God is Love seems to be the only Biblical verse that counts to many so-called “Christians” in this day and age. Such people normally subscribe to the Oprah brand of liberal Christianity.  Their education on all things Christian is sadly lacking and a “God is Love” catch cry seems to be their “get out of jail free” clause when it comes to the afterlife. It does not matter what they have done, God loves us. So therefore there is no punishment forthcoming. Not to generally nice/good people anyway. Murderers, rapists and paedophiles on the other hand go straight to hell. So in order to test this theory we need to unpack the statement; God is Love.
 
To determine the meaning of this statement it is essential to understand the meaning of the word “is”.

One way that the meaning of “is” can be determined is by identifying the “is” in question as the “is” of identity. This is where the reverse of the statement is also true. You can swap them around and not change any meaning. In this case “Love is God” would also be true if the “is” in question is equated to the “is” of identity. This rings true if God and Love are identical. It’s like saying that “Adam is the husband of Christine” equates to saying “The husband of Christine is Adam”. Both these statements are true if “Adam” and “The husband of Christine” have identical qualities because we are one in the same.

Some people want to use this definition of “is” to express that God is another name for love. So that if you have love then you have God and all is well.

Another way we can use the word “is” is in using it to describe an attribute of the subject in question. In this case love is an attribute or quality of God. This is like saying that “Adam is male”. Applying the reverse “Male is Adam” here makes no sense because it would mean that the quality of male is only found in Adam. It’s like saying “If male then Adam”. No, other males are not Adam.

So which “is” is being used by John when he says “God is Love”.

Simple, we just have to reflect on the concept of love and compare it with what we know about God. And where do get our information about God? The Bible of course. So is there anything in the Bible which describes God’s character that is inconsistent with being wholly defined as love? Of course there is. Psalms 5 and 11 reveal that God hates sin and those who commit sin. This is hardly consistent with a definition of love. There are many characteristics of God that are not love.

So love cannot be equated with God but is rather an attribute or characteristic of God that is essential to Him. This is very consistent with God’s revealed Word about Himself.

So how does this fit with 1 Corinthians 13?

A common interpretation of the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 13 is that if we have the love that Paul is talking about here then we are acceptable to God. This is a common mistake that people make. If we are loving, then we are acceptable to God. The rest doesn’t matter. A “gospel according to love” sort of philosophy. And if required, they can then lean on Paul here in 1 Corinthians 13 to defend this view. So, if we have love then we are not a noisy gong or clanging cymbal.

This is like saying that we are accepted because of what we do. How we act. Just as if we need to comply with the law in order to be righteous. But Paul said that “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly”

The problem is that in defending this interpretation from Paul’s statements, people don’t read far enough into the passage where the love that Paul is talking about is defined. Rather, they stop halfway through and insert their own sentimental definition of love into the text and feel justified that they have got it right. Love is a word that has specific content. And that content is found in that passage. The definition of love that Paul is talking about begins in verse 4 and states in verse 6 that love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth”. So, what is one of the truths that Paul taught which reflected what Jesus taught in the gospels? That acceptance by God is dependant on our belief in Jesus and accepting the gift of salvation under His terms. And that this is the only way we can become acceptable to God. So if you deny that truth, you are not being loving to those people who desperately need that truth and would suffer without it.

So this point of view that love is another way to God (or one of many paths to God) is an unloving point of view according to Paul.

Love is a virtue that we are obligated to expound. You don’t get rewarded for doing something that is expected of you. If love was all that was required, then what about all those times when we are not loving? This then, is where we incur a debt that we now owe. And how will we then pay for this debt? Well, we will have to pay for it ourselves because we have not relied on the only one who is willing to pay that debt for us. That’s when forgiveness becomes necessary.

Just because you say sweetly, “Oh, you’re a Buddhist, Hindu or have some kind of sin etc. I’m going to be loving to you and tell you that it’s ok”. That’s like saying to someone who has a deadly disease (and there is an antidote), not to worry and that they will be fine without it. It sounds sweet and loving, but it’s poisonous confidence that you’re giving people. It’s going to hurt them in the long run. And if that’s the case then you haven’t done something loving no matter how sweet your voice sounds when you say it.

We need to give biblical substance to the word love, rather than allowing love to be redefined as some sort of shallow sentimental notion. People are welcome to that definition if they like it, but what they can’t do, is import that definition into the language of Paul and act like that is what Paul is saying.

It may be politically correct to say that there are many ways to Heaven, but Jesus was not a pluralist (many paths to God). This issue is beginning to eclipse all other issues, even the problem of evil as a challenge against Christians. The tragedy is that many Christians are simply ducking for cover, tucking their tails between their legs and running instead of standing up for what is right, true and good. They are being bullied into silence because of the power of political correctness. This is sure to separate the sheep from the goats among Christians. I’m not saying you’re lost if you abandon this. But you are being unfaithful to Christ if you falter on this view. It is utterly vital and critical for you to not falter on this issue.

In Acts 10, Peter goes to speak to a God fearing religious pagan: Cornelius. He believes in the God of Israel. He gives alms to the poor. He prays. God hears his prayers. But it is not enough. He still has to hear the message. And the message that Peter gives him which starts in verse 34 is a proclamation of Jesus which ends with this statement in verses 42 and 43.

“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins”

There is no ambiguity here, no equivocation. It is Univocal. There is one thing being taught there. Peter as an ambassador for Christ has been commanded to represent Him and communicate a very precise message that Jesus of Nazareth, raised from the dead, will be the judge of every single person who has not put their faith in Him to receive forgiveness of sins. That’s it. If you don’t like it, too bad so sad. If you’re not a Christian, you can think that’s completely narrow and intolerant. You’re welcome to that view. But that is what Jesus said. And He didn’t say it once. He said it time and time again. He taught His followers after Him to preach this same message, and here in Acts 10 we see Peter preaching it. And if we as followers of Christ back off from that message, we back off under pain of being unfaithful to that which He has ordered us to do.

Paraphrased from a question Greg Koukl received on his radio show www.str.org

Most Commented Posts