ROM 7:7 Parallel View

Note: This view shows ‘verses’ which are not natural language units and hence sometimes only part of a sentence will be visible. This view is only designed for doing comparisons of different translations. Click on the version abbreviation to see the verse in more of its context.

OET (OET-RV) So what will we say then? Say that the law is sin? Not on your life! I wouldn’t have known what sin was if it wasn’t for the Law. For example, I wouldn’t have known what coveting was if the Law hadn’t told me not to covet.

Key: yellow:verbs, light-green:nominative/subject, orange:accusative/object, pink:genitive/possessor, red:negative.
Note: Automatic aligning of the OET-RV to the LV is done by some temporary software, hence the OET-RV alignments are incomplete (and may occasionally be wrong).

ULT What then will we say? Is the law sin? May it never be! But I would not have known sin, if not through the law. For I would not have known the covetousness unless the law said, “You will not covet.”

UST Someone might say, “If what you have said is true, then surely the laws God gave the Jews are sinful!” Then I would say, “Of course not!” On the contrary, without the laws God gave the Jews, I would never have become aware of what it means to sin. For instance, if God did not say in his laws, “You must not covet,” I would never have become aware of what it means to covet.

BSB § 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.”[fn]

7:7 Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21

BLB What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Never may it be! But I have not known sin, if not by Law. And indeed, I had not been conscious of covetousness if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."

AICNT What then shall we say? Is the law sin? By no means! But I would not have known sin except through the law; for I would not have known desire[fn] if the law had not said, “You shall not desire.”[fn]

7:7, desire: That is to covet.

7:7, Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21

OEB What are we to say, then? That Law and sin are the same thing? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, I should not have learned what sin is, had not it been for Law. If the Law did not say “You must not covet,” I should not know what it is to covet.

WEB 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.”

NET 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.”

LSV What, then, will we say? The Law [is] sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the Law had not said:

FBV So what do we conclude? That the law is sin? Of course not! I wouldn't have known what sin was unless the law defined it. I wouldn't have realized that wanting to have other people's things for myself was wrong without the law that says, “Don't desire for yourself what belongs to someone else.”[fn]

7:7 Quoting Exodus 20:17 or Deuteronomy 5:21.

TCNT What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Yet I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, “Yoʋ shall not covet.”

T4T Someone might object, saying, “◄The laws that God gave Moses must be evil if our sinful desires are increased because of our knowing those laws. [MTY]/Are not the laws that God gave Moses evil if they stir up our sinful desires?►” [MTY, RHQ] I would reply that they certainly are not evil, even though our sinful desires are increased. What I would reply is that I, for example, realized that what I was doing was sinful only because of what is written {Moses wrote} in those laws. For example, I realized that coveting is sinful only because he wrote in those laws [PRS], “You must not covet.”

LEB 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.”[fn]

?:? A quotation from Exod 20:17|link-href="None";Deut 5:21|link-href="None"

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.

MOF No MOF ROM book available

ASV 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:

DRA 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.

YLT 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:

DBY 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;

RV 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:

WBS 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.

KJB 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.
(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. )

BB 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.
(What shall we say then? Is the law sinne? God forbyd. Neuerthelesse, I knew not sin, but by the lawe: For I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou/you shalt not lust.)

GNV 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 Lawe sinne? God forbid. Nay, I knew not sin, but by the Lawe: for I had not known lust, except the Lawe had said, Thou shalt not lust. )

CB 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.
(What shall we say then? Is the law synne? God forbyd: Nevertheless I knew not sin, but by ye/you_all law. For I had known nothing of lust, if the law had not said: Thou shalt not lust.)

TNT What shall we saye then? is the 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 synne? God forbid: but I knew not what sin meant but by the law. For I had not known what lust had meant except the law had said thou/you shalt not lust. )

WYC 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 therefore should we seie? The law is synne? God forbede. But I knew not sin, but by lawe; for I wiste not that coueitynge was sin, but for the law said, Thou shalt not coueyte.)

