ON LOVE; PART MCDX
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 ended the last essay with a summary of sorts of the first four words from the Apostle Paul’s list of what he calls “the works of the flesh“. As we continue we should try to understand that the opening idea of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, “another gospel; which is not another“, plays an important part in the way that his words ARE rendered from the Greek and it IS perhaps just what he IS citing as those works that IS reflected in his ideas on “another gospel“. We DO NOT know what perversions Paul noticed in the conversion of his teaching to “another gospel” by those at Galatia but a historical perspective will show that it IS NOT as presumed in the church; that it IS NOT a reversion back to men’s Jewish religious roots. If we can see that it IS this idea of “another gospel” that has caused the dilution of the Master’s message and that this dilution has continued unabated for 2000 years, perhaps we can also see that what Paul IS writing about IS a significant part of the source of confusion as men tried to form their new Christian religion. The apostle’s words are clear as he tells the Galatians “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6:9).
It IS easy to see that Paul sees the great harm in what IS happening at Galatia and we should remember that he found similar undertakings at Corinth as IS reflected in his words to the Corinthians. While we DO NOT KNOW the real intent of Paul’s saying “let him be accursed“, we can be sure that it IS NOT a good thing. The idea IS generally applied to the idea of excommunication but there was NO such facility at the time. Based on the usage of the idea of anathema, Vincent offers us the idea that the accursed IS: set apart to destruction and so separated from Christ4 and in this we should be able to glimpse the severity of Paul’s words against the purveyors and teachers of “another gospel“. This stance by the apostle against such purveyors and teachers of “another gospel” DID NOT however diminish their progress as those who carried forward the Christian ideas of men continued to dilute the Master’s words to their own supposed benefit. We can likely see the motivation of dilution in the words of our trifecta which defines for us the singular Truth that a man must keep His words for True salvation. And, perhaps we can see it ever clearer IS such ideas as “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37) and the related idea from Luke’s Gospel saying “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). It IS in the reality that men could NOT see themselves in these verses, that they could NOT forsake ALL and could NOT forsake Love for family as a primary reality of Life, that the various versions of “another gospel” begin. This IS the same reality that plagued the Jews as they developed their own “another gospel“, their mitzvah if you will, against which Jesus rails throughout the gospels. The Jews also sought out the seemingly easier path of the dilution of the singular Truths which the Master embodies for us in the Great Commandments. We should try to see how that it IS our vanity, defined by Vincent as a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends4, that IS the root cause of our twofold failure. Our first failure IS that we ARE adulterous, we DO fornicate, we ARE impure and our lives ARE governed by wantonness as regards our inability to bring the True “fruit of the Spirit” to bear on our mortal lives. ALL of these words show this inability as we fail to heed the promptings of our own Souls to the Good, the Beautiful and the True, the things of God; as we fail also to bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
We should understand that this failure IS founded in our pursuing false ends as we focus our lives upon the carnal and the mundane. The second failure IS related to this insofar as we DO NOT see nor understand that this focus IS our perishable and decaying condition which keeps us separate from God; we DO NOT see that our doctrinal approach to the Lord or our lack of any approach whatsoever IS what keeps us separate. Such failures, and there ARE many more, ARE the reality of that vanity to which ALL men ARE subjected; a sense of vanity that we define as our erroneous views of ourselves as the center of our lives without regard to the inner reality of the Soul; an inner reality that the Master tries to show us but to which we DO NOT respond except in theoretical doctrinal pronouncements. It IS in living our Life as the flesh that we ARE adulterers, fornicators, impure, and motivated by wantonness as we forsake the Truth and the reality of agape for the betterment of our own human experience in this Earth. It IS against such works of the flesh that the Master teaches and here again we should cite His words from His Sermon on the Mount saying:
- “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also“;
- “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon“;
- “Take no thought for your life” (Matthew 6:19-21, 24, 25).
