IN THE WORDS OF JESUS–Part 1854

ON LOVE; PART MDIII

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

As we ended the last essay we began a discussion on the Greek word aselgeia which IS rendered in the King James Bible as lasciviousness. This word, like so many others in the New Testament, has come to be seen in terms of sexual matters; this IS established through the alternate renderings offered by other bible versions. Other bible versions render the word as promiscuity, sensuality, debauchery, lewdness, licentiousness, indecency and lustful pleasures; ALL of these have specifically sexual connotations and we should remember here that while this word IS shown us by Paul as part of the “works of the flesh“, it IS offered in contrast to “the fruit of the Spirit“. As we have seen so far in the apostle’s list of these “works of the flesh” there ARE spiritual ideas attached to each word which ARE of more importance to the man seeking the Path than ARE the carnal ideas that ARE generally accepted by the churches. While this IS rather clear for ideas such as adultery, fornication and divorce, it becomes more muddy when we consider some of the other words in Paul’s list. The spiritual import IS however incorporated into each word that Paul uses as he addresses men that ARE presumably seeking the Path to Truth and Love. We should try to see that such men who ARE in the process of Repentance and Transformation ARE NOT concerned with any lasciviousness as in their True striving such things as promiscuity, sensuality, debauchery, lewdness, licentiousness, indecency and lustful pleasures ARE shunned in favor of their focus on the things of God. While the doctrinal church ascribes the idea of those seeking the Path to any and ALL ‘members’ who have claimed their ‘salvation‘ according to doctrinal tenets, most of such ‘members’ ARE yet enthralled by their carnal propensities. Such innate tendencies ARE of course a combination of their nurturing, indoctrination and experience combined with the natural psychic state of the individual which we should see as a karmic effect. To better understand the idea of lasciviousness we look to the Master’s words. Jesus uses this word in a seemingly different manner saying “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23). Here the idea of aselgeia IS linked with such personality issues as “covetousness, wickedness, deceit” rather than with the more physical ideas of “adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts” and, from a carnal perspective, this should matter. The idea IS linked to “evil thoughts” and when we can understand the idea of evil as it IS used in the New Testament, we can then more clearly see the Master’s point.

Evil IS yet another word that IS ofttimes misapplied and misunderstood. It can refer to the gross carnal actions of men but the main emphasis should be on its relation to sin, to the carnal activities and thoughts of men. While there ARE NO commentaries to support our view on kakos which IS rendered here as evil, there can be much revelation in its usage. Jesus uses this idea, saying to His disciples and the attendant Jews “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mathew 7:7-11). The Master IS offering us a view of the propensities of men versus the Way of the Lord and, to be sure, He IS NOT calling His disciples nor the surrounding people universally evil as that idea IS commonly understood; He IS however citing their carnal proclivities and this IS how we should see this idea of “evil thoughts“. They ARE carnal thoughts, thoughts of the self and the self in this world as opposed to thoughts regarding the things of God. The doctrinal thinking on kakos IS founded in the commentaries of the church over the centuries; Strong’s tells us that kakos IS: worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious:—bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked^9a. Thayer’s offers us similar adjectives to represent kakos but their lead defining idea can be more pertinent to the reality of the word; they tell us that kakos IS: universally, of a bad nature; not such as it ought to be⁹. From a spiritual perspective ALL of our carnal thinking IS “of a bad nature“, it IS contrary to the spiritual endeavors incorporated in the singular True Christian idea that we should keep His words. In the same way, our carnal thinking and even some of our carnal actions ARE not such as it ought to be being again contrary to our focus on the things of God.

