The Work that demonstrates Love to God

“My little children, let us not love by word or tongue, but by work and in truth.” Apostle John

by

Claudio Crispim

Copyright © 2021 by Claudio Crispim

All rights reserved to Claudio Crispim, reproduction, partial or complete, in all forms is prohibiting, without the express authorization of the author.

Crispin, Claudio

The work that demonstrates love to God, Claudio Crispim – 2nd Edition revised and expanded - São Paulo – SP: 2021. Translation into German, Spanish, French, English and Italian by Páulete Maria de Paula Corrêa.

This book aims to show what is the "most excellent way" presented by the apostle Paul in chapter 13 of the first epistle to the Corinthians. A path that is not affected by the subjectivity of feelings, but objectively translated into work.

The idea of love as feeling is replaced by 'love for work' as evidenced by the evangelist John in his first epistle.

"My little children, let us not love by word or tongue, but by work and in truth." (1 John 3:18).

The book contains an analysis of the works of two heroes of the faith: the patriarch Abraham and the prostitute Rahab, which shows that the essence of biblical love does not emerge from human rationality or morality, but rather comes from God.

There is a chapter dedicated to demonstrating that, although the Apostle Paul and Brother James use different terminology, both do not contradict each other on the issue of faith and works.

"They confess that they know God, but they deny him with works, being abominable, and disobedient, and reproving for every good work." (Titus 1:16);

"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26).

Dedication

To my father, Miguel Augusto Crispim (in memoriam), the best father.

Prelude

Since the Old Testament, love has been present in a categorical imperative, but how can they love be put into practice? How to show it at work?

Love as we understand it imposes itself and the command to love God provokes a paradox, since it nullifies the individual's autonomy.

After being assault by the above questions, I had a fierce struggle with the Gospels and the New Testament letters in an attempt to understand the nature of biblical love.

The reading of the New Testament only evolved when I took refuge in the trenches that the Old Testament constantly offered me and, progressively, through comparisons of biblical texts, I conquered ground in biblical 'knowledge'.

Understanding that the apostles used the Greek language only to present the gospel without interfering in the literary and philosophical issues of the Greeks opens the understanding to an almost unknown biblical reality.

I hope that the reader, like an archaeologist, will go back in time and, on each page of this work, discover the meaning of the term love when used in the Scriptures, which cannot be confuse with the meaning that today derives from the evolution of the term over time. .

Upon completion of this work, I feel that I emerged victorious from the clash and I want to share this precious spoil with you.

While reading this book, be sure to follow the references pointed out in your Bible, as the understanding of the exposition depends a lot on the cited Biblical references.

The Author

São Paulo, July 27, 2021. It is winter!

Sumário

Dedication. 5

Prelude. 6

Sumário. 7

Introduction. 8

Love in exercise. 9

Love is by work and in truth. 18

Love as a commandment 29

Love in the old covenant 38

The commandment is love. 49

Love and work. 79

Burning ox carts. 108

How to Love Brothers. 158

Is it possible to love enemies ?. 176

epilogue. 194

Bibliography. 202

The Author 207

Translator 208

Presentation. 209

Introduction

"My little children’s let us not love by word or tongue, but by work and in truth." (1 John 3:18).

When we hear about God, we seized with reverent attitudes, a feeling of devotion invades us, and emotion speaks loudly. Often, when we read about God's love for humanity, willingness comes to the surface and we want to turn our feelings and emotions into service.

When he went to fetch the Ark of the Covenant from the house of Abinadab, King David filled with devotion, full of emotions, overflowing with joy and reverent attitudes. David feasted with the people, with all sorts of musical instruments, attitudes that showed how happy he was to bring the ark of the Lord to him.

With his vision clouded by joy, David let himself be carried away by the desperate attitude of the Philistines who, in distress because of hemorrhoids, returned the ark of the Lord on a chariot drawn by cows (1 Samuel 6:11). David and all the people of Israel forgot God's ordinance and carelessly carried the ark using the means of transportation prepared by the priests and diviners of the Philistines (1 Samuel 6:2).

Everyone sang and played happily and followed the ark that was on a new ox cart. When they reached Nachom's threshing floor, the ark nearly fell because of the stumble of the oxen, and Uzzah, who was driving the chariot, reached out to catch it and was struck down by God (2 Samuel 6:6-7). That is when King David feared and asked the following question:

– "How will the ark of the Lord come to me?"

The biblical passage that narrates the return of the ark of the Lord to the house of Israel serves as a warning. We are being willing to do a work. According to our conjecture, or are we aware of what God requires of us according to his word.

Have you ever asked yourself? – “What is the work that demonstrates your love for God?”; “What is the biblical concept of love?”; "What does God require of man?"

The event that awakened King David to seek (obey) God as God had commanded (1 Chronicles 15:2 and 13), made me wonder: a car pulled by cows?”; "Are we loving God as He commanded?"

During two millennia of Christianity, there were numerous cultural revolutions. Civilizations and cultures disappeared, while others flourished. Every civilization and every culture that came and went had its own concepts and ideas about love.

Numerous religions arose and each priest, magician, diviner, mystic, minister, leader, government, etc., adopted or developed, according to their interests, a concept of love.

The purpose of this book is to help you understand what 'love' God requires of us.  As well as the meaning of the term love used in the New Testament, which will allow us to understand why Jesus asked the apostle Peter three times. – “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?”, since the repeated questions of the Lord Jesus show us that it is not enough just to say:

– “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you!”

Love in exercise

“... Who swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness.” (Isaiah 48:1).

The affectionately the apostle John makes an emblematic recommendation to his 'little children'

Begotten according to faith in Christ Jesus:

"Let us not love by word or by tongue, but by deed and in truth." (1 John 3:18).

What do you understand by 'not loving by word or tongue'? How to understand and practice loving ‘by work and in truth’?

To understand the recommendation of the beloved disciple, it is essential to contextualize it in the light of the entire NT (New Testament), analyzing this recommendation through the principle alluded to by the apostle to the Gentiles, which is to compare spiritual things with spiritual[1] things (1 Corinthians 2: 13).

Based on the following verses, which refer to love, it appears that the apostle John establishes a counterpoint between 'not loving in word or tongue' with 'loving in deed and in truth'.

He read and compare:

 “...neither the height, nor the depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which IS IN CHRIST JESUS our Lord.” (Romans 8:39);

 "For this is the love of God: that let us keep HIS COMMANDMENTS; and his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3);

"And this is love: that let us walk ACCORDING TO HIS COMMANDMENTS. This is the COMMANDMENT, as ye have heard from the beginning that ye walk in it." (2 John 1:6);

-"And whatever we ask of him, we will receive from him, because we keep HIS COMMANDMENTS, and we do that which is pleasing in his sight." (1 John 3:22).

The apostle Paul clarifies that the love of God is in Christ (Romans 8:39), and the apostle John says that the love of God is 'to walk', that is, 'to do' His commandments (1 John 5:3).

Considering what is taught in 1 John 5:3 and 2 John 1:6, when defining that love is keeping and/or walking in the commandments of God, it is concluded that whoever loves God does what is pleasing to His view, and vice versa.

Although it does not have the term 'love' in 1 John 3:22, through the previous three verses it is concluded that 'keeping the commandments' and 'doing what is pleasing to the sight' is the same as loving God.

What is God's love? The evangelist John defines it as follows:

"For this is the love of God: that let us keep his commandments; and his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3).

Moreover, what are God's commandments?

Evidently, the apostle John does not refer to the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, but rather points to the new commandment, an easy yoke established in Christ.

"For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30).

Believing in Christ is God's command, and anyone who keeps his command loves God, as it reads:

 "And His commandment is this: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ..." (1 John 3:23);

"For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6).

The apostle John defines God's love objectively and in perfect harmony with the Pauline exposition, which emphasizes that God's love is in Christ, that is, it is revealed in Christ (Romans 8:39).

The love presented by the evangelist John does not follow the dark paths of human subjectivity, so that each Christian stipulates, according to his perception, feelings and emotions, what it is to love God.

Jesus once said, “For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, this is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50), in other words, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God loves God, therefore, he belongs to the family of Jesus.

To read and understand the Scriptures would is not be easier to use the dictionary definition of love. Since the New Testament has written in Greek, would it not be safer to adopt the meaning of the term that translates to love as found in secular Greek writings?

In interpreting the Scriptures, I particularly do not recommend the reader to rely on Greek concepts to determine the meaning of the term love. It is safer to adopt the definition given by the apostles, who specify that God's love is to keep his commandments.

To understand the essence of the order: "Let us not love by word or tongue, but by deed and in truth." (1 John 3:18), it is necessary to keep in mind that the love underlined by the apostle John has no parallel with the love described by the Greeks, either in mythology or philosophy.

The conceptions about love that emerge from Greek literature and philosophy are more linked to the academic world at the time they were produced, than to the social substrate in which the disciples and the people of Israel, under Roman rule, used the koine Greek .

The trends of the academies are generally oriented towards the world of ideas, social reality linked to social relationships, and it is from this reality, which involves social relationships and interactions, and the idea of​love mentioned by the apostles.

The analysis of the term, as well as the idea that the Greek term translated by love must be inferring from the following interaction between Lord and servant:

 “If ye love me, keep my commandments. (...) He who has my commandments and keeps them, this is he who loves me; He answered and said unto him, If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words ; now, the word which you have heard is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.” (John 14:15, 21 and 23-24).

Biblical love has as its main element the duty to obey Christ as Lord, subjecting oneself to Him as a servant.

The apostles Paul and John addressed different aspects of love, as this presents love as a commandment, and the former presents love personified.

Both address the theme of love, and the apostle John highlights how man loves God: believing in his sent, and the apostle Paul shows how God loved man: sending his Son.

Preliminarily we can define that 'love' is:

The. Christ (Romans 8:39), and;

B. Keep his commandments (1 John 5:3).

The apostle Paul emphasizes that God's love for humankind is in Christ, and the apostle John defines that man's love for God is in keeping his commandments.

Christ is the love of God revealed, and believing in Christ is the commandment of God, that is, just as a coin has two sides, both approaches come from the same truth: Christ.

When Jesus said that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life' (John 3:16), He first emphasized the greatness of God's love God to men: He gave His Son, and then specifies what was givIng to men: eternal life.

The act of God giving up His Son was unconditional, evidencing God's love for all men, without distinction or exception. In giving His only begotten Son that those who believe might obtain life, God implicitly gave a command to men with a promise of life to those who submit to Him, and in that sense, salvation is conditional.

The commandment in Christ is similar to that in Eden, the commandment in Christ being to grant life, fellowship, and freedom, and the commandment in Eden was giving to Adam to preserve what he had: life, fellowship, and freedom.

While the commandment in Eden provided for consequences aimed at preserving man's status quo, the commandment in Christ provides for reward.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2.17);

"Jesus said unto him, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live;" (John 11:25).

Christ is the love of God evidenced to humanity. In Christ is revealed both the will (He wants all men to be saved) and the commandment of God (that you believe in Him whom He has sent), so that man's love for God is 'to fulfill His commandment,' that is, believe in His sent (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 John 4:16; Romans 5:5).

All who believe in the love shown by the Father, who gave His only begotten Son, love God, for they do God's will by keeping His commandments. Although he wants to save men, to satisfy his justice, God can only do it through a commandment.

“...give me a commandment to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.” (Psalm 72:3).

Note that the psalmist asks for a command to be save, which shows that salvation is not by sovereignty or foreknowledge. As the psalmist asks for a command after the creation of the world in the hope of being save, this means that salvation did not take place before the creation of the world by election and predestination. Today is the most opportune day, today is the day of salvation!

The Language used by the apostles in the New Testament has based on elements contained in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Watch:

"By love and truth iniquity is forgiven, and by the fear of the Lord men turn away from sin." (Proverbs 16:6).

Man's iniquity was only forgot through Christ, who in the New Covenant is God's love and truth revealed. However, in order for man to obtain forgiveness, he has to obey the love and truth of God that is in Christ.

As the above verse built through parallelism, a feature of Hebrew poetry, we have that 'love and truth' is to 'fear of the Lord' just as 'iniquity forgiven' is to 'turning away from sin'.

‘Fear’ in the context means commandment, the principle of wisdom and knowledge, which in other biblical passages is presented as love and truth.

"And Moses said unto the people, Fear not, God hath come to test you, and that his fear may be before you, that you may not sin." (Exodus 20:20; Proverbs 1.7; Psalm 111.10)

This is why the apostle Paul exhorts: "... even so work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" (Philippians 2:12), seeing that the fear of the Lord is Christ, the power of God and wisdom from God to those who believe, and the trembling refers to the obedience required (1 Corinthians 1:24).

The Johannine exhortation "let us not love in word nor in tongue" is take from an exhortation of God against the people of Israel, given through the prophet Isaiah:

 “For this people draw near to me, and with their mouth, and with their lips honor me, but their heart departs far from me and their fear of me consists only of the commandments of men, in which he was instructed" (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:7-9; John 7:19).

The people of Israel proposed to approach God, but the proposal was only lip service (honor with the lips). As the 'fear' that the children of Israel followed was not the commandment of God, but the commandment of men, however much they said that they honored God through their lips, by obeying the commandments of men, their hearts followed covetousness, therefore, he was far from God.

"And they come unto thee, as the people used to come, and sit before thee, like my people, and hear thy words, but do not do them; for they flatter with their mouths, but theirs heart follows your greed." (Ezekiel 33:31; Psalm 5:9; Romans 3:13 and 10:2).

The 'commandment' (fear[2]) that the people of Israel fulfilled, was summed up in 'man's commandments', that is, they tried to approach God, but did not obey his command. They were 'forgotten listeners', that is, they did not perform what God determined. In other words, they did not do what they heard (Hosea 5:11; Mark 7:8).

'Honoring with the mouth and with the lips' in Isaiah is the same as 'flattering with the mouth' in Ezekiel. Likewise, 'to love with words and with the tongue' is the same as 'to make mention of the Lord, but not in truth or in justice'.

Saying you love God but not obeying Him is a fallacy. It is not love to sing songs, recite poems, attend temples, listen to sermons, read the Scriptures, etc., if man does not obey.

As the children of Israel did not obey, God does not present the Jews as an exception, when he says:

“God looked down from heaven to the children of men, to see if there was any who had understanding and sought God. (Psalm 53:2-3).

If the leaders of Israel understood the Scriptures, they would see that God protested against them when he said:

 “Are they have no knowledge the workers of iniquity[3], who eat my people as if they were eating bread? They did not call upon God.” (Psalm 53:4).

If the leaders of Israel had no knowledge, it follows that they did not have the fear of the Lord, therefore they drew near to God with their lips, but did not call on Him in love and truth (Romans 10:2).

The apostle Paul pointed out that the law was established because of the transgressions of the children of Israel (Galatians 3:19), so that it served as their 'aiot' to lead them to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

What do you mean; the law has established because of transgressions? Now, ever since the people of Israel entered the Promised Land, God had protested that they were a hard service people, and that they did not want to listen.

"For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck ; behold, while I still lived with you, ye were rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?" (Deuteronomy 31:27);

"But the LORD hath not given you a heart to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear, until this day." (Deuteronomy 29:4).

The function of the law was to correct the people of Israel, and so the apostle Paul said that 'everything the law says, to those under the law says so.' (Romans 3:19). it was given to the Jews and was aimed at the Jews, but they, because they were descendants of the flesh of Abraham, considered that they were children of Abraham, weakened the law.

“For what the law was impossible, seeing as it was sick through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, through sin condemned sin in the flesh;” (Romans 8:3).

How the law would fulfill its role if the children of Israel trusted in themselves, for they made the flesh their arm (strength), and forgot God (Jeremiah 17:5). As they did not understand the Scriptures, the leaders of Israel did not realize that they were no exception to the rule, as both Jews and Gentiles did not seek God.

“There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” (Romans 3:11; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 53:3).

No one among the children of men possessed understanding and sought God, and the Jews, in turn, thought they sought God, but actually only flattered Him with their mouths. The children of Israel did not really love God, as they did not fulfill God's command. They were ungodly who recited the statutes of God!

"But to the wicked God says, what do you do in reciting my statutes, and in taking my covenant in your mouth?" (Psalm 50:16);

"What shall I do to you, O Ephraim? What shall I do to you, O Judah? For your kindness love is like a cloud in the morning, and like the dew of the morning, which passes early." (Hosea 6.4).

Because of their distorted understanding of the law, the people of Israel were compared to drunks (Isaiah 29:9; 13).

Even with Israel's undoing, which 'honored' God only with their lips, God pledged to perform a wonderful work, which would be a wonder:

"See among the Gentiles, and look, and marvel, and marvel: for I will do in your days a work that ye shall not believe, when it has told." (Habakkuk 1:5);

“Therefore behold I will continue to do a wonderful work in the midst of this people, a wonderful work and a wonder; for the wisdom of his wise ones shall perish, and the understanding of his wise ones shall be hid.” (Isaiah 29:14).

The work that God promised to do, Christ, the servant of the Lord, did it to the full, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount (compare Isaiah 29:18-20 with Matthew 5:3-10).

In Christ the time of refreshing predicted by the prophets was inaugurated, the blessedness promised to Abraham was granted to all families of the earth, since men of all nations and tongues are helped by God in an acceptable time (Genesis 22:3; John 4:34).

On the wonderful work that God was to do, the apostle Paul addressed a synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, saying:

“And of all that, by the law of Moses, ye could not be justified, by him every one that believeth is justified. See, therefore, that what is said in the prophets does not come upon you: Behold, ye despisers, and be dismayed and disappear; for I do a work in your days, such a work that ye shall not believe, if anyone tells you.” (Acts 13:39-41).

What work did God do that the children of Israel would not believe? The prophecy in Habakkuk quoted by the apostle of the Gentiles was fulfill in two moments:

The. At first, the prophecy tells of God's action in raising up the Chaldeans as a rod of correction against the people of Israel, and, at the time, the people did not believe in the prophets when they announced in advance the invasion of the Chaldeans;

B. In a second moment, the prophecy refers to another work of God: the coming of the Messiah, a work carried out among the Gentiles and, once again, the despisers (Jews) did not believe.

“See among the Gentiles, and look, and marvel, and marvel; for I will do in your days a work which you shall not believe, when it is told.” (Habakkuk 1:5; Acts 13:39-41).

The work that the sons of Jacob would not believe had a direct relationship with the 'poor', with the 'wrong in spirit', who in the fullness of time would acquire an understanding of the doctrine of God. This work is unique to God, because of His love shown to men through Christ.

God's work and love has linked to his command: believe in the one he sent:

“Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham concerning the house of Jacob: Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face be discolored now. However, when he sees his children my work hands in his midst, they will sanctify my name; yea, they shall sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and fear the God of Israel. Moreover, the wrong in spirit will come to understanding, and the murmured will learn doctrine. (Isaiah 29:22-24).

Christ, the one sent by God, is the work that despisers would not believe if anyone told it.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God: That Believe in Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29).

The directing his little children not to love only with 'words' or 'tongue', the apostle John was instructing Christians to continue to believe in Christ (that is, obey God's command). It was a warning to prevent some Christians from returning to the practices of the fragile arguments of the Judaizes, such as: do not touch, do not handle, do not taste (Colossians 2:21-22).

The apostle Paul commanded the Christians in Ephesus to abstain from the wine (doctrine) that brings dissension (compare Ephesians 5:18 with 1 John 1:3 and 2:18-19). The 'wine of contention' was the doctrine that the Judaizes wanted to covert 'serve' to Christians.

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, nor to commandments of men that stray from the truth." (Titus 1:14);

"For, leaving the commandment of God, hold the tradition of men; as the washing of jars and cups; and you do many other things like these." (Mark 7:8).

When the evangelist John emphasizes that 'love' is not a 'word' or a 'tongue', but rather a 'work' and 'truth', he was showing that it was not enough to say that they believed in God, they had to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

"Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1);

“Everyone therefore that hearth these words of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to the wise man, who built his house on a rock;” (Matthew 7:24).

The only way anyone can believe in God is to believe in Christ, for the Scriptures are the testimony that God gave about his Son. To say that you believe in God but do not believe in Christ is to make God a liar.

"And by Him ye believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God;" (1 Peter 1:21);

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me;" (John 5:39);

"He that believeth on the Son of God, in himself hath the testimony; he that believeth not God hath made a liar, because he hath not believed the testimony which God has given of his Son." (1 John 5:10).

The "love" of word and tongue speaks of obedience to the commandments of men, flattering those who reject the work and truth of God that was revealed in Christ (Titus 1:14; Mark 7:7-8).

“Moreover, be doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving yourselves with false speeches. For if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like a man who beholds his natural face in a mirror; if he beholds himself, and departs, and immediately forgets what he was like. But he who pays close attention to the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres in it, not being a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one shall be blessed in your deed." (James 1:22-25).

Love is by work and in truth

"My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but by deed and in truth." (1John 3:18).

Love to God, according to the apostle John, is only possible if it is 'by work' and 'in truth'.

How to love by 'work'? What is 'true' love?

The following verses contain the answer:

"Then they said unto him, what shall we do to do the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them the work of God is that ye believe in him whom he hath sent." (John 6:28-29);

“He who accepted his testimony has confirmed that God is true.” (John 3:33; 1 John 5:10).

We deduce from the verses that if man believes in Christ:

a) Performs the work required by God; and,

b) Believes in the testimony that God gave about His Son: the truth.

In the question of the crowd: "What must we do to do the works of God?", an implicit element escapes man in our time. From the point of view of the man of the time, the question had the following bias,’ what will we do to become God's servants’?

To understand the issue of the multitude, it is necessary to unravel the reality of servitude, something common in society at the time, and the bases of the relationship between master and servant. A master performed his actions through his servants, who were the executioners, and that one, the owner of the work.

To do so, we turn to the book 'A Politics', by Aristotle, which describes the relationship between master and servant, showing that the latter was an instrument of the former. A servant does only one action on command, and what has be produced becomes domestic property.

"Neither present your members to sin as instruments of iniquity; but present yourselves to God as living from the dead, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness." (Romans 6:13).

By asking Jesus what to do to accomplish God's work, the crowd was implying that they wanted to present themselves to God as an instrument, to submit to God as a servant.

"A son honors his father, and a servant his lord ; If I am a father, where is my honor? Moreover, if I am the lord, where is my fear? Says the Lord of hosts, ye, O priests, that despise my name, and say ye, in what do we despise thy name? (Malachi 1: 6).

A servant does not belong to himself but to his master, and that means he can never deliberate, but must only act on orders, becoming an extension, a part of his master. The virtue of a servant was in the good performance of his service, which consisted only in valuing his duties.

The free man, when hired, performs his duties according to what he has be taught, while the servant must resign himself to following the will of the master who commissioned him.

A man was only a slave because he could not live as he wished, and the crowd's question to Jesus about God's work had this bias: submitting to God by doing his will, even though, in fact, the crowd Has made up of men of stiff neck.

“Know ye not that whom you present yourselves as servants to obey him, you are servants to him whom you obey either from sin unto death, or from obedience to righteousness? However, thanks be to God that, having been servants of sin, you heartily obeyed the way of Doctrine to which you were delivered.” (Romans 6:16-17).

If the multitude wanted to be God's servant, honoring Him with due fear, it was enough to believe in Christ as the one sent by God. If they obeyed God's command, which is to believe in Christ, the multitude would indeed be servants, for they had done the work of God (Malachi 1:6).

By urging his little children to love by work, the apostle John was instructing them to submit to God. To love by deed is to present yourself to God to obey him as a servant! Believing in Christ is to honor God as Father and Lord, for He does His work.

In the parable of the Two Sons, which son loved his father by deed?

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and, addressing the first one, he said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He, however, answering, said, I do not want. Then, regretting it, he went. Moreover, addressing the second, he spoke to him in the same way; and when he answered, he said, I would go, sir; and it was not. Which of the two did his father's will? They said to him, the first. Jesus said to them, Verily I say unto you, tax collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the tax collectors and harlots believed him; but when you saw it, you did not repent afterward to believe it.” (Matthew 21:28-32).

The rogue son loved the father only with his word, that is, with his tongue, because he did not do his father's will. The repentant son, on the other hand, loved his father by deed by carrying out his father's will.

The Lord Jesus showed men his love for the Father by works by resigning himself to doing exclusively what he has commanded to do.

“But it is so that the world may know that I love the Father, and that I do as the Father has commanded me. 0 Arise let us go from here.” (John 14:31).

Love is in carrying out God's will, and Christ set an example:

“Jesus said unto them, my food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to do his work.” (John 4:34).

In addition to loving by deed, the Christian must love 'in truth'.

Would it be the same as loving without pretense? Not! That is not the idea of the text. Whoever loves by work cannot pretend, disguise, falsify.

When the evangelist John specifies that love must be in truth, he aims to exclude obedience to the commandments of men, which many confuse with love for God.

The Judaizers could claim that they loved God by work even though they did not believe in Christ, because for them the works of the flesh was God's command, and God's command is to believe in the One He sent.

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, Beware of circumcision.  For circumcision is we, who serve God in spirit, and glory in Jesus Christ, and not we trust in the flesh although I could also trust in the flesh; according to the law, I was a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecutor of the church, according to the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:2-6).

Hence the need to specify that one should love 'in deed and in truth', that is, according to the testimony that God gave about his Son in the Scriptures.

It is not because someone does a work under the claim that it is of God that such a work is in fact of God. There are those who prophesy, cast out demons, do many wonders, under the pretext that they love God by their work, but who in fact do not do God's will:

"Not everything that says to me Lord, Lord! Shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

Within the perspective that Christ came to his own, but his fellow citizens did not receive Him (John 1:11), Jesus explains to Nicodemus through figures that light came into the world, but men (his) loved darkness rather than light, because their works were evil.

As it is impossible to serve two masters, the Jews rejected the lordship of Christ, the light that is the life of men (John 1:4), and preferred to love (obey, serve) the darkness, consequently, their works were evil. As the Jews practiced evil, they hated (did not obey) Christ and did not draw close to Him, because they did not want their works to be reproved.

“And this is the condemnation: That light has come into the world, and men loved darkness more than light because their works were evil. Because everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, so that his works are not reprove. But whoever practices the truth comes to the light that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.” (John 3:19-21);

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will come to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Luke 16:13).

As the people of Israel listened to the word of God and did not practice (put to work), but followed his avarice (wealth, Mammon), that is, they did not submit (hated) to God as servants, they rejected the truth: the testimony that God gave about His Son.

“Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me (...) For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe in me; of me he wrote.” (John 5:39, 46).

Their works were evil because they refused to listen to God and followed their evil hearts.

"This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who walk after the hardness of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to bow down before them, will be like this girdle, that is good for nothing." (Jeremiah 13:10);

"And they come to you, as the people used to come, and sit before you as my people, and they hear your words, but do not do them ; for they flatter with their mouths, but your heart follows your greed." (Ezekiel 33:31).

It is necessary to love God through deeds and in truth, as it is possible for someone to be far from God's heart, for their works are based on the commandments of men, and not the truth (Isaiah 29:13).

To love 'in truth' it is necessary to practice the truth, that is, the will of God. Whoever comes to Christ (comes to the light) practices the truth, that is, the will of God. In addition, why is it necessary to come to Christ? To evidence that he performed the work of God, since it is done under the command of God (John 3:21).

Interestingly, later, when the Pharisees classified the crowd as accursed for not knowing the law, Nicodemus came to Christ's defense using the law (John 7:51), and helped the disciples prepare the body of Jesus for his burial (John 19:39).

Whoever loves God in truth does not walk according to the rudiments of men (darkness). The Judaizers said that they had fellowship with God, but they lied, because they walked after men, earning honor from one another, and did not believe in Christ according to the Scriptures.

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not do the truth." (1 John 1:6).

Many are willful and ask for God's work, but when it is has revealed to them what God's work is, they do not do it.

"Nevertheless they come to me every day, they take pleasure in knowing my ways, as a people who practice justice, and do not leave the right of their God; they ask me for the rights of justice, and they take pleasure in drawing near to God, Saying: Why do we fast, and thou do not heed it? Why do we afflict our souls, and thou knowest not it? Find your own contentment, and require all your work. Behold, fast for contentions and debates, and to smite with an iniquitous fist; do not fast as today, to make your voice heard on high. the fast that I would choose, that a man might one day afflict his soul, that he bows his head like a reed, and lays sackcloth and ashes beneath him?” (Isaiah 58:2-5).

God rebuked the people of Israel for the fact that they always sought Him under the pretext of knowing His ways, as if they took pleasure in drawing close to God, but what was observed were practices that satisfied their own interests, and still they demanded payment from God for their works. Hence the rebuke: 'Would this be the fast I would choose, that man might one day afflict his soul?'

At the time of Jesus, nothing had changed, as the crowd went after Jesus in search of bread, and when they were rebuked because of the reprehensible behavior of following Christ only for the sake of bread, without taking account of eternal life, they sought to justify themselves through of the question: 'What is the work of God?'

“Jesus answered them, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye seek me, not for the signs which ye have seen, but because ye have eaten of the bread and had been satisfied. Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains unto eternal life, which the Son of man will give you; for to him the Father, God, sealed him. 0And they said to him, What shall we do to do the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, this is the work of God: That ye believe in Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:26-29)

The crowd acted in the same way as the doctor of the law, who was diligent in wanting to know God's ways by asking Jesus, 'Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' had to obey God as established in the law, he wanted to justify himself by asking, 'Who is my neighbor?' (Luke 10:25-29).

The Lord Jesus always urged his listeners to submit to Him as servants, because if they served Christ as Lord, God would honor them.

“If anyone serves me, follow me, and wherever I am, there will be my servant. And if anyone serves me, my Father will honor him.” (John 12:26).

If people wanted to be instructing by Christ, they should submit, taking the yoke of Jesus. It is the same as humbling oneself, that is, ceasing to be free doing one's own will, offering oneself to do the will of Christ.

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. Because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:29).

However, how could God reward the children of Israel if they sought honor from one another? How would they love God if they loved themselves?

"How can ye believe, receiving honor from one another, and not seeking the honor that comes only from God?" (John 5:44).

The scribes and Pharisees adopted religious practices that allowed them to be measure and praised by their peers, and when they showed themselves saddened under the pretext of fasting, they actually received their 'contentment' (reward, honor, treasure).

“And when you fast, do not be grieved like the hypocrites; for they disfigure their faces, that it may appear to men that they fast. Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward. (Matthew 6:16);

“Saying, Why we fast, and thou heist not? Why do we afflict our souls, and thou knowest not?" (Isaiah 58:3).

The scribes and Pharisees wanted to be reward by God, but everything they did has intended to be observe and accepted by their peers.

“Do not lay up treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume everything, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break through or steal. (For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matthew 6:19-21).

It is in this context that the parable of the two lords emerges, when Jesus highlights the impossibility of anyone serving God and riches.

“You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24).

However, as the saying goes: 'The worst blind is the one who does not want to see', Jesus warns his listeners about their leaders by referring to the eyes as 'the lamp of the body'.

What makes the light see are the eyes, but if the eyes are evil, the body remains in darkness. Christ is the true light that enlightens men (John 1:4-5 and 9), but Israel's leaders did not draw close to Christ and hinder those who wanted to draw near (Matthew 23:13).

“The lamp of the body is the eyes; so that if your eyes are good, your whole body will have light; but if your eyes are evil, your body will be dark. (If, therefore, the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22-23).

In this regard, Jesus highlights the prophet Isaiah's appeal:

"And Jesus said unto him, I have come to this world for judgment, in order that they that see not see and those that see may be blind." (John 9:39; John 15:22-25);

"I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will take thee by the hand, and keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, and to light of the Gentiles. To open the eyes of the blind, to bring out of prison the prisoners, and those who lie in darkness out of prison. (...) Deaf, hear, and ye blind, look, that ye may see. " (Isaiah 42:6-7, 18; Matthew 12:17 -21).

Before the message announced by Christ and the miracles wrought, the scribes and Pharisees preferred not to see, and still accused Him of casting out demons by the prince of demons.

"Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil; for by the fruit the tree is known. Breed of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? Of what is abundant in the heart, of this the mouth speaks. A good man takes good things out of the good treasure of his heart, and a bad man takes out bad things." (Matthew 12:33-35).

Faced with a miracle and the questioning of the people: 'Isn't this the Son of David?', the scribes and Pharisees were inconsistent, as it was possible to identify Christ as a good tree through the work that the Father gave him to perform (John 5:36).

However, how could the scribes and Pharisees give a good testimony of Christ, if they were evil and their hearts were prey to being see and praised by men?

“Race of vipers, how can you say good things when you are bad? For (of what is abundant in the heart,) of this the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34; Luke 6:45).

Hence the reprimand for loving words and language:

“You planted them, and they took root; they grow, they also bear fruit; You are near to his mouth, but far from his kidneys.” (Jeremiah 12:2).

The sea 'in truth' is accepting the testimony that God has given of His Son in the Scriptures.

“He who accepted his testimony that has confirmed that God is true.” (John 3:33);

“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that of his Son he testified. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; whoever does not believe God a liar has made him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony, which God has given of his Son In addition, this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:9-13).

John the Baptist came for a witness, that is, according to the Scriptures, to testify of Christ. Upon hearing John the Baptist, people should relate it to the foretold by the prophet Isaiah, the voice that cries out in the wilderness, and through the message of John the Baptist, believe in Christ.

"This one came for a testimony, that he might testify of the light, that all might believe by him." (John 1:7).

“He said, I am the voice of him crying in the wilderness: Make the way of the Lord straight, as the prophet Isaiah said. (...) In addition, I saw, and I have testified that this is the Son of God. (John 1:23, 34).

The Apostle John's warning for his little children in faith to love by deed and in truth were intended to prevent them from returning to love in word and in tongue, that is, the rudiments of the world, which consisted in obedience to the commandments of men.

To love words and language is to be concerned with nationality, place of worship, genealogies, circumcision, Saturdays, festivals, foods, etc., elements established by the commandments of men who focus on measuring themselves, and comparing themselves , garnering praise from each other.

To love in deed and in truth is to obey God according to his word, which is the truth!

"Sanctify them in thy truth; thy word is truth." (John 17:17).

To believe in Christ, as the one sent by God is to love by work, and to believe in Christ through the Scriptures, the word of God is to love in truth. In addition, whoever loves in truth, through Christ, believes in God!

“And I pray not only for these, but also for those who by their word they shall believe me ;” (John 17:20).

"And by him ye believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God;" (1 Peter 1:21).

Believing that God is the only God, creator of all things, although true, does God demand not the love: in deed and in truth, consequently, such belief has no promise of eternal life. However, when it has believed that God raised Christ from the dead, and man trusts and waits on God through Christ, he truly becomes Christ's servant with the promise of eternal life and the reward of the inheritance.

"Knowing that ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance from the Lord, for ye serve Christ the Lord." (Colossians 3:24).

The understanding the relationship 'to love in deed and in truth' sheds light on other biblical passages and allows for a better reading.

To believe in Christ is to love God 'by work and in truth', and whoever believes in Christ worships God in 'spirit and in truth', so that loving and worshiping God is only possible through Christ, who is the gift, grace and love of God manifested.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

Whoever loves God, worships, and whoever worships God, loves, because only those who believe in Christ love and worship God, because worship has intrinsically linked to being a servant of God.

"Then said Jesus unto him Go thou, Satan: for it has written, The Lord thy God thou shalt worship and Him only shalt thou serve. " (Matthew 4:10).

Analyzing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark that quote a passage from the prophet Isaiah, it is clear from the context and application that the terms 'worship', 'honor' and 'love' are interchangeable:

"But in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines which are the precepts of men." (Matthew 15:9);

“And he answered and said to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; but in vain do they honor me, teaching doctrines which are the commandments of men.” (Mark 7:6-7).

If loving, worshiping, honoring and serving God is only possible through obedience to God's command, it follows that in the New Covenant, one loves, worships, honors and serves God by believing in Christ.

"And to the children of foreigners, who shall unite with the Lord, to serve, and to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all that keep the Sabbath, not profaning it, and that embrace my covenant." (Isaiah 56:6).

The prepositioned dative ‘ἐν Χριστῷ’ in Christ used by the apostle Paul to highlight the condition of the new creature, who is united and/or in communion with Christ (BITTENCOURT, 1993, p.52).

"So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, everything has become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Considering verse 6 of Isaiah 56, someone only joins God when he becomes his servant, loving Him by embracing His covenant, in this sense; it is only possible for man to be in Christ when he becomes a servant of God by believing in Christ as predicted in the law and in the prophets.

"But I confess this unto thee, that according to that way which they call sect, thus I serve the God of our fathers, believing all that is written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14);

"Whoever believe in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water shall flow from his womb." (John 7:38).

The new creature is and enjoys fellowship with God, for it is in Christ, or rather, Christ is in him, so that the love of God is perfect in him who believes in Christ (1 John 4:12).

“And His commandment is this : that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command In addition, he that keeps his commandments is in him, and he in him. In addition, in this we know that he is in us, by the Spirit who has given us.” (1 John 3:23-24).

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God is in him, and he is in God?" (1 John 4:15).

To be perfect in love is not the same as being charitable, generous or forgiving, rather, it says of anyone who, to a greater or lesser degree, was once blasphemous, reviling, persecuting, ignorant, etc., but that through the grace of God revealed in Christ became a new creature of truth (faith) and commandment (love) that is in Christ.

“To me, who once was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and a reproach; but I got mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief. Moreover, the grace of our Lord abounded with the faith and love, which is in Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 1:13-14).

The Greek term πιστις (pistis) translated by faith in NT evokes the concept of the Hebrew term āman which points to something stable, firm, which supports or supports something, such as a stake or a pole, which is translated as truth. Truth in the sense of fidelity, which refers to the immutability of God and the impossibility of Him lying.

The grace of God abounded in truth (gospel) and commandment (love, spirit) through Christ Jesus, that is, in spirit and in truth. The Christian, in turn, is a minister of the spirit, that is, a minister of the New Covenant, which is God's command to men.

"Which made us also capable of to be ministers of a new testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, because the letter kills and the spirit quickens." (2 Corinthians 3:6);

"As a washing of fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;" (2 Thessalonians 1:8);

"In whom ye also are, after ye have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; and having believed in him ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." (Ephesians 1:13);

"If ye indeed stand founded and steadfast in the faith and move not from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, and of whom I, Paul, I'm made a minister." (Colossians 1:23).

After the exposition and based on the verses above, it is concluded that to worship 'in spirit and in truth' is to love 'by work and in truth', because the word of God is spirit and faithfulness.

"Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover themselves with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin;" (Isaiah 30:1).

The counsel that the children of Israel sought was but a commandment of men, and they rejected God's spirit, that is, his word. When man believes in Christ, man becomes a servant of God, that is, he humbles himself, and God, in turn, performs His work through his servant. Because by obeying God's command, through the power he holds on the clay, take the same mass that made the vessels for dishonor (offspring of Adam) to make vessels for honor (offspring of Christ, the last Adam).

"Or does the potter not have power over the clay, for of the same mass to make a vase for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21).

Both the Father and the Son have worked and need servants to carry out their work concerning the new creation.

"And Jesus answered them: My Father works until now, and I work too." (John 5:17).

God promised David that one of his descendants would build a house in God's name, and that later on God would firm up the kingdom of David's descendant forever.

With the coming of Christ, the descendant of David, He has built a holy temple to the Lord through the gospel, He Himself being the foundation, the cornerstone. In addition, as every temple to be building needs material, God has prepared through the gospel living stones, which are people from all nations being generate anew through the incorruptible seed, which is the word of God.

"Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone;" (Ephesians 2:20);

“He will build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son;" (2 Samuel 7:13-14);

"Ye also, as living stones, you are built up a spiritual house and holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5);

"But when Christ come, the high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands that is, not of this creation." (Hebrews 9:11).

Love as a commandment

"For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3).

What is the Apostle John's basis in establishing that God's love consists in keeping his commandments?

Unlike the apostle Paul, who quotes OT passages in emphasizing doctrinal issues, the apostle John did not make any quotations from the Old Testament in his letters when taking a doctrinal position and the quotes that occur in the gospel of John has made to demonstrate that the prophecy has fulfilled. , or when he transcribed a character's speech.

As the apostle, John affirms: that keeping the commandments of God is the love of God, it is necessary to identify in the AT where this concept is.

A passage from the prophet Hosea caught my attention, which says:

"Your love[4] is like the morning cloud, like the dew that soon dissipates (...) because I want love more than sacrifices, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:4).

The faithfulness that God protests as fleeting is comparable to the morning mist; it refers to the love demanded by Him in Deuteronomy:

"And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, but fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, and to serve the Lord your God, with all your heart and all your soul, And that you obey the commandments and decrees of the Lord, which I give you today for your own good.” (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

The divine determination to fear the Lord, walk in His ways, love and serve is only possible when keep the Lord's commandments. The verbs serve; love, honor, walk and fear reinforce the idea of obedience to the word of God.

Fulfilling what God requires is believe in the Lord! It is only possible to measure how much one believes in God through obedience; therefore, in obeying the commandment, all the other verbs has conjugated serve, love, honor, walk and fear.

When comparing the passage of Hosea with that of Samuel, the above is evident:

“Because I want LOVE more than SACRIFICES; and the KNOWLEDGE of God, more than the HOLOCAUSTS." (Hos 6:4);

"But Samuel said, is the Lord so pleased in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the word of the Lord? Behold, OBEY[5] is better than SACRIFYING; and GIVE is better than fat OF SHEEP." (1 Sam 15:22).

Starting from the assertion that God is pleased to obey his word, these two verses show that the Hebrew term translated as 'faithfulness', 'kindness', 'love' has a denotative value equivalent to 'obey' and 'know'.

The Hebrew term חסד (checed) in Hosea takes on a different meaning from what we are used to using in our daily lives, as the essence of the love demanded by God through the prophet Hosea is specifically the obedience pointed out by the prophet Samuel.

In the A.T., the prophets used the father-son relationship to highlight the love of God and the rebellion of the children of Israel.

"All their malice is in Gilgal, because there I hated them; because of the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of my house I will pluck them no more ; all their princes are rebellious." (Hosea 9:15);

"And were they not like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not rule their hearts, and whose spirit was not faithful to God." (Psalm 78:8);

"I have loved you saith the LORD. However, ye say, In what hath He loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Said the LORD; Yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau;" (Malachi 1: 2-3).

Why do prophets contrast love, rebellion, love, hate, love, and hate? To highlight the value of obedience!

Today's man does not realize that the opposition between love and hate has obedience as its nuance, since he only understands love and hate as opposite feelings.

The man of our time only thinks of the father-son family relationship from a sentimental perspective, and loses sight of the father-son relationship of antiquity. That the former had vitae necisque potestas, that is, the "power of life and death" over the child, a power that, in certain respects, resembled the master/slave relationship.

The honor due to the father for the son was the same honor demanded from the slave to his master, remembering that until he reached the age of majority, the heir was no different from the slave (Galatians 4:1; Malachi 1:6).

Analyzing the terms used, although he does not quote from the OT, the doctrinal exposition of the apostle John is well elaborated and complete, as he concatenates issues such as serving, loving, honoring, walking, fearing, knowing, union, communion through the relationship that it arises from the command, which is objective, and from obedience, which is subjective.

The term love takes on several meanings, such as: affection, compassion, mercy, or even inclination, attraction, appetite, passion, wanting well, satisfaction, conquest, desire, libido, etc., generally to describe or name events that involve a sentimental bond and/or emotional.

The apostle John, in turn, uses the term love without interfering in the field of subjectivity, because he has in view a command, and not feelings arising from sensations and emotions.

The New Testament Lexicon has the following meanings for the Greek terms αγαπαω (verb) and αγαπη (noun), respectively translated ‘Amar’ and ‘Amor’:

“Αγαπάω to love, to have affection for, to like—1. Of people: God John 3:16; Jesus, Mk 10.21; human persons 2 Cor 12.15. To love, to be willing to "worship", to be solicitous, the most typical and excellent Christian virtue (more frequent and typically Christian than φιλέω, but, prov., equivalent to it in Jn 21:15-17). Proving or showing love 13.1; 1 Jo3.18. -Two. From the love of things: to love, to yearn, to cherish, to have a high esteem Lk 11.43; John 12.43; 2 Tim 4.8.”, and;

“Αγάπη, ης, ή —I. love, affection, esteem the most sublime Christian virtue 1 Cor 13:13; Gal 5:22-1. Mutual between God and Christ, Jn 15:10; 17:26, from God or Christ to men Rom 5:8, etc. The essence of God 1 John 4:8, 16. —2. Of men, to God or Christ, John 5:42; or to other persons 2Co 8.7. —3. As an abstract quality Rom. 13.10; 1 Cor 8.1; 13:1-3 (the meaning being determined more broadly by the context of the passage).—II. a love feast, an Early Church community meal, Jd 12; 2 Pe 2. 13, v.l." (GINGRICH, 1982, p. 10).

In this Bible dictionary, and in many others, there is no allusion to the term 'love' as subjection to a commandment, despite the Johannine definition that keeping God's commandments is 'love' and correlates it with other terms. Compare:

"For this is the love of God : that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3);

"And by this we know that we know Him: if we keep His commandments" (1 John 2:3).

Those who keep God's commandments love Him and know the meaning not highlighted by lexicographers.

From this perspective, the term love in the Bible names the relationship of someone who commands and someone who obeys.

Without a command, there is no love, and obedience that love is unrequited.

Because of this peculiarity of biblical love, it is possible to trace the reason why the NT writers used the Greek term 'agape'[6] to refer to God's love for man and vice versa.

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich emphasize that in Greek literature the term 'agape' is without vitality, and its meaning is weak, as it takes on different values, such as “satisfying”, “receiving”, “greeting”, “honoring”, “ prefer” and “reach”.

Note that these renowned scholars do not identify in the term 'agape' the idea of obedience', and Kittel makes reference to the term 'honor' without relating it to the AT or the N. T.

Comparing the command to honor father and mother in the AT with the one expressed in the NT, it is clear that 'honor' and 'love' have the same essence.

"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the LORD thy God is giving thee." (Exodus 20:12);

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37).

As children owe their parents honor, Jesus used this rule to question the Pharisees in order to explain why David called his son 'Lord'.

“And when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What do you think of the Christ? Whose child is it? They said to him: From David. He said to them, How then doth David in the spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool foot? If David then calls him Lord, how is his son?” (Matthew 22:41-45).

Who would be David's son if his own father owed him honor?

Will honor the son as father honored? Certainly, it is by loving the Son that is, submitting to Christ, so that whoever loves honor and vice versa.

"That all honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sends him." (John 5:23);

“Then said Jesus unto them, If God were your Father, you would surely love me, for I went out, and came from God; I did not come from myself, but he sent me.” (John 8:42)

Taylor's Beacon[7] Theological Dictionary defines that loving God is 'giving first place', which, in other words, would be 'worshiping Him alone'. This definition leaves love in the field of subjectivism, as it relegates the individual or an institution to decide what would be 'first place'.

Within the reading of giving first place to God, thoughts has given wing with, 'I have to give my best to God', which will invariably lead the individual along the path of vows and sacrifices. With this definition, the path that leads to Saul's recalcitrance is clear, because instead of obeying God, the individual will pursue the proposal to put God first.

Considering Kittel's approach, that the etymology of the verb agapan is uncertain, its meaning is weak and, among Greek writers without vitality, only context can give vitality and color to the term.

In this sense, Werner's[8] lesson is essential for the analysis of the verb agapán within the NT, therefore, the interpreter should not be guided by the impressions of modern man, but rather should delve into the 'original unity' of all aspects underlined in the Greek word .

The value of the verb agapan in NT is not derived from the Greeks, but from the essence of the gospel, which transmutes the term 'weak', 'variable' and 'without vitality' into a strong, vibrant color.

Some authors manage to adduce the meaning of the term agapán in the context of TN; however, the approach is lost among several concepts and adjectives that has sought for the term, as if the definition given by the apostles was not clear enough.

Note this placement in the VINI Bible Dictionary:

“Christian love has God for its primary object, and it expresses itself, in the first place, in implicit obedience to his commandments (Jn 14:15, 21, 23; 15:10; 1 Nji 2.5; 5.3; 2 Jn 6). Willingness, that is, one who acts only out of his will to please himself, is the denial of love for God” (VINI, 2002, p. 395).

Why does the definition of the apostles seem insufficient to many scholars? Like Dr. Vini, scholars  has not resigned to embracing the apostles' definition that Christian love is obedience to His commandments, and end up adding that Christian love 'first and foremost' expresses itself in obedience' implicit'.

When it has said that love for God 'first and foremost' is obedience to his commandments, the writer leaves a gap to interpret that obedience to God's commandments is not the exact measure of the love demanded by God.

 The definition of love for God is explicit and objective: obedience to his commandments, but the idea is that it is something implicit, understood.

It seems an exaggeration to make this analysis based on two additions to the definition of the apostle John: "first" and "implicit", however, the definition of "voluntariness" that follows demonstrates that it is not an exaggeration to make the analysis. The reprehensible willingness is not to act to 'please yourself', but to act aware that you are pleasing God, without resigning yourself to fulfilling only and exclusively his commandments, like King Saul.

The master-servant relationship that derives from the one who commands and the one who submits has command and obedience at opposite ends. Obedience does not come from the individual's will, emotion, impulse, or feeling. In fact, the idea that the term agape underlines refers to the exercise of the free will of those who submit to what is proposed in the commandment, which in short is 'honor'."

The term 'honor' throughout human history has taken on several values, and what stands out through the term agapán within NT has its roots in the aristocratic idea that permeated civilizations of antiquity.

As the meaning of the verb agapan is 'weak' and 'variable' and many translators and writers do not understand the essence of the biblical text, there is a huge range of variations in biblical translations, and depending on the translator's doctrinal influence, the term is translated. agapán and its variations for loving, now being charitable, now having compassion, now exercising mercy, etc.

An analysis of the approach taken by James C. Hunter, a renowned and well-known writer, in The Monk and the Executive will be a glimpse of how weak the term agapan is meant and how important it is to understand the essence of Scripture.

When Hanter refers to the noun agape and the corresponding verb, he makes reference to the Greeks and how they used the term, as if there were enough literary sources to support their definition. But, as already said, in the Greek writers, the verb agape has no vitality and the references to the noun agapaó are very few[9], so the Greek description of unconditional love is imprecise and does not reflect the biblical idea.

Misunderstanding the Scriptures, combined with a misreading of the essence of the term agape and its derivatives, although it gave Hanter a good conclusion that biblical love is not a feeling, is wrong to consider biblical love as behavior determined by a choice[10].

Biblical love derives from a specific command that implies unrestricted obedience, that is, subjection.

"If anyone serves me, follow me, and wherever I am, there will also be my servant. In addition, if anyone serves me, my Father will honor him." (John 12:26);

"How can ye believe, receiving honor from one another, and not seeking the honor that comes from God alone?" (John 5:44).

Saul owed unstinting obedience to God's command: to exterminate all the Amalekites. As a servant, he had no choice but the charge of obedience. The instant he deliberated to preserve King Agag's life, he made a choice that determined his behavior, and was found wanting before God.

“Then Saul said to Samuel, But I heard the voice of the LORD, and walked in the way that the LORD sent me ; and I brought Agag king of Amalek, and I destroyed the Amalekites utterly;” (1 Samuel 15:20).

Hanter's statement suggests that there is power in an individual's choices; however, the biblical idea shows that power resides only in God's command.

Adam could make any choice among the fruits of the trees that were in the Garden of Eden, and the possible choices would only result in the different flavors he would experience. When he chose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam's choice had no power, but the commandment was full of power, so much, so that it altered its nature.

"Now the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Corinthians 15:56).

It is true that man's choices can determine his behavior, but no choice can alter his nature. However, when man obeys God's commandment in the gospel, he receives from God the power to be made one of God's children (John 1:12-13).

The love that Jesus addresses in TN has no connection with the will or behavior of man, as it is a fact that:

“If you sin, what will you do against him? If your transgressions multiply, what will you do to them? If you are fair, what will you give him, or what will he receive from your hand? Your ungodliness would do harm to another like you; and your righteousness would benefit the son of man. (Job 35:6-8).

No man's action or omission outside the commandment established in the gospel results in salvation, for the power for salvation is in the gospel, which requires man's subjection.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; first of the Jew, and also of the Greek.” (Romans 1:16).

Agape in NT is based on the care of God evidenced through a command given to humanity which, when revealed in the person of Christ, demands obedience, which demands from the individual assent from the will to the detriment of sentimental and emotional issues.

When the apostle Paul writes to Timothy he used the term agape, and from the context, it is possible to analyze it:

 “Thou, thou hast observed my doctrine, course, intention, faith, long-suffering, love, endurance...” (2 Timothy 3:10).

