In the last blog, it was claimed that God's love as portrayed in the Bible is more complicated (and multifaceted) than many of us realize. But unfortunately, most Christian people would sum up God's love with one simple word: unconditional. And it is from this label that has come the popular statement, "God hates the sin but loves the sinner." However, many Bible passages convey God's love as conditional toward sinners (Jude 21) and several passages even tell us point blank that God hates sinners (Psalm 5). And so we must ask ourselves, "Is 'unconditional' the best way to describe God's love?" I am convinced that this label is more confusing and misleading than helpful. Here's why...
THE DANGERS OF THE 'UNCONDITIONAL' LABEL
Those of us who defend God's love as being summarily 'unconditional' might unknowingly be encouraging universalism. Let me explain. If God's love is summarily 'unconditional' then the universalists have got the message of salvation right: Jesus died based on an unconditional love for all people and so no one can be eternally condemned based on any conditions. Why? That would violate the unconditionalness of God's love! And so Jesus lovingly saves everyone without condition; All roads must lead to God (and are actually irrelevant); Hell is just a myth; And a love devoid of justice ultimately wins; PERIOD. But we know that this is NOT what the Bible teaches. Maybe this is why the Bible never tells us that God's love is 'unconditional.' This label would contradict the very message of salvation, a message that encapsulates God's love for all of humanity! Why? Salvation has a condition: repentance from sin.
JOHN 3:16 AND GOD'S LOVE
But maybe you're thinking, "John 3:16 says that God loved the entire world and therefore sent His son to die for sinners. And Romans 5:8 tells us that Jesus died for us WHILE we were still sinners. Don't these verses indicate that God's love is unconditional?" Well, they certainly teach us that Jesus' death WAS an undeserved expression of God's love for ALL of humanity. But while this expression of love might demonstrate to us that God's love has 'unconditionally' PURSUED us, it doesn't seem to demonstrate that God's love 'unconditionally' ACCEPTS us. Because according to John 3:16, salvation has a condition: belief.
Additionally, while John 3:16 clearly teaches that God HAS extravagantly LOVED the world in the PAST through Jesus, we need to ask ourselves this question, "Does John 3:16 also teach us that God will ALWAYS love ALL of humanity without condition in the FUTURE?" John 3:17 certainly makes this a possibility. It indicates that God did NOT send Jesus in the past to condemn the world (but rather to save the world). But then John 3:18 tells us that whoever does not believe in Jesus stands condemned. This is reiterated in John 5:22 which teaches that IN THE FUTURE Jesus will judge and condemn the world. How are these seemingly contradictory verses to be held together? This (in my opinion) is where verses like Jude 21 and Psalm 5 bring further clarity to the nature of God's love.
And so John 3:16 clearly teaches us that God's love is AVAILABLE to all people in the world. That God's love is SELF-GIVING. That God's love has PURSUED sinners and saints alike. And that God's love is extremely GRACIOUS. But does it teach that God's love is SUMMARILY unconditional? I leave that conclusion up to you (but please don't ignore John 3:18!).
JEREMIAH 31:3 AND GOD'S LOVE
But wait a minute. God's love is said to be 'everlasting' (hb: olam) in Jeremiah 31:3. So how can an EVERLASTING love ever STOP loving humanity? Answer: It can't and it doesn't. But just because God's love is permanent (or everlasting) does not mean that His love is unconditional.
How can this be? Well, the permanence of God's love is expressed CORPORATELY (not individually) in Jeremiah 31:3. As we've already seen, God's everlasting love is CORPORATELY lavished on humanity (John 3:16a) but must be INDIVIDUALLY appropriated to be received (John 3:16b). And so this is why God can say in Exodus 20:6, "But I lavish UNFAILING (hb: olam) love (hb: hesed) for a thousand generations ON THOSE WHO LOVE ME AND OBEY MY COMMANDS." In this way, God never stops loving humanity even though He can stop loving defiantly disobedient INDIVIDUALS!
And so in Jeremiah 31:3, God's love has withstood Israel's CORPORATE acts of disobedience. But does this mean that God's love has been manifested without condition to every INDIVIDUAL Israelite person? NO. How do we know this? It appears that in the context of Jeremiah 31:3, God's everlasting love will only be experienced by those who "survived the sword" (31:2), to "Virgin Israel" (31:4), to "the remnant Israel" (31:7).
So who exactly are those who died by the sword? Who is the non-Virgin Israel? You have to go all the way back to Jeremiah 29:15-19 to find this out. They are those who did not listen to God's words (29:19) and did "outrageous things" such as commit adultery with their neighbors' wives (29:23). These Israelites were DEFIANT sinners. And so they were treated by the Lord like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon burned in the fire (29:22). Did these defiant INDIVIDUALS experience God's EVERLASTING love? It certainly doesn't sound like it.
