We cannot be fulfilling the first and greatest commandment if we are not fulfilling the second, but fulfilling the second does not mean we are fulfilling the first.
I love the present continuous tense of the YLT:
He who is having my commands, and is keeping them, that one it is who is loving me, and he who is loving me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 14:21
How does one “love” God without loving people? I don’t think it’s an accident that Jesus tied those two commandments together (“…the second one is like it …”). One who fashions they can “look up” without looking across at their neighbor will end up only looking up at empty sky.
And how does God MEASURE obedience to the FIRST commandment?
By how much we worship in church and do churchy things???
Isaiah chapter 1 says no.
Then how?
We are given the answer to this question in Matthew 25.
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I don’t think he was saying that – but that is why I added my comment to clarify.
You can examine your heart’s desire à la the first petition in the Lord’s Prayer (and the second).
Agreed. I’m not trying to argue or play “gotcha” with anyone here.
All I’m suggesting is that technically (or speaking in some theologically pedantic sense), Christ could have stopped with #1: “Love God with everything” and that would have covered it. His addition of the second could be seen (I suggest) as a further clarification of what all is entailed in the first.
Understanding it that way would be: “Love God with everything you’ve got… and that will mean you must love your neighbors. All of them.”
But I think the danger exists that if you are fulfilling the second, some think (if they do) that necessarily ‘covers’ the first, ignoring the Persons.
Piper made a solid connection with how the capacity to love your neighbor, flows out of your heart being fulfilled in God.
“As the deer pants for waters, so my soul longs for you.”
I remember as if it was yesterday. My liberal (in the classical sense) professor of legal philosophy told me in his office how the sum of the law was to love your neighbor. He quoted someone who I don’t remember. In reply, almost not believing he said it, I explained how the first commandment was to love God. He stared at me blankly like I was speaking another language.
And here in this forum, as if it needs to be explained, the love of God can be distinguished and identified with loving your neighbor. Sometimes it’s intimately connected, and sometimes it’s starkly contrasted. The woman pouring the expensive perfume on Jesus feet as one example of the way in which we love God differently than how we love people.
That raises an interesting question, though - in a thoroughgoing Christian sense, can anybody really love anything or anyone aright apart from God? Just as we have a saying that “all truth is God’s truth”, meaning that even if non-believers teach true things, those things are no less true, and no less God’s just because we hear them from the lips of people who don’t identify with our brand of religion.
I see love that way too. All love comes from God, whether we acknowledge it or no. I think God rejoices when any of us loves our neighbor, even if the agent doesn’t think of it that way. Whether we explicitly know about God or Jesus or not, when we show love (for anything or anyone), I believe it is “of God”. Note that this isn’t commentary at all on what any person’s “salvific status” is before God - a question that we have a history of unhealthy obsession with. It’s only to note that God does what God does through whom God will, despite our puritanically narrow objections to the contrary. There are many lesser ‘loves’ that end up not being real love at all (from both Christians and non Christians) who are, all of us, obliged to learn regardless of our lipservice to religion or against it. I would like to think that most Christian religion should help challenge one in these sorts of directions and give encouragement where needed in discipling growth. But churches too, come in all flavors and sizes, sometimes helping to drive Christ away and other times welcoming him in.
While none of us will yet perform either of these loves perfectly, I have yet to be persuaded they can be separated in any meaningful way - in either direction!
I hadn’t yet read your response, @heymike3, as I posted the above.
The woman loving on Jesus is an excellent example to draw on. I think, though, that in the spirit of the parable of the sheep and goats, that we can still do this. We bathe Christ’s feet in perfume when we share so lavishly with “the least of these” around us. I don’t think Christ would go back on his word and tell us that we didn’t really do it for him.
Wasn’t Jesus speaking to people who already believed in God?
Not only believed, but loved him so much that they would would forsake all that is in the world, including mother and father, if it stood in the way of knowing God.
For the most part, I imagine. Or it was more the cultural air they breathed at the time, anyway - so that there would at least be commonly practiced lipservice to God. My answer isn’t nearly so optimistic as heymike’s is, in that it seems to me that Jesus didn’t appear to take strong faith as such a ‘given’ for many folks around him, even including his own disciples. The times he does commend someone’s faith seem to be occassions of surprise and celebration for him, making me think that strong faith wasn’t an easy norm then either. Cultural practice and ritual notwithstanding.
I recently heard Keener talk about the double meaning for Peter being the rock the church was to be built on and shortly thereafter he is called a stumbling block.
The episode with the centurion is one such example, and it amazes me that many otherwise competent theologians conclude that not many will be saved because of a passage that shortly precedes it.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”
Matthew 8:11 uses the same word for “many” as Matthew 7:13.
After Jesus marveled at the faith of the centurion, he said, “many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”
The centurion, who like no one in Israel, represented the few who find the narrow way. But many will come after.
Are you actually looking for a missing neighbor? Something tells me you’re not but I’m not getting the joke
The word ‘love’ is poor in the sense that it may mean several types of emotions, relationships or attitudes. This is sometimes confusing - all types of ‘love’ are not from God, as you note about the lesser ‘loves’.
God is love but love is not God.
Yes - it’s a good point that there are different kinds of love. I remember the “classic three” which have the different Greek words: “Eros” (the erotic love between a man and a woman), “Philos” (brotherly love between friends), and “Agape” (self-sacrificial and serving love). And if there has been a fourth recently added - it slips my mind at the moment. But in any case, I actually didn’t distinguish, but just kept the overarching English word “love” because I think all three are from God, and that all three (possibly excepting agape) come in lesser forms and truer forms. Even agape, will be imperfectly applied and impurely motivated given that we are humans only learning to imitate God and share in God’s desires in our various halting ways. But I would argue that all these forms of love have their truest ‘kernal’ or source in God. I think that’s why scriptures freely make use of all three forms to illustrate God’s love for us. Think of the songs of Solomon, or of the image of a bride (the church) desiring her bride groom. Or given the “friendship” or “brotherly” love, the image of Jesus as our “eldest brother”, and of course the agape love being the most obvious form that runs all through scripture.
God created life, so He is also the creator of all forms of love.
Yet, some forms are easy to explain as evolutionary adaptations. Eros might be explained as desire with a mental disorder (or mental disorder including desire), with the evolutionary benefit of improving the survival of offspring. Philos helps the multiplication of shared genes.
Agape differs in the sense that it is usually something that benefits others more than the person itself. In the sense used by the NT, it is something that exceeds everything coming from a selfish human; a reflection of the true love of God.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