Agape stems from διδασκαλία (doctrine), which shapes ἀγωγή (behavior), which informs πρόθεσις (intention), sustains πίστις (confidence), provides μακροθυμία (consistency) and sustains ὑπομονή (persistence). All the nouns listed, including ἀγάπη (love), are terms that describe who is obedient.

The apostle Paul's ministry is crowned by the nouns above, not forgetting the διωγμός (persecutions) and πάθημα (afflictions), but all the nouns describe who actually became a servant, that is, is obedient.

"Therefore, O king Agrippa, I have not been disobedient to the heavenly vision." (Acts 26:19).

In the same context, the apostle Paul a little earlier pointed out the existence of individuals who had the appearance of εὐσέβεια (piety), but who denied its efficacy (power).

“Having an appearance of godliness, but denying its effectiveness. Depart from these.” (2 Timothy 3:5).

The noun εὐσέβεια (piety) in the context takes on the value of διδασκαλία (doctrine), εὐαγγέλιον (gospel), ἐντολή (commandment), for the power which 'self-loving men' deny refers to the power (efficacy) emanating from the gospel.

In writing to the Christians of Corinth, the apostle to the Gentiles emphasizes the need for his interlocutors to contribute to the Christians of Judea, and through this passage it is evident how variable and lifeless the term agape is, and how much the term depends on the context for underline its meaning.

“Therefore, as you abound in all things in faith, and in word, and in knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love toward us, so also abound in this grace. I do not say this as one who commands, but to prove, by the diligence of others, the sincerity of your love (...) Now, however, also complete what has already begun, so that, as there was the readiness of will, there may be also the fulfillment according to what you have” (2 Corinthians 8:7-8 and 11).

In addressing the issue of contribution, the apostle Paul first relates the willingness of the Macedonian brothers, who, although they were poor, were very generous in giving to the Christians in Judea. Since Titus had started the collection among the Corinthians, the apostle Paul instructed him to complete the collection (1 Corinthians 8:1-6).

What would be the tone of the "agape" of Christians towards the apostle Paul and Titus? Did you like them? Did they have a great deal of affection for them? Did they honor them both? Did they obey both? The term encompasses all these nuances, however, as what was said by the apostle Paul did not have the tone of someone who wanted to lord it over Christians (2 Corinthians 8:8), in this context the term acquires the tone of one who exercises a preference, choice or will.

Through the term agape, the apostle to the Gentiles showed that Christians were subject to him and Titus voluntarily, since the apostle did not impose any obligation on them.

"Not that we have dominion over your faith, but that we are laborers together in your joy; for by faith you stand." (2 Corinthians 1:24);

"Not as having dominion over God's inheritance, but setting an example to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3).

As he had no pretensions of mastering the Christians, the apostle did not order them to contribute, but by presenting the generosity of the Macedonians (diligence of others), he put the agape of the Christians of the city of Corinthians to the test.

In this context, agape goes beyond liking it or not, since Christians were already ready to contribute (readiness of will), and that was the moment to contribute (fulfillment). Just saying that you are going to contribute is not agape, but fulfilling what you set out to do is the essence of agape.

The lack of vitality that some lexicographers point to in the term agape is due to interpersonal relationships. In relations between equals, the term involves intimate issues such as will and action, which can mean, “To satisfy”, “receive”, “greet”, “honor” or, in a more intimate sense, “conquer”.

In the case of relations between master and servant, the servant's will  replaced by that of his master, the servant is only responsible for action, and the term gains the contour of obeying and honoring.

Love in the old covenant

"But because the LORD loved you, and to keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 7:7).

In AT the verb אהב ’ahab or אהב ’aheb generally indicates a strong affection (sentimental and/or emotional), or the longing to have or be with someone or something. The term is used to describe the feeling that unites a couple in both courtship and marriage and, rarely, sexual attraction. The most common term to describe the sexual act is ידע (yada), ‘to know’, to lie down’.

The term אהב 'ahab or אהב 'aheb is also used to describe the affectionate relationship between father and child, or to describe the love between relatives and relatives, but the most common term to describe these relationships is רָחַם (rãham), or affection that a slave has for his master (Exodus 21:5)

Translators of the Septuagint[11], Greek version of A. T. translated into Greek Koine. Between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century BC, in Alexandria, used the term 'agape' to translate the Hebrew terms that refer to love, and today, the use of the term agape in translations is due more to the work of the LXX than its meaning in ancient Greek.

To understand the essence of the assertion: "He who does not love does not know God; for God is love"(1 John 4:8), translators usually stick to the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó), however, as the term is weak and lacking in vitality, it is necessary to use the subsequent term: γινώσκω (ginóskó/know).

The assertion makes it clear that to love implies to know and vice versa, so that if the meaning of agape is established in the sentence, the meaning of ginoskó is also established and vice versa.

An analysis of the verse from the Book of the prophet Hosea sheds light on the terms:

"For I want the mercy, and not the sacrifice; and the knowledge of God, more than the burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6).

Knowing the order that Jesus gave to the scribes and Pharisees it is certain that it is a difficult verse to understand, because to understand the order of Jesus it is not enough to know the Hebrew and Greek vernacular as Jesus' interlocutors knew so well.

"Go, however, and learn what it means: I will mercy, not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Matthew 9:13);

"But if ye knew what it means: Mercy will I, not sacrifice, I would not condemn the innocent." (Matthew 12:7).

In Hosea's approach, mercy is to knowledge, as sacrifice is to a burnt offering, so the meaning of the Hebrew term חָ֫סֶד (checed) translated by mercy is equivalent to the word דָּ֫עַת (daath), translated by knowledge.

A lexicographer or a translator does not realize that the terms mercy and knowledge can be related, the root of the terms does not interconnect them

How to check if there is a relationship between these terms? Making use of the structure proper to Hebrew poetry: parallelism.

Hebrew poetry is composed of a chain of thoughts and ideas, which works with elements such as emphasis, repetition and contrast, which is different from Western poetry, which works with meter, rhythm and rhyme.

In addition to being the basis of Hebrew poetry, parallelism serves to preserve the idea of ​​the text unaltered, as the chain of ideas creates a kind of logical lock that makes it difficult to change the text.

Parallelism has also used in biblical passages of great importance, especially when the biblical writers recorded the word of God.

The writer of the Book of Samuel made a historical record of God commissioning Saul to destroy the Amalekites, but when God rebukes Saul through the prophet Samuel, the narrative breaks up and gives way to a structure built with parallels:

“But Samuel said, Has the LORD as much pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the word of the LORD? Behold, obeying is better than sacrificing; and the service is better than the fat of sheep.” (1 Samuel 15:22).

What God wants (or in other words, demands and enjoys) is that they obey Him, and nothing more. The argument that God wants the best of his servants is fallacy, as Saul preserved the best of the interdict for the multitude to offer in sacrifice at Gilgal, and has rejected by the Lord.

"I repent that I have made Saul king; for he hath not followed me, and hath not fulfilled my words. Then Samuel was grieved, and cried unto the LORD all night." (1 Samuel 15:11).

However, why does the prophet Hosea use the term חָ֫סֶד (checed) translated mercy, and not the term שָׁמַע (shama) translated obey? The textual structure clearly demonstrates that the prophet Hosea repeats the instruction given by the prophet Samuel, but why did he change one of the terms?

"For I want the mercy, and not the sacrifice; and the knowledge of God, more than the burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6).

The answer is in the Pentateuch, in the word of God recorded by Moses:

"And I show mercy thousands of them that love me, and them that keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:6).

Initially the people of Israel has instructed through Moses that God specifically exercises mercy to those who love Him, that is, who obey His commandments, but the people were more given to sacrifices than to obey, and thus, God could not exercise his mercy.

With the term חָ֫סֶד (checed) the prophet Hosea evokes what was taught there in Exodus, showing that God wanted to exercise mercy on the children of Israel, and that for that they needed to love (אָהַב), that is, obey (שָׁמַע).

When reading the passage: 'I want mercy', because of the teaching in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the understanding should be, 'I want you to love me and keep my commandments', for only then is it possible for God to have mercy of the individual.

There is no use in intercession, sacrifices, crying, pleas, screams, etc., because God only has mercy on those who love, that is, on those who obey, and even Moses had to learn this lesson.

"But he said, I will cause all my goodness to pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; (Exodus 33:19).

God has mercy on those who obey Him, that is, those who love Him, and nothing and no one can change this truth. God cannot revoke or alter his word:

“Now therefore forgive your sin, if not, scratch me, I pray you, from your book which you have written. And the LORD said unto Moses, He that sinneth against me, him I will blot out of my book." (Exodus 32:32-33).

Because of the relationship between 'mercy' and 'obedience', 'mercy' and 'love' established in Exodus, the prophet Hosea replaces the term obedience with mercy in order to urge the children of Israel to obey God.

The golden rule of verse 6 of Exodus 20 echoes throughout the Scriptures:

"Therefore saith the LORD God of Israel, I have indeed spoken, that thy house and the house of thy father shall walk before me forever; but those who despise me will be despised." (1 Samuel 2:30).

The noun חָ֫סֶד (checed), which brings in its core the idea of kindness, love, steadfastness, grace, mercy, faithfulness, kindness and devotion, in the same context as Hosea has related to the term דָּ֫עַת (daath). Let us see:

"Then let us know, and go on to know the LORD; his going forth as the morning is sure; and he shall come to us as rain, as the latter rain that waters the earth." (Hosea 6:3).

When one knows and goes on to know the Lord, man attains mercy, which is described through figures such as 'the rain that waters the earth', a reference to God's goodness, and 'the coming of the morning', which points to faithfulness of God, in short, the mercy of God.

As it could not fail to consider speculations of a philosophical nature, how is it possible for the finite to know what is infinite? Is it possible for the creature to determine through its logical foundations an objective knowledge about the Creator?

It is obvious that the prophet Hosea does not deal with epistemological issues when presenting the need to know God, but with what God requires of man:

"For I want the mercy, and not the sacrifice; and the knowledge of God, more than the burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6).

God wants mercy, that is, that men obey. Moreover, what is the knowledge of God? Knowledge is his word!

“But Samuel said, Has the LORD as much pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in the word of the LORD be obeyed? Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice; and the service is better than the fat of sheep.” (1 Samuel 15:22).

What makes it possible to affirm that the knowledge of God refers to the word of God? The parallelism with which they wrote these verses (and many others) from the Book of Proverbs:

 “For they hated knowledge; and preferred not the fear of the Lord” (Proverbs 1:29);

"Then thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord, and shall find the knowledge of God" (Proverbs 2:5).

Based on verse 29 of Proverbs 1, is it possible to love or hate (שָׂנֵא/sane) a knowledge? How to understand the opposition between love and hate? Jesus sheds light on the terms when he said:

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will dedicate himself to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matthew 6:24).

The Hebrew term שָׂנֵא has the meaning of 'not to prefer' (בָּחַר/bachar), 'despise', showing the non-submission of a servant to his master, a matter divorced from feelings and emotions. 'Hate' knowledge is not to submit, not to have preference, to despise.

"My people are destroyed, because they lacked knowledge; for thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not be a priest before me; and since thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also I will forget your children." (Hosea 4:6).

Both Solomon and Jesus used the term love in the sense of dedication, subjection, service, and the term hate in the sense of contempt, recalcitrance. The synonymous parallelism in verse 29 of Proverbs 1 indicates this meaning:

a) “Because they hated knowledge;

b) ... and did not choose the fear of the Lord.” (Proverbs 1:29);

In the verse 'hated' stands for 'did not prefer' and 'knowledge' stands for 'fear of the Lord', because through the synonymous parallelism the line 'b' repeats a part of the line 'a', but with different words, in order to reinforce and preserve the idea of the text.

Verse 5 of Proverbs 2 reinforces the meaning of the term 'knowledge':

“Then thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.” (Proverbs 2:5).

'Understanding' in the context means 'finding' and 'fear of the Lord' is the same as 'knowledge of God', meanings printed in terms that derive from relationships established by parallelism and that has not found in dictionaries.

Note the relationship that parallelism imposes on the verb מָצָא (matsa) translated as finding, which in the context can only be understood, understood:

"I love them that love me, and those that seek me soon, they will find me." (Proverbs 8:17).

When the apostle John said, "He who does not love does not know God; for God is love" (1 John 4:8), despite making use of the linguistic signs and rules proper to the koine Greek, the meaning of The terms ἀγαπάω (agapaó) and γινώσκω (ginóskó/know) emerge from the Old Testament, as a kind of Hebrewism.

Going back a little in the approach, we stated above that 'fear' is the same as 'knowledge', that is, the term has a double meaning, as depending on the context it can mean 'fear' or 'knowledge', 'instruction'.

"And Moses said unto the people, Fear not, God hath come to try you, and that the fear of him may be before you, lest you sin." (Exodus 20:20).

What is this fear that prevents man from sinning? The fear? Not! The word of God.

"I hid your word in my heart, lest I sin against you." (Psalm 119:11).

If the Bible translator does not realize that the noun form of the verb יָרֵא (yare'), which is יִרְאָה (yirah) takes on a different connotation depending on the context, and based only on the denotation that the Greek term imposes, he will make translations aberrant, like the following:

"But also, if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, ye are blessed. And be not afraid of them, neither be troubled;" (1 Peter 3:14).

The translator understood that the apostle Peter was giving an order to Christians not to be afraid of people who could harm them, and he is wrong twice:

a) Not considering that it is a quotation from the prophet Isaiah;

b) By considering the noun φόβος (phobos) to be fear, phobia.

"Call not conjuration, all that this people call conjuration; and fear not what he fears, neither be dismayed." (Isaiah 8:12).

The verb φοβέομαι (phobeó) and the noun φόβος (phobos) were used to represent the same linguistic function of the Hebrew terms יָרֵא (yare') and יִרְאָה (yirah), respectively, verb and noun, but the meaning of the terms emerges from the one announced by the prophet Isaiah.

In the text of Isaiah, the Hebrew terms יָרֵא (yare') and יִרְאָה (yirah) do not have the connotation of fear, rather, the terms, depending on the context, are transmuted, and come to mean, respectively, 'obedience' and ' doctrine'. In the passage from the Book of Isaiah, God was instructing the prophet not to call holy everything that the children of Israel called holy (conjuration), and that the prophet could not obey (fear) their doctrine (teme).

Why could the prophet Isaiah not "fear" what the children of Israel "feared"? Because their 'fear' was only the commandments of men in which they were instructing, that is, it was not the word of God!

"...his fear of me consists only of the commandments of men, in which he was instructed" (Isaiah 29:13).

"But in vain do they honor me, teaching doctrines which are the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7).

As the "fear" of the children of Israel was only doctrines that are commandments of men, there is the order: ‘...do not fear what they fear, neither be dismayed.” (Isaiah 8:12)

The apostle tells the converted Christians from among the Jews, so that they do not follow Judaism in its different doctrinal nuances: Pharisaism, sadochism, etc.

Note that the evangelist Mark does not stop at quoting ipsis litteris the passage from Isaiah, and converts instruction into a more appropriate approach to the man of his time.

If the interpreter does not use the OT to establish the meaning of the terms used by the apostles, comparing specific passages in the books, from the books of the prophets Hosea, Samuel, Isaiah and the epistle of the apostle John, he will mistakenly conclude that the NT agape says of a feeling and will get lost in subjectivism.

Erickson's definition: `God's love is a selfless concern for us, for our benefit. It is agape, not eros' (ERICKSON, 1997, p. 123), slips into the field of subjectivism, as what is considered altruistic for some is not for others, and it is not the terms agape and eros that define the love, for God Himself is the definition of love.

If you consider only the Greek linguistic signs that describe love, there will be uncertainty about love in the NT, as noted in Grün's definition in his book 'Living in the house of love'.

“We cannot designate love as either a feeling or a act of will. It seems to be an independent power, which acts in the heart of man and affects all his relationships...” (GRÜN, 2006, p. 118). What 'seems' can never be classified as what it is, therefore, he presented an 'undefined'.

Paulo Coelho, in the book ‘The Supreme Gift’, which is a free reinterpretation of the Sermon “The Greatest Thing in the World”, by Henry Drummond, makes an interpretation of what the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in the first epistle, chapter 13: “After comparing love with everything we've seen, Paulo - in three small verses - makes a surprising analysis of what this Supreme Gift is.  It tells us that Love is a thing made up of many others.”, and arrives at a terminological imprecision full of indefiniteness, which, in turn, leads to other indefiniteness: “Love is a rich, strong and generous expression of our lives - man's personality in its most complete development” (RABBIT, The Supreme Gift, pp. 19 and 4) Available: < https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5TCJ_2aW_osLW5CSnZ1Vmk1N0E/edit > Consultation carried out on 27 /07/2021.

The apostle Paul does not break love down into parts, as a prism does with light, but rather presents characteristics of one who is obedient: suffering, kind, detached, sincere, humble, decent, patient, trusting, resigned, etc.

“Love is suffering, it is kind; love is not envious; love does not treat itself lightly, does not puff itself up. He doesn't behave indecency, doesn't look for his interests, doesn't get angry, doesn't suspect badly; Do not rejoice in injustice, but rejoice in the truth; everything suffers, everything believes, everything waits, everything supports.” (One Corinthians 13:4-7).

The so-called Supreme Gift does not speak of the development of the human personality, nor is it the composition of many other things. Henry Drummond misread the Pauline exhibition, and writer Paulo Coelho, in turn, only enhanced the distribution of a message totally divorced from that intended by the apostle of the Gentiles.

The obedient do not seek his interests, but the interests that he issued the order. The obedient never boast, because there is no way to be puffed up when subject to an order. Whoever obeys does not suspect badly, because if he did, he would not obey.

Drummond believed that 'a man's message of FAITH is in the way he lives his life, not in the words he says' (DRUMMOND, 1994, p. 27). Complete mistake, as the apostle Paul defines that the message The Christian's faith is the gospel, whose author and finisher is Christ, so that the faith of the gospel is in the words he professes, and he must walk according to what he professes.

Love is not an expression of the personality of the individual, but the subjection of the individual to God's command, which is to believe in Christ. The essence of biblical love is in the relationship between Lord and servant, who is responsible for obedience to the commandments, and the former is the generosity in giving commandments (Luke 17:7; Matthew 19:17).

In biblical love there is a glimpse of the essence and severity pertaining to aristocratic nobility, since the master's will is good for his servant (Matthew 19:22).

The faithful and prudent servant must love, honor and serve his master in the way he has established (Matthew 24:45-46), for he is lord who governs his house (oikos), which encompasses the dwelling and all that belongs to you It is from this aristocratic environment that Jesus' statement fits:

“It is enough for the disciple to be like his master, and the servant like his master. If they called Beelzebub the father of the family, let alone his servants?” (Matthew 10:25).

The servants were the domestics[12] of the father of the family, which can be see from some old documents from Portugal.

The Apostle John's Approach allows rewriting assertions without changing the idea of ​​the text, and thus establishing new parameters for textual comparison.

The verse:

"He who does not love does not know God;" (1 John 4:8), can be rewritten as follows:

"He who loves knows God;"

In this way can be analyzed Pauline placements from a new perspective:

"They confess that they know God, but they deny him with works, being abominable, and disobedient, and reproving for every good work." (Titus 1:16).

There are those who say that they know God, that is, that they love Him, however, they deny with his works, which according to the Apostle John, is to love in word and in tongue.

It is much easier to analyze and understand other biblical passages, such as:

"But now, knowing God, or rather being known by God, how do you return again to those weak and poor rudiments, which you want to serve again?" (Galatians 4:9).

How is it possible for anyone to 'know' God? Now, it is enough to love God who knows God, or rather has known by Him. The term γινώσκω (ginoskó) translated as ‘know’ highlights the Christian's communion with God, for through Christ they are now one.

"And I have given them the glory which thou gavest me, that they may be one, as we are one." (John 17:22).

In Hebrew, the verb יָדַע (yarda), translated as 'to know', depending on the context refers to the intimate union between man and woman, that is, when both become one body.

"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." (Genesis 4:1).

When Jesus said, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:32), the verb γινώσκω (ginoskó) has the meaning of intimate fellowship, to become one, for only when man is one with the Father and the Son will he be freed from sin.

‘Knowing about’ Christ is abiding in his teaching, and to be set free by the truth is to become one with Christ, for Christ is the truth.

After understanding the essence of the terms 'love' and 'knowing', the reading of the following biblical passage is more precise:

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he once knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:28-29).

The apostle Paul makes it clear that all things work together for good to those who fulfill God's command (love), for when you become one with Christ (before known) you will be destined to be without conforming to the express image of Christ (1 John 3: 1-2).

"For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3);

"And in this we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3).

By keeping the commandments of God, man achieves both the ἀγαπάω (agapaó) and the γινώσκω (ginoskó/know), because there is no contradiction in saying that whoever loves God knows God and whoever does not love God does not know bye.

It is difficult to find an author who, when dealing with love in NT, is not attracted to the field of subjectivism.

Thomas Hobbes, in his work Leviathan or Matter, Word and Power of an Ecclesiastical and Civil Government, commonly called Leviathan, produced in the 16th century, highlights precisely the meaning of obedience as the NT presents:

“The obedience demanded by God, who accepts in all our actions the will for the actions, is a serious effort to obey him and is also called with all those names that signify that effort. And therefore (obedience is sometimes called charity and love) because they imply the will to obey - and even our Savior makes our love for God and neighbor a fulfillment of all the law,- and sometimes by the name of righteousness, since righteousness is nothing more than the will to give each one his due, that is, the will to obey the laws” (HOBBES, 2003, p. 491) italics our;

“To obey is to honor, because no one obeys someone who does not think he can help or harm him. Consequently, to disobey is to dishonor (...) Praising, exalting or congratulating is honoring, for nothing is more cherished than goodness, power and happiness. To belittle, make fun of or pity oneself is dishonor” (Idem, p. 78).

For Hobbes there are no mincing words or quibbling about the names attributed to obedience:

a) To obey is to honor[13], and;

b) Obedience was call charity and love.

What is the meaning of the Greek verb τιμάω (timao) translated to honor? Usually the idea of the term is 'deference', 'reverence'[14], 'esteem', etc., however, the honor demanded by Christ goes beyond, that is, the same honor due to God.

"That all honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sends him." (John 5:23).

What honor is due to God?

"Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deuteronomy 6:5).

The deference due to Christ, the Son of God, is to love Him with all your heart, soul, and strength! The only way to honor Christ, as well as honor the Father, is to become a servant of Christ.

"If anyone serves me, follow me, and wherever I am, my servant will be there also. And if anyone serves me, my Father will honor him." (John 12:26);

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11: 29-30) ;

“And do not be afraid of them, neither be troubled; rather, sanctify the LORD God in your hearts;” (one Peter 3:14-15).

What is the meaning of the verb כָּבַד (kabad or kabed), translated as ‘honor’? Considering what was announced by the prophet Isaiah, to honor is to obey, that is, to follow the way of the Lord, to do His will and to announce only His word.

“...And honoring him not following thy ways, nor pretending to do thy own will, nor speaking thy own words...” (Isaiah 58:13).

A negative example of those who did not honor God was Saul, as he did not obey the divine order, went his own way and sought to profit from God's order.

"I repent that I have made Saul king; for he failed to follow me, and did not keep my words. Then Samuel was grieved and cried all night to the LORD." (1 Samuel 15:11).

Obedience has a single vein, and man cannot deviate to the right or to the left.

“Take heed therefore that do as the LORD hath commanded you your God; you shall not go astray, neither to the right nor to the left.” (Deuteronomy 5:32).

The exhortation to obedience has several verbs to describe it: fear, walk, love, serve, keep, know, seek, reach, tremble, etc., and all verbs will always be in connection with the word of God.

“Now therefore, O Israel, what is the LORD thy God asking of thee, but fear the LORD thy God.

That thou walkest in all his ways, love him, and serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day, for thy good? (...)

The LORD thy God shalt thou fear; him thou shalt serve, and shalt thou approach him, and swear by his name.” (Deuteronomy 10:12-13 and 20.

The use of the Greek language, specifically Koine Greek, to communicate the truth of the gospel, expresses ideas from the AT, and the Greek term 'agape' used by the apostles does not express the Greeks' conception of love.

In the AT, the children of Israel said that they loved God, and demonstrated their religiosity, enhanced by feelings and emotions, through sacrifices, songs, prayers, gestures, services, vows, etc.

“What is the multitude of your sacrifices for me, saith the LORD?  Fed up with the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fattened animals; neither am I pleased with the blood of calves, nor of lambs, nor of goats. When you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hands that ye come to tread down my courts? Do not continue to bring in vain offerings; incense is to me an abomination, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and the convocation of assemblies; I cannot bear iniquity, not even the solemn meeting. Your new moons, and your solemnities, my soul hates them; they are already heavy for me; I am tired of suffering them. Therefore, when you stretch out your hands, I hide my eyes from you; and though you multiply your prayers, I will not hear them, for your hands are full of blood.” (Isaiah 1:11-15).

All the practices listed above demonstrate how much the children of Israel had affection for God, and many were willing to sacrifice their earthly lives in function of the feeling they had in relation to God, however, they did not realize that loving God is only possible by fulfilling His command.

To figure as the subject of the verb 'to love' in relation to God, as expressed by the prophets Hosea, Isaiah and Samuel, it is necessary to obey God according to his word. In the Bible, it does not matter if in the A.T. or in NT, man's love to God consists in obedience to his commandments, and God's love to men refers to his care expressed in the commandment.

The commandment is love

"And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, you lack one thing: go, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and go on -me." (Mark 10:21).

When he recorded that Jesus loved that young man, what did Mark evidence? That Jesus had affection and wanted to strengthen the bonds of friendship? Besides, has attached to him?  Was it a show of affection? Did Jesus practice charity when giving love? Besides, did he attached to him? Was it a show of affection? Did Jesus practice charity when giving love? Is it love giving? Was it unconditional love?

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, there will be another flood of inquiries. Did Jesus prefer that young man? How could Jesus have loved that young man and not saved him? Was Jesus' love not effective? Would it be a 'common' love? Was not it an 'irresistible' love? Is 'ordinary' love real love?

Do the questions about agape not stop there, especially if the approach has a religious, philosophical, sociological, psychological, biological, etc. bias? Does adding variables such, time, custom, culture, etc. to the equation, does the meaning of the term agape change?

If the interpreter does not look to the text for an answer, he will wander indefinitely through myriad speculations, and Jesus' approach is clear and effective: a direct order! How did Jesus love that young man? Offering an opportunity for him to make himself his servant!

"Know you not that, whom ye present yourselves servants to obey him, are you servants to him whom you obey, either from sin unto death, or from obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:16).

For a descendant of Abraham like the rich young man, it should not be difficult to give up what he had in order to follow Christ, since Abraham, an example of faith, went out from among his kindred to an unknown land, giving up what he could inherit from his father, Terah (Genesis 12:4).

On another occasion, Abraham gave up the spoils of war not to get rich at the expense of Berah, king of Sodom, showing how Abraham was not attached to the possessions of this world (Genesis 14:23). Homeland, land, city, family, possessions, inheritance, etc., meant nothing to the divine order.

If saying Abraham's son is easy, it is difficult to trust in God and carry out what He proposes, just as the believer Abraham did. If to call Abraham's son or call Jesus a good teacher is nothing but flattery, that is, to love with mouth and tongue, because to real love is to obey the Master's order and follow Him!

The evangelist Matthew, when narrating the same event, did not use the term agape, but recorded that Jesus presented the young man with the possibility of being perfect, a feasible divine requirement that is contained in the law:

"Thou shalt be perfect, as the LORD thy God." (Deuteronomy 18:13);

"Be ye therefore perfect, as is perfect your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:48);

"Jesus said unto him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, and follow me" (Matthew 19:21).

By becoming a servant, the rich young man would reach the perfection proposed in the law.

"And you are perfect in him, who is the head of all principality and power;" (Colossians 2:10);

"A disciple is not superior to his master, but whoever is perfect shall be like his master." (Luke 6:40);

"Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger, whom I send? And who is blind as he is perfect, and blind as the servant of the LORD?" (Isaiah 42:19).

The order Jesus gave the rich young man is very personal, as is the order given to Abraham to immolate his only son. As the order given to the young man was very personal, it is worth remembering that giving goods to the poor voluntarily does not provide treasure in heaven, but taking up the cross and following Christ.

“And though I distributed all my wealth for the support of the poor, and though I gave my body to be burned, And I had no love, I would not avail myself of it.” (1 Corinthians 13:3).

What would this 'love' be that, if someone does not have it, even if he distributes all his wealth to support the poor, it is of no avail? The commandment emanating from Christ! If the rich young man sold all his goods and distributed it to the poor, it would be fully profitable, for agape is present both in Jesus' command and in the young man's obedience to the command.

For a disambiguation, it is worth noting that the commandment does not have in mind the need for man to develop in himself a feeling of affection for God or for his neighbor, rather, the command itself is the essence of love and vice versa.

The Johannine definition: 'This is the commandment: that you walk in Him', is directly related to the principle of identity pertaining to logic, or the sentences of first order logic (LPO), for, just as love is the commandment, it follows that the commandment is love.

God's command is the expression of his love for men (walk in my commandments), and obedience to the command (walk in them) is the way man expresses his love for God.

Loving according to God's command has nothing to do with the classical, modern, or contemporary perspectives of love that has praised in secular literature worldwide.

Elements such as charity, good deeds, donations, alms, humanitarian causes, helping in the needs of everyday life, does not say the love that the beloved apostle shows in his gospel and in his epistles.

Not knowing the essence of the gospel of Christ and not being acquainted with the specific peculiarities of the Johannine writings, especially regarding the meaning of the terms used, will lead the reader to the mistake of considering that the evangelist,

 When dealing with love, was simply recommending to his little children in faith charitable actions that implied social well-being, or that spread principles of a moral and ethical order that would guide conduct in interpersonal relationships.

To understand the essence of the love presented by the apostle John, it is done during a teaching; Jesus presented the reason why the Father loved him: voluntarily Jesus gave up his life and then took it. However, where is God's love for His Son, if the Son had to dispose of his own life?

Love was in the command the Son received from the Father.

 “This is why the Father loves me, because I give my life to take it again. No one takes it from me, but I give it from myself; I have power to give it, and power to take it again. This commandment I have received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18).

Without the command given by the Father, Jesus could deliver his body to be burned, or crucified, or beheaded, etc., which would be of no use, as said by the apostle to the Gentiles in the epistle to the Corinthians, verse 3, chapter 13.

But, as Jesus received a commandment from the Father, this indicated that the Father loved him, and therefore, Jesus gave his life to regain it. Agape in the context is not feeling, as the act of surrendering to death is not something desirable.

To give one's life without the Father's command expecting deliverance would be to tempt Him. To surrender to death without having been ordered by the Father would be madness, a complete absurdity and folly. In this sense, the Father's love emerges from the command given to the Son, and not from the Son's act to lay down his life.

On the other hand, the Son demonstrates that he loves the Father in the act of giving his own life solely and exclusively because the Father gave the commandment, for otherwise, there would be no way for the Son to demonstrate his love for the Father

Only when he does what the Father commands is it possible for the Son to demonstrate that he loves the Father. Without the command, giving life would be meaningless and utterly purposeless.

 “But it is so that the world may know that I love the Father and that I do as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31).

Verse 17 of chapter 10 of the Gospel of John explains why the Father loves the Son: the Son is obedient, not because the Son is willful. Giving up life was not the Son's choice, rather the Father commanded the Son to lay down his life, and based on the commandment, the Son had the authority to give and take his life again.

If the act of giving up one's life voluntarily were the Father's motive to love the Son, the prayer in Gethsemane would be meaningless. Note that Jesus was ready to do the Father's will, and not 'do your best', 'give your best' or 'at the very least give God the best', as some claim.

“Saying, Father, if thou willing, pass this cup away from me; yet not my will be done, but yours.” (Luke 22:42);

"Then he said, Behold, I come to do thy will, O God. Take away the first, to establish the second." (Hebrews 10:9).

Taking an initiative that contradicts or only touches on what was determined is an affront to the Lord, as did King Uriah, who, because of his position, claimed the right to burn incense on the altar of incense, which was proper only to the priests.

“But when he had become mighty, his heart was lifted up, so that it was corrupted, and he committed trespasses against the Lord his God; for he entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense.” (2 Chronicles 26:16).

The priests' warning was clear:

“And they resisted king Uzziah, and said unto him, It is not for thee, Uzziah, to burn incense before the LORD, but to the priests, sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense; come out of the sanctuary, because you have transgressed; and this shall not be to thy honor on the part of the LORD God. (2Chronicles 26:18).

King Uzziah must have seen the service rendered by the priests several times, and because of his ingenuity and personal ability (2 Chronicles 26:15), he let pride take hold of his heart, and thought he could perform one of the functions of priests: to light the incense.

Rebellion before God often arises from noble feelings and thoughts: - 'I can do this job better'; - ‘I can honor God with my abilities’, - If I have such abilities, it is because God wants me to use them’, etc.

King Uzziah only failed to consider the following principle:

"And no one takes this honor to himself, but that which is called of God, like Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4).

No matter whether king, son, skillful, reverent, religious, etc., the honor is in being call, not in having skill or power to perform a service.

"So also Christ did not glorify himself, to become a high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, Today I have begotten thee." (Hebrews 5:5).

The sufferings that Christ endured in giving himself to sinners accurately indicate that Christ, even as a Son, learned obedience. As a man, Christ did not want to give up his existence, and he even asked the Father to deliver Him from death, but when he gave himself up to death, he showed himself to be obedient in everything.

“Who in the days of his flesh, offering, with great crying and tears, prayers and supplications to him who could deliver him from death, was heard as to what he feared. Even though he was a Son, he learned obedience because of what he suffered.” (Hebrews 5:7-8).

In eternity, the Eternal Word made flesh, offered Himself as a ransom for humanity, a unilateral and deliberate act. When in this world, in obedience to the Father, the Christ-man gave his life acting as a servant, and not as his own master.

King Uzziah felt that by lighting incense he was honoring God, and that he would be repaid with honor, and he did not consider that God honors those who honor Him (1 Samuel 2:30). Faithfulness and honor come solely and exclusively from obedience, and agape in NT has that essence.

"And Ahimelech answered the king, and said, and who among all thy servants is as faithful as David the king's son-in-law, ready in his obedience, and honorable in thy house?" (1 Samuel 22: 14).

When Jesus says: “For this reason the Father loves me,” and goes on to describe what he was going to do: “...because I lay down my life...” the apostle John says about love occurs: “But anyone who keep his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him." (1 John 2:5).

The command that Jesus received from the Father is his word, and as Jesus gave his life according to the Father's word, the commandment (love) of God in Christ was true perfect.

Jesus loved the young man and gave a commandment, God, in turn, loved the world and gave his only Son. If the love of Jesus shown to the young man was compare with the love of God, if not understood, the love of God seems unconditional and giving, and the love of Jesus does not.

In the verse: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16), it is easy to identify the love of God, but few can identify the commandment of God, and the commandment is the love of God.

In the same way, that Jesus loved the young man and gave a commandment: - “Go, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor”, when giving His only begotten Son, God established a commandment: believe in Christ! In the order Jesus gave there was a reward: a treasure in heaven and in the order given by God the reward is eternal life.

God's command expresses God's love for man, even the first commandment given in Eden, which had an established penalty: 'Thou shalt surely die', had the objective of preserving man's condition: alive and free.

In the New Covenant, the commandment in Christ evidences the same care of God in Eden, who wants to grant eternal life to men who are in death because of the offense of Adam.

"For just as by one offense came judgment on all men to condemnation, so also by one act of righteousness grace came upon all men for justification of life." (Romans 5:18).

The scale of divine justice requires perfect balance, which is only possible through an act substitution: an act of justice in substitution for an act of offense. In addition, this substitutionary act could not be of any man, but had to be of a perfect and sinless man as Adam was Christ, the last Adam.

“Thus it is also written: The first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam in a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45).

By obeying the Father, Christ established a new and living way by which men can return to fellowship with God. Any man who wants to be save just hear the words that the Father gave the Son to speak and believe.

"By the new and living way which he consecrated for us, by the veil, that is, by his flesh" (Hebrews 10:20).

“Behold, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like thou, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I commend him. And shall anyone who does not hear my words, let him speak in my name, I will require it from him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18-19).

Upon this truth, Christ declare:

"And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Therefore, whatever I speak, I speak as the Father hath spoken to me." (John 12:50).

The Commandment of God is love, and believing in Christ as the one sent by God is the commandment.

"And His commandment is this: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command." (1 John 3:23).

If believing in Christ is the love of God, every Christian should be busy understanding how to believe in Christ. It is necessary to believe in Christ according to the testimony that God gave to his Son, a testimony that recorded in the Old Covenant.

Jesus once said that rivers of living water would flow from the womb of those who believe in Him as the Scriptures say.

"He that believeth in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water shall flow from his womb." (John 7:38).

Only through Scripture is it possible fully understand the dimension of God's love on which Christians are rooted and established. Only through the Scriptures is it possible for Christians to fellowship (know) with the love of Christ, since it surpasses all understanding.

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that, being rooted and founded in love, you may understand perfectly, with all the saints, whatever their breadth and length, and height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which surpasses all understanding, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:17-19).

By the faith (πίστις) of the gospel Christ resides in the hearts of Christians, that is, the faith for which Christians must strive (Jude 1:3; Philippians 1:27). Why is it necessary to strive for the gospel? Because the gospel is the love of God given to men, good news that has as its theme the command to believe in Christ.

The main concern of the Christian must be to understand all the nuances of believing in Christ according to the Scriptures, but due to the misreading of the term love, they worry and question more about how to love their brother, than understanding who Christ is.

How to love brothers? The Evangelist John says it's according to his command and not according to human feelings! Without believing in Christ according to the Scriptures, it is impossible to love one's brother, because love for one's brother first demands to believe in Christ, obedience to the commandment.

Without understanding the essence of believing in Christ, or the love of God, it will seem impossible for many to love one another as Christ loved his disciples, as well as to lay down his life for his brothers.

“A new commandment I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must also love one another” (John 13:34);

"We know the love in this: that he laid down his life for us, and we must lay down his life for the brothers." (1 John 3:16).

Even Jesus warning that his burden is light, and the evangelist John pointing out that God's commandments are not burdensome, when many Christians are faced with the command to love one another as Christ did, or lay down their lives for their brothers like Christ, they feel incapable of keeping that commandment.

To obey Jesus' command, it is first necessary to understand the order and essence of love. How to love brothers? If loving as Jesus loved, it is necessary to understand how Jesus loved his disciples.

How did Jesus love his disciples? Fulfilling all that the Father ordered, that is:

a)      Announcing the commandment as the Father prescribed him (John 12:49-50);

b)      Giving up his life and taking it again in accordance with what the Father commanded (John 10: 17-18).

For many who do not know how Jesus loved his disciples, they conclude that to love as Jesus loved is to have empathy and to give oneself to others.  To do well and not look to whom, or to meet the material needs of others, etc. With this perspective, many Christians become volunteers in humanitarian causes, support social projects, change habits and consumption habits, etc., all as a way of 'loving' others.

Jesus' love not based on such philanthropic sentiments, philosophies or practices, although during his earthly ministry he helped the poor with the support of his disciples (Luke 8:3).

Jesus loved his disciples by strictly relaying the commandment, which is life, proclaiming the gospel as the Father commanded. By making the disciples know God and busy teaching them so that they would know more and more of God's will, Jesus relayed the love that the Father loved Him, so that the love of God would be in his followers.

"And I made your name known to them, and I will make it known to them more, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them and I may be in them" (John 17:26).

What love (ἀγάπη) would it be that the Father loved (ἀγαπάω) the Son? What would be the "love" with which God "loved" the Son would be in the disciples? God's command!

The Greek noun ἀγάπη (love) refers to the command the Father gave to the Son, which love passed on to men. The verb ἀγαπάω (to love) demonstrated through the command, which in the verse named ἀγάπη (to love).

To have fellowship with God it is necessary to walk in Christ, the true light that illuminates the world (John 1:9). In other worlds, it only has communion with

God who practices the truth, that is, believes in Christ, or in the testimony that the Father gave of his Son (1 John 5:10).

Whoever believes in Christ walks in the light and is in God, therefore, he has fellowship with his brothers. Keeping the word, practicing the truth, walking in the light, believing in Christ, etc., is loving God, or rather, it is being sheltered from the love of God.

“If we say that we have fellowship with him, and we walk in darkness, we lie, and we do not practice the truth. However, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. (...) However, whoever keeps his word, God's love is in him truly perfected ; in this we know that we are in him.” (1 John 1:6-7).

In Christ is the love of God, and when man believes in Christ, the love of God is truly perfected, that is, those who believe in God's command attain eternal life (Hebrews 5:9; 1 John 2:5). God gave His command to all men to fulfill, that is, God loves all men without any distinction, and those who believe (obey) in His love (commandment), achieve redemption (perfected love).

The greatest evidence that a Christian loves his brother is fellowship with God, which extends to the members of the body of Christ. This fellowship goes beyond the division of daily bread, as it speaks of the fellowship of being in God and God in the believer, and being a member of the body of Christ.

When a Christian proposes to keep the other united to the body of Christ, the Church truly loves his brother. Church in this context does not say of an institution or community, but of the mystical body of Christ.

Jesus knew that He was the Father's love shown to the world, and that is why he resigned himself to announcing to men the Father's command, which is to believe in Him. Just as Jesus loved the rich young man and directed him to sell everything he owned and distribute to the poor, God loved the world by giving His only Son for men to believe.

At the same time, the Father gave a command to the Son, and Christ, as an obedient servant, gave Himself, leaving a perfect example of obedience to men.

In this sense, whoever preaches the gospel as he received it, loves his brother, just as Christ loved his disciples and announced the Father's command. The gospel denies itself, that is, it gives its life for its brother.

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. In addition, he who does not take up his cross, and follow me, is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life, for my sake, will find it. Whoever welcomes you welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.” (Matthew 10:37-40).

 'Giving one's life for the brothers' is not 'giving the body to be burned' or 'distributing all the wealth to support the poor', as it is possible to give the body to be burned or give all goods to the poor and not have love (1 Corinthians 13:2).

There is only one-way to love your brother as Christ loved:

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments” (1 John 5:2).

Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who was raise from the dead by the power of God loves the children of God, for he is only a member of God's family who does God's will: he believes in Christ.

"But when he answered, he said to them, my mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." (Luke 8:21).

Anyone who takes up his cross and follows Christ, or loses his life for Christ's sake, loves and lays down his life for his brothers.

"We know the love in this: that he laid down his life for us, and we must lay down his life for the brothers." (1 John 3:16).

If God's love is to keep His commandments (1 John 5: 3; 2 John 1: 6), to remain in God's love is to keep God's commandments, following the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10).

When in the flesh, Jesus loved the Father and made clear how men should love God: doing what the Father commanded. Since obedience to God's word is the love required, obeying is the same as loving Him, or abiding in His love.

Despite the sociocultural changes, the father and son relationship persists in all times and societies, therefore, it serves as a figure to illustrate the relationship between God and men.

The bond between father and son over the ages is strong in all cultures, and the basis of this bond often named love. In the past, love designated both the care given by the father and the children's duty of obedience, but nowadays, the love between father and son has only transmuted into affection.

For the man of our time, the father and son relationship based only on sentimental issues, however, at the time of Christ, the father and son relationship, in addition to the blood bond and the ensuing rights, based on the honor that the son dispensed to the father, who, in return, dispensed his care to the son.

Although the Pharisees claimed that they had God for their father (John 8:41), by commanding them to learn the meaning of “mercy I will” (Matthew 9:13 and 12:7), Jesus made it clear that they did not obey God.

As Father, God requires of his children obedience to his word (Malachi 1: 6; Matthew 15: 4; John 5:23), which in other words is to honor and love him. Whoever submits to an order becomes a servant, since he gives up his will to carry out his master's will.

 In this sense, it is up to the children to honor the father through obedience, as there is no other way to do it.

"A son honors his father and a servant his lord; if I am a father, where is my honor? In addition, if I am lord, where is my fear? Saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, who you despise my name. And you say, in what have we despised your name?" (Malachi 1:6)

The son owes the father honor, and the servant owes obedience to his master's command (fear). Although the priests in Israel claimed that they had God for their father or that they were his servants, they despised Him, that is, they did not honor or consider the command (fear) of the Lord.

Saying 'good master' is neither honor[15] nor love. To obey is to love and honor, which is proper to the servant, who gives up following his own will to serve his master. Only he who follows Christ serves Christ, not departing from his Lord.

Verse 16, of first John, chapter 3, highlights the agape: Christ gave him life. The act of Christ giving life is a summary of the message of the gospel, which consists of that announced by the prophets, the birth of Christ, the ministry of Jesus and his death in obedience to the Father's will.

“In this we know love: that Christ gave his life for us; and we must lay down our lives[16] for the brethren” (1 John 3:16).

The Love known only in the gospel has called the ‘cross of Christ’, ‘power of God’, ‘precious blood’, describing the act of Christ giving his life.

In the following verse, the beloved apostle argues that if someone has goods, he must meet his brother's need, an example used to demonstrate the essence of agape:

 "Who then hath the world's goods, and when he sees his brother in need, shuts up his bowels, how shall the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).

The argument of the evangelist John who said, 'Seeing your brother in need, shut up his bowels' is not the command, but many confuse the argument as being the essence of the command. The argument only serves to give weight to the following thought. Just as it is the duty of those who have material resources to meet the needs of their families.  Those who are in possession of God's[17] love must give their lives for their brothers and sisters.

When the apostle John said, "My little children, let us not love in word or tongue, but indeed and in truth" (1 John 3:18), in the order there is no emotional appeal such as: - 'Feel love for God ', or – 'Have affection for God', or – “Share your goods with the brethren”, etc.

The Apostle John's appeal goes beyond material issues as it involves obedience, subjection and service to God.

A bad reading of the above verse is to understand that love 'by work and in truth’ was given through welfare actions, such as charities, donations, contributions, etc.

Whoever loves himself submits to God's will, an essential condition for sharing God's care with his brother, which boils down to transmitting his command.

When he wrote to the elect person, the apostle John recalls the commandment that was from the beginning: 'let us love one another'. However, how to love each other? The answer is, "Let us walk according to his commandments" (2 John 1:6).

It is only possible to love your brother when you obey God by practicing his command:

“And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command” (1 John 3:23).

Anyone who does not obey God is a liar and a murderer, therefore, he cannot love (take care of) his brother. A liar in the context is a condition of being as it is to be vile, low, bad, and not a reference to the act of breaking the truth. It is in terms of nature that the apostle Paul affirms that “always be God true and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4), since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

In the example of verse 17, from first John 3, we have the Greek noun σπλάγχνα (splagchnon) which deals with feelings, emotions and affection, not love as a commandment. Whoever has affection for his brother would never close his bowels; similarly, whoever has the love of God will never deny his life to his brothers.

The question: “... how will God's love be in him”, linked to the duty of giving his life for the brothers, and not to the example that was presented below, which involves material issues. If someone has eternal life given by Christ and refuses to give it to his brethren, how could the love of God be in him? It would be nonsense to have the love that Christ gave when he gave his life and to refuse to give that same love to those in need (1 John 3:16).

On the other hand, it is possible for someone not to have the love of God and give material goods to the needy. Relieving someone's basic needs is not synonymous with having God's love, but giving God's command as he received it, then God's love is evident.

Were there 'Christians' who did not have the love of God in them? Analyzing some passages from the New Testament, we identified some people who claimed to be Christians, but who promoted Judaism, were biased and did not promote the love of Christ to the Gentiles, because what they announced was amalgamated with the issues of law as if the 'yeast of the Pharisees ' were the gospel of Christ (Acts 15:1 and 5).

The apostle John's approach to the love of brothers is not intended to promote 'gifts' (Philippians 4:17), but rather the commandment (love) of God, because in giving material goods or meeting the needs of the brothers there is no love, and yes in giving life (commandment) (John 12:50).

Give goods of this world to their children (similar), even the wicked do so, but only the children of the Heavenly Father can share with those who need the living bread that came down from heaven.

“If ye then, being evil, you know how to give good things unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11; Philippians 4:17).

The Christian has the duty to give his life for his brothers, just as Christ gave his life, in this way, he must behave as someone who has possessions of this world and does not dismiss his needy brother empty.

It is only possible to give your life for your brother when you are in possession of life, that is, when you have passed from death to life. Whoever does not love his brother, remains in death, because he loves the world, and cannot give what he does not have to his brother (1 John 2:15 and 3:14).

Whoever does not help the members of the body of Christ defending the truth of the gospel, which is the only way to preserve the fellowship of the body of Christ in the unity of the Spirit (gospel), in fact, does not have in himself the love of God.

Giving one's life for the brothers is the main premise, but to avoid any division, the care given to the members of the body of Christ must be equal, that is, without privileging one person over another for issues such as ethnicity, nationality, language, sex, etc.

“So that there is no division in the body, but rather that the members have equal care for each other. So that if one member suffers, all the members suffer with him; and if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with him” (1 Corinthians 12:25-26).

The apostle Paul is a clear example of someone who gave his life for his brothers:

"I will very gladly spend, and will let myself be spent for your souls, though as I love you more and more, I am loved less" (2 Corinthians 12:15).

Did the apostle Paul seek social equality, income distribution, an end to slavery? Not! He sought the improvement of Christians through the unity of faith (gospel), according to the power given to him. The apostle allowed himself to be worn down by his abundant care for souls, but his care was not matched by many (2 Corinthians 12:9-14; 1 Corinthians 1:18; John 17:13).

Just as the head, which is Christ, takes care of all the members of His body, the one who belongs to the body linked to the head, and seeks to do what is necessary to preserve the unity of the body, which takes place through the communion of members.

The church, the body of Christ, is through the union of the head, which is Christ, with its members in particular. The unity of the body flows from the Spirit, the word of truth, and each member in particular must speak uniquely and exclusively the truth of the gospel to one another.

"Therefore, leave a lie, and speak the truth, each one with his neighbor; for we are members of one another" (Ephesians 4:25).

Christ cares for and feeds your body through the word, which for some is rational milk and for others solid food (Ephesians 6:29), and all who minister the word of Christ care for the maintenance and fellowship of the saints, or that is, they love God and love their brothers (2 Peter 3:2).

To love in deed and in truth is to believe in Christ, and to love according to his commandment, which is the truth, is to proclaim and defend the truth of the gospel.

 “And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command” (1 John 3:23).

It is only possible to love God when in communion with Him, just as it is only possible to love one another when in communion with the body of Christ. He who believes loves God, because he fulfilled the commandment, now must care (love) others so that they continue to believe in Christ.

Love is not evident in giving material goods, because it is useless to give away all goods if the philanthropist is not in communion with Christ (1 Corinthians 13:3). Love is not feeling, affinity, preference, but a commandment, and a commandment is only effective through obedience.

"And this love is this, which we walk according to his commandment. This is the commandment. That you walk in him” (2 John 1:6 and 1 John 5:3).

In the Old Covenant, God's command was;

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your strength; this is the first commandment. In addition, the second, similar to this one, you must love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment Greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31).

Considering that everything Jesus spoke, he spoke in parables, it is certain that in the first and great commandment of the law there were riddles to interpret. In Israel many read, others listened, but they did not understand or understand how to fulfill the first and great commandment of the law.

For the sons of Jacob the law became a bunch of rules about rules, commandments about commandments, and they did not understand that to love God it was necessary to fulfill this commandment:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and harden your neck no more." (Deuteronomy 10:16).

It was enough for the sons of Jacob to trust in Him who circumcised their hearts, who, like Abraham, would fulfill all the law!

The rich young man perfectly portrays the nation of Israel, since, for the most part, he followed the stipulated in the Ten Commandments, however, and he lacked the essential: love!

“You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and your mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:18-19; Exodus 20:2-17).

What the rich young man lacked was not feeling, soul pleasure or spontaneity to do what he wanted in relation to the law, rather, what was lacking was a heart to obey, fear and love God (Deuteronomy 5:29).

The sons of Jacob thought that resigning themselves to complying with the restrictions of the law made them righteous and worthy of the kingdom of God, however, the law had another function, to show that, like the rest of humankind, they were also sinners.

If they were actually righteous, God would not give the law by the hand of a prophet, but as they lacked God, the law has given to demonstrate that they were robbers, adulterers, counterfeits, etc.

“Knowing this, which the law is not made for the just, but for the unjust and stubborn, for the wicked and sinners, for the profane and irreligious, for the parricides and matricides, for the murderers, for the profligate, for the sodomites, for the robbers of men, for the liars, for the perjurers…” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

When he said, "But he answered and said unto him, Master, all this I have kept from my youth." (Mark 10:20), the rich young man showed that he did not make legitimate use of the law, as doing what he did was not a reason for boasting before God, rather, he should admit that he was a miserable sinner.