So does this mean that God's love is really NOT everlasting? I don't think so. Let me explain. Imagine I told you that I will NEVER STOP loving my home state of Illinois but that I don't love the traffic in Chicago, does this mean that I have stopped loving Illinois? NO. Just because I love the state of Illinois does not mean that I am required to love ever INDIVIDUAL detail about the state. I can love Illinois and still hate the Chicago traffic. The same is true when it comes to God's everlasting love. Just because He loves THE WORLD does not mean that He is required to love every INDIVIDUAL in the world. In this way, God's love for humanity is EVERLASTING.
THE BOTTOM LINE
And so God can love the world with an everlasting love and still hate the defiant sinner. To some, this makes God sound mean and intolerant. And the truth is that God is intolerant when it comes to people who intentionally set out to ruin His world through their defiant sin. But we must not let God's intolerance of evil overshadow the greatness of His love. Because even though God's love may not be unconditional, it is still gracious, self-giving, available to all people, relentlessly pursuant, and everlasting (...and the list could go on). In short, God's love is extravagant even though it is not unconditional. So then why does rejecting the notion that God's love is unconditional make so many evangelical Christians uneasy? We'll look into this question in the next blog.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Saturday, August 3, 2013
God's Love Misunderstood (Part 1)
Somewhere along the line, the idea of God's love as being "unconditional" crept into the Christian vocabulary. So where did this concept of God's love come from? The Bible? Bible scholars? NOPE. This term is never used in the Holy Scriptures and neither was it acquired from Biblical scholarship. So where did it come from? To the best of my knowledge, it originated with the pop psychologist Erich Fromm in the 1930's. He ultimately wrote the book The Art of Love (1956) that laid out various stages of love. According to Fromm, love reaches its pinnacle with "Motherly Love." And to quote Fromm, "Mother's love is peace. It need not be acquired, it need not be deserved." In other words, Motherly Love is unconditional and separates the individual from his or her behavior. So is this how Christians should understand God's love? Does God love the sinner even though He hates the sin? Does God's love reach the pinnacle of love based on Fromm's standards? Let's take a look at what the Bible says.
GOD'S LOVE IS AGAPE
When talking of God's love, many begin with the classical Greek distinctions of love: storge, eros, philia, and agape. How do these words differ in meaning? Agape refers to a selfless love that expects nothing in return. Eros refers to a romantic love based in emotion and physical beauty. Philia is a loyalty shared between friends that involves some level of give and take from both people. Storge is a natural affection between two people such as a mother and daughter. So the question is, "Does the Bible uphold these distinctions or like most languages, were these fine, surgical semantical differences lost over time (and before the New Testament was written)?"
Many point to John 21:15-19 as a proof that these distinctions remained intact at the time of the New Testament's writing. In this passage, Jesus asks Peter, "Do you agape me more than these?" Peter replies, "You know that I philia you" to which Jesus replies, "Feed my arnia (sheep)." Not satisfied Jesus asks again, "Do you agape me?" to which Peter replies, "Lord, you know I philia you." Jesus reiterates, "Take care of my probata (sheep)." Jesus asks a THIRD time, "Simon, do you philia me?" Peter responds, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I philia you." Jesus repeats for the THIRD time, "Feed my probata." Is Jesus challenging Peter to a greater agape love only to settle for the only love Peter is willing to offer, philia love? If the distinctions of classical Greek hold up, this would be the appropriate conclusion.
However, in light of the fact that John also uses two terms to refer to "sheep" (arnia and probata) in these same verses, many believe that his interchange between philia and agape is merely stylistic. This conclusion is reinforced by the observation that Jesus' THREEFOLD questioning of Peter's love for Him parallels Peter's THREEFOLD denial of Jesus before His crucifixion. Therefore, based on this explanation, Jesus isn't repeating the same question with the hope that Peter will commit to a higher type of love in his relationship with Jesus (agape vs. philia). NO. Peter is being subtly challenged to follow Jesus no matter the cost and refuse to deny Jesus ever again. And this explanation seems very plausible. And so, John 21:15-19 (in my opinion) does not provide an airtight argument that proves the various Greek terms for love maintain their classical distinctions in the New Testament.
Far more informative (in my opinion) is Jude 21 which says, "keep yourselves in God's agape as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." This verse certainly sounds like people (even professing, "called" Christians! - Jude 1) can stand outside of God's agape (if, as most conclude, 'the love of God' is understood in this verse as a subjective genitive). That doesn't sound very unconditional or "motherly" to me. And John 15:10 adds fuel to the fire (literally; see John 15:6). It says, "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my agape." It certainly appears that God's agape love (in this verse) requires something in return! If true, the classical Greek distinctions of love appear to have been flattened (or at least diluted) to some degree by the time of the New Testament. And as a result, context (and not an appeal to classical Greek) is what should drive our understanding of the word agape. And as we've seen, agape can be laden with conditionality in certain contexts.
IS GOD'S LOVE ONLY CONDITIONAL?
But maybe you're thinking, "God sent His son to die for the world while we were still sinners because He loves the world in some 'unconditional' sense (John 3:16; Romans 5:8); and the Bible implies that no one can separate us from God's love (Romans 8:35-39); and even the Old Testament claims that God's love is 'everlasting' (Jeremiah 31:3). Certainly these verses must be factored into the equation." And you would be right. These verses do need to be considered when trying to understand God's love. But unfortunately, these verses have received all of the limelight and completely overshadowed verses like Jude 21. And as a result, the Bible's portrayal of God's love has been oversimplified in our day and age. But we must understand that God's love as portrayed in Scripture is more nuanced than most of us realize! D.A. Carson's book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, exposes the complexity and various contours of God's love!
And so in the next blog, we will look deeper into the various nuances of God's love and specifically the verses that many people use to support the 'unconditionality' of God's love.
GOD'S LOVE IS AGAPE
When talking of God's love, many begin with the classical Greek distinctions of love: storge, eros, philia, and agape. How do these words differ in meaning? Agape refers to a selfless love that expects nothing in return. Eros refers to a romantic love based in emotion and physical beauty. Philia is a loyalty shared between friends that involves some level of give and take from both people. Storge is a natural affection between two people such as a mother and daughter. So the question is, "Does the Bible uphold these distinctions or like most languages, were these fine, surgical semantical differences lost over time (and before the New Testament was written)?"
Many point to John 21:15-19 as a proof that these distinctions remained intact at the time of the New Testament's writing. In this passage, Jesus asks Peter, "Do you agape me more than these?" Peter replies, "You know that I philia you" to which Jesus replies, "Feed my arnia (sheep)." Not satisfied Jesus asks again, "Do you agape me?" to which Peter replies, "Lord, you know I philia you." Jesus reiterates, "Take care of my probata (sheep)." Jesus asks a THIRD time, "Simon, do you philia me?" Peter responds, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I philia you." Jesus repeats for the THIRD time, "Feed my probata." Is Jesus challenging Peter to a greater agape love only to settle for the only love Peter is willing to offer, philia love? If the distinctions of classical Greek hold up, this would be the appropriate conclusion.
However, in light of the fact that John also uses two terms to refer to "sheep" (arnia and probata) in these same verses, many believe that his interchange between philia and agape is merely stylistic. This conclusion is reinforced by the observation that Jesus' THREEFOLD questioning of Peter's love for Him parallels Peter's THREEFOLD denial of Jesus before His crucifixion. Therefore, based on this explanation, Jesus isn't repeating the same question with the hope that Peter will commit to a higher type of love in his relationship with Jesus (agape vs. philia). NO. Peter is being subtly challenged to follow Jesus no matter the cost and refuse to deny Jesus ever again. And this explanation seems very plausible. And so, John 21:15-19 (in my opinion) does not provide an airtight argument that proves the various Greek terms for love maintain their classical distinctions in the New Testament.
Far more informative (in my opinion) is Jude 21 which says, "keep yourselves in God's agape as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." This verse certainly sounds like people (even professing, "called" Christians! - Jude 1) can stand outside of God's agape (if, as most conclude, 'the love of God' is understood in this verse as a subjective genitive). That doesn't sound very unconditional or "motherly" to me. And John 15:10 adds fuel to the fire (literally; see John 15:6). It says, "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my agape." It certainly appears that God's agape love (in this verse) requires something in return! If true, the classical Greek distinctions of love appear to have been flattened (or at least diluted) to some degree by the time of the New Testament. And as a result, context (and not an appeal to classical Greek) is what should drive our understanding of the word agape. And as we've seen, agape can be laden with conditionality in certain contexts.
IS GOD'S LOVE ONLY CONDITIONAL?
But maybe you're thinking, "God sent His son to die for the world while we were still sinners because He loves the world in some 'unconditional' sense (John 3:16; Romans 5:8); and the Bible implies that no one can separate us from God's love (Romans 8:35-39); and even the Old Testament claims that God's love is 'everlasting' (Jeremiah 31:3). Certainly these verses must be factored into the equation." And you would be right. These verses do need to be considered when trying to understand God's love. But unfortunately, these verses have received all of the limelight and completely overshadowed verses like Jude 21. And as a result, the Bible's portrayal of God's love has been oversimplified in our day and age. But we must understand that God's love as portrayed in Scripture is more nuanced than most of us realize! D.A. Carson's book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, exposes the complexity and various contours of God's love!
And so in the next blog, we will look deeper into the various nuances of God's love and specifically the verses that many people use to support the 'unconditionality' of God's love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)