Love Your Neighbor As Yourself ⚖️

Matthew 22:35-40

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

"As" (definition): "used in comparisons to refer to the extent or degree of something."

(Also "as" can be used to mark identity, or to denote simultaneous events).

In the case where two subjects or objects are linked with the word "as," it is meant as a comparative term, to represent an equivalency. Said another way, "the extent or degree" referenced in the definition, in these cases, is "equal." (That being said, it is also interesting to consider how these other definitions of "as" might apply- "love your neighbor whilst being yourself" "love your neighbor at the same time as yourself").

Another example of where Jesus uses the term "as" to denote equivalency, and then clarifies that this is the intention is in John 13:34

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Loving each other to the depth that Jesus loves us does not negate that one must love their neighbors as themselves, but I feel instead emphasizes a critical point regarding what Jesus called "the second greatest commandment": one can only truly love another to a degree that is equivalent to how they love themselves, for one's own mind bears one's own currently understood definition of love. Jesus is indicating that the ultimate definition of love sought is that each individual loves every other individual to the same degree that Jesus loves us and, in connection with the equivalency stated in "love your neighbor as yourself," this must be equal to how we love ourselves as well, in order for the linguistic scales used here in the commandment to balance.

If this were not the case, why would the full commandment that Jesus quotes, directly from The Law, be "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18)?

If the commandment were independent of one's love for oneself, would it not have been more clear, and accurate, to say "Love your neighbor" without including the equivalency of "as yourself?"

Jesus not only clearly includes "as yourself" in the emphasis that he applies to this verse and commandant, but also shows that what he included and did not include are both key to his statement that "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." because he also does not include the first portion of Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but"). 

I believe that emphasizing what one wants to stand out from a quoted statement is important, but in the area of paring back a commandment for emphasis, whose emphasis should one focus on? Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." I have often heard this verse further pared down in modern times to "love your neighbor." I agree that loving your neighbor is the first focus of this verse, as it seems to be the more difficult side of the scale to weight for humans in a natural/primal state, but I have also been staunchly opposed by Christians, on multiple occasions, when pointing out that "as yourself," that loving yourself, bears clear importance within the equation presented by Jesus. The good shepherd neither leads astray nor is led astray, but it seems that, over time, the enemy has encouraged the sheep to remove words from this commandment, from the words that Jesus spoke, perhaps do that they might forget they themselves are a key component to it.

In what way might weeds grow when one disregards their own perspective when loving their neighbor? I believe the weakness in this approach lies in one's understood definition of love itself. One's definitions for words, which are commonly shared but necessitate interpretation in every individual, are held in one's own mind. This means that one's love for themself is their starting point, consciously in some ways but also deeply subconsciously, in terms of defining what "love" means to them personally. Without a weighty balance on one's own side of this equivalency scale ("as yourself"), how could one expect to weight the other side of the scale ("love your neighbor") heavily or with honest weights? I believe this is why in modern times the definition of love, for either neighbor or self, seems so warped, in many cases appearing to be replaced by either seemingly justified judgement or narcissism. I have written volumes on the topic of love, and I am still constantly refining the definition for myself; I know full well that "love" is not an easy term to describe in its fullness, and, in many cases, it is not even easy to accurately define love in part. I believe Jesus knows this as well, at a minimum from a human perspective when examining love, and so subtly crafted a mental image for the reader. This mental image establishes a balance where one, who is honestly considering and truly seeing this commandment, will necessarily arrive to where it is housed in their mind to find that their scales, for loving their neighbor and loving themself, are unbalanced in one direction or the other. Crafting this critical mental image, of weighting scales by further defining love within one's structure, and ensuring that the scales are constantly rebalanced as weight is added, seems to be an effective way in ensuring that love is defined as thoroughly as possible, even if primarily through subconscious channels, over the course of one's life. I have written before of how these "subconscious boxes" are powerful tools to allow one's beliefs to bloom (such as God creating the heavens and the earth, filling the earth, but leaving the reader to imagine the heavens), but it was only recently that I realized this is one of those instances.

I am also now noticing the significance of the comment Jesus adds "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." This word "hangs" sharpens the image of a scale in my mind (⚖️). Scales and balanced measures are specifically referenced multiple times in The Law and Scripture.

Deuteronomy 25:13-14

"Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small."

Proverbs 20:23

The Lord detests differing weights,

    and dishonest scales do not please him

Matthew 7:2

"...with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Psalm 62:9

Surely the lowborn are but a breath,

    the highborn are but a lie.

If weighed on a balance, they are nothing;

    together they are only a breath.

As a personal aside, the commandment and Psalm I list here have each played a major role in my personal walk, well before I consciously understood the critical importance of this equivalency embedded into the language itself. I have found though that my impressionistic memory often does lead me to understanding in an unusual order, especially when images are embedded in order to illuminate commandments and other logical structures.

https://songoflovepiecesofeight.blogspot.com/2020/11/disagreement-carrying-two-weights.html

It is interesting to me that this commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself would necessarily apply to Jesus in the same way, as a man not breaking The Law but fulfilling it, including the requirement of equivalency. This begs the question: how does one's own sacrifice for others fulfill the requirement of loving oneself to such a depth? It must fulfill this requirement, insofar as the sacrifice in the way that it occurred would need to fulfill this commandment for each to be valid, and the outcome of this plan was known in advance. Still, it is a mystery to me, to some degree, as to how such a step can still result in love's equivalency, per Jesus' own words on the second greatest commandment. I can already feel these considerations forming into architecture within me that is far reaching, as the concept of man and God in one (or in the children of God in general, as this shift really begins to take shape) creates a complexity for the term "neighbor" as well. Regardless, there is much for me to consider here.