The Epistles of John, Part 9: Morning, Noon, and Night

Memory is a bit of a double edged component of the human condition.  On the one hand our ability to recall information in a split second can be a tremendously powerful tool.  On the other hand our inability to remember that simple truth that we just thought about five minutes ago can be terribly infuriating.  It certainly doesn’t help the latter issue that we live in an era of modern conveniences and incredible technology.  Many of our most prized inventions (e.g. a calculator) have the unfortunate side effect of eliminating or reducing the need to strengthen our minds through problem solving and memorization.  But technology aside, by no means is this a new phenomenon.  The struggle to sharpen our brains through exercise lest they atrophy from disuse has been ongoing since the human race was first cast into shame and corruption from Adam’s disastrous leadership failure.  This tendency to forget what we should know is one of the core themes that John is confronting in his letter. 

We have already seen its tendrils emerge in the way our author tends to repeat principles that he has already covered (e.g. 1^st John 1:6 and 2:4).  This pattern will continue to be present and will eventually culminate in John’s overall purpose for the whole letter in 5:13.   I believe this goal of remembrance is at the heart of our text this week.

To this point John has been mostly positive.  He has issued some warnings against hypocrisy and has been very blunt in his condemnation of wrongdoing.  But the overall tone has been one of encouragement and rejoicing in some of the great truths we are privy to as children of God.  However, starting in verse 15 of chapter 2 John’s tone is going to move to a darker melancholy as he considers and surveys some of the forces of evil arrayed against “his little children”.  So here in verses 12 to 14 I think he is reminding us of some foundational and encouraging truths before we make the descent into darkness.  It’s as if these three verses are the deep breath before the plunge.

The passage is constructed in a curious fashion that has baffled and caused disagreement among scholars for centuries.  John uses a lyrical, almost poetic pattern that is dissimilar from the rest of the letter.  And he moves from present tense to past tense, seemingly without any particular rhyme or reason.  So in an attempt to decipher what the apostle is trying to tell us in these verses I am going to break from my normal pattern when writing these manuscripts.  Usually, I prefer to move progressively from verse to verse, sometimes breaking an individual verse into its component parts, and talking about each segment in sequence.  But I don’t think that approach will work as well here.  So instead I am going to lay the whole passage out all at once.  Then I’m going to chop it apart as if cutting it into strips with a pair of scissors.  Then I will attempt to piece it back together into somewhat of an outline.  And finally, we will look at what I think the whole thing means.

John begins: I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.  I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.  I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

Notice that in this text there are three sets of two complementary statements.  Each pair is addressed to a different age group: little children, young men, and fathers.  Further, each group gets one sentence in the present and one in the past tense.  Let’s split the verses apart and put them back together, grouped according to target audience:

• Little children:
• I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.
• I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.
• Young men:
• I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.
• I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
• Fathers:
• I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning.
• I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning.

I think what John is doing with this odd construction is painting a portrait of the life of a Christian.  He is certainly not referring to physical age with his categorizations.  Rather, he is describing three broad stages of a believer’s maturity process.  When someone first repents of their sins and expresses faith in Christ they are a spiritual baby.  The author of Hebrews refers to them as infants (Heb. 5:13).  If we were to frame this in the context of military application we might say these folks are the raw recruits either still in or fresh out of boot camp.  These are the Christians who are in the morning of their spiritual lives.

After this disciple of Christ spends time, perhaps a few years, in prayer, study, and training they could be seen as strong young adults.  They have been equipped with the tools to do battle with the enemy and minister to the needs of others.  Using the military motif again we might describe this group as battle hardened warriors.  These courageous Christians are in the noontime of their spiritual maturity.

Finally, after many years or even decades of walking with the Lord this person has matured into an elder statesman of the church.  They are the grey hairs, clothed with knowledge and crowned with wisdom.  We could liken them to the generals directing battles and coordinating armies.  These wise sages are in the nighttime or the evening of their journey of sanctification.

Now, this is merely intended to be a helpful tool for us as we consider what John is talking about in verses 12 to 14.  It certainly doesn’t cover every situation and progression of a believer’s life.  One person may spend a decade or more, far too long really, as a spiritual babe.  This is likely due to either a false profession of faith at the worst or deficient training and equipping by their teachers at best.  Another might be blessed with a strong mentor who trains them rigorously in theology and ministry, resulting in a rapid spiritual maturation.  This one might quickly progress within the space of a few years to what we would consider a father figure in the church.  So don’t read too much into these descriptions.  I think John is just using them as a way to structure his thoughts.  And as we’ll see in a bit, I think the application from each spiritual age group actually applies to everyone anyhow, regardless of where they’re at in their spiritual development.

Now then, let’s consider the first group and what John is teaching them.  He calls them little children and he says two things.  First, he is writing to them because their sins have been forgiven for His name’s sake.  Second, he says he has written to them because they know the Father.  Interestingly, John uses two different Greek words for children here.  The first is “teknia” in verse 12 followed by “paidia” in verse 13.  Both terms mean essentially the same thing.  Some scholars have argued that John used different words because he was not communicating to the same “age group” with these two statements.  But the simplest explanation is that he was merely using synonyms for the sake of variety.  While it’s true that he doesn’t do this with the other two age brackets, I don’t find this a credible enough justification to suppose that John meant anything noteworthy by using two different words.  This gets back to our Scripture interpretation principles that were discussed in week one.  If the text looks like it’s saying something simple, don’t assume it’s any more complicated than that unless you have a compelling reason.

With that in mind, what is the apostle teaching these children?  He begins by reminding them that their sins have been forgiven.  It is an unfortunate idiosyncrasy of English that the sentence had to be structured the way it is.  Because in the Greek what comes first for emphasis is the forgiveness.  It is the grace and mercy displayed by God that John is focused on, not the crime we are guilty of.  The word he chose to use, “aphiemi”, means to send away or depart from.  This is remarkably instructive in considering just exactly how God views our sin post repentance.  He has sent them away from us or caused us to depart from them. 

It’s quite a contrast from how we normally perceive forgiveness.  Our tendency would be to assume that the crime still exists, the guilt remains, and it is only the authoritative response that has altered.  A child breaks a window and their parents forgive them.  But the window is still broken, the child still feels remorse, and more than likely the parents don’t entirely let them forget about it like they should.  But this is not the way it is with God.  He has literally separated us from our sin.  He has covered it over with the blood of His Son.  And He effectively remembers it no more in terms of how He interacts with us going forward.  This Bible truth is monumentally important because if we fail to both understand and take ahold of it we will most likely live defeated, guilt-ridden Christian lives.  We will be susceptible to the arrows of doubt the enemy fires at us.  And we will cast aspersion onto the faithfulness and righteousness of God while we’re at it.  Remember the words of chapter 1 and verse 9: If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

As if the amazing reality of forgiveness at the foot of the cross wasn’t enough, John adds to the bounty of delicious truth for these little children.  He says he has written to them in the past because they know God, or the Father as John puts it.  This is the very same word for “know” that we looked at a few weeks back; “ginosko”.  It means to become acquainted with intimately.  The depth of meaning in this word extends even to the sexual union between a husband and wife.  Someone knowing another in this way doesn’t just know about them intellectually, they know them experientially.

