ON LOVE; PART MCDXCV
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 an analysis of sorts regarding some of the steps that we must face in our journey to and upon the Path to Truth and Love, the Path to our awakening to the constant call of our own Souls. We have tried to establish over the course of these blogposts, especially the more recent ones, the role of agape in the lives of men in this world as we have also tried to break down the barriers to our understanding just what agape IS. We ended with a list of three necessary components for our success; we said: First we must accept that the Great Commandment that says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” IS a valid spiritual Way to accomplish ALL things spiritual. Second we must understand that our neighbor IS everyman and that to Love him “as thyself” is the reality of what has become an unfulfilled adage that IS commonly expressed as ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you‘. Thirdly, the combination of these ideas sets forth the God like idea that we must have NO “respect to persons“; both of these first two must be understood to include every man as both the others and “thy neighbour“. Finally we made reference to the ‘prayer’ or mantra that we have used to end our posts and here we should pay special attention to the opening line that tell us that says: “the sons of men are one and I am one with them“. These words set forth the idea of the Oneness of our human family and our view of ourselves as an integral part of that family. This Oneness begins with our Universal sameness as Souls in form in this world, a Oneness against which there ARE NO differences save for the spiritual advancement of some over others. Even this however IS NOT a True difference in our nature; it IS merely a difference in our ability to control our Life in forms, our ability to control our flesh. While these ideas may sound esoteric, they ARE but a different way to view the words of the Master and His apostles and here we can look to the Apostle Paul’s words saying:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For 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[d] 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“
Romans 8:1-14
These words reflect our first three steps; first the idea that we ARE “in Christ Jesus” requires that we ARE True followers and NOT merely ‘believers‘. When we Truly follow the Lord we answer His rhetorical question asking “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) in a most positive way as we strive to attain an ever greater measure of our ability to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit“. It IS in so striving that we come to Truly understand the Master’s words saying “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“; we come to both understand and to practice the reality as we strive to fulfill Paul’s words saying “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2). There IS perhaps much confusion regarding the apostle’s words that instruct us to “be not conformed to this world“. While many Christians proclaim that they ARE NOT, they continue on a path of worldly endeavors as they stive to accomplish worldly things through the use of worldly tools such as money and social status. This IS the crux of the matter: men should take on the Master’s words saying “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth….But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:18, 19); this IS the reality of the True Christian Life according to the Lord. The Master also tells us that we should NOT have our eye focused upon the evil but upon the good and while He DOES so in parabolic terms, it IS easy to discover His Truth through a better understanding of just what evil IS. We should remember that Jesus tells us later such things as “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children” (Matthew 6:11) and in these words we should see that He IS NOT calling ALL men evil as the idea IS generally understood but He IS calling out their focus upon the things of the world. This focus IS the evil and IS opposed by the idea of “how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11). In these words from the Master we should be able to see that it IS the focus of our lives that matters and it IS this same focus through which we decide to choose either God or mammon with mammon being understood as more than wealth and possessions but rather the entirety of our focus. to this we should add the Master’s words saying “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). This carnal focus the station for most ALL men and it IS from this position that we must work in order to be in accord with Paul’s words that we cite above; this working IS also our Transformation. In the end it IS Jesus’ words saying “Take no thought for your life” (Matthew 6:25) that ARE our guide to being “delivered made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God“. If it IS this that we want, we must follow in His words.
