ON LOVE; PART MCD
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 some thoughts on the role of True discipleship and the way that it IS in the fullness of being a disciple that everyman can achieve the spiritual reality that IS his True intended role in this world. While the clearest message on this IS found in the Master’s words that ARE the first part of our trifecta, there ARE many other places where the idea IS found and we should note that the Greek word mathetes which IS rendered as disciple ONLY appears in the gospels and the Book of Acts; it IS NOT found in any of the New Testament Epistles. The lexicon defines mathetes simply as a learner, pupil, disciple 2a and it likely through these ideas that in some parts of the church a disciple IS any and ALL Christians according to their denomination or sect. Strong’s also shows us a similar idea saying that mathetes means: a learner, i.e. pupil:—disciple9a which wholly misses the point of the 270 times the word IS used. Neither the lexicon nor Strong’s seems to consider the Master’s words with which we closed the last post; repeating these Jesus says “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) and “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). While these saying clearly show us the Master’s perspective on discipleship, this perspective has NOT been accepted by the church that continues to define the disciple according to common usage; today’s dictionary defines the disciple as: Religion: one of the 12 personal followers of Christ; one of the 70 followers sent forth by Christ. Luke 10:1; any other professed follower of Christ in His lifetime*. These defining ideas ARE categorized as religion and ARE purely historical. The dictionary continues in their defining ideas saying next that the disciple IS any follower of Christ and then as a member of the Disciples of Christ*. Finally they add the generic idea that the disciple IS: a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another; follower, giving their example as a disciple of Freud*.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines disciple in much the same way saying that to be one IS to be: A learner; a scholar; one who receives or professes to receive instruction from another; as the disciples of Plato; and then A follower; an adherent to the doctrines of another. Hence the constant attendants of Christ were called his disciples; and hence all Christians are called his disciples, as they profess to learn and receive his doctrines and precepts1. Perhaps the key word here IS profess; this idea relegates discipleship to one’s own opinion of oneself but we should try to see how that these definitions barely touch the Master’s words on being His disciple….that one DOES keep His words and that one DOES forsaketh “all that he hath“. Can we see the disparity here? Can we see that the Master’s idea of the disciple IS NOT what the church believes and that while the defining ideas offered may relate to the common idea of being a disciple, they DO NOT relate to being a disciple of Christ. Vincent gives us a brief hint at the reality of discipleship in his commentary on the passage from Luke’s Gospel above; he tells us in his commentary on the word forsaketh that: Forsaketh [αποτασσεται] . Bids good – by to. Rev., renounceth. See on ch. Luke 9:61. “In that forsaketh lies the key to the whole passage” (Trench). Christian discipleship is founded in self – renunciation4 and here we should understand that this forsaking IS a fundamental part of discipleship in regard to the Lord. Our greater point here IS that in the church today, and perhaps since the beginning, the reality of a disciple IS more related to the doctrinal ideas that ARE followed than the reality of Truly following the Lord. The idea of Truly following the Lord IS clearly summed up for us in the words of Jesus’ rhetorical question that asks “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Jesus words here ARE an indictment of the those who professed Him in words 2000 years ago and ARE as much an indictment today where most every Christian professes the Master as Lord while ever so few DO “the things which I say“.
In Matthew’s Gospel we find an expansion of this idea, part of which has become the second part of our trifecta. Matthew reports the Master’s thoughts saying “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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23). In these words we should see His indictment ever more clearly but His sayings here have had NO effect upon the church which believes that Jesus IS speaking ONLY to the Jews and ONLY in those times. This IS a great theological fault which involves NOT ONLY these words but many sayings in the gospels where the doctrinal idea IS that His words ARE fixed on the Jews with NO forward message or caution to subsequent generations. We often speak of this fault using the Master’s repeating of the words of Isaiah saying “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:6-7). To this day it IS these “commandments of men” that ARE become church doctrines and while Jesus’ words may be used in church writings and sermons, the gist of the doctrinal messages IS ever founded the church’s interpretations of the words of Paul rather than in the words of Jesus. Jesus may be acknowledged as “the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2) but in the practice of doctrinal religion His words have become moot against the greater force of “the commandments of men” which ARE given their force through the assumed authority of the religious leaders over the centuries.
