ON LOVE; PART MDLXXV
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
In the last essay we spent much time discussing the idea of vanity and its uses in the New Testament. The Greek word mataiotes which IS rendered as vanity is sparsely used in the epistles and NOT used at ALL in the gospels and the Book of Acts. Strong’s and Thayer’s offer little in the way of understanding the point of mataiotes use and their defining ideas ARE of little use in our subject verses where Paul tells us that “the creature was made subject to vanity“. Strong’s defines mataiotes as: inutility; figuratively, transientness; morally, depravity 9a; none of these ideas help us to understand the condition into which we ARE born. Thayer’s tells us that mataiotes IS: what is devoid of truth and appropriateness; perverseness, depravity; frailty, want of vigour 9 and here ONLY the idea of what is devoid of truth can be somewhat applied to the human condition. Vine’s tells us that mataiotes IS: emptiness as to results while adding for this particular usage: of the creation, as failing of the results designed, owing to sin 9b. In Paul’s usage none of these ideas suffice to show us the human condition nor help us with the idea that it IS by the Godhead that we ARE so subjected. Can we even imagine that the Godhead would create men in a state of depravity or into sin which idea IS generally understood as an action, thought, or failure to act that breaks a moral or divine law **? Aside from ALL of these ideas that DO NOT approach Paul’s intent in using mataiotes, we DO have Vincent whose insight here clarifies the idea. Vincent defines mataiotes and vanity as: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends 4.
It IS into this condition that we ARE born; we ARE NOT depraved nor born into sin as that idea IS understood. We ARE born into the condition of being humans in this world who DO NOT see nor understand their True nature; we ONLY see ourselves as men and it IS in this condition that we ARE separate from God, and pursuing false ends, pursuing our lives in conformance to the world into which we ARE born, nurtured and indoctrinated. When Paul tells us “be not conformed to this world” he understands that this IS our starting point and that if we want to KNOW God, if we want to “prove discern what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God“, we must be Transformed out of that condition. It IS in this Light we we ARE spiritually in a perishable and decaying condition until we Truly Repent and Transform. Repeating our subject verses:
“the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 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 firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:20-23).
Having defined our condition as vanity and having discussed the doctrinal view of it as the ‘fall of man’, we now move on to the idea that we ARE in this condition “not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same“. What Paul IS showing us here IS that this IS the way that things were intended to be, that by the ‘reasoning’ of the Godhead we ARE born into vanity. At its core this single idea eliminates the idea of the ‘fall of man’ as Adam would be included as a part of the creation in which “the creature was made subject to vanity“. We should understand here that the Greek word ktisis can be rendered as both the creature and the creation and, in either rendering, the idea should be understood to include ALL. That so many doctrinal Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis IS unfortunate and IS, at the same time, a good example of the reality of vanity as that illusion and glamour that causes so many such believers never see as the reality of their condition. It IS difficult to use the idea of ‘reasoning’ in respect to the Godhead which remains unknown to most ALL men. For us the Godhead IS the combined reality of ALL spiritual beings and, from a perspective closer to humanity, the combined reality of ALL Souls. There IS NO One individual, man like or otherwise, that controls the Universe. While this idea IS derived from the application of a personality of God in scripture, it IS yet unreal and ONLY serves to allow men to even attempt to KNOW God. Similarly IS the Master’s use of the idea of the Father as a separate being, an idea IS shattered by the reality that the Master reveals saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). This IS much like the doctrinal ideas of heaven ARE shattered by the Master’s saying that “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21).