I think this point of John’s carries with it an unspoken implication relating to knowledge.  And indeed I think each of his messages to the three groups of believers all carry an implied point of truth that John leaves unsaid in the text.  As it relates to little children, what is a typical response of a child to the prospect of knowing something?  Most children tend to resist learning, don’t they?  Perhaps it’s not the learning itself they mind but the work that is usually involved.  And of course this doesn’t describe all children; it’s a generality.  But in that general context most children resist knowing simply because they are too young to know.  So I think what John is getting at here is this.  He is encouraging the spiritually immature among us by reminding them that they do know the Father.  This is important to steer them away from the wrong thinking that they cannot be effective in ministry due to lack of experience or knowledge.  The only true absolute requirement for ministering within the body of Christ is to know God.  And John says these young ones already have that in the bag.  Therefore the question “So what are you waiting for” seems to loom over the text invisibly.

The second group that John focuses on is the young men.  I see these as the strong and maturing believers in the church.  They are the spiritual adults who are constantly growing, perpetually serving, incessantly mentoring, and unceasingly evangelizing.  They are truly the lifeblood of the body of Christ.  They are the front lines of defense against the attacks of Satan.  They shield the young believers from the brunt of the assault while they follow the wise counsel and direction of their elders.

This triumphant and majestic motif is how John chooses to address this group.  He reminds them that they have overcome the evil one.  The verb “nikao”, here rendered as overcome, is placed in the perfect tense by John.  This means that it happened in the past but is ongoing through the present, and the results are continuously applicable and relevant.  The full extent of what John is getting at here is terrible important to understand.  You see, the victory being referenced is not an isolated incident that occurred at some time in the past and is over and done with.  Rather, it occurred at a time now past and the results continue on into the present.  This means that the victory of these young adults over the evil one is an ongoing thing that does not cease. 

The enemy is ever vigilant, ever present, and ever prowling as 1^st Peter 5:8 tells us: Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.  If you have ever seen a video of a lion, or any other great cat, stalking its prey then you know exactly what Peter is getting at.  The predator is focused like a laser beam upon their task.  Not a muscle trembles.  Not an eyelid twitches.  The entire body is rigid like coiled steel under tension, poised to spring.  It is because of this that the young men must remain on their guard.  They must not trust in a victory they enjoyed five years or even five hours ago.  John insists that they remember these things.

But then he builds upon that core concept of assured victory with his second statement to the adults.  He expands his first sentence and fleshes it out with more detail.  It’s as if John, in considering the first sentence he wrote, realizes that it is insufficient.  It needs more details.  But he decides not to simply edit the existing sentence.  Instead he writes a new one.  Perhaps he wanted to do this for emphasis.  Or maybe he was really trying to maintain his pattern of two thoughts for each group.  Regardless, this is what he says.

It’s not enough for the young men to realize they have achieved continuing victory over the enemy.  They must understand and/or be reminded of exactly how that victory was achieved.  John says it was because they are strong.  There is virility and power in these young Christian dynamos.  But what is the source of that power?  It is the word of God abiding within them.  It is so easy for humans to forget God.  We tend to casually dismiss our dependence on Him at the slightest whim.  As soon as we begin to feel comfortable the allure of self-reliance tends to rise up within us at the same time.  And so John grounds our thinking here.  He reminds us that victory was and is only achieved through strength which only ever comes through the counsel and enablement of the Lord.

This requires self-discipline to go along with that God-dependence.  Studying the Bible intensely and internalizing it within our souls takes time, effort, patience, tears, and sometimes frustration.  It is not for the faint of heart.  John knows that this aspect of the Christian life is the most difficult for active young men and women.  Lives become full, responsibilities mount, and time becomes scarce.  Christian men and women in the prime of their spiritual lives are sometimes the most susceptible to a lack of learning or knowing precisely because of all the activity they are involved in.  Unlike the children who may perceive themselves as too young to know, the adults are sometimes too busy to know.  And in response John wants to slam on the brakes of our spiritual car, stop in the middle of the street, and turn to look us right in the eye with gentle yet firm confrontation over our lackadaisical commitment to the very thing which gave us victory in the first place.

And so we come to John’s final group, the fathers.  These are the spiritual “gray hairs”.  They are the elder statesmen of the church.  The type of folks John has in mind are the ones to whom great respect and admiration should rightly be given.  Proverbs 16:31 describes them this way: A gray head is a crown of glory; it is found in the way of righteousness.  John simply calls them “fathers” but I believe this is what he has in mind in comparison to the other two groups being discussed.

But the teaching John has for these elder Christians is a little surprising.  He does not give them two different pieces of wisdom as he did with the children.  He doesn’t even give them two sentences which build upon each other.  Instead, John writes verbatim the exact same thing twice.  He is writing and has written “because you know Him who has been from the beginning”.  The two questions we need to answer are: why does John write the same sentence both times and what is he trying to teach this age group?

The answer to the first question, I think, is simply one of emphasis through repetition.  John believes it is critically important that his audience understand this point that he is making.  So he gives them the same medicine, completely unaltered, twice in a row.  It’s the same principle Jesus used repeatedly throughout His ministry when He said “truly, truly I say to you”.  A modern preacher might employ a similar technique when he makes a point twice in his sermon, using different adjectives and sentence structure each time.  The point he’s making is of such importance that he wants to ensure that the people listening hear it clearly.  I think John is doing the same thing here.

And what he is communicating to them is a reminder of their knowledge of Christ.  The phrase “Him who is from the beginning” is a clear parallel with chapter 1, verse 1: “what was from the beginning”.  Only here in chapter 2 John uses a singular personal male pronoun to point to Christ emphatically.  And again, this is not an intellectual knowledge but an experiential knowledge.  These fathers have truly come to know Jesus personally over the course of years or perhaps even decades.

Why would John feel this is such an important point that it needs to be stated twice?  I think it’s because of the probable barrier impeding the continuing sanctification of elder Christians.  With the very young the tendency may be to think that they are too young to know.  Adults may be prone to think they are too busy to know.  But elders may fall prey to a different false belief; that they are too knowledgeable to know.