Regarding religious leaders and teachers, the Master gives us some guidance for identifying those whose course IS according to His words; He DOES so in His words on the role of psuedoprophetes and He DOES this just before telling us of those who may call Him Lord but “do not the things which I say“. Rendered as “false prophets” the idea can be understood according to the lexicon that defines the word as: one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies2a but to understand it best we should remove our preconceptions of what a prophet IS. These preconceptions ARE based in the use of the idea in the Old Testament where the idea of the prophet IS a holy man speaking on behalf of the Lord. The word IS defined by Webster’s as: One that foretells future events; a predicter; a foreteller; In Scripture, a person illuminated, inspired or instructed by God to announce future events; as Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, &c; An interpreter; one that explains or communicates sentiments1. Such ideas contribute to the preconceptions of what a prophet IS but there IS a bit of clarity in Webster’s closing idea which says: of the prophets, among the Israelites, a school or college in which young men were educated and qualified for public teachers. These students were called sons of the prophets1. This the idea of the prophet being a teacher seems to be presented as an afterthought which should become for us the main thought. Today’s dictionary offers us a glimpse of the reality that has ever existed for the idea of prophet; among their seven defining ideas we find that a prophet IS: a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader* and in this definition we can see both the prophet and the psuedoprophete.
Taking this back to Jesus’ words saying “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 715-20) we should have more clarity. To be sure the idea of the prophet IS used to reference one who IS speaking on behalf of the Lord which IS the assumed role of many teachers in the church; NOT necessarily one who teaches what others have written but rather the one who has written the instruction, the originators of doctrines if you will. Taking this to the next level we should try to see ALL who ARE claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader* and it IS to these that we must apply the Master’s words saying “by their fruits ye shall know them“. Here we should understand that this IS NOT ONLY in regard to any particular teaching but rather to the comportment of their lives. Most importantly we must understand what the Master means in using this idea of fruits. In the end, the True prophet, the man Truly inspired by the Lord, by the Christ Within, IS also the disciple or, in the least, an aspirant to discipleship who IS ever striving to keep His words. This brings us back to our selection from John’s First Epistle where we read again of “false prophets” and the name that the apostle applies to these: antichrist. John tells us:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also” (1 John 4).
While it should be clear that both the Master and the Apostle John are speaking about the teachers that ARE in the world which ARE teaching what Paul calls for us “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6), this message has NOT resonated in the church. The doctrinal church IS convinced that the ‘brand’ of Christianity that they teach IS the True message and hence their failure to see Jesus’ and John’s warnings. That the Master’s message IS lost on the idea that He IS speaking to those Jews in His day IS Truly unfortunate; that the apostle’s message IS lost IS much more perplexing. John’s message IS lost because the doctrinal thinker DOES NOT see himself in a position of antichrist based in his own doctrinal theology and this largely because of the carnal understanding of the Greek word homologeo which we discussed in some detail in the last post. Most believe that the idea of homologeo IS in the words, in saying “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh“. This idea of saying IS the reality of doctrinal confessing or professing the Master, aloud perhaps in words, but the reality of the word homologeo IS much deeper than mere assent to a historical fact that IS part of the Christian’s nurturing and indoctrination. Since this IS the general idea that IS offered by bible dictionaries and seen as the ‘authoritative’ idea for this word, the depth of the idea IS missed; a depth that should be based in KNOWING the reality of Jesus Life and message, the role of the Christ, and His effect upon the lives of men. As we discussed in the last post Vincent offers us the necessary insight into the depth of the idea of homologeo saying this regarding Matthew’s use of the word which IS rendered “Confess me [ομολογησει εν εμοι]“. Matthew tells us that Jesus’ words ARE “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32) and it IS in this regard that Vincent tells us:
Confess me [ομολογησει εν εμοι] . A peculiar but very significant expression. Lit., “Confess in me.” The idea is that of confessing Christ out of a state of oneness with him. “Abide in me, and being in me, confess me.” It implies indentification (sic) of the confessor with the confessed, and thus takes confession out of the category of mere formal or verbal acknowledgment. “Not every one that saith unto me ‘Lord ! Lord !’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The true confessor of Christ is one whose faith rests in him. Observe that this gives great force to the corresponding clause, in which Christ places himself in a similar relation with those whom he confesses. “I will confess in him.” It shall be as if I spoke abiding in him. “I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me” (John 17:23).
