\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<\/p>\n\n\n\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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \ufeff\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Beginning with the idea of hagios <\/em>and the way that this Greek word IS rendered in terms of holy <\/em>and as saint<\/em>, we looked at the way that these ideas ARE treated by the doctrines of men. We noted that on one side of the church there IS a much diluted idea of sainthood<\/em>, so diluted that the average Joe in church IS seen as a saint <\/em>by way of his doctrinal leaning and this despite the high status that IS placed upon this idea which Vincent shows us as: the holy and glorified people of God <\/em>4<\/sup>. Under this idea and the ideas from Strong’s which show us that hagios <\/em>IS: sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):\u2014(most) holy (one, thing), saint<\/em> 9a<\/sup>, it IS difficult to understand how that the church can apply such an idea to doctrinally oriented persons. Thayer’s defining however gives some leeway in defining the idea in human terms as they tell us that hagios <\/em>IS: properly\u00a0reverend, worthy of veneration<\/em> 9<\/sup> and since these ideas can be relative to the application of the idea of reverend <\/em>as this IS used in the church, we can likely see how that they have chosen to use hagios<\/em>. Thayer’s goes on to give us additional defining ideas based in the presumed usage in certain verses and while these include such ideas as pure<\/em>, clean<\/em>, upright <\/em>and holy<\/em>, these ideas are seen ONLY in terms of a moral sense\u00a0<\/em>9<\/sup>. How many of these saints <\/em>in the churches consider themselves as holy <\/em>IS quite another issue which further confuses their use of the idea to call themselves saints<\/em>. Perhaps the view of holy <\/em>IS more reserved according to the Apostle Peter’s recollection as he tells us “as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy<\/em>” (1 Peter 1:15-16); here the idea of holy <\/em>IS reserved for God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other side the idea of hagios <\/em>as a saint <\/em>IS applied posthumously to those who meet certain criteria as defined by this part of the Church and while this may be a better view of the word in this regard, the idea here of holy <\/em>IS ofttimes misplaced. As holy<\/em>, hagios <\/em>IS applied to a variety of ‘orders’ in much of the church; this idea IS applied ONLY to men for the most part although there ARE some parts of the Orthodox denominations that DO allow women a role in some ‘orders’. Our view here IS a very brief summary that should serve to point out how the ideas of the saint <\/em>and the holy <\/em>ARE commonly used and if we look at these according to the defining ideas of hagios <\/em>we can easily see that the common idea and the intent of the Greek word ARE NOT aligned. In the True intent behind the Greek word and the defining way of the disciple of Jesus, one would NOT take such a banner as calling oneself a saint <\/em>or of calling oneself as holy<\/em>. The Apostle Paul addresses this saying “I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith<\/em>” (Romans 12:3) and here we should see the idea of soberly in terms of one’s soundness of mind<\/em> 9a,\u00a04<\/sup>. This IS NOT unlike Jesus admonitions to His disciples saying such things as “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all<\/em>” and “whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all<\/em>” (Mark 9:35, 10:44). Jesus Himself tells us of the required humbleness <\/em>of the saints <\/em>and the holy <\/em>as He says “For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth<\/em>” (Luke 22:27). In the difference between the common understanding and use of the rendered ideas of holy <\/em>and saint <\/em>we can see the most basic difference between the doctrinal interpretations of the Truth and the Truth itself. In the deeper ideas of being among the holy <\/em>and the saint <\/em>there IS the fullness of the Master’s words and the clarifying and amplifying words of His apostles. The holy <\/em>and the saint <\/em>ARE as Peter and as Paul, as Stephen as Philip, as John and as James, and as ALL those who have Truly given their lives to Christ. We should apply here Jesus’ saying that “by their fruits ye shall know them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:20) and understand that these ARE ALL spoken of in special terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of Peter we read that “believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one<\/em>” (Acts 5:14-16). Of Paul we read that “God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them<\/em>” (Acts 19:11-12). Can we see the fruit <\/em>here and can we see the way that Peter and Paul applied their healing <\/em>to the seeking <\/em>masses much as Jesus had DONE; we read this in such gospel sayings as “great multitudes followed him, and he healed them al<\/em>l” (Matthew 12:15. What we should see here IS the Power of the True saint <\/em>and the Truly holy<\/em>, a Power that radiates from the spiritual center of these men outward to the world; this IS their expression <\/strong><\/em>of “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” offered through agape <\/em>and facilitated by the True idea of makrothymia<\/em>, which IS the flow of such spiritual Power through the Life of the holy <\/em>and the saint<\/em>. Of Stephen we read: “Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people<\/em>” while of Philip we read that he “went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did<\/em>” (Acts 8:5-6). In these verses we can see that same Power flowing through the lives of others who were NOT among the twelve and in this IS the promise of those “greater works<\/em>” for ALL who will Truly be holy<\/em>, who will take on the mantle of the saint<\/em>. There ARE NO clear gospel records of miracles and healing done by James and John but there ARE their words, words which mimic the words of the Master and which show their True understanding of His eternal message of Love. In the recorded lives of each of these we have “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” founded in agape<\/em>, and expressed <\/strong><\/em>through the reaching out of the spiritual man through the Life of the man in this world in makrothymia<\/em>. This fruit <\/em>IS the essence of chara<\/em>, of grace<\/em>, in the expression <\/strong><\/em>of the holy <\/em>and the saint <\/em>who ARE ever in a state of eirene <\/em>which flows from the Inner Man, the Christ Within, according to Jesus’ 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<\/em>” (John 14:27). <\/p>\n\n\n\n This sense of peace <\/em>allows the holy <\/em>and the saint <\/em>to stand as Stephen and as Paul in the midst adversaries; they stand ready to “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also<\/em>” (Matthew 5:39) as they understand that “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing<\/em>” (John 6:63). Can we see the point here? Can we see the veiled idea of the True spiritual nature of everyman, that he IS the Spirit which gives Life to the form and NOT the form? It IS in this sense of Truth that True peace <\/em>comes; True eirene <\/em>DOES NOT see the Life of the man in this world in any way other than to serve <\/em>the Will of the Spirit which IS ever Love and Truth. It IS in this sense of grace <\/em>and peace<\/em>, of chara <\/em>and eirene<\/em>, that we should see and understand chrestotes <\/em>which Strong’s and Vincent show us as usefulness<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>9a<\/sup> and profitableness <\/em>9a<\/sup>; it IS in the flow of fruit <\/em>into the Life of the man in this world that makes him useful <\/em>and his Life profitable <\/em>and these ideas should never be seen carnally. One’s usefulness <\/em>IS in his service <\/em>and one’s profitableness <\/em>IS in his ability to express <\/strong><\/em>“the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” in ways that can be seen as Truth by any who ARE seeking such Truth. It IS in this expression <\/strong><\/em>of Truth that we find agathosune<\/em> which IS that sense of Good of which Jesus tells us that “there is none good but one, that is, God<\/em>” (Mark 10:18); here we should understand that this expression <\/strong><\/em>of the Soul, this expression <\/em><\/strong>of the Christ Within, IS, in its fullness<\/em>, the expression <\/strong><\/em>of that Good that IS God. To have such fruits <\/em>as these IS to KNOW God and it IS this idea that Paul gives us in his list of “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” as pistis<\/em>. The Apostle John ties this idea of KNOWING back to Paul’s beginning fruit<\/em>, agape<\/em>; John tells us that “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love<\/em>” (1 John 4:7-8). These words and ideas ARE Paul’s list of “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” as we have been discussing so far and here, in this idea of pistis<\/em>, we should see a culmination of the apostle’s ideas that begin in one’s expression <\/strong><\/em>of Love and the meaning of that expression <\/em><\/strong>in one’s realization <\/strong><\/em>that he “knoweth God<\/em>“. Repeating Paul’s list in the Greek we read that “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” IS agape<\/em>, chara<\/em>, eirene<\/em>, chrestotes<\/em>, agathosune<\/em>, and pistis\u00a0<\/em>all of which mean so much more than the doctrinal interpretations of “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith<\/em>” (Galatians 5:22) or any of the variations of these ideas offered by other translations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next words in Paul’s list ARE for some reason separated into another verse of scripture rather than in a continuous list as one verse; these ARE stated as “Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law<\/em>” (Galatians 5:23). Some render the first word here, praotes<\/em>, as gentleness<\/em>, an idea that many others have assigned to chrestotes <\/em>in the previous verse; these then render chrestotes <\/em>as kindness<\/em>. There IS little understanding of the purpose and the depth of praotes <\/em>when viewed in terms of meekness <\/em>and this IS likely the reason for the confusion of how these ideas ARE rendered and understood. Strong’s tells us that praotes <\/em>IS: from G4235<\/em> which IS praos<\/em>; Strong’s tells us that this praos <\/em>IS: a form of G4239, used in certain parts; gentle, i.e. humble: meek<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. Thayer’s tells us that praos <\/em>IS: from Homer down; gentle, mild, meek<\/em> 9<\/sup>; and Vincent refers us to the use of praotes <\/em>in Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus says “Blessed are the meek<\/em>” using the Greek word prays <\/em>which IS G4239. In ALL of this we should try to see the special value of this Greek word and those ideas that stem from it. DO gentleness <\/em>and mildness <\/em>make one blessed<\/em>? We should try to see here how that Jesus, of whom we KNOW that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodil<\/em>y”, IS ever expressive <\/strong><\/em>of “the fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” and from this perspective we should see prays <\/em>and its kindred words, praotes <\/em>and praos<\/em>, as a part of the very nature of God. While this idea of meek <\/em>as this IS rendered from prays\u00a0<\/em>ONLY shows us the greater idea that IS incorporated into what ARE called the Beatitudes, that list of ideas that ARE holy <\/em>and depict the holy<\/em>, there IS another use of this word by the Master that clearly shows meekness <\/em>as the nature of God. In the Beatitudes we should see a leading idea of who will receive that grace <\/em>that IS the flow of ALL that comes from the Godhead; we must be careful however to see this list in spiritual terms and NOT in carnal ones. It IS those who can express <\/em><\/strong>such things as meekness <\/em>as this flows from the Soul, the Christ Within, that shall “shall inherit the earth<\/em>” (Matthew 5:5). We must be careful also to discern just what this may mean spiritually and if we can see the deeper ideas of the prior items in Paul’s list here, we can see how that these ARE this inheritance <\/em>as one comes to KNOW his place among men and in this Earth. In this we should see the idea of inheritance <\/em>through Paul’s words saying “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together<\/em>” (Romans 8:16-17). Can we see the point here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end we must try to see the significance of meekness <\/em>and understand that this IS the lesson offered by Jesus in the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, a lesson that He helps us to understand in His saying that we should “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls<\/em>” (Matthew 11:29). It IS in this idea that He IS praos <\/em>that we should see this idea of meekness <\/em>as the very nature of God and we should here at the same time understand that the common understanding of this word meekness <\/em>IS NOT nearly a True depiction of the intent of praos <\/em>and its kindred words. Praos <\/em>IS an adjective form as IS prays <\/em>while praotes <\/em>IS the feminine noun form of this idea. For us meekness <\/em>IS a complex idea that DOES NOT imply what the modern dictionary shows us as: humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others; overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame Obsolete . gentle; kind<\/em>*; ALL of this implies a weakness on the part of the man. Older defining ideas offer a bit more insight as Webster’s intentionally looks toward the presumed Christian meaning. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines meek as: Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries. Appropriately, humble, in an evangelical sense; submissive to the divine will; not proud, self-sufficient or refractory; not peevish and apt to complain of divine dispensations. Christ says, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.” Matt.11<\/em> 1 <\/sup>. The latter ideas here pertain to one’s acceptance of divine dispensations<\/em> along with other ideas that ARE contrary to the common ideas of this word. While Webster’s 1844 version agrees with the 1828, the 1913 edition leaves off the ‘Christian’ ideas and adds a section of synonyms which includes: Gentle; mild; soft; yielding; pacific; unassuming; humble<\/em>1<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most ALL of this misses the True idea of meekness <\/em>especially when contrasted with the Truth of the Master, His Power and the meekness <\/em>through which He DOES NOT ever use that Power in regard to any adversarial situation. And this IS the greater point in the idea of meekness<\/em>; it IS NOT in regard to divine dispensations<\/em> or any supposed affliction through divine will<\/em>; and it IS NOT overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame<\/em> which ideas can be seen as a personality fault. Meekness <\/em>as\u00a0rendered\u00a0from\u00a0proas\u00a0<\/em>IS NOT Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding\u00a0<\/em>save perhaps in the idea of not easily provoked or irritated<\/em> which should be seen as an attribute of proas <\/em>and the kindred words. We should try to see here that as a “fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” meekness <\/em>IS intimately tied to the lead idea of agape<\/em>; here we should remember Vincent’s commentary on the use of Love here as he tells us Love, in this passage, is that fruit of the Spirit which dominates all the others<\/em> 4<\/sup>. In the Life of the Master we should be able to see the reality of His meekness<\/em>, the reality of His unwillingness to use His own awesome Power to make events as less arduous for Himself and others. We should see the same in the lives of the apostles; Peter has such Power and perhaps the closest thing to his using it is what we read as “the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands<\/em>” (Acts 12:7). Peter has the Power to DO such “greater works<\/em>” and the interpretation by Luke showing “the angel of the Lord<\/em>” IS that Power explained in words that can be better understood in those days. Similar ideas can be applied to Paul’s many encounters with death; it IS by such Power that he withstood his ordeals which he reports to us as that he was in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren<\/em>” (2 Corinthians 23-26). While it IS his Power that enables him to endure, it IS in his meekness <\/em>that such perils <\/em>ARE allowed. Much as Jesus tells us “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve\u00a0legions\u00a0of angels<\/em>?” showing His meekness<\/strong><\/em>, the same can be applied to Peter and Paul and to Stephen who despite being “full of faith and power<\/em>” DID naught to prevent his own demise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While this presents us with a view of the practical reality of meekness<\/em>, there IS yet the more important part of the teaching of this precept by the Master. In the above ideas we should be able to see and to understand that those ‘graced<\/em>‘ with the Power to move the mountain and plant the