Think about it.  These are the people who have probably read the Bible from cover to cover dozens of times.  They have been listening to sermons or maybe even preaching them for countless hours.  Bible studies, small groups, Bible schools, conferences, etc.  You name it and these people have probably done it.  And in that environment the human tendency toward self-reliance could very easily creep in and trap the unwary in a net of arrogance and conceit.  So John is determined to point out the fallacy of this type of thinking.  He does this by reminding the elders of the source of their wisdom.  It is Christ through which all knowledge and understanding flows.  He is the fountainhead of our understanding of God because He is the perfect image of God in the flesh (Heb. 1:3).  And the Holy Spirit works tirelessly to point us straight at Him (Jn. 16:14).  So even as Christians develop and mature into strong disciples of Christ they must never forget that it is all about Him, not them.

Having said all of this, I would like to address one final point of interpretation about this passage.  Some scholars contend that there are not actually three groups being addressed by John in these verses.  The argument goes something like this.  Little children, as John uses it elsewhere in the letter, is a general form of address to the church as a whole.  John as the elder and last living apostle, considers every Christian to be His spiritual child to some extent.  So when he refers to little children he is not talking about a particular age group of believers but rather all of them at once.  We can see this usage of little children throughout the letter (2:1, 2:28, 3:7, 3:18, 4:4, and 5:21).  Therefore, what John is really doing here is addressing all of us at once followed by the two sub groups of young men and fathers.

While I understand the point being made by those who hold this view, I find it to be a leap to essentially throw away the pattern of age groups that is evident in the way John constructed this passage.  Furthermore, I don’t think it makes any difference in meaning or application because I believe John was merely using the age classifications as a framework around which to order his thoughts.  The reality is that everything he wrote to each group applies equally to us all regardless of where we are at in our walk with the Lord.

Think about it.  Even if you are not a spiritual child it is no less important to you than it ever was to realize that your sins have been taken away and removed from you by God’s grace and that this is the means by which you are allowed to come to know Him.  Even if you are not a spiritual young man the necessity of taking action to defeat the enemy by growing strong on a steady diet of the word of God does not diminish.  Even if you are not a spiritual father the mandate to guard against arrogance by grounding yourself humbly in the knowledge of Christ is just as applicable to you.

So I think that John’s literary structure in these three verses is just that, a structure, and nothing more.  I don’t think any of us can afford to ignore the advice he is giving out here.  And honestly it lends itself to a rather attractive little equation if we boil the three segments of teaching down to the barest essential elements.  Forgiveness of sins + taking action in sanctification = knowing God.  That is a formula I think all of us can find useful.

The Epistles of John, Part 8: In With the Old, In With the New

When we last left John he was playing the role of professor, administering a test of salvation for his class of students.  Having gotten that very important step completed, and with the assumption that all of his pupils, being genuine disciples of Christ, have passed, John now turns his attention to further refining some of the instruction he gave us in chapter one.  Specifically, he wants to ensure that we are crystal clear on what it means to walk in darkness.  He provides this clarification by introducing a new theme into his letter; that of love.  It will emerge from this point onward as the heartbeat of his narrative.  And love is itself an extension of John’s original message: that God is light.  If God’s goodness is the foundation of the building being constructed by the Apostle, then God’s love forms the walls and roof.

John begins this section appropriately enough.  The first word of 1^st John 2:7 is “agapetos”.  The best literal translation into English is beloved.  It is a term of very intimate and affectionate endearment.  Remember that we have already seen John refer to us with a great deal of care and tenderness, as “my little children” back in verse 1 of this chapter.  Here he builds upon that idea by referring to us with a term that frankly I would expect to be reserved for a marital relationship.

Unfortunately not all English Bible translations translate this word very well.  In particular, the King James uses “brethren” and the New International uses “dear friends”.  I really don’t like either of those renderings.  Brethren has a clinical or austere sound to my ears.  It is entirely inappropriate to convey the sense of the word John chose to use.  Dear friends is a little better, carrying with it a connotation of warmth and affection.  But I still don’t think it does “agapetos” justice.  Thankfully, the New American Standard and the English Standard do use beloved in their rendering of the verse.  I really think that is the only way to adequately convey John’s feeling here.

Perhaps some may argue that precisely because “agapetos” is such an intimate term of endearment typically used between spouses that it is inappropriate to translate it as beloved.  Instead they might prefer to use one of the other definitions of the word, such as esteemed, dear, or favorite.  But beloved is the most regular contextual usage of the term in the New Testament.  For example, in Romans 1:7 the Apostle Paul writes: to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Should we instead translate beloved in that verse as friends?  Is that really how God views His adopted children, as friends?  How about brethren?  To call someone a brother certainly carries a strong level of attachment with it.  But do these competing terms compare to the deep and abiding affection implicit in the word beloved?  I don’t believe they do.

Therefore, we ought not to attempt to stratify what we think John meant to match our expectations.  Rather, we should simply take him quite literally at his word and see where it leads.  In this case it leads to a re-affirmation of the intensity of John’s affection for his children in the faith.  He loves us with a genuine and pure regard that more than likely we typically don’t apply to our brothers and sisters in Christ today.  We could learn a lot from John’s unashamed outpouring of affection.

And what is it that the elder Apostle wants to teach his students?  Verse 7 continues: I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.  A couple of questions need to be answered in order to understand this verse.  First, what is the commandment John is talking about?  And second, what does he mean by “the beginning”; the beginning of what? 

The answer to both questions can be found by turning to the next chapter of 1^st John.  Chapter 3 and verse 11 states: For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.  That is certainly clear enough.  The commandment is to love, or agape, each other.  And as we learned in the previous exploration of biblical love, this means to sacrifice our own comfort, time, resources, etc. on behalf of someone else. 

The verbal construct for love that John uses in this verse will help to gain perspective on the action of love that he is endorsing.  There are three elements to this.  First, we are to individually be performing this activity of love.  But we are all accountable to see it done on that individual basis.  Second, we are to be doing this right now.  It is insufficient to have loved at some point in the past.  We must be performing this action in the present.  And third, this is an extremely desirable thing for us to do.  We might even say it is the most desirable course of action a Christian should be pursuing.

All of this builds to paint a very revealing portrait of an agape love that is personal rather than impersonal, active rather than passive, and supremely desirable rather than optionally whimsical.  Not only that but we are going to be held accountable for seeing this done.  There is no room in the Christian’s life for a lack of love.  God gives no excuses for a failure to love.  He takes this so seriously that He threatened to remove the Ephesian church’s lampstand from its place if they didn’t go back to the loving ways they had started with (Rev. 2:4-5).

So this is the commandment John is talking about, to sacrificially love in the manner just described.  But what does he mean by the phrase “the beginning”?  I think there are two possible answers.  He could be referring to the beginning of recorded history, in Genesis chapter 1.  The parallel is certainly interesting: “In the beginning God created…”  On the other hand, John could be talking about the ministry of Christ and/or the day of Pentecost when he says “the beginning”.  In this context he would be pointing to the beginning of the church.

