\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, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \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 \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 In the last essay we took an unusual turn into the dynamics of the Apostle Paul’s writing. We divided his several epistles into two categories; the first as letters written to ‘fledgling’ churches or states and the second addressed to those that had already received the message of Truth and Love and were striving<\/em> to live according to it. In the first we placed the apostle’s letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians and to the Corinthians (first epistle) and noted that these were replete with basic instructions and revelation <\/strong><\/em>which the un-Repentant <\/strong><\/em>man could NOT easily understand and we should see that this IS by Paul’s choice. We should remember here that the idea of Repentance <\/em><\/strong>IS simply that change of focus <\/em>off of the self and one’s Life in this world and onto the things of God; it IS this choice that paves the way for one’s understanding of revealed Truths as the man begins to live in the words of Truth that Transform <\/strong><\/em>him by “the renewing of your mind<\/em>” (Romans 12:2). In this Epistle to the Romans there ARE many sayings which have been misinterpreted by the church over the centuries and this largely because the thoughts and ambitions of those interpreting his words were yet carnal and ARE carnal yet today. In the early church men believed that they had garnered some of the Truths that lie in the common understanding of the ideas presented by the apostles but in the reality of Life this belief was but deception<\/strong>. NOT that they could NOT see the Truth but that they chose such ideas as they could apply to their thoughts, their attitudes and their ambitions if we can use this idea here. These early churchmen and their counterparts throughout history DID NOT see the value of the Apostle James’ words saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves<\/em>” (James 1:22). Neither DID they see that the source of James’ words was in the words of the Master who framed the same as a rhetorical question that implied the same idea; Jesus asks “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?<\/em>” (Luke 6:46). Here, in Luke’s Gospel, this question IS immediately preceding the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders where most ALL see themselves in the “wise man<\/em>” based in their doctrinal views while in reality they ARE but the “foolish man<\/em>” (Matthew 7:24, 26) who DOES NOT heed the Master’s words. Can we see the deception <\/strong>that James shows us here? In the last essay we posted Matthew’s version of this so-called parable which IS NOT a parable but rather a statement of fact and here we read Luke’s version which tells us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great<\/em>” (Luke 6:46:49).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While Luke DOES not speak of the “wise man<\/em>” and the “foolish man<\/em>” the ideas ARE there as the result in the Life of the man who keeps His words<\/em> and in the Life of the man who DOES NOT. It IS however the “foolish man<\/em>” that IS deceived <\/strong>and for the man in the church this deception <\/strong>IS largely the result of his doctrines, a result of his approach to the Truth. We should try to see this same sense of deception <\/strong>in Paul’s letters to those in the first category above, those churches and nations that DO NOT quite get the message but believe that they DO and here we should see the ideas behind Paul’s approach to them. Whether it IS the “foolish Galatians<\/em>“, those that have tended toward “another gospel<\/em>” or the Corinthians who Paul admonishes because “it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you<\/em>” (1 Corinthians 1:11), the reality IS the same. And while Paul’s letters to both these groups ARE seen as positive virtues in the account of the believer<\/em>, they ARE actually ill understood. In the idea of “another gospel: Which is not another<\/em>” (Galatians 3:1, 1:6, 7) we should try to see the alternate teachings of the church over the centuries, teachings that ARE in many ways contrary to Jesus’ words and to the Truth. While the ‘believer<\/em>‘ appends this idea of “another gospel<\/em>” onto others: other denominations, other sects and other religions, this IS but another part of the overall deception<\/strong> in which they live, another part of that illusion <\/strong>and glamour <\/strong>that IS our vanity<\/em>. We should note here that this same deception <\/strong>IS responsible for the divisions <\/strong>that Paul cites in his Epistle to the Corinthians where he asks “Is Christ divided?