Righteousness, liberty & teaching OC law

[Mark Quayle]

In the context we're dealing with, not doing something on the one hand, on the other hand is doing something else. To repeat, you seem to have a block on seeing both sides of the equation.

Before this you said Love was about possession (vs. doing). I agree Love Neighbor is about doing - action as I previously brought into discussion.



As I said, you seem to have a block on seeing both sides of the equation even though you brought up how "is" equates. You're moving your argument around to suit your changing position just to circle us back to the beginning of the discussion. Thus, this has been answered already.

Again, Clare, what you're calling a contra-biblical hermeneutic is simply language to say you disagree with my translation and interpretation of Scripture. I was instructed in seminary and even before then on various hermeneutical approaches to the Text used by various theological camps. We're really not even talking about a comprehensive hermeneutic here. We're just dealing with basic translation and dealing with grammar and some basic logic.

You are reverting to a simple error for reasons of your own. You keep asserting that A = B does not mean B = A. There can be validity to this argument, but you're not proving this to me, especially when you set the rule here:



So, you said '"is" equates, makes equal"' (please look up "equivocates" and make certain you meant this). So, if '"is" equates, makes equal"' then please clarify why we cannot reverse the 2 phrases.

I'm open to learning my error. You're just not showing me where it is, and I've given you a lot of points to pick apart. If I'm wrong, then my error is likely written & exposed.



The Text actually puts us under at minimum 2 rules (Commandments from Mosaic Law) and a 3rd NC Command in regard to Love (that actually also deals with Law & lawlessness): (1) Love God; (2) Love Neighbor; (3) Love one another as Christ Loved us.

• Love for God is to keep/do His commandments & His commandments are not burdensome
  • If we are keeping/doing God's commandments and they are not burdensome, is this Love for God?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love [is] fulfillment of Law
  • Is fulfillment of Law, Love?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love of another has fulfilled Law
  • Has Law been fulfilled when someone loves another?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love Neighbor is a compilation of 4+ (actually 5+) commandments
  • Is the compilation of the same 5+ commandments, Love Neighbor?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love as Christ loved us
  • This one requires more work than the above basics and although Scripture gives us some guidance on imitating our Lord, I see no way to literally Love as He loved us and gave Himself for us... I simply see no "=" we can deal with.

"That text states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,"

• Romans 13:9 does not state this. This is your error. In whatever terminology you want to think about this, whether it be: "contra-Biblical hermeneutic of grammatical gymnastics which bastardizes the text of Romans 13:8-10" or any other charge you've made, you should stop, focus & think right here.
• Romans 13:9 says what it says, and it says 5+ commandments are summarized, recapitulated (stated briefly), brought together (anakefalaoutai) in the one commandment to Love Neighbor

"while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule."

• See just above
• You are not understanding or purposely misstating what I state. I am not stating what you say.
• I have looked at the Greek of Romans 13:9, detailed precisely what I read there, and have interpreted it just as I have above.
• There is no "in lieu of" in this language. This is an insertion you are making. This insertion is an example of eisegesis - inserting your ideas into the Text vs. letting it says what it says.
• The meaningful discussion here is the A=B, B=A logic we were dealing with some posts back.
  • Since Love Neighbor is a summary of 5+ Commandments, then if we list & combine those same 5+ Commandments, can they together be stated as Love Neighbor?
    • If they can, and if we're obeying those commandments [in Christ by the Spirit], then we're Loving Neighbor / we've Fulfilled Law.
    • We cannot be Loving Neighbor if we're not also keeping/doing those Commandments that, when brought together, are Love of Neighbor.

You said before that our discussion was over. Yet you returned. And I'm now reaching the conclusion of my response.

I agree with what Galatians 3:25 says and will even accept your interpretation of it. But this does not make your case.

• What do you do with the fact that Leviticus 19:18 - Love Neighbor - is part of the Mosaic Law and is shorthand for 5+ Commandments in Mosaic Law?
  • Are we free to commit adultery, to murder, to steel, to perjure, to covet as long as we Love Neighbor?
  • Are we free to do (or not do) those things stated in the "any other commandment(s)" Paul says are also stated briefly in the one Love Neighbor Command from Torah?
• What do you do with Love of God being Commanded in Law?

Do you think you might be misunderstanding and misapplying Galatians 3:25? Does not being "under law" truly mean we are not dealing with Commandments in Law?

I'll close with a request: If we are going to have any further discussion, in this thread or in others, please check your accusations and language. This is not the first thread in which you have bowed out ungracefully from discussion with me. If that's your process, I may just live with it, but from one Christian to another, it's not fitting. Please likewise call me on such if I should do similarly. This is actually in line with the context of Leviticus 19:18.

