What is love??? | SermonIndex

sermonindex May 6, 2005

Well, God is love. Amen. But what about us? What is love to us? The NT abounds in love. The centerpiece of all of christianity is love, the sacrafice of Jesus in our place. I guess the thing that is bugging me is that some of the modern tranlations use the word "love" for "agape", when the KJV used the word "charity". Virutally all of 1 Cor 13, the "love" chapter, the KJV uses the word charity. Many think that love is a heart condition. But unless there is demonstration of that love, is it really "love". If I say that I love someone, and there is no outward evidence, who will believe me? If I say that I love God, an there is no outward evidence or demonstration of that love, who will believe me? Will you? Will God?God's love, that is "agape" love is unconditional love. But it is more than that, for God so loved the world, that even while we were yet sinners, He gave His only begotten Son to die in our place, that we may be restored by faith to eternal life. The word "charity" indicates benevolent activity. It is "doing love" instead of just "having love". Charity is an action word.1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1Cr 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 1Cr 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. and so on it goes all down through the chapter, ending with this verse:1Cr 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity. I can see where the believers have been robbed by some translations using the word "love" instead of "charity". It will be even worse when Jesus comes again. If you dont' believe me, read Matthew 25:31-46. (Please take the time and read it now) This is extremely important to Jesus as you can see. What He is pointing out here is those who either lived by charity, or they did not live by charity.I'm not a KJV only guy. I have a parallel KJV/Amplified Bible. I read mostly the Amplified side of the page, and then use the KJV for study helps and so forth. But you know, if deception were obvious, nobody would be decieved. I am not afraid to say that there is some serious deception intended by the "modern" translations, designed to rob us from our eternal hope. James said that faith without works is dead faith. The works,beloved, are works of love,ie, charity, even to our enemies. Why is it then, that many pulpiteers would have us believe that church presence on Wednesday and Sunday is the completeness of our religious obligation? All through the bible God is exhorting us to remember the poor. We are even told to preach the Gospel to the poor. Let me ask you a question. Where you hear the "gospel" preached, how many "poor" people are present on any given day? Now, be careful how you answer, because I can show you some pictures from India where really poor folks live. Even most of the so called "poor" in this country are far better off than in places like India. So, how many "poor" folks are present when you hear the Gospel preached"? Is there something wrong with this picture? Or am I just a crazy old man? Am I in a cloud here, or does this make sense to you?

R

roadsign May 6, 2005

I can see where the believers have been robbed by some translations using the word "love" instead of "charity"I'm not convinced that any Bible translation is the cause of the distorted use of the word "love". Words typically come to mean whatever meaning we attatch to them - based on the common use of those words. In other words, we fit words into our own thinking and experience. Clearly the meaning of the word "love" has been perverted by sinful desires of the heart. (Isn't that what has happened to many countless Biblical terms?) Words always have limitations. They are the way we put labels on concepts, ideas, things - which may very possibly be beyond what one's mind can fathom.I beleive that people will never be able to define or understand "love" as long as they have not experienced it for themselves. They are like blind men explaining the meaning of "color" I believe that people can only understand love to the extent that they themselves have received love. They can only love as much as they KNOW love- ultimately God's love.I'll bet that those who truely love don't think, "Here, now, I am showing LOVE". They just do what flows from their hearts - never mind any labels. Diane

P

philologos May 6, 2005

I guess the thing that is bugging me is that some of the modern tranlations use the word "love" for "agape", when the KJV used the word "charity". Virutally all of 1 Cor 13, the "love" chapter, the KJV uses the word charity. The KJV uses 'charity' at the direct insistence of King James who wanted ecclesiastical language in the translation. He wanted the KJV to support his state church with its liturgy and institutions and expressly instructed his committee of translators to use words which did this.Tyndale had changed 'charity' in Wycliff to 'love' because he knew that 'charity' would have all the wrong connotations of merit-earning almsgiving, The word 'charity' does not appear in his translation. The Geneva Bible used the word 'love' in 1 Cor 13 too. The KJV translators changed in back again. It is not the folks with 'love' in their bibles who are disadvantaged but those who have the word 'charity'.

sermonindex May 6, 2005

There are 4 different greek words for love.. they are as follows and this is not the right spelling for all of them.storge - family lovephileo - friendshipagape - God love (un-selfish love)eros - passion (selfish love)I hope that helps abit.. it would be neat to know that if everytime the KJV uses 'charity' that it is agape love?