Chapter 3 and verse 12 will help us here: not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother.  And for what reason did he slay him?  Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.  John is using this example because what Cain did to Abel is diametrically opposed to the quality of love being endorsed.  Cain’s motive for murder was the furthest thing possible from agape because agape inherently puts others first.  And Cain was clearly putting himself and his disgruntled feelings before Abel.  Furthermore, the reference to these brothers makes it clear that John is talking about the start of recorded history and the first family of humans to exist when he speaks of the beginning.

The point is that this mandate to love sacrificially has always existed.  It was part of the original human blueprint.  Love was baked into Adam’s mold when he was formed out of dust because the mold was based on God’s own character which defines love.  And this connects us very neatly back to chapter 1 of 1^st John.  John heard, saw, looked at, and touched the reality of who God is in the person of Jesus Christ.  This truth has been existent from the very beginning.  The message of this truth, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all, is the heartbeat of John’s letter to us.

Even more to the point, the love and the light of God is the heartbeat of the entirety of sacred Scripture.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the Mosaic Law.  Does the Law of Israel not seem like your idea of a model of how to love one another?  Does it instead strike you as harsh, unforgiving, bloody, and violent?  If so, then consider the following.

The Ten Commandments serve as sort of the Jewish equivalent of our American Constitution’s Bill of Rights.  They are the foundational guiding principles upon which the whole rest of the Law is framed.  And Jesus taught that the two greatest instructions out of this list of ten were: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22: 37-40).  He said that upon these two commandments everything else depends, both the remainder of the Law itself as well as the Prophets.  In other words, Christ taught that every single instruction, prophecy, warning, judgment, restriction, and blessing proclaimed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures are all founded upon this principle of love, without exception.

Paul backed his master up in Romans 13:9-10: For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.  To state it another way; we don’t have to focus on avoiding adultery, staying away from murder, refraining from theft, fleeing from jealousy, or anything else for that matter.  If we simply boil the commands of God down to one simple principle, to love everyone sacrificially, beginning with God Himself and then propagating to our fellow humans, then we will automatically end up obeying every other commandment as well.

This principle of God’s law being a law of love is exactly what James is getting at in James 4:11-12: Do not speak against one another, brethren.  He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.  There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

The word that is used once in the first sentence of verse 11, and twice in the second sentence, is usually translated as speak evil, speak against, or slander.  It’s a word that conveys the idea of not just talking about someone, but doing so with malicious intent.  This is the critical point to understand here.  Whether what is said is true or untrue, the motivational factor behind the one speaking it is evil.  It is hatred.  It is envy.  It is selfishness.  It is pride.

The type of slanderous behavior described by James is quite the opposite of love.  It is the very definition of hatred.  And as such it blatantly violates and contradicts God’s law of love.  Not only that, but consider the implication of a person who conducts himself in this manner.  What is he communicating through his actions about his opinion of God’s law?  He is telling us without words that he thinks such a law is beneath him.  It is not worthy of his time or attention.  A law of love is foolishness and stupidity to this person.

And so, by speaking evil against others and in so doing speaking evil against the law, the sinner is setting himself up as one who is superior to and in lordship over the very law that God instituted as a reflection of His own character.  This is why James makes the point in verse 12 that there is only one lawgiver and judge.  He is clearly contrasting the overweening arrogance of a person who acts as if he is outside God’s law with the reality that God is the only one who is truly in charge.  Furthermore, although such a person may act in this fashion, their actions are not reflective of reality.  In other words, they are really not outside the law at all.  And as such are subject to the only One who is able to save and destroy.  Eventually, in the due course of time and at God’s whim, their evil actions will be their own undoing.

Bringing it back to 1^st John after that lengthy detour, it is plainly evident that our imperative is to love and that we have been under this mandate since Creation.  But having established that John does something interesting in verse 8: On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.  This commandment, to love, while being set in stone from the very beginning, is now simultaneously new and fresh and exciting and hopeful.  Love, already a powerful testament to the character of God, has had new life breathed into it through one monumental fact.  God was incarnated as a man in the form of an only begotten Son and He was sacrificed on a cross in the ultimate act of love the world has ever known or ever will know.

This love has become our mission in life as Christians.  Jesus, on the very night He was betrayed in John 13:34-35, said “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.  By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”  The command to love was pre-existent.  But Christ’s own example of it was new.  The apostles had now seen the love of God in the flesh where previously they had only heard about it second hand, so to speak.  The words of Job in Job 42:5-6 come to mind: “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.”  In Revelation 21:5 God says “Behold, I am making all things new.”  But based on the testimony of Christ at the last supper and John here in his epistle, He has already made love new.

In fact, it is this new freshness of the love of God displayed through Jesus that enables John to write the following phrase, “that the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining”.  The instant that the Father breathed new life back into His Son’s body and Jesus walked out of the tomb he’d been laid in, a timer started.  A countdown clock began.  There is no force in the universe that can alter the timing of this clock.  No satanic influence or scheme can sway its course.  No genocidal dictators, totalitarian regimes, natural disasters, corrupt politicians, greedy investors, or abusive parents can cause a change in the time table God has set.  And when the clock reaches zero hour the king of all heaven and earth will return in power and lay waste to His enemies.  He will split the enemy from thigh to neck in order to bring salvation to His people.  And the love of God will be poured onto the heads of those who worship Him like the deluge of a waterfall on a hot and steamy day.

In spite of how evil the world may look to us now.  Regardless of the difficulties we face in our everyday lives.  The darkness of sin is already defeated.  It is doomed to destruction.  It is only a matter of time before this truth will come to fruition and set us free from death forever.

But woe to them that love the darkness.  Verses 9 and 11 proclaim their doom: The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.  But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.  In verse 6 of chapter 1 John introduced us to the concept of “walking in darkness”.  At that time I used reverse logic to explain that this meant acting in a manner contrary to the nature of God Himself.  Now we see the plain truth of what that means; it is to hate.  The Greek word “miseo” is used to convey this idea.  It means more than simply to passively despise someone.  The idea is to actively pursue with hatred.

Jesus uses the same word in John 15:18: “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.”  How did the world display their hatred for the Son of God?  They murdered Him, that’s how.  Hatred and unrighteous anger toward another (Matt. 5:21-22, 43) are born of the same womb and they both result in murder; either physically, spiritually, or both.  So don’t vacillate between right and wrong or rationalize away your feelings of hatred for other people.  It’s sin, pure and simple, and according to John in verse 9 it’s a sign of both being in darkness and being blinded by it.

Blindness is a powerful metaphor for those who understand what sight is.  As I mentioned at the very beginning of this series we instinctively understand the ramifications of being in light or being in darkness.  No parent has to train their children to be afraid of the dark.  There is a primordial terror that wells up from deep within our souls at the prospect of having light and therefore sight taken away.  This is why it was such an instantly relatable concept for John to refer to God in the context of light versus darkness back in chapter 1.

