Author: israelx7

How long or often a man must consider what could…or “could have” happened pertaining to any circumstance, even in a sort of opposition to seeing what God has done and/or is doing, is not in his control. God knows.

We are both experience laden and experience burdened to whatever extent we are…even in this new life. And much of what we call the knowledge of experience has altogether come through natural reasoning(s) and natural observations. That’s just how it is.

There is a reason we are so often told in scripture to consider… or as Paul even wrote to “son” Timothy:

Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Other translations may use “reflect upon”, for our first impulse, of things not yet known in our experience is to question them…perhaps even doubt…which is neither wrong nor evil…for God knows unless a thing is made known or familiar to us, it must remain a mystery till uncovered.

How many times we are told to think upon and meditate upon…even so often by the Christ Himself in the gospels. Notwithstanding this also knowing of Christ…that so much of what he does and is doing is unknown to us…so that He would even tell those brothers…”What I do now you do not understand…”

But such consideration is to lead to understanding as only the Lord may grant.

Our proclivity is to see very much in terms of this or that. Even assigning good and evil or right and wrong to outcomes of which we may not see the Lord “playing the long game” in all the possibility that is alone His…and how…what at any one moment may appear to us…as even either evil or good…may be toward a far deeper, or eternal work.

It is not that we are not to commend toward the good nor, as the Lord allows, rebuke for evil and/or sin. God knows in how many circumstances that is not even the question. For it is not sin for a man to not understand a thing, but stiff neckedness does not go long unaddressed.

When the black dog appeared out of the deep darkness this early morning not a foot or two from my vehicle travelling at 50 mph, but was not hit, immediately thankfulness to God sprang forth. But also with an inward cringe at what to me appeared “could have been” (and to me, plainly) easily quite another outcome.

But it didn’t happen. God had ordained to happen…what did happen…and was in no requirement…even by or through my own experience of what “could have”, constraining Him to any obligation. I only saw two possibilities…and was quite grateful for the outcome of the one…but in God there are infinite, even all possibility, of which I am neither able to consider nor compute.

So even though it provoked gratefulness…there was no less a sort of rebuke…that if lingered too long over what might have been (according to my knowing)…or was a matter that could (in other circumstance) constrain me to less than gratefulness, a cauton was ministered. Even that in “what might be”…could cause a missing of all God is already doing…and has done. And either delay, impede, or otherwsie encourage interruption of what is to always be…because it is as always, right and fitting.

Gratitude to God both in…and for…all things. Without need to consider “what might have been”.

“If you had been here, my brother would not have died”

nevertheless…

But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

There is no thing that can be spoken against that provokes gratefulness to God…but may we, by His grace, have a care to not only think of those as “sometimes” things.

I believe an esteemed writer, not esteemed by me for his skill and crafting or fame (though both were considerable), but esteemed as a keen observer in Christ and of the things of the spirit, wrote in a vernacular that may be odious to some…but if granted to see to the heart of it might glean (even from the vernacular) a worthy understanding:

“You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from.”

― Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men

How God gets a man to believe, and not repeat by rote the following…is in His time alone…even through and past a man’s disposition to sometimes doubt it in experience:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Why was Paul such a staunch and immovable proponent of grace? God knows you may not wonder or much care. And though ultimately any and all gifting(s) of revelation start and end with the Alpha and Omega Himself, and that answer is never anything less than right, there are things any man may discover, as Paul did, that can help see as Paul also did…in regards to those matters of which he was given to speak and write.

If starting with his call one will find much, that place he speaks of in “when it pleased God to reveal His son in me”.

He recounts it, and others also recorded it. How that on the way to Damascus having letters of authority to imprison all or any who were calling upon the name of Jesus, He was spoken to by HIm. Christ revealed Himself as Lord to him.

What had Paul done? Did he make some confession of Christ, come to some place of repentance and implore that particular Lord of that name for salvation? Or was he altogether in the most severe opposition and loathing of that name? And that Saul was never Saul after that.

And he knew it, confessed it, would trumpet and unrelentingly seek after all that was in that name…both to our good, his benefit…but most assuredly and primarily, (unless one doubts) Christ’s glory.

Now, before any unwholesome thoughts take advantage, or seek to, to infer what is being implied is that “one must absolutely hate the Lord and in all work against Him” and then position oneself to that in order to be saved, that is not being said. Nor that every conversion will in all matters mimic his. Yet, he did not deny his experience nor estate of “breathing out threatenings” against all of that name…in and up to that very moment in which Christ appeared to him.

One might then think it plain that unless or until such revelation (and in such power to Saul/Paul) be made in the “seeing” of God’s Christ (no, not with natural eye) the heart is not touched, the new birth has yet to be revealed. But Saul/Paul knew. He knew, even while some disciples doubted in fear of him, this was real and true to and in him, and he would not deny.

But, there is more and far more; for Saul (our Paul) was once of a particular sort a man of such observance (and observance of the law) that now in seeking to know and understand that Christ of God by his new observance in light…those many prior things of which he was once so convinced of merit (and advantage to himself) now only served to obscure the Christ if allowed to rise in his heart. His labors, such as they were, to see and “know Him” in fullness he found were met by what opposed that seeing.

And God had made him diligent…at least (and to our gratitude) far more in another diligence that once persuaded him. He saw pride easily generated in any attitude of what would take advantage of any of man’s doing or doings and that such false elevation in pridealso worked against proper perspective of “looking up to” or looking away to Christ which rightly elevates a man to heavenly vision.

And he came to hate all of such matters whereby such advantage might be taken of pride…calling them all dung. And he held in himself…even by the word of truth in the One who qualifies and qualified him, that such had, if left unattended, a danger of disqualification. And though this may be strange to many if not most, such are not given as threat…but worthy words of keeping as caution…that sobers a soul to and for salvation. Only the believer will understand God is not threatening to any loss, but rightly informing a soul so that “true north” always be the heading.

Christ and Christ alone, God’s mercy shown there and in Him, God’s purpose and election by grace established in all by His sovereignty and vindicated plainly in His calling and choosing…so that no man may boast. Except in the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is not , as it first might be imagined or inferred to some exercise of God for the man’s shaming or denigration (as though lying in wait to pull a trump card against him) but that the end of all salvation, the seeing of the Lord “as He is” be fully accomplished in any believing man for his good, whose end is to glorifying God’s Christ.

Which is God’s good pleasure, for whom all things are created.

Do not be so naive as to think much opposition will not present, neither be so craven as to imagine the blame of that opposition is all and only attributable as elsewhere; whereby others may be blamed in some clever fashion of victim hood.

Paul understood upon what ground such contest took place, and what was battlefield…and what could take by occasion to have a man only “beating at the air”. Religiosity (even our own religiosity), perverseness, obstruction and resistance always lay closer to home than we would at first either care to imagine, much less confess.

Yes God has begun and is cleansing the earth by fire; first set to such kindling even by Him who wished it already were kindled. Like a man in the fiercest rains and winds with only one match, he performed flawlessly.

But He knew His calling and election to it…and would not relent…to God His father’s glory and our good.

We can easily be swayed and made drunk by what we once considered our authority or such that would grant us that before men, even as Saul. But Paul to come to love the Author and Authority of all entails a right heaping of dung…and even right shame and shaming toward what once caused us to seek to elevate ourselves. And that shovel, provided only by the spirit…has in it an also power of working to the uncovering things once hidden to us.

The glory in the Christ of God.

