\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 fourth of the Beatitudes, the Master’s words on righteousness <\/em>and men’s striving <\/em>toward that goal. Here we discussed the way that our “hunger and thirst after righteousness<\/em>” IS equivalent to our use of the idea of striving <\/em>in our essays which we define as: to exert oneself vigorously; try hard; to make strenuous efforts toward any goal<\/em>*. The Master tells us that those that so strive <\/em>“shall be filled<\/em>” and when we look at this against Jesus’ words saying “except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven<\/em>” (Matthew 5:20), we should be able to see the importance. We should remember here that based upon Jesus’ words against the Jews that there IS little or NO True righteousness <\/em>in the lives of the scribes and the Pharisees nor the priests and the elders. From this perspective any amount of righteousness <\/em>gained through our striving<\/em> IS a measure <\/em>more than, exceeds <\/em>if you will, “the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees<\/em>“. Can we see the point here? We should be careful however NOT to place ALL Jews into this class of the unrighteous as there were those that DID see some measure <\/em>of the Truth and pursue it; among these ARE those that DO become Jesus’ followers despite the pressure from the established Jews’ religion. Repeating the whole list of Beatitudes, we read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you<\/em>” (Matthew 5:3-12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next Beatitude for discussion IS a simpler one to understand but, at the same time, it IS often misunderstood and misconstrued because of the definitions applied to the idea of mercy<\/em>. The Master says “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy<\/em>“. To understand this we must first understand the Greek word eleeo <\/em>which IS most always rendered in terms of mercy<\/em>; it IS frequently compounded into phrases like “have mercy on<\/em>” and “obtain mercy<\/em>” and drifts into ideas of compassion <\/em>and pity <\/em>which ARE related ideas according to the common understanding of the rendered word mercy<\/em>. For merciful <\/em>the Greek word IS eleemon <\/em>which IS ONLY used here in the New Testament. Strong’s defines eleemon <\/em>simply as compassionate<\/em>9a<\/sup> while Thayer’s simply defines the word as merciful<\/em>9<\/sup>. Neither of these defining ideas offers us a real view of what the Master intends for us to understand and both ARE used in a strictly carnal sense. In today’s dictionary the idea of compassion <\/em>IS defined as: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering<\/em>* and while this IS a good quality or virtue to have, it DOES NOT rank as a Beatitude. Similarly the defining idea of mercy <\/em>IS also NOT appropriate for its use in scripture; our dictionary defines mercy <\/em>as: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power; compassion, pity, or benevolence<\/em>; the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing; the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, especially to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty; an act of kindness, compassion, or favor<\/em> and, as a religious note they add something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing<\/em>*. None of these strike the note that the Master intends for us to express <\/strong><\/em>as eleemon<\/em>, merciful<\/em>, and, again while these may be good qualities, they ARE lacking in showing us the Truth of eleeo <\/em>or mercy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While compassion <\/em>IS used as both a synonym of mercy <\/em>and a definition, we will NOT address this word other than to say that compassion <\/em>suffices to define the carnal ideas of mercy <\/em>as they have existed over the centuries. Mercy <\/em>and merciful <\/em>ARE our KEY words to define and we begin here with the 1828 Webster’s definition which tells us that mercy <\/em>IS: That benevolence, mildness or tenderness of heart which disposes a person to overlook injuries, or to treat an offender better than he deserves; the disposition that tempers justice, and induces an injured person to forgive trespasses and injuries, and to forbear punishment, or inflict less than law or justice will warrant. In this sense, there is perhaps no word in our language precisely synonymous with mercy. That which comes nearest to it is grace. It implies benevolence, tenderness, mildness, pity or compassion, and clemency, but exercised only towards offenders. Mercy is a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Being<\/em>1<\/sup>. We should note that these defining ideas from the 19th Century ARE more explanatory than our current definitions and this because Mr. Webster has a strong religious bent as can be seen in this quote from the preface of his dictionary; Noah Webster says: “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed\u2026 No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people<\/em>“1<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should note how that Mr. Webster equates mercy <\/em>with grace <\/em>as we understand that both words ARE ill defined even in Noah’s religious terms. We should remember here that the primary idea of the entire New Testament IS agape <\/em>and that most ALL instruction that the Master gives us revolves around the defining idea of the Godhead. Webster’s tells us that Mercy is a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Being<\/em>1<\/sup> and, combining this with the Apostle’s John’s telling us that “God is Our word here however is eleeo <\/em>which IS rendered as mercy <\/em>and while there ARE NO satisfactory explanations of this idea save for its use by the Master and those that He heals<\/em>, these alone should help us to define it according to its context. Beginning with our subject Beatitude we should be able to see the importance placed upon the idea of mercy<\/em>; here we should note that our being merciful <\/em>results in the spiritual mercy <\/em>that IS then bestowed upon us. If we should look upon this in the same way as our being filled <\/em>with righteousness <\/em>we can then better understand that the rewards <\/em>of the Beatitudes come from the Godhead and NOT from the world. While some of the rewards <\/em>of the Beatitudes ARE more difficult to see as being from the Godhead, the ones that ARE clear should help us to see that this IS the Way. Beginning with the first where we have the reward <\/em>of “the kingdom of heaven<\/em>“, the rewards <\/em>go on to include our comfort <\/em>which IS from the Greek word parakaleo <\/em>which has an undocumented relationship to another Greek word parakletos<\/em>. While there IS NO published etymological link noted for these words, by their primary meanings, both ARE offered in relation to summoning<\/em>, and their transliterated spelling we should be able to see the link. The primary definition of parakaleo <\/em>IS: to call to one’s side, call for, summon<\/em>2<\/sup> while the primary defining idea for parakletos<\/em> IS: summoned, called to one’s side, esp. called to one’s aid<\/em>. Of course we should note here that the idea of parakletos <\/em>IS related to the idea of “the Comforter<\/em>” which IS defined by the Master as “the Holy Ghost<\/em>” and “the Spirit of truth<\/em>” (John 14:26, 17). This IS how that we should see the idea of being comforted<\/em>. This comfort <\/em>then IS NOT of the world but of the Godhead. We should try to also see here how that in our mourning<\/em>, our lamentation <\/em>for our own plight of striving <\/em>to DO what the world would prevent as well as our lamentation <\/em>for the whole of the creation that still dithers away its time in vanity<\/em>, dithers away its time in: a<\/em> perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em>4<\/sup> as Vincent defines vanity <\/em>for us. Our point here IS that the rewards <\/em>of the Beatitudes ARE from the Godhead, from our own Souls which IS our individual Christ Within and our obtaining of mercy <\/em>IS founded in our ability to express <\/em><\/strong>agape<\/em>; an ability that comes from within. Thinking that in our merciful<\/em> thoughts, attitudes and actions will result in others being merciful <\/em>to us IS a misplaced idea that should be shed in favor of the more spiritual reality that as we express <\/strong>agape<\/em>, our definition of mercy<\/em>, we gain in our ability to DO so. We should ever remember the Master’s words here saying “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you<\/em>” (Mark 4:24). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The next Beatitude IS perhaps the KEY to ALL that the True seeker <\/em>after the Lord seeks<\/em>. Jesus tells us “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God<\/em>“. From the simplicity of these words we should try to see the relative ease in accomplishing our spiritual goal of seeing <\/em>the Lord. Here we should NOT believe that this seeing <\/em>IS an actual encounter with the Supreme Being but rather as spiritual encounter where we come to KNOW the Truth and KNOW God. It IS NOT practical that we should see<\/em>, as this idea IS understood, that \u201cOne Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which, antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression<\/strong><\/em>\u201c**.\u00a0Can we see the point here? We should begin our discussion of this beatitude with the Greek word katharos<\/em> which IS rendered as pure<\/em>. The word IS rendered also as clean <\/em>and once as clear<\/em>2<\/sup> in the King James Bible but for our purposes here ONLY the idea of pure <\/em>should be considered. That the idea IS tied to the Levitical idea of clean from the Old Testament DOES make our understanding more difficult but in the end we should be able to see that the reality IS much the same albeit from different perspectives. In the Old Testament there IS much said about being unclean <\/em>and for a variety of reasons, most ALL of them in regard to something carnal. From a woman having her period to touching a dead body the idea of being unclean <\/em>required some period of quarantine and then a cleansing of sorts. This IS NOT what the Master IS speaking of and it IS for this reason that we will look ONLY at the idea of being pure and we should understand that as purity <\/em>goes, it IS ONLY purity <\/em>of heart <\/strong><\/em>that matters spiritually. Strong’s defines katharos<\/em> saying: of uncertain affinity; clean (literally or figuratively):\u2014clean, clear, pure<\/em>9a<\/sup> and we should understand that these ideas ARE based in the Old Testament use of the idea. Thayer’s however offers us a broader understanding of katharos <\/em>adding what they call ethical <\/em>ideas which they attach to our subject Beatitude. Thayer’s tells us that the idea of katharos <\/em>has both a physical and a Levitical meaning in the New Testament as they then add: ethically; free from corrupt desire, from sin and guilt; free from every admixture of what is false, sincere<\/em> and genuine (joined with \u1f00\u03bc\u1f77\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1f77\u03b1, James 1:27; blameless, innocent<\/em>9<\/sup>. In the combination of Thayer’s defining ideas for katharos <\/em>we have the reality of being “pure in heart<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To better understand this idea of being “pure in heart<\/em>” we begin with the Apostle James words saying “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded<\/em>” (James 4:8). Here we should try to see that the idea of such purity <\/em>IS tied to our Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and Transformation <\/strong><\/em>as it IS within these that we can “Draw nigh to God<\/em>“. Here we should also look at the words of the Apostle John who tells us “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure<\/em>” (1 John 3:2-3). Of this Vincent tells us that: Purifieth himself [\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd]; In the Septuagint used only of ceremonial purification, and so four out of the seven instances in which it occurs in the New Testament (John 11:55; Acts 21:24, Acts 21:26; Acts 24:18). In the remaining cases, of purifying the heart and the soul (James 4:8; 1 Peter 1:22). The kindred adjective aJgnov pure, has a moral signification in every case, as has the noun aJgothv pureness (only 2 Corinthians 6:6). Agnismov purification (only Acts 21:26), ceremonial<\/em>. Mr. Vincent goes on to tell us that: Though marking moral and spiritual purity, and that of a very high grade, since it is applied to Christ here, yet it admits the thought of possible temptation or pollution, thus differing from agiov, which means absolutely holy. Hence aJgnov cannot properly be applied to God, who is agiov; but both may be used of Christ, the latter in virtue of His human perfection<\/em>4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vincent references 1 Peter in his commentary; there we read “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently<\/em>” (1 Peter 1:22). Here there ARE two cautions against the doctrinal ideas that have been attached to the apostles words. First the idea of the Soul from the Greek word psuche <\/em>which can be rendered as either Soul or Life depending on its usage. Here the translators chose Soul over Life but if we can see that the Soul IS ever pure <\/em>and in NO need of any purification <\/em>we could then apply the rendering of Life so that the idea would read “Seeing ye have purified your The final part of this Beatitude IS perhaps the most perplexing as we try to understand just what IS the reward <\/em>for being “pure in heart<\/em>” as we outline above. The text tells us that it IS such “pure in heart<\/em>” that “shall see God<\/em>“. We should understand here that seeing <\/em>God IS NOT as so many perceive this idea; it IS NOT as though those ‘selected<\/em>‘ will see <\/em>a being that they will recognize as God; nor will they see <\/em>God in the person of Jesus although this would be the more realistic choice. God IS NOT a man. God IS NOT a single being that IS opposed by another single being that IS named Satan; both of these ideas ARE purely superstitions that allow for men to perceive the imperceivable. We should remember here our working definition of God as: \u201cOne Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which, antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression<\/strong><\/em>\u201c**. This IS for us the Godhead and it IS from this Godhead that “all manifested conditioned<\/strong><\/em>” beings emerge if we can use this term here to define the indefinable. How then DO we see <\/em>God? The Greek word here IS optanomai<\/em> which IS generally rendered in this verse as seeing <\/em>with few exceptions. One translation renders optanomai <\/em>as “they will be with God<\/em>” while the Message Bible, which we seldom agree with, tells us: “You’re blessed when you get your inside world – your mind and heart – put right. Then you can see God in the outside world<\/em>“. These words ARE closer to the Truth than the general translations but we ARE still left to understand just what this means. Strong’s offers us an expanded view of optanomai <\/em>with a comparison against other words that may be rendered in terms of seeing<\/em>; primarily Strong’s tells us that the idea here IS: to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable<\/em>9a<\/sup>. This of course shows us the doctrinal ideas of actually seeing <\/em>God which idea IS, as we have said, rather impractical. Thayer’s IS the more informative here saying that optanomai <\/em>IS: to look at, behold; middle present participle \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; to allow oneself to be seen, to appear<\/em>9<\/sup>. Thayer’s cites a verse from the Book of Acts to show the idea more graphically; in Acts we read of Jesus that “Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God<\/em>” (Acts 1:2-3). While the word refers to such seeing <\/em>in most ALL of its New Testament uses, we believe that there IS more to this than seeing <\/em>with the physical eye; there IS yet a spiritual component to discover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How then DO we see God or, better, how do we see the Godhead. When we understand that the Lord IS NOT a person, we can then proceed to better understand the Godhead and be better able to understand this idea of seeing <\/em>as KNOWING God. Of course KNOWING God IS NO more explanatory than seeing <\/em>God but for the idea of KNOWING we DO have some scriptural help. The whole idea of KNOWING God IS wrapped up in the mysteries <\/em>of Life; it IS up to each individual to come to KNOW God on whatsoever level IS appropriate and here we should be careful to NOT allow our personalities as men in this world take over the process of spiritual thinking. Millions upon millions claim to KNOW God but they fail in their KNOWING according to the words of John who tells us “love<\/s> agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16) should evoke a sense of similarity between mercy <\/em>and agape<\/em>. It IS from here that we will begin to peel away the carnal interpretations of both words. Agape<\/em>, which we constantly discuss as the objective of our blogposts, IS carnally understood as Love and, as we have consistently stated, agape <\/em>IS NOT Love as this idea IS commonly understood. Agape <\/em>IS NOT that emotional and mental attraction and attachment to others and to things; agape <\/em>IS the singular force of Union and Unity that from a human perspective shows ALL men as the same in essence while diverse <\/em>in most ALL human characteristics. It IS though agape <\/em>that we can realize the Unity in Diversity <\/em>that IS destined to be on display throughout the world and while this IS hidden from view today, it IS at the same time the hope for tomorrow. That agape <\/em>IS defined in carnal terms throughout the bible dictionaries, the commentaries and the lexicon IS a great error over the last 2000 years and the relationship of agape<\/em> with eleeo <\/em>has been lost because of this error. To understand both we ARE on our own as men in this world; we DO however have the tools to properly understand both through the words of the Master and His apostles. It IS perhaps purposeful that the clearly expressed ideas regarding these words ARE seen as parabolic by many and in this we mean that they ARE NOT understood as the spiritual ideas that they embrace. Jesus tells us to “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” (Mark 12:31) but this has never been Truly understood despite His other words that ARE explanatory of just how this should work. The Master also tells us “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” and we should remember that Jesus’ tells us that this saying “is the law and the prophets<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12); we should remember as well that He tells us of the Great Commandments that on these “hang all the law and the prophets<\/em>“. It IS in sayings such as these that we should see the vast importance of agape <\/em>as well as a clearer understanding of just what agape <\/em>IS.<\/p>\n\n\n\nsouls<\/s> lives<\/em>“. This IS the more practical idea: that through the Spirit, through one’s obeying the Truth, one can purify <\/em>his Life in this world; this IS in accord with the teachings of the Master and His apostles. The second caution IS in regard to “the brethren<\/em>” which IS an idea that IS often coopted by the doctrines of men to mean ONLY other Christians. This word, philadelphia<\/em>, IS from the same root that we recently discussed in regard to our Love for others as men. The reality IS much deeper and should be understood to reflect upon ALL men, the neighbor <\/em>if you will, who we ARE committed to Love as men “with a pure heart fervently<\/em>“. This IS NOT contrary to our separation between philos <\/em>and agape <\/em>but rather shows that in a purified <\/em>Life that we DO perforce Love ALL as the Master exhibits as His example to us. Other translations treat Peter’s words more clearly than the King James Bible. Some paraphrase the idea to say “having purified yourselves<\/em>” while others paraphrase the idea of the effect of this as “sincere brotherly love<\/em>“; still others, following the doctrinal line, phrase this as “genuine affection for your fellow believers<\/em>“. There ARE no translations in our library that combine these ideas of both “brotherly Love<\/em>” and referencing the idea of psuche <\/em>as one’s self as a man in this world. From our perspective and that of Mr. Vincent we should try to see <\/em>that the idea that Peter IS espousing IS simply saying that by “obeying the truth<\/em>” we allow the purity <\/em>of the Soul to be realized in the Life of the man in this world and it through this realization <\/em><\/strong>that we become “pure in heart<\/em>” as the Master frames this Beatitude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n