ON LOVE; PART MCCCLVIII
ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ
FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31).
ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ
WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.
ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ
PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12).
ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ
We have been spending much time on the differences between the doctrinal thinker, what he believes to be True based in his indoctrination onto his particular denomination or sect, and the reality of the Christian teachings of the Master. In most ALL aspects of religion the doctrines of men have NOT ONLY failed for the majority of those participating but have as the same time restricted their ability to progress, to move forward along the Path to Life. Framing this in Jesus’ words saying “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10) highlights yet another area where the doctrinal teachings ARE far afield from the intended Truth. The parable that contains this saying IS ill understood and IS framed in terms of the doctrinal ideas of Jesus’ death, His atoning death to be sure. At the same time the thief IS shown us by most doctrines as the devil, as Satan, but this IS never mentioned in the Master’s parabolic words which should perhaps be seen in terms of the True Way versus those false ways in which the Jews of those days were following. If we could see that the shepherd, the bringer of Truth, states those Truths very straightforwardly for the sheep to hear while the thief ‘sneaks’ around the Truth and changes it to his own preference, his own doctrinal views, we can then better understand the reality of the Master’s words. It IS the thief that comes “to steal, and to kill, and to destroy” and while we may call this thief the devil or Satan, we should understand that in reality it IS the doctrinal Jewish religious leader then and most ALL religious leaders since that performs this work. There IS an esoteric saying that we have repeated over the course of this blog that shows this religious dilemma rather clearly; the saying goes The church today is the tomb of the Christ and the stone of theology has been rolled to the door of the sepulchre *. While this was written over seventy years ago, it IS still quite True and evermore so as the illusion and the glamour of doctrinal thinkers IS ever stronger against the underlying Truths that doctrines hide. Of course there will be NO agreement with these ideas in the church which continues in its role, unintended to be sure, as the authoritative leader of the sheep, many of whom have turned their attention toward this voice of authority believing it to be the Truth. Jesus makes a point of saying that “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep“. The Truth here IS that there were and ARE those that DO KNOW the voice of the Master, the shepherd, and who eschew the voice, the teachings if you will, of the hireling who has put himself in the place of the shepherd. The whole of this parable tells us:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. Then said Jesus unto them again,Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:1-5, 7-16).
If we can understand that His words saying that “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers” applies also to ALL that followed in the same manner, we can then perhaps better understand the ideas revealed in this parable. We must remember here that this IS a parable in which Jesus DOES speak of Himself as the “good shepherd“. Unlike many other parables where the Master DOES NOT inject Himself, this one should be easier to understand. In the reality that the sheep follow the shepherd we should see NOT ONLY the nature of the hireling or the thief but the nature of the sheep while understanding that some sheep DO follow the True shepherd because he DOES “know my sheep, and am known of mine“. If we can see ALL men as sheep and understand that those that follow the Master, the shepherd in this parable, ARE Truly His sheep while ALL that DO NOT follow, ALL that DO NOT “know his voice” will follow other shepherds which ARE the hirelings of this parable, we can perhaps see the reality of religion yet today. We should be careful to understand here that to follow the True shepherd, the Master, IS to keep HIS words and to DO so completely. This idea that IS clearly shown us in Jesus’ words according to Luke saying “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). The world has created many other shepherds and many of these have taken upon themselves the authority to lead based in whatsoever type of ordination they have received. These pastors and priests and other members of the various church organizations ARE in the place of the hireling “whose own the sheep are not” and here we should try to see that the sheep of which Jesus’ speaks ARE those that Truly “know his voice” while the hireling IS “a stranger” whom the Master’s sheep will “not follow“. We should try to see here as well that there ARE some sheep that will see the hireling and the stranger as their own shepherd and will follow him; these however have NO protection from the wolf or from the thief that represent the world and the vanity that IS Life in this world. Those that follow the Master however ARE protected; by being of His flock; these sheep have overcome the vanity as they strive toward their own ability to say with the Master “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Here we should see that the devil and Satan that ARE prescribed by the church to be the thief that comes “to steal, and to kill, and to destroy” IS but the vanity that keeps men from the Truth and in their state of delusion. We should remember here that His sheep, those that DO follow Him, DO keep His words and ARE of the few undeceived according to James saying that men should “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22). Finally, we should take special note of the Master’s words saying “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd“. These words ARE NOT accepted as they ARE presented by most ALL of Christianity which CAN NOT see any but Christians being among His True sheep, among those that DO follow Him and keep His words. While the church has ever relied on its own understanding that these words refer ONLY to the Jew and the gentile, they miss the reality of the Greek word ethnos. This word that IS most often rendered as gentiles and as nation 2a IS defined by Thayer’s in terms that range from: a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together to the deeper idea of the human race 9. In this range of applications we should be able to see much more than the Jew and the gentile and understand that neither word IS used by Jesus. When we think of this idea of ethnos in terms of the human race, we should be able to sense the basis for agape and see how that Christianity has, almost from the beginning, set itself as the one way to the Lord, doctrinally speaking, and that this has sparked many unnecessary divisions in the One Human Race. We should try to see here also that from the beginning of the Old Testament there was NO such division save in the nearly constant war stories. But these wars DO NOT show us a sense of division and any such sense IS countered by Moses teachings on the stranger who should be accepted at ALL times and seen through such sayings as “the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19.34). Here we should be careful how we understand the idea of dwelleth; Strong’s shows us guwr, the Hebrew word that IS rendered as dwelleth, as: to turn aside from the road (for a lodging or any other purpose) 9a which idea would include the mere passerby. From this we should be able to see the deeper meaning of the idea of neighbor and understand that there IS NO racial idea of who IS the stranger in this scripture nor in the companion idea saying “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18).
