{"id":14801,"date":"2018-05-04T18:49:08","date_gmt":"2018-05-05T00:49:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/?p=14801"},"modified":"2018-05-04T18:49:08","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T00:49:08","slug":"in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1599","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/2018\/05\/04\/in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1599\/","title":{"rendered":"IN THE WORDS OF JESUS\u2013Part 1599"},"content":{"rendered":"

ON LOVE; PART MCCXXXVIII<\/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

We spent much of the last essay discussing the Apostle Peter’s words from his Second Epistle, words from which we frequently quote ONLY the small section which tells us how that we can become “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” through overcoming the vanity<\/em>, the illusion<\/strong> and the glamour<\/strong>, “that is in the world through lust<\/em>“. Our perspective on this IS ever tied to our overall perspective on the Life of the man who will strive<\/em> to keep His words<\/em> which IS, according to our trifecta<\/strong><\/em>, the Way to have the Truth, the realization<\/em><\/strong> of His Presence and Life in His Kingdom here and now. It IS in this fashion that the Jesus’ words saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me<\/em>” (John 14:6) should be seen and NOT in the doctrinal idea of Jesus, as the person, being ‘accepted’ as one’s ‘saviour’….in the end one must perforce keep His words<\/em> if he IS to Truly escape “the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>“.<\/span><\/p>\n

It IS the Christ speaking to mankind in this saying and in it IS His reference to the Christ Within whose Truth and Love must become the expression<\/em><\/strong> of the man in this world and if we could but understand that the Soul IS the unction<\/em> and the Christ in regard to the flesh<\/em>, we could understand this Truth. This Truth can also be understood in the more human terms of keeping His words<\/em> and this under the idea of Jesus’ rhetorical question that asks “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?<\/em>” (Luke 6:46). Doctrines however refuse to see the reality of Jesus’ words choosing instead to manipulate the words of His apostles to suit their need for a sense of ‘salvation<\/em>‘ which DOES NOT require a man to actually use the tools that ARE readily at hand; tools which Peter shows us saying that “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness<\/em>“.<\/span><\/p>\n

It IS the doctrinal sense that men have been developing for 2000 years that prevents them from Truly being “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>“, a nature<\/em> that IS replete with Love. Few dispute the Apostle John’s words saying that\u00a0“God is love<\/em>“, that “God is agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16), but, at the same time, few Truly understand what this means<\/span>\u00a0or ro relate this to being a sharer<\/em>\u00a09a<\/sup>\u00a0of that “divine nature<\/em>“. And this IS the point of Peter’s continuation where he admonishes us to incorporate the Power of “the divine nature<\/em>” into our expression<\/em><\/strong> of it to the world of men. Peter then shows us the result of being a sharer<\/em> in this\u00a0“divine nature<\/em>“, a sharer<\/em> in the Light that IS the Lord, and here we should try to see that he IS showing us the result in the Life of the man in this world….the man who DOES incorporate ALL the cited ‘virtues<\/em>‘ into a singular expression<\/em> <\/strong>of agape<\/em> and Truth. Repeating the apostle’s words again we read:<\/span><\/p>\n

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,\u00a0According 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:\u00a0Whereby 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<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:2-4).<\/span><\/p>\n

“And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;\u00a0And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;\u00a0And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.\u00a0For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u00a0But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins<\/em>”\u00a0(2 Peter 1:5-9).<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter’s idea here should be clear but, at the same time we should try to understand that to Truly be a partaker<\/em> “of the divine nature<\/em>” the incorporation of these expressions<\/em><\/strong> of the Power and energy of that nature<\/em> IS presumed. Perhaps we should see here that the carnal mind IS NOT so easily renewed and that Transformation<\/em><\/strong> requires specific efforts; and\u00a0 we should try to see that men ARE fooled by the vanity<\/em>, the illusion<\/strong> and the glamour<\/strong>, into believing that they ARE partakers<\/em> before that they Truly ARE. Can we understand this? Can we see that it IS in the expression<\/em><\/strong> of these ‘virtues<\/em>‘ that one can be seen, both of himself and of others, as a True sharer<\/em> in the\u00a0“divine nature<\/em>“. The Truth of the partaker<\/em> then can be seen in Peter’s words saying that “if these things be in you, and abound<\/em>” that one will NOT be argos<\/em>, which IS better understood as idle<\/em> than as barren<\/em>, and that one will be fruitful<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea of being fruitful<\/em> IS best seen in Jesus words from His Parable of the Sower where we read that “that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience<\/em>” (Luke 8:15) and here, we should see patience<\/em> as steadfastness<\/em>; it IS from the same word hupomone<\/em> which Peter uses as that ‘virtue<\/em>‘ which we discussed in the last essay. In the idea of idleness<\/em> we should try to see this IS related to being unfruitful<\/em> and especially when we look at this in relation to “the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ<\/em>“. Vincent tells us that the idea of “in the <\/em>the knowledge<\/em>” IS: more correctly, unto. The idea is not idleness in the knowledge, but idleness in pressing on and developing toward and finally reaching the knowledge. With this agrees the compound \u03b5\u0313\u03c0\u03b9\u0301\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, the constantly increasing and finally full knowledge\u00a0<\/em>4<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n

