ON LOVE; PART MDXLII
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 idea of KNOWING God. This of course IS NOT so simple as the idea IS made by the many in the churches who believe that they DO KNOW the Lord and this reality IS shown to us by the Apostle John in his words that closed our last blogpost. John tells us “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 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” (1 John 2:3-5). John ties our ability to KNOW the Lord to keeping His words, His commandments if you will, and this criteria alone greatly inhibits our ability to KNOW God. The apostle strongly tells us that any that claim to KNOW God while NOT keeping His commandments “is a liar, and the truth is not in him“. Can we see the severity of these words? The apostle uses this idea of being a liar in several contexts in his epistle and here, before we begin to further explore our KNOWING God, let us look at John’s message to those that proclaim but DO NOT DO. The lexicon lists three defining ideas for the Greek word pseustes which IS always rendered as liar in the King James Bible. We read that pseustes IS: a liar; one who breaks faith; a false and faithless man2 ALL of which should lead us to the conclusion of untruthfulness. For some this untruthfulness IS willful but for most IS it based upon their individual and corporate indoctrination into the doctrines of men.
John calls out as liars those that “that denieth that Jesus is the Christ” (1 John 2:22) but here we should restrict our judgement to those that have reason to believe the Truth but DO NOT. We should note the framing here as well; John IS NOT saying anything but that Jesus IS the anointed, the Christ, and as we should KNOW, this can be understood in several ways. For us this means that Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead while for others it takes on other meanings according to one’s doctrinal affiliation. The apostle also calls out as liars those who fail at their expression of agape but claim that they Love the Lord; he tells us 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” (1 John 4:20-21). There ARE others uses of the idea of being a liar in John’s words but these ARE enough to allow us to continue with our thoughts on KNOWING God. Again John tells us clearly that “hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” establishing for us a criteria for Truly KNOWING God. We should Of course see the relationship between these two sayings from John; both show us the same dynamic of keeping His words. The question that we need to answer IS: What does it mean to KNOW God? For this we go to the New Testament where the answer IS revealed in the parabolic manner of writing employed by the Master and His apostles. We begin with Paul’s words to the Colossians, words which reflect upon the apostle’s words to the Romans. Paul tells us Colossians:
“Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on
charityagape, which is the bond of perfectness” (Colossians 2-14).
There IS a lot in these words from Paul that can lead us to an answer to our question and here we begin with the apostles admonition to change what we ARE attracted to, to change our focus if you will. He tells us to “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” and while the rendering here IS affection from the Greek word phroneo the meaning can be understood quite differently. In the King James Bible there IS a footnote that refers to phroneo as either affection or mind and here we should see that the better rendering would have been to “Set your affection mind on things above“; this verse IS the ONLY place where the rendering IS affection. Strong’s tells us that phroneo IS: to exercise the mind, i.e. entertain or have a sentiment or opinion; by implication, to be (mentally) disposed (more or less earnestly in a certain direction); intensively, to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience)9a. Clearly the idea here IS that we set our mind on the things of God which IS the tenor of most ALL other translations in our library. This IS perhaps our first step in coming to KNOW the Lord and it equates with our view of Repentance, earnest Repentance to be sure. In the next phrase we have a bit of understanding to gain from Paul’s use of being dead and the weight that this idea should carry. Paul uses the Greek word apothnesko here; Strong’s tells us that the idea of apothnesko IS: to die off (literally or figuratively)9a while Thayer’s IS much more revelatory showing that this can be any kind of death, moral, eternal, etc. In regard to this particular verse Thayer’s tells us that: true Christians are said simply ἀποθανεῖν, as having put off all sensibility to worldly things that draw them away from God9. We should note that the idea here IS of true Christians and while most will claim that status, few ARE Truly in this class. Vincent offers us a slightly different slant saying of apothnesko that: Rev., correctly, ye died, as ch. 2 20. Is hid [κεκρυπται] . Your new spiritual life is no longer in the sphere of the earthly and sensual, but is with the life of the risen Christ, who is unseen with God4. In effect, Paul IS speaking to men that have been able to “mortify the deeds of the body” (Romans 9:13) as he reminds his readers that they must also “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry“. What we should try to see in such statements IS that this mortification of one’s members IS a necessary requirement for being a True Christian who IS both Repentant and Transforming. And we should note here that this idea of members and the idea of “the deeds of the body” ARE ALL inclusive; such ARE NOT limited to the actions of men and we should see our members as ALL physical, mental and emotional aspects of ourselves.