FWIW, my theology these days is simplified - what does the Text say? Years after I was trained in exegesis and hermeneutics and slotted into a certain hermeneutic in a certain theological camp and had done some battles with some in other camps with their different hermeneutics, a certain chain of events redirected me into some very specific, basic, foundational, time-redeeming and detailed studies. From this redirection, I came to realize that we can argue hermeneutics all we want, but if we're not finding the definitions of words as God uses them, then it really doesn't matter what our overall theory of interpretation is. I've learned more in some years of focused [basically] word studies using all of Scripture than I ever did arguing about hermeneutic theories & systematized theologies.

All you and I are really doing here is discussing what a few verses say in context and using grammatical principles in the process. You keep attacking me on this process, but you fall short of proving me wrong and then enter into personal attacks to provide cover for your falling short. I think you can do better. We all can & this is one of our goals in Christ.

Perhaps you needed a better training ground. There are all sorts of seminaries. Being trained and educated doesn't make you wise, nor even successful in your endeavors. The fact you had to trot this out suggests an attempted intimidation. There is no use in Lording it over her.

The cold hard logic applies a fatal fact to your logic, the A did not equal B, and B most certainly is not the same thing as A. They may resemble, the one may demonstrate the other —that is, if anyone was able to keep the whole written relevant law perfectly no doubt they would love God. But they are not the same thing. One who loves God perfectly would no doubt keep the whole written relevant law, but they still are not the same thing.

Even @Clare73 may speak in that way (as if the one IS the other) to make a point, as will anyone, but to take it where you do does not work. You indicated at one point you were willing to be corrected. Good. Have the grace to listen to what she is trying to point out.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@GDL Crickets. . .

Actually, out for the day.

Hadn't you ended discussion, twice at least?

@Clare73 Probably going into Crickets mode again in case you want to end discussion again

I might be wrong, but I thought Clare's original "Crickets" response was a comment on the fact that basically you made no headway in your argument —i.e. that you did not actually respond to what she was saying.

When she says things to the effect of, "we have no discussion," she is not saying the discussion is over, but that if it is not moving forward, (which it was not), what's the point in having it?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Perhaps you needed a better training ground. There are all sorts of seminaries. Being trained and educated doesn't make you wise, nor even successful in your endeavors. The fact you had to trot this out suggests an attempted intimidation. There is no use in Lording it over her.

The cold hard logic applies a fatal fact to your logic, the A did not equal B, and B most certainly is not the same thing as A. They may resemble, the one may demonstrate the other —that is, if anyone was able to keep the whole written relevant law perfectly no doubt they would love God. But they are not the same thing. One who loves God perfectly would no doubt keep the whole written relevant law, but they still are not the same thing.

Even @Clare73 may speak in that way (as if the one IS the other) to make a point, as will anyone, but to take it where you do does not work. You indicated at one point you were willing to be corrected. Good. Have the grace to listen to what she is trying to point out.

The greatest judge is not you or I, but God. His finger-written commandments are placed under His mercy seat, in the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy of His Temple and is revealed in heaven Revelation 11:19. What does God say on this topic?

This is the love of God that we keep His commandments 1 John 5:3

Is love to God worshipping other gods- No
Is love to God bowing to images- No
Is love to God vaining His holy name? No
Is love to God breaking His holy Sabbath- No

So as you can clearly see, the commandments are not watered down to one commandment and we are free to do the above or break any of God's commandments as long as we love our neighbor, love is when we keep God's commandments. 1 John 5:3. Paul is not deleting scripture from God, John, Jesus or his own teachings- what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1 Cor 7:19

These are God's written and spoken Words:

Exodus 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Which Jesus repeated almost verbatim- If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15

The end of the debate should be scripture showing us the characteristics/fruit of a saved person and they are commandment- keeping people, because God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds and His people keep His commandments. Hebrews 8:10. We should not try to change what God wrote for us.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

 

[GDL]

"Antinomian" is another of those words that gets used loosely, like, "freewill" and "christian". If I were to ask most people, and probably you, what you meant by it, you might say, "Against(Anti)-law". Well, @Clare73 is not at all what I call antinomian.

You seem not to understand why she speaks of justification and imputation in this discussion. To me, you don't seem to be listening, but just spouting. You are assuming what her reasons are. You are mistaken.

So, what do you mean by the word "antinomian"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The greatest judge is not you or I, but God. His finger-written commandments are placed under His mercy seat, in the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy of His Temple and is revealed in heaven Revelation 11:19. What does God say on this topic?

