Commandments 1 to 4 and the first (love) commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
As I was approaching work this morning, the verse came to mind:

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

I started thinking, "...hmm...four things we need to love God with and four commandments about loving God. I wonder if there's any correlation between these four things and the four commandments? Does each thing correspond to one of the commandments?"

I don't think there's necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between each thing and one particular commandment.

Having said that, if you had to match each thing (heart, soul, strength, mind) with one of the first four commandments, how would you match them up?

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by blhowes]
 
...so far, for me, I'd match strength with the fourth commandment. We are to stop working and focus our energies (strength) on worshipping God.

...hmm, now what about heart, soul, and mind? ... [thinking]

Does anybody have a good definition for soul that differentiates it from heart? Here's one definition for heart:

From Easton's Bible Dictionary:
Heart
According to the Bible, the heart is the centre not only of spiritual activity, but of all the operations of human life. "Heart" and "soul" are often used interchangeably (Deut. 6:5; 26:16; comp. Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30, 33), but this is not generally the case.

The heart is the "home of the personal life," and hence a man is designated, according to his heart, wise (1 Kings 3:12, etc.), pure (Ps. 24:4; Matt. 5:8, etc.), upright and righteous (Gen. 20:5, 6; Ps. 11:2; 78:72), pious and good (Luke 8:15), etc. In these and such passages the word "soul" could not be substituted for "heart."

The heart is also the seat of the conscience (Rom. 2:15). It is naturally wicked (Gen. 8:21), and hence it contaminates the whole life and character (Matt. 12:34; 15:18; comp. Eccl. 8:11; Ps. 73:7). Hence the heart must be changed, regenerated (Ezek. 36:26; 11:19; Ps. 51:10-14), before a man can willingly obey God.

The process of salvation begins in the heart by the believing reception of the testimony of God, while the rejection of that testimony hardens the heart (Ps. 95:8; Prov. 28:14; 2 Chr. 36:13). "Hardness of heart evidences itself by light views of sin; partial acknowledgment and confession of it; pride and conceit; ingratitude; unconcern about the word and ordinances of God; inattention to divine providences; stifling convictions of conscience; shunning reproof; presumption, and general ignorance of divine things."
 
Hey Bob,
I've been wanting to tell you for a while now that I've really been enjoying Tom Watson's 10 Commandments. Thank you so much for recommending it. I am thrilled at how easy to understand he is and how devotional his writing is. There is so much treasure in his economic use of language. Thanks again.

As to your question, I just don't make a whole lot of distinction or separtion between those four words. It's my belief that they are a poetic repetition for the sake of emphasis so that's as far as I get with your puzzle. I'm looking forward to what others have to say though.
God bless you.
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
Hey Bob,
I've been wanting to tell you for a while now that I've really been enjoying Tom Watson's 10 Commandments. Thank you so much for recommending it. I am thrilled at how easy to understand he is and how devotional his writing is. There is so much treasure in his economic use of language. Thanks again.
You're welcome. I'm so glad that the book was brought to my attention as well. I get the impression that other stuff he's written may be just as good or better.

Originally posted by maxdetail
As to your question, I just don't make a whole lot of distinction or separtion between those four words. It's my belief that they are a poetic repetition for the sake of emphasis so that's as far as I get with your puzzle. I'm looking forward to what others have to say though.
I'm kind of thinking the same thing, and I guess this may just be an 'intellectual exercise' that just leads down one of those proverbial rabbit trails that lead to a dead end. Most likely, its just intended that each of the four commandments should be pursued with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is just one of those, "if you had to pair them up, which would you choose?"
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
As to your question, I just don't make a whole lot of distinction or separtion between those four words. It's my belief that they are a poetic repetition for the sake of emphasis so that's as far as I get with your puzzle. I'm looking forward to what others have to say though.
God bless you.

I agree completely. These four words all deal with the immaterial part of man. Reformed people general believe in the "dichotomy" of man, the dust of the earth (or body) and the breath of the almighty (the soul). These four all deal with the immaterial.
 
"This is just one of those, "if you had to pair them up, which would you choose?"

Ohhhhhhhhh, In that case, here's my pairings.

1. Heart
The heart is where we store our treasure. We must have only one treasure. Our ultimate preference must be set upon God and God alone. We must seek first God, His Kingdom, His righteousness and no other gods must be found in our heart.

2. Soul
The soul is the organ by which we 'experience' the spiritual. It is the non-corporeal part of man. We best see God with the soul because it deals with the invisible. So make no graven images of God who is spirit and invisible.

3. Mind
The mind is the place where we combine the definitions of God's revelation with that which we perceive with the senses. In the mind we think on the attributes of God for these help us to know his essence. To exalt His name is to acknoledge his attributes. He gives Moses his Name and qualifies it with "I am who I am" and nothing outside of God defines his power or personality. "I will have compassion on whom I'll have compassion" and nothing outside himself defines his purpose. We must not use His name in association with any thought or idea that would diminish his attributes and glory.

