~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

In our previous two issues on the subject we have noted how much the love of God is exalted in the Bible. At the same time, we have sought to correct many false ideas that have become pervasive on this crucial subject. In our last issue we discussed the facts that-

1) God does not love indiscriminately, without will, equally and unconditionally. By "indiscriminately" we mean without regard for the individual object. Many today would have us believe that God loves everyone the same without any distinction, whether he be wicked or righteous, and that He loves each of us infinitely and supremely without regard for his actions, whether good or bad. This is popularly called the "unconditional" love of God, but as we have seen from many Scriptures, it is not true. "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Exodus 33:18,19; Romans 9:15.) The Lord "set his love upon" Israel (Deuteronomy 7:7,8); the Psalmist prayed, "Do not withhold your mercy from me, O Lord; may your love and your truth always protect me" (Psalms 40:11); God said of Solomon: "I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor [Saul]" (1 Chronicles 17:13). I am aware that many Calvinists say that God does not love everyone, but only the elect (those whom He predestined to salvation in eternity past); the non-elect (those whom He reprobated or doomed to damnation either directly by predestining them for hell or indirectly by simply not willing their salvation) He does not love. My saying that God does not love indiscriminately but according to His will and choice has nothing to do with predestination. To me it would be consistent, if it were true that God predestined only some to salvation in eternity past, that He loves only these and not the non-elect. It is interesting to see John MacArthur, Jr., in his book on the love of God, attempt to hold to predestination on the one hand, yet maintain on the other that God loves everyone and makes a sincere offer of salvation to everyone!

2. God's love for everyone is benevolence and it is indeed unconditional. He loves everyone this way whether they are sinner or saint, rebel or child of God. He provides food and other blessings for them, He wills their repentance and salvation instead of their destruction, and He sent Christ to provide their salvation. But His love of complacence or being pleased with men is conditional and limited to those who trust Him, love Him, fear Him, and obey Him.

3. God does not love everyone to the same degree or in the same way. We see this in the definition of love itself-there are many kinds of love, depending upon the object. We also pointed out that our love for various categories of persons, whether spouse, children, near family, other relatives, fellow believers, neighbors, or enemies is not the same for each. And so it is with God; He does love everyone but not equally or in the same way. We noted many references to those spoken of in Scripture as being especially loved of God.

4. It is not entirely correct to say that God loves without regard for any worthiness or loveliness in the object, the person He loves. This is true only of His love of benevolence and not of His love of complacence.

The reason I insist upon these distinctions is because the Scriptures on the subject of God's love, taken together, require it. It is the same as with my position on any other subject. I do not approach it from a preconceived theological viewpoint, but I make an honest attempt to come to grips with all that the Scriptures have to say on that subject. Also, these distinctions are noteworthy because the false teaching of God's unconditional and indiscriminate love has a terrible effect upon morals. The attitude of most professing Christians, whether expressed or not, has become, "What's the big fuss about sin? God loves us anyhow, no matter what we do."

In this, our third and final article on the love of God, I would like to focus upon the various Greek and Hebrew words for love and how they fit into the points we have made. Because neither I nor the vast majority of my readers know much about Biblical languages, I will keep this discussion as practical and digestible as I can. And due to my limited knowledge, I will use the best authorities for the things I say.

First, let us review the definition for love. It is so easy for us to discuss a subject without our first defining it, but this is a big mistake. Love has many meanings, many aspects. There are different kinds and various degrees of love, depending upon the object. Webster's definition runs thus:

love. (noun) 1.a. the attraction, desire, or affection felt for a person who arouses delight or admiration....2.a. warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion....3.a. the benevolence attributed to God as resembling a father's affection for his children, b. men's adoration of God in gratitude or devotion, 4.a. the attraction based on sexual desire: the affection and tenderness felt by lovers....

love. (verb) 1. to feel affection for: hold dear: cherish....2.a. to feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness...b. to engage in sex play....3.a. to cherish or foster with divine love and mercy....4.a. to like or desire actively: be strongly attracted or attached to: delight in....b. to take pleasure or satisfaction in....5. fondle, caress....(Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago; 1966, p.1340).

Our one English word "love" can take on any of the above meanings, but of course this does not mean that in any particular instance the word "love" means all of these things at once. The specific aspect of love that is meant depends upon how it is used. Even if it could be said of us that we loved everyone, it would not mean that we had a sexual attraction for everyone. We may "feel affection for, hold dear, or cherish" someone without any sexual attraction whatsoever. We might "hold dear or cherish" someone and yet not "take delight or satisfaction in them." As we have said, the case is no different with God. And we can see that there are indeed many synonyms for "love," many words respectively appropriate for various kinds of love, and many other words that may be used for various degrees of love-adore, cherish, be fond of, be attracted to, and "like." Yet, almost any degree or any kind of love may come under the one English designation "love."

Regarding the Greek and Hebrew words for love, the situation is in some ways similar, in others somewhat different. There are four main Greek words for "love"-eros, storge, philia,and agape. Each of these nouns have their respective verb forms-erao, stergo, phileo, and agapao-each meaning "to love." Besides these there are a number of other less important words that express various kinds and aspects of love, but we will limit our discussion to these main four-eros, storge, philia, and agape.

Most of us have been misled by oversimplistic distinctions between these words, especially the two most prominent in the New Testament, philia and agape. These two words and eros as well are not so clearly distinct and specialized in their definitions as well-meaning but basically ignorant preachers have led us to believe. And even some who are not so ignorant of Greek have been mistaken as well. Most of us have heard (and some of us have repeated) the ideas that "philia or phileo is the human type of love or emotional love while agape or agapao is the divine kind of love, spiritual love, or love based on the will." In his book Exegetical Fallacies (errors of interpretation), D.A. Carson deals extensively with common errors regarding word studies, citing popular distinctions between philia and agape as an example:

How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used? All of this is linguistic nonsense....Although it is doubtless true that the entire range [of meaning] of agapao (to love) and the entire range of phileo (to love) are not exactly the same, nevertheless they enjoy substantial overlap....The false assumptions surrounding this pair of words is ubiquitous [omnipresent]....There is nothing intrinsic to the verb agapao or the noun agape to prove its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love....Agapao does not always refer to a "good" love or a sacrificial love or a divine love, and certainly there is nothing in the root to convey such a meaning. (Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,MI; 1984)

What Carson says of apape and phileo also applies to eros. While there is some variation in the range of meanings of these words, there is also very substantial overlap so that their use is by no means as distinctive as we may have been led to believe. Let us look at some discussion of their meanings. Leon Morris writes:

...eros...is an important word in Greek literature. We must take it seriously both for this reason and also because something like eros is what most people today have in mind when they think of love. Basically, eros is romantic love, sexual love. It is the name of the little Greek god with the bow and arrows. The word is used to refer to affections other than romantic love, but this is its typical meaning, the one that gives it its particular character. We should note at the outset that eros is more than sexual experience....But the sex act is the fitting expression of eros. It is not itself eros, because affection is a primary element in this kind of love....[W]e should understand that the word does have a wide variety of uses: it may denote a crude lust, a pure and lofty passion, or almost any response "between" these two. It may be used to refer to love among people, but it may also refer to a love for things....Eros can be beautiful. It is a valuable part of life, one that none of us can do without....No Christian ought to be critical of this love, considering the Bible's teaching on the subject [e.g., The Song of Solomon]....The word can be used to refer to affections other than romantic love. For example, Plato uses it to indicate the love of the good....We should not overlook the specifically religious use of the term....As Ethelbert Stauffer puts it, the corresponding verb "in its highest sense is used of the upward impulsion of man, of his love for the divine." (Morris, op.cit., pp.120-123)

Eros does not appear in the New Testament at all, and only once in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The adulteress whose husband is away entices a foolish young man: "Come, let us drink our fill of eros until morning; let us delight ourselves with caresses" (Proverbs 7:18,NAS). But the fact that this word appears only once does not at all mean that sensual or sexual or romantic love does not appear in the Old Testament-there are many references to it in narratives as well as direct statements. Surprisingly, that is to most of us who have had oversimplified views of these words, the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures made between 250 and 150 B.C. by Jewish scholars) used agape to stand for romantic and sexual love in the Old Testament. Morris writes:

In view of the importance of agape in the NT, it is worth pointing out that there is no place in the Septuagint where it certainly refers to God's love. It is most commonly used to refer to sexual love (used fourteen times altogether, eleven times in the Song of Songs)....This evidence suggests that the term usually denotes a sensual love, though it has other usages.... (Morris, op.cit., pp.102,103)

