David: “In the beginning, was the Word,” as we all well know. Last week, Michael proposed that the Word is God’s Grace. John’s opening passage of the New Testament makes clear that the Word is God and, argues Michael, since both Father and Son are part of the Trinity, the Word is also Jesus Christ. Thus, Michael pointed out, Jesus is the incarnation of Grace and of God on earth. Jesus=God=Grace.
Michael then went a step further by exchanging the word Grace with the word Love. So the equation becomes: Jesus=God=Grace=Love. In other words, Michael treated Love and Grace as synonymous terms, and he quoted a selection of passages from John and Paul to illustrate the point.
I agree with Michael on all of this. After all, John himself also gave us the equation: God=love, in this passage:
… God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 4:16)
I wish, as Michael does, that religious doctrine would center itself more firmly on Love and/or Grace, as Jesus did when he said (Matthew 22:37-40) that the greatest commandment is to love God and one’s neighbor, and that all the law and prophecy of the Old Testament is premised on that one commandment.
As I commented last week, to me this short declaration encapsulates the entire ethos of Christianity in the singular concept of love, whether we call it grace or God or Jesus or charity or whatever. Any distinctions between component part of love do not change the essence, the whole, any more than differences in hair or eyes or skin color changes the essence of any individual’s humanity.
If that is so, why do we have this urge to dissect or deconstruct grand concepts such as love and grace into smaller components like mercy, grace, kindness, compassion, and charity? Our human tendency is to break down complex concepts, to take them apart, in order to understand them. Science knows this process as reductionism., and it comes with many benefits. But it also comes with some terrible dangers. Phrenology, for instance is a (thank God) discredited proposition that the shape and size of parts of the skull can be used to determine a person’s character traits and mental capabilities
But are love and grace all that complex, really? Or are they so complex—do they have so many components—that we can’t hope to grasp them all? Are they amenable to dissection? Do love and grace have an anatomy we can operate on, as it were?
Michael and I are happy to treat the terms Love and Grace and even the Trinity as synonymous, but the very fact that we have distinct words for them implies that while they may be related, they are distinct concepts. Grace is commonly defined as a manifestation of divine love expressed as unearned favor, mercy, and compassion. Love is even broader than that, encompassing several forms and a range of feelings, actions, and states of being, including grace itself.
The Greeks had distinct names for various forms of love. The best known are agape (meaning unconditional love), eros (meaning romantic love), and philia (meaning brotherly love), among others.
In this discussion, I am focusing on agape love. (I’m hardly the first to so—it has been written about extensively. In fact, Sir John Templeton, the billionaire who bequeathed most of his fortune to funding religious understanding, wrote a book with that very title.)
Much of what follows is adapted from the dictionary embedded in my Apple MacBook. The dictionary of course cites references for its assertions, but I am going to skip most of the citations to save time. Trust me. 🙂
There are a few instances of the word agape in polytheistic Greek literature, but it came into its own along with Christianity. According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Christians take agape to be “the highest form of love, charity” and “the love of God for man and of man for God”. This is in contrast to philia, brotherly love, or philautia, self-love, as it embraces a profound sacrificial love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, agape refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one’s fellow human beings. It is the word used (in the Greek translation) by Paul in that most sublime of passages:
If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have [agape] love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have [agape] love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have [agape] love, it does me no good.
[Agape] Love is patient, [agape] love is kind, it is not jealous; [agape] love does not brag, it is not arrogant. It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
[Agape] Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. (1 Corinthians 13:1–8)
Agape denotes even God himself—the expression “God is love” (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν—”ho theh-os ah-gah-pee eh-stin.”) occurs twice in the first book of John:
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is [agape] love…. (1 John 4:8)
God is [agape] love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16)
Agape was used by the early Christians to refer to the self-sacrificing love of God for humanity, which they were committed to reciprocating and practicing towards God and among one another. (The notion that God’s love for us entails self-sacrifice reminds me of Don’s remark last week about God doing penance.)
To the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, this understanding of agape love would have been built upon the foundational Hebrew concept of chesed, or the lovingkindness of God, which is a word we see throughout the Old Testament.
Agape has been expounded by many Christian writers in a specifically Christian context. As I mentioned last week, C. S. Lewis used agape in his 1960 book The Four Loves to describe what he believes is the highest variety of love known to humanity: a selfless love that is passionately committed to the well-being of others.
The Christian use of the term comes directly from the canonical Gospels’ accounts of the teachings of Jesus. When a lawyer (or scribe or teacher, depending on whether you read Matthew, Mark, or Luke) asked what was the great commandment,…
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37–40)
In Judaism, the first part of that “Great Commandment”—“love the LORD thy God”—is part of the Shema Yisrael (“Hear, O Israel”) prayer that is recited morning and evening and is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5:
“Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.“
The second part of there Great Commandment, “love thy neighbour as thyself” is found in Leviticus 19:18:
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.”