"But the tax collector, standing at a distance, did not even want to look up to heaven, but beat his chest, saying: O God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" (Luke 18:13).

The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms accused the children of Israel of sin, however, they did not admit that they were sinners, that is, they were stiff-necked, which prevented God from circumcising their hearts.

When they entered the Promised Land, God warned Jacob's children that they were not righteous, but that they were entering the land because God loved their parents and could not fail to keep his word.

“For a holy people art thou to the LORD thy God; the LORD thy God has chosen thee, that thou shouldst be His special people, out of all the peoples that are upon the earth. all other peoples, for ye are less in number than all peoples; but for the LORD loved you, and to keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. You shall know therefore that the LORD your God, he is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy unto a thousand generations to them that love him and keep his commandments. In addition, he returns in his face any of those who hate him, making him perish; he will not be late to the one who hates him; in his face, you will pay him. He therefore keeps the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which I command you to do today.” (Deuteronomy 7:6-11).

“You must recognize that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land because you are good, for you are not a stubborn people” (Deuteronomy 9:6).

The obstinate does not allow himself instructed and is guided by his own convictions. He is the one who adopts practices claiming to be God's servant, but who does not obey God's command.

God required conversion of the children of Israel, which implied admission of guilt, but they increasingly threw themselves into sacrifices and creation of new rules, showing obstinacy and insensitivity to punishments.

“And turn to the LORD your God, and listen to his voice, according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 30:20 );

 “Alas, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, corrupting children; they left the LORD, they blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, and they turned back. Why should you be punisheding if you rebelled further? Every head is sick and every heart is weak.” (Isaiah 1:4-5).

Did God show his love in punishment? However, what good was it to punish the obstinate?

“And you have forgotten the exhortation which he argues with you as children: My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, And do not faint when you are rebuked by him; because the Lord corrects what he loves, and scourges anyone he takes for a son. If you bear correction, God treats you as children; for what son is there that the father does not correct? But if you are without discipline, in which all are made partakers, then you are bastards, not children.” (Hebrews 12:5-8).

If the rich young man had understood the role of the law, he would have come to Christ crying out for mercy (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:4), and not expecting recognition for fulfilling points of the law. If he would admit that he was blind, poor, and naked when he saw Christ, he would obtain mercy, and have his heart circumcised by God.

Only after God performs his work, which is the circumcision of the heart, would it be possible for the rich young man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his understanding, etc., as it reads:

"And the Lord your God circumcise your heart (...) ,to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 30:6).

An uncircumcised heart is dead before God, hence the need for the incision that only God can work, when God gives a new heart and a new spirit. Only after be circumcised by God does man begin to have life, communion with God:

"And the Lord your God circumcise your heart (...) for that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 11:19).

God's circumcision is for man to have life, for God is God of the living, not the dead. While circumcision of the foreskin was required for a person to be a member of the nation of Israel, circumcision of the heart is essential to be a partaker of the Israel of God (Romans 9:6).

Only God can perform the circumcision of the man's heart, so that the man will come to love Him, and to achieve the circumcision of the heart it is necessary to recognize that he is a sinner and that he lacks mercy.

"And the Lord your God circumcise  your heart, and the heart of your seed,  to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6).

After be circumcised by the Lord, man receives a new heart and a new spirit (Psalm 51:10). The heart of stone is taken away and a heart of flesh given (Ezekiel 36:26). In true righteousness and holiness, a new man is created (Ephesians 4:24). Everything becomes new, so there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1)!

The prophet Ezekiel announced that, through his word, God (pure water) would give men a new heart and a new spirit, which is the same as the new birth. When man believes in Christ, God begins to inhabit him, an essential condition for men to love, walk, keep and fulfill the statutes of God (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

Only after receiving a new heart and a new spirit (born again) does the regenerate man begin to worship God in spirit and in truth, that is, he is able to love God with all his heart, with all his soul and all your understanding.

God testified that Abraham fulfilled the entire law 430 years before the law given to Moses because, when he believed, God circumcised the foreskin of Abraham's heart. By declaring him justified, God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision seal of the righteousness of faith, for circumcision is of the heart, not of the flesh (Romans 2:29; Genesis 26:5; Romans 4: 11).

Praising Christ is not the same as loving God with all your heart: “Well done, Master, and truly thou hast said...!” (Matthew 12:32-33). For the scribe also something was still missing, as it is not enough to recognize that Jesus presented a true teaching: “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Matthew 12:34).

If the scribe took a closer look, he would see that the door to access the kingdom of God was open right in front of him! If he abandoned his concepts repentance, he would see how near was the kingdom of heaven:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 3: 2).

The Apostle John's writing style resembles the structure of Hebrew poetry, especially the epistles, which provides safe parameters for a good reading and interpretation.

The ideas developed in the Epistles of the Evangelist John presented through simple assertions or propositions. When it comes to assertions, the statements are similar to definitions, but when it comes to propositions, because it is the gospel, the reader has elements to determine whether, the logical value of the proposition is true or false, which generates a kind of logical hangs.

A verse with two propositions, in which the first is reaffirmed or denied by the second, refers the reader to the essence of Hebrew poetry, which works with the so-called couplet parallelism, that is, propositions that express thoughts that are synonymous in each sentence.

When the apostle John makes an assertion, usually the next approach is a denial that highlights the earlier truth.

“By this ye shall know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:2-3).

The apostle John in many assertions seeks to be assertive, in order to evidence previous position, or to provide a basis for the development of a later idea.

When the apostle repeats the message, he heard from Christ, he is quite assertive: “God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), and he sets out the main argument that will provide the basis for the following arguments:

a)      If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not practice the truth (v. 6);

b)      But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin (v. 7);

c)      If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us (v. 8);

d)      If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (v.9);

e)      If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (v. 10).

To understand the above verses, it is necessary to keep in mind pseudo-followers of Christ who claimed to believe in Him, but actually did not believe. How is this possible?

Observe the behavior of some disciples who claimed to believe in Christ.  When confronted, they showed what was in the heart:

“Jesus therefore said to the Jews, who believed in him: If ye abide in my word, ye shall truly be my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:31-32).

They were Jews who claimed to have fellowship with Christ, but when warned that they should remain in their word to be disciples in fact, when they would become one with Christ (you shall know the truth), and set free by Christ (the truth shall set you free), counter argued that as descendants of Abraham they were never slaves.

Those Jews claimed to have communion with Christ, however, 'walked in darkness', 'lieed' and 'did not practice the truth'. If they did not recognize a social reality, since the diaspora they were under the dominion of the Gentiles, how could they recognize a spiritual reality: that they were sinners?

Jesus was highlighting a spiritual reality: they needed to be free from sin, but they countered by pointing to an earthly issue and were still dishonest as they were slaves of the Romans.

Verse 7 is a counterpoint to verse 6, because whoever says he has fellowship with Christ must walk with Him (in the Light, abide in his word), just as Christ is in God (in the Light).

If a person follows or remains in the teachings of Christ, he has fellowship with Him (v. 6; John 8:38), and he has fellowship with one another (v. 7). By having fellowship with Christ, that person is truly in the light, that is, he is free, because he has been cleansed from all sin (v. 7; John 8:32, 36).

The difference between the texts of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John and his first epistle is the figure used to refer to sin. In the gospel Jesus points out sin as a master and men as servants, and in the epistle, the evangelist addresses sin as a stain.

If those who are in communion with Christ  cleansed from all sin, it means that they have remained in Christ's teaching and have known (communion) the truth, therefore, they are free from sin.

Returning to the evangelist's approach in his first epistle, anyone who hears the message announced by Christ, which says: "God is light", and instead of recognizing that he needs to be set free by Christ, say that he has no sin or that he is not blind , it is wrong and it is not true.

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us.” (1 John 1:8);

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind ye would have no sin; but as you now say, We see; therefore your sin remains." (John 9:41).

Here is a caveat, because many Christians who claim to have fellowship with Christ, by misreading these verses, continue to say they are sinners, even when Jesus says that whoever abides in Him is clean from all sin or, in other words, is truly free.

Only those who have not yet believed in Christ as the Scriptures say and hear the gospel message should be aware of sin (admit that they are a sinner, or that they are blind), as opposed to believing and abiding in the teaching of Christ, who no longer he is a sinner, since Christ is not a minister of sin.

“For if we, who seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? In no way." (Galatians 2:17).

The position of the Jews who tithe to believe in Christ, but who rejected the teaching of Christ, was the same as 'making' God a liar and, therefore, the word of Christ was not in them (v. 10). As those Jews did not admit (confess) that they were sinners, they were not forgiven, for God, being faithful and just, cannot deny Himself (v. 9; 2 Timothy 2:12).

Through the evangelist John's writing style, which establishes that whoever keeps God's commandments loves him, and that the commandment is to believe in Christ, it follows that whoever believes in Christ loves God.

This same style of writing allows us to demonstrate that loving the children of God (one another) does not specifically mean empathizing or meeting material needs, but loving God, submitting to God.

 "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments." (1 John 5:2).

Note that in the passage of first John 5, verses 1 to 3, the translator makes a distinction between 'loving God' and 'keeping his commandments', dichotomizing an idea that is one. The translation, within what we have already analyzed, should be:

…when we love God we keep his commandments'.

Note this phrase in Greek:

.. του θεου οταν τον εον αγαπωμεν και τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν’ Byzantine/Majority Text (2000).

The conjunction καὶ, translated 'and', in the sentence indicates that loving God is the same as keeping God's commandments, and not that it is necessary to love God and, at the same time, keep his commandments, as if they were two different premises .

In the sentence, the conjunction καὶ takes on an explanatory value (in fact, viz.), demonstrating that the posterior element is equivalent to the previous one. In Portuguese, the conjunction 'and', called 'copulative', 'approximate' or 'additive' establish a linking relationship between two sentences or words expressing an idea of addition, addition or addition, however, it ends up dichotomizing an idea or action, E.g.: 'Fabio played ball and rested'; 'He assaulted another and was assaulted'.

Already in the verse: "Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength." (Deuteronomy 6:5), the conjunction 'and' only coordinates the elements of prayer, however, the actions described are inseparable, as the love required is only complete when it emanates from the heart, soul and strength.

The idea that the beloved apostle recommended his readers to love one another is mistaken because, at the time, he found that the interpersonal relationships of his interlocutors were devoid of natural affection.

In fact, both the gospel of John and the epistles of John intended to defend the truth of the gospel, just as the apostle Paul and Judas did.

Analyzing the Apostle John's epistles, it is evident that he sought to preserve God's command unaltered, for if the commandment contains God's love and eternal life (1 John 2:7 and 24), allowing distortions is enmity with God and death eternal.

 "Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 21).

If to keep in the love of God is to persevere, to remain firm, not to depart from the gospel truth, but for that, the gospel cannot changed.

"By holding fast to the faithful word, which is according to doctrine, that it may be mighty, both to admonish with sound doctrine, and to convince counter-Sayers." (Titus 1:9).

To avoid the idea that the love of brothers is of an affective order, it is essential to reread the teachings of the apostle John in his first epistle in the light of the teaching that the love of God is his command.

Considering the link, that some terms have what announced by the prophets in the Old Testament is essential for a good rereading. When considering the link between the terms used by the apostle and the terms used by the prophets, the reader will have elements to disassociate himself from current concepts that, over time,  coined by various cultural and philosophical movements that impregnated the term agape of sentimentality, which has nothing to do with the idea defended by the apostle John.

At the beginning of the epistle, the beloved disciple demonstrates that he testified about Christ so that his interlocutors, Christians converted from among the Jews, would have communion with the Church, the body of Christ, thus, would have communion with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3).

Next, the apostle John warns that whoever 'knows' God 'keeps' his commandments, that is, he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 John 2:3), but who says he knows (being in Him) to Christ and not keep His commandments, is lost, because darkness has blinded His eyes (1 John 2:11).

The interlocutors of the epistle had passed from death to life, since they believed in Jesus and were in communion (loved ones) with each other (1 John 3:14). Compared to 3:23), however, there were among the Christians who said that He loved God (word and tongue) but had no fellowship (hated) with his brothers or with the Church of Christ (1 John 1:3).

People who tried to deceive Christians by presenting another gospel gave the apostle’s warning. The antichrist spirit was working on these people and some of them had left the bosom of the Church (1 John 2:18-26).

The apostle warns his readers that whoever does not have fellowship with his brothers (Church) is a murderer, and that they were not in fellowship with God, who is love, truth and life (1 John 3:15).

The fellowship referred to by the apostle John does not speak of interpersonal relationships among Christians, but of the truth of the gospel, they shared. Evangelical faith is the essence of Christian fellowship.

"That is, that I may be comforted with you in mutual faith, both yours and mine." (Romans 1:12).

Not anyone who professed a gospel different from that announced by the apostles of Christ, however hospitable and generous in interpersonal relationships, was in communion with Christ or with the Church.

An example of true fellowship we have in the apostle Paul and Barnabas, who once, despite their disagreement, to the point of drifting away from each other, were in full fellowship with the body of Christ. They disagreed about whom they should take on the mission trip, but in one mind, they shared the truth of the gospel.

“And such a strife was between them, that they separated one from the other. Barnabas taking Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus” (Acts 15:39).

Anyone who does not share the truth of the gospel, or who seeks to present another gospel, is anathema. The apostle John names anyone who preaches another gospel a murderer. Christ's message is love, but the messages of false prophets and antichrists are hate.

It is by observing who obeys the gospel, that is, who practices justice, that one identifies who is a child of God and who is a child of the adversary. The adversary's children do not belong to God because they do not practice God's command, and therefore, they do not love their brother.

“In this are manifested the children of God, and the children of the devil. Whoever does not do justice, and does not love his brother, is not of God.” (1 John 3:10).

When the apostle John refers to Cain as the property of the evil one, he points out that he killed Abel because his works were evil.

“Not like Cain, who was of the evil one, and killed his brother. In addition, why did you kill him? For his works were evil and his brother's just” (1 John 3:12).

Those whose "works were evil" make reference to the adversaries of Christ, anyone who promotes perdition heresy opposes the truth of the gospel, and is led by the same motives as Cain (John 3:19-21).

By pointing to Cain as his brother's murderer, the apostle John demonstrates that those who produce righteous works (believe in God's love) are targets of hatred from the children of the evil one (who do not believe). The children of the evil one hate the children of light because their works are just, and their works are evil.

How is it possible for a child of the evil one to kill a child of light? Making with the child of light, stop living according to the truth that is in Christ and start sharing another gospel (1 John 3:13 and 15).

When someone announces a gospel different from Christ's, the love of God is not present, so it is someone who hates his brother, a murderer, because his word is according to the spirit of the antichrist, which leads to perdition.

Once, the Lord Jesus got up during supper He took a towel and girded himself. He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet. When he finished washing everyone's feet, Jesus told his disciples to follow his example, doing what he did. (John 13:14-15).

The evangelist John, before narrating the event, highlighted that Christ took care of (loved) his disciples and that he took care of them until the end (John 13:1). All the disciples, except Judas, were clean because of the word of Christ (John 15:3), but just as Christ washed the feet of his disciples, so were they to do.

Jesus reiterates his love, giving them the example as a commandment to be follow.

 “If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them” (John 13:17).

Jesus washed the disciples by the word because he did not speak of Himself, but spoke all that the Father prescribed for him (John 12:49-50; Isaiah 58:13).

Knew that the commandment of God is the love of God and that in the commandment is eternal life. God's command, is the word of cleansing, the disciples were clean. (Ezekiel 36:25).

What cleans is the word, and almost all the disciples were clean, except Judas the Iscariot. When Jesus washed the disciples' feet, he set an example for each disciple to take care of his brother, as there would be times when it would be necessary to wash each other's feet.

As they were washed by Christ, the disciples had part with Christ (John 13:8), but during the walk of this life, it is the duty of Christ's disciples to wash one another's feet as Christ prescribed.

When the apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter because he had become reprehensible (Galatians 2:11), a simple 'washing of the feet' occurred between them, since the apostle Peter and those who were with him at that particular event did not walk according to the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14).

He who believes that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who was slain, rose again and sat at the right hand of the majesty on high, is in communion with God and with his brethren, and must behave according to the message of the gospel: avoiding any division in the body. The apostle Paul loved the brothers by rebuking the apostle Peter, and the apostle Peter, in turn, loved the brothers by allowing himself to be instructed.

Similarly, anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh, or that he did not die or rise again, is a liar, is not in God, and his words are not according to the love that God has commanded, but are the words of a murderer who promotes dissension (1 John 4:3-4 ).

The example in which the beloved disciple makes reference to the physical needs of a family member, highlights the urgent need for Christians to share the doctrine of Christ, since the manifold grace of God is the gift that each one has received:

"Each one administers to others the gift as he received it, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10; 1 John 1:3).

The apostles' concern was not with clothing and food, for the kingdom of God is neither food nor drink (Romans 14:17), for good stewards are busy administering the gospel as they received it, and thus, they share bread with the hungry, gather in the poor house and cover the naked ,how do you read:

“Perhaps it is not also that you break your bread with the hungry, and gather the abandoned poor at home; and when you see the naked, cover it, and hide not from your flesh?” (Isaiah 58:7).

In this diapasão, even if someone donates all his goods and even gives his body to be burned, but denies that Christ came in the flesh, does not love God, is not in communion with the body of Christ, hates his brother and is a murderer.

Only through the word that someone professes is it possible to know if a person, who claims to be a Christian, remains linked to the head, which is Christ, because by the fruit[18] the tree is known (1 John 3:24; 2 John 1:9).

About the contribution to needy brothers, the apostle Paul said:

"But as to brotherly love, you need not have me write to you since you yourselves are instructed by God to love one another" (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10).

However, with regard to salvation, the gospel of truth, we have:

“I am not bothered to write the same things to you, and it is safety to you” (Philippians 3:1).

As God's commandment is love and life (John 12:50; 1 John 5:3), it is only possible for a Christian to transmit love and life if he is as careful as Christ and the apostles:

"And I know his commandment is eternal life. Wherefore, what I speak, I speak as the Father hath spoken to me" (John 12:50).

The commandment is the word that Christ spoke strictly as the Father told him, and which the apostles relayed to Christians (1 John 2:7; 2 Peter 2:21 and 3:2; Titus 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:14). Know that the commandment is love and life, and must be preserved as it has received from the Lord, because any distortion will no longer be the commandment of life.

The emphasis of the Apostle John's letters is on communion with Christ, consequently, with the Father and the Church, which is only possible through the love of God, who is Christ. Not anyone who does not profess Christ according to the doctrine he heard from the apostles is in communion with Christ, and everything he professes promotes death and separation.

Anyone who does not share the gospel does not love God nor enjoy His love, because it is only possible to love Him through His command, which is to believe in Christ. Those who do not profess the gospel do not have communion with the body of Christ and do not love God, that is, they do not know and are not known of God (Galatians 4:9; 1 John 4:19).

About the contribution to needy brothers, the apostle Paul said:

"But as to brotherly love, you need not have me write to you since you yourselves are instructed by God to love one another" (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10).

However, with regard to salvation, the gospel of truth, we have:

“I am not bothered to write the same things to you, and it is safety to you” (Philippians 3:1).

As God's commandment is love and life (John 12:50; 1 John 5:3), it is only possible for a Christian to transmit love and life if he is as careful as Christ and the apostles:

"And I know his commandment is eternal life. Wherefore, what I speak, I speak as the Father hath spoken to me" (John 12:50).

The commandment is the word that Christ spoke strictly as the Father told him, and which the apostles relayed to Christians (1 John 2:7; 2 Peter 2:21 and 3:2; Titus 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:14). Know that the commandment is love and life, and must be preserved as it has received from the Lord, because any distortion will no longer be the commandment of life.

The emphasis of the Apostle John's letters is on communion with Christ, consequently, with the Father and the Church, which is only possible through the love of God, who is Christ. Not anyone who does not profess Christ according to the doctrine he heard from the apostles is in communion with Christ, and everything he professes promotes death and separation.

Anyone who does not share the gospel does not love God nor enjoy His love, because it is only possible to love Him through His command, which is to believe in Christ. Those who do not profess the gospel do not have communion with the body of Christ and do not love God, that is, they do not know and are not known of God (Galatians 4:9; 1 John 4:19).

In the Apostle John's time, there were people who claimed to be Christians and claimed that they loved God, but did not obey God. If they did not love God, therefore, they hated their brother, because it is only possible to love the brother according to God's command, that is, when one believes in Christ (1ªJohn 3:23; John 12:49-50).

If Jesus loved the disciples by announcing the Father's words (John 14:24), because only then would they be sheltered from the Father's love (John 14:10), it is up to Christ's followers to love one another by announcing the gospel of Christ. It is only possible for the world to know that Christians are Disciples of Christ when they love one another, that is, when they obey the command and proclaim the words of Christ.

“A new commandment I give you: That you love one another; as I have loved you, may you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35).

Why was instruction necessary for the disciples to relay exactly what they learned? Because Jesus loved his disciples by announcing, only the words that the Father commanded and he gave his life under the command of the Father. Of Christ and continue to believe in Him.

The Jews mistakenly understood that life resulted from obedience (love) to the Law, worship, circumcision, the Jewish community, Sabbaths, festivals, etc., and they were afraid to give up such things in obedience to Christ.

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me;" (John 5:39).

In addition to not understanding that the Law was given to lead Jews to Christ (Galatians 3:23), many Jews were afraid of being expelled from synagogues and losing the recognition and honor of the leaders of Judaism, and so they rejected the coming honor. Of God by obeying Him by believing in Christ.

The apostle Paul to reach Christ considered everything as dross (Philippians 3:8), while many authorities and followers of Judaism who believed in Christ, because of the Pharisees, did not profess their faith for fear of being expelled from the synagogue (John 12:42-43).

Jesus loved the disciples and, in obedience to the Father, gave his life, Christians, in turn, in addition to believing in Christ, must love the brothers as Christ loved, and for that, they cannot be tied to the issues of the old life.

To serve God, it is enough to believe in Christ, that is, God does not require that His servants have to die to serve Him, although each Christian is subject to be chase for the gospel.  If applicable, to die for the sake of gospel.

Of Christ, God demanded that He give His life, of Christians, demanded that they hate His life, or that He lay down His life for the brothers. In this sense, giving one's life for one's brother is not allowing oneself to being crucify on a tree, but considering the other as superior to oneself.

"Whoever loves his life will lose it, and whoever in this world hates his life, will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, follow me, and wherever I am, there will be mine servant. And if anyone serves me, my Father will honor him." (John 12:25-26);

"Do nothing out of strife or vainglory, but in humility; let each consider others better than himself." (Philippians 2:3).

While obedience to the command is love to God, your disobedience is an affirmation of hate. Rebellion and obstinacy go hand in hand when man speaks of God as he has assumed himself.

"How to transgress and lie against the Lord, and turning from our God, speaking of oppression and rebellion, conceiving and speaking words of falsehood from the heart" (Isaiah 59:13).

The prophet Jeremiah makes use of several figures to highlight those who speak according to what they assume of themselves, and not according to the word of God.

"A deadly arrow is their tongue; he speaks deceit; with his mouth each one speaks of peace with his neighbor, but in his heart he lays snares for him." (Jeremiah 9:8).

The prophet Isaiah also makes use of pictures:

"For the vile speaks obscenity, and his heart works iniquity, to use hypocrisy, and to speak lies against the LORD, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and to make the thirsty man want drink." (Isaiah 32:6).

The vile appointed by the prophet Isaiah is the low-class man, the rabble, the liar, and what the vile does is leave the soul of his neighbor hungry and thirsty (Psalm 62:9). Is the prophet talking about daily bread? Not!

To deny the word of God to your neighbor by teaching or speaking words according to your own conjecture is to make your neighbor thirsty and hungry. When Jesus names the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, he does not do so in the sense of pointing out who is pretending, but that he speaks obscenities, in the sense of lies.

The apostle Paul uses the term nasty to point out who speaks obscenity, that is, who speaks a lie, however, the reading that many interpreters do is that the apostle was repressing those who speak profanity.

"Do not let any foul word come out of your mouth, but only that which is good to promote edification, that it may give grace to those who hear it." (Ephesians 4:29).

A pseudo-gospel is the ultimate expression of the hatred that enemies of the gospel of Christ foster. The action of the words of those who stray from the gospel is like gangrene.

“And their word will gnaw like gangrene; among which are Hymeneus and Philetus; Who turned from the truth, saying that the resurrection was already done, and perverted the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17).

When the apostle Paul urges Christians to speak the truth with their fellow man, he focused on preserving the truth of the gospel, and not repressing the reprehensible behavior of those who given to distorting the facts pertaining to everyday matters, which is also reprehensible from a moral point of view.

“And they will turn away their ears from the truth, returning to fables” (2 Timothy 4:4);

"Therefore put away lying, and let each man speak truth to his neighbor; for we are members one another" (Ephesians 4:25);

"These are the things you must do: Speak truth, each one with his neighbor; execute judgment of truth and peace in your gates" (Zechariah 8:16).

In repeating what Zechariah expounded, the apostle Paul was not teaching a New Commandment, but rather was teaching an Old Commandment, which was announced by the prophets: 'These are the things you must do...' (Zechariah 8:16).

The lie that the apostle Paul protested to the Christians in Ephesus tells of the distortion promoted by vain men, who do not obey (hear) the command of God, and announce the reveries of their deceitful hearts.

“Thus spake the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, show every one pity and mercy toward his brother. In addition, do not oppress the widow, nor the fatherless, nor the stranger, nor the poor; neither do every man in his heart intend evil against his brother. But they would not listen, and they gave me a rebellious shoulder, and deafened their ears, so that they would not hear.” (Zechariah 7:9-11).

When Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees to learn 'mercy I will', he wanted them to execute true judgment, showing pity and mercy each with his brother. The only way to show godliness and mercy is by not being mean, by speaking obscenities, that is, by upsetting the truth of the gospel.

Who sheds light on what has exposed by the apostle of the Gentiles who interpreted what the prophet Zechariah is the prophet Isaiah announced:

“Hear this, house of Jacob, that ye call yourselves the name of Israel, and ye came out of the waters of Judah, that ye swear by the name of the Lord, and ye make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness. (Isaiah 48:1);

“Yet they seek me every day, they take pleasure in knowing my ways, like a people who practice justice, and do not leave the right of their God; they ask me for the rights of righteousness, and delight in drawing close to God...” (Isaiah 58:2).

Those who speak the truth, who execute the judgment of truth, who dress the naked in garments of righteousness, who break the bread that gives life, and who promote peace between God and men are those who honor God, that is, who do not follow their own paths and don't even talk about themselves:

“...and honor him not by following thy ways, nor pretending to do thy own will, nor speaking thy own words...” (Isaiah 58:13; John 12:50).

Whoever does not fulfill God's command, however good intentioned he may be, will love only with his mouth and tongue, that is, from his perverse and uncircumcised heart, only a lie will proceed?

“For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips speak falsehood, your tongue speaks perversity. There is no one to cry out for justice, nor anyone to appear in court for the truth; trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive evil, and bring forth iniquity.” (Isaiah 59:3-4).

Once a doctor of the law asked Jesus: - 'Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life'? Certain that he has being tested, Jesus replied. - ‘What is written in the law? How do you read’? Jesus' last question shows that it is not enough to read, but how to read (Luke 10:26).

The doctor of the law answered what he read and, according to what he interpreted, that love is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jesus answered: - ‘You answered well. Do this and you will live’!

As the apostle Paul recalls, Jesus pointed out to the doctor the justice that is of the law:

"Now Moses describes the righteousness which is by the law, saying, The man who does these things shall live by them." (Romans 10:5).

If the doctor of the law read well, he would understand that the law accused him of being dead, because for him to live he had to comply, that is, not just be a listener.

"For those who hear the law are not righteous before God, but those who practice the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13).

If man “will live by what comes out of the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3), it is impossible for man to obtain life through the works of the law, for it is up to man to do what is established without stumbling at any point.

If the doctor believed in God according to the believer Abraham, it is certain that he would fulfill the law and all its precepts, because when he believed in the Seed, which is Christ, he would live according to what has announced by God.

“For Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my command, my precepts, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5).

When trying to justify himself, the doctor of the law asked. 'And who is my neighbor'? That is when Jesus proposed the parable of the Samaritan.

The Samaritan's parable is rich in detail, for the man who fell into the hands of robbers was in the city of Jerusalem on his way down to Jericho and needed the care of anyone who passed by (Luke 10:30).

The man lying by the wayside could have been a Jew, as he was coming down from Jerusalem, but since he was naked it was impossible to identify him.

In addition to the impossibility of identifying the fallen man's nation, there was the problem of bleeding, which represented a double risk of contamination for the two Jewish religious who passed, because the fallen naked man could be a Gentile dirty from blood (Luke 10:30).

Jesus introduces in the parable the figure of a Samaritan - a people who did not communicate with the Jews - who, upon seeing the fallen man, moved with intimate compassion, stopped, bound his wounds, poured oil and wine on him and placed him in safety.

Jesus makes it clear how generous the Samaritan was to the unknown, - ‘Which of these three do you think was the next to the one who fell into the hands of the robbers’? The answer of the doctor of the law was objective: - ‘What use of mercy’!

Again, Jesus commands: - 'Go, and do likewise'! What should he do? Rescue all the fallen by the wayside? Giving alms and exercising philanthropy guarantee right to heaven?

As the doctor of the law did not know how to read and interpret the law, to fulfill what Jesus had determined he would have to go and learn the meaning of 'mercy'. It was not enough to know who your neighbor was, but also what mercy is.

"Go, however, and learn what it means: Mercy I will, and not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Matthew 9:13).

Despite citing the color law, the doctor could not identify who was his neighbor, and did not know how to love him. The order is clear: - ‘Go, and do in the same way’! Jesus repeats the initial order, which was, Do this, and you will live!

"And that to love him (obedience) with all one's heart, and with all mind, and with all one's soul, and with all strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself,}is more than} that all burnt offerings and sacrifices." (Mark 12:33; Ephesians 5:21 and 23; Hosea 6:6).

God wants the love (mercy) of men, that is, that they obey Him, because obeying is more than burnt offerings and sacrifices. He who obeys (loves) and takes God's command to other men, regardless of nationality, cares (loves) his neighbor as himself (Matthew 5:7; Luke 6:36).

Love of neighbor is caring (Leviticus 19:18 and 34), and Jesus links the benevolent (caring) action of the Samaritan in the parable as a figure of mercy.

The command: - 'Do this, and you will live', is not related to the righteousness that is of the law (Romans 10:5), but to the righteousness of faith, because only after being circumcised by God does staff pass to have life.

"And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart . . . for that you live." (Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 11:19).

Only when God performs, through his word, his work, the circumcision of the heart, is it when the man or woman loves God with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, etc., as it is reading:

"And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart (...), that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." (Deuteronomy 30:6).

God bore witness to Abraham as obedient:

"Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my command, my precepts, my statutes, and my laws" (Genesis 26:5).

Although he has not circumcised in the flesh, by believing the word of promise, Abraham circumcised in his heart, for he loved the Lord with all his heart. After believing, Abraham received the circumcision of the heart, the seal of the righteousness of faith, being justified.

"And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, when he was uncircumcised, that he might be a father to all that believe, while they also were uncircumcised; that righteousness also might be imputed to them." (Romans 4:11)

Abraham believed, which is superior to burnt offerings and sacrifices, and received the circumcision of the heart. God declared him righteous even though he was uncircumcised in the flesh.

As he was circumcised by God, Abraham “loved” God with all his heart, fulfilling God's command is love, mercy and fear

Whoever exercises care (mercy) according to God's command, fulfills the commandment, is blessed; God takes care of those who obey Him.

"And I show mercy to thousands of them that love me and that keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:6);

"And to all who walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16; Matthew 5:7; Luke 1:50; Ps 25:10).

Let us compare:

"I love those who love me, and those who seek me soon will find me." (Proverbs 8:17);

"... and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." (Exodus 33:19);

"With a merciful you show yourself kind; with a righteous man you show yourself perfect." (2 Samuel 22:26).

The love of God is care, mercy and kindness, and whoever loves Him, fulfills His command, therefore, he sought and found the Lord. The care, the mercy of God, is not a unilateral act; rather, the mercy of God is a counterpart for those who love Him.

That is why God told the Pharisees to learn about mercy because they were persecuting God has afflicted one (Matthew 9:13; Psalm 109:16). The Jewish religious were so close to the kingdom of God, but as they did not submit to God to believe in Christ, they did not enter through the narrow gate.

"And Jesus, seeing that he had answered wisely, said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:33).

Love and work

“My brethren, what good is it if someone says he has faith and does not have the works? Can faith save you?” (James 2:14).

Love through obedience becomes evident, as it is only possible to love when the commandment is fulfill.

We will now take a closer look at the meaning of the Greek term έργον (ergon) commonly translated as work, and its use by the apostle John in contrasting the term λόγος (logos).

"My little children let us not love by word or tongue, but by work and in truth." (1 John 3:18).

The tongue works with words, and if the words come from a deceitful heart, there will be a lie in the mouth.

"Race of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? For what is abundant in the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34);

"For the sin of their mouths and the words of their lips, be bound by their pride, and for the curses and lies they speak." (Psalm 59:12).

While the love of words and of tongue is a lie, the love of work and in truth is true, so that the terms 'word' and 'work' appear at opposite poles.

Educator Felix Wilbur Gingrich in his work The Greek/Portuguese New Testament Lexicon, the Greek term έργον (ergon) means:

“έργον, ου, το work — 1. Act, action Lk 24:19; Cl 3.17; 2 Thes. 2.17; Hb 4.3, 4, 10; Tg 2.14ss. Manifestation, practical test Rom. 2.15; Eph 4.12; 1 Thes 1.3; 2 Thess 1.11; Tg 1.4. Act, realization Mt 11.2; Mk 14:6; Lc 11.48; John 3.19, 20s; 6.28s; 7.3, 21; 10.25, 37s.; At 9.36; Rom 3.20, 28; Cl 1.10; Hb 6.1; Tg 3.13; Rev 15:3. — 2. Work, task, occupation Mk 13:34; Jn 17.4; At 14.26; 15.38; 1Co 15.58; 2 Tim 4.5. —3. Work, in the passive sense, indicating the product of work Acts 7.41; 1 Co 3.13, 14, 15; Hb 1.10; 2 Pet 3.10; 1 John 3.8. —4. Thing, matter Acts 5.38; perhaps 1 Tim 3.1. [Ergometry]” (GINGRICH, 1982, p. 84).

Understand the term 'εργον' (work) in the apostle John's epistles only as 'effect of work or action', or 'application of human forces and faculties to achieve a certain end', or 'coordinated activity, of a physical character and/ or intellectual, necessary for the performance of any task, service or enterprise' is foolhardy, since the context in which the term was used refers to a 'task to be performed according to an order', 'a service that involves an obligation', 'responsibility' and 'perseverance'.

In the Vini Dictionary, the term has the following meaning:

"1. Ergon (εργον) denotes "work, action, act". When used in the sense of “action or act”, the idea of “work” is accentuated (eg. Rom. 15:18); it often occurs in an ethical sense about human actions, good or bad (eg Mt 23.3; 26:10: Jn 3.20.21: Rom 2.7.15: 1 Thess 1.3: 2 Thess 1.11, etc.): sometimes in a less concrete sense (eg. Titus 1.16; Jas 1.25. literally, “from the work”).” (VINI, 2002, p. 827).

In addition to the idea of action or act, which can represent work, the Vini Dictionary says that there is a pertinent meaning to the less concrete term, and points to verse 25, of chapter 1, of the epistle of James.

“But he who pays close attention to the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres in it, being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his deed” (James 1:25).

If the term ἔργου (work) means act or action as work in a ‘less concrete’ sense, why does James use the noun ποιητής (poiétés) to name the ‘performer’, the ‘doer’, the ‘author’ of something? Is it possible for the executor of the work to do something that is almost abstract?

"They confess that they know God, but they deny him with works, being abominable, and disobedient, and reproving for every good work." (Titus 1:16).

If ἔργου (work) is something with less concrete meaning, was the apostle Paul instructing Christians about people who did not know God for almost abstract reasons? Of course not.

When writing to Titus, the apostle of the Gentiles classified as disorderly, talkative, vain and deceitful people linked to circumcision (Titus 1:10), as they claimed to know God (love in word and tongue), but denied with deeds ( to love in deed and in truth).

Whoever 'loves' in word and tongue is named by the apostle Paul as abominable, disobedient and reprobate, which shows that the term ἔργου (work) has in its context a real sense of work, something to be done, carried out, as it is also real the sense of abominable, disobedient and reprobate.

What work must man do blessed? In Tiago's exhibition, the work is to carry out what proposed in the 'perfect law of freedom'. What law would this be that should be observed and persevered?

Looking at the context of the letter, the perfect law of liberty refers to the gospel of Christ, which in verse 18 is presented as 'the word of truth,' by which man is begotten anew (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1: 23), and in verses 21 to 23, the gospel is termed only as 'word'.

The powerful word for saving is the gospel (Ephesians 1:13; Romans 1:16), which must be obeyed.

“Therefore, rejecting all filthiness and superfluity of malice, receive with meekness the word grafted into you, which can save your souls. In addition, be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving you with false speeches. For, if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like a man who beholds his natural face in a mirror; because he contemplates himself, and leaves, and soon forgets what he was like.” (James 1:21-24).

Receiving with meekness is the same as taking the yoke of Jesus, learning the teachings of the one who is commanding and humble in heart (Matthew 11:29). The word to be fulfilled refers to the teachings of Christ, and everyone who hears and practices what has been taught resembles the wise man who built his house upon the rock (Matthew 7:24).

He who hears the gospel and is not a doer is like the foolish man who built his house on the sand (Matthew 7:26), or someone who looks in the mirror and, after walking away, soon forgets what it was like. His face.

Those who pay close attention to the perfect law, the law that grants freedom, and persevere in it, actually knew the truth and are set free by Christ, unlike the Mosaic law, which aimed to make known the condition of those who were imprisoned under the dominion of the sin.

Whoever hears the gospel and pays attention to it (in the sense of observing, executing, performing), has performed the required work, which is to believe in Christ (James 1:22-23).

In other words, whoever believes and perseveres, believing that Jesus is the Christ is a doer of the work, therefore, he is not a forgotten listener (who does not practice, who does not believe, who does not work), consequently, he is blessed. In other words, whoever hears the perfect law of freedom (gospel) and does its work (believes) and perseveres in it is blessed.

He who 'attentive' performs the work and, if he perseveres in the work he has performed, which is to believe in the one sent by God, such is perfect and complete, because perseverance is the complete work (James 1:3-4).

The work recommended by James is the same that Christ recommended to the crowd:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he sent" (John 6:29);

"Jesus said to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and believed" (John 20:29).

In the approach: “And His command is this, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another according to His command” (1 John 3:23), there is a commandment that imposes a work to be accomplished, and which implies obedience.

The believer in Christ is a man of work, which contrasts with someone who is of word and tongue. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God is a work, the work[19] of God, which derives from the idea defended by James and John:

“Everyone who perverts and does not persevere in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who perseveres in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9);

"But he who pays close attention to the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres in it, is not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his deed." (James 1:22).

Why analyze the meaning of the term “work” when used in the epistle of James?

First, to undo a pejorative narrative that has dragged on over the centuries regarding the term 'work', because, mistakenly, many Bible scholars contrast 'faith' and 'work' as if they were irreconcilable terms when addressing the theme of salvation.

Second, to demonstrate that the target audience of the letters of James and the evangelist John had identical cultural origins, since the vast majority were Christians converted from among the Jews, hence the similarity in writing style and in some terms used in the epistles.

While reading the epistles, many Christians forget to consider that, at the time of the apostles, the opposition of the followers of Judaism was very strong, and in order to defend the truth of the gospel, the apostles referred to Jewish doctrine in various ways.

The apostle Paul, for transiting among the Gentiles, spoke openly of the followers of Judaism, naming them the "circumcision". The other apostles, having entered among the Jews, approached Judaism in the most veiled way possible to avoid obstacles to the proclamation of the gospel.

James and the Evangelist John wrote primarily to Christian converts from Judaism (James 1:1), people who once professed the Mosaic law as a rule of faith, and many Bible readers forget to consider the struggle against the doctrine of the Judaizers.

The Greek term πίστις (pistis) translated as ‘faith’ was not used exclusively by Christians, so much so that the Hebrew term אמונה (‘emuwnah) translated as faith was used by the Hebrews. From a doctrinal point of view, Judaism is a faith, just as the gospel of Christ is a faith.

There are doctrinal positions that teach that salvation achieved through charities, penances, indulgences, etc., and even if the dogma they believe i based on good deeds, it continues called faith.

When the apostles used the term 'faith', for Christians converted from among the Jews, the term expressed an understanding that reflected in action, which depended on firmness and conviction on the part of the individual.

This was the description of Judaism.  A doctrine that Jews before their conversion to the gospel believed and professed:

“...you have the form of science and truth in the law” (Romans 2:20).

For the Jews the law was knowledge and truth, conviction evidenced through festivals, Sabbaths, meals, circumcision, etc. In this sense, the Jews had a faith, a doctrine that, although it was of men, they believed and spread.

It is noteworthy that the apostle Paul used the term πίστις (pistis) several times in his epistles, James six times and the evangelist John twice, one in the first epistle and the other in the Book of Revelation, not counting the variants of the term, as a verb (πιστόω) and adjective (πιστός).

The apostle Paul makes use of the noun πίστις (pistis) to allude to the gospel, and when he uses the term in the sense of believing, he usually does so in connection with the person of Christ.

“First I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ, concerning you all, for in all the world your faith is proclaimed.” (Romans 1:8);

“Examine yourselves, if ye continue in the faith; prove yourselves. Alternatively, do you not know as to yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

The term πίστις (pistis), in its great majority, when used in the Pauline epistles, can substituted for doctrine, gospel, message, or for the person of Christ, the author and finisher of the faith.

All over the world the gospel (your faith), the doctrine of Christ, and the message that saves announced. Christians, in turn, must abide in Christ, in the gospel, in doctrine, or in faith.

Both times the apostle John uses the term πίστις (pistis), he alludes to the gospel message, that is, the doctrine of Christ.

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith." (1 John 5:4);

"If anyone takes captivity, captive he will go; if anyone kills with the sword, he must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints." (Revelation 13:10).

Christ conquered the world, and He is our faith, therefore, the one who conquers the world is Christ, the Lord of all who believe.

James, on the other hand, when using the term πίστις (pistis), does not use the apostle Paul and John, because depend on the context and how the term is used, it can mean doctrine or trust.

“Knowing that the test of your faith works patience. (...) But ask it in faith, not doubting anything; for what doubts is like a wave of the sea, which is carried by the wind, and thrown from one part to another.” (James 1:3 and 6).

If James used the pronoun in the third person, wow, faith would be the gospel, but as it is in the second person: yours, the term refers to the trust of Christians, something subjective. In this sense, whoever asks with faith, asks with confidence, conviction, something subjective, different from the truth of the gospel, which is something objective.

Already in chapter 2, verse 1, the term πίστις (pistis) refers to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus, and not the confidence of the individual, and the context is what gives the meaning of the term.

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of glory, with respect to persons." (James 2:1).

The faith under analysis belongs to the Lord Jesus, that is, the gospel, and whoever has it, should not have it and be a respecter of persons, because the gospel  given to all peoples, without exception.

The term πίστις (pistis) gains this contour because it is something common to brothers, already in verse 14, chapter 2, and the term does not apply to brothers, but to 'someone'. This one not identified as a brother, and the faith he claims to have is unspecified.

“My brethren, what good is it if someone says he has faith and does not have the works? Can faith save you?” (James 2:14).

Who would that someone be? In addition, what would his faith be?

If this 'someone' were one of the brothers, it is certain that faith would be common to all and the question would have James included: “My brothers, what good is it if we say that we have faith”? (Titus 1:4) If the faith under analysis were in Christ Jesus, the next question would be out of place, for faith in Jesus can save.

That said, it follows that the 'someone' appointed by James, who says he has faith, is not a Christian, and not even the faith that this 'someone' professed to have was founded on the Lord Jesus.

The faith that James was disputing did not say of faith in Christ, that he who has will have a great and great reward (Hebrews 10:35). James was protesting against those who claimed to have faith (πιστεύω) in the existence of one God, but who did not obey.

“You believe that there is one God; you do well. The demons also believe and tremble." (James 2:19).

Because of the cultural context of his interlocutors and the need to make himself understood among Christians converted from among the Jews, James expresses himself using the terms 'word of truth', 'law of freedom' instead of the term 'gospel', and through the term 'work' highlights the need to believe in Christ.

The readers of James' epistle were urge to fulfill the purpose of the gospel (word), that is, to love by deed and in truth. Those who claim to believe in the existence of only one God, but who do not believe in the one sent by God, are mistaken. Anyone who hears the gospel but does not do what is required is like someone who builds his house on the sand.

“And be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false speeches. For if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like a man who gazes at his natural face in a mirror; (James 1:22-23).

Through the terms 'faith' and 'works', James contrasts those who loved only in word and language, with those who loved by work and in truth, a specific approach and language of the epistle of James.

"My brethren, what profit if anyone says that he has faith, and does not have the works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14);

“My little children, let us not love word or tongue, but by work and in truth" (1 John 3:18).

The misreading occurs when the vast majority of theologians contrast 'faith' and 'works', comparing James' approach with that of the apostle Paul. While the apostle Paul uses the term 'faith' to refer to the gospel.  and the term 'works' to refer to the works of the law.  in chapter 2 of James' epistle, the term 'faith' is used to refer to the followers of Judaism who believed in the existence of one God, and uses the term 'works' to evoke those who are doers of the gospel.

"But he who looks well at the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres in it, is not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his deed." (James 1:25).

Although the readers of James' epistle were Christians, it was difficult for them to let go of ancient customs and taboos, and the feeling of following the 'best' religion at the time. Many Christians were doctors and teachers of the law before they were converted (James 1:26), and they had to resign themselves to giving up everything to win Christ, that is, to receive with meekness the word of truth that was implanted in them, because only through it they would gain salvation (James 1:21).

If they actually believed in the gospel, Christians converted from among the Jews, in addition to having carried out the work (believing) of the law of liberty (gospel), could not respect persons:

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of glory, with respect to persons” (James 2:1).

If in fact, they did the will of God, which is to believe in Christ as the one sent by God, Christians needed to be patient, persevering, that is, they could not deviate from the faith in order to reach the promise.

"For you need patience, that after you have done the will of God, you may reach the promise." (Hebrews 10:36).

Converted Christians from among the Jews were constantly bombarded with messages, memories and feelings imbued with the precepts of the law, festivals, days and foods, and needed to transform themselves by renewing their understanding (Romans 12:2).

Before converting, the practices and faith of James' interlocutors fixed on trusting the flesh, circumcision and the law, because:

a) descended from the flesh of Abraham;

b) Shared in circumcision, and;

c) Care pertinent to the Mosaic Law.

The apostle Peter is a crystal clear example of how difficult it was for converted Christians among the Jews to disentangle themselves from the precepts, behaviors and understandings they learned by custom.

The apostle Peter was converted to Christ, and even after preaching during the Feast of Pentecost, when several people believed in the gospel, after some time, the idea that, as a Jew, he could not enter the house of the Gentiles or sit down to eat with them.

It was only after having a vision and after the call of Cornelius that the apostle Peter considered the essence of the gospel and transformed by the renewing of understanding, and came to the following conclusion:

“And he said to them, you well know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to gather together or to approach strangers; but God showed me that no man should call common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28).

The readers of James' letter, despite being begotten according to the will of God by the word of truth (James 1:18), still needed to learn to walk in the truth of the gospel, realizing that God is no respecter of persons, and that a believer in Christ cannot do it.

“And Peter opened his mouth and said: I truly acknowledge that God is no respecter of persons; But that it is pleasing to him who, in any nation, fears him and does what is right.” (Acts 10:34-35).

To hold fast the faithful word and avoid doctrinal distortions (Titus 1:9), Christian converts from among the Jews could not exclude converted Christians from among the Gentiles from the fellowship, as did the followers of Judaism.

James invoked the "royal law" found in the Scriptures that summarize the Mosaic commandments, for the misconceptions that arose among Christians.

 “… You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (James 2:8; Romans 13:9).

However, because of litigants and transgressors, who still respected people, who did not act as they professed (James 2:8 and 12), James argued:

“My brethren, what good is it if someone says he has faith and does not have the works? Can Faith save you?” (James 2:14).

It is useless to say that you have 'faith', and to reject the 'law of freedom'. Those who reject the 'word of truth' or the 'law of liberty' and go back to following the questions of the law, are actually in possession of a faith that cannot save, for by the law no one will be justified.

"Knowing that man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, we have also believed in Jesus Christ, to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; law no flesh will be justified” (Galatians 2:16).

Is it possible for someone to say he has faith and reject the word of truth? Is it possible for this person to be following the questions of the law and yet say he has faith? Yes! Among the Galatians this movement occurred:

“O FOOLISH Galatians! Who fascinated you not obey the truth, before the eyes of whom Jesus Christ was made evident, crucified, among you. Have ye received the Spirit by works of the law or by the preaching of faith? Are ye so foolish that, having (beginning by the Spirit, do ye now finish with the flesh? Is it in vain that ye have suffered so much? The Spirit, which works wonders among you, does it by works of the law, or by the preaching of faith?” (Galatians 3:1-5).

As you read James' epistle, one cannot lose sight of the fact that 'Obeying the truth' is the same as being 'a doer of the word' (James 2:22), or 'to receive the word in meekness' (James 2:21). Was the word of truth, which is also called 'spirit and life' given to Christians by the 'works of the law' or by the 'preaching of faith'?

In this short passage of the epistle, the apostle Paul names two different doctrinal systems: 'works of the law' to Judaism, and 'preaching of the faith' to Christianity. Christians to the Galatians had started with the spirit (gospel) and were ending in the flesh (works of the law), meaning they were turning to circumcision, Sabbaths, feast days, food, etc.

The term ἔργον (works) in the context of the letter to the Galatians has the meaning of practices 'according to the law', or practices 'according to the flesh', as the apostle Paul expressed it to Christians to the Philippians:

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, and beware of circumcision. For the circumcision is us, who serve God in the spirit, and glory in Jesus Christ, and We do not trust the flesh. Though I could also trust the flesh; if anyone else thinks he can trust the flesh, even more I Circumcised on the eighth day, of the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew of Hebrews; according to the law, I was a Pharisee; According to zeal, persecutor of the church, according to the justice that is in the law, blameless.” (Galatians 2:2-6).

To trust in the flesh it was necessary to be like Saul: ‘Circumcised on the eighth day, of the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; according to the law, to be a Pharisee’, etc. Through this approach of the apostle Paul, verified that 'to walk in the spirit' is to walk according to the gospel and 'to walk according to the flesh' is to walk according to Judaism.

“Therefore now there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1).

The gospel, are words of spirit and life, unlike those who walk according to the flesh, by law there is no way to be justified before God.

"All those, therefore, who are of the works of the law are under the curse for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Galatians 3:10).

No matter whether Hebrew for Hebrew or proselyte, all who belong to the works of the law are under the curse of the law. The term works only takes on a reprehensible tone when associated with the law.

As they were dealing with two different doctrinal systems: 'gospel' and 'law', and both called faith: 'Christian faith' and 'Jewish faith', James used the term work to emphasize obedience to the gospel, and the Apostle Paul used the term faith to evidence the doctrine to be obeyed.

"Therefore we also pray always for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and fulfill every desire of his goodness, and the work of faith with power;" (2 Thessalonians 1:11);

"We conclude, therefore, that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." (Romans 3:28).

Man is justified by the gospel, the faith given to the saints and which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Jude 1:3: Romans 1:16-17; Ephesians 1:13)

The work of God is specific: that men believe in the one He sent, and men only become servants when they believe in Christ, when they carry out the work of God. The term 'works' applies to both doctrinal systems, because by obeying either system, law or grace, man becomes a servant, either of sin or of justice.

“But now we have been released from the law, having died for what we were held back from; so that we may serve in a newness of spirit, and not in the old age of the letter.” (Romans 7:6).

There are those who read verse 1 of chapter 2 of James, which is about someone who claims to have faith, and understands that James was criticizing someone who has a theoretical faith, or who makes an empty and merely intellectual confession.

The idea of 'intellectual faith', 'theoretical faith' is a recent theological invention to try to explain the apparent contradiction between what has exposed by the apostle Paul and James. Through the supposed existence of a theoretical faith, a gap created for many religious leaders to criticize the lifestyle adopted by many Christians, and end up imposing on their followers a way of life of social practices, sacrifices, devotion, etc.

