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.
starting from the homonymous tragedy by Euripides, plays out the inner conflict arising from this experience21. Adopting this topos, Paul expresses it with two of his own peculiarities. First of all, he attributes the experience of a)krasi/a to a subject taught by Mosaic Law on what is right. In such a way the Law could be called good, as it performs a role of moral informer, but it turns out to be far too feeble to help the subject to perform its requirements. The Law, then, remains extraneous to the "I"; its spiritual nature does not really affect his fleshly behaviour. Secondly, the restatement that sin is the ultimate case of this state of things is due to Paul’s own perspective. Thus, while the antithesis between the subject’s willing and doing (vv. 15.19) has definite parallels in ancient classical literature, it is used by Paul within his own reference to Mosaic Law. Furthermore, the antithesis between sin and "I" (vv. 17.20) is peculiar to Paul.
This piece of argumentation depicts an experience which in itself is not so difficult to understand. According to some scholars, however, problems arise if the function of the Law regarding sin as stated here is compared with the one stated in the previous verses. Whereas in the previous verses sin becomes active only with the coming of the Law, in these verses sin is active independently of the Law. Sin constrains the subject to slavery (v. 14c) or it dwells within him (vv. 17.20) without considering the Law. It only remains powerless to help the subject to do what he should do according to the Law itself. But, after having formerly affirmed that sin works through the Law, it would have been a contradiction to affirm that it does not work by means of it22; we shall discuss this problem below.
The opening syntagm (eu(ri/skw a!ra) of v. 21 shows that here the experiential balance of what has been stated hitherto is presented. The reappearance of the word no/moj and its frequent employment in the following verses, together with the recollection of the experience of death (v. 24), not mentioned after v. 11, are literary factors suggesting that from v. 21 begins the recapitulation of the chapter, a feature of the peroratio. This is not to say that no/moj always denotes the Mosaic Law. Surely, as it has already been qualified as spiritual (v. 14), it comes as no surprise to read here its qualification as divine in vv. 22.25. However, I disagree with Dunn, according to whom "‘the law of sin which is in