\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 While we ended the last essay with our trifecta <\/em><\/strong>of spiritual reality, the words of the Master that tell us clearly that should we want the ‘rewards<\/em>‘ of our spirituality, we must DO our part which IS to keep His words<\/em>. And this IS where we begin today, with the idea that we were discussing that shows us the Way that we can keep His words<\/em> without the supposed burden of following the law. We should remember here that much of the church has a rather twisted view of the law, that it CAN NOT be followed or, better, should NOT be followed based in their interpretations of the words of the Apostle Paul. And this was the way of the Jews that Jesus consistently railed against as the Jews’ own doctrinal interpretations of the words of Moses overwhelmed the Truth. One important factor IS missing however in the view of the law held by many Christians and it IS the same factor that the Apostle Paul tries to show us in his epistles. While the Christian world has adopted the idea that Paul IS writing about the Truth of the law, they have missed the reality that he IS writing about the way that the Jews themselves viewed the law and, as a Pharisee himself, Paul DOES KNOW the difference. The Jews interpreted their law into a series of DO’s and DONT’s, their mitzvah if you will, and DID so to the point where their interpretation of the law became their doctrine. It was this that the Master rails against and it IS this view of the law that Paul writes against….he DOES NOT write against the True law which had been muddled with the edicts of men over many centuries. For example the Jews concentrated their observance on such ideas as the sabbath, the rituals of sacrifice <\/em>for atonement<\/em>, dietary rules and other such ancillary ideas which they gleaned from the words of Moses. It was this diversion from the Truth that caused the Master to say along with the prophet “if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless<\/em>” (Matthew 12:7). This idea of mercy<\/em> over sacrifice <\/em>IS but an example of the way that the ‘easier’ ideas of ‘worship<\/em>‘ should NOT have been the practice but rather mercy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Jews in Jesus’ day, as well as today, channelled their religious efforts into a form of ‘worship<\/em>‘ that practiced the rites and rituals established by Moses. This they DO while believing that it was these that mattered rather than the mercy <\/em>which the Master cites above and in His companion saying to the Jews that “go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice<\/em>” (Matthew 9:13). We should remember and understand that mercy <\/em>IS NOT as the idea IS defined today nor as it was viewed in centuries past as: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power<\/em>*. A proper study of the idea of mercy <\/em>in the New Testament should reveal to us that the idea IS that mercy <\/em>IS our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape <\/em>in this world, our expression <\/em>of benevolence <\/em>and GoodWill as we discussed in the last essay. Instead of an expression <\/strong><\/em>of mercy <\/em>rightly understood, the Jews and Christians both have decided that worship <\/em>was the better route to the Lord without realizing perhaps that it IS this sense of worship <\/em>that the Master rails against in the sayings above. While the Master uses the idea of sacrifice <\/em>here in these sayings as the Jews’ form of worship<\/em>, we should see this as but an example of the many ways of worship <\/em>that many Jews still hold dear today. In another saying that we often use the idea of worship <\/em>IS tied to the traditions of the Jews: to the washing of hands in Mark’s Gospel and the expanded view that includes the Jews’ denial of actual commandments in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus DOES see past these examples as He tells the Jews in this context that “in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Mark 7:7). We should try to see how that this idea of worship <\/em>IS but a worthless action and, more importantly, we should try to see how that these words ARE addressed to the Christian as well as the Jew; in fact, it IS addressed to ALL that ARE “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have often spoken about the way that the Jews’ doctrines evolved from the actual law and while the law was muddled with the ancillary rules laid out by Moses under the guise of the law, there ARE few who will see it this way. While we may like to think that the Godhead inscribed the Ten Commandments onto stone tablets there IS a greater reality and one that IS the Life experience of ALL whose focus <\/em>IS Truly upon the Godhead and the things of God. Moses’ focus <\/em>was True and He was able to speak as the Godhead in issuing much of what was in that day the law. We must understand however that in addition to Moses’ ability to speak as the Godhead, he was also a man. It IS likely as a man then, inspired to be sure, that many of the edicts that became the law were from Moses own personality and dealt with the carnal undertakings of men. Sacrifice <\/em>was a way of atonement <\/em>was intended to pull