God’s economy is always perfect, the doing of a seeming “one” thing cannot but also accomplish another. While one digs for treasure one cannot help but toss that dirt somewhere.

Were we to consider the implications of “for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die” and such as being coupled with being dead in sins and trespasses, our confidence in the flesh must surely wither.

If we have any disposition toward some qualifying of this death as “spiritual” in any sense of making it less than actual, but only of a certain category, we are already upside down in not knowing that what is true spiritually is the all and only that is true…and real.

Oh, do not be deceived and confused as to biological motions having any “life” in them in God’s esteem. But it is so; that only what God esteems as true and/or life is all and only what is true or alive. And what is dead or He may call dead or in death…surely is in that reality of death.

What then? The man “feels alive” to himself…and in some form of consciousness or even thinking so that he bristles at the thought of being, or being addressed as dead. Yet, the truth of it remains.

We can see, if we can, that any preservation of anything (such as we might even call a remnant) is in all and every way owing only to the grace of God in its preservation. And for its preservation.

And it would be remiss to hold any notion that “dead” to God means non-existent, or absent from any of His knowing. No, it has the estate and state of dead(ness). But we are not (for the most part) used to thinking in these terms, we have in all the sense the dead are “no longer with us” and cannot, by any of or effort(s) be made to be back with us.

But what is before God…is well…before God. And there is nothing in creation (or beyond if one cares to know) hidden from His sight.

How then is anything done or what we may believe done or having been done (the record and recording of the scriptures, the testimonies of men) possible “among the dead”? It again, is all and only owing to the grace of God. And alone of His sustaining.

God does as He wills, does as He purposes…and (unless one has a rather small god) answers to no one. God has nothing over Him for owing…as author of all and reason for all, nothing can “hold Him” to anything (and surely not you nor I) but, He has, and does only toward the believer, made His word known. No sense of man’s reason, no sense of man’s rightness or fairness…or even such as what man would call mercy…can God be held to. God knows what all these things mean in reality, including “love”…man of himself having no clue. None at all.

But yes, He makes His word known to believer:

Even this:

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Even in that we understand but have care, lest we foolishly misunderstand to some contrariness “See, there’s something God cannot do! He cannot swear by one greater!” If we have any view of God with a ceiling above…even such as we might say…”But…well…no one lives upstairs of Him” we need light. No, our conceptions are most often shown very small…but any true conception, small as it may be, as must be and can only be given by God…is a start.

Who despises the small beginnings? There is yet joy ahead.

Our definitions tend to have lines around them, as a container might…to separate the thing described by definition, from all others…to “hold” the thing being defined. Dog doesn’t bleed into cat, nor vice versa. And if, even if, we may still see “all” (Who is the all in all?) as definable to our limning…God is faithful.

Go ahead, and do an experiment…it may be lifelong, God knows. If one cares to know the Father, cares to know the Son (and such care has its origins not “of man”)…look, see, seek, ask, knock and one will find there is no “line”, no space for defining one as opposed to the other or different, no placing of one “here” and another “there” as you might look at them to see difference. Or find a place…even if one think they are “tight”, a slimmest piece of paper (or thought and reason) can slip between. For then a man could occupy what no man can…that “space” between the Father and Son. It’s simply…not there.

Don’t try to insert yourself into non being…but hey…it’s your lab. I can make no law. But I can tell you about my experiments.

So I think (if I may be somewhat topical) of a story. It was called the “Sixth Sense”. Do you know it? I hate to give away spoilers, but at this late date…who doesn’t know?

Basically we follow a man and a boy…and such a man who doesn’t know he is dead. Other of the “deads” pop up along the way, but the story essentially revolves around this fellow not knowing he is dead. And we are, for the most part (I’d like to meet someone who says “I knew from the beginning wwhat it was about and what would happen”) so taken in by its set up, that at the end, when the man finally sees and learns that he (as well as we watching) was living in, or watching an illusion or delusion whereby everything was so well crafted as to give one appearance, while at the end…we finally see. It even provokes one to “go back” and look at all the scenes where we may have thought communication was taking place between this dead man and the living…but see…Oh, it was all an assumption according to the ways the scenes were constructed.

What we thought was happening…wasn’t really…at all.

Now, in some ways, except it was all so entertaining and rather engrossing (even in our delusions, watching) in construction as to “keep us” to the end…that one could say…the author is prankster. Or devious. Yet, it was interesting and interesting enough to keep us watching while not even barely aware of the great twist coming. That makes it even so much the more…interesting…and considerable.

Does the author have that “right”? To make or do according to his will…with no rule “above Him” (or that we might even place there) to keep Him to whatever sense of congruence we might like to enforce? Do you have a god too small?

For now I cannot let this consideration go. At least till I am made able.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

O, but man would say…even must say “Why…or who (even) tell another what to do knowing they cannot (are not able) or worse, knowing that the instruction will cause them to do all that is not of the doing, but take the form of provoking greater disobedience and trespass? This is not, nor ever can be to man’s reasoning. “It’s not fair to tell a toddler (or in this case, the dead) to lift a car”. There’s no reasonableness to it, in fact…it shows (as far as man is concerened) all lack of reason, opposed to reason…and making the speaker all of unreasonable to man.

“Why tell what another cannot do…and put it in such a way as it would seem you expect them to?”

But as a brother has said “The telling of a thing to do does not of itself have any provable presumption necessary that their is ability to do” In so many words.

How do the dead learn…they are “really dead?” Not sorta, not kinda like, not in some figurative way, nor some simulacrum of deadness…but…dead? Of all disability?

Paul saw and learned some things (if you find him a faithful seer and learner) that did (I have little doubt) set him so far against or opposed to the streams of natural reasoning…that thanks be to God, God had him record them, and God has preserved them.

And I have no doubt such strenuous opposition to Paul’s sight and understanding was not experienced by him. Oh, he knew very well how he was esteemed.

We may think of Paul in the foolish way we so often do (at least today)…that red carpets would be rolled out to him at every so called “church”…if God were disposed to present him to us again.

Oh, but you haven’t been a very good watcher if you are at all disposed to think so. Re-watch the story. Go back and look. See if you have not been taken in by what you thought was there and happening…but actually was not at all.

(This is too painfully obvious of Jesus, the very Christ, also)

But if you think Paul, the “great” apostle with whom you’d like to “share” your pulpit (and have in your pulpiteering and use of him to elevate yourself) has had anything to do with those excursions…think again. There’s still time to re-watch the story.

When he wrote to one of those few he trusted as entrusted, he said

Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

That “I speak the truth and lie not” is very telling…making appeal to his son in the faith that he is/was indeed an apostle. For no doubt much had gone out (even at that time) to question him, his revelation(s) and his calling. Doubt this? OK.

Many “super” apostles had emerged, men taking advantage for their own advantage of gatherings of sheep, whereby they might feast among them, and upon them.

Jesus does not lie.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Pulipiteers are not unlike profiteers, or pirates…taking what they may in advancing themselves as a “something”.

Using…to establish themselves. Even using callings now as their “titles”. Like a first first name.

Beware. The King is indeed coming.

“Depart from me I never knew you” only has the preserving power of warning to those who believe and know the terror of it is not beyond Christ’s saying.

That would be an unwelcome twist ending.

And therefore, we labor and strive…to really see the story…as it is, and not as we would like. Or presume. God hasn’t lied.

But He knows how well we can lie to ourselves. And He is not “beneath” (or above) even sending strong delusion.

Is He…allowed?

Now, that’s funny.

Allowing God to do…what He says.