Concerning storge, Morris writes:

This term means something like "natural love" or "family love." It is the love that binds people in some natural group-the love of the family, for example. Parents love children and children love parents and children love one another....Presumably it embraced uncles, aunts, grandparents, and many more relatives. The term was also extended to include kinds of love for those beyond the family: it can be used, for example, to indicate love of one's country. (Morris, op.cit., pp.114,115)

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [TNIDNTT] adds:

[storge] can also be used of the love of people for their ruler...and even of dogs for their master....[The noun does not appear in the NT, but the verb and adjective forms do] in Rom.12:10 in the compound philostorgos, loving dearly, in an expression in which Paul emphasizes the need for love in the church by piling up words for love..."devoted to one another in brotherly love" (Arndt), and in Rom.1:31; 2 Tim.3:3 in the compound astorgos, heartless, inhuman, without natural affection. As an illustration of such lack of natural, family affection, C.E.B. Cranfield cites the practice of exposing unwanted babies and Seneca's justification for drowning weakly or deformed infants. (TNIDNTT, Colin Brown, ed.; Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1976, Vol.2, pp.539,542)

Concerning philia and phileo, TNIDNTT says:

[In classical Greek (earlier, secular Greek)] phileo is the most general word for love or regard with affection....[It] mainly denotes the attraction of people to one another who are close together both inside and outside the family; it includes concern, care and hospitality, also love for things in the sense of being fond of....It can also be used with less precision and colour to mean: be accustomed to, be in the habit of; and then, when joined with other verbs to do something gladly, customarily, generally. It is also commonly used with more specific meanings....[Unlike erao and stergo] phileo...does appear commonly [in the NT, often in compound words]....The main emphasis of phileo is on love for people who are closely connected, either by blood or by faith....The verb phileo occurs in Matthew (5 times) and John (13 times); elsewhere there are only individual instances (7 in all)....The noun philia only appears in the NT in James 4:4 ["friendship with the world is hatred toward God"].

The fourth main Greek word for love, agape, is the one predominantly used for love in the NT. TNIDNTT says:

The verb agapao appears frequently from Homer onwards in Gk. literature, but the noun agape is only a late Gk. construction. Only one reference has been found outside the Bible, where the goddess Isis is given the title agape....agapao in Gk. is often quite colourless as a word, appearing frequently as an alternative to, or in synonym with, erao and phileo, meaning to be fond of, treat respectfully, be pleased with, welcome....In the NT, however, agapao and the noun agape have taken on a particular significance in that they are used to speak of the love of God or the way of life based on it. (TNIDNTT, op.cit., pp.538,539)

Much has been said and written about the distinction between phileo and agapao. To repeat Leon Morris, "The false assumptions surrounding this pair of words is ubiquitous [omnipresent]." Some say philia is the human kind of love that is conditional and selfish, while agape is the divine love that is unconditional and unselfish. Some have said the distinction between these words lies in the fact that philia is emotional love while agape is spiritual love or love based on choice or will. But the real truth is that these words have much more in common than supposed, and that although there may indeed be slight variations in the whole range of their meanings, their distinctions have been greatly exaggerated.

Although agape is used predominantly for the love of God in the NT, it is used in other ways on occasion. And phileo is used for the love of God, at least on occasion. In Luke 11:43, Jesus said the Pharisees "love (agapate) the uppermost seats in the synagogues." Certainly He did not mean that they loved this honor from men with a divine or unselfish type of love. Significantly, the parallel verses in Matthew and Luke use the verb "phileo" for the same statement by Jesus: "they love (philousin) to pray standing in the synagogues" (Matthew 6:5), "they love (philousin) the uppermost rooms at feasts and chief seats in the synagogues" (philousin), and "they love (philountoon) greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts" (Luke 20:46). This use of phileo in verses parallel with the use of agapao in Matthew is evidence enough that even in NT times, the two words could be used as synonyms with no evident distinctions. The same is true of Jesus' use of agapao the first two times He asked Peter, "Do you love me?", Peter's use of phileo in his three replies, "You know I love you," and Jesus' use of phileo the third the third time He put the question to Peter. It is still common to hear that this meant Peter was not confident enough to answer that he loved Jesus with "divine love" (agape) but only "human love" (phileo), but almost all modern commentators agree that John, as he does often, was only employing synonyms for variation and had no distinction or deeper or hidden meaning in mind.

Further, agapao is found in John 3:19, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." The same is true of John 12:43, "They [certain leaders who believed on Jesus, but would not confess their faith out of fear of the Pharisees, verse 42] loved praise from men more than praise from God." In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul uses a form of agapao when he says, "Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me." Peter uses it when he says, "Balaam, son of Beor,...loved the wages of wickedness" (2 Peter 2:15). And John uses it twice in 1 John 2:15-"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love (agape) of the Father is not in him."

Likewise, although agapao is normally used for the love of God for men or men for God or the love of the Father for the Son, on a few occasions phileo is used for these as well:

No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16:27)

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. (Revelation 3:19)

If anyone does not love the Lord-a curse be on him. Come, O Lord! (1 Corinthians 16:22)

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. (John 5:20)

For comparison with John 5:20 we might note John 3:35 where a very similar statement is made, yet agapao instead of phileo is used: "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." Jesus' use of phileo in Revelation 3:19, which, if, as it seems, is a rough quote of Proverbs 3:11,12, serves as another instance of phileo and agapao used as synonyms because Proverbs 3:12 in the Septuagint has agapao. Hebrews 12:5,6, which is no doubt a quotation of Proverbs 3:11,12, uses agapao as well. G.A. Turner adds, "Once [in the NT, phileo] is used for the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (Jn.20:2); otherwise agapao is the verb in this expression (13:23; 19:26; 21:7,20)" (ISBE, op.cit., p.175).

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ("Kittel's") says regarding classical Greek:

In the word agapan ("to love") the Greek finds nothing of the power or magic of eran and little of the warmth of philein....Often it means no more than "to be satisfied with something;" often it means "to receive" or "to greet" or "to honour," i.e., in terms of external attitude. It relates more to the inward attitude in its meaning of "seeking after something," or "desiring someone or something." The verb is often used to denote regard or friendship between equals, or sometimes sympathy. Particularly characteristic are the instances in which agapan takes on the meaning of "to prefer," "to set one good or aim above another," "to esteem one person more highly than another." Thus agapan may be used of the preference of God for a particular man....The specific nature of agapan becomes apparent at this point. Eros is a general love of the world seeking satisfaction wherever it can. Agapan is a love which makes distinctions, choosing and keeping to its object. Eros is determined by a more or less indefinite impulsion towards its object. Agapan is a free and decisive act determined by its subject. Eros in its highest sense is used of the upward impulsion of man, of his love for the divine. Agapan relates for the most part to the love of God, to the love of the higher lifting up the lower, elevating the lower above others. Eros seeks in others the fulfillment of its own life's hunger. Agapan must often be translated "to show love"; it is a giving, active love on the other's behalf....Yet the meaning of agapan is still imprecise, and its individuation still tentative, as may be seen when it is conjoined or interchanged with eran or philein. For in these cases agapan is often a mere synonym which is set alongside the other two for the sake of emphasis or stylistic variation. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,MI; 1964, Vol.1, pp.36,37)

Some have criticized even this distinction between agape and eros as too sharp but especially that of Anders Nygren in his book Agape and Eros (1939). Leon Morris adds, "John A.T. Robinson...argues that there is something of unfulfilled desire (eros) in agape and of movement away from the self in eros ("Agape and Eros," Theology, XLVIII, 1945, 98-104)." But despite the fact that agapao, phileo, and erao overlap in their range of meaning or may even at times be used as synonyms, there remains at least some distinction between them. Phileo is "warmer" than agapao in that phileo is more often associated with "friendship," as can be seen from the facts that the verb can mean "to kiss;" that one noun derived from it, philema, means "a kiss;" that another noun, philos, means "friend;" and that another, philia, usually means "friendship." Agape often has the sense of "to prefer," indicating more of choice than emotion, but it would be a great mistake to assume by this that agape is an emotionless term, without affection. It is significant, however, that even though phileo is used on occasion in the NT of God's love for His Son or His children, it is never used for His loving sinners. Jesus was derogatorily referred to as "the friend (philos) of sinners" by His enemies (Mt.11:19; Lk.7:34), but in the same statement they also slanderously called Him "a glutton and a winebibber." Jesus was not "friends" with the sinners in the ordinary sense of the word; He met with them only for the purpose of calling them to repentance (Mt.9:13; Mk.2:17; Lk.5:32). We may compare James 4:4-

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship (philia) with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend (philos) of the world becomes an enemy of God.

