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.
some further points not merely implied in that denial. That means that what we have here is case 2 of the above-mentioned possibilities12. Therefore, if v. 7a states an emphatic disclaimer of the Law, the subsequent argument does not seem to be included in that logic. Obviously, it does not deny what v. 7a states: it simply affirms (also) other things which stand in apparent tension with what is said in v. 7a.
Vv. 8b-10a are among the most puzzling in the whole Bible. First of all, their reversal composition must be made clear, a composition which represents a former time without the Law and commandment, and another period which saw the advent of a commandment, an expression of the whole Law13. This composition establishes a complex relationship between the life and death of sin and the life and death of the "I", depending on the absence or presence of the Law. Without the Law, sin is dead and the "I" lives, whereas with the coming of the commandment sin springs to life and the "I" dies. Since the subject — here dead — is speaking, one is obliged to interpret his death in some metaphorical and spiritual way, that of "losing the ultimate, eternal life" 14. This state of things is ultimately ascribed to the work of sin. The semantic field of "death" and "life", referred to sin, might be established inductively by its use in the corresponding depiction of the "I" condition, thereby denoting the lack or materialisation of the activity of sin. The verb a)ne/zhsen is unusual, being present only here and in Luke 15,4. The preposition a)na/ could retain its literal value of "anew", but it is difficult to detect a time in which sin was operative before the events reported in these verses. So it is more likely that it serves partly to attenuate the relationship between sin and the commandment, suggesting that even if sin sprang to life on the arrival of the commandment, it is not true that it simply "lived", owing its whole existence to the Law15. Should this be the