ON LOVE; PART MDXXVIII
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 our conclusion regarding the Apostle Paul’s words saying “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh“. This is a part of our overall discussion of the apostle’s words in the eighth chapter of Romans and we did spend much time and words on this particular verse and its ramifications. The next verse from our selection IS “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” and it since it follows upon the last one we will repeat here our interpretation of the last one as well. In short, the last verse tells us about “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh“, that the law could NOT easily convert men from their carnal focus simply because men interpreted the law to their carnal benefit and NOT toward a spiritual end. To remedy this God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” and we should understand here that this IS NOT to be understood literally. The idea IS that the Master came among us “in the likeness of sinful flesh” as part of the Plan; that He came among us as a man NOT “in sinful flesh” but in the likeness thereof; He looked like us but DID NOT act like us. The next part, “and for sin” IS doctrinally understood as that that Jesus was “to be a sin offering” as some render the Greek words. The reality of the Greek words however need NOT go there; they can rather go to the idea that IS supported by lexicons and some commentary which IS that “and for about, concerning or touching sin” which IS clear and easy to understand so that the final idea becomes “and for about, concerning or touching sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Our final point here IS in regard to the Greek word katakrino which IS rendered as condemned. Vincent helps us to understand Paul’s intent saying of sin that the Master: Deposed from its dominion, a thing impossible to the law, which could pronounce judgment and inflict penalty, but not dethrone 4. We then ended the last essay asking and answering the question: How DOES the Master depose sin? Simply by His words and His example as a man who came among us “in the likeness of sinful flesh” to teach us the Way. Of course, none of this IS the way that the doctrines of men understand the apostle’s words nor the Life of the Master. Before we continue, let’s review our full selection from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For 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” (Romans 8:1:14).
The next verse from our selection IS, again, the continuation of the idea that Jesus came among us “in the likeness of sinful flesh” and that in this He was a Soul, a Christ Within, that had the fullness of Power over his flesh so that it was never “sinful flesh“. It IS in this state of being that “concerning sin” Jesus “deposed (sin) from its dominion” over His Life as He shows us how to DO the same so that: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit“. Our next question here then IS what IS “the righteousness of the law” that IS NOT fulfilled “in that it was weak through the flesh“? Paul previously shows us that because of this weakness, because of the inherent vanity into which ALL men ARE born, nurtured and indoctrinated further into their perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends 4, we ARE left to follow the Way on our own. Now the church teaches that a man CAN NOT save himself but this IS ONLY a half Truth. As a carnal man separate from God, and pursuing false ends it is unlikely that we can or would choose to point ourselves away from our carnal existence and onto a Life of True righteousness. This pointing toward Repentance should have been in the hands of the churches, in the hands of those that were deemed qualified to take authority over the spiritual lives of the masses. However, the hands of the churches instead sought to protect what it was that we ARE intended to escape from. They formed a doctrinal approach to the Lord that IS devoid of most ALL that IS spiritually important, much like the way that the doctrines of the Jews destroyed the “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith” (Matthew 23:23). Paul IS telling us that based on the words and the example of the Master that we can ourselves fulfill “the righteousness of the law“, that we too can overcome as DID the Master who tells us clearly that “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). We must try to see here that we ARE individuals in this, that the church IS become so embedded in its doctrinal approaches to God that it can offer us little help in our individual quest to fulfill “the righteousness of the law“. Again, we should NOT understand this “righteousness of the law” as that idea of the law that Paul speaks against. The apostle speaks against the manipulation of the Truth of the law that IS the Jews’ own doctrinal approach; he speaks against the ‘works‘ that their mitzvah prescribes to fulfill the “righteousness of the law” but which failed miserably in Jesus’ day and beyond. This the Master points out for us in the gospels through which Jesus speaks irreverently against the Jews ways and traditions which had become their idea of True religion.
