Monthly Archives: February 2012

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law

ON GOD; Part XXXII

“God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him“

(1 John 4:16)

It is interesting to note that the interpretations of our scripture above by some of the commentators that we usually review are not remotely related to what it is that we have said about this verse; that There is no deeper revelation in the entirety of the New Testament than that which the  sincere seeker will find in these few words by the apostle.

• John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible⁸ tells us this about this verse which is based solely on the church doctrine of his time and which is likely little different today. In our opinion he totally misses the point here and it is apparent that he does not or can not accept this saying as John’s speaking of our Love for All as based on the reality of this as an Aspect of God. We should note that we have to move to other verses for his commentary and that he does not comment directly on the idea that “he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God” but rather relies on 1 John 4:13 which misses the point on Love.

• For God is love; he loves himself; there is an entire love between the three divine Persons, who are in the strictest, and in the most inconceivable and inexpressible manner affected to each other; their love is natural and essential: God loves all his creatures as such, nor does he hate any of them, as so considered; and he bears an everlasting, unchangeable, and invariable love to his elect in Christ Jesus; of which an instance is given in the following verses, and is a reason why the saints should love one another; that they might be like their heavenly Father, by whom they are begotten, and of whom they are born, and whose children they are; seeing he is love itself, and in his breast is nothing else but love. So the Shekinah is, by the Cabalistic Jews, called (hbha), “love”.
• and he that dwelleth in love; who dwells by faith upon the love of God as displayed in Christ, and abides in the exercise of love to God and to the saints:
• dwelleth in God, and God in him; (See Gill on 1 John 4:13); the last clause, “and God in him”, is left out in the Syriac version.
• 1 John 4:13: Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us; That there is a communion between God and us, and a communication of his love and grace to us, and an exercise of grace upon him; for God dwells in his people by his Spirit and grace, and they dwell in him by the exercise of faith and love upon him: and this is known⁸ .

• The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible⁸  does not define this particular verse at all so we take what little there is and combine it with interpretations on the similar verses as we see in Gill above. They treat the beginning of this verse only, a part that we are not addressing but which reads: “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us“. For us, this is a separate statement and we should here remember that the chapter and verse order of these epistles is not from the writer but from others who wished to have a better organization of the text for reference. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, the compilers of this commentary, do make the connection in 1 John 4:8 that “God is Love“; that it is a matter of fact and an Aspect of God. However, they seem to treat this in the context of the verse alone and without the wider understanding of this fact. This below is the extent of their commentary on verse 16; what follows after is derived from other similar sayings as noted:

  And we—John and his readers (not as 1 John 4b:14 , the apostles only).
  known and believed—True faith, according to John, is a faith of knowledge and experience: true knowledge is a knowledge of faith [LUECKE].
  to us—Greek, “in our case”
  dwelleth—Greek, “abideth.” Compare with this verse, 1 John 4:7 .

• From 1 John 4:8…God is love–There is no Greek article to love, but to God; therefore we cannot translate, Love is God. God is fundamentally and essentially LOVE: not merely is loving, for then John’s argument would not stand; for the conclusion from the premises then would be this, This man is not loving: God is loving; therefore he knoweth not God IN SO FAR AS GOD IS LOVING; still he might know Him in His other attributes. But when we take love as God’s essence, the argument is sound: This man doth not love, and therefore knows not love: God is essentially love, therefore he knows not God.
• From verse 13 so as to match the ideas from Gill above: 13. Hereby–“Herein.” The token vouchsafed to us of God’s dwelling (Greek, “abide”) in us, though we see Him not, is this, that He hath given us “of His Spirit” ( 1 John 3:24 ). Where the Spirit of God is, there God is. ONE Spirit dwells in the Church: each believer receives a measure “of” that Spirit in the proportion God thinks fit. Love is His first-fruit ( Galatians 5:22 ). In Jesus alone the Spirit dwelt without measure ( John 3:34 )⁸.
• From The John Darby Synopsis of the New Testament⁸ we have a different type of commentary in that Darby does not treat the chapters in a verse by verse fashion. The whole of his commentary is too long to repeat here so we will just pull what we see as appropriate and to the point. His take on the whole is a bit different than what we see from the Commentary Critical and Gill. While Darby sees this much in the same way as we, he does still attribute the Love and the indwelling only to believers while we know that this Love and the indwelling reach ALL and that it is only the realization of this that comes when we Truly believe on Him that is when we follow Him and keep His words. 
• No one has ever seen God: if we love one another, God dwells in us. His presence, Himself dwelling in us, rises in the excellency of His nature above all the barriers of circumstances, and attaches us to those who are His. It is God in the power of His nature which is the source of thought and feeling and diffuses itself among them in whom it is. One can understand this. How is it that I love strangers from another land, persons of different habits, whom I have never known, more intimately than members of my own family after the flesh? How is it that I have thoughts in common, objects infinitely loved in common, affections powerfully engaged, a stronger bond with persons whom I have never seen, than with the otherwise dear companions of my childhood? It is because there is in them and in me a source of thoughts and affections which is not human. God is in it. God dwells in us. What happiness! What a bond ! Does He not communicate Himself to the soul? Does He not render it conscious of His presence in love ? Assured]y, yes. And if He is thus in us, the blessed source of our thoughts, can there be fear, or distance, or uncertainty, with regard to what He is? None at all. His love is perfect in us. We know Him as love in our souls: the second great point in this remarkable passage, the enjoyment of divine love in our souls.
• We have known love, the love that God has for us, and we have believed it. Precious knowledge! by possessing it we know God; for it is thus that He has manifested Himself. Therefore can we say, “God is love.” There is none beside. Himself is love. He is love in all its fullness. He is not holiness, He is holy; but He is love. He is not righteousness; He is righteous.[See Footnote #20] 
• By dwelling then in love I dwell in Him, which I could not do unless He dwelt in me, and this He does. Here he puts it first, that we dwell in Him, because it is God Himself who is before our eyes, as the love in which we dwell. Therefore, when thinking of this love, I say that I dwell in Him, because I have in my heart the consciousness of it by the Spirit. At the same time this love is an active energetic principle in us; it is God Himself who is there. This is the joy of our position-the position of every Christian. 

