I am not sure what you mean by "essence of the law itself."
We are subject to God's Logos, not He to ours
Logos is not "the Law." Nowhere in the Bible is it translated as "the Law."
We are subject to the physical world. We can be destroyed by forces that we cannot control. Whether God controls these or not is a speculation.
One thing seems certain: the earth is an oasis in a sea of hostile universe, literally a speck of dust which, by comparison to the outside world is a miraculous microcosm and potential cornucopia of endless blessings for its creatures.
If humanity follow what Christ taught us (love those who hate you, forgive so that we may be forgiven, mercy, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc.) we could have a paradise on earth, free of wars, crime, fear, hunger, unnecessary suffering, insecurity, greed, injustice, etc.
We are capable of that (because we have the dominion on earth in the image of God, and a potential for mercy in His likeness), and we have been blessed all these centuries since Christ to know the message, and have done absolutely nothing to come even an inch closer to making that a reality.
Not according to this: St. John of Damascus Concerning the Creation:
Since, then, God, Who is good and more than good, did not find satisfaction in self-contemplation, but in fits exceeding goodness wished certain things to come into existence which would enjoy His benefits and share in His goodness, He brought all things out of nothing into being and created them, both what is invisible and what is visible. Yea, even man, who is a compound of the visible and the invisible. And it is by thought that He creates, and thought is the basis of the work, the Word filling it and the Spirit perfecting it(2).
Besides, if your definition is true, does that mean that God just rearranged himself? It can be said that we come from God's goodness, but we still have a differnent essence.
The Orthodox approach to God is best summarized in St. John of Damascus' Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter III
As much as I enjoyed +John of Damascus' book, I didn't think much of that chapter (which is not at all apophatic). Here's the rub:
Things then that are mutable are also wholly created. But things that are created must be the work of some maker, and the maker cannot have been created. For if he had been created, he also must surely have been created by some one, and so on till we arrive at something uncreated.
Why is it necessary that eventually we arrive at something uncreated? When we count 1,2,3, etc, we don't ever arrive at a "highest" number, so how can we conclude this here? The assumption that there is a "limit" is the same assumption used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his first four "proofs" (his fifth talks about an "intelligent" mover).
Logos is not "the Law." Nowhere in the Bible is it translated as "the Law."
Right, it's translated as "Word". Now if you perceived me as being loose with concepts and making some illogical "leaps", well, that's because I did. As I said above, it's impossible logically to deduce God from general to specific (since He can't be "contained" by axioms), so we can only look for clues and go the other way. All I meant was that contemplating the "natural order" of things draws my mind to some concept of "God". We can describe (approximately) the way objects behave with certain mathematical relations, or "laws". Interestingly enough, the more we investigate, the more the "laws" that govern the behavior of things seem to be "unified". Also, there are certain quantities or coefficients (speed of light, gravitaional constant, Planck's constant, etc.) that appear to be constant, as least as far as we can tell. And this apparent constancy and unity in the "laws" makes it at least plausible to believe that something is truly and perfectly constant and One in essence, with an uncreated "Word" that brought all things into being. But this is not a proof, nor did I intend it to be taken as such.