The doctrines of men have a difficult time with both of these sayings. For example John Gill in his Exposition of the Bible tells us of the first: Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, “I and [my] Father”, (esmen) , “we are one”8. Mr. Gill’s logic here IS doctrinal and the idea that we are one ONLY serves to tell us of their Oneness. Vincent helps us here saying of this verse: One [εν]. The neuter, not the masculine eiv, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power 4. There IS a reason that the Master speaks of the Godhead as the Father but it was NOT intended to invoke the doctrinal ideas of the Trinity which idea IS also grossly misunderstood. In most ALL of our blog posts we include a chart that depicts a different view of the Trinity that IS the Godhead and while we generally post it at the end, we include it here to help in our discussion:
| 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 |
If we can see the Father as Spirit, the highest spiritual reality that we can comprehend, we can perhaps see why the Master separates the Aspects of the Godhead as He DOES. Then, since Jesus IS Himself the Christ, we have the natural relationship of Father and Son which corresponds with scripture but IS meaningless in the view that “I and my Father are one“. The greater reality of the Father and Son relationship can be seen in the reality that the Soul or the Christ IS the product of the Spirit or the Father. The idea of God the Father as it IS understood in Christianity was first introduced by the Master and while there IS some reference to God as the father of Israel in the Pentateuch and the prophets, the connotation there IS quite different. In Judaism there IS but One God, NO Trinity and NO other divisions of the Godhead. What we should try to see in Jesus’ teaching on the Godhead IS His attempt to better explain the nature of God and show how the Aspects of the Godhead relate to each other. In Jesus’ time this was a novel concept that was NOT understood through the Jewish religion which sought ONLY to bring men into a relationship with the Godhead through the law. The failure of this was the failure of the Jews to properly interpret the law as it was presented; they instead created their own interpretations and it was against this that the Master so often railed. We should try to understand that despite the way that the Pentateuch IS presented, the law was NOT and was never intended to be the voluminous text that it has become. The law was simple and direct and most ALL of the ancillary ideas introduced by Moses were NOT the law given him by God but rather his own attempt to put in place laws to govern a barbaric and superstitious nation. Moses laws cover a multitude of subjects including diet, treatment of certain illnesses, sex, and even menstruation. Perhaps in those barbaric and superstitious times it was necessary for Moses to issue such edicts and bring ALL of his laws under the scope of religion and sacrifice. That so much of Moses ideas of law carry on to today IS the reality of what Jesus called their traditions. These traditions seem to have changed ONLY because the world attitude towards stoning, isolation and sacrifice has caused them to cease. We should understand that in the Jewish religion today there ARE many remnants of the Old Testament laws, albeit modified for modernization, used in and for religious practices. Some ARE easily seen in their use of holy days and periods, dietary prohibitions and the like.
What we should see as Christians, and what the Jews should have realized by now, IS that most ALL of what the Jew’s considered as law were but the civil dictates of Mosaic law whose time has expired. Today and for some centuries in the past men came to KNOW the perils of eating pork and the need to properly cook it so that trichinosis IS NO longer a factor in eating pork; nor ARE any of the other prohibited animals as dangerous as they were deemed to be. We can look upon the prohibitions on shellfish in much the same way and while the Jew’s may deny that the motivation was in regard to public health, it IS difficult to discern their religious ideas. This ALL should bring us to the perspectives that we have presented in past essays. First IS the way that the Master treats the Jewish laws; He ignores or speaks against most ALL of them save a select few from the Ten Commandments as well as the commandment added later in Deuteronomy but presumed in the Ten: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mark 12:31). It IS those that the Master repeats and offers new perspectives on that ARE the commandments to follow. The second perspective IS found in the Master’s words regarding doctrines, words that He presents as prophecy and which should be understood as His True view the Jew’s use of their traditions as well as the Christian use of doctrines today. Jesus tells us “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).
Our point in ALL this IS to show the ways that the indoctrination of men has changed over the centuries. From the full view of the laws of Moses, to the way that some Christians have selectively adopted so much of the ideas of the Pentateuch into their doctrinal approaches to the Lord, we have the foundation of the nurturing and indoctrination of those born into Christianity. This, coupled with the church’s penchant to define Christianity through their various doctrines has so compounded the sense of vanity that burdens most ALL Christians that there seems NO way out. The idea of vanity was introduced into the creation by the Godhead as the Plan for the lives of Souls here in this world. This original vanity has been greatly compounded by the doctrines of men in most every religion into which men ARE nutrued and indoctrinated. It IS in this reality that we often say that it IS more difficult for the Christian to find the Truth that it IS for the ‘nonbeliever’. This should be seen against the Master’s telling of the Parable of the Two Sons. The parable IS rather simple saying “A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matthew 21:28-31). While this parable IS offered in regard to John the Baptist, its meaning stretches far.
Let us imagine that the first son IS the man who DOES NOT seek religion as the publican and the harlot. Let us then imagine the second son as being the man who choses religion as his guide; this man purports to follow the words of Truth but instead gets caught up in the mire of doctrines and, while he may have intended to follow the Lord, he DOES NOT. The first son, living without the burden of doctrines that dilute and change the Truth, Repents and decides to follow the Lord. The result IS that the first son, the harlot and the publican, will “go into the kingdom of God” before the second. What we should try to see through our use of this parable in the context of vanity IS that it IS easier to break out of that vanity when one IS NOT burdened by the precepts of doctrines; it IS this man that can see more clearly when he finally recognizes the prompting of his own Soul to the Good, the Beautiful and the True. For both the religious and the secular man vanity IS real; both ARE equally afflicted when they ARE born into this world; both ARE in that perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends 4. It IS important to understand this, it IS important to understand that ALL ARE “made subject to vanity” and that NONE ARE born outside of its effects. This IS the Plan of God.
Paul goes on to tell us that there IS an expectation; that the Godhead expects to the creation and the creature to be made free of this “burden of corruption“. We should try to see that the idea of hope IS misplaced in the King James and many other bible translations. Two things ARE True here; first there IS NO need for God to hope, this IS a non sequitur. Second IS that the Greek word elpis IS defined in terms of expectation which IS more in line with the reality of the apostle’s message. From the perspective of the individual, the idea of the Godhead can be replaced with the reality of the Soul, the True man. It IS the Soul that expects to be able to be “delivered made free from the bondage of corruption“. The creature IS the man in this world who IS imbued with his Soul and Paul IS here making us look as the total being, at the Soul born into this world in the body of a man; that it IS this birth that IS into vanity. It IS the birthed man that IS in a perishable and decaying condition; his Life IS separated from his realization that he IS the Soul, the Christ Within, and it IS in this way that he IS separate from God. The last part IS perhaps the easiest to understand; until the man in the world IS awakened by his own Soul he IS by his very nature, his vanity if you will, pursuing false ends. The idea of being “delivered made free” IS from the Greek word eleutheroo which IS defined as make free 9 by Thayer’s and as liberate 9a by Strong’s. While most ALL bible translations render the idea as delivered or as set free, both of these imply an outside force and, from the perspective of doctrines that outside force IS God. For us the idea of “made free” IS the better view and IS the way the word in used elsewhere in the New Testament.
Our perspective on this removes the Godhead from the equation and places the responsibility for being “made free” on the man in communion with his own Soul; it IS in such communion that one can enter “into the glorious liberty of the children of God“. To better understand this we need ONLY look to Peter’s words that we often use; Peter tells us: “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:2-4). Peter captures Paul’s idea from a purely personal perspective where we can easily see that it IS the man himself that must escape his corruption. Peter also gives us a more defining idea for what Paul shows us as “the glorious liberty of the children of God“.
While Paul’s words ARE interpreted as the ‘fall of man’ with the understanding that it IS God that can deliver men from their corruption, Peter’s words CAN NOT. Paul’s words ARE also interpreted by some to say that it IS NOT by the Plan of God that men ARE made subject to vanity but rather that it IS by the power of Satan. John Gill frames this saying: they willingly went into idolatrous and other evil practices, but the devil made them subject, or slaves unto them; he led them captive at his will, and powerfully worked in them, by divine permission, so that they became vassals to him, and to their lusts 8. Such ideas should have been rejected by ALL thinking persons but, because they conform to doctrines, they were NOT. Others see the idea as that: Only God had the sovereign authority to legally subject the entire physical universe to a curse and a future hope. It was an act of divine judgment following the Fall***. While this view properly places the cause in the Godhead the ideas of sovereign authority, of legality and divine judgment also fail to understand that the whole of worldly Life and its vanity IS according to the Divine Plan. These ideas, as most other doctrinal ideas, seek to blame Satan and the devil for the ills of mankind; from the beginning the church refused to accept the idea that every individual who IS born into this vanity has opportunity to escape it save for those whose lives never allow for such time to accomplish this escape. We should understand here that this too IS a part of the Plan which IS NOT oriented ONLY toward individuals but also to the whole; should one NOT escape, he IS still a Soul and still part and parcel of the Divine. His ONLY fault IS his failure to Unite the spiritual and the carnal in this Life. This idea IS explored by Paul who tells us of the Master 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 idea of Unity, of making “of twain one new man“, that IS the subject of the remainder of our selection from Romans where the ideas of adoption and Redemption of shown but NOT explained as these too ARE among the mysteries. First however we should look at the relationship between the words from Paul thus far discussed and Peter’s words which offer the same Truths from a different perspective. Peter begins by saying that we have “grace and peace” and here we should understand that he IS speaking to a specific audience and NOT the general public. We KNOW this because he includes a criteria that tells us that this “grace and peace” come “through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord“. We should remember here that KNOWING God IS our objective as we “Strive to enter in at the strait gate” (Luke 13:24) and that this KNOWING has criteria as outlined by John who tells us “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (John 2:4). To KNOW God then IS to keep “his commandments“, to keep His words, and it IS those that ARE “ doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22) that can have that “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord“. While doctrines offer varying ideas regarding KNOWING God, those shown above ARE the reality of this knowledge; Vincent helps us here saying: In the knowledge [εν επιγνωσει]. The compound expressing full knowledge. While the next verse seems unrelated to this idea of “the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord“, it IS NOT. Peter continues in this idea of “the knowledge of God” while showing us that it IS “According as his divine power” that we have “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” and this “through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue“.