We should remember here that the Master DOES expand upon these ideas from the Old Testament in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that identifies every man, with NO “respect to persons” as one’s neighbor. Here, if we can see the idea of the human race as found in the defining ideas for ethnos, we can then better see the role of agape and the force of the second of the Great Commandments. We can also see how that the divisiveness of the church has hindered its spiritual advancement for the last 2000 years. Another thing to see here IS found in the way that the Master expands upon the Truth of the law while He sets aside many of the ancillary rules and regulations which Moses incorporated into the law; rules and regulations that bear NO relationship to the singular idea of agape through Right Human Relations. In telling us about the Great Commandments Jesus takes the essence of the first of the Ten Commandments and adds to it another that IS found scattered with many of the ancillary ideas that He rejects. While His rejection of certain sayings, precepts to the Jews, IS acknowledged by much of the church, the reality behind this goes largely unseen. In the view of sacrifice, a set of rules and regulations that rivaled the idea of the sabbath in the Jew’s religious practice, it IS NOT ONLY the Master who shows us the way that this ancient rite of atonement should have been eliminated or at least downplayed as a strict religious rite. The Prophet Hosea clearly tells them the words of the Lord saying “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6) 700 years before the advent of the Master but these words DID NOT strike a chord in the Jews’ thinking. Jesus repeats these words, again the to deaf ears of the Jews’ leaders, saying “go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice“, a charge that He repeats saying to these same religious leaders “if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 9:13, 12:7). And it IS NOT ONLY Hosea that offers this Truth to the Jews, the Prophet Isaiah, at about the same time, tells them “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats” (Isaiah 1:11). Between these two prophets the entirety of Judaism, the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms should have been enlightened and perhaps there were yet others who brought this same important message. The point here IS that while this idea of sacrifice was offered by Moses as a part of the law, there was a temporary nature to it that he Jews DID NOT see as they felt a need for the ongoing comfort of atonement or, perhaps, because the priests needed this part of the religion for them to thrive. Regardless of the reasoning, the Jews practice continued in various forms until the final destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
This IS NOT the ONLY part of Moses rules and regulations that IS de-emphasized or changed by the words of the Master. There ARE also such ideas as “Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Leviticus 24:20). This IS repeated several times in the books of the law; we find it again in Deuteronomy and also in Exodus. We should note here that the Master turns this idea from a law into a saying as He tells us “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38-39). This saying from the Old Testament IS NOT enhanced by Jesus as ARE those that ARE of the Ten Commandments, this command of Moses IS effectively eliminated. We should note here one other thing; these words from Leviticus ARE themselves contrary to the ideas of Right Human Relations that ARE the Ten Commandments. And it IS contrary to ALL those commandments that in any way concern the idea of agape including that which appears just before this in Leviticus which we cite above. We should try to see that Jesus KNOWS the separation between those commandments that reflect agape and those ancillary commandments given to promote social order or to establish those rites and rituals by which the Jew could find comfort. This IS NOT missed by the Master and NOT missed by His apostles as they go out in disregard for ALL commandments that ARE NOT concerning agape. Jesus continues with this saying to further enhance the sense of negativity that He has applied to it; He tells us: “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:40-42). Can we see the sense of agape in these words? Can we see the meekness that IS expected of the disciple of the Lord. The point here IS simply that the Master has enhanced our understanding of those commandments that ARE related to the Ten, that IS those that ARE concerning the relationship between God and man and the relationship between man and his fellowman. These of course ARE become the Great Commandments and we should note here that these two draw upon the Ten Commandments and those same ideas of agape, that ARE scattered among the ancillary commands of Moses. The second of the Great Commandments comes from Leviticus while the Ten come from the reading of the stone tablets in Exodus which IS then repeated in Deuteronomy. We should try to see that while He DOES enhance our understanding of those of Moses commandments which concern Love, He downplays or effectively eliminates those which DO NOT. We can see this most clearly in Jesus’ attitude toward the sabbath; while He recognizes its social and religious importance to the Jews, He DOES, at the same time, tell them that they had the wrong message regarding it.
