<\/em>\u0391\u03a9<\/em>\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<\/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 In the last essay we continued our discussion of the Beatitudes as part of our overall discussion of the entire Sermon on the Mount. We concluded our discussion of the fifth Beatitude concerning mercy <\/em>with the general idea that those that keep His words<\/em> ARE His disciples and perhaps here we can try to see that the Presence of the Lord in the Life of the disciple, the active Presence of the Soul as the director of Life, IS the mercy <\/em>that we obtain<\/em>. This we related to the third part of our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>where the Master tells us that “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him<\/em>“. To understand our point we must keep in mind a few important facts; first that the Master IS speaking to His disciples, second IS that as disciples, True disciples as defined in the first part of our trifecta<\/em>, ARE keeping His words<\/em>; this IS what defines one as a True disciple or, as the King James Bible renders this, “disciples indeed<\/em>“. Third, the very idea of having the Father and the Son in one’s Life, the Presence of God if you will, IS to have the most fundamental idea of agape <\/em>in one’s Life; here we must understand the deep reality that John reveals for us saying that “God is Being merciful <\/em>according to this Beatitude can be best understood by relating the idea to the Godhead and this we can DO through Luke’s version of the Master’s words saying “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful<\/em>” (Luke 6:36). Here, God IS Love IS equated to God IS merciful <\/em>and we should try to see their relationship as we define it above. We also briefly explored the relationship of Luke’s version with Matthews where the idea IS given as “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect<\/em>” (Matthew 5:48). In these two versions of the same idea and their relationship to this Beatitude we should try to see that ultimately mercy <\/em>IS how agape expresses <\/strong><\/em>itself in action, and perfection <\/em>is the completeness of that agape <\/em>love when it leaves no one out, when it IS expressed <\/strong><\/em>with NO “respect to persons<\/em>” (James 2:9). Repeating our subject verses:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake<\/em>” (Matthew 5:1-11).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next Beatitude for our consideration IS “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God<\/em>“. Here we have another of the Beatitudes that IS NOT understood from the perspective of the disciple. Carnally, in this world, there can really be NONE that ARE “pure in heart<\/em>” save for the True disciple and the saint<\/em>. The Master shows us a view of this in His speaking about the Holy Spirit; we read His words saying “the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you<\/em>” (John 14:17). Our point here IS that it IS those that Truly have “the Spirit of truth<\/em>” that ARE “the pure in heart<\/em>“; it IS the disciple that has set aside His vanity <\/em>and has allowed the Spirit to overcome <\/em>the carnal nature. Paul offers us a version of this idea saying that “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God<\/em>” (Romans 8:13-14). It IS the disciple that IS “led by the Spirit of God<\/em>” and we should understand that while many in the doctrinal churches lay claim to this high spiritual status, the True disciple IS extremely rare in this world. It IS these that ARE “led by the Spirit of God<\/em>“, these True “sons of God<\/em>” that ARE the reality of “the pure in heart<\/em>“. The last time we addressed this subject we concluded that by \u201cobeying the truth<\/em>\u201d we allow the purity<\/em> of the Soul to be realized in the Life of the man in this world and it through this realization<\/em><\/strong> that we become \u201cpure in heart<\/em>\u201d as the Master frames this Beatitude. Here we should understand that \u201cobeying the truth<\/em>\u201d IS the Way of the disciple which idea comes through in Peter’s words at 1 Peter 1:22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Understanding this let us look again at the words that the Master uses. Pure <\/em>IS rendered from the Greek word katharos <\/em>which the lexicon defines as: free from corrupt desire, from sin and guilt; free from every admixture of what is false, sincere genuine; blameless, innocent; unstained with the guilt of anything<\/em> 2<\/sup>. Using these defining ideas, we should be able to easily see that laying claim to the idea of being “the pure in heart<\/em>“, even when based upon the idea that believers ARE cleansed by divine grace<\/em>, IS a false claim as the idea IS biblically defined. Next we have the Greek word kardia <\/em>which IS always rendered as heart<\/strong><\/em>. The idea has several uses however; it can mean the physical organ or, as the idea IS generally considered, it: denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life<\/em> 2<\/sup>. More specifically Thayer’s tells us that the heart <\/em><\/strong>IS: the center and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors<\/em> 9<\/sup>. There ARE other meanings that can be applied but for our purposes, these ARE the ones that matter. Parts of each of these ideas ARE correct and we should note that the True understanding of kardia <\/em><\/strong>comes from its uses in the gospels. The Master uses the idea in several ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n While there seems to be a broad range of uses