Returning to our subject word aselgeia with the general idea that this IS related to our “evil thoughts” which ARE our carnal thoughts that ARE based in our desires for the things of the self in this world, our lusts if you will, we go to Vincent’s commentary on aselgeia. Mr. Vincent tells us of aselgeia as it IS used by Jesus above that: Derivation unknown. It includes lasciviousness, and may well mean that here; but is often used without this notion. In classical Greek it is defined as violence, with spiteful treatment and audacity. As in this passage its exact meaning is not implied by its being classed with other kindred terms, it would seem better to take it in as wide a sense as possible – that of lawless insolence and wanton caprice, and to render, with Trench, wantonness, since that word, as he remarks, “stands in remarkable ethical connection with ἀσέλγεια, and has the same duplicity of meaning” (“Synonyms of the New Testament”). At Rom 13:13, where lasciviousness seems to be the probable meaning, from its association with chambering (οίταις), it is rendered wantonness in A. V. and Rev., as also at Pe2 2:18. Seeing the idea as wantonness can perhaps take us away from the common ideas ascribed to lasciviousness, can take us away from the ideas of promiscuity, sensuality, debauchery, lewdness, licentiousness, indecency and lustful pleasures. Wantonness however IS another ill defined word; the idea goes to our desires and lusts and IS still concerned with gross human behaviors. Our modern dictionary defines wanton as something: done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably: a wanton attack; wanton cruelty*. As a noun the dictionary describes wanton as: a wanton or lascivious person, especially a woman; to behave in a wanton manner; become wanton; to squander, especially in pleasure (often followed by away)* We should note that sexual connotations that ARE also inherent in the defining ideas of wantonness and this IS True from as well in the definitions of our 1828 Webster’s dictionary where we read, among many defining ideas, that the idea IS: More appropriately, deviating from the rules of chastity; lewd; lustful; lascivious; libidinous¹.

Bible commentaries and dictionaries offer us a slightly different view but one that IS also linked predominantly to sexual matters; Strong’s tells us that the Greek word spatalaō which IS rendered as wanton means: to be voluptuous^9a while Thayer’s tells us that the idea IS: to live luxuriously, lead a voluptuous life, (give oneself to pleasure)⁹. These ideas ARE more removed from the purely sexual common ideas attached to both words and here again we should try to see that the whole thing comes down to our carnal thinking, our desires and lusts for the things of the world; here the KEY idea can perhaps be seen in living luxuriously. These ideas on wantonness ARE NOT unique to lasciviousness thus making wantonness as an alternate understanding somewhat lacking. In regard to the defining ideas of wantonness we should look again at the word akatharsia which IS rendered as uncleanness from our last post. There we read that the idea IS: the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living⁹ and we should see here that while not purely sexual in nature the defining ideas ARE similar to that of wantonness. Regardless of the analogies used, the common ideas ARE purely carnal and ARE definitively among what Paul calls “the works of the flesh“. ALL of these ideas connected to the Greek word aselgeia show us the idea of our focus upon the carnal and the mundane, Paul IS, in his list, showing us the rather unlimited ideas that ARE attached to our carnal thinking, to our “evil thoughts“, thoughts that ARE counter acted upon by our simple expression of whatsoever measure we have of “the fruit of the Spirit“. In the end we must be convinced that ALL of the carnal ideas that Paul lists DO concern much more that sexual matters. they rather go into the very heart of everyman and his desires and lusts for the things of the world.

Paul’s next word IS eidololatreia which IS rendered as idolatry. The doctrinal problem with this word IS found in the way it IS used to imply worship; idolatry IS much more than worship. While the doctrinal ideas regarding this word may seem to be spiritual as they show us our worship and our relation to ‘other gods’, this IS NOT the point that Paul IS making. The apostle’s point IS much broader and perhaps the easiest way to get the gist of the idea IS from the Master’s words on treasure, on what it IS that we value in Life. Jesus tells us “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” (Matthew 6:19-21). The crux of the Master’s words here reflect His teaching on idolatry and the idea to be taken IS that wheresoever our treasure lies, whatsoever we see as of utmost importance in our lives, IS what we idolize; NO ideas of worship need to be involved. Of course we must understand that we can have more than one idol, dozens in fact; they ARE the thoughts and ideas that bind us to our carnally oriented lives. We must understand as well that those things that we treasure, the objects of our idolatry, ARE mutable and changeable based on where we ARE in our lives. Finally we should try to see how that certain religious thoughts and ideas can also be our idols as we hold them above the reality of Truth and agape Love as our guides to righteousness. It IS broadly recognized by much of the church that idolatry IS a seemingly hidden problem in the lives of men. In our vanity, in our carnal focus, we hold dear people, things, thoughts and ideas and in many ways these ARE the things that we Love and cherish above ALL else.

