The two LOVE commands vs. the DECALOGUE (Ten Commands)

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

THE TWO LOVE COMMANDS VS THE DECALOGUE (TEN COMMANDS)


The argument is frequently made that the two love commands just restate the ten commands, as if they are equivalent to each.other.


This is not so.


The first obvious difference is there are no days commanded to be kept in the two love commands.


But the most glaring difference between them isn’t readily apparent, but is a huge difference indeed.


So let’s compare them.


If you keep the two love commands you keep some of the ten commands, but in reality the two love commands far exceed the ten.


The ten commands - as they pertain to our relationship with other people - are negative commands: they only limit BAD behavior, by telling us what harm we CANT do to others - yet they don’t promote ANY positive acts of good will or good behavior towards your neighbor.


And they were kept not out of love, but kept out of fear of punishment - they had the death penalty by stoning, for breaking them.


And there’s not one drop of love for your neighbor found in the Decalogue.


Whereas in comparison, the two love commands are positive commands, instead of negative.


If you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t kill him, steal from him, or lie against him, etc, and therefore in effect keep 6 of ten.


But when you love your neighbor as yourself, you’ll go far beyond a mere six negative commands, that only tell you what harm you CAN’T do to your neighbor.


You won’t gossip about him for just one example - and there’s no command that says thou shalt not gossip about your neighbor.


In fact you won’t do ANY of the things that would do some kind of harm to your neighbor, which far exceeds a mere 6 limitations.


Jesus didn’t say, “love does none of the 6 things to harm your neighbor prohibited by the ten commands, thus love fulfills the law”.


He said instead, that love does NO HARM to your neighbor, so love fulfills the law.


Get the difference?


The two love commands go far beyond the ten commands in how well you treat your fellow man - instead of limiting any harm you’d do to your neighbor to six, if you love him you won’t do ANY HARM to him in any way, shape or form.


And the two love commands also go far beyond not doing any kind of harm to your neighbor: if you love him as yourself - besides NOT harming him - you will HELP him in every kind of way.


If you love your neighbor you’ll mow his lawn when he breaks his leg,or feed him and his wife when he’s out of work and the pantry’s empty, for just two examples.


If you’re just keeping the Decalogue, you can do things harmful to him NOT prohibited by the 6 limitations in it, and ignore any dire needs he has - yet still pat yourself on the back for keeping the Ten commands to a tee.


That’s why the two love commands are far superior to the very limited and negative ten commands, and they’re kept for a very different motive than fear of being stoned to death under the law.


Thus you really can’t equate the ten commands to the two love commands, nor claim that the two merely restate the ten - when in reality they are far different - as different as night and day.

The Pharisees put what they believed to be a controversial question to Jesus. I believe they thought Jesus would say something that might damage his credibility. One of them approached Jesus and asked: “Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”—Matthew 22:34-36.

The answer Jesus gave has tremendous importance for us today. In his reply, he summed up what always was and always will be the essence of true worship. Quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5, Jesus said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.” Though the Pharisee asked for just one commandment, Jesus then gave him another, he said: “The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’” Leviticus 19:18 Jesus then indicated that these two laws embraced the whole of pure worship. To stop any attempt to get him to list in order of importance the other laws, he concluded: “On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

 

[Curtis]

The Pharisees put what they believed to be a controversial question to Jesus. I believe they thought Jesus would say something that might damage his credibility. One of them approached Jesus and asked: “Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”—Matthew 22:34-36.

The answer Jesus gave has tremendous importance for us today. In his reply, he summed up what always was and always will be the essence of true worship. Quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5, Jesus said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.” Though the Pharisee asked for just one commandment, Jesus then gave him another, he said: “The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’” Leviticus 19:18 Jesus then indicated that these two laws embraced the whole of pure worship. To stop any attempt to get him to list in order of importance the other laws, he concluded: “On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

As I said the ten commands are negative commands that limits how much harm you could do to someone, and do nothing to promote doing good to your neighbor at all, and you can refuse to lift one finger to help your neighbor, who may be in dire need, and yet have completely kept the ten commands.

The love commands are in the Old Testament but are not called the covenant, as the Decalogue is called - but they are the essence and intent of Gods law, as made clear by Paul and Jesus - and the Decalogue is not.

Which is why the Decalogue is ended in the new covenant, as Paul makes ridiculously clear in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, leaving the essence and intent of Gods law from the Old Testament in effect, the two love commands. .

Maranatha

 

[robert derrick]

The Pharisees put what they believed to be a controversial question to Jesus. I believe they thought Jesus would say something that might damage his credibility. One of them approached Jesus and asked: “Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”—Matthew 22:34-36.