What we should try to see here IS that we have access to “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” by keeping His words. Peter continues to tell us that the way to having “all things” IS “through the knowledge of God“, and that we also have “exceeding great and precious promises“. While these ARE NOT defined here, we should be able to comport these promises with Paul’s idea of the “expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God“. This expectation of freedom from our bondage IS those “exceeding great and precious promises” while “the glorious liberty of the children of God” IS tantamount to our being “partakers of the divine nature“. This IS being in Unity with our Souls and with the Godhead. Peter continues here to show us that this IS NOT DONE by an outside force, that it IS NOT a function of the Godhead to deliver us, but that it IS by our own Power to escape “the corruption that is in the world through lust“. Our point here IS that Paul and Peter ARE offering us the same Christian message and while Peter DOES NOT use the idea of vanity here, he DOES tell another defining idea for vanity as “the corruption that is in the world through lust“. While Paul IS showing us that we ARE born into vanity, Peter IS showing us that the very nature of this world of desires and lusts IS that corruption, IS that vanity. Can we see the relationship here? Can we better understand Paul’s words saying “the creature was made subject to vanity“?
Returning our focus to our selection from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans we come upon some of the most misunderstood and illusive ideas in the whole of the New Testament. First IS the idea of the state of man and of mankind; according to the previous text these ARE “made subject to vanity“. Here Paul IS showing us that because of this vanity “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now“. We must of course understand this from the perspective of the Soul or the Soul infused man in this world, the disciple and aspirant to discipleship if you will. It IS such that can realize the reality of men’s subjection to vanity and it IS such that experience the groaning and who “travaileth in pain together“. We should take a moment here to understand that KNOWING God at whatever measure requires that one KNOW oneself; it IS in this idea of self knowledge, pushed into the heart by the Soul as part of being Transformed, that we can understand the reality of the human condition. This idea of groaning IS from the Greek word sustenazo which IS defined by Strong’s as: to moan jointly, i.e. (figuratively) experience a common calamity9a. Here the example offered gives us the better idea of Paul’s intent in using this word which ONLY appears here. In the idea that ALL “travaileth in pain together” we again have a word that is ONLY used here; the whole phrase IS rendered from the Greek word sunodino. Here Strong’s tells us that the idea of sunodino IS: to have (parturition) pangs in company (concert, simultaneously) with 9a; the word parturition IS related to giving birth and it IS in this sense that we should understand sunodino as pain that IS unavoidable, that it IS a part of the process. This IS the state of humanity from the perspective of the Soul.
We should try to see that to most ALL of the unawakened human family there IS neither groaning nor travailing; most ALL are unaware of their vanity, they see their vanity as their normal state of being “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). Paul confirms this as he then speaks about himself, a disciple to be sure, as he includes himself and other disciples with the Souls of ALL as those that “groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now“. While we included the disciples in the previous verse, Paul separates them here in this verse but holds that they DO experience the same groaning and travailing. In the idea of the having “the firstfruits of the Spirit” we should see the reality of discipleship into which we would include ALL with such a measure as to qualify. Our point here IS that while there ARE specific criteria for discipleship, there ARE also degrees of discipleship; here we would include them ALL. In this idea of “not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit” we should see the condition of ALL unawakened and awakening Souls as well as those disciples which Paul shows “have the firstfruits of the Spirit“. This understanding IS important from the perspective of Paul’s earlier words that tell us of the “expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God“. ALL are “waiting for the adoption“; that IS ALL Souls ARE “waiting for the adoption” which we should try to understand as the communion of the Soul with the heretofore carnal mind which IS the making “of twain one new man“. While this IS the objective of ALL Souls, the disciple and the aspirant to discipleship KNOW that this IS the objective; others, the unawakened, DO NOT have such realization.
