In my last post here, I talked about the ultimate calling we have upon our lives. I received several responses and I encourage you to check them out. One called me to “task” so to speak…and rightfully so. Here is what he said:
“Call me a trouble maker, but I’ve long considered the chief end of man is to be a thriving relationship with the Creator and the created. Part of loving the created is understanding that it is broken and needs God’s redemptive grace – each broken thing is a lost treasurer waiting to be restored.”
I totally agree with Herb’s assessment. We do live in a broken world that desperately needs the message of Christ-the One who can heal that brokenness. But sadly, until we can understand the biblical mandate to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we will fail miserably in sharing the life-giving message of Christ. So, in honor of that thought spurred on by Herb’s words, Jaycee’s comment, (and my message Sunday), I want to devote the next two posts to discussing the biblical idea of love.
In truth, I sometimes seriously wonder if we Americans, or any nation of people, truly understand what love is. “I love ice cream.” “I love pizza.” “I love cycling.” “I love my truck.” “I love my wife/husband.” Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to you that we use the same word to describe our feelings for an inanimate object as we do our feelings for our spouse or a person in our life? 😛 I’m just saying…. Anyway, the Greeks were not as tied as we are in expressing ourselves with words. For the sake of this post, I am limiting my thoughts to three words they used. My thoughts will certainly not be complete (that is why there is a comment section for your input).
The first word is EROS. I call this a selfish love. We get our word erotic from it. Notice the word love is in italics. I have a tough time calling this anything but what it really is: lust. I call this the backseat-kind-of-love. You find it in the phrase “I love you if” or “If you really love me…” This isn’t really love at all. Love has no conditions put on it.
The second word is PHILOS. This is a friendship love. In 2 Peter 1:7, he makes an important distinction for us. Peter uses the words “brotherly affection” and then “love.” The first is using the word philos while we are to add to our brotherly affection…love. Philos is not a bad love but it is incomplete because it still carries with it a condition. Have a friend betray you and watch your feelings for that friend change overnight. The way I describe this is “I love you because.”
The third word is agape. This is an unconditional love. It is found in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world.” We find it expressed in Jesus’ words on the cross: “Father, forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing.” Agape love is an unconditional love expressed with “I love you in spite of.” I love what Mark Buchanan says in his book Hidden in Plain Sight:
Agape love seeks those who never saw it coming, who never had it coming, who never sought it out. It shows up unannounced, unexpected, undeserved.” (p.180)
I’m going to stop now and save further discussion on agape love for the next post. But I have a question or two for you today: What kind of love do you think you are exhibiting to those closest to you? To those who are seemingly unlovable? To your coworker who drives you crazy? To that spouse who is wearing thin? Let me know what you are thinking…I would love to hear.
bill, i’m no greek expert, though i’ve studied a little. i probably know just enough to get myself in trouble. all the same, there are a few comments i want to make about these “love” words. i suppose i disagree to some extent:
1) it seems to me that eros is not in itself selfish, though it is physical (and can involve lust). i just figure eros love is surely a beautiful gift from God, and i’m blessed to share this love with my wife. i’m not suggesting i shouldn’t seek to love her in other ways and forms, but i wouldn’t call it selfish or merely lust. any love can be done selfishly.
2) ancient literature actually used agape love to speak of things as simple as good meals — which is ironic because you poked fun at “i love pizza.” i think christians have for years been trying to make this word mean more than it actually did/does. which is sad, by the way, because it’s actual meaning seems plenty good to me. to put something on top of a list, or to hold it in high regard. it’s certainly not unconditional, but when employed it also is not self-serving because it’s placed the other individual as higher than myself. it can be commanded (as Jesus does command it), but can certainly also be done selfishly (ie. i’m going to love you so i can go to heaven). i think the definition of holding something or someone in high regard, in a higher place of importance than myself, actually makes much more sense in most cases in which agape is used in the new testament — especially for instance 1 corinthians 13.
3) there’s also storge love, which is something like the natural affections that a parent has for a child. that one is definitely worth mentioning, i think.
just my thoughts.