This is the love of God that we keep His commandments 1 John 5:3

Is love to God worshipping other gods- No
Is love to God bowing to images- No
Is love to God vaining His holy name? No
Is love to God breaking His holy Sabbath- No

So as you can clearly see, the commandments are not watered down to one commandment and we are free to do the above or break any of God's commandments as long as we love our neighbor, love is when we keep God's commandments. 1 John 5:3. Paul is not deleting scripture from God, John, Jesus or his own teachings- what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1 Cor 7:19

These are God's written and spoken Words:

Exodus 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Which Jesus repeated almost verbatim- If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15

The end of the debate should be scripture showing us the characteristics/fruit of a saved person and they are commandment- keeping people, because God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds and His people keep His commandments. Hebrews 8:10. We should not try to change what God wrote for us.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut, since you are mistaking both @Clare73 and me. Where does she mention watering down the commandments at all —nevermind where does she say they are watered down into the one?

You are beating up on a strawman.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, what do you mean by the word "antinomian"?

Not simply "anti-law", because that can be taken several ways. What I mean by "antinomian" is loosely what Wikipedia says: "Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so."

@Clare73 reads the scriptures as much as you do, I expect, and has studied them as much as you have, I do not doubt. She well knows what Jesus said, and what Paul and others said. She does not discard the law.

To me, it seems that you, like all of us do, no doubt (I too will be judged by my own standard), get a theme in your mind you want to get across to the readers, using Scriptures to make your point. But instead of hearing what she says about those scriptures and others, you double down on proving your point, and in the latest posts I have read, you don't argue against her point so much as to simply ignore her point, as if she was totally disagreeing with what you have to say, or even unfamiliar with what you quote from Scripture.

I don't mean any of this as a criticism or attack on you personally, but an assessment of how I have seen this discussion go.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut, since you are mistaking both @Clare73 and me. Where does she mention watering down the commandments at all —nevermind where does she say they are watered down into the one?

You are beating up on a strawman.

Than there should no argument about 1 John 5:3 and we should trust the scripture as it reads. Summing up the commandments does not mean its deleting those commandments, fulfill does not mean delete or no longer applicable which appears to be the context of the argument, otherwise if we are to keep God commandments and love is the motivation for keeping them, there should be no argument.

Also, I’m not sure how you know how other posters spend their time or why that matters really. The devil knows the Bible, doesn’t mean he is not constantly taking scripture out of context as we saw in the wilderness and in Eden. The scripture are the standard in which everything must be tested.

 

[Clare73]

What I mean by "antinomian" is loosely what Wikipedia says: "Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so." @Clare73 reads the scriptures as much as you do, I expect, and has studied them as much as you have, I do not doubt. She well knows what Jesus said, and what Paul and others said. She does not discard the law.

To me, it seems that you, like all of us do, no doubt (I too will be judged by my own standard), get a theme in your mind you want to get across to the readers, using Scriptures to make your point. But instead of hearing what she says about those scriptures and others, you double down on proving your point, and in the latest posts I have read, you don't argue against her point so much as to simply ignore her point, as if she was totally disagreeing with what you have to say, or even unfamiliar with what you quote from Scripture.

I don't mean any of this as a criticism or attack on you personally, but an assessment of how I have seen this discussion go.

All who believe Romans 13:9-10 are regarded by some as discarding the law.

"The commandments. . .and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up
in this one rule." (Romans 13:9)

Go figure. . .

 

[GDL]

Perhaps you needed a better training ground. There are all sorts of seminaries. Being trained and educated doesn't make you wise, nor even successful in your endeavors. The fact you had to trot this out suggests an attempted intimidation. There is no use in Lording it over her.

The cold hard logic applies a fatal fact to your logic, the A did not equal B, and B most certainly is not the same thing as A. They may resemble, the one may demonstrate the other —that is, if anyone was able to keep the whole written relevant law perfectly no doubt they would love God. But they are not the same thing. One who loves God perfectly would no doubt keep the whole written relevant law, but they still are not the same thing.

Even @Clare73 may speak in that way (as if the one IS the other) to make a point, as will anyone, but to take it where you do does not work. You indicated at one point you were willing to be corrected. Good. Have the grace to listen to what she is trying to point out.

Well Mark, what we've actually been doing is mainly discussing the language contained in a couple verses about God's Command from the Mosaic Law to Love Neighbor. What I'm working to bring out from the language is based in a process called exegesis, which we're all supposed to be doing with God's Word. If I'm in error, I'm open to be proven wrong. But you're going to have to do better than appealing to the quality of my training, which you know nothing about, to prove your case.

