\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these<\/em>” (Mark 12:29-31). <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape<\/em> which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n We ended the last essay with some thoughts on the Power of agape <\/em>as it seen in a spiritual sense, in a sense that it can accomplish for men the totality of their ‘duty<\/em>‘ as Souls incarnate on this Earth. The idea of duty <\/em>IS NOT an alien concept in Christianity although we believe that most Christians DO NOT understand the concept. It IS shown to us by the Master who tells us that “when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do<\/em>“. These words ARE at the end of the Parable of the Master and Servant which IS told to us in order to make the point that we DO have a duty <\/em>and that we should, as men who Truly seek the Kingdom, exceed it. While the word rendered as duty <\/em>here IS one that refers us to debt<\/em> 2<\/sup>, the idea of duty <\/em>IS the more general rendering used by translators and this perhaps because the idea of the parable IS found in being unprofitable<\/em>. The parable tells us “which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do<\/em>” (Luke 17:7-10). The idea here IS responsibility; namely the responsibility of the man to DO more that merely say “Lord, Lord<\/em>” but to actually DO according to Jesus’ rhetorical question that asks “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?<\/em>” (Luke 6:46). The Apostle Paul broaches the same subject saying “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God<\/em>” (Romans 12:1-2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n That Paul uses a different Greek word that IS rendered as service<\/em>, “reasonable service<\/em>” to be clear, the idea IS the same as that which Jesus IS showing us in duty<\/em>. Jesus instructs us to DO more than IS required and perhaps required IS the better word for our understanding; first of discipleship and second of the importance of relinquishing our focus <\/em>upon our little lives to create what the apostle calls “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God<\/em>“. And we should NOT be fooled here. We should understand that what IS “holy, acceptable unto God<\/em>” IS NOT defined by men and their doctrines but by the True commandments of the Lord chief among which IS His commandment that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have spent much time and many words discussing in broad terms what it means to “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” and while this IS a question that has been asked for more than 2000 years, there has NOT been a suitable answer propounded by the church. Much of the reason for this IS the confusion that IS found in understanding the Greek word agape <\/em>simply as Love rather than as the Truly spiritual idea that it IS. We have discussed the reality that it IS impossible to Love ALL men as that word IS understood both in and out of the churches. We have discussed the idea that this agape <\/em>CAN NOT be equated with our emotional and mental attraction and attachment to others and to the things of this world. And, while the Master and His apostles give us numerous ideas by which we can understand agape<\/em>, NONE have been translated into the right action of men that would qualify as our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape <\/em>to ALL and with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9). The whole idea that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” has become but a trite adage that IS recited by many and understood by very few. It IS defining the idea of agape <\/em>that IS a major part of our effort in writing this blog and we have put forth some True ideas for our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em> based upon the words of the Master and His apostles. It IS this that we will DO again and again as we ourselves come to better understand the concept and pass our understanding along to others. As we most always DO we must begin with saying that the idea of agape <\/em>should NOT be attached to the English word Love nor to most any affiliated word in other languages. Agape<\/em> IS NOT Love as that idea IS commonly understood and, most importantly, agape <\/em>IS NOT as the idea IS defined in our lexicons and bible commentaries. We begin again with an analysis of the defining ideas presented by the lexicons, commentaries, and dictionaries with our own commentary attached to each:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Testament Greek Lexicon IS what we generally call the lexicon; per the Bible Study Tools website, the Greek Lexicon that we use IS based on Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary plus others and IS keyed to Kittels and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 2<\/sup>. From this we should try to see that Christian theological doctrines play a large part in the ideas that we get from our lexicon. While we often cite the idea that the majority of the entries ARE tied to Thayer’s commentaries, we should see from above that there ARE other sources as well. We use the lexicon pages to show their defining ideas as well as for our source of the ways and the frequency that a Greek or Hebrew word IS used in the King James Bible. For example the Greek word agapao<\/em>, the verb form of agape<\/em>, IS rendered in the King James Bible as Love, 135 times, and as