Analogical Reasoning in Romans 7:2-4: A Woman and the Believers in Rome

Abstract

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formulae omitted.) At beginning of Romans 7, Paul narrates a brief story about a man who, by his death, liberates a woman from law that had governed his life. Paul uses this story to illustrate his claim that believers, through death of Jesus, are dead to Mosaic law that had governed Jesus's life. Origen calls narrative an example, Clement of Alexandria an allegory, and Augustine a similitude.1 Most contemporary exegetes identify passage as some kind of comparison. Although labels differ, interpretations generally follow tradition begun with Augustine's dictum: animadvertendum est istam similitudinem in hoc differre ab ea re propter quam adhibita est, is noteworthy how this similitude differs from very subject for which it is employed (Exp. prop. Rom. 1.36). By relating a woman who is free from law because of a man's death to Christ-believers' dying to Mosaic law, Paul apparently produced an asymmetrical figure of speech.2 If indeed this is what Paul has done, then exegetes have no choice except to find methods of analysis that account for disparity.3 In this article, I suggest an alternative interpretation: Paul's reasoning is symmetrical. The keys that unlock its symmetry are hidden within ambiguous syntax of clause ... (v. 2a) and grammar of phrase ... (v. 2b). If first phrase is understood as bound to law by way of man who is alive and second as the law that governs then w. 2ab are core of Paul's argument and clarify logic of its movement from contrasting statement (v. 1), via analogy (w. 2-4), to conclusion (w. 4-6). I will trace this trajectory from beginning to end with a brief discussion of various functions of Rom 7:1, an examination of analogy, and a short analysis of concluding verses. I. CONTRAST AND ANTICIPATION (ROMANS 7:1) Throughout Romans 6, Paul's correspondence has characteristics of a lively discussion between himself and recipients of his letter. At times he even addresses them directly (6:1-3, 15, 16). In 7:1, he continues this conversational style, crafting a bidirectional appeal to hearer's understanding:4 Are ignorant, brethren-for I speak to who know law-that law rules a person as long as she/he lives? Simultaneously confronting Roman communities with a question (Are ignorant of law?) and an assertion (You know law!), Paul contrasts ignorance with knowledge about a specific concept: law rules a person as long as she/he lives. Although concept is general enough to encompass gamut of familiar legislative systems in his day,5 Paul does not presume that his hearers have specific legal knowledge.6 Rather, he writes immediately and specifically what he wants his audience to know about law; that is, iuiio has supreme governing power over domain of life.7 It is not surprising, then, that Paul reveals neither ethnicity of law-knowers he is addressing (i.e., Jews or non-Jews) nor specific law under discussion.8 He addresses members of Roman communities as law-knowing with purpose of inviting them to follow-and understand-his argument.9 Paul places his attempt to compel his hearers to agree with his argument's conclusion strategically. His statement that the law rules living persons reinforces relationship between iuiio and Roman believers, a relationship he had already declared moot (6:14-15: you are not under law). In form, this contrast echoes Paul's bidirectional appeal to his hearer's knowledge; in function, it anticipates progressive rationale of his thoughts. He continues with an analogy that features contrasting assertions regarding authority of ... over life and proceeds to explain why Mosaic law does not rule believers. II. A SYMMETRICAL NARRATIVE (ROMANS 7:2-3) Comparing Christ-believers in Rome with a woman who is under authority of a living man, Paul creates an analogy. …