\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 the Apostle Paul’s words in his Epistle to the Romans that make equal our expression<\/strong><\/em> of agape <\/em>with our keeping His words<\/em>; this IS framed as keeping the whole law through Paul’s words saying that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” (Galatians 5:14). That these ARE equal IS NOT wholly recognized by most of the church although they DO KNOW the words that ARE written; much of the problem remains in the way that the whole idea of agape <\/em>has been transported from a spiritual one to a carnal one. To understand agape <\/em>ONLY as Love as the idea IS commonly understood is an injustice against the teaching of the Master and the alternative idea that agape <\/em>IS the God kind of Love IS basically a meaningless one as this idea IS NOT defined. While many may say that there IS a definition of agape <\/em>in the idea that it IS the God kind of Love this has never been brought down to human levels of reality and few if any Truly KNOW how to express <\/strong>agape<\/em>. As we noted, Paul’s words to the Romans ARE quite detailed in showing us the equivalency of the ways that men can Truly Repent <\/strong><\/em>and begin their Transformation <\/em><\/strong>into “into the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>” (Romans 8:21). The apostle tells us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed<\/em>“.<\/p>\nRomans 13:7-11<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Paul begins this segment of his epistle with a discussion on the way that one must continue to ‘respect’ authority and this likely in the church and in the laws both civil and religious. We should remember that the Jews ARE in a unique position: they live under Roman rule and, at the same time, ARE subject to their own religious laws. While the Master cast a division between the Jews’ religious traditions that had become their law and the the Truth of those “weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith<\/em>” (Matthew 23:23); He DID NOT divide the persons that believed their view to be wrong. Similarly Jesus DID NOT speak against the Romans in their treatment of the Jews who were subject to Roman law. Paul begins with these ideas in mind as he tells us the Jews to “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation<\/em>” (Romans 13:1-2). While we DO NOT understand the apostle’s ideas regarding the way that error can be “ordained of God<\/em>” we gain some insight through his previous words that close the twelfth chapter. Paul tells us “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good<\/em>” (Romans 12:17-21). These words should be understood as an expansion on the Master’s words saying “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust<\/em>” (Matthew 5:43-45). Perhaps it IS the final words from Paul saying that in DOING as the Master says we will metaphorically “heap coals of fire on his head<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This idea that in being kind <\/em>to one’s enemies <\/em>IS Jesus’ theme in His words above as well as in the Apostle Luke’s version where we read “love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil<\/em>” (Luke 6:35). We should note here also that the Master IS instructing us to be as IS the Lord who IS “kind unto the unthankful and to the evil<\/em>” and who “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust<\/em>“. This IS a most basic reality of agape<\/em>, of the Lord seeing ALL as One homogeneous<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0creation. We should also see the idea here of our own Unity and the realty that Truly “there is no respect of persons with God<\/em>” (Romans 2:11). Paul, in his way, IS showing us this same treatment toward our enemies <\/em>and here we should understand that the word has a much broader meaning that simply those that ARE staunchly opposed to us. Carnally our enemies <\/em>can be any with whom we DO compete for our own benefit. Regardless of the way that the word IS understood, the idea here IS that we treat our enemies <\/em>according to the same Golden Rule with which we should be treating our friends and our families. The Golden Rule offers us the simplicity of our treatment of others saying that “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12). Can we see the point here? Paul adds to this the feeling that the enemy <\/em>would or should encounter through the kindness<\/em>; the reality of his metaphor IS the reality that one’s kindness <\/em>IS like heaping <\/em>“coals of fire on his head<\/em>“. While this may NOT work out the way Paul sees it in the general population, this should NOT change the attitude of those that would follow the Lord. Here we should remember Jesus’ other words saying “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also<\/em>” (Matthew 5:39). In ALL of this we should also see the True definition of meekness<\/em>. Meekness IS yet another Truly misunderstood word according to its common usage and while we have discussed this in previous blogposts, it IS an important aspect of the Master’s Life, and ours, to understand. In Paul’s words saying we should try to see that in our kindness <\/em>we can be understood to be heaping <\/em>“coals of fire on his head<\/em>“, on the head of the ‘enemy<\/em>‘ that we ARE being kind <\/em>to. Again we should understand that the enemy <\/em>need NOT be one with which we ARE at ‘war’; perhaps a simple explanation of the word can be found in Jesus’ words saying that “a man’s foes shall be they of his own household<\/em>” (Matthew 10:36). John Gill in his Exposition of the Bible tells us of this heaping<\/em>: the sense is, that by so doing, his conscience would be stung with a sense of former injuries done to his benefactor, and he be filled with shame on account of them, and be brought to repentance for them, and to love the person he before hated, and be careful of doing him any wrong for the future<\/em>8<\/sup>. While this IS beyond what the apostle likely intended, Mr. Gill DOES capture the sense of the idea relating the the conscience of the man; the results of this however ARE multifaceted to say the least. Perhaps the better point IS that the ‘enemy<\/em>‘ would be less inclined to see the man offering acts of kindness as his own ‘enemy<\/em>‘.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the idea of heaping <\/em>“coals of fire on his head<\/em>” makes for an interesting topic, it pales against the reality of what the apostle IS telling us. The main idea here IS in regard to vengeance; to the attitude of a man who comes upon another in any sort of ‘competitive’ situation. The idea IS one of steadiness on the part of the participants and this IS a steadiness that IS reflective of the Master’s words saying “unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also<\/em>” (Luke 6:29). The main idea of this steadiness IS the essence of meekness <\/em>which IS as we have said, a very misunderstood word. In reality meekness <\/em>IS the essence of the Master’s words on the interactions of men; this can be easily seen in such ideas as “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also<\/em>” (Luke 6:27-29). Through this we should be able to see the relationship between our expression<\/strong><\/em> of agape <\/em>and our Life in meekness<\/em>. We offer meekness <\/em>because we express <\/strong>agape <\/em>and from this perspective these two spiritual ideas ARE inseparable. This however IS NOT seen by most of the doctrinal church that believes that they see meekness <\/em>in biblical terms; terms that ARE brought to us by the lexicons and bible dictionaries of the world. The idea of the Greek word praos <\/em>that IS rendered as meek <\/em>that IS offered by the lexicon carries the simple meaning of: gentle, mild, meek<\/em>2<\/sup>; this tells us little about the Master’s words saying “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). This word, praos<\/em>, IS a derivative of another Greek word, praus<\/em>, which IS a primary word with similar meanings; the lexicon tells us that praus <\/em>means: mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness<\/em>2<\/sup>. There IS NO practical difference in these word ideas and they ARE cross-referenced by both Strong’s9a<\/sup> and Thayer’s9<\/sup>; both of which offer us the same defining ideas as the lexicon. The common ideas leave us with ONLY the word meek <\/em>while many bible translations DO substitute humble <\/em>and gentle <\/em>which, in our reality, DO NOT work with Jesus’ saying “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth<\/em>” (Matthew 5:5). This ‘blessing<\/em>‘ should require much more that gentleness <\/em>or humbleness<\/em> which ideas dilute the Master’s intent here as well as in His admission of his own meekness<\/em>. The lexicon DOES offer us some additional thoughts in their defining ideas of praus<\/em>; they say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meekness toward God is that disposition of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting. In the OT, the meek are those wholly relying on God rather than their own strength to defend them against injustice. Thus, meekness toward evil people means knowing God is permitting the injuries they inflict, that He is using them to purify His elect, and that He will deliver His elect in His time<\/em>2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This IS a wholly doctrinal view that has NO basis in Truth. Vincent offers us a different view based in classical Greek writings. He tells us that: The meek [\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2]. Another word which, though never used in a bad sense, Christianity has lifted to a higher plane, and made the symbol of a higher good. Its primary meaning is mild, gentle. It was applied to inanimate things, as light, wind, sound, sickness. It was used of a horse; gentle<\/em>4<\/sup>. He goes on to tells us that: As a human attribute, Aristotle defines it as the mean between stubborn anger and that negativeness of character which is incapable of even righteous indignation: according to which it is tantamount to equanimity. Plato opposes it to fierceness or cruelty, and uses it of humanity to the condemned; but also of the conciliatory demeanor of a demagogue seeking popularity and power. Pindar applies it to a king, mild or kind to the citizens, and Herodotus uses it as opposed to anger<\/em>4<\/sup>. Finally Mr. Vincent tells of his own thoughts saying that: The equanimity, mildness, kindness, represented by the classical word, are founded in self – control or in natural disposition. The Christian meekness is based on humility, which is not a natural quality but an outgrowth of a renewed nature. To the pagan the word often implied condescension, to the Christian it implies submission. The Christian quality, in its manifestation, reveals all that was best in the heathen virtue – mildness, gentleness, equanimity – but these manifestations toward men are emphasized as outgrowths of a spiritual relation to God<\/em>4<\/sup>. Our points of agreement here ARE in the idea that our expressions <\/strong><\/em>of meekness <\/em>ARE as outgrowths of a spiritual relation to God<\/em> as it IS in our Transformation <\/em><\/strong>that we come to see the reality of this expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>. ALL of these ideas ARE based in biblical analysis of the word; they ARE what IS found in the lexicons and bible dictionaries as well as in the bible commentaries that ARE offered to the Christian world. In common parlance the idea of meekness <\/em>IS seen as a weakness rather than as outgrowths of a spiritual relation to God<\/em>. Today’s dictionary tells us that meek <\/em>means: humbly patient or quiet in nature, as under provocation from others; overly submissive or compliant; tame<\/em>*. Spiritually these ideas ARE wholly deficient. The Webster’s 1828 Dictionary offers us ideas on meekness <\/em>that ARE NOT the same as those in today’s dictionaries; while these ARE more spiritually oriented than the more secular ideas of today, they still DO NOT reveal the depth of the idea. We read here that meek <\/em>means: 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<\/em>1<\/sup>. While doctrinally oriented, these word ideas DO convey for us some of the Truths that we see in this idea of being meek<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have long maintained that in the idea of meek <\/em>there IS exceptional strength and NO fear <\/em>and while this IS at odds with the ways that the idea IS understood both religiously and secularly, this idea of meekness <\/em>IS testified to by scripture. Above the 1828 Webster’s dictionary tells us that to be meek <\/em>IS: not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries<\/em> and through these word ideas we should see a form of strength. These ideas of being meek <\/em>follow the Master’s precept saying “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also<\/em>” (Matthew 5:39). Webster’s goes on to say that in meekness <\/em>one IS submissive to the divine will<\/em> and when we consider this in terms of the teachings of the ages from Moses to Jesus, the idea takes on a more specific reality. This reality IS founded in Jesus’ words saying “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven<\/em>”\u00a0(Matthew 7:21). The reference here IS to the overall Will of God and while we DO NOT KNOW if this was Webster’s intent, it IS a valid view of such meekness<\/em> if ONLY based in the Master’s words. These ideas from the nineteenth century ARE quite different from both the ideas of our bible lexicons and the dictionaries and commentaries that guide many. There IS more however in our arsenal that supports our view of meekness <\/em>which, in practical terms, IS our willful forbearance <\/em>as men in this world who DO NOT react personally against others despite the fact that one has the ability to DO so. In this there IS NO fear <\/em>but in the practical application of these ideas one can be viewed as fearful <\/em>by others and it IS perhaps this that leads us to the more modern definitions of meek<\/em>. The KEY idea here IS that meekness <\/em>IS a willful act that intentionally DOES “turn to him the other also<\/em>“. Jesus shows us this willful meekness <\/em>throughout the gospels and when we understand that He had the Power to resist whatsoever came against Him, He DID NOT. While this IS a common gospel theme it IS especially pronounced for us in such ideas as the Master’s words saying “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?