\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 started the last essay with some thoughts on the concept of agape <\/em>and its expression <\/strong><\/em>in this world but drifted off into a discussion on Jesus’ childhood and the way that He was able to overcome <\/em>the very same vanity <\/em>that we ARE ALL subjected to. We looked also at the way that we too ARE able to overcome <\/em>the world as the Master shows us saying “I have overcome the world<\/em>” (John 16:33) and this based in His telling us clearly that “The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master<\/em>” (Luke 6:40). This led us to our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>and then the way that the apostles offer us similar views of the promises that we can obtain through our striving <\/em>to keep His words<\/em>; we tied ALL this back to our original idea of our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>through keeping His words<\/em> as we discussed Peter’s and Paul’s messages which show us what IS necessary. While each frames our responsibilities differently, they ARE offering us the same message as IS the Master. Peter tells us that we must escape <\/em>“the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:4) while Paul tells us that we must “through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body<\/em>” (Romans 8:13); both of these tell us that we too must “overcome the world<\/em>” to achieve a real measure <\/em>of the Truth that frees <\/em>us, the Kingdom of God and our realization <\/strong><\/em>of His Presence in our lives. Returning to our discussion of agape <\/em>as the expression <\/strong><\/em>of men we go again to Paul’s words to the Corinthians saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Paul’s message here IS rather simple but CAN NOT be understood in carnal terms, that IS it CAN NOT be understood when we see agape as Love as that word IS commonly understood. We have spent many words on the common definitions of Love and why it should NOT be the rendering for agape <\/em>as it currently IS. The historic confusion between Love as it IS commonly understood and agape <\/em>has made it so that whensoever we see the word agape <\/em>rendered as Love we tend to see our interpersonal relationships. This however DOES NOT define agape <\/em>and the use of Love as agape <\/em>has ONLY served to dilute the Master’s message as well as the apostle’s message above. We have also spent much time over the course of our blogposts discussing charity <\/em>as the rendering for agape <\/em>as IS found in Paul’s words above as well as some other places and, while this idea of charity <\/em>was a closer defining idea for agape <\/em>in times past, this word has also become but a carnal virtue. To be sure the ideas of charity <\/em>and Love as carnal ideas ARE generally good to possess and to express <\/strong><\/em>but they DO NOT reach the level of agape <\/em>even when one considers this to be ‘a God kind of Love’. From the defining ideas that abound for Love and charity <\/em>we see ONLY two ideas that meet the reality of agape <\/em>but these too ARE diluted ideas which remain rather undefined from a spiritual perspective. These ARE GoodWill and benevolence<\/em>; these ARE the ONLY two defining ideas for charity <\/em>and Love that come close to meeting the objective that agape <\/em>IS a Universal expression<\/em><\/strong> that goes far beyond our interpersonal relationships. This then IS where we will begin to try to define agape <\/em>in human terms and NOT as that mental and emotional attraction and attachment to others and to things in this world. We should note here that ‘things’ IS a far reaching term that includes our attitudes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately we ARE still left on our own to define GoodWill which, as a single word DOES NOT even exist in our 1828 Webster’s Dictionary. We often say that GoodWill IS Love in action and while we have borrowed this idea from esoteric literature, it IS the ONLY defining idea that can bring us to the reality of agape<\/em>. GoodWill IS essentially the Will to Good, the will of a person to DO good as a general attitude. Yes there ARE carnal aspects of this and these ARE Truly virtuous but it IS the spiritual idea that we should seek to reach. In the Master’s words saying “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” we have the idea that this GoodWill IS to be shed abroad to ALL men which IS the defining idea behind the biblical use of the idea of one’s neighbor<\/em>. While we define the neighbor <\/em>as ALL men, the church ofttimes has difficulty with this despite the way that the Greek word plesion <\/em>IS biblically defined. Strong’s offers us a rather literal translation of plesion <\/em>saying that it IS: neuter of a derivative of \u03c0\u1f73\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 p\u00e9las (near); (adverbially) close by; as noun, a neighbor, i.e. fellow (as man, countryman, Christian or friend)<\/em>9a<\/sup>. This definition of plesion <\/em>ignores much of the intent of the context in which it IS used and here, for this word, the context IS important. Thayer’s offers us a bit more saying that plesion <\/em>IS first: friend<\/em>9<\/sup> while citing our subject words saying “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” (Matthew 5:43); to be sure there IS NO such reference to the neighbor <\/em>as a friend <\/em>in the text of Matthew save perhaps for an inference taken from Jewish tradition. Second they define the idea of plesion <\/em>as: any other person before qualifying the idea saying that: and where two are concerned the other (thy fellow-man, thy neighbor) i. e., according to the O. T. and Jewish conception, a member of the Hebrew race and commonwealth<\/em>9<\/sup>. Finally, as part of the same defining idea, Thayer’s tells us: according to the teaching of Christ, any other man irrespective of race or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet (which idea is clearly brought out in the parable)<\/em>9<\/sup>. It IS this last idea that we should see in the Greek word plesion<\/em>; an idea that we would expand beyond the idea that the neighbor <\/em>IS one with whom we live or whom we chance to meet<\/em>; this too IS a literal rendering that misses the ultimate point that the Master IS making where the reality IS that the neighbor <\/em>in His context IS everyman. Vincent captures the Master’s intent best saying that plesion <\/em>IS: <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Neighbor [\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] . Another word to which the Gospel has imparted a broader and deeper sense. Literally it means the one near (so the Eng., neighbor = nigh – bor), indicating a mere outward nearness, proximity. Thus a neighbor might be an enemy. Socrates (Plato, “Republic,” 2 373) shows how two adjoining states might come to want each a piece of its neighbor’s [\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] land, so that there would arise war between them; and again (Plato, “Theaetetus,” 174) he says that a philosopher is wholly unacquainted with his next-door neighbor, and does not know whether he is a man or an animal. The Old Testament expands the meaning to cover national or tribal fellowship, and that is the sense in our Lord ‘s quotation here. The Christian sense is expounded by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29 sqq.), as including the whole brotherhood of man, and as founded in love for man, as man, everywhere<\/em>“4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Vincent captures the reality of plesion <\/em>in the last statement of his commentary as he properly interprets the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It IS ONLY in understanding plesion <\/em>as ALL men that we ARE even able to express <\/em><\/strong>agape<\/em> as it IS intended in the teachings of the Master. While the interpretations of the idea of neighbor <\/em>have changed from the Old Testament to the New and while carnal interpretations abound, the reality IS still that in order to “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” one must see oneself in the same way that he would see his neighbor<\/em>, the same way that he would see everyman<\/em>. And this IS the reality also of GoodWill. Carnally GoodWill can be an expression <\/strong><\/em>of kindness <\/em>to another person but spiritually it IS an attitude, a state of mind if you will, through which we wish good for ALL men regardless of any carnally oriented differences. Jesus implies this in His words saying “if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?<\/em>” (Matthew 5:46:47). The Master DOES NOT define those which may NOT Love you and the implication here IS everyman; that we should Love, express <\/strong>agape <\/em>toward, everyman if we somehow expect to receive any reward<\/em>. Jesus IS instructing to be different than the others <\/em>as He uses the ill defined idea of the publican as His example. Luke IS a bit clearer in giving us the Master’s words as “if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again<\/em>” (Luke 6:32-34). While it IS unfortunate that the King James translators chose to render charis<\/em> as thank <\/em>rather than grace<\/em>, this DOES NOT alter the intent. Grace <\/em>IS the reward<\/em>; grace <\/em>IS ALL that flows from the Godhead. In Luke’s version the intent IS the same: that we should express <\/strong>agape <\/em>towards ALL men, express <\/em><\/strong>GoodWill to ALL as we should understand from the clarion call of the angel <\/em>saying “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men<\/em>“. We should try to see that “the angel<\/em>” with “a multitude of the heavenly host<\/em>” (Luke 2:14, 13) IS announcing the arrival of the Lord with the intention that “on earth peace, good will toward men<\/em>” would take hold through: first the Presence of the Lord and second His teaching. Of course this peace <\/em>and GoodWill have NOT been realized for the last 2000 years but this DOES NOT destroy the message of peace <\/em>and GoodWill although it has surely been delayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the problem can be found in the attitude of the church that fails to see that peace and GoodWill ARE totally in the hands of men and while the church has ofttimes refrained from entering into the political arena, there ARE signs that they ARE much more willing to do so today. Unfortunately the influence of the church IS on ALL sides of the political spectrum with some supporting positions of peace while others support their own carnal positions; we leave it to you to decide which side your denomination or sect IS on. We should try to see here again that the Godhead IS NOT involved in the day to day workings of happenings on this Earth. There ARE yet wars and crimes of ugly dimensions but as a society the Christian world has NOT yet arrived at the idea that the ONLY remedy comes from mankind itself and that there IS NO heavenly influence. Were there such influence, how could we explain the horrors of wars in the twentieth century as well as the senseless slaughter of our fellow man because of the prejudices and hatreds that abound in the world today. In the end humanity must realize that their ‘thoughts and prayers’ DO naught to Truly alleviate the senseless slaughter, or the prejudices and hatreds; our ‘thoughts and prayers’ ARE but an inadequate substitute for action. Perhaps the first and foremost remedy to ALL the ‘evil<\/em>‘ that IS happening in this world IS to come to recognize the reality of our neighbor <\/em>as everyman and to understand the reality of the idea that one must “ “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee<\/em>” (Luke 10:30-35).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The scene ends with the Master asking the lawyer “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise<\/em>” (Luke 10:36-37). Jesus’ words here tell us two things; first that the neighbor <\/em>IS every man from the perspective of acting with agape<\/em>; here the Samaritan IS the ONLY one of the three passers-by that “shewed mercy on him<\/em>” and we should note here that our expression <\/strong><\/em>of mercy<\/em>, like GoodWill, IS agape<\/em> in action. Secondly, we should try to see that the Samaritan was treating the stranger who “fell among thieves<\/em>” as his neighbor<\/em>, a stranger whom he had never encountered before and likely will never encounter again. Can we see here Vincent’s final point saying: The Christian sense is expounded by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan, as including the whole brotherhood of man, and as founded in love for man, as man, everywhere<\/em>4<\/sup>. This treatment of the stranger IS the reality of mercy <\/em>and the essence of GoodWill and both should be understood as the expressive <\/em><\/strong>components of agape <\/em>Love in this world where we see ALL as we see ourselves and live according to the Master’s words saying “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12). This IS the essence of agape<\/em>, the reality of our expression <\/strong><\/em>on agape <\/em>Love in this world and should we understand and DO as the Master says in both the Golden Rule and the precept that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” we ARE then Truly on the Path to Truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Returning to Paul’s words on agape<\/em>, which ARE rendered as charity <\/em>as we discuss above, we should try to see the importance that the apostle places on agape <\/em>and its expression <\/em><\/strong>in this world. Paul begins by telling us that whatsoever religious assets one may believe that they have ARE of NO value in the absence of our steadfast expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. If we can see how that speaking <\/em>“with the tongues of men and of angels<\/em>” IS a reference to ‘spiritual speaking<\/em>‘, which for parts of the church includes their adaptation of the idea of speaking in tongues<\/em>, we can perhaps see the fallacy of the words of the pastors and the priests and ALL who profess to KNOW God and speak of Him in the absence of their expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>. Paul’s message IS simply that ALL of this IS of NO value, ALL of this IS worthless, and such speaking <\/em>takes on the tone of “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal<\/em>“. In other words it IS rather senseless. Paul continues with this same theme. In addition to one’s ‘spiritual speaking<\/em>‘, that IS that they may believe that their speech IS Truly spiritual, Paul goes on to tell us about those in the church who may believe that they, or others, “have the gift of prophecy<\/em>“, that they “understand all mysteries<\/em>“, or that they have “all knowledge<\/em>” and can “remove mountains<\/em>” through their faith. <\/em>Using himself as the example he shows us clearly that DOING or believing any of this without one’s expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>IS worthless; the apostle tells us that should he believe such without agape <\/em>that he himself IS nothing<\/em>. This idea of nothing <\/em>from the Greek word oudeis <\/em>means exactly that, NOTHING. The idea IS deeper than just an idea however as Strong’s tells us that oudeis <\/em>means: not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing<\/em>9a<\/sup>. We should try to see the overall picture here; in Paul’s words whensoever we act without agape <\/em>we ARE oudeis<\/em>, we ARE not even one (man, woman or thing)<\/em> spiritually or, perhaps better, we ARE nothing in the eyes of God if we can use that idea here. Paul IS showing us through his own example that to DO such things in the name of the Lord without a True expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>as it IS properly understood, sets us in a grave position against the ultimate Truth of agape<\/em>. Of course there IS the idea of measure <\/em>at play here; this tells us that there IS NO absolute error and each must understand for himself his own status regarding these things. The Master gives us guidance in this understanding of the status of oneself and of others saying that it IS “by their fruits ye shall know them<\/em>“….that “Ye shall know them by their fruits<\/em>” (Matthew 7:20, 16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul goes on to show us that even the effects of our beliefs, that our carnal actions based in those beliefs ARE NOT free from error. The apostle tells us as his example that “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned<\/em>“, that such IS worthless in the absence of our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. The first part here IS relatively easy to understand; we can give endlessly “to feed the poor<\/em>” but if our motivation to DO so IS NOT agape <\/em>as this should be understood, such acts ARE but moral virtues without spiritual foundation; other than any carnal benefits they “profiteth me nothing<\/em>” spiritually. Again, we should consider the concept of measure <\/em>here. The second part here IS the more cumbersome idea as we DO NOT understand just what it means to “give my body to be burned<\/em>” so let us explore this. Vincent tells us that the idea of “to be burned<\/em>” was an early change; he says: The latest critical text reads kauchswmai in order that I may glory, after the three oldest MSS. The change to burned might have been suggested by the copyist’s familiarity with christian martyrdoms, or by the story of the three Hebrews<\/em>4<\/sup>. To be sure the idea of martyrdom <\/em>IS a constant in the early church although it DOES seem ofttimes a misplaced one. For example Saint Stephen IS considered a martyr<\/em> because he was stoned by the Jews who took exception to his telling them about the True history of the Jews. We should however try to see here that he was murdered….he did NOT willingly give up his Life for a theme. Other such acts ARE merely suicide which in and of itself IS contrary to Christian beliefs although there IS NO teaching specifically on this in the bible. Some see the idea of suicide as contrary to the commandment that “Thou shalt not kill<\/em>” (Romans 13:9) but it IS interesting to note that the Catholic Church removed suicide from the list of mortal sins in 1983***. While we DO NOT see a reference to martyrdom <\/em>in Paul’s intent here we ARE yet confounded by His actual intent. The Greek word kaio <\/em>which IS rendered here as the phrase “be burned<\/em>” IS generally used in a very different context. It IS rendered as “light a candle<\/em>” (Matthew 5:15), in saying that men should keep “your lights burning<\/em>” (Luke 12:35) and in Jesus’ saying of John the Baptist that “He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light<\/em>” (John 5:35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While there ARE other renderings of the idea of kaio <\/em>in the various bible translations in our library, some seem contrary to the idea that kaio <\/em>presents. For some the idea has become “give over my body to hardship that I may boast<\/em>” while others lean on the idea of to “hand over my own body to feel good about what I’ve done<\/em>“. None of these or similar renderings present ideas relevant to the apostle’s use of the word kaio<\/em> but, at the same time, they DO eliminate the idea of martyrdom<\/em>. An Oxford professor and theologian John Wycliffe who undertook the first-ever English translation of Scripture, the Wycliffe Bible, in the fourteenth century rendered Paul’s words as “if I part all my goods into the meats of poor men, and if I betake my body, so that I burn, and if I have not charity, it profiteth to me nothing<\/em>“2a<\/sup>. This IS an interesting take on the Greek that may indeed show us the apostle’s intent. To betake<\/em>, a word that Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines as: to take to; to have recourse to; to apply; to resort; with the reciprocal pronoun<\/em>1<\/sup>, can show us the apostle’s words in terms of Light. The idea here can be understood then to be that if I apply <\/em>my body to the Light of the Soul but DO so without an expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>, “it profiteth me nothing<\/em>“. Can we see the possibility here? In the end we should try to see that ALL of Paul’s scenarios ARE intended to show us that the ideas ARE essentially untrue in the absence of an expression<\/strong><\/em> of \n
charity<\/s> agape, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity<\/s> agape, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity<\/s> agape, it profiteth me nothing. Charity<\/s> agape suffereth long, and is kind; charity<\/s> agape envieth not; charity<\/s> agape vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. charity<\/s> agape never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away<\/em>” (1 Corinthians 13:1-8).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n
love<\/s> agape thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” through the concept of agape <\/em>and NOT the common understanding of Love. To this end the Master tells us such things as “Love<\/s> express agape to 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 5:44-45). Add to this Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan and we could perhaps see that the onus IS on us as men in this world to reach out with agape<\/em>, reach out with GoodWill, to ALL. The Master tells us, in answer to the lawyer’s question asking “who is my neighbour?<\/em>” (Luke 10:29) that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n