The ideology of the gospel of Christ is not intertwined with or confused with practices of voluntary help to the needy, as if humanitarian actions were the practice of biblical agape, and generally present the catchphrase: 'the practice of charity is summed up in doing good to others wanting nothing in return'.

In this support, in the so-called Christian milieu, movements appear in search of social equality, struggle for social welfare, promotion of social actions, defense of minorities or defense of public policies of social responsibility, etc., as if these issues were the essence of the gospel of Christ.

Analyzing the gospels and the letters of the apostles not trying to influence Christians to defend changes in the social, political and economic structures of society at the time.

In no epistle did the apostle Paul try to influence Christians to fight for transformations or revolutions in social structures at the time. The institute of ancient slavery, which was so evident in societies at the time, is an example, as the points discussed do not even incite the insurgency:

“Have you been called as a servant? Don’t be careful; and if you can still be free, take the opportunity.” (1 Corinthians 7:21).

Confusing 'work' in James' epistle with 'good deeds' or 'indulgences' results in a misreading, to the point where someone has considered it an 'epistle of straw'[20].

When it is say that there is no evangelical feature in the epistle of James, it is to ignore the defensive tone of the gospel, and the essence of the gospel:

"According to his will, he created us by the word of truth, that we might be like the first fruits of his creatures” (James 1:18).

When we read, “My brethren, what good is it if someone says he has faith and does not have the works? Can faith save you?” (James 2:14), the required work does not refer to doing good deeds, but the required work is obedience to the perfect law of freedom (James 1:25), which is powerful to save (James 1:21).

James' approach is centered on salvation (maybe faith can save him), and therefore, he questions whether such faith (in the existence of only one God) without submitting (works=believing in God has sent) to God can save.

This question is an evolution of previous questions, because what is the benefit of someone having faith in Christ and being respectful of persons. Alternatively, who enjoys faith without patience, the perfect work of faith? (James 1:2-3; 2:1).

It does not take advantage of someone saying they have faith in God and not obeying Him, because God through the gospel demands that one believe in Christ. There are those who have faith in the existence of God, in the impossible, in miracles, in angels, etc., but they do not benefit, because these beliefs do not save.

The Judaizers claimed to have faith in God, but they did not have the required work, which is to believe in Christ. Some Christians, in turn, had the faith and the work, because they believed in the gospel of Christ, but they did not persevere in believing or they did not walk according to the gospel, because they were a respecter of persons.

If he does not keep believing until the end, without turning away from the faith (gospel), man will not reach the proposed hope (Matthew 24:13; Colossians 1:23; 2 John 1:9). If he respects persons, he is liable to be reprimanded, for he does not walk well and directly according to the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14).

Many consider both the ‘work’ and the ‘fruit’ Christians to be good deeds, good conduct or evidence that one is engaged in the work of a community, but both do not refer to these aspects of the Christian life.

The fruit refers to the message that the individual professes, and therefore, the fruit can be good or bad, depending on the tree that produces it. If the tree is good, the fruit is good, and if the tree is bad, the fruit is bad.

"So every good tree bears good fruit, and every bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit; neither can a bad tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:17-18).

The fruit is not behavior, as anyone, whether Christian or not, can live in society following a high ethical and moral standard, something that is related to values that this person has internalized throughout life.

When Jesus spoke of the tree and the fruit, he emphasized that it was possible to identify a false prophet by the fruit.

“But beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits, you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:15-16).

Through behavior, dress, customs, etc., it is impossible to identify a false prophet, as they dress up as sheep. This means that it is possible for the false prophet to appear to be what he is not, but something they cannot disguise is the inside, and the fruit shows what is in the heart.

"Race of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? For what is abundant in the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34).

Through Jesus' reproach to the scribes and Pharisees that they could not say good things because they were evil, it is possible to conclude that the scribes and Pharisees were bad trees, and that the fruit was what they spoke. As the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees were evil, what they said evidenced what was in their hearts.

John the Baptist identified the scribes and Pharisees who has baptized by the fruit, that is, by what they professed. Like the message proclaimed by John at Baptist that was very simple: change your understanding (repent), because the kingdom of heaven has arrived!

Whatever John's baptism, in light of the message announced by him, should confess that they were being baptized because of the coming of Christ, but as they continued to claim that they had Abraham as their father, the prophet was able to identify them through what they said.

“And when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, you spawn of vipers, who taught you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance; And presume not of yourselves, saying, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that even of these stones God is able to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:7-9).

The fruit of the scribes and Pharisees was - ‘We have Abraham as our father’, as they assumed that being a descendant of the flesh of Abraham was an essential condition to be saved, and they disregarded the message of John the Baptist: the arrival of the Christ.

Even some disciples who claimed to believe in Christ, that is, who claimed to have faith, when confronted, evidenced through what they professed that they were still bad trees, because they spoke what was in the heart.

"Jesus therefore said to the Jews who believed in him : If ye abide in my word, ye shall truly be my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. We have never served anyone; how do you say: You shall be free?” (John 8:31-33).

The confession: - ‘We are Abrahams descendants’, that is, - ‘We have Abraham as our father’, showed who were those Jews who claimed to have faith in Christ: bad trees that did not produce good fruit.

Although they claimed to believe in Christ, the fruit the Jews bore was evidence that they were not connect to the true vine, which is Christ.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer. Every rod in me, which bears no fruit, takes it away; and cleanse all that bear fruit, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean by the word I have spoken to you. Be in me, and I in you; as the rod of itself cannot bear fruit, if it is not in the vine, so also you, if you are not in me. I am the vine, you the branches; He who is in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. (John 15:1-5).

When we understand what fruit the believer in Christ produces, we understand the parable of the winemaker who looked for fruit in the fig tree planted in the vineyard for three years and did not find it.

“And this parable said: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he went looking for fruit in it, not finding it; And he said to the vinedresser: Behold, I have been looking for fruit on this fig tree for three years, and I have not found it. Cut it out; why do you still occupy the land uselessly?” (Luke 13:6-7).

The fruit is what man professes, that is, a doctrine, a message, a faith, etc., and the work says of obedience to a doctrine.

In this sense, whoever professes that Jesus did not come in the flesh is not connected to the true Vine, which is Christ, consequently, does not bear the fruit that glorifies God (John 15:8; 2 John 1:7). In fact, these people are plants that God did not plant (Matthew 15:13), and will be uprooted because they do not produce the expected fruit (Isaiah 60:21 and 61:3).

Whoever practices the work of God, that is, believes in Christ, is a partaker of Christ and produces the fruit that glorifies God. The 'work' close linked to the 'fruit' that produces the one who is linked to the true Vine, for the fruit proceeds from the lips of those who are in Christ.

“Therefore, let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise for him, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.” (Hebrews 13:15).

What produces the one who is linked to the Vine is the fruit of the lips that profess Christ, consequently, God is glorified through the fruit (John 15:5 and 8; Hosea 14:2; Proverbs 18:20).

The gospel message is unique, so anyone who professes that Jesus did not come in the flesh is the deceiver and the antichrist. Thus, anyone who professes to serve Christ cannot go beyond the doctrine of Christ, for he would count fellowship with God (2 John 1:9), and everyone who has fellowship with whom he has departed from the doctrine of Christ becomes a partaker of his evil works (2 John 1:11; John 3:19-20).

Verse 19 of the second chapter of James' epistle lends color to verse 14:

“You believe that there is one God; you do well. The demons also believe it, and they tremble” (James 2:19).

Whoever believes in the existence of only one God is good, but this belief is no different from that of demons, who also believe and are subject. If demons believe and tremble but remain lost, what is the value of their belief?

Why does not God save demons if they believe in the existence of God and tremble? For two reasons God does not save demons:

a) The fallen angels are not part of the eternal purpose that God established in Christ, and;

b) God gave them no commandments.

To understand the above statements, it is worth noting that God loved the children of Israel because of the promise made to the patriarchs:

 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples.  However, it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh King of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:7-8).

Why did God make a promise to the patriarchs and choose their descendants to love? Because of his eternal purpose established in Christ: to set Him up as the highest of the kings of the earth.

"I will also make him my firstborn higher than the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27).

Because of the eternal purpose established in Christ, to make Him head of a body made up of men like Him, gathering in Him all things, both in heaven and on earth, God made a promise to Abraham evidenced that he loved all peoples, and through the descendant promised to Abraham gave a commandment to all peoples (Ephesians 1:10).

“Indeed, love the peoples   all his saints are in his hand; they will be placed in the midst between your feet, and each one will receive of your words.” (Deuteronomy 33:3).

God's eternal purpose established is the pre-eminence of Christ in all, and humankind was create to carry out that purpose.

Because of the purpose that God established in Christ:

a) Adam was created a living soul in the image and likeness of the Christ who was to come (Romans 5:14);

b) The woman was told that her seed limestone at the feet of the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15);

c) God promised Abraham that in his descendant all the families of the earth would be bless.

d) It became a sanctuary, a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 8:14 and 56:7);

e) The two houses of Israel became a stumbling block and a rock of offense (Isaiah 8:14), and;

f) God established his firstborn as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek and a great king on the throne of his father David.

"And he is the head of the body, of the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from the dead, that he may have the preeminence in everything. (Colossians 1:18).

Angelic beings are spectators in the unfolding of eternal purpose, and they have come to know the manifold wisdom of God through the church, the body of Christ.

“That now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to principalities and powers in heaven, according to the eternal purpose which he hath made in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:10-11).

The demons not given any commandment, which means that they not called with a holy calling, just as believers in Christ were call to be joint heirs and like the risen Christ so that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

After the fall, the demons were not love, since humankind; God loved everyone by giving a commandment for his eternal purpose.

James wrote to Christian converts from Judaism, people who, before coming into contact with the gospel, professed faith in one God.

“James, servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are scattered abroad, salute” (James 1:1).

James' interlocutors were named vain or foolish (James 2:20), adulterers and adulterers (James 4:4), rich (James 5:1), predicative that were used by the prophets and in the law to refer to the children of Israel.

By naming them mad, adulterers and rich, James was highlighting the condition of those who did not walk well according to the gospel, as they conformed to the characteristics denounced by the prophets: people of Sodom and Gomorrah, adulterers, rich, drunk, foolish, mad, blind , etc. (Deuteronomy 32:28-33; Psalm 53:1-5).

To say you have faith in one God and to shirk God's required work in Christ is a futile belief. Therefore, James directs his approach to the vain man and not to the brothers in Christ.

“But O vain man, do you want to know that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20).

The brother in Christ is the one who pays attention to the gospel and perseveres. Unlike the forgotten hearer, the believer in Christ is bless to do the work.

“But he who pays close attention to the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres in it, not being a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his deed.” (James 1:25).

The brothers in Christ were being instruct about some people who claimed to have faith but did not have the work, and to illustrate the exposition, James he presents an example: just as it is useless to say to someone who is cold and hungry: -'Stay warm', without giving him a coat, or.   -'Go and get fed up!', without giving him the necessary food, it is also useless to say.   - 'I have faith in God,' and not obey God's command, which is to believe in Christ (James 2:15-16).

The example in verse 15 and 16 is a comparison, to demonstrate how useless it is to say and not do. James was not establishing that the essential work of the one who claims to have faith was to help the needy, to give alms, to be charitable, etc. Such an understanding is to vilify the explanation of James, who only evidenced through the example what is expose in the parable of the two sons.

"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and addressing the first, he said, Son, go to work in my vineyard today. He went to the second, and spoke likewise to him: and he answered and said, "I am going, sir; and I have not gone. Which of the two did his father's will?" They said to him, "The first." Jesus said to them, Verily I say unto you, tax collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 21:28-31).

How can be they saved?  Believing in the existence of only one God or doing God's will.

Believing in the existence of God, in the impossible, in miracles, in angels, in demons, in heaven, in hell, etc., is a dead faith in itself. However, whoever does something according to the word of God is in possession of the faith (word of God) and the work (did the will of God).

"So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself." (James 2:17).

In Eden, Adam could believe that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was succulent and pleasurable, that it was good to give understanding, that the serpent was harmless, etc., but what he believed[21] outside of God's word was innocuous in itself, for it would only be lost if it contravened the command of God.

When he performed what has vetoed in the commandment, regardless of whether he believed in God's commandment or not, his disobedient act brought upon humankind the weight of the law: death.

In this sense, it does not matter if someone believes in science, that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, in the absurd, etc., he will only be save if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, evidencing through confession (fruit of lips) your faith.

However, what does it say? The word is with you, your mouth and in your heart. To knowing that this is the word of faith, which we preach. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will saved. Since with the heart is believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:8-11).

The word of faith (truth) in Eden was “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree in the garden thou shalt freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17), and like every divine ordinance, the commandment in Eden emphasized and guaranteed full freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17), and it was not enough for Adam to say that he believed and God, but had to obey Him.

Adam would evidence his faith in God if he had not eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but by taking hold of the fruit and eating, Adam evidenced his unbelief.

Adam evidenced his unbelief by his work, and Christ by his work evidenced total subjection to the Father.

"Jesus said to them, my food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to do his work." (John 4:34).

In this sense, when asking this 'someone' to show his faith in God without works, James knew that it was impossible to do so, because through works it is possible to show both faith and unbelief.

“But someone will say: You have the faith, and I have the works; show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18).

When he presented Abraham as one who was justified by works, James was not   miss representing Abraham's trust in God; he was demonstrating that his trust in God's word was such that he carried out what was determined without shriveling.

"Was our father Abraham not justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (James 2:21).

When God directed Abraham to leave the midst of his kindred, Abraham readily obeyed, giving up the safety of his father's house, and went in search of a land that would yet be revealed (Genesis 12:1).

Will anyone who leaves his or her parents' house and homeland have the right blessed? Not! However, in the case of Abraham, as he went out as the Lord God had told him (Genesis 12:4), this means that Abraham took the word of promise as firm.

“And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great; and you will be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse them that curse thee; and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Abraham's work evidenced his trust in God, and obedience was only possible because of God's command. The children of Israel claimed to be the children of Abraham, but they did not honor God as Father.

Once the Jews claimed, "Abraham is our father," and Jesus said, "If ye were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39). What were the works of Abraham the works that Abraham performed were all in obedience to the word of God, and only those who obey God can have Abraham for their father.

“Then said Jesus unto them, If God were your Father, ye would surely love me, for I went out, and came from God; I did not come from myself, but He sent me” (John 8:42).

What was the faith (belief) of those Jews? That Abraham was their father; consequently, they believed they were God's children (John 8:1). His or her faith was innocuous, for believing does not make anyone a child, but by obeying the word of God, one acquires the power was be made a child of God.

"But as many as received him, he gave power to become children of God, to them that believe in his name;" (John 1:12).

Jesus was clear: - 'If God were your father, you would surely love me (obey)', but as they did not submit to Christ as Lord, they did not submit to Him who gave His only begotten Son that men might believe and be saved by Him. As they did not fulfill God's command, they did not perform the required work as Father Abraham would.

When Abraham offered Isaac according to God's word, he performed the required work (Genesis 26:5), which means that Abraham loved God. By obeying, Abraham loved not only in word and tongue, but indeed and in truth.

When he performed the work, Abraham did so because he exulted in the salvation that God had promised through his Seed, which is Christ, and not in Isaac. As Abram believed that God would send the Seed, that all the families of the earth would be blessed, he offered Isaac as a burnt offering because he was convinced that God would resurrect his son Isaac to fulfill the promise when he came out from among his kindred (Hebrews 11:19 ).

“Abraham your father was glad to see my day, and he saw it, and he rejoiced” (John 8:56).

Abraham's exultation at seeing that the promised Seed would one day come upon the earth brought him such joy that the sadness of having to sacrifice his only son was overcome, for the promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham did not it could be invalidated by a later command.

When the writer to the Hebrews said: 'By faith Abraham offered Isaac...', Abraham's faith is not the same as that of 'one' who claims to have faith, who believes in the existence of one God, or that God does the impossible, or that God works miracles, etc., something subjective formulated by the mind of Abraham.

By 'faith' refers to the word of God that is, by the word of God, which is firm and true, Abraham was being called, obeyed. Abraham was not willful, but there was a call, and because he believed in the word of God, he obeyed.

"By faith Abraham, being called, obeyed, going to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he was going." (Hebrews 11:8).

When it is said that 'By faith Abraham offered Isaac...', the word of God that summoned Abraham and made him the promises is considered faith: 'In you shall all the families of the earth be blessed' and 'In Isaac shall she be called your offspring'. Holding the promise of the Seed, the author and finisher of faith, firm, Abraham offered his hope upon the altar (Hebrews 10:36; Romans 4:18).

Abraham's work was his Lord's will, and to carry it out, Abraham was only obedient. The work is the result of subjection, of humiliation, but the bad reading denigrates the term 'work' as if from the work came only haughty, vainglory.

“By faith offered Abraham to Isaac, when he was tried; yea, he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten. Being said to him, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, he considered that God was able to raise him even from the dead; and from there also in figure he retrieved it" (Hebrews 11:17-19).

If Abram was justified by works as James claimed, does not that mean that Abraham had merit? Did Abraham cooperate with God for his justification[22]?

To answer these questions, it is first necessary to understand the nature and attributes of the deity.

The Bible presents God as sovereign, merciful, loving, long-suffering, but He is equally holy, righteous, true, etc., so that in justifying the sinner, God cannot give up his righteousness.

In this sense, the apostle Paul says:

"For a demonstration of his righteousness at this present time, that he may be righteous and a justifier ​​of him who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3.26).

At the time of the offense and, consequently, of humankind’s fall into sin, God had given a command to Adam. To rescue humankind from sin by reversing the consequences of the offense, God could only work humankind’s salvation through a new commandment.

"Be thou my strong habitation, to which I may turn continually. You have given a commandment that saves me, for thou art my rock and my strength." (Psalm 71.3).

Similarly, as the offense wrought by Adam.  Another Adam, who is Christ, the last Adam, should work the obedience. Through these biblical texts, it is clear that God's justice, within a perspective of reparation, aims at balance, equity and parity between the events of the fall and redemption.

"Thus, it is also written: The first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45);

“For just as by one offense came judgment upon all men to condemnation, so also by one act of righteousness came grace upon all men, for the justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many shall be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19).

When he took hold of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam's offense had no power to do anything, but what brought about death was the power that the law contained: 'surely you shall die' and therefore, it is said that sin to prove itself exceedingly evil wrought death for good.

"Therefore did thou become good unto me in death? Not at all; but sin, that it might appear to be sin, wrought death in me for good; that by the commandment, sin might become exceedingly evil." (Romans 7.13);

"Now the sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Corinthians 15:56).

Similarly, this means that in man's ability to believe in someone or something there is no power to change his condition before God, but such power is in the word that God announced to Abraham.

"...and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12.3).

Adam fed on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the power contained in the word of God, which said: 'Thou shalt surely die', turned man away from God. When man feeds on Christ, he has no power, but the power contained in the word of Christ, who said, 'whoever feeds on me, will also live for me', is what grants life and communion with God.

"Just as the Father who lives sent me, and I live for the Father, so whoever feeds on me will also live for me." (John 6.57).

The same promise that made Abraham heir of the world also promised blessedness to all peoples, so that the power to accomplish is entirely in the word of God and not in man's trust.

“For the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made by law to Abraham, or to his posterity, but by the righteousness of faith. (...) Therefore, it is by faith, that it may be according to grace, that the promise may be firm to all posterity, not only to that which is of the law, but also to that which is of faith which Abraham had, who is father of us all. Written: I have appointed you a father of many nations before him in whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead, and calls things that are not, as if they were already.” (Romans 4.13 and 16-17).

God gives life to the dead and calls the things that are not, as if they already were, and not man's confidence. Abram believed in the word of God and started to live according to the word of the promise. Walking as a pilgrim in the land of promise and did not pay attention to his condition or to Sarah's, rather, he believed in the promise.  being sure that God was powerful to accomplish what he promised, and therefore Abraham's trust was imputed to him for righteousness.

“As it is written. I have appointed you to be a father of many nations. Before him in whom he believed, namely, God, who quickens the dead, and calls things that are not, as if they were already, who in hope he believed against hope, so much so, that he became a father of many nations, according to what he had been told: Thus, It will be your offspring. In addition, not weakening in faith, did not pay attention to his own body, already deadened, because it was almost a hundred years old, nor, either, to the deadening of Sarah's womb. And he did not doubt the promise of God, for unbelief , but, was strengthened in the faith, giving glory to God, and being very sure that, what He had promised, also, was able to do it. So, this was also imputed to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4.17-22);

When it announced that, it is necessary to believe in Christ to be save.   It means that man does not have to pay attention to his impossibility of saving himself, nor to his moral condition or to his insignificance,  rather, it is to be very sure of that He who made the promise of eternal life is faithful and mighty to save (1 John 2:25).

"Faithful is he who calls you, who will also do it." (1 Thessalonians 5:24).

When a man believes in the word of God, that is, is “strengthened” in the faith, he gives glory to God, so that it is impossible to have merit or boast in believing in the word of God.

For someone to boast about their actions, they have to be guide by their own convictions and decisions. For example, if Abraham spontaneously decided to leave the midst of his kindred to inhabit the regions of Canaan in tents, he would have something to boast about, but before God, this decision would have no meaning and would not be reward.

But when he obeys the divine command: “Go out of your country, from your kindred, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you. In addition, I will make you a great nation, I will bless you and make your name great and you will be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3); Abraham was not guide by his convictions, but trusted in the word of God that gave him the right to promise.

Not anyone who leaves the midst of his kin without divine order will have God's support, because he leaves by his own will and not under order.

“So Abram departed as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him, and Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out of Haran.” (Genesis 12.4).

With regard to salvation, God gave men a work to be done, similar to the command he gave to Abraham:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God That ye believe in Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29);

"And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, according to his command." (1 John 3:23).

When someone does the work that God has determined, he humbles himself, that is, he becomes a servant of God. He no longer lives by his own convictions in the matter of salvation, and becomes a servant of God.

“Know ye not that whom you present yourselves as servants to obey him, you are servants to him whom you obey either from sin to death or from obedience to righteousness? However, thanks be to God that, having been servants of sin, you heartily obeyed the form of doctrine to which you delivered. And, freed from sin, you were made servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:16-18).

God provided salvation and granted it to men through his word:

"And it shall come to pass whosoever called upon the name of the LORD shall be saved ;" (Joel 2:32) ;

“Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I have set a stone in Zion, a stone already tried, a precious corner stone, which is well established and well founded;” (Isaiah 28:16).

Before the message of salvation, if man believes, God will save him according to his word. He does not lie and is powerful to do so. Those who take refuge in god, boast keeping the proposed hope.

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have firm consolation, we who put our refuge in retaining the proposed hope;" (Hebrews 6:18).

Calvinists say that it is only possible for a sinner to believe if he is one of God's elect for salvation, for he will first be awake to believe, through an irresistible grace, which is blatantly contrary to the Scriptures. Abraham believed in God by obeying the divine command and left the midst of his kindred, not because God "awakened" Abraham to obey.

The word of God was enough for Abraham to respond to God's command, in the same way the gospel message is enough for man to believe in God through Christ Jesus.

"And by him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God;" (1 Peter 1.21).

It has concluded that it is necessary to believe, because only by believing that Jesus is the Christ, it is possible to confirm that God is true, because this is the testimony of God, which is contained in the Scriptures.

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the testimony in himself; he that believeth not God hath done a liar, because he hath not believed the testimony which God has given of his Son." (1 John 5:10).

Only believing that Jesus is the Son of the blessed God makes operate a servant of God, therefore, a blessed one, like the believer Abraham.

"He that hath my commandments, and kept them, this is he that love me and he that love me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21);

"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find (rest) for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:29-30).

God provided salvation and wants to save; therefore, his word is sufficient for man's salvation. God said, “My counsel will be firm, and I will do all my will.” (Isaiah 46:10), so He works both to will (counsel) and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), so that when man believes he does not cooperate with God in his salvation, rather, as He is the Lord who has a work to do, He does His work through His servants. When man believes, God has done his work.

The credit belongs to God, who commanded his servants, not the servants who, believing in Christ presented themselves as servants and labored in his work.

In addition to bringing up the idea of ​​merit in the work, the misreading of James' approach fostered the argument that faith that does not produce good deeds is not saving faith.

Anyone who understands that 'anyone' who has faith necessarily has to produce good deeds does not consider that the example presented by James can hardly be characterized as a good deed, since Abraham lifted a knife to slay his own son.

The arguments: -'Works are the result of salvation', -'We are not saved because of works, but for works', and -'Good works are not the cause of our salvation, but the result of it` emerged from the misreading of the epistle of James, and are all wrong.

In his epistle, James did not deal with good deeds, the essence of religion, but with obedience to the word of God (James 1:26-27). As God generates the new man through the word of truth, the gospel that saves, James was guiding Christians to obey the gospel, and used terms that the Jews would better understand the determination, which would be: be 'doer of the work' (James 1 :18 and 1:21; 1 Peter 1:3 and 23-25).

When James concludes his presentation by saying that '...man is justified by works, and not only by faith', he did not have in mind issues such as merit or good deeds, for the example of the prostitute Rahab does not involve merit or good deeds. , for by hiding the emissaries of Israel, she was betraying her people.

"And likewise Rahab, the harlot, was not also justified by works, when she gathered up the emissaries, and sent them away in another way?" (James 2:25).

Before pointing out that Rahab was justified by works like the believer Abraham, James emphasizes her social and moral condition: woman, foreigner and harlot.

Accepting that Father Abraham was justified by what he did was acceptable to followers of Judaism, but accepting that, like Father Abraham a foreigner, of reproachful reputation, was also justified by works, was something that, despite being written in the Scriptures, it was not digested by the followers of Judaism.

What prompted Rahab to hide the two spies from Israel? First, Rahab heard about how the God of Israel worked wonderfully in Egypt on behalf of Israel and believed that God is God in heaven and on earth and waited for mercy (Joshua 2:10-11).

Believing in the existence of God would not result in mercy for Rahab and her family, but in welcoming the spies in peace, Rahab presented herself as the servant of the God of Israel waiting for mercy.

"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with unbelievers, receiving spies in peace" (Hebrews 11:31).

By hiding the spies, Rahab evidenced by her work her confidence in God's mercy, by realizing that God was God and that he had led the people of Israel to safety since leaving Egypt.

Through the examples of Abraham and Rahab, who were justified by works, James concludes:

“For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26).

If Rahab only said she believed in God and had not hidden the spies, her belief would be useless, a dead faith.

James was demonstrating to Christian converts from the twelve tribes of the dispersion that believing in God is praiseworthy, but it is a faith without effect if you do not have love, obedience, and subjection to the commandments of God.

If God was no respecter when he accepted Abraham and Rahab, two uncircumcised foreigners to compose the lineage of Christ, the acceptance that some made towards Gentile Christians was a behavior that clashed with the faith they claimed to profess, because God himself did not and did not it respects persons (Deuteronomy 10:17).

While the proposal of the epistle of James is to show that:

a) Anyone who claims to have faith in Christ but does not persevere in the gospel, is not perfect (James 1:3-4);

b) Anyone who claims to have faith and makes a distinction between people in solemn meetings, in fact did not understand or obey the gospel of Christ (James 2:1);

c) Anyone who has faith in Christ does not profess two doctrines, the gospel and the law (James 3:12);

d) Anyone who has faith does not promote dissension in the body of Christ (James 3:14 and 16), because many Jews who claimed to be Christians did not want to eat with the Gentiles promoting dissension.

The bad reading leads to the conclusion that Tiago was concerned with social issues.

In this sense, we have Elihu's lesson:

“If you sin, what will you do against him? If your transgressions multiply, what will you do to them? If you are fair, what will you give him, or what will he receive from your hand? Your wickedness would do harm to another like you; and thy righteousness would avail the son of man.” (Job 35:6-8).

While the apostles' concern was with the lack of fruit worthy of repentance, for many who claimed to believe in Christ.  They continued to profess that they had Abraham as their father, or to avoid that some who claimed to be members of the body of Christ.  but imposed obligations on the Gentiles claiming to be necessary to achieve salvation, the misreading of the gospels and epistles leads to questioning whether there is any merit in man when he submits to God (Galatians 2:14; Acts 15:24).

It is impossible for the believer to boast of having believed in Christ, for it is inadmissible for the gospel of Christ to assume that the believer would have merit for trusting in Christ.

It is preposterous to conjecture that man could have some merit, or cooperate with God in his salvation, if believing in the gospel were a faculty of man himself.

Indeed, whoever believes in Christ according to the testimony of Scripture glories in Christ, leaving no possibility for man to boast of having rested in Christ (Philippians 3:3).

Whoever believes in Christ has actually surrendered to the faithfulness and power of God expressed in his word. The merit, glory, and virtue for salvation are in the gospel, the message of good news that Christ came into the world to save sinners.

“This is a faithful word worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15).

A colossal error to assume that, in the act of believing, it is possible for the believer to boast of attaining salvation on his own merits. The gospel is God's command, and whoever believes, in fact, has become a servant, submitting to God's will.

Whoever believes in Christ takes upon himself his yoke and his easy burden. Those who are in the service of their master are able to beat their chests, boast, puff themselves up, or have merit for doing His work.

Obedience does not involve boasting or pride. In obedience, there is subjection, that is, humbling oneself, so that with regard to the gospel, the commandment of God, it is impossible to have merit for obeying.

To raise suspicion that it is possible to have merit in those who believe in the gospel is to ignore the essence of the gospel, for the gospel, itself excludes boasting.

“Where is the boasting right away? Has it deleted? By which law? From the works? Not; but by the law of faith.” (Romans 3:27).

There is no way for anyone to boast of loving (serving) Christ, for whoever loves does not puff up or boast (1 Corinthians 13:4). Whoever believes in Christ cannot boast, because believing that Jesus is the Son of God is the work of God and not of men (John 6:29).

When Jesus urged his weary and overburdened interlocutors to take his yoke upon themselves, he was actually requiring them to submit to Him as servants (Matthew 11:28-30). How can you boast of taking the yoke of Jesus upon you? Where is the boast in the act of carrying a burden, even if it is light?

The misreading of what is 'work' and what is 'faith' in the accounts of James and the apostle Paul suggest counting.

When 'faith' and 'works' are placed in opposites and analyzed as antagonists, the term work ends up assuming a pejorative sense. The doctrine reformed in function of the doctrine of election and predestination over the centuries has associated the idea of ​​merit with the term 'work', demonizing it.

The NT writers do not present "faith" and "work" as antagonistic, for the opposition they evidence occurs between the "law" (Mosaic) and the gospel (faith).

The opposition that exists is between the 'law' and the 'gospel' as seen in the figures of Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, Sinai and Jerusalem, flesh and Spirit, slave and free, etc., that is, the apostles do not they present 'work' and 'faith' as ​​antagonistic entities.

Due to the opposition 'law' and 'gospel', the apostle Paul refers to the law as 'works of the law', and to the gospel as 'works of faith', which means, respectively, 'obedience' to the law and 'obedience' 'to the gospel.

The apostles Paul, John, and brother James preached the same gospel without any contradiction. Watch:

"They confess that they know God, but with works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and reproving for every good work." (Titus 1:16);

"My little children, let us not love in word or tongue, but indeed and in truth" (1 John 3:18);

“My brethren, what good is it if someone says he has faith and does not have the works? Can faith save you?” (James 2:14).

We have already seen that it is only possible to know God when you love God, that is, when you keep his commandment (1 John 2:3 and 4:8). When the apostle Paul says that the defiled and unfaithful 'confess that they know God, but deny Him with their works', he expresses what the apostle John says: 'that they love in word and in tongue,' but do not love him, for they do not keep his commandments.

What command do the contaminated and unbelievers deny with their works? The gospel of Christ, which is the word according to God's command, the faith of the elect, the knowledge of the truth, and the hope of eternal life.

"But in time he manifested his word by the preaching entrusted to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;" (Titus 1:3).

Whoever loves in word and tongue is because he claims that he has faith, that is, that he knows God, however, he does not have works, he does not love by deed and in truth, and he does not obey God's command.

However, how to understand James' approach that Abraham was justified by works, the apostle Paul expresses that if Abraham was justified by works, he must boast?

"Was our father Abraham not justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (James 2:21);

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he must boast, but not before God" (Romans 4:2).

The apparent contradiction between the speeches of James and the apostle Paul occurs because they are analyzing different periods in the patriarch's history.

James speaks of Abraham's justification by works because the analysis is focus on the period Isaac was with Abraham, precisely at the time when the patriarch offers his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:1).

The Apostle Paul's analysis, in turn, comprises a period before the test of Abraham, when Abraham tried to present his steward, Eliezer, as his heir (Genesis 15:2-4 and 6).

“And behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thy heir; but whoever comes out of thy bowels, he shall be thy heir.” (Genesis 15:4).

The apostle Paul's quote refers specifically to the moment just after God had made clear the patriarch would beget a son.

“For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6).

If the reader does not pay attention to the fact that the period analyzed by the apostle Paul is prior to that of James, he will not have elements to undo the apparent contradiction.

When Abraham believed the promise he had nothing to boast about according to the flesh, for he had not yet reached Ishmael, a son according to the flesh, who was not accepted as an heir by the Lord (Romans 4:1).

“After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in vision, saying, Fear not, Abram, I am your shield, your most great reward. Then Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, for I am childless, and the steward of my house is the Damascene Eliezer? Abram said more, Behold, thou hast not given me children, and behold, and one born in my house shall be my heir.” (Genesis 15:1-3)

"And not weakening in faith, he did not look to his own body already deadened, for it was almost a hundred years old, nor to the deadening of Sarah's womb." (Romans 4:19).

The apostle Paul makes this blunt statement to evidence that Abraham was justified while still uncircumcised (Romans 4:10-11), and that the promise was not given to Abraham through the Law of Moses, but through the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:13).

While James was instructing his interlocutors to persevere in believing in Christ (James 1:4).  To receive the gospel with meekness (James 1:21).  to be a doer of the word (James 1:25).  to be no respecter of persons (James 2 :1), and contesting those who said they had faith in one God but did not obey (James 2:14), the apostle Paul was battling in defense of the truth of the gospel by exposing the impossibility of the law to justify.

"Therefore no flesh shall be justified before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20).

If no flesh will be justified before God by the works of the law, this means that the patriarch himself would be no exception to the rule. In chapter 4 of the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul evidences that even the patriarch Abraham was not justified by works, because it was not according to the flesh that he reached the promise.

Why does the apostle not specify that Abraham be not justified by "the works of the law"? Because the law only came 430 years later.

"But I say this: That the covenant having been formerly confirmed by God in Christ, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not make it invalid, so as to make the promise abrogated." (Galatians 3:17).

The apostle Paul had no way of contesting the “works of the law” when analyzing the patriarch Abraham.  The followers of Judaism claimed to be descended from the flesh of Abraham. The apostle Paul highlights the impossibility of achieving something according to the flesh, even Abraham. Evidencing what appears in verse 5, chapter 17 of Jeremiah, when saying that Abraham was not justify by works, he did not make the flesh his arm when he had no heir, but trusted in the word of promise.   James highlights what is state in verse 7, when he says that Abraham was justified by works, because by doing what God determined about his heir according to the promise, by trusting in the Lord.

"Thus saith the LORD: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and departeth his heart from the LORD! Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose trust is the LORD." (Jeremiah 17:5 and 7).

The works by which Abraham was justified as James pointed out did not result from a commandment under a curse, but under the aegis of promise.

"And he said, take now thy son, thy only son, Isaac, whom thou loves, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will tell thee." (Genesis 22:2).

The work of offering Isaac as a burnt offering evidenced Abraham's total trust in God, as he could not trust the flesh, as he was already in an advanced age, so there was no longer the possibility of boasting, since boasting stems from the law and of the meat.

"Where is boasting right away? It excluded. By what law? Of works? No; but by the law of faith." (Romans 3:27).

The work by which no one will be justified refers to the 'works of the law', whose stumbling into one of the commandments causes the individual to become a transgressor of the whole law (James 2:10-11) and imposes a curse on transgressors.

"All therefore that [are of the works of the law] are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is he that doth not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Galatians 3:10)

By trusting in God as the believer Abraham, man fulfills all the law, for God gave witness from Abraham to Isaac, saying:

“...and I will confirm the oath which I have sworn to Abraham thy father. I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands. Bless all the nations of the earth. Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my command, my precepts, my statutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:3-5).

Burning ox carts

"Which we also speak, not in the words of human wisdom, but in the words which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things"(1 Corinthians 20:13).

The present work is not and does not intend to be a philosophical treatise on 'love' as and emotion or feeling, as countless treatises have already been produce under different perspectives on the subject.

The objective of this work is to rediscover the essence of 'agape' and make known the idea defended by the apostles when they used the term.

In order to achieve this goal, we compare and analyze passages from the AT with passages from the NT, without being in fluency by philosophical concepts.

As directed by the apostle Paul, to compare 'spiritual things with spiritual', the method of analysis used was to compare biblical passages by revisiting the meanings of terms used by the Bible writers.

In general, terms, it is clear that God's love for men evidenced through his command and those who keep his command are those who love him.

This exercise was necessary because in our time it is enough to say that Jesus asked Peter. - "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" (John 21:16), and people will show some kind of academic influence, as they will immediately present the following argument: - “Did you know that in Greek there are at least four words to designate love?”

Although the information that there is more than one Greek word to designate love is true, the information is important and Jesus' question takes a back seat. People end up giving more importance to the meanings that the Greek terms ‘agape’, ‘philos’, ‘storgue and ‘eros’ can assume, than to the content of the message.

The Lord Jesus and the apostles used the terms 'agape' and 'philos' to tell men about the Father's love, however, the terms used in the NT, despite belonging to the Greek language, did not refer the NT interlocutors to philosophical issues of Plato[23] or of Aristotle[24].

The world of ideas was not tangible to Greek society at the time of Plato, as it was knowledge restricted to certain circles in the academic world. Likewise, rationalism as the central point of Aristotelian philosophy was not something common and widespread to all Greek men, knowledge that as produced and remained restricted to academic communities.

Thinking about the Greek world and the Greek language having as study material only the 'scientific' writings produced at the time will bring a blunted conception of ancient society, given that not even our society with so much technology can bring academic thinking closer to reality every day.

To analyze the gospel of Christ, it is necessary to move away from philosophical concepts and the writing used in academic centers and approach the meaning that the terms used by NT writers had in society, as well as the use of the Greek koine.

Distinguishing the Christianity founded by Christ that has spread by the apostles from the alleged Christianity that emerged soon after, still at the end of the first century of the Christian era, is a very difficult task. The doctrinal deviations that emerged in that period are still the basis of support for countless religions and so-called Christian organizations.

Many doctrinal errors produced under the influence of Greco-Roman cultures, as many ancient priests, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, wrote their theological treatises under the influence of Greek philosophy.

By occupied with giving theological answers to metaphysical questions, especially those of an ontological nature, first century Christian thinkers not only allowed themselves to be influenced, but also began to use philosophical presuppositions to answer theological questions.

The apostle Paul had already warned Christians to beware of men who could make them imprisoned using philosophies and subtleties as a snare, but ecclesiastical doctors rejected the example and warning of the apostle Paul and meddled in various doctrines and philosophies under the pretext of better expose the gospel to the people.

The apostle Paul was clear:

“My word, and my preaching, were not the persuasive words of human wisdom, but the demonstration of the Spirit and of power;" (1 Corinthians 2:4);

And still:

“Beware, lest no one make you his prey, by philosophies and vain subtleties, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ;" (Colossians 2:8).

Does this mean that the apostle Paul was against philosophy? No. He warned about certain people who would make use of philosophy, but that did not mean that, as human knowledge, philosophy was bad.

Colossians' text is not an attack on Greek philosophy, not least because the greatest risk for the gospel at that time was Judaism, which sometimes presented itself as a religion, sometimes as a philosophical system.

The greatest warning emerges from the letter to the Corinthians, which emphasizes that the Jews were looking for a sign and the Greeks for wisdom, but Christ for them was folly and, for them, a scandal.

"For the Jews ask for a sign, and the Greeks seek wisdom; But we preach Christ crucified, who is a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks." (1 Corinthians 1:22-23).

If the apostle Paul considered as dross what according to the flesh has gained by the Excellency of the knowledge of Christ. He did not let himself be carried away by the wisdom of words when evangelizing so that the cross of Christ would not be made in vain (Philippians 3:7; 1ª Corinthians 1:17). It would be reckless for the apostle Paul to meddle in Greek[25] philosophy.

by the excellency of the knowledge of Christ and did not let himself be carried away by the wisdom of words in evangelizing that the cross of Christ would not be made in vain (Philippians 3:7; 1 Corinthians 1 :17), it would be reckless for the apostle Paul to meddle in Greek philosophy.

The apostle Paul was careful in expounding the gospel, so much, so that he did not get involved

The Greek language, Christ and the apostles adopted the concepts, as with the philosophy. Some scholars even suggested the possibility that the gospel announced by the apostles influenced by Greek philosophy, but recent studies show that, what assumed did not occur, so much so that such thought was not confirmed by modern schools.

The language used in any subject has its relevance and deserves proper study. However, with regard to the gospel, it does not mean that, because they used categories of thought, metaphors, myths or the practice[26] of the Greeks.

When NT writers made use of Koine[27] Greek, they knew that their interlocutors would understand the terms used in the exhibition based on the colloquial use of the language. In this sense, the Greek of the Poviléu is very far from the language of the scientific, philosophical and cultural world of the time.

It is noted in the NT that the examples and parables that Jesus told the people were restricted to agricultural issues such as seed, fruit, tree, seasons, sowing, harvest etc., with the main focus on social relations[28] between father and son, sir and servant, noble and vile, king and subjects, husband and wife.

In Jesus' parables, there is no reference to intimate matters such as feelings and emotions or prescription of moral principles. These values vary from society and from time to time, while Jesus' teachings are timeless and valid for all people.

The NT language has as a background the strength of the aristocracy that forms the sociocultural scenario of the time the Scriptures were produced, therefore, it does not resemble the language of Renaissance humanism, cultural and philosophical movement developed between the 14th and 16th centuries in Europe .

The conception of love that the religious of our days prescribe to their followers bears no relation to the serious and objective imperative love established in TN.

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other or he will come to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Luke 16:13);

"Or is it not lawful for me to do what I want with what is mine? Or is your eye bad because I'm good?" (Matthew 20:15).

'To love' is to be at the service of a man who has the autonomy to dispose of what belongs to him as he pleases. The 'love' disseminated by many religious is permeated with subjectivism.

By using the term agape, Jesus demanded from his servants 'obedience', 'submission' and/or exclusive 'service', and the religious, in turn, use the term to demand affection or feeling from their adherents aimed at the good of other people.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls." (Matthew 11:29).

Taking on the yoke of Jesus is to love only Christ, serving Him in the condition of a servant, which is only possible when man stops serving himself. Note that in none of Jesus' teachings is there reference to palace theatrical events or the use of fables to expound spiritual truth.

In NT, at most, there are quotations from secular poetry in Pauline writings, at most, every approach aims to enlighten and inform Christians about the Christian faith.

In certain circles, deify the term agape ended up, as if the term had been transmute in function of the gospel to refer to 'divine love'. However, analyzing the language used by the apostles, there is nothing mystical linking the terms used to matters of a 'spiritual' nature, since such terms can and used negatively. Example:

“Traitors, stubborn, proud, friends more to pleasure than friends of God” (2 Timothy 3:4; 1 Timothy 6:10).

The term φίλος (philos) was use in relation to God and the world, just as the term agape can be use positively or negatively. The apostle Paul in the second epistle to Timothy used the verb ἀγαπάω (agapao) with a negative sense, which demystifies the idea that the term agape means “divine love”.

“For Demas forsook me, loving the present age, and went to Thessalonica, Crescent to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia” (2 Timothy 4:10).

It is not because the term 'agape' was use in the Scriptures in relation to God, as in the Johannine declaration, "God is love," that the underlying and pertinent meanings of the Greek language should  forgotten.

Depending on the context, the OT prophets, using the Hebrew term אָהַב (aheb) translated as love, did not deny it the proper sexual connotation depending on the context, which cannot denied to the term agape simply because it was use by the writers. Of the NT

“And the LORD said unto me, Go again, love a woman, beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, as the LORD love the children of Israel, though they look upon other gods, and love the buns of grapes.” (Hosea 3:1).

Trying to do with the term agape when used in NT what is proper to the Hebrew verb בָּרָא (bara’), whose subject can only be God, is to mischaracterize the essence of the term.

When he says that it is necessary for a man to leave his father and mother to unite with his wife, the apostle Paul does not exclude the sexual connotation from the union, but rather highlights through the union of the couple, when both become one flesh, the great mystery that exists. Between Christ and his Church.

"This mystery is great; but I say it concerning Christ and the Church." (Ephesians 5:32).

Considering that God is omniscient, all-know, when one reads the conditional proposition: "But if anyone loves God, he is known to him." (1 Corinthians 8:3), being 'known to him' does not say of 'knowing about', or 'being aware of', but rather refers to the idea of fellowship, when man becomes one body with Christ.

To know by God is to have intimate fellowship, when man becomes a member of the body, flesh and bones of Christ.

“For we are members of his body, his flesh, and his bones" (Ephesians 5:30).

'Knowing' and 'loving' are different aspects of the union in which man becomes in God and God in him:

"And he that keeps his commandments is in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he is in us, by the Spirit which he has given us" (1 John 3:24).

The above verse could have been word in another way that would preserve the same idea: 'and he who loves in Him is, and He in him', since 'whoever keeps His commandments loves God' (1 John 5:3).

The Apostle Paul's approach is the same as that of the apostle John, because whoever loves knows God, since whoever keeps his commandments is in God:

"But if anyone loves God, he is known to him" (1 Corinthians 8:3);

"And he that keep his commandments is in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he is in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us" (1 John 3:24).

O concept of authority that emerges from the Bible is very different from the idea of authority that our society has used to. When we speak of authority today, it understood that we are referring to someone who has the right or power to order, to decide, to act and to be obey.

While in our day, authority has validated for its legitimacy, in the Bible the prerogative of authority derives from the duty of care.

When the Apostle Paul says that Christ is the head of the Church, it means that He is the one who exercises control of the body, which translates into care for his body.

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being He himself the savior of the body. (...) For no one has ever hated his own flesh; rather feed and sustain her, as also the Lord to the church;" (Ephesians 5:23 and 29).

Whoever exercises authority has a duty to care.

“Then Jesus, calling them to himself, said, you know well that by the princes of the Gentiles they are dominated, and that the great ones exercise authority over them. It will not be so among you; but whosoever wills among you to make himself great, be your servant; And whoever among you wants to be first, let him be your servant;" (Matthew 20:25-27).

“Because magistrates are not a terror to good works, but to bad ones. Will you then not fear power? Do good, and you will have praise from her.” (Romans 13:3).

In the heart of the term agape is also implicit the notion of authority, as Christ 'loved' the Church by submitting to the Father in obedience and surrendering for her. The Church, in turn, must submit to the care of the 'husband', the essence of submission, her love for Christ:

"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25).

A husband's love is expressed when he cares for his wife. Care is an act of liberality[29] of the spouse given to those who need protection, support and affection.

On the other hand, women “owe” obedience to their husbands, which is evidence of their love for their husbands, like Sarah (Ephesians 5:22).

“Likewise, you women, be subject to your own husbands; (...) How Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him her lord; whose daughters ye are, doing well, and fearing no astonishment.” (1 Peter 3:1 and 6).

The husband's authority not imposed, but rather an achievement resulting from the liberality that involves the woman in care. The woman, in turn, must submit to her husband's care, not to be confused with whims of satisfaction.

"Like you husbands, cohabit with them with understanding, giving honor to the woman, as a weaker vessel;" (1 Peter 3:7).

The 'weaker vessel' condition does not inferior women, as the parity between men and women occurs in the representation of the 'vessel'. When a woman has placed as a weaker vessel, it means that a woman requires greater care and protection from a man because of her nature, not because she is inferior.

Although the ideas of the gospel when announced by the apostles of Christ not touched by Greco-Roman influences, we cannot say the same about the so-called 'church fathers'[30].

As one abstracts from some literary records, of which the oldest known is the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinth (JAEGER, 2002, p. 21, footnote nº 44), it can see that Greek culture it ended up mingling with the message of the 'church fathers'.

However, why did this happen? How did the so-called 'church fathers' in such a short time distance themselves from the doctrine of Christ and formulate a thought divorced from the doctrine of the apostles?

The historian Jaeger recalls that the teaching of the Two Paths was ancient, which appears in Hesiod[31], in a treatise called Pinax de Cebes, and that, at the time, there was a group called the Pythagoreans, whose lifestyle was asceticism and who used the letter. 'Y' as a symbol of a crossroads representing man's need to decide which path to take[32].

Although it is impossible to say how, the Christians of the 1st century ended up adopting the Pythagorean teaching of the Two Paths and incorporating it into the Didache[33] of the Twelve Apostles[34], a kind of philosophical moral teaching combined with the 'sacraments' of baptism and the Eucharist.

When he announced the parable of the Two Doors and the Two Paths to the crowd in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not impose moral values or encourage philosophical questions.

The parable of the Two Doors and the Two Ways uses two figures to present an enigma to the crowd, since Jesus did not teach the people openly.

"And with many such parables he spoke to them, as far as they could understand. And without parables he never spoke to them; but he declared everything in private to his disciples." (Mark 4:34).

Jesus highlights the existence of two doors, one wide and the other narrow, and affirms that there are many who enter through the wide door. As Jesus commands his hearers to enter through the narrow door, the need for the new birth implied, so that we have secure parameters for interpreting the parable.

“Enter through the narrow door; for the gate is broad, and the way broad, which leads to perdition and many, enter through it; and because the gate is narrow, and the path that leads to life is narrow, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14).

The command: ‘Enter through the strait gate’ is an invitation to the new birth, for Christ as the way, the truth and the life is who leads men to God. The wide door, on the other hand, refers to natural birth, when men enter the world through Adam.

In the parable, the doors represent the two Adams, the first and the last, respectively, Adam and Christ.

"Thus is it also written: The first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Entering through Adam, the broad door, men made living souls and are on a broad path arising from the offense of Adam that leads them to perdition. To be free from condemnation, it is necessary for man to be born again of Christ, who is a life-giving spirit, who will be on the narrow path that leads men to salvation.

At this point, the doctrine of Christ has no parallel with any religion, for it presents salvation to men today because they were judge and condemned in the past in Adam. Religions, in turn, offer salvation today for men who will still in the future.

In this sense, the Two Paths of the Pythagoreans go against logic, because if men need to choose between good and evil today, otherwise they will judged and condemned in the future, this means offering salvation to those who are not yet lost. Hence the question: What is the purpose of offering salvation today to someone who is not lost?

The Two Paths presented in the Didache not related to the Two Paths in the parable told by Jesus, and at some point in the Didache, it emphasized that for man to be save it is necessary to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Numerous misreadings about agape have made many theologians think of the gospel as a doctrine with the power to rescue society by transforming the social relations of individuals through the transmutation of their moral values.

Few can realize that the gospel of Christ and the apostles not intended to foster social or cultural revolutions in search of a better world. Jesus never got involved in social class struggles, nor did he seek to destabilize the structures of government, social barriers and economic structure established at the time.

Thinkers such as Augustine (354-430 CE), who influenced Manichaeism[35] in his youth and later became a follower of Plotinus' ideas, with his philosophy, had a great influence on Christianity over the centuries.

In 'The City of God'[36], Augustine adopts the posture of a philosopher of universal history and his proposal is, above all, moralistic, in supporting the assumption that there are two types of men: those who love each other to the point of despise the God, and those who love God to the point of despising themselves.

With the help and influence of Neoplatonic philosophy and Milanese theologians, the Augustinian doctrine promoted the 'marriage' of metaphysics with morals and ethics, as it saw the problem of humanity from the perspective of an ontological evil with ethical implications. In addition, morals.

By understanding agape as charity, love in Augustine takes on a social perspective, as a principle that promotes the union between the individual man and the social man.

In this sense, Augustine saw the impossibility of the State[37] reaching an authentic justice if it did not excel in the “moral” principles of Christianity, and his thought led the ecclesiastical segment to obtain primacy over the State.

Almost a millennium later, Thomas Aquinas[38] (1225-1274 BC) also entered the field of morals; however, he followed a different path from Augustine, and embraced Thomistic morals (acting rationally, in harmony with man's rational nature), essentially intellectualist, while Augustinian morals were voluntary.

For both Augustine and Aquinas, the love in question is the one exalted by philosophy and they forgot the essence of the gospel: love is to fulfill God's command, which is to believe in Christ according to the Scriptures (John 7:38).

While Plato praised beauty[39], pseus of Christians confused the love of God with the Platonic proposal about the beautiful, and promoted a union between what they mistakenly understood by 'love' and by 'beautiful'[40].

Many scholars are unanimous when they say that Platonic and Aristotelian thought, despite being a human thought, was misunderstood and their ideas distorted[41] by Augustine and Aquinas, let alone the gospel, which is a matter of spiritual nature and, according to the apostle Paul , is matter that is spiritually discerned.

Analyzing the Greeks, especially Homer[42], who was neither a naturalist nor a moralist, it appears that ethical issues are linked to the laws that govern being, which escapes thought based on duty.

The vision of ancient man has not imbued with ethical and moral issues, but with the advent of Socrates and Plato, a new era in the thinking of the Greek man has inaugurated, and it was from this source that the church fathers drank and guided their thinking so much. Philosophical and theological of them.

Socrates sought to moralize, schools and intellectualize the tragic conception of the world of Greece, and it is because of him that Greece in subsequent times plunged into idealism, moralism and spiritualism (JAEGER, 2011, p. 496 to 497). However, Socrates should not be accused of having influenced theological thinking in these two millennia of Christianity; rather, the blame rests on the would-be Christians who misappropriated his ideas.

At first, we have Augustine making use of Plato's philosophy, as Jaeger underlines, that the work City of God is nothing more than a Christian reinterpretation of Plato's Republic (JAEGER, 2003, p.581), and later on, Tomás de Aquino wrote a dozen commentaries on Aristotle's works, thus giving rise to scholasticism, an attempt to reconcile Aristotelian rationalism and ecclesiastical tradition.

The Greek influence on theology did not stop with Aquinas, as the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam focused on the classic works of Greek and Roman literature, and, enchanted by the philosophical proposals of Socrates, Plato's instructor, ended up declaring him a pre-martyr Christian, the Sancte Socrates[43].

The need of the so-called church fathers to promote a dialogue between theology and philosophy gave rise to the idea that both subjects would closely related. Hence, the thought of an ethics linked to love, that Christianity has an affinity with certain government systems, and that it should play a role of social criticism, denouncing the selfishness of the globalized economy and the existing distance between social classes.

The problematic raised by the so-called church fathers evolved over the century, and recent theorists, such as Tillich, remained firm in the attempt to make a dialogue between philosophy and theology, but now under the presuppositions of existentialism.

Tillich's theology has summed up in providing answers to man's existential questions, and he asserts that theological study depends on the validation of philosophy[44], under the assumption that truth is subordinate to philosophy.

For Tillich, theology should not concerned with discovering the essence of the message announced by the apostles; rather it should produce knowledge derived from a creative interpretation of the individual based on events that occur in the period[45] being experienced.

Tillich's philosophy labeled theology derives from Renaissance humanism, which intended to free man from the clutches of the Catholic Church, thus emerging a subjectivist theology, product of an existentialist philosophy, which authorizes anyone to define what is truth.

Here is Tillich's definition of love:

“Love is not mere emotion, but ontological[46] power, the very essence of life, the dynamic meeting of the separated. When love is understood in this way, it will be the basic principle of any Protestant social ethic, capable of uniting the eternal element with the dynamic, power with justice, and creativity with form.” (TILLICH, 1992, p. 26)

Tillich analyzes love from an ontological point of view, not in the light of biblical hermeneutics, and therefore, in his view, agape is nothing more than a moral imperative.

"The agape principle expresses the unconditional validity of the moral imperative and gives the ultimate norm for all ethical content." (TILLICH, Paul, 2005, p. 509).

Biblical hermeneutics focuses on outlining the thinking of the Bible writers, but for Tillich this would be an impossible task, therefore unimportant.

While the apostle John expresses that the commandment of God is love, to understand that agape is the ultimate norm of the moral law is to disregard the apostle's message, since the commandment the apostle refers to has no moral or ethical implications, but full subjection.

Making theology with philosophy dialoguing is an inglorious struggle experienced by many so-called Christian authors, and Søren Kierkegaard, philosopher and theologian did not escape the trap.

In the book ‘The works of love’, Kierkegaard opposes his conception of Christian love, that is, ‘love of neighbor as oneself’ with three other conceptions of love:

a) Platonic love, which in search of the ideal, gives up the concrete;

b) Aristotelian love, which praises friendship, and;

c) The romantic love of poets.

Kierkegaard's considerations introduce an almost romantic idea about 'praising love'[47]. Which in his words would be a 'work of love'. based on selflessness, the so-called 'disinterested love', because for Kierkegaard to love disinterestedly would be “the true love, the love that sacrifices itself, loves each and every person according to its own character its individuality, it is ready to make any sacrifice: it does not seek its interest” (KIERKEGAARD, 2005, p. 308).

In general, terms, Kierkegaard understands that the intention and the way an act performed determine love and its recognition. As intent is not demonstrable, Kierkegaard says it is essential to believe in love.

The metaphor that correlates tree and fruit in Kierkegaard is confusing, because the Bible says that trees (men) are known through the fruit (which they profess), and after making the biblical quotation: “Each tree is recognized by the fruit that it has it is proper; no figs are plucked from a thorn bush, nor grapes are plucked from a briar." (Luke 6:44), Kierkegaard concludes that the text does not authorize 'So also is love known in its own fruit '.

In the Bible, trees represent men, and the fruit represents the doctrine that man professes:

"Or make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by the fruit. Breed of vipers, how can ye say good things, being evil? For of what is abundant in the heart, of this the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:33-34).

If man connected with the true vine, he professes to Christ, but if he bound with Judaism, he professes the Law of Moses and glory in the flesh of Abraham.

However, despite claiming that love is knowable through its fruit, Kierkegaard does not define what this 'fruit' would be.

Note this placement:

“This is also exactly what happens with the know ability of love. The Apostle John says (1 John 3: 18): “Little children, let us not love with words or with tongue, but with deeds and in truth.” In addition, with what should we better compare this love of words and ways of speaking?  if not with the leaves of the trees. for also the word and expression and the inventions of language can be a sign for love, but an uncertain sign. The same word can be, in someone's mouth, so rich in content, so trustworthy, and in another being's mouth as the indeterminate murmur of leaves; the same word can, in one person's mouth, be like the "blessed grain that nourishes", and in another, like the infertile beauty of the leaf." (KIERKEGAARD, 2003, 14).

Kierkegaard compares 'the love of word and tongues' criticized by the apostle John to the leaves of trees, an extensive interpretation that creates a new metaphor not authorized by the Scriptures and introduces an error that will impede the understanding of what was announced by the apostle John and the parable Of Jesus.

The leaves of trees could never been considered, as there is no reference in the parable to what they represent. But, if it were to represent something, the leaves of the trees should be associated with the appearance of the sheep, since the false prophets have 'clothing' of sheep, but they are devouring wolves and it is only possible to know them by their fruit.

“But beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits, you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:15-16).

Kierkegaard's misinterpretation persists in understanding that the 'quality' of the same message changes depending on the individual who announces it. However, it is the nature of the individual. That determines the content of the message and its quality.

Whoever is born again of the incorruptible seed, the gospel bound up with the true vine, and the word in the mouth is the gospel, so that the tree or branch is good and the fruit is good. If he is not born again, he is born of the corruptible seed, the seed of Adam, and the word in the mouth is deceit after the deceitful heart that he possesses, so that the tree is evil and the fruit evil.

Jesus' proposal is, 'Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. So that it is impossible to 'say good things while being bad', or 'saying bad things, being good', from which it follows that the word (fruit) of the good tree is different from the word (fruit) of the bad tree and lives versa.

Kierkegaard's position, in turn, is that it is the same word. Never can the gospel be in the mouth of someone rich in content and so trustworthy, and in the mouth of someone else poor in content and without acceptance. The gospel can never be true in someone's mouth and in someone else's mouth the deception, because this would be nothing more than a pseudo-gospel.

Reading what the father of existentialism points out about the gospel as a theologian is painful, because the gospel of Christ is not the basis for his assertions, and what he pointed out about some biblical passages is the result of a misread and/or misinterpretation .

The many aphorisms that appear in the Book the Works of Love are just a misreading of the considerations that the apostle Paul makes about love in the first epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 13, which we will analyze later on.

When Kierkegaard states that 'you cannot see love as such, and therefore you have to believe in it', he did not consider that 'God is love' and that Christ is the love of God made evident to men.

"If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also; and from now on ye know him, and have seen him." (John 14:7)

Philosophical guidelines aim to present a model of life whose pinnacle of human existence is fortunate both in family and in society. This is the ultimate goal of philosophical currents: How to reach a gratifying existence and what constitutes this happiness.

Whom the proposal of being a Christian aim philosophical thought? We will see!

The apostle Peter, when making some recommendations to converted Christians from among the Jews, requested that all have the same opinion (mind, understanding, intention), and that they be compassionate, kind and not given to revenge (1 Peter 1:1; 2:11 and 3:8-9).

The above guidance has a reason: Christians knew they has called to inherit the blessing. What a blessing? The grace of life as joint heirs, for that is the promise Jesus made (1 Peter 3:7, 1 John 2:25). If this was the view of Christian converts from Judaism, they should not be concerned with the same issues as their fellow citizens, which was to fight the Gentile nations in order to establish the nation of Israel. In addition, why does the apostle Peter have this position? What is the basis of his instruction? The basis was the Scriptures, specifically the psalms!

“Because whoever wants to love life, and see the good days, Refrain your evil tongue, and your lips do not speak deceit. Depart from evil, and do good; Seek peace, and follow it. For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” (1 Peter 3:10-12);

“Who is the man who wants life, who wants long days to see the good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and follow it. The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears open to their cry. The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to uproot their memory from the earth.” (Psalm 34:12-16).

Looking at the Scriptures, the natural man will understand that both the reading of the Psalm and the quotation from the apostle Peter are texts with a moralizing bias and prescriptive behavior aimed at improving interpersonal relationships in society.

The spiritual man, on the other hand, sees spiritual things, for the life he yearns for is the heavenly one, for the greatest good is in eternity. The spiritual man has a new heart and a new spirit, and as the mouth speaks of what is in the heart, he will never speak deceit, since he has put a 'guard' in his mouth (Psalm 141:3; Ezekiel 36:26).

To depart from evil is to stop serving yourself, and to do well is to submit to God. Those who continue with the perverse heart inherited from Adam depart from God (Psalm 101:4; Isaiah 65:11), hence the need for circumcision of the heart, to reach a new heart given by God.

"And the LORD thy God shall circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou majesty live." (Deuteronomy 30:6).

The interpretation of the Bible always addresses spiritual matters, such as Christ seated at the right hand of the majesty on high (Colossians 3:1), and the natural man analyzes everything from an earthly perspective.

"If we wait on Christ in this life alone, we are the most miserable of all men." (1 Corinthians 15:19).

The philosophical conjectures about love that intellectuals construct have no correlation with biblical love.

The apostle John defined that to love God is to obey Him, which enables the believer to love one another according to His command (1 John 5:3). What is God's command? Believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God!

"And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command." (1 John 3:23).

Evangelist John also points out that God's love was manifested when He sent His only begotten Son into the world so that men might obtain life through Christ (1 John 5:11).

“In this is manifested the love of God toward us: that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live in him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we too must love one another. Nobody has ever seen God; if we love one another, God is in us, and his love is perfect in us. In this, we know that we are in him, and he in us, for he gave us of his Spirit. In addition, we see, and we testify that the Father sent his Son to the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God is in him, and he is in God?” (1 John 4:9-15).

The apostle John seems to be repetitive in his approach, but the essence of the text comes from the indefinite pronouns nobody and any, translations of the terms οὐδείς (oudeís) and ὅς (hos). When the evangelist uses the indefinite pronoun οὐδείς (oudeís) together with the adverb πώποτε (popote), he enhances the idea of ​​exclusion, leaving no exceptions. The beloved apostle excludes any individuals from the premise and/or assumption: no one!

If no one has ever seen God, it follows that the exception encompasses both Jews and Gentiles, therefore both peoples could not boast of their condition before God. If no one saw God but Christ, the only begotten Son revealed Him, from that time on men should glory in Christ (Romans 5:11; Philippians 3:3), by whom grace and truth came, which contrasts with the law given by Moses.

“For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. God has never be seen by anyone. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him.” (John 1:17-18).

Christians could not be deceived by anyone, whether by Jews or Gentiles, but should practice justice, that is, turn away from evil by submitting to God (1 Peter 3:10-12).

"Little children, no one deceive you. Whoever practices justice is just, just as he is just." (1 John 3:7).

The Judaizers denied that Jesus was the Christ and the Gnostics denied that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3), which indicates the multitude of deceptions in the world at the time.

Even though no one has ever seen God, if a Christian loves one another it means that he has kept God's commandments and God's love has achieved its goal: full communion with one another, without any kind of respect for persons.

“And in this we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. He, who says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and in him is not the truth. But whoever keeps his word, God's love is in him truly perfected; in this we know that we are in it." (1 John 1:3-5).

“No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God is in us, and his love is perfect in us. In this we know that we are in him, and he in us, for he gave us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:12-13).

The apostles saw and testified that Christ was sent by God as the savior of the world (1 John 4:14; 1 John 1:1-3), and anyone, no matter whether Jew or gentle, would admit that Jesus is the Son of God is in God and God in him.

Anyone who is in God because he believes that Jesus is the Christ and is no respecter of persons is exempt from scandal. To promote dissension or partisanship in the body of Christ is to cause scandal (Mark 9:38-42 and 50).

 “He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is even now in darkness. He that loves his brother is in the light, and in him, there is no scandal. But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not whither he should go; for darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:9-11).

“Good is salt; but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and peace with one another. (Mark 9:50).

John, as a disciple of Jesus, along with the others, saw a person who cast out demons in the name of Jesus and forbade it, because that person did not follow Jesus along with them (Mark 9:38). After being warned not to forbid that person, Jesus warned of the consequences of offending one of their little ones and the need to have peace with one another (Mark 9:50).

When a Christian testifies that the Father sent his Son to save the world, he is loving his neighbor as himself, and when he accepts as a brother anyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, it means that he loves one another (1 John 4: 14-15).

Considering agape as being selfless love, love giving without waiting for reward or charity, etc., goes against what was expose by the apostle Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 13.

If distributing all goods to the poor is not love, or donating the body to be burned is not love, it is certain that the concept of 'selfless love' is not the love highlighted by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:3).

To understand the Apostle Paul's use of the term agape, it is necessary to revisit some verses that he used the term.

On loving God, the apostle Paul highlights to Christians what was said by the prophet Isaiah, 'the things that the eye did not see and the ear did not hear, did not come up to man's heart, are what God prepared for those who love Him' . Observe the prophet Isaiah; it is verify that “to wait on God” is the same as to love Him.

“But as it is written, the things which the eye did not see, and the ear did not hear, And which went up not into man's heart, Are those which God prepared for those who love him. (1 Corinthians 25:9);

“For from ancient times there has not been heard, nor has ears been perceived, nor has eyes seen a God besides you, who works for he that wait for him. (Isaiah 64:4).

As we have seen, those who love God are those who obey the command (love) of God shown in Christ, which is the same as waiting on Christ.

The apostle Paul also pointed out to the Corinthians that circumcision or uncircumcision is nothing but the observance of God's commandments. When analyzing what was say to the Galatian Christians, we have:

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19);

“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value; but the faith that works by love” (Galatians 5:6);

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any virtue, but being a new creature" (Galatians 6:15).

The apostle Paul made three statements on circumcision and uncircumcision and makes three conclusions on the subject. Using the principle of equivalence of logic, since the three propositions present the same information, although in different ways, it is possible to identify the relationships and meanings of the terms 'observance', 'commandments', 'faith', 'love' and ' new creature'.

The three verses emphasize that circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, and present what matters before God:

a) The observance (obedience) of the commandments (care, love) of God;

b) Faith (Christ, commandment, love of God, care) that works by love (obedience), and;

c) Being a new creature = consequence of obedience to faith, or observance of the commandments of God.

Taking into account the principle of equivalence, 'keeping the commandments' is 'faith that works by love', so 'observance' is to 'love' as 'commandments' is to 'faith'.

As it is necessary to obey faith, it is certain that the faith in comment speaks of the command of God manifested in Christ as announced by the Scriptures of the prophets.

“But which has now been revealed, and has been notified by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, to all nations for obedience of faith;” (Romans 16:26).

Without obedience (love) to faith (commandment), that is, without the faith (commandment) that works by love (obedience), God does not carry out his work, which is to make the repentant sinner a new creature.

Whoever observes the commandment, that is, whoever believes in Christ, benefits from the action of faith that works by obedience, making the old man a new creature, who becomes in God and walks in Him?

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation ; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The apostle Paul presents Christ as the "faith" who was to be manifested, therefore, Christ is the "faith" to whom man owes obedience (Romans 1:5; 16:26; Galatians 3:23).

While the apostle John presents the agape in relation to man as obedience to Christ, the apostle Paul presents Christ as the 'faith' that man owes obedience, therefore, depending on the context, the terms 'faith' and 'love' are interchangeable ( Galatians 5:6; Romans 1:5; Revelation 14:12).

Man owes obedience to faith, for faith is the commandment of God. Christ, the author and finisher of faith, is faith manifested in grace and truth, which contrasts with the law, which promotes vain speeches, bad conscience, and does not purify man's heart.

Christ, the love of God, united the peoples (Jews and Gentiles) breaking down the barrier of enmity, abrogating the commandment consisting of ordinances.

"In his flesh he undid enmity, that is, the law of commandments, which consisted of ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15).

“For the foregoing commandment is abrogated because of its weakness and uselessness” (Hebrews 7:18);

"Saying New Covenant, the first one has aged. Why, what has been made old, and if it grows old, is near to its end." (Hebrews 8:13).

The apostle Paul makes use of the terms "commandment" and "love" in a peculiar way, and the reader needs to be careful to notice the nuances of the terms. Watch:

"Now the end of the commandment is the love of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith" (1 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21)

"For the end of the law is Christ for righteousness to all he that believeth" (Romans 10:4).

The Greek term τέλος (telos) translated 'end' in the above verses indicates purpose.  Purpose, so that, in verse 5 of first Timothy 1.   The purpose of the command is obedience. That is, the love of a pure heart, sincere and truly believing, and in verse 4 of Romans 10, the purpose of the law is to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3:24), for righteousness to everyone who believes, that is, the 'love of one heart pure'.

The Apostle Paul to the Galatians demonstrates that if anyone obeys God, he knows him, which is common terminology in the Epistles of the Apostle John.

“But if anyone loves God, he is known to him.” (1 Corinthians 8:3);

"But now knowing God, or rather being known by God, how do you return again to those weak and poor rudiments, which you again want to serve?" (Galatians 4:9);

“And in this we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. He who saysI know Him, and do not keep His commandments, is a liar, and in him is not the truth. However (whosoever kept his word,) the love of God is in him truly perfected; (by this we know that we are in him) (1 John 2:3-5).

In another passage, the apostle Paul uses the verb φιλέω (phileó) to accuse of anathema who does not obey the Lord Jesus, which shows that the terms φιλέω (phileó) and αγαπαω (agapao) are interchangeable, which has relevance to subject matter, not the term used.

“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed” (1 Corinthians 16:22).

What is the love that some call 'The supreme gift'? Is it love giving? Alternatively, selfless love?

In the verse: “Therefore seek earnestly for the best gifts. Now I will show you the excellent way.” (1 Corinthians 12:31), the apostle Paul speaks of a excellent way, and in chapter 14, he makes the following recommendation: “Follow love...” ( 1 Corinthians 14:1), which is the magnificent way

“Now therefore abide faith, hope, and love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

To indicate the excellent way, the apostle Paul emphasizes:

 “Even if I spoke the languages of men and angels, and did not have love, it would be like the metal that rings or like the bell that tinkles. Yet that he had the gift of prophecy, and knew all mysteries and all science, and yet that he had all the faith, in such a way that he would transport the mountains, and had no love, nothing would be. And still that I distributed all my fortune to support the poor, and still that I gave my body to be burned, and I had no love, none of this would avail me.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

To speak the language of celestial beings and the language of men without having love would be similar to the ringing metal or the tinkling bell, whose sound attracts attention and is lost. Without love, speaking a thousand languages ​​would only enchant men, but without any profit before God.

Having the gift of prophecy, knowing all the mysteries and having all the knowledge is nothing without love. The man of God who was devoured by a lion while returning to the city of Judah from Bethel, despite being a prophet and having announced the word of God to Jeroboam, possibly had no love (1 Kings 13:1-3 and 24).

Or even, having full confidence that it would be possible to do the impossible, transports the mountains, but without love, before God it would be nothing. King Uzziah was a man who trusted in God, being instruct by Zechariah. He accomplished the impossible: he promoted the prosperity of the children of Israel, but he was punish by God with leprosy, which shows that he had no love (2 Chronicles 26: 5 and 19).

The apostle Paul makes it clear that, even if a fortune were distribute to support the poor, such generosity would be of no avail before God. This means that 'charity', 'giving love' or 'selfless love' is not the love proclaimed by the apostle Paul.

The fallacy of 'disinterested love' is evident in the face of Pauline argumentation, since, even if the body were deliver to be burned, such sacrifice would be of no use, as it is not the super-excellent path.

Note that the apostle uses the noun ἀγάπη (apape) in verse 1 of chapter 13 of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó), emphasizing the need for Christians to be in possession of agape, which is different from the idea of the verb agapó, of someone who practices an action as the subject of the verb.

“... ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω...” Westcott/Hort with Diacritics.

The verb ἔχω translated as ‘to have’ indicates the possession of something, and the text points to that something as being agape. What is the love that man needs to be in possession of in order not to resemble a ringing metal or a tinkling bell? What love must man have that is profitable to him?

Jesus Christ is the love that the apostle Paul refers to, because if men do not have Christ, the love of God shown to humanity, even if they speak other languages, resembles a ringing metal or a tinkling bell.

Only those who receive the love of truth will be in possession of love (τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας), and salvation will be the benefit that comes from being in possession of that love.

“And with all the deceit of unrighteousness to them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

God's command (word) is the truth, and evidences his love. Anyone who obeys the command receives the care, the protection of God. It is not a love that is center or moral preference, but on the care, that God gives to those who obey Him.

The apostle John defines the love that the apostle Paul refers.

"THE Elder to the elect lady, and to her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who have known the truth for love of the truth that is in us, and will be forever with us.    Grace, mercy and peace, from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.  the Son of the Father, be with you in truth and love. Receive the commandment of the Father. Now, ma'am, I pray you, not as if I were writing a new commandment, but the very one that we had from the beginning: that we love one another. According to his commandments. This is the commandment, as ye have heard from the beginning that ye walk in him." (2 John 1:1-6).

The Evangelist John loved the elect woman and her children, and not only he, but also anyone who had known the truth would also love them because of the truth that dwells forever in those who believe (1 John 1:1-2). The children of the chosen woman walked in the truth according to the commandment they received from God, that is, to keep the commandment of God is to be in possession of the love of the truth.

Verses 1 to 3, chapter 13, of the first epistle to the Corinthians point to Christ, the love God, and anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ will be in possession of love.

The command to believe in Christ comes from God, so the love emphasized by the apostle Paul is a gift that, depending on the context, can named 'love' or 'faith'.

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and this does not come from you, it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8).

Through faith, the gift of God, man is saved, just as he is saved by receiving the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). As already demonstrated, the "faith" in verse 8 of Ephesians 2 speaks of God's faithfulness expressed in his word, not man's willingness to believe something.

Just as faith as an expression of God's faithfulness is objective, love as the supreme gift appointed by the apostle Paul is also objective. The love required for someone not to resemble the tinkling bell was the same love that the apostle Paul held, and the same love that his interlocutors were being instructed to have.

If agape were something subjective, each individual would have his own measure of love, but the Pauline observation is that each person has the love without which everything he does will be of no avail.

Considering Augustine's moral philosophy, love, as a moral principle, natural appetite and/or moral impulse would be something subjective, therefore, variable from individual to individual, from society to society and from time to time.

After highlighting love as God's gift, a commandment that expresses his care, the apostle Paul describes love when exercised:

“Love is suffering, it is kind; love is not envious; love does not treat itself lightly, does not puff itself up. He does not behave indecency, does not look for his interests, does not get angry, does not suspect badly; Do not rejoice in injustice, but rejoice in the truth; everything suffers, everything believes, everything waits, everything supports. The love never fails; but if there are prophecies, they will be annihilated; if there are tongues, they will cease; when there is knowledge, it will disappear” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8).

Verses 4 to 8 of first Corinthians 13 highlight characteristics proper to love when 'truly perfected', as evidenced by the apostle John:

"But whosoever kept his word, love, and God is in him truly perfected[48]; in this we know that we are in him" (1 John 2:5).

If anyone keeps the word of God, his love of God is in him; whoever obeys the word of God is in possession of the love of God. do what is pleasing to God, even if you do not speak the tongues of angels and men, do not have the gift of prophecy, do not know the mysteries and do not have all the faith to accomplish the impossible, do not have the fortune to give to the poor and nor make sacrifices, it is accepted by God.

Whoever obeys God is full of his love, for he has received the love of the truth. Love in him who obeys God's command is efficacious, full, complete, and perfect.

"In this is love toward us perfect, that in the Day of Judgment we may have confidence; for as it is, we are also in this world. In love there is no fear, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has with it pity, and what you fear is not perfect in love." (1 John 4:17-18).

What is the perfection of love? In the fact that God is in the believer by fulfilling his command. If the Christian loves the other, it means that he obeys God; therefore, his love is perfect in the one who obeys.

“No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God is in us, and his love is perfect in us. (1 John 4:12).

When the apostle John affirms that love is without fear, he describes the nature of God's commandment in Christ, which provides the reward of inheritance, as opposed to the commandment of the law of Moses, which imposed fear because of the penalty (Galatians 3:10 ; Exodus 20:18-20).

The one who is afraid is redeemed by the commandment as a transgressor, unlike the one who obeys, who because he is perfect in love has the promise, not the penalty (James 2:9-10).

The apostle John's use of the terms ἀγάπη (agape) and φόβος (fhobos) does not have the same meaning as the humanist Nicolas Machiavelli's use in his work ‘The Prince’:

“A question arises from this, namely: is it better to be loved than to be feared or the other way around? (...) And men are less afraid of offending the one who made himself loved than the one who made himself fear love remains linked to gratitude, and this bond, because men are meager, breaks it every convenient occasion ; while fear is maintained by fear of punishment, and never causes them to abandon you.” (MACHIAVEL, The Prince, p. 108).

Machiavelli uses the verbs ‘to love’ and ‘fear’ to describe affection and submission respectively, while the apostle John uses the term ἀγάπη (agape) to indicate full subjection, and the term φόβος (fhobos) to indicate feeling. While for the apostle John, subjection removes fear, for Machiavelli, the fear of punishment perpetuates submission.

Unlike princes, God does not seek dominion, as he is Lord of everything and everyone; rather, by showing his love (care) through a commandment, love (subjection) excludes condemnation and fear.

How is it possible for love to be perfect in man? Just confess that Jesus is the Son of God that such fulfilled the commandment of God, therefore, is in love and God is in him.

“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God is in him, and he is in God? In addition, we know, and believe in the love that God has for us. God is love; and whoever is in love is in God and God in him.” (1 John 4:15-16).

The apostle Paul describes agape through the Greek verbs μακροθυμέω (makrothumeó) and χρηστεύομαι (chrésteuomai), respectively translated as 'suffering', 'patient', 'tolerant' and 'benign', 'gentle', 'gentle', as predicatives of love.

Love has these characteristics: suffering and kind, and one who obeys God's command is both suffering (resigned) and kind (gentle).

"Now the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God, and in the patience of Christ." (2 Thessalonians 3:5);

"My brethren, take for example from affliction and patience the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord." (James 5:10);

"For you need patience, that after you have done the will of God, you may reach the promise." (Hebrews 10:36).

The Lord Jesus, by remaining in the Father's love, being obedient in everything, is an example of resignation and patience (John 15:10).

King Saul is a negative example, as being disobedient; he was impatient and did wrong.

“And Saul waited seven days, until the time which Samuel had determined; but when Samuel did not come to Gilgal, the people dispersed from him. Then Saul said, Bring me here a burnt offering, and peace offerings. In addition, offered the burnt offering. In addition, it happened, when he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, to greet him. Then Samuel said. - What have you done? Saul said, because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and thou come not in the good days, and the Philistines had already being  gathered to Michmash, I said, now shall the Philistines come down upon me to Gilgal, I prayed not of the LORD: and I was constrained, and offered a burnt offering. Then Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast acted foolishly, and hast thou not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee; for now the LORD would have established thy kingdom over Israel forever;" (1 Samuel 13:8-13).

Saul acted like a lunatic, was impatient and blamed Samuel for his folly. If Saul had been perfect in love, he would have waited for the prophet Samuel as God had commanded, and even with the people scattered, he would have had confidence. Because he was afraid of the imminent invasion of the Philistines, Saul did wrong, throwing himself to the sacrifice and, later, to the vow.

“Keep your feet when you enter the house of God; because drawing near to hear is better than offering the sacrifices of fools, for they do not know that they do harm.” (Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Love is not envious, does not deal lightly or puffs up, and he, who has love in his possession by being obedient to God's command, will not be move by envy, or by pride, nor will he be frivolous. The obedient move according to God's command, the love of truth, and not according to their feelings and emotions.

It is impossible to obey the commandment and be light, to obey God and glory in subjection.  To have love and promote divisions among those who have the love of God.

"But if you have bitter envy and a factional feeling in your heart, do not boast, nor lie against the truth." (James 3:14).

Those who obey the command are decent, do not have their own interests in mind, do not incite or propose evil. It is impossible for the obedient to seek his own interest, incite or aim at evil.

Regarding these characteristics of love, the impossibility of serving two masters is very didactic:

“You cannot serve God and Mammon.” (Matthew 6:24).

It is impossible to serve God and yourself, that is, riches. Whoever is a servant of God is suffering and kind, but whoever serves himself, whose womb is his god and lays up treasure on this earth, is envious, frivolous, haughty, indecent, selfish, factious, and promotes evil.

King Saul remains a negative example of someone who tried to serve God and his own interests, and for that, reason was reject.

God gave the order for Saul to complete destroy the Amalekites off the face of the earth, however, while fulfilling God's command, he tried to raise profit for himself, preserving Agag, king of the Amalekites, and the best of the forbidden.

Saul behaved indecently before the people by allowing them to preserve the best of the interdict; he was lighthearted in saying that he had fully carried out the command of God and haughty in seeking to be honor before the elders of Israel.

“He then said: I have sinned; But honor me now before the elders of my people, and before Israel; and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30).

Love is identified with the truth and does not rejoice in injustice, so that everything suffers, believes everything, hopes for everything, supports everything. Whoever has the love of God has the truth, for the word of God is the truth (John 17:17). Whoever obeys God's command rejoices in the truth and rejects injustice.

Whoever exercises the love of God suffers everything, believes everything, hopes and supports everything because he is obedient, that is, after doing what is pleasing to God, believing in Christ, he will never waver from the proposed hope.

Love is describe as infallible, for it will never perish, it will never end, it will never disappear, since the word of God, the expression of his love, will never pass away.

“But the word of the LORD endure forever. And this is the word that was evangelized among you.” (1 Peter 1:25).

Whoever obeys the evangelized word will also remain forever, which shows that to have God's love is to obey his command.

"And the world passes away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God remains forever." (1 John 2:17).

The love that the Christian keeps with him will never pass away, but what men consider essential to serve God, such as prophecies, languages and knowledge, in fact, they use to compare themselves and promote emulations and divisions.

"For we dare not classify ourselves, or compare ourselves with some, who praise themselves; but those who measure themselves, and compare themselves, are without understanding." (2 Corinthians 10:12)

Before speaking of the love that every Christian should have in his possession, the apostle Paul addressed some nuances about what concerns the spirit.

At first, the apostle of the Gentiles deals with the spirit, in the sense of word, gospel, doctrine, but many confuse and think that it is about gifts or the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.

 “ABOUT spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant.” (1 Corinthians 12:1).

Considering that a Christian is a minister of the spirit, that is, of the gospel, if he speaks according to the spirit of God, he will never say that Jesus is accursed. On the other hand, he will only say that Jesus is Lord by the spirit, and so the Evangelist John instructs Christians to judge the spirits (1 John 4:1-3).

"Therefore I want to make you understand that no one who speaks by the Spirit of God says, Jesus is accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is LORD, except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:1);

"Which made us also able to be ministers of a new testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; because the letter kills and the spirit quickens." (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Considering the multiplicity of individuals that make up the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), the apostle Paul clarifies that there is a great variety of gifts, but it is essential to consider that the spirit (gospel) is the same. That despite the diversity of ministries, the Lord is the same, therefore, all are equally servants. In addition, that there is a great variety of operations, but that it is God who works overall.

The Pauline alert aims to prevent Christians, due to the multiplicity of gifts, ministries and operations, whose revelation of the spirit grants each one what is useful for the body of Christ, from not letting themselves be carried away by greed and envy.

"Let us not be covetous of boasting, irritating one another, envying one another." (Galatians 5:26).

If Christians did not consider that each of them were members of the body of Christ with equal importance before God, regardless of gift, ministry or operation, they would eventually measure themselves and compare themselves, which would provoke emulations. , divisions, wars and struggles.

“If anyone teaches any other doctrine, and does not conform to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.  the doctrine that is according to godliness, He is haughty, and knows nothing, but raves about questions and contentions of words, which are born envy, strife, blasphemies, bad suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupt in their understanding, and deprived of the truth, seeing that piety is a cause of gain; depart from such." (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Christians needed to realize that if they saw someone with a gift, or ministry, or operation, that that ability was not that person's, but God's.

"Not that we are able of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our ability is from God" (2 Corinthians 3:5).

Some Christians, even knowing that the capacity of each member of the body of Christ comes from God, end up considering that God had preference in enabling some members of the body of Christ, as if God were a respecter of persons.

The Corinthian Christians needed to understand that by the gospel the word of wisdom was given to one and the word of knowledge to the other, and by the same gospel to another confidence and to another the gift of healing. The apostle Paul makes an extensive list of what is given to Christians through the gospel, such as working wonders, prophecies, discernment of messages, varieties of languages, interpretation of languages, etc., distributed particularly to each one for what is useful .

When speaking of the unity of the body and the organization of its members in particular, the apostle Paul wanted to emphasize that God does not prefer any member of the body of Christ, so much so that Jews, Greeks, servants, free people, etc., were baptized in the gospel and drank the gospel (1 Corinthians 12:13).

With this exhortation, the apostle Paul wanted to reach the following practical result:

“That there may be no division in the body, but rather the limbs equal care for one another.” (1 Corinthians 12:25).

The body of Christ is made up of many members, for if they were all one member, there would be no body (1 Corinthians 12:19-20), so the weakest are needed in the body, as well as the correct would be each member in particular to honor the least honorable and least decorous (1 Corinthians 12:22-23).

The noblest members of the body of Christ do not need honor, but what you see are the nobler members seeking praise and the less noble ones, in turn, are despise

"For those in us who are more noble have no need of it, but God thus formed the body, giving much more honor to the one who lacked it;" (1 Corinthians 12:24).

The apostle Paul clarifies that God established in the church first the apostles, secondarily the preachers, thirdly the teachers, and so on: miracles, healings, assistance support, administrators, varieties of languages, etc.

Since there are many members in the body of Christ, would they all be apostles? Alternatively, would everyone be preachers? Would everyone be masters? Of course not! Hence the recommendation: that Christians desire the gifts, however, the apostle would show a better and super-excellent way, love! (1 Corinthians 14:1).

Everything that Christians considered excellent, such as prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc., would disappear, but the love of God manifested by his spirit would not. In making known the ephemeral nature of gifts, ministries, and operations, the apostle Paul made evident how petty and childish it was to worship prominent people and despise humble people.

The church of Christ made up of all, and without the many members and multiplicity of gifts, ministries and operations, etc., it would not be one body. Hence, the care that should take as a member of the body, because sometimes what they seem to be or have something, they end up not communicating anything.

“And as for those who seemed to be something that they were in another time, it is not given to me; God does not accept the appearance of man, those, I say, who seemed to be something, communicated nothing to me;" (Galatians 2:6).

While love will never cease, prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc., will have an end, since 'in part' is known and prophesied. 'ἐκ μέρους' (in part) should not be understood as 'partially', 'imperfectly', but of the Church made up of many members, for not all prophesy and know, but some prophesy, some know, and others work wonders ( 1 Corinthians 12:29).

Prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc., will have no reason to be when Christ is manifested in glory and/or when Christians are transformed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). When Christ is reunited with his body, there will no longer be a need for prophecies, tongues, apostles, etc., that is, what is in part will be annihilated (1 Corinthians 13:10).

Christians needed to stop talking and feeling like little boys and start acting like adults in the knowledge of the gospel.

"Brothers, be not children in understanding, but be children in malice, and adults in understanding." (1 Corinthians 14:20).

This is because all Christians now, regardless of whether apostles, teachers, doctors, etc., see in a mirror, that is, in an enigma. No one in the 'now' can boast of seeing the likeness of the Lord, therefore, he should be afraid not to speak against the other servants of the Lord. However, all Christians, regardless of whether Jews, Greeks, servants, free people, apostle, prophet, doctor, etc., will see the Lord face to face.

"I speak with him mouth to mouth, plainly, and not in riddles; for he sees the likeness of the LORD; why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?" (Numbers 12:8).

Every Christian, including the Apostle Paul, knows in part, that is, according to the measure of faith that God has given to each one, but in the redemption of the body, he will know as the Lord knows him.

"For by the grace that is given me I say to each one of you not to think of himself beyond what is fitting; but rather, think with moderation, according to the measure of faith which God has given to each one." (Romans 12:3).

The apostle Paul points out that in the present moment (now) faith, hope and love remain, and of the three, the greatest is love. The term πίστις translated faith in context refers to the truth of the gospel, and the term ἐλπίς translated hope to the essence of the promise.

Faith is announce to every creature, but few believe and many reject. Hope is firm, but few retain it, and many despise it. Love, in turn, is the bond of perfection that sustains the body.

"He therefore that give the Spirit to you, and that work wonders among you, doth it by the works of the law, or by the preaching of faith?" (Galatians 3:5);

"Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope; for faithful is what he promised." (Hebrews 10:23).

“And you put on the new, which is renewed for knowledge, according to the image of him who created him; Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision, nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, servant or free; all. Put on therefore, as God's elect, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; Supporting one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a grievance against another; just as Christ forgave you, so do you also. Above all this, clothe yourselves with love, which is the bond of perfection. And the peace of God, to which also (you were called in one body) rule in your hearts; and be grateful.” (Colossians 3:10-15).

With love it is the excellent way, the order is, follow love, as other things pass, and whoever obeys does not fail, as he is perfect.

"Thou shalt be perfect, as the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 18:13);

“I am God Almighty, walk in my presence and be perfect” (Genesis 17:1);

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as you’re Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48);

"Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21);

"The disciple is not superior to his master, but whatever is perfect will be like his master." (Luke 6:40);

"Therefore all who are already perfect, let us feel this; and if you feel anything otherwise, God will reveal it to you also." (Philippians 3:15).

Whoever follows (obeys) love is perfect, because only those who are in God and God in them follow love.

“And we know, and believe in the love that God has for us. God is love; and he who is in love is in God and God in him.” (1 John 4:16).

How to follow God's love? Confessing Christ as Lord, for by confessing man becomes in God and God in him (1 John 4:15).

Whoever obeys is not afraid, because obedience excludes fear. Fear produces torment and whoever fears is not perfect in love, that is, he has not actually obeyed by believing in the love that God has for man (1 John 4:15-19).

What punishment can you apply to the obedient? Who will condemn the obedient? Who will condemn the obedient? There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, that is, who have love and are perfect (Romans 8:1; 1 John 4:16)

To believe[49] in Christ is to love Him (John 16:27), and the Lord Jesus left no doubt in how to love.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments . . . he that has my commandments and keeps them, he is the one that loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father (...) whoever does not love me will not keep my words. This one you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me” (John 14:15-24).

The one you hear is not mine, but the Father who when Jesus asked the disciple Peter three times.-‘Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me’? He had the following answer three times:-‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you’. In all of Simon's answers, Jesus gave the following command: - “Feed my lambs”.

“And after they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you do you more than these? In addition, he said, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him. Feed my lambs. He said to her a second time: Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? He said to him. Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. I say, to him, feed my sheep. He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? Simon was saddened that he had said to him the third time, Do you love me? In addition, he said unto him, LORD, thou knowest all; you know that I love you. Jesus said to him, Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).

In the first two questions to Simon, Jesus used the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó), and Simon answered both with the verb φιλέω (phileó), implying that he had affection for Christ. The third time he asked Simon, Jesus used the verb φιλέω (phileó), and the question for the third time saddened the disciple Peter.

Some questions emerge from the text: Why was not Simão sad the second time he has questioned? Why in all of Simon's answers do I use the verb φιλέω (phileó)? Why did Jesus use the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó) the first two times, and the third time he used the verb φιλέω (phileó)?

To understand the text, it is necessary to remember that Jesus had commissioned the disciple Peter to be a fisher of men, but after the crucifixion, Simon returned to his old job: fishing.

“And likewise of James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were companions of Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon; Fear not; from now on you will be a fisher of men.” (Luke 5:10).

When Jesus asked whether Simon loved Him, Jesus made use of the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó), and Simon, in turn, replied that he had affection in making use of the verb φιλέω (phileó).

It is evident that Jesus was demanding a position, and Simon, as he was at fault, could not make use of the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó). While Simon was fishing, who was grazing the flock?

Both times, he asked using the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó), Jesus was demanding a position from his ‘friend’ as Lord, and Simon did not seem to understand the charge.

"You shall be my friends, if you do what I command you. I will no longer call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master does; but I have called you friends, because all that I have heard from my Father I have made you known." (John 15:14-15).

Simon was fishing, that is, he was not doing what his Lord commanded!

What saddened Simon in the third question was the change of verb, from ἀγαπάω (agapaó) to φιλέω (phileó), as if in Jesus' question there was some disappointment: - ‘So, is it affection you have for me’?

“ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον•φιλεῖς με” Westcott/Hort with Diacritics.

It saddened Simon because the third time Jesus asked him if he liked, and not if he loved, in the sense of obeying. That is when Simão replied: - 'SIR, you know everything'. Even after emphasizing the lordship of Christ, the disciple Peter continued to use the verb φιλέω (phileó), for as Jesus knows all things, he knew that Peter was loving with tongue, but that he had not yet put to work.

By asking the same question three times, Jesus makes it clear that something was missing from his disciple's confession. Fishing fish had nothing to do with 'fishing' men, and Simon's decision was distorting the other disciples of his mission (John 21: 3).

While he was fishing, Simon was not obeying his Lord. What Jesus demanded of his disciple went beyond personal affection. Jesus wanted unrestricted subjection. Love has to be according to the scriptures: obedience I want, that is, feed my sheep (1 Samuel 15:22).

Jesus is not interested in having people like Him. He does not want a declaration of affection, that is, it was not enough to say 'I love[50] Him', he has to put that love into action: lead the little lambs to pasture.

Jesus requires unrestricted obedience: feed my lambs! Who loves obeys! Whoever loves cares according to the commandment of God, the Lord. Whoever loves takes upon himself the yoke of Jesus:

“And why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not what I say? Whoever comes to me and hears my words, and observes them, I will show you whom he is like.” (Luke 7:46-47).

When the Bible determines that it is necessary to love one's neighbor as oneself, it does not refer to the love giving, nor the love-need that C. S. Lewis praises in the book 'The Four Loves'.

The idea that man's feeling or emotion only deserves to be called love in what resembles the love of God is wrong, since there is no parallel between the love of God and the love of men.

God does not address such need-love, but demands unrestricted subjection when he says: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden", for the keynote is: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, that I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:29).

The assumptions of C. S. Lewis do not agree with the Scriptures, for there is only one way for man to approach[51] God: through Christ, otherwise, he will be alienated from God and without any resemblance to Him.

The analysis of the biblical phrase 'God is love' under the lens of a modern author such as M. Denis de Rouge Mont, that "love ceases to be a demon only when it ceases to be a god", does not clarify the biblical statement, and talks about affection, friendship, eroticism and charity.

The misunderstandings that swell in Lewis' considerations are frightening, but nothing compares when he makes an interpretation of a biblical passage or parable of Jesus. Watch:

“The danger of loving our fellow men was very little less present in their minds than loving them with idolatry. In every mother, wife, child, and friend they saw a possible rival to God. And, of course, our Lord does the same (Luke 14:26).” (LEWIS, 2012, p. 119).

Nowhere did Jesus require his disciples to visualize their family and friends as God's rivals in emotional and sentimental matters. Jesus' proposal to his listeners has much of what was required of Abraham when he left his kindred, so that anyone who wants to be Abraham's son has to be willing to obey God even if he goes against what his family members believe.

“Now a great multitude went with him; and turning, he said unto her, If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet his own life, he cannot be mine disciple." (Luke 14:25-26).

The vast majority of Jesus' listeners were his compatriots, his brothers according to the flesh, and for that very reason, they were his enemies.

"For a son despises his father, a daughter rises against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law the enemies of a man are those of his own house." (Micah 7:6).

If Jesus' relatives were his enemies, he being the father of families, what can be say of his domestics?

"It is enough for the disciple to be like his master, and the servant like his master. If they called the father of the family Beelzebub, how much more so for his servants?" (Matthew 10:25).

If they called Beelzebub the Christ, how much more so for his disciples, therefore, every disciple of Jesus must be ready not to accept the impositions of his family. To 'hate' father, mother, brothers, wife, child, etc., is not to fear God as their fear nor to call conjuration to everything they call conjuration (1 Peter 3:14; Isaiah 8:12).

When trying to explain love through the Johannine assertion 'God is love', Lewis wonders about love giving, and uses subterfuges to support his arguments. It is true that God has no need, but creation is the fruit of his purpose, according to the counsel of his will.

The conception that: “God, who needs nothing, makes creatures entirely superfluous to exist by love so that He can love and perfect them.”, is wrong, since God created all things precisely for the sake of that He purposed in Himself, and not that there was an end in His creatures.

"Discovering for us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he had purposed in himself, to gather all things in Christ, in the dispensation of the fullness of time, both in heaven and in who are on earth;" (Ephesians 1:9-10);

“That now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to principalities and powers in heaven according to the eternal purpose which He hath made in Christ Jesus our Lord (Ephesians 3:10-11).

It is human pride to think that all created things are aim at man. In this sense, why are angels not the goal of creation and not men? Creation does not involve an anthropocentric vision.  Rather as God's eternal purpose is aim at Himself in the person of Christ, in this matter, let us return to theocentrism.

When the apostle John defines that God is love he was not referring to an 'energy' as Lewis said, rather the definition shares the essence of other similar definitions such as: God is light, God is life, God is justice, God is truth, God is spirit, etc.

"He is the Rock, whose work is perfect, for all his righteous ways are; God is truth, and there is no unrighteousness in him; just and upright he is." (Deuteronomy 32:4).

When it is has said that God is love, it is imply in the questions of life, justice, truth, light, etc. In this sense, when it was said that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, it does not mean that God preferred Jacob to Esau based on the same preferences as Isaac or Rebekah, for the latter had a preference for Jacob who dwelt in tents, and that one because Esau he was an expert in hunting.

“And the boys grew up, and Esau was a man of hunting, a man of the field; but Jacob was a simple man, dwelling in tents. And he loved Isaac and Esau, because hunting was his taste, but Rebekah loved Jacob.” (Genesis 25:27-28).

Did God love Jacob because he was a simple man, and did He hate Esau because he was an expert in hunting? Not! The love of God based on justice, so either could be love, for in God there is no respect for persons.

It was not God, who chose who to love or hate but, Esau and Jacob, when he proposed to buy the birthright, and that one, agreed to sell the right. If there was an interruption in the birth of Esau and Jacob, the proposal to purchase the birthright could not even considered. However, since Jacob was born with his hand gripped on Esau's heel, there was no interruption in the birth, and the issue of the birthright was not entirely resolved, which made negotiation between the brothers possible.

When said that God loved Jacob it means that God gave Jacob what was his due, not that God preferred Jacob to Esau. Were Esau and Jacob not brothers? Did not Esau sell the birthright to Jacob? In these terms, God gave what was right to Jacob, and rejected Esau, although repentant, he sought the blessing with tears.

“I have loved you, says the LORD. However, you say. In what have you loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Say the LORD; yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau; and I made their mountains a desolation, and gave their inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:2-3).

“And let no one be wanton, or profane, like Esau, who for a meal sold his birthright. For you know well that, even after he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, because he found no place for repentance, even though with tears he sought him." (Hebrews 12:16-17).

When God declared that he had loved the children of Jacob, such a declaration has no parallel with the love presented by Plato or Aristotle, and was neither C. S. Lewis’ love giving nor love-necessity in question.

The disbelief of the sons of Jacob when questioning divine love demonstrates that they did not understand the essence of what God proposed in Abraham. When questioning, “In what have you loved us?”, the sons of Jacob could not see the care of God in preserving them alive to fulfill the word given to Abraham.

In response: “Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau.” (Malachi 1:2-3), all the essentials to understand the essence of God's love are present. God. Though they were brothers, the house of Esau was uprooted and the people a desolation. Even though Jacob's sons were rebellious, God was preserving Jacob's offspring in view of the promised seed in whom all the families of the earth would blessed.

"I have stretched out my hands all day to a rebellious people, who walk the way, which is not good, after their thoughts;" (Isaiah 65:2);

"For this is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of the LORD." (Isaiah 30:9).

The children of Jacob were questioning God's love because of the setbacks they were suffering, but they could not see God's care in keeping them alive because of the promise, nor did they realize that the misadventures were due to the love of God that corrects to everyone you love.

“Woe, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, corrupting children; they left the LORD, they blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they turned back. Why would you still be punished if you rebelled further? Every head is sick and every heart is weak.” (Isaiah 1:4-5).

Man's love stems from personal preferences, and these preferences have been portray each in its own way, by both Plato and Aristotle, and even by novelists like Shakespeare.

Isaac loved Esau for the simple reason that he liked hunting. If it were up to Isaac, the birthright blessing would be has given to Esau. Long later, the Mosaic Law regulated the birthright, and the language used is important for consideration.

The law forbade the children of Israel to make their children inherit according to their personal preferences, and yes, according to what was right.

 “On the day that he makes his children inherit what he has, he will not be able to give the birthright to the son of the beloved, preferring it to the son of the despised, who is the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:16).

God pointed out to the children of Israel that he did not have them in preference to the detriment of other peoples; rather, he loved them because their right was at stake because of what has promised to their parents.

 “The Lord had not affection nor chose you, because you were more numerous than any people (...) but, for the Lord loved you, and to keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers.” (Deuteronomy 7:7-8).

Affection indicates feeling, whereas biblical love implies justice, faithfulness and care. God is not involved in sentimental matters such as liking, having preference, ingrained affections; rather He is true to His word.

God did not choose Jacob over Esau, but exercised his love: he gave what was right to Jacob. Men love based on personal preferences, God delights in what is just and right. God's 'preference' is justice, so the people of Israel were under divine care due to the promise made to their fathers.

If the love of God has in view what is right, where is what is right establish? In the Scriptures! When God says: "And I show mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." (Deuteronomy 5:10), we have both the basis of His love and the terms on how man can be loved by Him.

Anyone who submits to God as a servant by keeping His commandments is the one who loves God and obtains mercy. Simon, faced with Jesus' demand, could not say that he loved, as he was not tending His Lord's lambs, and so, resolutely, he expressed that he had affection for the Master.

Simon's greatest expression of love would be to shepherd His Lord's lambs. Without be charged, through his actions, he would say, -‘I love you’, instead of a sulky reply:-‘I have affection for you’.

When he held the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling, Uzzah did so out of affection, but he did not love God according to the ordinance. Because he was in rebellion, Uzzah has slain.

"And when Uzzah came to the threshing floor, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: for the oxen let it hang. Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his imprudence; and died there by the ark of God." (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

Doing what is necessary or what is of interest is not obeying. A good deed or a good intention is no substitute for proper obedience to God. Both David and any of the people had to know that the ark could only be carry by the Levites.

“Then David said, No one can carry the ark of God, save the Levites; for the LORD hath chosen them to bear the ark of God, and to serve him forever.” (1 Chronicles 15:2).

Saul, in turn, during the execution of God's order, decided to do something in his interest and in conflict with the divine order. By not faithfully obeying the divine order, God disregarded everything that Saul did, and Saul's disobedience has considered an act of rebellion.

“For rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, and to strive is like iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you, that you should not be king.” (1 Samuel 15:23).

Of the divine order given to Saul, of the Amalekites only King Agag and the best of the cattle remained, and the rest, both men, women and children, were all kill Because of Saul's attitude while Agag was alive, the promise God made to Moses was still being delay.