If we can see that in the apostle’s use of abounding<\/em>\u00a0there IS a variable that works with Vincent’s idea of\u00a0the constantly increasing and finally full knowledge<\/em>, we can then perhaps see that Peter’s message includes the idea of measure. As these ‘virtues<\/em>‘, this Power and energy “of the divine nature<\/em>“, abound<\/em> as a one’s expression<\/em><\/strong>, so also abounds<\/em> his ability to be fruitful<\/em> “in the knowledge of our Lord<\/em>” and here we should see the Greek word epignosis<\/em> in the same way we see gnosis<\/em>….as the realization<\/em><\/strong> of the Truth in the thoughts and the attitudes of the man whose focus<\/em> IS upon the things of God. For the idea of measure we should always look to the Master’s words saying “Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given<\/em>” (Mark 4:24).<\/span><\/p>\n

We should ever try to see that the reality of realization<\/em><\/strong> IS based on one’s revelations<\/strong><\/em> of Truth from the Soul, the Christ Within and that such revelation<\/em><\/strong> IS essentially meaningless in one’s Life without the understanding of it by the human mind; it becomes but noise<\/em> that can be contrary to\u00a0“the knowledge of our Lord<\/em>“. It IS in KNOWING that words come to have meaning and the greater effort one puts into his expression<\/em><\/strong> of these ‘virtues<\/em>‘ as we have described them, the more that these abound<\/em> in him, the greater IS the realization<\/em><\/strong> of the Truth that this man shall have. In these words from Peter we should try to understand that there IS NO Power in simply KNOWING and believing<\/em> the scriptures, in KNOWING and believing<\/em> the birth, the Life, the death and the resurrection of Jesus, such Power ONLY comes in one’s DOING and in one’s striving<\/em>…..such Power ONLY comes to those “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>“. And such DOING comes always in to the man who Truly KNOWS….there IS NO choice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter goes on to tell us of the state of the man who IS NOT expressing<\/em><\/strong> some measure of these ‘virtues<\/em>‘\u00a0that come in having a share<\/em> in\u00a0“the divine nature<\/em>“. He tells us that this man “is blind, and cannot see afar off<\/em>” and here we should see that this man IS yet trapped in the vanity <\/em>and\u00a0that while he may have taken hold of the Truth and “was purged from his old sins<\/em>“, he has NOT yet begun to be Truly “transformed by the renewing of your mind<\/em>“….he rather remains “conformed to this world<\/em>“. This man has yet to have realization<\/em><\/strong> of “what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God<\/em>”\u00a0(Romans 12:2). In these words from Peter we should see yet other parts of the Parable of the Sower: those that ARE as the rocky ground and those that ARE of the thorny ground. Jesus tells us of these that:\u00a0“They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.\u00a0And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection<\/em>” (Luke 8:13-14)<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally the apostle tells us why he IS offering these words and if we can see how that Peter IS perhaps reflecting upon his own Way on the Path to Truth we can then see his perspective that IS intended to keep the focus<\/em> of his readers on their expression<\/em><\/strong> of the ‘virtues<\/em>‘ to whatsoever measure that they ARE capable. Peter says “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.\u00a0Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:10:12).<\/span><\/p>\n

While much of doctrine sees these ideas of calling<\/em> and election<\/em> in terms of being selected by the Lord, the greater Truth IS found in the more simple ideas of invitation<\/em> and choosing<\/em> which ARE the more literal defining ideas for klesis<\/em> and ekloge<\/em>. We should try to see the idea of klesis<\/em> as it IS defined by Strong’s which tells us that this IS:\u00a0an invitation\u00a0<\/em>9<\/sup>a\u00a0<\/sup>and, if we can see this idea as the continuous prompting of the Soul, we can then understand that this ‘calling<\/em>‘ IS a definitive personal encounter which results in ekloge<\/em> or one’s own choosing<\/em> of the Path to travel. Thayer’s defines ekloge<\/em> as:\u00a0the act of picking out, choosing<\/em>\u00a09<\/sup>\u00a0and, again, if this IS seen as a\u00a0definitive personal encounter we can then understand Peter’s point which IS to “give diligence<\/em>” and to make them sure<\/em>. It IS in so DOING that “ye shall never fall<\/em>”\u00a0 and will find “an entrance….into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord<\/em>“. Here we should relate Peter’s words to the Master’s; to Jesus words that ARE the second part of our trifecta<\/em><\/strong> where we read of\u00a0 Peter’s same Way albeit using different terms; we read our trifecta<\/em> <\/strong>again saying:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • “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”<\/em>\u00a0(John 8:31-32).<\/span><\/li>\n
  • “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<\/em>”\u00a0(Matthew 7:21).<\/span><\/li>\n
  • “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”<\/em>\u00a0(John 14:21-24).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    In the final words of our selection above we should try to see Peter’s own difficulty in achieving full realization<\/em><\/strong> of the Truth, his own abounding<\/em> “in the knowledge of our Lord<\/em>“. We see Peter’s difficulty through the way that he IS pushed by the Master to greater expression<\/em><\/strong> of the fullness of Truth and Love as He recognized the apostle’s shortcomings. To be sure, Peter’s failures ARE NOT what we ourselves would call failures but, in relation to the constantly increasing and finally full knowledge\u00a0<\/em>4\u00a0<\/sup>which comes in abounding<\/em> we can see the Truth of the fullness of the True disciple of the Lord. Can we see then Peter’s perspective as he endeavors “put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth<\/em>” much as Jesus DID for him?<\/span><\/p>\n

    It IS unfortunate that the doctrines of men DO NOT see the ideas that Peter IS presenting nor DO they relate these words to the teachings of the Master. Doctrines DO NOT see even the possibility of men’s being “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” and this despite Jesus own words on our DOING “greater works<\/em>” (John 14:12) and moving the mountain or planting the sycamine tree<\/em> in the sea. John Gill shows us this denial saying of the phrase “that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” saying that: not essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally<\/em> 8<\/sup>. Similarly, regarding the escape<\/em> from “the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>” Mr. Gill tells us that:\u00a0not the corruption and depravity of nature, which is never escaped by any, nor got rid of so long as the saints are in the world; but the corrupt manners of the world, or those corruptions and vices which, are prevalent in the world, and under the power and dominion of which the world lies; and particularly the sins of uncleanness, adultery, incest, sodomy, and such like filthy and unnatural lusts<\/em>\u00a08<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    It IS the doctrinal teaching of the impossibility of men’s reaching the status of discipleship that IS apparent in such words as these which DO represent much of the doctrinal ideas yet today and IS among the greatest failures of the church today. As we have said in previous essays, it IS\u00a0the progenitors of doctrines that have ever sought any and ALL ideas that DO NOT infringe on the ability of a man to be a man in this world, even to the point of encouraging purely carnal behavior and defining their sense of Truth using misunderstood, misapplied and out of context snippets from Jesus\u2019 words and the words of His apostles. It IS the authority that IS given to these men who define the doctrines of Christianity that causes others to look NO further than what they have been instructed in and this despite the denominational differences that should easily point men to an understanding of the failure of any to have the Truth while each IS proclaiming to have that Truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

