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.
the Law. True, these problems are introduced in Rom 7,5, in which sinful passions are stimulated through the Law, but even if that verse could be seen as raising the question, it says nothing about the moment at which it will be theoretically answered. Furthermore, statements that associate the Law and sin are not unique in Paul: see Rom 5,20-21; 6,14-15, to confine ourselves only to Romans6. Rom 7,6 is nothing but one of these. They increase a sense of suspense in the reader towards the problem of the relationship between Law and sin, and this problem must certainly be faced, but the suspense does not end until Rom 7,7.
The distinction between transition and thematic statement turns out to be not a minor detail, but a task of fundamental significance in order to bring the real argument of a chapter into focus7. Ancient rhetoricians defined the thematic statement of an argumentation as propositio8, and assigned to it the basic function of stating the matter of those things that the following argumentation would prove. For this reason interpreters need accurately to detect the propositio of an argumentation, because it is only by means of it that the basic matter of the argumentation can be brought into focus. The fact that Paul often makes use of inchoate propositions does not invalidate this methodological assumption, but requires the interpreter to pay more attention to his peculiarities.
The question in v. 7a consequently raises a new discussion, and for this reason it constitutes the propositio of the subsequent argumentation. A similar question is encountered in v. 13a, but it simply restates some of the matters discussed rather than introducing a basically new theme. It is true that from v.14 onwards anthropological considerations gain more space, but on these premises the interpreter must ask himself the reason for these considerations in an argumentation