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.
allows the interlocutor’s reasons to be diminished, without negating them33.
What is the origin in Paul of the necessity to restate this soteriological impossibility of the Law? The simplest answer, one that has become popular after Sanders’ studies, is: because salvation is granted by God through His Son. We are delivered from sin and death in Christ Jesus (Rom 8,2), and this very fact excludes any other possible soteriological principle. In this regard, we need to consider the antithetical parallelism between Rom 7,7-25 and Rom 8,1-17, a chapter where the believer’s life is depicted in utterly different terms from the life of the e)gw/ in the previous chapter. It is not without significance that Rom 8,3a recalls to_ a)du/naton tou= no/mou. Through the involvement of His Son in a history marked by the lordship of sin, God achieved what the Law could not. Specifically, Rom 7,7-25 states three things that the Law cannot do: the most essential one is its inability to deliver the "I" from his slavery under sin (vv. 14.24). This engenders the Law’s incapacity to help the subject accomplish what the Law itself requires, to obey its command (vv. 7-8.15-25). Finally, it proves to be a tool in a process that leads the "I" to death, and for this reason is not able to promote his life (v. 10b). By contrast, however, from Rom 8,1 onwards this situation appears to be ended for believers. Indeed, they are delivered from sin and death (vv. 2-3). Secondly, they are governed by the Spirit of Christ, who promotes in them a frame of mind that becomes effective in their lives (vv. 5-6.12-13) and brings them to accomplish the just requirement of the Law (v. 4). Thus are they led to true and eternal life (vv. 6.10-11).