Love is the Fulfilling of the Law

ON GOD; Part CXXXVIII

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry , Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:14-23).

As we have said so many times in our posts, there is a real dichotomy between the actual words and meanings of the Christ and His apostles and the various doctrines and dogmas that have been constructed from those words. Today, after more than 2000 years the majority of the churches still hold to these doctrines which were devised by men who struggled to understand the parables and the hidden meanings of the Master’s words and who, in a time of limited mental power or capacity, strong emotional tendencies, rampant superstition and a need to blend and appease so many different cultures, interpreted His words based for the most part on only the outer meanings. Perhaps in an effort to attract many people from many cultures into this new way to approach God as taught by the Master, His words were made to fit into a strange brew of worship and of ecclesiastical pomp, neither of which can be found in any of His teachings nor in the teachings of His apostles.  That the church still follows along in these ancient interpretations is of benefit only insofar as this continues to attract people to some semblance of recognition of God but for the many who can see beyond these interpretations, those who question their validity and those who stay away because they can no longer agree to be a part of the teachings of the churches on the superstition of heaven and hell and of the reign of Satan, there must arise some other and clearer way.

We have also said many times that even those things said by the Master that seem clear to us today are still virtually ignored in favor to doctrine and in favor of the more liberal interpretations based on the writings of the Apostle Paul; interpretations that are based on misguided reliance on the doctrine of the church and not on the actual words that he wrote. There are some that believe that the apostle did a disservice to the Master in his writings and this may be to some extent True but for the most part, when read in the right Light, the words of the apostles are as they were intended to be; amplification of the words of the Master. We can see this dichotomy in His writing to the Romans which we have posted now for several days at the head of our essay; there is a depth to his words here that point us to the reality of Life itself but this depth is lost in a reliance on doctrine to interpret them. We should add here that the doctrines are not to be seen as wrong in their writing as those responsible were reacting as we see above; with a limited role of the mind as we know it today, energized by an emotional response and the superstitions that abounded in all parts of the original church. The Romans, the Greeks, the Coptic Egyptians and the Jews all had their own vision of God and of gods and there are scholars from each of these that have contributed to the doctrines established in the early church. Among these we have Tertullian and Augustine as Latin fathers from the Roman perspective; Iranaeus and Clement who came from the Greek perspective, another Clement of Alexandria and Origen were of the Egyptians* and, of course, the apostles themselves were Jews who each wrote from their own perspective as Jews. Except for the apostles themselves, the rest of these mentioned and the many others were new Christians over the first centuries of the Church and it is their writings, their negotiated doctrines, that still influence the teachings of today; many of these are considered as Saints but this too is a word that originates in the doctrines that they espoused. Many of their writings are available for those that desire to read the texts and the written arguments between them and there is a link below to them.**

In our saying by Paul above there is much that we see in a contrary way to the visions of the commentators and the interpreters of the bible. While our view is contrary to the writers of these commentaries in most cases, there are occasions that we can agree with the understanding of one or another of them and we should note that there is at times much difference in what each of them may see. Overall however the commentaries are along the lines of the doctrines that were long ago established and changed some by the men of the Reformation who rebelled at the Roman Church’s view of things. This being said, let us look at some of Vincent’s comments on the sayings above along with our understanding. We choose Vincent here as he is one of our favorites insofar as he interprets the words themselves and generally without an eye toward doctrine in his writing except that in his longer comments on a word or a verse, we can see the effects of doctrine in his writing. Perhaps this is better said as Vincent not only views the doctrine but offers ideas on words and usage that are beyond the scope of the doctrine itself. We pick here a few of the words and phrases from above the Vincent discusses in his text:

• We start here with his simple look at the word that is translated as sons as this sets a stage for a later discussion:  Sons (uioi). See on John i. 12; Matt. i. 1. There is an implied contrast with the Jewish idea of sonship by physical descent⁴. Now while this is Vincent’s understanding, ours is that this is a statement of fact in Life itself and one that by way of being “led by the Spirit of God” can be realized from the perspective of the man in form. To see this only from this implied Jewish idea is to negate the Master’s teaching on the Fatherhood of God for ALL men or to restrict it, as much of the church has, to His Fatherhood only of those who are “led by the Spirit of God“. We should note here also that the Truth of being so led is to follow Him and keep His words and this is not the way of the many but of the few yet in the dilution of the Master’s teachings this is thought to apply to ALL who believe or rather affirm. It is Vincent that also gives us the correct understanding of believe on and believe in the Master which we should be able to equate to “led by the Spirit of God“; he says that: to believe in, or on, is more than mere acceptance of a statement. It is so to accept a statement or a person as to rest upon them, to trust them practically; to draw upon and avail one’s self of all that is offered to him in them. Hence to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is not merely to believe the facts of His historic life or of His saving energy as facts, but to accept Him as Savior, Teacher, Sympathizer, Judge; to rest the soul upon Him for present and future salvation, and to accept and adopt His precepts and example as binding upon the life⁴. If it is the strength of this binding upon the life of ALL of the words of the Master that qualifies one as a Son, then who is there that can actually be one? We should note also that this phrase does not say that those led become Sons of God, it merely points out that they are Sons of God.
• Vincent next addresses the idea of adoption which we never did get to in the last post; he says: Spirit of bondage (pneuma douleiav) The Holy Spirit, as in Spirit of adoption. The Spirit which ye received was not a spirit of bondage. See ver. 4, under pneuma, 7. Spirit of adoption (pneuma uioqesiav). The Spirit of God, producing the condition of adoption. Uioqesia adoption, is from uiJov son, and qesiv a setting or placing: the placing one in the position of a son. Mr. Merivale, illustrating Paul‘s acquaintance with Roman law, says: “The process of legal adoption by which the chosen heir became entitled not only to the reversion of the property but to the civil status, to the burdens as well as the rights of the adopter – became, as it were, his other self, one with him… this too is a Roman principle, peculiar at this time to the Romans, unknown, I believe, to the Greeks, unknown, to all appearance, to the Jews, as it certainly is not found in the legislation of Moses, nor mentioned anywhere as a usage among the children of the covenant. We have but a faint conception of the force with which such an illustration would speak to one familiar with the Roman practice; how it would serve to impress upon him the assurance that the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father” (“Conversion of the Roman Empire”)⁴. While the whole of this does not agree with our understanding of this adoption, Vincent does make a point known that can help us to understand the intent of the apostle. While Paul may be speaking to the Romans in the words as they are presented because this is what they knew, he is also speaking boldly of the understanding given by the Christ and this is what Vincent sees as the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father. Now the word adopted does not need to appear in this context for us as we KNOW that we are essentially ONE with God in the reality of the Soul. However, from the perspective of the creature as the consciousness in the form, this sense of adoption can be for the Romans an important point as they see only the form. Paul clarifies this later so that those who think like we do can be clear as he relates this adoption to the redemption of the body which we discussed in some detail in the last post. In our reality as Souls we need no such adoption nor do we need such in our worldly state; however, as a an aid to understanding we should be able to see that it is focus upon “the Spirit of God” through the Christ Within that we bring the carnal Life into line with the precepts of the Master and this can be considered that adoption as it pulls the consciousness out of the illusion and the glamour of the world and into the heavenly realms of the Kingdom of God. It is but a word that signifies for us that there is a duality that each must overcome. We should be able to see the apostle’s point in that being “led by the Spirit of God” can make one adopted in the sense that the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father but this should not detract from the Truth of the Master’s teachings on the Fatherhood of God but should only serve to amplify them.
• This next saying that we will cover from Vincent’s comments is not one that gives us much from his perspective but it does show that within the arena of commentary the disagreement. In our reading of this there is a testimony to what we are saying in relation to the Soul. Vincent says: Beareth witness with our spirit (summarturei tw pneumati hmwn). This rendering assumes the concurrent testimony of the human spirit with that of the divine Spirit. Others, however, prefer to render to our spirit, urging that the human spirit can give no testimony until acted upon by the Spirit of God⁴.  The word witness here includes the idea of the with or to as it is translated from the Greek and perhaps these understandings are the most popular in this verse. The lexicon however tells us that the Greek word summartureo which is here translated as witness with means: to bear witness with, bear joint witness² and Strong’s tells us that it means to testify with, to confirm³ and in this variety of meanings we can get the proper idea of confirmation as well as joint witness which goes far to tell us that “the Spirit of God” confirms with our Spirit “that we are the children of God” and we should try to see here that this reference is to the “our spirit” as it is perceived in the flesh.
• The next idea that Vincent presents is in the word children for which he refers us to the Gospel of John. There he says that the word is erroneously translated as son and gives a basis for the doctrinal understanding that there is a difference between a son and a child. Vincent tells us here that: Sons (te>kna). Rev., more correctly, children. Son is uiJo>v. Te>knon, child (ti>ktw, to bring forth), denotes a relation based on community of nature, while uiJo>v, Son, may indicate only adoption and heirship. See Galatians 4:7. Except in Revelation 21:7, which is a quotation, John never uses uiJo>v to describe the relation of Christians to God, since he regards their position not as a result of adoption, but of a new life. Paul, on the other hand, regards the relation from the legal standpoint, as adoption, imparting a new dignity and relation (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5, 6). See also James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3, 23, where the point of view is John’s rather than Paul’s. Te>knon, indicating the relationship of man to God, occurs in John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2, and always in the plural⁴. As we see in the points above regarding sons and adoption the doctrinal approach to these ideas is through the legal understanding of the terms in that day by the Jew and by the Roman. But are we to understand them in this way when the idea of the law here in Romans and in the teachings of the Master is placed as secondary. While we do take advantage of the comment that Vincent includes regarding adoption and the ONENESS it gives, its being a pointed saying, we also must understand that ALL of these words carry that same reality; be it offspring, sons, children or those adopted, they all should mean the same thing for us in regards to our relationship with the Father and we should understand as well that these words are but feeble attempts to put this relationship into words that we can understand. Our True relationship is in ONENESS with OUR God and ONENESS with our fellow man but this is a concept that is yet beyond the ability of our language to express as even in this idea of ONENESS there is little clarity. The Master paints this as well as language will allow for us in John’s Gospel saying “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21). Any understanding of this requires that we look at the Life of the Soul as the True Life and at the man in form as a psychic entity and not physical form.
• Vincent next takes on the idea of joint-heirs and here takes the purposeful use of this idea to its legal end instead of its logical end wherein we are ALL children of God, including the Christ, and thereby we are ALL sharing in the same. Vincent says: Joint-heirs. Roman law made all children, including adopted ones, equal heritors. Jewish law gave a double portion to the eldest son. The Roman law was naturally in Paul‘s mind, and suits the context, where adoption is the basis of inheritance. Paul states his premise rather clearly saying that “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” and in this we should see that any allusion to the law is not what is spoken but rather the idea is simply that children are heirs. We should also understand that there is no real inheritance spoken of here and that the apostle is using these ideas of adoption and heirs to tell the Romans that they too are Sons of God.

We will end this here for today and complete our thoughts on this saying by Paul in the next post. Seeing through the doctrine, can we see more clearly that the whole of this section of Paul’s writing is a testimony to our relationship with our God?

Note on the Quote of the Day

This daily blog also has a Quote of the Day which may not be in any way related to the essay. Many of these will be from the Bible and some just prayers or meditations that may have an influence on you and are in line with the subject matter of this blog. As the quote will change daily and will not store with the post, it is repeated in this section with the book reference and comment.

We leave this Quote of the Day again for today with the hope that we can discuss these important points in the next post. We should remember here the premise that we presented near the beginning of our posting of this Quote of the Day: It is interesting to note that the ideas of the Quote of the Day embody much of the Master’s teachings and can set the stage for the beginning of each man’s revelation and realization of the Light of the Soul; that is, that by the intentional practice of these ‘rules’ of conduct one can put himself in the position of a follower of the Master and an keeper of His word and this regardless if he has ever heard of the Christ or wants to be affiliated with any ideas Christian. By keeping these sound principals of Life in mind and practicing them a man can lift himself up above and beyond the world of men and into the world of the Good, the Beautiful and the True as it exists for those in whom the Christ Within, the God Within, is awakened. Ponder on this.

In accord with the ideas that we close with above we bring again to your attention the ideas by which a man should Live. This Quote of the Day is the realty of how we should focus our lives and in so doing, all the other things alluded to above will take care of themselves and this is a great part of the selfless attitude of the disciple and his ability to forsake ALL.

Values to Live By

A Love of Truth—essential
for a just, inclusive and progressive society;

A Sense of Justice—recognition
of the rights and needs, of all.

Spirit of Cooperation—based
on active goodwill and the principle of right human
relationships;

A Sense of Personal Responsibility—for
group, community and national affairs;

Serving the Common Good— through
the sacrifice of selfishness. Only what is good for all
is good for each one.

The world of the future depends on what each one of us chooses to do today.

• ²    New Testament Greek Lexicon on BibleStudyTools.com
• ³    Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible – 2001
• ⁴    Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition, 1888
• *   Wikipedia contributors. “Church Fathers.”  Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 Jun. 2012. Web. 17 Jun. 2012.
• ** The Catholic Encyclopedia from http://www.newadvent.org/