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.
my constituent parts’... can hardly be other than the Law used by sin to bring about death"23. In my opinion, not only does the adjective e#teroj in v. 23 imply the reference to a law of "different kind" to the divine one, it is above all the rhetorical development of the chapter which makes it clear that, even if it is caught up in overwhelming sin, the Law cannot be identified with it. The phrase no/moj th=j a(marti/aj, then, does not suit a reality that is distinct from sin. To state that "the Law is used by sin" is not the same as stating that "the Law is the Law of sin". Consequently, in the phrases where a no/moj wages victorious war against the divine Law one has to recognise a play on words (rhetorical antanaclasis), in which no/moj stands for "principle, rule" (of sin). As a summary of vv. 21-23 one could state that Mosaic Law proves unable to help the "I" to escape from the slavery into which sin has led him.
The sorrowful cry at v. 24 draws the reader’s attention to the subject’s situation. However, this anthropological remark functions as a depiction of the situation of the very subject who devoted himself to Mosaic Law. His existential contradiction is a result of the incapacity of the Law to rescue him. His situation is summarised in a concise way in v. 25b (rhetorical epiphonema): even though he serves God’s Law in his own mind, in his concrete behaviour he is nothing but a slave of sin. His mental "service" is only wishful thinking. Between these two statements v. 25a presents an unexpected thanksgiving to God, hitherto absent in this chapter. This phrase, naming Jesus Christ as our Lord, is expressed in a terminology which is recurrent in chapters 5-8 of the letter, closing many pericopes (see 5,11.21; 6,23; 8,39), and could well function also here as part of the end of this chapter. At the same time, it also anticipates the affirmations stated in Rom 8,1ff. This kind of anticlimatic end can be interpreted as a rhetorical hysteron proteron. In other words, Paul first anticipates the argumentation which he is going to start in Rom 8,1 (v. 25a), and then sums up the present one (v. 25b).
The description of the dramatic condition of the subject cannot be read while ignoring the cumulative rhetoric effect implied in it (rhetorical hypotyposis). As a consequence, the reader cannot but consider himself as taking part in the vicissitudes of the "I"24. This