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? ( Matthew 5:43–46, RSV)
The prolific early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 AD) wrote that even pagans were attracted to the Christian notion of love:
“What marks us [Tertulian says, referring to Christians] in the eyes of our enemies is our lovingkindness. ‘Only look,’ they say, ‘look how they love one another’” (Apology 39).
Even so, the attainment of pure Christian [agape] love is “a very partial and rudimentary realization,” wrote the Anglican theologian O. C. Quick (d. 1944). ”In its pure form,” he wrote, “it is essentially divine.” He wrote:
If we could imagine the love of one who loves men purely for their own sake, and not because of any need or desire of his own, purely desires their good, and yet loves them wholly, not for what at this moment they are, but for what he knows he can make of them because he made them, then we should have in our minds some true image of the love of the Father and Creator of mankind.
Karl Barth (d. 1968), a Swiss Reformed theologian best known for his commentary The Epistle to the Romans, who was featured on the cover of Time magazine on 20 April 1962, distinguished agape from eros (romantic love) on the basis of its origin and depth of devotion without want. With agape, humanity does not merely express its nature, but transcends it. Agape identifies with the interests of the neighbor “in utter independence of the question of his attractiveness” and with no expectation of reciprocity.
The word agape is also used in its plural form (agapai) in the New Testament to describe a meal or feast eaten by early Christians, as in Jude 1:12 “feasts of charity”) and 2 Peter 2:13 (“while they feast with you”). The agape love feast is still observed by some Christian denominations today, especially among Brethren and Anabaptist churches. For example, among the Old Order River Brethren and Old Brethren, a weekend is still set aside twice a year for special meetings, self examination, and a communal Love Feast as part of their three-part Communion observance.
According to 1 Timothy, agape love that “comes out of a pure heart, and of good conscience and of faith unfeigned” is the “end of the commandment”. By “the end” I take Paul to mean the fulfillment of the commandment, and not just of that one commandment but of the whole law, because he said exactly that in Romans:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)
The law applies only to those unable to reach that divine level of agape love. Paul also said in Timothy that “law is good, if a man use it lawfully” and noted that “Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling. Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm”. This is because “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient.” (1 Timothy 5-9)
So much, then, for Love. Given this Scriptural background, let’s return to the question of whether focusing primarily on aspects of love (Grace, for example) might we risk overlooking other essential aspects of divine love? For instance, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father’s agape love is manifested not only in grace (his forgiveness) but also in rejoicing, restoration, and relationship. These are all components of the love, the agape, which the father extended to his prodigal son.
When we dissect Love into its constituent parts in this way is there a danger that we fail to see the forest for the trees, that we miss the fullness of the meaning and implication of agape Love?
There is an alternative, or it might more productively be thought of as a complement, to the reductionist approach to understanding, one that captures the majesty of the forest but ignores the trees. It is called holism, sometimes spelled with a w. A holistic approach would aim to understand love and grace in their broader, more inclusive contexts, recognizing how they interrelate and inform one another. With Don’s permission, I will discuss this approach next week, along with a brief review of how the other major religions approach it.
Meantime, have we reduced love and grace enough, or do we need to dissect them even more?
C-J: In all the parables and units of the Bible that were mentioned, there’s a principle of KISS—keep it simple. Through the Holy Spirit, and by community and relationship, we naturally grow and mature because the Holy Spirit is present in our consciousness and to which we surrender. So, I believe less is more, regardless of education level, age, or social status. A simple smile, an offer of help, a shared meal—these gestures mean a lot, especially in communities like mine where poverty is prevalent.
On Sunday mornings in a black church, or even just a small church, it’s difficult for people to tithe. There’s a small church up the street from me; it was a house, and I believe their membership doesn’t exceed 30 extended family members. Yet, they come faithfully. Part of their time together—studying the Word of God, praise, and worship—includes a communal meal on Sunday. This meal isn’t just for members; it’s about supporting those in the community who can’t afford to tithe or lack stable shelter. It’s never about whether you’ve paid your tithe or what you’re bringing to the table.
The dignity of coming together, breaking bread, and rejoicing in what God has provided is paramount. Whenever I’m in that setting, the joy, despite all obstacles related to their station in life or their lack, is abundant. They may not be perfect beings—desperate people do desperate things—but their sense of community, love, support, and acceptance is overwhelming as soon as the church doors open. Their message is simple, profound, and welcoming.
