We use the word Love so much these days that it often doesn’t seem to mean much. There’s lots of love, but without caring. For instance, I love sushi, especially ikura and uni. Add a quail egg, and there’s even more to love. But does that love include caring? No. It’s just food, there’s no caring associated with that love.
But then there’s you, the person reading this. Chances are I don’t know you – and you don’t know me. How can I love you the same way I love sushi? It makes no sense to do that. But I do care about you. I care enough about you that I spend lots of time and energy writing things for this site and my other one. That’s caring without love. Or is it?
What is love?
For one thing, “what is love” is a song by Nestor Alexander Haddaway. Saturday Night Live used to do a set with it many years ago. But that’s not what I mean here.
The question really is – what is “love”? Sure, there’s a dictionary definition. Supposedly that’s based on the way people actually use the word. But look how love is defined at dictionary.com:
- a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
- a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
- sexual passion or desire.
With that definition, we’d never associate the word love with sushi. Or with those heart-shaped fruit bowls above. But we do. We love everything from food to TV shows. We love all sorts of things. When we remodeled our kitchen, we even loved the new kitchen sink. Obviously, there’s a disconnect here between the definition and common usage.
Even with people, if I don’t know you, it’s hard to really love you the same way I do my wife. Or even friends. Even acquaintances. Although, we do seem to be able to find ways to hate people we don’t know.
Love without caring
What should be just as obvious is that “love” doesn’t necessarily mean much anymore. That’s why I used the title – love without caring. Sure – caring can really be misused too. But it doesn’t seem to be thrown around like the word “love” is. So what I really want to look at is “caring”. And then using the word love combined with a certain level of caring.
And while this may seem rather trivial so far, I’m about to get very serious.
The topic that brings this up is made clear in a recent NBC News headline:
United Methodists edge toward breakup over LGBT policies
The article starts off with this:
There’s at least one area of agreement among conservative, centrist and liberal leaders in the United Methodist Church: America’s largest mainline Protestant denomination is on a path toward likely breakup over differences on same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBT pastors.
The differences have simmered for years, and came to a head in February at a conference in St. Louis where delegates voted 438-384 for a proposal called the Traditional Plan, which strengthens bans on LGBT-inclusive practices. A majority of U.S.-based delegates opposed that plan and favored LGBT-friendly options, but they were outvoted by U.S. conservatives teamed with most of the delegates from Methodist strongholds in Africa and the Philippines.
Many believe the vote will prompt an exodus from the church by liberal congregations that are already expressing their dissatisfaction over the move.
Among other things, what’s happening is going to be viewed, by some, as a love versus hate scenario. But is it? If we can step back from the emotionally charged issue of LGBT rights for a moment, is it really love versus hate? That’s hard to do – step back. It means not looking to our already existing feelings about LGBT lifestyles. About Christian churches – Methodist or otherwise. Even stepping back from the God we created in our own personal image.
Stepping back from our biases
Yeah – it’s hard. We need to look at someone, not as LGBT, but as a fellow human being. We need to look at the church, any church, the way God intended it to be. And while we’re at it, we need to look at God the way He describes Himself. After all, we didn’t really create Him – He created us.
Are you ready? Can you do it? Do you even want to do it? If you answered “no”, then I submit you’re not ready to love or to care. Because at the end of the day, at the end of our life, we’re people. People created by God. No more. And certainly no less.
As we go through this, remember what I said about getting rid of preconceived notions. Some of you, maybe even many, will be surprised at what you read. I’m going to look to one source – God’s word. The Bible. And we’ll look at the language in which it was written – Hebrew or Greek.
Further, we’ll look at the culture of the time. It won’t be our language today – English, Russian, German, Spanish, Etc. And it won’t be the culture of today. Because things really do get lost in translation. And things really do change from one generation to the next. So we’ll look at the original and then try to figure out what that means to us today. Real love. Real caring. As in God’s kind of love and caring.
