chrisheye - I think there is a lot more of the Law (Torah) in Romans 7 than your suggestion allows, but I agree that there is a great deal more of the original command and sin of Adam than has perhaps been properly granted in the chapter.

There are clear echoes in Romans 7:8-11 of the commandment given in Eden (and the original disobedience), but the major emphasis of the whole of Romans 7 is the Mosaic law and covenant. This is seen in Romans 7:1-4, which contains the idea of Israel’s marriage to God through the wedding contract of the Torah; Romans 7:4-6 - the parallel of Galatians 2:15-21 concerns a similar argument about the Law; Romans 7:7 - a glance backwards to Romans 3:31 and forwards to Romans 7:12 in which Paul refutes any idea that the Law (Torah) itself is an agent of sin.

And yet I think your suggestion, whilst not reflecting the main thrust of Romans 7, does highlight the argument concerning Adam’s sin in the chapter by drawing attention to the Law’s role in increasing the problems created by that sin (echoing Romans 5:20). Romans 7:14-24 shows how much greater are the problems of Paul/Israel in the light of the Law (Torah) compared with the embryonic arousing of ‘the flesh’ in Genesis 3:1-6.

It occurs to me in looking at this that the references to ‘covetousness’ in Romans 7 also take us back to the ‘coveting’ of the fruit which was aroused in Genesis 3, rather than a particular sin which Paul personally had problems with.

This would indicate that the Law, as described in Romans 7:7-24, instead of bringing about freedom from sin and ethnic/racial superiority for the Jews, actually did the opposite and increased their captivity to sin. The evidence of Israel’s own history would bear this out. Instead of the Law separating Israel from Adam, it took her right back to where Adam was.

The big difference between Adam and Paul/Israel, which weakens your suggestion, is that before he disobeyed God, Adam did not experience the struggles of ‘the flesh’ in the way that Paul, living in the consequences of Adam’s disobedience for all mankind, did. But there is an embryonic arousing of ‘the flesh’ in Eve in Genesis 3:1-6, which forms a template for all subsequent operations of ‘the flesh’.

As regards the language of Romans 7:8b, I suggest that it does contain a backward glance at Genesis 3, but its primary reference is to the experience of sin through the Law - using hyperbole for effect, rather than an intended literalism. Romans 7 is full of such literary devices.

I’m disagreeing with the some of the specifics of your suggestion, but finding that it illuminates a great deal in the process. Thanks!