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.
devoted to the Law. It is important to note first of all that in vv. 18-21 the adjectives a)gaqo/n and kalo/n, because of the qualifications of the Law in vv. 12.14.16, denote the Law and not a kind of universal moral experience9. Discussions on the Law, then, do not seem to be discarded in the second half of this chapter, despite its more anthropological character.
II. Law and sin in Rom 7,7-11: a paradoxical mutual relationship
The former correlation between Mosaic Law and sin (Rom 5,20-21; 6,14-15; 7,5-6), and the following quotation of the tenth commandment clearly show that the question in v. 7 is related to Mosaic Law10. The possible sinful qualification of the Law evoked by the question is immediately rejected by a characteristic mh_ ge/noito, followed by the strong adversative a)lla/. It is important to establish whether this conjunction opposes only the question or the whole of what has been stated hitherto. In other words, one can say both:
CASE 1: "Is A black? No, on the contrary (=
a)lla/) it is white", or
CASE 2: "Is A black? No, nevertheless (=
a)lla/) it is grey".
In case 1 "a)lla/" opposes the question and carries on the denial expressed by the negation. In case 2 "a)lla/ opposes the whole of what is said, including the negation and, not reaffirming what was just denied, nevertheless "specifies" the negation, clarifies it and carries the argumentation to more balanced considerations. Only the context can assist in solving this matter. Now, v. 7b affirms that there is a relationship of knowledge between Law and sin, but it does not clarify the nature of that knowledge; it remains vague and does not help to