Understanding Love; 2 John 1-6
What makes the difference
between liberals and conservatives, whether we are talking about political
liberalism or about religious/Christian liberalism, is how we view man. An excellent
book on the subject is called “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. He
addresses the whole arena in the political dimension. He says:
“It is no
mere coincidence that the same groups of people always seem to be together no
matter what the political question might be. Whether talking about taxes,
school vouchers, the death penalty, no matter what the subject might be, the
same people tend to group together on the same side. Why is that?”
The reason he isolates is
that there is a difference in the way they look at reality. There is one group
of people in the world who look at the nature of man as being basically good,
and everything flows from that. There is another group that looks at man as
being inherently bad or evil and everything flows from that if they are
consistent. That is a core issue; that is where we have to go, we have to
ultimately ground it in their vision of the nature of man. Is man basically
good? Or is man basically evil?
There was an editorial by
Dennis Prager which was published in the Jewish World
Review on
“No issue
has a greater influence on determining yor social and
political views [we could add: also your views of the Bible] than whether you
view human nature as basically good or not. In the 20 years as a radio talk
show host I have had dialogue with thousands of people of both sexes and from
virtually every ethnic, religious and national background. Very early on I
Realised that perhaps the major reason for political and other disagreements I
had with callers was that they believed that people were basically good, and I
did not. I believe that we are born with tendencies for both good and evil—yes,
babies are born innocent but not good. Why is this issue so important? First,
if you believe people are born good you will attribute
evil to forces outside the individual.”
If you think people are
basically good then when evil happens you are not going to think it is their
fault, from their bad decisions, but it is some force that is acting upon them,
whether that is secular culture or poverty or economics or whatever that may
be.
He continues: “That is why a secular humanistic
culture so often attributes evil to poverty. Washington Senator Paddy Murray
and former President Jimmy Carter and millions of other westerners believe that
the cause of Islamic terrorism is poverty. Karl Marx thought that the cause of
poverty and social problems in the world was economics. Something in these
people cannot accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil
for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation. The
representatives of that huge group of naïve westerners identified by the
once-proud title liberal do not understand that no amount of money will
dissuade those that believe that God wants them to rule the world and murder
all those they deem infidels.
“Second, if
you believe people are born good you will not stress character development when
you raise children. If you think that your child is basically good then the way
you approach discipline in child training is not only going to be not biblical
but you are going to produce a person who will have a hard time facing reality
as he grows up because he has been trained in a system that is divorced from
reality. If you believe people are born good you will have schools teach young
people how to use condoms, how to avoid first and second hand tobacco smoke,
how to recycle, and how to prevent rain forests from disappearing. You will
teach them how to struggle against the evils of society—remember, it is not the
evils of your own person, it is all societal. Sexism,
racism, classism and homophobia—but you will not
teach them that the primary struggle they have to wage to make a better world
is against their own nature.”
That is a perceptive insight.
The biggest fight that every individual has is not against some social evil but
against the evil that resides in his own heart. The Bible says, Jeremiah 17:9 NASB
“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is
desperately sick; Who can understand it?”
“Third, if
you believe that people are basically good God and religion are morally
unnecessary, even harmful. Why would basically good people need a God or
religion to provide moral standards?” Therefore, if you believe that you are
basically good, and therefore you basically know what is right or wrong, those
who disagree with you must by definition be bad, not merely wrong. You also
believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better
the society will be. This is why such people are so committed to powerful
government and powerful judges. “Therefore the crowd that believes in innate
human goodness tends to be secular or to reduce God and religion to social
workers, providers of compassion, rather than those who teach moral standards
and moral judgments.”
The ultimate idea present in
colonial
Prager in one editorial has exemplified some core values
between conservatism and liberalism, that liberal theology and liberal politics
flow together. They are consistent because they are both based on a certain
vision of the world and vision of man, that man is basically good; whereas
conservative politics and conservative theology also go hand in hand because
they tend to view man as being basically evil.
The reason that we believers
who understand the Bible to be the revelation of God believe that man is basically
evil, is because the Bible says so. We say that man is evil because God says
that man is evil. Man was originally created in the image and likeness of God
and he had perfect righteousness, and he was inherently good. But when Adam
sinned he died spiritually and he acquired a sin nature which affected every
aspect of his being so that man is basically evil, and left on his own he will
deteriorate into that which is corrupt, that which is evil, that which is lazy,
and that which is irresponsible; because that is the tendency, the proclivity
of the sin nature. So the point here is that as Bible-believing Christians we
recognise that things are the way they are because God says so, not because of
our experience, not because of irrational systems, but because God has so
defined things.
When we come to our basic
doctrine in verses 5 & 6, which is love, we have to realise that we can’t
define love on the basis of some arbitrary standard, some culturally derived
definition of love. Love must be understood. If we are going to have any
understanding of love whatsoever it must be understood from the biblical
starting point, and we must understand love as it is defined by God and not as
it is defined by either human convention or by our own experience.
2 John 1:5 NASB
“Now I ask you, lady, not as though {I were} writing to you a new commandment,
but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.”
The word “new” is the Greek kainos
[kainoj], and it means new. In the New Testament there are
two different words for new. There is the word neos
[neoj], which means new in respect of something that is
recent or young or newly arrived, or even immature. The second word is kainos and it means new and distinct,
new in nature, something that is different from the old, something that is
superior to the old—superior in value and attraction. The new commandment,
therefore, is something that is new and that replaces the old. Something that is distinctive and something that is superior.
This is the same terminology that Jesus used in the upper room, John 13:34.
What is this new commandment?
1.
The phrase “new
commandment” that John is referring to here is a term that he picks up from
Jesus’ statement in the upper room. When Jesus said this is a new commandment
it was a new commandment replacing the old, but John is not restating this as
something new, he is restating that original new commandment that Jesus gave.
John 13:34, 35 NASB “A new commandment I give to you, that you love
one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
2.
The old
commandment is that which was instantiated in the old
covenant or Mosaic Law in Leviticus 19:18 NASB “You shall not take
vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall
love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” This
commandment is restated in the New Testament in two key places. We should
remember that these two key places in Galatians and in James were in contexts
related to Judaism. In neither place is Paul or James restating the command as
applicable today. There is a difference between the commandment as stated in
the Mosaic Law and Jesus’ new commandment which is a new distinctive
commandment. The key word is love, it summarises the whole Law.
3.
The commandment
in the Mosaic Law to love your neighbour as yourself was addressed to believers
and unbelievers. It was made to the entire corporate body of
4.
In the old
covenant commandment the object of love was “your neighbour.” That would mean
anyone, believer or unbeliever.
5.
“Neighbour” was
further defined by our Lord in the parable of the good
Samaritan—any human being, believer or unbeliever, who comes within your
periphery, whether you know them or not, whether you have a relationship with
them or not, and whether they are attractive to you or not.
6.
The standard for
the love is defined in the “as” clause. That shows the comparison. Like the
person like or as you love yourself. The standard,
therefore is your own love for yourself. This does not mean that you first have
to love yourself, have high self-esteem, before you can love anybody else. What
Scripture is saying is that you automatically love yourself,
that is the orientation of the sin nature; you are a lover of self. We
have to learn to put others in the place of that self-love and treat them as we
would want to be treated in that same situation.
7.
The conclusion of
points 3-6 is that this passage in the Old Testament is addressed to
unbelievers and believers alike for application to unbelievers and believers
alike, and is therefore able to be fulfilled in a relative sense by unbelievers
as well as believers. However, the new commandment by virtue of the term kainos is a replacement
commandment.
8.
First, John
13:34: “Love one another as I have loved you.” It is addressed to believers
only. Only believers are able to fulfil it. Galatians 5:22, 23—it is a fruit of
the Spirit. John
a)
The unique mark:
All men will know you are my disciples. It is an objective standard with an
objective model. That is, it is not based on feeling, on your own perceptions.
It is based on an objective model which is Jesus’ demonstration of love on the
cross. 1 John
b)
The mark of a
disciple is not the symbol of the cross or any kind of overt symbol, it is a
character quality. It is a unique character quality that cannot be emulated by
unbelievers.
c)
It is not
emotion, not sentimentality, some pseudo-compassion or pseudo-mercy, not being
involved in some sort of charity organization, aiding the poor, etc. It is an
objective standard with an objective model.
d)
It is based on
character of Christ which is objectively discernable and knowable through what
happened on the cross. It is not developed on our own. It is developed by
walking by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit produces it, it
is the fruit of the Spirit as a result of walking by the Spirit and abiding in
Him.
e)
This mark of love
for one another challenges unbelievers. (We may not know this)
f)
Jesus’ statement
that “by this the world will know that you are my disciples” presupposes that
they do observe and they do know this. It is observable.
g)
This is the
greatest defence of our faith. This doesn’t mean to be on the defensive, but
the greatest evidence of the truth of Christianity outside of the historical
evidences of Scripture is the reality of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives as
evidenced by love for one another. There is something about the mature believer
that is not a counterfeit, it is something that is distinct, and the unbeliever
does pay attention.
