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.
God to be effective in my members, which are instead governed by the law of sin". But the whole of the argument, juxtaposing consideration of the powerless character of the Law with statements on its nature, pivots upon concessio. Thus, Paul recognises the good nature of the Law, but at the same time underlines its powerlessness.
Scholars are now paying increasing attention to the presence of divergent evaluations of the Law. To quote only one recent one, T.L. Carter: "Romans 7,7-25 consists of an exposition of the ineffective struggle of the Jew under the Law against the power of sin (...) in light of this, Paul’s conclusion that the commandment is holy and just and good may well seem surprising"31. He justifies this conclusion with a kind of extra-argumentative consideration, as a Pauline act of care for the weak faction in the Roman community. More generally, Carter assumes that Paul is redefining the boundaries of the Christian community that cannot base itself on the Law since it is ineffective in counteracting sin32. It is important to note here that Carter recognises a kind of concessio in the Pauline argument (even though he does not call it by that name) required for the benefit of the weaker members of the community. They are not explicitly named in this Pauline chapter, but their influence, as is Paul’s overall rhetorical strategy, is assumed on the basis of a sociological interpretation of the data as they transpire from his letters. It goes beyond the aim of the present paper to go into the details of this kind of methodology, but it seems to me wise to investigate first of all whether there is any inherent reason for the concessio in the text itself, in the development of its thought. Here we must bear in mind the statements in vv. 5-6, which are shocking from a Jewish point of view. They need to be clarified. Does Paul perhaps assume that the Law is sinful in itself? He surely needs to reject this possibility, but his answer cannot consist of a simple denial: if the Law is not such, how is it possible to justify and support the strong statements that associate the Law with sin? From these premises, it follows that the emphasis on the powerful work of sin in Rom 7,7-25 serves not only to exculpate the Law. It also serves to explain how the