Christianity is often described as a religion founded upon love, but it might be worth inquiring more closely just what "love" is supposed to mean in this case. Christian behavior often suggests that "love" has more to do with submission and repression and this may not be an aberration. It can be argued that this is what "love" meant all along in the context of humans' relationship with God.
In Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence, Hector Avalos writes:
The word "love" often designates the attitude and set of behaviors that a lord expects from his vassal in the ancient Near East. Especially instructive in this regard are the Assyrian lord-vassal "treaties" of lsarhaddon (ca. 681-669 BCE), king of Assyria. One commandment to a vassal, for example, reads: "(You swear) that you will love Ashurbanipal, the crown mince, son of Essarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord as (you do) yourselves." Likewise, a vassal is commanded to "fight and (even) die for him [the lord]." This, of course isn't that different from what Jesus command his own disciples to do in Luke 14:26: "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother. . . even life (Greek: pryche] itself, cannot be my disciple." ...
The hint that lord-vassal language is important in understanding the New Testament concept of love was already noted more than forty years ago by the brilliant Harvard Near Eastern scholar William L. Moran, who said, "[I]f the old sovereign-vassal terminology of love is as relevant as we think it is, then what a history lies behind the Christian test of true agape ' 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments!" Moran's insight, while bringing a new understanding, has remained confined largely to the Hebrew Bible. The similarity of New Testament language to lord-vassal treaties. when commented upon, is often expressed only obliquely
It has generally been recognized that the Ten Commandments are structured in a manner very similar to ancient Near East treaties between a powerful ruler and a vassal state. This suggests that further comparisons with political documents of the time may be a valid means for teasing out more reliable information about how people understood the concepts involved. Of course, even if submission and obedience defined "love" in the Old Testament, does this mean that it should also be applied to the New Testament?
More recently, Susan Ackerman has made a case that the Hebrew word 'aheb, a verb, and 'ahabah, the related noun, which are usually translated with the relevant forms of agape, almost always reflect an inequality in power in the Hebrew Bible. She argues that while there may be overlap between interpersonal "love" and political "love," the former still indicates a one-sided use in the Hebrew word. Thus, Jacob is described as loving Rachel (Gen. 3 9: 18, 20, 30), but it is never said that Rachel loved Jacob. The same is true in the description of numerous other relationships between men and women.
Ackerman believes that 'aheb/'ahabah is an action performed by the superior party relative to an inferior party (male>female, parent>child, Yahweh>human being, etc.). Only once is it said that a man (Solomon) loves Yahweh (1 Kings 3: 13), whereas the reverse is the norm (Yahweh loves X)... Love functions as a means of expressing status differences in which a superior party selects an object of love, who can only give gratitude, affection, and service in return. Inferior parties cannot or do not select their superiors, masters, or parents.
This suggests that the phrase "God so loved the world" isn't an expression of affection or emotional attachment, but rather the expression of a superior party who expects submission and obedience. Christians won't likely dispute God expressing superiority, but it will be difficult for them to accept the possibility that "love" isn't used in the Old and New Testaments to connote the same things as they mean when they use it.
That's understandable because "love" involves so much, but at the same time it really shouldn't be surprising if the word we translate as "love" might have connoted different things to people millennia ago. It would be arrogant to assume that they saw the world the same way we do and that they structured their thoughts about gods, spouses, children, etc. in the same way we do. Unfortunately, important theological concepts are based upon contemporary interpretations of ancient words.
[I]n his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount... [Augustine] explains that physical punishment (vindicta) is not incompatible with love. Beating a child, for example, is an act of love. The proper attitude of the recipient of punishment, therefore, should be happiness. He then cites as an example Elijah, who punished with death the worshippers of Baal, the rival of Yahweh, so that the living might "be struck with salutary fear. " In other words the creation of fear, otherwise called terrorism," is a just and legitimate instrument for God and his prophet. [...]
Among modern authors, we also find that "love" can explain acts of the most brutal violence. One example comes from R. A. Torrey, one of the contributors to The Fundamentals, a series of tracts that helped popularize the name "fundamentalist." Torrey argues that "[t]he extermination of the Canaanite children was not only an act of mercy and love to the world at large; it was an act of love and mercy to the children themselves." The reason is that if these children grew up, they probably would end up suffering an eternity in hell. Slaughtering them in infancy ensured that their soul would go to heaven. Clearly, the slaughter, under this logic, is a loving act.
