just another final solution [no male & female] ...

PAUL
never once to my knowledge
mentions the bearing of children as a positive event,
not even as a necessary
evil!

~*~

~*~


A rather obvious objection
that I am certain will be raised
is that Paul is speaking in an extreme eschatological situation,
and his views are not to be taken as characteristic
of his understanding
of sexuality
per se?


IT is
unquestionable the case
that Paul is indeed working
in extremis.


Indeed,
I would go so far as to argue
that "For the form of this world is passing away"
[1 Corinthians 7:31]
is at least in part to be understood
as a further argument against
procreation.


This
does not vitiate
my point at all, however,
for the fact that it is precisely the function of the eschatological moment
to free people from sexuality and procreation,
that is, to enable them to fulfill spiritual and not physical functions of procreation
makes exactly the point
about Paul's thought
that I wish
to make.


It is not,
after all, in any way a necessity of eschatological expectation
that the eschaton lead to
an end to sexuality
and procreation.


As evidence for this,
I cite the picture of the eschaton
current in rabbinic tradition in which a major feature is
"Quickly, O Lord, our G D, may there be heard in the hills of Judea
the voice of joy and voice of happiness,
the voice of the singing of bridegrooms from their bridal chambers
and youths from their marriage
celebrations."


It is no accident,
of course, that this same context
emphasizes the national restoration in Zion
that will take place at the eschaton
as well.


Further documentation
can be provided from two modern Jewish messianic movements,
quite different from one another,
both characterized by the sort of eschatological tension
which marks Paul's thought
and both of which engage copiously in procreative activity
and place it at the center and zenith
of their value systems.


I am referring, of course,
to the messianic Zionists of Gush Emunim
and the messianic Hasidim of Lubavitch
[HABAD].


BOTH
groups are procreating
abundantly!


Paul's "choice," then,
of FREEDOM from sex and procreation
as a central marker of redemption
is hardly inevitable or without a
cultural message.


The "law of sin,"
I conclude, can be very plausibly understood
as the commandment to procreate
from which the eschatological moment of the crucifixion
and resurrection
has ideally
freed Christians.


~*~


I think
that if my interpretation
of these passages is acceptable,
a significant revision of the history of sexuality in Christendom
is in order,
with the encratic Fathers
much closer to Paul that has been previously
allowed.


The meaning of Romans 7
is that it was the command to be fruitful and multiply
that created the inescapable dilemma
of Adamic humanity,
and the horns of this dilemma
were only sharpened by the Jewish insistence
on the centrality of the commandment
because of its role in the reproduction
of the Holy People.


The dual effect
of the Christ event is
that an allegorical interpetation of Jewish existence,
one that provides significance and salvation in the promise
and not in the flesh,
also provides release from the terrible double bind
in which first-century Jews
seem to have found
themselves.


Commanded to procreate,
for only THUS could the holy seed be continued,
they were plagued by a constant anxiety and sense of sinfulness
about the performance of that very
commandment.


In ONE fell swoop,
PAUL removes the sword of Damocles
by telling them that the physical continuation of Jewish peoplehood
is NO LONGER
necessary.


In THIS end-time
after the death and resurrection of Christ,
Israel itself is no longer according to the flesh,
defined by geneology,
but has been REPLACED
by its SPIRITUAL signified,
the community of the
faithful baptized.


The physical command
to be fruitful and multiply and THUS bear fruit for death
has also been replaced by its SPIRITUAL signified,
to bear SPIRITUAL FRUIT for Christ,
FRUIT THAT WILL
NEVER DIE.


When Paul is read THUS,
the encratic forms of Christianity
are legitimate (if less compromising) heirs
to a vitally important part of
Paul's thought.


~*~


Maybe
in some future myDiStories,
further elaboration of Paul's dual relation to the body,
highly favoring the SPIRIT
but allowing room for the flesh as well,
will be mobilized
as a means to a renewed understanding
of the relation between the Letter to the Galatians &
the first Letter to the
Corinthians.


The notion
that Paul valorized the celibate life
most highly but did not vilify marriage
will be crucial to
this reading.


For PAUL,
the celibate or encratite ideal
was NOT the product of a "theological/moral"
DUALISM.


IT was,
rather, the SOLUTION,
via a cosmological/anthropological duality,
of an essentially
ETHICAL problem,
the SEARCH for HUMAN AUTONOMY
& EQUALITY.


ONLY
celibates
were FREE of the restrictions of GENDER,
and in particular,
ONLY CELIBATE WOMEN WERE FREE
of the ties that bound
(AND BIND)
women.

cool!
engel

02 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 15 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende