\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 some thoughts on the way that the idea of agape <\/em>IS understood as it IS translated into Love. Here we should add the alternate rendering of charity <\/em>as well which IS the way that agape <\/em>IS rendered into Paul’s words that we cited in closing the last post. The problem of course with rendering agape <\/em>as Love IS that we then attach to this most spiritual virtue the common ideas of Love as understood in this world and across so many of its cultures and languages. The identification of agape <\/em>with the common ideas of Love goes back centuries while and while the rendering of agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>may seem odd, it IS NOT when we understand the way that this word was used at the time when the King James Bible was translated. We address this idea according to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary in the prologue to every post and while we DO NOT KNOW the specific purpose for the rendering agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>in Paul’s words; why this was selected over Love, it IS but a few translations that have kept this idea alive. The New King James Bible changed the rendering from the original to reflect Love and for some clarity we go again to Vincent’s Word Studies where we read that: The change in the Rev. from charity to love, is a good and thoroughly defensible one. Charity follows the caritas of the Vulgate, and is not used consistently in the A. V. On the contrary, in the gospels, ajgaph is always rendered love, and mostly elsewhere, except in this epistle, where the word occurs but twice. Charity, in modern usage, has acquired the senses of tolerance and beneficence, which express only single phases of love. There is no more reason for saying “charity envieth not,” than for saying “God is charity;” ” the charity of Christ constraineth us; “” the charity of God is shed abroad in our hearts.” The real objection to the change on the part of unscholarly partisans of the A. V. is the breaking of the familiar rhythm of the verses<\/em>4<\/sup>. Vincent IS writing in the late nineteenth century and DOES NOT see the value of the idea of charity <\/em>in comparison to Love as a rendered word, a value we try to show in our prologue. In Webster’s 1828 Dictionary the word Love IS defined in common terms; we read that Love IS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual. It is opposed to hatred. Love between the sexes, is a compound affection, consisting of esteem, benevolence, and animal desire. Love is excited by pleasing qualities of any kind, as by kindness, benevolence, charity, and by the qualities which render social intercourse agreeable. In the latter case, love is ardent friendship, or a strong attachment springing from good will and esteem, and the pleasure derived from the company, civilities and kindness of others. In these defining ideas most ALL refer to carnal points regarding Love while the reality of agape <\/em>IS shown as a part of this Love experience. Webster’s DOES add some more spiritual ideas to these definitions saying that: The love of God is the first duty of man, and this springs from just views of his attributes or excellencies of character, which afford the highest delight to the sanctified heart. Esteem and reverence constitute ingredients in this affection, and a fear of offending him is its inseparable effect<\/em>1<\/sup>. These however ARE steeped in doctrinal philosophies and ARE themselves carnal in nature as they effect ONLY the sense of Love for God reflected by the church without identifying the realities shown us by the Master Himself. Added as extra points regarding Love they list: Courtship; chiefly in the phrase, to make love, that is, to court; to woo; to solicit union in marriage; Patriotism; the attachment one has to his native land; as the love of country; Benevolence; good will<\/em>1<\/sup>. While it IS this final point that expresses <\/strong><\/em>some measure of agape<\/em>, this IS in fact the last point before a the addition of such ideas as: The object beloved; A word of endearment; Picturesque representation of love; “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, 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, 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, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity 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 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<\/em>“<\/p>\n1 Corinthians 13:1-8<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The King James Translators rendered agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>twenty seven times with twenty two of these being in this chapter of Corinthians and here we should look again at what this word meant at the time versus what it has been understood as since. While we DO show some of Webster’s ideas on charity <\/em>in our prologue, we should look again as it shows us the deeper meaning of agape <\/em>as it should be applied in the lives of men. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines charity <\/em>as: \u00a0In a general sense, love, 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<\/em>1<\/sup>. With these defining ideas Webster’s DOES cite our verses from First Corinthians which were translated two centuries earlier and the idea that we should take here IS that this IS largely the accepted understanding of charity <\/em>in the nineteenth century. Our point here IS that these words better describe the reality of agape <\/em>as it IS intended to play out in this world; that when one IS Truly filled with this agape <\/em>Love, they will act in such a fashion expressing <\/strong>In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good<\/em>. Can we see the point here? Webster’s DOES then show us those ideas that contribute to our current understanding of charity <\/em>citing such ideas as: love, kindness, affection, tenderness, springing from natural relations<\/em>; Liberality to the poor<\/em>; Liberality in gifts and services to promote public objects of utility<\/em> among other similar ideas. They DO add near the end that charity <\/em>IS Candor; liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to think and judge favorably, and to put the best construction on words and actions which the case will admit. The highest exercise of charity, is charity towards the uncharitable<\/em>1<\/sup> and it IS between these words and their opening ideas above that we find a better defining idea of agape <\/em>as it effects humanity. In today’s dictionary the idea of charity <\/em>IS a purely carnal idea which, while virtuous, DOES NOT express <\/strong><\/em>the central points of agape <\/em>which Webster’s addresses as: love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good<\/em>. It IS in these words that we should be able to more clearly see the idea that we should “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“. Charity <\/em>today IS understood as: generous actions or donations to aid people who are poor, ill, or needy; something given to a person or persons in need; alms; a charitable fund, foundation, or institution; benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor; leniency in judging others; forbearance; Christian love; agape<\/em>*. Save for the final idea that charity <\/em>IS Christian love; agape<\/em>, ALL of these ideas ARE basically carnal and while they DO cite Christian love; agape<\/em>, they DO nothing to explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We frequently cover these ideas in our posts as our effort to show the inadequacy of men’s understanding of agape<\/em> and while the defining ideas offered by Webster’s regarding charity <\/em>ARE the closest that we have to understanding the force of agape<\/em>, these ideas have NOT entered into the minds of men in any meaningful way. It IS the common ideas of both that most ALL men see and aside from the church’s teaching that agape <\/em>IS the God kind of Love, there IS little that IS offered to change that tone; even with such teaching it IS the common ideas that yet prevail. We should try to see that the Greek word agape <\/em>as a transliterated English word has little meaning in the nineteenth century; the same Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines agape <\/em>as: Among the primitive christians, a love feast or feast of charity, held before or after the communion, when contributions were made for the poor. This feast was held at first without scandal, but afterwards being abused, it was condemned at the council of Carthage, A.D. 397<\/em>1<\/sup>. That’s it, there IS NO mention of the intent of the Master in using this word nor of the deep spiritual meanings that it contains. Today’s dictionary DOES offer us a better look at agape <\/em>saying that it IS: the love of God or Christ for humankind; the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind; unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love<\/em>*. The problem here IS that men DO NOT generally understand what IS the love of God or Christ for humankind<\/em>, an understanding that IS necessary if men ARE to express <\/strong><\/em>any form of corresponding Love. Nor IS there True understanding of what IS a God kind of Love. Vincent offers us a look at the deeper side of agape <\/em>as Love saying in reference to John’s words “God is love<\/em>” that: Is love [\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. \u03bd] . See on God is light (i. 5), and the truth (i. 6); also God is spirit (John 4:24). Spirit and light are expressions of God ‘s essential nature. Love is the expression of His personality corresponding to His nature. See on love of God (ii. 5). Truth and love stand related to each other. Loving is the condition of knowing<\/em>4<\/sup>. Based in the Apostle John’s words Vincent IS relating the two KEY New Testament ideas of Love and Truth and in his words saying that Loving is the condition of knowing<\/em> we can hopefully find the wherewithal to tear the Truth of agape <\/em>Love from ALL of its carnal references.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We of course DO disagree with Vincent’s idea that God has a personality, an idea that reduces the Supreme Being to one that IS on a mundane carnal level. Men have personalities, a combination of their mental and emotional states as men in this world and it IS the very nature of spirituality that overcomes the personality and fills the mind and the emotional states with the Light of the Soul. This IS a complex issue and one that IS among the mysteries <\/em>to which the apostle Paul refers saying: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory<\/em>” (Colossians 1:25-27). The mystery <\/em>here IS one that IS NOT understood through the doctrines of men; the mystery <\/em>here IS ONLY discovered as one enters upon the Path and begins to Truly see “what is the riches of the glory of this mystery”<\/em>. We should try to see that in the reality of Life there IS NO real mystery<\/em>; the idea of mystery <\/em>IS found in the blindness of men who CAN NOT see past their own vanity<\/em> because their own personalities ARE succumbed to the wiles of the personality in this world. It IS this that Paul shows us in saying that “the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in There IS but one way to correct this condition and here if we look at the Vincent’s ideas of vanity <\/em>being a perishable and decaying condition<\/em> from a spiritual perspective we can perhaps sense that there IS an urgency. The farther down the proverbial rabbit hole we go over the course of our years, the more we become entrenched in the ways of the world and the more difficult it IS to escape<\/em>. In this idea we should try to see the additional plight of the person who subscribes to the doctrinal aspects of their religion; over time many become so convinced of their ‘righteousness<\/em>‘ that they will never see the need to escape<\/em>. Here we should try to understand that the Way to attain the Kingdom and its promises <\/em>we must have “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>“. We should understand of course that lust <\/em>IS NOT restricted to those gross human behaviors but rather to every desire <\/em>that IS contrary to the Truth of the Master’s teachings and precepts. Surely the double hazard of our attraction to the things of the world plus our attraction to the edicts of those doctrines we subscribe to, DO create the more difficult endeavor. In this attraction which IS a fundamental part of the common understanding of Love we should try to see James’ words regarding our relationship to this world. In James’ words saying “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God<\/em>” (James 4:4) we should see the relationship between our attraction to the things of the world, our sort of Love for the world if you will, and our spiritual goals. When we add to this the power and influence of whatsoever doctrines one may subscribe to we have an added factor to overcome. Few see this however as they see their doctrinal allegiance in place of the True spiritual reality that IS our trifecta<\/em><\/strong> which shows us in Jesus’ words that we must keep His words<\/em>; few see that this IS the Way. Repeating our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>we read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The choice IS simple and it IS the same as those choices that the Master presents us with in regard to what we treasure <\/em>and the choice between God and mammon<\/em>. While we discussed these ideas in detail over the last several posts, we should again refresh our point. Jesus tells us “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also<\/em>“. The choice here IS the focus <\/em>of our lives whether it will be on the things of the world and the self or the things of God, the Good, the Beautiful and the True. He tells us that whatsoever IS our choice will govern our lives. The Master tells us as well that “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 6:19-21, 24). In these words we should see the choice in more stark terms as He tells us that whatsoever IS our choice, God or mammon<\/em>, puts us into a position where this IS the factor that we will serve<\/em>. Bob Dylan gives us an interpretation of these words that most properly defines mammon<\/em>; he writes “You\u2019re going to have to serve somebody; Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord; But you\u2019re going to have to serve somebody<\/em>“. Of course we should see this reference to the devil as we should define ALL references to the devil and to Satan: as the power of that vanity <\/em>to which ALL ARE subjected<\/em>. In our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>the choice IS more profoundly stated; although His words DO NOT specifically mention the idea of choice, it IS the basic theme of ALL three parts. In the first part we have the choice of keeping His words<\/em> against the reward <\/em>of gaining the Truth which “shall make you free<\/em>“. In the second part we again have that same choice shown to us in terms of the Father’s Will; the reward <\/em>here IS the Kingdom of God and we should try to see here that in the Kingdom IS Truth and Love. The third part offers us the same choice, that we DO or DO NOT keep His words<\/em>, and the reward <\/em>here IS a bit more complexly stated. Here keeping His words<\/em> IS the single sign that defines the man that Truly Loves the Lord and through this Love we can have realization <\/em>of the Presence of God in our lives. Many proclaim that they Love the Lord and many claim that they have the Presence of the Lord but, according to Jesus’ words, these things ARE ONLY True in the Life of the man that keeps His words<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This brings us back to our discussion of agape<\/em>; we should realize and understand here that it IS our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape <\/em>that IS the reality of keeping His words<\/em>. Paul shows us this saying “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” (Galatians 