I opine that one of the most misunderstood concepts to the entirety of mankind, even Christendom, if you will, is that of love. When we refer to love in contemporary speech and literature, or even in speech and literature from recent centuries, we are most usually referring to an emotional state, or an emotional experience of some sort. Experiences that fondle our self esteem, that validate our need for emotional aliment. Experiences that pander to our selves. The reduction of love from its former stature to a role of mere emotion is a grievous error, in my mind. For mankind, love is mostly about feeling, a condition in which we have an elevated level of affection for someone. To a generally lesser degree, we form emotional attachments to pets, and sometimes to inanimate objects. Sentiment is what we usually affix to inanimate objects, though, and not the true affection that we give to pets.
Some people aren’t capable of emotion, or feelings of an emotional nature. These people are a rarity, but they exist, both in and out of civilization and its hospitals. Some of them are imprisoned due to actions that could have been prevented with a dose of emotion, but were not, because they are not affected by emotion. So, if these people are incapable of feeling anything of an emotional nature, can they possibly be capable of love? And if they are not capable of love, how can they know God? (1 John 4:8) Have they been cursed from birth, condemned without a chance to accept or refuse the Creator? Or, as sometimes happens, an injury to the brain that, if not leaving their emotions incapacitated, has mangled their mental function to an extent that they have become, essentially, a different person?
I propose that a curse is not the case for these people, since the Bible doesn’t teach the concept of love as merely emotion, but as something that is comprised of emotion, consciousness, and will. Spirit is the primary component of love, being the breath of the Creator himself. God breathed his spirit into his creation, which is life itself. (Genesis 2:7) And since God defines his own being as love itself, the breath of God must also contain the essence of love. God also defines himself as spirit, which was breathed into the first man to make him a living soul, so the state of being alive gives a person the capacity for love. And so these people who are devoid of emotional capacity, or who’ve been robbed of it through injurious means, cannot be devoid of the capacity for love. Merely the capacity for emotion.
“That makes sense, I suppose, you pretentious blogger. But what about animals? Wouldn’t your argument of being alive mean that animals have spirits? Wouldn’t it make them capable of love, and if so, wouldn’t it qualify them for this eternal life stuff that mankind gets to avail themselves of? Wouldn’t it mean that, when your Messiah sacrificed himself to satisfy the law of sin and death, he was also purchasing a ticket to the afterlife for all the animals?”
Perhaps I am pretentious, though I would feel justified in arguing against that allegation. But, there are a couple of answers to your intelligent questions, which I trust will be equally intelligent. And I hope to present them here in an intelligent manner. Or, at minimum, in a coherent manner. A cogent manner? Well, a manner into which I’ve jabbed the haft of reason to stir up the foam of provocation for thought, at minimum.
Free will is extensively debated. The defining of free will is, anyhow. There are logical arguments for and against the notion of free will, and especially how it is meant in the Holy Scriptures. That is a debate I intend to join in another of my articles, which ought to fully describe my use of free will in the present article on love. For now, I’ll ask the reader to presuppose that free will refers to the power of choice to effect a decision in discriminating between alternatives. I know that suppositions can be tricky, but if I am to proffer a piece on any given topic, keeping it concise and avoiding a lengthy, convoluted thing that might be construed as a diatribe of sorts, then I’ll have to use the implement of supposition in these writings.
So, I propose that free will is necessary to love. I also propose that God granted the power of free will to mankind alone, and that he did so not only that mankind would be able to love him, but that the Creator would be able to demonstrate to his creation the unlimited expanse of his love. Scripture states that “God demonstrated his love for us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) He couldn’t perform such an act if mankind were not sinners. And mankind could not be guilty of sin unless we had a capacity for discrimination. (John 9:41) And we cannot discriminate unless there are options placed before our mental or emotional palates. This was the purpose of the Creator’s adjuration to his newly formed man, to be abstemious with the fruit of a particular tree, and why he planted the thing where it was accessible to the newly formed man. (Genesis 2:9) This situation served a secondary purpose, which was to test the man. Not to tempt him, though some people have insisted that the word “test” in the Bible always refers to temptation. God does not tempt anyone, but he does test all those who’ve decided to follow and worship him.
“But doesn’t that mean the freshly animated dirt was the victim of entrapment? It sounds to me like this loving Creator you are touting manipulated the situation so the man was sure to stumble into an irreversible decision that would end up condemning his entire progeny. Sin is hereditary, right? So the rest of us, who otherwise might have been born innocent, and lived innocently, get to partake in the dastardy of sin because of the failure of one man. But our sin is our fault, and we have to give an accounting for it. Isn’t that an accurate assessment of the deal? Eh, you mentally deficient blogger?”