How do the dead find out they are?

He speaks.

If this is yet troubling in what needs to be troubled by the notion God does as He pleases, speaks as He will(s) without any consideration of how another might receive or be disposed to it…especially if the presumption is all upon the hearer’s part (is it not?) that God is not such who would speak of matters that a man has all inability to do…yes…that must be troubling to what must be troubled. Taking even offense if need be.

But beyond that, this place where God leads a man to what is all untenable to himself, is where is found even that purpose for such…the revelation of the grace of God in abundance.

But where sin abounded…grace did much more abound.

God’s pleasure in leading a man into all of his own inability serves His great pleasure in the revelation of His son “full of grace and truth”…and where man finds what he cannot do is what leads him into all that only God can do and does. The ministry of grace through Jesus Christ.

And of the 30 odd translations available at hand to me, in every case it is that past tense that does not escape being used.

did much more abound

abounded

multiplied

overflowed

did overabound.

As a dear apostle used to remind me and any who could hear…”sometimes you gotta get really mad before you get glad.”

God has handily handled…sin. By even its provoking to an overwhelming response to its extinguishment through Christ. By the death of His Christ.

He flushes out all unlawful hands.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Predetermined that He would be delivered…even into hands of all unlawfulness, no less determined.

And they were cut to the heart.

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

Through Paul (as in Christ) God has also given us…

God knows.

Have you ever been in a kangaroo court?

You understand Jesus was brought to one, right?

And it is neither too bold nor remiss to say if Christ is in you now, you are now in one.

All manner of false charges are prepared against you, and being prepared, in vain hope of maneuvering you away from Him. And make no mistake, though the demons may be far more persuaded of the fact of the resurrection than some, even believers, are; yet they have no access to is the truth of it. Truth of matters is off limits to them.

This is reserved to His alone.

This is why demons so frantically and furiously labor and strive under burden only of fact(s), never knowing nor understanding the further significance of them. For even in their knowing of appointment to torment, fixed, assured, and without controversy; they are still provoked to mindless fury burning themselves up.

They besought the Lord to send them into the swine, for their only delight is in inflaming a host, and He did. He allowed for what they asked.

This and these facts would be strange indeed. Is Jesus being merciful to demons? But what do His see?

His see that apart from a stronger hand preserving a host by His choosing, death alone is immediate result. The flesh has no resistance in it or to it to their fury. “Self preservation” is entirely overridden.

This is caution to us who may be inclined to think the demon ridden, the most foul practitioner(s)…(who we may see continuing) are being kept, but only by the hand of God. And whether they are being preserved to wrath and judgment or salvation…we may not know…but we can know apart from the power of God in their keeping for whatever His purpose, they would quickly dispose of themselves.

Even those demons who provoked the man to cut himself with stones knew their restriction, so that in God’s due time the mercy of His Christ would deliver him. And it would be known. And known to be understood in truth…yet not as those who besought him later in all fear…to “leave them alone”.

And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.

One may consider how demons are always ready to inflame, abet, assist, and provoke further any sense of self righteousness found present.

No, it is not being said anyone is particularly possessed, anymore than we find Jesus casting a demon out of Peter when his own sense of what ought to to be as opposed to the Lord’s declaration of what is and would be was rebuked by Peter. Jesus knew who and what was taking occasion to speak through him (Peter).

Peter’s sense of “what is right” was offended by the Lord (and who of us does not know that experience?), yet nowhere is Peter described as possessed. Yet we may consider that if left unaddressed (even with, or by strong rebuke) where such self righteousness may lead. This is both caution and preservation for us.

Whether early and immediate (as in Peter’s case) or later when we may feel a sting of rebuke, it is far better to hearken to it than deny.

And I could regale you with instances and attitudes made known to me (yet always clear to the Lord) that in “coming back” to a more sober mind cause a cringing in their exposing and provoking to a repentance and clear confession as sin.

Here we may find comfort in words once obscure. And an experience I am persuaded the apostle writing did not drawn from “thin air”.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

No, for those who understand and know something or anything of this as opposed to any who might yet find these words obscure…it is not Christ bringing up past sin or sins, or throwing them in our faces to shame. It is in His housecleaning, His touch upon attitudes once obscure to us, His being of that living word that divides soul from spirit and is discerner of the hidden thoughts and intents of the heart.

And if you have not yet had once precious attitudes and motives brought up for the reviewing in His light of clarity displaying what they truly are in that light…about all that can be said is be ready for the Lord’s appearing.

For the Lord’s appearing by His presence is very provocational [sic]. To some it is salvation, to some a further inflaming.

And the Lord was dragged (as appointed) to a kangaroo court.

And in all appearing and right speaking he was present to the high priest. Those around brought false witness, those around brought accusation, those around demanded answer whereby, in their maneuvering and thinking they could, manipulate Him to give something self condemning they could use against Him.

And when finally speaking, and speaking truth, truth had clear effect upon hearer(s), in particular the high priest. Do you think Jesus did not know Leviticus 21:10?

How that by such doing the high priest had not only abandoned any seat of judgment he might have had claim to in abrogating the law and now himself needing offering for sin, but was himself, in his rage effectively removing himself from that seat (as he had to to make room for another, and “better).

One could suppose if one were able to drag Caiaphas into the light (God knows, he may already be there, I do not know) and able to search out the incident the plea of “I could not help myself, His claim too outrageous, too insulting to God, far too enraging in its blasphemy (to me)…that yes…it both merited such severe reaction…and I could not help myself”…might be made.

That happens doesn’t it? An overstepping and into sin when we “feel” so very provoked by a righteousness we, at that time, may assume is the Lord’s working through us to such indignation and outrage…till it is made clear it has been no more than our own self righteousness we feel struggling for breath in the Lord’s presence.

Yes, Jesus could have easily said…”You have no right to judge me, your seat is empty by your doing” but He understood what was being accomplished and how that a corrupt house has in itself all of judgment necessary to its own demise.

And I have flubbed, fluffed, failed and been frustrated in so many attempts at self defense as to be, if God so choose, a prime example of all and how one should not proceed. If it pleases God to do so…who could resist anyway?

Even as I may assume Caiaphas may have had some plea, I am no different, nor have been when in all rebuke by the presence of Lord’s righteousness. I cannot help myself.

I too have known a raging and very angry man.

Even made more so by assumptions of his own righteousness.

For a game to work requires suspension of disbelief. Not unlike a movie, or story, it can only hold attention for as long as one is willing to “let go” of it being a fabrication, a contrivance, a representation of a thing by another that is less than all true and quite manipulated. (See that focus on a tear in the heroine’s eye? Someone really wanted you to know her love was pure and true) And one has to lend a sense of importance to it, as though by whatever means it mattered, or is of some consequence itself. And it must be found interesting enough for the giving of time to it in attention.

Also, and no less, it must have some inner congruence even if all fabricated; an adhering to some form of rule (for which penalties are also supplied when rules are abrogated) so that outcome is (ie. winning/losing) holds some form of legitimacy or a right of being assigned. A real winner and a real loser or losers.

And I do not know (do you?) that all and every game is nothing more at heart than a fight game. And there must be, at least to the game, some sense of fairness overall that lends legitimacy to the adjudging of winner and loser. No one would, unless so craven of heart and manifestly perverse (which actually is not beyond consideration, here) come to watch Mike Tyson take on a 4 year old. Or the Yankees take on a little league team of 10 year olds.