Our second point above IS our recognition and appreciation of everyman as our neighbor as we deflect the many doctrinal ideas that try to persuade us that our neighbor IS as the idea IS commonly understood or IS a fellow Christian among many variations of the idea. The Master tells us rather clearly who our neighbor and the lexicons, bible dictionaries and many commentaries affirm His point that the neighbor IS everyman. We have NOT discussed His idea of the neighbor for some time and perhaps it IS here that we should DO so again. While the Master’s words ARE presented to us as a parable, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, we should try to see that His words ARE NOT parabolic at ALL. They ARE a straightforward example of the ways to see others against the common understanding of how to DO so. Jesus tells us:
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again*, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise“
Luke 10:30-37
While we say that this IS NOT a parable as the word IS generally defined, we ARE in the minority; but, to be sure, we ARE in the minority on most ALL biblical issues. A parable IS generally defined as: an allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth* and while Master’s words on the Good Samaritan DOES illustrate or teach some truth, it IS NOT an allegory but rather an example of both the negative and positive aspects of seeing one’s neighbor. This IS a parable ONLY according to one of the defining ideas listed in the lexicon which states that a parable IS: an example by which a doctrine or precept is illustrated2. The idea of these words from Jesus also meets Strong’s definition that a parable IS a: fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral)9a but here again we should note that this IS more an example than a fictitious narrative. Vincent defines the parable saying the word IS: From para, beside, and ballw, to throw. A parable is a form of teaching in which one thing is thrown beside another4 but here in the Master’s words we DO NOT Truly have that dynamic, we have a straightforward example that shows us the idea of the neighbor. Our point here IS to take away any doctrinal defenses regarding the precept of the neighbor based in Jesus’ words being parabolic and therefore subject to interpretation. What we have in this story of the Good Samaritan IS basically a straightforward example that shows us the idea of the neighbor; an idea that CAN NOT disputed. While we have discussed our thoughts on the story of the Good Samaritan in previous essays, it IS important that we try to understand the Master’s perspective in presenting it the way that He DOES. The Samaritan, the central actor in this story IS just that a Samaritan and we should note that such ARE NOT in agreement with the Jews as we read in Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four of John’s Gospel. Against this reference Vincent tells us that: The Jews treated the Samaritans with every mark of contempt, and accused them of falsehood, folly, and irreligion4. The story of the Samaritans IS much more that simply the people of Samaria; From the Old Testament they ARE understood as an intermarried and mixed subset of the Jews originating while most ALL of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. When the Jews returned from their captivity they refused to associate themselves with the Samaritans. This central actor then IS related to the Jews but NOT accepted. The other actors in this story ARE a priest and a Levite and here we should understand the relevance of each. The priest IS the easier to understand; the priest IS defined by Thayer’s as: one who offers sacrifices and in general is busied with sacred rites9; these ARE the religious class of Jews and it IS from among their ranks that we have the most respected office of the high priest. According to historical sources the priests could be any combination of Pharisees and Sadducees depending mostly on their religious politics. Surely the priests KNOW the law as it was presented in those days so they should have been understanding of the whole idea of the neighbor and the commandment that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“.
The next actor is the Levite. Thayer’s tells us that the Levites were: one of Levi’s posterity. In a narrower sense those were called Levites (Hebrew לֵוִי בְּנֵי, לְוִיִּים) who, not being of the race of Aaron for whom alone the priesthood was reserved, served as assistants of the priests. It was their duty to keep the sacred utensils and the temple clean, to provide the sacred loaves, to open and shut the gates of the temple, to sing sacred hymns in the temple, and do many other things9. From this we should take the idea that the Levite IS an ‘assistant’ priest who should also KNOW the realty of the idea of the neighbor according to the commandment. The final actor IS of course the injured man. Now the injured man “fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead“. He IS left helpless in the road requiring assistance from someone to survive.