the Jews back into alignment with the Truth. The dietary laws which ARE tedious and lengthy served to instruct the Jews on what they should eat for their health and it should be noted that pork and shellfish ARE of themselves harmful if NOT properly prepared and stored; hence the rules governing them. The sabbath IS yet another part of the law which IS both undefined and intended for the relief of a man’s burden while channeling their thoughts to a focus <\/em>upon the Lord. Except for the idea of sacrifice <\/em>the dietary laws and the laws of the sabbath continue to this day while even sacrifice <\/em>IS conducted by some sects who see ALL of this as a part of their form of worship<\/em>. These and the many words used to construct a system of laws and punishments in the Pentateuch ARE from the hand of Moses and his advisors but they ARE NOT a part of the reality of the commandments of the Lord where naught IS Truly carnal and ALL pertain to the interrelationships of men under the reality 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>” plus the commandment which Jesus’ elevates to its proper status saying “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the Jews had the words of Moses, the commandments of the Lord if you will, as the ‘basis’ for their doctrines, the Christians DID NOT. While the Jews reorganized the law into their doctrines concentrating on their tokens of worship <\/em>rather that the reality of Love and mercy<\/em>, the Christians had the fuller Truth which they manipulated by elevating their carnal ideas based in their interpretations of the words of Paul. While the Christians ignore the Master’s words of Truth in favor of out of context and selected ideas from Paul to establish their doctrines, they seem to us to be on even weaker ground that were the Jews. The Master railed against the Jews for their doctrinal ideas and we should understand that His condemnation of the Christian world would be ever greater as the Christians have NO law to reinterpret….the Christians have the Truth of Jesus’ words which they routinely ignore. And this IS the purpose of the Master’s saying that “in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>“, words which should be understood as timeless; and addressing the Christians as well as the Jews. Unfortunately the church DOES NOT agree with our perspective which was developed through our study of the Master’s words and the clarifying and amplifying words of His apostles. While it IS difficult to say when the Christian churches decided to put their emphasis on the words of the apostles, especially Paul, we can presume that it started with the church fathers and their emphasis on the worship <\/em>perspective. As we discussed in the last essay, the idea of worship <\/em>IS NOT as it IS understood; it seems to have begun with and continued more as adoration <\/em>than the intended ideas of reverence <\/em>and veneration<\/em>. The idea of reverence <\/em>IS the single defining idea presented by Strong’s before they offer us such synonyms as: adore, devout, religious,<\/em> and worship<\/em> 9a<\/sup> which ARE at best weakly coined synonyms when viewed in a spiritual context. Webster’s 1828 offers us a more complete idea of reverence <\/em>saying that it IS: The fear acceptable to God, is a filial fear, an awful reverence of the divine nature, proceeding from a just esteem of his perfections, which produces in us an inclination to his service and an unwillingness to offend him<\/em>1<\/sup>. It IS in this unwillingness to offend him<\/em> and inclination to his service<\/em> that we should be able to see that True reverence <\/em>for the Lord IS to keep His words<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course this IS NOT the current nor the past Christian idea of worship <\/em>as that word IS used in our saying above regarding the vanity <\/em>of worship <\/em>when it IS focused <\/em>upon doctrines. Webster’s, in this same edition refers us to our other idea to replace worship<\/em>, veneration<\/em>; here we read that veneration <\/em>IS: The highest degree of respect and reverence; respect mingled with some degree of awe; a feeling or sentiment excited by the dignity and superiority of a person, or by the sacredness of his character, and with regard to place, by its consecration to sacred services <\/em>1<\/sup>. We should remember that Noah Webster was a devout Christian man who undoubtedly followed the doctrinal dictates of his church. While his religiosity DOES play a seemingly outsized role in his defining of words, he DOES at times step out of that box and offer us ideas that ARE NOT the product of his doctrinal bent. In addition to his dictionary and other literary works, Webster offered us his own bible translation called the Common Version then and simply the Webster Bible today. Using Webster’s ideas of reverence <\/em>and veneration <\/em>to help us to define worship <\/em>as it IS used in the saying from Jesus above, shows us the reality of the ideas behind the Greek word sebomai <\/em>which, as we discussed IS NOT the same idea as another word rendered as worship<\/em>, proskuneo<\/em>. In the church however it seems that these ideas have been confused because they ARE both rendered using the same English