The answer Jesus gave has tremendous importance for us today. In his reply, he summed up what always was and always will be the essence of true worship. Quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5, Jesus said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.” Though the Pharisee asked for just one commandment, Jesus then gave him another, he said: “The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’” Leviticus 19:18 Jesus then indicated that these two laws embraced the whole of pure worship. To stop any attempt to get him to list in order of importance the other laws, he concluded: “” (Matthew 22:37-40)

On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.

Excellent point. It also proves that there is no commandment, ordinance, statute, etc...that is apart from the whole law of Moses: the whole law is whole and complete and one law, and trying to parse out certain commandments from it, is to destroy the law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Which law was fulfilled by Jesus on earth (Matthew 5:18), and is fulfilled by His people who fulfill the royal law to love their neighbors as themselves. (James 2)

Sabbath commanders try to let the law of Moses be fulfilled and passed away, without certain commandments that are in the law, that they have plucked out for themselves to obey and command on others.

They actually try to say that the '10 Commandments' was not law, nor part of that law, but eternally separate from the law of ordinances and statutes, and judgments, etc...

If that were so, and the whole law and the prophets hang on the two greatest commandments, then the 4th commandment does not hang on them, and so have nothing to do with loving God and loving our neighbors.

Which it doesn't. But it does make for plenty of self-love, and loving of self-righteousness to judge and condemn others by.

 

[robert derrick]

As I said the ten commands are negative commands that limits how much harm you could do to someone, and do nothing to promote doing good to your neighbor at all, and you can refuse to lift one finger to help your neighbor, who may be in dire need, and yet have completely kept the ten commands.

The love commands are in the Old Testament but are not called the covenant, as the Decalogue is called - but they are the essence and intent of Gods law, as made clear by Paul and Jesus - and the Decalogue is not.

Which is why the Decalogue is ended in the new covenant, as Paul makes ridiculously clear in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, leaving the essence and intent of Gods law from the Old Testament in effect, the two love commands. .

Maranatha

True.

The law, which included it's commandments written on stone, was weak in that it could not produce righteousness with God, because it could not produce faith in the heart, without which it is impossible to please God, but is completely unnecessary to fulfill the works of the law.

The law by definition, being that which only defines transgression and sin, doesn't care what anyone thinks about it, but only cares if someone transgresses it; therefore Scripture called the ministry of such law, the ministration of condemnation and death: the law doesn't work righteousness of God, but only condemnation of transgression with punishment of death.

And as you point out: the greatest 'commandments' were not written in the law on tables of stone, neither in the book of the law of Moses in the tabernacle of the wilderness.

They were written separate as the intent and plea of God for His people to please Him from the heart, for our own good:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (Deut 5:29)

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Why don't we let God tell us why He attached the death penalty to His commandments:

“Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, “his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God." - Deut. 21:21-23

“And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.- Deut. 17:13

“You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you." - Deut. 16:20

There it is, in crystal clear terms that doesn't need anyone's personal interpretation. God prescribed the death penalty to

- protect the Israelites from being a corrupt nation like the rest of the world

- respect His authority and take His commands seriously, since they were utterly incapable of naturally doing so without God's Spirit

- keep the land in which the Israelites lived holy

- ensure the Israelites wouldn't have to worry about others infringing on their physical or spiritual safety

- keep the nation of Israel away from operating with Satan's own rebellious attitude

The theology that the OC laws were given to make people afraid of punishment has absolutely no biblical support to it, and such a teaching reflects the very mind and nature of Satan himself. One of the greatest blessings that comes with practicing the Law is watching Satan's agents expose who they really are with their lies, no matter how attractive they attempt to package themselves or their theology to the gullible and unsuspecting.

God is a Judge, and as such He is obligated to punish people for their disobeying fixed standards of morality(bible prophecy and current trends says He's already doing it now). If He didn't, He wouldn't be a just God. You may not like it or be able to accept it, but God isn't going to change who He is or His laws to suit anyone's convenience.

We are not under a Mosaic sabbath.
We are now under the Lords day sabbath.
The word used in Hebrews4 :9 is a word that means...the keeping of a sabbath.
The 10 commandments are still in effect....but now under Christ.
Look at Hebrews 3:1-6...moses was faithful I. His house[ot] but Christ over the whole house[nt.]

The fairly obvious problem with this theology is that the Hebrew equivalent of "sabbatismos" in the OT refers to keeping the Sabbath God created and ordained. Paul used "sabbatismos" so that the Greek speaking Jews he was writing to would understand that he was referring to the same Sabbath their ancestors were given by God.