It IS this depth of KNOWING that IS the intent of homologeo and NOT the mere assent or verbal acknowledgement and if we can see Vincent’s words along with his words on “believing in” the Master, we can then better understand that the whole of our spiritual Truth rests in Truly KNOWING the Lord. A KNOWING that IS NOT a function of the carnal mind but rather a function of the activity of the Soul, the Christ Within. We should remember here that John gives us an understanding of the idea of KNOWING God which, while it IS ofttimes misinterpreted, shows us the overall reality of keeping His words; John says “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also“. Here perhaps it IS the misunderstanding of the Greek word miseo which IS rendered as hate but which also has a much deeper meaning that such a carnal idea. In regard to miseo Vincent quotes Bengel for a better understanding of the idea earlier in John’s Epistle where the apostle says “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now” (1 John 2:9). On this use of the idea of hate we read: Men fall into two classes, those who are in fellowship with God, and therefore walk in light and love, and those who are not in fellowship with God, and therefore walk in darkness and hatred. “A direct opposition,” says Bengel; where love is not, there is hatred. “The heart is not empty.” See Joh 3:20; Joh 7:7; Joh 15:18 sqq.; Joh 17:14. The word hate is opposed both to the love of natural affection (φιλεῖν), and to the more discriminating sentiment – love founded on a just estimate4. The idea here IS NOT the common understanding of hate but rather a matter of choosing the carnal over the spiritual and this IS much the same as we should take from Jesus’ words where we often interpret miseo as to Love less. Jesus tells us “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).
In these words from the Master it should be clear that one should NOT hate those close to him but rather to Love them less than the Lord and here we can add the idea of choice. Should we choose our carnal relationships over the Lord we ARE NOT hating them and based in the idea of disciple and John’s ideas of agape, we DO NOT Love the Lord. Can we see the strength of the point here and can we understand the difficulty in tearing oneself away from our worldly ideas of Love and hate? John’s point IS clearly that we CAN NOT Love the Lord if we DO NOT Love everyman and this IS largely the same point that the Master IS making in regard to discipleship where one must Love the Lord. John shows us this idea from another perspective which IS KNOWING God and here we should see the dynamic relationship of these ideas of Loving the Lord and KNOWING Him. John tells us “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked” (1 John 2:4-6). Here John shows us his amplification and clarification of the Master’s points in our trifecta which we repeat here saying:
- “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).
Bringing this back to the idea behind the Greek word homologeo, we should be able to see that proclaiming our relationship to the Lord without our Repentance and Transformation IS but a lie and here we should conflate this idea to James’ most simple words saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22). This deception and this idea of lying should be understood as synonymous and men’s failure to see this IS much related to the nebulous doctrinal ideas of faith and believing. In the synonymous nature of these ideas, of lying and of being deceived, we should try to see that the liar that John shows us need NOT be lying according to the common understanding of the word, with intent to deceive. This idea of lying IS more often the result of one’s being deceived, NOT necessarily by others but simply by a failure to understand that to NOT keep His words results in this deception from a spiritual perspective. Many millions of men believe that they ARE following the Lord and that they ARE keeping the Master’s words according to whatsoever doctrinal precepts and this IS the deception which has gone unrecognized from the beginning. This deception has gone so far in parts of the church that their teaching IS that one need NOT keep His words so long as one has that nebulous faith and believing prescribed by their various doctrines. To be sure these various doctrines ARE taught by men who proclaim that they ARE teaching the Truth which, if NOT inclusive of the Love that abounds when one DOES keep His words, IS but a lie. Here we should try to see John’s reference to lying and the scripturally synonymous word deception on the part of the teacher and the student if we can use those ideas here. Can we see these ideas in John’s words? Can we see how that the doctrinal church DOES NOT understand that these words apply to those in the church whose expression IS NOT agape and that this situation IS self perpetuating based in the assumed authority of the leaders of the churches. This IS NOT unlike the plight of the Jews’ religious leaders and their ways that Jesus consistently railed against. At the same time, the churches today will deny their failure as vehemently as DID the Pharisees and the like in Jesus’ day. Despite the most clear words from the Master, the church has ever found their refuge in their doctrinal interpretations that in many, many instances ARE contrary to Jesus’ words. Most ALL never apply the words of the Master against the religious leaders of the Jews as timeless accusations against those that teach contrary ideas. Most ALL of such teaching IS the doctrines of men of which Jesus tells the Jews “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men“. It IS this same refrain that Isaiah offered the Jews centuries before and which Jesus Himself counted as prophecy. Here we should try to see that this prophecy IS timeless and afflicts the Christians’ religious attitudes in the same way as it afflicted the Jews from Isaiah’s time and before as well as from Jesus’ time and after. ALL of this IS of course the product of that vanity of which Paul tells us 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 from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21).
When we can realize that our human condition IS the result of this vanity, we can then perhaps begin to see past it. Unfortunately this IS NOT the case for most ALL of the human family which identifies itself with their physical existance. The idea of being subjected to this vanity by God DOES NOT require that one believe in such ideas as the ‘fall of man’, that our condition IS based in a punishment for ALL men in ALL times because of the ‘sin’ of Adam, the reality IS much more simple. Our condition IS based in the way that Souls ARE brought into incarnation; we ARE born as infants with a rather blank slate unaware of our own origin; we ONLY come to KNOW what we can see and hear from the world. We ARE nurtured and indoctrinated into our lives in this world by others who themselves ONLY see and hear from the world; and we should understand that it DOES NOT matter that those who nurture and indoctrinate us as babes ARE in or out of the church; both sides ARE but reflections of what IS in the world. ALL that most men ever KNOW IS carnal and this despite their own believing that their religious beliefs, according to whatsoever religion into which they ARE indoctrinated, take them out of the carnal reality that IS Life in this world. While there IS NO hard fast boundary between being carnal and being spiritual but rather infinite gradations of both off of that dividing line in both directions, there ARE certain ‘requirements’ for crossing that boundary. These ARE NOT however found in doctrinal religions but rather in the deeper Truths that world religions originally presented, those deeper Truths that should have become doctrine. Instead these deeper Truths have been manipulated by men and with a multifold purpose that likely begins with men’s inherent self-serving attitudes and perhaps ends with doctrinal assertions that serve to keep others in accord with those attitudes. We should try to see that such doctrinal formulations ARE NOT ONLY found in religion but in most ALL cultural and social constructs. Of course those who follow such doctrinal formulations DO NOT see how that the origins of their doctrinal perspectives ARE carnal responses to spiritual impulses. This idea has some Truth in ALL constructs, and in this we DO find the establishment of hard fast boundaries that DO prevent men from seeing most anything that may be contrary to one’s doctrinal perspectives. This IS especially True in religion and it IS this idea that IS shown us by the Master’s words to the scribes and Pharisees, men who ARE ‘trapped’ in their doctrinal perspective, saying that “Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matthew 21:31).