in the Master’s words taken from Matthew’s Gospel, the reality IS that these can ALL be distilled down into a single word idea which perhaps DID NOT exist in those days: kardia <\/em>can simply be defined as the personality<\/em>. It IS the personality <\/em>that IS the actor in this world and in his vanity <\/em>he acts out his worldly ways in conformance to the worldly ideas into which his is nurtured and indoctrinated. It IS also the personality that Repents<\/em>, that decides to change. It IS the personality that fulfills the apostle’s words saying “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind<\/em>” (Romans 12:2). And it IS the personality that IS redeemed according to Paul’s words regarding “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” (Romans 8:23). The personality IS defined simply as: the quality or state of being a person<\/em>** and while this IS True, it ignores the complexities that can be attributed to the personality. For our purpose then both kardia<\/em>, heart<\/strong><\/em>, and personality can be defined as the active, outward expression <\/strong><\/em>of the self in the world. In the end we should try to see that in ALL of the examples of the use of kardia <\/em>cited above that this defining idea that it IS the active, outward expression <\/strong><\/em>of the self in the world. While some of the examples show a spiritual tone and others a carnal one, the basic reality IS that either expression <\/strong><\/em>can be understood in today’s terms as the personality<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again it IS the personality that IS the actor in this world. This actor can play the part of the man grounded in vanity <\/em>or the man “led by the Spirit of God<\/em>” and it IS the focus <\/em>of one’s Life that IS the determining factor. This idea IS clearly the point of the Master’s words saying “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh<\/em>” (Luke 6:45). It IS the personality, the heart <\/strong><\/em>if you will, that IS moved toward good and toward evil <\/em>and here we must understand that the idea of evil <\/em>IS NOT limited to the gross behaviors of men; it should be understood as the carnal focus <\/em>of men both individually and corporately. Christians have been conditioned to see the common idea of evil <\/em>as profound immorality and wickedness but this IS NOT True according to its New Testament usage. Like many Greek words poneros<\/em>, which IS rendered as both evil <\/em>and wicked<\/em>, should be understood according to the Master’s use of the word. From simple statements like “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil<\/em>” (Matthew 5:37) to more complex ideas like “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?<\/em>” (Matthew 7:11) we should see a deeper meaning for the idea of evil<\/em>. In the former, we should understand that the Master IS NOT telling us that those who swear <\/em>ARE acting with profound immorality and wickedness, they ARE merely acting in a carnal way and according to tradition. Similarly in the latter saying we should understand that the Master IS NOT accusing ALL men of acting with profound immorality and wickedness as they “give good gifts unto your children<\/em>“. Commentary that links poneros <\/em>to: the devil, the evil one<\/em> 9<\/sup> as Thayer’s DOES to the first saying above ARE equally misplaced and misleading. We should try to see in this idea of poneros <\/em>a broad range of ideas that may include profound immorality and wickedness but IS NOT limited to these. In Truth, we should try to see the effects of our vanity <\/em>as the idea behind most uses of poneros <\/em>according to the defining idea for vanity <\/em>saying that it IS our: perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup>. This IS our carnal focus <\/em>on the self and the things of the self, this IS vanity <\/em>and this IS poneros<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the above ideas we should be able to glimpse the reality of being “pure in heart<\/em>” and understand that it IS the focus <\/em>of our lives that makes one so. The disciple, focused<\/em> on Truth and agape<\/em>, IS focused <\/em>upon the spiritual while the ordinary man remains in his vanity<\/em>, in his perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup>. The blessing<\/em> for this disciple IS simply that “they shall see God<\/em>“. Again, we should see the idea of being blessed <\/em>as our spiritual fulfillment and while the idea of seeing God may seem impossible according to the apostle’s words saying “No man hath seen God at any time<\/em>” (1: John 4:12), there IS another view that most miss. Jesus tells His disciples “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him<\/em>” and “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father<\/em>” (John 14:7, 9). For the disciple this IS NOT a mystery<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next Beatitude tells us that “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God<\/em>” and in this we have yet another idea that IS misunderstood and misapplied by the doctrines of men. We could presume that the subject here IS literally peacemakers <\/em>in the sense of resolving conflicts and, to be sure, this IS True. This however IS NOT the idea that should be attached to this Beatitude. In our previous discussion we DID assign this idea of being a peacemaker <\/em>to the Master’s words and away from the carnal ideas engendered by the word. The Master tells us \u201cPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you<\/em>\u201d (John 14:27) and in this we can see a source of