Nowhere in Paul's epistles does he ever advocate for keeping a different Sabbath other than the one Luke wrote about him keeping in Acts. If Paul advocated for such a move, Peter would have been well within his right and authority as the chief apostle under Christ to strip Paul of his office and kick him out of the Church until he repented. But since Paul can clearly be seen telling Felix that he believed everything in the Law(Acts 24:14), there's absolutely no way anyone can argue Paul kept a different day as the Sabbath or taught that it was abolished and expect to be taken seriously by the people who practice biblical Christianity.

This is an extremely judgmental comment, and it is in direct opposition to Paul's teaching in Romans that those who choose to do things like keep the Sabbath do so unto the Lord and should be accepted. My personal opinion is that the Sabbath rest was fulfilled through Christ. When we accept Him as our Lord and Savior, we enter into His rest and cease from our labors. Still, I can understand the reason why some choose to rest on the seventh day. This goes back to Genesis, before the Law of Moses was given. God hallowed the seventh day of the week because He rested on that day. I personally think that resting one day of the week is a good practice, as we all need time off to re-charge the batteries. Do we need to rest on the seventh day today? This has been debated in many forums, and nobody has been able to prove conclusively who is right and who is wrong. I know that by faith, I have entered into "His rest," but I respect those who choose to rest on the Sabbath.

What you personally believe or think doesn't matter at all next to what the Bible says. God said the 7th day is holy to Him, that it will always be holy to Him, and that it is supposed to be holy to anyone who claims to worship Him(Exo. 31:14). The whole reason why God placed the Sabbath at the end of the week is so people can grow as His followers, be physically and spiritually refreshed to take on the week, and detach themselves from Satan's world and influence for a 24 hr period(and let's be frank, in a time where the world is at the same point that it was in Noah and Lot's day, no professing Christian should be arguing against this).

Being able to prove the Sabbath is supposed to be kept by Christians isn't the issue because Acts documents the 1st century Church keeping it for the first 30-40 years of its existence. Sabbath keeping wasn't an issue in the Church until Simon Magus' followers began infiltrating the Church and started to poison people's minds into accepting the now popular lie that God's laws were abolished under the current covenant. The whole reason why Paul had to spend entire chapters in Romans reinforcing the authority of God's commandments is because the Roman Christians' minds were being poisoned into accepting the same anti-law doctrines and narratives that are prevalent in Romanism today.

"Christians" reject the biblical Sabbath for the same reason atheists reject God's existence: they are attempting to justify doing what they want to do during the biblical Saturday period with no regard for God's position on the matter. God says He does His sanctifying work on the Sabbath(Exo. 31:13), not Sunday or any other day of the week. That is a bible fact. Anyone who rejects the Sabbath is not being sanctified. And according to the Bible, a person can only be saved if they're sanctified.

No, I leave that to the Law hypocrites who preach the Law of Moses but don't obey the parts they don't like. Or maybe you execute people who work on weekends?

Exodus 31:15 (NKJV)
15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

I have seen these incredibly weak arguments for years from biblically illiterate people, whether they're anti-Sabbatarians or atheists. The obvious problems with your argument are as follows:

- Rom. 13:1-7 shows God gave civil authorities the responsibility of carrying out capital punishment under the New Covenant.

- You're proposing that because Sabbath keepers don't execute the people who violate the Sabbath, it somehow means they're picking and choosing which commands they want to follow. This asinine reasoning loops back to a failure to realize what Paul taught in Rom. 13 in regards to who was given the authority to carry out capital punishment under the New Covenant.

- Another thing that makes this argument extremely asinine is connected with the second point i made. You're proposing that because a commandment of God came with the instruction to execute the violaters under the former covenant, it's supposed to be completely ignored under the current covenant. However, most anti-Sabbatarians probably won't make the same argument regarding the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments, even though God attached the death penalty to those commandments as well.