Yet, our love of slaughter is easily provoked by games and gaming, so that even such perverseness bears considering. It may be more satisfying to our own sensibilities for a time when our team “slaughters” an opponent of seeming equal (and how much the more of seeming superior?) stature; but eventually, the lust toward such slaughter cares little for how it is satisfied. Winning is all that matters, and against and over all comers.

Now I know that few, if any, are not merely un-fond but repulsed by notion that God is rigger of all. The house that cannot and will not lose. This in all seems not only unfair, but monstrous. He is simply too big to be “allowed” to set rules if also in the contest and is also able to fully enforce (answerable to no other, especially our own sense of fairness) all He sets down. What “choice” do any have in such…game? There is no “no playing” (or is there?) for all or any finding themselves now “on the board” or on the field of contest.

The question must then become but is God in contest, in competition, opposing anything…so He may “win”? One might have a very small god if thinking so. Yet a game seems so real, so ongoing, overarching, so established (“good” games last over millenia, like wrestling) and no less have that appearance and appeal of being so real. (Check the graphics on a video game, a very far way from Pong in a few short years)

If the “sure thing” (the house) is indeed a sure thing and cannot be played against to any winning (for all creation was made subject to futility/vanity…) tell us again what choice does one have, if part of that creation, in regards to any notion of winning? Things may be making themselves more clear…one might “hope”.

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Or, as another (Weymouth) translation would say:

For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality (not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it)

And, no doubt, there are many translations.

Might it not be that in such failure and “unreality” we have sought to draw God into a game that seems so real to us, but of which He clearly has no part, but yet (He) determined we must do so?

Now, you must like this even less. More than repulsion, is some anger stirring? Finding we have drawn God (or some notion of Him) where He does not go nor fit for the justifying of our own game(s)…which He even determined we must do? Now the inescapable seems even more inescapable, confining, restricting in all and to such unpleasantness (never mind suffocating constriction) that at best we might only peep out with final breath…”Help!”.

And it will only be in the final breath in which this is found, if found at all. After that, though it may appear one is “living” (as one once only thought they did) it will not be my natural respiration.

No, it’s easy to see why such is too unpleasant to consider. Unless one has to apart from choice. That such matters have been chosen for him in his forming to be inescapable.

Do you think those Jews hearing on the day of Pentecost were described of hyperbole? You who may “stand on the Bible” as all of true and without contradiction in every deepest sense? Were they “cut to the heart” or only like so, only figuratively so? Do you not know what a cut to the heart does? A man with such has no doubt he is dying. Reverse your thinking so that the physical cut to the heart is not the real, but only represents by image a true estate given in the land of types and shadows…and know what real is. Am I too direct? Too abusing of unreality? Do you still reason from the below thinking you will apprehend the above? Or do you see from above to understand that which is beneath? And that, not because of your own will or desire to place yourself there? It’s simply where real…only is.

And the following only holds sense from there…or there. For it came from “there”. What so many may have some delight in embracing as the unbreakable word of God. And so, so many, have enjoyed taking some stand upon that for their own elevation. Their own game. (Too direct? God knows)

The Creator in speaking the unbreakable spoke this:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

How do you read? How do you hear?

Beyond even the most facile apprehension that God is both commanding and warning, are you able to see that if that second part is “just” warning how that it must fall on all in-apprehension? What does Adam know of death; has he ever seen it? Know anything of it…at all? Know enough of a thing he has never seen nor experienced to take warning of it? Does that seem…unfair?

Then this will seem even more so.

If indeed, as it is, what we may call that second part is not really warning at all, but not less than the declaration of “a day” that is, and must no less come to Adam, then we may begin to see the futility assigned the creature. Destined (or predestined) to eat and die. Even despite what at first (maybe all such who have ever read once held) as fair warning.

Adam compelled to play a game of which he had no idea of the stakes.

And one can only accuse that God of being or seeming monstrous in this…(and all and any that may believe in Him) if he has not seen the Christ. Yes, He cannot but be opposed till then. And none will win that game.

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Now…who is going to “help” God?

Don’t suspend your disbelief, see the game for what it is. And see Him for both what He is, and what He is not. Why He is loved, but also why He is so hated.

A ruiner of the game for everyone.

Some are happy. Some are sad.

And only He can save from a great woe.

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

But who doesn’t want to be thought well of?

Depends upon where one is looking for eyes. And whose word one believes.

Jesus Christ, regardless of what one may think of him, was neither reluctant nor timid in regards to addressing the game within the game. He saw it, understood it, easily identified its earmarks, and to his own hurt, was diligent to expose them. He is the author stepping on and into the stage and staging with its props, its characters, its scripted lines and determined actions with the promise of reality to any who would undertake his dread course of escape. And he knew, as none other, that only certain of the characters were made eligible to this by an informing from the very place he too had come. And make no mistake, despite all his conviction, his entrance was as assigned him “born of a woman, born under the law” even to such end that none could recognize him lest they too had heard from that very place from which he had come.

In this place, where all are born of woman in all commonness, he was speaking only to the uncommon to it. Those who later, yet in every way like him, also find themselves “sent into the world” as he spoke to those “As the Father has sent me, so send I you…”

And also make no mistake, he was able to marvel in discovery of who might “get it”. Though much is made of the Centurion’s trust that one word from him was enough to heal a servant apart from the necessity of his physical presence or proximity to the one sick, this is not what was astounding to Jesus of that “great faith”. What was astounding was the Centurion’s grasp of Jesus being “a man under authority” and even so strictly so that his word carried all power in that estate.

While the disciples themselves may have equated him to whatever degree with such as Moses and Elijah (themselves noted for “miracles” done through them) in wanting to build three tabernacles, this Centurion saw as they did not. Not a “miracle popping man” simply able of himself or his own discretion to do a thing…but a man under authority. That Centurion understood the rules of the game far better than those to whom the rules were first given. Even for the game, and that from which the game within it developed.

That one may not like these references to game or gaming, take that up with Paul: 2 Tim 2:5. If one’s religiosity is such that easily taking offense (thinking it such a fine discerning) consider that God himself made the gaming grounds subject to all particular slant that the house must always win: Rom 8:20 and 2 Cor 13:8. There is no winning against the house. And if one doubts they are once surrounded, even immersed in only types and shadows, these simulations of the real, (and even by the real to His purposes) wake up! And find rest elsewhere: Col 3:3. And those appointed to awakening, will. And escape.

Yes, the game is rigged. Only the designer, who does all things for His good pleasure, and whose pleasure cannot nor will not be denied, knows all about the game. Who and or what runs “lawfully”/legitmately and those who are seeking to bend matters to their own game within that game. To such Jesus is quite frank and offensive (for he saw what was in their hearts just awaiting the provocation of truth for revealing).

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Well, how do we like that? Such a rude man! Speaking to those who took their stand as a something for having received the rules, yet not keeping them. Or, in another place with such inner claims of superior paternity John the Baptist also speaks:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Yes Jesus knows all about the game…and further the game within the game we develop for “cheats”.

And no, God cannot be pulled into our games, though he fully set up the board. It is for Him to supply way out as so choosing. If so choosing to such revealing.

“When it pleased God to reveal His son in me…”

Paul saw the cheats and dumped them, calling them dung. Things that might “give him advantage” in such (but only if the game were competing against “others”) but he was delivered from that derivative gaming. No, his sole quest was to know the author, the designer, even while in the midst of all “types and shadows” that appeared so compelling…he stretched forward and beyond.

He was being pulled out…and he knew very well this was not of any of his own doing. But he felt it, even as do we at times, yet he without any illusions that because such was so intensely and personally felt…he would confuse it with his own work or efforts. “For it God at work within you”…he said. And that someone who was at work in him also worked to keep defiling hands off so that even in midsentence he would correct himself (to any with eyes to see)

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

“yet not I” he wrote. He could have erased all the prior “but I laboured more abundantly than they all” to make an appearance of being the more “humble” but he would not deny us the seeing of both his need of, and the continually reality of correction present…even to such a one who could probably, above most, if not all take a stand upon his labors.

But…even “that work” of being so transparent (is Paul too transparent for you?) was not his own…but God’s. But Paul had learned when the true substance of that which we call light (in our types and shadows, that seems so insubstantial) actually spoke of the true (of which it only represented) that was truly of such force and power…that when hitting anything holding its own substance to itself and for itself…knocks it down. As a strong wind does a solid…it is far better to be a screen in such case, or absent all together in transparency when the wind of such true light comes.

And we, who are sometimes called christians, or even fond of thinking or calling ourselves so with whatever fondness we do, eager to display our work(s) or so often marvel at the blindness of others…even those who we may say “did not see the truth though He stood right before them and speaking to them”. How could they be so blind…and (thankfully) so unlike “us”?

One hears a million sermons and sermonizers…and most probably not unlike myself at all.

Forgetting that game is rigged. Forgetting what Paul said in regards to blindness and the why of it to some. And who has assigned it with purpose.

Who has assigned blindness and sight?

In whose hand are all, and always for His good pleasure to do with as He alone pleases?

Do we have “Paul” as some others had Moses? Take some stand on his words as being “from God” and of same spirit of Christ?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

One may say I have seen God’s patience, as have I on so numerous occasions. But that means little or nothing for God endures with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, too. My experience means nothing…if all I see is my own seeing.

If there be any presumption of estate developed from our own seeing, our own experience, our own so called standing to ourselves…God will either faithfully and mercifully cut these away, or just let us continue in the “set up” to breaking without remedy. While continually trying to game Him.

So few I have met or known who understood the implications of Paul’s saying this:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

“We” and “or an angel from heaven”. Would God send an angel to deceive? Or, strong delusion? Could Paul assure himself against turning?

What is only hope? For it cannot be “hope against that” for there can be no hope against God’s choosing. Only hope for it.

The one who “came into the simulation” and dwelt amongst types and shadows and images of the real, never relinquished his seat above and in the bosom of the Father. He dwelt as real in the land of less than real.

I think of him when Paul says “not of the Jews only, but of the gentiles” and Jesus dealings with a woman who wanted healing for her daughter.

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

What card is played when called a dog?

It takes no faith for a man to think himself wonderful, skillful, knowledgeable, accomplished, been around the block, seen some things, learned some things…knows some things.

But what does he have when all this is shown of nothing?

What or who, remains?

This can be resisted…just never successfully.

“which he had afore prepared unto glory,”

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So much for even “trying” to run…lawfully. Trying to keep one’s self in bounds…or show one’s self a “better” runner. The ditches really do have a “work” in them.

It’s enough to just not be a bastard.

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

It may be of some interest, though I am not entirely sure, how much is often come to in recognition of debt. A discovery of an owing, most often in gratitude, to things we once formerly overlooked or were once in all of ignorance. It can range from an appreciation of parents, teachers, friends, instructors, even to those things more vague to us in impacts of experience(s). The forming of who we are, and if at all content in it and beyond some wishing we were someone other, we learn, is owed mostly to those people and matters over which we recognize we have had no control.

Now, of course, the embittered person may sense none of this nor care for such considerations, and may rather view those things uncontrolled as having done nothing but harm to him. And I am not sure the very proud will have much, if any, appreciation of these thinking he believes he has arranged himself according to his own good choice(s). The very self made man. (If there really be such a thing)

So, to those who may even have only the vaguest sense of that which I speak, I speak. And I have some hope to, even according to a man whose way of thinking also has impressed me much. Who was not reluctant to describe himself as debtor. And who came to understand to whom all ultimate sense of debt, even though un-repayable, was owed.

But even this in experience may not be strange to those who have come this far in reading with some sense of that which I speak…for myself having deceased parents to whom I must acknowledge much; there is much gratitude though it is without any hope of repayment. And a great part of that, this depth of gratitude, is in some measure deepened by seeing they would have neither expected it nor sought it. How much the more then is sensed as owed! Do you not yourself find some feelings of gratitude for those who have done right by you, simply believing it was all, and only right to do so? Not in service of some other agenda? I really don’t know of greater love, nor example of it.

Therefore, though it may be oddly received of some perhaps, how I now must acknowledge some form of debt to those who have stridently resisted me…and particularly those who call themselves atheists that have done so. Whether of my pretense or sincerity, where I may have sought to present a thinking God as a, or even the reality, some have resisted to such extent to press me (who believed he served this very conscious and thinking God) to think…even more. And to do so convinced this is done in the presence of that God I believe.

And that, of course, is the crux of all these matters that may be in contention, is it not, that there is a thinking and conscious reality of [a] Being, even responsible for all? Or not…that all is random and of a chaos without order or orderliness or design…adhering to “sometimes” laws (as we may know them) but subject to finding them contradicted in certain circumstance. Or by certain experimentation.

For under duress, or extremes of observation even what we call the material universe can be observed to behave far differently than once we thought. Really bringing all into question about what we do, or may call, the material universe. (For anyone who cares to, you may read about Lord Rutherford and the impacts such discovery had upon him. Even to a man afraid to leave his bed)

https://www.factfiend.com/physicist-scared-falling-bedroom-floor

We may both, or all, believer and professed atheist alike…speak of beginnings. And if one is a strict materialist (if there be such a thing) the easily poked holes into some claim of “everything had to come from somewhere or something” that one may propound as irrefutable proof of a conscious initiation of all matter, should be plain. For when asked or confronted with “therefore even (a) god cannot be exempt from such a thing as a beginning” by that argument, is often odious to the believer. “No” he may protest, “God is what (or who) has no beginning nor any end” and the facile argument that “everything” must have had a beginning outside of itself (by an initiator) must no less, crumble. For the materialist might then respond with “if you make an exception for a “something without beginning or end” in such argument…who is to say such might not be as easily applicable to the material?

And I have heard many arguments and contentions, often being part of them, myself. And the matter of beginnings, of what is real vs what is of imagination and conjecture or speculation, are often rife with these contentions. And again, as it cannot be over stressed, is the matter of consciousness and thought “present” to all, even sustaining all, or just the apparent randomness of material acting in all materiality according to its own being of restrictions upon it.

But this also cannot be over stressed, such verbal arguments (or written) are acknowledged as owing to thought and/or consciousness in observation(s) and expression. Apart from the existence of consciousness (and thought) such do not (can they?) take place. To me this is prima facie and any contradiction otherwise would be far more than absurd. Then the question must follow, even to each, “is thought/consciousness real?” And though I, for the purposes of this writing may seem to equate them (thought/consciousness) I am less than convinced that in all things they are the same. But there is enough for us to consider them, for now, at least coupled. Unless one cares to disagree, to which I cannot but be receptive of hearing.

