Tag: love

Why Does Jesus Repeatedly Prioritize Christians Loving One Another?

Loving each other, our neighbors, and even our enemies

kevingdrendel1 Comment

Jesus shocked his followers one day with the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in which Jesus likened the love and care we show to people in need – the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the people lacking clothes, the sick, and the prisoner – to showing love and care for him. Jesus said, “[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)(NIV)

Until recently, I had glossed over the qualifier to this statement: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. When someone pointed out to me that the statement is qualified, it nagged at me.

What did Jesus mean when he said “these brothers and sisters of mine”? Did he mean only his biological family? Did he mean his followers? Or did he mean something else?

In another passage while Jesus was talking to a crowd, someone told him his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak with him. He responded by pointing to his disciples, saying, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:49-50)

Does this mean that we only apply the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats to followers of Christ who are hungry, thirsty, in need of clothing, strangers, sick, and imprisoned? Does it mean that we have no divine obligation to love and care for other people (even in our own family)?

Along the same line, I previously noticed that Jesus qualified his prediction that the world would know his followers by their love. He said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35) That qualifier has nagged me for sometime, and for the same reasons as the qualifier in Matthew 25 was now nagging me. I knew I needed to dig into this and develop a better understanding of what Jesus is saying in these passages.

After meditating on these things and considering other Bible passages, I worked out my analysis in Who Are Christians to Love? Matthew 25 and John 13. I determined that we need to understand the bigger picture, and we need to understand context.

Many passages exist throughout Scripture from the Old Testament through the New Testament that convey God’s intention that we love all people. The Bible is rich with passages clearly and emphatically stating that we should love all people, just as God loves all people.

The second greatest commandment – to love your neighbor as you love yourself – is not qualified. The Parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear that our neighbors include people regardless of their ethnic, national, and religious identity – even people we are strongly tempted to despise.

Jesus eliminated all guesswork when he told us that loving our neighbors extends even to our enemies. The example Jesus gives is that God causes sun to shine on the good and the evil and rain to fall for the benefit of the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44-45) God doesn’t withhold good things like sun and rain from the evil and the unrighteous, and neither should we. We are to be like Him in showing basic love and care for all people.

Jesus added that even pagans love those who love them. We would be no different than a pagan if all we did was to love those who love us back. (Matthew 5:43-48) Rather, we are to “be perfect as God is perfect” and love all people like God loves people, the good and the evil, the righteous and the unrighteous.

When Jesus healed the sick, drove out demons, gave sight to the blind, and showed compassion to people, he did not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles or believers and unbelievers. Of the ten lepers that he healed, only one of them came back to thank him and give glory to God (Luke 17:11-19), but He healed them all anyway.

When Jesus announced his ministry in his hometown synagogue he recalled two stories that triggered the people to want to kill him. These stories demonstrate how God loves not just the Jews (and how the Jews had a hard time accepting that reality). These are the words that provoked his hometown people to want to kill him:

“I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

Luke 4:25-27

The Sidonians were Phoenicians, descendants of the Canaanites who constantly battled the Jews, and Sidon was the hometown of Jezebel, the foreign queen who led King Ahab and the nation of Israel astray. Naaman was a Syrian General who had attacked the Israelites. He was a foreigner, an outsider, from Samaria, which was despised by the Jews Jesus spoke to. Jesus was conveying to his people that he came not just for them; he came even for their enemies.

Just as the people in that synagogue, we struggle to love people we despise. We struggle to love people who have wronged us and don’t believe as we do. We struggle to love people who do not believe as we do. Frankly, we difficult actually loving people in the family of God, too.

The difficulty we have in loving people, even fellow believers, does not excuse us from taking the commandments Jesus gave us to heart. The greatest commandment – to love God – is ultimately inextricably intertwined with the second greatest commandment – to love our neighbors as ourselves. John makes this clear:

“For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.”