What you've said in your second paragraph is of no help in determining what the verses under discussion actually say. You're not saying anything to prove or disprove the logic. There's been no discussion about perfection, and I don't see it being discussed in those verses. So, you're inserting it, which is called eisegesis, which we're not supposed to be doing with God's Word.

"One who loves God perfectly would no doubt keep the whole written relevant law, but they still are not the same thing."

• Why are they not the same thing? Your just saying they are not the same thing is you just saying they're not. What do you base this on?
  • If you should say that Love is more than keeping law, then let's pursue this. Clare started by talking about possessing love and bringing up the [Good] Samaritan lesson. All good discussion, but it does not refute what I've said is the language of Romans 13:8-10
• Since this is about the only thing you've said that seems pertinent to the actual discussion, why don't you explain it. I think we should just stick with what's said in the Romans 13:8-10 verses for now. We can expand to "loves God perfectly" & "keep the whole written relevant law" afterward.
• Here's the issue to boil down the longer version in my post you seem to have taken offense at:
  • God's Word says the Love Neighbor Command (taken from the Book of Leviticus - part of Moses and Torah) sums up/recapitulates/brings together 5 Commands from the Decalogue "and if any other command"
    • I read this as saying:
      • If I'm loving neighbor as God commands, then:
        • I'm at minimum also acting in line with those 5 commands
      • If I'm not committing adultery, murdering, stealing, perjuring, coveting
        • I'm also loving neighbor to the degree of those 5 commands
      • Then we expand those 5 commands to include "and if any other command" - which language assumes the positive for sake of argument - IOW in its most basic sense, it assumes there are more commands to bring together in the Love Neighbor Command. And now we're in an extensive area of instruction to be considered and reasoned, including what Jesus & His Apostle John after Him teach us about the tie between the Love Neighbor & Love God Commands.

There is Scripture that instructs that we in Christ (this discussion is all about post initial justification/acquittal and rebirth) are accountable for what we know and accountable to continue to grow by learning more. So, I take "and if any other command" from the Text in part as Paul stimulating the discussion to challenge our participation in looking at and thinking about more of God's commands and reasoning as to their inclusion in the shorthand Command to Love Neighbor as part of our growth process.

There is more to Love Neighbor than 5 Commandments from the Decalogue. 5 Commandments from the Decalogue at minimum are included in the Command to Love Neighbor. If you want to make them separate, you're going against the Text. And the minute you want to make them separate, instead of being combined as Paul is teaching, you end up with a missing part for your definition of Biblical Love.

 

[GDL]

I might be wrong, but I thought Clare's original "Crickets" response was a comment on the fact that basically you made no headway in your argument —i.e. that you did not actually respond to what she was saying.

When she says things to the effect of, "we have no discussion," she is not saying the discussion is over, but that if it is not moving forward, (which it was not), what's the point in having it?

If you might be wrong, then why not just ask for a clarification?

If what you think may be the case, or if this is the case now that you've said it, then it's simply a way of saying I'm right and you're wrong? This is a good argument?

How about we just stick to what Romans 13:8-10 says or doesn't say. We really don't have to step out of these verses to deal with the grammar and lesson from what Paul is saying.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for speaking for Clare.

And indeed! . . .thanks!

I wish he were my full-time editor, but I will take what I can get.

 

[GDL]

Not simply "anti-law", because that can be taken several ways. What I mean by "antinomian" is loosely what Wikipedia says: "Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so."

@Clare73 reads the scriptures as much as you do, I expect, and has studied them as much as you have, I do not doubt. She well knows what Jesus said, and what Paul and others said. She does not discard the law.

To me, it seems that you, like all of us do, no doubt (I too will be judged by my own standard), get a theme in your mind you want to get across to the readers, using Scriptures to make your point. But instead of hearing what she says about those scriptures and others, you double down on proving your point, and in the latest posts I have read, you don't argue against her point so much as to simply ignore her point, as if she was totally disagreeing with what you have to say, or even unfamiliar with what you quote from Scripture.

I don't mean any of this as a criticism or attack on you personally, but an assessment of how I have seen this discussion go.

Please go back to the bottom of Post #40, where I think I first mentioned antinomianism. You can read the context there. If you have any questions, let me know. Just FYI, I normally don't use Wikipedia to define such words.

The end of this post, at least, sounds conciliatory. This is accepted if that's what it is. As I said, let's go back to the basics of this discussion - the language and lesson of Romans 13:8-10. I may point you back to other posts to answer you.

 

[Clare73]

Please go back to the bottom of Post #40, where I think I first mentioned antinomianism. You can read the context there. If you have any questions, let me know. Just FYI, I normally don't use Wikipedia to define such words.

