St. Matthew tells of The Greatest Commandment.
“When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they
gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by
asking, ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’He said
to him, ‘You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with
all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets
depend on these two commandments.’”
(Mathew 22: 34-40, NABRE) In this passage, Jesus Christ summarized the
plethora of divine laws into two: (1) Love God with all your all and (2)
love your neighbor as yourself.
Might there not be some missing link between the two? Logically, one would have to state three propositions, namely: love God with your all, love yourself as you love God, and then love your neighbor as yourself. But, Jesus - The Word of God, the Alpha and the Omega – chose not to go by these three understandably connected propositions; instead, He just went right ahead into the second, declaring it to be like the first, without laying the predicate about loving yourself which is not categorically mentioned in the first and greatest commandment (only stating the point of loving God). So how do we make sense of this? How do we jump from loving God to loving neighbor as yourself?
Perhaps, it can only make sense if we accept that Jesus had an assumption when He declared the first commandment. Could it be that that assumption is: you, too, are part of God and in union with Him and therefore you are included in the Person to be loved with all of your heart, soul, mind? Would it not then make sense, and only then [when you love God - who includes yourself - with your all in all], that the second is like the first? Love your neighbor as you love yourself because s/he too is part of and in union with God? As both you and your neighbor are one with God, loving the neighbor as part of God is like the first, since this first command subsumes loving yourself as part of God?
In effect, can we say that because the neighbor is one with God (whether s/he realizes it or not), you love this neighbor as yourself (since you are also one with God)?
Isn’t this conclusion about that assumption staggering? I am part of and in union with God? And I should be loved by me with all my mind, soul, and heart? And therefore, I should be loving my neighbor as I love myself?
Hmmm. But it seems inescapable, if we are to understand why Jesus said the second command (loving neighbor) is like the first (loving God).
What? Every morning when I look at myself in the mirror, I can say the following? “I love you ‘Part of God’, with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind!” And then express gratitude: “Thank, You, Lord God, for creating me in Your Image. I love You, God - Father Almighty, Lord Jesus, Holy Spirit - with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind!” “And because every neighbor is also one with You, like me, I love him/her as I love myself!”
Of course, as each is created unique, might I not perceive the neighbor’s oneness with the Lord as different from my own oneness with Him? But does being different disqualify the neighbor from the abiding love with my all in all that the Lord requires? What if the neighbor intends and does evil on me? Am I not still required to love him/her even though I may have to undertake non-violent resistance?
Oh boy: Isn’t this where we whimper, saying: “What is man that thou art mindful of him, Lord?” – still sneaking in the presumption of separateness…
And isn’t this the moment that the Lord answers: “You are, and have always been, part of and one with me: just as the atoms of your body are the same as the atoms of the stars in the ever-expanding universe. Though you have insisted on your delusion and illusion of being separate from Me and continued to disregard Me by violating My commands, I still love you, and have sent My Only-Begotten Son to be the acceptable expiation and cover for all your sins, so that you may have the chance to change your default destiny, by repentance of your sins, accepting Jesus as your Redeemer and Lord, and abiding by the Light of the Holy Spirit. And I shall respect your voluntary exercise of your free will on this matter. Yes, I love you without limit and without condition. Would it be too much to expect of you to also love Me (Who is one with you), without condition?”
Might there not be some missing link between the two? Logically, one would have to state three propositions, namely: love God with your all, love yourself as you love God, and then love your neighbor as yourself. But, Jesus - The Word of God, the Alpha and the Omega – chose not to go by these three understandably connected propositions; instead, He just went right ahead into the second, declaring it to be like the first, without laying the predicate about loving yourself which is not categorically mentioned in the first and greatest commandment (only stating the point of loving God). So how do we make sense of this? How do we jump from loving God to loving neighbor as yourself?
Perhaps, it can only make sense if we accept that Jesus had an assumption when He declared the first commandment. Could it be that that assumption is: you, too, are part of God and in union with Him and therefore you are included in the Person to be loved with all of your heart, soul, mind? Would it not then make sense, and only then [when you love God - who includes yourself - with your all in all], that the second is like the first? Love your neighbor as you love yourself because s/he too is part of and in union with God? As both you and your neighbor are one with God, loving the neighbor as part of God is like the first, since this first command subsumes loving yourself as part of God?
In effect, can we say that because the neighbor is one with God (whether s/he realizes it or not), you love this neighbor as yourself (since you are also one with God)?
Isn’t this conclusion about that assumption staggering? I am part of and in union with God? And I should be loved by me with all my mind, soul, and heart? And therefore, I should be loving my neighbor as I love myself?
Hmmm. But it seems inescapable, if we are to understand why Jesus said the second command (loving neighbor) is like the first (loving God).
What? Every morning when I look at myself in the mirror, I can say the following? “I love you ‘Part of God’, with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind!” And then express gratitude: “Thank, You, Lord God, for creating me in Your Image. I love You, God - Father Almighty, Lord Jesus, Holy Spirit - with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind!” “And because every neighbor is also one with You, like me, I love him/her as I love myself!”
Of course, as each is created unique, might I not perceive the neighbor’s oneness with the Lord as different from my own oneness with Him? But does being different disqualify the neighbor from the abiding love with my all in all that the Lord requires? What if the neighbor intends and does evil on me? Am I not still required to love him/her even though I may have to undertake non-violent resistance?
Oh boy: Isn’t this where we whimper, saying: “What is man that thou art mindful of him, Lord?” – still sneaking in the presumption of separateness…
And isn’t this the moment that the Lord answers: “You are, and have always been, part of and one with me: just as the atoms of your body are the same as the atoms of the stars in the ever-expanding universe. Though you have insisted on your delusion and illusion of being separate from Me and continued to disregard Me by violating My commands, I still love you, and have sent My Only-Begotten Son to be the acceptable expiation and cover for all your sins, so that you may have the chance to change your default destiny, by repentance of your sins, accepting Jesus as your Redeemer and Lord, and abiding by the Light of the Holy Spirit. And I shall respect your voluntary exercise of your free will on this matter. Yes, I love you without limit and without condition. Would it be too much to expect of you to also love Me (Who is one with you), without condition?”
No comments:
Post a Comment