Christians are obviously capable of recognizing that the most horrific, brutal, barbaric, and violent acts are compatible with "love," so why not step just a little further along and treat God's "love" for humanity as having little or nothing to do with emotional affection in the first place? Perhaps because few like to think of the more authoritarian "love" as applying to their own lives — God may "love" others enough to harm them, but God only "loves" oneself in an affectionate and positive manner. People who don't live in authoritarian, dictatorial societies aren't accustomed to rulers demanding submission and obedience, so it's more difficult to think of God in such a manner as well. For people in the ancient Near East, the analogy was obvious and easy to make.
Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.
I know people better by the quality of their hates. Most love seems to be goodwill and public relations. It is easily subverted by crooks.
Your discussion of love in this article and using this reference is misleading and incorrect. The Bible may not simply be discussed using cultural influences one derives from other cultures extant at the time. There are multiple uses of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic words to describe love. This article is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is a smear on the believability of the Bible based on poorly understood topic and questionably interpreted facts mined from other cultures. You should be ashamed that you would publish this as the final word on the subject.
Feel free to demonstrate how, if you can.
I might be, if I had actually done what you claim.
The devils greatest trick is to have people (like you and those who choose to believe “your” atheist interpretations) focus on what God says NOT to do in His Word. You perpetuate a negative view of “restrictions” and act as though the Bible only says what man cannot do “or else”. This is clever as instinctually man will do the opposite of what a superior instructs/tells them to do so it is no surprise that this is the approach you would build on; our feeling is “who does he think he is anyway.”
The LOVE that you are so grossly trying to twist is not tyrannical, nor born of a dictators whim; it is what it is “FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD [that HE created] that he gave His ONLY begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Just as you would discipline a child that has misbehaved; it is the same way God disciplined Adam and Eve when the misbehaved/disobeyed in the Garden of Eden. Just as it would hurt you to discipline your child is the same way it hurt God to discipline His children. After meting out that discipline/punishment God made a way for them to be reconciled to Him (that was through the death of His Son). God did not create man/woman to be subservient to Him; He created us to be rulers/co-creators of the earth WITH Him (Genesis 1:27-28- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth). But just like today, the devil is subtly using us/you to deceive and manipulate man into thinking that God is “up to something” that He is keeping this wonderful thing from us and for Himself and trying to make us His slaves. That is the very opposite; stop trying to demonize God and accept that he DOES LOVE US… we are not His minions, we are His children. He is not trying to get us to give up our rights, but to take up our rightful place with Him. Whether we want to accept it or not, there is a life after death; and that life will be extreme suffering and pain. God did not create evil, He created choice and with those choices we kill, hurt, terrorize and diminish each other. We also choose to not love and adore Him; He does not create chaos, but when it comes He will not stop it either because WE CHOSE to keep him out of every other area of our lives, how can we possibly ask Him to intervene then. Instead of finding all the reasons to hate God and discredit Him, open your heart to a new possibility of His amazing love for you. I have not been brain-washed, I have not been manipulated and I am not a looney; I have just read the Word and I find LOVE.
Austin, what an interesting way of analyzing one of the basic claims of Christianity. I’ve never thought about this really simple concept that words have cultural context. Great work, it makes me think and that is the sign of an intellectually honest work. The comments above provide neither arguments to the contrary nor go beyond a simple sermon-style diatribe. Throughout the history morals have changed many times over: the view of women (from mere objects to be possessed/traded/empregnated/etc. to slaves to servants to equals), children, slaves and many other concepts. Take a look at all the rules and punishments for their violations in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and many other so called holly books. The most frequently used punishment was death. This is definitely the Christian “love” at its fullest.
Thank you again for this analysis. It’s a sad state of affairs in our country when almost 90% of the population believe in some sort of deity governing their lives and the universe. Well, 1000 years ago 100% of the population believed the Earth was anything but round but it did not make it true. Even 300 years ago people who disagreed with the church were killed by the “loving” Christians. God save me from the Christian love!
The Loving Christians referred to by Eva Hanin were members of a corrupted Church leadership that hid the truth of the scriptures from the common man/women. They were the Pharasiees of that era.
Read about Martin Luther and his Reformation which brought the light of scripture to the common people.