LUT Was wollen wir denn nun sagen? Ist das Gesetz Sünde? Das sei ferne! Aber die Sünde erkannte ich nicht ohne durchs Gesetz. Denn ich wußte nichts von der Lust, wo das Gesetz nicht hätte gesagt: Laß dich nicht gelüsten!
(What wollen wir because now say? Ist the law Sünde? The be ferne! But the Sünde erkannte I not without durchs law. Because I knew nichts from the Lust, wo the law not hätte gesagt: Laß you/yourself not gelüsten!)

CLV Quid ergo dicemus? lex peccatum est? Absit. Sed peccatum non cognovi, nisi per legem: nam concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi lex diceret: Non concupisces.[fn]
(Quid ergo dicemus? lex peccatum est? Absit. Sed peccatum not/no cognovi, nisi per legem: nam concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi lex diceret: Non concupisces.)

7.7 Quid ergo dicemus. Quandoquidem lex mortis est et auxit vires peccati, detinens a bona operatione; videtur ergo lex peccatum, id est docens peccare, vel talis pro qua donata peccavit auctor ejus, quasi malæ rei. Non, sed potius bonum est: peccatum fecit agnoscere, quia prius nesciebantur quædam vel esse peccata, vel adeo esse gravia, vel esse punienda. Absit. Sed peccatum. Ostendit legem non esse peccatum, sed indicem peccati: ut sic anima reatus sollicitudine ad percipiendam gratiam converteretur. AUG. Absit. Uno verbo legem absolvit, etc., usque ad magna est Apostoli defendentis auctoritas. THEOD. Illud autem, Non cognovi, et Nesciebam, non hic ignorationem omnino significant, sed hoc dicit: Naturalis discretionis exactiorem cepi cognitionem per legem. Nam concupiscentiam. Hoc legit Apostolus generale, unde omnia. Bona lex, quæ dum hoc prohibet, omnia prohibet. Concupiscentiam. Aliqui generalem intelligunt. Alii illam de qua in Decalogo: Non concupisces rem proximi tui vel uxorem Exod. 20.. Generalem, quia ex ea omne malum. Nesciebam. In sua persona generalem agit causam.

7.7 Quid ergo dicemus. Quandoquidem lex mortis it_is and auxit vires peccati, detinens a good operatione; videtur ergo lex peccatum, id it_is docens peccare, or talis pro which donata peccavit auctor his, as_if malæ rei. Non, but potius bonum it_is: peccatum fecit agnoscere, because first/before nesciebantur quædam or esse peccata, or adeo esse gravia, or esse punienda. Absit. Sed peccatum. Ostendit legem not/no esse peccatum, but indicem peccati: as so anima reatus sollicitudine to percipiendam gratiam converteretur. AUG. Absit. Uno verbo legem absolvit, etc., usque to magna it_is Apostoli defendentis auctoritas. THEOD. Illud autem, Non cognovi, and Nesciebam, not/no this ignorationem omnino significant, but hoc dicit: Naturalis discretionis exactiorem cepi cognitionem per legem. Nam concupiscentiam. Hoc legit Apostolus generale, whence omnia. Bona lex, which dum hoc prohibet, omnia prohibet. Concupiscentiam. Aliwho generalem intelligunt. Alii illam about which in Decalogo: Non concupisces rem proximi yours or wife Exod. 20.. Generalem, because ex ea omne malum. Nesciebam. In sua persona generalem agit causam.

UGNT τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν? ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία? μὴ γένοιτο! ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων, εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου; τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν, οὐκ ᾔδειν, εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.
(ti oun eroumen? ho nomos hamartia? maʸ genoito! alla taʸn hamartian ouk egnōn, ei maʸ dia nomou? taʸn te gar epithumian, ouk aʸdein, ei maʸ ho nomos elegen, ouk epithumaʸseis.)