I myself can be an example of this form of idolatry as I am driven if you will to continue day after day to write in this blog despite the realization that there ARE few that actually read our words. This IS the lot of men in this world; this IS the reality of Life in this Earth: we come to cherish and even worship whatsoever has become our treasure and we protect this with the same vigor that should be channeled into our striving “to enter in at the strait gate” (Luke 13:24). This striving IS the proper Path to True salvation but it remains unrecognized by most of the church as most ALL meander about in their doctrinal pursuits. Can we see the spiritual quality of this word as it should be understood? Can we see that this idolatry IS NOT restricted to such ideas as we find in Strong’s definition of eidololatreia as image-worship (literally or figuratively)^9a or Thayer’s defining idea of the worship of false gods⁹? These ARE the defining ideas from a doctrinal view despite the words of the Apostle Paul who tells us in another place that we should “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). Here covetousness IS our definition of idolatry and in this we should see more clearly our point of treasure. Peter adds to our understanding of eidololatreia admitting that “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries” (1 Peter 4:3). Of course we should see the idea of gentiles defined as the human family and NOT the doctrinal idea that the gentile IS basically a non-Jew. And, again, we must try to see that the Greek words used by Peter ARE also misinterpreted into strictly carnal ideas of supposed evil.

Paul’s next word in his list of “the works of the flesh” IS pharmakeia which IS rendered here as witchcraft. While others render this word as sorcery, one renders it as “drug use and casting spells” and another as occult which idea IS baseless when we consider that the meaning of that word should be seen as: beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding*. Granted there ARE ideas implanted in the word occult that invoke the supernatural and we should try to see that from this perspective Jesus Himself was perhaps the first Christian occultist. The lexicon shows us that pharmakeia IS: the use or the administering of drugs; poisoning before going into the doctrinal ideas of sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it and then metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry². From the first defining ideas as well as the common usage we get the English words that ARE related to pharmaceutics; Strong’s defines the word as: medication (“pharmacy”), before leaning into the doctrinal ideas saying i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively):—sorcery, witchcraft^9a. Thayer’s IS, as usual, the source of the lexicon definitions. What we should try to see here however IS NOT drugs per se but rather the use of drugs to induce ALL that drug users today still seek in the euphoric and psychedelic effect on the body which IS contrary to our Truly seeking the Lord. While we DO NOT KNOW what Paul’s motivation was in including the idea in his list of “the works of the flesh“, we should understand here that there were in those days persons who were involved in sorcery. In the story of Moses and the Pharoah, the Egyptian king has his sorcerers that could perform ‘magical’ or supernatural feats and the difference between their power and Moses’ Power was the source of their powers. Moses Power IS from the realm of the Soul, spiritual Power if you will, while the Pharoah’s ‘magicians’ were using the power of this world; psychic power from the personality. Similarly we have the story about the Prophet Elijah and the prophets of baal. Perhaps the major difference between the powers of the personality and the Powers of the Soul IS that the former IS most often self serving in some way while the latter IS NOT oriented toward the self. Jesus’ Powers ARE perhaps our greatest example of the reality of supernatural powers used for good as He healed the sick and brought some back into Life. In the Book of Acts we read about the sorcerer Barjesus (Acts 13) and about the encounter between Philip and the sorcerer Simon (Acts 8); we also read about “a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination” (Acts 16:16). ALL of these stories point us to the supernatural, to the occult if you will, but we should try to see that the supernatural acts of Jesus and His apostles ARE in the same class albeit with a different source of power.