Such general terms about the “Love of Christianity” is quite common in most arguments against Christians. There is a need to dig more into the context of scripture to understand the interpretation.
Let me reference the Book or Numbers and the use of “punishment by death.” For example Exodus 32:14.
God is speaking with Moses and telling him that the children of Israel are sinning and their sins are putting them in danger of being judged.
God then says “Let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”
Now, God had previously promised that He would deliver the nation of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
Notice how He says “Let me alone.” This was a test for Moses. God wanted to see if Moses would intercede for the people and provide a way of escape for them. Moses did as he should have and God didn’t destroy Israel.
In writing this incident, Moses(Author of Exodus) chose to use dramatic language to reflect the seriousness of the situation.
By saying “God changed His mind” or “God repented”, Moses employs what is known as an anthropomorphism(too deep?) – ascribing human qualities to God – to make his point.
God promised that He would deliver Israel and He did. The “changing of mind” wasn’t a change at all – God made good on his promise. You see it isn’t always ready to punish. Intercessory prayer is a power tool
As a Christian I appreciate Austin’s writings and thoughts. They give me a wealth of material to study from, as I continue to defending my faith and be “ready to give an answer to those who ask abou the hope that lies within me.” 1 Peter 3:15
Thanks Austin. Good job. You keep myself and fellow believers of the Lord Jesus Christ on out toes.
Peace…
Tell me Austin, what is love? Does love say, do what ever you want to yourself and others and I’ll learn to accept it, live with it, and perhaps even love it as long as it lets me stay alive (if so, then let N. Korea bomb away). No concept of love anywhere at any time is like that. Love and punishment have always been intrinsically linked together.
A parent, for instance, will tell their child don’t play in the street. Why? Because there is a good chance that their child will get hurt by a car driving in the street. If the child is caught playing in the street against the parents command, a good parent will discipline the child so that the child doesn’t disobey again and put their body in danger. The parent loves the child, therefore the parent prevents the child from harming itself by restrictions and discipline.
In our society we imprison and sometimes execute criminals because they violate laws. We love our society and the people that are a part of it, therefore we punish those who wish to destroy it in effect destroying those who are a part of it.
Every instance in the Bible where some person or group of people is punished you will undoubtedly always find a command in the Bible against their behavior. Since God is the law giver (He created everything, therefore He makes the rules), He has to be the law enforcer.
Not only do you try to force an impossible and ludicrous definition of love upon God (a definition which you yourself would not accept [unless your willing to open the country's prison doors permanently]) you neglect to mention the more subtle side of love, mercy. Review God’s dealings with the wicked Assyrians in Nineveh (recorded in the book of Jonah). These murders, robbers, rapists, etc. (moral derelicts) were pardoned by God. They faced total annihilation but were spared because they repented of their atrocities. They said they were sorry for murdering, robbing and raping your people and God forgave them. That’s real love. I doubt you would do the same thing if you had control.
God’s beneficial love is abundantly evident in the fact that He created human beings, He controls everything and WE ARE STILL HERE! (even you who doesn’t believe He exists–He has mercy on you)
If you entertain the thought that God exists (and He unquestionaly does exist), you must conclude that He loves and is merciful. We must define love as the way God relates to His creation.
The idea of Mr. Cline is that Christians use the word love in a way that justifies harm to people who don’t follow the laws of Moses. The Christians who originated such a deception would surely know what the unitiated would believe love to mean. I know that Christians do use the word to justify the most grotesque and heinous violence of the most brutal and murderous and rapacious kinds known in human history. Anyone who doubts this need only look at a couple of books about the Thirty Years War to get a historical (and not ancient) verification. And consideration of any one of a depressingly large number of hate crimes from the last couple of decades is incontrovertible evidence that the tough love manifesto is still driving murderous violence. The bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City used the lives of ordinary people as sacrifices to expunge the guilt of the nation for permitting homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and any number of rampant forms of idolatry. The beating of Matthew Shepard shows a very personal and vicious hatred and anger toward “the Sodomite”. Children are beaten to death, shaken to death, shut in closets to starve, and whipped into catatonia by parents outraged at the willful service of Satan by two year olds who have the temerity to cry out from pain and confusion. Young, unmarried, pregnant women are stymied from gaining access to responsible health care till many of them die, and leave children behind, who all too often die young themselves.
