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.
mutual relationship between the two entities is possible. This happens because the Law is powerless with relation to sin when it is personified as a power. It does not take too much imagination to suppose that, in this regard, Paul was the target of strong criticism by Judaisers in the Christian community. However, one has to admit that the questions in vv. 7.13 do not carry any particular objection by any specific part of the Pauline (or Roman) communities. Paul here deals with a strongly debated topic, but the questions in his argument arise from the statements laid down by Paul himself in his letter, which is why I affirm that it does not matter whether the interlocutor formulating the objection is real or fictional.
If I am right in interpreting this argument as concessio, in which the main thrust is to reaffirm the impotence of the Law, then the different depictions of the relationship between Law and sin, in vv. 7-13 and 14-25 respectively, cease to be a problem. It is true that in the first part of the chapter a direct instrumentality of the Law in the prevalence of sin is stated, while from v. 14 onwards sin is an active subject quite apart from the Law, merely remaining ineffective in counteracting it. But these different statements may be reconciled when regarded as different examples pointing to the same reality: the powerless character of the Law with respect to sin. If this is the main thrust of the argumentation, then it may well be depicted by means of one case in which the Law itself serves as a direct weapon in the hand of sin personified, and through another case in which it simply proves to be too feeble to face this inauspicious actor at this stage of human history. In each case the Law is powerless, absolutely and dramatically powerless, which is the factor underlined by this pericope.
According to this interpretation, concessio does not take the form of a simplistic argument in which a one-sided evaluation is offered and other factors are ignored. On the contrary, the main affirmation intended by an author is presented in the presence of other, dissonant, elements. These elements are recognised in such a way so as not to overshadow what needs to remain focused as central in the thought of the author. More precisely, with what is considered the most important concept the concessio incorporates what may have constituted an objection to it, so as to render the objection implausible. Concessio should not therefore be regarded as a simplistic form of argumentation, since it is a complex method of keeping different and possibly conflicting statements together. This kind of procedure is appropriate when one confronts the contrasting ideas of any interlocutor; concessio