The Bible nerd within me jumps, and it says, "Greater love has no man than this; that he would lay down his life for a friend." And, this statement is true. But, is it really that simple? It the concept of sacrifice the defining practice of love?
In Greek, there are three words for love: Phileo, Eros, and Agape. Phileo and agape are often used interchangeably throughout the New Testament. They are almost always presented as the word "love." A nuanced approach to these words reveals an understanding of phileo meaning "brotherly love" and agape meaning "unconditional love." However, this is not always true. Agape is often used as the equivalent to the Hebrew word "hesed" which means a host of things including "covenantal love" in the Septuagint. The only clear definition of the three words is that Eros means "passionate love."
Using these three words, we can surmise a helpful philosophy of love.
First, love has an aspect of Friendship. This friendship love is expressed to the extent that it can be equated to covenant love. This love is shown in the love between Jonathan and David in the book of Samuel. Friendship stands in the face of pain and oppression (Jonathan's dad tried to kill David, but Jonathan saved him.) Friendship is willing to give of one's self for each other (Jonathan was the presupposed heir to the throne, but he gave it willingly to David.) Friendship focuses on a shared experience of life (Jonathan and David related and love one another.)
Second, love has an aspect of Commitment. This part of love is the least fun for most people. I would argue that this aspect is the determining factor for the strength of the other two. When David and Jonathan go through common experiences and show love to each other, they symbolize the commitment with one another by making a covenant. In this covenant, Jonathan promises to keep David safe, and David promises to not kill all of Jonathan's family when he comes to power. Each of the men follow through with their commitments.
Lastly, love has an aspect of Passion. It is ironic that the ordeal that Jesus undertook at the cross is considered the "passion," but we often say we are passionate about so much. I would argue that "the passion of Jesus Christ" is the fullest expression of living and loving (with the obvious irony that it caused his death intended.) To love is to give of one's self to another. A manifestation of that giving is sex, but I would argue that sex is not the best or highest way to give of one's self. This passion is expressed not by action but by lifestyle. If Jesus lived a selfish life, love no one, and died on the cross, the death means nothing. The death (and subsequent resurrection) mean everything because Jesus lived a life of self-giving.
To my original question: Is love as simple as sacrifice for the benefit of another? Yes. Yes, in the sense that a lifestyle of sacrifice in a prerequisite for love. Yes, in the sense that an unloving or non-beneficial sacrifice is not a true sacrifice but an act of mere obedience. Yes, in the sense that love is not merely meeting my needs but being in a relationship of mutual sacrifice and needs-meeting. Yes, in the sense that a community of sacrificial people has no needy among them. Yes, in the sense that to love is to give of one's self.
This love can be given, is given, and can be taken by everyone.
Making love, therefore, is the process of self-sacrificially giving for the benefit of another person in any and all relationships.
However, we must now define what is beneficial...
No comments:
Post a Comment