word of worship<\/em>. The ideas ARE NOT directly related; proskuneo <\/em>shows us a carnal version of the idea saying that it IS: from G4314 and a probable derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):\u2014worship<\/em>. This activity of proskuneo<\/em>, while NOT at ALL showing us the inner thoughts of a man in reverence <\/em>and veneration<\/em>, shows us the physical ideas attached to worship <\/em>and it IS this that IS considered as worship <\/em>in much of the church. Our point here IS simply to take the idea of sebomai <\/em>out of this definition of worship <\/em>that IS commonly understood most always in terms of adoration<\/em>. This IS NOT the Master’s intent as He defines for us the idea of vain worship<\/em> as this IS attached to the practice of doctrines over the Truth which includes that we keep His words<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the reality that the timelessness of the idea that “in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Matthew 15:9) IS disputed by most ALL of the church, it IS nonetheless the ultimate Truth of the Master’s intent which idea can be easily seen by any who look closely at religion over the last 2000 years. The teaching of the church IS their various doctrines and has been since the time of the early church fathers who ARE responsible for setting church doctrines that ofttimes DID NOT reflect the “the will of my Father which is in heaven<\/em>” (Matthew 7:21) nor the reality of the Master’s words saying “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me<\/em>“. Here we should try to see and to understand that even with the idea of adoration <\/em>defining worship<\/em>, most ALL of the church has failed and this because the very idea of adoration <\/em>includes some measure <\/em>of Love. Both of these sayings from the Master ARE included in our trifecta<\/em> which we repeat here saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this third part of our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>the Master clearly shows us that in order to Truly Love Him, adore <\/em>Him or worship <\/em>Him, one must keep His words<\/em> and we should remember that He tells us this three times. In addition to the way it IS phrased above, Jesus also tell us this earlier in this chapter of John’s Gospel as a statement saying “If ye love me, keep my commandments<\/em>” (John 14:15). The way of escape <\/em>from these Truths in men’s doctrines seems to be to simply ignore His words while at the same time claiming to Love the Lord and to adore <\/em>and worship <\/em>Him. Such action IS contrary to both Jesus’ words and His spirit of intent in these words from John’s Gospel as well as the condemnation <\/em>of following doctrines over the Truth. And it IS condemnation <\/em>that we should see in the idea that men’s worship <\/em>IS vain <\/em>whensoever it fails to follow the law and the commandments of the Lord. We should try to understand the idea of condemnation <\/em>as it IS intended to be understood, as judgment<\/em>, and NOT as the idea IS used today. The Master IS judging <\/em>the vanity <\/em>of our response to the Truth as He calls men’s worship vain<\/em> whensoever they ARE teaching and following the doctrines of men over the Truth of His words and here perhaps we should look at the idea of vanity <\/em>more deeply. We have studied the idea of vanity <\/em>from Paul’s words that tell us that “the creature was made subject to vanity<\/em>” but have not related this to the idea of vanity <\/em>in our worship<\/em> as the Master show us. The Greek word maten <\/em>IS rendered as vain <\/em>in the idea of vain<\/em> worship<\/em>; maten <\/em>IS the root word from which stems the idea of mataiotes <\/em>which IS rendered as vanity <\/em>in Paul’s saying. In the relationship of these words there ARE many meanings to consider; maten <\/em>IS defined by Strong’s as the: accusative case of a derivative of the base of G3145 (through the idea of tentative manipulation, i.e. unsuccessful search, or else of punishment); folly, i.e. (adverbially) to no purpose:\u2014in vain<\/em> 9a<\/sup> while Thayer’s tells us that the meaning IS: in vain, fruitlessly<\/em> 9<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the usage of maten <\/em>in the saying “in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” we should be able to see that those that ARE teaching <\/em>such “commandments of men<\/em>” are DOING so fruitlessly <\/em>and with a sense of folly <\/em>from the Master’s perspective. We should NOT however limit Jesus’ words to the primary teacher <\/em>only as whatsoever we DO learn we DO make a part of our own psyche and then, for many, the ideas ARE repeated to others. From this perspective we should see the that idea of both teacher <\/em>and follower idea IS implied in the words but this IS NOT understood by the church which believes the words ARE mean ONLY for the Jews. This brings us to the Greek word mataiotes <\/em>which IS used in a different context and as a noun rather than an adverb. Mataiotes <\/em>IS defined by Strong’s as: inutility; figuratively, transientness; morally, depravity:\u2014vanity<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. Inutility <\/em>IS uselessness<\/em>* according