Well, I don’t consider myself to be mentally deficient, though in many ways I might suppose it to be a justifiable description. My mind isn’t attuned to the intricacies of mathematics, for example. Nor do I navigate with ease amongst the capillaries of sciences such as physics. But we’re not about those subjects in this blog, we’re about the Holy Scripture, and the Scripture says that wisdom is available to anyone who asks for it. (James 1:5) So I’ll stay the course my Captain has plotted for me, and answer the question according to his literature, and according to the ability he suffused me with.
I suggest that the most important thing to recall during any discourse of this type is that the being who created everything is the owner of everything. This means he can do whatever he wishes with his property. He gets to make the rules. I know that sounds trite, and maybe in a crude and brutish way, but that’s the way of it. Comments of that sort can fuel indignation and umbrage in just about anyone who is a human being. It seems a clever way to extricate oneself from explicating why judgement is to be done to a humanity that was born into sin. I get it. I understand it. But the human condition, and that of all living things, is ubiquitously singular.
Human beings are diverse in character, acting within a broad spectrum of ability, and proportion of ability. Everyone excels at something. Even if it’s an uncommon capacity for kindness. Unfortunately, some people excel at immorality and evil actions. It’s shameful, but it demonstrates the innate wickedness of the human being as described in Scripture. (Romans 7:5, Romans 7:18, Galatians 5:17, Ephesians 2:3) The point is, whether good or bad, added to the innate wickedness is an innate creativity weaved into all human beings. It’s a defining aspect of humanity. Despite the theories with which the government is inculcating our children, man is not an animal. Animals are driven by instinct, not will. Man is the one part of all creation that was fashioned in the image of the Creator. We are little creators, granted the power of will.
The world has witnessed a column of many artisans tromping through the ages, sculptors, painters, writers, musical composers, even politicians who have polished their agility in rhetoric. I think most people would regard the produce of the artisan to be the property of the artisan, including commodities and other produce of general manufacture, such as electronics, clothing, houses, food, and so on. They are all the property of those who generate the produce, and it is within the purview of the owners to do as they choose with their property. They can sell it, which is the usual destiny for produce, or they can choose to mangle it, destroy it, or hide it away in a locked box.
We claim right of ownership over things that we invent, manufacture, or purchase, but for some reason we are resentful when the Creator of everything claims right of ownership over his creation. We design objects for a particular use, many of them designed to be expendable, designed to be destroyed, and deem it acceptable to do so. We own our property. But when the Creator claims the right to design his creation in ways that please him, we foist allegations of cruelty and hypocrisy upon his prerogative. (Romans 9:19-24) Why? Because we’re endowed with free will, the power of self determination in the sense that we can decide the career of our actions. And it is that impetus of will which enables us to revolt against the one who created us.
The quality of will is the most important distinction between humanity and the stature of mere animals (aside from the purchase of our salvation by our Creator). The behavior of animals is determined by instinct. They often display a grade of emotion, or affection, for their own kind, or even for humans, but it remains devoid of the impetus of will. It is emotion, but it can never be love because it is not a choice. It is emotion, but it is a result of conditioning, in part, and a result of the nature given it by the Creator, in another part. A dog can be raised to behave in a docile manner, or it can be raised to bark incessantly, or it can be raised to attack intruders who encroach upon its owner’s territory. A dog might be abused by its owner, the trust of its innate nature betrayed by the master of its fate. This dog is conditioned to fear the appearance of a human, and that fear is subject to instinctual responses. It will attack and kill, if it can, because it has been taught that humans are inflicters of harm. All of these behaviors, while exhibiting emotion, are instinctual, but not willful.
Animals are trained by those humans or environs to which they are subjugated. It’s a different matter for human beings. There are children who are abused, raised to hate their parents, raised to believe particular doctrines, raised to be pacifists or combatants, raised to accept or reject religion, raised to trust or distrust government, raised in all manner of training or conditioning that is formative both emotionally and mentally. But, unlike animals, when children have been transferred into their adult state they have the capacity to choose a divergent behavior. Behavior they haven’t been trained in, but which they have determined to pursue. This determination will likely be based on information from a variety of sources during their journey into adulthood, but it remains an exertion of will. Despite a childhood under the tutelage of one whose hatred for others has inculcated the child mind, that child can choose to become one whose pilot is love. That person doesn’t have to be trained to love. It is an act of will.
Emotions are goads. They are motivators that prompt a decision to act or refrain from acting in any given set of circumstances. This action or refrenation is always an act of will for mankind, and not an instinctual one. Humans are unique in that we also have the ability to train ourselves. We choose to exercise our various aspects, training them for a future physical action. We choose to train our minds, our morality, our generosity, our bodies, our eating, our spending, our skills, our social intercourse, our bravery, as well as our potential for negative actions. All of this is a matter of will, and we subject ourselves to it as we have determined. Animals do not have the ability to subject themselves as we do. They are subjected by influences outside of themselves. We human beings may subject ourselves to any behavior we choose despite outside influences.
A person goes to the gym in order to improve his or her physical condition. To become physically stronger, or to lose excess fat, or to rehabilitate an injured muscle. A person will often employ the services of a physical trainer to facilitate whatever particular goal that person has set. Now, if the trainer imposes such and such routine, and such and such regimen, for exercise and for diet, and the person doesn’t follow those instructions, can the person hold the trainer liable for his or her failure to accomplish the set goal? It would be absurd to do so. But the person has the power to choose whether those instructions will be followed. A dog, or other animal, responds with obedience to its training because it is in its nature to do so, and not because it is invested with power of choice.
The creator has an affinity for all of his creation, as we can see when he commands his people Israel to give the land itself a sabbath rest. (Leviticus 25:2-5) He handed his creation to mankind, but with an expectation of good stewardship. (1 Corinthians 4:2, Proverbs 12:10, Titus 1:7) He is pleased with his work. God saw that it was good. But among all his creation, it is mankind alone that is created in the image of the Creator. This image is not necessarily reflected in the physical (though it might be, for all I know), but it’s reflected in our creative aspect, and most especially in our will. Mankind alone was designed with the capacity for love, because the Creator desired to be loved by this particular piece. His nature demands worship, respect, honor, and so forth, because of what he is. But his nature also desires to be loved, because of who he is. God is love. And so here we are, mankind, choosing to love or hate our Creator. Because of the power of will granted to us by our Creator.
I am not so foolish as to denounce the reality of brain trauma, or mental stress, or mutations in genetic lines, or defects, or impeded development, all of which may cause personality shifts, or an inability to discern right and wrong, or a basic cognition of morality. These are real conditions. So are these people to be incriminated for the condition they’ve not voluntarily been subjected to? No. Not according to what I understand of Scripture. They still have the power of will, but their diminished capacity for comprehending the moral structure of right and wrong indemnifies them from the culpability of those who do have the faculty to comprehend it. This is why children are considered innocent in the eyes of God. Not because they are physically deficient, but because they’ve not developed to the point of culpability that is achieved through the accretion of knowledge and understanding. (John 9:41)
“You contumacious ogre! Are you saying these poor people afflicted with physical attributes that limit their mentality are nothing more than animals? Do you propose they don’t have a place among human society?”
Not at all! And I hope I’m not an ogre. Or contumacious. That would be bad. No, these people are not relegated to animal stature. I’m saying there’s a difference between those who can and cannot comprehend right and wrong. Those who are incapable of emotion, or whose capacity for emotion is severely abridged, are still capable of understanding right and wrong, and still retain the power of choice. They can still choose to love despite a lack of emotion. Of course, that choice is made easier when it is driven by emotion, as we all know, but it certainly isn’t contingent upon the impetus of emotion.
For example, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. He asked what it commends people to love those who love them, since even those who are evil reciprocate the love they receive. (Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:27-36) So what can emotion, or affection, possibly have to do with loving our enemies? Not a thing, as I see it. Love is an action, and we are commanded to that action by the Creator. By our Father. Why? Because, friend or foe, enemy or ally, all human beings are an image of the Creator. When we curse or hate a fellow human being, we are actually regarding the Creator with such aspersions. Something to consider before speaking in anger.
Human beings are endowed with an ability to choose their response in whatever situation they arrive at. Animals respond to the conditioning they’ve been subjected to, whereas the human power of will allows us to respond to deleterious treatment by handing kindness to our tormentor, even while spitting our blood and teeth onto the floor. Jesus adjured us to love our enemies. He did not, however, adjure us to regard our enemies with affection. Which is another indication that love is more about choice than it is about emotion. This makes it possible for us to love justice and love our enemies. We can go to war, be good soldiers and prosecute injury to our enemy, even death, and love them at the same time. We don’t have to possess an affection for them, only an affinity as fellow images of the Creator. Along with a merciful and prayerful heart which abets them as circumstances allow. (Luke 10:30-35, Proverbs 25:21-22, Luke 6:27-28)
We can remain loyal to an employment that we despise, or even hate, doing so out of love for the family that relies on our employment, or for the God that has commanded we retain that position. This is a motor of action. We can also remain loyal to a lover who inveigles us into idolatry, doing so out of a deep affinity for that person. This is a motor of emotion. And the opposite of each example may be equally true. It is the one to whom we dedicate the practice of our free will which validates, or invalidates, our decisions.
The Creator claims to love his creation. If we proclaim an inviolable paradox in loving our enemies and killing them, then we must also foist the title of liar onto the Creator. He ordered his people Israel into Canaan to perpetrate mayhem, destruction, and the slaughter of whole cities, their denizens included. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) He ordered King Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and animal, of one particular nation, and to transform the entire thing into wastage and detritus. (1 Samuel 15:3) Saul disobeyed, saving some morsels to bring home for sacrificial dispensation, thinking to please the God that had sent him on the errand, which precipitated an unpalatable afterclap for Israel’s first earthly monarch. (1 Samuel 15:14-15)
To be concise, we cannot associate love for an enemy with a reluctance to engage ourselves in necessary actions. Nor can we associate love with pacifistic philosophy because love is characterized by action. Nor can we associate love with a refrenation from all things harmful, unpleasant, or injurious, because to spare the rod is to treat the child hatefully. (Proverbs 13:24) And God disciplines those he loves. One of the primary human tasks is the discipline of our progeny, both physical and spiritual disciplines, which will suffuse the young soul with a healthy mentality. As long as all of these are done with love, and not anger or retribution. When we warn a friend or relative to turn around and walk away from the cliff they are striding toward, or to leave off quaffing the chalice of acid in their fist, or to remove their face from under the towel they’ve donned and grip the car’s steering wheel again and avert the impending wreckage it’s about to become, then we are committing acts of love. We are not loving anyone by keeping silent about their sin.
Love cannot be classified as one of the emotions in any sense aligned with the love that Christ demonstrated by his acceptance of punition reserved for a mankind that has rejected its Creator. That love is something transcendent over mere emotion. It is an action motivated by the nature of the Creator, which disregards the motivators of emotion. The emotion that humanity classifies as love is driven by various factors, or quashed by various opposite factors. For example, a man might love a woman because of her beauty, or the appeal of her submissive nature, or the way she defers to him as a man. Or a woman might love a man because of his appealing musculature, or strength of character, or his capacity for provision. A friend may love a friend because of their mutual friendship, or for whatever adhesive has bonded them. Introduce a vile betrayal or adulteration into these relationships through one or more parties, and more times than not the love in them will evaporate, or be transmuted into hostility. Christ loved all of humanity regardless of the hatred imposed on him by the majority of us, and regardless of the church’s infidelity to him as the bride of Christ.
“Well, now. It seems you have decided to insult my ears with verbal injury in telling me that my love for my friends and family is invalid. It is ‘mere’ emotion, and not true love. As if I could treat my children as less than my own blood just because they’ve declared their hatred for me, or disobey me, while simply undergoing the process of traveling from childhood to adulthood. As if I ought to elevate the enemy of my family and treat my blood as less. And if my wife betrays my love for her and adulterates our marriage, why should I validate her? She’s obviously broken her oath and has deemed me to be no longer sufficient for her. And she isn’t my blood.”
I have not declared your love to be invalid, I have declared it to be less than what the Creator spews onto his creation in rarefied qualities and galactically copious quantities. I am not more than you are, and would be distressed to remain with an unfaithful wife who chose to shred our marriage. I don’t understand how people are able to go on as they do when such circumstances have been described in their lives. (Hosea 1:2) But I would also reiterate that it is emotion which drives us along that course of action, to divorce from those espoused to us when they stab our hearts so deeply. God knows this about us, and has allowed for the dissolution of a marriage if one of the two has broken the marital oath of sexual fealty. But he also states that this condition is not what he intended. (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5-8) I am ever so grateful that our Creator does not treat us as we treat each other, for I would certainly have been banished from his love decades ago if his love were mere emotion and not the sprout of will that is his very nature. Our emotional love is not invalid, for that is our nature as human beings, but it’s quality is less than the love of the Creator.
This love supersedes emotion. This love allows, even urges, parents to discipline the children who are the objects of their love, suppressing their emotional repulsion of causing harm, however temporary, in preference of an enduring benefit for the child that will result from the discipline. (Hebrews 12:7-11) That love allows us to cause injury, even death, to one whom we care for when that one threatens harm to a family member. We may have a firmly seated sentiment for a particular friend, but can overwhelm that sentiment with seeming ease if the friend chooses to prosecute a demise for one of our family members. The emotional aftermath may loiter for many years, but the action is taken speedily, rejecting the emotion in order to preserve the life of the one that is loved. This is why the Creator can love his creation, and yet dictate the slaughter of human beings to preserve the lives of those who worship him, even allowing the lives of those who worship him to be extinguished if it means the future salvation of evil ones.
Which is what occurred with the bulk of his disciples. They were killed, persecuted in every way, ghastly events as Paul described them, but the Creator’s purpose was to bring a knowledge of his nature to as many as possible. (Hebrews 11:35-38) Allowing his disciples to suffer, and perish, wasn’t an act of betrayal, nor hypocrisy, since he warned anyone who wishes discipleship that these persecutions would occur. (2 Timothy 3:12) It has always been an act of love. And the reward that is given to those whose discipleship remains steadfast confutes all worldly value. The evil things in the world happen because the world has vehemently rejected the Creator, so they vehemently oppose anything that belongs to him, even basic morality.
And the ages old challenge always arises, “If God loves everyone, why does he send them to hell?” And the ages old answer, “He doesn’t. People choose, through their power of will, to go there.” But why would anyone choose such a fate if they knew the reality of it? That’s what I wonder, as well. Why do they choose such a fate? The knowledge of the Creator has been dispersed to nearly the entire world, and is continually preached before the ramparts of ignorance erected by the world. The world is aware of their fate, but they choose to ignore it, to reject the free gift offered to them. But hell isn’t really the fate we ought to be concerned about, it’s the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14) That is the final destination of all who oppose the Creator, whose exertion of their power will condemn them. God is love, and he is a just God. Neither of these contradicts the other when we understand that love is not mere emotion, it is an act of will. A choice. It is the produce of volition. The Creator loves mankind, and it is because of that love that he allows mankind to decide his own fate.
Emotions are useful things. They can be beneficial in many situations, but they can also be deleterious if used improperly. One common misconception of Scripture is that anger is to be strictly barred in the Christian life. The Bible teaches that those who are disposed to fits of anger are indisposed to the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 5:19-21) It teaches that the sun should not go down on our anger. (Ephesians 4:26) It teaches that we are to be slow to anger. (Galatians 5:22-23) This is all true. But the Bible does not teach that anger is to be voided. It says, “In your anger, do not sin.” It does not say that anger itself is a sin. It warns against “fits of anger,” not against all forms of anger. If anger itself were a sinful thing, then Jesus was guilty of sin. He became angry with Jewish teachers, and was motivated by anger when he thrashed the temple with a whip of cords. (Mark 3:4-5, Mark 11:15, John 2:15, Psalm 2:12) Anger itself is no sin, it is what we do with it that may be sinful. It is the same with the other emotions.
A man is to love his wife, but not another man’s wife. A man is to fulfill his marital duty to his wife, but not another man’s wife. He is permitted to lust after his own wife, but is forbidden to lust after any other woman, because that act constitutes adultery in his heart. (Matthew 5:28) Pride is a tricky one, but there is a good pride and a bad pride. Taking pride in one’s work, or one’s physical condition, or one’s children, or one’s accomplishments, or one’s learning, and so on, is not a bad thing to do. Being prideful of these things by deeming oneself better, or more important, or more valuable, as if these things were accomplished without an ability granted by the Creator, is a very bad thing to do. It is similar with humility. One can be truly humble, and one can link arms with false humility. We are told to not hate our brother, but to hate sin. God himself hates sin, but loves his creation. Emotions are neither good nor bad, it is what we do with them that will prove meritorious or reprehensible.
Love and justice supersede all earthly emotions. Our emotions are unique to the human condition, love and justice are unique to the Creator. Anxiety, animosity, doubt, fear, hatred, prejudice, these are all unique to the human condition. Mercy is unique to the Creator. This is why Scripture lists love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, as fruits of the Holy Spirit. They are produce foreign to us who are products of the dirt. We cannot truly love unless the Holy Spirit has been deposited in us. And we can’t receive that deposit unless we belong to the Creator. And that can’t come about unless we believe in him. A belief that doesn’t merely acknowledge his existence, but that renders obeisance to his sovereignty. This is an act of will. It is choice. How can we know how to truly love others? By knowing the Creator. God is love, and anyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. (1 John 4:7) True love, not mere emotion.