ALL of these sayings show us the proper channel for our lives in this world. But ALL of these sayings have been manipulated by the doctrines of men to reflect minor carnal ideas rather than the deep spiritual message of the Master who tells us clearly that we should “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33). It IS men however that have sought out alternatives to what they see as a too dramatic approach to Life in this world and it IS these alternatives that result in our pursuing false ends, an effect of vanity that men have failed to comprehend from the beginning. Again, it IS this vanity that defines human nature; a nature that survives upon ideas that ARE contrary to what Jesus tells us above. We DO ever take thought for our lives and we channel our energies into our carnal betterment and this even in our religious pursuits where our motivation IS our hope of heaven after death. While Jesus tells us to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” we DO continually seek after “treasures upon earth” as we cleverly attempt to define the former by our management of the latter. Finally we ignore His True saying that “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” as we try to ‘balance’ our doctrinally religious lives with our carnal pursuits never choosing one over the other except perhaps in the lives of those outside of doctrinal influences. This IS the state of humanity then and now and it IS likely this that Paul IS trying to bring the Galatians back from as he shows us that our religious attitudes ARE but “works of the flesh“. It IS unfortunate that we DO NOT yet understand this human dilemma into which we ARE cast by birth. We continue now with our discussion of Paul’s list of what ARE “the works of the flesh” by first repeating our selection; we read:
“for, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit“.
Galatians 5:13-25
The next verse begins with the Greek word eidololatreia which IS rendered here as idolatry. While this idea IS strongly related to our spiritual view of fornication where the idea IS that men put their attention on things other than the Lord thereby creating idols, this idea of eidololatreia goes more to the thought patterns of men in this world. Vine’s Expository Dictionary tells us of this idea that: An “idolater” is a slave to the depraved ideas his idols represent, and thereby, to divers lusts9b; and through this we should be able to glimpse some differences in the ideas presented. While the attention of men to things of this world shows us the reality of idols as an entity, eidololatreia shows us how that each entity can enslave us as we form an allegiance with that entity. We must remember that the very idea of idols from a spiritual perspective IS ALL things that take our attention and these perforce include our thoughts, attitudes and desires for an endless array of carnal ideas. From possessions to careers, from our ideas of Love to our prejudices, from our pursuit of carnal success to our doctrinal work towards securing a place in ‘heaven’, ALL ARE idolatries. ALL ARE among those “works of the flesh” and we should try to see here that there IS also a dynamic link between this idea of idolatry and the last word from the last verse, wantonness. Paul tells us this as he defines eidololatreia in his Epistle to the Colossians saying that men should “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5) as he equates the coveting of men to this idea of idolatry. The more common doctrinal understanding of eidololatreia can be seen in John Gill’s commentary where we read that: Idolatry; which some understand of covetousness, which is so called; but rather it means the worshipping of other gods, or of graven images which IS NOT at ALL Paul’s reference based on the context of his words to these Galatians. It IS better to see the idea that idolatry IS the Galatians reliance on “another gospel” than their worship of other gods, or of graven images and if we look sincerely at today’s Christianity we can see that same reliance on men’s doctrines as they have taken away men’s attention from the Truth and agape that IS God.
The next word in Paul’s list IS rendered as witchcraft from the Greek word pharmakeia. In today’s world this IS a strange rendering as it IS from this word that the English ideas of pharmaceutics IS derived. This rendering as witchcraft likely comes from the way that the idea IS used in the old testament translations of the Septuagint where we find it as the sorcerers in Exodus who were able to duplicate Moses feat of turning a staff into a serpent. In witchcraft we have a negative portrayal of this feat but whether we use this idea, sorcerer or even magician, the point IS the same and IS more related to the idea of drugs though NOT directly. Strong’s defines pharmakeia as medication (“pharmacy”), i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively)9a and here again we should look to the Old Testament for the extension of the idea into magic. Pharmakeia IS used ONLY once by Paul and twice in Revelation and while it IS likely right to look at this idea through the Septuagint, we should maintain the idea of medication or, better, the effects of medication. Thayer’s primary defining idea for pharmakeia IS: the use or the administering of drugs9 but this idea IS also incomplete according to the context of Paul’s words. In this world there IS the ability of some to contact a worldly power that can resemble spiritual Power and the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh can clearly show us this. In Exodus we read that “the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods” (Exodus 7:8:12). Here IS worldly power contrasted with spiritual Power and the reality that it IS the spiritual Power that overwhelms the carnal. These carnal feats of magic or sorcery have always existed and while inexplainable, mostly because the existance of such carnal powers IS denied, such power can be wielded by men, some of whom may feign a spiritual source.
