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.
by means of a number of contrasting statements, aiming to reiterate the powerlessness of the Law even in the presence of statements that might suggest the contrary. The positive statements about the nature of the Law are never so emphatically made in the Pauline Corpus as in this pericope, and some interpreters may be surprised by them. Yet it is important to recognise their function in this chapter. In this paper, I intend to prove that the positive evaluations of the Law are formulated by Paul in such a way that they do not diminish the judgements about its powerless character. This method of argumentation can be defined as rhetorical concessio, in which some points (e.g. the positive nature of the Law) are not denied, but minimized in order to emphasise different ones (e.g. the powerless character of the Law). Or, to put it more specifically, Paul asserts that the Law is not able to counter sin, but at the same time he rejects some possible consequences of this thesis (that the Law is in itself somewhat sinful). But the main point is that the Law remains powerless, notwithstanding its nature.
In this paper I will test my view of this Pauline argumentation mostly against some contributions published after my doctoral dissertation. My aim is twofold. On one hand I intend to underline the plausibility and the necessity of a kind of rhetorical analysis of the text that cannot be regarded simply as classical rhetorical criticism, but combines rhetorical and literary criteria in order to achieve the best comprehension of the text. This kind of analysis is eminently supported by J.-N. Aletti3, and enables us to go beyond the surface of the text and explore its theological interest. Broadening the analysis already carried out in my previous work, I will also set this chapter in relation to the overall Pauline soteriology, in order to investigate whether there is any coherence in Paul’s evaluations of the Law when these are compared to his depiction of the believers’ status. First I will subject the pericope to the first kind of analysis in order to detect its real dispositio, which does not necessarily conform in every detail to the rules laid down by rhetoricians. After having pointed out through this analysis the most important statements of the pericope and the difficulties raised by them, I will consider the general evaluation of the Law.