Our problem occurs, however, when we substitute the wrong thing in that blank. We read John's words in the text and know that "love" goes in that particular spot, but we have so confused the concept of love that it is almost a mistake to fill in that blank with that word. We need first to figure out just what is intended by it.
A starting point for that calculation is to find out what John did not say. He had several words available for what he intended. The Greeks had lots of words, like eros and storge and philos. John did not use them. We commonly use the term "love" to reflect physical, erotic love. Yes, we use the word that way in some cases. No, John did not mean that in this case because he didn't use that word. Nor did he reference natural family affection or brotherly affection. Very common concepts both in the Greek world and in our own. John was not talking about a husband's love for his wife, a mother's love for a child, or the love of two friends for one another. Yes, those are all versions of love. But John was not talking about those. He was talking about agape. We know this simply because it's the word he used.
If you examine Paul's description of the concept, you should see that it is certainly not the same thing as these others.
Love is patient,This description puts this lifestyle of love that John expects of all who know God and are born of God far beyond the everyday concept. How often, for instance, does our culture understand "love" to include impatience? Of course we are impatient with people we love, right? Well, yes, if we're talking about one of the other concepts of love, but not this one. Or how often have you seen people who claim to love another and yet seek their own interests instead? Common? Sure. Love? Not this version. Surely we've all heard that "If you love someone, you accept them as they are without judgment." In some versions of love, that makes sense. This one specifically denies that concept. Love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in truth." Most people's version of love is that it is easily dissuaded (you know, "I loved him but he proved untrustworthy; it's over."); this one "believes all things." The love that John is writing about in 1 John 4:7-8 believes the best of the beloved even against the evidence -- yea, against much evidence. In fact, this version of love never fails. "Fall out of love"? Absolutely ... in the more common versions. Ruled out entirely in this one.
love is kind,
and is not jealous;
love does not brag
and is not arrogant,
does not act unbecomingly;
it does not seek its own,
is not provoked,
does not take into account a wrong suffered,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things.
Love never fails (1 Cor 13:4-8).
When you stack up Paul's description of John's hallmark of the genuine "born of God" person who actually knows God, the true believer, it turns out that "he who loves not" is not a minority, but a huge pool of people in this world. Oh, sure, they love erotically or familially or brotherly. They have some version of "love". Just not the one that John is calling for. John and the Holy Spirit who is breathing this text. I think that kind of love is actually far too rare.
3 comments:
The objection might be raised, "But Stan, isn't this more about loving like Jesus does than being right? This isn't about believing correctly, but about loving, isn't it?"
And this illustrates the problem of today's understanding of "love" as the Bible uses the term. If love "rejoices with the truth", then "believing correctly" cannot be separated from "love". Indeed, John (you know, the author of the text in question) wrote, "Let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). Peter wrote, "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (1 Peter 1:22). Biblical love intrinsically links to truth, and "believing right" is exactly part of the aim of "loving right".
You articulate the great disconnect here. "If love 'rejoices with the truth', then 'believing correctly' cannot be separated from 'love'".
But of course a very thick wall seems to have been erected between the two.
Post a Comment