{"id":14613,"date":"2018-02-28T16:31:13","date_gmt":"2018-02-28T23:31:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/?p=14613"},"modified":"2018-02-28T16:31:13","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T23:31:13","slug":"in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1583","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/2018\/02\/28\/in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1583\/","title":{"rendered":"IN THE WORDS OF JESUS\u2013Part 1583"},"content":{"rendered":"

ON LOVE; PART MCCXXII<\/span><\/h2>\n
\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/span><\/h6>\n

GoodWill\u00a0IS Love in Action<\/span><\/h2>\n
\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/span><\/h6>\n

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<\/em>” (Mark 12:29-31).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/em> which IS generally rendered as Love,\u00a0we 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\u00a0of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our\u00a0One God<\/span><\/p>\n

\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12).<\/span><\/p>\n

In our last essay we discussed the spiritual possibilities in the Life of everyman who will keep his part of the New Covenant which IS essentially to keep His words<\/em>. That doctrinal thinkers DO NOT see this idea of keeping His words<\/em> as that covenant IS of no moment to us and if one would research the doctrinal ideas of the New Covenant across denominations and sects, one would find that there IS little agreement on just what this New Covenant IS.\u00a0Far too much emphasis IS placed upon the Jewish religion of 2000 years ago when defining the New Covenant in terms of the death and the blood of Christ. From their chosen perspectives doctrines see the idea that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission<\/em>” (Hebrews 9:22) as this IS extending the idea of sacrifice<\/em> from the Jew’s law on the killing of animals to Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n

Others translate this idea differently rendering it as “And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission<\/em>” but this change DOES NOT affect their point that blood IS required. This idea from the writer of the Book of Hebrews however IS intended for the Jew’s in that day….intended to show a dynamic link between their reliance upon sacrifice<\/em> according to their law and the death of the Christ as that same sacrifice<\/em> by which sins ARE forgiven. If we could understand that the Jew’s sacrifice<\/em> was intended to deter men from sin in order to avoid such sacrifice<\/em>, then perhaps we can see that Jesus’ death and His resurrection ARE at most similarly intended.<\/span><\/p>\n

The sacrifice<\/em> was a price that had to be paid by the Jew to remain under the law and it was ONLY by way of this eradication of one’s sin that one could continually see himself as that he does “hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments<\/em>” (Deuteronomy 28:1). For many this becomes a licence to sin as so long as one paid the price, he could remain in the covenant….<\/em>at least in his own thoughts.<\/em>\u00a0We should try to see that so much of the writings of the apostles, and especially the writer of Hebrews, IS intended to show a link between the Old Covenant and the new reality brought by the Master, a reality that IS built in His words and His example and NOT ONLY His death.<\/span><\/p>\n