 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: I have remembered what Amalek did to Israel; as he opposed him on the way, when he was going up out of Egypt.” (1 Samuel 15:2);

"Then the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for remembrance in a book, and tell it in Joshua's ears; that I will wholly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. In addition, Moses built an altar, which he called, THE LORD IS MY FLAG. And he said, because the LORD hath sworn, there shall be war of the LORD against Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:14).

What servant was this who put his own interest above the word of his Lord? By sparing the king's life and the best of the cattle, not all that Saul accomplished served God's purpose: to scratch the memory of Amalek from under the sun. There was no obedience, therefore, love has not perfected, and that is, the word of God has not fulfilled.

Saul stumbled on one issue: self-interest. He tried to serve two masters, God and himself, and so he loved riches and hated the Lord.

How could God honor Saul if Saul, in turn, did not honor the Lord?

"Therefore saith the LORD God of Israel, I have indeed spoken, that thy house and the house of thy father shall walk before me forever; but now saith the LORD, Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be despise." (1 Samuel 2:30).

The following argument is unreasonable: “But divine Love-Giving – Love itself operating in man – is entirely disinterested and desires what is simply best for the loved one.” (LEWIS, 2012, p, 127), for God seeks what is just, the fulfillment of his word.

God gave his word to Abraham that he would bless him and that in Abraham's seed all the families of the earth would blessed, and for this, he loved the children of Israel, to fulfill what has promised to the fathers.

“The LORD took no pleasure in you, nor chose you, for your multitude was more than that of all other peoples.   For you were less in number than all the peoples; But for the LORD loved you, and to keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. You shall know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, who keep covenant and mercy unto them that love him and keep his commandments unto a thousand generations. In addition, he returns in his face any of those who hate him, making him perish; he will not be late to the one who hates him ; in his face he will pay him. He therefore keeps the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which I command you to do today.” (Deuteronomy 7:7-11).

The love of God is aim at his faithfulness, for he is a just and faithful God who cannot lie, and even if man denies him, He remains faithful to his word.

"Faithful word is this: that if we die with him, we will also live with him; If we suffer, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us; If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful ; he cannot deny himself." (2 Timothy 2:11-13).

The Proverb exalts this truth:

"I love those who love me, and those who seek me soon will find me." (Proverbs 8:17).

God cares for those who obey Him, and despises all who hate Him.

The best thing for man is to obey the word of God, because from the word of God it is say:

“For my mouth will speak the truth, and my lips abhor ungodliness. All the words out of my mouth are fair: there is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all right to one who understands them well, and right to those who find knowledge.” (Proverb 8:7-9).

If Saul carried out what God had determined, he was declaring by work and in truth that he esteemed the will of His Lord.

“Therefore I regard all your precepts concerning all things as right, and I hate every false path” (Psalm 119:128; 1 Samuel 15:20).

The Proverb says:2- “Do not rebuke the scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke the wise, and he will love you.” (Proverbs 9:8), the wise is the one who heeds reproof and obeys, that is, he loves, and the scorner disregards reproof and does not submit.

When the ark has sent on a cart drawn by cows, the Philistines were solving an internal problem of the nation that was suffering from a plague of hemorrhoids, so their solution of returning the ark on ox carts could not serve as a model for the children of Israel.

Similarly, when Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers talked about love, they were praising their gods or proposing solutions to problems arising from human relationships in the society they were in, therefore, it does not serve as a basis for interpreting the questions of the gospel of Christ.

While observing the speeches in Plato's book The Banquet, Pausanias[52] disagrees with Phaedrus[53] and proposes that love has subdivided into two gods:

Aphrodite Urania, associated with the eternal, immortal, and Aphrodite Pandemic, associated with the transient, mortal, with Phaedrus making an ode to Eros as one of the oldest, most honorable and most powerful gods for the acquisition of virtue and happiness among the men, both in life and after death.

Eryximachus, in turn, due to his office as a doctor, after theorizing about the nature of Eros, considering that all things seek balance due to its dual nature, concludes that Eros is the name given to desire or search by the whole aiming for harmony. Aristophanes theorizes that humankind  initially subdivided into three: the male, the female and the androgynous, and when the ancestors of humanity were torn in half, each individual being half of one, yearns to find its other half, its whole.

Agathon proposes that Eros has a moral[54] nature, for being, among the gods, the most just, temperate, courageous and wise love, and Socrates, in turn, uses the speech of a priestess, Diotima, who proposes that Eros is a “daimon”, something that stands between the gods and the mortals[55].

The Feast treats Eros as a lesser god who not publicly worshiped in Athens. Eros, a minor god of mythology, had his name used by the Greeks to portray love; however, the term not used in NT, therefore, unmistakable with the idea of biblical agape.

Observing the dichotomy that Pausanias made in relation to Eros, it seems that such an initiative influenced many theologians to propose various types of love, as well as Plato proposed that initially man's soul was divided into three parts: the rational, the irascible and the irrational .

This conjecture by Plato in the Republic and Phaedrus[56] undeniably influenced some Christian thinkers to understand the opposition 'law' versus 'gospel', which was presented by the apostle Paul to the Galatians through the 'flesh' versus 'spirit' approach, as being a struggle between the carnal desires (of the body) versus the aspirations of the spirit[57].

Unlike the ox cart that has sent to the children of Israel by the Philistines, throughout the history of Christianity many interpreters of the Scriptures turned to the Greeks in search of concepts to help them interpret the Bible.

Finally, they do not do either of them well, as they twist the Scriptures to the

Analyze it through the conjectures of the Greeks and misread what was produce by the Greek philosophers.

By basing their doctrines on Plato and Aristotle, respectively, both Augustine and Aquinas did not realize that Platonic philosophy inaugurated a new era[58] and little came to the hands of the West to evidence the essence of Greek Homeric society.

If resorting to Greek philosophy to interpret the Bible is similar to the error of the children of Israel who sought the 'ark of the covenant' on the ox cart, because human concepts do not agree with the revelation of the Scriptures.

Philosophy[59] is no safe ground for understanding the revelation of Scripture, for human experience and rational reflections, which are its foundations, will not give the philosopher even remotely a glimpse of heavenly truth.

The search for truth is one of the fundamental problems of philosophy, based on human experience. The gospel, has Christ as truth, Based on what is announced by the prophets. It follows that it is impossible to reconcile a so-called Christian philosophical system with Christian doctrine, since the latter will be ignore for the first time.

"And Pilate said unto him, Thou art a king then? Jesus answer Thou says that I am king. He hears my voice from the truth. Pilate said unto him, what is the truth? And saying this, he went again unto the Jews, and said unto them, I find no crime in him." (John 18:38).

When trying to interpret biblical love through the lens of the Greeks, many theologians are more similar to the singer and composer Renato Russo, who quotes the apostle Paul only to frame the statements of the poet Luís Vaz de Camões.

When it is has understood that the love of God is in Christ, and that to love God is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, all the books of the Bible are they  made accessible to the interpreter.

At the close of the epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul demonstrates that God's undeserved favor is best on all who love Christ.

“Grace be to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen” (Ephesians 6:24).

When it is has understood that to love is to keep the commandments of God, and that the commandment is to believe in Christ, it follows that whoever obeys the gospel loves God and is love by Him.

"If keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10).

The love that appears in the gospels does not echo ethical issues such as those that theologians and philosophers abstract from The Banquet. The gospel does not deal with ethical[60] aspects, therefore, Plato's speech that establishes a close relationship between Eros and the pursuit of goodness through actions that drive man to achieve happiness not related to the beatitude in Christ.

Augustine drank from Plato, and concluded:

“It is enough for now to remember that, according to Plato, the supreme good consists in living according to virtue – which can only be achieved by those who have the knowledge of God and seek to imitate him: there is no other cause that can make him happy. He also does not hesitate to say that to philosophize is to love God, whose nature is incorporeal. Hence it follows that the one desirous of wisdom (that is to say, the philosopher) only becomes happy when he begins to enjoy God.” (Augustine, the City of God, VIII, 8).

Hence, some questions arise: what would be the supreme good for the Greeks, or for Plato? What would be the virtues of the Greeks? What is the knowledge of God?

To take advantage of Plato's conjectures, Augustine despised the position that Eros was a kind of "daimon", a mythological being who stands between the gods and mortals, from which it follows that the act of philosophizing as a way of loving God would never it, will be, as the Bible reveals, to love God.

Aristotle, in turn, in book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics[61], referred to love as friendship - φιλία (philía) - distinguishing three types: friendship by utility, friendship by pleasure and perfect friendship. The first two are treat as accidental friendships, because, according to the philosopher, friendships for utility and pleasure are transitory, unlike friendship based on virtue[62], which would be perfect friendship.

Anchored in the Aristotelian premise, that all things tend to an end, and that the ultimate end of every man is happiness, and that, therefore, this end is achieved through virtuous practices arising from reason, Aquinas replaces ultimate happiness that Aristotle proposed and presented God as the ultimate end that men can reach only through virtuous actions promoted through divine grace.

The analysis of the works of Plato and Aristotle is essential for philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, art, anthropology, letters, linguistics, etc., but it should never be the object of theology. Studying Greek literature, art, linguistics and philosophy to better understand the terms used by the apostles should be the only branch of theology to address what the Greeks produced, moreover, studies should all be focused solely and exclusively on the scriptures.

If today's priests and theologians visited Greek writings only to understand the nuances of the terms used, there would be no problem, as such work is important for a good reading of the NT, but when using the thought of Plato and Aristotle to try to explain the existence of God, the church fathers made an irremediable mistake.

Augustine and Aquinas misread the Scriptures, and the reading of Greek writings was no better, because instead of analyzing Greek philosophy with an investigative spirit focused on discovering what inspired the Greek philosophers to propose an ethical thought for the society of their time, they only saw an opportunity to plagiarize and transform the principles that classical philosophers developed to answer academic and religious questions from another society in a very distant time.

Considering the Thomistic metaphysical thought and the reading that was made of the works of Aristotle, it is clear that Aquinas did not consider what were the sources of inspiration of Plato and Aristotle when developing their ethical thought. Without understanding that the ethical thinking of Plato and Aristotle was inspired by Archaic[63][64] Greece's Aristocratic Amoral, any reading of the classics will be compromised, and using it as a model to establish a so-called Christian moral is much worse. Through a brief and limited semantic incursion, considering the Greek term philia (φιλία), observe the association that Thomas Aquinas made between agape and philia:

“Honest friendship has as its object only the virtuous man, as the main person; but because of him, we also love the people who concern him, even if they are not virtuous. And in this way, charity, which is an honest friendship par excellence, extends to sinners, whom we love with charity, for the love of God.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. < Https://permanencia.org.br/drupal/node/4836 > Consultation on 07/27/21.

Forcing an interpretation by association of disparate ideas is not healthy, mainly because the term φιλία has to be understood both according to the conception of the Greek man who inspired Aristotle and through the idea that the term represented at the time for the philosopher , and not according to the conception of man in the middle ages or today, because the diversity of concepts that influenced and added to the terms over the centuries are many.

Considering φιλία (friendship) in Homer[65], the term refers to the values and relationships of an aristocratic society, therefore, it can only be understood through the perspective of the Greek man of that time, in which the αγάθος[66] [67]  (good, noble, real) was ideally self-sufficient and evidenced its ἀρετή[68] (excellence, virtue) in a circle of people and things close, it is concluded, as Jaeger asserts, that all investigation has the aristocratic culture as a starting[69]  point to determine the meaning of terms and ideas defended by Greek philosophers.

In this framework, to understand φιλία (friendship), it is essential to understand ἀρετή (excellence, virtue), not with a moral bias, but as an expression of the ideal of knightly nobility. The ἀρετή was proper to the man of the elite, to the αγάθος while good (noble), an ideal model of a man who seeks the choice of the race. Ideal of the knightly nobility. The ἀρετή was proper to the man of the elite, to the αγάθος as good (noble), an ideal model of a man who seeks the choice of the race.

The αγάθος is one who was guided both in private life and in war by rules of conduct that were alien to the common, and who prided himself on responding to more demanding measures in the sense of duty. The pursuit of honor was the greatness of the Greek hero, and something natural in the eyes of the Greek man, so that nobles were not afraid to claim the honor due.

In arete are included issues such as social prestige and possession of goods, which enabled the nobleman to exercise liberality and magnanimity. With the decline of the aristocracy, wealth was considered of no use to the common man, if he did not have the right mind, for his goods would plunge him into perdition.

From this obstacle emerged the maxim: 'All virtue ends in justice and only those who are fair are noble' (JAEGER, 2003, P.248), punctuated by Jaeger, when recording the speech attributed to Teógnis, when referring to to the nobleman without his wealth. The αγάθος is seen as straight, faultless and flawless[70], and it is necessary to highlight the underlined by Jaeger, that Homer 'only once, in the final books, understands moral or spiritual qualities by arete' (JAEGER, 2003, p. 274 ).

Through ξενία (hospitality) it is verified that an αγάθος (good) φίλει (loves) a foreigner ικέτης (supplicant) through effective actions that meet the demands of the outsider, which distances the term φίλει from emotional or intentional issues , which provides nothing to the foreigner. Today the term φιλος (friend) and φίλει (love) indicate affection, closeness, while Homer punctuates with the term something close to possession and always used in the passive mode.

The αγάθος as the head of a potentially autonomous family, in his house (οίκος), the center of all relationships, the φιλος is not passivity, rather it is an action of help and benevolence that does not imply immediate, but potential reciprocity. Hospitality stands out as a cooperative relationship, because when the αγάθος helped or loved a foreigner, welcoming him as a guest, he helped the pleading guest in their survival, and the guest, in turn, allowed the αγάθος to demonstrate all of their self-sufficiency.

All the people and things on which the αγάθος exercised his art are considered friends, as they were inserted in a circle of possession and affection in which the guest owes respect to the αγάθος, leaving the one who pleaded for protection with the duty to love[71], or that is, protect the current protector

Whereas:

a)              the φιλία (philia) and the ἀρετή (virtue) underlined the relationships of the aristocracy, since the true friendship took place between the absolute good, people who owned areté and made up a relationship of cooperative interdependence;

b)             The noun αγάπη (agape) hardly appears in pre-biblical Greek and that the verb αγαπαω[72] (of unknown etymology, without precise meaning, without the heat of φιλέω and without the intensity of ἐρᾰω) implied decision and action on the part of the subject,

c)              the common man (of the people) in ancient Greece did not have arete, as it was an exclusive attribute of the nobility, and that, although the plebs did not seek or had areté, it was their duty to help a traveling foreigner in the likeness of the nobleman;

d)             Classical Greek was used by the educated class, which includes academics, philosophers, poets, etc., and Koine Greek the dialect of the worker, the peasant, etc.;

e)              The great literary works written in classical Greek, and the NT and Septuagint written in Koine Greek;

f)              The teaching of NT was aimed at the people, which is why the most popular dialect (simple, common) at the time was used, while classical Greek served the purposes of the political, intellectual and academic elite;

g)             Greek is part of the family of Indo-European languages, the main dialects of the language being: Doric, Aeolian and Ionic-Attic, and Koine Greek derives from this last dialect, with strong influence from other languages ​​due to conquests of the Macedonian Empire that annexed Egyptian, Meded, Persian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Greek, etc. territories;

h)             the noun αγαπη (agape) and the verb αγαπαω (agapao) were used in the Septuagint to render various Hebrew terms describing man's subjection to God, God's care for man, husband's affection for his wife and vice versa, affection for children and relatives, etc.;

i)               In addition to the Septuagint, a version of the Hebrew Bible translated in stages into Koine Greek, the Jews in Alexandria produced Hebrew literary works in the Greek language, such as epics, dramas, moralizing works, etc.;

j)               It is impossible to specify why the Hellenized Jews who translated the A.T. into Greek in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, chose the terms, αγαπαω (agapáo) and αγαπτος (agapetos), if there were other terms in the Greek language for love;

k)             the possibility that the term αγαπη (agape) was chosen because of the similarity of consonant sounds such as the Hebrew term [73]עגב (agab), or the primitive root of the term having origin in one of the Western Semitic languages;

Concluded that:

a)              The use of the term αγαπη (agape) in NT was strongly influenced by the Septuagint translators, who identified in the terms φιλία (philia) and ἔρως (eros) elements that did not correspond to the essence of the idea they needed to convey;

b)             αγαπη (agape) is not a word that belonged exclusively to the Christian or Jewish community, nor was it an unknown word to Greek writers of the pre-Biblical period, although its use was rare, possibly because the term did not reflect the fundamental meanings of philosophy, tragedies, poems, mythology, etc.;

c)              It is reductionism to understand that in the Greek language fraternal love is φιλία (philia), or that love between couples is ἔρως (eros) and divine love is αγαπη (agape), because even in classical Greek or in Koine Greek it is impossible to delimit the meaning of the three terms outside a specific context;

d)             Love between couples is eros and divine love is agape, with demarcated meanings for these three words with different meanings and meanings to talk about love. Note, however, that in classical Greek and Koine there is no possibility of precisely delimiting their meanings, as the three terms have as a point of convergence to name, describe and qualify a considerable range of human relationships, actions and feelings;

e)              to qualify the verb αγαπαω (agapáo) as colorless because its meaning is broad or uncertain is foolhardy. the terms that name, describe and qualify relationships, actions and feelings. the verb depends on the context to be defined; the term 'dear' as an example. Its meaning requires considering the context. The term 'dear' presents itself well defined, with a certain etymology, as it comes from the Latin 'quaerere', meaning, “to seek desire, seek, and try to know”. In a letter, the term 'dear' may appear as a simple greeting, it may be an affectionate treatment of a child, a show of affection for a spouse, a reference to a friend, etc., so that the term is colorless. Of the relationships and feelings that it names, describes or qualifies.

f)              The fact that the noun αγαπη (agape) is almost absent in the pre-Biblical period.  Does not mean that the term was little used by the mass, as the records that persist throughout the ages are academic, artistic texts and official documents, which generally they are not written in the dialect of the common man, who, in turn, cannot read and write, relegating this task to others when extremely necessary.

In a society with values defined by the aristocracy, what would be the term the common person would use to take care of a traveller, if φιλία implied agathos and areté?

In my view, the term agape was used by the common person, who was not self-sufficient, to refer to the cooperation that made possible the survival of a guest/traveler[74], replacing the term φιλέω.

It would be a problem to understand the essence of the term αγαπαω (agapáo) in the Bible if the context were not extensive and specific. Specific because it deals with the gospel of Christ and extensive because it deals with four gospels, historical narratives and several epistles that make up the NT.

The definitions of the terms αγαπη (agape), αγαπαω (agapáo) and αγαπτος (agapetos) emerge from the NT, so that it is possible for those who study the Scriptures to dispense with the meaning of the terms in terms of their use by the Greeks and to stick specifically to the use made by the apostles.

The movement of approaching the Greeks to seek subsidy to understand the Scriptures will result in a bad reading, as the Bible presents its own definitions by highlighting a spiritual reality that escapes the natural man.

The Philistines, after suffering from hemorrhoids and a plague of rats, sent the ark of the covenant to the city of Beth-shemesh on a new chariot driven by two cows with young offspring (1 Samuel 6:7). Joshua's field men did the right thing by stinking the chariot wood and offering the cows for a burnt offering (1 Samuel 6:14), as well as the Levites who offered sacrifices (1 Samuel 6:15).

However, the men of Beth-shemesh ended up being wounded by God, as they looked inside the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 6:19). Who instead of questioning how they should proceed with the Ark of the Covenant.  Simply sought to get rid of it ( 1 Samuel 6:21).

The ark remained for twenty years in the care of Eleazar, son of Abinadab (1 Samuel 7:2). Time passed, but when transporting the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem as King David wanted, the sons of Abinadab placed the Ark of the Covenant on a new chariot, resulting in the death of Uzzah, son of Abinadab.

“And they put the ark of God in a new chariot, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which is in Gibeah; and Uzzah and Aiô, sons of Abinadab, were driving the new car.” (2 Samuel 6:3).

The conception of the Philistines spanned several decades and influenced the understanding of the children of Israel, who, without sticking to what was determined in the law, used a new car to drive the Ark of the Covenant.

This biblical passage leaves us a lesson: no matter the conception of the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, barbarians, etc., what matters is what is establish in the Scriptures.

Considering the context of the Scriptures, in certain biblical passages the term αγαπη (agape) means only to have appreciation, consideration.

"For he loves our nation, and he himself built the synagogue for us." (Luke 7:5).

However, the apostle John defines what the αγαπη (agape) of God is. That his commandments be kept.

"For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3).

For the avoidance of doubt, this is the biblical definition for αγαπη (agape) and αγαπαω (agapáo):

"He that hath my commandments, and keep them, this is he that love me; and my Father shall love him that love me and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (...) Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that love me not keep my words: now the word which ye have heard is not mine, but of the Father who sent me." (John 14:21 and 23-24)

In this sense, the love of God was manifested through the incarnation of Christ, for in Christ is the commandment of God.

"Herein is manifested the love of God toward us: that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live in him." (1 John 4:9).

Biblical αγαπη (agape) is not about a feeling and is not link to affective issues. Biblical αγαπη (agape) is not disinterested, giving, charitable, giving, unconditional, etc., concepts developed based on human wisdom that, essentially, do not reflect what the Holy Spirit teaches.

"Which we also speak, not in words of human wisdom, but in what the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things" (1 Corinthians 20:13).

The Bible does not present God's love as unconditional. Since the A.T., the love of God is conditioned to obedience.

"And I show mercy to thousands of them that love me and that keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:6).

In addition, the gospel is no different. Although salvation is free and universal, since God gave His Only Begotten Son, only he who obeys the command of God in Christ will be save, for in Christ the command of God is implied.

“If you love me keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).

The idea that God's love is unconditional does not resist the divine declaration:

“And return to his face any of those who hate him, causing him to perish; he will not be late to the one who hates him; in your face will pay." (Deuteronomy 20:7).

The misreading of the statement 'God so loved the world...' leads to the understanding that God's love is unconditional, as many do not consider God's commandment implicit in the verse: 'he that believeth in him shall not perish'.

What they interpret as unconditional love, in fact, is the divine providence in relation to salvation, which is free and has as its target all men. As God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), he provided mighty salvation in the house of David – man-Jesus Christ through knowledge revealed in the gospel.

Divine providence is unconditional, for the salvation of humanity God gave His Only Begotten Son. By Adam's offense, men could accomplish nothing that would result in salvation. God provided salvation even before the foundation of the world.

Just as God was pleased and chose the children of Israel to love them to fulfill the oath He made to their parents (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), God so loved the world to carry out the eternal purpose He established in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:9 and 3:11).

God showed mercy to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because they loved God by obeying Him, God became affectionate and chose their descendants to love, keeping the oath made to their fathers. However, God took a liking to and chose the children of Israel because everyone in Israel is a child of Abraham (Romans 9:6). similarly, and God loved the world according to the eternal purpose he established in Christ, this is unconditional love, for only those who believe in Christ are called to the eternal purpose, to be expressed in the image of the risen Christ so that He may be the firstborn among many brothers .

“For those whom he once knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29).

Because of Adam's offense, all men, without exception, have sinned and fall short of God's mercy, so that salvation in Christ is offered to all men, without exception, regardless of nationality, blood, tongue, tribe, etc. ., for God is no respecter of persons.

As God is no respecter of people regarding the pouring out of his spirit (Joel 2:29), many interpret that the love of God is unconditioned, however, although salvation is free, man has to accept what God proposed in Christ.

“But whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst, because the water I give him will become a spring in him that springs to eternal life.” (John 4:14).

The water offered by God gives life, but it is necessary for man to drink. Water has be provided and is available, but if the thirsty one does not drink, he will not have eternal life.

How to Love Brothers

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments." (1 John 5:2).

How to love siblings, if the definitions of love that appear in dictionaries are feelings of an intimate nature that cannot be measured, proven or demonstrated through physical evidence, therefore, involved in subjective issues? How to love if words, attitudes and actions do not show in a practical, unequivocal and irrefutable way what it is to love?

Love from the sentimental point of view is a two-way street, because in addition to the one who loves, the one who is the target of love needs to recognize that they was loved. In this sense, it is not enough for those who love to do to the other what they would like done, because if the other does not consider or feel them beloved, the feelings and actions of the one who loves will remain innocuous.

To understand the reach of the human feeling defined by love, it is not enough to define that to love is to do good to the other, if the other, in turn, does not understand that what those who love were dispensing is good, so that, there is a strong interdependence between loving and feeling loved.

On the other hand, what is doing well to your brother? Are assistance actions doing well? Will the other, not be offended if he is included in a care action? Giving alms is see as doing well, but they do not consider the evil of alms when it perpetuates the begging and misery of an individual.

Nobody likes be reprimanded, but when someone makes a mistake would not reprimand be good? If someone scolds someone who is in error, would he not be in love?

The biggest problem when trying to define 'love' or 'good' is subjectivism, but the Bible imposes an objective love that translates into a commandment:

“…you must love one another” (John 13:34).

By disciplining what should be the behavior of Christians in society, as an imitator of Christ, the apostle Paul intervened as an example, showing how to love the brothers.

“Conduct yourselves in such a way that you do not cause offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the church of God. As, also, I, in everything, please all, not seeking my own gain, but that of many, that they may be saved” (1 Corinthians 10:32-33).

The apostle to the Gentiles molded himself to the behavior of others so that these people could save. To discover what it means to love our brothers and sisters, it is necessary to focus on salvation.

The evangelist John is emphatic in presenting, in an objective way, how it is to love a brother in Christ:

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments." (1 John 5:2)

“Ἐν τούτῷ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ. ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ποιῶμεν” Westcott/Hort with Diacritics.

The evangelist John does not say that whoever loves God is the one who proposes to forgive his brother's offenses or debts, serve the other without asking for anything in return, or do well without looking to whom, or not wishing for evil to the other, etc., because all these questions get lost in the field of subjectivity.

John's approach is specific: 'in this we know', that is, in this it is possible to know that we love the children of God (ie, the brothers or one another) when we love (obey) God.

The children of God are all those who believe in Christ, that is, they are begot of God, therefore, brothers:

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (one John 5:1).

He only loves God who fulfills his command, as noted:

“If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15);

“He that hath my commandments, and kept them, this is he that loved me” (John 14:21);

“Jesus answered and said to him, if anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. Whoever does not love me will not keep my words” (John 14:23-24);

“And this is love: that we walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you walk in it” (2 John 1:6).

After verifying that only those who obey God's command love God, it remains to seen what God's command is. The evangelist John objectively points out what God's command is:

“And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, according to his command” (1 John 3:23).

Believing in Christ is the commandment and love of God, and whoever believes in Christ obeys God, that is, loves Him. Based on what has exposed by the apostle John, it is only possible to identify who loves the brothers when the person under analysis actually believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Devi, that is, when he keeps (loves) the commandment of God.

The love of God was manifested in Christ and, whoever believes that Jesus is the Son of God keeps the commandments of God (1 John 3:23), therefore, he gathers in himself the necessary conditions to love his brothers.

The same principle used to check if someone who claims to be a Christian is in communion with God also used to check if that person loves the brothers. Watch:

“And by this we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. He, who says, I know him, and keep not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is in him, truly perfected; in this we know that we are in it." (1 John 2:3-5);

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2).

In the approach of the apostle John, although the terms are the same, knowing and knowing have different meanings, because when he says: γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν (we know we know him), the Greek term γινώσκω (ginoskó) translated as 'know', because of context, expresses the idea of ​​both 'communion', 'intimate union', and 'knowing', 'knowing'.

He only enjoys intimate fellowship (knows) with God who obeys his commandments (1 John 3:24). In the same vein, you only love the children of God when you love God by keeping His commandments. These three verses show that love for the brothers is in communion, first with the Father and the Son and with each other.

“What we have seen and heard, this we announce to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:3).

In the same way that it is only possible to know if, someone is in God when that someone obeys Him. Loves Him it is only possible to identify who loves the brother when that person obeys God becoming a servant of God by believing in Christ, therefore, being a member of the body and in full communion with God and with the other brothers.

The love of brethren, or fellowship, is a matter of utmost importance for the gospel, so much so that the apostle John addresses the issue exhaustively in his first epistle.

“If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:6-7).

“He who says he is in the light and hates his brother, is even now in darkness. He who loves his brother is in the light and in him there is no scandal.” (1 John 2:9-10).

A believer in Christ is not someone who boasts of being in God or having fellowship with Him (loving with word or tongue), but rather someone who practices (loving in deed and in truth), that is, he walks.

Knowing that Jesus is the propitiation for sins, not only for those who are now in Christ, but also for the sins of the whole world, how is it possible to be scandalized by your brother for not having the same nationality, language, customs, social status, etc.? (1 John 2:10)

It is not enough for someone to say that he has fellowship with God; he must walk as Christ walked not respecting persons nor judging others according to appearance (James 2:1). Anyone who claims to love God, but does not accept the other as a brother because of nationality, social condition, language, ethnicity, color, etc., is in fact a murderer, because in addition to hating the other, he remains in darkness.

The followers of Jesus have to obey Him as to go for everyone, that is, make disciples of all peoples, therefore, cannot respect persons (Matthew 28:19; Colossians 1:23). In this sense, how could a Christian convert from among the Jews preach the gospel if he considers the Gentiles to be common or unclean? How to evangelize the Gentiles without sitting at a table to eat with them?

"And he said unto them, You well know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to gather himself or to approach strangers; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28).

The Apostle John's approach is pertinent, as the apostle Peter did not understand this truth until long after the feast of Pentecost, and to fill this lack a heavenly vision was necessary.

People will only know that a Jew has become a follower of Christ if he gives up his customs inherited from his parents and gives the right of fellowship to converted Christians from among other peoples.

In the same way that it is recognized that Abraham believed in God because he presented his only son to God as a burnt offering, it is possible to know that a Jew is a follower of Christ when he sits with others eating at the same table and under the same roof.

Just as it is understood that Rahab obeyed God by receiving and hiding the spies, as well as placing the red cord in the window of her house, a disciple of Christ is distinguished by love (James 2:23-25).

"By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35).

His brother does not scandalize whoever loves his brother, that is, he does not refuse to sit at the same table to share bread, or host him, or enter his house, etc. If by the gospel they both cry out 'Abba, Father', and are joint-heirs with Christ, they must show their love by extending the right hand of fellowship in every way (Galatians 4:6-7).

One who loves his brother who sees and does not take into account everything that his human perspective disapproves of is one who has truly believed in God who does not see (1 John 4:20-21).

In this perspective, a Christian convert from among the Jews who has taught not to eat pork, if he walks according to the αγαπη (agape), must conform to the customs of his newcomer to the Christian community, and not grieve him over food.

“But if your brother suffers because of food, you no longer walk according to love. Do not destroy, for the sake of your food, the one for whom Christ died.” (Romans 14:15).

To love your brother is to behave according to the truth of the gospel, different from the perspective that to love is to give material goods or to let yourself be worn out, to the point of exhausting the breath of life, to improve the economic conditions of the poor (1 Corinthians 13:3).

Whoever obeys God loves his brother, therefore, embracing social, welfare, feminism, abolitionism, union causes, etc., is not about the love demanded by God.

In the name of pseudo love for God or for brothers and sisters,  it is common for people who call themselves Christians to embrace various ideologies against homosexuality, atheism, abortion, science, communism, socialism, humanism, etc.,.  In addition, they forget to walk according to love: a) having no one in common or unclean; b) grieve the other with various ideologies, and; c) does not seek the interest of many so that they can be saved.

The It is God who believes in Christ, and whoever believes in Christ, in turn, must love his brother according to God's command (1 John 3:23). It is only possible to love the children of God (brothers) who believe in Christ, that is, who love their brother according to God's command (1 John 5:2).

In addition to obeying God's command (which is to believe in Christ), those who love God are commanded to love their brethren, according to what has been commanded.

“And from him we have this commandment, that he who loves God love his brother also.” (1 John 4:21).

The verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó) has in itself the sense of honor, so that whoever obeys God's command honors God, consequently, he must honor his brother.

"That all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sends him." (John 5:23).

The writer to the Hebrews highlights the work of Christians in the service of the saints as evidence of their love for God.

“For God is not unjust to forget your work, and the work of love that you showed for his name while you served the saints; and you still serve." (Hebrews 6:10).

Serving one another must be by love, without any influence of the flesh, for as ever, Christian called to freedom, now he must act according to love and not according to the flesh.

“For you, brothers, called to freedom. Do not, then, use the liberty to give occasion to the flesh, but serve one another by love.” (Galatians 5:13).

The apostle Paul was explaining to the Galatian Christians that each brother was now freed from the Lord, therefore, they were no longer subject to sin, death and the law, that is, they now served God in newness of spirit (gospel) and not according to the old age of the letter (law).

“But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to that in which we were held;” (Romans 7:6).

Although freed from the Lord, Christians could not avail themselves of freedom to give occasion to the questions of the law, that is, to serve one another according to the commandment of men (flesh), and not according to Christ, which is to serve one another by love.

The Galatian Christians had started with the gospel (spirit) serving God, and now, with the intrusion of the Judaizes, they turned to matters of law, that is, they ended up in the 'flesh', subject to the commandments of men. To walk in the flesh is to walk as established by men of corrupt understanding, who have zeal for God but without knowledge (Romans 10:2).

“Are you so foolish that, having begun with the Spirit, you now finish with the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3).

The Judaizes were always around the Christians trying to co-opt them back to being under the yoke of the law, and the apostle Paul, in turn, was always warning of the risks of returning to being under weak and poor rudiments (Galatians 4:9 -10).

One issue of the Judaizers was not to submit themselves as authorities constituted under the pretext of being a free nation because they descended from Abraham, and in the struggle to free themselves from the Roman yoke, the Judaizers wanted to make political use of Christians, potentiating the insurrectionary movements against Rome.

Hence the warning: 'ALL the soul is provided for the superior powers...' (Romans 13: 1), for those who had 'care for the flesh in its lusts' (Romans 13:14), presented the law as a pretext, since whoever loves the other has already fulfilled the law.

“You owe no one anything, except the love with which you love one another; because whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. Indeed: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, and you shall not covet; and if there is any other commandment, everything in this word resumed: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does not harm others. Therefore, the fulfillment of the law is love. ” (Romans 13: 8-10).

As freed from the Lord, Christians owed nothing to circumcision, so they must walk according to the flesh and its lusts.

"But especially those who the flesh walk in the lust of uncleanness, and despise as authorities; bold, according to stubborn, not fearing to blaspheme dignities; (...) , and with dissolutions, those who were turned away from those who walk in error, promising them freedom, being themselves servants of corruption.” (2 Peter 2:10 and 18-19).

Christians should walk according to the teaching of Christ (spirit), not to fall prey to men through philosophies, subtleties and traditions.

“As ye therefore received the Lord Jesus Christ, so walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him, and steadfast in the faith, just as ye were taught, abounding in her with thanksgiving. Beware, lest anyone make you his prey, by philosophies and vain subtleties, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ; ” (Colossians 2:6-8).

The apostle Paul, along with Barnabas, when contending with some Jews who came from Jerusalem and urged the Gentiles who turned to Christ to be circumcised (Acts 15:1-5), loved their brethren according to God's command. The Apostle Paul's willingness to defend the truth of the gospel and the brethren from a false gospel was love, for the care given to the brethren.

At this point it is necessary to differentiate the 'human feel ‘, which is called 'love' from the commandment of God, which in the Bible is also called 'love'.

In addition to the term φιλια (philia) which highlighted friendship, fraternal affection, the Greeks used the term σπλαγχνον (splagchnon) which means 'guts', 'intestines' (heart, lungs, liver, etc.), to point to thirst of the strongest emotions like hate and love. As Strong's Dictionary notes, for the Hebrews the bowels were the seat of the most sensitive affections, such as kindness, benevolence, compassion, affections, etc.

Some emotions and feelings are eminently subjective, such as melancholy, sadness, satisfaction. Others, despite being equally subjective, flow in a two-way street, such as love, hate, friendship, etc., targeting others.

An example of a two-way feeling found in the apostle Paul, who dearly loved the Christians of Corinth but was not equaled. Some Christians could not appreciate the feeling that the apostle Paul had for them; therefore, they were “narrow” in feeling towards the apostle.

“O Corinthians, our mouth is open to you, our heart is enlarged. You are not narrow in on us; but you are narrow in your own affections. Now, as a reward for this (I speak as to children) widen yourselves also.” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13).

The second epistle, in addition to being a defense of the gospel, was also aim at showing the Christians of Corinth how much the apostle's heart was enlarge for them. The term used by the apostle Paul to refer to the affection of the Corinthian Christians is σπλάγχνα, that is, entrails.

"For in much tribulation and anguish of heart I have written to you, with many tears, not that you might be grieved, but that you might know the love that I have abundantly for you." (2 Corinthians 2:4).

Although he loved the Christians of Corinth, taking care not to cause any scandal and to behave in a way that was commendable in everything, with a lot of patience, afflictions, needs, anguishes, etc., some of them, in turn, did not have equal affection.

“Not giving us a scandal in anything, that our ministry may not be reproached; rather, as ministers of God, making us commendable in everything; in great patience, in affliction, in need, in trouble...” (2 Corinthians 6:3-4).

In writing of the slave and brother in Christ Onesimus to Philemon, the apostle Paul uses the term σπλάγχνα to describe his appreciation for Philemon. It is clear from the epistle that the apostle Paul and Philemon, in addition to being brothers in Christ, were great friends.

When writing to Philemon, initially, the apostle to the Gentiles gives thanks to God and emphasizes that he always mentions brother Philemon in his prayers (Philemon 1:4), this because he heard about Philemon's love and faith. Philemon's faith (belief) was the result of his love, that is, of obedience to the gospel (faith).

Because Philemon believed in Christ, the apostle felt great joy and comfort, and the feelings of the saints were cherished (Philemon 1:7).

Because of his position as an apostle, Paul could command Philemon to obey him, but he asked for a way to honor him (love).

“Therefore, though I have great confidence in Christ to send you what is fitting for you, Yet I pray thee rather out of love, as I am, Paul the elder, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.” (Philemon 1:8-9).

By sending Brother Onesimus, who was a slave who had run away from his master, Philemon, the apostle Paul expected Philemon to receive Onesimus as if he were his own entrails, that is, the apostle highlights the bond of the feeling of appreciation that existed among them (Philemon 1:12, 17).

Today, in our language, it would be as if the apostle wrote that he was sending his own heart, a way to express his feeling. This care of the apostle, given to Onesimus, is also love, as he begs Philemon to receive his slave who had fled through the following prism:

a) As his beloved brother, and;

b) As a son of the apostle (Phil 1:16).

The apostle highlights two reasons for Philemon to welcome Onesimus:

a) Subjection to the Lord, and;

b) Because Philemon and Onesimus share the same nationality.

"Not now as a servant, but rather than a servant, as a beloved brother, particularly to me, and how much more to you, so in the flesh as in the LORD?" (Philemon 1:16).

Comparing the friendship relationship between the apostle Paul and Philemon with what expected of the relationship between a brother and someone with apostolic authority. Through friendship with Philemon, the apostle to the Gentiles is bold in his request, for he expected the treatment given to Onesimus, a slave and now a brother in Christ, to be the same treatment given to the apostle to the Gentiles (Philemon 1:16). As an apostle, Paul could determine that he would be granted, but in this regard he is less daring and is content to ask (Philemon 1:8-9).

Affection produces longing, which the apostle Paul expresses in relation to the Christians of the city of Philippians, as recorded:

“For God is my witness to the longing that I have for you all, in the deep affection of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:8).

Note that the apostle Paul's relationship with the Philippians began with care resulting from the imposition of the gospel, which later evolved into a strong bond of affection, and it is possible to have bonds of affection, as was the case with Paul with the Jews, however, it is necessary to give care according to love in Christ.

"For, if I announce the gospel, I have nothing to boast about, because this obligation is imposed on me; and woe to me, if I don't announce the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16);

“That I have great sadness and continual pain in my heart. For I myself might desire to be accursed from Christ, for my brethren's sake, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh; (Romans 9:2-3).

Through these texts, it appears that there is a big difference between ingrained affections (σπλάγχνοις) and the demand to love one another, as this is a duty that imposed by commandment that is a feeling resulting from coexistence.

In love, affection is not in vogue, but the duty to support one another:

"In all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering bearing one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2);

"Bearing one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; as Christ forgave you, so do you also." (Colossians 3:13).

After expressing his sentiments (Philippians 1:8), the apostle Paul makes a request to the Christians of the city of Philippians: that their love might develop more and more in discernment and in knowledge! This love, which demands ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις, respectively ‘knowledge’ and ‘discernment’, is not emotional or sentimental, but rather objective: obedience to God (believing in Christ) with the duty to honor the brothers (Philippians 1:8).

The apostle Peter emphasizes that Christians are purified by the gospel (1 Peter 1:2 and 22), which requires obedience to the truth (gospel), which in turn leads to sincere brotherly love. Hence the order: love one another!

“Purifying your souls by the Spirit, in obedience to the truth, for brotherly love, not feigned; love one another ardently with a pure heart.” (1 Peter 1:22).

Obedience to the truth leads to brotherly love (φιλαδελφίαν/Philadelphia), which is free from pretense, malice, deceit, envy, and murmuring (1 Peter 2:1). The command: love one another intensely (ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς) one another says of an intense care for one another by virtue of the commandment.

The apostle Peter makes this recommendation for converted Christians among the Jews to be transformed by the renewal of understanding (1 Peter 1:13), behaving as obedient children, that is, not following the lusts of before (1 Peter 1:14). If now as Christians they invoked God as their father, and God is no respecter of persons (1 Peter 1:17), as obedient children they should love all Christians, whether they were converted from among the Jews or among the Gentiles.

If love is without pretense, without deceit, without malice, the Christians of the dispersion (converted Jews) should be hospitable and without murmuring. The apostle Peter points out that it is necessary to care (love, honor) the brothers, without respecting, therefore, each one should serve one another, according to the gift that each one received (1 Pet 1:1 and 4:9).

Hospitality was an essential sociocultural issue at the time of the apostles and one of the essential care that all Christians should give to all brothers, regardless of whether Jews or Gentiles.

The writer to the Hebrews instructs brotherly love to be continual. One of the aspects of brotherly love is hospitality. What is the value of calling members of the Christian community brothers in Christ, and refusing to receive another for economic, social, national, etc. reasons?

“The brotherly love remains. Do not forget hospitality, for through it some, not knowing it, hosted angels.” (Hebrews 13:1-2).

“The ardent love (ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ), pointed out by the apostle Peter, is superior to brotherly love, as this derives from that because it is a commandment” (1 Peter 1:22).

When speaking of hospitality, the apostle Peter recommends 'fervent love', that is, intense care, for one another. Implicit in 'hospitality' is the love that undoes trespasses (1 Peter 4:9; Proverbs 10:12), because 'hate', in the sense of 'dishonor', stirs up contention, dissension, but 'love' in the sense of 'honor', it covers (dispels) transgressions, errors.

We have to understand the quote from the apostle Peter, in light of the context of the Book of Proverbs:

"Hate stirs up strife, but love covers all sins." (Proverbs 10:12);

“But above all, have ardent love for one another; for love will cover a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8).

When a Jewish Christian welcomes another Christian into his home, regardless of his nationality, he loves fraternally. This hospitality is the same as walking worthily before Christ, pleasing Him in everything. If Christ is no respecter of persons and calls all who believe brothers (Hebrews 2:11), his followers cannot do otherwise.

“That ye may walk worthily before the Lord, pleasing him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in the knowledge of God.” (Colossians 1:10).

Considering society at the time, hospitality recommended to all Christians, and each Christian should receive the other in honor, that is, without making disdainful comments, jokes, dissimulation, etc. It was useless for a Jewish Christian to welcome a Christian convert from among the Gentiles, and, after dismissing him, to make jokes, comments and criticisms on matters such as food, feast days, genealogies, fasts, vows, etc.

“Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” (Romans 15:7).

When the apostle Peter instructs Christians to serve one another, the idea is that each Christian would hold the other in high regard, that is, in honor. In addition to hospitality without murmuring, each should teach the other the gospel according to what he received, as good stewards of the gospel (1 Peter 4:10).

As stewards of the manifold grace of God, whoever speaks to his brethren must resign himself to instructing according to the words of God; or, whoever ministers, who ministers according to the power (gospel) given by God, so that God may be glorified (1 Peter 4:11).

"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; and thus shall ye be my disciples." (John 15:8).

Speaking the gospel is the fruit of the lips as pointed out by the writer to the Hebrews, for Christ is the truth and, through Him, God is glorified.

“These are the things you must Speak the truth, each one with his neighbor; execute judgment of truth and peace at your gates.” (Zechariah 8:16; Ephesians 4:25; Hebrews 13:15; John 15:8).

Christ is the truth, and to confess Christ as Lord is to tell the truth. Like the apostle Peter, the apostle Paul points out the way we love our brothers:

“Do nothing out of contention or vainglory, but out of humility; each consider the others superior to himself. Do not pay attention to what belongs to each one, but to what belongs to the others. “ (Philippians 2:3-4).

In a few lines, the apostle to the Gentiles presents what Christians' love for their brethren should be. Of all that a Christian will or will not do, let his actions or omissions not be to promote contention or self-promoter. All that the Christian will do or not do, in relation to his brother, must be by humility (subject), that is, in obedience to God.

One who instructs or ministers from the traditions and ordinances of men does not love his brother. Philosophies, ordinances of men, and traditions also taught hospitality, but since it does not have in view the command of God, which is to believe in Christ, it is not to love one's brother.

The to mar one another or to submit to every human ordering out of love (obedience, honor) to the Lord is to love one's brother according to God's command.

“Submit yourselves, therefore, to every human ordinance, for the Lord's sake; he wants the king as superior.” (1 Peter 2:13).

Subjection to human ordination is not to take a political position following the situation, but rather to aim for a quiet and peaceful life that provides the proclamation of the gospel so that many can saved.

"By kings, and by all that are in eminence, that we may have a quiet and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; For this is good and pleasing before God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:2-4).

The apostles did not want Christians to have the same reputation as the Jews, who subjected themselves to the authorities with pretense, waiting for the right moment to rise up against the constituted authorities under the pretext of the idea of ​​freedom arising from an earthly government (1 Peter 2:16 compare 2 Peter 2:19).

The Judaizers despised the authorities, were bold, obstinate, and were not afraid to blaspheme their dignities, as they wanted, by force, to establish a government independent of the Gentiles, a behavior that could tarnish the image of Christians in society, since many Christians were Jews.

In essence, loving one another is having the other in honor, considering him superior to himself.

“… each one considers the others superior to himself.” (Philippians 2:3).

-          "Like? But I am a slave master”!

The duty of a Christian slave master, as a servant of Christ, was to regard his slave brother as superior to himself!

- "What? But I am a Roman citizen”!

The duty of a Roman Christian is to regard all other Christians, regardless of nationality, as superior to himself!

 – “But I am a descendant of Abraham, circumcised on the eighth day, of the tribe…”

The duty of a converted Christian from among the Jews is to be no respecter of persons!

The duty of a Christian slave was to be loyal to his master, without defrauding him, for acting in this way served as an ornament to the doctrine of the gospel.

"Not defrauding, but showing all good loyalty, that in everything they may be an ornament of the doctrine of God our Savior." (Titus 2:10).

Biblical love is above a feeling towards another, as it is a commandment! Affection may even blossom over time, through the interaction that arises from the relationships between those who love God, but it is up to Christians at least to support one another.

Christian communities at the beginning of the first century were composed of servants and free people, men and women, Jews and Greeks, wise and ignorant, etc., but each had to regard the other as superior to himself, that is, in high regard. , in honor. Community members needed to understand the essence of the gospel, which is to believe in Christ and understand that the other Christian was also a member of the body of Christ.

“…there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Just as in the body we give honor to members who have less honor, so, too, should the Christian's behavior be towards his brother:

“And those we consider to be less honorable in the body, these we honor much more; and to those in us who are less decorous, we do much more honor. For those who are more noble in us have no need for it, but God thus formed the body, giving much more honor to what lacked it; So that there is no division in the body, but, rather, the members have equal care for each other.” (1 Corinthians 12:23-25).

The care given equally to each other is the essence of love determined in TN, a matter quite different from feeling.

By submitting (yoke) to Christ, the Christian will have to carry the burden of Jesus, which is light. The yoke is taken when man believes in Christ, and not included is the duty to honor one another, bearing one another in love.

"I therefore beseech you, the prisoner of the Lord, that you walk as is worthy of the vocation with which you were called, with all humility and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing one another in love." (Ephesians 4:1-2).

Bearing one another is one of the burdens that is in the burden arising from the yoke, therefore, it is not pleasant, or, arising out of affection, but in subjection to the command of the Lord.

“Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. Because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:29-30).

Is it pleasant for a Christian convert from among the Jews to receive a Greek at home? How to practice hospitality against a range of traditions inherited from parents? How to enter the house of a Gentile, if not for love (submission to God)? How to give the hand of a daughter in marriage to someone who is not of the nation? Etc.

“And a voice was addressed to him: Arise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said: Not at all, Lord, because I never ate anything common and unclean. And the second time the voice said to him, Do not make common to him that God has cleansed.” (Acts 10:13-15).

“And he said to them, You well know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to gather together or to approach strangers; but God showed me that no man should call common or unclean. Therefore, being called, I came without contradicting. So I ask why did you send for me?” (Acts 10:28-29).

Every Christian must learn of Christ, who was humble and meek in heart, that he might, with long-suffering, humility, and meekness, bear one another in obedience (love) to God!

Hence the order for the servants:

“And those who have believing masters do not despise them, because they are brothers; rather, serve them better, because they, who share in the benefit, are believers and loved. This teaches and exhorts.” (1 Timothy 6:2).

Similar recommendation to you:

“YOU masters, do that which is just and fair to your servants, knowing that you also have a Lord in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1);

"And you, gentlemen, do the same to them, leaving threats, knowing also that their Lord and yours is in heaven, and that he is no respecter of persons." (Ephesians 6:9).

The Apostle Paul instructs Christians not to oppress or deceive one another in any business. So whoever despises the ordinance handed down by the apostle Paul, actually despises God, who bestowed the Holy Spirit. This order reaches both masters and servants, Gentiles, Jews, men or women, etc.

“Let no one oppress or deceive his brother in any business, for the LORD is the avenger of all these things, as also we have told you and testified to you before. Because God did not call us to uncleanness, but to sanctification. Therefore, whoever despises this does not despise man, but God, who also gave us his Holy Spirit. But as for brotherly love, you need not have me write to you, since you yourselves are instructed by God, that you love one another; For you also do this already, with all the brethren who are throughout Macedonia. We urge you, however, to increase in this still more and more.” (1 Thessalonians 4:6-10).

Loving one another is instruction given by God, which must be done without any distinction (nationality, language, social status, etc.) towards everyone. It is a service that must increase more and more (1 Thessalonians 3:12 and 4:1, 10). What way? Adding virtue to faith, science to virtue, temperance to science, patience to temperance, godliness to patience, brotherly love to godliness, and brotherly love to love (2 Peter 1:5-7).

If all the elements pointed out by the apostle Peter are added to one another, the Christian will neither be idle nor fail to produce (2 Peter 1:8). Hence the need for obedience to the command: to have the other in high regard, that is, in consideration.

“And let us consider one another, that we may be stirred up to love and good works.” (Hebrews 10:24).

If a Jewish Christian wants to live as a Jew, there is no problem, but because of his duty to honor his brother in Christ he cannot impose on others the customs inherited by tradition from his parents. A converted Christian among the Jews who submitted to the Lord, must govern his attitudes in submission to the Lord, therefore, he cannot be a respecter of persons.

For this reason, the apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter:

“And when Peter arrived in Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he was reprehensible. For, before any had come from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but after they arrived, he withdrew and departed from them, fearing those who were of the circumcision. In addition, the other Jews, too, dissimulated with him, so that even Barnabas carried away by his dissimulation. But when I saw that they were not walking well and correctly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter, in the presence of all: If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like a Jew, why do you oblige the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14).

As he ate with the Gentiles, the apostle Peter honored the Gentiles according to God's command. However, when some converted Christians from among the Jews arrived with James, the apostle Peter separated himself from the converted Christians from among the Gentiles, failing to honor them.

Although the reality in Christ is the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles, because of two peoples he made one, living this new reality required a good understanding of the truth of the gospel, as well as giving up convictions that were so dear to Christian converts from Judaism.

The apostle Peter's behavior seemed harmless to him, but converted Christians from among the Jews might have one understanding and converted Christians from among the Gentiles another, which would harm the gospel.

The essence of the commandment of love is aimed at the Christian's walk which must be according to the gospel of Christ, which broke the barrier of separation between Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:14).