True occult power as evidenced in the miracles of Jesus and His apostles IS based in agape and NOT in any self-serving motive and we should try to see that as one of “the works of the flesh” Paul’s citing of sorcery IS in regard to the self-serving attitude of those that practice such crafts. We should keep in mind here that there IS an interplay between the carnal and the spiritual approaches to pharmakeia and this especially in the minds of much of the church as they practice forms of pharmakeia in their doctrinal services. This leaves us with questions regarding the healing claims, especially the remote healing claims, uttered in church services. Many of these ARE but props to reinforce the sense of godliness claimed by the ‘healer’ and we should remember here that there IS a way to tell the real from the unreal. The Master shows us this in His words about prophets where we read that “Ye shall know them by their fruits” and again that “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:16, 20). The point here IS that there IS sorcery, there ARE displays of occult practices but they ARE NOT ALL parts of “the works of the flesh“; it IS here that the motivation of the doer shows us whether their doings ARE carnal or spiritual and it IS against the carnal and the mundane that Paul speaks. While sorcery IS the main idea that IS biblically attached to pharmakeia, we must NOT forget that the more accurate definition IS in regard to drugs and perhaps Paul IS trying to show us the idea of sorcery through drugs. Regardless we should understand that drugs play a large role in the carnal behaviors of men in this world. We DO NOT speak here about therapeutic pharmaceuticals used according to directions given by a physician; rather we DO speak here about the abuse of such pharmaceuticals and of other drugs and compounds for their euphoric or psychedelic effects. Such use further binds one to his carnal perspectives and we should try to see that this extends to the use of such drugs as a way to get closer to the Lord. Again, the idea IS a matter of motivation regardless if we ARE speaking about sorcery or drug use.

The next word on Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” IS the Greek word echthra which IS rendered as hatred. The word IS rendered most often as enmity which, while similar to hatred, IS NOT the same. Echthra IS a derivative of echtho which IS defined as to hate^9a according to Strong’s but this word DOES NOT seem to appear in the New Testament. The word used for hate most often in the New Testament IS miseo which IS a word of much confusion when rendered into the English hate. Without getting too far into these ideas of hatred which we have DONE in previous posts, we will stick here with enmity as the defining idea for echthra. Today’s dictionary defines enmity as: a feeling or condition of hostility*, a definition that closely resembles hatred. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary however defines enmity differently saying that enmity IS: The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice,and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient¹. If we can focus here on the idea that enmity IS The quality of being an enemy perhaps we can understand its use in scripture. James combines these ideas saying that “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4) and in this saying we should be able to glimpse Paul’s purpose in listing enmity in his list of “the works of the flesh“. James idea that “friendship of the world is enmity with God” DOES NOT easily lean towards a hatred of God whensoever one IS focused on the world, focused on his carnal life if you will. In our carnal focus we ARE indeed living contrary to the Way of Truth and Love and in this IS perhaps the singular purpose of including this word idea; that as men focused on the self we ARE at “enmity with God“. Other uses of the word echthra lend to this understanding. In Luke’s Gospel we read about the relationship between Pilate and Herod, that “they were at enmity between themselves” (Luke 23:12); here we should see that this enmity IS NOT so much hatred as it IS that they ARE opposing leaders under Roman rule. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans tells us that within each man there IS enmity saying that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7) and here again we should not see hatred as that idea IS commonly understood. Finally, Paul defines enmity according to the conflict within a man saying of Jesus that “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:15). It IS this conflict that pushes the idea of enmity into Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh“; as a spiritual idea we should DO as the Master and abolish “in his flesh the enmity” making of the carnal and the spiritual “one new man“. We should remember here that “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24) and hence the conflict.

