Paul has a very strange understanding of the relationship between the law and sins. Perhaps it was a Jewish way of thinking in general. Let me illustrate what I meant.
There are two Creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 is very scientific and evolutionary. We can identify parallel evolutionary stages in science and in the six days of Creation. On the sixth day, God created man, which is the apex of creation (Genesis 1:26). The perspective of this narrative is from the outside.
Genesis 2 is anti-evolutionary. Man was created first and other animals were created to keep him company. However, the creation story of Genesis 2 is psychological. Man was not the apex, but the centre of Creation. He was unique but lonely. But gradually, he was aware of the existence of other animals and beings. In the end, he discovered woman. The perspective of this narrative is from the inside. Perhaps Paul was following this psychological perspective to discuss the relationship between the law and sins.
There are two Creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 is very scientific and evolutionary. We can identify parallel evolutionary stages in science and in the six days of Creation. On the sixth day, God created man, which is the apex of creation (Genesis 1:26). The perspective of this narrative is from the outside.
Genesis 2 is anti-evolutionary. Man was created first and other animals were created to keep him company. However, the creation story of Genesis 2 is psychological. Man was not the apex, but the centre of Creation. He was unique but lonely. But gradually, he was aware of the existence of other animals and beings. In the end, he discovered woman. The perspective of this narrative is from the inside. Perhaps Paul was following this psychological perspective to discuss the relationship between the law and sins.
In discussing the law, Paul chose the law forbidding covetousness. Why didn't Paul choose murder or adultery?
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7)
Paul seems to be putting the blame on the law. Had there been no law, Paul would not have known sin. At the back of Paul's mind, he probably had the forbidden fruit, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The law is worse than the forbidden fruit because the fruit makes us know both good and evil, while the law, only evil.
We always say that laws are made to set the limits, the boundaries beyond which man must not go. We also say that a good man has no need of laws because he will never breach the laws. Truly enough.
But Paul took another approach. Paul said that through the law, we are aware of covetousness. Paul seemed to think that covetousness was the source of all other evils. That was probably why he chose to discuss covetousness, not murder nor adultery.
You may argue that knowing is not the same as acting. This separation might be a modern way of thought. But here, Paul equated knowing with acting. Once more, this is a Jewish way of thinking. In Hebrew, to know a person hints at having sex with the person (Genesis 4:1, Luke 1:34). Therefore, knowing evil is enough to act evil.
But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died (Romans 7:8-9)
Literally, it sounds pretty mysterious. How did sin find opportunity in the law? How did the law revive sin? However, Paul seemed to be writing a commentary on the story of the forbidden fruit which was, for Paul, a symbol of the law. Eating the fruit made man know evil. So did the writing of the law. From this (knowledge) platform of law, Paul jumped to another platform.
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7)
Paul seems to be putting the blame on the law. Had there been no law, Paul would not have known sin. At the back of Paul's mind, he probably had the forbidden fruit, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The law is worse than the forbidden fruit because the fruit makes us know both good and evil, while the law, only evil.
We always say that laws are made to set the limits, the boundaries beyond which man must not go. We also say that a good man has no need of laws because he will never breach the laws. Truly enough.
But Paul took another approach. Paul said that through the law, we are aware of covetousness. Paul seemed to think that covetousness was the source of all other evils. That was probably why he chose to discuss covetousness, not murder nor adultery.
You may argue that knowing is not the same as acting. This separation might be a modern way of thought. But here, Paul equated knowing with acting. Once more, this is a Jewish way of thinking. In Hebrew, to know a person hints at having sex with the person (Genesis 4:1, Luke 1:34). Therefore, knowing evil is enough to act evil.
But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died (Romans 7:8-9)
Literally, it sounds pretty mysterious. How did sin find opportunity in the law? How did the law revive sin? However, Paul seemed to be writing a commentary on the story of the forbidden fruit which was, for Paul, a symbol of the law. Eating the fruit made man know evil. So did the writing of the law. From this (knowledge) platform of law, Paul jumped to another platform.
On this platform, the law takes on a different meaning or rather, Paul focused on a different aspect of the law. The law is binding, like gravity. You must keep it, follow it. If you don't, the law will force you. On this platform, Paul made a very simple observation of his daily experience. From there, he contrasted the law of God and the law of sin (Romans 7:22-23).
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate (Romans 7:15).
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me (Romans 7:19-20).
For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members (Romans 7:22-23).
Of course, we can easily explain that this is the consequence of the Original Sin. We do not live in harmony. We are at war with ourselves, with others, with the world at large and with God. This is our daily experience. Plain and simple.
The epistle to the Romans is not easy to read indeed.
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate (Romans 7:15).
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me (Romans 7:19-20).
For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members (Romans 7:22-23).
Of course, we can easily explain that this is the consequence of the Original Sin. We do not live in harmony. We are at war with ourselves, with others, with the world at large and with God. This is our daily experience. Plain and simple.
The epistle to the Romans is not easy to read indeed.
Dear Lord, without Your grace, we are at war with ourselves. I pray that You grant us the peace which we desperately need. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment