The Great debate – a possible side c

Justin wrote Side A in which he said that God does bless some gay relationships and that scripture has to be read in context. Ron wrote Side B in which he argued that God blesses no such relationships and that scripture condemns all same-sex relationships.

This paper is a possible Side C.

Background: Adam and Eve; Genesis
Adam and Eve were created male and female in the image of God. As such, they had the ability to display the oneness of God in their sexual union.

God told them not to eat the fruit of one tree. But the Serpent gave Eve the impression that God was a despot who forbade empowerment on pain of death. She revolted against the image of God that she and the Serpent had co-created in her mind’s eye. Adam joined her and they ate the fruit.

Then Adam and Eve’s “eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves”. Ashamed, they hid from God, who confronted them about why they were hidden and demanded to know who’d told them that they were naked.

Their rebellion had led to the marring of their sexuality, which initially was their expression of God’s image as unity and love. After they ate the fruit, their nakedness became an outpicturing of the God they’d imagined God to be, that is, the image of God they’d been rebelling against when they believed the Serpent’s depiction of God’s intentions. Adam and Eve’s unity as male and female now reflected the tyrannical Godhead they had been trying to usurp. Their sexuality no longer represented the loving oneness of God’s image, but the distortion of God’s image as tyrannical and manipulative. Awareness of nakedness no longer meant being aware of the potential for love, but meant being aware of the potential for deceit and harm because that is the kind of God that Adam and Eve chose to represent when they believed the Serpent’s lie about God’s character.

The picture of God one holds to, is one’s spiritual DNA. It informs or deforms one’s actions, both reflexive and deliberate. When Adam and Eve believed the Serpent’s picture of God, their actions – including their sexual actions – went from being informed by the correct image of God, to being deformed by the lie about God.

The thing that Adam and Eve became was a distortion of God’s image, and as such was cursed. Here is how that curse would function:

The Serpent would be cursed more than “all the beasts in the field”. This is where the dietary aspect of the Mosaic Law comes from. God would have mankind quarantined from those animals that, however obliquely, represent something of the Fall and the Serpent’s role in it.

“Your desire shall be for your husband,” God told Eve when He described her share of the curse. “And he shall rule over you.” Eve’s penalty for trying to become “like God” was that Adam would go from being in authority with her as they ruled the earth, to being in authority over her as they now lampoon the Godhead through their distorted depictions of a distorted love. Eve went from being Adam’s helpmeet to being his subject. If Eve imagined that God was a tyrant, then this tyrannical image of God could only be complete if there were a person that this new outpicturing of the Godhead could degrade and objectify; Adam would be the tyrant, and she would be the subject of his tyranny. Adam would “rule over” her.

God is love, and in that love there is a Lover and a Beloved in His bosom. As the start of the family, Adam and Eve were the human pictures of that lover-beloved dynamic. But when they believed the Serpent’s lie, that God is a Tyrant who holds people hostage, they changed into this new, false image of what relationships are fundamentally about – a Tyrant and an Object, a degrader and a degraded – and that is why Eve got trapped in what we now call patriarchy. That her desire would be for her husband and he would rule over her was mentioned along with all the other penalties that Eve would suffer as a consequence of listening to the Serpent.

What God saw when He looked at Adam
Adam’s penis was the first spear ever seen on earth – once an instrument of love and communion, it was now a weapon of domination, tyranny and conquest – and he’d become Eve’s conqueror. He could not separate himself from the self-attesting manifestation of that lust to conquer. The more he tried to resist that lust, the harder it became to silence it. He could not, by a sheer act of the will, lower the spear that announced his urge to conquer and kill, in imitation of the God that the Serpent had told him to become.

Adam’s guilt lay open at the most intimate and most telling part of his anatomy, far beyond his ability to control. Once he believed it, the lie about God crept into and tainted every corner of man’s being, poisoning the well from which flowed all of man’s actions.

After the Fall, the male erection was not something to be proud of; it was now another manifestation of the Serpent’s lie made flesh; it was the display of an incompleteness that could only be resolved in the penetration and conquest of another human being in the outpicturing of the tyrannical Godhead whose image mankind had adopted.

Because the lie about God’s nature had tainted the love that man was supposed to display through sex, the penis now was a symbol of relational depravity.

The only way Adam’s “conquest” of Eve could be “justified” is if the humanity of the conquered could somehow be diminished and forgotten. If women could be degraded to the level of objects, then the urge to conquer them could be something that men could even feel proud of.

Biblically, the Mosaic Law doesn’t define evil in the straight-forward sense that by every prohibition it cuts out a basic understanding of which actions are sinful and which aren’t. The Mosaic Law “defines” and “judges” Adam by giving his fallen nature a legal structure and quarantine to live within. We are told in Galatians that the entirety of the Law is God’s “answer” to everything that happened in the world starting in Eden until Moses. Because it is not a reflection of God’s mind, it is mediated by “thousands upon thousands” of angels, a divine stunt-double called “the Angel of the Lord,” as well as the hand of a prophet.

The Law of Moses is God’s “answer” to everything that happened in Eden. The Law of Moses is not the ultimate revelation of God’s character; it reveals God’s character insofar as He is answering what we became in Adam.

This is the crux of Side C, and it is an unexpected game-changer in the debate about same-sex love: the Law does not reveal the heart or the character of God. The Law is not God’s ideal.

Love – the cross – Christ – self-sacrifice – reveals and glorifies the Father. It also shows us how God wants us to be towards one another.

The Law is God’s elementary living code for people who are not at-one with Him or with one another, in order to restrain them from devouring one another and themselves.

Like the Old Testament, the Law doesn’t tell people who God really is. Numerous times, the New Testament says, “But now you know God” as though presupposing that a radical change in the nature of its readers has occurred, a change that allows them to “see” God directly. “The Law came through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” It is not just grace that appears in the New Testament, but a new, and formerly unknown truth about God and what He’s really like. Remember, “We see in part”.

The God who emerges in the New Testament cannot be assumed to directly support everything written in the Old Covenant Law He issued: He backed the Law insofar as the caricature of Himself that mankind had become was concerned. God doesn’t believe in “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but He’ll give that rule to Adamic humans to live by so they don’t kill one another over petty differences. Many of Laws were put in place to “answer” the hard-hearted, stiff-necked, deformed, and, frankly, tribalistic characteristics of those over whom the Law acted as a supervisor. Even the homophobic injunction of Leviticus presupposes Adam’s inability to face his twisted feelings regarding Eve, or the homosexual permutations thereof – for if being in any way attracted to men is problematic, then homosexual attraction will be especially scandalous if found in a man.

When the Law is delivered on Mount Sinai, God is speaking to “Adam”. “Adam” is the spiritual father of every man born on earth. “Adam’s” is fallen because “Adam” believes Serpentine lies about God. Presupposing that Adam believes those lies, God gives Adam a Law that tells man how to manage the effects of what he has become.

God could simply tell Adam the truth about who He is, and thusly contest the Serpent’s lie. God did this by promising and sending the “Seed”, that is, Jesus, who destroys the works of the devil and crushes the Serpent’s head by revealing the truth and dispelling the lie. Through the cross, Jesus reveals the heart of God and in doing so, contests Satan’s lies about God to the vindication of the Father’s Name. Christ crucified and resurrected is the definitive revelation of God’s character and stance towards us. We need not look to the left or the right – we need not search much further afield – to discover who God is, what He loves and what He hates. The Father loves the Son because the Son lays His life down. God loves self-sacrificial love because God is that kind of love. And ultimately, God hates nothing that He has created.

This truth about God is quite the opposite of what Satan said God is like, and one glimpse at it is sufficient to transform what was deformed when, under Adam, we believed the lie about God. The Law is incidental, and conditional on what we became in Adam. Why make the Law the centre of our theopraxy? It was added “because of transgressions”; Christ’s revelation is dependent entirely on God’s benevolent stance towards the creation He wants reconciled to Himself.

In the Law, God sets boundaries; He gives a “religion,” that ties back the evil of what Adam became. He never directly confronts it. God also pronounced a curse on whosoever could not obey those boundaries of that religion; this curse, found in Deuteronomy 27 and 28, is merely a reiteration and articulation of the Edenic curse found in Genesis 3 and discussed in Galatians 3. When the quarantine of the Law doesn’t work perfectly, the curse of what Adam became and believed “spills out” and destroys everything in its path.

Biblically speaking, the problem with sin is not lying, nor is it stealing, nor homosexuality, nor masturbation, nor adultery. Those are tags that can temporarily give us the structure of a problem that began in a Garden. Even if the Accuser pontificates on the fine points, the devil is not in the details. The issue comes down to the distortion of love that Adam became. The distortion of love is the source of every other sin; likewise, the alignment of that basic nature to reflect God’s love is the source of every good fruit that God’s Spirit bears in people.

Trying to stop those “sins” achieves nothing before God. It misses the point of the Law. The Law doesn’t give people a way of life; it merely quarantines and draws an outline of Adam’s dead body, showing what he became when he became a distortion of love. The Law tells us nothing about God’s preferences and prejudices in and of themselves; it simply keeps His image-bearers, who monstrified themselves through the sin of one man, from destroying one another and themselves through the actions that originate from that monstrification.

Trying to actually live by the Law that presupposes the cursed Edenic nature can only breed hypocrisy. When a monster thinks he knows how human beings are supposed to behave, he will act the way he thinks those human beings are supposed to act. But the reformed behavior is just a mask. He’s still a monster, just a monster that pretends not to be monstrous. This is what Jesus called hypocrisy. The reason the Pharisees wouldn’t be saved wasn’t that they’d broken the Law; it was that they wouldn’t let Jesus remove the mask off of their faces and show them that the Law was added because of their Adamic natures. Law-keeping misses the point of the Law and seals the person deeper in his blindness to the truth.

Damnable hypocrisy
The Law of God is hypocritical because it presupposes the fallen double-standards we inherited in Eden. It “speaks to” Adam’s belief that Eve is a chattel, as well as Adam’s overall belief about God. The Law regulates and manages what Adam becomes when this belief is at the core of his spiritual nature.

This is when most people get shocked. “What do you mean, the Law is hypocritical? The Law is perfect, holy and good!”

The Law is perfect, holy and good because it is God’s holy, perfect and good “answer” to what we became in Eden. Suppose a just man finds that a gang of robbers is about to enter his house and destroy his family. He uses force – perhaps he kills – in order to protect his family. Are his actions wrong? No; he is still a just man and he has still performed a just act though it was a justifiably violent act.

For God to issue a Law that presupposes the hypocrisy of what we became in Eden, is for Him to issue a hypocritical Law, and turn into hypocrites all those that strive to live under the Law as though it were by works. But it is still an appropriately sarcastic response to Adam’s self-deluded choice to blame God and Eve for his part of the mess.

The Law of God is absolutely hypocritical because God has a profound sense of irony. The Law is a judgment on society, and the verdict looks ugly. Even then, as tongue-in-cheek as it is for God to deliver a hypocritical Law, the Law is still absolutely and non-negotiably binding on those who insist on not coming to God by grace through faith because it is God’s dead-accurate judgment on everything mankind became in Eden.

According to the Law, you can’t sleep with your neighbor’s wife because you’d have violated property rights and would get stoned. But unmarried virgins are fair game: should you rape one in a place where no one can hear her cry, you need only recompense her father and then you will marry her.

Unless the wife was a wife by this kind of rape, divorce may take place for any and every reason, at the husband’s whim, so long as a certificate is issued (this is one of many aspects of the Law that even Jesus cried out against).

Notice what’s happening: the Adamic objectification of women is normalized through the add-on of a moral code that makes it seem commonplace, so that men won’t notice that they’re “naked”.
God is judging Adam through the Law. God is judging Adam through the Law. God is judging Adam through the Law.

The Law was added because of transgressions. The Law is a divine judgment. People cannot earn God’s approval through the Law. The reason they’re under the Law in the first place is that they have God’s disapproval.

And that’s why God sounds so angry in the Old Testament – He is angry because He is dealing with stiff-necked, hard-hearted people. The Law is a judgment added because of the hardness of men’s hearts.

Clothing – fig leaves – are added to Adam’s nakedness in order that Adam may not confront that nakedness and live in shame.

But just in case anyone thinks that God condones this deformed mockery of morality, He vindicates Himself by cursing everyone under the Law.

Without exception, everyone under this Law becomes not only hypocritical but also a recipient of God’s curse. This curse is simply the curse of what Adam and Eve became in Eden. Each person born in Adam is therefore set on the path of being a hypocritical Law-keeper as well as the recipient of God’s curse.

The Law is a divine judgment on what Adam became, and it brings a curse. The wrath of God abides on those under the Law.

The hypocrisy of the Law’s deformed morality is everywhere mocked in the bible as akin to “swallowing a camel to strain out a gnat”. When, as is shown in Romans 1, Jewish Pharisees are only a little concerned about how lesbian women “turn aside from their natural use” but those Pharisees are extremely concerned about how “even the [homosexual] men turn aside from the natural use of the woman” in order to “do what is ‘not convenient’,” they betray the hypocrisy of the Adamic mindset. That minds sets its accusation against femininity as the inciter and rightful target of Adam’s lust.

Notice the phrases, “natural use” and “not convenient”. That’s the Adamic nature talking about Eve, over whom he now rules; it’s also Paul is mocking those who say they believe in God but insist on living by the Law. God’s Law seems to condone such an exploitative mindset because when God hands down the Law, the exploitative Adamic mindset is presupposed. Paul is setting these people up by making them first take pride in the most dehumanizing aspects of their religion, and then afterwards expose just how condemned they are by the Law that God gave as a judgment on society.

If kids are snubbing the Law, it’s because they can sense that the Law is elementary and outdated – “It waxeth old”. They are in great company: Paul abolished it all of eleven times in the New Testament. I will later discuss what he indicated God had put in place of the Law because it’s not healthy to eliminate one system and leave a vacuum.

Again, the Law tells us nothing about God’s prejudices or preferences; it simply manages the monstrosity that man became. To manage monsters, you have to speak their language. Homophobia is simply men’s fear that another man will treat them the way they treat women; it’s the fear that they’ll be picked on by somebody their own size. That is part of the fear they come face-to-face with when they meet gay people.

It is not psychologically safe for Adamically cursed people to hear of men penetrating men. It is “repulsive” to those whose minds are conditioned by the Edenic curse and see being penetrated as being “ruled over”, which is the feminized ghetto to which Adam relegates Eve. The Edenically cursed cannot stand to see so hideous a “mockery” of the Godhead because it reminds them that they, too, are real mockeries of the Godhead, and became such through Adam and Eve’s belief in a distorted picture of God.

But the legalist’s zeal for God under the Law presupposes the Edenic curse that the Law was supposed to quarantine: in fact, having an instinctive knowledge of and affinity to God’s Law presupposes an intimate knowledge of the betrayal it took to acquire the Edenic curse. There are none who preach Law so loudly as those who know lawlessness in their hearts. A visceral hatred of homosexuality based on God’s Law in Romans 1 can bring about death for the homophobe in Romans 2:1.

We cannot use Paul’s satiric spoof in Romans 1 to reconstruct the downfall of civilizations due to homosexuality, nor to figure out how homosexuality occurs in people as God “hands them over to their degrading passions,” for if we do so, we become the very Pharisees that Paul was melodramatically mimicking, and we share in their judgment.

The Law is man’s most natural and most instinctive path to the God of his distorted understanding. “Islam” that is, “Submission”, is the highest expression of man’s religiousness ever known. But the Law cannot be the ultimate revelation of God, nor the path to relationship with Him. “What sort of Dad, if His child asks for bread, gives him stones?” The Law was written on stones and Jesus is bread from heaven. Jesus, and not the Law, is the decisive revelation of God’s character.

The Law presupposes the Adamic mindset so keeping it is a long journey to nowhere. The Law is not a map back to paradise. Once a person keeps it, he does not cease to be the same fallen creature that the Law knew him to be when it first issued its commandments to him.

After running through his sarcastic act, the next part of Paul’s dramatic letter explains that “Whatever the Law says, it says to them that are under the Law, so that the mouths of the whole world may be shut up and the world made guilty before God. For by keeping the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by Law is knowledge of sin.” This signals that Paul is going back from the sarcastic rant back into his explanation of how Christianity is about “a righteousness of God that is by faith from start to finish” so that the Christian Pharisees would stop interfering with Gentile believers.

Again, by “knowledge of sin”, we are not talking about particular actions like stealing, lying and so forth; we are talking about the holistic Adamic nature, that is, what the fall did to man. It is not about what the person is doing but about what he is being.

And what he is being, through all his actions, is he is being dead through the transgression of Adam, which was passed down to all and sentenced all to death; “The wages of sin is death”.

Through the command that inflames “sin”, the Law gives us an experiential encounter with “Adam”, who, dead in his transgression, is “sin” embodied in us. We know sin, that is, we know ourselves to be descendants of Adam, because the Law invokes Adam’s nature in each person who hears it, and each person can only understand it because it speaks to Adam. Each of us in our way reenacts the horrifying moment at which Adam realizes that he’s naked. And each of us covers up with the Law in order not to be exposed before others and God. The Law – the rules – are our safest way of relating with “the other” because we know that underneath the veneer of civility we are monsters as Adam was a monster. So we each enforce the rules with ourselves and others precisely because we’re so scared of what we know lurks beneath the Law’s mask and fig leaves. We cover up and treasure the Law more and more because it makes sense to those who’ve discovered Adam’s secret and want to keep it secret. Depravity calls unto depravity. To think that “By Law is knowledge of sin” means that by Law we find out merely that sin is coveting or lusting really waters the Law’s impact down.

The Law inflames what human sexuality became under Adam so that we may become aware of it. The Law says “No” so that we may sense the contrary law that works among our members, the contrary law that says, “Like hell I won’t”, disregarding the damage to others, to self and to God. Desperate to hide, we cover up tighter in the Law even if it kills us. Nearly every apostle in the New Testament confesses that he “died” when the Law spoke to him, that it administered death, that it was a set of “handwritings that was against us” and was an “unbearable burden”, a “hostile supervisor”, a yoke of bondage that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. The Law of God kills. That’s the short version of it.

The problem with us is that each of us is born with the Adamic nature. Absent that and we are harmless and clean.

“By Law is knowledge of sin” is not about stealing, lying, sleeping with someone of the same sex or any particular action; it’s about the whole human being as dead under transgressions in Adam. The person’s actions are secondary to what we are being. God couldn’t care less about what people are doing or WHO people are doing so much as He cares about what they are being. In Adam all died; in Adam all sinned and fell short of God’s glory and image. What people who live in Adam do is irrelevant; it cannot bring them into right relationship with God.

Christ made sin and made a curse does away with sin and Law
As He turned into a corpse on the cross, Christ, the Second Adam, was also a picture of sin and its wages (death). By Law, we know the One who was made sin for us because we recognize Him as God’s ultimate Lamb. By Law, we knew we were part of the First Adam and his sin. But by the Law we also recognize the First Adam as a prototype of another Adam – the Second Adam who gives life.

We owe the Law a debt of gratitude, then, because it warns about the problem and pushes us to the solution in Jesus. The Law performs its function of letting us know sin.

But actually justify or sanctify people? The Law of Moses? What a silly idea. The Law has no such power; it can only accuse and command. The Law cannot save. By the keeping of the Law shall no flesh be made righteous in His sight; the Law is only there to tell us about the two sin-bodies of the two Adams.

“Oh, but Siya, you’re only saying that because you don’t want to have to try to keep the Law”. Not only do I not want to have to try, God doesn’t want anyone to try. The Law kills. If life could have come by the Law that was meant to administer death, then Christ died for nothing. The greatest spiritual nonsense anyone could preach is that we must “try harder” to be better at keeping the Law. That’s not just elementary dead works or spiritually immature; it’s downright absurd and turns the cross into a cosmic joke.

Homosexuality is evil under the Law because heterosexuality is evil under the Law because the whole human being is evil under the Law. No evil being can produce a single good doing; all the righteous acts of people under the Law are abominable before God because they are a befuddled spoof of goodness; remember, that Law was given to quarantine evil. To make good out of that which was given to manage evil is the moral equivalent of carving toilet sculptures out of feces. It not only defeats the purpose of toilets: it is disgusting in God’s eyes. It is hypocrisy. That is how absurd using the Law to justify or sanctify oneself is. This warning is a reiteration of the strongest terms found in the New Testament.

The Law administers death to those who think it’s the way to God. It is a serious matter, one that causes Paul to say, “Beware the mercy and the severity of God” as well as the Letter to the Hebrews to warn of the consuming fire that shall devour God’s enemies – and those enemies are the Pharisees. This is the issue on which we’re warned in Galatians that all who rely on the Law are cursed, and in John’s Gospel that the very Moses people trust in can only testify against them. This is the issue on which the Thessalonians were told that those who don’t hearken unto Jesus’ Gospel shall experience the avenging fire of God. The New Testament’s biggest fear for humans is that death will find them still under the Law and under God’s curse still.

Under the Law, heterosexuality is a mockery of the Godhead because it is the one act by which Adam and Eve revel in their parodying of the Godhead. Under the Law, sex was both a horizontal and a vertical betrayal: a horizontal betrayal because it was the act through which Adam displays his tyranny over Eve, and it is a vertical betrayal because it was the one act through which humans reminded God that they’d tried to betray Him; the relationship they now displayed was a distortion of God’s oneness, which distortion they became when they tried to betray God. Through the enjoyment of this parody, mankind told God that he did not regret the rebellion. God’s Law was the divine insistence on locking this treachery up to certain configurations that at least vindicate themselves by bringing forth children.

Under the Law, sex could never be for recreation, not because God is against sex as play – quite the contrary! – but because sex had become a distortion of love. Sex had become the act by which men objectified women, or, more scandalously, other men. This all presupposes the psychological lies that the Serpent planted in Eden. To stop people from hurting themselves and one another in those psychological lies, God added the Law. The Law doesn’t tell us how God sees things; the Law simply presupposes that we see things a certain way because of Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin causes us to see sex as empowering men and degrading women; God, seeing how we think, gave us rules regarding marriage, sex and intimacy. Is God homophobic? No, but if we insist on being misogynists He will give us a homophobic Law because such a Law is the only thing that stops misogynistic men from degrading other men the way that the men of Sodom wanted to degrade Lot’s visitors.

The Law is God’s reply to everything we were between Adam and Moses. Keeping it keeps us in the psychological lies that the Law was given to answer.

Everyone takes it for granted that the bible condemns homosexuality. What they conveniently forget is that the abomination that was the heterosexual union was so shameful that even Hassidic Jews today will not touch a woman other than their own wives, the only person with whom they will partake in their own indignity. The Law demands that the atrocity that is the heterosexual union only occur in legally recognized marriages. These Hassidic Jews will wear the Law on their clothing so as to be constantly reminded by it that it is wrong to enjoy anything. I’ve heard of an urban legend – but haven’t been in enough bedrooms to see – that when they have sex, they do so through a sheet with a hole. There is no bodily contact. The body is not innocent under the Law because it is an arrangement of sexual weapons with which human beings act out the Adamic nature.

Under the Law, it is presumed that humans will use, abuse, exploit one another and break promises; the Law supervises these Edenic tendencies. Theologically, pleasure is wrong under the Law because it is the enjoyment of treason against God. Ask a monk named Luther.

The Law had countless, countless rules for the handling of bodily fluids and they weren’t just for hygiene. In some way or form, each bodily fluid was evidence of the “crime”. And like in CSI, you bagged it, you tagged it, you zip-locked it, and you washed your hands. Under the Law, sexual pleasure is proof that we have not at all repented of Adam and Eve’s sin, for if we had, we would not want to display the mockery of the Godhead that they became.

Catholicism spent eons longer than its own existence trying to fight people’s pleasure during sex because under the Law they knew how degrading, how blasphemous it was. “But sexual pleasure is needed in order for children to be conceived,” people tell me. But those under Law say, “In iniquity I was conceived.”

People who know the Law know that there is no provision in the Law for the enjoyment of sex. None. Ever. Ironically, there is plenty of provision for polygamy and slave-ownership and concubine ownership. Water, water everywhere and not a single drop to drink: women, women, everywhere, and not a legal right to enjoy them. One master can have many slaves, but never vice-versa (remember, “He shall rule over you”).

To enjoy sex under the Law was to enjoy the rebellion, the parody of the Godhead Adam and Eve had brought about. It was the greatest insult against God imaginable. Each time somebody reached a climax, each time a human being was conceived under the Law of God, it was a slap in God’s face. “In iniquity I was conceived,” say those that are born under the Law. It is iniquity because it is reveling in the Adamic nature that betrays both God and partner.

Even the lawful copulation of those under the Law is an abhorrent blasphemy that God tolerated as much as He, with much patience, tolerates every other cursed act of the vessels of wrath who labour under His Law. Christians may subject homosexuals to the Law if they themselves understand the strictness and severity of the standard they are imposing on others – “for by the same measure…”

“Who told you that you were naked?”
On Judgment Day, God will ask the legalist, “Who told you that a man under the supervision of the Law ought not to lie with a fellow man as with a woman?” The legalist would, by insisting on this Law, have tested positive for the Adamic principle of exploitation that the Law was meant to quarantine.

“Natural theology,” that is, an instinctive knowledge of God’s Law, is sufficient to damn, regardless of whether the person in question observes or suppresses the knowledge of God brought about by this knowledge. God is not impressed even when a person keeps a significant amount of the Law. Why not? Because by the Law is knowledge of sin – by knowledge of the Law is the positive test result of the Edenic curse and all the Law required to quarantine it. To know the Law is to sign your own death warrant. No flesh shall be justified in His sight by the Law, for by Law is knowledge of sin.

In himself as a literal individual, Adam was ashamed of what he’d become. But as an archetype representing all those who would be “in Adam,” Adam would learn to glory in this shame. Polygamist Lamech, the seventh man, or “Adam,” descendant of Cain the brother-murderer, would say to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.” His wives’ names meant “Ornament” and “Shade”.

Lamech was mentioned as seventh-generation human. In the bible, seven is symbolic of completeness; to see something at its seventh step is to see it reaching its zenith. Why did the bible mention this random story of Lamech? I’m guessing it’s to give us a picture of what mankind, or “Adam,” became when the effects of the Fall had reached their full powers in the seventh generation: a vindictive, murderous polygamist. Man became quite violent as a result of the Fall; the Law would be added because of this lawlessness. But the Law was a prisoner meant to quarantine the “Seed” of the Serpent. “You are of your father, the devil,” Jesus said to the Pharisees. He said they were brood of vipers and evildoers – the keepers of the Law!

Those who hold on to the Law as a way of life are children of Satan who have to be imprisoned through the Law in order that their Edenic evil may be restrained. To profess a religion is to confess that there is something that needs quarantining.

Adam’s penis was a spear: the lust he felt as he “ruled over” his wife in the outpicturing of the caricature of Deity, was murderousness, was territorialism, and was everything else that was wrong with man. It reached its fullness in Lamech, and that’s why the example is given (even though Lamech contributes nothing else to the rest of the biblical story).

This lust – this energy that animated the penis – had to somehow be circumcised; man’s desire to own as many of Eve as he could had to be imprisoned in a legal code. But try as the executioner would he could not cut away the energy of the Edenic curse. The New Testament Letter to the Galatians states that physical circumcision failed as a ritual to cut away the Adamic curse; it only announced its presence in the scar left behind by the ritualistic attempt to exorcise it.

The Law is patriarchal so that nobody will see the stark nakedness of Adam’s inability to control the way he controls Eve or controls every other wife in his polygamist nest; nobody questions the way things are for if they do so they see Adam’s nakedness. To question the Law is to look under the fig leaves and see what God sees. The Emperor’s New Clothes simultaneously announce and cover the Emperor’s New Shame. The Law normalizes the Adamic mindset by dressing it up in what appears to be a moral code. It supervises men’s tendency to forget the personhood of women, and makes it seem okay.

Marriage, initially a blessing, became the way the Law monitored people’s necessary treachery against the Godhead. Marriage was the camp in which the prisoners of war, being rebels, were kept tabs on under God’s close gaze as they betrayed Him in their bodies. Through the institution of marriage, each society had an approximation of how many people’s treachery against God could be tolerated and even sanctified.

Removing the Adamic Nature
In His death, Jesus represented the Edenic dysfunction in its totality. Christ crucified was the ultimate symbol of alienation from God. He was the scapegoat by which people could rid themselves of their sin. He ransoms those who’d failed to keep the Law by being the spotless Lamb that takes away the sin of the world, who dies innocent under the Law; He redeems His people by transforming them back into God’s image bearers.

In the way He lays down His life, He challenges the Serpent’s lie that has deformed Adam’s soul. When people see God’s self-sacrificial love in Him, their fundamental belief about God is transformed by the truth about God; consequently, their actions now manifest this new belief about God. The Spirit of God comes by hearing the Word about God’s love in Jesus. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. If one hears the truth about God, and believes it, that one is led by the Spirit of God and is no longer under the Law.

For God so loved the world…
As we gaze upon the truth and glory of the Lord in Christ, we are transformed – we were deformed by the Serpent’s lie and are now transformed by God’s truth – from one degree of glory to another. As we are transformed, we find that we don’t need the Law because the nature presupposed by the Law has been displaced by the true image of God. As we gaze upon Christ and believe what God has revealed about Himself in Christ, we are transformed into what we believe and behold.

Through Christ, God not only ransoms us from the Law, He also redeems us by transforming what we fundamentally are. When what we are being is fixed, there is no longer any need for a Law to talk about what we are doing. This is where Christian freedom comes from; Christian liberty presupposes that we have believed, beheld and become as the Second Adam, whose fundamental nature is not like the first Adam, but is like God’s love. Born of the Spirit, our blowing to and from is on the Spirit’s whim before it is on man’s whim. Regenerated – born again, we are those that looked upon the bronze serpent, as Nicodemus was reminded – we are those that have seen God taking on our sin. By God’s Spirit, we “get it”. We are regenerated, born again. All things are lawful precisely because our fundamental nature is now good because it has been transformed. We would not harm anyone. Biblically speaking, we are no longer monsters.

Biblically speaking, and this is contrary to what contemporary religion teaches, Jesus didn’t die because people had lied, or stolen; the “sin” that Jesus died for was distorted image of God in “Adam’s” soul and all the permutations thereof; by dying to it and rising from the dead as a New Person, he could transform what had been deformed. Everyone ultimately partook of Adam’s one “sin”, which the Lamb of God came into the world to take away.

According to bible history, Jesus was the final summary of God’s communication to mankind, through which He simultaneously revealed the absolute futility and failure of the Law to deal with the Edenic curse, and also ransomed people from it. By dying innocent under the Law, Jesus was God’s statement that the Prisoner, that was the Law, could only quarantine and supervise the evil brought about by the Edenic curse. The Law couldn’t eliminate it. Circumcision couldn’t eliminate the Adamic nature. Christ does. The Law incubated evil much like a white-washed tomb housed the bones of the dead. And as all previous prophets had been killed for standing up to the religious system that nursed the evil it supervised, Jesus, too, was killed. The Resurrection was God’s way of vindicating the underdog and proving that Jesus’ explanation of the Law’s function was correct. And because the Pharisees couldn’t understand Jesus, God sent Paul after Jesus. And today, God sends gay people. Gay people expose what the Law tried to mask – that is, the Adamic issue. This is a scandalous hypothesis, that gay people are God’s mind-boggling way of provoking the Adamic nature so that we may see that it is still very alive and active as the distorted hyper-masculine straightjacket that bends nature, commerce and community by the weight of its selfishness. When the Gospel has been tortured to serve the very Pharisaic heteropatriarchy it was supposed to expose, God will take drastic measures and you do not want to be in His way. What’s happening in Africa to gay people – God is there! LOOK! He is provoking human evil so that we may reject it.

Jesus provoked and provoked evil until it killed Him. The idea of a crucified Messiah was likewise detestable to the people-group that had been waiting for a powerful Lord and King to come and fulfill their empirical dreams and wishes; indeed, the Law pronounced a curse on whosoever was hung on a tree. To say that Jesus who’d been crucified had risen from the dead – to point out that Jesus had been critical of the Law, claiming to be its ultimate fulfillment and end personified – was a scandal so great, so repulsive, that Judaism spat Christianity out as forever unpalatable (at the time, the feeling was mutual).

The Jews were not alone: the Greek gatekeepers of rational philosophy saw no wisdom in a crucified Lord. But the Cross, biblically speaking, is God’s depiction of the truth about the Edenic curse and what it meant in the scheme of history. Jesus of Nazareth was a threat because until the day He died naked on a cross, He critiqued the perfect system that clothed Adam’s shame, striking at the fig leaves by showing that they were nothing more than a hypocritical mask. To question the Law is to look under the fig leaves and see what God sees, and Jesus had done exactly that. The Emperor’s New Clothes simultaneously announced and covered the Emperor’s Shame.

The Law normalized the Adamic mindset by dressing it up in what appeared to be a moral code, but was simply God’s way of quarantining evil and therefore not a moral code at all, simply the management of immorality. On the cross, the mocked King of Kings proved that the Emperor’s New Clothes simultaneously concealed and revealed Adam’s shame – and therefore, were not clothes at all.

Christianity was the indignant realization that one could not be clothed in the Law because it left one naked before God; one had to be clothed, ironically, in the naked shame of the crucified Messiah.

The Law speaks to those under the Law
Presupposing the believers’ sanctity and oneness in Christ Jesus, He said, “There is no more male and female.”

Through the declaration that “There is no more male and female for you are one in Christ Jesus”, God destroys the old creation marriage of “male and female” – for “in the kingdom they neither marry nor are given in marriage” – and in its place substitutes a superior standard: if any come to Him believing in Christ, He knows what they are fundamentally “being” and He blesses that regardless of gender. At least, that’s how I read Galatians 3:28.

Under the Law, marriage did not perfect or sanctify the sex act; it merely supervised the outpicturing of the parody of the Godhead as it was performed by rebels and prisoners of war labouring under the Law, no matter how well they obeyed the quarantining of the Law. The Law brought nothing to perfection – it was merely a shadow of something else to come. Sex within marriage was still as blasphemous as Adam and Eve’s fallen sexual impulses; the Law merely tolerated it because the human population had to be perpetuated until the time of the Messiah. Indeed, the Law with marriage at its heart was a picture of how Christ would fix the core nature of humanity for his Bride. Circumcision was good for nothing except leaving a scar; cutting away at the lubricating foreskin and extra nerves did not change the Adamic heart belief, most brazenly seen in Lamech, that man is the be-all and end-all of existence, and ought to prove this by acquiring wives and defending territory.

According to the bible, there is no difference – in Adam, all have sinned, and all fell short. That some sinners follow the rules of their parole terms better than others, and that some criminals cooperate more piously than others with the System, does not change what’s on the record. Conversely, all may be freely justified and sanctified in Christ Jesus.

The Law locked everything up in sin so that the mouths of the whole world would be shut up, and the entire world made guilty before God. There was no difference: you could not say, “Well, my acts are more Lawful because it’s a heterosexual marriage, unlike so-and-so’s relationship” or “I haven’t done such-and-such things that God calls detestable.” No. No. No. No. No. No. There is NO difference. Under the Law, man may shuffle Adam’s transgression around, and put bows and ribbons on it, and pretty it up under the Law’s supervision. The corpse may hold back from showing signs of death. But at numerous times, God says He is still sickened to the pit of His stomach by the performance. Adam is still holding a revoltingly false image of God in His soul, and that’s what God sees beneath the Lawful performance. Conversely, when we’ve seen Christ, we almost cannot help becoming what we behold and believe in.

I had so much more to say but I’ll end here for now. If anyone has questions or comments, my contacts are below

~Siya Khumalo @Skhumalo1987


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s