While the New Testament writers DO write much of their words to the Jew’s directly in an attempt to attract them to Christ, this idea IS NOT seen by most who translate and comment on their writings. Rather than understand such ideas as we have from Hebrews above in this sense, doctrines have used it to enforce their view of the death and the blood of Christ, that it IS by these that ALL sins ARE forgiven<\/em> and, in some doctrines,\u00a0forgiven<\/em>\u00a0ad infinitum. Much of the problem in ALL of Christianity IS the idea of forgiveness<\/em> which IS rendered from the kindred Greek words aphesis<\/em> and aphieme<\/em>. Aphesis<\/em> IS rendered in the King James Bible as remission<\/em>, forgiveness<\/em>, deliverance<\/em> and liberty<\/em> according to our lexicon, while the lexicon linked to the New American Standard Bible shows aphesis<\/em> rendered as forgiveness<\/em>, free<\/em> and release<\/em>\u00a0with the rendering of\u00a0deliverance\u00a0<\/i>being part of the Master’s recital of the words of the\u00a0Prophet Isaiah.<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea of forgiveness<\/em> has been taken by doctrines to show that the Lord will forgive<\/em> the sins of men but here we should try to see that the weight of sin IS ever upon one’s own heart<\/em><\/strong> and this whether he realizes a sin as such or not. It IS the heart<\/em><\/strong>, the consciousness of a man, that IS weighted down by sin and lifted up by his Repentance<\/em><\/strong>; one will NOT see this however in the light of doctrines that teach that the Lord IS the forgiver<\/em>. Strong’s defines aphesis<\/em> as freedom<\/em> and then figuratively as pardon<\/em>\u00a09a<\/sup> but we should try to see here that the figurative ideas ARE based in the presumed usage of the word; here we should understand that even the idea of remission<\/em> as we commonly understand this IS remiss. If we apply the defining idea of freedom<\/em> to the teaching of John the Baptist, a teaching which Jesus fully picked up, we can then perhaps see the deeper ideas.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Apostle Mark tells us that “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins<\/em>” (Mark 1:4) while the Apostle Luke tells us that the Baptist’s “father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying….thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;\u00a0To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins<\/em>” (Luke 1:66, 76-77). Here we should try to see and to understand that it IS in Repentance<\/em><\/strong> that one IS freed<\/em> from the weight of one’s own sin and it IS in this process, and the process of Transformation<\/em><\/strong>, that one can gains such “knowledge of salvation<\/em>” which IS ever part of coming to “know the truth<\/em>“; it IS in this that one can realize that it IS “the truth<\/em>” that “shall make you free”.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The key IS ever in the reality of Repentance<\/em><\/strong>, NOT as this idea IS commonly understood, but as Vincent shows us saying:\u00a0Repentance, 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<\/em>\u00a04<\/sup>. This IS the reality of Repentance<\/em><\/strong> as the Master uses this idea in such sayings as “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/em>” (Matthew 4:17); in this Repentance<\/em><\/strong> one looks away from the world and onto His Kingdom and this in the understanding that “whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God<\/em>“. This IS the True depth of the ideas of Repentance<\/em><\/strong> and remission:<\/em> in focus<\/em> upon the world one IS weighted down by the reality that such\u00a0focus<\/em> IS “the friendship of the world<\/em>” which “is enmity with God<\/em>”\u00a0 (James 4:4).<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea here of friendship<\/em> IS a bit misleading; the Greek word philia<\/em>, which IS from the same root word as IS phileo<\/em> which IS rendered in terms of Love, means fondness<\/em> according to Strong’s\u00a09a<\/sup>\u00a0and this idea takes away the connotation of friend<\/em> and replaces it with the idea perhaps of preference….that one prefers the world. It IS in Repentance<\/em><\/strong> then that one IS freed<\/em> from this burden, this weight on the heart<\/em><\/strong> which ever intends to focus<\/em> upon the Truth but which IS at the same time caught in the “bondage of corruption<\/em>“, a bondage<\/em> from which remission<\/em> becomes his freedom<\/em>. Here we should see Thayer’s primary definition of aphesis<\/em> saying:\u00a0release, as from bondage, imprisonment<\/em>\u00a09<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In ALL this we should try to understand that the doctrinal ideas of the New Covenant fail when we look at them in the reality of remission<\/em> and against the apostles’ motivation to enable the Jews to see the crux of their law in the death and the blood of the Christ. It IS with this motivation that much of the Book of Hebrews IS written with its numerous references to the idea of the ‘high priest’, an idea that has been taken up by Christian doctrines which need NO ‘high priest’ and then made to be Jesus. This can be further seen in the writer’s words about Melchisedec who IS mentioned but once in Genesis and then referred to by David in a psalm.<\/span><\/p>\n

There ARE many opinions about just who Melchisedec IS and what IS his relationship to Jesus the Christ. If we can see this in terms of showing the Jews that\u00a0 “we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God<\/em>” (Hebrews 4:14) while Jesus IS not of priestly lineage, but rather that He IS “an\u00a0high priest<\/span>\u00a0after the order of Melchisedec<\/em>“(Hebrews 6:20), we can then better understand the reference. While the admixture of the new with the old IS purposeful in the Book of Hebrews as an effort to attract the Jews to Jesus from a historical and religious perspective, this admixture was never intended to become Christian doctrine and it is against this mingling of the old with the new that the Master speaks. This IS the point of Jesus Parable of New Wine into Old Wineskins which IS recorded in the three synoptic gospels which we read saying:<\/span><\/p>\n

From Matthew’s Gospel: “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.\u00a0Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved<\/em>” (Matthew 9:16-17).<\/span><\/p>\n

From Mark: “No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.\u00a0And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles<\/em>” (Mark 2:21-22).<\/span><\/p>\n

From Luke: “And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.\u00a0And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.\u00a0But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.\u00a0No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better<\/em>” (Luke 5:36-39)<\/span><\/p>\n

These three renditions of the parable ARE ALL quite similar but we should note that Luke IS more explanatory in his presentation. The three ALL follow upon the question of why Jesus’ disciples DO NOT fast<\/em> as did the disciples of John the Baptist and the disciples of the Pharisees. Both Luke and Mark tell this as that it IS the scribes and Pharisees who ask this question while Matthew tells us that it IS “the disciples of John<\/em>” (Matthew 9:14) that ask.\u00a0Many believe that it IS in the context of Jesus answer that the reality of the parable lies, that the parable has to DO with the idea of NOT fasting<\/em> when in the presence of the bridegroom<\/em>, but\u00a0if we can look at the total context we can perhaps see that the reality of the parable lies in the question.<\/span><\/p>\n

While the Master’s words about the bridegroom<\/em> and the children<\/em> can explain the immediate reason for Jesus’ disciples NOT fasting<\/em> as He asks “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?<\/em>” (Matthew 9:15), this should NOT be confused with the more complete answer that IS the parable. And we should remember that Jesus DOES teach us a thing about fasting<\/em> which should be related to the way that this IS practiced by the Jews; Jesus tell us “when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.\u00a0But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;\u00a0That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly<\/em>” Matthew 6:16-18). Perhaps here we can see why Matthew frames the idea of fasting<\/em> as mourning<\/em> while the other writers DO NOT.<\/span><\/p>\n

Such fasting<\/em> IS apparently a Jewish tradition practiced by the ruling class and their disciples as well as by the followers of the Baptist who, by his being a Truly religious Jew, followed this tradition. We should understand here that fasting<\/em> IS NOT a part of the law, save for the fast<\/em> on the Day of Atonement each year; it IS a tradition and we should remember that it IS against the Jew’s traditions that the Master rails. If we could see Jesus’ words here as saying that the new should NOT be appended to the old as would be in the example of putting “a piece of a new garment upon an old<\/em>“, we can then see the Master’s idea which IS effectually what happened in the Christian religions….that “both the new maketh a rent, and\u00a0<\/em>the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old<\/em>“. Perhaps we can see this clearer in Mark’s report of Jesus’s words saying “the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse<\/em>“.<\/span><\/p>\n

The point here IS that the Master IS teaching us to leave off of the old and to embrace the new without the Jew’s doctrinal thoughts and the ideas against which the He continually spoke. In the 2000 year history of Christianity however the Old Testament along with many of the Jew’s thoughts and ideas about it have become a major part of Christian theology; instead of being a reference work to be used with the New Testament, it became nearly as doctrinally important as the New. We should look at the idea of the new wine in old wineskins in the same way; we should try to see that the very foundation of the Old Testament CAN NOT hold the very different nature of the New and here we should try to see that the result of this combination IS the failure of both the container and the contents.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus’ examples ARE pertinent to the time in which He gives them and while the early church, the formulators of doctrine, DID better understand these ideas in their context, they nonetheless DID NOT understand His point. Yet today there ARE many different doctrinal ideas regarding the meaning of this parable and in the days when these ideas were debated, those which seem to us to be the closest to the Truth were among those that were called heretical. Luke adds the ending idea regarding men’s preference for the old and here we should understand that Jesus’ point IS found in the difficulty of the established Jew to accept the new teaching of the Master….for him the “old is better<\/em>“, it IS what he KNOWS. This ALL has naught to DO with the hypocritical ways that ARE attributed to the Pharisees and the other religious rulers of the Jews; this ALL has ONLY to DO with the Master’s caution that the new should NOT be appended to the old and that the new should NOT be placed in the old….that the new should NOT be built upon the old.<\/span><\/p>\n

This IS Jesus’ message as He instructs us in ideas that ARE foreign to the way of the Jews’ doctrines and traditions, Jesus instructs us in ideas on Love and on the expression<\/em><\/strong> of that Love to ALL men as the new Path to the Truth. The law. especially the Jews’ interpretation of the law, were to give way to the teaching of the new Path to Truth and this teaching IS clearly identified for us in Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount where comparisons ARE made….comparisons that ARE NOT become a part of the fabric of Christianity as was the Master’s intent. We should try to see that ALL such comparisons of the law to Jesus new revelation<\/em><\/strong> of the meaning of the law ARE concerning some aspect of agape<\/em> as the unconditional Love for ALL….Love with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9).<\/span><\/p>\n

Here we should see that the relationship between killing<\/em> and anger<\/em>, Raca<\/em> and belittling one’s brother<\/em> ARE equally contrary to agape<\/em>. Jesus’ further message in this context IS reconciliation<\/em> which IS an expression<\/em> of Love. (Matthew 5:22, 24). We should see the next idea in a similar way; the Master says “Agree with thine adversary quickly<\/em>” (Matthew 5:25) and while He explains the potential results of NOT DOING so, the greater message IS that such agreeing<\/em> IS an expression<\/em> of Love which IS akin to another of His instructions….that men should ‘turn the other cheek’ as this IS commonly understood but seldom practiced. Next Jesus teaches us on adultery<\/em> and here the idea IS specific to the reality of sexual interaction; Jesus shows us how that to merely think such thoughts IS contrary to agape<\/em> and, according to His words on divorce<\/em>, have far reaching consequences which can and DO hurt many others.<\/span><\/p>\n

Any reading of Jesus Sermon on the Mount should reveal to us that ALL IS about agape<\/em> and NOT just Jesus’ most specific words on agape<\/em> which Luke shows us as\u00a0 “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,\u00a0Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.\u00a0And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.\u00a0Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.\u00a0And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise<\/em>” (Luke 6:27-31). It IS these words about agape<\/em> that frame the New Covenant which in the end ARE the essence of His words, the essence of what IS everyman’s responsibility in keeping His words<\/em> and attaining the True rewards<\/em> which ARE found throughout His words as well as in our trifecta<\/em><\/strong> which we repeat here again saying:<\/span><\/p>\n