{"id":19871,"date":"2025-06-04T15:58:56","date_gmt":"2025-06-04T21:58:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/?p=19871"},"modified":"2025-06-04T15:58:56","modified_gmt":"2025-06-04T21:58:56","slug":"in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1909","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/2025\/06\/04\/in-the-words-of-jesus-part-1909\/","title":{"rendered":"IN THE WORDS OF JESUS\u2013Part 1909"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

ON LOVE; PART MDXVIII<\/h2>\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

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 began and ended the last essay with some thoughts on the idea of purity<\/em>. We began with the words of the Buddha from the Dhammapada section on choices <\/em>saying that “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world. Speak or act with a pure mind And happiness will follow you As your shadow, unshakable<\/em>“***. From here we tried to discuss and understand the idea of purity <\/em>and how that being pure <\/em>IS more than a virtue, that it IS a choice<\/em>. We tried to define the idea of being pure <\/em>away from the doctrinal ideas that revolve around chastity and other seemingly moral doctrinal concepts that result in the idea of one who IS pure <\/em>being robed in white. Our accepted definition of purity <\/em>from our modern dictionary IS that it IS: the condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.<\/em>* and in this ending phrase we have the whole of the idea regarding our spiritual lives. It IS our spiritual well being that IS debased<\/em>, contaminated <\/em>and polluted <\/em>by the ways of the world into which we ARE nurtured and indoctrinated and this continues until one makes a choice <\/em>to free <\/em>himself from his focus <\/em>on the self and the things of the self. This IS much in line with the idea offered by the Apostle Paul who tells us that “the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope<\/s> Because<\/s> expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered<\/s> made free from from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>” (Romans 8:20-21). In these words IS the origin and the goal of the entire human family and we should understand that while this goal IS an individual one, it IS at the same time the goal of the race. Vanity <\/em>IS our condition of Life in this world as we ARE born as Souls into personalities that may or may NOT readily allow us to radically change our focus<\/em>. However, we should ever understand that because ALL IS choices<\/em>, and that even those whose proclivity IS NOT toward Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and Transformation <\/strong><\/em>can be awakened <\/em>to the Truth and the agape <\/em>Love that ever pours forth from the Soul. In the end we should see that Paul’s words on our freedom <\/em>ARE the essence of True salvation <\/em>and his words ARE in a way the prediction of the Godhead: that ALL will be “delivered<\/s> made free from from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>“. From this we went on to discuss the words of the Apostle James that show us how that our choices <\/em>ARE motivated by our temptations<\/em>; we should try to understand that such temptations <\/em>can be either good or bad when viewed spiritually as men ARE motivated by thoughts, temptations <\/em>if you will, to express <\/strong><\/em>the agape <\/em>and Truth that one may sense through the prompting of his own Soul. James however IS NOT speaking of the good temptations <\/em>as he cautions men saying such things as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning<\/em>” (James 1:12-17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this more expanded view of the apostle’s words we should see the very nature of Life in this world, the very nature of our lives in vanity<\/em>, as well as the promise that we can be “made free from from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>“. These ARE the two ideas that James IS presenting; first for “the man that endureth temptation<\/em>” and then for the man that “is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed<\/em>“. For the first, for the man who can “Resist the devil<\/em>” (James 4:7) which IS framed here as he “that endureth temptation<\/em>“, the reward <\/em>IS purely spiritual; it IS “the crown of life<\/em>” and we should understand that this IS NOT a kingly crown<\/em>. Vincent explains this saying that the Greek word here, stephanos, <\/em>IS: From stefw, to put round, encircle. It is the crown of victory in the games; of military valor; the marriage wreath, or the festal garland, woven of leaves or made of gold in imitation of leaves. Thus it is distinguished from the royal crown, which is diadhma, of which diadem is a transcript. In Paul, stefanov is always used of the conqueror’s crown, not of the king’s<\/em> 4<\/sup>. This conqueror’s <\/em>crown IS the reward <\/em>then to him “that endureth temptation<\/em>” while the fate of those who ARE “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed<\/em>” IS shown us as one’s falling yet deeper into vanity<\/em>. And we should be clear as to what this vanity <\/em>IS; Vincent shows us that our vanity <\/em>IS: a perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends.<\/em> James’ ending here IS one of the most basic yet most misunderstood ideas of the entire New Testament and one which the apostle goes to great lengths to explain. We should understand that to think that the objects of our lusts <\/em>and desires<\/em>, not intended in a sexual sense but rather our desires <\/em>for the things of the world, can come to us from the Godhead IS a most basic error of Christianity. Here James tells us “Do not err<\/em>“; he tells us the nature of the ‘gifts<\/em>‘ that can and DO come from the Godhead defining these as “Every good gift and every perfect gift<\/em>” and we should understand that these DO NOT include our carnal wishes. The apostle frames this for us later saying that such desires<\/em>, even when conveyed in prayer, ARE those things that we “receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts<\/em>“. It IS our acceding to our carnal temptations <\/em>that James IS warning us against and while much of his epistle goes on to explain this, the idea IS brought home by his telling us “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God<\/em>” (James 4:3, 4). In these words we should be able to clearly see the dichotomy between the things of God and the things of this world and understand that the Lord has NO part in what IS happening in our little lives save for when we DO accede to the promptings of our own Souls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we began to discuss in the last essay, much of this comes down to wisdom <\/em>versus Wisdom and here the separation IS the same; the wisdom <\/em>that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish<\/em>” IS “of the world<\/em>” and “is enmity with God<\/em>“. Conversely, “the wisdom that is from above<\/em>” IS in accord with the precepts of the Lord that ARE the message of the New Testament. This difference IS also shown us by the Master who, in His Parable of the Unjust Steward says “the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light<\/em>” (Luke 16:8). We should understand here that the Greek word genea <\/em>which IS rendered here as generation <\/em>can be misleading; it refers more to the time in which “the children of this world<\/em>” ARE living and reflects upon the idea of changing times. The wisdom<\/em> of “the children of this world<\/em>” today IS much different than the wisdom <\/em>of those in the parable but in every generation<\/em> they should be understood as being “wiser than the children of light<\/em>” in regard to the ways of the world and the wisdom garnered therin. In the end we should try to understand that those who DO possess some measure <\/em>of “the wisdom that is from above<\/em>” may also have, through past experience, some understanding of that wisdom <\/em>that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish<\/em>“. It IS this wisdom <\/em>that we must come to ignore because its purpose IS to enhance the Life of the man in this world, to fulfill his lusts <\/em>and desires <\/em>for better and for more much like the “unjust steward<\/em>” of the parable. It IS “the wisdom that is from above<\/em>” that IS the desire <\/em>of the man who Truly seeks the Lord and here we should repeat James’ words before we go on to better define his terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace<\/em>” (James 3:13-18).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having already discussed our thoughts regarding the wisdom <\/em>that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish<\/em>” we begin here again with the first aspect of “the wisdom that is from above<\/em>” which IS that it IS pure<\/em>. First however we should be reminded that as the rendering of the Greek words zelos <\/em>and eritheia <\/em>into envying <\/em>and strife <\/em>ARE NOT accurate translations of the apostle’s intent, so too will we find many of the words defining spiritual Wisdom similarly lacking. While we begin with the idea of pure <\/em>from the Greek word hagnos<\/em>, the modifying word first <\/em>must also be considered as it has greater implications than just the number in James’ list. The Greek word proton <\/em>which IS rendered as first <\/em>DOES indeed mean that numerical idea but we should also see the defining idea offered by Strong’s saying that the word means: firstly (in time, place, order, or importance)<\/em>9a<\/sup>. Thayer’s seems to narrow the idea by referring directly to this verse and saying that the meaning IS: first, at the first<\/em> adding in enumerating several particulars; first, then, etc.