Humble Bricklayer

Hi bear bear,

That's a good observation, on your part. I agree that "any commandment' related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes". But then again, I suppose that all the commandments were good in his eyes. And they should be good in our eyes as well. Let's be clear: Paul never condemned the LAW as bad or evil. On the contrary, in his epistle to the Romans he called the LAW "holy, righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12)

The heart of the problem lies in our interaction with the LAW. And that, he warned firmly against. He explains why in that whole chapter (Rom 7). He states that whenever he would set his will to do good, to obey some commandment out of the LAW, he always found that in that action of obeying the law ANOTHER LAW would swing immediately into action.

He suddenly discovered that within him there existed THE LAW OF SIN. And that this 'law' was activated, made alive, and given legs by what he had just a few verses earlier called "holy, righteous, and good", that is the LAW OF MOSES.

Did he condemn the LAW after that discovery? No he didn't. But to his disappointment he recognized that what God had intended for good, and had ordained for life, when he reached out to lay hold of it, in obedience, instead resulted in bondage and death (he gives the personal example of how the Old Testament "moral commandment", 'Thou shalt not covet' wreaked havoc with him), (Romans 7: 7-12).

Paul appreciates the LAW, nevertheless, he is wary of it. In the epistle to the Corinthians he calls its ministry, 'THE MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION' and 'THE MINISTRY OF DEATH' meaning instead of ministering life, it ministers condemnation and death. Yet, in spite of that, he still describes this ministry, the LAW, as being glorious (2 Corinthians 3: 7-9).

Paul also writes:

"The sting of death is sin and the STRENGTH of SIN is the LAW" (1 Corinthians 15: 56)

Yes, the LAW is good. But it is no good for us.

I've just remembered this in connection with that:

There was a television show back in the eighties -you're probably too young to know about it- called 'Alienation', starring James Caan (a Hollywood heavyweight at the time).

It was science fiction, and it was about a bunch of aliens (about a million of them) who'd fled their home planet in a humongous ship that came and landed over Los Angeles (yes, the immigration problem started way back then &#128540. The aliens were humanoid, super strong, technologically advanced, and 'could speak English'. They adapted, and were assimilated into human society, and became like normal humans, going to school, getting jobs, getting into trouble, et cetera.

But they had one fatal weakness. Planet earth is covered up to 70% in precious water -absolutely crucial and necessary to all life on earth. But to the aliens the oceans were like seas of sulphuric acid: they dissolved in water. They wouldn't get within a mile of a beach out of sheer terror! Imagine that. That something intended for good and lavished liberally on the planet by its Creator, and without which all life on earth would die, became to these aliens nothing but death.

Not a perfect parallel, I know, but the point is clear. We are the Alien Nation and the LAW is a Sea of Sulphuric Acid to us. So why would we ever want to go to the beach?

So, back to the issue you raised in your post.

Is the LAW good in Paul's eyes? Yes.

Does Paul view the Old Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' through the same lens as the New Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? No.

Does he "treat them the same"? Well, we have just outlined Paul's own personal experience with the LAW as he laid it out. So, absolutely not!

But Paul said, "..by love serve one another; for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, love thy neighbor as thyself'

There are a number of issues here, bear bear. But I don't want to get too long-winded. I'm aware that your TikTok generation has a general problem with attention span, and what I'll get into might be too much to digest in one sitting.

But I can give a brief outline:

1. There needs to be a consideration of the immediate context of these words (preferably Gal 4:21 - 6:2)
2. In Hermeneutics there's what's called the 'Principle of First Mention'. This principle can be limited and applied to the whole epistle to the Galatians to better gauge this one verse.
3. There needs to be an appreciation of Paul's Literary Style more generally, including his narrative techniques, his use of imagery, and his use of stylistic devices. All his writings are peppered in this manner.
4. This is more subjective and is chiefly my own opinion, but I think we need to have a discussion over the apparent legal paradox of this verse, the paradox being: Paul says that by love the whole law is fulfilled. But does that necessarily mean that by fulfilling the whole law, that that leads to love?

Paul claimed, in his epistle to the Philippians, that while he still subscribed to the Jewish religion, that as 'touching the righteousness that is in the LAW, he was BLAMELESS' (Phil 3:6). So zealous was he to 'fulfill the LAW', in fact, that it led him to a murderous hatred (the opposite of love) of those who confessed the name of Jesus.

So, we know his personal, lived experience was that 'fulfilling the LAW to the point of 'blamelessness' DOES NOT lead to love. But then WHY does he tell the Galatians to serve each other in love and still mention the LAW?

And whatever the LAW tells you to do, that you must do. If it tells you to love your neighbor, then that you must ensure you do. But Paul knows through his own experience that it can't be done. But he quotes it anyway.

Why?

Why didn't he just say 'hey, Jesus gave us a new commandment, love one another'? Why urge the Galatian believers to follow the LAW by quoting the LAW?

Of course, I don't believe that. But if, actually, you believe that Paul held the New Commandment (as given by Jesus, in John 13) to be the same as the Old Testament commandment, then, by necessity, this is the rabbit-hole you MUST go down. It is the logical outworking of a stated position like that. But it makes no sense.

The explanation is that this verse cannot be interpreted correctly without a proper and careful consideration of its context.

...which I'll try and achieve next time with the other three points.

God's blessings