Does this apply to you, the reader, no matter who you are?
I know – if you’re not Christian, you may think this doesn’t apply to you. Especially if your choice to be something other than Christian was based on “Christians” you know. But again remember, this is about the way God intended it to be. The way Jesus told His followers to act. What I’m trying to say is, don’t give up on God because some people don’t measure up to His standards. Truth is, none of us do.
This is about the way we should try to be in this life. And about the way we will be in the next life. Not based on some denominational doctrine of what the Bible supposedly says – but what it really says. So I encourage you to try to stay with me here.
As a society, we really need to figure out what we mean when we say love. Lot’s of disagreements, even downright hatred towards each other, come from using the word love too freely. Saying we love someone when there’s little or no actual love involved at all. And it seems to be that maybe the best way to do that is to look at the amount and kind of caring that goes with that overused word – love.
God’s kind of love
To put it really simply, God’s kind of love is, in a word, God.
Disclaimer: – before we proceed, I’m writing from the point of view of the Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible is slightly different. Furthermore, speaking as a former Catholic, I believe their traditions and structures are beyond what’s recorded in the Bible. I’m also not writing about the extra things added by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, or other groups that claim to be Christian but do not restrict their beliefs and teaching to what’s in the Bible. Since we’re looking at God here, it also won’t include Buddhism, Islam (because the Qur’an conflicts with the Bible in so many areas, including its statements that Jesus is not the Son of God), or any other non-Christian religion.
The restrictions are necessary. Otherwise, “God”, like the word “love” has so many different meanings and connotations that it’s useless. It could mean nothing, everything, or literally anything in between.
God’s Love and Ours
1Jn 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
When John writes, Dear friends, let us love one another, the audience is other Christians. He says love comes from God. As an example of God’s love for us, John writes about Jesus. Given that, we’re clearly talking about Christians as people who believe Jesus is the Son of God. Also that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected, and returned to Heaven. Without those basic beliefs, John’s conclusion in verse 10 makes no sense.
Calling ourselves Christian is meaningless unless be believe this is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. While that may sound obvious, it apparently isn’t. At least 25% of people who claim to be Christian do not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Again – unless we believe that, His sacrifice cannot exist. There’s no forgiveness. And God’s love is as meaningless as me loving ikura sushi with a quail egg on top.
That’s important for everyone to realize. Including those of you who are non-Christians. If your view of Christianity is negative because of people like this, know that their basic beliefs are 180 degrees opposite of what the Bible teaches. And their view of “love”, because of that, is skewed.
As for non-Christians who don’t believe what I just wrote about Jesus, that’s OK. You’re not claiming to be Christian. I have nothing against you. I do hope to convince you to take (another?) look at what Christianity really is, but it’s not my place to judge you.
1Jn 4:13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
This part of the passage is the source for when Christians say that “God is love“. It has some examples and the reasons why God is love is so important. To step away from these verses and redefine love as something else is to redefine God. In other words, to have a different view of love, one based on our wishes for what we want love to mean, is to redefine God in our image. And then, God ceases to be God. We then have a different kind of love, one without caring.
We have made ourselves into god. Or, at the very least tried to put ourselves above God. As you may remember, that’s the very scenario from the Garden of Eden.
The Fall of Man
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
Ge 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
Ge 3:4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
For those of you who are Christian, tell me – do you really want to go there? Especially for those who are Christian leaders, tell me – do you really want to go there? Christian leaders, of all people, really have to know where this is going to end up. Hint – it’s not a good place. Don’t be redefining love. Don’t be redefining God.
1Jn 4:19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
This brings in two important points. First – that we love because God loved us first. Second, it brings in the contrasting issue of hate.
We love because he first loved us
Yes, God did love us first. I know, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. But it’s not like it was for no reason. They got plenty of warning. If anything, they deserved worse. After all, looking at the literal Hebrew from Genesis, God told them they would die die. Yes – die is there twice, it’s not a typo. For more on that whole Eden incident, please see Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden? and The Problem of Free Will.