James: I do appreciate your comments. In the short time/post I had I know I left some things out. For example, there is nothing wrong with eros love as long as it relates to my wife. outside of marriage is obviously questionable. It is also true that a marriage cannot be built on eros. I should have emphasized-in all three- the key words of “if”, “because” and “in spite of.” I see your point about holding in high regard but I also see unconditional as the ultimate test. I was also aware of storge/family love but since it was outside the scope of my message I chose to leave it out rather than overwhelm. I do thank you for your input. You have given me some things to think about.
i wish i could say the love i have is agape. however, most of the time it’s more of a “i love you because” – sometimes the reasons are valid and actually those times can be qualified as agape times… sometimes the reasons are more selfish.
love toward those seemingly unlovable or who drive me nuts… heh… i call that love “patient love” – love that often requires me to take a deep breath, breathe a “please help” prayer, and try to see the potential in that person.
heh… i am reminded of my boys in the camp… they drove me up the wall sometimes with their demands or screams or getting lost, but every night or every so often, i would stand watching them and realize that i would do anything for them… even play soccer (and i vowed to never play soccer in my life after one accident…)…
that’s sure something to think about. thanks for sharing, Bill.
p.s. dang, it feels good to be back – i missed reading your posts (i got them all, but i was too tired to read anything after the day in the camp was over…)
Zee: It is so good to have you back after the 2 week camp! I read your post (read it everyone please) and can see you were wiped out. Glad you survived. 🙂 As for the comment: thanks for your honesty. I think we would all admit to some selfish times. Glad you missed me. LOL
I love word games. Eros is not lust, it is not selfish, it is a greek term used to describe a sensual feeling for someone or some thing. Not necessarily a sexual feeling. Not necessarily physical. A sensual love of nature would be eros. Lust isn’t even a form of love. Eros describes a form of love. I don’t think that what goes on in back seats is a form of love. It’s more a form of something else. I am not sure what the Greek word for that was. I am sure they had one tho.
Agape is used in the context of feelings toward other people throughout the new testament. Not feelings for Pizzas. I do wonder if they were predominately sausage or pepperoni fans though.
“I see your point about holding in high regard but I also see unconditional as the ultimate test.”
bill, i hope i can disagree in a respectful way. know that i mean this in love (several manners of it — but not the eros one). it’s just that i have a problem with you deciding the “unconditionality” of love is the test of whether or not it’s ‘agape.’ because that’s simply not what the word meant in the greek language.
now, i’m not arguing at all that God’s love is conditional. i’m also not suggesting we shouldn’t strive to have unconditional love and caring for one another. i’m simply saying the word ‘agape’ does not mean that. the correct definition has nothing to do with a special kind of divine and unconditional God love. it would be better for us to speak of God’s “unconditional agape” — which is definitely biblical. but we need that adjective, because it’s not implied in the word itself.
jn 12:43 – “they loved (agape) praise from men more than praise from God.”
jn 3:19 – “men loved (agape) darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
2 pet 2:15 – “Baalam… loved (agape) the wages of wickedness.”
these are just a few examples in scripture of the word ‘agape’ used in a way that is contrary to what many would teach. [there are likely more in scripture and are probably hundreds in other greek literature.] love in these passages is not a divine, God-like love. and it’s also not unconditional for these guys love the world and its evil BECAUSE of what they’re getting from it. that is a conditional love.
i want to be clear, though. i think the principles you are teaching about God’s love for us — and our love for others — are correct. i just think we have to get them from a more broad understanding of the bible. they are not inherent in the word ‘agape.’
and i don’t know that i’m qualified to give the “best” definition for agape, but i think it’s something like this:
– placing something in very high regard
– giving something great importance
– putting something at the top of a list
– being devoted to something
i can agape ice cream, soccer, my daughter, and reading a book at the beach. and i do agape all of those. though my daughter is the only item in that list that i agape unconditionally.
I must confess I know nothing about Greek. But I do love these little lessons. 🙂
jeff, i appreciate your thoughts on eros love. to be honest, i’ve never studied the word in detail and probably have a lot to learn about it. my initial reaction was merely that it can’t be bad in and of itself. you’ve given me some good thoughts on the word, and a desire to study it more fully.
as for agape, though, i think there are many places in the new testament in which it does not refer to feelings for other people. and (probably more important) in other greek works from that time period, it is used to speak (you’re right) not of pizza, but of many a non-person.
Good stuff! Not equipped to debate but learning from you all. Thanks for the thread Bill! Love it! (which love is that?)
Jeff: please note that I stated in eros that I put it is italics because I seriously questioned it as being “love.” I do disagree with you that it is not selfish or lust. Unless it is lust for my wife, lust toward another person is wrong. I also have not problem with your idea of agape. I was stating how “we” use it to describe our feelings for an inanimate object. I also would reject both the pepperoni and sausage pizza. Veggie is the way to go. 🙂
Bill: hmm…
is lust for one’s own wife / husband a good thing?