<\/em>9<\/sup>. Taking Strong’s use of the idea of importance <\/em>we look to Vincent who explains that the idea IS: First. Emphasizing its inner quality, pure, as distinguished from its outward expressions. The idea is not first numerically, but first essentially. The other qualities are secondary as outgrowths of this primary quality<\/em>4<\/sup>. Considering that purity <\/em>IS the primary idea to be attached to this Wisdom, we should understand here just what this purity <\/em>IS. In the last essay we looked at this idea of purity <\/em>from the perspective of the Buddha’s words from the Dhammapada which we repeat in part above. We centered on the dictionary’s view of the idea which tells us purity <\/em>IS: the condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.<\/em>* and while this IS a True identification of the idea of pure<\/em>, we need also to look at the Greek word hagnos<\/em>. We said in the last essay that this Greek word and the Greek word hagios <\/em>ARE adjectives derived from the word hagos <\/em>which IS NOT used but and IS defined as an awful thing<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. While hagios <\/em>IS rendered mostly to identify things holy <\/em>and saints <\/em>under the defining idea that the word means: most holy thing, a saint<\/em>2<\/sup>, this IS NOT the way that the rendered words ARE understood. Hagios, most holy thing<\/em>, and a saint<\/em> ARE NOT the simple ideas used in the churches that call ALL members saints <\/em>and confer the idea of holy <\/em>on ALL that proclaim their Christianity; these ideas ARE intended to represent the highest degrees discipleship which idea, while also minimized by the church, IS governed by its own list of criteria as outlined by the Master.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What then do we take from James’ inclusion of hagnos <\/em>as the lead ingredient in that “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“? Do we simply agree with the common ideas of the church regarding being holy<\/em>, being a saint <\/em>and being then a disciple of the Lord or DO we interject some measure <\/em>of the reality that James sees. To begin we should understand that hagnos <\/em>and hagios <\/em>ARE interrelated as both ARE adjectives from the Greek word hagos <\/em>which we describe above; the defining ideas of each ARE interconnected. Strong’s defines hagios<\/em> as: sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated)<\/em>9a<\/sup> and we should note here that the idea of being ceremonially, consecrated<\/em> goes back to the Old Testament and plays little role in our Christian understanding of the idea. Regarding hagnos <\/em>Strong’s tells us that the word IS: from the same as G40; properly, clean<\/em>9a<\/sup> where G40 <\/em>IS hagios<\/em>. The gist here seems to be that hagios <\/em>IS used to refer to the spiritual ideas of holiness<\/em>; it IS the modifying word in the phrases Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit and IS used in identifying the Master as “the Holy One of God<\/em>” (Luke 4:34). Hagnos <\/em>on the other hand seems to be used to identify persons and ideas that ARE hagios <\/em>as men in this world; we read this in such sayings as “keep thyself pure<\/em>” (1 Timothy 5:22) which idea IS from Paul’s instructions to Timothy. Hagnos <\/em>IS also used in reference to the Master; John tells us that “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure<\/em>” (1 John 3:3) and again we should see the more worldly effect of hagios <\/em>as it IS defined. Thayer’s offers us much the same idea adding in that hagios <\/em>IS: properly reverend, worthy of veneration<\/em> 9<\/sup> and that hagnos <\/em>IS: exciting reverence, venerable, sacred<\/em> 9<\/sup> and here we should see the same idea of cause and effect with hagios <\/em>stemming from the Soul and hagnos <\/em>being the effect of that flow into the Life of a man. Through this we should try to understand that both words, hagios <\/em>and hagnos<\/em>, ARE NOT simply ideas of purity <\/em>and although hagnos <\/em>IS used to reflect upon chastity<\/em>, this IS but a subpart of the word ideas that hints at the idea that chastity <\/em>itself IS spiritually derived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should remember here that we ARE NOT talking about persons in James words; we ARE talking about Wisdom and the qualities of that Wisdom which ARE transferred by measure <\/em>to the man who possess some measure <\/em>of this Wisdom which then influences his actions in this world. Here then the idea IS