Now, that question of “is consciousness real?” has far deeper implications than I can express. And none need answer, to each inwardly they already have. Unless you are one unconvinced they think in reality. And that such thinking is (actually) real to them, perhaps with nothing other more real to them than their thoughts; for it is all and only by such we even have and hold any notion of reality and any hope of expression of the observable. We are either “truly” in some form of consciousness or consciousness does not exist; or taking that proposition to a more absurd end that one (them self) is sole possessor of it. As in “I know I think, but I am not at all convinced you do”. Which actually may be a far more prevalent attitude than one might admit, or care to consider.

And one may even expand upon some premise that all communication is to find whether one is alone in their thinking, or may, somehow, reach by communication a mind not unlike their own, also “in thinking” and consciousness. Able to find and establish connection. And we could also argue whether communication ever actually takes place or we are just screaming into a void and at best, only receiving a vague echo from images we believe real. And, we could “go there” if one cares to.

But if you are unconvinced you are the only one who thinks (or possesses consciousness) we then have basis to continue.

The proposition (not unlike myself) is ridiculously simple. And it is offered to the strict materialist whether of “Big Bang” persuasion or something other as to beginnings. (For one could easily ask “what was before the Big Bang”? A more remote beginning of material, one could suppose.) And this would not in any way establish a theist’s contentions. Material (and energy) one could simply argue “always is”…even if we can only see or theorize back to what our observations inform. Inform to our consciousness.

The proposition is again simple. At least if one has any concession to consciousness and thought being a “real” thing. Is it more or less real than a rock…which at best is only considered “real” by consciousness and thought(s) about it? Consciousness may be the most fundamental “matter” of all we are allowed to consider, reasonably. For unless we confess to it, make some claim (even if only to ourselves) as having it, upon what other is anything constructed for knowing? In that sense it is prima facie proof and of all necessity, especially if we no less consider communication as a real thing.

The simple proposition: If material (and/or mindless energy) is truly all there is, and “in the beginning” is all and only material from which, and of which all we observe (your house, my house, your car, my car, that star or that star all present in some form of material) is all and only the real and true, and that consciousness itself was “not there” in whatever beginning we may ascribe, then whence came it?

Could what had no owe-able consciousness “at beginning” then create from itself something that never was, or in it, or to it, before? Yes, materially my car and yours is in there somewhere, this and that star, this and that rock, our bath towels, bananas, and toenails. But if consciousness “is/was” not there (as some might contend) seeing only arrays of atoms, subatomic particles as building blocks being acted upon by all and only ignorant forces, whence your intelligence? (Such intelligence that even “projects back” to occupy that space of time looking for intelligence)

Of course this is no “proof” of anything, (much less God or a god) but unless one is prepared to deny their own consciousness as real, there are matters we might consider. Even beyond what are called the material. Or mindless energies.

If you are my atheist friend, you may see the conundrum presented if one says “consciousness always was…and is” at very least in potential in all material and is not something new to material at all, nor not present already in all matter. Then you may be at best a pantheist.

For in that mix of material was/is also what constitutes your brain whether one believes it really thinks or not. (How one could think they do not actually think…would be curious at best)

Yet it, your and my brain, may not actually be the seat of consciousness. But that seat is worth searching out.

For if one’s consciousness is all and only of random or chaotic construction, how can it be trusted for any reliable data?

You expect more from your speedometer, and a pilot their altimeter.

Can there be reason in a thing apart from reason for a thing?

And in this universe, do any of us ever truly claim to have no reason?

Even in ourselves?

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, addresses the matter of the passing perishable (and its necessity) to the putting on of the imperishable. He speaks of death, sin, and law in their relationship to one another for the stirring of hope in their being delivered from through Christ. There is no other way of deliverance Paul has always stoutly maintained and, of course, remains unrelenting to this premise throughout. Christ alone is able, has done, does, and is the only source of such deliverance to the believer. Reliance upon anything other will only show the vanity that under girds such misapprehension.

That this must be settled to us as not merely “Paul’s stance” but made to us as true in all, God will patiently show…even through any or all of our own misadventures. And only in following God’s Christ do we truly begin to learn and see both our own folly and the strongholds of such “other thinking” that run so deep; that we may come to know only the miracle of new birth severing at root the natural and its inclinations, is sufficient to us. Yet, we are to be renewed in mind from a, even that, life giving spirit that is Christ. We must be trained to “think anew”.

We learn a significant part of that training is a rebuke to our old ways, not yet enlightened by spirit. We might like to have it some other way of ourselves…but this is not, and cannot be so. In one sense God has allowed for us to “make our own mistakes” that such learning be real to us and that rebuke, once a thing so strenuously sought to avoid is itself even changed to comfort through the Lord’s word.

“As many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent”

And what would one exchange for the knowing of such love? Is the seeming comfortableness of “no rebuke”…worth it? God forbid! Therefore we needn’t hold pretense with or among one another that “some of us” have come to anything apart from a trail of often painful correction(s). As though “we got it” or get it, either better, or in some other fashion than another.

God forbid we lie to one another or accept to ourselves some better station that has exempted us. Indeed, one may be so bold, if one could do so apart from accusation of “other brothers” to note that those chosen of very foundational ministry (apostles) have their own stories to tell of their own mistaken-ness, and that without shame.

One may begin to see the wisdom of Christ in such calling and choosing of such men…not to be seen as “always” paramounts of virtue, loyalty, clear thinking and astute spiritual insights…but rather as example of what Christ can do with “the most common of men”.

But I dare not sound as though by such they are “brought down” in accusation…but that only each would come to understand, teach, lead by example of being a product of the miraculous power of God…that He can take what is most common…and transform.

That I bang this drum loudly and often is a must for me, a man so easily given to think himself so “very special” as to have heaped all manner of griefs to himself by such silly presumption. Yes, for me it is safe. To be reminded that only God can make a man, and it is enough to be one, despite all my occasions of trying to be “more”. Or see myself, or present myself…as “more”.

In one sense God finds in me a full time job, yet I have never found Him growing weary in it. He is always ready, willing…and quite able…to rebuke. It’s almost like He has a pleasure to show someone other than the one I so naturally gravitate toward for viewing. Nah, forget “almost like”…it is that He has a great pleasure in showing someone other than me…to me. Yes, for me it is safe. And the “who” he shows instead has never left me disappointed.

So looking “through” Paul to see Christ (and I am persuaded Paul was fully joyous in being made able to “look through”…as transparent) I find a strange turn of phrase in his exposition about law, sin, and death. He says this in one place:

“The sting of death is sin”…[and the power of sin is the law.] 1 Cor 15:56

At first glance I think otherwise, or tend to want to. Shouldn’t it be otherwise?

“The sting of sin is death”?

Isn’t death the sting? But that is not what is written, and this all despite our understanding of the wages of sin, how it “pays out” (even to death) so that death would seem the ultimate unwanted consequence in all? That is where the “sting” is made known, no? Yet he writes

“The sting of death is sin”

Have I been “all wrong”…again? Or what is being said…in order to be understood in better light?

Might it not be that Paul, in his wisdom learned, his revelations given him saw something quite differently…but true nevertheless, that is to be considered?

Could he possibly be saying in my “getting it wrong” about death being the sting, the totally “unwanted thing” that must be refreshed, renewed? It must be. It cannot…but be.

If we take death as the “signal” of wrongness, that is sin, then dying is the immutable proof of sin’s presence. And this is not inconsistent with the necessity of the flesh’s death, surely. But on the other hand we dare not let go of the Lord’s promise of deliverance from sin (and even death)…that even such promise given to what is, and while in, these earthen tents.

Is it therefore, not merely possible…but true, that there is a death that does not speak of, nor indicate the sin of the “dying one”?

Of course! But whose alone is it? Who died a true death…yet not in consequence of His own sin…having none? Ahh…do we not see a blessedness held out? A promise even there that dying need not hold all pointing to the shame of sin in us? Yes, we accept the consequence of being in a perishable tent (didn’t He?)…but if or when we come to such compelling in us to hold to the Lord’s glory alone, that even He be glorified in our mortal bodies by His alone quickening spirit…do we see that there is an acceptance of “a” death that is not pointing to sin in the embrace of it? And this, not only so as something to grasped at, evolved to…but actually already given us in Christ!

Oh, I know how silly I sound…that almost every child can repeat:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Yes, it is true…and often so very widely accepted and repeated, as well it ought to be.

But now the reality of “a” death apart from pointing to the shame of sin is made ours, is made real…a death so precious (if indeed it is precious to us to even glorify the Lord in a temporary tent) that all our falling short in any or whatever sense…is not being held to some ultimate end of showing all our imperfections as indicated by the suffering of death.

To those of whom this may seem “old news”, that are very well exercised in the Lord’s death as to be ho hum about it, no doubt I sound a fool. But for a man who is all too familiar with his own failings, his own strivings, his own utterly failed and failing attempts to appear “more than a man” (even thinking that that the Lord might be rightly served in this)…it is a glorious relief. A “christian” man, a “spiritual” man, whatever kind or sort of man is held out with illusory promise of making one “better” that the shame of his failings be not “so obvious”…has hope! A man…no more than a man. And never called to be other…but to learn, as only through One, how OK it is to be “just a man”. And that only God…can make a man…when all illusions of being “self made” are being shown for the folly they are.

What a relief to not seek to be a “better” man. There is no such thing. But there is God’s only begotten Son…who alone is “true” man. A man so good and true in all He does not withhold His death from sharing as though clutching it to Himself to hoard all glory to Himself.

But this man:

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

And He was sent…to die…without shame. He gloried in it.

His Father’s will.

When we discover (as only Christ can lead us) how easily we are maneuvered toward pleasure(s) and away from suffering(s), we may come to see a thing. It is our very disposition toward such that allows for such maneuvering. We are wholly, and till such time as Christ reveals, devoted to pleasure(s) as a good thing, any pain or suffering as evil or bad. Christ knows this very well of us.

It really is not a reach to say that the fall (our fall) itself was an attempt to right a something we perceived as lack to an abundance of having. But if you think you are entirely unlike Adam, at all, one need only look closer. For there can be no motion from first Adam into last Adam apart from once being (even knowing) one was (and to whatever extent remains of mind) of the first Adam.

He is not “bypassed”. This renewal of mind exhorted is from a something to another something. First comes the natural, then the spiritual. And it is only by this that a seeming paradox can even be seen to provoke to resolving…for actually it is the spiritual one, Christ Himself, who is before all. But we must “go through” our natural first…to have any apprehending of the spiritual. We all share in ourselves, such natural beginning to ourselves.

It is, in that sense the “great equalizer”. No man has ever, nor would, nor could…claim in truth any more natural disposition to loving God in obedience…than Adam could. This is a hard word for any who still find comforts from their flesh, or thinking themselves in some way(s) better than another. No natural man is or ever has been more obedient to God than Adam, and Adam was/is disobedient. We can read of Adam as “other” till we awake and see our own selves. In truth we can think of all men as other till we see ourselves. For us to our own knowing, God has purposed to start with dust, clay…and make a living soul. And till Christ be revealed in us as the preeminent of all, the soul informed of flesh and dark messengers, holds all sway. But, and only, when it pleases God to reveal His son in us, then all is changed.

And strangely (but not to God) we learn the method of this glorious revelation made able to be delivered is, and has been, through a most humiliating and painful instrument set in place to our liberation. We delight in knowing ourselves as changed (and it is entirely fitting) but we cannot deny it came at a terrible cost through a (once) terrible instrument. Add to this (have you added to this? have I?) this was neither accident…nor ultimately of any man’s doing, despite the hands that handled him and put Him to it and on it.

No, this is, and has been solely in and through the plan of God. It (even!) God help us all, “pleased Him” to do it. There is no indication of scripture nor spirit that God had a wincing in it, or even a “I hate to have to do this…but…”. No, and as need be, read again from the prophet Isaiah.

Or consider “the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?”

This may be a grand matter, this may be the smallest matter of all…God knows. But for me, and what I trust has been God’s work in a man (even a man like me) to come to both any merest understanding that God delights to show mercy, even to such delight as to “be pleased” to put His own Son through this to that end…convicts me that He does indeed have a pleasure in mercy I may know little about…but is surely worth the investigating.

Add to this that this specter, this thing lifted up, this man lifted up…looking nothing like a King, nothing like a superior, nothing like anything but what itself is being broken and far more in need than mercy than I…is where I can only go to find it. Even, and only from Him. To see it. To even in some way, come to appreciate the way of God in it. If for you there has been a real “of course, only a silly man would have any need of such a a things as this being resolved to himself…”…well…you have now met that silly man.

“Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief” I am not so foolish (only by the grace of God) to abandon only to another’s plea. A man “not like me” who once spoke so.

How to square this doing. Yes at first it appeared all too lovely a story, a story of ultimate sacrifice. on behalf of others. But I am not as sure now as once I was I was enticed as much by the truth of it (to myself) as the loveliness of it. Yes…I “saw” it ( a miracle) but its main appeal was of the “niceness” of it. Who wouldn’t want to know one who “gave all” for them, and on their behalf?

But seeing in part the very truth of it…(to whatever extent I have been allowed and granted by grace) of a man who, with a word to His Father could have gone around the whole of it with more than 12 legions of angels; but instead endured it, embraced it, refused being pitied in it, refused being made numb to it, refused even counting it so dear in all pain to Himself that he could not hear the plea of another there.: “Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom…” It is where loveliness and truth must merge, as terrible a truth it may even seem. This is God’s way…of showing what He delights in: mercy. And that good Son could not be moved to deny it. It flows there.

Sometimes a thing can be made clearer (a bit) by saying what it is not. And I cannot lie to you and deny my very first inclination was to speak of this matters in these terms I was rebuked of saying. I was going to say “In one way it is God’s putting a lock upon it” that the place we would or never could look is now the place where a thing is found…in other words no one gets to see unless invited and given the key. To me that sounded right…till rebuked. But then I saw how plainly Jesus delivers the key, and so really, it is not that. For in this is seen the key “Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you have done unto me”.

Do you see? Once this is delivered to any man, any man has it. O! But God’s wisdom is great in catching a man! Before we deal with the man who “says” he has accepted this in any form of believing himself and declaring himself a “christian”, a disciple, a believer…let’s look at the man who says “it’s all balderdash”. Already he is in reaction to. Something has come to him in part or whole of the gospel by the expression of Christ’s word…and he holds that reaction. He is in all essence saying “It is true that Christ is a liar”. Even “I am true in what I hold as truth…and Christ is a (or the) liar”. He has, and is, establishing himself as arbiter of truth…even as true to himself. Even truth itself to himself. He is the true, Christ is the not true.

It is not a hard equation to see, but what is subtle to discern is that which is made clear by the spirit, is that man is reactor. Not actor, even though he takes that to himself in his presumption of being true, and truth to himself. An, or even the, origin of truth. And he has set himself in full opposition to the word of another man who speaks truly of God.

Every man has a god.

And the scriptures are rife with the consequences of such attitude when held.