The end of this post, at least, sounds conciliatory. This is accepted if that's what it is. As I said, let's go back to the basics of this discussion - the language and lesson of Romans 13:8-10. I may point you back to other posts to answer you.

Seems to me enough has already been specifically pointed out for you to address in the basics of the discussion, which you ignore in lieu of wanting to address something else.

 

[GDL]

All who believe Romans 13:9-10 are regarded by some as discarding the law.

Maybe it's due to what you said at the beginning of our discussion.

Nice statement, but unless you refer to God's Law, you can't tell me what love is, what exactly the Spirit is producing in you.

Au contraire. . .it's not rocket science.

Love is "Do no harm;" i.e., committed to another's well-being as you are to your own.

I don't need a legal code for that. . .in fact, it would be inadequate.

As I pointed out, we actually do need God's Legal Code for this - To Love Neighbor as God Commands. His Love Neighbor Command consists of many of His other commands from His Legal Code. Apart from God's Legal Code, His Love Neighbor Command also from His Legal Code (and tied directly to His Command to Love God, which is also from His Legal Code, and which is to keep His Commandments also extensively from His Legal Code) leaves us open to making up our own version of what it means to Love as God Commands.

As discussed, Do no harm - "committed to another's well-being as you are to your own" - once separated from God's Legal Code, can be used from any human perspective to say whatever a person is doing from their ungodly perspective fits the rule.

If we don't know & understand God's Law & Commandments comprehensively, in totality, how can anyone say it is inadequate for anything? As I recall, Jesus Christ placed great value, to say the least in God's Legal Code. In fact, as I understand Scripture, His Legal Code is expression of His mind & character. But now we don't need a legal code?

As you said, go figure.

 

[GDL]

Seems to me enough has already been specifically pointed out for you to address in the basics of the discussion, which you ignore in lieu of wanting to address something else.

As you know, the post was to @Mark Quayle . If Mark wants to discuss we'll need to go back to the verses.

Seems to me you rested on the logic of the language just working one way even though you said "is" equates. I'm not ignoring this. I'm disagreeing with it, at length & in detail. I think this is clear.

 

[Clare73]

As I pointed out, we actually do need God's Legal Code for this - To Love Neighbor as God Commands.

The Mosaic code commands we love our neighbor as ourselves; i.e., committed to his well being as we are to our own.

What remains unaddressed is:
1) It is the NT (in the good Samaritan, not the Mosaic code) which spells out the meaning of that obligation in:
a) its command (Luke 10:27; Galatians 5:14),
b) its illustration (Luke 10:30-36), and
c) its prescription as the one rule which fulfills the entire Mosaic code (Romans 13:10;Galatians 5:14).

2) Romans 13:9 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to the entire Mosaic code,
while you put us under the entire Mosaic code for obedience to one rule--love.

Romans 13:10 states this one rule in lieu of the entire Mosaic code,
while you state the entire Mosaic code in lieu of this one rule.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As I pointed out, we actually do need God's Legal Code for this - To Love Neighbor as God Commands. His Love Neighbor Command consists of many of His other commands from His Legal Code. Apart from God's Legal Code, His Love Neighbor Command also from His Legal Code (and tied directly to His Command to Love God, which is also from His Legal Code, and which is to keep His Commandments also extensively from His Legal Code) leaves us open to making up our own version of what it means to Love as God Commands.

As discussed, Do no harm - "committed to another's well-being as you are to your own" - once separated from God's Legal Code, can be used from any human perspective to say whatever a person is doing from their ungodly perspective fits the rule.

If we don't know & understand God's Law & Commandments comprehensively, in totality, how can anyone say it is inadequate for anything? As I recall, Jesus Christ placed great value, to say the least in God's Legal Code. In fact, as I understand Scripture, His Legal Code is expression of His mind & character. But now we don't need a legal code?

2) Romans 13:9 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to the entire Mosaic code,
while you put us under the entire Mosaic code for obedience to one rule--love.

Editor's note : Clare is not saying here that we can simply run with our notion of love, and discard the law. She is describing the difference between trying to obedient to the command to love our neighbor by obeying to law, and trying to obey the law by loving the neighbor. Correct me if I'm a bit off, there, Clare, please.

Romans 13:10 states this one rule in lieu of the entire Mosaic code,
while you state the entire Mosaic code in lieu of this one rule.

Again, Clare is not saying here that we can simply run with our notion of love, and discard the law. She is no proponent of the 50-something year old "Situation Ethics".