<\/em>“. It IS unfortunate that in the church today Christ IS divided <\/strong>through the ideas and teachings of the denominations and sects that profess to be Christian. It IS ever more unfortunate that many who believe in this or that doctrinal ideas speak divisively <\/strong>against those who DO NOT and those who may believe differently. Much of the problem here IS found in the way that different parts of the church accept different ideas through their individual interpretations of the words of the Master and apostles; that each cobble together different ideas from the same bible and ofttimes translate the bible itself in very self-serving ways. In the end most ALL miss the Truth that IS often clearly enough presented for even the novice to understand, a Truth that the True followers of the Christ would have NO problems understanding. This brings us back to our selection from Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians; we read again his words saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not We should first understand that Paul IS showing the reader that while they should “covet earnestly the best gifts<\/em>” that his intent IS to promote the concept of agape <\/em>as an instrumental part of receiving the True gifts <\/em>that one may desire<\/em>. He shows us that agape <\/em>IS NOT ONLY the “more excellent way<\/em>” but that the very gifts <\/em>that ARE desired <\/em>ARE worthless <\/em>in the absence of one’s expression <\/strong><\/em>of Love, one’s expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. And while Paul does this in a NOT subtle way, the message has been lost from the beginning. We should understand that the apostle’s writing to the Corinthians shows us the relative state of their religious experience and perhaps it IS among the divisions <\/strong>with which he begins this letter that the role of ‘gifts<\/em>‘ has been exaggerated by perhaps a major part of the congregation. The source of this presumed exaggeration should be seen as the creations of men and likely based in the same ideas that ARE gleaned from Luke’s writings in the Book of Acts. The same stories and events that Luke reports ARE perhaps being misinterpreted at Corinth into such ideas as ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘ <\/em>and prophecy<\/em>. For them such ‘gifts<\/em>‘ became a testimony to their ‘holiness<\/em>‘ if we can use that idea here and we should note that this same view of ‘gifts<\/em>‘ yet afflicts many parts of the church today. It IS this emphasis on such ‘gifts<\/em>‘ that Paul IS trying to dissuade and, as we noted in the last essay, his Second Epistle to the Corinthians IS to a more narrow audience; perhaps that part that he was able to dissuade from a concentration upon these ‘gifts<\/em>‘. We should remember also that Paul starts his dissertation on ‘gifts<\/em>‘ with the words “concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant<\/em>“; in this we should see that he will attempt to show them the “more excellent way<\/em>” to the Truth and, through the word ideas he uses, we should be able to understand that the Way IS agape<\/em>. We should note here that while the idea as presented, “spiritual gifts<\/em>“, may be a valid rendering of the single Greek word pneumatikos <\/em>based in the tone of the continuing dialogue, the word itself has naught to do with gifts<\/em>. Pneumatikos<\/em> simply means spiritual <\/em>and should we see Paul words as “concerning things spiritual<\/em>“, it may set yet another tone to the apostles intent. Paul’s words ARE rendered this way by some translators; some make the word gifts <\/em>parenthetical while others render as “the things of the spirit<\/em>“. While the latter can be more meaningful as a spiritual instruction, the effect of both IS for us the same….that he IS going to show them first the nature of such gifts <\/em>as it applies to persons and to the congregation and second, and most important, that without an expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>these ARE worthless<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The implication of this idea of worthlessness <\/em>IS unseen by those parts of the church that value such expressions<\/strong><\/em>. I<\/strong>f we could understand that this idea of worthlessness <\/em>leaves these gifts <\/em>as carnal endeavors under the guise of spiritual endeavor, we can perhaps see that such an affliction can have long lasting results in the lives of men who, for lack of a better word, ARE deceived<\/strong>. While the end message of worthlessness <\/em>IS clear in Paul’s words and while the absence of Love leaves such gifts <\/em>as carnal expressions<\/strong><\/em>, this ALL goes unseen by the church and especially those parts that value such ‘gifts<\/em>‘ as did the Corinthians. We should try to see however that these ideas from Paul regarding the worthlessness <\/em>of these ‘gifts<\/em>‘ in the absence of one’s expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>ARE NOT the main thrust of his message. While the overall message of the worthlessness <\/em>of these ‘gifts<\/em>‘ IS NOT seen by most ALL of the church, the more important part, the concept of agape<\/em>, IS also missed. Again much of the misunderstanding of Paul’s words IS due, perhaps in large part, to the rendering of agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>and while charity <\/em>DID have a more spiritual connotation than the idea of Love as commonly understood, neither word shows us the necessary depth of agape <\/em>which the apostle DOES illustrate in these verses and in other places in his