zondige hartstochten & de dood: ROM 7:4-24; 8:2-37


THE
"Law of Sin
in our Members"
is SEX ...

Starting
from the assumption
that Romans 7 continues ROM 5,
I want to propose
that the entire discourse
about Law and commandments in this section of Romans
has to do with
sexuality.

Of all
the myriad interpretations
that have been offered for the soliloquy of chapter 7,
the one that makes most sense to me,
for all its problems,
is the interpretation
that the speaker of these verses
is Adam.

A strong argument
presented in support of this reading
is a series of detailed comparisons
between the speaker of ROM 7:7 ff.
and Adam:

1. Only Adam was alive before any commandment was given (v. 9).

2. The commandment NOT to eat of the fruit of THAT tree of knowledge
came and gave SIN (the Serpent) an opportunity to bring death to
Adam (v. 9).

3. "SIN deceived me" is the same term that Eve uses to describe what
happened to her, namely, that the Serpent "deceived me" (v. 11;
cf. GEN. 3:13).

va'yomer yhwh elohim la'ishah: mah-zot asit?
va'tomer ha'ishah: ha'nachash hishiani va'ocheel!
ze heeft mij misleid!

4. The result of the transgression is death, so "the very commandment
which promised life proved to be death to me."

Other
scholars
had already rejected this interpretation,
arguing that "You shall not covet"
refers to the prohibition
in the Decalogue
and not to
Adam.

This comparison,
however, completely finesses this objection
by interpreting the negative command involved
as both the commandment to Adam
not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge
and the command against desire
in the Decalogue.

They are,
as I shall suggest below,
in a sort of type/anti-type
situation.

He is thus
not constrained to
ignore the obvious allusion to the Decalogue in the chapter
in order to maintain his reading that the speaker is Adam,
for Adam's commandment
is a type of the commandments
to all -
In Adam,
all have
sinned.

THIS argument
that Paul could appropriately use the verse of the Ten Commandments
as a sort of catchword referring to Adam's sin
can be further strangthened.

FIRST of all,
the commandment in the Decalogue
refers precisely to sexual
lust.

In the version of Deuteronomy,
THIS is the entire content of the verse:
Thou shalt not desire
thy neighbor's wife
[ve'lo tachmod ishet
re'echa].

To be sure,
the verse goes on,
in a separate sentence,
to list other objects of one's neighbor
that one should not covet
as well.

Furthermore,
in the version in Exodus 20:17,
where the Hebrew reads:
Thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's house or his wife,
the Greek has wife as the first item
and as a separate sentence,
precisely as in the Deuteronomy
version.

It is thus
entirely plausible that Paul has the sentence
"Do not desire the woman -
of your neighbor" in mind
when he cites.

THIS verse of the Decalogue
is the ONLY negative commandment in the whole Torah
that refers to DESIRE and NOT to
an action.

It is thus
the very anti-type, as it were,
of the prohibition on Adam,
if that prohibition is understood,
as it most often was,
as a prohibition against
sexual desire.

Furthermore, as we can
argue:
The serpent's use of the commandment to deceive
leads to sin:
"SIN ... wrought in me EVERY kind of desire"
(ROM 7:cool! ....

"Desire"
means primarily sexual desire,
and this may be linked with
GEN 3:7:
"THEN
the eyes
of BOTH WERE OPENED,
and they knew that they were naked;
and they sewed fig leaves together
and made themselves
aprons."

THIS suggests
that the "sin" of v. 6 was sexual in nature,
and for this reason Paul can identify the commandment
of GEN 2:17 with the commandment,
"You shall NOT DESIRE,"
just as he can identify the transgression
of the commandment in GEN 3:6 f
with the awakening of
"every kind of DESIRE"
(ROM 7:7 f).

THIS
argument
can be amplified.
The story that Paul tells
in verses 8 & 11 -
"But SIN,
seizing an opportunity in the commandment,
produced in me all kinds of DESIRE.
Apart from the law
SIN lies dead ...
For SIN,
seizing an opportunity in the commandment,
deceived me and through it
killed me" -
seems most specially intelligible
as a gloss on the Genesis
story.

It was indeed
the SERPENT (= SIN) in THAT STORY
who by subtly manipulating the terms of the prohibition
caused Eve & Adam to eat the fruit
and die.

"NOW
the SERPENT
was MORE SUBTLE than ANY beast of the field
which the Lord G*D
had made.
And
he said unto the woman,
YEA,
hath GOD said,
YE SHALL
NOT EAT OF EVERY TREE
OF THE GARDEN?
And
the woman
said unto the serpent,
We may eat
of the fruit of the tress of the garden:
BUT
of the fruit of the tree
which is in the MIDST of the garden,
God hath said,
YE shall NOT
EAT OF IT,
neither shall ye touch it,
lest ye die.
And
the serpent said unto the woman,
YE SHALL NOT SURELY
DIE!"

HERE
we indeed
SEE SIN SEIZING an opportunity
in the commandment!

It thus seems to me
that THIS reading makes the best specific
and sharp sense of Paul's first-person
narrative.

Thus,
although all objections cannot be dismissed entirely,
the other strong considerations in favor of THIS interpretation
should lead us to consider it
favorably.

I believe
that the speaker of Romans 7 is indeed Adam,
the same Adam of whom Paul speaks
in chapter 5.

IF
we take seriously the suggestion
that the speaker is Adam and that he is speaking of is SEXUAL DESIRE,
I think that we must also take into consideration the fact
that Adam and Eve had been positively commanded
to "BE FRUITFUL &
MULTIPLY!"

In my opinion,
only the interpretation
that Paul is speaking of SEXUAL LUST,
inflamed by the positive commandment to procreate,
which "SIN" does indeed know
how to exploit,
accounts for such expressions as
the "LAW OF SIN
IN OUR MEMBERS"
and all the talk here
of inflamed
passions.

SEXUAL DESIRE
was referred to among Jews in the first century
unambuguously as the 'yetser ha'ra',
the EVIL INCLINATION.

For other writers of the time,
SEXUALITY was dangerous
because even if it began licitly, it could, once
aroused,
SLIDE ALL TOO EASILY
INTO SIN.

THIS is
HOW SIN has used the commandment to procreate
in order to arouse SINFUL
DESIRE.

verliefd

SO:
TAKE CARE &
BECOME AWARE
TO FARE
WELL!
nahnahgemeennahnah
liefdesverdrietverliefdliefdesverdriet
verdrietigverwardverdrietig
bah!gaap!bah!
engel
22 jul 2005 - bewerkt op 13 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