beloved seven times. We also get from the lexicon information regarding the etymology of the Greek words as well as the Strong’s number plus a list of where the word IS used and the frequency of its use; we also get access to various commentators verse by verse. We also use the Blue Letter Bible website for a deeper dive into the word ideas on which we write. The Blue Letter Bible offers us much the same general defining ideas as what we call the lexicon but also gives us the actual definitions developed by Strong’s, Thayer’s and Vines. Also, in place of a list of the ways and the frequency that a Greek or Hebrew word IS used, The Blue Letter Bible shows us the actual verses in which the Greek words ARE used which then link to the chapter. With this information on sources stated, lets begin with the Greek word agapao<\/em>, the verb form of agape<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Agapao <\/em>IS defined in the lexicon as: of persons: to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly and of things: to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing<\/em> 2<\/sup>. None of these defining ideas has aught to DO with the reality of agape <\/em>as the idea IS shown to us in the words of the Master and His apostles. Strong’s tells us that the idea of agapao <\/em>IS: perhaps from \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u00e1gan (much) (or compare H5689); to love (in a social or moral sense)<\/em>9a<\/sup>. We should note that the etymology of agapao<\/em> IS NOT clear and that the defining ideas again have little to DO with the reality of what agapao <\/em>actually means. Strong’s suggests we compare the idea to the Hebrew word \u02bf\u0101\u1e21a\u1e07<\/em> which the lexicon defines as: Qal) to have inordinate affection or lust<\/em> 9a<\/sup>; this, again, has naught to DO with the reality of agape<\/em> but DOES offer us some insight into some of the defining ideas used against the Greek word. For the Hebrew word Strong’s offers that it IS: a primitive root; to breathe after, i.e. to love (sensually)<\/em>. Thayer’s, which most always gives us a more lengthy definition tells us that agapao <\/em>IS: of persons: to love, to be full of good-will and exhibit the same: Luke 7:47; 1 John 4:7f; with the accusative of the person, to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of <\/em>9<\/sup>. In this defining idea we DO have some definitions that DO approach the meaning of agape<\/em>; first it IS to Love<\/em>, defining it as a verb, and to be full of good-will and exhibit the same<\/em>. These ideas DO show us some of the reality of agape <\/em>which ARE oddly left out of the lexicon which uses Thayer as a source. After a long discussion on the use of agapao <\/em>in different verses, Thayer’s shows us the idea of the word when it IS use of things. Here Thayer’s tells us that agapao <\/em>IS: to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it<\/em> which idea IS a picture of the carnal ideas of Love and NOT the reality of agapao<\/em>. From our perspective this idea IS fully misplaced when viewed against some of the examples that Thayer’s offers. For example they cite the Master’s words saying “Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets<\/em>” (Luke 11:43) but this idea IS being misunderstood from the perspective of agape<\/em>. Here we should try to see that the Pharisees ARE holding such things as “the uppermost seats<\/em>” in a position that should be held ONLY for the Lord and for the neighbor <\/em>and while they may take pleasure in the thing<\/em> the Master IS NOT showing us a definition of agapao <\/em>but rather the antithesis of the idea as they Loved other things than the Lord and their fellow man. Can we see the point here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Agape <\/em>IS the noun form of the word and the form that we use in our blog as both the verb and the noun in most instances. Agape <\/em>IS defined by the lexicon as: brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence<\/em> and then as love feasts<\/em> 2<\/sup>. While the lexicon DOES add the ideas of good will<\/em>, and benevolence<\/em>, KEY words in the reality of agape<\/em>, they leave these at the end after the more carnal ideas of brotherly love<\/em> and affection<\/em> and seemingly without understanding the importance of GoodWill and benevolence <\/em>as these relate to ALL men with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9). The lexicon also defines agape<\/em> as Love and in this we should see the singular idea that has been taken from this list as the defining idea of agape<\/em>. Unfortunately, when we see this through the defining ideas for agapao<\/em>, we DO get the carnal shift of the whole idea of agape<\/em>. Other commentaries and definitions show us this idea more vividly. Strong’s defines agape <\/em>simply as love9a<\/sup><\/em> before adding i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast<\/em> as examples of the idea. This IS again a source of the carnal ideas attached to agape <\/em>through the common ideas of Love and while they DO add benevolence<\/em>, they DO so without reference to the reality of what benevolence <\/em>IS meant to be. Today’s dictionary DOES properly define benevolence <\/em>as: desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one’s fellow creatures<\/em> which seems Universal but such ideas ARE NOT generally included in the idea of Love. While this IS similar to the