The next group of words IS confusing at best as the words ARE interchangeable when rendered in the various bible translations. First there IS the idea of variance from the Greek word eris. The idea IS rendered here as variance because the typical translations, contention, strife, wrangling² ARE also used to render the next words in Paul’s list. Others render the idea of eris in terms of strife and contention but again, these ideas ARE used by others in regard to other words in the apostle’s list. Strong’s tells us that the word eris IS of uncertain affinity^9a and it IS likely that the idea of variance IS the most acceptable defining idea against the use of the other ideas as the translations for other words in the list. Confused? It DOES get clearer as we move through the word list. Today’s dictionary defines variance as: the state, quality, or fact of being variable, divergent, different, or anomalous* as the primary defining idea. Should we look at this against the description of the Lord offered by James we may be able to glimpse the reality of the idea that Paul IS expressing. James tells us “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17) and here we should understand that our innate individual goals ARE to be Christlike. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary offers us a more definitive idea as their third point regarding variance; they say that the idea IS a: Difference that produces dispute or controversy; disagreement; dissension; discord. A mere variance may become a war¹. Carnally this IS likely to be the King James Translators idea in using this word to render eris in this list from Paul; they chose however to render it more often as strife, debate and contention in its other New Testament occurrences. As a spiritual component against which the personality works we lean toward accepting the ideas offered by James regarding the Way of the Lord in whom there IS “no variableness, neither shadow of turning“. We should note here that the last words seem to define variableness best, that it IS a “shadow of turning“. The personality of a man IS ever changing and this IS for most of the natural way. However, when it comes to spiritual matters we should again go to the Master’s words where we read that “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” (Matthew 6:24). If we understand Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” as ways that men who Truly seek the Lord should avoid, these ideas on the meaning of variance can help.

The next word IS zelos which IS rendered as emulations and here we have a more complex issue. In our previous discussions of James words that depict the wisdom which “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:14), where zelos IS rendered as envying, we cite Vincent’s commentary. Mr. Vincent tell us there that: The rendering envying, as A. V., more properly belongs to φθόνος, which is never used in a good sense. Emulation is the better general rendering, which does not necessarily include envy, but may be full of the spirit of self-devotion⁴ and here for Paul’s words the AV, or the King James Version, DOES use the idea of emulation. We should note that the King James translators render a different Greek word, phthonos, as envyings later in the list. Emulation IS a strange word to see in this list however as it seems more of a caution than a fault. For the best understanding of the word we look again to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary where emulation IS defined as: 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 honors. Val.5¹. The idea that to outdo others brings us a strictly carnal approach to this word and this IS the way that the idea IS generally defined today. Our dictionary says that emulation IS our: effort or desire to equal or excel others and they list as synonyms imitation and competition*. ALL of these seem to be negative ideas when viewed from a spiritual perspective while the positive view from Webster’s saying that emulation IS an attempt to equal or excel others in that which is praise-worthy, without the desire of depressing others offers us a spiritual perspective. Of course the word IS included in Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” and through this we should note the negative ideas as those that we should decry. However, the positive aspect should be understood in contrast to the negative ideas and perhaps the best examples ARE from Jesus who tells us “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Luke’s approach to this, while similar, shows us the effects of this perfection as agape and its expression in this world; in Luke we read that we should “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:36). These saying ARE the epitome of positive and spiritual emulation and should help us to see the contrast that Webster’s shows us. Other bible commentaries DO NOT agree with Vincent’s perspective. Strong’s tells us that zelos IS: properly, heat, i.e. (figuratively) “zeal” (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealousy, as of a husband (figuratively, of God), or an enemy, malice):—emulation, envy(-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal^9a. The point here IS that while the idea of zelos IS listed as among “the works of the flesh” it IS ONLY such when considered negatively. The idea IS rendered as jealousy in this verse by most other translations which idea should be seen as Vincent shows us against the rendering as envying in James words.