becoming a peacemaker <\/em>and that the expression <\/strong><\/em>of one who IS a peacemaker <\/em>IS his expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>. While ALL this IS True and while the carnal ideas attached to the word ARE NOT the Master’s intent, we look today toward a spiritual reason that IS part and parcel of being a True disciple. Paul tells us of Jesus that “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:15). This we should tie to Jesus’ words from John’s Gospel where we read “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). Can we see the point here? Can we see that as disciples we have overcome <\/em>our own vanity<\/em>, which IS to “have overcome the world<\/em>” and that we too have made “of twain one new man, so making peace<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the idea of overcoming <\/em>“the world<\/em>” as a man IS NOT generally tied to the idea that “ye might have peace<\/em>“, there IS a definitive relationship. We should try to understand that because “as he is, so are we in this world<\/em>” (1 John 4:17) that we too can “overcome the world<\/em>“. This however IS NOT the way that the idea IS viewed doctrinally; John Gill, in his Exposition of the Bible, tells us of this verse that: There is a peace by Christ, which he has made for his people by the blood of his cross; and there is a peace in him, which is enjoyed through faith’s looking to his blood for pardon, to his righteousness for justification, to his sacrifice for atonement and satisfaction; and by having communion with him, and discoveries of his love, and by seeing safety and security in him<\/em> 8<\/sup>. This doctrinal idea totally bypasses John’s words above as well as the Master’s own words saying “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do<\/em>” (John 14:12). As we have previously discussed the idea of “believeth on me<\/em>” CAN NOT be understood according to doctrines but according to the deep spiritual meaning that IS incorporated into this idea. Vincent shows us that: To believe in, or on, is more than mere acceptance of a statement. It is so to accept a statement or a person as to rest upon them, to trust them practically; to draw upon and avail one’s self of all that is offered to him in them. Hence to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is not merely to believe the facts of His historic life or of His saving energy as facts, but to accept Him as Savior, Teacher, Sympathizer, Judge; to rest the soul upon Him for present and future salvation, and to accept and adopt His precepts and example as binding upon the life<\/strong><\/em> 4<\/sup>. It IS this last part that we highlight in bold that IS the reality of keeping His word<\/em>s and IS the Way par excellence to discipleship. It IS the disciple then that can DO such “greater works<\/em>” and, to be sure, to “overcome the world<\/em>” IS a part of such works<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complexity of Jesus words saying “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>” IS easily broken down but to DO so we must think outside of the established doctrinal ideas. Our understanding revolves around the Greek word emoi <\/em>which IS rendered here as me. Emoi <\/em>IS a much more complex word which Strong’s defines as: a prolonged form of G3427; to me<\/em> adding after the usage ideas of I, me, mine, my<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. Thayer’s however offers us a broad range of defining ideas for emoi<\/em> beginning with the definition that it IS: possessive pronoun of the first person, mine<\/em> 9<\/sup>. Thayer’s expands upon this saying that the idea can be: that which I have; what I possess<\/em> and proceeding from me<\/em> 9<\/sup>. While there IS NO single word that can be inserted into a translation other than mine<\/em>, the idea presented should suffice to show us that the Master IS NOT referring to Himself as a person. Understanding the nature of the Christ as the anointing <\/em>rather than the man, and understanding that Jesus IS able to express <\/em><\/strong>the full potency of that anointing<\/em>, can help us to understand what IS otherwise a cryptic saying. The full potency of the Christ IS, from the Master’s perspective, that which I have; what I possess<\/em>; this potency IS what IS proceeding from me<\/em>. To relate this to our peace <\/em>we need ONLY to understand that as we ARE able to express <\/strong><\/em>this potency of our own Christ Within, we will have peace <\/em>and will be able to “overcome the world<\/em>” and stand with the Master having made “of twain one new man, so making peace<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While this may seem a long way to go to establish the idea of the peace-maker<\/em>, it was important to understand how that ALL these sayings across the gospels and epistles work together. The idea can of course be understood in a worldly way as one who actively promotes love<\/s> agape<\/em>“. ALL of this must be coupled with the fourth point regarding our defining idea for mercy <\/em>itself, that mercy <\/em>IS how agape expresses <\/strong><\/em>itself in action and therefore being merciful <\/em>IS expressing <\/strong>agape <\/em>to ALL. In this we lose ALL of the ideas that mercy <\/em>IS offered to the wretched <\/em>or the afflicted<\/em>; we lose the common idea that mercy <\/em>IS: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power<\/em>*. Surely this form of mercy <\/em>IS a True carnal virtue but it IS NOT the reference that should be given to the idea as a spiritual concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n