The converted Christians from among the Jews could not judge the converted Christians from the Gentiles, nor these by stumbling or scandalizing them and vice versa.

“As soon as we don't judge each other anymore; rather, let your purpose be not to stumble or stumble your brother." (Romans 14:13).

Why does Jesus command his disciples to love one another? Should not this ability be the birthright of the born-again individual?

"This I command you: Love one another." (John 15:17);

“A new commandment I give you: That you love one another; as I have loved you, may you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35).

In addition to commanding His disciples to love one another, Jesus interposed as an example, for He had also loved them all. Men would only know that the disciples were truly Jesus' disciples if they loved one another. How can I understand this?

Remembering that Jesus loved the Father by obeying Him in everything, and therefore, Jesus remained under the protection of the Father's love (care).

“As the Father loved me, so have I loved you; remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.” (John 15:9-10);

“But it's so that the world knows that I love the Father and that I do as the Father told me to. Get up, let's get out of here.” (John 14:31).

To remain under the care (love) of Christ, Christians must keep His commandments, for that is how Jesus remained under the Father's love, enabling the world to know that He loved the Father.

How is it possible for the world to know that Jesus loved the Father? In the fact that Jesus did not submit to the traditions of the elders, nor did he share the religious practices of the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.

If Jesus followed the ordinances of the elders, it would not be possible for men to see a distinction between the gospel and Judaism. However, by loving his disciples, Jesus sanctified himself that is; he kept himself separate from the practices of his fellow citizens.

“Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And through them I sanctify myself, that they too may be sanctified in the truth.” (John 17:18-19).

The Lord Jesus was careful to keep himself separate from the doctrine and practices of his fellow citizens, so that men of all peoples, nations and languages would know that He truly obeyed God.

Christ's love for his disciples and for humanity seen:

a) When Jesus ate without washing his hands (Mark 7:2-5);

b) When he performed signs and wonders on the Sabbath (Mark 2:24);

c) For not fasting or commanding such to his disciples (Matthew 9:17);

d) When he sat down to eat with tax collectors and Gentiles (Matthew 9:11).

e) When he let himself be touched by a sinner (Luke 7: 37-39), etc.

In the same way that Christ came into the world as the one sent by God, Christ sent his followers into the world and commissioned them to love one another, and it is in the eκκλησία (ekklesia). It is in the church that the love of Christians for one another becomes manifest through her that men come to know Christ's disciples.

Ekklesia is the name of the main assembly of Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece open to all citizens who fulfilled the following requirements:

a)      man;

b)      over eighteen years of age;

c)      rendered at least two years of military service, and;

d)      children of a natural polis father.

The body of Christ called eκκλησία (ekklesia). Because it is an assembly of equals, the church of the firstborn[75], that is, the assembly of those who belong to God.

"To the universal assembly and to the church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect;" (Hebrews 12:23).

After being instructed by God through a vision, the apostle Peter began to love the house of Cornelius according to God's love, so much so that he entered the house of a Gentile (Acts 10:27-28). What care the apostle Peter showed in receiving and hosting the men sent by Cornelius! (Acts 10:23)

But What if God did not grant the vision of a vessel that came down from heaven like a great sheet with all kinds of animals, including those considered unclean by the law?  If God did not instruct the apostle Peter, not to consider what he cleansed. (Acts 10:15)

When he pretended and has rebuked by the apostle Paul, the apostle Peter loved Gentile Christians only in word and tongue, but upon entering Cornelius' house, the apostle Peter gave a public testimony that he was a follower of Christ. In the simple act of welcoming strangers into his home, the apostle Peter was love in fact and in truth (1 John 3:18).

The Evangelist John narrates that, before the feast of Passover, Jesus, knowing that it was time to leave this world, because he loved his disciples, loved them to the end (John 13:1). Did the evangelist John describe a feeling? Not! He narrated the care Jesus showed his disciples in instructing them to the end.

During supper, Jesus got up, took off his upper garment, and girded himself with a towel (John 13:4). Therefore, he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet. After he had finished washing the feet of all the disciples, he took back his clothes, returned to the table and asked:

– “Understand what I have done” (John 13:12).

The disciples called Jesus Master and Lord and Jesus declared himself Master and Lord to demonstrate that, just as he took care of his disciples until the last day, they too were to take care of one another (John 13:14).

Jesus intervened as an example for his disciples to do the same: take care of one another. As they loved (cared for) one another, they would be blessed (John 13:17).

“Each one considers others superior to himself. Do not pay attention to what belongs to each one, but to what belongs to the others. “(Philippians 2:3-4).

Christians converted from among the Jews to love others should honor all Christians, Gentile or not. Christian masters should hold their Christian slaves in high regard. Christian men should hour Christian women. Roman Christians were supposed to honor Christians belonging to other nations, etc., because to love follows from honor, the essence of the Greek term αγαπη (agapē).

Sacrifice, like giving the body to burned, is not love for God's command. Giving away wealth and giving it to the poor is not the love required by God (1 Corinthians 13:3). Feeding the underprivileged, donating goods, almsgiving, welfare practices, etc., is not suckling according to God's command

This does not mean that Christians has prohibited from making donations and charitable actions, rather the Christian must have the necessary knowledge to understand that social, political and economic causes are not the essence of God's command.

The distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil is in the practice of righteousness, which is to believe in Christ and to love the brothers, that is, not respecting (1 John 3:10).

The works of those who are in Christ are righteous, and those of the evil one evil, and because they love their brethren Christians could be persecuted and killed by those who belong to the evil one, just as faith Cain to Abel (1 John 3:12).

Whoever loves his brother is because he knows he passed from death to life. For he believed that Jesus is the savior promised to Abraham in whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.  However, those who do not love their brothers is because they bound by the old conception according to the flesh inherited from men.

The love of Christ known in the fact that Christ gave his life for all Christians in obedience to the Father, and all Christians must lay down his life for his brothers, that is, love must be effective.

If someone has goods of this world, sees his brother in need, and does not help him, it is necessary to ask himself if the love of God is really in him. The effectiveness of love shown in this case when assisting the other in their needs. In this tuning fork, whoever is in possession of the abundant grace poured out in Christ and does not welcome his brother into his home, or does not extend the right hand of communion to preserve his status quo, how will the love of God be in him?

He who does not give up his life for his brother actually considers the goods of this world as more precious than his brother, therefore he remains in death, as he hates his brother for whom Christ died (1 John 3:14-17).

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. It is true that everything is clean, but it hardly goes to the man who eats with scandal." (Romans 14:20).

Is it possible to love enemies ?

“And if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Sinners also love those who love them.” (Luke 6:32).

Nietzsche, quoting Jean Paul, recorded in 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' the following lesson:

“On the whole, it is appropriate that everything that is big – full of meaning for one whose sensitivity is rare – should be only spoken concisely and (therefore) obscurely, so that the futile spirit prefers to explain it as meaningless rather to translate it into its own emptiness of meaning. Because common spirits have the fearful ability to see, in the richest and most profound words, solely and exclusively their daily opinion” (POUL apud NIETZSCHE, 2008, p. 69).

Nietzsche was a great reader of Greek philosophy, art and culture, but he quickly[76] read the NT Despite his shrewdness, realizing that the Stoics could not read Heraclitus[77], just as Shakespeare[78] could not read the Greek tragedies, if Nietzsche had read the NT knowing the language used would not extend its criticism of Christ, and would only target the clergy.

Analyzing the epistle to the Romans, in verse 7, of chapter 1, the apostle to the Gentiles uses the adjective ἀγαπητός (agapethus), translated by beloved to refer to Christians.

In chapter 5, the apostle makes use of the noun αγαπη (agape) to refer to the love of God, which poured out of his Holy Spirit upon the hearts of Christians, and the evidence of God's love is in Christ dying for sinners (Rom. :5 and 8).

It is noteworthy that the apostle Paul prefers to use the term faith to refer to the gospel, unlike the apostle John, who prefers the term love. Thus, while the apostle Paul says 'obedience to faith', the apostle John says 'love the commandment'.

In chapter 8, the term love is used to demonstrate the protection that is in Christ, and that Christ is the love of God (Romans 8:35, 39). In the same context, the term is used to refer to the Christian's obedience (Romans 8:36).

In chapter 9, the apostle makes use of the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaó) to evidence God's care for Israel (Romans 9:3).

In chapter 12, when exhorting Christians, the apostle Paul uses the term αγαπη (agape) so that love is without pretense, the same exhortation made by the apostle Peter.

"Since ye have purified your souls in obedience to the truth, which leads to brotherly love unfeigned, heartily love one another ardently" (1 Peter 1:22).

What leads to unfeigned brotherly love (φιλαδελφία/Philadelphia) is obedience to the truth. Without subjection to Christ, love is feigned, that is, it is of word and of tongue, because whoever claims to love did not put God's command to work.

"In purity, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy Ghost, in unfeigned love." (2 Corinthians 6:6).

Whoever has Christ has obeyed God's command; therefore, he should be considerate and full of love for one another. The exercise of ministry (Romans 12:7-8), is a service to the Lord that evidences love for the members of the body of Christ (Romans 12:11; Philippians 2:4).

What purifies man is obedience to the faith, to the truth, in other words, the love of Christ, an essential and sufficient condition to promote fraternal love without pretense.

In chapter 12 of the epistle to the Romans, from verses 14 to 21, the apostle Paul shifts the focus of the approach to disciplining what the Christian's behavior should be when dealing with non-Christians as well as with the enemies of the gospel.

The apostle emphasizes that it is up to the Christian to bless those who persecute them, not curse them (Romans 12:14). As Christ's followers are blessed when persecuted for the gospel's sake (Matthew 5:11-12), he must bless the persecutors, for the opposition is for the gospel's sake.

The theme of Christian relationships is empathy, having the sensitivity to feel sorry for the other's pain, or to rejoice in the other's achievements (Romans 12:15).

In this theme, the apostle Paul recommends that Christians do not return evil for evil, always seeking to guide their conduct according to what is honest with all men, whether Christians or not Christians (Romans 12:17).

"Pray for us, because we trust that we have a good conscience, like those who want to behave honestly in everything." (Hebrews 13:18).

The golden rule for Christians is to have peace with all men, as long as it is possible and depending on the Christian (Romans 12:19). If it is to keep the peace, the Christian must not take revenge, but must give way to God, for revenge belongs to Him (Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30).

Knowing that vengeance and retribution belong to the Lord, if someone positions himself as the Christian's enemy and is hungry or thirsty, Paul's recommendation is to give the enemy what is necessary to meet his needs.

“But if your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for in doing this you will heap embers of fire upon his head.” (Romans 12:20).

By giving food to the hungry enemy, the Christian is overcoming evil with good, or rather; he has not let himself be has overcome by evil. This recommendation to Christians the apostle to the Gentiles took from the Book of Proverbs.

“If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for in this way you will heap embers on his head; and the LORD will repay you.” (Proverbs 25:21-22).

The Christian must see well when someone's opposition is because of the gospel, or when it is due to incompatibility of genius, but in both cases, in order to preserve the gospel, the Christian must resign himself to not doing evil for evil.

It is important to highlight that, in interpersonal relationships, if it is within the Christian's purview, he must strive for peace with all men, however, the apostle does not prescribe that Christians should be affectionate with their enemies, as suggested by the Didache[79].

The Apostle Paul's teaching for Christians not to avenge themselves and abstain from wrath is also contained in the law, for the children of Israel could neither avenge themselves nor hold a grudge against each other:

"Thou shalt not avenge thyself nor bear wrath against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18).

Regarding Saul, David followed this rule to the letter, but when Nabal made a bad impression on David's heart, David almost avenges himself, and only because he was warned by God through Abigail.

“And blessed thy counsel, and blessed thou, that thou hast prevented me this day from shedding blood and from avenging me by my own hand.” (1 Samuel 25:33).

If an Israelite found an animal strayed from his foe, he should return it without fail, or if an animal was unable to move, he should help, even though it belonged to a rival.

“If you find your enemy's ox, or his ass, gone astray, you will without fail bring him back. If you see the ass of the one who hates you fallen under his load, will you then cease to help him? You will certainly help him to lift it.” (Exodus 23:4-5).

Note that the apostle Paul did not propose to Christians anything other than what was announced by the prophets and Moses said would happen, and in this tuning fork, the recommendations to Christians are always based on passages from the A.T.

"But when I get help from God, even to this day I stand bearing witness to both small and great, saying nothing more than what the prophets and Moses said must come to pass," (Acts 26:22) .

Analyzing the AT, there is no recommendation or determination for the Jews to love their enemies are understanding as neighboring peoples when in a state of war with the people of Israel.  Regarding enmity between fellow citizens, although in some passages these differences as enemies, the children of Israel should not harbor hatred of their brethren.   Love and hate are feelings that govern interpersonal relationships, and the terms that govern the questions of war between peoples excluded.  When a soldier goes to war, there is no way to demand love from enemies

In declared war, the Israeli soldiers' disposition should be to impose defeat on the enemies; however, war does not involve personal feelings, but the interests of a collective. Individually the sons of Jacob should not harbor wrath against their neighbor, but as a member of an army, they has imbued with the adversary's spirit of conquest.

One should be David's disposition in war, and another should be his disposition in dealing with his fellow citizens. Watch:

“And may the sin of your servant have forgiveness: for the Lord will certainly make your family strong, because my lord is fighting in the Lord's war; and no evil will be seen in you all your days. And though a man has taken up arms against you, putting your life in danger, still the soul of my lord will be kept safe among the band of the living with the Lord your God; and the souls of those who are against you he will send violently away from him, like stones from a bag.” (1 Samuel 25: 28 -29).

When it is said in the law: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13), the determination was not aimed at actions of war, but rather to regulate actions among the children of Israel, as well as with foreigners. In this respect, the neighbor of the determination 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' encompasses foreigners, a determination that belonged to individuals, and which did not involve the demands of the nation, such as judgment, justice and war.

"A foreigner shall neither afflict nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 22:21).

Misreading texts involving prohibitions raises questions regarding God's love, justice and goodness. It is common among scholars to question the fact that God commands the children of Israel not to kill, and He Himself sends the children of Israel to war, as they do not consider what is proper to the nation and what is proper to the individual.

The lack of discernment as to what belongs to the collective and the individual leads to a misunderstanding of the justice and judgment of God, since many, in view of the mercy of God presented in the AT., disregard the wrath of God.

There are those who understand that God's mercy overcomes his wrath, and they use a text such as: "... in your wrath remember mercy." (Habakkuk 3:2).

Habakkuk knew that the wrath of God rested on the children of Israel because of disobedience, for the Chaldeans would invade Jerusalem, and so he cries out to the Lord to remember mercy while executing his wrath.

“For thus it was because of the wrath of the LORD against Jerusalem, and against Judah, until he rejected them from his presence; and Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.” (2 Kings 24:20).

A long time later, the wrath of God befell the nation, and many members of the community of Israel perished at the hands of the Chaldeans. The sons of Jacob who perished did not obtain mercy, but divine wrath.

In the vision, knowing the wrath, the prophet Habakkuk asks God for mercy, this because he had in mind what God proposed to the nation: the remnant, and not individuals in particular.

"For though thy people, O Israel, be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall be converted; a destruction is determined, overflowing in righteousness." (Isaiah 10:22).

The wrath of God at the sin of the children of Israel was always evident, for six hundred thousand men came out of Egypt, but because of sin, only two entered the promised land (Exodus 12:37). Has God had mercy on those who rejected the voice of the Lord to inherit the Promised Land?

“Say to them, I live, saith the LORD, that as ye have spoken in my ear, so will I do to you.  Into this wilderness your dead bodies shall fall, as well as all that were numbering of you according to all your account, from twenty years.  Those who among you murmured against me;  Ye shall not enter the land, whereby I lifted up my hand, which would cause you to dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunne, and Joshua the son of Nun. In addition, they will know the land you despised. However, as for you, your dead bodies will fall in this wilderness. In addition, your children will shepherd in this wilderness forty years, and they will bear your infidelities upon them, until your dead bodies has consumed in this wilderness. According to the number of days that you have searched this land, forty days, each day representing a year, you will bear your iniquities forty years, and you will know my remoteness. I the LORD have spoken; so will I do to all this evil congregation, which have risen up against me; in this wilderness they will be consumed, and there they will die.” (Numbers 14:28-35).

"But God was not pleased with most of them, so they were prostrated in the desert." (1 Corinthians 10:5).

When it said:

“The mercies of the LORD are the cause of our not being consumed, for his mercies have no end; new ones are every morning; great is your faithfulness.” (Lamentations 3:22-23).

The cause of the children of Israel not being consumed at all lies in the faithfulness of God, who despite their unfaithfulness, keeps his word to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for his mercy extends from generation to generation of those who love him.

Using texts that emphasize God's faithfulness to parents to mitigate the consequences of disobedience that brings God's wrath is a misreading of the Scriptures that upset the idea of God's love and wrath.

Note the placement of Bishop Hermes:

“His love for us is independent of our love for Him. Paul seems to have understood the ethical implications behind this revolutionary truth. Constrained by this love, the apostle also decided to love to the last. Therefore, he confessed: "I will very willingly spend, and I will let myself be spent for your souls, even though, loving you more and more, I will be loved less" (2 Cor.12: 15). Would the love of a mere mortal surpass the love of God? If Paul could love more than God himself could, then I propose that we start to worship him instead of God. Of course, this is not possible. No one has ever loved as He loved us.  He loves and will love. Even if he is less loved... Even if we do not reciprocate. What about the righteous wrath of God? The Bible seems clear that God loves justice but abhors iniquity. His wrath has aimed at all who do injustice. We hastily concluded that God is incapable of loving those upon whom his wrath rests. To correct our perspective, we have to understand that the term “anger” is not the opposite of “love”. The opposite of love is indifference. Even divine wrath is nothing more than a facet of his love. There is more love in a single drop of divine wrath than in the entire ocean of human love. As love, God is unable to remain indifferent to any of His creatures. Love is not just one of his attributes, but his essence. He has no love. He is love! Even in wrath, He remembers mercy (Hc.3:2), which is why we are not consumed by His righteous indignation against sin (Lam.3:22). And His “hatred” for sin is proportional to His love for the sinner. He hates sin precisely for the harm it does to his creature. While his anger lasts only an instant (Ps.30: 5), His mercy lasts forever. It seems to me that this truth has be reversed. In the understanding of many, mercy lasts a tiny moment, while his wrath lasts forever.” Hermes Carvalho Fernandes, A God who hates His enemies cannot demand that I love mine. < http://hermesfernandes.blogspot.com/2013/11/um-deus-que-odeia-seus-inimigos-nao.html > Consultation held on 07/18/21.

“I will also make him my firstborn higher than the kings of the earth. My kindness will I keep to him forever and my covenant will be firm to him, and I will keep his seed forever and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, if they profane my precepts, and keep not my commandments, then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. But I will not totally withdraw my kindness from him, nor will I fail in my faithfulness.” (Psalm 89:27-33).

Through the prophet David, in spirit, the Christ declares hatred to the enemies of God, that is, to those who take the name of God in vain.

“O God, thou shalt surely slay the wicked; therefore depart from me, men of blood. For they speak evilly against you; and your enemies take your name in vain. Do I not hate them; O LORD that hate thee, and am I not grieved because of those who rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hate; I hold them for enemies.” (Psalm 139:19-22).

How the Jewish leaders and religious invoked God in vain, because they did not take the name of God by work and in truth, they became enemies of God, therefore, enemies of the Son of man.

"For a son despises his father, a daughter rises against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are those of his own house." (Micah 7:6).

Analyzing the NT epistles, there is no recommendation or determination on the part of the apostles Paul, Peter, John, Brother James and the writer to the Hebrews for Christians to love their enemies.

Someone will say, - 'But Jesus determined to love his enemies'!

At this point, let us return to the Sermon on the Mount, when it has said:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do well to them that hate you, and pray for them that mistreat you and persecute you; that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:44);

"Love therefore your enemies, and do well, and lend, expecting nothing, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be children of the Most High: for he is kind even to the ungrateful and wicked." (Luke 6:35).

Why is it necessary to revisit the Sermon on the Mount if it seems evident that Jesus determined to love his enemies? For just as matters of law seemed self-evident, interpretation escaped teachers, doctors, scribes, and Pharisees by the way they read the law.

"And he said to him, what is written in the law? How do you read?" (Luke 10:26).

Faced with the questioning of the master of the law about how to inherit eternal life, Jesus showed that what is write is important, and especially how the person reads.

The Sermon on the Mount begins with the Beatitudes, as noted below:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are they that weep, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.  Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy; blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be call children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; Blessed are you, when they revile and persecute you, and livingly say all evil against you for my sake. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven; for thus they persecuted the prophets who went before you.” (Matthew 5:3-12).

These verses are record, but how to read them. Rather, how to interpret them?

To read correctly, it is first necessary to observe the context, which includes the narrative, the characters and the target audience of the message, without which what are write is vague.

“And JESUS, seeing the multitude, went up into a mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him; And, opening his mouth, he taught them, saying: “(Matthew 5:1-2).

It is essential for reading to consider that who wrote the text was the evangelist Matthew, who taught was Jesus, the Master of teachers and that there was a multitude of people to hear him.

As he sat down, Jesus took the position proper to the teachers, so that his disciples approached; the crowd was watching waiting to be instruct, and them.

Evangelist Luke similarly describes how that open-air classroom was organized:

“And going down with them, he stood in a flat place with a large number of his disciples, the multitude of people from Judea, from Jerusalem, from the sea coast of Tire, and from Sidon; who had come to hear him, and be healed of their infirmities, the tormented of unclean spirits; and were healed. Every crowd tried to touch him, because virtue came out of him, and he healed everyone. And as he lifted up his eyes to his disciples, he said:” (Luke 6:17-20).

Who were the blessed ones? The great number of disciples, or the great multitude of people from all the surrounding cities? (Matthew 4:25) Through the gospel of Luke, it are evidenced that Jesus' disciples were the blessed ones, because in announcing the beatitudes Jesus raised his eyes to his disciples, which identifies them as the primary target audience of the message.

Who would be the poor in spirit, or the weeping, or the meek, or the hunger and thirst for righteousness, or the merciful, or the pure in heart, or the peacemakers? To understand these figures, it is necessary to use the prophets, as they show who the poor are, the mourners, the meek, the hungry and thirsty, etc.

“The SPIRIT of the Lord GOD is upon me; for the LORD hath anointed me to preach good news to the meek; he sent me to restore the contrite in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to the prisoners; ” (Isaiah 61:1);

“For my hand hath made all these things, and thus they were all made, saith the LORD; but to him I will look, to the poor and downcast in spirit, who trembles at my word.” (Isaiah 66:2).

Verses 11 and 12 point to the disciples as the blessed ones, for by believing in Christ as the one sent by God they positioned themselves as poor, meek, humble, hungry, thirsty, etc., therefore, worthy of divine providence.

The evangelist Luke makes evident the condition of the disciples, contrasting with the condition of the Jewish religious:

“And when he lifted up his eyes to his disciples, he said, Blessed are you, the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh? Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they separate you, and revile you, and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of man. Rejoice that day, rejoice; for, behold, your reward is great in heaven, for so did their fathers to the prophets. However, woe to you, rich ones! Because you already have your consolation. Woe to you who Woe to you fed up, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all the men of you say well, for so did your fathers to false prophets.” (Luke 6:20-26).

Jesus emphasizes the condition of his disciples as salt of the earth and light of the world, which was not proper to the multitude, who were not in fact disciples.

“You are the salt of the earth; and if the salt is tasteless, what is it to be salted with? It is good for nothing but to throw itself out and to be has trampled by men. You are the light of the world; a city built on a hill cannot be was hidden; not even the lamp is lit and placed under a bushel, but on the candlestick, and it gives light to everyone in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16).

The following verses are essential to understanding the nature of Christ's message:

“Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets: I have not come to abrogate, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall was omitted from the law, until all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of these commandments, however small, and thus teaches men, shall was called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who fulfills and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20).

From this point forward the audience of the message expands and reaches the crowd, for while speaking only to the disciples, Jesus declared that the kingdom of heaven belonged to them (Matthew 5:10). The message's target audience now refers to those who wanted to enter the kingdom of heaven, and who therefore needed righteousness greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).

The disciples – “Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10);

The Crowd - "For I say unto you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20).

The warning not to think that Jesus came to end the law and the prophets aimed at the crowd, because the disciples believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. Of all that is in the law and in the prophets, there is nothing will not was fulfilled, and everything is fulfilled in Christ.

Jesus makes it clear that it is possible for men to violate the commandments and still teach others, and it is necessary to obey and teach to be was  called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Differently from what was say of the disciples, Jesus urges his listeners to achieve a justice superior to that of the scribes and Pharisees, because if their justice were equal to that of the scribes and Pharisees, they would by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

In this way, Jesus evidences to the multitude that the scribes and Pharisees would not enter the kingdom of heaven, nor any who follow their proposal.

The justice of the scribes and Pharisees has based on what has said to the ancients, therefore, it would not be by these same rules that Jesus' hearers would have access to the kingdom of heaven:

ü    “You have heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall not kill; but whoever kills will be a defendant in the judgment.” (v. 21);

ü    "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit adultery." (v. 27);

ü    "It was also said: Whoever leaves your wife, give her a leave of absence." (v. 31);

ü    "Furthermore, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, you shall not forswear, but you shall keep your oaths to the LORD." (v. 33);

ü    "You have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." (v. 38);

ü    "You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor, and you shall hate your enemy." (v. 43).

At this point in the discourse analysis, it is worth noting that no one will be was saved through the works of the law, or any other type of good deed.

"Therefore no flesh shall be justified before him by the works of the law, for through the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20);

"Knowing that man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, we have also believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; for by works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:16);

The scribes and Pharisees made no legitimate use of the law, for it accused them of being sinners, and they, in turn, thought themselves righteous in their own eyes.

“Wanting to be masters of the law, and understanding neither what they say nor what they say. We know, however, that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately  Knowing this that the law has not made for the just, but for the unjust and stubborn, for the wicked and sinners, for the profane and irreligious, for the parricides and matricides, for the murderers . For whoremongers, for sodomites, for robbers of men, for liars, for perjurers, and for anything contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:7-10).

The Jewish religious believed themselves to be righteous, but the Scriptures called them idolaters, promiscuous, murmurers, etc., because the purpose of the law was to lead them to Christ by instructing them, making them aware of sin.

“But God was not pleased with most of them, so they were prostrated in the desert. In addition, these things has made to us in figure that we might not covet the bad things, as they coveted. Therefore, do not become idolaters, like some of them, as it was written, the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. In addition, let us not prostitute ourselves, as some of them did; and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. In addition, let us not tempt Christ, as some of them did, and perished by serpents. In addition, murmur not, as some of them did, and perished for the destroyer. Now all these have come to them like figures, and they are written for our warning, to whom the ends of the ages have come.”(1 Corinthians 10:5-11);

"Therefore no flesh shall be justified before him by the works of the law, for through the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20).

However, why did Jesus bring up what has said by the ancients and present a standard of conduct beyond the requirements of the Mosaic Law? Was he presenting the new moral[80] standard of the kingdom of heaven? If a person stumbled on one point of the law he became guilty of the whole law, how could anyone save himself with stricter rules?

"For whoever keeps the whole law, and stumbles at one point, has become guilty of all." (James 2:10).

The works of the law could save no one, but many religious Jews believed that they could inherit salvation by being descendants of Abraham. Through the arguments of the Jews, it has verified that at the time salvation seen in terms of a position/condition derived from the cradle.

When Jews who believed in Jesus counter argued that they were never anyone's slave, they invoked Abraham's sonship, and after Christ challenged them, they simply declared themselves God's children. This was the thought of ancient man, who evoked freedom[81] and salvation because of divine sonship.

“They answered him, we are Abraham's seed, and we never serve anyone; how do you say: Will you be free? (...) They said to him, we are not born of prostitution; we have a Father, who is God.” (John 8:33 and 41).

The Jews just forgot to note that God himself had long ago declared through Moses that they were not his children:

"They have been corrupted against him; they are not his children, but his stain; perverse and distorted generation is." (Deuteronomy 32:5).

The presuppositions for salvation have not changed, as the new birth is essential to be save. a new being was created according to God in truth, justice and holiness participating in the divine nature (Ephesians 4:24), salvation does not operate for moral or character[82] issues, as some theologians point out throughout the history of Christianity.

The saved man's rule of faith in Christ rests on the fact that, by believing in Christ, he created a new creature in true righteousness and holiness. The believer being in Christ by the gospel, by a new nature and condition, understood by men of old[83], but which escapes the understanding of men today.

With the new demands presented by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps his listeners would open their eyes and ask. - 'Who can be saved?' If it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, and the disciples asked 'Who can then be saved?', Jesus' proposal was to provoke this question in the crowd.

“Then said Jesus to his disciples: Verily I say unto you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I tell you that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. His disciples, hearing this, were greatly astonished, saying, who can then be saved? And Jesus, looking at them, said to them, it is impossible with men, but with God everything is possible.” (Matthew 19:23-26).

With the new rules, Jesus was provoking his listeners to ask the same question as his disciples when they told about the impossibility of a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.   Which is completely different from the idea accepted by the community of theology scholars that Jesus he was establishing a new morality pertaining to the kingdom of heaven.

The essence of Jesus' message from the time the prophet John baptized him the Baptist was to bring about a change of conception (methanoia/repentance) in his listeners. In order to make this change, the announced message needed to be forceful, aggressive and transforming understanding.

The considerations of Jesus announced to the crowd were not intended to prescribe or establish a new conduct, but rather to provoke new inquiries. Watch:

ü  “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother for no reason will be a defendant in the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, Racha, shall be a defendant in the Sanhedrin; and whoever says to him, Fool, shall be liable to the fire of hell.” (v. 22);

ü  “But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Therefore, if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away from you; for it is better for you to lose one of your limbs than for your whole body to be cast into hell.” (v. 28-29);

ü  "But I say unto you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the sake of prostitution, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (v. 32);

ü  “But I say unto you, do not swear by any means; nor by heaven, for it is the throne of God; Not by the earth, because it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King;" (v. 34-35);

ü  “But I say to you, do not resist evil; but if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;" (v. 39);

ü  “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that mistreat you and persecute you; that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven;" (v. 44).

Could Jesus' hearers not follow the practices of the scribes and Pharisees, and now, to have the right to the kingdom of heaven, would they have to follow stricter rules? Through such practices, would they have greater justice than the scribes and Pharisees?

If you distribute all your wealth to support the poor, or give your body to be burned, nothing benefits those who have no love, what good will someone who has been attacked on one side of his face have if he offers the other? What good will it be for someone to give two tunics to someone who asks for one?

Jesus' teaching to the crowd has intended to make people reflect on whether they would in fact has rewarded by God for what they were used to doing. The Jews criticized the tax collectors of Rome who were Jews (publicans) and considered them Gentiles, that is, sinners.

“For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not publicans also do the same? In addition, if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Do not tax collectors do that too? Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48).

The evangelist Luke repeats the essence of the message highlighted above right after Jesus declared some 'woes' about the rich:

“But to you who hear this I say, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you; bless them that curse you, and pray for them that slander you. Whoever hurts you on one cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever has taken away your cloak, refuse not even your tunic; And give to anyone who asks you; and whoever takes what is yours, do not ask for it again. In addition, as you want men to do to you, so do you to them. In addition If you love them that love you, what reward will you have? Sinners also love them that love them. In addition, if you do good to them that do you well, what reward will you have? Sinners also do the same. In addition, if you lend to those from whom do ye hope to receive again, what reward shall ye have? Sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much agai. Love therefore your enemies, and do well, and lend, expecting nothing, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be children of the Most High; for he is kind even to the ungrateful and wicked.” (Luke 6:27-35).

Who should love the enemies: the disciples of Jesus who were declared blessed, or those who heard 'woe to you, rich, full, happy, etc.’ Realize that the order was given to those who listened to the ais’ and who thought they would be rewarded for loving those who loved them.

The vast majority of Jesus' listeners were Jews who were willing to help their fellow citizens and who understood that God would reward them for these practices. If they wanted reward from God, Jesus' hearers should do something different from sinners, like love their enemies, do good to those who hate them, bless those who curse, pray for those who slander, turn the other cheek when attacked, not to require what was taken, to anyone who asks to grant it, etc.  Because that is the only way, they would behave differently from tax collectors and sinners.

Jesus' proposal to his listeners is not a behavioral prescription, but rather aims to make his listeners aware that his practices were neither different nor better than those of the Gentiles were. In essence, Jesus' speech does not have a coercive nature, as its purpose is to provoke a change of conception by evoking stricter practices than those stipulated in the law.

The message of the Sermon on the Mount aimed at the Jewish crowd and was neither dogmatic nor moralistic; rather, it aimed to effect a mentality transformation (methanoia) in the listeners. However, a common, futile spirit when reading the sermon does not see old doctrinal conceptions being confronted, as it is only able to see 'old moral monsters', as if Jesus had an interest in 'killing passions'[84].

Jesus' argument parallels the Apostle Paul's argument to the Jewish Christians in Rome:

"For when the Gentiles, who have no law, naturally do the things that are of the law, and they have no law, to themselves they are law;" (Romans 2:14).

Religious Jews thought themselves better than they thought Gentiles who did not have the law, but they forgot the following premises:

a)                  To God, there is no respect for persons;

b)                  All those who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law; and all who have sinned under the law has be judged by the law;

c)                  Those who hear the law are not righteous before God, but those who practice the law must be justified;

d)                  When the Gentiles, who have no law, naturally do the things that are of the law, they have no law, to themselves they are law; Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, testifying together with their conscience and their thoughts, whether accusing or defending them (Romans 2:12-14);

e)                  The Jewish religious should consider that the Gentiles did the things pertaining to the law naturally for even not have  a law like the one that God gave to Moses, they created laws for themselves. Thus, if they wanted to be better than those they considered common or unclean, they should have different practices.

Presenting new determinations to the people as God's command goes against the word of God; therefore, Jesus' statements were not intend to establish a new moral standard of conduct, but rather to provoke a rupture in the thoughts of his interlocutors.

"Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2);

"According to the commandment of the law which they teach thee, and according to the judgment which they speak to thee, thou shalt do it; thou shalt not depart from the word that they declare unto thee, either to the right or to the left." (Deuteronomy 17:11).

Through the gospel, it is known that to be saved it is enough to do the will of God, which is to believe in Christ (Matthew 12:50). In this sense, we do not find in the Gospels or in the NT letters any determination for Christians to turn the other cheek to anyone who hurts, or not to refuse to give the tunic to anyone who wants to take it off, or to lend it to anyone who asks, etc.

The message of the apostle Paul and the one of the Lord Jesus Christ is the same; however, the difference is in the approach due to the difference in the target audience. While the apostle Paul was writing to Christians, Jesus was speaking to Jews, who needed to change their conception of how saved, and those instructed to stand in the truth of the gospel.

Another equally important difference regarding the approach is that Jesus only spoke to the crowd in parables, which demanded from those who read a certain understanding of the gospel to be able to understand the message transmitted (Mark 4:34), and the approach of the apostle Paul it's direct.

When the apostle Paul directs his speech to Christians among the Jews.  He makes it clear that circumcision is nothing if not keeping the whole law, and at the same time he points out that the Scriptures protest against them as transgressors (Romans 2:23), and that the Gentiles, even though they had no law, naturally did what the law prescribed (Romans 2:14).

Through the Apostle Paul's approach, it is possible to understand why Jesus commanded the Jews to love their enemies, because loving their friends was something that the Gentiles, even though they had no law, did. By commanding the Jews to love their enemies, Jesus was teaching that taking refuge in the Mosaic law did not make them better than the Gentiles to the point of being worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

All Christians know that Christ is the righteousness of God and the kingdom of God, and that if man wants to enter heaven he must seek the kingdom of heaven and his righteousness, which is Christ (Matthew 6:33). As the scribes and Pharisees was the parameter of justice that the people of Israel knew, Jesus warned that they needed a justice that exceeded the justice of the scribes and Pharisees, because if they had superior justice, both the people and their leaders, so some would see the kingdom of heaven.

As the justice of the Jews resulted from the practice of the law, Jesus demonstrates that in order to have justice greater than the justice of his religious leaders, it was required of his listeners’ at least stricter practices than those established in the law. Jesus presents stricter rules to the people evidencing the impossibility of saved by the works of the law.

“For not knowing the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. For the end of the law is Christ for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:3-4).

Due to the misreading that many make of the Sermon on the Mount, there are those who say that Jesus was presenting to his brothers according to the flesh the new moral of the kingdom of the heavens; however, Jesus was showing the impossibility for them to save themselves through the practices of the law.

Within what the law prescribed as fair, it was duty to love your neighbor, but in proposing that they love their enemies and pray for those who persecute, if it were a determination for Christians to fulfill, it would be contradictory as the command to love your neighbor as yourself . Anyone who loves his enemy will destroy himself, because if he loves the enemy, man prevented from loving himself.

Through the gospel, all who believe become children of the heavenly Father, and the purpose of Jesus' proposal was to show that his fellow citizens were not children of Abraham, and therefore were not children of God.

"They have been corrupted against him; they are not his children, but his stain; perverse and distorted generation is." (Deuteronomio 32:5).

The moral of the parable of the Sermon on the Mount is neither dogmatic nor imperative, but rather induces the listener to answer the following questions:

“For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not publicans also do the same? In addition, if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Don't tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46-47).

What does it take to 'get rewarded,’ or 'do too much'? Seek righteousness greater than the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, for they loved those who loved them and only saved their brothers (Matthew 5:20). There is a certain irony in suggesting behaviors that are stricter than the law, because if they wanted higher justice they would actually have to seek the kingdom of God, which is to enter through the narrow gate, which is Christ (Matthew 6:33 and 7:14).

As it is impossible for Jews to save themselves through the law, the proposal to love the enemy is ironic, since no man can be fond of his enemy, unless he suffers from some psychic disturbance.

With regard to the treatment that should be given to others, and even to enemies, it is enough to do to others what you would like others to do, a fair measure that demonstrates the spirit of the law.

"...whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also, for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12).

Anyone who proposes to love his enemy will destroy himself, that is, he does not love himself.

King David nearly destroyed himself as he wept for his son Absalom, declared his enemy. If the love of enemies weighed on a scale, what left for friends? Carrying out this thought only makes you understand that friends are less important than enemies are.

“By loving your enemies and hating your friends. Because today you imply that princes and servants are worth nothing to you.” (2 Samuel 19:6).

The misreading of the Sermon on the Mount discourse begins when the reader considers statements of the discourse apart from the person and mission performed by the Lord Jesus, who could not openly declare himself to the crowd saying 'I am the Christ'.

"Then the Jews surrounded him, and said unto him, How long wilt thou have our soul suspended? If thou art the Christ, speaking it openly." (John 10:24).

Jesus' hearers could only recognize him as the Christ through the testimony of God contained in the Scriptures, and Jesus knew very well that he could not bear witness for himself.

"If I testify of myself, my testimony is not true. There is another that testifies of me, and I know that the testimony he bears of me is true he testified of me. You never heard his voice, nor saw his opinion. And his word abides not in you, for in him whom he sent you do not believe." (John 5:31-32 and 37-38).

Jesus had the mission of revealing the Father to men (John 1:18), and He well knew that his own relatives would be his enemies

"And so the man's enemies will be his kin." (Matthew 10:36; Micah 7:6).

Jesus also knew that his interlocutors regarded the law as truth and knowledge, and they misused the law.

“Behold, thou who is surnamed a Jew, rest in the law, glory in God; and you know his will and approve of excellent things, being instructed by law.  trust that thou art a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, who have the form of science and truth in the law;" (Romans 2:17-20).

In order to be understood by the crowd, Jesus' speech had as its underlying support the beatitudes announced by the prophets and the order that the crowd had as true - the law.

As he was at the beginning of his ministry when he spoke the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus could not openly denounce them as transgressors of the law, as they did not make legitimate use of the law, he denounces that was made near the end of his ministry.

“For, as it is written, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. For circumcision is indeed profitable, if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” (Romans 2:24-25);

"Did not Moses give you the law? In addition, none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?" (John 7:19).

Knowing the role played by the law, which was to serve as a schoolmaster to lead the Jews to Christ, Jesus could not denounce the impossibility of the law that was sick because of the doctrine of men (Galatians 3:24; Romans 8:3).

Due to all the listed impossibilities, Jesus reminds his interlocutors what his religious leaders said about points of the law and aggravates them all, as a proposal to become better than the sinners and tax collectors they so repudiated.

As it is impossible for man to be save through the works of the law, and the proposal by Jesus to differentiate themselves from sinners and tax collectors led to the same impossibility, Jesus creates the opportunity to offer salvation through the parable of the two doors and the two ways.

Evidencing a contradiction in the thinking of those who, having the law as a pretext thought themselves better than the Gentiles and tax collectors by their practices was Jesus' objective in proposing that his listeners love their enemies.

Approached concisely and parable (thus obscurely), the command to enter through the narrow door is the hallmark of Jesus' discourse. However, the futility of men promoted the element used to establish a contradiction in Jewish thought, the order: 'Love your enemies', as being the hallmark of Jesus' speech, a reflection of the fearful ability to see in his proposals full of meaning. Own opinion.

Why would the essence of Jesus' speech be love of enemies instead of selling all goods and giving to the poor? Because men know that, it is possible for someone to give all his possessions to the poor, unlike the idea of loving enemies.

The essence of the gospel is to believe that Jesus is the one sent by God, but people prefer to focus on the idea of loving their enemies, rather than obeying God's command.

epilogue

Why does the language of the apostle Paul differ in some ways from the language used by the apostle John? Why does the apostle Paul use the term "faith" to refer to the doctrine of the gospel, and does the apostle John prefer the term "commandment" when referring to the same body of doctrine?

The differences between the terms used by the apostle Paul and the apostle John are mainly due to the target audience of the message. The apostle Paul wrote to converted Christians among the Gentiles, who liked the Greek language better. The apostle John wrote to Jewish Christian converts communicated through Koine Greek, they enjoyed better the culture of Semitic origin and the use of the Hebrews.

Although the apostles Paul and John used the Greek language to spread the gospel, the Apostle Paul's approach was closer to the languages of the Indo-European family and the Apostle John's approach, in turn, did not lose sight of issues affecting languages of the Semitic[85] family.

If we analyze the term 'sir', according to the influences of Indo-European cultures and language, with a focus on Greco-Roman culture, the definition of lexicographers is:

Sir |ô| s. m. 1. What had honors or counts; nobleman; what had vassals; the one with feudal authority. 2. The owner of the house in relation to the servants. 3. Distinguished individual. 4. Title of nobility. 5. Ceremony. 6. Title given to men in the usual tract. 7. I love it. 8. God.

Of the terms underlined above, I highlight the term 'amo', a word that slaves used preceded by the possessive pronoun 'my', to refer to their masters. The women, in turn, called their husbands 'my beloved'.

In many languages, including Avestic, the idea of ​​peoples' divinity always been revered and treated through the term 'lord'. The notion of divinity as 'lord' comes from different conceptions about how to revere the divine and does not necessarily derive from etymological issues.

However, the concept of 'master' that today's society has become used to has suffered a certain 'softening'[86], as the term no longer portrays the relationship 'master' and 'slaves', as it was transmuted into a new conception under the influence of humanist ideals. 'Lord' has become a mere treatment pronoun, losing, as it were, the idea of authority compared to the use of the term in antiquity.

The use of the term 'Lord' in relation to God became popular in the West, as translators of the Greek and Latin versions of the OT translated the Hebrew word 'Adonai' and 'Yahweh', respectively, into 'Lord' and ' Dominus'.

The term 'lord' in relation to God should not be seen only as a treatment pronoun or a noble title, rather, it should be seen with the power that the term 'master' carried in the eyes of ancient civilizations.

By comparison, the term 'Lord' is more to the Phoenician 'Adonai' (My Lord), someone whom the servant must submit to, than to the Greek Adonis, the name of a mythological deity, whose name is a variant of the term 'Adon ' (Sir).

The Canaanites and Babylonians respectively used the names 'Baal' (god) and 'Bal' (god) as 'lord', 'master', 'boss', 'owner', which indicates that, if necessary, verify the etymological of the words used in the Scriptures, it is better to resort to languages of Semitic origin than to languages of Indo-European origin.

While the Hebrew term 'Adonai' (Lord, God) in the plural was the term used to refer to Jehovah, with the idea of “My Lord”, which denotes subjection, servanthood or property[87], the idea that comes from the term today denotes only a condition or a personal quality.

In turn, the Greek term ‘Hyrios’ (Lord) denotes authority, power, sovereignty, without the connotation that derives from the relationship between lord and servant pertaining to a house, indicating only the title given to a king in his kingdom.

This reduction in meaning affected Latin, which has 'Dominus' (Lord, God) as 'master of the house', which in turn influenced the English term 'Lord' (Lord, God) as guard, watchman, guardian, and the Portuguese 'Senhor', from the Latin seniore(m), which came to mean the 'older' (ROMANELLI, 1968/69).

The word Adonai comes from the Hebrew אֲדֹנָי, plural of the word Adon (my Master, my Lord), and is paralleled in the strength that is peculiar to it in the culture and language of Semitic origin as 'Lord, master, master, owner', because, such cultures and languages have, according to Islamic and Jewish traditions, a common being: Abraham.

In this sense, it is necessary to consider that, even after the separation of Isaac and Ishmael, much of the Arab culture stems from what Ishmael learned from his Chaldean father, Abraham, and from his Egyptian mother, Hagar.

After the separation of Isaac and Ishmael, two great nations emerged: Hebrews and Arabs, whose culture and language are closer to each other compared to the Indo-European speaking nations.

For the Arabs, the relationship between God and men takes place through order and obedience[88], and only after recent influences they influenced by concepts from ascetic ideals.

Roughly speaking, the Greco-Roman cultures privileged since the Patristic and, with the Crusades, the Arab culture ended up being 'demonized', which further enhanced Greek ideas, language and philosophy at the expense of the culture and languages of Semitic origin.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in ancient societies, like the Greeks, terms were used to describe and label human relationships[89] based on the function[90] that the individual performed, unlike in our time, in which terms are also used to label feelings, passions, which are fickle compared to roles.

Note the following statement by Jesus to his disciples:

"I will no longer call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." (John 15:15).

Without considering specific aspects of social relations at the time, between master and servant, when reading the quote above, the reader will understand that Jesus was strengthening the bonds of friendship with his disciples.

To understand that, after Jesus had made known to his disciples what he had heard from the Father, the relationship between Lord and servant between Jesus and his disciples being replace by a bond of friendship is to distort the essence of the text.

The text must understood in the light of the following statement:

"Ye be my friends, if ye do what I command you." (John 15:14).

What differentiates the 'friend' from the 'servant' is the knowledge that the former has about his master's things, and not a collegial relationship. To be a friend of Christ, or a friend of God like the Abraham believer, it is necessary to submit to God as a servant.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls." (Matthew 11:29).

Being a friend of Christ is a different relationship from that between Herod and Pilate.

"And on the same day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other; for before they were at enmity with one another." (Luke 23:12).

What is the relationship named 'friend of the spouse' in the following verse:

"He who has a wife is the husband; but the friend[91] of the husband, who assists him and listens to him, rejoices greatly with the voice of the husband. So, then, this joy of mine is already fulfilled" (John 3:29).

What has the wife is the husband that is why, the saying:

‘My beloved is mine, and I am his’ (Song 2:16), which should be understood as follows: "I am my beloved, and he has affection for me" (Song 7:10).

The wife belongs to the husband, who in turn is fond of her. In ancient times, despite calling the husband 'my beloved', in fact the wife belonged to the husband and owed obedience to him.

“For the woman who is subject to her husband, as long as he lives, is bound to him by law; but once her husband is dead, she is free from her husband's law.” (Romans 7:2).

The husband's friend, on the other hand, is the one who watches and serves the husband, that is, the one who has his master as his 'master'. The servant's only good was his lord, so he calls him 'my lord'.

According to the prophet Isaiah, Abraham declared a friend of God (Isaiah 41:8), and this truth evidenced in the Scriptures through the following testimony:

“And the Lord said, I would hide from Abraham what I do...” (Genesis 18:17).

From these two passage we have that, as God did not "hide" what he was doing to Abraham, it follows that Abraham was "a friend" of God[92].

What does ‘friend of God’ mean? It understood as an obedient servant! An obedient servant like Abraham needs to be aware of what his Lord is doing, therefore, therefore, he will be able to watch (serve) and hear (obey) (Exodus 33:11).

The 'friends' and 'friendships' that appear in the following verses directly related to the condition of servants:

"Traitors, obstinate, proud, more friends of delights than friends of God." (2 Timothy 3:4);

"Adulterers and adulterers, do you not know that the friendship of the world is enmity against God? Therefore, whoever wants to be friend of the world is an enemy of God." (James 4:4).

When Judah lay with his daughter-in-law Tamar, thinking she was a prostitute, he went up to Timnah accompanied by a friend named Hira, an Adulamite, to shear his sheep.

When he sent the sheep by the hand of his 'friend' to recover the pledge of the verbal contract he had entered into, Hira sought out the supposed harlot, and when he did not find her, he returned and announced to Judah (Genesis 38:20).

The friendship relationship between Judah and the Adullamite linked to the condition of a servant who knows what his master is doing, rather than a bond of friendship. It is seen that the Adullamite was considered a friend for having a position similar to that of Joseph, when in the house of Potiphar, for as a slave he took care of his master's business (Genesis 39: 4).

The use of the term "friend" in Judah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus dispensed to trusted servants, which usually preceded by the possessive pronoun "their".

Today, in Arabic (Oriental) the same term used in the sense of friend, particularly serves to designate who owns something[93], a term that was used to designate the master[94], the lord (saib).

Nimer highlights the expression 'sibiralá', with the meaning of 'For God's sake, for God's sake', which referred to the path, route or building where desert travelers always found water available, which was placed there by someone paid for such a job. Figuratively, the term  used to refer to the holy war, pilgrimage, pursuit of knowledge, science, and in emphasis, 'fulfillment of everything that God ordered' (NIMER, 2005, p. 594).

It  observed that the term ‘sibiralá’[95] denotes obedience to the cause that is, love for God.

According to the Michaelis dictionary the term ‘amo’ is a masculine noun and means ‘1 Owner of the house (in relation to servants). 2 Boss, sir’, just as ‘nam is a feminine noun and means ‘1 Woman who breastfeeds another's child; nursing mother. 2 Aia, house cleaner. 3 Mistress of the house, mistress (in relation to servants). 4 Housekeeper. 5 Reg (Northeast) Designates general servants’ derived from the Greek ámma and the Latin amma.

‘Amo’ was the form of treatment that slaves used to designate their masters. Just as the wife, submitting to her husband's lordship called him 'my beloved' or 'my lord’; the servant who submitted to her lord called him 'my lord' or 'my lord'.

The husband/wife[96] relationship as a figure points to 'love' to God as submission, or rather, obedience to his command. That is why the apostle Peter reminds Christian women of his time that, in antiquity, women were subject to their husbands, with Sarah giving Abraham the treatment of 'lord', showing that Sarah was 'obedient' to Abraham.

Such an approach focuses on the husband/wife relationship in ancient societies, when a woman owed obedience[97] to her husband and a husband[98] had a duty of care to his wife (1 Peter 3:6).

Likewise, the Church as a wife is submissive to Christ, the Lord, therefore, the Christ/Church relationship serves as an example for the husband/wife relationship (Ephesians 5:24), which, in short, is the husband's care and submission of the wife.

And Understanding human relations at the time of the NT writers is no less important than knowing the language the NT writers used. By making use of Koine Greek, NT writers fled the language closed to courtly and academic circles; therefore, the apostles did not establish the exposition of the gospel through the presuppositions of Greek philosophy, literature or art.

Although the apostle Paul may have used elements of rhetoric as a tool for exposition, the speech did not blend in and not supported by human philosophies and traditions.

"My word and my preaching were not the persuasive words of human wisdom, but a demonstration of the Spirit and of power;" (1 Corinthians 2:4).

The gospel and the letters of John, together with the letter of James, show that the NT writers only used Greek writing; however, the textual structure and the ideas presented follow the same rhythm and rhyme as Hebrew poetry, figures, adages and similes of the prophets, allegories proper to the praxis of the common person expressed in his dialect (koine).

In simple propositions such, as “God is light”.  The apostle John used the Greek language only to express a truth, and the second proposition: ' ...and there is no darkness in him' (1 John 1:5), he added the truth of the first statement, so that the simple repetition of ideas establishes a logical chain that resists the possibility of distorting the text.

In Hebrew poetry, propositions called 'hemistychium', and sometimes the repetition is a complement, an emphasis or negation of the initial proposition, which takes the name of synthetic or progressive parallelism. Ex:

"With my voice I cried to the Lord...", and;

“…and He heard me from His holy mountain” (Psalm 3:5).