Now comes the priest, a presumably ‘holy’ man of whom the story tells us merely “passed by on the other side“. We should NOT doubt that the priest saw the injured man and should try to see that despite his religiosity decided that he would NOT offer any assistance and here we can assume that the injured man IS also a Jew. Next comes the Levite, another presumably religious man, who “came and looked on” the injured man but then he too “passed by on the other side“. Here there IS NO presumption necessary to for us to see that the Levite DID see the man and his injuries. Finally comes the Samaritan. We should pause here to again note that both the priest and the Levite ARE of the Jews’ religious class and should have understood, at least in terms of their own religion, that they had a responsibility to render aid but they chose NOT to DO so; both simply “passed by on the other side“. Finally comes the Samaritan who IS from a group of people of whom the woman at well says that “the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). It IS this Samaritan man who would have been more justified in walking on by but, in his own sense of the religion that the Samaritans shared with the Jews, saw the need to give aid to the injured man. The rest of the story IS a testament to degree of aid given by the Samaritan and this perhaps to draw a greater distinction between Loving thy neighbor and NOT caring in the least. The story however IS NOT in regard to the happenings that we describe above it IS simply in regard to the final question posed by the Master saying “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?“. The question IS NOT who gave aid and who DID NOT, it IS simply who among them understood the gravity of the centuries old adage “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“. What the Master IS pointing out IS that even in those days 2000 years ago the adage had become a trite and rather meaningless statement. So yet today; we ARE yet in a world where the idea of the neighbor IS NOT accepted and where the words of the Master that tell us them ARE ignored. Jesus tells us clearly that “if ye love them which love you, what thank charis have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank charis have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank charis have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again” (Luke 6:32-34). Can we see the point here? We should note that we change the rendering of the word thank to the original Greek word charis which should always be rendered in terms of grace when used in a spiritual context and here perhaps we should add that this word, like agape, would have been better left untranslated as was DONE with words like mammon. We should note also that Matthew offers us the idea in terms of misthos of which the lexicon tells us IS: dues paid for work; wages, hire2 and which IS rendered in the King James Bible as reward.
While the idea of our neighbor IS NOT specifically defined in the Master’s words the point IS NOT lost to the reader of His words; it IS ONLY lost in the doctrinal ideas of men who choose to Love ONLY those that ARE close in the way of relationships and friendships. The Master’s story that IS the Parable of the Good Samaritan IS cited often in the church but the True meaning IS NOT expressed as that the neighbor IS everyman, nor IS it shown as the attitude of the Christian world save for in specific situations that suit its needs. This concept of the neighbor and the words saying that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” however ARE central to the Truth of agape and its expression to the world. The idea, as cited from Luke above and from Matthew’s Gospel, IS clearly given to us as a part of Jesus’ words on our expression of agape. We should note here that the words saying “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” ARE shown to us eight times in the New Testament, each in an explanatory context intended to tell us just what the Truth of agape IS. While equanimity IS the KEY to our expression of agape, it IS important to understand that equanimity in terms of our neighbor, in terms of everyman. The world stops at this point: how DO we Love everyman under our current understanding of Love? It IS likely that we CAN NOT and it IS perhaps through this idea of impossibility that the doctrines of men have evolved to their current state where it IS NOT necessary to be “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only“. This IS where our thinking must evolve beyond our doctrinal ideas, beyond our view of men as men who ARE yet subject to the vanity of Life in this world. This IS perhaps the major step that humanity needs but to take this step there must be a fundamental understanding of the whole precept of agape. It IS agape that we must express and NOT the carnally oriented ideas of Love. We DO NOT need to see everyman as we see a son, a daughter, a wife or our parents; we DO not need to see everyman as our close friend or relative. What we need IS to recognize that everyman is on the very same journey as we ARE; that everyman IS a spiritual being expressing as a Soul in form. In this way we ARE ALL alike. Spiritually there ARE NO sexes, there ARE NO skin colors nor ARE there any cultural or racial differences. We ARE ALL Souls expressing Life through our carnal differences but we ARE NOT those differences. This IS our starting point: seeing everyman the same and treating everyman with NO “respect to persons” as DOES the Lord who “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). It IS to carry this idea forward to our treatment of everyman that James tell us to “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22).