P

philologos May 6, 2005

The word 'charity' or 'charitably' is found 29 times in 25 verses in the KJV. In each case the underlying Greek word is 'agape' which should be translated 'love'.Rom. 14:15; 1Cor. 8:1; 13:1-4,8,13-14:1; 16:14; Col. 3:14; 1Th. 3:6; 2Th. 1:3; 1Tim. 1:5; 2:15; 4:12; 2Tim. 2:22; 3:10; Titus 2:2; 1Pet. 4:8; 5:14; 2Pet. 1:7; 3John 1:6; Jude 1:12; Rev. 2:19eros - passion is not used in the scriptures.

sermonindex May 7, 2005

I'm quite surprised at your responses. While I do find them interesting, I respectfully disagree. Love is not love until you give it, demonstrate it, use it. Love of self will never satisfy the heart of man or the Holy Spirit. It's love thy neighbor, folks. How do you love your neighbor? Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46. God said it in Isaiah 58:1-12. Read it. It's something you do, not something you have. If I am allowed my humble opinion, I will stay with charity for "agape". It's unconditional love. For that to happen, it has to be bestowed on a receiver. It's more than a feeling, beloved. It's love in action. Do we tell our hungry brother be filled with love and not give him something to eat? Do we turn from he who is cold and say be warm with love? Come on folks, this is not hard. It just requires surrender of self, and submission to God who proved His love by giving all.

D

dohzman May 7, 2005

Isn't there a couple of different renderings of agape? Variations?

P

philologos May 7, 2005

What you are doing is redefining 'charity'. It would be more useful to redefine 'love'. Are you saying that every time the KJV has love is does NOT mean a love which reaches out to others? Of course not. Agape means a self-less love which surrenders its rights for the benefit of the one loved. It is the love with which God 'loved' the world. Are you saying that God's love is less than charity? It is the love which causes us to lay down our life for the brethren. (1 John 3:16) It is not 'less' than 'charity' but much greater.There is a word which modern versions often add to Romans 5:8 to bring out the significance. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, KJVS) but there is a word in the original whose significance is seen in Youngs Translation“and God doth commend His own love to us, that, in our being still sinners, Christ did die for us;” (Rom. 5:8, YNG)Agape is not just 'love' it is God's own love. The Romans passage gives some examples of human love but contrasts God's 'own' love in that it reached out to the undeserving. 'charity' is a 'contribution' from my supply, but agape is a total given-ness. It is the love that not only gives but gives itself in the laying down of its life. 'charity' just does not do justice to 'agape'. Tyndale knew that 'charity' was not unconditional love but often a gesture with the motive of acquiring merit; he rightly rejected the word as being unworthy to translate 'agape'.Vincents Word StudiesCharity (???????)Rev., love. The word does not occur in the classics, though the kindred verbs ??????? and ???????? to love, are common. It first appears in the Septuagint, where, however, in all but two of the passages, it refers to the love of the sexes. Eleven of the passages are in Canticles. See, also, 2Sa_13:15, Sept. The change in the Rev. from charity to love, is a good and thoroughly defensible one. Charity follows the caritas of the Vulgate, and is not used consistently in the A.V. On the contrary, in the gospels, ?????? is always rendered love, and mostly elsewhere, except in this epistle, where the word occurs but twice. Charity, in modern usage, has acquired the senses of tolerance and beneficence, which express only single phases of love. There is no more reason for saying “charity envieth not,” than for saying “God is charity;” “the charity of Christ constraineth us;” “the charity of God is shed abroad in our hearts.” The real objection to the change on the part of unscholarly partisans of the A.V. is the breaking of the familiar rhythm of the verses.Robertson's Word PicturesBut have not love (agap?n de m? ech?). This is the crux of the chapter. Love is the way par excellence of 1Co_12:31. It is not yet clearly certain that agap? (a back-formation from agapa?) occurs before the lxx and the N.T. Plutarch used agap?sis. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 198) once suspected it on an inscription in Pisidia. It is still possible that it occurs in the papyri (Prayer to Isis). See Light from the Ancient East, p. 75 for details. The rarity of agap? made it easier for Christians to use this word for Christian love as opposed to er?s (sexual love). See also Moffatt’s Love in the N.T. (1930) for further data. The word is rare in the Gospels, but common in Paul, John, Peter, Jude. Paul does not limit agap? at all (both toward God and man). Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate. “Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St. Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love?” (Robertson and Plummer). Whether Paul had ever seen Jesus in the flesh, he knows him in the spirit. One can substitute Jesus for love all through this panegyric.