    While most ALL denominations and sects DO rally around the singular idea that “Christ died for our sins<\/em>” (1 Corinthians 15:3), many have applied to this the various doctrinal ideas of atonement<\/em><\/strong> and many of these see and teach their Truth as substitutionary atonement<\/strong><\/em>. We should understand that ALL of the\u00a0atonement<\/em><\/strong> ‘models’ ARE theories founded in theological debates rather than straightforward ideas from scripture. That “Christ died for our sins<\/em>” IS NOT questioned but it IS rather the meaning of these words that we dispute as well as the meaning of like sayings from the Apostle Paul’s writings. Paul tells us in his Epistle to the Romans that “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.\u00a0For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.\u00a0But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.\u00a0Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him<\/em>” (Romans 5:6-9) and if we can see this through the idea that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God<\/em>” (Romans 3:23) from the same epistle, perhaps we can see his words in a different light.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In this latter idea we should see the way that the Apostle John puts this forth saying “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world<\/em>” (1 John 2:2); here we should understand that it IS from these verses and perhaps a few others, plus the remnants of Old Testament ideas, that most ALL theories of atonement<\/em><\/strong> ARE derived. “Christ died for our sins<\/em>” DOES however make sense from other perspectives including the idea that He died because of men’s sins….it IS men’s sins that put Him to death. It IS the sinful ways of men, sinful from the perspective of the vanity<\/em>, the illusion<\/strong> and the glamour<\/strong>, that bring about the death of the Master by men who would NOT see the Truth of the message that He brings and in this view the world IS complicit and IS so yet today.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The word rendered as for<\/em> in John’s Epistle IS NOT the same word as IS rendered as for<\/em> in Paul’s words from Romans above. In Romans the Greek word huper<\/em> IS used and this IS a word that IS rendered into many meanings; it IS rendered as\u00a0above<\/em> in Jesus saying that “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord<\/em>” (Matthew 10:24) and as “more than<\/em>” in Jesus’ saying “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me<\/em>” (Matthew 10:37). Thayer’s adds to the idea of huper<\/em> saying that this primary preposition can mean:\u00a0 the impelling or moving cause; on account of,\u00a0 for the sake of\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>9<\/sup>. Perhaps in this we can find a meaning away from the tenets of doctrines: perhaps that Christ died on account of<\/em> “the ungodly<\/em>” or that He died for the sake<\/em> of us<\/em> offers us a very different view than “Christ died for us<\/em>” which IS interpreted into His dying as atonement<\/em><\/strong> for the sins of ALL mankind.<\/span><\/p>\n

    While most doctrinal ideas involve a form of substitutionary atonement<\/em><\/strong>, we should try to see how that if Jesus’ death were intended to cover the sins of ALL mankind, past, present and future according to most doctrinal views, there would be NO need for the Master’s many words on keeping His words<\/em>, teaching others to DO so or His teaching on Love. To this end we should see a Christian doctrinal reality in how that most ALL of the church tends to ignore Jesus’ many words on these subjects and then interprets His apostles’ clarifying and amplifying words into their doctrines. Early on in our essays we discussed the idea of at-one-ment<\/strong><\/em> as the True reality of the English word atonement<\/em><\/strong> that IS rendered from the Greek word katallage<\/em> which appears four times in the New Testament and IS rendered as atonement<\/em><\/strong> ONLY once. In this we should understand that the basis of the many atonement<\/em><\/strong> theories IS founded in the Old Testament and NOT in the new.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The word\u00a0katallage<\/em>\u00a0IS rendered in terms of reconciliation<\/em> in its other three appearances and it IS this word idea that can lead us to the reality of at-one-ment<\/em><\/strong>; the root word for katallage<\/em> IS katallasso<\/em> which IS always rendered as reconcile<\/em>. John uses the Greek word hilamos<\/em> which IS rendered as propitiation<\/em>\u00a0above and which IS also understood in terms of atonement<\/em><\/strong> which Strong’s 9a\u00a0<\/sup>offers as the definition for this Greek word while Thayer’s avoids using atonement<\/em><\/strong> in defining hilamos<\/em> saying that this IS:\u00a0an appeasing, propitiating and that\u00a0in Alex. usage the means of appeasing, a propitiation\u00a0<\/em>9a<\/sup>. Hilamos<\/em> IS used two times in the New Testament both times rendered as propitiation<\/em> and and both times by the Apostle John; Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines propitiation<\/em> as: The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious. 2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners<\/em> 1<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    We should remember here that the theological idea cited IS the result of the doctrinal ideas of men who had formed their own view of the atoning<\/em> death of the Master which follows in the Old Testament tradition of sacrifice and calls His death as a sin sacrifice for humanity. This IS the general doctrinal view and one which IS intended to cover the sins of men as the sacrifice of sheep and goats covered the sins of the Jews under Moses’ law. This doctrinal view persisted and yet persists despite Jesus’ own words repeating the words of the Prophet Hosea spoken more than 700 years before. The prophet says “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings<\/em>” (Hosea 6:6) but his words fell upon deaf ears because of the blindness of the scribes, the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders.<\/span><\/p>\n

