Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)Isn't that amazing? Or did you miss it? Look, he writes, "Love is from God," so, clearly, any love we give is from God. And what does that mean? "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." Wow!! Think of that! I love my wife, so I've been born of God and know God. A friend of mine isn't married but he loves gaming, so he is born of God and knows God. In fact, I cannot imagine a single human being in the history of human beings who never loved anything, so we can easily and obviously conclude that everyone in all of history has been born of God and knows God. And, what did Jesus say? "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God" (John 17:3). Anyone who has ever loved at all has eternal life, right? What else did Jesus say? In order to be saved, "You must be born again." So on both counts, anyone who loves at all has been born again and knows God, which means that they're saved, going to heaven, with eternal life. See? Jesus's visit really wasn't necessary at all, was it?
This is the kind of muddled thinking that will get you in trouble. How do we know it's muddled? You know because with this kind of reasoning it is not possible to differentiate between "I love my mother" from "I love my wife" from "I love pizza" from "I love God" -- all as suitable evidence that I've been born again and know God. You know because it eliminates the entire reason Jesus came -- "to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). You know because it eliminates "saved by grace apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9). You know because it eliminates the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-6). Ultimately, then, you know because it contradicts essentially everything else we know from God's Word. But the world will tell you that love is a warm feeling and we've all had that. Social Justice Christians will tell you that love is giving to the poor and most of us have done that. And, as a rule, those who are not genuine followers of Christ are happy to discard Scriptures that don't suit their understanding and embrace those that do and call it "following God's Word." What did Paul tell Timothy? We are supposed to accurately handle the Word of God (1 Tim 2:15).
What is John saying, then? His epistle is largely a "how to tell if you're one of His" epistle. It is filled with "If-thens" like, "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:6-7) and "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:8-10). He even says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). So this is about how you can know. Now, John was greatly affected by Jesus's command, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Over and over in all three of his epistles he talks about this. So in the text in question, he specifically speaks to the "beloved" and says we must "love one another." This isn't a command for a general "love your neighbor." It's Jesus's, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). So John wrote, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death" (1 John 3:14). So, to those who consider themselves believers, he says, "Everyone (of you believers) who loves is born of God and knows God." Conversely, "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8). That is, "You call yourself a follower of Christ, a new creation, a believer, but if you don't love your fellow Christians, it's a sure sign that you're mistaken. You can know you are born of God and know God if you actually carry out His command to love your fellow Christians as Christ loved you." How is that? Sacrificially. To the death. Or, as Paul put it, "gave Himself up" (Eph 5:25). That is the love in mind and that love is aimed at "one another" -- fellow believers.
It has been said you should never read a single verse in the Bible. Yea, yea, shock value, but the idea is you should always take context into account when you read. Yanking "whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" out of all context and making it that proof text in that form will lead you into all manner of error. God's people should want to do better. They should want to get what God has to say in His Word in context with all of God's Word. They should absolutely be ready to change their minds to align with God's Word rather than change God's Word to align with their thinking. And we who are followers of Christ need to love our fellow followers of Christ. That's the warning in 1 John 4:7-8.
10 comments:
One of my theological hot takes over the past few years is that most of the proof texts that people use to justify the social gospel are actually commands to show love the fellow believer first and most importantly. Acts 2 is clearly demonstrating that their charity was focused within the church, not generally across Jerusalem. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those outside the family. I am saying that this text and others are directed at fellow children of God.
We always need to be cautious that we aren't trying to find something in Scripture to confirm what we want, but to find in Scripture things that change what we believe.
As when Craig responded to a "pulled out of context" reflection on the passage in question, I asked about atheists and outright God-haters, give they also love some people...some possibly love all people but still refuse to acknowledge God's existence, or even hate Him. The "God is love" people abuse and pervert that concept so as to further their narrative which can, and usually does, support those who engage in blatantly sinful behaviors...behaviors God clearly condemns as sinful...even daring to suggest those behaviors are not sinful based on they are perpetrated. It's actually quite transparently so to those who are honest and objective.
I love these “proof text” posts that help us understand a Bible verse in proper context--where you do that “rightly dividing” work for us.
As you point out, there are different kinds (and even degrees) of love, and not all of them are a godly love--indeed, much of what passes for “love” in our culture is not true love at all, as the Bible would define it or as would reflect God’s nature. “God Is Love” is a true assertion, but “Love Is God” is not, and just the possession of love in any form does not prove one knows the love of God.
As you demonstrated to us here, not only is the immediate context relevant when interpreting a Bible verse or precept, but the entire Bible must support that understanding--for God never contradicts Himself.
I think that the hard part about this discussion of love, in this context, is that the Greek language has multiple words for the different aspects of love, while English doesn't. It really depends on what Greek word is being used. If it's agape, then it seems like it would be rare to find non Christians who aspire to that sort of love. Eros, whole 'nother thing.
Well, of course, it can't be eros since that word is not found anywhere in Scripture. And it is agape. But I think the context makes it much clearer as well.
Stan, I think what is happening is that people are choosing to translate the word love in ways that go beyond agape, and acting as if those other types of love are what John intended. Essentially saying that the person who engages in phileo, eros, etc, get's "born of God" as if they'd engaged in agape. IN essence it's about choosing the equivalent of one of the other Greek words for love and acting as if that's what John was talking about.
Of course, in today's "love," they have more options than just those three. Well, actually, the "agape" version isn't available to them, is it?
It's not, but they'll happily sneak the others in to replace agape.
Stan, I know that you have posted on the topic of “what is love” quite a bit in the past, so this comment of mine will not reflect anything novel, but I was thinking further about the “today’s ‘love’” phrase you mentioned above and had these additional thoughts:
Just as “Love Is God” is not valid (as I mentioned above), “Love Is Love” is also not true. All “love” is not the same or even true love and is not therefore automatically a good thing. If another woman decides she “loves” my husband, should I happily share him with her? If my husband says he has enough “love” for us to add a few “sister wives” to our marriage, should I embrace that? If a man down the street says he “loves” my 9-year-old son or daughter, should I be OK with that? If someone shows their “love” to others in a violent or pathological manner, should that be accepted? If a man wants to “love” another man (or a woman another woman) and engage in sex acts that God considers aberrant, should we celebrate that? Whenever I see people sporting a “Love Is Love” t-shirt or banner, I always want to urge them to honestly think that through.
Post a Comment