We should try to understand that this righteousness IS NOT seen in its True Light by many parts of the church. While the primary definition from the lexicon IS: that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law2, there ARE other derivatives of the root word that ARE seemingly more religiously oriented. This word, dikaioma, IS rendered by some in terms of ordinance which in reality has little or NO spiritual import. Strong’s defines dikaioma as: an equitable deed; by implication, a statute or decision 9a while they define dikaiosynē, another noun from the same root, as: equity (of character or act)9a. The former seems related to civil law while the latter is related to the moral ideas that one holds. Neither word however relates to the lexicon’s, and Thayer’s 9, defining idea for the latter word which IS that this idea of righteousness IS : in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God 2. This last idea from the lexicon IS the reality of the common ideas that ARE attached to righteousness. The point here IS that Paul IS speaking, according to the defining ideas, about the civil impact of the law but this makes little sense spiritually. Vincent tries to explain this saying that dikaioma IS: Primarily that which is deemed right, so as to have the force of law; hence an ordinance. Here collectively, of the moral precepts of the law : its righteous requirement 4. Here we have a combination of both the civil and the moral components of the idea and from this we can take away the idea that “the righteousness of the law” covers both ends. What we should try to see there IS that this righteousness IS a moral code in the hearts of men that IS derived from the Soul and which affects a man’s thoughts, attitudes and actions in this world. It IS in this combination that we can fulfill “the righteousness of the law“. So then, this idea of righteousness as a combined civil and moral ‘obligation’ IS “fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Can we see the point here? Can we see that to Truly fulfill “the righteousness of the law” we must be focused upon the things of God and NOT on the self and the things of the self in this world.
Stringing these two verses together we should try to see that Paul’s point IS that the carnal man could NOT fulfill “the righteousness of the law” because the law “was weak through the flesh“, his obedience was subjected to the whims of the “carnal mind” and emotions as the man chose NOT to heed the promptings of the Soul. Paul further explains that God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” to show us the Way as He Himself deposed sin so that “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit“. Perhaps the KEY takeaway here IS that for the man focused upon the things of God, the man that IS walking “after the Spirit“, IS heeding the prompting of his own Soul to the Good, the Beautiful and the True. And it IS the Soul that becomes the spiritual strength of the carnal man so that he can fulfill “the righteousness of the law“. While the words point to an outside Force, God if you will, sending Jesus among us, we should understand that the working out of such deeply spiritual ideas IS well beyond even the imaginations of men who CAN NOT fathom the reality that IS the Godhead and its workings. Paul goes on to contrast those whose focus IS upon the Godhead against those whose focus IS upon themselves and the picture that the apostle paints for us is simply the spiritual versus the carnal. Paul’s next words ARE “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit“. This IS of course clear as day to those that “are after the Spirit” but Paul’s words ARE quite meaningless to those that continue to walk “after the flesh“. And it IS a bit ironic that so many of those that ARE “after the flesh” ARE those that claim to be “after the Spirit“. This IS of course the deception that James warns us of saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves“. Many millions believe that they ARE on the right side of Paul’s words but despite the way that the church has used the apostle’s words to build their own doctrines, most ALL remain on the wrong side. Most ALL remain carnal men DOING carnal things as they continue to “mind the things of the flesh“. Many claim that they ARE ‘saved’, many claim that they have the Presence of the Lord in their lives; however, if this were True, they would be keeping His words which IS the prerequisite for both.
Paul explains this as he goes on to say “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace“. Now we should understand this idea of peace NOT as the word IS biblically defined but rather as the Master Himself offers this peace to us. The Greek word eirene which IS rendered as peace IS defined as: a state of national tranquillity; peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord; security, safety, prosperity, felicity 2. These ARE the defining ideas from the lexicon in their order; it IS after this that they refer to the real peace that the “spiritually minded” will experience saying eirene IS the Messiah’s peace 2. From here they cite some purely doctrinal ideas. Strong’s offers us definitions that say that eirene IS: peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity 9a; while these ideas ARE True, the first IS meaningless and the second IS preposterous. Perhaps one can relate peace to prosperity in a carnal sense but, to be sure, prosperity DOES NOT result in peace nor peace in prosperity. The True force of this idea of peace comes from the Master’s words saying “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27). After giving His disciples the Truth, He tells them “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). So this IS NOT peace as that idea IS generally construed, this IS that inner peace that comes about according to the first part of our trifecta as we free ourselves from our vanity and eventually can say with the Master “I have overcome the world“. Jesus’ words that ARE our trifecta ALL hold one theme in common….that we keep His words; we read:
- “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 idea of peace here in Paul’s words IS offered to us in conjunction with Life but this Life in this world IS NOT his subject. The apostle IS speaking about that Life which the Master refers to in such sayings as “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35). Here the Mater shows us the separation of Life into two distinct meanings; the first IS in regard to one’s carnal Life in this world while the second, referred to as it at the end of the verse, IS our spiritual Life. We should understand here that the parabolic nature of this words IS purposeful; the idea that IS missed by most IS that when one forsakes his Life in this world, he saves his own spiritual Life and allows that to grow. This same parabolic idea IS found in the three synoptic Gospels; from Luke’s Gospel we read that “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Luke 9:24). The doctrinal view of these words IS much different that what we see in the Master’s words and this because they ARE parabolic and their meaning IS reserved for those that have some measure of that KNOWING from the first part of our trifecta. Doctrinally the idea IS seen as this from John Gill who says: Whoever is desirous of preserving himself from troubles, reproaches, persecutions, and death; and takes such a method to do it, as by forsaking Christ, denying his Gospel, and dropping his profession of it 8. This IS Mr. Gills view of “whosoever will save his life” while the idea of losing it IS found in the idea that: he will expose himself to the wrath of God, to everlasting punishment 8. The better view here IS that whensoever one continues his focus on the carnal and the mundane, he IS at the same time losing his access to the spiritual Life that IS ever trying to overwhelm the carnal. The next part follows the same track; “whosoever will lose his life for my sake“; NOT in death, but in forsaking the carnal, in forsaking the pursuit of false ends, “the same shall save it“; that IS that the same shall reserve his access to the spiritual Life here and now. Doctrines also see this very differently; Mr. Gill tells us that to “lose his life for my sake” IS to be: willing to forego all the pleasures and comforts of life, and be subject to poverty and distress, and to lay down life itself, for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, rather than deny him, and part with truth 8. Doctrinally the whole of the idea IS brought down to carnal matters of NOT asserting one’s ‘faith’ in Christ while what we show here and in previous essays IS that there ARE two realities of Life and that one must give way to the other. This IS the meaning of the idea of Life and peace, that “to be spiritually minded is life and peace“. Conversely, “to be carnally minded is death” has the same reference for us as Jesus’ words saying “whosoever will save his life shall lose it“; this loss IS a spiritual idea and NOT the death of our bodies.
Paul goes on to explain what he IS saying to us that can understand; he tells us that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” and in this statement lies the KEY to our Repentance and Transformation. These words ARE a further attestation to the fact of the dichotomy between the spiritual and the carnal and they offer us a view into the reality that the Godhead DOES NOT exert Power over people nor events that ARE carnal, those that ARE of this world. James offers us a similar idea saying “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). The ONLY help for the “carnal mind“, to have it Repent and Transform, comes from the Soul and it IS ONLY in heeding the prompting of the Soul that men ARE Truly saved. And there IS NO mystery as to how this works; it IS tied to the earlier idea that “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace“. While this should show us that the whole of our salvation IS totally in our hands, that the ONLY one that can save a man IS the man himself, this IS NOT the view held by the church. Most have morphed this idea into another doctrinal precept that says that ONLY Christ can save us but such doctrinal ideas miss the reality of the Christ Within, the Soul of everyman. It IS our own Christ Within that will work against the “carnal mind” when it IS so allowed and we should understand that in order to effectuate this one must be ready to Repent according to the reality of the word and NOT the churches’ diluted ideas. When Paul tells us later in this epistle that we should “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2), he IS showing us the way to begin this process of Repentance and while this may require some Life event to change a man’s Life trajectory, this IS NOT always the case. Moreover, it IS the church that should be showing men the Way that IS embedded in the words of the Master and the amplifying and clarifying words of His apostles. It IS the church that should be showing, by example and word, that we should forsake our carnal focus and instead focus upon the Truth and the agape Love that IS the reality of the New Testament. It IS Repentance that moves the bar and we should remember what this Repentance Truly IS. Vincent tells us that: Repentance, then, has been rightly defined as “Such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice.” Sorrow is not, as is popularly conceived, the primary nor the prominent notion of the word 4.