The New Testament opens with yet another example of God’s love. Jesus – who we read about above. And remember what’s probably the single most famous verse in the Bible, one which shows great love and caring:
Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Once again, we really shouldn’t be redefining God’s love. Jesus died, for us, because of God’s love. The very same love that some are trying to redefine. For a non-Christian to do this, it’s understandable. For a Christian to do it, it’s beyond belief. God’s love is at the very core of what we believe. How can we even want to change it?
I love God but hate my brother
By now, it should be apparent that it’s just not possible to love God but hate someone else.
Actually, it is possible. Sort of. We do it a lot. But when it happens, one of maybe four things is going on.
- The person isn’t Christian. As above, I’m not judging non-Christians. Without the belief in Jesus as the Son of God and that He’s our Lord and Savior, and without any attempt to try to live a Christian life, there’s no expectation that they even have a true understanding of God and God’s love.
- The person is Christian, but emotions have temporarily taken over. Emphasis on the word temporary. We’re fallen people. It happens. The thing is to return to our faith and try to live in a fashion that shows God’s love.
- We don’t love God the way He loves us. We’ve redefined love. And once again, that means we’ve redefined God. Not a good place to be.
- We’re messed up in our definition of hate.
What is hate?
Presumably, hate is the absence of love. Dictionary.com says:
verb (used with object), hat·ed, hat·ing.
verb (used without object), hat·ed, hat·ing.
noun
intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
OK, but exactly what is it that is hated? That’s a question that needs to be answered.
But before we go there, let’s look at the Biblical meanings, both Old and New Testament.
HATE (Heb. śānē˒; Gk. miséō).
Aversion or hostility. Biblical usage represents a broad range of nuances from intense malice to simple disregard as expressed between individuals and groups and between God and mankind.
We start off the same – aversion and hostility. However, the wide range of the intensity of the hatred, and the introduction of God are both new.
According to the Old Testament, hatred may stem from wickedness (Ps. 26:5), ill will (25:19), apostasy (101:3), or political differences (Dan. 4:19 [MT 16]).
Even the differences between people within a religion can be, but aren’t always, political.
The wicked hate those who are righteous (Prov. 29:10), just as the righteous hate those who sin (e.g., Ps. 119:113, 163).
Note that the part about the righteous hate those who sin was changed by Jesus. Christians are told to love those who sin, even their enemies.
Mt 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
That’s not easy to do. It’s hard to love people who hate us. And yet, that’s what Jesus says we must do. That’s where the saying, hate the sin but love the sinner comes from. So when a Christian gets into that discussion about love and hate, and what is it that we hate, it’s important to remember this.
This is also one area where the non-Christian needs to understand what we’re talking about. It’s up to the Christian to actually do what Jesus said – love the sinner but hate the sin. It’s also up to us, when we get into a discussion like this, to try to make the non-Christian aware of this difference. It’s huge.
We have no reason to expect non-Christians to know this. We also have to be sure that we know it and follow it ourselves.
In its most intense expression, hatred connotes deliberation and intent (Num. 35:20; cf. Deut. 4:42; 19:4ff.; RSV “enmity”). Elsewhere it may indicate the existence of a grudge (Gen. 27:41) or merely rejection or repulsion (Judg. 11:7; 2 Sam. 13:22). With regard to husbands and wives, hate indicates the dissolution (or perhaps a diminution or restriction; cf. Gen. 29:31; Deut. 21:15) of the marriage bond (KJV, 22:13, 16; RSV “spurns”; 24:3; RSV “dislikes”).
More examples, although not necessarily applicable to this topic and example.
It is with regard to such a covenantal relationship that hatred is proscribed as a threat to the stability of the community of believers (Lev. 19:17). Hatred between God and mankind, in particular, focuses on the covenant. To “hate” God means to reject or break the covenant relationship with God (e.g., Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; Ps. 68:2 [MT 2]). Accordingly, God hates behavior which is not conducive to the covenant (e.g., Deut. 16:22; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 1:14; Amos 5:21).