 

[Clare73]

Editor's note : Clare is not saying here that we can simply run with our notion of love, and discard the law. She is describing the difference between trying to be obedient to the command to love our neighbor by obeying the law, and trying to obey the law by loving the neighbor. Correct me if I'm a bit off, there, Clare, please.

Precisely. . .good job!. . .What is the focus--love or law keeping?
Paul, in accordance with Jesus, makes love the focus--committed to our neighbor's well being as we are committed to our own.
That will do a much better job than rules, and will be doing more than the rules.

Again, Clare is not saying here that we can simply run with our notion of love, and discard the law. She is no proponent of the 50-something year old "Situation Ethics".

Showin' your age?

And no, you don't get to go there. . .

 

[GDL]

The Mosaic code commands we love our neighbor as ourselves; i.e., committed to his well being as we are to our own.

I suppose we can use your i.e. for now. But let's look at the Love Neighbor command and the NC explanations of it:

• Leviticus 19:
  • Begins with YHWH's command to be holy for YHWH your God is holy
  • Ends with, you shall observe all my statutes & judgments & do them. I AM YHWH
    • The LXX says all my law & all my ordinances/commands
  • In the middle of all this instruction for commanded holiness is the Love Neighbor as Yourself command
    • It's not in isolation but in the midst of many commandments regarding holiness
    • Specifically, the couplet (19:17-18) commands: not to hate your brother in your heart; rebuke your neighbor; not bear sin because of him (a couple of the Hebrew Lexicons say this word in this phrase means not to bear the consequences of the guilt of another); not to take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.
      • These verses tie together brother, neighbor, children of your people
      • Don't hate but Love
      • Rebuke but don't take vengeance nor bear any grudge
      • Don't take another's guilt upon yourself
      • Obviously, the context and central point is sin & how to handle a neighbor's sin in love, not hate
        • To deal with sin, we best know how to identify what is sin, which these people had in God's Law to instruct them of
        • In the context of holiness for a nation of people being command to do God's statutes/law & judgments/commands, Love Neighbor as Yourself is in the context of dealing with a neighbor in sin - sin identified in Law - which John later clarified as lawlessness
  • Love Neighbor as Self:
    • In context has to do with obeying God's command to be like Him - Holy
      • If we want to look at a summarizing concept, maybe we should talk about holiness
    • In context has to do with doing God's Law & dealing with sin/lawlessness of a neighbor, brother, children of one's people
      • We find this same concept in fulfilling the Law of Christ, which is also dealing with the sin of a fellow child of God
      • In context, to love oneself would be to have our neighbor not hate us and deal appropriately with our sin - rebuke us for it - help us to find repentance and to be a good member of our community in the best interests for all. If we were godly this is what our attitude would be - how we would love ourselves and desire for others to do towards us
    • We love self when we love/obey God - We love neighbor when we help them love/obey God - we need to know what sin is - we know sin by knowing God's Commandments - we avoid sin by doing God's commandments, which is love for God and Neighbor - when we're loving God and Neighbor we're doing God's commandments
      • If God the Holy Spirit is empowering us to love - then He is empowering us to do God's commandments - God's Law written on our hearts
      • If God the Holy Spirit is empowering us to do God's commandments written on our hearts, then He is empowering us to Love
• Matthew 5:43-48 Jesus explains how deep this goes, ties it to being like God our Father (think Leviticus 19:2), finishes with a command to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (again, think Leviticus 19:2 & Deuteronomy 18:3)
  • Note how Jesus is not only pulling the command from Mosaic Law, but also context from the holiness command in Leviticus 19:2 and likely from Deuteronomy and elsewhere. I might even take this back to creation and being created in His image.
  • Note how we're being told that Jesus takes us into holiness, perfection - concepts from God's Law
• Matthew 19:17-21 Jesus uses Love Neighbor together with 5 of the Decalogue Commandments and then tells the man he lacks perfection (not disagreeing with him about keeping these commandments) and should follow Jesus
  • There is what's called an ascensive use of kai - kai means "and" - if it's ascensive it means namely - if we translate it as ascensive in Matthew 19:19 then Jesus is summing up part of the Decalogue as Paul does - keep the commandments: 1..2..3..4..5 namely Love Neighbor as Yourself (though Jesus uses honor parents instead of don't covet - so, if we combine Jesus and Paul now we have 6+ of the Decalogue). Then follow me and we'll discuss being perfect as our Father is Perfect
• Matthew 22 Jesus says on the Love God & Neighbor Commands hang all the Law & Prophets
  • To me this sounds like summarizing language again - if we're doing all pertinent commands & instruction from what many call the OC Scriptures, then we're Loving God and Neighbor, and vice-versa. If we detach all of that instruction and those commands, we have no basis for what Love means.
• Mark 12 ties the Shema to the Love God & Neighbor commands and says this is greater than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices
  • The fact that God has always wanted a faithfully obedient people is not new and has never been separate from what His Law commands and instructs. It still isn't.
• Luke 10 Jesus instructs about the Love God and Neighbor commands:
  • Jesus is dealing with a lawyer trying to test Him & justify himself & asking what to do to inherit eternal life
  • Jesus asks what is written in the Law - the lawyer's response is Love God & Neighbor
  • Jesus says correct - do this and you will live Luke 10:28
  • Lawyer: who's my neighbor
  • Jesus explains with the Samaritan story - cutting to the moral of the story:
    • The Samaritan had compassion Luke 10:33 and did several things for the injured man
      • If you search this word translated as "compassion" you'll see many times how this word is used in relation to Jesus having compassion
    • The Samaritan showed the man "mercy" Luke 10:37
      • Search this word and you're all over the OC Scriptures that applies it to God - the God we are supposed to emulate per Leviticus and Jesus and others
      • Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
        
        • "require" in both Hebrew and Greek can also have the legal sense of "demand"
    • The Samaritan man acted like Jesus Christ like God requires/demands of man in both the Law & the Prophets, and in the NC writings

• Jesus mirrors His closing of "go and do the same" Luke 10:37 - be merciful, be compassionate (like God - be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect - be Holy for YHWH your God is Holy) to His beginning statement about Love God & Neighbor "do this and you will live" - this all just points us back to Leviticus 19 and its bookends of be Holy like YHWH and keep His Law

• Romans 13: previously discussed - see all of the above - reference is made to Matthew 19 and Jesus using Love Neighbor with 5 Decalogue commandments
• Galatians 5: Paul uses the Love Neighbor Command to tell others to serve one another through Love, not to bite & devour one another, & commands to walk in Spirit & not complete desires of flesh
  • He uses the Love Neighbor Command to say it fulfills/completes/proclaims completely all of Law
    • This is simply an expansion of what he says in Romans 13 - In this one command all of God's commands are brought together - and we're right back to the debate about "is" means equates
      • I'll address this after the next quote from you
  • Paul uses this command from Mosaic Law to then say if we walk in Spirit we're not under Law
    • If we walk in Spirit as commanded, and we're thus not doing works of flesh (sins/lawlessness - many of which are easily identified from God's commandments in His Law, including the Decalogue) - then we're in obedience to His Love Neighbor Command - and we're not "under law"
      • If we're in obedience to His Command from Mosaic Law, walking in Spirit, then we're not under law
      • Not being under law is part of what enables us to be in obedience to the 2 Great Commandments found in The Mosaic Law that are summary statements of all of God's Commandments and pertinent Law
      • "Under Law" is technical and needs to be understood
• James 2 calls the Love Neighbor Command from Mosaic Law the "Royal Law" - and ties it to partiality (I'm reminded of @Minister Monardo instructing about partiality), sin, and being convicted by Law as violators. He also ties it to the Decalogue, as did Jesus, as did Paul. Does this really sound like God's Law has ended for us - that His commandments are not to be kept?

I still need to stand on my position, that Love Neighbor is simply shorthand for God's Commandments. I had this booklet I've written above in my thinking from past studies when I took my position. I went through this exercise to check myself. Read it or not, it's here.

What remains unaddressed is:
1) It is the NT--in the good Samaritan, not the Mosaic code, which spells out the meaning of that command in:
a) the command (Luke 10:27; Galatians 5:14),
b) its illustration, (Luke 10:30-36) and
c) its prescription as the one rule which fulfills the entire Mosaic code (Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14).

2) Romans 13:9 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to the entire Mosaic code,
while you put us under the entire Mosaic code for obedience to one rule--love.

Romans 13:10 states this one rule in lieu of the entire Mosaic code,
while you state the entire Mosaic code in lieu of this one rule.

1) The Samaritan story is based in Mosaic Law and in Tanakh demands that we be like YHWH our God - merciful, compassionate, Holy, Perfect. Just because we're not perfect as yet, the demand and commandment is still there. Jesus reiterated it & included reference in the Samaritan instruction. We pursue the high call of God in Christ Jesus Paul instructs.

a & b) I think have been addressed

c) one rule fulfills the entire (pertinent) Mosaic Code because that one rule includes all pertinent Mosaic Code and the rest of the Tanakh. It only fulfills it all because it includes and gathers it all together. To do one is to do all - to do all is to do one (actually 2 at minimum lest we detach Love for God being the keeping of His Commandments and they not being burdensome).