We may also see the parallel to this in 1 John 2:15-

Do not love (agapate) the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves (agapa) the world, the love (agape) of the Father is not in him.

Since James and John seem to be saying the very same thing in different words, these two verses show again the closeness of meaning of phileo and agapao and their related words. We should recognize that we are to love the world in one sense, but not another. We are to seek their salvation and do them good, even if they treat us badly, but we are not to form affectionate relationships with them or "hang out" with them. But this distinction in how we are to love them is seen, not in the Greek words for love but in how the word "love" is used. "Love" in the New Testament may mean a number of things and there are different kinds of love spoken of, but the difference is not indicated so much in the Greek words used as how love is spoken of in the context of the passage. Leon Morris argues throughout his book that the love of God for man (agape) is unconditional love, "given quite irrespective of merit," whereas eros "is a love of the worthy and...that desires to possess." But even he is forced to admit,

In saying this I am not claiming that the linguistics [language study] prove this point. The essential Christian idea of love is found in books where agape is not used, the meaning arising because of the way the Christians used the concept, not the word....Perhaps I should repeat that I am not basing my argument on the linguistics, though I find them interesting and see in them a pointer. The main thrust of the argument depends on what the NT writers meant when they used the love words, not on their terminology. (Morris, op.cit., pp.125,128)

And as we have already shown in our previous articles, it is evident that God's love is not always unconditional. In some respects it indeed is conditional, contrary to Morris' argument but in keeping with his principle that the meaning of God's love has to be determined by the way the word is used and not in the meanings of the Greek words.

But all this leaves us with the question, "Why did the New Testament writers choose, for the most part, agape to stand for the love of God and Christian love instead of the more common words philia or eros?" Morris writes:

An interesting feature of the NT is that, even though so many words for love were available and in common use, the Christians preferred to use another one-namely, agape. This word was not entirely new, but it was not common before the NT....Perhaps I should make it clear that the newness is in the noun, not the verb. The Christians did not produce a new verb but employed one already in common use-namely, agapao. Even here they used a distinctive approach, because they used this word much more than they did phileo,and they did not use verbs such as erao at all....The fact that agapao was in common use meant that the first readers of the NT would have had no difficulty understanding the general meaning of agape when they first came across it. Its kinship with agapao was obvious, and agapao they knew....(Morris, op.cit., pp.123-127)

So why did the NT writers choose agape and agapao? There may be a number of factors. First of all, Morris (as well as others) suggests, "The older words were not suitable vehicles for conveying the new meaning because they aroused associations the Christians did not intend" (p.126). This may be especially true of erao. Second, some insist that their choice of agapao was simply in keeping with historical development, the trend of their day:

...[There is] convincing evidence that agapao was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from the fourth century B.C. on, and was not restricted to biblical literature....Agapao was becoming one of the standard verbs for "to love" because phileo had acquired the meaning to kiss as part of its semantic range. (Carson, op.cit., p.53)

Similarly, B.B. Warfield said,

The simple truth is that the NT writers use agapan, agape to express the idea of love because it was the word current in their circle and lying thus directly in their way (PTR, XVI, 184; quoted in Morris, op.cit., p.126).

Third, the writers of the NT followed the practice of the Septuagint which also predominantly used agapao for various Hebrew words for love. That the writers of the NT were heavily influenced by the Septuagint is evident from the facts that they quote from it rather than the Hebrew text much of the time, as well as employing many of its words and phrases. The predominant use of agapao in the Septuagint reflects either the historical shift to agapao or that, like the NT writers, the translators felt the other words were unsuitable because they aroused the wrong associations. According to Morris, agapao and its associates occurs 324 times. Phileo and its associates occurs 267 times, but 188 of these is the noun philos ("friend") (123 of which are in the Apocrypha). Phileo and philia, which are the words of this group that properly mean "love" occur only 71 times in all. Eros, as we have said, appears only in Proverbs 7:18. Morris writes,

The translators regarded agapao and its cognates as the best equivalent [for the main Hebrew word for love]....But there are also fourteen places where the Septuagint translates another root...by an agapao word....Practically a quarter of all the occurrences of the agapao words refer to divine love.