Jesus seemingly heals on the sabbath purposefully; while there ARE instances of healing on non-sabbath days, it IS His healing in regard to the sabbath that should get the reader’s attention in the gospels. An example of this IS found in Matthew’s Gospel where we read “behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days“. The gospel tells us that after this encounter with the Jews’ religious leaders that they “held a council against him, how they might destroy him” (Matthew 12:10-12, 14). It IS in such sayings that we should understand that much of what the Master says and DOES IS NOT ONLY against the Jews’ practices but against their interpretive practice of the laws of Moses, interpretations that while excessive, DID conform to the tenor of the law that says: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:8-11). We should note here that while this commandment IS a part of the Ten Commandments given by the Lord through Moses, it IS at the same time wholly misunderstood and out of place in the Ten save for the effect that may have been intended in regard to first of the Ten….reverence for the One True God. We should note here that in this context the first of the Ten Commandments DOES NOT have a connection to agape but rather ONLY to the idea that there IS but One Lord that must reverenced. This tenor IS changed however in the lengthy explanation offered by Moses in Deuteronomy. While the context from Exodus IS repeated in the fifth chapter, the following chapter adds in the idea of agape and it IS this version that Jesus shows us as the first of the Great Commandments. Moses says “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart” (Deuteronomy 6:4-6). While we CAN NOT explain the difference between the original pronouncement that IS a part of the Ten and this latter explanation, it IS this latter nonetheless that the Master understands as the law. And, we should note that it IS this version that IS acknowledged as the Truth by the scribe and the lawyer in the gospels. We should note as well that there IS and has been much confusion in the numbering of these Ten Commandments with different religions, Jews and Christians, different denominations and sects, and different historic figures and church fathers ALL numbering these differently while some include different and separate words from the Exodus’ text. A Wikipedia chart shows this clearly at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments .
What we should try to see here IS that there ARE those commandments that Jesus incorporates into His teachings as they existed from the beginning, There ARE those that have changed over the 1500 years between Moses and the Master, and there ARE those that ARE to be ignored by both the Jew and the Christian. Then there ARE those which the Master enhances: divorce, adultery and most importantly the deeper reality of agape. On the subject of agape we read Jesus words according to Matthew as “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you“, It IS this, following this reality of Love, that Jesus shows us as the Way to the reality of becoming True sons of God. The Master continues showing us the result of this expression of agape saying that this result IS “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust….Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-44, 45, 48). Luke offers us these same ideas but in an expanded way saying that the Master’s words ARE:
“But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:27-36).
We should see here that Luke incorporates much more of the Master’s words from the Sermon on the Mount into Jesus’ words on agape and we should note as well that each version DOES include the most important and most ignored aspect of agape….that it should be without any “respect to persons“. While this IS stated for us ONLY in James’ Epistle, it IS alluded to in the Master’s words here as He tells us two things; first He tells us of the nature of the Lord and then He tells us that we should be as He IS. Matthew presents the first saying that the Lord “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” while Luke frames Jesus’ words as saying that “he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil“. In both of these we should see the deeper reality of the Apostle Peter’s revelation that “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34); a charge that IS repeated by the Apostle Paul. We should NOT narrow the scope of these words to reflect ONLY the Lord’s view of the Jew versus the gentile but rather that this reflects on the Lord’s vision of ALL men as whatsoever comes from the Lord comes “on the evil and on the good” and “unto the unthankful and to the evil“. The translation of these qualities of the Godhead into the intended qualities of everyman ARE then found in the Master’s words which ARE stated as “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” by Luke and as “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect“. In these words the reality of having NO “respect to persons” IS transferred to the disciple and to the aspirant and we should try to see that the expression of Love, of agape, IS the reality of being merciful and also the reality of that perfection that mimics the Lord. These ideas ARE NOT doctrinally understood despite James’ most clear statement saying that “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors” (James 2:8-9). And we should be careful to understand both the idea of the Greek word teleios which IS rendered as perfect in the King James Bible and the intimate relationship that this idea has to mercy. Thayer’s tells us that teleios means: properly, brought to its end, finished; lacking nothing necessary to completeness; perfect 9 before going into ideas of maturity 9. Strong’s tells us that teleios IS complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with G3588) completeness:—of full age, man, perfect 9a. Based in these and the commentaries of others, the general tenor applied to teleios IS NOT perfection as in being perfect but rather in a sense of maturity which idea IS manipulated to reflect other ideas which ARE offered by the apostles. The reality of this idea IS however the reality of being perfect and in this we should see that when applied to “your Father which is in heaven” there IS NO possibility of teleios referring to maturity.