Paul’s point here in our subject verse should be clearly understood to say that “the carnal mind is enmity against God” and while this IS the way that the idea IS rendered by most, it IS NOT the True position of the church which fails to adequately separate the “carnal mind” from the ‘religious’ Life of a man. Through the church men ARE instructed to maintain an active Life by focusing upon the carnal things that they deem necessary for ‘successful’ living., This they do in opposition 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: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:19-21). The KEY here, the idea that links these words to the overall carnal behaviors of men, IS the final words that tell us clearly that “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also“. These words should have deflected the idea that the Greek word thesauros IS a treasury and the things that would be kept in such treasury 2. When Jesus introduced the idea of the heart, we should have understood the broadness of the meaning that He IS placing on thesauros, that it IS much more than wealth. The idea here and in the following verses should show us that our thesauros IS ALL that puts our focus, our hearts if you will, on things carnal or things spiritual; our thesauros IS ALL that takes our attention in Life and this same can be said for another misapplied word idea….mammon. The “carnal mind” then “is enmity against God” because its focus IS on the things of the self and NOT the things of God. One bible translation that we seldom agree with shows us this idea from Paul’s words as “Focusing on the self is the opposite of focusing on God. Anyone completely absorbed in self ignores God, ends up thinking more about self than God. That person ignores who God is and what he is doing” (Message Bible). The idea here IS rather accurate save for the last parts that try to put the idea of NOT focusing on the Godhead as the action if the irreligious and the idea that one can be completely absorbed in self takes away the reality of focus for millions upon millions who may take time out for religious matters like church, bible study, etc.. Such whose religious Life includes churchgoing, bible study and perhaps church activities still spend the majority of their time embedded in their carnal lives and futures. The measure that Jesus tries to show us saying “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” IS self defined; we ARE asked to assess for ourselves where our heart IS and here again we should remember James’ words saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves“.
This sense of deception can be strong based upon whatsoever illusions one may have constructed for themselves but the measure here IS also our KEY to self-understanding. ARE we keeping His words or striving to DO so or ARE we deceiving ourselves IS a question that can ONLY be answered in two ways. The first IS ONLY apparent to the man himself, we each KNOW our own spiritual stature from the perspective of keeping His words; ONLY we Truly KNOW ourselves, our thoughts and our attitudes. The second can be seen by others from the perspective of the Master’s words saying “Ye shall know them by their fruits” and then “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:16, 20). Through this idea our thoughts and attitudes can leak out into our actions as men in this world and surely these will define a man, both for good and for evil. To further our understanding, Paul adds that the “carnal mind….is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” and we should understand that this IS a statement of fact and one that IS missing from the Message Bible’s version of the Master’s words. The “carnal mind“, that mind that interacts with the world, has NO rules in and of itself. The “carnal mind“, without the influence of the Soul acts completely on its own in both good and bad ways. Our thoughts and attitudes, formed through our years of nurturing, indoctrination and experience, exist as the reality of our personalities. It IS ONLY when one hears and heeds the prompting of the Soul that the “carnal mind” can be renewed and Transformed according to Paul’s words saying “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind“. It IS when we allow the spiritual thoughts to enter into our “carnal mind” that we can begin the renewal process and while this may take some time, it contributes to our sense of striving toward that goal. When we can understand that the “carnal mind” IS in opposition to the very “will of my Father which is in heaven”, we can then understand the futility of continuing to allow the “carnal mind” to conduct our lives. And when we can see together Paul’s and James’ words regarding the “carnal mind” we can get the clearer picture of our individual lives and our spiritual stature.