Note: To “hate” God means to reject or break the covenant relationship with God. Redefining God and His love is most certainly breaking the covenant relationship with God. That’s something for every Christian to realize. It’s especially important for our leaders to know that, remember it, and be sure they don’t do it. Otherwise we have something that’s not God’s love and it without His caring.
It’s a behavior that God hates. It is a threat to the stability of the community of believers. And that’s exactly what’s happening in our example of the Methodist church. It’s in danger of splitting into pieces.
The New Testament also exhibits a variety of interpretations of hatred. Covenantal ties are implicit in Jesus’ instructions that a disciple must “hate” his family and even his own life (Luke 14:26), thereby subordinating all to Christ. Likewise, one cannot serve two masters, for he will naturally subordinate one to the other (Matt. 6:24; cf. Rom. 7:15). Because Christ was the corporeal and apprehendable manifestation of the “light” of God’s love, one must consciously and without compromise eschew the “darkness” of sin and the resultant disruption of relationship to both God and one’s fellows (e.g., John 3:20–21). 1)Myers, A. C. (1987). In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (p. 466). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.2)
This last one is often misunderstood. What it’s really saying is that our love for Jesus should be so great that, by comparison, our love for anything or anyone else should appear to be like hatred. Not that it actually is hatred – just that itis very far from the love for Jesus.
What is a Christian?
This feels like a good time for a side-trip. A look back to check out Christianity, the name and the people called Christians. Again, remember this isn’t about those who claim to be Christians but believe something else. This is about what Christianity really was when it got started, nearly 2,000 years ago.
I’m taking you on that trip now because, at the time, John was speaking to those who were part of something called “The Way”. The Way was one name for Jesus’ followers. They were also mockingly called Christians. The name is for obvious reasons – they followed Christ. The mocking was because, well – read for yourself:
Terms used to designate Christ’s early followers, as groups or as individuals. In the earliest years of the Christian era, when the church was unified, no denominational names (such as Baptist or Roman Catholic) existed. Local churches did not have names but were known by their locations (such as “the church at Ephesus”). Nor was there a single official name for the new Christian movement. Many designations were used for the followers of Christ, and these changed as the historical situation changed. Many Christians considered themselves simply Jews who followed Jesus.
One thing to note: While there were different names, there were not different denominations. It’s merely that different people, who were not followers of Jesus, used different terms to refer to those people who were followers of Jesus.
What Christians Were Called by Others. As Jesus’ disciples preached and won converts after the resurrection, other Jews began to see this as a new movement. They applied four names to the Christian community, not all of them complimentary.
Galileans. Since Jesus and most of the 12 disciples were from Galilee, it was natural for the term to be applied to all of his followers, especially since it implied that the movement was not as pure as Judean Judaism. Some interpreters believe that Luke 22:59 is an example of the use of “Galilean” as a title; in Acts 1:11 and 2:7 it is merely a geographical reference. One sure reference to Christians by that title appears in the work of the pagan philosopher Epictetus (AD 50?–135?), who was impressed with how Christians died for their faith. It is not clear how common the title of Galilean was, but it had obviously spread from Judea to Rome, where Epictetus lived.
The concern about purity was actually a snobbish thing. It was meant to show that Judean Judaism was the “best”, even over Judaism in other areas, and certainly over these followers of Jesus who could come from anywhere and be of any nationality.
But at the same time, we see some respect for them. The willingness to die for what we believe is a sign of very strong faith and trust.
Nazarenes. Jesus was known as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarene,” so it was easy to transfer that title to his followers. They were “followers of the Nazarene” or “Nazarenes.” The earliest use of the term is in Acts 24:5, where Tertullus accused the apostle Paul of being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Certainly he did not intend the title as a compliment, but how others used it is not known. Whether the early Christians used that name for themselves is doubtful, although later Jewish-Christian and Gnostic groups did call themselves Nazarenes. One early writing was even called The Gospel of the Nazarenes.