that such Wisdom IS holy<\/em>, venerable<\/em> and sacred<\/em> and it IS this quality that should be seen in one who possesses this Wisdom. In its fullness this aspect of Wisdom, being pure<\/em>, results in discipleship, while one’s possession of a measure <\/em>leaves one as an aspiriant to discipleship. We mentioned above that discipleship has its own criteria which IS outlined by the Master and we should note that aspirants will display some measure <\/em>of these ideas which ARE codified in the Master’s words. We read in our trifecta<\/strong><\/em>, which we neglected to include in the last essay, Jesus’ words saying “f ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free<\/em>\u201d\u00a0(John 8:31-32). Here we learn that to be a True disciple, a disciple indeed<\/em>, one must keep His words<\/em> and we should understand here that keeping His words<\/em> IS first an indicator of one’s purity<\/em> and second, it IS the Path to ALL things spiritual and to “the glorious liberty of the children of God<\/em>“. There ARE other criteria for discipleship which we have discussed at length in previous essays; today we will just summarize these into two ideas; first our focus <\/em>must be upon the things of God and NOT upon the things of the self; Jesus frames this as forsaking all<\/em> (Luke 14:33). The second criteria shown us by the Master IS that as we turn to the Lord we must deemphasize, if we can use that idea here, ALL other relationships that we have with the people and things of the world….we must leave them behind if you will (Luke 14:26). If we can understand that our purity <\/em>IS the gateway to discipleship and that the KEY IS found in keeping His words<\/em>, we will have DONE well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next aspect of that “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” listed in James’ words IS eirenikos<\/em> which IS rendered as peaceable<\/em>. The lexicon shows us Thayer’s defining ideas saying that eirenikos<\/em> IS: relating to peace; peaceable, pacific, loving peace; bring peace with it, peaceful, salutary<\/em> 2, 9<\/sup> while Strong’s tells us that the word IS: from G1515; pacific; by implication, salutary:\u2014peaceable<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. While the general idea of peace <\/em>IS between persons, groups, nations, etc., the idea here IS more expansive and IS perhaps best covered by pacific<\/em>. While the defining ideas for pacific <\/em>also seem to embrace ideas of peace <\/em>between nations, etc. there IS an added definition that says that pacific <\/em>IS calm <\/em>and tranquil<\/em>*. Peaceable<\/em>, as this IS rendered in the King James Bible seems to bypass these ideas; it IS defined as: inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile: a peaceable disposition<\/em>*. These surely ARE attributes of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” but, again,they lean toward the idea of peace <\/em>between persons, groups, nations, etc. and while the dictionary adds peaceful <\/em>and tranquil <\/em>as a secondary meaning, they ALL miss the idea an inner peace which would surely accompany the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. The Master shows us this idea of peace <\/em>in such sayings as “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace<\/em>” (Luke 7:50) and the more personal saying to His disciples that “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world<\/em>” (John 16:33). In these ideas it IS an inner peace <\/em>that IS implied and this idea IS amplified by Jesus’ saying “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid<\/em>” (John 14:27). Paul also adds to this view of peace <\/em>saying “let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful<\/em>” (Colossians 3:15) and here, as “the peace of God<\/em>” we can better understand what comes in that “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. None of the bible versions in our library render the idea in personal human terms and this perhaps because there IS NO single word to use other than peaceable<\/em>, peaceful <\/em>and “peace loving<\/em>” as most ALL render the idea of eirenikos<\/em>. We should try to see here that this aspect of Wisdom IS pacific<\/em>: that this Wisdom IS pacific<\/em>, it IS calm <\/em>and it IS tranquil <\/em>and that it brings these same qualities to the man who possess this “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next aspect of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” IS epieikes <\/em>which IS rendered as gentle<\/em>. While most ALL render this Greek word as gentle<\/em>, the idea fails to show us just what this characteristic of Wisdom Truly IS; gentle <\/em>seems to be a catch all used by many to try to elucidate the complexities of epiekes<\/em>. Strong’s