To say spiritual matters cannot be understood by the natural mind is simply repeating a truth that will be clear to all who follow Christ. It cannot be otherwise. There is no provision for a truce between what is of all hostility one against the other. A total victory is set to one as surely as a humiliating defeat is set to the other.
And one needn’t travel too far with Christ to learn this bit of info, if not made flesh to us as in Christ, no less carries a peril and warning with it to which we must attend. Not all that provokes hostility need be considered of the spirit. For the natural hostility of the man in the flesh against the spirit is no less at work in hostility against all other flesh. Yes, the man in the flesh may be seen to be hostile to God, His ways, and especially His Christ; but he is no less hostile against all, surely including all “other” men. Even as consequence to his hostility to God and His ways. And the mind must take a bend in training to understand this. Even, and especially for the believer, toward the scriptures; so that what we read is read as men made alive from the dead, and seeing men.
Order, orderliness, and consistency are all compatible in, and only in, the truth. And likewise in that circularity that is of God’s reasoning, truth alone brings order, orderliness, consistency, and compatibility.
Just as Adam after eating provided God, not with answer as to “Where are you?”, but with explanation for his hiding; no less does he do so when questioned further.
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Adam now betrays by his response his present estate, already made clear in providing explanations rather than simple answer:
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
How terribly rich in all aspects does this now show to what the man has descended. And of what he would impart to all generations after him till Christ come to man, or any man. And it is almost embarrassing that this might require or beg any further explanation or elucidation.
But what I am free to do, rather than seek to point out fault in Adam, or even any other; is confess of a man who has seen this in himself. He has seen in himself all ease of assigning to others in every or any matter by which he is called into question, as their fault. Someone else’s fault is what brings me into question. And God knows we have even all blamed Adam in some form or fashion, or found blame in or with him. But we come to see eventually as that particular fault is revealed in us, both how ubiquitous it is, and so commonly exercised as breathing as to mostly go unnoticed in the overwhelmingly commonness of its practice.
Was there anything factually untrue to what he, Adam, said?
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
But do we see? Do we…see? Do we taste that change that took place? Even see such a clear and frank manifestation of blindness in all testimony of unknowing to which that man, and all men after him, descended? Even how though, it seems to us when reading he appears the same Adam being addressed in consistency in the story, he is so clearly now speaking as one so totally divorced from former understanding as to be a completely different, (and with little doubt, to himself ignorant of that difference) man. A now dead man not even knowing himself dead. And also, it may be surmised by his words betraying inner disposition and attitude now to both the creation and God, bereft of understanding truth.
A man in no recognition of truth though he be able, and to us perhaps appear to be able, to state facts.
Order, orderliness, and consistency are all of gone to that man, if indeed they were ever there. And perhaps that is not a bad question to ask of his nature, any more than it might be to ask of our own.
Did a testing only reveal his already nature, or was something in power thrust to him to change his nature? Is what can fall already formed to a falling by intent and purpose of the one forming?
Was he made to be made a show of something, perhaps even to some end for comparing, or measuring against?
Paul understood and saw a difference so vast as to be beyond comparison, so that even any attempts at comparison (which is native to the natural man) would be put to shame.
There is Adam man. And there is Christ man. Two entirely different species of intent and purpose. One shown refusing to identify with “other”, (the woman YOU gave) one giving life to other.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
and
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
And what may remain of dusty thinking and identity is being handled ably by the spirit to the renewing of mind.
Unless one is none of His.
israelx7wordpresscom 