Feelings about Nazareth at the time are very evident from a statement in John’s gospel: Jn 1:46 “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?”
Followers of the Way. Christianity was far from being simply an abstract belief; it was a whole way of life. The new way of living was obvious to those around Christians and to the Christians themselves, for they were following Jesus’ lifestyle, the way he had lived and taught. Soon the term “this Way” or “the Way” meant Christian. Thus Saul (the pre-Christian name of Paul) was sent to Damascus to arrest anyone belonging to “the Way” (Acts 9:2). Christians may also have used the term to describe themselves; Luke referred to the Christian movement as “the Way” (Acts 19:9, 23; 24:22). It is the only name Christians and non-Christians both may have used for the new movement.
The same name – the Way. But some used it as a reference to them in a loving way. Others used it as a means of identifying the enemy.
Christians. When the Christian movement reached Antioch in Syria, the gospel was preached to Gentiles as well as Jews. Such evangelism marked the sect as more than a new type of Judaism; it was a new religion. The Gentiles in Antioch invented a name for the new group. Since members of the group constantly talked about Christ, they were called Christians, meaning the “household” or “partisans” of Christ. Some satire may have been intended in the name. For instance, since the “Augustinians” were an organized group who led the public praise of the emperor Nero Augustus, the citizens of Antioch may have made a comparable Latinized name out of Christ as a joke. Similar groups included Herod’s partisans, the Herodians. “Christ” was an unusual and meaningless name to Gentiles, but Chrestos (meaning “good” or “kind”) was a common name; some pagans called the new sect “Chrestians.” Thus Suetonius wrote of the Jews being expelled from Rome in AD 49 on account of “Chrestus.”
The Christians themselves apparently did not appreciate the name, but, like many other nicknames, “Christian” stuck. It appears only three times in the NT: Acts 11:26 describes its origin; Acts 26:28 records Herod Agrippa II saying satirically to Paul, “In a short time you think to make me a Christian!”; 1 Peter 4:16 instructs believers not to be ashamed if they suffer because the name has been applied to them. No further record of the name appears until the 2nd century, when Ignatius of Antioch became the first Christian to call believers Christians. The Roman governor Pliny (from the area to which 1 Peter was addressed) wrote to the emperor Trajan about people accused in his court of being Christians. From that time on, the nickname became popular among Christians. What better name could there be than one declaring that they belonged to Christ? 2)Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Christians, Names For. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 431). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
And this is the name that stuck. Little used at first. All but forgotten. But now it’s a name that is spoken with both love and hatred, just as before.
One interesting difference though is the way the original Christians reacted. As Peter wrote – 1 Peter 4:16 instructs believers not to be ashamed if they suffer because the name has been applied to them. Now, it seems that Christians treated this way want to pass legislation to “fix” the problem.
While there weren’t denominations, that didn’t mean there weren’t disagreements. Even Peter and Paul had them.
Paul Opposes Peter
Gal 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
At that time, eating with someone was a big deal. It was a sign of respect. By refusing to eat with Gentiles, Peter was, in today’s words, disrespecting them. Considering that all of the followers of Jesus were to show God’s kind of love to each other, Peter’s lack of even respect was a far cry from the love he should have shown.
And that was because of a political issue. In the early days of the church, there were many disagreements about how “Jewish” followers of Jesus had to be. We need to realize, Jesus was Jewish. So were the vast majority of the people he spoke to. So as non-Jews began to follow Jesus, His original disciples disagreed over how much of the Jewish law these Gentile (non-Jewish) followers had to observe.