Jay: Whether these concepts are completely synonymous is something I keep pondering. If they are the same, why do we have different words for them? This question has become a bit of a sticking point for me. As I reflect on this, I think about the idea of operationalizing these concepts. It’s relatively easy for me to talk about how I should love my neighbor, family, or spouse—I can come up with operational examples of how to express that love.
However, when it comes to showing grace, it seems more challenging. The notion that seems available is that of giving someone a bit of grace, which implies giving them some leeway. This usage seems synonymous with offering a little grace. But if I were asked to make a list of how to give grace versus how to give love, I could easily fill pages with ways to express love but find it much harder to do the same for grace.
Michael: I think part of the challenge is how we understand grace compared to love. It might be easier to talk about love than grace because grace is counterintuitive. It’s not the same as loving God or God’s love. It’s about real forgiveness that occurs without any action on my part. When love is mentioned, I don’t grasp the concept in the same way. Grace has an aspect that love doesn’t seem to cover.
C-J: I find joy in language and its diverse expressions and applications. When we’re in relationships, it’s crucial to meet people where they are and hope they meet us too, choosing words that best convey our interactions. Agape is broad yet personal; grace is broad yet experiential. This diversity is the beauty of language, borrowing from other cultures to deeply communicate, to see and love someone beyond the general concept of agape—loving their laughter, how they love their children, or trust in God. Agape love from God is always ready and present, unlike our occasional reluctance due to hurt feelings.
The Holy Spirit encourages self-reflection and accountability in our relationships and before God. If I harbor anger, how can I love? Keeping ourselves nourished by grace, studying the Word, and doing good works changes the paradigm entirely.
Carolyn: To me, love expressed as grace in action is a simple concept, yet I’m searching for the pathway. Since grace is freely given, love must be too. Achieving such grace and love, naturally acting for others as commanded, raises questions about whether this is instinctive or something a church embodies. I’m still curious about the path to attaining this combination of Agape love and grace.
Don: I’m pondering whether grace is love in action or vice versa. I’m struck by the command to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. But does God require our grace?
David: Considering God’s self-sacrificing love for us, epitomized by Jesus sacrificing himself, there’s a profound aspect to explore, possibly related to Jesus’ cry of abandonment on the cross. Last week’s discussion about God paying some form of penance hints at a deep mystery worth exploring further, aiming to understand its essence.
C-J: I’m not convinced “penance” is the right term. Drawing a parallel to the lamb, its innocence is key—it lacks the knowledge of its fate and possesses only the instinct to survive. Unlike humans, the lamb is unblemished, nurtured, and set apart, symbolizing purity without guilt or shame. This purity contrasts with the concept of penance, which implies guilt. In the moment of forsaking, it’s believed that Jesus bore our sins, yet his questioning of his fate shows obedience and recognition of his purpose, unlike the lamb’s simple instinct for survival. Our daily surrender to God’s will, even without personal sin, reflects gratitude for divine protection from sin.
Don: I view the two trees in the Garden of Eden as symbols of grace and works or discrimination. Grace existed before sin, suggesting its role extends beyond merely covering sin. This view aligns with David’s caution against oversimplification. Revelation 22 mentions the tree of life, whose leaves heal nations—a representation of grace in action, addressing our spiritual ailments before we even sin. Michael’s insight from last week, viewing grace through the Trinity, opens up rich theological exploration.
Reinhard: I’ve always felt that love is a divine attribute within us, perhaps embedded in our DNA. Whether it’s practicing agape love or other forms of love, it’s about reciprocating God’s love. This reciprocity is evident in our capacity to love others—philia love—extending beyond divine love to encompass love for our neighbors and humanity. This understanding has evolved for me over time, recognizing that while God’s love is unique, our response to it, agape, involves a deep, personal commitment.
I see grace as a divine gift, distinct yet intertwined with love. Grace, emanating solely from God, is foundational to our spiritual existence. It’s a concept that spans both Testaments of the Bible, evolving from a focus on law and sacrifice in the Old Testament to a profound emphasis on salvation and forgiveness through Jesus Christ in the New Testament. This transition reflects a broader, more inclusive understanding of grace as not just a response to sin but as an integral aspect of God’s unconditional love for all creation.
In my journey through the scriptures, particularly the New International Version, I’ve noticed the nuanced portrayal of grace, from its sparse mentions in the Old Testament to its abundant presence in the New. Paul’s writings, for instance, highlight the transformative power of grace, linking it directly to salvation. This saving grace, though freely offered to all, demands a response—our faith and repentance. It’s a call to action, not just a passive reception of divine favor.
Moreover, the concept of grace in the Bible underscores a universal provision for well-being—blessings bestowed on believers and non-believers alike. However, the ultimate expression of grace is found in the New Testament, where the sacrificial love of Jesus embodies God’s plan for humanity’s redemption. This act of divine love sets the stage for a new covenant, where animal sacrifices are no longer needed, and the path to reconciliation with God is clear.
Grace and love are inseparable aspects of God’s character, calling us to a deeper relationship with the divine and with each other. As we navigate our spiritual journeys, the challenge lies in actively responding to this grace, embodying it in our lives, and extending it to others in a world in desperate need of both love and grace.
C-J: In many cultures throughout history, the sacrifice of innocents has been practiced, but I view it as transitional and transformational. Surrendering to God’s will, whether at a specific moment, situation, or upon realizing our deficiencies, is where grace manifests. This revelation is crucial for acknowledging and receiving grace, as its reception signifies restoration.
Growing up entails taking responsibility and making choices that yield positive outcomes, aligning with the narratives and contexts of our traditions. As adherents to Christian values, our lives should mirror those beliefs, making us ambassadors of our faith. People should see the Holy Spirit within us. Relationship, as Dr. Weaver highlighted with the Garden of Eden example, has always been central, underscoring the ever-present grace.
David: The theme of relationship keeps cropping up in our discussions. The prodigal son and his father had an inherent father-son bond, but the son’s disdain for his father in demanding his inheritance early and and running off to spend it in the fleshpots contrasts with the father’s unconditional love. This narrative illustrates that while striving for a relationship with God is laudable, every human inherently possesses a “de facto” relationship with God by virtue of being His children, whether we seek to nurture and develop that relationship or not.
Don: Our connection to God isn’t superficial; it’s intrinsic, akin to sharing God’s DNA, indicating a profound, molecular relationship.
David: Indeed, with the Holy Spirit, it’s as though we carry a part of God within us.
Don: We observe the fusion of divinity with humanity, transcending mere biological processes to embody a divine inheritance, signifying our shared DNA with God, not just in a physical sense but spiritually, which I find extraordinary.
David: The crux is our recognition and acceptance of this relationship and its implications. The challenge lies in people’s refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit within them, making it difficult to foster any relationship with it. Yet, from the Holy Spirit’s perspective, the connection remains intact, irrespective of our awareness or acceptance, underlining the indelible nature of our divine heritage.
Michael: I’m wrestling with the notion that God embodies both love and judgment. It seems paradoxical to me. If God is purely love, how does judgment fit into the picture? This raises fundamental questions about the nature of religion and our relationship with God. We often focus on what we must do to express love towards God, emphasizing agape, but this discussion seems to invert the perspective.
C-J: Judgment is a term that might feel outdated, especially when considering modern understandings of spirituality. Reframing this concept through the lens of discernment or guidance by the Holy Spirit offers a warmer, more constructive approach. This shift is crucial for personal transformation. It’s about recognizing and overcoming the lies we’ve believed about ourselves, which cloud our true identity. In this light, judgment in the Old Testament evolves into grace in the New Testament, highlighting a path to healing and realization of our intrinsic worth, facilitated by the Holy Spirit within us.
Don: Jason has suggested viewing judgment not solely as condemnation but as a means of vindication. This perspective aligns with the concept of grace, where judgment becomes a source of joy, liberating us from potential condemnation. Through God’s grace, judgment is transformed into an opportunity for affirmation and redemption, illustrating the depth of divine love and its capacity to restore and validate our inherent value.
Anonymous: I believe Grace, God, and Jesus are unified in love. Grace may carry a more profound spiritual significance akin to life itself; the grace of God guarantees our eternal life. Since God is love, it equates to grace, given that both God and grace are eternal, culminating in eternal life through God’s love and grace. Therefore, they are synonymous.
Receiving God’s grace compels us to love Him in return. This is echoed in Deuteronomy and by Jesus, instructing us to love God with all our heart, mind, strength, and soul. Achieving the love of God in our hearts and loving Him with our entire being grants us eternal life. Nothing more is required than to cherish the love of God.
We can discuss His love and grace and all His virtues, but without love for God, we lack everything. This love is not merely intellectual but must be experienced and felt, realizing our hearts are aflame with love. Once we reach this stage, we truly understand. It’s an experiential journey rather than a purely intellectual one.
Despite much discussion, some fail to grasp or fully embrace this concept. Without such love for God—and by extension, for mankind, which God also commands—we remain distant, regardless of our knowledge of God. Despite the constant availability of His love and grace, without engagement, we miss out on all the benefits: meaningful relationships, justification, sanctification, eternal life, and adherence to the law, all motivated by love.
Our sole response should be to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.
Don: Let’s conclude with that excellent summary.
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.