Yet in spite of the horrific prospect of being blinded and fearful, that is not quite what John is describing here.  Notice that he says of the one who hates that he does in fact walk and it is the darkness itself that blinds him.  This is a person who doesn’t even realize there’s anything to be afraid of.  He loves the darkness.  It is like a warm blanket to him.  He luxuriates in the feel of that silky smooth blackness upon his skin.  He is floating in a pool of crude oil and loving it. 

This person is so debased that he has lost all contextual understanding of the danger he is in.  It describes someone who is walking along with upturned eyes gazing at cloud formations, blissfully unaware of the deep canyon right beside them.  Or a swimmer studying coral reef formations on the ocean floor below, oblivious to the great white shark coming up from behind.

In contrast to this terrible picture we have the softly glowing rays of the sun suffusing our skin with light and warmth in verse 10:  The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.  I want to focus on two elements of this verse: abiding in the light and having no cause for stumbling.

The word abiding is the Greek “meno”.  It means to remain, to be held, or to continue to be present.  John uses a form of this word that conveys a sense of an ongoing state or condition.  He is considering the position of this one who loves their brother and from an outside perspective the apostle draws a conclusion as to their situation.  And what a situation it is.  John says the one who practices love is abiding “in the light”.  He has already pointed out that God is metaphorically equivalent to light.  So in this context John isn’t just talking about someone who is doing well or is in a good place.  He is literally saying that they are dwelling with and in God Himself!

John gives a summary of this condition in chapter 4, verses 15 and 16: Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.  We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.  God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.  There is a unity in view here.  It is a harmony of thought and purpose.  We are talking about a melding of shared existence in which the parties being brought together sort of disappear into each other after a time.  In a marriage relationship the two spouses merge their individual persons into one new united nature.  But in this relationship between God and the one who loves, it is us who are swallowed up into the godhead.

Let’s consider the flip side of this position.  We have already seen that those who do not practice this pattern of love are blindly stumbling around in the darkness.  But building upon this concept of abiding that John has introduced and considering chapter 3 and verse 14: We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.  He who does not love abides in death.  Christ is the literal embodiment of life itself (John 14:6).  Therefore, anyone who does not remain in Him must necessarily be given to the condition that is opposite of life; namely, death.

There is a term used in the United States to refer to people who are on death row.  They have already been sentenced to death by the judicial system.  All that remains is to assign a specific date and time.  The prisoner is still alive for the moment but their fate is assured.  When the time comes to proceed with the execution and the condemned walks toward the killing chamber they are known as a “dead man walking”.  In other words, technically they are still alive, they are walking, and they may even be talking.  But the only thing separating this person from death is the ticking of the clock.  That is exactly what is being described by John when he says that the one who does not love “abides in death.”

The other key point to consider from verse 10 is the phrase “no cause for stumbling”.  Stumbling is the Greek: “skandalon”.  It has the idea of a trap that has been set.  It is the triggering device of a mechanism designed to injure or kill the prey that is being hunted.  We can see this same idea in Matthew 16:23.  Peter has just rebuked Jesus for claiming that He is going to die.  Peter’s focus is on the immediate establishment of the Messianic Kingdom.  He is interested in his own time table and plans rather than God’s.  Christ turns to him and retorts: “Get behind me, Satan!  You are a stumbling block to Me.”  This is incredibly harsh language.  To apply to someone the moniker of Satan, the one who is chief of all who are opposed to everything that God is.  But the point is well served by the Lord.  In pursuing his own agenda Peter had become no better than the great deceiver and liar himself.

So in 1^st John when John writes that there is no cause for stumbling in us, it obviously means that we will not fall because we do not trip in the first place.  But remember also that the state of not falling is standing.  That of course is obvious but it bears consideration.  Those who do not stumble because they are abiding in God through their demonstration of love are rising up triumphantly and majestically.  They are paragons of confidence and power because of their deep immersion into the fullness of the Lord.  This is not a dark and depressing passage of Scripture.  It is rather a beautiful and sweet depiction of the glorious joy to be had in the Christian life.

What are we to make of all this?  I think there are three crucial elements to consider.  First, we must recognize that this mandate to love sacrificially has far more significance than a being simply a nice attitude to have.  Love is the very atmosphere in which the creation sprang into being by God’s command.  It is the normative condition in which Adam was formed and it was the guiding principle upon which his relationship both with Eve and with God was founded.  Even after the fall into sin, love was the basis of God’s covenantal relationship with Israel and it served as the framework around which their society was intended to be built.  So this pursuit of love has been in place since the very beginning.

And now, we are most favored to be living in an age in which love has fully flowered, so to speak.  The reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ has caused love to blossom into its fullest and most vivid maturity.  He has breathed new life into this twisted and corrupted earth.  And His promised return gives us a confident hope that ought to illuminate every aspect of our lives.  Truly, the love of God is an all-encompassing and pervasive blanket which should serve as a beacon against depression or worry and which should fill us with a joy that drives us to display that love to everyone we come into contact with.

The second point to consider is sort of the inverse of the first.  Unfortunately, in spite of how glorious and uplifting this love is, because we are sinful people there will be times when we don’t feel God’s love and we don’t reflect it to other people.  Not only will we not love but we will be tempted to hate.  In those moments, hours, or days of darkest depravity we must bind the truths of this passage, even this whole epistle, upon our foreheads and implant them deep into our hearts so that we have a defense against the insidious nature of our own flesh.  It is critical that we avoid the hatred described by John.  The call to love can help us in this endeavor, but only if we hold onto this teaching as firmly as possible through memorization, meditation, and re-visitation.

Finally, when we consider the terrible fate awaiting those who do not love, we ought to be filled with genuine sorrow for them.  The person who hates is completely blind yet simultaneously totally oblivious to their condition.  They are walking in deepest night with absolutely no idea where they are going or what they might run into.  And they lack the sense to even be afraid, let alone cautious.  Furthermore, it is death they are abiding in.  The only thing separating them from their horrible fate is the passage of time.  These of all people are to be pitied.  They are to be empathized with, seeing as how we were once in the same boat.  And they should be ministered to in the sincere hope that God would see fit in His gracious mercy to rescue them from their doom.  There is no room in a Christian’s heart for an abrasive response to them that persecute or mistreat us.

The Epistles of John, Part 7: What's Love Got to Do with It?

In 1984, American pop singer Tina Turner recorded a song titled “What’s Love Got to Do with It”.  It tells the tale of a woman feeling attraction for a man, purely on the basis of sexual arousal.  The song further decries the involvement of the emotion of love in this solely biological encounter.  A stanza from early in the lyrics pushes the point: “It’s physical. Only logical. You must try to ignore that it means more than that.”  This endorsement of carnal sexuality culminates with the chorus line: “Oh what’s love got to do, got to do with it? What’s love but a second hand emotion? What’s love got to do, got to do with it? Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?”