In the definition of first John 1, verse 5:

“God is light, and there is no darkness in him,” the apostle gives a description of the divine nature, and then emphasizes that anyone who has fellowship with Him cannot be darkness, for if in God there is no darkness at all, whoever is darkness has no fellowship with God (1 John 1:6).

The proposition presented by the apostle John is a rereading of what was expose by Moses:

"God is the truth, and there is no injustice in him." (Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 10:10).

When we read: “God is love”, the rule of synthetic or progressive parallelism that is pertinent to Hebrew poetry gives us a safe parameter to build, in the mold of the apostle John, the conclusion of the thought: '... and there is no hatred in it ' (1 John 4:16; Deuteronomy 4:31).

The proposition that complements the idea of ​​'God is love' is directly related to man, whether he is in communion with God or not, for whoever is not in God is a murderer (1 John 3:15), the ultimate expression of hatred.

Such features of Hebrew poetry emphasize to the reader of the Bible the understanding of terms and expressions that belong to a distant time. It gives us parameters to measure how much the language and thoughts expressed in the Bible differ from the thinking of humankind. Expressed in philosophy or in the thought of Greek culture.

When it reads: “He who does not love does not know God; for God is love" (1 John 4:8), it is certain that he who does not know God is because he hates God. The apostle Paul reminds Titus that before they had an encounter with God's love, they were hateful and hated one another (Titus 3:3), but now, after being transported into the kingdom of the Son of his love, they became live in love, therefore, loving one another.

When one reads that God's love lasts forever, we cannot help but consider that love is the incarnate word of God, which lasts forever, for God's word and love are unchanging (Psalm 118:1-4; Hebrews 13:8).

Those who walk in love as beloved children (Ephesians 5:1), walk as children of light (Ephesians 5:8), because they do what is pleasing to the Lord: they love in deed and in truth (1 John 3:22). Whoever believes in Christ does not agree with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:2 and 11), that is, with the works of the foolish (Judaizers), because he understands what the Lord's will is (Ephesians 5:10 and 17).

When the apostle pleads for Christians to submit to one another in the word of Christ (Ephesians 5:21), it is because only those who are grounded and rooted in Christ, the love of God (Ephesians 3:17), are able to fulfill His command (Ephesians 3:19).

God is love, that is, he is just, upright, holy, etc., and whoever abides in Him is love, light, truth, peace, meek, just, holy, etc.

"And we know and believe in the love that God hath us. God is love; and he who is in love is in God and God in him." (1 John 4:16).

God declared to man what is right, just and good[99], therefore, man must apply himself in obeying Him, putting to work the justice evidenced in Christ that is, obeying mercy (love, commandment) to be perfect:

“He has declared unto thee, O man, what is good; and what is the Lord asking of you, except that you do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

Anyone who believes in the love of God demonstrated in Christ and stands firm “knows” the Lord and goes on to know Him:

“Then let us know, and go on to know the Lord; his departure, like the dawn, is certain; and he will come to us like rain, like the latter rain that waters the earth.” (Hosea 6:3).

Whoever believes in Christ has submitted himself to God and is endowed with divine sonship, therefore, as a partaker of the divine nature, he has the right to eternal life (John 1:12-13; 2 Peter 1:4).

A salvação é vista em termo de uma posição/condição derivada da origem do novo ser que vem à existência participante da natureza divina, e não por questões de ordem moral ou de caráter, como se vem pontuando ao longo da história do cristianismo.

A regra de fé de um salvo em Cristo repousa no fato de ser uma nova criatura decorrente do fato de estar em Cristo através do evangelho, o que lhe confere uma nova natureza e condição, questão que era afeta aos homens da antiguidade, mas que não faz sentido aos homens de hoje.

Bibliography

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments. Translated by João Ferreira de Almeida. São Paulo: Trinitrine Biblical Society of Brazil, 1994/95.

AUGUSTINE. The city of God. Voices, Petropolis, 1990.

_____________. Free Will. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Publisher: Paulus, 1995. Patristic Collection 08.

Aristotle. The politics. Translation Nestor Silveira Chaves. Rio de Janeiro: New Frontier, 2011.

_____________. Policy. Translation Therezinha M. Deutsche and Baby Abrão. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1999 – Os Pensadores Collection.

_____________. Ethics to Nicomachus. Leonel Vallandro and Gerd Bornheim's translation of the English version by W. D. Ross. São Paulo: Abril S.A. Cultural, 1984.

BANCROFT, EH. Elementary Theology – Doctrinal and Conservative. Translation by João Marques Bentes and W.J. Goldsmith. São Paulo: Batista Regular, 2001.

BARCLAY, W. Al Nuevo Testament Commentary – Vol. 1 - Mateo I. Alberto Araújo Translation. Scotland: Clie, 1995.

Holy Bible: Old and New Testaments. Translated by João Ferreira de Almeida. 4th impression. Contemporary Ed, Editora Vida, 1996.

BITTENCOURT, BP The New Testament: textual research methodology. 3rd Ed. Ver. At. Amp. Rio de Janeiro: JUERP, 1993.

BROWN, C. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Electronic ed. 1986.

BULTMANN, R. New Testament Theology. Ilson Kayser Translation. São Paulo: Theology, 2004.

COELHO, Paulo, The Supreme Gift, Digital book.

COENEN, Lothar, International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, Lothar Coenen (eds.); [Gordón Chown translation], 2nd ed., São Paulo, Vida Nova, 2000.

Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Organized by Henry R. Loyn. Translation by Álvaro Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar ed., 1997.

Didache, Catechism of the First Christians. Publisher Paulus.

DRUMMOND H. The supreme gift. Freely translated and adapted from the sermon “The Greatest Thing in the World” by Paulo Coelho. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 1994.

ERICKSON, M.J. Introduction to Systematic Theology. Translation Lucy Yamakami. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1997.

GINGRICH, FW Lexicon of the Greek/Portuguese New Testament. Reviewed by Frederick W. Danker. Translation by Julius Ρ. Τ. Zabatiero. 1st edition. New Life Editions, 1984.

GRÜN, A. Living in the house of love. Translated by Milton Camargo Mota. São Paulo: Loyola, 2006.

HAMMAN, AG St. Augustine and His Time. Translated by Álvaro Cunha. São Paulo: Paulinas, 1989.

HANTER, J.C. The Monk and the Executive. Translation Maria da Conceição F. de Magalhães. Rio de Janeiro: Sextante, 2004.

HOBBES, T. Leviathan or Matter, Form and Power gave an Ecclesiastical and Civil State. Organized by Richard Tuck. Translation João Paulo Monteiro, Maria Beatriz Nizza da Silva, Claudia Berliner. São Paulo: Marlins Fontes, 2003.

HOURANI, A. A history of the Arab peoples. Translation Marcos Santa Rita. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2006.

JAEGER, W. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Translated by Teresa Louro Pérez. Lisbon: editions 70, 2002.

JAEGER, W. Paidéia – The formation of the Greek Man. Translation Artur M. Heck. 4th ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001.

KIERKEGAARD, S. The works of love: some Christian considerations in the form of discourses. Translation Álvaro LM Valls. Petrópolis: Voices, 2003.

KITTEL, Gerhard, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. I / Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; condensed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; translated by; Afonso Teixeira Filho; João Arthur dos Santos; Paulo Sérgio Gomes; Thais Pereira Gomes. _ São Paulo: Christian Culture, 2013.

LUTHER, Works of Martin Luther – The Philadelphia Edition, trans. C.M. Jacobs, vol 6. Preface to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982).

MACEDO, Ed. The supernatural power of faith. 1st Ed. Updated. Rio de Janeiro: Unipro Editora, 2011.

MAQUIAVEL, O Príncipe, Circulo do Livro, São Paulo, translated by Antônio D’Elia.

Martinho Luther – Selected Works Vol. 10: Interpretation of the New Testament, Galatians, Tito Editora Sinodal, 2017.

MCLEISH, K. Aristotle: Aristotle's Poetics. Translated by Raul Fiker. São Paulo: UNESP, 2000.

NIETZSCHE, F. Philosophy in the tragic era of the Greeks, Translation Fernando R. de Moraes Barros. São Paulo: Hedra, 2008.

_______________. Beyond Good and Evil. 3rd ed. Alex Marins Translation. São Paulo: Martin Claret, 2001.

_______________. Twilight of the Idols. Translation by Renato Zwick. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2009.

_______________. Genealogy of morals: a controversy. Translation by Paulo Cesar de Souza. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2009.

NIMER, M. Oriental Influences in the Portuguese Language: The Arabic, Arabized, Persian and Turkish words, 2nd ed. rev., São Paulo: Publisher of the University of São Paulo, 2005.

PINHEIRO, J. Ethics & Prophetic Spirit: Revisiting History with Paul Tillich. 1st edition. São Paulo: Church without Borders Collection, 2002

PLATO. Dialogues – Euthyphro or religiosity. Translation Editora Nova Cultural Ltda. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1999.

_______________. Dialogues / Plato; selection of texts by José Américo Motta Pessanha; translation and notes by José Cavalcante de Souza, Jorge Paleikat and João Cruz Costa. — 5th ed. — São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1991. — (The thinkers).

RADMACHER, Earl The New NT Bible Commentary, with additional resources—God's Word Reached for All, Editors Earl Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, and H. Wayne House, Rio de Janeiro, 2010.

RICHARDSON, Alan, A Theological Word Book of the Bible (London: SCM Press, 1950).

SCHMIDT, W. H. The Old Testament Faith. Translated by Vilmar Schneider. São Leopoldo, RS: Editora Sinodal, 2004.

SCHOLZ, V. Greek-Portuguese interlinear New Testament, including the text of the Translation of João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated in Brazil. 2nd Edition and the New Translation in Today's Language, collaboration Roberto G. Bratcher, Editora SBB, 2004.

TAYLOR, Richard S., Beacon Theological Dictionary, J. Kenneth Grider and Willard H. Taylor, Associate Editors, originally published in English under the title: Beacon Dictionary of Theology By Richard S.Taylor Copyright © 1984 Published by Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.

TILLICH, P. The Protestant Era. Translation by Jaci Maraschin. São Paulo: Sciences of Religion, 1992.

_______________. Love, Power and Justice: ontological analysis and ethical applications. São Paulo: Christian Publisher Novo Século, 2004.

_______________. Systematic Theology. Translation Getúlio Bertelli and Geraldo Korndorfer. São Leopoldo: Synod, 2005.

VINI, W. F., Vine Dictionary The exegetical and expository meaning of words from the Old and New Testaments, CPAD, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, 1st ed. 2002, Page 395.

Archives and articles on the web

ADKINS, AWH 'Friendship' and 'Self-Sufficiency' in Homer and Aristotle, < https://pdfslide.net/documents/adkins-friendship-and-self-sufficiency-in-homer-and-aristotle.html > Consultation carried out on 07/27/2021.

AQUINO, T. The unruly love of self. (IIa IIae. q. XXV, a. VII) quoted in the Permanence portal (PD Mézard, O.P., Meditationes ex Operibus S. Thomae.). Available at: <http://www.permanencia.org.br/drupal/node/1776>. Accessed on: 01/01/2012.

_____________. Theological Summary < https://permanencia.org.br/drupal/node/4836 > Consultation on 07/27/21.

ARISTÓTELES, The Politics < http://www.institutoelo.org.br/site/files/publications/97ef5049709d7b6bb9c54a32ac2893c7.pdf > Consultation carried out on 01/08/2021.

Documents relating to the question of Portugal's rights to sovereignty over the island of Bolama and other parts of Guinea resolved by the President of the United States of America by arbitration award of April 21, 1870 – Portugal, Great Britain, second collection: printed by order of the Ministry dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Lisbon, Portugal: Imprensa Nacional, 1870. Available at: < http://books.google.com.br/ebooks/reader?id=cH4LAAAAIAAJ&hl=pt-BR&printsec=frontcover&output=reader >. Accessed on: 01/01/2012.

FRANCO, I. Platonic and Modern Eros. What Makes Us Think. Rio de Janeiro, no. 1, 1989. p. 15-28. In: Dover, K.J. Geek Homosexuality. London: Duckworth & Co, 1978. Available at: < http://www.oquenosfazpensar.com/adm/uploads/artigo/eros_platonico_e_moderno/n1irley.pdf >. Accessed on: 01/01/2012.

Hermes Carvalho Fernandes, A God who hates His enemies cannot demand that I love mine < http://hermesfernandes.blogspot.com/2013/11/um-deus-que-odeia-seus-inimigos-nao.html > Consultation held on 07/18/21.

LEWIS, C.S. The four loves. São Paulo: Vida, electronic edition 2012 at < http://www.4shared.com/office/iZYAMB8J/ Os_quatro_amores_-_C_S_Lewis.htm > Consultation held on 01/08/21.

NIETZSCHE, Friedrich For the Genealogy of Morals < https://files.cercomp.ufg.br/weby/up/4/o/Genealogia_da_Moral.pdf > Consultation carried out on 01/08/21.

Oliveira, Francisco, The concept of φιλία from Homer to Aristotle, Coimbra, 1978, Vol. XXV and XXVI< https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bitstream/10316.2/29417/3/Humanitas25-26_artigo9.pdf?ln =pt-pt > Consultation carried out on 07/27/21.

PLATO, The Banquet < http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br/download/texto/cv000048.pdf > Consultation held on 08/01/21.

_____________. Fedro < file:///C:/Users/crisp/Downloads/pdfcoffee.com_platao-fedropdf-2-pdf-free.pdf > Consultation carried out on 01/08/21.

ROYAL. G. - Eros and Agape, in the conception of love. Liturgical Celebration. L'Osservatore Romano, Portuguese edition of 01/07/06. Article available at: <http://www.cliturgica.org/portal/artigo.php?id=449>. Accessed on: 01/01/2012.

ROCK, Zeferino. The friend, another self: Philia in Plato's metaphysics and Aristotle's ethics. Psyche (São Paulo), São Paulo, v. 10, no. 17, p. 65-86, Jun. 2006. Available at <http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-11382006000100005&lng=pt&nrm=iso>. hits on June 19. 2021.

ROMANELLI, R.C. The Names of God in Indo-European and Semitic. Reprint nº 18 of the Journal of the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte December 1968/1969, 11p. (141-151). Available at: <http://www.rubensromanelli.net/nomesdeus.html>. Accessed on: 01/01/2012.

The Author

Claudio Crispín

He is a columnist for the Biblical Study Portal (https://estudobiblico.org), with more than 360 articles published and freely distributed on the web. Born in Mato Grosso do Sul, Nova Andradina, Brazil, in 1973. At the age of 2, his family moved to São Paulo, where he still lives. His father, 'in memory', was a collective driver and his mother is a merchant, both being evangelicals. He studied the Bachelor of Science in Police Security and Public Order at the Barro Branco Military Police Academy, graduating in 2003, and currently holds the position of Captain of the Military Police of the State of São Paulo. Married to Mrs. Jussara, and father of two children: Larissa and Vinícius.

Translator

Translation into Spanish, Italian, German, English and French by Páulete Maria de Paula Corrêa.

Presentation

The Author's conception of biblical 'love' evidenced in this book is surprising.

The way he approaches complex biblical passages is peculiar and interprets it escapes from trivial hermeneutics. By comparing some biblical passages, the author leads the reader to an intriguing investigation and, at times, even generates a certain suspense that culminates in a surprising conclusion about the true meaning of such common biblical terms, such as love and hate.

While reading this work, the vision of love according to the romanticism and humanism that is so dear to us i quickly replaced by a conception of love that takes on aristocratic and noble airs, a common scenario in the context in which the Scriptures were produced.

The fog of subjectivism permeated by the idealism that religious conceptions prescribe through the term 'love' is quickly replaced by a grave and objective imperative, which coats the theme with a unique new meaning.

What was pertinent to the world of ideas, to “should be”, becomes categorical and tangible in the world of being. Love ceases to be a religious and moral experience, or a one-sided expression of the soul, of the human psyche, and comes to rest in new categories.

The way in which the Author leaves aside the Greek categories on love, so usual when dealing with the subject, and replaces them with a safe and unique category that exists in the Old Testament is innovative. This rereading made me dimension the understanding of several biblical passages, among which the one is that contains the important warning of Christ: – “No servant can serve two masters; because, or you'll hate one and love the other.” (Lk 16:13).

Where I saw feeling, after reading this book, I see behavior. Love transcends the world of ideas, subjectivism, and idealism and claims its rightful place as action.

[1] Comparable “spiritual things” say of the word of God, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). As the Spirit of Christ was upon the prophets, they spoke the words of God (Luke 1:67-70; 1 Peter 1:11), likewise, when in the flesh, Jesus received the Spirit without measure and likewise spoke the words of God (John 3:34). Therefore, it is enough to compare and relate the words contained in the Law, in the prophets, in the psalms, in the proverbs, in the gospels and in the NT letters, that you will be comparing 'spiritual things'. The books of Scripture must be analyzed as a whole, since everything the prophets announced had as its theme the Word made flesh (Acts 10:43), whose words are spirit and life (John 6:63).

[2] In Isaiah 29:13, the word 'fear' is not the same as fear, I am afraid. The term has the meaning of ‘commandment’, ‘word’, ‘instruction’, something that can be learned "Come, boys, hear me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord" (Psalm 34:11). In Exodus 20:20, Moses warns the people not to be afraid, as God was only testing them so that his word (fear) would be before them. “For Deuteronomy, love for God is shown in the fulfillment of his commandments” (SCHMIDT, 2004, p. 128). Also read the author's article entitled ‘Fear and trembling’ on the Biblical Study Portal – < https://estudobiblico.org/temor-e-tremor >.

[3] Workers of iniquity – refers to the leaders of the children of Israel. The apostle Paul applies the passage of Psalm 53 to the Jews, demonstrating that they were in equal condition with the Gentiles, and for this reason, they were named by the prophets of fools, fools, people of Sodom, brood of vipers, rich, adulterers, etc.

[4] The Hebrew term חסד (checed), depending on the context, conveys the idea of 1) kindness, kindness, faithfulness or 2) reproach, shame. The Greek words translated 'love', depending on the translator, suffer variations such as mercy, charity, kindness, etc., and these variations influence the Hebrew translation as well. Read note 9, 11 and 12.

[5] God's request through the prophet Hosea is baseding on the rebuke that the prophet Samuel delivered against King Saul. Compare the two passages what God requires is obedience. Through the two texts it is clear that the terms love, obey, attend and know are interchangeable.

[6] “3. agapan. This term does not denote the magic of erán or the warmth of phileín. Rather, it has the weak sense of “satisfying oneself”, “receiving”, “greeting”, “honoring” or, in a more intimate sense, of “conquering”. It may have an element of sympathy, but it also denotes "prefer", especially in reference to the gods. In this case, it is a love that makes distinctions, freely choosing its objects. Therefore, this love is, in particular, the love of a higher being for a lower one. It is active, not self-seeking love. However, in Greek writers, the term has no vitality. It is often used as a variation on erán or phileín, which there is not much to consider. Subst. agape occurs very rarely.” (KITTEL, 2013, p. 8).

[7] “In the greatest commandment Jesus uses αγαπησεις (agapeseis), "love" and affirms our obligation to love God with all our being. The same word used to indicate duty to one another. Loving God means giving first place that is, worshiping him alone.” (TAYLOR, 1984, p. 53).

[8] “... the original unity of all those aspects - unity marked in the Greek word -, and not in the diversity underlined and consummated by modern phrases (...). By using a Greek term to express a Greek thing, I want to imply that this thing is contemplated, not with the eyes of the modern man, but with those of the Greek man” (JAEGER, 2001, p 1).

[9] "...investigation as to its use, whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint, sheds but little light on its distinctive meaning in the New Testament." (VINI, 2002, p. 395).

[10] “...the Greeks used the noun agape and the corresponding verb agapaó to describe an unconditional love, based on behavior towards others, without demanding anything in return. In addition, the love of deliberate choice. When Jesus speaks of love in the New Testament, he uses the word agape, a love translated by behavior and choice, not the feeling of love” (HANTER, 2004, p. 76).

[11] “In the LXX, agapaõ is preferably used to translate the verb Heb. Uh. Subs. agapè finds its origin here, when representing the Heb. ’ah bak. The vb. Occurs much more often than subs. 'ahèb and can refer both to people and to things, and denotes, first, the relationship of human beings to each other, and, secondly, the relationship between God and man (...) In the LXX (Septuagint), a very different picture looms before us'; phileõ, occurs rarely, while vb. agapaõ, and the subs. agapè (otherwise almost entirely unknown in Gr.) are found at every step. It is not possible to discern whether they are used according to fixed rules, as phileò (30 times), like agapaò (about 263 times), generally translates Heb. ahèb (e.g. Gen 27:4 ff.; 37:4 [cf. 37:3]; Is 56:10; Prov 8:17 [cf. 8:21]). Although Heb. has a whole range of words to express the opposite concept of hate (while the LXX has only the single word miseõ - Enemy, art. miseõ), it has virtually the only root .ahèb at its disposal for the range of feelings, which associate with love. Gr., on the other hand, has several roots and derived words to express the various shades of love: philia (38 times), which generally translates 'aheb, 'ahabâh, is comparatively rare, though philos (about 181 times), which generally translates rèa, although often without a Heb equivalent, is more common in the LXX” (COENEN, 2000, pp. 114 and 121).

[12] "... They couldn't do it for a long time, because they couldn't take with them their domestics, rogue slaves, who make up the best part of their properties." (Documents, 1870, p. 8).

[13] “... and to be love seems to have a lot of resemblance to be honor...” (ARISTÓTELES, 1984, p. 187).

[14] "... It is better to state that 'where the reverence is, there is also the awe'". (PLATÃO, 1999, p. 52).

[15] “But the father's authority over his children is real, because he is a father, because he governs with love, because he has the pre-eminence of age, distinctive characters of royal authority. This is why Homer, calling Jupiter the father of gods and men, rightly says so the king of all these beings.” (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 41).

[16] One must not forget what 'our life' is within the context presented by the apostle Paul: "When Christ, who is our life, shall be revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory" (Colossians 3:4).

[17] The commented verse brings the final argument "..., as the love of God will be in him" as essential to the example "Who then has the goods of the world, and, seeing his brother in need, closes his bowels... ” (1 John 3:17), and the final argument is essential to the commandment: lay down your life for your brothers. For a correct interpretation of the verse, we must remember that,  a) in the oldest manuscripts there was no punctuation, accents and that the writing of the words was continuous, and; b) that charitable or humanitarian actions do not show God's love.

[18] The fruit binds to the lips, what man professes. Fruit is connected with what a man professes about Christ, not with good deeds (Hebrews 13:15; Hosea 14:2, Proverbs 18:20).

[19] This was the vision of civilizations of classical antiquity: "... there is a work, provided there is command from one part, and from another obedience." (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 25); "Now the slave is part of his master as a living member is part of the body - only that part is separated." (ARISTOTLE, op. cit., p. 29). That is why Jesus presents the work of God in an aristocratic way: 'Believe in Him whom He has sent.' God (What shall we do to carry out the works of God?), because 'There is also, by nature and for the conservation of species, a being who orders, and a being who obeys.' (ARISTOTLE, op. cit., p. 20). By presenting God's command, the Lord Jesus urges his hearers to present themselves as servants (Romans 6:16), for by obeying, believing that Jesus is the Christ, God performs his work in them. The work belongs to those who have authority, power of command, and although the servants obey and serve, the work does not belong to them. Therefore, given the imperative of the Gospel: believe in the one sent by God, there is no need to speak of salvation by works, even if believing involves the Christian's assent of will, because when man offers himself as a servant, the work is of the Sir. Christ, the servant of the Lord, was announced by the prophets as 'the arm of the Lord' (Isaiah 40:10 and 52:10), that is why Christ never carried out his own will, but carried out the will of the one who sent him (John 4:34-6:38 and 9:4).

[20] “If I had to run out of one or the other — either the works or the preaching of Christ — I would rather run out of his works than his preaching. Because the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he he says. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but much about his preaching. The other evangelists write much of his works and little of his preaching. Therefore, the gospel of John is that tender, true, by far the main gospel to be preferred to the other three and place above them. Therefore, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. The gospel of John and his first epistle, the epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and the first epistle of Peter are books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and saving to know, even if you never see or listen to another book or doctrine. Hence the epistle of James, compared to them, is really a straw epistle, as there is no evangelical feature in it.” (LUTHER, 1982, pp. 439-444).

[21] “We can feel in our own spirit that even our own eternal salvation depends on this quality of character. Yes, because it is not enough just to confess with the mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord for us to be saved, because that anyone can do.” (MACEDO, 2011, p. 120).

[22] “Therefore, when we deal here with the main point of justification, we reject and condemn works. A topic by no means admits of a dispute about good works. Therefore, in this article we have simply suppressed all laws and all works of the law (…) But as we are dealing here with the topic of justification, we reject, for the time being, the works that opponents stubbornly withhold and attribute to justification. That means snatching the glory from Christ and ascribing it to works.” (LUTERO, 2017, 240 and 253).

[23] Platonic love – In our days the concept of platonic love says of affection without sexual contact, although Plato's concept says of an affection on an ideal level beyond physical contact, however, without excluding it. In the work The Banquet of Plato, in the final speech, philosophy is elected the best form of love, which gave rise to the term 'philosophical love', synonymous with 'Platonic love'.

[24] The Aristotelian love (philía) addresses what is similar and reciprocal, that is, if one is a friend of someone who is pleasant and useful, who, for the same reason, accepts friendship. It says of friendship that derives from the virtue that the other has and vice versa.

[25] “The so-called general history of religion addressed the foreign religious influence in early Christianity on a broader front, but it also touched upon the influence of the Greeks. On the other hand, a direct impact of Greek philosophy on the New Testament and, in particular, on St. Paul, which earlier schools of theological studies (eg, that of DF Strauss) used to assume, has not been confirmed by modern historical research. ” (JAEGER, 2002, p. 15).

[26] In a broad sense, it speaks of human activity in society and in nature.

[27] “Although Metzger and Colwell narrate the episode differently (...) it involves the person of a great German shepherd, Gustav Adolf Deissmann, from Marburg, who, in the library of the University of Heidelberg, taking a volume of papyrus recently. Published at the time in Berlin, he suddenly discovered to his amazement the similarity of the language of the papyrus with that of the New Testament. Continuing his studies, he came to the conclusion that the peculiarities of New Testament Greek are due to its relation to popular colloquial Greek, the non-literary language of the time, and not due to Semitic influence or the so-called 'language of the Holy Spirit '” (BITTENCOURT, 1993, p. 47).

[28] “Whoever wants to attribute to God only what is guaranteed by natural reason, or must make use of negative attributes, such as infinite, eternal, incomprehensible.  From superlatives, such as the highest, the greatest. In addition, the like; or of indefinite, as good, just, sacred, creator, and in such a sense as if we did not want to declare what it is. (For that would be to circumscribe it within the limits of our fantasy) but rather how we admire it. In addition, how ready we are to obey him, which is a sign of humility and willingness to honor him as much as possible,   for there is only one name to signify our conception of his nature and that name is.  I am, and only one name of his relationship with us, and this is God, in which the Father, the King and the Lord are contained” (HOBBES, 2003, p. 306).

[29] “The special merit of the one who commands is prudence. The other virtues are common to him with those who obey. These do not need prudence, but trust and docility; they are like instruments or like a lute maker, and the man who commands is like the player who plays them.” (ARISTOTLE, The Politics, p. 26).

[30] "There is no doubt that here Paul describes under the influence of the Gnostic myth the curse that hangs over Adamic humanity." (BULTMANN, 2004, p. 312).

[31] HESIODUS. The Works and Days, 288-293, quoted by Werner Jaeger in Early Christianity and the Early Greek Paideia, p. 21, footnote no. 18.

[32] Cf. Scripta Minora I, 140 – Idem.

[33] Didache of the Twelve Apostles is a doctrinal manual written by Christians of the first century with the objective of regulating the principle of conduct and the liturgy of the Christian church based on what they understood from the writings of the apostles.

[34] “There are two paths: the path of life and the path of death. There is a big difference between the two. This is the way of life: first, love the God who created you; second, love your neighbor as yourself. (...) This is the way of death: first, it is bad and full of curses - murders, adulteries, passions, fornications, robberies, idolatry...” Didache.

[35] “Oh! You raise precisely a question that has tormented me so much since I was very young. After I was uselessly tired of solving it, he led me to rush into heresy (of the Manicheans), with such violence that I was prostrated. So wounded, under the weight of such and such inconsistent fables, that if it were not for my ardent desire to find the truth, and if I had not obtained divine help, I could not have emerged from there, nor aspired to the first of freedoms—to be able to seek the truth. Since the order followed then worked so effectively on me to resolve this question satisfactorily, I shall also follow with you that it order by which I was released. May God be propitious to us and make us understand what we believe. We are, therefore, quite certain that we are following the path traced by the prophet who says, "If you do not believe, you will not understand". Now we believe in one God from whom all that exists proceeds. Nevertheless, God is not the author of sin. However, our mind is disturbed by a consideration: if sin proceeds from beings created by God, how can we not attribute sins to God, the relationship between the two being so immediate?” (AUGUSTINHO, 1995, p. 28).

[36] "Two loves then founded two cities, namely: self-love, led to the contempt of God, the earthly; the love of God, led to the contempt of self, the heavenly. The same and the second in God, because the former seeks the glory of men and has this as the greatest glory to God, witness of his conscience” (AGOSTINHO, 1990, p. 285).

[37] “What discussions, what doctrine of any philosopher whatsoever, what laws of any State can in any way be confronted with the two precepts in which Christ says that the whole Law of the Prophets was understood? [...] In these words, natural philosophy is included.  All the causes of all the elements of nature are in God the Creator.  Moral philosophy understood, since a good and honest life does not receive its sacrifice from any other source except when what to love.  God and one's neighbor, loved properly. Logic is included, for the truth and light of the rational soul are none other than God. It also contains the salvation of a praiseworthy State (Civitas).  Since a State is not founded or preserved better than through the foundation and bond of faith and solid harmony.  Namely, when one loves the common good, that in its highest and truest expression is God Himself, and in Him men love one another with the utmost sincerity, at the moment they love each other for the love of Him from whom they cannot hide their spirit.” (Epistle 137, 5, 17.).

[38] “Wherefore, not knowing themselves well, they do not truly love themselves, but love themselves for what they think they are. On the contrary, the good, knowing themselves truly, truly love themselves. And this the Philosopher proves by the five elements proper to friendship” (AQUINO).

[39] “As for beauty—as she told you—she shone among all those Pure Ideas, despite our earthly prison, her brilliance still overshadows all other things. Vision is still the most subtle of all our senses. It cannot, however, perceive wisdom. It would arouse vehement loves if it offered an image as clear and sharp as those we could behold across the sky. Beauty alone has this fortune of being the most noticeable and overwhelming thing.” (PLATO, Phaedrus, p. 17).

[40] “The 'reasons of the heart' are the structures of aesthetic experiences and communion (beauty and love); the reason 'that cannot understand them' is the technical reason” (TILLICH, 2005, p. 91).

[41] “Aristotle's concepts of anagnorisis (“recognition”) and peripeteia (“reversal”) were has poorly understood at the time of the Renaissance as his conception of hamartia...” (MCLEISH, 2000, p. 32).

[42] “Homer is neither a naturalist nor a moralist. (...) For Homer, as for the Greeks in general, the last frontiers of ethics are not conventions of mere duty, but the laws of being.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 211).

[43] “Christian posterity bestowed on him the pre-Christian martyr's crown, and the great humanist of the Reformation era, Erasmus of Rotterdam, boldly included him among his saints and prayed: Sancte Socrates, now pro nobis! (...) Socrates becomes the guide of all Enlightenment and all modern philosophy: the apostle of moral freedom, separated from all dogma and all tradition, with no other government than that of his own person and obedient only to the dictates of inner voice of your conscience.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 493).

[44]  “Ontology precedes every other attempt at a cognitive approximation of reality. It precedes all sciences, not always historically, but always in logical dignity and logical analysis” (TILLICH, 2004, p. 32).

[45] "Systematic theology needs a biblical theology that is unrestricted-historical-critical, but at the same time interpretive-existential, taking into account the fact that it deals with matters of ultimate concern." (TILLICH, 2005, p. 51).

[46] “In principle, all these questions are answered by interpreting love in ontological terms and divine love in symbolic terms (...) The ontological character of love solves the problem of the relationship between love and retributive justice. “ (TILLICH, 2005, p. 287).

[47] “In order to be able to praise love, then, inwardly, self-abnegation is needed, and, outwardly, a self-sacrificing detachment. If, then, someone takes charge of this compliment, and the question is whether he really does it out of love, it is necessary to answer that: “no one else can decide for sure; it may be because of vanity, pride, in short, for bad reasons; but it may also be for love.” (KIERKEGAARD, 2004, p. 101; 2005, p. 418).

[48] “The Greek idea of perfection is functional. A thing is perfect when it fully accomplishes the purpose for which it was planned, designed, and made. In fact, this meaning is involved in the derivation of the word. The adjective teleios is formed from the noun telos. Telos means an end, a purpose, an objective, a goal. One thing is teleios, if the purpose for which it was planned is fulfilled” (BARCLAY, 1995, Mt 5.43-48).

[49] “Love believes in everything. The Greek word peisteuein means 'to trust'. Love is sustain by a fundamental trust in people, in life, in God. Only when I believe in someone can I love him” (GRÜN, 2006, p. 122) – I consider the initial assertion to be true if the underlined phrase is exclude.

[50] “…when Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and in Peter's answer. ([FF Bruce]. The attempts by BF Westcott and others to find the meaning of the variation between the two verbs in John 21:15 have been abandon—mainly because pointed and mutually inconsistent conclusions were carve from this variation [as by Westcott, from a side and RC Trench on the other.] The variation is characteristic of the Johannine style: in the same three verses, two different words are also used for 'know', two for 'feed' [“or care”] and two for “sheep” [or “lambs”].) In 1Co, 16:22 ōphile is clear used to mention love for the Lord Jesus: “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be cursed. Our Lord comes!”” (BROWN, 1986, p. 117).

[51] "Man comes closer to God when, in a sense, he is less like God." (LEWIS, 2012, p. 7).

[52] “This is the love of the celestial goddess, itself celestial and of great value to the city and the citizens, because much effort it forces to make by virtue of both the lover and the beloved; the others, however, are all from the other goddess, the popular one. This is, Phaedrus, he concluded, the contribution that, as if unexpectedly, I present to you about Love.” (PLATO, The Banquet, p. 9).

[53] “... that Love was a great god, and admired among men and gods, by many other titles and above all by its origin. For the being among the gods, the oldest, is honorable, he said, and the proof of this is that there are no parents of Love, and Hesiod affirms that Chaos was first born - . Only after that Earth with large breasts, everything always feels right and Love... Then he says that, after Chaos, these two were born, Earth and Love. In addition, Parmenides tells of its origin long before all the gods thought of Love. In addition, with Hesiod, Acusilaus agrees. Thus, from many sides it is recognize that Love is the oldest among the gods. And being the oldest is for us the cause of the greatest good.” (PLATO, The Banquet, p. 5).

[54] “... about Love, that it is delicate. It is not, in fact, on earth that he walks, nor on heads, which are not so soft, but in what is softest among beings it is where he walks and resides. In customs, in the souls of gods and men he has made his abode, and yet, not indistinctly in all souls, but from which he finds a rude custom he departs, and in whatever is delicate he dwells." (PLATO, The Banquet, p. 15).

[55] “To interpret and transmit to the gods what comes from men, and to men what comes from the gods, from some supplications and sacrifices, and from the other orders and rewards for sacrifices; and as it is in the middle of both, it completes them, so that the whole is all connected with itself. It is through him that not only proceeds all divinatory art, but also that of the priests who take care of sacrifices, initiations and incantations, and finally all divination and magic. A god with a man does not mix, but it is through this being that all the interaction and dialogue of the gods with men is done, both when awake and when asleep.” (PLATO, The Banquet, p. 21).

[56] The Phaedrus myth describes human nature through an allegory, of a coachman who drives a chariot driven by two winged horses, one horse white and good and the other black and evil, which strain in opposite directions. That the indiscipline of the black horse dragged the soul from the contemplation of pure, eternal and immutable essences to earthly existence, and so it lost its wings and forgot what it had contemplated.

[57] “Initially, in our case, the coachman drives an uneven team; then, one of the horses in the team is handsome and noble and from an equally noble breed, while the other is the opposite, both in itself and because of its origin. This is the reason for being among us a very difficult task to direct the reins” (PLATÃO, 1975, p. 246b).

[58] “With Plato.  Something entirely new begins,  to speak with equal propriety, it can be said that, in comparison with that republic-of-the-geniuses that runs from Thales to Socrates, from Plato something essential to philosophers is lacking (...)    the mighty course of Greek culture must not to be detained, since terrible dangers. Must be kept out of his way, and it is up to the philosopher, in turn, to protect and defend his homeland. Now, since Plato, he has been in exile, conspiring against his native land. It is a real misfortune that so little remains of such ancient philosophical teachers and that everything that was complete about them has escaped us. Due to this loss, we unintentionally measure such masters according to false measurements and, due to the merely accidental fact that Plato and Aristotle never lacked appreciators and copyists...” (NIETZSCHE, 2008, p. 38 and 39).

[59] "No one should have the audacity to fulfill the law of philosophy in themselves, no one else lives philosophically with that simple human faith that impelled an ancient, wherever he was, whatever he did, to behave like a Stoic, if had ever made a profession of faith in the Stoa. Under the erudite appearance, all modern philosophizing is politically and politically limited by governments, churches, academies, and customs and by human cowardice: it does not go beyond the sigh that it expresses if it were so', or else the knowledge that says 'once upon a time '” (NIETZSCHE, 2008, p. 42).

[60]“If the best part of the soul comes out victorious and leads them to a well-ordered and philosophical life, they will spend the rest of their lives happy and in harmony, under the command of honesty, repressing the part of the soul that is vicious and freeing the other who is virtuous. In addition, when they die, they receive wings and become light, because they won one of the three truly Olympic combats, the greatest good that human wisdom or divine madness can provide a man. However, if they give themselves up to a common life without philosophy, and yet honest, it may be that the two rebellious steeds take over in a moment of drunkenness or carelessness. The indomitable horses of the two lovers, mastering their souls by surprise, will lead them to the same end. They will indulge in the most enviable kind of life in the eyes of the common people, and will throw themselves into pleasure. Satisfied, they will still enjoy these same pleasures, but rarely, because these same pleasures will not have the approval of the soul. They will have an affection that will bind them, but that will always be less strong than that which binds those they truly love.” (PLATO, 1975, p. 256b-d).

[61] “The recognition of haughtiness or magnanimity as an ethical virtue seems, at first sight, strange to a man of our time. And it seems even more noteworthy that Aristotle saw there, not an independent virtue like the others, but one that presupposes them all and 'which, in a sense, is only its highest ornament'. We can only understand this accurately if we admit that the philosopher reserves, in his analysis of the moral conscience, a place for the haughty arete of the old aristocratic ethics. In another passage it even says that Achilles and Ajax are models of this quality. Haughtiness is not in itself a moral value. It is even ridiculous if we do not frame it in the plenitude of arete, the supreme unity of all excellences, as Plato and Aristotle fearlessly do when they use the concept of καλοκαγαθία. However, the ethical thinking of the great Athenian philosophers remains faithful to its aristocratic origin, recognizing that arete can only reach perfection in chosen souls. The recognition of greatness of soul as the highest expression of spiritual and ethical personality is based, for both Aristotle and Homer, on the dignity of arete. Haughtiness thus comes from arete; but it also follows that haughtiness and magnanimity are what is most difficult for man.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 34).

[62] “For him, virtue is an “inner disposition”, a “custom” (εθος), or even a “habit” (εζις) that perfects human beings, making them capable of acting, almost always, in an excellent way . In this perspective, habits enabled people to build their own lifestyle, which could be seen as the very purpose of ethics. Thus, the virtuous man possessed, in an excellent way, the virtues of the “beautiful” (καλος) and the “good” (αγαθος), which summed up the essentials of the ethical ideal of the Hellenic culture. In the words of Léon Robin (1957, p. 1270), the expression καλος και αγαθος (beautiful and good) synthesized the Hellenic ideal of an “accomplished man”, that is, the ideal of “un homme accompli”. (ROCHA, 2006, p. 65-86).

[63] “This article falls into two parts. the first is an analysis. in the light of my earlier discussions of ἀρετή and τιμή, of the Homeric usage of φίλος, φιλειv, and φιλησις; the second. An attempt to show that, as in the case of ἀρετή, the effects of Homeric usage persist to a considerable degree in the moral philosophy of Aristotle” AWH Adkins 'Friendship' and 'Self-Sufficiency' in Homer and Aristotle, < https:/ /pdfslide.net/documents/adkins-friendship-and-self-sufficiency-in-homer-and-aristotle.html > Consultation held on 07/27/2021.

[64] “The ethical thought of Plato and Aristotle is based, in many points, on the aristocratic ethics of archaic Greece. This would require a thorough historical interpretation. (...) ... the ethical thinking of the great Athenian philosophers remains faithful to its aristocratic origin, recognizing that arete can only reach perfection in chosen souls.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 33 and 34).

[65] “In Homer, the terms φιλία, φιλειν and φιλότης can only be understood in the context of a typical society, in which the άγαθος, ideally self-sufficient, asserts its ἀρετή in a circle of people and things connected with it. φίλος has a possessive rather than an affective sense and, as Adkins emphasizes, it always has a passive sense. In his oikos, the άγαθος, center of all relations, is not φíλos in the passive sense. On the contrary, it exerts an action of help and benevolence that does not imply actual, but virtual, reciprocity. ξενία's relationships are within the scope of this virtually cooperative life: the αγάθος «φιλει» a foreigner who presents himself as ικέτης, helps him in his survival, enables him to exercise his self-sufficiency, although conditioned by the situation and etiquette of a guest .” (OLIVEIRA, 1978, p. 217).

[66] “The pathos of nobility and distance, as I've said, the enduring, dominant global feeling of a high lordship, in its relationship with a low lineage, with an "under" - this is the origin of the opposition "good" and "bad"." (NIETZSCHE, For the Genealogy of Morals, p. 7).

“I discovered then that they all refer to the same conceptual transformation – that, everywhere, “noble”, “aristocratic”, in the social sense, is the basic concept from which “good” necessarily developed in the sense of “ spiritually noble", "aristocratic", from "spiritually well-born", "spiritually privileged": a development that always runs parallel to that which makes "common", "common", "low" finally transmute into "bad" ” (Idem, p.)

[67] “Also the adjective aghatos, which although coming from another root corresponding to the noun arete, contained in itself the conjugation of nobility and military prowess. Sometimes it means noble, sometimes it means brave or skillful; it almost never has the later meaning of 'good', as arete does not have that of moral virtue” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 27) emphasis added.

[68] “Since the oldest written tradition shows us an aristocratic culture that rises above the people, it is important that historical research takes it as a starting point. All subsequent training, no matter how high, and even if it changes its content, it retains the mark of its origin very clearly.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 25).

[69] “The essential theme of the history of the Greek formation is rather the concept of arete, which goes back to the most ancient times. We do not have an exact equivalent for this term in the Portuguese language; but the word 'virtue', in its meaning not attenuated by purely moral usage, and as an expression of the highest chivalrous ideal united with courteous and distinguished conduct and warrior heroism, could perhaps express the meaning of the Greek word.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 25).

[70] “It is explained in the celebrated Scholarship of Simonides to the noble Scopas of Thessaly. A concept of arete appears in it that encompasses both body and soul. 'It is difficult to become a man of authentic arete, straight and flawless, in the hands and feet and in the spirit (...) when among those that the earth feeds I discover a totally faultless man, I think I have a duty to the advertising”. (JAEGER, 2003, p. 259).

[71] “All the persons and things on which ἀρετή is exercised, are φιλα or φιλότης, that is, they enter a circle of possession and affection in which the protégé (φíλos) owes respect to the protector, the one with the duty to, in case of future need, "to love", that is, "to protect" the current benefactor.” (OLIVEIRA, 1978, p. 218).

[72] “agapaõ, which originally meant “to honor” or “to welcome”, is, in classical Gr., the word that has the least specific definition; it is often used as a synonym for phileõ, without any necessarily clear distinction as to the meaning (…) 4. The etymology of agapaõ and agapè is not clear. The vb. agapaõ frequently appears in the literature gr. from Homer onwards, but the subs. agapè is a construction, which only appears in later Gr. A single reference has been found outside the Bible: there the goddess Isis receives the title of agapè (P. Oxy, 1380, 109; 2nd century CE), agapaõ is often a discolored word in Greek and often appears as an alternative to , or synonymous with, eraõ and phileõ, meaning “to like”, “to treat with respect”, “to be content with”, and “to welcome”. When, on rare occasions, it refers to someone who has been favored by a god (cf. Dio. Cris., Orationes 33, 21), it is clear that, unlike the era, it does not refer to the human yearning for possessions or values, but, yes, a generous initiative by one person out of love for the other.”. (COENEN, 2000, pp. 113 and 114).

“(6) agapazo, agapao: Etymology unknown, has neither the warmth of phileó nor the intensity of erao. A colorless word, often meaning merely 'be content with,' 'like.' ; but it does evidently refer to the will rather than to the emotion, and often conveys the idea of ​​showing love by action. The noun agape is almost entirely absent from pre-Biblical Greek”. (RICHARDSON, 1950, p. 134);

“Love (Gk. agape) (1 Pet 4.8; Rom 5.5, 8; 1 John 3.1; 4.7, 8.16; Jd 21) This word was rarely used in Greek literature before the New Testament. And when that happened, it was used to express an act of kindness to foreigners, of offering hospitality and being charitable”. (RADMACHER, 2010, p. 701).

[73] “05689 agab a primitive root, Greek 25 αγαπαω; DITAT - 1559; v 1) (Qal) to have inordinate affection or covetousness 1a) covetousness (participle) 1b) lovers (participle as subst)” Strong's Bible Dictionary.

[74] “25 αγαπαω agapao Perhaps from agan (much) [or cf 5689 עגב ]; TDNT 1:21.5; v 1) with respect to people 1a) receive with joy, welcome, love very much, love tenderly 2) with respect to things 2a) be satisfied, be content about or with things Synonyms see entry 5914” (Strong Bible Dictionary.amuel 6:21).

[75] In A.T. the firstborn of all animals belonged to God (Leviticus 27:26), and the church of the firstborn is a kind of Hebrewism, a way of saying that Christians are God's property.

[76] “Heraclitus: probably, no man has ever written in a clearer and more illuminating way. It is certainly very concise and therefore obscure for those who are used to reading in a hurry” (NIETZSCHE, 2008. p. 70).

[77] “Moreover, and despite this, Heraclitus did not escape the 'futile spirits'; the Stoics themselves had already interpreted it superficially...” (NIETZSCHE, op. cit., p. 70).

[78] “It's no different what happens about Shakespeare, that amazing synthesis of Hispanic-Moorish-Saxon taste, from which an Athenian from Aeschylus' group of friends would have laughed out loud, if he hadn't been really disgusted. ” (NIETZSCHE, op. cit., p. 144).

[79] “As for you, love those who hate you and so you will have no enemies” (v. 3) (DIDAQUÉ).

[80] “All went to Him to hear about the Kingdom; Jesus instead spoke about the lifestyle of those who wanted to live in the Kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount contains the essence of Jesus' moral and ethical teaching” (RADMACHER, 2010, p. 27).

[81] “It is Helen of Theodectus who exclaims: 'From a race of gods descended, / Who would dare to call me a slave?” (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 28).

[82] “Since man's spirit is the center of his ethical being, and since salvation is primarily an ethical transaction, it follows that man needs to be spiritually awakened and enlightened in order to receive and apprehend things belonging to Christ and accepting him by faith” – KEYSER (apud Bancroft, 2001, p. 227).

[83] “And the faithful who reach the thresholds of the other world will pronounce, as a saint and a sign of faith on which he based his life, the intrepid maxim: I too am of the race of gods. These words are engraved, as a passport to the journey to the other world, on the small orphic golden tablets, found in the tombs of southern Italy.” (JAEGER, 2003, p. 211).

[84] “... all the old moral monsters are unanimous in the opinion that IL faut tuer les passions (passions must be killed). The most famous formula for this is found in NT, in that Sermon on the Mount” (NIETZSCHE, 2009, p. 42).

[85] In this regard, I am force to disagree with Pr. Deissmann, quoted by Dr. Bittencourt, because the peculiarities of NT Greek are due to popular colloquial Greek, a non-literary, non-scientific and non-philosophical language of the time, however, yes, Semitic influence on language, mainly through influence of Hebrew poetry. (BITTENCOURT, 1993, p. 47). “And in the Greek language, which in the Scriptures preserves many Hebrews...” (HOBBES, 2003, p. 351).

[86] Nietzsche uses the term 'softening' in his book 'The Genealogy of Morals' to refer to the decline of the aristocracy, of the noble, since society started, in his view, to 'praise' the 'herd animal'. (NIETZSCHE, 2009, p. 11).

[87] "The man who by nature does not belong to himself but to another is a slave by nature: he is a possession and an instrument to act separately and under the orders of his master." (ARISTOTLE, The Politics, p. 9).

[88] “From the beginning, the desire for purity of intention had given rise to ascetic practices, perhaps under the influence of Eastern Christian monks. Implicit in them was the idea that there could be another relationship between God and men, in addition to order and obedience...” (HOURANI, 2006, p. 207).

[89] “But as the nature of a whole, it is only known through the analysis of its integral parts. Without exception of minors. Primitive parts is the simplest of the family. It is convenient to examine what the functions and status of each of these three parts should be”. (ARISTOTLE, The Politics, p. 8).

[90] "All things are defined by their roles." (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 22). Through the principle pointed out by Aristotle, it follows that the analysis of the relationship master / slave, husband / wife and father / child among the Greeks had in mind the functions and social position of the individual, therefore, feelings and passions were minor issues importance (ARISTOTLE, op. cit., p. 22, § 1).

[91] “As a slave, therefore, there cannot be friendship with him, but as a man yes; it seems, therefore, that there is something just for every man in favor of all those who have in common the capacity for law and contract; therefore, there can be friendship (with the slave) insofar as he is a man.” (ARISTÓTELES, 1984, p. 191).

[92] “The idea of an access path to God implied that man was not only His creature or servant, but could also become His friend (wali)” (HOURANI, 2006, p. 211) – Note that Dr. Albert makes reference to the 'friend' relationship based on the relationships that affect us today, which differs from issues pertaining to antiquity.

[93] “It is used today in Arabic (Oriental) with the meaning of friend (companion; cf. Port. Comrade, even in the case of analogy) and, particularly, of owner. In this case, the name that follows it remains in the genitive” (NIMER, 2005, p. 408).

[94] “The domain acquired by conquest, or military victory, is what some authors call despotic, despotes, which means lord or master, and is the lord's domain over his servant. The master of the servant is also master of all that it has, and may demand its use. That is, of your possessions, your work, your servants and your children, as often as you like. Because he received his master's life, through the covenant of obedience, that is, the acknowledgment and authorization of whatever the master might do. And if you, by refusing him, kill him or put him in irons, or otherwise punish him for his disobedience, he himself will be the author of these actions, and cannot accuse him of injury” (HOBBES, 2003, p. 174) emphasis added.

[95] “Hourani emphasizes that the servant of God could become a friend (wali) and that such a relationship between God and men arose from 'obedience to God's will for the sake of Him (...) and in doing so, he became aware of a love returned, extended by God to man' (HOURANI, 2006, p. 207 and 21).

[96] “The condition of the woman differs from that of the slave (...) only among the barbarians are the woman and the slave at the same level” (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 20).

[97] “The wife owed her husband obedience...” (HOURANI, 2006, p. 168).

[98] “Indeed, every family, being ruled by the eldest as if by a king, continued to live under the same authority, because of consanguinity. This is Homer's thought, when he says: Each one, the absolute master of his children and his wives, distributes laws to all...” (ARISTÓTELES, 2011, p. 21)

[99] “Therefore, it is not the victory that confers the right of dominion over the loser, but the pact entered into by the latter. In addition, he does not acquire the obligation for having been conquer that is, beaten, taken or put to flight, but for having appeared and submitted to the victor. And the victor is not obliged by the enemy's surrender if he has not promised his life to spare him, for having surrendered to his discretion; Which only obliges the victor to the extent that he, at his own discretion, considers it good. And what men do when they ask for barracks as it is now called, and what the Greeks called Zogría, take with life is to escape by submission to the present fury of the winner, and an agreement had been reached to save his life, through rescue or provision of services” (HOBBES, 2003, p. 173) Our emphasis.

Indice