epistles. Another problem IS in the rendering of many of the other words that Paul uses to describe agape <\/em>and here we will begin our analysis of Paul’s words as we proceed verse by verse. We begin by repeating that the words that follow ARE the “more excellent way<\/em>” and in the context that this idea IS used we should easily see that his message IS that agape <\/em>IS more excellent <\/em>than any of the aforementioned gifts<\/em>. Vincent offers us an idea regarding the word rendered as way<\/em>; he tells us that what follows in Paul’s words IS the “more excellent way<\/em>“ to attain the higher gifts<\/em> 4<\/sup>; while he may not see this idea as we DO, as that without agape <\/em>these ARE but carnal endeavors, there IS a reality to attaining <\/em>Truly spiritual<\/em>, higher<\/em>, gifts <\/em>through agape<\/em>. When we can understand that the “more excellent way<\/em>” IS agape<\/em>, an idea that IS NOT hidden but neither IS it fully accepted nor understood, we can then append the defining ideas of huperbole <\/em>which IS rendered as excellent <\/em>to the concept of agape<\/em>. Strong’s tells us that huperbole <\/em>IS: a throwing beyond others, i.e. (figuratively) supereminence; adverbially (with G1519 or G2596) pre- eminently:\u2014abundance, (far more) exceeding, excellency, more excellent, beyond (out of) measure<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. In this verse, huperbole <\/em>IS combined with G2596, kata<\/em>, which IS rendered as more<\/em>. Can we see the point here? Can we see the value of agape <\/em>in this context?. Thayer’s defining ideas ARE much the same and show us that Paul’s intent can combine any or ALL of these defining ideas; the apostle’s words could well be seen as saying that agape <\/em>IS the Way ‘beyond measure<\/em>‘ to attain the higher gifts<\/em> 4<\/sup> as he goes on to show us more of the qualities of True agape <\/em>which, again, ARE beyond both charity <\/em>and our understanding of Love. Paul begins with saying “though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God<\/em>” (Acts 2:4-11).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n We should try to see that the way that this IS presented IS that those who were “filled with the Holy Ghost<\/em>” were speaking <\/em>in the language of the hearer and according to the text there ARE several different languages involved. IS it the multitude then that ARE hearing in their several languages? IS it those “filled with the Holy Ghost<\/em>” that ARE speaking <\/em>in these several languages seemingly simultaneously or IS there some other dynamic at play here? Vincent comments on the idea of “as the Spirit gave them utterance<\/em>“, specifically on the word rendered as gave<\/em>; he says: A graphic imperfect; kept giving them the language and the appropriate words as the case required from time to time. It would seem that each apostle was speaking to a group, or to individuals. The general address to the multitude followed from the lips of Peter<\/em> 4<\/sup>. Can Vincent’s idea be that other dynamic? We CAN NOT KNOW what IS really happening here as we ARE NOT clearly told but we can KNOW the this whole scene IS in regard to languages and NOT the ecstatic utterances of those who spoke with tongues<\/em> as the idea is doctrinally understood. While we can import this idea of languages into Paul’s other words on ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘, this IS NOT the way that the idea of tongues <\/em>IS accepted in the church and we should note that much of the church rejects the whole idea of ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘ as it IS practiced. While many believe that such speaking <\/em>IS a spiritual product by which the Holy Spirit IS speaking <\/em>through a person, the very nature of the utterances seem to work against this; in many ways the utterances of any particular person become his personal repetitive sound. To this we must add Paul’s own commentary: that without our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>such utterances ARE “as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal<\/em>“. They ARE but noise and as such ARE carnally based and carnally focused<\/em>. This leaves us to wonder: to what end ARE these utterances used? Perhaps the answer lies in the definition of ecstatic <\/em>which reads: of, relating to, or characterized by ecstasy or a state of sudden, intense, overpowering emotion<\/em>*. To be sure ALL that IS emotional IS carnal and NOT spiritual. The emotions of men ARE a part of the personality which in turn IS the active nature of the flesh<\/em>; NOT physically active per se but active in thought, in attitude and finally in action. While most ALL of the church believes that it IS the personality that IS the eternal factor in the lives of men, that the personality IS a function of the Soul, there IS NO basis for this belief and there IS much to be said spiritually and scientifically to deny this IS so. When we can see the Soul as our personal extension of the Godhead into this world, we can then better understand the dynamics involved; we can better understand that it IS the Soul that IS charged with setting the animal Life of a man, a self-aware