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.
follows that the Law appears in a position neither to effect a change of lordship, nor to promote a living sphere for people’s existence. In my judgement, the antithetical comparison between these two chapters shows that since salvation is granted by Christ, the Law should not be regarded as a soteriological principle. More important than this, however, the Law cannot be regarded as a means of salvation because it is powerless. This is to say that in comparing life under sin and life in Christ Paul has also pointed out the inherent weakness of the Law. For this reason, life "in Christ" proves not to be a life under another Law, a rather different kind of "covenantal nomism". Life "in Christ", instead, is something basically new compared to life under the Law, as Christ himself promotes his life in believers. They are only urged to manifest what they are, to be led by the Spirit dwelling in them (Rom 8,13-14), not to strive in order to perform something external to their lives34.
From these considerations, it may be concluded that the inherent limit of the Law consists of its inability to deal with sin. There is no doubt that this is a real and serious problem for Paul. His soteriology, nevertheless, is not limited to this aspect. Later in chap. 8 Paul states clearly that the Spirit we received is a Spirit promoting in us an attitude towards God peculiar to sons (vv. 14-16). This is expressed mostly in our cry to God, in which we call Him "Father"35. Thus, even if ui(oqesi/a means literally "act of adoption", the pericope focuses not on it alone, but also on the status arising from this act. For this reason, ui(oqesi/a should be understood and rendered as "adoptive sonship". This proves to be the most encompassing term expressing the identity of Christ’s disciples. The believers’ union with Christ is so effective that not only does it promote in them a proper conduct of life, but above all it elevates them to the same status as the Son. The Spirit, who promotes in believers a life opposite to the one according to the flesh,