We should understand here that this deception IS real, that it IS in this deception that we live our lives in the comfort of our own vanity. From this perspective it IS our vanity that must first be understood and dealt with so that we can see past ourselves as the center of our little universes and enter into the world of Truth and agape Love. This IS the central message of True Christianity and it IS the message of most ALL world religions, a message that IS especially visible in Buddhism. The church recognizes this vanity as the ‘fall of man‘ and while the effects of each ARE much the same, the ‘fall of man‘ argument emboldens a personality called Satan as the cause through the weakness of humans. While it IS True that Adam and Eve DO succumb to the wiles of the flesh, it IS NOT at the hand of a serpent and the fault IS NOT eating from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2-9). This IS but a story intended for a superstitious and barbarous world; it IS the vanity of Life in form and the illusion and the glamour that our vanity engenders that ARE the fault. It IS the natural way of the human family in this world where ALL that most everyman see is themselves at the center of their lives and survival as their True motivation. We should remember that in the Hebrew the word ‘adam which IS rendered as Adam and given a personality IS defined by the lexicon simply as: man, mankind followed by man, human being2; the personality of Adam IS based solely upon the way that the story IS told. The idea of personality IS carried forward into the New Testament by the Apostle Paul where it IS defined by doctrine as: the first man2. Strong’s defines Adam as: the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative)9a which IS but a doctrinal appellation. The story of Adam and Eve, while important to the barbarous and superstitious men of the times, has become a stumbling block in the face of True science despite the fact that much of the origins of man ARE yet but theory. Having said this about the origins of mankind, we turn back to the idea of vanity; we should try to see vanity as a force of nature that IS built into Life in this world. We ARE born into this vanity, into this force, and we react to it as men in this world; it IS vanity that IS responsible for ALL of the good and the bad that has happened over the centuries and it IS vanity that we must overcome if we Truly seek the Lord. Paul shows us the idea of vanity in ONLY one place saying that “the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21). We have discussed our changes to the King James rendering of Paul’s words several times in our blogposts and here we should simply note that they ARE based in commentary from Vincent and the idea that God has NO need to hope.
The Greek word ktsis IS rendered as both creature and creation and it IS most often translated as creation showing us the whole rather than its individual segments. It IS the whole creation that “was made subject to vanity“. While some choose to replace the idea of vanity with futility and others with ideas of God’s curse or frustration, these other ideas have little or NO meaning except perhaps in doctrinal circles. In the idea of vanity we have a usable idea that centers human thought upon the self both individually and corporately. Today the idea IS defined saying that: Vanity is the excessive pride in oneself, usually related to appearance or accomplishments* while Webster’s 1828 Dictionary tells us that vanity IS: Emptiness; want of substance to satisfy desire; uncertainty; inanity. Fruitless desire or endeavor. Trifling labor that produces no good. Emptiness; untruth; Empty pleasure; vain pursuit; idle show; unsubstantial enjoyment1. Can we see the sense of illusion in these defining ideas? Vincent, as we ofttimes cite, tells us that this vanity IS: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends4. From the dictionary ideas we get the ideas of self and of illusion which ARE the outward signs of our vanity and, to be sure, most ALL men ARE so encumbered. From Vincent we get the deeper spiritual ideas that show us vanity in accordance with Paul’s words which clearly imply that in our vanity we ARE lost in our “bondage of corruption” with the ‘promise’ that we shall be “made free” from our bondage. This IS our journey from our being born into vanity and our attaining the freedom that IS “the glorious liberty of the children of God“. Vincent shows us the spiritual abyss where we ARE separate from God as we see ONLY the self in this world; he also show us the illusion through the idea that we ARE pursuing false ends as we seek after mammon instead of God. It IS our choice to remain in our vanity and whether we see this as the ‘fall of man‘ or as vanity DOES NOT Truly matter, the result IS the same. Remaining in our vanity IS akin to our choice of mammon over God and “treasures upon earth” over “treasures in heaven“; it IS our choice to live as men in this world. We should try to understand that it IS men in the church that have made this choice and teach it and this has been True from the beginning. The creation and adoption of doctrines IS the evidence of this choice as most ALL of doctrines, Jew and Christian alike, ARE designed to allow for men to live as men while laying claim to “the glorious liberty of the children of God“, a claim that IS built in doctrinal hypocrisy. In the last essay we discussed this hypocrisy in some detail and, as we have said, it IS through hypocrisy rightly defined that we can tell the “false prophets” and teachers that easily keep men bound.