1 John 4:20-21

There is that qualifier again – brother and sister. But, we know from other passages of Scripture that the divine obligation to love extends beyond our spiritual family to our neighbors and to our enemies also. Why, then, do those pesky qualifiers keep appearing? I have some thoughts that I will share.

Continue reading “Why Does Jesus Repeatedly Prioritize Christians Loving One Another?” →

Who Are Christians to Love? Matthew 25 and John 13

When Jesus said we should care for the “least of these, my brothers” and to “love one another”, was he limiting the scope of our love to fellow believers?

kevingdrendel1 Comment

In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25, Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40) Most people gloss over the qualifier to the least of these… my brothers. Bible scholars, however, have wrestled with the fact that the clear instruction for us to have compassion and care for the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, and the prisoner – the least of these – is qualified by Jesus by adding “my brothers.”

Some modern scholarship argues for a limited interpretation. These scholars contend that “the least of these, my brothers” refers specifically to the disciples of Jesus and fellow believers, especially those who are suffering persecution or deprivation as a result of their faith. They argue that we can not apply this Parable to the people in the world at large because the category of “the least of these” is qualified by “my brothers.”

In similar fashion, Jesus tells his followers, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35) Jesus does not say that the world will know his disciples by the love they have for people in the world at large; rather, they will be known by the love they have for “one another.”

These two statements of Jesus raise some questions for us. Are Christians only commanded and expected to care for and love each other? Is the Bible silent on whether we should love and care for people who are not followers of Christ? Does it matter whether we love and care for people in the world?

The point of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is that the love and care we show for “the least of these my brothers” is tantamount to showing love and care for Jesus. In other words, one’s treatment of “the least of these”, who Jesus calls his brothers, reflects our hearts and our relationship with God, Himself.

This is not inconsistent with the one, primary characteristic that Jesus says should mark his followers – that they love each other. (John 13:35) Love within the Christian community is the hallmark of being a follower of Jesus, and that love and mutual care that Christians have for each other serves as a testimony to the world that we follow Jesus (if, indeed, we are faithful to his commandment).

We might glean from the Parable of Sheep and the Goats that the emphasis on “my brothers” means that Christians only show love for Jesus when they love and care for brothers and sisters in Christ. We might understand from reading John 13:35 that we should focus only on loving each other, as that is the way the world will know us.

Do these passages mean that Christians are only to care for and love each other. Does this special emphasis on loving our brothers and commandment to love each other extend outside the Church? Or does it apply only within the community of believers?

Continue reading “Who Are Christians to Love? Matthew 25 and John 13” →

Still Influenced By the Flesh: What’s Love Got to Do with It?

If we are Christ followers, we should not be content to remain as we are

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

“[Y]ou are still influenced by the flesh. For since there is still jealousy and dissension among you, are you not influenced by the flesh and behaving like unregenerate people?”

1 Corinthians 3:3 NET

I am inspired by Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (of which we have record). The topic I want to write about is what Paul calls “the flesh”. We might just call it sin. The doctrine of sin is not popular today, but the Bible doesn’t pull any punches about it, and neither should we.

We do need to view it in the right context, though. The Bible is clear that all people have sinned, and all people do sin. John says that anyone who denies they have sinned is a liar, (1 John 1:8) but John adds that God is faithful and just to forgive us when we confess our sin to Him. (1 John 1:9)

Paul wrote this letter to “the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified by Christ Jesus and called to be His holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ….” (1 Cor. 1:2) Thus, he is writing to Christians – Christians who are “still influenced by the flesh”.

Yes, Christians are influenced by the flesh, and Christians are susceptible to sin.

The notion of sin is disfavored and much maligned, but most people would agree that “to err is human”. The biblical notion of sin is not much different than this popular understanding of what it means to be human. It means in its various forms in the Greek to fail, to miss the mark, to do wrong, to misstep, etc. (See Biblehub)

The Greek word translated “flesh” in the New English Translation is σαρκικός, ή, όν (sarkikos). It means “pertaining to the flesh, carnal” (“behavior which is typical of human nature … with special focus upon more base physical desires” according to the HELPS word studies found at the Biblehub website).

