For many, and not exempting myself, Adam is a useful foil. He’s easy to observe and speak of in his doings. God knows I have done it, and do it. “Look at Adam” is easy… “look at Adam and see what he did!” But “look at Adam and see who he is” (beyond being the one who fell by transgression and passed it on to his whole race) is a bit different…as in: “Look at Adam and see yourself”.
Yes, that may be more a something we are rarely given to. We often prefer to think of Adam as “other”.
O my! how could he? Look at what he exchanged! I have heard some folks even say “If it were me (why the if? I would wonder) I “wonder” if I might have done differently” Why wonder?
To have any remaining of “Oh, Adam, how could you?” as in “Look at what you have done to (an) us!” is to clearly display how very much one remains in Adam, even as “an” Adam. For to blame Adam is no less than Adam did when confronted with his disobedience “…the woman you gave me…” and shows that very strong kinship. Adam shifted the blame to the woman…but far more importantly, and by inclusion, to the One who gave her to him. Ultimately…Adam sought to shift the blame to his maker. “This the ‘why’ I did it.”
Do you know what a rift is?
Better, have you seen how it is healed?
First it might behoove us to consider what may not seem like a vast difference in attitude, understanding, and even tone of words expressed. But it is…vastly different. One can say “He (or some person) is responsible”. One can mean so and so is a responsible person as in an endorsement of some virtue. Or it may mean ultimately so and so is in charge and responsible for all taking place.. But it may also mean, if something is found amiss, by use as reference, another is the responsible party for it.
Is there any doubt of Adam’s attitude when found disobedient, that the last sense of things aligns more plainly with what was said? He wasn’t asked “how” it happened either in sequence or ordering of events. He was only asked if he had eaten of the tree from which he was told to not eat. His adding of “the woman you gave me” before admitting to eating is salient. But if you’ve never sought to shuck off responsibility or answering directly for some matter of disobedience, this may be lost on you. But if you understand the man who tries to shift what looks like blame coming, or being called to account…you’ll recognize someone not much different than Adam (if at all). And also a man just like me.
Yes, we have authority issues. It’s fine at some distance, at some remove, and even in many ways often convenient for us. We often enjoy what appears a latitude of doings, and not infrequently thinking we know better what for us, is best. The joke about the woman being pulled over for speeding might say it all:
“Ma’am, you were clocked going 50 mph, didn’t you see the sign that said 35 mph Zone?”
“Oh, yes officer, I saw that sign. It was you I didn’t see.”
Obviously there are matters there up for picking apart. The cop did not create the woman, and the officer did not even make the law, he is strictly enforcement. But if we find any shade of understanding of how that is an amusing take on things…even revelatory of an attitude we well understand, then there’s no denying we get it. Even the frank cleverness of the response, of being almost too honest about how we are regarding authority, caring little or nothing about “its” rules until we encounter the power of enforceable consequence, can merit a nod. How we are and respond to law when we either do not think, see, or do not believe “an” authority is present.
Some matters have been addressed elsewhere as to how the law is made weak through the flesh, though the law itself being neither weak nor less than good. It simply has no power to change us. And that, surely into nothing perfect. In fact it only avails (by such weakness of flesh) to only show how we care nothing for its authority by a working in flesh of mechanism that causes us to resist, to cast off, to hate its impingement upon us. To even show how great a defect is, not in the law, but in the flesh; and how that even a good thing provokes such contradiction to it…by sin’s residency there. A mechanism over which no man has control once provoked by law’s presence. And sin brings death.
Yes, it is a terrible thing. Paul understood the dread place of no seeming escape of this wretchedness. Of the utter hopelessness of depending upon a will that has no power to bring any conformity to even that which it inwardly may see as good. If there is no plea found there in this frank assessment, of how only resistance arises to even that which may be acknowledged as good; how self condemning a man is in his estate…and that with no hope. He is, himself, the very thing given to all rebellion.
But Paul held that plea, having had it revealed to him as superior to the law and its work to show such a desperate condition. Only the mercy seen in Christ can give life where otherwise…death alone can reign and have ultimate “say”. Yes, Paul even went so far as to say he was “sold under sin” and to it, knowing unshakably there the necessity of being purchased out from it. And his only hope was in that purchaser and in the revelation of Him made to a man. Her had given up a will ineffectual (his own) to do or even be “better” …for a will not his own.
Now to many, and even a many remaining, Paul understood that in broadcasting this understanding, this sight, this revelation succinctly distilled in:
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
that some would turn this.
But it can only be turned by those who do not yet see the very hopelessness of being sold to sin, and by such thinking sin was what produced and was producing this grace…and therefore could either conclude (or accuse Paul of saying) “let us go on sinning to see more of grace” All this clearly manifests is that one has either not yet seen the Christ of God in whom is all grace and truth (and without sin) and alone from whom such flows, or has not yet apprehended this work of God. Mercy and grace are ministered by God through Christ, and as eternal issue and issuing are not sin dependent for their being. That God has purposed His way of making His grace and mercy known is to His glory, and even in His choosing alone of “to whom” it would be made known. Even the chiefest of sinners. And it may well be that only a “chiefest of sinners” might even begin to approach some right appreciation of this gift.
The test is simple. Just summon up in mind, if you are able, the one worse off than you in sin…and if you have, or can, or do…well…Christ is still waiting patently for your seeing. If you are made able.
There is nothing more delightful than being proved wrong if you can succeed in the first part of the experiment/test above.
And this I know by some kinship I will not deny…to both Adam and Christ. I am simply…unable.
And also that some would turn this to saying something it is not.
It is, and can only be by seeing the last Adam we even begin to see the first; and that “the all responsible One” who made him of clay to be a living soul with no fault to be found of any in his being what he is, or any fault aimed at the maker of him creating him thus. For even in that making was purposed the revelation of a second man.
As a lamb slain…
And to miss Him, is to miss all. And to still be seeking to assign blame…to someone, or somewhere, or to some thing…for your being the way you are.
Do you hate being just dust?
Christ has shown that for us…it’s still a good start. Is it good enough…for you?
To hold a treasure in an earthen vessel?
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
We cannot see Christ if we deny God’s order and orderliness. For us.
Yes, till then, we think we know better.
israelx7wordpresscom 