This brings us back to our selection from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans where the differences between being perfect and being a carnal man IS outlined with clarity. That most DO NOT see this in Paul’s words IS unfortunate. The doctrinal view of both these qualities accorded to the Lord and the intent of the apostle’s words are sorely misunderstood and misapplied as the doctrinal thinker sees himself in the position of the perfected man, the man who DOES “mortify the deeds of the body“, while he IS yet living in the carnal world as a carnally focused man. We must remember that this orientation IS the product of that vanity into which ALL men ARE born, a vanity that IS exacerbated by his nurturing and his indoctrination into the ways of the world; this includes the ways of whatsoever religion he happened to be born into or subsequently adopted. And both of these ideas ARE in our selection; we find the perfected man at the right side of every equation presented and we find Paul’s words on the plight of men, their subjection to vanity which IS their “bondage of corruption” from which ALL must eventually escape. Vincent paints this vanity, this bondage, as: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends 4 and here we should try to see how that the carnal man, religious or irreligious, IS in this perishable and decaying condition, a condition that Vincent may NOT have completely understood. To understand this one must be able somewhat understand the very nature of man as a spiritual being living for a time through a body of flesh and the clearest examples of this ARE in the Life of the Christ and of those apostles whose stories ARE given to us in the Book of Acts and the gospels. It IS the Soul that IS subjected to the vanity that IS Life in form while it IS this form Life that IS intended to express the qualities of the Soul which ARE the qualities of the Godhead. Through the constant expression of the personality apart from the intent of the Soul, the Soul’s potential for subduing the carnal instincts and desires for self slowly perishes and decays. We should try to see that there IS a point of NO return, a point at which the Life of the man becomes totally and irrevocably carnal. This condition IS the product of our nurturing and indoctrination compounded by our failure to resist a focus on the self and to follow the promptings of the Soul. Here again we should try to see that the doctrinal thinker IS more heavily bound to his carnal nature while NOT realizing that he IS so bound. The doctrinal thinker, because he has presumed that ALL things of God ARE imputed to him through doctrinal precepts, DOES NOT seek the greater Truths and. should he come across some version of that Truth, he sees it as untruth because it conflicts with the teachings of his doctrines. In this we should see Vincent’s idea of being separate from God, and pursuing false ends; while these afflict the religious and the irreligious, it IS the religious that IS separated by his bondage to his doctrine which supplies the false ends. We should try to see here that it IS the Soul that loses opportunity when his vehicle of expression IS so bound to the carnality of Life and it IS the Soul that IS separated from the possibility, the potential if you will, of that Union that Paul shows us in our selection as “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body“. Repeating our selection we read:
“they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in
hope, Becauseexpectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:5-23).
We should see here the idea that we presented above; how that in these words IS the comparison between being the carnal man and being a True son of God. We see this in the opening words where the comparison IS between minding “the things of the flesh” or pursuing “the things of the Spirit“. The former leads ONLY to Vincent’s words as our sense of death while the latter leads, as Paul shows us, to “life and peace“. Paul goes on to tell us about having “the Spirit of Christ” and while the Christian believes that this IS imputed to him, that he has this Spirit, this IS contrary to the Master’s own words which ARE the third part of our trifecta. It IS here that the doctrinal thinker Truly hits that wall that prevents him or greatly inhibits him from seeking the Truth. The Lord tells us clearly that “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” and in this we should see the singular Way to have “the Spirit of Christ“. Again, there IS much in Paul’s words that compare for us the carnal man to the perfected man and this IS summed up for us in the idea that “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live“. This Life IS in that perfection which begins with allowing the Spirit, the Soul if you will, to DO the necessary work of Transformation which IS the result of that “renewing of your mind” which begins with our True Repentance. We close today repeating our trifecta:
- “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
- “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
- “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:21-24).
We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.
- 9 Thayer’s Greek Lexicon on blueletterbible.org
- 9a The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on blueletterbible.org
- * From The Reappearance of the Christ by Alice A Bailey; © 1948 by Lucis Trust
Those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.
Voltaire, Writer and Philosopher