Fleshiness is human tendency. Therefore, we might change the popular idea of what it means to be human by saying, “To sin is human.”

The Bible claims that only one human being in history was without sin, and that person was Jesus of Nazareth, who the Bible claims was actually God incarnate (God who became human). The Bible also claims that Jesus came to deliver humans from the limitations of sin (and from death). This was his purpose – to invite us into relationship with God as children to become who God always meant us to be – to be free of sin and death, to live in eternal relationship with God, having the same characteristics God has.

This is a process that starts with a commitment to God in Christ, and it culminates in our own victory over sin and death. The ultimate realization of this victory, however, only occurs after our resurrection:

“So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

1 Corinthians 15:42-43

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”

1 Corinthians 15:50-53

Paul calls this transformation the perishable being clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Cor. 15:54) Thus, we do not attain this perfection until we die and are resurrected, but we are called into relationship with God in this life where the process of change this begins the to happen

Paul’s purpose in writing this letter to the Christian Corinthians (and Christians everywhere and at all times) was to address their fleshiness – their sin. Though they had the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), they were still influenced by the flesh. (1 Cor. 3:3) Just as we are. So we should take note.

Continue reading “Still Influenced By the Flesh: What’s Love Got to Do with It?” →

The Need for Unity of Purpose in the Church: Focus on Jesus

When Paul heard of the divisions in the Corinthian church, he came to them with the centrality of the Gospel – Jesus and him crucified.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

I have been meaning to write on unity in the Church for some time, but the subject has seemed too large for me to tackle. I am not a theologian. I took all the classes to be a religion major in college, but I didn’t hand in my thesis paper (on inerrancy), so I settled on being an English Literature major only.

Over the last 15 years, approximately, I been serious in reading Scripture and thinking (and writing) through the many difficult issues that face modern Christians. I have always been about “mere Christianity” since my earliest days as a Christ follower over 40 years ago, and I am convinced more than ever of the importance of being unified around basic or essential Christian principles.

My church is going through 1 Corinthians for the next several months or more, and the first chapter of the letter focuses on unity. I began writing about the need to be intentional – to agree – to end divisions and be unified in mind and purpose in Fighting for Unity in the Body of Christ.

I learned that the Greek word translated “mind” (or mindset”), nous, means more than just our thinking. It encompasses our attitude and disposition also. As we follow Jesus as he followed the Father, we should have same attitude/mindset that Jesus had.

Jesus is our pattern, and he calls us all to live as he lived, conforming to the same pattern he described when he said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

Paul reminds us that Jesus left aside his privilege and humbled himself to become one of us. (Philippians 2) Paul adds that our knowledge and ability to fathom all mysteries are nothing if we don’t have love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2) Therefore, our mindset – our attitude and disposition (love) toward one another – is vitally important in what it means to be unified in mind and purpose.

Unity does not just mean intellectual assent on matters of doctrine. Paul says that we only “know in part”. (1 Corinthians 13:12) We need to bear that mind, therefore, as we try to be obedient to the commandment to end divisions and be unified in mind and purpose.

This all begs the question, though: what mind and what purpose is Paul talking about? What is it that we must be intentional to agree about?

In the first article, I found some clues in the Greek meanings of the words translated “mind and purpose”, but they only scratch the surface. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon, and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament all agree that νοῦς (nous) (translated mind) refers not only to the intellect, understanding, or reasoning faculty; it it also encompasses the mindset or disposition of a person.

Doctrine is implied in the concept of being of one mind, but doctrine is not all that this word implies. In fact, the summary of the Law Jesus provided for us (love God and love neighbor) seems to emphasize attitude and action over intellectual, theological constructs.

That doesn’t mean that Jesus was not doing theology when he summarized the Law. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we do theology far less perfectly than Jesus did!