James frames his words in terms of being “a friend of the world” and we should note here that it IS the “carnal mind” that has this affinity to the world. Perhaps James assumes that the reader can make this connection so that he DOES NOT have to cite the “carnal mind” in his words saying “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God“. We should understand that it IS our minds and our emotions that make friends in most ALL circumstances; hence the idea IS that when the “carnal mind” has formed a friendship bond with his Life in this world, he IS acting in opposition to God. In a strange and perhaps oblique way, the “carnal mind” can be understood and the reality of the antichrist as according to James the “carnal mind“, through his “friendship of the world” IS in opposition to God which IS the reality of the idea of the antichrist. That much of the church has converted the idea of the antichrist into a personage of great power who opposes Christ, the greater reality IS that the antichrist IS everyman that acts with such opposition. The Apostle John IS the ONLY writer who shows us this idea of the antichrist and while he paints this in terms of KNOWING, believing IS his word, that Jesus IS the Christ, his words have NOT be used in the church to define this supposed being. However, John also shows us that the antichrist is everyman saying “even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time“(1 John 2:18) and later that “many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 1-7). When we combine this last part with James’ idea on deception we can perhaps see that individually we ARE our own antichrist when we ARE so deceived. Paul tells us that “the carnal mind is enmity against God” and through these words we should be able to see that ALL that operate carnally ARE antichrist and this regardless of what one may profess in their believing; while they may confess “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” the actions of most ARE NOT in accord with that same “will of my Father which is in heaven“. Where do we draw the line? Probably at the intersection of some measure of KNOWING the things of God and striving to maintain our focus on the Lord rather than continuing our carnal ways of pursuing false ends 4.
Paul ends this thought that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” by adding that “they that are in the flesh cannot please God“. Two things of importance here; first IS the idea of “they that are in the flesh“. Paul’s intent here IS to say that those that ARE living in and thru the “carnal mind” ARE “they that are in the flesh“. We should be able to see this through the Greek word sarx and it derivatives and understand that this word IS rendered as both flesh and carnal as it IS in these two verses. We perhaps can understand this better as humans by saying that “the flesh mind is enmity against God” . The next point of importance IS the idea of pleasing God. What exactly does this mean? The Greek word here IS aresko which IS defined by Strong’s as: probably from G142 (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be agreeable (or by implication, to seek to be so)9a. While most ALL render aresko as please, there IS one that translates the idea as “So that those who are in the flesh are not able to give pleasure to God“. While the idea of pleasing offers us the connotation that we ARE making God happy, the idea of giving pleasure to God takes this even farther. These ideas ARE formed in the idea that God IS like men, that He can be pleased, but this IS a nonsensical idea that IS held by many who, for lack of understanding, KNOWING if you will, see God in human terms. Stong’s however defines the idea of aresko in terms of being agreeable which has an entirely different connotation and they add that aresko can also be to seek to be agreeable. Thayer’s, while maintaining the idea of pleasing, defines the idea as: to strive to please; to accommodate oneself to the opinions, desires, interests of others 9. This secondary idea follows the main definition that IS simply: to please 9. Thayer’s offers the idea of striving, which Strong’s offers as to seek to be so; both of these ideas ARE rather equal except striving can be, and should be, a more strenuous effort*.
Understanding that pleasing IS an inferior way of viewing Paul’s words here, we should try to better understand what it means to be agreeable which would phrase the idea as “they that are in the flesh cannot please be agreeable with God“. The English word agreeable IS first defined in terms of pleasing but the secondary definition IS what we should try to see here; our modern dictionary tells us that to be agreeable IS: willing or ready to agree or consent. Can we see how that this works in regard to the Godhead? Webster’s 1828 Dictionary makes this even clearer saying that agreeable IS: Suitable; conformable; correspondent; consistent with; as, the practice of virtue is agreeable to the law of God and our own nature 1. Expanding our rephrasing of the King James text then results in Paul’s words telling us that “they that are in the flesh cannot please be agreeable with God as regards His law” To be “agreeable with God” then IS tantamount to keeping His words.
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
- 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
- * 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