On the other hand, regarding the noun agape he adds:

In view of the importance of agape in the NT, it is worth pointing out that there is no place in the Septuagint where it certainly refers to God's love. It is most commonly used to refer to sexual love (used fourteen times altogether, eleven times in the Song of Songs)....[footnote: H.B. Swete says, "Agape in the LXX. rarely rises above the lower sense of the sexual passion, or at best the affection of human friendship."]...Phileo is predominantly used (seventeen times) to refer to kissing, usually chaste salutes within the family....The compound kataphileo is found twenty times, always meaning "to kiss."...[Phileo] is never used to refer to God's love for man or man's love for God....It would be hazardous to reason that the translators saw some important difference in meaning between [agapao and phileo]-in fact, a number of passages seem to show that they discerned no significant difference. For instance, we read that Jacob loved Joseph more than his other sons (Gen.37:3) and, in the verse immediately following, that the brothers saw that their father loved him more than them (Gen.37:4). In both verses the Hebrew verb is [the same], but the Septuagint uses agapao in verse three and phileo in verse four. The variation appears to be purely stylistic. Again, in Lamentations 1:2 the participles of both verbs are used for "those who love her [i.e., Jerusalem]"; no difference in meaning is apparent. In another interesting passage wisdom says, "I love [agapo] those who love [tous philountes] me" (Prov.8:17)....[and] we read, "A poor man loves [agapai] festivity, loving [philon] wine and oil in abundance" (Prov.21:17).

When we come to the meaning of the Hebrew words for love in the OT, we find that the situation is quite different from that of the Greek words for love. There are many words for love in Hebrew, the two most important being 'ahab and hesed. Concerning the first, 'ahab, Morris writes:

The verb occurs 208 times in the OT: 72 occurrences refer to the love of people for people, 27 to the love of men for God, 29 to God's love, 33 to men's love for things, 46 to their love for evil, and one to love in general. Of the love of people, 31 times there is a reference to sexual love, 24 times to love of friends, 8 times to love of members of the family, 3 times to loving enemies, 2 times to love for a master, while we may classify four occurrences as miscellaneous. The cognate noun is found 40 times: 27 occurrences refer to love of people (15 to sexual love and 12 to love of friends), 10 to God's love and one each to love for God, for good, and for evil....The most frequent use of the words from this root is thus for love between the sexes....D. Winton Thomas thinks the verb derives from a root with a meaning like "breathe, pant" and thus means "pant after, desire." (Morris, op.cit., p.9)

And of the second word, hesed, he writes:

One of the most important words for love in the OT is hesed....[I]ts precise significance is not easy to convey in English....The term occurs 245 times in the OT, and no translation comes close to using a single equivalent....[The KJV most often has "mercy" or "lovingkindness;" the RSV, "steadfast love;"] modern translators find "love," either by itself or in some combination, to be the most suitable rendering ["true love," "unfailing love," "faithful love," etc.]....Perhaps the most important study of the word is that made by Nelson Glueck. He first surveys the people to whom it refers and finds that it always indicates some kind of relationship [family, by blood or marriage; kinship among clans; of host to guest; of allies; of friends; of ruler and subject]....Hesed, then, implies relationship and indicates a deep, lasting affection....What is the attitude it denotes? Very plainly it is an attitude of goodwill. But it is more than that-it is love strengthened by loyalty....C.H. Dodd combines the two concepts in his definition of the term-"loyal affection." (Morris, op.cit., pp.65-70)

This, then, is the love God has for His people but not for the profane and godless, as we have suggested in our previous studies. It is love based and conditioned upon a right relationship.

Morris continues that there are a number of other Hebrew words for love:

We start with rahamiym. This is the plural of rehem, meaning "womb."...Like other physiological terms, the term is used in a metaphorical sense to refer to aspects of man's emotions, thoughts, will, and the like....The term can indicate simply affection or an emotion like it. Characteristically, it means something like "compassion" or "mercy."...A number of times it is linked with hesed in such a way that it indicates that the two words are not markedly different....But there is always this difference: when rahamiym is used there is no implication of loyalty to an obligation, as is the case with hesed, which seems normally to imply a relationship with corresponding duties (perhaps a covenant). Accordingly, Walther Eichrodt claims that the word indicates "a quite spontaneous expression of love, evoked by no kind of obligation."...The corresponding verb raham is used in much the same way. Its characteristic translation is "to have mercy."...There is an adjective, rahum,which is not used as frequently (thirteen times)...invariably used to refer to God. Usually it is linked with the thought of grace (eleven times)....