2) 1st part of 13:9 addressed above. I'm not putting us "under law" and obedience to Love is obedience to all that Love has gathered together in one Command. If God can make us willingly obedient - in Christ, by His Spirit, writing His Law on our hearts - to Love as He defines and explains Love, then He can also make us willingly obedient to His commandments written on our hearts and summarized as Love. Either way its ultimately one and the same thing. This is the A=B & B=A equating of the word "is".

Romans 13:10 I told you some time ago this is your error. This verse and no verses tell us this one rule is in lieu of the entire Mosaic Code. It is not an alternative, a substitute, nor a replacement for the entire Mosaic Code.

It is part of the Mosaic Code and now the New Covenant Code. When we read or hear this Commandment, we need to know & understand we're being commanded to do all of what God commands, because all of His pertinent commands are simply being summarized in one command. All of His pertinent commands are included in this one summary command. All of His pertinent Law is being written on our hearts, so we can willingly think like Him and act like Him as we follow Jesus walking in Spirit towards perfection/completion in Love.

I'm not great at analogies, but here's an attempt:

I'm your drill instructor. I'm preparing you for battle. Here's my instruction:

1. When I command you to Stop - this is what I mean:
   1. Don't take another step
   2. Don't move at all
   3. Don't speak another word
   4. Don't make another sound
   5. Relax and breathe softly
   6. Be alert and at the ready
   7. Your life and the life of your brothers, neighbors, children of your people depend upon you knowing what is contained in that single command to Stop!
   8. Stop! is not a replacement for all of the above - It includes all of the above - If you've stopped as I command, then you're doing all of the above - If we take the time to spell it all out for you, we'll all be dead.

This may not make sense to you, but I was around a lot of construction for some years. I was told of a roofer that gave his son similar instruction. When the son turned around argumentatively to say what do you mean Stop?, he fell and was severely injured.

The moral of the story is to learn what Love means and includes and stop thinking it doesn't include God's Commandments. He tells us what the one command means and includes. Separate what's included and love can mean anything. To most people it does, because they detach it from God's Word - God's Commandments.

 

[GDL]

Precisely. . .good job!. . .What is the focus--love or law keeping?
Paul, in accordance with Jesus, makes love the focus--committed to our neighbor's well being as we are committed to our own.
That will do a much better job than rules, and will be doing more than the rules.

This would be well and good if the logic in the Text were to agree with this. But it doesn't.

Where do we see Jesus not commend people for obeying God's Law? The love His people had for His Law is now meaningless? If not with His Law, what guidance do you give to others to explain right from wrong, righteousness from unrighteousness. What is lawlessness?

If I read something in God's Law that seems to me to still be pertinent to Love for God and Neighbor, and I ask God to cause me to be obedient to His commandment, or ask Him to cause me to Love as the commandment specifies, knowing I am in Christ, a new creation, walking in Spirt as commanded, knowing He is writing His Law on hearts so we will keep and do His statutes, knowing I am called to imitate Him, and many more verses I can add to this, then what's the difference? What's the difference if I ask Him to help me obey a part of Love (a commandment) He has brought to my attention as lacking, or if I ask Him to help me Love Him more?

Your entire argument seems to not take into account that this is not the previous era, but a New Creation in Christ Jesus wherein we are not imprisoned under law with its curse. The death and resurrection of our Lord Christ Jesus initiated a New Covenant for a New Era and Creation in freedom whereby His Children are being conformed to the likeness of our perfectly obedient first-born Brother and Lord, King of kings.

Once again, committed to our neighbor's well-being lacks definition. Jesus's use of the Samaritan story to dress-down a self-serving lawyer trying to justify himself, takes us back to Mosaic Law and the Holiness Code in Leviticus at minimum. His story was telling the self-righteous who were testing Him that the Samaritan they hated acted more like God in line with God's commands and instruction - His Word - His Law - His Holiness, Mercy/Compassion than the priest and the Levite did.

Love is more than being committed to a neighbor's well-being. If that mental commitment & following action do not function according to God's commandments, then it is not Biblical Love. This is why Jesus attaches the Law and the Prophets to Love and the so-called Golden Rule - a modified version of which detaches the Law & the Prophets and is thus readily accepted by most pagans who say they know how to love and do the golden rule & don't believe in nor need some fairly tale god to tell them anything.

This is the Love of God, that we keep His Commandments, and His Commandments are not burdensome. Love Neighbor as self is a rule - a rule from Mosaic law Holiness Code carried into the New Era along with all God's Commandments/Rules it includes.