Today, a breakup in the church would be the likely result. But back then, they worked it out. Today, we seem to have a need for everyone to be “right”. That even sounds ridiculous, as long as there’s no context. No personal feelings at stake. But as soon as we add what they need to be “right” about – war breaks out. And then the people break up. Very little love or caring. But this isn’t right. See Should we respond to hate with more hate? for more on that thought.
One group accuses the other of not being loving. But before we do that here, let’s step back. Remove ourselves from active participation and just watch what goes on. As James wrote in James 1:19-20, be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
Gal 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Notice what Paul says here: not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. The argument / disagreement shouldn’t be over anyone’s feelings. It shouldn’t be over political divisions. At the time, that meant there should be no argument over how Jewish a Gentile had to become in order to be a follower of Jesus.
The answer should be in the truth of the gospel. Of course, back then they couldn’t whip out their New Testaments. They didn’t exist. But these guys knew the gospel, the good news of Christ, intimately. They lived it. Peter, as a follower of Jesus. Paul, during the life of Jesus and shortly after His death, as an antagonist of Jesus and His followers.
So it wasn’t about Peter’s truth or Paul’s truth. It was about God’s truth.
Gal 2:15 “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Paul makes a point here that might get lost in the emotions of the argument. He was the ultimate pharisee. When Paul talks about the Law, he knows what he’s talking about – better than anyone else. Someone who doesn’t know the Jewish Law as well really can’t come in and try to put something else in place.
Yes, Paul’s a long way from being God. However, Paul’s point is even more appropriate when we’re talking about things Jesus said He expected from His followers. It’s not up to us to change what Jesus taught. Just as it’s not the place of non-Jews to tell Jewish people what their law is about.
Ultimately, the points are this. Adherence to the Jewish Law cannot save anyone, because no one can actually keep the law 100% of the time. And for followers of Jesus, faith in Jesus is a requirement. Furthermore, as we’ve shown in other articles, faith includes not only believing what Jesus said, but trying to live out what He taught.
Gal 2:17 “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
One final argument from Paul about why Jesus died on the cross. He points out that if it was possible for people to adhere to the Jewish Law and be saved, then it wasn’t necessary for Jesus to suffer and die. It’s obvious. If we take the time to actually think about it.
These are the kinds of things we should look at in ourselves when we try to modify what’s in the Bible. What we’d like to see there isn’t necessarily what’s really there. As I’ve already said, take out the emotion and look at the cold hard facts of what the Bible really says.
What does all this mean for love without caring?
Let’s try to tie everything together here. We’ve looked at God’s love. And we’ve looked at the way people, both in Biblical times and today, use the word love.
Further, we’ve seen some reasons why “love” does and should mean different things to different people. There’s no reason to expect non-Christians to have the same view of “love” as God’s love in the Bible. On the other hand, there’s every reason to expect that Christians share the same view as Jesus taught and demonstrated in the New Testament.
Finally, we’ve also looked at the differences between leaders in the Christian church and what’s known as lay people who attend the church. The leaders are expected to know more and to guide the church members, keeping them (us) on that narrow path Jesus spoke of.
Now, let’s look at the issue before the Methodist church in light of all that. They have three plans to choose from, as outlined in an NBC News article, United Methodists seek to resolve deep split over LGBTQ clergy and marriage. As we go through this, it’s important to remember that Jesus said, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. And, we need to keep in mind that our feelings, as Christians, should not be on an emotional level and should not be personal. In other words, hate the sin but love the sinner.
Keeping that tradition is one of three plans proposed by the 12 million-member church’s Commission on a Way Forward.
That tradition is the church’s historical position that sexual relationships should be solely between married men and women. Lots of people know that this position comes from what God said about Adam and Eve:
Ge 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Ge 2:23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
Ge 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
That last verse is heavily leaned on to support the position that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Add to that the teaching that sex should be reserved only for married couples, and you have the basis for the belief. Well, part of it.
But there’s more. While the passage above points to marriage being between a man and a woman, it doesn’t exclude other possibilities. But does it mean other possibilities are OK? We really need to look elsewhere for that.