definition of benevolence <\/em>from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary where we read: The disposition to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness; the love,of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote their happiness<\/em>1<\/sup>, the idea seems to have been taken over by the secondary definition of: An act of kindness; good done; charity given<\/em> 1<\/sup>. It IS when our benevolence <\/em>IS a state of mind that we can approach the primary definition, otherwise the fate of the idea remains much the same as the ideas attached to mercy <\/em>which ARE far removed from being a state of mind. We should remember here that for something to be a state of mind it must ‘creep’ into our deepest consciousness and the Way of this IS shown us by Paul who tells us “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God<\/em>” (Romans 12:2). It IS in this renewing that the reality of agape <\/em>flows from the Soul to our carnal minds and it IS agape <\/em>that IS the primary motivator of “the renewing of your mind<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Strong’s simply defines agape <\/em>using the word Love along with their examples of affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast<\/em>, Thayer’s takes us a bit further toward understanding the gist of the Greek word and its meaning. We should remember that the lexicon ideas above ARE from Thayer’s defining commentary but these ARE NOT the complete idea as framed by Thayer’s which begins their commentary with the idea that agape<\/em>, as a word, IS: a purely Biblical and ecclesiastical word<\/em>9<\/sup>. Then, after some analysis of the historical usages of the idea and the frequency with which this form of the word IS found in the New Testament, they highlight the ideas we read above from the lexicon. Thayer’s goes on to cite individual uses of the word as they apply to Love; \u00a0the love of men to men, the love of men toward God, the love of God toward men<\/em>, and the love of Christ toward men<\/em>. They go on to show us the use of agape <\/em>in the idea that it IS: love which embraces the truth<\/em> and finally they add the greatest reality of the idea from the Apostle John saying that “God is To begin, agape <\/em>IS a frame of mind, a frame of one’s renewed <\/em>mind to be more accurate. This renewal <\/em>IS as Paul shows us; this renewal <\/em>IS the result of our turning away from our conformity <\/em>to the things of the world and setting our focus <\/em>upon the things of God and, while millions claim to have DONE this through their doctrinal allegiances, this IS but a part of their deception<\/em><\/strong>. In adopting agape<\/em> as one’s state of mind one IS essentially keeping His words<\/em>. This IS according to Paul’s words saying “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” (Galatians 5:14). There ARE some that will dispute that the fulfilling the law<\/em> and keeping His words<\/em> ARE synonymous but this IS a false division<\/strong>. The Greek word nomos <\/em>that IS rendered here as law has specific meanings that draw for us the reality that to keep the law, fulfill <\/em>it if you will, IS to keep His words<\/em>. The lexicon tells us that nomos <\/em>IS: anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command….any law whatsoever: a law or rule producing a state approved of God; the observance of which is approved of God: a precept or injunction and the rule of action prescribed by reason<\/em>; the lexicon then adds: the Mosaic law, and referring, acc. to the context. either to the volume of the law or to its contents<\/em> 2<\/sup>. ALL of this IS covered by nomos <\/em>and, to be sure, the words of the Master fit squarely into this definition. The lexicon goes on however to also tell us that nomos<\/em>, the law, IS: the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, esp. the precept concerning love<\/em> 2<\/sup>. There should be NO mistake here; the idea that “all the law is fulfilled<\/em>” includes the totality of the words of the Master and here we add with the lexicon authors: especially the precept concerning love<\/em> which IS of course agape<\/em>. When Paul tells us then that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“, this must be understood to include ALL that the Master offered us in His brief time with us 2000 years ago. The reality then IS that we must develop a state of mind that expresses <\/strong>agape <\/em>to ALL and while this IS NO easy feat, it IS far more appropriate that trying to follow the dictates of the laws and commandments given us from Moses, the prophets and the Master. Nowhere in this scenario however DO we find that following the dictates of doctrines IS the way; in fact, we find just the opposite as Jesus tells us that “in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Mark 7:7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This IS, from our perspective the beginning of the deception <\/strong><\/em>of men: that they ARE told by men who have assumed authority in the church that it IS the doctrines, “the commandments of men<\/em>” that they should follow. And this deception <\/em><\/strong>IS ofttimes severe as it makes one’s state of mind allegiant to the dictates of the church, “the commandments of men<\/em>” to be sure, rather that the often clearly expressed words of the Master and His apostles. The Apostle James shows us this deception <\/em><\/strong>saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves<\/em>” (James 1:22). We should understand here that while we lay the cause of doctrinal failure on the dictates of those who have assumed authority over the spiritual lives of the masses, in the end the reality IS that men ARE “deceiving your own selves<\/em>“. The “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”<\/em> ARE the major cause of our deception <\/em><\/strong>but we DO have, most ALL of us, access to the Truth of the Master’s words which we choose to interpret into the same dictates that ARE “the commandments of men”<\/em>. Most ALL look past the words of the Master and concentrate on the promise of ‘salvation<\/em>‘ offered by the churches, a promise that has been built upon by men for centuries and which IS based solely on the authority given the church by men. In the end we should try to see how that for the Jews and for the Christians their acceptance of doctrines in place of Truth IS a part of being “conformed to this world<\/em>“. And, because this IS surely a bitter pill for men to swallow, doctrinally religious men, this whole idea IS a hard sell; it IS difficult for men to believe that they have been misled by their own doctrines and that they ARE among those that ARE “conformed to this world<\/em>“. There IS however much logic in this that can be understood by those that sincerely try to break out of their conformity<\/em>. The state of mind of the vast majority of men both in and out of the churches and in every religion IS a carnal one as men continually choose to focus <\/em>upon their little lives, ever seeking betterment. And there IS NO end to this; with every achievement there comes a desire <\/em>for more; more money, more status, a better house, a more successful career and the list goes on ad infinitum. The state of mind for most ALL men then IS carnal and NOT spiritual and therefore their state of mind IS NOT agape<\/em>. How then DO we change this dynamic? How do we de-emphasize our carnal state of mind and begin to see through the eyes of agape <\/em>Love? In the end this IS what we need to DO however if we ARE to honestly say to ourselves that we DO keep His words<\/em> and bear the fruit <\/em>of DOING so for the world to see. And most ALL of this fruit <\/em>IS seen through our state of mind, our attitudes if you will, and the major aspects of this fruit <\/em>ARE found in our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which we repeat here saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us look at the Master’s words of our trifecta<\/strong><\/em> from another perspective today, let us change the KEY words that concern keeping His words<\/em> to words that convey our expression<\/em><\/strong> of agape<\/em>. The first part of our trifecta <\/em><\/strong>IS a call to followers that tells us that if we want to KNOW the Truth, and here spiritual Truth IS the subject, we must abide<\/em> in His words. Using abide <\/em>in place of continue IS an idea we have previously discussed; the Greek word here IS meno <\/em>which IS defined as: a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy)<\/em>9a<\/sup> by Strong’s. Abide <\/em>IS the King James rendering in more than half the appearances of meno <\/em>in the New Testament. While we see the primary reward<\/em> here as the Truth, the promises also include True discipleship and some idea of freedom <\/em>and both of these ‘secondary’ rewards <\/em>ARE embodied in the primary idea. Without the Truth there can be NO discipleship nor the freedom <\/em>that the Truth brings to the lives of men. Our rephrasing here IS based in the way that Paul equates keeping His words<\/em> with our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape <\/em>and from this we can say that the Master’s intent IS to say that “If ye love<\/s> agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16). We should try to see that ALL of these ideas would be better served if the word agape <\/em>was used in place of Strong’s simple definition that agape <\/em>IS Love. Finally they tell us about the idea of love-feast<\/em>s which IS rendered from the plural agapae<\/em>. The idea of love-feast<\/em>s IS created by the church based upon a single verse from the epistle known as Jude. The idea IS framed in the King James Bible as “These are spots in your feasts of charity<\/em>” (Jude 1:12) and as “love feasts<\/em>” by most other translations; it has been adopted as a term for: a communal meal shared by Christians as a sign of fellowship and love<\/em> 7<\/sup> as Google’s AI cites the ideas. The idea IS a creation of men and IS NOT a Truly scriptural term yet it finds its way into the definitions of agape <\/em>given by many. In fact, the whole idea of the phrase “feasts of charity<\/em>” IS derived from the word agape<\/em>. As we continue to discover the deeper meanings of agape<\/em>, we will look past this aspect of the use of the word and concentrate upon the uses that depict its strong spiritual affiliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
continue in my word<\/s> abide in my agape and express it to ALL men, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free<\/em>“. To reinforce our view we look at another of Jesus’ sayings; we read “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit<\/em>” (John 15:5). In this fruit <\/em>IS our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>and our state of discipleship. We must remember here that “