    And the Master reminds the Jews saying to them “go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice<\/em>” and then again that “if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless<\/em>” (Matthew 9:13, 12:7). It IS apparent the the religious leaders of the day still DO NOT KNOW “what this meaneth<\/em>” and it IS equally apparent that the early church chose to follow the way of those religious leaders rather that to “learn what that meaneth<\/em>” as they built their doctrines that teach the Christ as the sacrifice for humanity, a sacrifice intended to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Paul uses the kindred word hilasterion<\/em> once which IS rendered as propitiation<\/em>, and in the Book of Hebrews this also appears once rendered as mercy-seat<\/em>. Vincent offers us a long dissertation on this word and another kindred word hilaskomai<\/em> from which we draw these excerpts:\u00a0This word is most important, since it is the key to the conception of Christ’s atoning work. In the New Testament it occurs only here and Hebrews 9:5; and must be studied in connection with the following kindred words: \u03b9\u0314\u03bb\u03b1\u0301\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 which occurs in the New Testament only Luke 18:13, God be merciful, and Hebrews 2:17, to make reconciliation. \u0399\u0314\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u0301\u03c2 twice, 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; in both cases rendered propitiation<\/em> 4<\/sup>. This summary of the rendered ideas behind this word IS, to say the least, a bit confusing as both mercy<\/em> and sacrifice<\/em> ARE mingled in its understanding. In John’s Epistle the word IS hilamos<\/em>; in Romans and Hebrews it IS\u00a0hilasterion<\/em>\u00a0and in Luke and Hebrews the word IS hilaskomai<\/em>; the first IS defined by Strong’s as atonement<\/em><\/strong> and rendered as propitiation<\/em> in our King James Bible, the second IS rendered as propitiation<\/em> and mercy-seat<\/em> and in the last it IS rendered into “God have mercy<\/em>” in Luke’s Gospel and as “make reconciliation for<\/em>” in Hebrews.<\/span><\/p>\n

    After relating the idea of these words to the Old Testament Mr. Vincent tells us that:\u00a0This term has been unduly pressed into the sense of explanatory sacrifice. In the case of the kindred verbs, the dominant Old-Testament sense is not propitiation in the sense of something offered to placate or appease anger; but atonement or reconciliation, through the covering, and so getting rid of the sin which stands between God and man. The thrust of the idea is upon the sin or uncleanness, not upon the offended party<\/em> 4<\/sup>. The idea of cover here IS taken from Old Testament usage which he explains as:\u00a0\u0399\u0314\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd , A.V., propitiation, is almost always used in the Old Testament of the mercy-seat or golden cover of the ark, and this is its meaning in Hebrews 9:5, the only other passage of the New Testament in which it is found. In Ezekiel 43:14, Ezekiel 43:17, Ezekiel 43:20, it means a ledge round a large altar, and is rendered settle in A.V.; Rev., ledge, in margin<\/em> 4<\/sup>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Vincent continues to tell us that:\u00a0The true meaning of the offering of Christ concentrates, therefore, not upon divine justice, but upon human character; not upon the remission of penalty for a consideration, but upon the deliverance from penalty through moral transformation; not upon satisfying divine justice, but upon bringing estranged man into harmony with God. As Canon Westcott remarks: \u201cThe scripture conception of \u03b9\u0314\u03bb\u03b1\u0301\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is not that of appeasing one who is angry with a personal feeling against the offender, but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship\u201d (Commentary on St. John’s Epistles, p. 85)<\/em> 4<\/sup>. Can we see the Point here? That this IS NOT atonement<\/strong><\/em> as doctrines view this idea but a form of cause for the Repentance<\/em><\/strong> of the man who sees Christ as that propitiation<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    And Can we see the point here of Jesus as “the propitiation for our sins<\/em>” and then better understand the idea that God “sent\u00a0his Son to be the propitiation for our sins<\/em>” (1 John 2:2, 4:10)? With Vincent’s words on the idea and intent of the Greek words we can reconstruct the words from Hebrews saying “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people<\/em>” (Hebrews 2:17) where the phrase “make reconciliation for<\/em>” ARE rendered from the single word\u00a0hilaskomai.\u00a0<\/em>The doctrinal ideas of atonement<\/em><\/strong> have taken over this saying from Hebrews and here if we look at the way that this IS shown in John’s Epistle, we could render simply as\u00a0“that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to reconcile\u00a0 or propitiate<\/strong> the sins of the people”.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Aspect\u00a0<\/del>of \u00a0God<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    Potency<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Aspect of Man<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    In Relation to the Great Invocation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    In relation to the Christ<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

    \n

    GOD, The Father<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Will or Power<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spirit or Life<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Center where the Will of God IS KNOWN<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Life<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Son, The Christ<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Love and Wisdom<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Soul or Christ Within<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Heart of God<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Truth<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Holy Spirit<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    Light or Activity<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Life Within<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Mind of God<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Way<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Quote of the Day:<\/span><\/h2>\n

    <\/span><\/p>\n

    Let the peace of God rule in your hearts<\/span><\/h2>\n