Let’s take the flood as the next topic.
Ge 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Corrupt and full of violence. It’s difficult to find a commentary that tries to get into what that means, without also getting into events that have not yet happened. Remember, at this point, there was no Jewish Law. It came in Exodus. And it’s the Old Testament, so Jesus wasn’t born yet. There are no words from Jesus, no disciples, and no letters from Paul. Therefore, it’s hard to make a logically sound argument from anything related to the Jewish Law or Jesus.
With that in mind, I did find the excerpt below. Chances are, it won’t match word for word with the Bible translation you’re using. The text on which this commentary is based is the traditional Masoretic Text (MT), preserved in the great majority of mediaeval biblical manuscripts. The particular edition used here, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) 1977, reproduces the Leningrad manuscript B19A which dates from the eleventh century A.D.
At least in this passage, it’s very close to the TLV Bible. The TLV is The Tree of Life Version of the Holy Scriptures, first published in 2011, is a Messianic Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible (or TA-NA-KH) and the New Testament (or New Covenant) sponsored by the Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society and The King’s University. This particular passage is available online at //www.bible.com/bible/314/GEN.6.11-15.TLV.
11 “The earth was ruined.” “The earth” is mentioned six times in vv 11–13 and the verb “to ruin,” five times. Here and in v 12, “ruin” is the niphal of שׁחת, a stem used to describe the spoiling of a garment, or a pot in Jer 13:7; 18:4. The hiphil in vv 12–13 is frequently used to describe the sudden destruction of peoples and cities in war, or through divine judgment (e.g., Gen 18:28, 31, 32). Here Genesis brings together the ideas of “being spoilt” and “destroy,” so “ruin” has been adopted to translate שׁחת because it covers both senses.
“The earth was filled with violence.” Animals and men had been intended to fill the earth (1:22, 28); instead, “violence” (חמס) fills it. This important term (see H. J. Stoebe, THWAT, 1:583–87; H. Haag, TDOT, 4:478–87) is most often paired with שׁד “oppression.” “Violence” denotes any antisocial, unneighborly activity. Very often it involves the use of brute force, but it may just be the exploitation of the weak by the powerful or the poor by the rich (e.g., Amos 6:1–3), or the naive by the clever (Prov 16:29). Cassuto goes too far in suggesting that it covers any action that is not righteous. “Chamas is cold-blooded and unscrupulous infringement of the personal rights of others, motivated by greed and hate and often making use of physical violence and brutality” (TDOT, 4:482). In this context, Gen 4 well illustrates the meaning of “violence,” although the word itself is not used here. The post-flood decrees in 9:4–6 attempt to limit human and animal violence. 3)Wenham, G. J. (1998). Genesis 1–15 (Vol. 1, pp. 170–171). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Notice that it’s pretty much impossible to pin down any specific reason why God decided to bring the flood. Yes, things are bad. Yes, everyone seems to be doing things that God finds extremely displeasing. Wrong. Against His will. Instead of everything being very good, as it was at the end of creation – everything is now very bad. But if we’re looking to find any specific thing, like sexual immorality, it’s not stated.
14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. 16 Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.
Just to be complete, these verses with instructions on how to build the ark are included.
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”
Notice the references to “two” and to “male and female”. This doesn’t point to any kind of immorality. However, it does make the point that without a male and a female of any given kind of living being, the species will die out. No matter what else one cares to believe about how men and women should live, the need for sex between a male and a female to preserve the species is inescapable.
The command to do just that came earlier in Genesis:
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Ge 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
So if not a moral imperative, we have to acknowledge that there is a practical reason for men and women to get married – procreation. If everyone were to adopt a gay or lesbian lifestyle, the human population would, of necessity, die out.
I suppose we have to look at Sodom and Gomorrah next.
Moving along, we read this, when Abram and his nephew Lot decided to go their different ways.
Ge 13:5 Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support them while they stayed togeth
