No, the logical conclusion would be that one particular individual (i.e. “God”) possesses both qualities (i.e. “is fire” and “is love”), not that “love” itself is “fire” (or that “fire” is being used as a symbol for “love”). Maybe that’s what you were trying to say, but the way you worded it is a non-sequitur (fallacy).
The logic is not a non sequitur depending on what the definition of “is” is. I was treating it as God = a fire, God = love, therefore, love = a fire.This is no fallacy. It follows from the fundamental rules of algebra. Moses does not just say that God is like fire, but that God is a fire. This is only analogy and God is not literally fire, but love is not literally fire either so I don’t feel too bad about it.
For baptism there is Matthew 3:11 where John the Baptist says, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”
I wonder what the original Hebrew Masoretic text says. Remember that it was the Jewish idiom to say the same thing two different ways within one sentence.
I see what you’re saying… you’re interpretting “is” as an indication of equivalence rather than a property. But that still doesn’t exactly work. God is an instance, the fire (in that context) is an instance, but love is not an instance (it’s a class). An instance cannot be equivalent to a class. So God is a fire (he falls within the fire class), and that particular fire (that is God) happens to fall within the love class. i.e. “There is at least one fire that is love”. But the way you worded it (“love is a fire”) isn’t valid.