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) says this about this word raham:

This root refers to deep love (usually of a "superior" for an "inferior") rooted in some "natural" bond [a mother for her nursing baby or men for helpless people]....This root is frequently used of God. It incorporates two concepts: first, the strong tie God has with those whom he has called as his children (Ps.103:13). God looks upon his own as a father looks upon his children; he has pity on them (cf. Mic.7:17). The second concept is that of God's unconditioned choice (hanen, grace). God tells Moses that he is gracious and merciful to whomever he chooses (Ex.33:19). (TWOT, Harris, Archer, Waltke; Moody: Chicago; 1980, pp.841,842)

Another word, hashaq has the root meaning "to be attached to, love." One derivative denotes "a fillet or ring clasping a pillar of the tabernacle." Concerning it, TWOT says:

In the case of emotions (to which the biblical usage is limited) it is that love which is already bound to its object. [Morris says, "It may be used to refer to human love, such as Shechem's passion for Dinah (Gen.34:8)...(but) there is nothing essentially sexual about it. In addition, it may be used to refer to man's love for God, as it is in the Lord's promise to the devout worshipper: 'Because he cleaves to me in love, I will deliver him" (Ps.91:14) (op.cit., p.89]....A deep inward attachment (in a positive sense) is descriptive of God's love of Israel (Deut.10:15). He was bound to them of his own volition (love) and not because of anything good or desirable in them (Deut.7:7)....This is the love that will not let go. (TWOT, op.cit., p.332)

Hashaq is the word used for the phrases describing God's love for Israel as a "setting his love upon" them or "setting his heart in love upon" them.

Morris continues,

Other words with meanings like "delight in," "favor," or "exercise goodwill" should be considered here....The basic idea the word [haphes (which occurs seventy-five times), and its cognate noun (forty times) and adjective (eleven times] suggests is "delight in" (BDB)...."To delight in" a person and to love him are not far apart....The verb rasah means "be pleased with, accept favorably" (BDB), and the related noun, rason, means "goodwill, favour, acceptance, will" (BDB)....The word group basically indicates "being pleased," and when this means being pleased with people the meaning often suggests something like love. (Morris, op.cit., pp.93,94)

It seems to me that the meanings of these Hebrew words lend themselves quite well to confirming the points we have made about the love of God. He loves, not indiscriminately and equally, but according to His choice and will. He loves everyone, but not everyone equally. His love is also filled with emotion, contrary to what some stress, that His love and real love is not an emotion but a choice of the will. Love is both an emotion and a choice of the will. But there are various degrees of emotion involved in different kinds of love, even with God, depending upon the object. And in one respect God's love is unconditional, that is, without regard for whether or not a person is righteous-He loves everyone with a love of benevolence, providing temporal needs and willing them salvation and other blessings if they will meet the criteria for enjoying them. But His love of complacency or being pleased with a person is conditional, depending upon whether or not he believes on His Son and walks pleasing to Him.

Our discussion of the Greek words for love, besides the interest we have in them for the sake of our subject, serves the primary purpose of refuting and correcting the many claims that have been made concerning the love of God, that agape is not emotional love, is unselfish love, is divine love contrasted with merely human love, or is unconditional love. Whatever truth there may be concerning God's love in these things, they must be argued from the way the Bible speaks of love and not from some meaning or distinction in the Greek words themselves.

Whatever our understanding of the Greek and Hebrew words may or may not be, this much is certain-we should all be profoundly grateful to God for His love, that He is a God of love. Where would we be if He were not? It is His love for us displayed in sending His Son to die for us, His love for us in actually drawing us to Himself through that message and the work of the Holy Spirit, and His pardoning our sins and making us His children by grace through faith that binds us to Him and motivates us to cling to Him in love and service. As John puts it,

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins....We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:9,10,19)

And this love manifested to and received by and in us is what motivates us not only to love God but our fellow believer and fellow man as well. I sincerely hope this is the case with you, that you yourself have tasted of His great love, experienced it in the forgiveness of your sins, have it dwelling in your heart, show it to others in your life, and cleave to the Lord in worship and service to Him. To live without this love is death, but to have it and to express it is life abundant.

Until next time, may God bless you each and all with a deeper appreciation of His love.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center