tells us that epiekes<\/em> IS: from G1909 and G1503; appropriate, i.e. (by implication) mild:\u2014gentle, moderation, patient<\/em> 9a<\/sup>; none of these however shows us anything which we can use to understand James’ intent. Thayer’s offers us a greater understanding of the idea saying first that epiekes<\/em> IS: what is reasonable<\/em> then adding seemly <\/em>and suitable<\/em> before telling us that in its New Testament usage it refers to equitable, fair, mild, gentle<\/em>. Discounting the final ideas, we should try to see the value of the idea in its being reasonable<\/em>, seemly <\/em>and suitable <\/em>which better allow us to understand that this IS Wisdom that we ARE speaking of. We should note that in the King James Bible the word IS rendered as gentle<\/em>, patient <\/em>and as moderation<\/em> 2<\/sup> in its various uses. Vine’s offers us a very different look at the idea of epiekes<\/em> first linking it to forbear <\/em>and forbearance <\/em>where it is used as a noun with the article in Phl 4:5, and translated “forbearance” in the RV; AV, moderation, RV, marg., gentleness, sweet reasonableness<\/em> 9b<\/sup>. These ideas ARE NOT at ALL what we would see in rendering epiekes<\/em> as gentle<\/em>. Vine’s goes on to comment on the usage of epiekes<\/em> in our subject verse saying that it IS: from epi, “unto,” and eikos, “likely,” denotes “seemly, fitting;” hence, “equitable, fair, moderate, forbearing, not insisting on the letter of the law;” it expresses that considerateness that looks “humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case<\/em> 9b<\/sup>. Vine’s goes on to add that the idea of epiekes<\/em> IS rendered as: gentle, in association with meekness; in Jam 3:17, as a quality of the wisdom from above<\/em> 9b<\/sup>. Here we can presume that the reference to meekness <\/em>IS from the prior word idea of peaceable <\/em>which helps us here to better understand that word also. We should try to see that gentle<\/em>, while a good moral virtue, IS NOT necessarily an aspect of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” although the man with such Wisdom would act in such a way. From our perspective we see that it IS such ideas as forbearance<\/em>, fair <\/em>and even moderate <\/em>that should define epieikes <\/em>according to its usage here. These ideas better correspond with the ideas developed in the previous word which we can understand as this Wisdom, being pacific<\/em>, IS bringing into the Life of a man that inner peace <\/em>through which fear <\/em>IS destroyed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” then IS pure<\/em>, offering freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.<\/em>* and which in its fullness results in discipleship. It IS also peaceable<\/em>, offering the man who possesses it that sense of inner peace <\/em>to which the Master refers saying “Peace I leave with you<\/em>” which Paul calls “the peace of God<\/em>“. This Wisdom IS also gentle <\/em>which idea we should convert to ideas of forbearance<\/em>, fairness <\/em>and even moderation<\/em> as the man who possesses it would be forbearing <\/em>in ALL circumstances, meek <\/em>if you will, fair <\/em>to ALL with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9) and would conduct his Life in moderation<\/em>, as a moderating <\/em>influence his environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next word in James’ list IS rendered as the phrase “easy to be intreated<\/em>” which idea can become confusing. The Greek word here IS eupeithes<\/em> which IS found in the New Testament only this one time while one of its source words, peitho<\/em>, IS defined as: to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty)<\/em> 9a<\/sup> by Strong’s. The other source word, eu<\/em>, IS generally understood in terms of goodness <\/em>with Strong’s telling us that as a noun it means good <\/em>while as an adjective IS means well <\/em>9a<\/sup>. Through these background ideas Strong’s tells us that the combined word eupeithes <\/em>IS: good for persuasion<\/em> before adding an example of compliant<\/em>. Thayer’s takes the idea and defines it as: easily obeying, compliant<\/em> while showing that the King James Bible renders it as “easy to be intreated<\/em>” 9<\/sup>. Vine’s tells us that the idea IS: ready to obey<\/em> 9b<\/sup>. Since the main topic that uses this phrase IS the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“, many of these defining ideas seem nonsensical; Wisdom IS NOT ready to obey<\/em>, it IS NOT compliant<\/em> and while good for persuasion<\/em> may be a better fit, there IS still some confusion as to just what the apostle intends for us to understand. Vincent ONLY tells us that the word IS ONLY found once in the New Testament. To understand this in terms of Wisdom, we