SBL-GNT Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου, τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν· Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις·
(Ti oun eroumen? ho nomos hamartia? maʸ genoito; alla taʸn hamartian ouk egnōn ei maʸ dia nomou, taʸn te gar epithumian ouk aʸdein ei maʸ ho nomos elegen; Ouk epithumaʸseis; )

TC-GNT Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; Ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; Μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων, εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν, εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν, Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις·
(Ti oun eroumen? Ho nomos hamartia? Maʸ genoito; alla taʸn hamartian ouk egnōn, ei maʸ dia nomou; taʸn te gar epithumian ouk aʸdein, ei maʸ ho nomos elegen, Ouk epithumaʸseis; )

Key for above GNTs: yellow:punctuation differs (from our SR-GNT base).

UTN uW Translation Notes:

Note 1 topic: grammar-connect-logic-result

τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν?

what therefore ˱we˲_/will_be/_saying

Then indicates that what follows this word explains what came before it. Here, then indicates that what follows is a response to what Paul said in the previous verses, especially what he said in 7:5. See how you translated this phrase in 6:1.

Note 2 topic: figures-of-speech / rquestion

τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν? ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία?

what therefore ˱we˲_/will_be/_saying the law_‹is› sin

In these two sentences Paul is not asking for information, but is using questions to address an objection that some people may have to what he said in 7:5 because they misunderstood him. If you would not use rhetorical questions for this purpose in your language, you could translate his words as statements or exclamations or communicate the emphasis in another way. Alternate translation: “Then we will say that the law is sin!”

Note 3 topic: figures-of-speech / quotemarks

τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν? ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία?

what therefore ˱we˲_/will_be/_saying the law_‹is› sin

In these two sentences Paul is speaking as if he were a Jewish Christian who misunderstood what Paul had taught in the previous verses. It may be helpful to your readers to indicate this by setting off all of this material with quotation marks or with whatever punctuation or convention your language uses to indicate a quotation.

Note 4 topic: figures-of-speech / abstractnouns

ἁμαρτία & τὴν ἁμαρτίαν

sin & ¬the sin

If your language does not use an abstract noun for the idea of sin, you could express the same idea in another way. Alternate translation: “something sinful … what things are sinful”

Note 5 topic: figures-of-speech / explicit

μὴ γένοιτο

never ˱it˲_/might/_become

In this sentence Paul begins to respond to the rhetorical questions he wrote earlier in the verse. If it would be helpful in your language, you could state this explicitly. Alternate translation: “I would respond by saying, ‘May it never be!’”

Note 6 topic: figures-of-speech / exclamations

μὴ γένοιτο

never ˱it˲_/might/_become

See how you translated this phrase in 3:4 and 6:2.

Note 7 topic: grammar-connect-logic-contrast

ἀλλὰ

but

But here indicates that what follows is in contrast to what came before it. Here, But introduces the contrast to the idea that the law is sinful. Use a natural way in your language for introducing a contrast. Alternate translation: “Nevertheless,” or “By contrast,”

Note 8 topic: grammar-connect-words-phrases

γὰρ

for

For indicates that what follows this word explains what came before it. Here, it introduces an example from God’s law that illustrates the importance of the law. See how you translated the same use of For in 7:2.

Note 9 topic: figures-of-speech / abstractnouns

τήν & ἐπιθυμίαν

the & covetousness

If your language does not use an abstract noun for the idea of covetousness, you could express the same idea in another way. Alternate translation: “what it means to be covetous”

Note 10 topic: writing-quotations

ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν

the law_‹is› the law /was/_saying

Here Paul uses said to indicate a quotation from the law that is written in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:17). If it would be helpful in your language, you could use a comparable phrase that indicates that Paul is quoting from an important text. Alternate translation: “it had been written in the law”

Note 11 topic: figures-of-speech / personification

ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν

the law_‹is› the law /was/_saying

Here Paul speaks of the law as if it were a person who could say something. He means that God said what was written down in the law. If it would be helpful in your language, you could express the meaning plainly. Alternate translation: “God said in the law”

Parallel ROM 7:7