\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<\/em><\/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<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n We ended the last essay with Vincent’s commentary on the Greek word moichos<\/em> which IS rendered as adulterer <\/em>in James’ Epistle. Moichos<\/em> IS the noun form of the verb moicheuo <\/em>that IS used in our subject verses from Matthew’s Gospel. Our point IS that despite the way that the idea of moicheuo <\/em>IS treated by bible commentary and the lexicon which cite ONLY the carnal applications of the idea, this Greek word DOES have a dual meaning. As we said, Vincent helps us to see the idea that the lexicon uses in its defining ideas regarding the noun but which it omits regarding the verb. Vincent tells us: The apostate members of the church are figuratively regarded as unfaithful spouses; according to the common Old Testament figure, in which God is the bridegroom or husband to whom his people are wedded<\/em>4<\/sup>. This helps to clarify the lexicon where the second defining idea IS: metaph. one who is faithless toward God, ungodly<\/em>2a<\/sup>. This point IS made abundantly clear by James’ text which reads “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God<\/em>” (James 4:4). James IS NOT writing in regard to sex but rather men’s choosing the carnal over the spiritual, the world over God, which ideas ARE in complete agreement with the Master’s teaching on treasure <\/em>and on the reliance of men on mammon<\/em>. In this regard Jesus tells us “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon<\/em>” (Matthew 6:24) and while the church may see mammon <\/em>strictly as money and possessions, the implication IS that ALL that IS of the world IS mammon<\/em>. We should remember here that the word mammon <\/em>IS but a transliteration of the Chaldean word mamonas <\/em>which IS untranslated because of the lack of a suitable translatable word in English. We should remember as well that even when viewed in terms of riches and treasure<\/em>, the whole idea IS ignored in the teaching of the church where men convince themselves that they DO NOT rely upon such mammon<\/em> as they adhere to the defining idea that mammon <\/em>IS riches (where it is personified and opposed to God)<\/em>2a<\/sup> which IS a fully nonsensical idea when viewed spiritually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Master’s words however DO tell us the more basic reality of mammon <\/em>in the simple saying that “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also<\/em>” (Matthew 6:21). In these words ALL things DO qualify as treasure<\/em>, as what IS important to a man or, to put this in our terms, as what IS the focus <\/em>of a man. While this point seems to be completely missed by the doctrinal thinker, it IS nonetheless at the heart of our True Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and Transformation <\/em><\/strong>which IS of course the objective of ALL of Jesus’ teachings, the objective of His commandments. It IS in through the Master’s words that the idea of adultery <\/em>IS best understood and while the idea of carnal adultery <\/em>seems to be His point, we should try to see the parabolic nature of His words in the same way as we should see anger <\/em>as equal with killing<\/em>. In the end we should understand that His words to His disciples ARE His words to ALL men as ALL face the same choice of remaining in the vanity <\/em>into which ALL ARE born or escaping their “bondage of corruption<\/em>” (Romans 8:20, 21) and becoming “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:4). It IS to show us the importance of Repentance<\/strong><\/em>, of changing the focus <\/em>of our lives, that Jesus continues with some seemingly harsh comments on the Life of the man who remains focused <\/em>on himself and his Life in this world as a man. Jesus tells us “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell<\/em>” (Matthew 5:29-30) and here our understanding may rely upon our understanding of the Greek word skandalizo <\/em>which IS rendered here as offend<\/em>. The general idea taken from this word IS that which will cause thee to offend<\/em> as IS listed in the footnotes to the King James Bible and to be sure this idea extends far beyond the idea of carnal adultery <\/em>which it follows in Matthew’s Gospel and which IS deemed by most to be the subject. The lexicon however tells us a different story as they say of skandalizo <\/em>that it IS: to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, metaph. to offend; to entice to sin; to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey; to cause to fall away; to be offended in one, i.e. to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority; to cause one to judge unfavourably or unjustly of