If you have any work as a believer it is to be led to this man and preach the gospel to him. Preach all the consequence present in unbelief to him, preach the terrors of the wrath of God to Him and the salvation even of that God through Christ to him, and even love him as your very self. Remind Him all will meet and be judged in the eyes of Him who holds eyes as a flame of fire. He may be the very least of all the brethren in your esteem, he may not. But if you would preach to others, you cannot escape the command to preach to him. Preach to him till he finds the terrors of death surrounding him and his only hope is in Christ and His resurrection.

You may find him to be yourself.

You may say what has this to do with “whatsoever you do to the least of these…”

There’s a man in the Lord each of us easily neglects in the preaching of the gospel in order he be built up in Christ, and we do not know he is actually the least till we are graciously stopped from thinking he is so much more than that. And we so easily tend to think many of the words are hyperbole, some are just “nice things” a man might say to either appear humble or contrite. As Paul saying he was the chiefest of sinners, or this:

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

who am less than the least of all saints…

Paul understood.

To ignore that man in this, even as this, is to truly ignore Christ.

Till then it is only a comforting vanity for us to think some other needs the truth of Christ more than we.

We therefore see apostles Peter and Paul in much agreement over this matter of patience. Peter reminding to count the patience of God as salvation, and making mention that Paul often writes of the same thing. Even if in other matters he (Paul) writes of things hard to understand. Do you find it noteworthy that even another apostle might confess “some stuff ain’t easy to understand”?

If we believe each lived as they wrote, that is by revelation, we begin to appreciate that revelation and revelations require some unpacking. We may even learn that those we receive, even if most personally, require no less. A digesting of sorts that goes beyond what may lead to presumption of a thing if merely tasted. Taste is good, I am not arguing against that at all. It is taste that gets the digestive juices flowing.

But there is also another strange matter at hand that cannot be denied, sometimes the taste of things seems all wrong, out of place; at best irrelevant, at worst, toxic. Who hasn’t heard “chew the meat and spit out the bones” in referencing some matters another may share. As in… “I recommend (or find) this fellow may have some things worthy to say, so take the goods from it, what is useless, disregard”. It seems sound advice, no? “Don’t reject everything because some may not be to your liking or fitness, take what you can from it”. But even in that…what seems a soundness of advice is already some judgment… “all may not be fit to eat”. It is a very back handed, even when seeming necessary, way of dealing. And if this is revelation only God can make clear… “the thing you spit out today may be the very thing you find yourself in need of tomorrow”.

And how many times has a situation or circumstance (even in mind) presented that you “go back” searching in the scripture saying “I know there is a fit to this…I remember something I once read that addresses this very thing…do I remember it rightly…I must make sure”” A very “Oh! this is that which was spoken of…” moment when you find it? Have you ever?

A thing or word went in “enough” even though it seemed to matter little or make no sense at the time…but enough in…that now you are provoked to see its fitting-ness. Aha Lord…you already spoke to this very thing…even to me! But it was waiting to be uncovered to you. Yes, often a thing we either did not or could not understand at one time, or even misunderstood and/or counted as little perhaps…suddenly becomes a matter of the God of all creation speaking directly to you. Deep connection is made. The “light” goes on. Bingo!

But we have to (in some sense of “have to”) admit, that if believers, even if not yet convinced all the “red words” and “black words” are of the same spirit, given for our benefit, recorded for our benefit, even lived out by those chosen to do so to benefit; that in all we have this conviction that when Jesus says His “words are spirit and they are life” it is true. Even if we have any disposition to thinking that means “mostly” the red words, then surely above all, by that disposition there is a provoking to know. Even if it only be most particularly the them of those all recorded. A hunger is produced when we find ourselves believing. A need to know. To eat and drink. A need…to live by what life really is.

But here’s the thing…even the red words sometimes seem to either “go over our heads”…or are consigned to some lesser import. Who is not able to repeat verbatim John 3:16? (No this is not a quiz, and life in the Lord is not a memory game of scriptures) But you may understand. And am I simply being painfully, even too painfully obvious as to be as absolutely of no necessity? Ah, but this would be good, very good indeed, for that is what I am all of…no necessity to any. Telling things already too plainly to be known.

Yet here is another thing in this matter…a matter of reference, even some unraveling of particular matters of the how and why of us. It has to do with that “strange matter” mentioned a few paragraphs back. We like comfort (God knows). We like what tastes good to us (God knows). But God also knows how we fare if left to ourselves.The scriptures are rife (yes, even new testament as well we call them) with (is it “our” or their?) misadventures. Even [almost] wholes of congregations may come under an ungodly sway. If we are familiar it may not “shock” us by such as our being familiar, but were we to say “this is no less true of us than them”…(or me than them)…do you see where a certain resistance comes in? If not out right rejection? We easily feel we have learned (and are) better because we have their example given us as from a “them”. Yes, we easily assume we have taken the whole of matters quite to heart…and are now the sobered up people…and not like…them.

But here is warning. Any inclination or adopting of attitude toward “a them” (our brothers and sisters) that leads to any fragrance of divorcing ourselves from them…well…do you see? Who are we in truth divorcing ourselves from? The “We (or I) are not like the Corinthians…or the Galatians…or those to whom the Lord ministers stern rebuke of the seven churches.”

Until we come to recognize we are very much in a fellowship of necessary rebuke, even sternest of chastenings and corrections…we not only do not appreciate a thing, but neglect…and may even be found willfully ignoring certain truth(s). And one that only becomes very precious by enduring rebuke is this: “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten…”

It’s always easier, and in some ways shamefully precious to us, to see the foibles and shortcomings of others instead of the Lord whose blood was shed for them no less than an us, or a me. Dare we talk about, make hay about “those others” as though we are immune…or better than to fall for what they have left us in record? It is not unlike the foolish man who may raise up Peter in long winded sermons (a man probably just like me) thinking he, of course, could never be brought to any such denial(s). Such thinking actually, just paves the road ahead to just that. The consequence(s) are already in the attitude. We are simply as those saying to the Lord…”Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have…blah blah blah…” The question is not really “will we ever learn…?” But statement quite in opposition…it is all of miracle that we ever might.

For if we have learned a strange thing in all our seeking of comfort (not a bad thing of itself), learning we have preferences of taste (not a bad thing of itself), do not like suffering and are no more able to appreciate it at the time than any other, it is that a new appetite is given even for truth above all despite its precious cost to us even in light of its precious cost to be made for us, and find the only one with no bones to “spit out” who speaks to us. We begin to swallow some very hard things…even learn we are made fit for their digesting by another, and that not one of the Lord’s words or acts toward, or for us, is any less precious to us than any other.

We may even begin to enter into that blessedness of hunger and thirst (once unpleasant in sensing that cause babies to cry out in wailing) and learn of such blessedness. For to the hungry soul even every bitter thing is sweet.

How hungry are we made to be? How thirsty?

How satisfied?

And full?

He cried “I thirst” from a terrible stake.

But as in the people’s meeting the waters of Marah, once too bitter to drink

So the people grumbled against Moses, saying, “What are we to drink?” He cried out to the Lord; and the Lord showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet.

It is the very cross of Christ, and our own death(s) faced in utter completeness and all of the old creation that even makes us come to be able to glory in what once terrified.

It is not even that the hungry soul may come to see it, that gift of hunger manifesting our total dependence and necessity for what is “not of us” to sustain us (a man will not live long eating his own body parts) is what compels us to it, and in utter dependence…even find perfect liberty.