This should give us some idea of how these Truths are treated by much of the Christian world. Although there is no single interpretation, we should see that these are all intended to follow along with the existing doctrine. The whole point and the rational view of our subject verse is missed by all of these insofar as the direct relationship between Living in Love and Living in God which for us is forever tied to the teachings of the Master which tell us of Love ever so clearly and this while so much of what He says is tied directly to our interrelationships with our fellowman. In this reference we left off two posts ago with the dialogue between the Master and His disciples as we are told by Matthew. The other synoptics do not relate this dialogue but they do place the Master with His disciples on the Mount of Olives after His last visit to the temple and, according to Matthew, this specific talk is the last of the parables and instructions given which include the Parable of the Ten Virgins and the Parable of the Talents along with much else that is considered eschatological making it such that this saying, which we repeat here, is considered in the same way. However, we should see in this its parabolic nature and understand it as a teaching of the Master that need not be related to that so-called end times. The verses are:

• “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me” (Matthew 25:34-45).

When we last posted this saying our commentary was limited to noticing that there is a definite repetition of the Master’s point, both from the positive and the negative perspective. This is a point that seems to be missed by those commentaries above regarding Love as they seem to not make the connection between the Masters teachings of Love, of which this surely is one, and our saying from John. As an example of where at least some of the Christian world has positioned the saying above let us look at this from John Gill:

• Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me: which is to be understood, not in so limited a sense, as to regard only the apostles, and the least of them, for these were not the only brethren of Christ; nor in so large a sense, as to include all in human nature; but the saints only, the children of God, and household of faith: for though acts of charity and humanity are to be done to all men, yet especially to these; and indeed, these only can be considered as the brethren of Christ⁸.

Do we see the disconnect here? This is the classic Christian doctrine of a large part of the church; that we need to Love only those that are the saints only and household of faith. Note that we leave out here Gill’s thought regarding the children of God and this because we are convinced by the Master’s teaching to ALL regarding the Father; that ALL are the children of the One God. So we go on here on our own realizing that there is NO PLACE in the gospels where the Master makes any such distinction as does Gill and so many others. We should note here that the word translated as brethren here is that same Greek word adelphos which has a list of meanings in the lexicon including the idea of All men. The lexicon says of adelphos that it means: a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother; having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman; any fellow or man; a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection; an associate in employment or office; brethren in Christ; his brothers by blood; all men; apostles; Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place². When it is possible to look at this in the widest of ways (our bolded words) as we are convinced that the Master intended, why do so many insist on the narrow understanding? Strong’s defines this with a bit less doctrine saying that adelphos is brother, fellow countryman, neighbor (often inclusive in gender); by extension a fellow believer in the family of faith³.

There are times when in the face these commentaries and realizing that this is still the mentality of so many that one may begin to question their own understanding. This is the reality of Faith as we find it in the Light of our own Souls; when we realize that our position is in agreement with the Master and not with the convoluted understandings that have been gleaned from the epistles. This is also the reality of what we have maintained insofar as our understanding of the Fruits of the Spirit and the messages that each of us may believe come from some inspired source. This that we consider Fruit and these messages are then interpreted in the Light of one’s personality and colored by the things that the personality consciousness believes to be true based upon experience and learning. This is, in so many ways, interpreting the spiritual either through a mind that is believing that the Life in form is the Life or believing that man is Spirit and that these things need to be spiritually discerned. This all then goes hand in hand with the each person’s developed ideas regarding what it means to keep His words. 

We will continue with this in the next post.

Note on the Quote of the Day