Why does the KJV render Romans 7:7 as “lust” and “covet”?

Is lust the same as covetousness?  Why does the KJV in Romans 7:7 translate one word as “lust” and another as “covetousness” even though in other translations like the NASB and NIV they translate both words as “covet”?

A friend of mine, Emily recently wrote this to me about Romans 7:7.  For my readers who are not familiar with this discussion one of the truths that I believe the Bible teaches is that lust is covetousness.  Specifically in the context of Matthew 5:28 lust is referring to a specific form of covetousness – mainly to covet another man’s wife.

Emily is not alone, there are many good Christians who want to believe that lust is a separate sin from covetousness and that lust refers simply to sexual desire, rather than it applying more accurately to sexual covetousness. I believe based on the whole of Scripture, as well as the meaning of the original languages that this distinction between lust and covetousness is faulty. Lust IS covetousness.

Here was Emily’s statement to me:

 “But first… that is not how it is phrased in my Bible, fyi. I just looked it up. It compares coveting to coveting, not to lust. Lust is not mentioned in that passage at all!

In that case, there is not much else in the Bible that equates the two. So I mean, thanks for clarifying what you mean by covet but I still think lust in and of itself is a sin.”

The reason Emily is not seeing see it in her  English translation of the Bible is because some modern English translations have left out the distinction Paul was trying to make.

Here is Romans 7:7 in the KJV, the NASB and NIV:

“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.” (KJV)

“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.” (NASB)

“What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (NIV)

Now usually between these three popular translations the KJV is the most literal(but uses older English words), the NASB is more literal than the NIV, but less literal than the KJV with more modern words and then you have the NIV rounding out with the most modern wording, but it is often the least literal out of the three. Each of these have their value and I have used all these and other versions in my studies over the last 20 years.

But occasionally the NASB is more literal than even the KJV, and sometimes even the NIV is more literal or a better translation of a particular verse than the KJV.

So the big question is why does the KJV translate the first word as lust and only the second word as covet while these other two translations translate both words as covet? The reason is because in the Greek these are two different words:

“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[Epithumia], except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet[Epithumeo].” (KJV)

Here is the definition of the Greek word Epithumia (which the KJV translates as “lust” in Romans 7:7) according to Thayer and Smith’s Bible dictionary:

“desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust”

Here is the definition of the Greek word Epithumeo (which the KJV translates as “covet” in Romans 7:7) according to Thayer and Smith’s Bible dictionary:

“to turn upon a thing

to have a desire for, long for, to desire

to lust after, covet

of those who seek things forbidden”

So while these words are synonyms they are not identical and the KJV accurately represents that distinction in its translation where the NASB and NIV loose that distinction for the reader. If Paul meant to use the same word twice he would have said “for I had not known [Epithumeo], except the law had said, Thou shalt not [Epithumeo].” but he used a deliberate word play here with these synonyms to get his point across.

Both Epithumia and Epithumeo are used in positive and negative contexts

These words do not always represent wrong desires, lust or covetousness in the bad sense of these words.  The context of the surrounding passage is what tells us if these words are being used in a negative or positive sense.

Here is a positive use of Epithumia(translated as “lust” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.  For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire[Epithumia]  to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” – Philippians 1:22-24 (KJV)

This is one of those passages of Scripture where I think the NIV does a better job of making this more understandable in modern English while still staying true to the wording in the original language:

“If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire[Epithumia] to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.” – Philippians 1:22-24 (NIV)

In either case both the KJV and NIV correctly translate Epithumia as “desire” here. Desire is used in the sense of a positive desire on the Apostle Paul’s part to want to be with the Lord in heaven.

Here is a positive use of Epithumeo in the Scriptures:

“And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire[Epithumeo] to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.” – Luke 17:22 (KJV)

Here is a another negative use of Epithumia(translated as “lust” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection[Pathos], evil concupiscence[Epithumia], and covetousness[Pleonexia], which is idolatry:” – Colossians 3:5 (KJV)

Concupiscence is an English word that means “evil sexual desires”.  Incidentally the word translated “covetousness” here is not the same word “Epithumeo” that is translated as “covet” in Romans 7:7.  This is another Greek word “Pleonexia” which has more to do with the greedy side of covetousness, rather than the desire to possess something that does not belong to us side of covetousness and this is why the NASB translates this same passage using the word “greed” instead of “covetousness”:

“Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion[Pathos], evil desire[Epithumia], and greed[Pleonexia], which amounts to idolatry.” Colossians 3:5 (NASB)

The NASB except for the word “immorality”, which should be “sexual immorality” is probably the most accurate translation of this verse to the original language of the Bible here in Colossians 3:5. The Greek word “Pathos” which is translated as “passion” in the NASB has the idea of a person being led astray by emotions.

But here we see based on the context of it being “evil” that these are speaking to wrong desires.

Here is another negative use of Epithumeo (translated as “covet” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after[Epithumeo] her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:28 (KJV)


As I said before every translation of Scripture is just that, a translation of Scripture. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. But in this particular case the KJV rendering of Romans 7:7 by using “lust” in comparison to “covet” is accurately communicating the Apostle Paul’s attempt to play these two synonyms off each other.

“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.” – Romans 7:7 (KJV)

In the context of lust as it is spoke of in Matthew 5:27, this also proves by the fact that Epithumeo is used for lusting after a woman and Epithumeo is used synonymously of the 10th commandment in Romans 7:7 as “covet” that means God equates lust to covetousness.