In the last post we said that: The point of hypocrisy should be understood in its broadest possible meaning from the idea of saying one thing and doing another to the idea of feigning to be one way and actually being another. Our discernment of hypocrisy IS the major tool that men can use to understand who IS the “false prophet” and the false teacher. Today we add that we must also eliminate our own hypocrisy; the hypocrisy that encroaches on our own ability to attain “the glorious liberty of the children of God“. We ARE again reminded of the Apostle James words saying “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment” (James 2:12-13). While these words can mean different things to different people, we should remember the context in which they ARE offered. These words follow upon the apostle’s words on agape and the way that it should be expressed with NO “respect to persons” and here the idea of speaking and doing is related to our expression of “the “the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“. Yes this IS a good adage in the minds of most ALL Christians but it IS practiced by a very few. Can we see the point? Can we see that to speak such words and teach them IS hypocrisy when we DO NOT espouse them. The “royal law” IS clearly shown us by James and we should try to see that it IS this same law that he later calls “the law of liberty” alluding to the freedom that it offers to men, freedom from their “bondage of corruption“. This IS yet another view of Paul’s words telling us that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“. Vincent explains this against comments regarding the Greek words saying: James here speaks of a single commandment, the proper word for which is ejntolh, while nomov is the body of commandments. It is appropriate here, however, since this special commandment sums up the entire law4. And this IS our point regarding agape and our expression of it. In our expression of this ‘God kind of Love’, as doctrines nebulously portray the idea, that we can be seen as keeping His words thereby availing ourselves of ALL of the ‘promises‘ of scripture rightly understood. This brings us back again to our trifecta where some of the Master’s promises ARE offered for our expression of agape Love. The Master 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).
We should understand here that these promises ARE our reward if you will, they ARE the grace that comes into our lives as men in this world who will keep His words, those who will fully strive to “love thy neighbour as thyself“. And this IS the KEY to keeping His words as the apostles point out for us in such sayings as “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” and Paul’s companion sayings from his Epistle to the Romans where we read: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). We should remember that these words ARE from that apostle upon which the Christian world relies for their doctrinal guidance and that these words should be at least as important as those which ARE used to formulate doctrine. But of course they ARE NOT and neither ARE James’ words saying “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well” (James 2:8). As we cite above, Vincent shows us that James idea of the “royal law” should be understood as that this special commandment sums up the entire law4 and this IS the greater point of our drive to understand the Power of agape in the world today. We should understand here that our expression of agape according to the tenet that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” brings us willingly into accord with ALL of the commandments against which the Jews first and then the Christians have created their doctrinal aversions and alternatives. But these alternatives ARE in a word worthless hypocrisy, a hypocrisy that IS so embedded in the culture and traditions of men that it IS extremely difficult to change and the lesson here IS the lesson that the Master sought to show to the Jews. We close today with James words which for us paint the Way to accomplishing this tenet that we should “love thy neighbour as thyself” and Jesus’ reframing of the idea saying that “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12). We should remember here that Jesus also paints the “royal law” as the KEY saying of the Great Commandments “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40). He paints His explanatory words in the same way saying of the idea that “as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31) that “this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Again, James Way tells us clearly 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 8-9).
We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.
| Aspect | Potency | Aspect of Man | In Relation to the Great Invocation | In relation to the Christ |
| GOD, The Father | Will or Power | Spirit or Life | Center where the Will of God IS KNOWN | Life |
| Son, The Christ | Love and Wisdom | Soul or Christ Within | Heart of God | Truth |
| Holy Spirit | Light or Activity | Life Within | Mind of God | Way |
- 1 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 and 1913 from https://1828.mshaffer.com/
- 2 New Testament Greek lexicon on biblestudytools.com
- 4 Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition
- 9 Thayer’s Greek Lexicon on blueletterbible.org
- 9a The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible 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