9.
The object of
Jesus’ command to love one another is directed to all believers. In the Old
Testament it was “love your neighbour,” believer or unbeliever; in John 13 it
is “love one another,” love other believers; it is directed to other members of
the royal family of God, not just to unbelievers.
10.
The standard is
different. It is not “as you love yourself,” but “as I have loved you.” That
should remove all manner of subjectivity.
11.
The mandate to
love can only be truly exemplified by the advancing believer. This kind of love
comes from knowing God, knowing His commandments, and keeping His commandments.
That takes time; it takes maturity, It doesn’t happen
over night, it comes as a result of dedication, knowledge of the Word of God,
making it the highest priority in life and advancing to spiritual maturity.
12.
Key verses:
Romans 5:8 NASB “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” John
How do we analyse this kind
of love? We have to go back to our basic premise, and that is that there are
concepts we talk about that are part of our culture such as love,
righteousness, truth, honour, virtue that we think everybody knows the meaning
of. But unbelievers define those terms on the basis of experience whereas we
have the absolute character of God that is the basis for understanding those things.
We can’t understand true love by starting with the creature. We have to
understand true love by starting with how the creator defines love. This
affects many other things in our thinking. Man in his independent or autonomous
human viewpoint defines these terms on a relative basis derived from experience, therefore things like honour, truth and virtue
are going to change from culture to culture. Every culture has values but they
differ, so honour in one culture is going to be different from honour in
another culture. To talk about righteousness, virtue, honour we have to have a
real absolute other wise the terms just get lost in a sea of relativity. Think
about other concepts we face, concepts like authority, abuse. What is abusive
today was not abusive twenty years ago. What was abusive twenty years ago wasn’t
abusive 100 years ago. But what does the Bible say? There are some things in
the Bible where if you judge the Bible on the basis of modern conventions and
culture then we are going to walk away and think the Bible is really screwed
up. We have to let the Bible define these abstract values; we don’t just load
them up with experience that we have picked up.
2 John 6 states: “And this is
love, that we walk according to His commandments.” It
sets up a comparison. John says love is related to commandments. It has
objective evaluation standards, it is not how we feel, it is not leaving church
after the morning message saying, Oh wasn’t it good to have been there. How do
we know we love God? It is not how we feel, it is that
we keep His commandments. We are taking in the doctrine and applying it
consistently.
Matthew 22:36ff NASB
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? [37] And He said to him, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART,
AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. [38] This is the great and foremost commandment. [39]
The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE
YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ [40] On these
two commandments depend the whole Law and the
Prophets.” Jesus summarises everything in the Old Testament and says it is a
picture of love, love for God and love for one another.
Let’s take that and go back
into the Old Testament and start to look at some ideas about what love is. Unfortunately
modern man has reduced love to this one dimensional sentimental, emotional
thing. If we take that and apply it to being a parent, to being a leader, to
being a pastor, to another field of leadership in life, apply it to romance, we
are going to be in trouble because it leaves too much out. In Deuteronomy 21
God is concerned about the integrity of the nation and the preservation of
We might say love is what is
doing what is best for the object. But that word “best” is a superlative in
English that relates to a value. Whose value? If we say that if you love
someone you are going to be doing what is best for them we have to ask this
question: How do we know what that best is value. If we are in arrogance and
not grace orientation then we are going to think that our opinion, our agenda,
whatever that is, is what is best for someone. But from the Word of God we come
up with an external absolute, we do know as a parent what is best for our
children, as an employer we should know what is best for our employees. If we
are mature believers this value system has been replaced by divine viewpoint
objective standards. Only there are we really able to love somebody. If we are
immature we still have human viewpoint self-oriented values and we can’t love, because
what we think is best for somebody is really what we want, what is best for us.
Real love is doing what is best for the object, and that does not mean that
loving someone is always doing what they want, what seems easier for them, or
allowing them to get away with whatever it is that they want to get away with.
That is not real love.