The connection here with pharmaceutics IS nebulous at best but it IS perhaps possible to gain such power through the use of drugs, most of which ARE natural plants and herbs. In past posts we have cited examples of how such arts ARE taught in some parts of the church as men ARE trained to be prophetic and to be able to heal others. However, without the strong spiritual presence that IS gained through the Master’s teaching from our trifecta, gained through keeping His words, whatsoever abilities one may develop ARE themselves but carnal replications of spiritual ideas. What Paul IS saying then IS that such carnal abilities ARE but aspects of “the works of the flesh” and this without the additional negativity inherent in the ideas of witchcraft and sorcery. There IS much that IS yet unknown regarding the human psyche and its abilities that ARE manifest in some as the genius of prodigy as well as the documented psychic abilities of others. It IS when these psychic abilities ARE coupled with True spiritual Transformation that they can take on the ideas from scripture that we call miracles. Can we see the point here? And can we see how the allusion to the negative ideas witchcraft and sorcery have crept into what IS doctrinally understood as occult arts, another psychic arena that IS NOT understood and sorely misrepresented by doctrinal authorities. With the mention of our trifecta we take this opportunity to repeat the Master’s word; Jesus tells us:
- “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).
Paul’s next word IS rendered as hatred but IS defined in terms of hostility9a by Strong’s and enmity9 by Thayer’s, both of which ARE better choices for the Greek word echthra that IS hatred. Vine’s interestingly notes that in its defining idea of enmity that: It is the opposite of agape9b. We often equate agape with GoodWill, especially through the saying that GoodWill IS Love in Action; it IS easy to see how that these two ideas, enmity and GoodWill, can be contrary to one another. However, the deeper realities of agape reach much further that DOES GoodWill; agape IS a spiritual Force, it IS the very nature of God as John tells us saying “God is love agape” while GoodWill IS an expression of agape in this world. We should try to see GoodWill in a similar way as the deeper realities of mercy, another word that IS sorely misused through its common understanding. Enmity also IS a carnal thing and whether this stretches into the reality of hatred likely depends upon the measure of enmity that one has. We should note that this IS a different Greek word than that which IS rendered as hate in Jesus saying that “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot* be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). This saying, which IS a direct comparison to Matthew’s version cited above where discipleship IS equated to worthiness of the Master’s Presence and through this we should understand miseo in terms of Loving less rather than hate which idea DOES NOT work at ALL in Luke’s context. Miseo and echthra ARE then quite different with the later reflecting the animosity of hate. Miseo however IS used in several sayings by the Master that imply a hatred and in many of these ideas we should perhaps find a better English word that reflects this idea of Loving less. Perhaps Paul’s citation of an Old Testament saying can help us to better understand miseo; we read that “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13). The point here IS that as “God is love agape” (1 John 4:8, 16), He DOES NOT hate and likely DOES NOT Love Esau less because “there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11). It IS in this apparent conundrum that we should try to see that there IS another meaning to the idea of miseo. If we could see that it IS the God Within that speaks through Moses, through the Prophets, through the Master and through His apostles and that each must perforce express whatsoever he may say through a personality that IS more or less Transformed and Redeemed, we could then perhaps understand some of the biblical ideas that go against the reality of God; ideas that ARE contrary to the Truth that “God is love agape” and the Godly expression of that Love with “no respect of persons” (Colossians 3:25).
