Stefano Romanello, «Rom 7,7-25 and the Impotence of the Law. A Fresh Look at a Much-Debated Topic Using Literary-Rhetorical Analysis», Vol. 84 (2003) 510-530
By means of a literary-rhetorical analysis, it can be stated that Rom 7,7-25 forms a literary unit, depending upon the propositio of Rom 7,7a. In fact, the question on the possible equalization between Mosaic Law and sin raises a new discussion, carried out precisely in Rom 7,7-25. The climax of the pericope appears to be the powerless character of the Law with respect to sin, depicted through two different examples. In the first one, in vv. 7-13, it is not stated that through the Law sin become known by the "I", but that through the Law sin gains force and becomes ineluctably effective. In the second one, in vv. 14-25, sin is an active subject quite apart from Law, that remains nevertheless ineffective in counteracting it. In any case, these two different depictions point both to the ineffectiveness of the Law. The affirmations on the positive nature of the Law are incorporated in this pericope in order to be diminished –even if not denied. This rhetorical strategy can be called concessio. In Rom 8,1-17 the believer’s life is depicted in different terms from the life of the "I" of Rom 7,7-25. This comparison leads to the recognition of the new basis on which our relation with God becomes possible. In the meantime, it clarifies that the Law cannot promote this new identity in believers. For this reason, emphasis on the incapacity of the Law must not be considered as an act of contempt for it. Instead, it clarifies the objective reasons why the Law cannot be regarded as a soteriological principle.
I. What is the main theme in 7,7-25?
The significance of the propositio
It is not necessary to demonstrate here that Rom 7,7-25 constitutes a literary unit, as almost all the interpreters agree on this4. Problems arise when one examines the relationship between this pericope and the six previous verses, and when one investigates the statement or thesis encompassing this argument. In this regard, O. Hofius is probably the most recent scholar to have asserted that Rom 7,7-25 follows upon the statements of Rom 7,5, while the subsequent unit, Rom 8,1-17, follows upon Rom 7,65. Hofius is surely right in reading most of the affirmations of Rom 7,5 (the fleshly conduct of life, in which sinful passions dominate) as present in the pericope of 7,7-25. Furthermore, the contrast between fleshly and spiritual conduct of life is clear in Rom 8,1-7 (see vv. 5-6). As Rom 7,7-25 depicts the fleshly and sinful condition of the "I", that contrast also occurs between these two pericopes, and is clearly anticipated in Rom 7,5-6. All these data constitute the framework for the interpretation of Rom 7,7-25. This notwithstanding, Hofius’s proposal seems to me, on the whole, tobe unconvincing. In fact, in Rom 7,14 the Law is qualified as pneumatiko/j, but in Rom 7,6 as gra/mma, so Rom 7,5-6 does not appear to introduce this qualification in the following verses. However, the most decisive fact is that the question on the possible equalisation between Law and sin in Rom 7,7a is not announced in the previous verses. That is why Rom 7,5-6 can be considered as transition that presents in advance some characteristics of the following verses but not the thematic statement upon which the following argumentation as a whole depends.
Let me clarify one point. This precise distinction between transition and thematic statement could be considered an exercise in academic fussiness. Is it not true that the transition can include in itself the thematic announcement of the following argument? It is true, but is not always the case. If Hofius’s evaluation is correct, then Rom 7,7-25 must be considered primarily as an anthropological piece, governed by the statement in Rom 7,5 o#te ga_r h]men e)n th|= sarki. But the focus in Rom 7,7 immediately shifts from anthropology to evaluations on