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.
purpose, with God as an implied agent of it. In this case the death of the "I" could be ascribed to God himself, as a provisional step in his process of salvation. However, this view is not admitted by grammatical and rhetorical considerations. Indeed, the second i#na-clause makes use of the verb ge/nhtai that, being deponent, does not accept the idea of an agent. But the overall decisive factor is God’s absence in the process here described, so the reader has no grounds for detecting God’s involvement in it20. That is why I regard the two i#na-clauses as consecutive, the verb fanh|= having the active sense of "to appear, to show itself", and sin to be solely responsible for revealing its own reality. If all these affirmations simply repeat the foregoing ones, one could find something new in this verse by observing that, with respect to v. 7a, the question in v. 13 adds the words e)moi_ e)ge/neto. This means that the question seems to introduce, in a very discrete way, fresh attention to the situation of the "I" in relation to the Law. To put it in another way, the question seems to introduce an anthropological development which is nevertheless not independent from previous discussions on the Law. It aims to clarify the complex relations between the Law and the subject: what has become of the good Law in the reality of the life of the subject? What is the subject’s situation as a result of his encounter with the Law? To sum up my view of this verse: on the one hand the verse restates previous assertions on the killing activity of sin with regard to the subject and the instrumental role of the Law in this process, though it is not ultimately responsible for it. On the other hand it draws attention to the resulting situation of the subject involved in this relationship with the Law (and, obviously, with sin). This new development begins in v. 14, which affirms the spiritual nature of the Law and its opposite, the fleshly nature of the subject. For these reasons v. 13 has to be considered as a turning point.
From v. 15 onwards the pericope develops the logical consequences of the statement in v. 14, depicting the situation of the subject in an extended way, repeating similar, if not identical, affirmations (rhetorical commoratio). On one hand the "I" agrees willingly with the Law, but at the same time he is unable to accomplish what the Law requires. We are here in touch with a human experience well known from ancient times, one that became a literary topos in classical literature, namely a)krasi/a. It is above all the figure of Medea who,