*shrug* just throwing this in the discussion – i have never been married so i can’t really speak for married couples, but it’s something that seemed odd to me… maybe it’s not.
james: Appreciate the respectful disagreement. That speaks volumes to me. I over-stated the idea of unconditional as being the ultimate test of whether it was agape or not. That was a bad statement. You have given me some food for thought and I will have to do some more research before making such narrow “agape” statements again.
I welcome other comments and dialogue on this if you care to jump in.
Duane: thanks. Hope we all learn.
Tom: Neither am I! Thanks for the comment.
Zee: Good question. Perhaps seeing lust in the marriage relationship as “a very strong desire” might clear up the use of that word. And yes, I do believe it is a good thing. 🙂 For example, when separated for a period of time having strong sexual feelings (call it lust if you will) for your spouse should be and are okay.
I guess it does make sense – the “desire” certainly sounds better than “lust” 😀 i guess lust just has been used too many times in bad context 🙂
Zee: Glad it helped but you are right. Too many bad contexts.
I wish I could say that I’m in full Agape mode all the time, but the truth is that the way I love those around me is not as consistent as it should be. I do find that when I’m loving my Heavenly Father then Agapeness flows through me.
Good thoughts and conservations all, and thanks Bill!
Jay: you got a club formed for those of us with the same problem? I would join. Thanks for the thoughts. And you’re welcome.
I love your thought process. In spite of some lexical disagreements I might have, the bottom line is clear and absolutely correct – “until we can understand the biblical mandate to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we will fail miserably in sharing the life-giving message of Christ”
Herb: thanks for the comment. You aren’t the only one who had lexical disagreements. 🙂 (Check out the next post) I reckon at least something came out right. *shrug*
Bill, about the lexical issues, one thing is certain: I could be wrong 🙂
Herb: in all seriousness, if you feel that mentioning them would be beneficial to me or to the discussion feel free to do so.
well – I wouldn’t do that publicly, but I’d love a private discussion 🙂
Herb: feel free to shoot me an email. Long as it is an email and not a bullet. 🙂
haha – check your mail – duck first – just kidding!
Hi Cycleguy,
I have to agree that the bottom line is to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’. However or whatever ‘word’ we want to use for this type of behavior and conduct of the believer.
I think we want to be careful about words and genealogies and so forth, the Bible says in Titus?, Timothy?
As Christians I believe we are seeking the practical and the doctrinal stances and beliefs of the gospel for the life of the Christian. Just my thoughts.
Linda: Agree about the bottom line. Not sure what you mean by “words and geneaologies.
Hi Cycleguy,
What I mean about ‘words and geneologies’ is words and their use have an importance, but the main import or goal is to instruct the believer on love in behavior and conduct. In this case it is ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. That’s what’s being taught.
There are references in II Tim 2:14….’quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen’.
Titus 3:9….avoid foolish controversies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless’.
I Tim 1:4… nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work– which is by faith’.
Nothing wrong with a little debate, but I think we want to limit the amount of discourse about controversial ‘words’. We’re looking for the ‘bigger picture’ as they say. The truth about loving the brothers in Christ, loving others, loving our neighbours, loving our enemies.
Linda: Understand now. But I do welcome discussion and do in the end want all to come to a greater understanding of loving others through Christ.
linda, to be honest i’m not sure if i should apologize…
– to you for coming across as if i think the meanings of words are more important than the practicality of loving one another? or
– to everyone for having raised a big stink and being argumentative about some greek word?
i agree wholeheartedly that what’s important is our love for one another. i also don’t want to cause rifts in that love just because i disagree about the meanings of words, the doctrine of a particular group, or the convictions of an individual. i want to be true to scripture and its intents and purposes, and i want teachers to be accountable to what they are teaching and the ways in which they are teaching it. i want to be known as someone who loves more than someone who knows. and i want to do what builds up others. i also want to be free to discuss best interpretations and sharpen others as i am sharpened.
i struggle, i think, to find a balance sometimes. thanks for your words, and i accept them and will think and pray on them. i know you didn’t actually direct them at me, but perhaps the Holy Spirit did. it’s at least worthwhile for me to consider the why and how of my own thoughts and comments.
James: I appreciate your humility in being open to Linda’s words but as moderator of this blog I had no trouble with your “confronting” me on the love posts. None whatsoever. I did not see what you did as causing rifts but rather as taking James 3:1 to one of its conclusions. I never want to be seen or to see that I am beyond learning and even being corrected. I took your comments (and others) as being something I can learn from. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire.
BTW: notice Herb’s comments. We even took it private. 🙂