” (v.7b)
- He explains the law’s actual function: it gives knowledge of sin (v.7c)
- He narrows to the specific case of coveting, the inner desire (v.7d)
- He sets up the next verses: sin takes opportunity through the commandment to produce all kinds of evil desire (v.8).
Illustration hooks
- A speed limit sign on a straight road. The sign does not make you want to speed; but if you were not thinking about your speed, the sign makes you aware that you might be over. It can also make you self-conscious and test your obedience.
- A parent says to a toddler, “Don’t touch the cookies on the counter.” Before the command, the child had not noticed them. The prohibition makes the cookies loom larger. The rule is good, but it sparks a desire that was not there before.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “If God’s law actually stirs up sin in me, doesn’t that make it partly responsible?”
- “What exactly did Paul mean by saying he did not know sin apart from the law? Was he saying he lived a sinless life before he read the Ten Commandments?”
- “How can I experience the law as good (Psalm 19:7) when it exposes such ugly things in my heart?”
Leading a Discussion
Romans 7:7 presents a paradox: God’s good law provokes sin in a fallen heart. Paul is not solving a theoretical puzzle; he is describing what happens when holiness meets human rebellion. The goal of this discussion is to see that the law is good and that our problem is deeper than external behavior, it is lodged in our desires.
Discussion questions
- Read Romans 7:5, 7 aloud. In your own words, what objection does Paul expect his readers to raise?
- Paul answers with the Greek phrase μὴ γένοιτο, “may it never be.” Why does he react so strongly? What is at stake in defending the law’s goodness?
- Paul says he would not have “known sin” except through the law. Is he talking about information he learned, or a kind of experience he had? Support your answer from verse 7.
- Why does Paul choose the tenth commandment about coveting as his example? What is unique about that command compared to prohibitions like murder or theft?
- Does the law cause sin, or does it expose and stir up what is already there? How does Adam Clarke’s analogy of sunlight and dust help explain this?
- How has an experience of God’s command, perhaps reading a Bible passage or hearing a sermon, made you more aware of a sinful desire you had not noticed before?
- If the law is holy, but it uncovers ugly things in you, what does that tell you about yourself? About God? How does this set the stage for needing grace?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 3:6 | When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate. Then she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too. |
| Exodus 20:17 | “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” |
| Deuteronomy 5:21 | “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” |
| Joshua 7:21 | When I saw among the plunder a beautiful Babylonian robe, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I coveted them and took them. Behold, they are hidden in the ground in the middle of my tent, with the silver under it.” |
| II Samuel 11:2 | At evening, David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king’s house. From the roof, he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to look at. |
| I Kings 21:1 | After these things, Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which was in Jezreel, next to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. |
| I Kings 21:4 | Ahab came into his house sullen and angry because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him, for he had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” He laid himself down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread. |
| Psalms 19:7 | Yahweh’s law is perfect, restoring the soul. Yahweh’s covenant is sure, making wise the simple. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes explains that the objection Paul answers is natural: if the law stirs up sin, is the law itself evil? Paul denies this, saying the fault lies in human nature, not the law. Barnes highlights that Paul uses the Tenth Commandment because it targets inward desires, showing that the law reveals and defines sin without being sinful itself.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin insists the law is not sinful itself but serves as a mirror that
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible notes that Paul vigorously denies the Law is itself sinful, yet insists it exposes sin and even stirs up its power. Without the specific prohibition, Paul would not have recognized forbidden desire as sin in its true character. The Law gives sin a new intensity by commanding, "You shall not covet."
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses that Paul is not calling the Law sinful. Instead, the Law’s command against coveting is what first made Paul aware of his own sinful desires. The Law reveals sin without causing it; it uncovers the hidden rebellion of the heart.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill argues that Paul's question is not an attack on the law but a defense of it. The law reveals sin, especially inward lusts, like a sunbeam shows dust in the air. Paul himself, while a Pharisee, did not recognize his own sinful desires until the law exposed them, proving the law is not sinful.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB argues that "sin" in this passage does not mean the general nature of sin, but specifically the principle of sin dwelling in fallen humanity. The law alone, especially the tenth commandment forbidding all irregular desire, reveals the virulence and desperate power of this inward corruption.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads this passage as describing the crisis of transition from law to grace, not a fixed state. For him, Paul portrays neither the unregenerate nor the regenerate alone, but the living process in which a person is driven from the law to Christ, a movement that repeats whenever believers fall back into legal striving.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent stresses that Paul's "I" in this passage is personal but also universal. Paul speaks from his own experience, yet his words describe every person under the Mosaic law, both before and after the inner change that the law itself produces. The Greek word for "lust" means coveting, as Jesus used it.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley argues that Paul is not speaking about his own experience or that of any true believer. Instead, he adopts the persona of a person trying and failing to keep the law, to show its inability to produce righteousness. The struggle described belongs to that assumed character, not to a Christian.