<\/em>” (Matthew 26:63) as He IS being arrested. Can we see the point here and can we see this particular example of True meekness<\/em>. Peter and Paul also show us a degree of meekness as they ARE arrested and beaten; they too take NO opportunity for revenge; they DO “turn to him the other also<\/em>“. Furthermore, the bible DOES actually define for us the reality of meekness <\/em>in such ideas as “the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth<\/em>” (Numbers 12:3). Here we should try to see the strength with which Moses carried forward his duties against frequent uprisings from the Jews and we should understand the ‘punishment’ of some by the Lord as a part of the story telling for those of ancient times. We read such things as “the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign<\/em>” (Numbers 26:10) and we should understand that it IS through the repeating of such ideas that they DID become “a sign<\/em>“. While there may be some fact involved in such stories, they ARE largely just that, stories; and while the church has ascribed a certainty to ALL of the bible, they have DONE so for strictly doctrinal reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To these ideas we must add the words of the Master who ascribes to Himself the banner of being meek<\/em>. Jesus’ tells us to “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) and surely as the Lord IS telling us to be both gentle <\/em>and mild<\/em>; He IS NOT telling us to be: overly submissive or compliant; <\/em>or tame<\/em>* as our modern dictionary DOES. From Jesus’ perspective, a purely spiritual one to be sure, this meekness <\/em>IS His strength of forebear ALL things and we should see this in His unwillingness to take revenge or to move against others that may be His opposition; He accomplishes ALL through His words that ARE also intended to metaphorically “heap coals of fire<\/em>” onto the heads of the Pharisees, the scribes and other rulers of Judaism in those days. Similarly, Matthews presentation of the prophetic ideas saying “Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass<\/em>” (Matthew 21:5) ARE NOT intended to show Jesus’ fears <\/em>but rather His strength as He approaches His KNOWN destiny. Finally we have the Apostle Peter’s words which, while intended toward women and their attire and ornamentation, has a more specific message regarding being meek<\/em>. Peter tell us “let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price<\/em>“. Here, “the hidden man of the heart<\/em>” IS the Inner Man, the Soul, the Christ Within and the message IS that the outer, corruptible<\/em>, Life should NOT be the objective of the heart <\/strong><\/em>but rather one’s ornamentation should be one’s own “meek and quiet spirit<\/em>“. Again, the words ARE written as a charge to women as the apostle tells them of their adorning <\/em>tendencies saying “let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel<\/em>” (1 Peter 3:4, 3); but rather “let it be the hidden man of the heart<\/em>” that adorns one’s Life. Our point here IS that Peter IS speaking against the ways of men and women alike to adorn <\/em>themselves with worldly things and to strive <\/em>toward them as necessities of Life. His words, which ARE an amplification of the Master’s words saying “Take no thought for your life<\/em>” (Luke 12:22), ARE NOT generally accepted except in certain denominations and sects that rule their way through dress codes which accommodate these words from Peter and other bible ideas on dress. While Luke tells us specifically that Jesus’ words ARE spoken to His disciples and Matthew offers us a similar idea from the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, we should NOT lose track of the reality of the whole teaching of Jesus and His command to His apostles. The Master, through the volume of His teachings, IS showing us the Way of the disciple and NOT the way of the man concerned about his carnal existence. He passes this on to His apostles in the end saying that they should “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world<\/em>” (Matthew 28:19-20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While we have discussed these words from the Master several times over the course of our blogposts, we should here again break down His words so as to reflect the reality of what He IS telling His apostles to DO. And, to this we should add His other words that reflect the intended impact of His apostles own teachings. Jesus, in His ‘prayer’ near the end, says “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word<\/em>” (John 17:20). While the King James Bible uses the idea of teaching<\/em>, saying that the disciples should “teach all nations<\/em>“, most other translations render the idea as that the disciples should “make disciples of all the nations<\/em>” which IS the better rendering of the Greek word matheteuo<\/em>. Other translations change the idea of nations <\/em>to the idea of people<\/em>, saying such things as “Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples<\/em>“; this IS the more accurate though more difficult reality of the Master’s admonition. We should remember here that the Master gives us specific criteria for being His disciple and paramount among these ARE His words from our trifecta <\/em><\/strong>where we read “If ye<\/em> continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free<\/em>”\u00a0(John 8:31-32). Through this we should understand the difference between claiming oneself as being a disciple and actually being one; the rendering of the idea as “disciples indeed<\/em>” DOES NOT have the force necessary to understand that in the absence of keeping His words<\/em> there IS ONLY the illusion <\/strong>of discipleship. The Greek word alethos <\/em>which IS rendered as indeed <\/em>IS a more specific term that the English indeed<\/em>; Strong’s tells us that it simply means truly<\/em>9a<\/sup> while Thayer’s expands this saying that alethos <\/em>means: truly, of a truth, in reality; most certainly<\/em>9<\/sup>. We should easily see that there IS a specific disparity between claiming oneself as being a disciple and actually being one. In Luke’s Gospel the Master expands upon this idea by inserting criteria that IS the hallmark of the man that actually DOES keep His words<\/em>. Jesus tells us that “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple<\/em>“. Then, after some words on the ‘cost’ of discipleship and the necessary preparedness for the task, Jesus tells us that “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple<\/em>” (Luke 14:26-27, 33). We should try to see that it CAN NOT be that these words ARE unclear in regard to men’s claiming to be His disciple; perhaps what we can see in men’s ignoring of the Master’s words here IS their reluctance to “forsaketh not all that he hath<\/em>“. This IS a strong deterrent to True discipleship, to being His “disciples indeed<\/em>“, but we should understand here that these words ARE consistent with Jesus’ other teachings especially His repeating of the more ancient precepts that He has elevated to the role of the Great Commandments. These tell us, again 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>” and that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” It IS the completeness of our dedication to the things of God over the things of the world that make us True disciples and while on that Path to Truth we ARE but aspiring disciples with much work to DO. In the end we should see that the whole of our journey IS found in His words that ARE our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which we read again saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the trifecta <\/em>we have the idea of keeping His words<\/em> solidly portrayed along with the results that one can expect in DOING so. In the combination of the above ideas, the trifecta <\/strong><\/em>and the Master’s words on discipleship, we should be able to understand that the most basic result from keeping His words<\/em> IS the reality of discipleship. From this we should try to see that it IS the disciple that has the Truth, the Truth that “shall make you free<\/em>“; it IS the disciple that has access to the “kingdom of heaven<\/em>” and it IS the disciple that has the Presence of the Lord in one’s Life. This last part, while the least clear, shows us clearly that keeping His words<\/em> has the results of the manifestation <\/em>of the Christ Within in the mortal Life of a man. The Greek word emphanizo<\/em> which IS rendered here as manifest <\/em>embodies a more complex idea than our understanding of manifestation<\/em>. The lexicon tells us that the idea is: to manifest, exhibit to view; to show one’s self, come to view, appear, be manifest; to indicate, disclose, declare, make known<\/em>2<\/sup> and in this we should be able to see that the idea can be easily applied to the Christ Within….the Soul. We should remember here that the Master’s words ARE selective, that IS that His manifestation<\/em> IS NOT to ALL but rather to those that Love Him, those that keep His commandments<\/em>. Judas questions the overall statement asking “how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?<\/em>” and here again we should try to see the personal application of Truth to the man who DOES keep His words<\/em>. This IS NOT magical nor miraculous, this IS simply the working out of the Plan; through keeping His words<\/em> a man brings forth this manifestation <\/em>of Truth and Love which IS the essence of the Christ. This IS NOT however the way that the doctrinal church views the Master’s words; Vincent, comporting the idea with a previous verse tells us the the idea IS: Properly, of manifestation to the sight, as distinguished from dhlow, to make evident to the mind (1 Corinthians 3:13; Colossians 1:8, etc.). A clear, conspicuous manifestation is indicated. Compare ye see me (ver. 19)<\/em>\n
\n