The Master shows us a perspective on this idea of mortification which we should look at and try to better understand. Jesus tells us in His Sermon on the Mount that “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:29-30). While Jesus offers us these ideas in relation to His words against adultery, we should see that they ARE also inclusive of ALL that a man can DO that can keep him from his focus upon the things of God. We should remember here also that the whole idea of adultery IS much more than a sexual one; spiritually we ARE spiritually adulterous whensoever we set our focus upon the carnal and the mundane. Perhaps these words from the Master ARE the source for Paul’s words on the mortification of our bodies and we should note that in his words above the ideas of “ye are dead” and “Mortify therefore your members” ARE offered in the same context. The Greek word nekroo IS rendered here as mortify in the King James Bible but IS rendered in terms of “put to death” by most others. Strong’s tells us that nekroo IS defined as: to deaden and figuratively as to subdue9a while Thayer’s tells us that the meaning IS: to make dead; to put to death, slay; adding later that the idea IS equivalent to to deprive of power, destroy the strength of9 as it IS used in the negative of Moses who at 100 years old fathers a child. Through ALL of this the ideas of both nekroo and apothnesko should be clearly understand in terms of death, NOT the death of the person but the death of his carnal proclivities and the Master’s words account for the same thing as we cut away the offending members so as to maintain our focus upon the Lord.
Paul goes on to itemize some of the things that one must mortify and it IS in this that we can get a better picture of the idea of members. It IS the same Greek word that IS used by both Jesus and Paul that IS rendered as members; melos IS defined for us by Strong’s as being: of uncertain affinity; a limb or part of the body9a. Paul uses this idea of members frequently as he speaks about the followers of the Lord being members of His body and members with each other. The use here in Colossians however IS much simpler as while it refers to parts of the body we should understand that the mind, the emotions, the attitudes and the demeanor ARE as much members as ARE the eye or the hand. Paul’s list of things that we should mortify ARE inclusive of our list here as he tells us that it IS “fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” that we must kill. These ideas have NO physical members in their orbit save perhaps for the ‘tool’ that IS used to carry out an offense and we should be careful here to NOT see these ideas ONLY through doctrinal eyes. Fornication, from the Greek word porneia, DOES have sexual meanings but the idea IS NOT restricted to ideas of illicit sexual intercourse2 as the lexicon defines the idea. We must include the spiritual uses of the word as well and here the lexicon tells us that: the worship of idols as the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols2 IS the metaphorical meaning. For us however it IS greatly expanded metaphorical ideas that ARE the Truer intent of the use of this word and this IS the theme of the word idea throughout the Old Testament as well as the New. Most ALL of the church, and civil law, see the idea of porneia almost always in terms of the sexual behaviors of men but, even with this focus, the idea IS NOT considered as an important thing to mortify; it IS become a accepted part of human behavior in most ALL Western cultures. The greater reality IS tied to our vanity, to our human condition; to our perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends4. So long as our focus IS on the carnal and the mundane we ARE indeed fornicating, we ARE indeed idolizing our human existence over our own spiritual wellbeing; this IS the effect of our vanity.
The next thing that we must mortify according to Paul’s words IS akatharsia which IS rendered here as uncleanness; others render this word as impurity but this IS an idea that IS rather undefinable in regard to human behavior. Akatharsia IS defined by Strong’s simply as: impurity (the quality), physically or morally9a but in the undefinable nature of the idea, it would be difficult to mortify; uncleanness however IS NOT a Truly better option here. Thayer’s tries to show us a meaning for the idea as it applies morally; they tell us that it IS: in a moral sense, the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living9; to be sure these ideas ARE the general objective of ALL humanity. Lustful however must NOT be restricted to sexual ideas, it should always reflect the desires of men and, for many, such desires ARE for luxurious, profligate living. The whole idea of akatharsia should be understood as an aspect of fornication; in fornication we have the deliberate intent to focus upon our carnal lives and here akatharsia becomes our mind set as we desire the pleasures of the world over the glory of the Godhead. Thus far then the apostles words should lead us to understand that we must mortify our carnal proclivities and NOT any particular action that such proclivities cause. We should understand here that our proclivities ARE a combination of our innate sense as men in this word and ALL that has been contributed through our nurturing and indoctrination.