In this frankly rather depressing song, the “it” referred to is sex.  The song-writer is expressing the belief that love doesn’t, and in fact shouldn’t, play into sexual intercourse at all.  But as one reads the epistles of the Apostle John, indeed the whole of the biblical record, the fallacy of this thinking becomes apparent.  I believe the Bible instructs us quite clearly that not only does love have everything to do with “it”, but the “it” referred to by God’s word is nothing as mundane and trivial as a fleshly sexual encounter.  Rather, “it” is the entirety of human existence.  It is the reality formed by God as an extension of His own character. 

John in particular was very well versed in the topic of God’s love.  He refers to himself in his gospel as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.  And in these letters written toward the end of his life, as we will see in the coming weeks, love is a major theme.  It could be argued that love, both the love of God and our expression of love as imitators of Christ, is the most important theme in the book.  It is really an extension of what we discussed in part 4, that of God’s essence (characterized by John as light) being the heart of the matter in these letters.

So, because of how significant love will be as we proceed forward, I am going to diverge from the text of the epistles this week.  Instead, we are going to do a bit of a word study on biblical love.  I want to examine all, or at least as much as is feasible, of what the Bible says about love.  My hope is that after doing this, when we come to the passages in 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John dealing with love, we will be much better prepared to correctly interpret what the Apostle is communicating to us.

Greek, the language of the New Testament, is an incredibly expressive language.  In English we have a single word, love.  This word can be used in different ways to communicate different ideas.  For example, we might see the sentence “The man loved his wife.”  But we might also read elsewhere “The child loved her new bicycle.”  These two sentences communicate a vastly different definition of love.  It is up to the reader to make an accurate interpretation based on context.  But in the Greek world this was not sufficient for their purposes.  They wanted to be able to concisely and clearly express multiple ideas of love that would be understood across the Greek speaking world in a universal manner.  So they came up with four separate words to convey the idea of love in four distinct ways: “eros”, “stergo”, “philos”, and “agape”.  “Eros” refers to human sexuality and is the most similar to the concept of purely physical attraction as described by Tina Turner’s song mentioned above.  However, it does not appear in the Bible at all.  So I will only be looking at the last three in any depth.  For the sake of brevity in each verse I will underline the word in English that corresponds to the Greek word for love being considered.

“Stergo” appears the least of the three in the New Testament.  So I will cover it first.  In fact, the word occurs so infrequently that we have to turn to extra-biblical sources to even define it properly.  “Stergo” is a natural affection or natural obligation.  It is a movement of the soul for a husband, wife, child, or even a pet.  I will call this family love.  There are only two occurrences of this word in Scripture, and neither of them is the root form of the word.  In Romans chapter 1 Paul provides a litany of horrible crimes and sins.  Included in this list are actions that even our inherently sinful minds easily recognize as heinous, such as murder, greed, and deceit.  Verse 31 adds the following to this rogue’s gallery of terrible human activities: without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.   The word translated unloving in that verse is “astorgos”.  It is a derivative of “stergo” that includes a negative particle to indicate the absence of a thing.  So we can say that people who are unloving in this way are so debased, so evil, so inhuman that they lack even the most natural and basest of human affections; that of one’s own biological family members.  The same word is also used by Paul in 2^nd Timothy 3:3 in a similar list of sins.

The other use of this family love is also in the derivative “storgos” but this time it is combined with a different form of love that we will talk about in a moment.  Romans 12:10 reads as follows: be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor.  The word devoted is “philostorgos”.  This is an affectionate love for a close friend combined with the natural instinct to love one’s family members.  It combines elements of the family love we have already seen with what I am going to call friendly love.

This friendly love is “philos”.  It means to approve of or like.  To treat affectionately, kindly, or in a friendly manner.  This includes showing signs of love such as kissing.  Let’s look at a few examples in Scripture of how the authors of the New Testament used this word and its derivatives. 

Matthew 10:37 contains one of the accounts of Jesus’s teaching on the cost of discipleship.  He said “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”  Because the word “phileo” (the verb form of philos) is used here we know that Christ is talking about having affection.  He is teaching us that even our emotions, our delights, and our pleasures must be focused on Him more than any other human being.  He is not saying that we should not be affectionate toward other people.  He is communicating the idea that our care for God must be greater than our care for our family members.

In Matthew 26:48-49 we can see “phileo” used to describe a visible sign of outward affection: Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him.”  Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him.

Noteworthy for its contrast to the above passage is Revelation 3:19: “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.”  Human perception is so skewed that we instinctively tend to disassociate discipline or reproof from the concept of love.  Our automatic instinct is usually to assume that the one giving the correction is not loving.  But God reveals the truth.  He is actually demonstrating His great capacity for affectionate tenderness, or “phileo”, when He punishes us for our transgressions.  In an ironic twist, God’s discipline is more affectionate than many of our human kisses, such as the one Judas gave to Jesus in Matthew 26.

Going back to the noun form, another helpful use of “philos” is found in John 3:29: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice.”  This friend is of such a high caliber that there is no hint of jealousy in him over the bridegroom’s joy.  His only thought is one of complete satisfaction that his dear friend is happy.  This is an unselfish emotional affection and attachment that is focused on the other rather than the self.

This understanding of “philos” as having connotations of an emotional state is important to keep in mind when we come to a verse such as James 4:4: You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the word is hostility toward God?  What James is describing here is more than just dallying with the ungodliness of the fallen world system.  It is deeper than the results of our choices.  He is getting at the motivations behind those choices and the effects that can be seen.  What is being condemned here is an emotional enjoyment of sin and the fleeting pleasures the world offers.  In other words, the people being described by this verse are not just proverbially getting into bed with the world.  They are leaping with great gusto and full conscious intention.  And they like it.

These are just a few of the places where “philos” and “phileo” are used in the Bible.  But referencing them and adding to the dictionary definition that I gave above we can say the following about “philos” love.  It is a sublime emotional state of pleasure, often expressed through a visible sign such as a kiss, experienced by a dear friend, close associate, or immediate family member toward the object of their affection.  This gratification is such that when the loved one is joyful it intensifies the emotional state of the friend.

The last of the Greek forms of love used in the Bible is “agape”.  Our dictionary definition for this word is: Brotherly love, good will, or benevolence.  To entertain a person or be well pleased with a thing.  By way of comparison to “family love” and “friendly love” I am going to call this type of love “Godly love” because it is a uniquely divine characteristic.  Of all the types of love in the Bible “agape” is the most like God and the least like us.  Additionally, in terms of usage and repetition “agape” is hands down the most prolific of the forms of love seen in the New Testament.  When the writers of Scripture used a word that we translate into love they were using “agape” or one of its forms 87 percent of the time (276 out of 327 occurrences if anyone’s counting).  So of all the words for love in the Bible this is the one we need to spend the most time trying to understand.  And the very first thing we need to do is draw a clear distinction between “agape” love and “philos” love.

