Whether or not love and law are inseparable is the question. Satan has no problem with love. His problem is with law. He believes love can be experienced under the auspices of a modified law, modified according to his dictates.

Amen! God created a law of love. He loves us individually, therefore, He commands us to live in harmony with its all encompassing principles. He loves us corporately, therefore, He enforces the penalty of the law, namely, capital punishment. He loves sinners, therefore, He gave His only begotten Son to pay their sin debt of death, which gives God the legal right to pardon and save sinners.

Jesus Christ proved God is love by revealing His character. Jesus went beyond the law in so doing.



I realize one could say this is talking about the civil law, but there's nothing in the 10 commandments which commands one to do the things Christ says here either.

Christ was willing to be lost for all eternity that we might be saved. The law says nothing about this. Christ revealed a love which is beyond comprehension, the self-sacrificing love of God, and in so doing demonstrated that truth of John's sublime declaration that "God is agape."

Do you mean, "Satan has no problem with agape"? (i.e., the self-sacrificing love of God, as opposed to what we commonly call "love," but really isn't).

What did Jesus do that is not commanded in the law? Please is keep in mind that the law commands love.


This is impossible. Jesus could not be lost and sinners be saved.


Satan has no problem with any form of love. In his own sick way he believes he is demonstrating the ultimate form of love by insisting God modify the law according to his dictates.

I agree the law says nothing about forgiveness, and that the gospel revealed a dimension of God's love not revealed by the law. However, that dimension was also related to the law, because it had to do with its penalty. Christ received the penalty of the law in Himself, thus revealing the full dimension of God's self-sacrificing love. He made an infinite sacrifice for us.

That is it "related" to the law is irrelevant. The salient point is that Christ fully revealed the Father's character, by making manifest His self-sacrificing love. Christ went beyond what the law required, by risking His own life for our redemption. He revealed a height and depth and length and breadth of love which cannot be comprehended, much less described by a law.

I'm curious. Does anyone else agree with this?

Go to the cross, to mention one thing. He did so voluntarily, not under duress. Becoming a human being is another thing He did.



It doesn't specify how this love should be manifest. The love of God wasn't fully known until Christ revealed it.

By no means! It is totally relevant. Christ's death reveals both that 1) God would rather die than let His creatures perish without salvation, and 2) God would rather die than abolish or alter His law. Justice and mercy are inseparable.
What the law reveals is a different matter. You are confusing things.


I don't think this was the case.

"The life of a beast was of less value than the life of the offending sinner, therefore could not be a ransom for sin. ... Man could not atone for man. His sinful, fallen condition would constitute him an imperfect offering, an atoning sacrifice of less value than Adam before his fall. God made man perfect and upright, and after his transgression there could be no sacrifice acceptable to God for him, unless the offering made should in value be superior to man as he was in his state of perfection and innocency. The divine Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to fully satisfy the claims of God's perfect law. The angels were sinless, but of less value than the law of God. They were amenable to law. ... They were created beings, and probationers. Upon Christ no requirements were laid. He had power to lay down his life, and to take it again. No obligation was laid upon him to undertake the work of atonement. It was a voluntary sacrifice that he made. His life was of sufficient value to rescue man from his fallen condition." {RH, December 17, 1872 par. 2-4}