How then is a law, really any law (though in this case particularly even that of God) made weak through the flesh? For this we must consider man, and particularly the man who extols…law.
O! But this seems most contrary and contradictory! How could this possibly be? Wouldn’t the man who most extols [the] law be the very man who most upholds it? But spiritual matters are rife with apparent (or seeming) paradox the natural man finds ir-resolvable.
Look carefully, even at the above. Have I sought myself to establish a law? Strange, right? How could this be approached? At very least by one of two ways…for God knows there may be more hidden to me.
One could be “This man proposes that only the spiritual man is allowed to see, understand, and resolve seeming paradox(es) and all and any others are forbidden to” and thus a law; or it could be mere statement of truth. In the first case (if it is true and a truth) and it was used to establish a law instead, it would be akin to a King saying “Hereafter I declare the sighted are only those who can see, and the blind are those who are prohibited!”
All citizens would say “Silly King, that is already established as the very definition of who the sighted are, and who the blind are…by seeking to make a law of it, you bring truth into an entirely and unfitting realm of its being…and even for its being. Why then, even state that, at all? Show of power? The doing of a thing…only because you can? You are not only frivolous in your use of power, but rather stupid, to boot. For truth does not need your support or edicts pronounced over them. And therefore any truth you (and we!) may hold as establishing your authority as King…must be called into question if you reason thus. Are you only King because you say you are…or…are you really a King?”
Is this too subtle?
I hate to be too topical, so tell me if this is. “We hold these truths to be self evident…”
Are they?
Then why is a “we” added? Is that too subtle?
Does self evidence only appear to a certain “we“? Then, obviously, such truth is not self evident and is either not truth…or one is speaking to things unlike themselves at all, in all not the “we” speaking to other things needing to be informed of what is self evident. To take it further…it surely cannot therefore be to men it speaks, for if going further such self evidence is attributed to (only) man who is “created equal”. And not only so, with certain (O! my!) inalienable rights! Such things inalienable to man, being spoken by men, who, in their speaking (if they truly believe this) are men…can need no telling of self evidence…unless it is not to men it speaks.
If only certain are the “we” then it is not broadly applicable to all men…without disqualifying some as men at all.
The slaves (or some, at very least) must have understood what was going on. And what was being said…truly. “There is a ‘we’ of which you are not. This truth does not extend to you”…(wait for it)…”because…are you free?” “No, you are slaves and your very estate testifies that you are not like the “we” who see this self evidence of truth for ‘all men’ ”
Therefore, you are not men…as the “we” are.
[Funny isn’t it, how power bends things? The “we” had the power to make you slaves, and not vice versa. Religion does this (and cannot but be compelled to) as no less does the secular. The seeking after power’s enticements is always to this end…to make one less subject. (Especially…to law and laws.) Ask the judge or councilman or senator who was let off scot-free after being pulled over for driving erratically.]
By very seeking to pronounce a most general matter, even by terms as vaunted as self evidence…it cannot but alienate…by its pronouncement of “we”… a separation from all “other men” (if the “they” who are that “we” would even concede such are)…while yet still seeking to establish itself as applicable to all men (who are created equal). If you do not see this, you do not. But if you do…
You are beginning to see the workings of the flesh. Its self contradictory nature. What it says it extols…is not to the end of extolling it, but rather (can you receive this?) to the very end of hiding the truth that it (the flesh) inwardly despises such. And such is made plain…by practice. By “making show”…it only shows its weakness, its hypocrisy, its very denial by such making show and feeling compelled to, that is not of (and is in complete absence of) that very substance it proclaims as true.
Yes, even liberty.
Listen, this holds very particular application when a man considers spiritual matters. But are there so called “spiritual matters”…or just matters? For if spiritual matters are true, then “they” pertain to all matters. And there are no “other” matters…only matters.
This kind of robs any of a certain standing they may covet for themselves as being special to themselves or exemplary.
Particularly a man like me. O! the strength of weak flesh! To hold under its sway in such weakness…even all of men!
Who can defeat it to force its showing of poverty?
Obviously law cannot! For law alone is what allows for the “we” to take its stand as superior, in which already the self of flesh is fully consumed and engaged! It all is too painfully plain and obvious…men of all creatures are most self interested. And most self led. Even the most brutish beast exceeds man’s practice…for that beast is at least attributed in action to instinct. But man? Claiming to know the better…but entirely unable to practice the better! But this is totally inadmissible for him…therefore he must show his seeming superiority…by law(s). And the better man…always thinks he lives by better law. He uses law as indicator…of being the “better man”.
Law allows for the hiding.
“Good men” declare good laws…even the most noble and sublime of them to hide themselves by allowance. For if men are good, what need of any to declare to another what is good…even of such “self evidence”? And there to go even farther…to make additional laws in support of “a” or the truths…they espouse. (How many laws have been added…?)
Do you know what the three fifths compromise is? Is/was…that “law” true?
If you despise man’s ways…is it because you think yourself not a common man as others…or can you hold a fair balance and admit…”I am no different, for I am no less man in despicable deceits”.
But…who could do that? Or bring a man to see…that?
It would sure take a straight shooter. And one not given to the hiding of himself. One who truly loved, extolled, magnified…the law…in Himself. But who could “do” what He extols?
That the flesh is only fit for death.
Yet, that is precisely what He did…and does.
But not by law. But by making Himself in all subject to it and beyond, by even denying His right as maker of law to show Himself in any way superior to it…or any other.
For that He trusted His Father. To show who, and what, He is.
israelx7wordpresscom 