Romans 8:28 is a familiar passage to many Christians.  It reads as follows: And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.  Bible teachers often quote this verse to remind us that God has our best interests at heart, and for good reason.  But have you ever stopped to consider what else it is claiming about these people who “agapao” (the verb form of agape) God?  They are called, or chosen, or selected by Him to be a part of accomplishing His objectives.  In other words, one of the defining characteristics of someone who loves God in this way is that He picked them for His team.  This is not an emotional response to something God has done as “philos” is.  It is a commitment of the will.  It is the firm resolve by a Christian to see the plans of the Lord accomplished inasmuch as they are capable of.

We can see this same principle repeated over and over in Scripture.  Romans 13:8-9 describes “agapao” as a debt that we owe to everyone.  This debt is of such paramount importance that when we repay it we fulfill the entirety of the Law of Moses.  Ephesians 5:2 tells us that Christ demonstrated this type of love toward us when He gave Himself up to death for our sake.  That was most definitely a conscious deliberate decision on His part.  Colossians 3:19 instructs husbands to love their wives, as opposed to being bitter toward them.  In other words, we are to carry out good intentions rather than bad intentions toward the people we become yoked to.  In 2^nd Timothy 4:10 Paul tells us about Demas, who “loved” the world so much that he deserted Paul in his time of need.  Another way to look at this is that Demas made an investment of time and energy in the wrong things.  An investment is a calculated allocation of time and/or finances for the purpose of achieving a goal.  Again we can see the absence of emotions or feelings from the quality of “agapao” love.

This should not be taken to indicate that this type of love is cold and lifeless.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But rather than good will which results in a pleasant feeling and an outward affection, “agapao” is good will which results in a firm resolve to seek the best for the object of affection and a steady commitment to action in order that this goal is achieved.  It is the very best of possible human behavior because it is selfless in its affections.  “Philos” love, while also being a wonderful quality, does have a certain element of self-service, in that it seeks after one’s own pleasure.  It is somewhat altruistic because it simultaneously seeks for the joy of another.  But the emotional payoff for oneself cannot be denied.  “Agape” on the other hand is purely and completely devoted to the well-being of the other person.  When Christ was being tortured to death it was “agape” He was demonstrating, not “philos”.

The Bible is so descriptive about “agape” that it is difficult to know where to begin.  Meditate on this partial listing of the qualities that are typical of “agape”:

•          It is people centered (Luke 11:42)
•          It is generous and unconditional (Romans 5:5, 8)
•          It does not cause offense (Romans 14:15)
•          It is gentle rather than violent (1^st Corinthians 4:21)
•          It builds up others rather than self (1^st Corinthians 8:1)
•          It is rooted deeply in one’s soul (2^nd Corinthians 2:4)
•          It strives after good works (2^nd Corinthians 8:7-8)
•          It serves others (Galatians 5:13)
•          It is merciful (Ephesians 2:4)
•          It is tolerant (Ephesians 4:2)
•          It is truthful (Ephesians 4:15-16)
•          It is wise (Philippians 1:9)
•          It unifies rather than divides (Colossians 3:14)
•          It appreciates others (1^st Thessalonians 5:13)
•          It is content (1^st timothy 6:11)
•          It does not try to dominate others (Philemon 1:9)
•          It ministers to others (Hebrews 6:10)

As you can see, “agape” describes a single unifying principle that is comprised of a multitude of positive evidences.  It is a vigorous quality that does not sit on the sidelines waiting for someone else to act.  “Agape” sees a need and meets it, without question or hesitation.

All of this truly serves to illustrate the importance of “agape” and differentiates it from “philos”.  The former is the chief characteristic of premier importance.  “Philos” is good as well, but not at the expense of “agape”.  This was the point Jesus was making with Peter in John 21:15-17.  You may have read this passage in the past and wondered why Jesus essentially asked Peter the same question three different times.  I am going to substitute the Greek word in the text here so you can really see the full spectrum of the discussion between these two men: So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you “agapao” Me more than these?”  He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I “phileo” You.”  He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”  He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you “agapao” Me?  He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I “phileo” You.”  He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”  He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you “phileo” Me?  Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you “phileo” Me” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I “phileo” You.”  Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

When we use the actual Greek in this passage, what may have once been a mystifying exchange between Peter and Jesus suddenly leaps into clarity.  To put it bluntly, Peter was avoiding the issue.  He was not answering Christ’s question.  Jesus wanted to know if Peter was prepared to sacrifice himself on the Lord’s behalf.  And all Peter wanted to focus on was his feelings.  Peter was more interested in his own pleasure than the good will of others.  And then Jesus drops the hammer on him by changing his question from “agape” to “phileo”.  He, in effect, is asking a pointed question of “Peter, if you really felt genuine affection for me like you keep claiming then you would also be prepared to sacrifice your own desires for My sake. 

This becomes even more apparent when we read the following two verses.  Jesus says that when Peter was a young man, in a spiritual sense, he went where he wanted to and did what he pleased.  In other words, he gratified himself.  But Christ goes on to say that when Peter grows up in the Spirit he will submit himself to bondage and even death on behalf of others.  His feeling of “phileo” will still exist but will be subsumed by his “agape” resolve.

It would appear that Peter learned this lesson very well.  In his letter to the persecuted Christians scattered throughout Asia Minor he closes with a call to this parallel quality of “phileo” combined with “agape”.  Chapter 5 and verse 14 reads: Greet one another with a kiss (“phileo”) of love (“agape”).

When we consider the range of human behavior that “agape” encompasses it becomes quite difficult to define it succinctly and clearly.  But let’s take a stab at it anyhow.  “Agape” is the full spectrum of human conduct that orients itself toward the good of others in all situations.  This selfless drive to elevate the station and/or circumstances of the people it is directed toward is a determined, conscious, and deliberate act of the will to sacrifice one’s own comfort whenever necessary to achieve the stated objective.  Peace and security for oneself is consumed by a passion to see others exalted.  “Agape” is in part kind, merciful, generous, content, tolerant, humble, wise, compassionate, and empathetic.  It describes the very best of human behavior because it emulates the normative goodness of divine behavior.

Now then, at this point we already have a lot to chew on.  But there is one more point I want to make about “agape”.  That is, what does it look like when a person lacks this quality?  How does the Bible describe such a person?  What is God’s opinion of them? 

In the book of Jude the brother of Jesus describes wicked men who infiltrate the church for the purpose of perverting the grace of God into wanton and voracious evil.  Jude condemns such people without reservation and makes it clear that they also stand convicted and judged by God Himself. 

When we come to verse 12 of the book the author uses an interesting phrase that casts the men he is describing directly into contrast with “agape”.  The term is loosely translated as “love feasts” in most English Bible versions.  But the Greek behind it is simply our word for love; “agape”. 