another<\/em>2a<\/sup>. These ideas ARE from Thayer’s9<\/sup> definitions of skandalizo <\/em>and DO NOT reflect upon the idea of carnal adultery <\/em>either directly or indirectly; and Strong’s definitions agree by saying simply that skandalizo <\/em>IS: to entrap, i.e. trip up (figuratively, stumble (transitively) or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure):\u2014(make to) offend<\/em>9a<\/sup>. We should add here the reality that neither the hand nor the eye can make to offend<\/em> or entice to sin<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The gist of Jesus’ words here should lead us to the importance of ALL offenses against the spiritual nature of man, the “divine nature<\/em>” if you will, and the most apparent offense IS tied to the adulterous <\/em>nature of men. Again we must understand this adultery <\/em>from a spiritual perspective as being “a friend of the world<\/em>” as James frames this for us. We can see this spiritual side of adultery <\/em>in the Hebrew definitions of na’aph<\/em> which IS rendered as adultery<\/em> in ideas of apostasy<\/em> that ARE NOT carried forward by the Christian lexicons save for such commentaries as Vincent’s above and the way that Jesus IS depicted as the bridegroom in the New Testament. This depiction IS used by some parts of the church which seems to fail to see the relationship to adultery <\/em>which IS reserved for carnal matters of sex. Whatsoever DOES lead to apostasy <\/em>then IS the subject of Jesus’ words on the hand <\/em>and the eye <\/em>which ARE but body parts that ‘obey’ the hearts<\/strong><\/em> of men. Here we should understand the idea of heart<\/strong><\/em> as the motivation of men in this world, a motivation that can be spiritual but which IS overwhelmingly carnal in the lives of most ALL men. The Master tells us that it IS “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh<\/em>” (Matthew 12:34) and here we must understand that this IS either carnal or it IS spiritual. ALL leanings toward the carnal keep men somewhat in their bondage<\/em> which IS ONLY escaped <\/em>by measure through our striving<\/em> to “enter in at the strait gate<\/em>” (Luke 13:24). This escape <\/em>IS from our “friendship\u00a0of the\u00a0world<\/em>” (James 4:4) and IS depicted by Peter in terms of becoming “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>“, a becoming that he tells us IS made possible to those that have “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:4). Can we see the point here? Can we see how that ALL of this IS connected and that it IS lust<\/em>, carnal desires<\/em>, that lead the hand <\/em>and the eye <\/em>to offend<\/em>? Behind Jesus words then on the idea of cutting off <\/em>and plucking out <\/em>we should try to see the deeper reality which IS to escape<\/em>, which IS to prevent our lusts <\/em>from controlling our mortal lives. Paul shows us the benefit of this saying that “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live<\/em>” (Romans 8:13). It IS this perspective that should be used in our understanding of Jesus’ seemingly harsh words on dealing with the offensive eye <\/em>or hand <\/em>through our spiritually adulterous <\/em>relationships with the world which ARE, as James tells us, in opposition to our relationship with the Lord. We should also note that James also frames this in terms of temptation <\/em>which can be understood as a precursor to our desires <\/em>and lusts<\/em>; he tells us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren<\/em>“<\/p>(James 1:12-16)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n We should note here that ALL of these words from the Master and His apostles ARE to the same end which IS to refrain from that adulterous<\/em> way of living in this world; this IS the message of the entirety of the bible as well as the message of most every True world religion and we should try to understand how that ALL of this IS tantamount to keeping His words<\/em>. The Master takes us from the idea of adultery <\/em>using the common understanding of the word to the broader idea of the offense <\/em>and in this we should be able to understand that the defining idea for adultery <\/em>in these sayings IS apostasy<\/em>. This idea however should NOT be seen carnally in regard to religion but rather spiritually in regard to one’s relationship with the Lord, a relationship that exists regardless of one’s outward religious stature. From the offense <\/em>the Master moves on to a more permanent separation, both carnally and spiritually, which He again frames to the common understanding of the idea and where we must extract the spiritual notes that He offers us. The Master says “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery<\/em>” (Matthew 5:31-32). To understand these words spiritually requires us to remember the created