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.
description thus raises the emotional involvement of the reader in these events. Here I am surely at one with some recent scholars25 who underline this rhetorical feature of Rom 7,7-25. Unlike them, however, I do not suppose this is sufficient reason to read into the text any degree of Pauline experience reported or reflected on. The pathos presented on this page raises the reader’s involvement, and does not imply the self-involvement of the author. For these reasons I hold that in vv. 14-25 the pronoun e)gw/ can be interpreted according the rhetorical device of personification. It does not allude to a Christian experience, but is simply a generic personification of somebody’s confrontation with Mosaic Law26.
IV. The coherence of Paul’s evaluation the Law:
the argumentation through concessio
If one does not wish to offer a one-sided interpretation of the pericope, the presence of different evaluations of the Law must be acknowledged. When the nature of the Law is at stake it is always qualified in positive terms: it is not sin, it is holy, good, spiritual and, ultimately, divine. But when its actual work in a history marked by the lordship of sin is considered, then the pericope criticises the Law in the strongest terms. Naming this pericope an "apology for the Law" is therefore highly questionable, because it does not take into account the statements about the impotence of the Law. Of the interpreters who defend this thesis, I shall discuss only some observations proposed by one of the most influential, J.D.J. Dunn. Explaining Paul’s statements in v. 8ff, he asserts that "the real culprit is sin as a power"27. But, as stated above, the recognition of the ultimate responsibility of sin in its own growth does not prevent one from observing the instrumentality of the Law, explicitly stated in vv. 8-14. Nor am I persuaded that the qualification of the Law as spiritual indicates that "there is some overlap between the two epochs" or that "the ‘I’ already identified with Christ in his death" becomes obedient "to the Law of faith, that is, to