Paul’s next point IS rendered as “inordinate affection” and here we should understand that the idea of inordinate IS added by the translators to show the negative idea of pathos which IS the Greek word. The idea of passion IS the rendering of most while lust IS used by others although lust IS also used by some to render other Greek words from Paul’s list. ALL renderings of pathos ARE offered to us by doctrines as sexual sins while the idea behind pathos IS NOT restricted to such ideas. Strong’s defines pathos as: properly, suffering (“pathos”), i.e. (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence)9a and we should try to see in such ideas the fixation of the early church on sexual sins and its failure to identify the spiritual components of many New Testament ideas. Thayer’s takes an entirely different view of pathos saying that the idea IS: whatever befalls one, whether it be sad or joyous; specifically, a calamity, mishap, evil, affliction followed by a feeling which the mind suffers, an affection of the mind, emotion, passion; passionate desire9. While Thayer’s first defining idea here has little if anything to DO with Paul’s use of pathos the second DOES show us that this IS a condition of the mind and the emotions so that our understanding can be that we should mortify the leanings of the mind and the emotions toward carnal and mundane things that result in passionate desire with and without any sexual inference.
Thus far ALL of these things that Paul tells us that we should eliminate ARE matters of our focus upon the carnal and the mundane and while these actually have little to DO with sexual matters, this has been the focus of the church for centuries. Paul’s next word IS rendered as “evil concupiscence“; here we have the use of the Greek word kakos which IS rendered as evil along with epithumia which IS rendered as concupiscence. Both ARE basically misunderstood and misapplied to Paul’s intent. We have long discussed the idea of evil which here IS rendered from kakos. The idea of evil has be used by the church to depict a wide variety of human behaviors; the idea of evil IS understood as: morally wrong or bad* and is applied to both people and ideas. Biblically however the idea IS much more complex as we often show through Jesus’ own words saying “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” (Matthew 7:11). That the Greek word here IS poneros DOES NOT matter as it IS the idea of evil that we seek to clarify and to understand as a depiction of our carnal focus as IS harmartia which IS rendered as sin. Surely the Master IS NOT calling ALL men evil as the idea IS wrongly understood; He IS calling ALL men evil for their carnal focus saying that even with this they will “give good gifts unto your children“. The rendering of epithumia as concupiscence IS wrongly placed in the King James Bible; the word IS defined by Thayer’s as: desire, craving, longing and while they add later that it IS specifically, desire for what is forbidden, lust, this IS likely based upon the church’s fixation on sexual matters. The word IS generally rendered as lust which translated word IS also subject to the same fixation on sex. The greater reality IS that the phrase “evil concupiscence“, from “kakos epithumia“, IS better understood as men’s desires for the things of the world and their lust for carnal pleasures of ALL kinds IS a part of this desire.
This however IS NOT the focus of the church which from the beginning has allowed for men to live as men with their desires for things carnal while sectioning out the idea of sexually oriented carnal pleasures as their version of sin. In most ALL of the ideas presented by Paul here the idea of sex seemingly permeates his tone but we should ask why he would be addressing disciples and aspirants to discipleship in this manner. Would it NOT be more likely that the apostle IS merely cautioning his reader against their focus upon the carnal and the mundane? In the end we should try to see that ALL of the apostle’s words ARE intended to allow men to conform to the Master’s words saying “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal“; Jesus words that tell us 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” and His words telling us to “Take no thought for your life” (Matthew 5:19-20, 24, 25).
The apostle’s next words tell us about covetousness, an idea that he further explains saying that we should avoid “covetousness, which is idolatry“. For us this idea clarifies the importance of the idea of covetousness but DOES NOT define it. The broader idea IS that covetousness IS avarice as Strong’s shows us and men’s greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice as Thayer’s defines the idea. Perhaps Paul IS showing us the effect of covetousness on the disciple and the aspirant and NOT the effect of covetousness on the general population where it IS avarice that better defines the idea. The idea of avarice in today’s culture defines most ALL of humanity to some degree; we read in today’s dictionary that avarice IS: insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth* and we should look at this in regard to our own motivations as well as the motivations of others. Painting with a broad stroke we should be able to understand that the nurturing and indoctrination of men leads us naturally to some form and some degree of avarice as we seek out worldly pleasures and goods while paying little attention to the spiritual component of our lives. This of course IS supported and motivated by a church that sees men’s worldly success or failures as the meaning of one’s Life. We should try to see that this idea of covetousness IS similar to but NOT the same as the ideas of covetousness found in the Ten Commandments where we read that “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17). Here the idea IS that one should NOT desire or lust after those things that belong to someone else; not his house, his wife, his servant nor any of his livestock. Paul’s words ARE more general as they ARE telling us NOT to crave anything that IS carnal and while the idea IS NOT clearly worded to say this, the very idea that we ARE told to “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth” should show us this Truth.