idea of the common Old Testament figure, in which God is the bridegroom or husband to whom his people are wedded<\/em>, an idea that has carried over into the Christian era through the Old Testament and the Master’s parables that center upon the idea of marriage. Jesus uses the idea of the carnal marriage <\/em>in His typical parabolic way to show the relationship between the Lord and His people. We should try to understand that to be in such a relationship with the Lord requires that a man follows the Master’s instructions as the wife in those days would follow the husband’s instructions. The divorce <\/em>IS whatsoever IS against this idea of marriage<\/em>, whatsoever takes a man’s heart <\/strong><\/em>from focus <\/em>upon the Lord. We should try to remember here that the Master IS speaking predominantly to His disciples who ARE in such a relationship. For the rest of us we should try to understand that as Souls, we ARE ever in this relationship with the objective of bringing it to fruition <\/em>in our everyday lives, another aspect of the “fruit of the Spirit<\/em>” if you will (Galatians 5:22). The idea of fornication <\/em>in Jesus’ words IS a reason why the spiritual ideas ARE NOT generally attached to His words and that the whole of marriage <\/em>and divorce<\/em> remain as carnal ideas in the church. However, if we should see the idea of fornication<\/em> in the same way as adultery<\/em>, as one being attracted to another and consummating that attraction, we could better understand the Master’s point. Fornication <\/em>has become an idea in the church that IS limited to carnal lusts <\/em>and desires <\/em>for what the lexicon calls illicit sexual intercourse: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.<\/em>2a<\/sup>. We should try to see here that such ideas ARE NOT among the concerns that DID afflict the disciples of Jesus nor was carnal divorce <\/em>a concern and, to be sure, most ALL of the church has looked past the idea of divorce <\/em>for centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Spiritually, the idea of porneia <\/em>which rendered in terms of fornication <\/em>has the same dual meaning that we discussed regarding adultery <\/em>and should we look at divorce <\/em>through that prism we can have an entirely different view of the Master’s message to His disciples and those that follow. Divorce <\/em>also has that dual meaning that encompasses both the carnal and the spiritual; carnally the word IS used in much more than the realm of marriage which IS at the center of the doctrinal view of most. Again, this doctrinal view has NOT stopped the idea of divorce <\/em>in this world where in some countries, dependent on culture, divorce <\/em>IS NOT looked at askew but IS accepted as a part of their own cultural development as it consumes countless marriages. And, to be sure, while the idea of fornication <\/em>plays a part in the divorce<\/em> decision, it IS far from the top of the list of causes for divorce<\/em>. Perhaps it IS because the idea of divorce <\/em>IS NOT specifically shown us in the Ten Commandments that the idea has taken such a minor role in most of the church over the centuries. Even today but this DOES NOT have any effect on the churches understanding of spiritual divorce <\/em>which, like adultery<\/em> and fornication<\/em>, IS ONLY found in the hearts<\/em><\/strong> of men. The lexicon DOES recognize the dual nature of the idea of fornication saying that porneia <\/em>IS: metaph. the worship of idols; of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols<\/em>2a<\/sup>. This however IS an idea that IS related to the Jew’s traditions and the edict of the apostles regarding the conversion of Jews and gentiles to Christianity in those days; it DOES NOT take on the significance of prostituting oneself with a focus <\/em>on the self and the things of the self. Strong’s relates the idea of porneia <\/em>to harlotry<\/em>9a<\/sup> and we should note here that this word IS also used in regard to spiritual matters by Old Testament prophets. The Prophet Jeremiah shows us this idea of the harlot <\/em>and of fornication <\/em>and adultery <\/em>saying to the Jewish nation that “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD<\/em>” (Jeremiah 3:1). While fornication<\/em>, prostitution<\/em>, harlotry <\/em>and adultery <\/em>ARE words that have a carnal significance, they ARE also word ideas that show the spiritual duplicity of men who remain focused <\/em>upon their own lives and the ‘idols’ that they have themselves created rather than shifting that focus <\/em>to the Lord. This shift in focus <\/em>IS Repentance <\/em><\/strong>and while it may take some time to Transform <\/strong><\/em>oneself from a carnally oriented person to a spiritual one that understands the biblical concepts of keeping His words<\/em>, it IS