P

philologos May 7, 2005

Isn't there a couple of different renderings of agape? Variations?What do you have in mind? agapE is the noun, agapaO is the verb, agapEtos is the adjective. This is another reason for sticking with 'love' it keeps the connection between all three forms.

sermonindex May 8, 2005

I'm not sure we are on the same page. You seem to be repeating what I've already said and then getting in a sweat over it. I never said that everywhere the word agape appeared, it should be charity. I'm not redefining anything. I said just what you said, only in different words. Hope your adenoids didn't flare up too bad there, my brother. :)

P

philologos May 8, 2005

No adenoids, no sweat, not even a glow...but we are not saying the same thing. I am saying that 'charity' should never have been used in 1 Cor 13. If this is what you are saying, we agree, but I think not.adenoids???a mass of enlarged lymphatic tissue between the back of the nose and the throat, often hindering speaking and breathing in the young.

sermonindex May 8, 2005

Charity, Agape, Love, does it really matter? We have the knowledge of this written word, but is it streaming from our innermost being, are we experincing it?

sermonindex May 8, 2005

I'm saying that to my understanding of what the Gospel message is all about and that fruit which out of the fountain of love must grow is love that is expressed in our actions and service to other saints first, and then to all men. Given a choice of two words, love/charity, I feel that charity best communicates that doctrine.One of the griefs on my heart is that far too many in this hour think that love is a state of amoristic euphoria inside the heart. Love can be expressed without feelings. But what is the value of love that has no expression of itself?I certainly respect your entitlement to your viewpoint. I just respectfull disagree. That is not to say in any way that I think any less of you (not that my opion matters) as a teacher. I do not. I believe you have the anointing of a teacher and you have obviously studied to show your self approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. I am continually blessed by your knowledge and teaching. Thank you for being here.In Him,Lahry

R

ravin May 9, 2005

1 John 3:18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

P

philologos May 9, 2005

One of the griefs on my heart is that far too many in this hour think that love is a state of amoristic euphoria inside the heart. Love can be expressed without feelings. But what is the value of love that has no expression of itself?I certainly share this view. Many years ago I was talking to a missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators. He said, " we don't have a word for love in the language I am working with'. I said; "neither do we".Given a choice of two words, love/charity, I feel that charity best communicates that doctrine. God so loved that... Real 'love' always has a consequence, always has a 'that'. I don't want to leave the word 'love' beached without its absolutely inevitable expression in 'giving'. Love without giving is not love; it is sentiment.

R

RobertW May 9, 2005

God so loved that... Real 'love' always has a consequence, always has a 'that'. I don't want to leave the word 'love' beached without its absolutely inevitable expression in 'giving'. Love without giving is not love; it is sentiment.Maybe this is a bad place to ask this question- but I have never fully understood what the term 'hate' means biblically. I have known it to mean 'to love less.' If we contrast the word with love and its definition- would it be possible to hate someone without in some tangable way expressing that hate? Can hatred be just a feeling and still be hatred?

P

philologos May 9, 2005

Maybe this is a bad place to ask this question- but I have never fully understood what the term 'hate' means biblically. I have known it to mean 'to love less.' If we contrast the word with love and its definition- would it be possible to hate someone without in some tangable way expressing that hate? Can hatred be just a feeling and still be hatred?I think you are probably aware of the verses...“And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.” (Gen. 29:30-31, KJV) Where to 'love less' is regarded by God as 'hate'. I feel there is deep significance here but have not been able to fully grasp it.The classic NT word for love is 'agape' which is an example of what my old Bible School principal, who was a classical scholar, used to call the 'Onassis Syndrome; Onassis after the ship owner. He reckoned that the 'lesser used' Greek word for love was taken over, emptied of its old cargo, and charged with a new one; hence Onassis. The NT Greek word can consequently only be defined by its NT use. The word used 'outside' the church will not steer us in the right direction. Even its use in the Septuagint is no guide to its use in the NT.The NT definition for 'agape' is to be found in Romans 5:8 where it is referred to as 'His own love' and contrasted with the most noble human 'love' of self-sacrifice for a 'good man'. God's 'own' love by contrast is revealed in the death of His Son for the sinner. If is is true that “Greater love (agape) hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13, KJV) what shall we say of the Father's 'agape' in which He laid down the life of His Son for His enemies?Agape, in NT Greek, is the love which spends itself for those who do not, and never will, warrant it. It is love 'in spite of' not 'because of'.

R

RobertW May 9, 2005

Thanks Bro. Ron,Agape, in NT Greek, is the love which spends itself for those who do not, and never will, warrant it. It is love 'in spite of' not 'because of'.Could we say then that 'hate' is the absence of love? The contrast you show is staggering. I had not seen it quite that way. Time for some serious reflection...

P

philologos May 9, 2005

Could we say then that 'hate' is the absence of love? I don't think so, although that Genesis reference might suggest something similar. I think 'hate' is much more than an absence of 'love'. If the equation were that simple we could express 'thou shalt not have an absence of love for the LORD thy God'; which can't be right?

T

taco May 9, 2005

I think that hate is in many ways a part of love. You hate that which is contrary to the one you love. We hate sin because it is contrary to our Father; He hates it because it destroys us whom he loves. Selfishness is probably the opposite of love, true love. It is love of self which is really no love at all given that love is giving. But of course such 'love' of self will ultimatley lead to the hatred of all that seeks to take the place of self on the throne. God himself ends up being hated.This is why friendship with the world is enmity with God.