5:14) and, to be sure, the idea of the law here IS reflective of the Master’s words as well as His interpretations of the laws of Moses. As we have discussed, the common ideas that ARE related to agape <\/em>ARE NOT sufficient to change the ways of men in this world. Rendering agape<\/em> as Love shows us ONLY the common idea of Love, ONLY the mental and emotional attachment and attraction that we may have for others and for certain things and ideas in this world. This IS purely carnal. Rendering agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>DOES NOT help our understanding unless we look at the more historical ideas regarding this word which has become but another mundane expression <\/strong><\/em>of virtue in this world. There ARE many reasons for being charitable <\/em>but there IS little to attach any of these to our True expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. While the idea of charity <\/em>should bring to mind the historic ideas that charity <\/em>IS: benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good<\/em>1<\/sup>, it most often DOES NOT. In the failure of our translations of agape<\/em> into ideas of Love or charity <\/em>we should try to see that the word can exist on its own as a transliteration of the Greek, much like other biblical words that DO NOT have a an adequate word in English. Mammon <\/em>from mamonas<\/em> IS our current example of words that ARE NOT translated and perhaps if agape <\/em>were among these it would have more meaning in the church and in the world. There can of course be NO certainty to this idea that agape <\/em>would have been and would be better understood as being beyond the common ideas of Love. Many in the church today cite the idea as ‘agape love<\/em>‘ but the ONLY defining idea to come from this IS that this IS a God kind of Love which idea IS NOT defined nor understood. Let us pursue this idea here however as we effort to offer a deeper understanding of the spiritual Truth that IS agape<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We begin with finding an adequate understanding of the reality of a God kind of Love. The church attaches the words of the Apostle John to this God kind of Love. John tells us that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life<\/em>” (John 3:16) and while this IS a great Truth, it DOES NOT fully explain the God kind of Love; it ONLY shows us an example. If we take this idea that “God so loved the world<\/em>” and expand upon it with Jesus’ words saying that the Lord “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust<\/em>” (Matthew 5:45) we should be able to see the nature of that Love. God’s Love IS offered equally to ALL according to the Master’s words here as well as in Luke’s version of the same idea which tells us of God that “he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil<\/em>” (Luke 6:35). There IS naught in these words that would lead us to see anything but the equality of the Love of God and there IS naught that shows us any relationship to men’s common ideas of Love. A part of our blog theme IS that GoodWill IS Love in action and if we should relate this to the Love of God we would see His GoodWill being shed across the world of men. For many this may be difficult to see as there ARE frequent world catastrophes that men see as countering this idea of the Love of God; we should note here however that most ARE random actions of the Earth itself that DO NOT differentiate one person from another….they affect ALL. We would be remiss in NOT mentioning the effects of wars and disease as these contribute to the annihilation of segments of humanity. Many DO wonder why the Lord allows such things while others blame certain human behaviors but the simple Truth IS that the Lord exerts NO influence on the ways of men in this world except through the works of Love expressed <\/em><\/strong>by the few who have come to KNOW a measure of the Truth. We need also to go to the words of the apostles to properly understand the idea of the Love of God. Above we cite James’ words saying “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God<\/em>” and through this idea we should be able to see the dichotomy between the Lord and the world as a necessary separation. Despite the doctrinal ideas that God can and will intervene in this world for the benefit of men, the whole idea would be better understood by merely looking at history. Perhaps it IS the churches belief in the bible IS the inerrant word of God and CAN NOT be questioned that results in this belief in Godly intervention that IS likely based in the Old Testament stories of the patriarchs and the kings. Nonetheless, the New Testament DOES teach us that there IS such a dichotomy in regard to the little lives of men in this world. We should understand here that this separation IS between the carnal man, the man as a unawakened <\/em>Soul in this world yet who IS yet bound to his vanity <\/em>which IS the condition of most ALL and the state of the world itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It IS the world itself that must eventually be Redeemed <\/strong><\/em>and to be sure this IS yet another concept that IS steeped in the mysteries <\/em>of Life much like our own individual Redemption <\/em><\/strong>which Paul equates to our ‘adoption<\/em>‘. The Apostle tells us that he too awaits this fate saying “even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” (Romans 8:23). As carnal men we ARE a part of this world; as spiritual men expressing <\/em><\/strong>through form we ARE NO longer so and, from our own view, this IS our Redemption <\/strong><\/em>as we overcome the carnal forces of vanity<\/em>. Jesus tells His disciples after much teaching that “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world<\/em>” (John 16:33). These ARE NOT idle words; in them we should see the idea that it IS through His overcoming <\/em>that we can also overcome <\/em>and “have peace<\/em>“. Again as most ALL of the Master’s words ARE understood carnally by men in this world, there ARE many that DO lead us to a better, more spiritual, understanding. In such words as “My kingdom is not of this world<\/em>” (John 18:36) we should try to see that the idea here IS NOT that His Kingdom IS in a different place as so many DO believe. We should see that His Kingdom and this world ARE NOT compatible; that when we DO leave off our focus <\/em>upon the carnal and the mundane we can then experience the reality of His words saying “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal<\/em>” (John 12:25).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The overall point here IS that there IS NO combination of the carnal and the spiritual because the spiritual overcomes the carnal when a man DOES Repent <\/strong><\/em>and Transform <\/em><\/strong>his Life. At that point we ARE NOT longer “of this world<\/em>“; the whole of our lives shifts from the self-centered thoughts, actions and attitudes of the carnal man to the
Between certain natural relatives, love seems to be in some cases instinctive. Such is the love of a mother for her child, which manifests itself toward an infant, before any particular qualities in the child are unfolded. This affection is apparently as strong in irrational animals as in human beings. We speak of the love of amusements, the love of books, the love of money, and the love of whatever contributes to our pleasure or supposed profit<\/em>1<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lewdness<\/em>1<\/sup>. It IS this idea of benevolence <\/em>and GoodWill that ARE the hallmarks of the second of the Great Commandments where we ARE told that we must “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“, a refrain that IS cited many times in the New Testament. Can we see the point in ALL this? Can we get a sense of the way that Love as the defining idea for agape <\/em>simply DOES NOT work to our spiritual benefit? Today’s modern dictionary DOES NOT depart from these 19th century ideas; we read that Love IS: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person; a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend; sexual passion or desire; a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart; used as a term of endearment, affection, or the like; a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour; sexual intercourse; copulation; Love, a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid;
affectionate concern for the well-being of others; strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything; the object or thing so liked; the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to Go; Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing<\/em>*. Again the more spiritual ideas that can properly be attached to agape <\/em>ARE buried near the bottom of the list of defining ideas and what we should see in ALL this IS the reality that these common ideas ARE attached to Love and thereby to agape<\/em>. While we DO NOT KNOW what the King James Translators motivation was in rendering agape <\/em>as charity <\/em>in Paul’s words to the Corinthians, they did pick an appropriate word for their time. Again Paul tells us that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
hope, Because<\/s> expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered<\/s> made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>” (Romans 8:20-21). Here the idea is that in the overcoming of our vanity <\/em>we can be made free<\/em>; this IS our individual expectation<\/em>, hope <\/em>according to the translators, as well as the corporate idea that the whole of the creation <\/em>will eventually be freed<\/em>. How this happens corporately IS itself a mystery<\/em> that IS likely revealed as we move closer to that point of glory<\/em>. Peter explains for us the mystery <\/em>as it presents itself to the individual and while his words remain a mystery <\/em>to most men who DO NOT see the need to escape<\/em>, they ARE NOT a mystery <\/em>to those that have Repented <\/strong><\/em>and ARE in the process of Transformation<\/em><\/strong>. Peter tells us that “According 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[b] glory and virtue: Whereby 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 1:4). The KEY idea here IS of course our escape <\/em>and while this idea seems alien to the doctrinal church it IS a constant theme throughout the New Testament. We live in the corruption <\/em>and ARE so engrossed by it that we ARE bilinded <\/em>to the realities of Life and its True goals. We would be remiss to NOT repeat again the defining ideas for our vanity <\/em>as presented by Vincent who tells us that our vanity <\/em>IS: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em>4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n