You're guilty of being a hypocrite while accusing others of being a hypocrite because the ironic premise behind your argument is you justifying your desire to cherry pick scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

Why don't we let God tell us why He attached the death penalty to His commandments:

“Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, “his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God." - Deut. 21:21-23

“And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.- Deut. 17:13

“You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you." - Deut. 16:20

There it is, in crystal clear terms that doesn't need anyone's personal interpretation. God prescribed the death penalty to

- protect the Israelites from being a corrupt nation like the rest of the world

- respect His authority and take His commands seriously, since they were utterly incapable of naturally doing so without God's Spirit

- keep the land in which the Israelites lived holy

- ensure the Israelites wouldn't have to worry about others infringing on their physical or spiritual safety

- keep the nation of Israel away from operating with Satan's own rebellious attitude

The theology that the OC laws were given to make people afraid of punishment has absolutely no biblical support to it, and such a teaching reflects the very mind and nature of Satan himself. One of the greatest blessings that comes with practicing the Law is watching Satan's agents expose who they really are with their lies, no matter how attractive they attempt to package themselves or their theology to the gullible and unsuspecting.

God is a Judge, and as such He is obligated to punish people for their disobeying fixed standards of morality(bible prophecy and current trends says He's already doing it now). If He didn't, He wouldn't be a just God. You may not like it or be able to accept it, but God isn't going to change who He is or His laws to suit anyone's convenience.

The fairly obvious problem with this theology is that the Hebrew equivalent of "sabbatismos" in the OT refers to keeping the Sabbath God created and ordained. Paul used "sabbatismos" so that the Greek speaking Jews he was writing to would understand that he was referring to the same Sabbath their ancestors were given by God.

Nowhere in Paul's epistles does he ever advocate for keeping a different Sabbath other than the one Luke wrote about him keeping in Acts. If Paul advocated for such a move, Peter would have been well within his right and authority as the chief apostle under Christ to strip Paul of his office and kick him out of the Church until he repented. But since Paul can clearly be seen telling Felix that he believed everything in the Law(Acts 24:14), there's absolutely no way anyone can argue Paul kept a different day as the Sabbath or taught that it was abolished and expect to be taken seriously by the people who practice biblical Christianity.
What you personally believe or think doesn't matter at all next to what the Bible says. God said the 7th day is holy to Him, that it will always be holy to Him, and that it is supposed to be holy to anyone who claims to worship Him(Exo. 31:14). The whole reason why God placed the Sabbath at the end of the week is so people can grow as His followers, be physically and spiritually refreshed to take on the week, and detach themselves from Satan's world and influence for a 24 hr period(and let's be frank, in a time where the world is at the same point that it was in Noah and Lot's day, no professing Christian should be arguing against this).

Being able to prove the Sabbath is supposed to be kept by Christians isn't the issue because Acts documents the 1st century Church keeping it for the first 30-40 years of its existence. Sabbath keeping wasn't an issue in the Church until Simon Magus' followers began infiltrating the Church and started to poison people's minds into accepting the now popular lie that God's laws were abolished under the current covenant. The whole reason why Paul had to spend entire chapters in Romans reinforcing the authority of God's commandments is because the Roman Christians' minds were being poisoned into accepting the same anti-law doctrines and narratives that are prevalent in Romanism today.

"Christians" reject the biblical Sabbath for the same reason atheists reject God's existence: they are attempting to justify doing what they want to do during the biblical Saturday period with no regard for God's position on the matter. God says He does His sanctifying work on the Sabbath(Exo. 31:13), not Sunday or any other day of the week. That is a bible fact. Anyone who rejects the Sabbath is not being sanctified. And according to the Bible, a person can only be saved if they're sanctified.
I have seen these incredibly weak arguments for years from biblically illiterate people, whether they're anti-Sabbatarians or atheists. The obvious problems with your argument are as follows:

- Rom. 13:1-7 shows God gave civil authorities the responsibility of carrying out capital punishment under the New Covenant.

- You're proposing that because Sabbath keepers don't execute the people who violate the Sabbath, it somehow means they're picking and choosing which commands they want to follow. This asinine reasoning loops back to a failure to realize what Paul taught in Rom. 13 in regards to who was given the authority to carry out capital punishment under the New Covenant.

- Another thing that makes this argument extremely asinine is connected with the second point i made. You're proposing that because a commandment of God came with the instruction to execute the violaters under the former covenant, it's supposed to be completely ignored under the current covenant. However, most anti-Sabbatarians probably won't make the same argument regarding the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments, even though God attached the death penalty to those commandments as well.

You're guilty of being a hypocrite while accusing others of being a hypocrite because the ironic premise behind your argument is you justifying your desire to cherry pick scripture.

I definitely like your style of plainness of speech and not pulling punches:

The theology that the OC laws were given to make people afraid of punishment has absolutely no biblical support to it, and such a teaching reflects the very mind and nature of Satan himself. One of the greatest blessings that comes with practicing the Law is...

We are under the law of Christ, and the carnal mind is enmity with God, because it will not be subject to the law of God.