There is no way I can believe that it is righteous to kill people who simply got caught in the works of a society run by the idea that sin must be punished, and being poor and uneducated is a sin, even though the punishment is being meted out by the same folks who made damn sure those people would be poor and uneducated.
This implies that the many Christians who actually believe in real loving kindness and who are troubled by the cruelty and violence of Christian murder are used (often quite effectively) as foils against the infidels who question “Christian Love Murders”. The only ones who can come to grips with the deception are those who believe in theocracy with them as high priests. Just as the high priests in Judah did 2,000 years ago when a man said they were vipers. God is the authority for their power and punishments, and the victory of a Kingdom of God where the streets run red with the blood of anyone foolish to deny their authority.
The result is a shaky alliance that is only held together by the need to manipulate the infidel into assimilating or to giving power to the church. A flock of sheep who actually follow the teaching of Jesus to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. And a hidden underground of those who strike from the cover of that flock.
No one has been able to convince me that the hate crimes of Christians are motivated by anything but a poisonous malice, spread down the generations by the furious rage of parents who can’t understand why their fiercely applied discipline doesn’t make their infant understand that they are not to cry during daddy’s favorite tv program, or poop their diapers five minutes after they’ve been changed. The pre-verbal memories haunt the victims as dreams and visions of endless attack by horrible demons until they are grown enough to become the masters and pass along the message that life is grief except for those whose power as God’s chosen lets them hand out the grief.
Only the Christians, and Christian churches can end this curse. They can end it only by rescuing the children who will run the world when we’re gone. They have to convince them, wounded and scarred, that they are loved, and joy can only be found in a community of loving neighbors, just as Jesus of Nazareth is said to have taught on a hill above the Sea of Galilee many years ago.
I would very much like it if someone can show me that I am wrong in my observation that Christians will always stand behind the message they read in the Bible that sinners must be punished so that the land may be cleansed of iniquity. That a murder to discourage homosexuals, etc., etc., may have been misguidedly over judgmental and vengeful, but that a judgment and vengeance were appropriate, just in a different form. Because the only thing I see going on is the endless night brought by all the killing, which can in no way have saved the sinners soul, them being dead now, and no longer having the chance to make a thoughtful choice to love people (who submit) or kill them. (Those who do not submit, having been taught that spreading religion at the point of a sword was wrong. Who were taught that by Christians who wanted to take the moral high ground away from anybody who should attack Christians and Christianity, even when the Christians are committing pogroms against other religions.)
As someone once said, “We know that God loves us, but he surely must be disappointed sometimes.”
So sorry that your relationship with your father (or his absence) was so painful.
Sorry that you’re so bigoted against atheists that you have to assume they’ve had bad relationships with fathers. It must prevent you from relating in any positive way to people who have different beliefs from you.
So sorry that your relationship with your father (or his absence) was so painful.
This is the same crap that Vitz and Sproul have been spreading for decades. I’ve been an atheist over half my life, and my relationship with my father is great. Always has been. We’re get along like good friends, more than father and child. Most of the atheists I know have good relationships with their parents, except in cases where the parents have disowned their children for being atheists! I don’t see that as a failing of atheism. It’s a failing of religion.
To make an assumption that just because someone is an atheist that their father was abusive or absent just shows a remarkable depth of ignorance.
Draw what line? For what purpose?
#’s 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9: You are a great example of why rational people are leaving Christianity in droves. Your “God” is an evil spiteful prick. His believers are, for the most part, narrow minded sycophants incapable of indepent thought.
I has always mystified me that Christians have no problem with the idea that their god wants to be loved and feared simultaniously.
Fearing God seems to be the most important emotion so we get expressions like “He is a God fearing person” as a testament to someones strength of faith.
God in the Old Testament seems more interested in his people fearing him than loving him. If we look at the story of Abraham getting ready to sacrifice his son for example, when the angel came to him to stop him from striking the fatal blow, he said it was OK now because he had demonstrated he feared God enough.
(7) Josh Lynn says:
“What is love?” If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.
Another post about “For god so loved the world…” Wow! that is the smelliest pile of words ever dropped in the Middle East. John 3:16.
So, if people disconnect their brains, they won’t suffer eternal torment? Some love!
This diety really doesn’t take much pride in his work, now does he?
Nor did his creators.
PS Men seldom create a got superior to themselves (Can’t remember the author.)