While there IS more to these ideas of hate through the Greek word miseo, the idea of hatred should NOT be tied to echthra either. Paul IS showing us a spiritually motivated sense of enmity which we could perhaps see as a lack of GoodWill, a lack of a positive ‘feeling’ towards others and this for a variety of reasons that can range from disagreement with another’s religious orientation to another’s lack of understanding the True messages of scripture. The lesson here IS that regardless of another’s ways in this world, mentally, emotionally and psychically, they should be approached with a Spirit of GoodWill and this under the idea that GoodWill IS Love in Action. GoodWill IS our Universal expression of agape to ALL with NO “respect to persons” as James shows us saying “if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin” (James 2:9). Paul IS showing the Galatians that have been “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” that what they ARE expressing may fall short of the Master’s commandments on Love, commandments which see ALL equally through such ideas as “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Luke 6:27, 28). We should note here the relationship between echthra and echthros which IS rendered as enemies in Jesus’ words here; we should note the commandment to Love, to express agape, to such that may be opposed to what we ARE and what we say. Like miseo, there IS a more spiritual idea behind the apostles use of echthra and should we be able to see the spiritual lesson embedded in this word, we can then perhaps understand the whole of Paul’s intent in showing us these “works of the flesh“. It IS the carnality of men that hates, it IS NOT ever a function of the Soul which IS our individual expression of the Godhead both individually and corporately so that if we hate, if we have enmity toward others, we ARE surely NOT expressing “the fruit of the Spirit“. Our point here IS that these Greek words DO NOT point us to the common understanding of hate which IS a fully carnal response to others and to the world. When taken to a spiritual perspective the idea of these words becomes one that IS expressive of a tolerance for the views and habits of others under the control of agape which sees the True nature of men and understands that men’s carnal comportment IS but the result of vanity. We should remember here that it IS vanity that removes men from the influence of their own Souls as they ARE become lost in the miasma of carnal living; for the Galatians this IS a backsliding result of “another gospel” while for the average man this IS the result of never having realization of the Truth that scriptures place in one’s path. In religion most ALL believe the doctrinal ideas that contribute to this miasma, ideas which ARE NOT deterred by one’s own reading of scripture against the presumed authoritative words of “another gospel“. It is from this place that far too many Christians fail to express a True tolerance for the views and cultures of others and so ARE guilty of echthra, of enmity against those with whom they disagree and, to be sure, there ARE times that this reaches out as True carnal hatred.
Paul’s next word in this list of “the works of the flesh” IS rendered as variance. The Greek word here IS eris which IS rendered by others as strife, fighting, discord and rivalry; the New King James renders contentions. In these words we can see the doctrinal view of the idea behind eris which Strong’s tells us IS of uncertain affinity as they define the idea as a quarrel9a. The word IS rendered elsewhere as strive, debate and contentions, and Thayer’s defines eris as contention, strife, wrangling9. There ARE several words that ARE rendered as strife from the Greek and in this verse from Paul eritheia IS rendered as such further on; similarly this verse also includes wrath which would be closely related to hatred. It IS NOT likely that Paul desired to repeat ideas in this list as the rendering of his words DOES. Strong’s gives us the most basic idea behind eris as they relate the idea of quarrelling to wrangling and then to contention, debate, strife, variance9a. Spiritually there IS NO True fighting nor discord but there can be a sense of rivalry that creeps in and causes contentions and wrangling when expressed and it IS against this that Paul writes. Debating the merits of the Truth that comes to those called “into the grace of Christ” with those that ARE of “another gospel” or of another religion or belief IS what Paul calls a part of “the works of the flesh“. Such wrangling IS NOT a productive enterprise and we can perhaps see in this a reality of Jesus’ words saying “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matthew 7:6); a saying that IS sorely misunderstood. The doctrinal idea here IS much more fraught with disdain for others than IS necessary. John Gill in his Exposition of the Bible first embarks on the uncleanness of dogs under Jewish law and then goes on to equate men with swine, to persons notoriously vile and sinful8. Mr. Gill also offers us that there ARE similar Jewish sayings and without adopting the idea he repeats one saying: “do not cast pearls before swine”, nor deliver wisdom to him, who knows not the excellency of it; for wisdom is better than pearls, and he that does not seek after it, is worse than a swine8. The Jews’ saying IS closer to the reality than Mr. Gills ideas and it interesting that Vincent also DOES NOT show us a greater Truth to Jesus’ words. Vincent embarks on a story saying that: Small pearls, called by jewellers seed – pearls, would resemble the pease or maize on which the swine feed. They would rush upon them when scattered, and, discovering the cheat, would trample upon them and turn their tusks upon the man who scattered them4. While this idea may be the common aspect of Jesus’ parabolic Truth, it DOES NOT capture the simplicity of the idea which today’s dictionary cites as: Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them*. It IS this idea that we should try to see in Paul’s use of eris and our understanding of it as debate and contention. Can we see how that to debate the Truth IS akin to casting “pearls before swine” and giving “that which is holy unto the dogs“. While it IS somewhat natural for men to debate their beliefs and form contentions over differences, Paul IS showing us that this IS among “the works of the flesh” and that we should NOT allow spiritual Truths descend into such behavior.