Therefore, those who have made 'works' and 'law' bad words and anathema to salvation by grace, make themselves carnal minded sinners without repentance from dead works, and without works of faith that fulfills the royal law to love our neighbors as ourselves, and all the law of God is given by commandment and ordinance to define what is and is not loving God and ourselves and our neighbors.

We are saved by grace through faith with works of faith. We are saved with a salvation of God that comes with the things pertaining to that salvation: the things of faith that please God: repentance and doing His Word by faith.

And the law of God is His Word, which both Paul and James declared to be doers of, and not just hearers only. (Rom 2)(James 1)

So, when Paul speaks of a problem with 'the law', and not being under that law, then he is plainly not speaking of the law of Christ, which he then says we are under and bound to obey to God. (1 Cor 9:21)

So, 'that law' that Paul was having a problem with, and was troubling the Galatians into a fall from grace, was some other law than that of Christ, and since it involved circumcision, then that law must have been the law of Moses, which is the only law that ever commanded it.

And so, we are not under the law of Moses nor bound to obey it, with its' commandments, statutes, ordinances, judgements, etc..., but we are under the law of Christ and bound to obey it with its' commandment, judgments, ordinances, etc...

Don't read any Sabbath commandment in the law of Christ. So, other than that part, I like your spunk.

Very sincere and honest, just very sincerely wrong and honestly in error pertaining to any Sabbath commandment in the doctrine of Christ.

 

[marks]

Therefore, those who have made 'works' and 'law' bad words and anathema to salvation by grace,

Do you mean, like, contrary to salvation by grace, that is, we are in no wise saved by works? Or do you mean like, being saved by grace don't do any works of law? I'm trying to understand what you are saying here.

Much love!

 

[marks]

because it could not produce faith in the heart, without which it is impossible to please God, but is completely unnecessary to fulfill the works of the law.

The first Law in the 10 was to love God, first you must believe He exists, then you may love Him.

The Law was unable to perfect them, is what we are told I think.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

Do you mean, like, contrary to salvation by grace, that is, we are in no wise saved by works? Or do you mean like, being saved by grace don't do any works of law? I'm trying to understand what you are saying here.

Much love!

There are those who separate salvation from works, soi that salvation is unconditional secured once saved. They make repentance into a spiritual kind of inward repentance, so that outward repentance is not necessary for salvation, and thus not necessary for eternal salvation.

The error is in reading 'by works' and 'under the law'. We are not saved by works of our own righteousness, which iw any work, whether according to law or not, that is without faith of God: outwardly only.

We are saved with works to do, the things that accompany salvation: are with salvation, not separate from nor 'following' salvation. The works of faith that are repentance from dead works, and doing the Word of God by faith.

Confession is of the heart only: agreement with God. Repentance is of the deeds of the body only: doing what we agree with God to do.

'The law' is only a problem when it is either done for justification without faith of heart, or when it is not the law of Christ.

Outward works alone do not justify with God, even as faith alone does not save by God: it takes both, the faith of God in the heart and the works of God done from the heart.

But when the law we are keeping is not the law of Christ, yet believed to be, then all such works of 'the law' are done by a deceived faith, wich has no more justification than works alone.

We know the law we are not under cannot be the law of Christ, which we are under, and so that law we are not to be under, with the circumcision thereof, must be the law of Moses.

Keeping the law of Moses in the new testament is not by the faith of Jesus, but is by a deceived belief in another law than that of Christ.

That law of circumcision, which is by Moses, cannot be the law of Christ, because Scripture says at one point we are not under that law, and yet says at another point we are under the law of Christ.

And so, there is faith alone which is dead, there is works alone which is vain, and there is works of a false faith which is deceived.

Salvation and justification comes only by the faith of Jesus, with the works of Jesus by faith: Repentance from dead works by mortifying the sinful deeds of the body, and fulfilling the royal law of Christ to love our neighbor our ourselves, by the good works of faith.

 

[kcnalp]

Sarcasm. What a sad testimony.

Must be your sarcasm, not mine. I just don't like utter hypocrisy, especially those who point the finger at us who stick with the New Covenant instead of picking the parts of the Law you like. Have you even read the NT? Have you even read the Law?

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

 

[QuickFilly]

Must be your sarcasm, not mine. I just don't like utter hypocrisy, especially those who point the finger at us who stick with the New Covenant instead of picking the parts of the Law you like. Have you even read the NT? Have you even read the Law?

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

No, it's definitely you.

 

[kcnalp]

No, it's definitely you.

I'll stick with the New Covenant in Jesus' Blood.

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.