to today’s dictionary and this idea IS easily related to fruitlessness <\/em>and folly<\/em> while the ‘moral<\/em>‘ idea of depravity <\/em>brings us ever deeper into error and which IS NOT covered by the context above where the idea of being created <\/em>in vanity <\/em>IS at the hand of the Lord. While folly <\/em>and fruitlessness <\/em>can be easily applied to the ideas covered by maten<\/em>, this IS NOT the whole story as these ARE but carnal effects of following the “commandments of men<\/em>“. For a better perspective we go to Vincent who DOES NOT write regarding maten <\/em>but DOES write regarding mataiotes<\/em> and DOES so in a more spiritual tone. Before we go into Vincent’s words on vanity <\/em>from mataiotes<\/em> however, we should look at the compete idea offered by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. Paul tells us that “the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in Vincent tells us that this vanity, this mataiotes<\/em> IS: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup> and if we apply this defining idea to maten <\/em>as well, we can then have a much better realization <\/strong><\/em>of just what the Master means in telling us that our worship <\/em>IS vain<\/em>. The idea of “in vain do they worship me<\/em>” takes on a whole new meaning when related to Vincent’s words. We should try to see here that to vainly worship <\/em>the Lord IS a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup> in the same way IS as our very birth into this world IS. We ARE born as humans, separated from God<\/em> and, until our awakening <\/em>to the Truth, we ARE pursuing false ends<\/em> and, from a spiritual perspective this IS a perishable and decaying condition<\/em>. It IS this condition that we then amplify by following in and teaching to others our doctrines under the guise of Truth. This IS a process that goes on ad infinitum as generation after generation adhere to doctrines rather that the Truth of the Master’s words, a process that worsens as new doctrinal ideas ARE introduced as Truth. It IS ALL this that the Truly spiritually minded man must fight against as he turns his focus<\/em> from the things of the self to the things of God. This brings us back to agape<\/em> which IS our singular tool in this struggle and our Way to keep His words<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We must remember here that our expression <\/strong><\/em>of True agape<\/em> as the singular Way to the Lord, to the Kingdom and to having the realization <\/em><\/strong>of His Presence in our lives begins with our Repentance<\/em><\/strong>. As we have ofttimes discussed, this IS yet another word that IS misused and misrepresented in both the church and in secular society; this IS another word that relies upon the common understanding of the idea rather than its spiritual import. Today the idea of Repentance <\/em><\/strong>IS limited to such things as: deep sorrow, compunction, or contrition for a past sin, wrongdoing, or the like<\/em> and regret for any past action<\/em>* as our dictionary defines the word. Repentance <\/em><\/strong>from a biblical perspective IS much more than this however; it IS the KEY to our willing expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape <\/em>to ALL. Repentance<\/em><\/strong> IS our decision, our firm decision, to change our lives and to take our focus <\/em>off of the self and the things of the self and to put that focus <\/em>upon the things of God. It IS with this in mind that the Master’s first admonition to men IS that should “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/em>” (Matthew 4:17). This follows upon the admonitions of John the Baptist who earlier tells those that come to him to “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/em>” (Matthew 3:2) and precedes the dictates of the Master to His disciples as they reach out on their as “they went out, and preached that men should repent<\/em>” (Mark 6:12). Neither the Baptist, the Master nor His disciples use this word Repent <\/strong><\/em>to tell men that they should be sorrowful or remorseful for whatsoever they may have done. Although there ARE uses of this word biblically that DO imply sorrow<\/em>, this IS NOT the case in the Master’s admonition to us but this idea of sorrow and remorse may fall under the idea that men can and DO revert again. For our purposes we again go to Vincent who tells that: Repentance, then, has been rightly defined as “Such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice.” Sorrow is not, as is popularly conceived, the primary nor the prominent notion of the word<\/em> 4<\/sup>. This IS the reality of Repentance <\/em><\/strong>as the word IS used in the sayings above. The idea IS virtuous change in the life and practice<\/em> but yet more as it involves the decision to DO so. For us then the idea of Repentance <\/strong><\/em>IS the decision to change, virtuous change in the life and practice<\/em> to be sure, and to move the focus <\/em>of our lives off of the self and the things of the world and to place that focus <\/em>firmly on the things of God and here, the singular idea IS our \n
hope<\/s> Because<\/s> expectation that,<\/em> 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n