The next word IS rendered as emulations and this IS a word that IS difficult to understand in both its English rendering and in its Greek form of zelos. We have written extensively about this word in past essays, most often as the Greek zelos IS used by James to define those human behaviors that ARE of that wisdom that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:15). Others render zelos in this verse in terms of jealousy, as obsession, and rivalry while overall it IS rendered mostly in terms of zeal and envying in the King James Bible. The confusion in words and the way they ARE rendered shows clearly in the way that zelos IS rendered In James list of those things that ARE NOT Wisdom. In that verse eritheia IS rendered as strife while zelos IS rendered as envying. Vincent tells us the the idea of zelos IS better understood as emulation and we would add that this idea of emulation should be properly defined as well. The fullness of emulation IS beyond the today’s defining ideas; our 1828 Webster’s dictionary gives us a much broader understand saying that emulation IS: the act of attempting to equal or excel in qualities or actions; rivalry; desire of superiority, attended with effort to attain to it; generally in a good sense, or an attempt to equal or excel others in that which is praise-worthy, without the desire of depressing others. Rom.11. In a bad sense, a striving to equal or do more than others to obtain carnal favors or honors1. It IS likely this meaning that Paul applies to zelos as part of “the works of the flesh“; it IS this action of emulation that IS easily the fault, even in spiritual circles, and this IS shown to us in the gospels as John and James seek higher office than their peers. Spiritual men both, they still succumb to their personalities filtering of spiritual Truth as they speak with the Master; we read: “And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them,What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mark 10:35-37). It IS such actions that Paul IS showing us as “works of the flesh” and NOT ONLY men’s effort or desire to equal or excel others* as the idea IS commonly understood and defined. Can we see how Paul IS cautioning the Galatians against such ideas as the deeper meanings of emulation and how that the renderings of others fails to give us this message; only the idea of rivalry even comes close.
Paul’s next word IS rendered as wrath and while this IS not the same as hatred, it IS likely caused by it; this idea IS offered ONLY to show the close proximity of these rendered words. The Greek word here IS thymos which Strong’s defines as passion (as if breathing hard)9a. Thayer’s defines thymos saying that it IS: from θύω to rush along or on, be in a heat, breathe violently; they then offer us a classical Greek idea from Plato which IS interpreted as: it signifies both the spirit panting as it were in the body, and the rage with which the man pants and swells9. The idea of wrath IS but a carnal understanding of the idea behind this word which IS rendered by others as “losing your temper”, “getting angry” and other ideas of anger, and even “fits of rage“; the Weymouth New Testament renders as “outbursts of passion“. Vincent tells us that the King James rendering should be plural saying that the idea IS Lit. wraths4 as he refers us to John’s Gospel for a deeper understanding of thymos. However, Mr. Vincent ONLY offers us a comparison between thymos and other words that ARE rendered as wrath or anger; he DOES NOT address the ideas from Strong’s nor Thayer’s which reference passion with the latter putting the idea into more spiritual terms. Wrath and anger ARE purely carnal ideas and actions while passion as it IS shown above can show us perhaps the interpreted effect of the spiritual panting that Thayer’s references. An example of this passion can be found in the Book of Acts where we read that “And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians“. Here their passion IS expressed against Paul’s “saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands” (Acts 19:28, 26) and if we can see the relationship here to “another gospel” perhaps we can better understand Paul’s point. Paul IS showing us that the Galatians that were NOT “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” and those that ARE reconvinced against “another gospel” should NOT react with passion or wrath against those that may continue to teach those things. Here we should try to see that this passion wells up from the Soul and IS misapplied by the personality; it IS against this that Paul IS writing.
We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.
- 1 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 and 1913 from https://1828.mshaffer.com/
- 4 Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition
- 8 Bible commentaries on BibleStudyTools.com
- 9 Thayer’s Greek Lexicon on blueletterbible.org
- 9a The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on blueletterbible.org
- 9b Vine’s Expository Dictionary on blueletterbible.org
- * Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2020
Those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.
Voltaire, Writer and Philosopher