We tend to complicate theology, but Jesus simplified it. In simplifying it, though, Jesus was not discounting or minimizing the rationality and intellectual rigor of it. Rather, Jesus was prioritizing the intellectual aspect of knowledge below below love. As Paul says: even if we can fathom all mysteries and have all knowledge, we have nothing without love. Love, therefore, is the priority over knowledge and understanding.

As we have already seen, the mindset we adopt must also incorporate our disposition and attitude toward God and each other. Any doctrine divorced from these things is empty. It is like a clanging gong without a symphony.

I think it is safe to say that doctrine, by itself, is devoid of life. Knowledge and understanding are nothing without love. It seems to me that love, even without knowledge or understanding, is better than knowledge and understanding without love.

Some might say though, that love cannot be divorced from truth. Jesus said that he is the way, truth and the life, so truth is obviously important.

But, not all truth is of the same value. It is true that today is sunny and warm in the Chicago area, but that truth is not nearly as important as the truth that Jesus is God incarnate who died on the cross for our sin and rose from the dead to redeem us from sin and death.

Having the same mind and purpose implies that we agree to the certain key value and truth propositions. It cannot mean that all of us view all value and truth propositions the same way. As finite beings who know only in part, that would be impossible! So what does Paul mean?

Continue reading “The Need for Unity of Purpose in the Church: Focus on Jesus” →

Fruit, Love and False Prophets

It’s a sad state of affairs that Christians today may be more well known for their fighting with each other than for their love for each other. 

kevingdrendel1 Comment

Someone commented recently on Facebook that some of the harshest critics of Christians on social media are Christians. (Assuming that anyone who self-identifies as a Christian is a Christian.) This reminded me of what Jesus said to his disciples after Judas left the last supper to betray him.

When he was gone, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.
“My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:31-35

“Now” the Son of Man is glorified, Jesus said. He was lifted up, but it wasn’t the kind of “glory” anyone expected. It was the glory of Jesus being obedient to the Father and accomplishing all that intended.

Jesus knew he was leaving, and (if we read between the lines), he knew the disciples left in front of him would struggle at first. What was the key instruction in this time? What was the one thing he gave them to hold onto?

“Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

It’s a sad state of affairs that Christians today may be more well known for their fighting with each other than for their love for each other. 

People will say that the doctrine is important and that Paul and the early church were also concerned about doctrine. This is true, of course.

It also occurs to me that the 1st century Christians lived in a world that was predominantly non-Christian. They were a very small minority. The disagreements among Christians likely went completely unnoticed by the world at large.

Christians are in the majority in the United States today, so negativity from Christians toward Christians in the United states is highly noticeable. With so many people who call themselves Christian, the fighting is going to get noticed.

A person might say further that love is tempered by truth. Love that does not recognize and confirm to truth is not love. Right? I cannot help but thinking, however, that such a statement sounds particularly like something a Pharisee may have said in the 1st century.

Isn’t it a shame that, with so many Christians in this country, we do not shine like that proverbial city on a hill? And, by shine, I mean with the love of God for each other (and for others – and even for our enemies).

Looking back at the first Christian leaders who had disagreements, I see that they spent time in prayer – together with each other. They worked to find common ground, and they agreed to disagree on peripheral things. They did not bicker publicly among themselves.

We see many examples of this in the Book of Acts and the epistles that make up the New Testament. Early Christians did not agree on everything, but they agreed on essentials, and they allowed room for disagreement.

Early Christians did take a strong stand against heresy, but we can’t just everything on which we disagree matters of heresy. Heretical doctrines in the 1st Century, like Gnosticism, have their 21st Century counterparts. We call certain clear departures from orthodox Christianity heretical, like the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, but the fighting my friend on Facebook was sad about is fighting among Christians who are somewhere in the range of Christian “orthodoxy”.

That is the rub.

Continue reading “Fruit, Love and False Prophets” →