Paul’s next word in his list of “the works of the flesh” IS thumos which IS rendered as wrath. This IS an easier idea to understand but we again must face the fact that the meaning of thumos IS variable. Strong’s defines the word as passion (as if breathing hard) and comments that it IS: fierceness, indignation, wrath^9a. Thayer’s tells us, speaking of Greek usage, that it IS: (from θύω to rush along or on, be in a heat, breathe violently; hence, Plato correctly says, Cratyl., p. 419 e., θυμός ἀπό τῆς θυσεως καί ζεσεως τῆς ψυχῆς; accordingly it signifies both the spirit panting as it were in the body, and the rage with which the man pants and swells) (from Homer down). From the other uses of thumos in the New Testament we should try to see that the meaning IS less wrath and more indignation and in several places the words for wrath and anger ARE used together. Other translations that use ideas of indignation and anger amplify the ideas using such terms as “outbursts of anger” and “fits of rage” while still others render in terms of fighting. It IS disharmony that the apostle IS instructing us against and, to be sure, these ARE carnal attitudes which ARE contrary to the Master’s words saying “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. 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 5:38-42). While Jesus’ words here ARE clear, it IS NOT really possible to misunderstand Him, the church has never upheld these edicts in their doctrinal approach to the Lord. In these words we have what appears to be a human weakness when it IS actually a human strength when it IS motivated by the Soul, by the Christ Within. Surely it IS difficult for any man to “resist not evil” and it IS here that the spiritual idea of meekness comes into play. In the end, when combined with the surrounding words, the idea here should be understood as indignation rather than wrath and its doctrinally oriented amplifications. Indignation IS defined for us as: strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger* and we should try to understand here that such indignation IS ever the lead up to wrath, anger, fighting and other ideas that run contrary to the idea that we should “resist not evil“, resist NOT the ways of men in this world. Finally, this idea of thumos should be seen in the Light of James’ words saying “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1).

Paul’s next word IS the Greek word eritheia which IS rendered here as strife. This IS another word that we have discussed as part of our review of Greek words that ARE wrongfully interpreted. Others render this idea as “selfish ambitions“, rivalries, disputes, quarrels and factions. There IS little to connect some of these ideas to the reality of eritheia and we should note again that some translations use these same ideas to render other words in Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh“. Vincent offers us some word ideas that can help to clarify eritheia; he tells us that: Strife [εριθιαι] . More correctly, factions. From eriqov a hired servant. Eriqia is, primarily, labor for hire (see Tob. 2 11), and is applied to those who serve in official positions for hire or for other selfish purposes,; and, in order to gain their ends, promote party spirit or faction⁴. There IS one translation in our library that renders this word eritheia as factions while, again, several apply this definition to another word in Paul’s list. Vincent IS a bit more contrary to the the idea of strife as he comments on the word as it IS used in James Epistle. There he tells us that the rendering as strife IS: A wrong rendering, founded on the mistaken derivation from ἔρις, strife. It is derived from ἔριθος, a hired servant, and means, primarily, labor for hire. Compare Tobit 2:11: My wife did take women’s work to do (ἠριθεύετο). Thus it comes to be applied to those who serve in official positions for their own selfish interest, and who, to that end, promote party spirit and faction. So Rom 2:8 : them that are contentious (ἐξ ἐριθείας), lit., of faction. Rev., factious. Also, Co2 12:20. Rev., here, rightly, faction⁴. Understanding the idea as factions should give us an idea that IS current in the church yet today as the many denominations and sects create for themselves official positions for their own selfish interest. Protestant versus Catholic or any denomination as opposed to those who take the title of Word of Faith. Inherent in these ‘positions‘ IS the willingness to promote party spirit and faction and many are contentious in their relationships to one another despite the reality that ALL ARE Christian denominations and sects. It IS unlikely that this was Vincent’s reference in writing his commentary about the use of the words but it IS a rather evident Truth. Similarly, this IS NOT likely the way that Paul saw his caution against eritheia 2000 years ago as the his idea was probably more politically oriented. Politics plays a large role in the contentiousness of today’s church relationships and while this should also be understood as part of “the works of the flesh“, unfortunately it IS NOT seen that way.

We will continue with Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” in the next essay as we close this one with our trifecta of spiritual reality; Jesus’ words that we should ponder on and understand as the Way to our True salvation. 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 will continue with our thoughts in the next post.

Aspect of  God	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