The idea of “the adoption” IS largely misunderstood in doctrinal Christianity. While the church believes that it IS ‘believers’ that have “the Spirit of adoption” which Paul mentions earlier in this chapter. They fail to link this idea to the previous verse saying “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Romans 8:15, 14) or, better, they fail to understand the meaning of being “led by the Spirit of God“. We have covered these ideas in previous posts but here we should offer a brief examination of the apostle’s ideas. We begin with the Paul’s words saying “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God“. We should understand that ALL that ARE carnally oriented, again both in and out of the church; ALL that ARE yet “conformed to this world“, ARE living “after the flesh“. ALL ARE yet in that “bondage of corruption“. It IS those that “through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body” that ARE those that “are led by the Spirit of God” and ARE those that “have received the Spirit of adoption” (Romans 8:13-14, 15). The conclusion here IS that the disciple and the aspirant to discipleship, those that KNOW that their escape from vanity IS their objective, ARE those that Truly are “waiting for the adoption“. It IS these that ARE included in the apostle’s words saying “ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit“. It IS these that Paul IS showing us ARE “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body“. While ALL Souls ARE waiting, Paul’s words can be seen as directed at “ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit“.
This idea of adoption IS a complex one which we have discussed in previous essays and here we should repeat Vincent’s word’s that show us the impact of the idea. Vincent, quoting Mr. Merivale, tells us: “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. Can we see the idea of communion in this idea of adoption?
In most Christian doctrines the average believer presumes that he IS an adopted son and this IS one of the great doctrinal problems that keep men from ever seeking the Truth. Two things that ARE True from Paul’s words in chapter eight that ARE missed by most ARE first that to have “the Spirit of adoption” one must be “led by the Spirit of God” which idea CAN NOT be understood in doctrinal terms. The second thing IS that we should look at “the Spirit of adoption” as an active relationship between the Soul and the Transformed or Transforming mind, the mind of one that IS “led by the Spirit of God“. Those in this position, Paul includes himself here, ARE still “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body“. This IS a complex statement that IS beyond the ken of most ALL, a statement that embodies one of the great mysteries of Life in this world. As Mr. Merivale tells us: “the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father” and in this we should try to see a doctrinal slant that perhaps misses the point regarding the individual Life in form. For the man in this world the reality of the Godhead, the reality of the Father, IS the reality of one’s own Soul; it IS the Soul that has a direct link to the Godhead. This IS the communion that makes “of twain one new man“. The doctrinal belief of being adopted children of God IS a part of that great illusion and the glamour that accompanies it; it IS a part of the vanity. Our vanity IS conquered, escaped from IS the better idea, by keeping His words and here again we must understand that this IS NOT because they ARE the words of the Master but rather because they ARE the words of Truth and of our Redemption. What we ARE calling the illusions of vanity, James calls our deception; he lays out this same idea of keeping His words as our escape from vanity saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22).
The final point in our selection IS the reality of “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body“. The words “to wit” ARE added by the translators and ARE NOT necessary for our understanding of the idea. Many translations expand upon the idea of “the adoption” by rendering as “adoption as sons” or some similar idea. Doctrines have NO valid ideas to explain this idea of Redemption; John Gill tells us that the reference IS to: either the redemption of the natural body, by the resurrection from the dead….or the redemption of the mystical body the church 8. Google’s AI summarizes the doctrinal ideas saying that “the redemption of our body“: refers to the future physical resurrection and transformation of believers^*. Two observations here; first the idea that Paul’s reference IS to the mystical body the church IS nonsensical, especially in this context. Our second observation can be framed as a question; why would Paul be groaning and travailing “in pain” while waiting to die and be resurrected at some future unknown time? Doctrines DO NOT understand what Paul IS telling us and what we should see here IS the idea of mysteries at work as we understand that such mysteries ARE “made manifest to his saints“; understood by those that ARE Truly “led by the Spirit of God“. We did NOT get to include our trifecta in our essay so we repeat it here:
- “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.
- 4 Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition
- 8 Bible commentaries on BibleStudyTools.com
- 9 Thayer’s Greek Lexicon on blueletterbible.org
- 9a The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on blueletterbible.org
- 9b Vine’s Expository Dictionary on blueletterbible.org
- * Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2020
- ** Google AI on: sin
- *^ Google AI on: “the redemption of our body”
- *** Google AI “not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same”
those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road
Voltaire, Writer and Philosopher