The translators add feasts to it because of parallels with 1^st Corinthians 11:20-34 where the Apostle Paul is describing the communal eating habits of the church at Corinth.  In addition to this several of the church fathers speak of this custom of eating a meal together which they describe as “agape”.  So the idea of a love feast seems to have been a literal community dinner in which the love of God is manifested richly by those in attendance as a mirror of the vigorous manner in which Christians should demonstrate God’s selfless love toward each other all the time.  To put it another way, the people of God were driven and defined by “agape” as if it was food they were consuming at an extravagant feast.

Into this picture of tranquility and harmony step the evil men Jude is speaking out against, beginning in verse 12: These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

The visual imagery given to us by Jude in this passage is staggering.  These men who are most definitely not characterized by the love of the genuine Christians, are instead portrayed in this way.  They are deadly reefs capable of ripping the hull out of the ship of an unwary Christian’s faith.  They are brazen braggarts who shamelessly take what belongs to others while knowing full well that they intend to destroy their benefactors.  They are completely selfish.  They are as useless as a cloud that hides the warmth of the Sun yet provides no watery nourishment for the earth.  They are as the dead husks of trees who have long since stopped providing fruit and merely wait for the next strong wind to uproot their lifeless carcasses from the soil.  They are undisciplined and careless, nonchalantly displaying the shame of their behavior for all to see without a care in the world.  Finally, and most damning of all, they are like unto stars cursed to travel through the cold, empty, lifeless vacuum of space in an eternity of solitary torment.

This is God’s opinion of those without “agape”.  The description is utterly chilling in the depth and scope of its condemnation.  In marked contrast to these scions of evil, people who demonstrate the love of God are to be helpful, not destructive.  They are to be life-giving, not life-stealing.  They are to be controlled and respectful, not wild and shameful.  They are promised an eternal inheritance in the city and kingdom of their loving heavenly father in whose company they will bask forever just as we might enjoy the warming rays of a morning sun on a pristine white sandy beach.  The ones who attempt to destroy these holy ones will be doomed to an icy black future of lonely wandering without ever arriving at a destination.

With this terrible fate in view we ought to be spurred more vigorously toward the high calling of “agape” that is opposed to it.  And with that in mind I would like to finish with a question.  “Agape” is selfless.  It is of such a high sacrificial degree that it requires the one practicing it to give up some or all of what is theirs.  The things surrendered can be broadly categorized as time, effort, possessions, and/or comfort.  If all this is so then how can “agape” truly be Godly love, in that it is an image of what He Himself practices, due to the fact that He has infinite amounts of all of the above?  In other words, how can God really sacrifice anything?

I think the question can be swiftly albeit not easily answered with a single towering premise.  Namely, when God voluntarily surrendered the perfect, eternal, unified communion of the holy trinity He was sacrificing a treasure of incalculable worth that is beyond the computational ability of mankind to fathom.  Consider the following points.

First, think about just exactly what it was that God did.  In Isaiah chapter 53 the prophet describes Jesus as “smitten of God” and “crushed for our iniquities”.  Crushed  is the same kind of language Job used to describe the way he was feeling after literally losing every material thing of value in his life, save for his wife (and her worth was questionable based on her ungodly counsel in Job chapter 2) and the breath of life in his lungs.  And smitten in a biblical context usually means to kill.  This is what the Father was prepared to do to His Son.  And He prophesied it 700 years before it happened!

Picture a husband.  He loves his wife more than his own body.  And she returns his love.  This man sends his loved one a letter informing her of his intent to murder her when he gets home from work.  The wife, ever faithful, waits calmly for her spouse to arrive.  He walks in the door, greets her, and then proceeds to methodically and implacably strike her as hard as he can, over and over, repeatedly hitting her with his fists and feet, until she lies at his feet on the floor in a pool of her own blood, her life draining from her until she is dead.  Obviously, there are dissimilarities with this picture and what God actually did.  But let’s not sugar coat the horrific violence done to the trinity on our behalf.

Secondly, think about Christ’s evening of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.  The word gethsemane means an oil press.  The extraction of olive oil was a three part process in ancient times. First, the raw olives would be harvested from the vines they were growing on.  Then they would be placed into a large circular bowl where a heavy stone would be rolled across them, crushing them and causing the oil to run to the middle where it would be collected in a bowl, leaving the cracked husks behind.  Then these shells would be gathered in baskets and stacked atop each other.  Finally, a heavy rectangular stone would be placed on top of the piled baskets to slowly crush them further and extract even more oil from the olives.

This is noteworthy because this crushing under tremendous weight and pressure was exactly what Jesus experienced that night.  The burden of guilt for the world’s sins slowly settled upon Him and smashed His spirit right down to the ground.  It is no wonder the reaction He had in Luke 22:44: And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.  The pressure was so intense that even the perfect Son of God, who was so devoted to His Father’s will that it was more important to Him than food, eventually asked for mercy two verses prior: “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” 

Thirdly, the pain and anguish was so severe that several hours later Christ cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)  In that moment of despair He felt utterly abandoned by both men and God.  Think about the fact that Jesus had never before, ever, been alone.  Prior to this loneliness was a foreign concept to God.  The members of the trinity had always enjoyed perfect harmonious fellowship with each other.  In fact, to even describe their unity with a word like “always” does it a disservice because “always” indicates the presence and passage of time.  But God has never been bound by time.  Time is beneath Him.  He dwells outside and apart from it.  So the separation and alienation experienced here on the cross by Jesus and the horrible pain of allowing your own Son to be murdered transcends every plane of reality we are capable of comprehending it on. 

Fourthly, consider the shame that Jesus experienced when He was afflicted with sin.  He hates sin with such a burning fiery passion that our hearts would stop beating in our chests if we were to behold the full force and intensity of His hatred.  God takes His holiness and the absence of sin so seriously that He incinerated Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, for entering into His presence in a sinful manner (Leviticus 10:1-2).  In Revelation Christ is depicted as a merciless conqueror who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 2:27).  This means He will be an implacable foe to those who choose to dally in sin.  Sin is anathema to the Lord and He finds it completely intolerable and disgusting.  The sin that was put upon Jesus for our sake was utterly detestable to Him.  It would be like one of us going down to the local sewer, finding a nice fetid pool of stagnant human waste, and taking a bath in it.

So make no mistake.  God sacrificed for us.  He demonstrated a level of “agape” that is frankly completely beyond our comprehension.  He showed us the path of goodness to tread through His unfathomable “agape” when He was put to death on our behalf.  He demonstrated a purity of joy and pleasure in His tender “phileo” toward us through this demonstration of affection.  And when He adopted us into His family as sons and daughters God gave us a blueprint for “storge” that cannot be equaled.  We should awaken every morning with thanksgiving on our lips and in our hearts for what God has done in and through us.  To do less than that is disrespectful to Him.