We should understand that this IS a reality then and now; that the publicans and harlots represent the Truly carnal man while the scribe and the Pharisee represent those whose own believing IS that their religious beliefs take them out of the carnal reality that IS Life in this world. The former ARE open to new revelations while the latter are fixed behind that hard fast boundary, a boundary that they themselves have created and which IS on display in the way that Jesus and His apostles ARE seen by the religious Jews of the time. These scribes’ and Pharisees’ attitudes still exist in Judaism and have been replicated in the Christian churches where this replication IS on display in the way that Christian doctrines have largely rendered moot the Master’s words in favor of their their own hard fast assertions of Truth which ARE ofttimes in full opposition to Jesus’ teaching. It IS in this that we should be able to see the timelessness of Jesus’ words saying “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men“. This doctrinal failure IS NOT seen by those who formulate and who follow the various Christian doctrinal approaches to the Lord; few will admit that their religious views ARE based in “the commandments of men“. Fewer still will understand that this failure IS founded in that vanity to which ALL are subjected and that the very nature of this vanity IS as: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends4 as Vincent shows us.
That there IS NO hard fast boundary between being spiritual and being carnal should be understood as everyman’s opportunity to progress spiritually but at the same time we must understand that doctrinal religion IS NOT the answer to men’s ability to cross that line and begin to accrue what Jesus calls “treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19). Remembering the division between the publican and the harlot against the scribe and the Pharisee we should try to see that the latter has moved himself afar off from that line and on the carnal side because his doctrines have rendered him more blind to the Truth; a Truth that he likely believes that he already has achieved. We should try to understand here that the publican and the harlot, carnal individuals to be sure, ARE closer to the dividing line as regards spirituality because they have NO hard fast doctrinal precepts that serve to keep them blinded to the Truth; they ARE ever more open to the Truth. This IS True in Jesus’ words 2000 years ago and it IS True yet today and it IS in one’s understanding of their place in this scale of carnality that can enable ALL to move forward. That some have more atheistic ideas of Life, perhaps an equal burden to that which encumbers the doctrinally religious man, can greatly inhibit one’s progress IS dependent upon the depth of belief regarding such ideas and this IS equally the same with the doctrinally religious.
The actual dividing line IS found in men’s ability to focus upon the carnal and the spiritual and in this we should see the reality of Repentance and Transformation by which our focus changes from the self and the things of the self onto the things of God. While many can hover near this line of division, Repentance IS the Way to cross over it and while this option IS open to everyman, it IS a choice that few ARE willing to make. This again IS the result of that vanity and until its resultant illusion and glamour can be dispelled in one’s Life, he will be deceived and it IS this that James shows us in saying that we should “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves“. John shows us this same dividing line as he writes about the liar; it IS the liar that IS firmly upon the carnal side of the equation despite his outward proclamation of being on the spiritual side. This IS clearly stated in the apostle’s saying that “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” and in this we should see the worthlessness of such doctrinal ideas that flow from homologeo where there IS likely NO indentification (sic) of the confessor with the confessed….out of a state of oneness with him. Again, we should note that this idea of liar from John IS NOT as the word is carnally understood; it IS rather a matter of believing things to be True that ARE NOT although there be some that DO actually lie in regard to religious matters. We should NOT be fooled by the doctrinal ideas attached to such sayings as “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” which ideas ARE firmly attached to doctrinal perspectives. We should rather attach this idea to the prior verses where the idea IS stated as “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth“. Here we should try to see that the liar, “he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ” DOES NOT KNOW the Truth and should be seen clearly as representing those that “keepeth not his commandments“. Can we see the clearer defining idea for antichrist here and can we see how that this IS extended to those that fail to understand, to KNOW, the Truth of the Christ as that unction by which we DO “know all things” (1 John 2:4, 22, 21, 20). We must remember also that these ideas of KNOWING and being the liar ARE the same in regard to John’s words from our selection, words that fine tune the idea of KNOWING God and of keeping His words; again we read that “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also“.
We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.
- 1 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 and 1913 from https://1828.mshaffer.com/
- 2a New Testament Greek lexicon on biblestudytools.com
- 3 Encyclopedia Britannica; https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
- 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