And this IS the general message from Paul, that we should mortify our thoughts, our attitudes and our actions whensoever they ARE designed to promote our worldly experience in ways that fix our focus upon them, fix our focus upon the carnal and the mundane. This IS the message of the entire New Testament but unfortunately it IS one that IS NOT seen by most and surely NOT among the doctrinal precepts that men ARE told will bring them ‘salvation‘. We should remember that the Master leaves His last instruction according to Matthew as “Go ye therefore, and teach make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). The change from teach to “make disciples of” IS well documented and IS the rendering of most ALL of the bible translations in our library and this IS for us the KEY. The church was NOT ‘commanded‘ to teach their doctrines; it was ‘commanded‘ to make “make disciples” and we should remember that the disciple has specific criteria that IS largely ignored by the church and has been from the beginning. Even before the Master’s criteria for discipleship we have the simple reality that ONLY a disciple can make a disciple; spending whatsoever time in a seminary DOES NOT make one a disciple, it merely further indoctrinates one into the disciplines of whatsoever denomination or sect has attracted one to its fold. The disciple IS much more than this and while there may be few True disciples, “disciples indeed” as this IS framed in the King James Bible, there may be and can be many aspirants to discipleship. These would be among those that strive toward discipleship, strive toward the revelation of one’s innate ability to KNOW “the mysteries of the Kingdom of God“. Jesus tells us clearly that it IS to disciples, True disciples to be sure, that this KNOWING IS afforded and we should understand here that this IS the product of discipleship and NOT some ‘grace‘ bestowed upon any individual who DOES NOT qualify. The Master tells His disciples that “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand” (Luke 8:10). We should understand that the disciple has access to the mysteries and that by measure the aspirant has access to perhaps a nebulous picture of those mysteries as he strives toward the fullness of discipleship. Again, the idea of measure IS well founded in the New Testament; we see it in such words from the Master as “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2). This message IS offered to us in a variety of contexts but the reality IS always the same: with the same proportion of effort by which we strive toward the Kingdom, we will have revelation in that same measure of the mysteries.
The criteria for discipleship IS also given to us clearly by the Master who tell us first that “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). Here IS the idea of the True disciple revealed for us as one that will “continue in my word“, abide in His word if you will, and perhaps our understanding of discipleship should include the idea that we “shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free“. This IS what Paul calls for us “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:21) which IS the reward for those that have overcome their own vanity, their own version of “the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:4). This IS our overcoming of our own “bondage of corruption” which IS facilitated by our ability to “continue in my word” as Jesus frames this high ideal. While much of the church DOES NOT see the need to “continue in my word” as a part of one’s effort at his own ‘salvation‘, this IS the reality according to the Master’s words which ARE clear and unambiguous. That the idea of ‘salvation‘ DOES NOT include one’s discipleship has become a unspoken tenet of most ALL doctrinal approaches to the Lord IS unfortunate as many claim this appellation of disciple without addressing the criteria that Jesus has established. Much of the problem here IS a combination of NOT grasping the criteria that the Master shows us as well as the definition of the rendered word disciple. For many the idea of the disciple IS NOT as the Master envisions but rather a diluted idea that IS based upon definitions offered for the word, definitions that tell us that the disciple IS: a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another*. So yes one can be a disciple of the doctrines of a particular denomination or sect but that position fails against the criteria for being a True disciple of the Master. To further confuse the idea of discipleship our dictionary adds some basic realities from the New Testament regarding those that were disciples, the twelve and the seventy, and then such statements as: any other professed follower of Christ in His lifetime*, adding also that the disciple IS any follower of Christ*. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary offers us the same ideas but adds a revealing twist that shows the understanding of discipleship; they tells us that the the idea IS: To make disciples of; to convert to doctrines or principles. Here we should try to understand that to convert men to doctrines or principles ONLY makes one a disciple to those doctrines and principles. Whensoever such doctrines or principles ARE NOT in accord with the teachings of the Master they fail at Jesus’ charge saying “Go ye therefore, and teach make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). Perhaps the ONLY part of this Great Commission as it IS commonly called that IS Truly attempted by the church IS the idea of “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” although this IS become but a symbolic exercise devoid of the necessary substance of the defining idea of immersion. The greater reality of discipleship IS founded in the entirety of the New Testament and while most ALL of the True direction has been diluted and changed over the centuries, the reality of what one must DO to gain discipleship, to gain a real measure of the Truth, to gain the Kingdom and to gain True realization of His Presence IS there and, from His words, we have put together 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).