4. Strength
That's the easiest, six days we should labor but the Sabbath is for rest. Be restored in your strength unless you must use it to help a brother or sister in need.
 
Bob:
I don't think it is right to try to make corelations like that. The summary of the law summarizes the whole law. Even dividing the law into two sections, the first four and the last six, there is still an intrinsic first part in the second, and an intrinsic second in the first. And this summarizes the whole of the law. The second great commandment is not apart from the first, so the love your neighbour as yourself is also part of the first table of the law, just as the love God with heart, soul, mind and strength is also part of the second part of the law.

So to ascribe one these, the heart, soul, mind or strength to any one of the first four would be to rob it of its equal emphasis in the other three, or to rob that one commandment of its aspects in the other three areas. So if you're looking at the fourth commandment, for example, you must keep in mind that the intention of it is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, just as you would need to do with the other three, and with the six that are left.

In other words, none of these can be out of focus with any part of the law.

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by JohnV]
 
"I don't think it is right to try to make corelations like that."

John, where were you 20 minutes ago with that warning. Now I've gone and laid it all out there. My bad.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
In other words, none of these can be out of focus with any part of the law.
I know it probably won't get me off the hook, but speaking of out of focus, I started the thread on a Monday morning, I was tired, and hadn't even finished my first cup of coffee...

Originally posted by JohnV
I don't think it is right to try to make corelations like that.
You're probably right. It was just one of those thoughts that popped into my head that made me go "hmmm..."

Originally posted by JohnV
The summary of the law summarizes the whole law. Even dividing the law into two sections, the first four and the last six, there is still an intrinsic first part in the second, and an intrinsic second in the first. And this summarizes the whole of the law. The second great commandment is not apart from the first, so the love your neighbour as yourself is also part of the first table of the law, just as the love God with heart, soul, mind and strength is also part of the second part of the law.
So, you're saying that its even not 'appropriate' to divide the 10 commandments into the two groups (1 to 4 and 5 to 10).? I've always heard it divided that way. Isn't it a pretty common division, even in reformed circles?

Originally posted by JohnV
So to ascribe one these, the heart, soul, mind or strength to any one of the first four would be to rob it of its equal emphasis in the other three, or to rob that one commandment of its aspects in the other three areas. So if you're looking at the fourth commandment, for example, you must keep in mind that the intention of it is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, just as you would need to do with the other three, and with the six that are left.
That makes sense. Otherwise, you could say that we should love God with all our heart, soul, etc., but our neighbor at some lesser level (although, on second thought, maybe there should be a distinction (as in Luke 14:26).
 
Sorry, Bob. I was making breakfast. And then an old friend called as you were typing this last post, as we talked for over an hour, while the computer whirred away. So, I'm back, now.

I didn't mean to criticize. I didn't even see that post until afterward. It's just my view, that's all. I still value the work you put into it for us.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
I didn't mean to criticize. I didn't even see that post until afterward. It's just my view, that's all. I still value the work you put into it for us.
It must be a Monday, and I must need another cup of coffee - 'cause I didn't even recognize your post as being a criticism. I'll have to pay closer attention.:lol:
 
Bob (Howes)
So, you're saying that its even not 'appropriate' to divide the 10 commandments into the two groups (1 to 4 and 5 to 10).? I've always heard it divided that way. Isn't it a pretty common division, even in reformed circles?
Not really. There is a distinction that it would be foolish to ignore. I'm just suggesting that its not right to separate them into groups for any or every reason given. It's an observation about the law, not something to make a theology about the law about, I think.

You can't really do the second table of the law while neglecting the first part. And doing the first part is of no use if it doesn't result in also doing the second part. They are of a unit first.
Originally posted by JohnV
So to ascribe one these, the heart, soul, mind or strength to any one of the first four would be to rob it of its equal emphasis in the other three, or to rob that one commandment of its aspects in the other three areas. So if you're looking at the fourth commandment, for example, you must keep in mind that the intention of it is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, just as you would need to do with the other three, and with the six that are left.
That makes sense. Otherwise, you could say that we should love God with all our heart, soul, etc., but our neighbor at some lesser level (although, on second thought, maybe there should be a distinction (as in Luke 14:26).
Luke 14: 26
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Well, what I had in mind was that you could not really love your neighbour if you didn't love God rightly first off. This is not a command to hate our neighbour and family, and even ourselves, but rather to abhor those things, no matter how dear, which come before our love for God, as if family, wife, friends, neighbours, or even our own life could satisfy the deep desires of the soul created in God's image better than God could.
 
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by JohnV
I didn't mean to criticize. I didn't even see that post until afterward. It's just my view, that's all. I still value the work you put into it for us.
It must be a Monday, and I must need another cup of coffee - 'cause I didn't even recognize your post as being a criticism. I'll have to pay closer attention.:lol:

This was for the other Bob. Bob V, not Bob H. I think I need an espresso, an Italian one. This is getting confusing. Now there are not just two tables of the law, but two Bobs to discuss this with.
 
A couple of months ago I was preaching at a Lutheran church on Faith, Hope and Love.
After the service I was greeting the people and one older gentleman came up to me with a chart that he had made during my message. He started saying something about how the three aspects corelated to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My first impression was that he was a nut, but I patiently asked him to explain how he concluded that. The man was amazing. He was a true lover of the Word and possessed a bewildering analytical prowess. It was a joy to hear him as he explained it to me and I was blessed.

That's how our brains work. We make associations that help us to remember, we recognize patterns that may or may not have significance but it is all part of 'wrestling' with God's Word and coming away changed and/or blessed.

Thank you John, I knew who weren't speaking in a stern tone. You are always the gentleman. :handshake:
 
Andrew:
Easy for you to say. Your posts didn't get slashed, and you kept your professorial status. Unlike some of us who have to be re-educated. I wonder what's going on?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Bob. You'll have to explain that chart for us someday. I'd be interested.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
This was for the other Bob. Bob V, not Bob H. I think I need an espresso, an Italian one. This is getting confusing. Now there are not just two tables of the law, but two Bobs to discuss this with.
...which means I need to pay even closer attention.
Robert
 
...before this thread dies a natural death, does everybody agree with Bob's definitions? They seemed to make sense, and I was wondering if those are pretty standard definitions?

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by blhowes]
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Andrew:
Easy for you to say. Your posts didn't get slashed, and you kept your professorial status. Unlike some of us who have to be re-educated. I wonder what's going on?

Yep, I know I was a John-ny-come-lately to the discussion, but it's been a good one to observe...:lol:

:detective:
 
I don't think there is necessarily a correlation exegetically. To begin with, the Markan passage expands on Deuteronomy 6. Here are some thots I've had on this passage in the past, For what it's worth:

Israel´s primary responsibility, summed up in the great Shema , was to acknowledge YHWH as their God and, indeed, as the only god. This is also the substance of the First Commandment, a theological stance that radically set Israel apart from her polytheistic neighbors. Good theology does not exist in a vacuum and Israel´s monotheism carried responsibilities with it. If God is the only god (and He is) and had bound Himself to His people in covenant (and He had), then Israel was required to respond in a number of ways.
First, Israel was obligated to love YHWH with all their heart. The heart was the center of the Hebrew being, in much the same way that the western world considers the heart as the center of one´s being. Moses in effect is saying that the love we have for God must be at the very center of everything that we are. The devotion that YHWH demands of His people is complete. The Israelites were also to love YHWH with all of their soul. The word for soul refers to the life force that exists within all animate life. This phrase indicates then, that there ought not be any compartmentalizing of our lives. Love for YHWH should permeate all that we do and touch every aspect of our lives. The final phrase describing Israel´s love of YHWH is difficult to render in English. Quite literally it says we are to love YHWH with all our "œmuchness." The word is a superlative of the highest order, underscoring what has previously been said. Love of YHWH should be at the center of our beings, affecting all that we do, in ever increasing proportions. It is the radical call of God for us to bring all of our being and lives under the lordship of Christ.
The command to love YHWH in this way naturally begged the question of how such a task could be accomplished. To his hearers, Moses commanded that God´s Word be upon their hearts. It is the thorough saturation with and inculcation of the Scriptures that moves us to love God, as we ought. The Bible assumes that the child of God is in the Word, meditating on it, pondering it, memorizing it. Without single-minded devotion to God´s Word it is impossible to develop single-minded devotion to God.
The second, and most crucial, aspect of the command follows on in verse 7. Moses commands us to "œinstill" God´s Word in our children as well. The word translated, "œinstill," referred to the process of sharpening a knife. In view was the process of grinding a tool into a state of preparation for use. A parent´s devotion to and knowledge of God´s Word, then, must be passed onto his children through a process of diligent teaching and instruction. The child must be made to know that just as Scripture informs every area of his parent´s lives, so it also must his. How is this done? Moses says it is accomplished by talking about God´s Word at home and away, in bed and out. The idea is that just as Scripture permeates every area of our lives, it also affords us ample opportunities to explain to our children why it is that we live the way we do.
:2cents:
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I don't think there is necessarily a correlation exegetically. To begin with, the Markan passage expands on Deuteronomy 6. Here are some thots I've had on this passage in the past,...
That was excellent, Kevin. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top