thinking animal to be sure, his carnal Life, upon the Path of Truth. It IS the constant prompting of the Soul to the Good, the Beautiful and the True, to the things of God, that will eventually move the personality to right activity. This right activity IS one’s expression <\/strong><\/em>of the Soul qualities of agape <\/em>and Truth. The Soul IS that unction <\/em>by which “ye know all things<\/em>” (1 John 2:20) it IS the anointing <\/em><\/strong>of men that mimics’ the anointing <\/strong><\/em>of Jesus. We should try to see here how that it IS men’s desire <\/em>to continue as they exist that gave rise to the idea that it IS the personality that survives after death and, to be sure, it DOES for a time in the lives and deaths of ALL who have NOT yet overcome the vanity<\/em>, those who have NOT yet become somewhat Transformed<\/strong><\/em>. It IS in men’s desire <\/em>to continue as they KNOW themselves that results in that desire<\/em> to be among deceased Loved ones and, as many a Christian views it, to be in the presence of Jesus, his apostles and even the Patriarchs. It IS NOT our intent here to discuss ideas of reincarnation <\/em>and rebirth <\/em>save to say that it IS the Soul that will eventually return in a new body of flesh <\/em>with a new personality that IS grounded in vanity <\/em>which must be escaped <\/em>and overcome<\/em>. It IS the Transformed <\/strong><\/em>man, the man who has some measure of the Truth, who has gained the Kingdom in this Life and who has some realization <\/strong><\/em>of the Presence of God, ALL in this Life, that will, in some unknown way, realize these same ‘rewards<\/em>‘ in an afterlife. while for most ALL others there IS but a dreamlike state. And this IS the note of Truth that IS our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which promises these ‘rewards<\/em>‘ to the man who will keep His words<\/em>; we read the Master’s words again saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It IS the personality that receives these rewards <\/em>as it IS Transformed <\/em><\/strong>by “the renewing of your mind<\/em>” and it IS in this process that the emotions of a man ARE duly affected as he begins to see clearly past the illusions <\/strong>and the glamour <\/strong>by which he had previously lived. It IS in some measure of this state that one can Truly be ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘ as a spiritual faculty which Paul acknowledges saying “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all<\/em>” (1 Corinthians 14:18). Again, while this phenomenon IS never clearly elucidated, we can believe it as he cites in many forms; perhaps the most logical IS that he can speak to the mysteries <\/em>of Life of which he speaks throughout his epistles. We should try to see that the lengthy instructions that Paul offers regarding ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘ ARE designed to prevent such as a carnal phenomenon. And, from the carnal perspective there can be NO True interpretation, only the ramblings of men who may seem to be interpreting charity<\/s> agape, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity<\/s> agape, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity<\/s> agape, it profiteth me nothing. Charity<\/s> Agape suffereth long, and is kind; charity<\/s> agape envieth not; charity<\/s> agape vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity<\/s> Agape never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity<\/em>” (1Corinthians 12:31, 13:1-13).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\ncharity<\/s> agape, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal<\/em>“. There IS much written regarding the idea of tongues <\/em>“of angels<\/em>” which in our view IS rather meaningless and a distraction from the True idea that Paul IS seeking to impart to us. Vincent tells us that this idea of tongues <\/em>IS: mentioned first because of the exaggerated importance which the Corinthians attached to this gift<\/em> 4<\/sup> and while we DO NOT KNOW the source of this idea, it DOES comport with the apparent idea that gifts <\/em>in general were highly valued by them. Vincent goes on to tell us that the idea of tongues <\/em>“of angels<\/em>“, from the Greek angelos <\/em>which means simply a messenger<\/em> 9<\/sup>, IS referring to the ecstatic utterances of those who spoke with tongues<\/em>. Vincent’s comment here however should be understood as being from one that DID NOT experience tongues <\/em>in the time of Paul’s writing but only as the common practice of glossolalia <\/em>as this still exists today. The Greek word glossa <\/em>which Paul uses IS defined as: the tongue; by implication, a language<\/em> by Strong’s 9a<\/sup> which then adds parenthetically ‘specially, one naturally unacquired<\/em>‘, an idea that comes from its New Testament usage. We should note that there IS little clarity in the New Testament regarding this idea of ‘speaking in tongues<\/em>‘; it IS used at times to show how that one can understand the foreign speech of others without ever KNOWING that language as we read in the Book of Acts where, speaking of the apostles and others, Luke tells us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n