in striving<\/em> to DO so that we can excel. This IS the likely message that Jesus IS offering to His disciples while others, who have NO spiritual foundation, remain fixated on their carnal lives. This situation IS especially grievous <\/em>to those that proclaim their spirituality, their allegiance to and Love for the Lord without understanding the defining ideas for that spirituality. Our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>shows us the significance of and the Way to such allegiance and Love saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our point here IS to show that these ideas of fornication<\/em>, prostitution<\/em>, harlotry <\/em>and adultery<\/em> as related to divorce <\/em>ARE dual in nature and should be seen as spiritual edicts as well as the foundation for a moral code. Our relationship to the Godhead requires our focus <\/em>and whensoever we allow that focus<\/em> to stray we become guilty of such fornication <\/em>and the degree of this can easily lead us to a divorce <\/em>our hearts <\/strong><\/em>from the Truth and Love as we give our hearts <\/em><\/strong>to our carnal concerns and egos. We should remember here that the very nature of Jesus speaking IS intended to have a dual nature and this He explains saying such things as “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand<\/em>” (Matthew 13:13) while saying to His disciples “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables<\/em>” (Mark 4:11). We should try to see that the words ARE the same to the population and to the disciple and that it IS the disciple, through his Transformation<\/strong><\/em>, that can understand “the mystery of the kingdom of God<\/em>“. We should remember here also that the whole idea of men engaging in spiritual fornication<\/em>, prostitution<\/em>, harlotry <\/em>and adultery<\/em> IS based in the reality that everyman IS a Soul that IS connected to the Godhead in a sort of marriage <\/em>arrangement and that it IS his failure to realize this that causes his offences. Most ALL True spiritual realities extend into the various moral codes and Jesus IS showing us this as He tells us that it IS our failure to honor our commitment to our spouse, our oath <\/em>if you will, that IS our carnal offence and a symbol of our spiritual offence as we focus <\/em>upon the carnal and mundane in place of God. We should remember here that none of these carnal offences ARE those of His disciples and for Jesus to speak in carnal terms to them directly IS NOT His objective. It IS ever the idea of spiritual fornication<\/em>, prostitution<\/em>, harlotry <\/em>and adultery<\/em> that colors the Master’s cautions regarding these most direct offences against the first of the Great Commandments which tells us clearly that “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<\/em>” (Mark 12:30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Master next takes on the subject of oaths <\/em>and, to be sure, His words here ARE NOT understood by most, neither ARE they taken to heart. There ARE likely few that will relate these words to His previous words on adultery <\/em>and divorce<\/em>. Jesus tells us “ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil<\/em>” (Matthew 5:33-37). While the ideas here may have been directed at the traditions of the Jews in those days where men’s oaths <\/em>were their sign of agreement, the idea of such oaths <\/em>has extended through the centuries. The simplicity of Jesus’ words here IS more simple than the complexities of oaths; the Master tells us that our oaths <\/em>ARE relatively meaningless despite the way that the idea IS used by men and by God in scripture. Luke mentions one such oath <\/em>writing of “The oath which he sware to our father Abraham<\/em>” (Luke 1:73) which comes from God’s oath saying “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son<\/em>” (Genesis 22:16). These ideas ARE in regard to the ‘promises’ of the Lord which can be considered as oaths <\/em>but which ARE NOT Truly so. The idea in Jesus’ words IS NOT so much in regard to oaths <\/em>or promises but rather in regard to His resolution to this human phenomenon of pledging which IS simply “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil<\/em>“. In this we should see a reality of evil <\/em>as “whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil<\/s><\/em> the ways of the world<\/em>” which we should see as our subjection to vanity<\/em> and its reliance on worldly norms and traditions. James clarifies and amplifies the Master’s words saying most clearly “above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation<\/em>” (James 5:12). The importance that James puts on this saying that this IS “above all things<\/em>” that he had before written should show us the importance of Truth speaking without swearing <\/em>and