Love – Revised
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16 NASB
Loved– There’s hardly a more famous verse in the whole Bible than this one (if you’re Christian). And most believers who have given it even a cursory look realize that the Greek term used here is agapáō, the verbal form of another Greek term, agápē, perhaps the most well known Greek word in Christendom. More books have been written about agápē love than we could read in a lifetime. Theological dictionaries offer pages and pages of explanation about this word, from its obscure etymological heritage to its contemporary importance. TDNT (among many others) draws a tight connection between this Greek term and its Hebrew parallels. For Christians, agápē is usually distinguished from other Greek words for love like eros and phileo. Eros, we are told, is “love of possession,” not necessarily erotic but rather the kind of love that wished to claim the loved one or thing as its own. For Plato, this is the hallmark of Man’s desire for the Good, the True and the Beautiful. Phileo is love for brothers, in other words, that bond that secures community as common humanity. Agape is something else. It is “sacrificial love,” love poured out indiscriminately on all, the highest form of giving. At least that’s what we typically think.
Wyschogrod raises an objection to these distinctions:
“Wyschogrod notes that it is common to distinguish between two kinds of love, agape and eros. Agape is charity in the purest sense, without superiority or condescension, while eros is sensual love, in which desire and jealousy are possible. The distinction corresponds to some degree to that between soul and body. Agape is disinterested and impartial, without regard to persons, while eros is interested love, concerned with this person rather than that and desirous of the body of the other. Wyschogrod notes that God’s love for the human creature is usually said to resemble agape rather than eros. As agape, God’s love cannot exclude.
“For Wyschogrod, this account of agape is doubly suspect. It is untrue to the human condition because it overlooks the fact that genuine human charity can be truly directed to particular persons only when it concerns itself with their particular identities.
“Undifferentiated love, love that is dispensed equally to all must be love that does not meet the individual in his individuality but sees him as a member of a species, whether that species be the working class, the poor, those created in the image of God, or whatnot . . . In the name of these abstractions men have committed the most heinous crimes against real, concrete, existing human beings.’
What is more, this account of love is untrue to the character of God’s love as depicted in the Bible.”[1]
Soulen’s analysis of Wyschogrod’s view means that we need to pay much closer attention to the biblical texts; to what they actually say rather than what we expect them to say. In this regard, we should notice something important about the connection between agape and its Hebrew parallel, ahav.
In the OT the main Hebrew root for love (ʾhb) can refer to both persons and things in a religious as well as a secular sense.[2]
Love in the OT is a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, to grasping that which causes it, or to pleasurable activity. It involves the inner person. Since it has a sexual basis, it is directed supremely to persons; love for things or acts has a metaphorical aspect. God’s love is correlative to his personal nature, and love for God is love first for his person and only then for his word or law. Yet even in the extended sense love has an element of fervor or passion except in the case of lesser objects. In the secular sphere love is for husband or wife, parents or children, friends, masters, servants, and social groups. This use is more common than the religious use and may thus be taken as the basis of interpretation.[3]
What do we learn? Perhaps we’ve been too quick to think that agape as sacrificial love, disinterested in particulars, is the proper way to view God’s love. As Soulen points out, and Wyschogrod confirms, God’s love in the Tanakh is very particular. It is about Israel. And its basis is sexual intimacy, as we clearly see in God’s use of the marriage analogy. Perhaps God’s love for the cosmos is far more intimate, more defined, more intense than our usual idea of agape allows. It’s time to change the definition.
Topical Index: love, agape, ahav, John 3:16
[1]R. Kendall Soulen, “An Introduction to Michael Wyschogrod,” in Michael Wyschogrod Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 7, citing Wyschogrod, The Body of Faith, p. 61.
[2]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(p. 5). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Could we possibly take this one step further and suggest that the true love that bases itself in God CREATES individuality: particulars: identity? And that it does this by joining – unifying – of which sex is the best way we currently have of understanding this “one flesh” stuff? (Not that I think sex is the only way: it is just the way we can probably understand it best.)
I suspect that unity is what gives individuals their uniqueness: their identity. I think it does this by creating a substrate – a basis – for that identity. For example: marriage gives two undifferentiated people identity: husband and wife. Community confers identity, too, as does all our other relationships. We know who others are by who they are attached to. A person who is completely alone has no differentiation at all: he is the true “invisible man”. We know who we are as a species by what planet we are joined to, also. God says He “knows” us if we are joined to Him: those who aren’t He declares that He does not know who (identity) they are.
I think the only way we could possibly make the mistake of thinking that there is such a ‘thing’ as “disinterested” (undifferentiated) love is if we thought that love was some sort of ideal form: some unattached state floating around in space. Love as an action, however, is always going to be BETWEEN, but it will be there for the purposes of unifying – attaching – sewing, if you like – things together. In that process, I think they BECOME things: nouns: individuals. For example, take a lichen. It is composed of algae and a fungus, but what we see is neither because that unity gives both algae and fungus a new identity. Ok, so lichens aren’t ‘pure’. What about algae? When we look closer, however, the algae can only be what they are because of their relationship with other life around them, too. And so on. What about humans created in the unique image of God? Well, we are the worst of all. We have the least of our ‘own’ DNA of any complex species: we are a composite; or, a potential composite; of EVERYTHING else. That’s us: that’s who we are. Everything else. A unity of all that is not ‘us’: that’s us.
I think Skip is right: it’s high time we started over when it comes to looking at the basics. Like love.
Laurita, When this blog closes, I’m going to miss your insight. Sometimes Skip is way over my head, even after several readings but you help put his words into perspective. My sincere thanks and love for both of you.
I love you and everybody else too, Wayne Berry! Your ears (and Skip’s blog) have given me the learning chance of a lifetime! I will be eternally grateful to everybody for how I have grown.
Here’s another perspective on God’s love….I like the feel of the word “Amor” as more fitting for a lot of us who are single & have never married & experienced familial love of family & children. Ewert Cousins in his book, Christ of the 21st Century, proposes this third kind of love to Eros & Agape, a term he took from the courtly love tradition of the 12th century shaped by poets & teller of tales who sang the glory of the love between a man & a woman. This myth of romantic love so powerful & joy-producing became the goal of one’s quest in life. This purely personal idea of Amor conjures up for me many delightful & pleasurable images of who this lover of my soul, Jesus Christ is. Dante concludes his Divine Comedy with this image of how the human is harmonized with God, “Now my desire & will, like a wheel that spins with even motion, were revolved by the love that moves the sun and the other stars”. Cousins raises a very intriguing question, “Is it possible to have a myth of romantic love that opens to the spiritual dimension without abandoning the physical?”
Skip you referenced that Wyschogrod explains that “Agape is charity in the purest sense, without superiority or condescension,” Do I understand this suggestion correct…
Godly love towards others implies helping others rise above their self destructing (or life destroying) living condition to be able to stand up and glorify God for saving them and restoring their self worth to be a joyous contributing part of a peaceful supportive community… Not about our effort, it is about God working through us to save all involved not only the one currently facing the predicament…
Sounds much like all the saving actions Yeshua revealed. Or as Paul explained till we all come to the full stature of Christ…