need to go back to the source word peitho<\/em>; Wisdom can convince <\/em>the possessor of the Truths that flow with it and here we should perhaps pay special attention to the final idea that in this entreatment <\/em>one can rely upon this Wisdom as Truth. We should perhaps try to see that the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” will be easily understood by the heretofore carnal mind and relied upon as Truth. While this DOES NOT distinguish the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” from that wisdom <\/em>that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish<\/em>“, a man can convince himself that anything IS True, the idea DOES help us when combined with the other aspects, qualities if you will, of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. Here then we can add to the list we compiled above the idea that the purity<\/em>, the peace<\/em>, and the fairness <\/em>that IS that Wisdom will also be easy to accept and understand by the man into whose Life this Wisdom flows. This IS a departure from the ideas developed in other translations which really CAN NOT be applied to Wisdom. Other translations have rendered the idea of eupeithes<\/em> in various ways from the idea that it means being submissive<\/em>, to reasonable<\/em>, to compliant<\/em>, and obedient<\/em>; others use phrases such as “willing to yield<\/em>“, “readily giving way in argument<\/em>” and “easy to be persuaded<\/em>“. None of these expresses the idea as well as “easy to be intreated<\/em>” and while that phrase may be confusing, it IS better than the others in revealing an idea which, we must remember, IS a quality of Wisdom and NOT of men. One translation, without any apparent etymological support, renders eupeithes<\/em> as benevolent <\/em>which idea DOES at least capture the idea that we ARE speaking about the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. In the end, we should try to understand the idea in such terms as that this Wisdom would be ‘easy to accept and understand by the man into whose Life this Wisdom flows<\/em>‘ despite the departure from the common doctrinal ideas which themselves ARE quite varied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

James next word idea IS a phrase; the Greek words used are “mestos eleos<\/em>” which IS rendered “full of mercy<\/em>“. We should remember here that the idea of mercy <\/em>as a rendered word from eleos <\/em>and its derivatives IS NOT ONLY as the idea IS commonly understood; this IS a very important point. As we have previously discussed the idea of the Greek word as well as the rendered English word ARE misrepresented in both bible and secular dictionaries. The lexicon tells us that eleos <\/em>means: kindness or good will towards the miserable and the afflicted, joined with a desire to help them<\/em> 2<\/sup> while today’s secular dictionary offers us that mercy <\/em>IS: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power; compassion, pity, or benevolence<\/em>*. While markedly different both DO show us a purely carnal idea as the main defining idea before showing us: the mercy of God towards men<\/em> and the mercy of Christ<\/em> 2<\/sup> in the lexicon and the idea that mercy <\/em>IS: something that gives evidence of divine favor<\/em>* in our dictionary. None of these ideas come close to the reality of eleos <\/em>as it IS presented to us by James, as a quality of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. To be sure the ideas from the lexicon and the dictionary DO show us a carnal idea of mercy <\/em>but this IS NOT what we need to understand from James’ words nor the words of the Master and His apostles as they explain the idea in the gospels and the epistles. Strong’s simply tells us that eleos <\/em>IS: compassion (human or divine, especially active)<\/em> 9a<\/sup> and while we agree with the idea of its being active <\/em>both in human and divine expression<\/strong><\/em>, we DO NOT agree with the general idea that eleos <\/em>IS compassion<\/em>, especially as that word IS understood today. Thayer’s 9<\/sup> seems to be the source for the defining ideas from the lexicon while Vincent appears to be in agreement saying of eleos <\/em>that: The word emphasizes the misery with which grace deals; hence, peculiarly the sense of human wretchedness coupled with the impulse to relieve it<\/em>4<\/sup>. None of this reaches the necessary level for understanding just what mercy <\/em>IS and most ideas offered ARE in accord with the various Christian doctrines. It should be noted also that NONE of these ideas have any bearing on the idea of mercy <\/em>as a quality of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. We have cited our understanding of eleos <\/em>and the rendered word mercy <\/em>several times over the course of our writing; for