If indeed the change wrought by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree was to change Adam's ontological makeup, then death may simply by the natural result of eating that fruit, the consequence of the action.
The change wrought was not ontological, but epistemological. Adam no longer views, perceives, or knows who he actually is. He has lost his actual identity, and now sees himself as a separate individual. Despite this blatant contradiction, he continues to struggle with this persistent delusion anyways. The identity he now adheres to is nothing but an abstract construction of the mind. It must die along with the body. The body has not undergone any ontological change whatsoever. Adam's identity is what is changed, and God humors him in his decision to enter into the first recorded case of identity politics.
What happened next was remedial, in God cursing the ground, and all He pronounced to Adam and Eve. God removed from His creation it's ability to produce true meaningful worth.
Here again, I would disagree, and instead go along with what has been presented from Spinoza and Sartre. God's commands are negations themselves, and when they are transgressed, the outcome is due to the negation, not by any determination of the law or humanity itself.
The written Law, then, shows the separation between God's original design, thou shalt not covet, and what mankind has come to, that when you tell man that, he simply begins to covet more. But the change of man's nature is deadly, and so God desires to rescue man, but not against his will.
It is expressly against his will. Mankind cannot please God, and nothing would please God more than to have humanity in alignment with his will. This can only come about by negating the false assumptions humanity is operating under.
So the written Law shows man the corruption of his current nature, so that he will see the need for something more.
No. Here again, the word is useless without the spirit. The logos kills without the pneuma. The law does not reveal man's corruption, the spirit does. The law alone will only cause humanity to descend further into hopeless depravity. It points to God's salvation which is explicitly through self sacrifice, or negation.
The Law was given for two reasons. One was to provide a means by which a certain people group, through attempted and half-hearted obedience to the Law, that this nation would be preserved and not self-destruct by increasing corruption, so that the Messiah would come through that people.
Here again, the law never did anything. It cannot save anyone, nor can it cause one to conform to God's will. It is there to spotlight the necessity of abandoning a deterministic methodology, or as Paul says, "works" based salvation.
The second reason was to show the need for that Messiah, who would fix our ontological problem.
If we stick with the current nomenclature, it simply reveals the ontological problem.
When you consider that God created man a certain way, and that man has been ontologically changed, you have to address a couple of things. One is that to be made right, you need to change man again. The other is that do accomplish this change, you need to reach into his new corrupted nature to make contact. Not the original nature that knows God, but a corrupted nature that fights against God.
I agree, but again, the corrupted nature isn't even real. This is the revelation. It is destined to disappear as soon as one denies oneself, or keeping with the nomenclature; negation.
there is no regulation, and we are to act freely out of that structure, as it is based in the same structure as God Himself.
The usage of "freely" is ambiguous, and needs to be clarified because people who sin are free to sin, but not free to do God's will, while the freedom Christ and Paul refer to are not in one's ability to make a free will decision, but to act according to their ontology which precludes them from sinning at all. this is why there is no regulations, curses, penalties, etc. They are redundant.
In a nutshell, what Spinoza and Sartre are pointing out is no different than what Paul or Christ points out, which is that salvation is not by works, but by Grace, in, with, and through the faith of Christ who "empties" himself. This is what corresponds to "negation". When you see it from this perspective, it all makes sense.
It's also interesting to note that the commandments are all negations as well, e.g. "Do not steal, do not murder, do not covet, etc. This is the state of one's being already. It is not a deterministic methodology as some presume. It is an ontological fact. Some could look at it as a promise that becomes reality once the kingdom is revealed.
This deterministic thinking becomes pointless once one discovers the kingdom. They no longer see any need to do anything as they are already arrived in the kingdom. They need no money as there is nothing to buy in the kingdom There is no lack whatsoever.