8 thoughts on “Why does the KJV render Romans 7:7 as “lust” and “covet”?

  1. Haha Larry, it seems like I am inspiring you to write a lot lately 🙂

    I just wanted to say quickly that I appreciate this a lot! Thanks for taking the time out of your day to discuss this topic with me.
    Like our last discussion.. I have to discuss this with my priest first so I’ll reply back with my thoughts tomorrow or on Sunday.

    Oh, and the Bible I use is the New American Bible, but the relevant passage resembles the NASB translation

  2. Larry,
    I haven’t talked to my priest yet but from what I can tell from reading the greek translation…
    I concede that you are right.

    Of course, I am not going to turn away from my church’s teachings regardless, but I won’t consider it a sin if my boyfriend sexually desires me or someone else. And as I discussed with dragonfly I am not going to dictate anything to him.

    I just have one question!
    You decribed covetousness as:
    “Covetousness takes our God given desires and corrupts them into the desire to possess those things which he has not given us to possess. Covetousness then moves from the desire to possess into imagining in our mind ways we could take possession of that thing which does not belong to us. Covetousness does not require that we actually act on any imaginations of possession, even just the imaginations in this case become sinful.”

    If my bf watches porn, and he probably will now, isn’t he desiring to possess another woman, one who is not his wife? (a porn actress.) How is that not coveting can you explain?

  3. Emily,

    Your question:

    “If my bf watches porn, and he probably will now, isn’t he desiring to possess another woman, one who is not his wife? (a porn actress.) How is that not coveting can you explain?”

    Emily – good question.

    Say you watched “The Notebook”, a romance movie that my wife loves. There are neurological studies that show a woman’s sex hormones can be released when she watches a romance movie if it pushes the right buttons for her. So does this mean because Ryan Goslings romantic moves put you in the mood that you now want to possess Ryan Gosling? I think you would answer no. But watching that romance movie might light your fire and there is nothing wrong with that.

    Believe me I have heard preachers preach just as hard against women getting wrapped up in Romance novels and Romance movies as men watching porn. In fact some Pastors teach that Romance novels and Romance movies are the female version of porn.

    In the same way when a man watches a porn movie it can light his fire and arouse him and give him pleasure in a very similar way to how you receive pleasure from watching a romance movie. But the chemistry is a bit different – for a man his testosterone and dopamine levels rise(like when he sees food he likes), but for you as a woman your estrogen and oxytocin levels rise in response to romantic situations.

    Most people, both men and women can separate fantasy, things they imagine, read, or see on a screen and the real world. So just as in the same way you don’t need to go find Ryan Gosling if you see him a romance movie, a normal man does not need to nor does he desire to take possession of that woman in that porn movie. It is only a pleasurable imagination.

    Now for a select few, both men and women, they have a hard time separating fantasy from imagination.

    With women this dangerous merging of imagination with reality happens when they allow themselves to start growing resentful of their husbands because their husband is not acting like those men in the romance novels and romance movies they watch.

    With men this dangerous merging of imagination with reality happens when they allow themselves to start growing resentful at their wives for not doing all the things they see porn actresses doing, or perhaps they start becoming less accepting of their wife’s body and its imperfections.

    But for the vast majority of men and women this is not the case and they can and do separate imagination from reality and these things do not cause them to want to change their spouse.

    I actually think that porn poses the least danger to tempting men to sexually covet women. I believe the church spends so much time fighting against men watching porn that they miss the real area men need to watch themselves in. Any woman that a man has a close relationship with that is not his a close blood relative(like daughter,sister, mom) is a potential target for true sexual covetousness.

    Some of these potential targets of sexual covetousness for men would be neighbors, women they work with, women they go to church with and yes even some relatives like sister-in-laws and cousins.

    This why I believe that when a man has a close relationship with a woman he needs to very much on guard for his natural sexual pleasure at the sight of her and be careful that it does not turn to covetous thoughts. Usually the trigger for how a man’s sexual imagination has turned to covetousness is when he starts flirting with a woman and talking about intimate things that he out not to with her.

  4. Hmm, alright, thanks for the reply Larry!

    I guess i’m just not able to understand what exactly men feel when they watch porn. I always assumed that they wanted to assume the role of the man in the videos, therefore coveting the female. Whereas watching romance movies.. we don’t literally place ourselves in the role of the female, we just enjoy the romance. If, however, porn is just used to increase or satisfy his sexual drive, I guess thats fine.

    And the notebook is one of my fav movies too, haha ❤

  5. Jeff,

    I read his post and have seen those arguments before.

    This statement would form the crux of our difference:
    “As I noted before in that article, sex and other sexual misconduct before marriage — fornication — is referred to the Scriptures by Porneia/Pornueo.”

    That it completely false that Porneia referred only to sexual immorality before marriage. Porniea includes but is not limited to moichaō.
    Porneia referred to ALL forms of sexual immorality and moichaō refers to a specific form of Porniea that refers to sexual sin by a person who is married.

  6. Thanks!

    I think i was mixing arousal with lust. If i am aroused by the beauty of my neighbors wife but dont lust or covet her or envy him is that wrong? No sarcasm meant. We have been trained by the FI so strongly that i use to feel guilt over being aroused.

  7. Jeff,

    No there is absolutely no sin in being sexually aroused by your neighbor’s wife. As long as you are not coveting her(which is what lust is) which means you are actually entertaining thoughts of how you might possess her there is no sin in enjoying her beauty. Obviously its rude to gawk, but there is nothing wrong with taking tasteful glances of a beautiful woman whether she is married or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.