The rewards cited here ARE the basis of discipleship and, by measure, the basis of being an aspirant to discipleship; and here we should understand that these ideas ARE NOT a part of the discipleship found in the churches. Jesus DOES offer us more in regard to His criteria for our discipleship and His words here ARE NOT understood while some ARE outright rejected by the church at large. Jesus tells us that “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). We should remember that Matthew’s version of this precept IS worded very differently and, at the same time, we should understand the symmetry between these versions. Matthew tells us “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). It IS from the combination of these sayings that we can take the idea of hate from the Greek word miseo and understand the idea as to Love less. While these verses may seem difficult to reconcile, the greater reality IS found in the idea that such hatred as commonly understood IS anti-Christ, against the volume of His teaching and we should try to see here that this word miseo may have included other defining ideas in Jesus’ day. Strong’s tells us that miseo IS: from a primary μῖσος mîsos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less9a. Here the idea that the word has extended meanings IS based upon the reality that it CAN NOT mean hate as that idea IS commonly understood and this IS our position as well. Thayer’s goes further saying that the meaning to the Oriental differs from the meaning taken by the Occidental and here we should note that in many ways ALL Middle Easterners can be considered as Oriental although that appellation IS NO longer widely used. Regardless of the reasoning used to determine the intent of the Master, the idea of to Love less IS the ONLY valid idea and here we should note that Jesus uses this same word with some explanation as He tells us about God and mammon. The Master tells us “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). Here the comparison of hate and Love ARE equated to the idea that one would “hold to the one, and despise the other“.
There ARE two other points of interest that can help us to understand Jesus’ use of the idea of hate from the Greek miseo. First the Apostle John tells us of Jesus’ words saying “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (John 12:25). Here we should see a similar idea that we should Love our lives in this world less that our desire to seek the Lord and therefore less than we Love the Lord. We should remember here that Loving the Lord has its own special criteria which IS shown us in the third part of our trifecta. In these words however the idea of Love IS rendered from the Greek word phileo and NOT agape. Then we have the words of the Apostle Paul to the Romans saying “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13). The point here should be easily understood; speaking of God and the Godhead there can be NO hate as this idea IS commonly understood. While most ALL render this as “Esau have I hated“, one offers us the idea of rejection; the New Living Translation frames this as “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau” and this DOES capture the essence of both the original and Paul’s repeating. Paul IS using these words in the context of the picture that men had of the Old Testament God and, as we should try to understand, this very idea of this view of God has been guided by men and NOT the Absolute. What Paul IS promoting here IS the mercy of God using ideas that ARE unworkable against the reality that “there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11) Perhaps such contradictions between this view of the Lord saying “who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work” (1 Peter 1:17) and such Old Testament ideas as Paul records saying such things as “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15); that have created the ideas that the church holds yet today. While it IS True that two things can be True at the same time, one would have to dig deep into the ideas presented to apply this idea to these two concepts. This however should NOT be an issue for the Christian who should rely solely upon the words of the Master. Unfortunately there ARE many denominations and sects that use the Old Testament to support their doctrinal views and the best example here IS perhaps the Word of Faith movement that IS energized in its prosperity teachings by their view of the Old Testament stories. We should remember here that the disciples of Jesus, including those that were ‘elevated’ to the role of apostle, left their views of the Lord which they had developed through their indoctrination into the Jews doctrinal teachings in order to embrace the teaching of the Master. We should remember as well that it IS very likely that through their previous indoctrination some of Jesus’ disciples retained KNOWLEDGE of their former indoctrination and that they melded some of this into their own New Testament teachings as they tried to ‘convert’ indoctrinated Jews into the new reality that the Master brought to them. The result here IS more confusion for the early church.
Disciples they ARE however and while some of their words may be confusing as we look back, we should try to understand their own motivations for teaching the way that they DID as they try to “teach make disciples of all nations” beginning with the Jews. It IS as disciples that they have followed in the criteria established by the Master as they learn a new world view where they must set aside their cultural understanding and their attachment and attraction to their own families as they endeavor to see ALL men as the neighbor in their expression of agape.
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.or
- * 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