us mercy <\/em>IS our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>Love in this world, an expression <\/strong><\/em>which would go out to the miserable and the afflicted<\/em> but also so much more. Our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>, when it IS truly our expression<\/strong><\/em>, goes out to ALL; the miserable and the afflicted<\/em> would form but a small part of the objective of our expression<\/em><\/strong> which must go out to ALL with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9). In this the miserable and the afflicted<\/em> would share equally our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>and here we should be reminded of the Great Commandment that tells us to “love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should remember here that the idea of mercy <\/em>as a quality of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” has a modifier that IS of much importance and that IS the Greek word mestos <\/em>which IS rendered as full<\/em>. This word, mestos<\/em>, IS used by the Master to say that one IS “full of hypocrisy and iniquity<\/em>” (Matthew 23:28) and by Paul saying that one can be “full\u00a0<\/sup>of envy<\/em>” (Romans 1:29) and “full of goodness<\/em>“. To understand the dynamic here we should note that the dictionary definition of full <\/em>IS: completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity<\/em>. This should define for us the idea of mercy <\/em>as it relates to the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“; we should try to see here that such Wisdom IS full of agape <\/em>Love and so too would be our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>. The lexicon defines the idea of mestos <\/em>saying: in reference to persons, whose minds are as it were filled with thoughts and emotions, either good or bad<\/em> 2<\/sup>. While this modifying word IS applied directly to James idea of mercy <\/em>as a quality of Wisdom, it should also be applied to our next phrase which IS rendered as “good fruits<\/em>” and which we should understand as full <\/em>of “good fruits<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What ARE “good fruits<\/em>“? In spiritual terms “good fruits<\/em>” ARE a token of our accomplishments as men seeking the Lord. The idea of “good fruits<\/em>” IS used by the Master to show forth such accomplishments; Jesus tells us that “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven<\/em>” (Matthew 5:16). While the word karpos <\/em>which IS rendered as fruit <\/em>DOES NOT appear here we should be able to see it through its definition. Karpos <\/em>IS defined by Thayer’s saying that: Metaphorically, that which originates or comes from something; an effect, result; equivalent to \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, work, act, deed<\/em> 9<\/sup> and here we should understand the idea through such sayings of ‘the fruit <\/em>of one’s labor’. The idea IS more directly used to show us how to differentiate between the Teacher of Truth and the false <\/em>teacher which IS shown us as the “false prophet<\/em>” in Jesus’ words saying “Beware* of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits<\/em>” (Matthew 7:15:16). Here the idea of “good fruits<\/em>” would come from the True prophet, the True teacher. Paul helps our understanding of the link between “good works<\/em>” and “good fruits<\/em>” saying “that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God<\/em>” (Colossians 1:10). Finally we cite Paul’s words to the Ephesians saying “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:10). We should try to understand that “good works<\/em>” and “good fruits<\/em>” ARE kindred ideas with both showing, through the idea of good<\/em>, that such works <\/em>and fruits <\/em>ARE Godly and ARE integral part of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>“. In the end we should see that the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” IS full <\/em>of these “good fruits<\/em>“; this Wisdom then IS completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity<\/em> with “good fruits<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last two aspects of the “wisdom that is from above<\/em>” ARE NOT what IS included in this Wisdom but rather reflect on what IS NOT a part of that Wisdom and then NOT a part of our expression <\/strong><\/em>of the qualities of that Wisdom. We will continue with these negative ideas of partiality <\/em>and hypocrisy <\/em>in the next post but we should note here that their absence in our expression <\/strong><\/em>IS directly dependent on the inclusion of the others. We close today with our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which again DID NOT make it into our discussion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n