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 1st,
2nd, and 3rd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 (1st Corinthians 4:21)
- It builds up others rather than self (1st Corinthians 8:1)
- It is rooted deeply in one’s soul (2nd Corinthians 2:4)
- It strives after good works (2nd 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 (1st Thessalonians 5:13)
- It is content (1st 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 1st
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment