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.
No comments:
Post a Comment