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.
Is this too optimistic a view of Christian life? It seems to me essential to remember that the Christian’s freedom appears in these chapters as an absolute gift, which the "I" by himself is unable to obtain. Furthermore, when Paul recalls the fleshly conduct of life (vv. 4b-8;12-13), he makes it clear that a(marti/a and sa/rc are powers still operative in history. Consequently, believers must seriously consider that it is still possible to relapse into that conduct of life. In this way they are urged to take responsibility for the gift granted them, not considering their status in an enthusiastic and unreal way. Finally, the argumentation from v. 18 onwards depicts their life in other tones, recalling their experience of sufferings and their salvation as yet unaccomplished (see also v. 11), so an unreal optimism is ruled out by all these factors. Nevertheless, it is true that in Rom 8,1-17 Paul clearly expresses the effectiveness of the believer’s status. Compared with the condition of the "I" as a slave of sin, the believer’s life is now something basically new, in which what was formerly impossible is now achieved.
More precisely, in Rom 8,1-17 we come across several so-called "participationist categories", expressing the believer’s union with Christ and his participation in the life of the Spirit. Indeed, we read that believers are "in Christ" (v. 1) and, in the meantime, that Christ is "in them" (v. 10a). Furthermore, that they are led by the Spirit (vv. 4b.13-14), and that their life is according to the Spirit (vv. 5.9a), but also that the Spirit itself dwells in the believers (vv.9b.11). At first glance such language may seem confusing: who is in whom? If these statements are seen from a metaphorical standpoint, they prove to be different images depicting the same reality. This reality consists of the mutual relationship between believers and Christ with His Spirit. This relationship is a present one, by means of which the Risen Christ raises his own frame of mind in believers. In this way, through His Spirit’s gift, He becomes the living sphere of their experience and the conduct of their lives. At this point it should be noted that this metaphorical language is analogous to that used in Rom 7,7-25, where the a(marti/a is depicted both as a master external to the e)gw/ (v. 14), and as a subject who dwells in the e)gw/ (vv. 17.20.23). In these chapters, in fact, two antagonistic and mutually exclusive lordships are compared: the one of sin, the other of Christ and His Spirit. Their results for the individual are opposite: death in the former case (Rom 7,9-10.24; 8,6a.13a), life in the latter (Rom 8,2.6b.11.13b).
So, where does the criticism of the Law originate in Paul? It