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.
case, then the starting disclaimer of the Law would lack any plausibility.
In spite of this nuance, what is established in these verses is a dramatic relationship between sin, "I" and the Law. Even though sin has an existence apart from Law, it is through the Law that its works gain force, doing harm to the "I" and ultimately bringing about his spiritual death16. Consequently the Law not only increases the possibilities of sin, but represents the condition through which sin itself becomes ineluctably effective in the "I" experience. It might be argued that the ultimate responsibility for these events lies with sin itself which, personified as an active subject, kills the "I" and uses the Law as its instrument to accomplish this. Indeed, it must be allowed that the commandment appears here in instrumental propositions17. However, the dramatic role assumed by the Law and its commandment — even a necessary role, according to v. 9 — cannot be denied. Furthermore, v. 11 associates the work of sin and the instrumental role of the commandment in such a strict way that the reader is compelled to consider the two works together. It seems, then, that if it is true that sin itself is ultimately responsible for its own flourishing, this fact does not deny the responsibility of the Law on another level.
These statements do indeed raise many problems: how is this instrumental role of the commandment possible, and when does it take place? How is it possible that sin without the Law is dead, if Rom 5,12 states that it came into the world as an operative entity through Adam’s transgression? And if vv. 8b-10a are taken literally, is it not true that sin should have exercised its power only on Mosaic humanity? But this is an