Aristotle and Romans 7 (ritual, moral, the passion, virtual, mission)

[Aqualung]

It only goes to show ME that in the beginning we all followed the same faith, but then people apostasized and corrupted their religions, but you can still find traces of the one true religion in them.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by CrossEyedMary

It only goes to show ME that in the beginning we all followed the same faith, but then people apostasized and corrupted their religions, but you can still find traces of the one true religion in them.

Then why bother if they are ALL bound to apostasize??

[angellous_evangellous]

*bump*

due to recent interest

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I was reading Aristotle last night and I came across a long passage that reminded me very much of Romans 7:13-25. Aristotle is distinguishing voluntary action from involuntary action. Like the "law", the animal nature of humans is designed to lead them to goodness, but very often can lead humans to wickedness if the person is uncontrolled and does not live rationally. In the end, Aristotle forces everyone to be accoutable for all of their actions.

Hello,

Below is part of a post I put forward that relates somewhat to your general ideas. The focus is different ( and is was part of a larger discussion), but maybe you will be interested.


Romans 7:19-25

The passage:

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The above is a great scripture. Now, my guess is that were I to ask one like yourself the meaning I would get something like: the above demonstrates the fallen and miserable state of man. Paul speaks as a victim of his own sinful nature: constantly born down by the evils of the flesh. This wretched man can only hope for the redeemer Christ to pull him from his despair. And thus we can see it is not anything Paul, as a fallen man can do (and thus we reject the pride of any works based approach), but only through Christ that any hope is possible. Am I close?

The exegesis:

I have noted you state a few times that context is important. I agree. Context does not simply mean the verses that surround a chosen passage or even the book or the Bible proper, but actually entails the entire socio-cultural milieu any piece of literature was written in. The Greco-Roman World is the context. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was fully able to communicate to a Greek speaking audience on their own terms. A simple example would be his referencing the Greek poet Aratus when speaking to the Aeropagus on Mars Hill (Book of Acts). In Romans a similar tact is taken.

If I asked 'what is going on in verse 19?' My guess is the reply from yourself would be something connected to the notion of Original Sin and man's sinful falleness. This would be an anachronistic reading of the text that is only possible by one divorced from the linguistic-cultural context of the passage. I'll illustrate: if I asked what does "to be or not to be" mean? Some might give a response on existential angst. Most would tie it to Shakespeare. Some may even tie it to Hamlet. The above phrasing from verse 19 would have a similar impact on a Greek speaking audience. The phrase is a medean turn. What does that mean? It refers to Medea from Greek Tragedy.* The phrase is most commonly found in Euripides's "Medea':

"I am being overcome by evils. I know that what I am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection "

It can also be found in the larger literature of contemporary's and near contemporary's of Paul. For example. Epictetus:

"What he wants to do he doesn't do, and what he doesn't want he does."

Ovid's Medea:

I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse"

Verse 24's phrase Paul's uses is almost an exact phrasing of his contemporary Seneca who wrote in his Medea Tragedy:

"O wretched woman that I am!" The phrase is "talaiporos ego anthropos".

What is going on here? Why would Paul refer to a figure from Greek myth and why this specific phrasing? The reason is because the figure of Medea and the phrasing was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to illustrate akrasia which refers to weakness of the will or lack of self mastery. Attaining self mastery was a central principle in Greek and Roman Thought. This is why writers in Athens would often sing the praise of their mortal enemies the Spartans (often seen as those most able at self mastery). It is one of the reasons why Stoicism became the dominant ethos of the Roman world. It is also why Greco-Romans might become interested in Jewish Thought. The Law of Moses was portrayed as a vehicle for self mastery (Philo is a simple example of this). What Paul is skillfully doing in the passage is both showing how it is pathe that leads to wrong doing (hamartein), but also he is engaging in a trope when he turns the notion back on his audience. "Medea" was used as an illustration of the dangers of the foreign: the evils that can occur when the other is let within. The Romans/Greeks were very aware of the barbarorum and sought to maintain the divide. Paul's use turns the Romans/Greeks into the other vis-a-vis the Law of Moses. They are compared to the foreign Medea, the ones who have gone against the good and corrupted themselves. Once this is established, Paul then is able to show it is not adherence to a foreign law of Moses that will bring self mastery, but rather through Christ via the spirit."

[opuntia]

I believe that Paul was laboring to explain to the saints how divine law works.

First, if one is not informed about a certain law, his or her ignorance will save them to a certain degree from the consequences of that law (Acts 17:30). It is not fair or just to punish someone who was not informed about a law. Paul said that he was alive until the law came into being in his life (Romans 7:9). This may seem odd to categorize law as a death mechanism; but one is alive (Romans 2:12-15) while there is no law, almost like children upon whom the law cannot take hold until they are of sufficient age to comprehend a law and its consequences. Life of another sort then takes place in the person (Ephesians 4:20-24).

Second, the law it says (Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16) is a sharp two-edged sword. According to the aforementioned verses concerning the sword, Jesus spoke the words of life (John 15:3) or essentially giving rules on how a Christian was to conduct him- or herself (Matthew 5-7). The law eventually is to free the person (John 8:31-36) from sin(1 John 3:4).

Thirdly, a person who is truly alive is the one who knows the law and lives by the law even though he or she need not be reminded of the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So, by the law one will die and be revived (Romans 12:2).

Eventually, the law will be done away with, there being no need to teach proper functions to spiritual beings (Revelations 21:1-7; Galatians 3:24) or full adults in the kingdom of God.