We can, if we continue with a discussion of law’s weaknesses, easily see how this especially pertains to the laws of man. How many laws must follow to support, proscribe, further define, even limit by exception any declaration a man (or group of men) may make? Consider…”freedom of speech is absolute and inviolable…except in such cases that…”
Even rules follow (how many rules/laws follow!) the very methods acceptable in conduct for determining whether a law has been broken. Yes, we can easily see how loopholes are made, certain conducts are considered and made “more illegal” than others (hate speech) and the like. Man’s amending to such great length and frequencies the things he calls laws (which have some appearance of foundation and unbreakability) actually testify man doesn’t really believe much in law at all. At least as he would define it on his most commonly accepted level of understanding. “You can’t break a law…that’s why it is called a law” he most commonly thinks. But their malleability and ease of lending themselves to change or further need of support betray they are not as foundational to us as we oft, in pride, may declare.
“We are a nation of law(s)” it may be said by one, meaning only what we hold true and supportable today in law may indeed change by sun up tomorrow. Or through clever applications. How easily man’s foundations are exposed for what they are…caprice. And shifty.
We soon discover how all is in service to some notion of expediency. Even a sort of god, itself.
And since man is himself so clever at making his own laws “weak” through manipulations how much more those claimed given him by “a” god himself. Here understand I seek not to belittle the God as lawgiver but how, through such manipulations, man shows himself receiving as from a lesser god.
Here listen to Jesus if you can.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Or this:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
We look at the above in at least one of two (or more, God knows) ways. We either think Jesus is amending the law, sort of adding to it (would Jesus do that?) or He is stating most plainly that what is most commonly accepted as the tenet of the law, really isn’t at all the matter of the law…at all. Rather than changing or amending, He is elucidating, enlightening, as to true meaning and nature. Oh, but now who escapes?
Oh, yes, it’s easy (expedient) to the self of man to exalt himself as law keeper by thinking “I have never physically lain with another woman” or “I have never physically killed or murdered another” and thereby be self satisfied with his exquisite care and concern for things he believes delivered him of “his god”. But Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter (no, He is not amending the law(s) ) but making plain how far it has been missed…both in mind and heart. Not understood at all, not loved at all, not really ever accepted…at all.
But then, Jesus understands something the listeners do not…the law is spiritual and of spiritual nature…and these are sons of Adam to whom He speaks. Unable to hear or grasp or understand matters of spirit…unless one deliver to them the self same spirit of their author. There is no communication, no understanding apart from a key (not unlike a Rosetta stone) to translate to them what is totally lost upon them. On a New York street directions to Carnegie Hall may given perfectly, but if in Swahili by the speaker to a touring Wisconsin born farmer…as useless as no directions at all.
But even here that example is so far from the reality as to be laughable. For we presumed to understand, we assumed to ourselves such understanding(s) that by the very doing of such, made the law weak to us. “I just don’t penetrate Betty, though I think of her often” is enough to allow me to think myself a certain way. When in truth it is the very matter of “how we are devoted so to seeing ourselves in a certain light” that is the matter always at hand. And this “light” is not the light of the God who is God. And there is a lesser god always eager to abet us in this false light to its preserving to ourselves. We like the way it makes us feel. A “better” person. And surely not one so desperately wicked and hopelessly lost in and to sin…as to need a Savior…as this man Jesus preaches. No, “I love the law, I keep the law”…
“and just think of Betty…often.”
To many or some this may sound too coarse. But I trust there are few men who do not understand. In fact I imagine there are some even now addressed (if God purposes any to read) that would say…”too much already…this is so broad in experience by almost any man with any imagination and instincts (and who is red blooded, to boot) as to be silly…who can escape their own nature, or deny it is a very fundamental nature of man to want to mate with what he finds attractive. Even far too fundamental to be made subject to his own changing.”
You’re saying man has to be forgiven just for his being what he is.
Precisely.
But far more. For what comes along with that “being what he is”…is the presumption that he is what he really is not.
The judge of God’s work and word.
For he is no more than clay made animated to God’s end and purpose.
And all of mankind in Adam once mated itself to and with what it found attractive…instead of God.
And adulterers and adultresses, through Christ, are made new; to return to God their maker, who is their husband.
The first man Adam is of the earth and earthy, a living soul given to all distraction by shiny things.
The second man and last Adam is the man from heaven who is a life giving spirit and who is alive in all truth, to even Himself being, in His being, of all truth.
It is not a case of what if one is an adulterer but seeing one is, and has no justification.
Unless it be provided.
What have you…and what do you, fall for?
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.
israelx7wordpresscom 