What Is Authentic Love?

November 14, 2011 we published a blog post that touted the issue of counterfeit love. We wish now to elaborate that Christ is relevant to real authentic love, even essential to experiencing genuine love. In Desperate Dependency we assert, “apart from God, the human heart has no capacity for love.” Such an assertion is often met with offense that one's self-efficacy is violated.

The flesh flatters and comforts itself with thinking that it loves even amid obvious mistreatment of those we allege to love. Invariably there is some rhyme and reason to why continuous neglect, abuse, or rudeness can be fashioned into poetic stanza while offering in refrain a commitment to undying love. Others believe that the concept of Christ’s centrality to love is untrue having encountered no Christians who they deemed to be love-worthy. Either accounting, more often than not, elicits strong disconcerting emotions. What is still profound within such debate however is that the assertion, nonetheless diminished by the opposition, looms as truth.

You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect [i.e. mature in God’s love], even as your Father in heaven is perfect [in respect to the expression of His love]. Matt. 5:44–48 NLT

Many are insistent that one can love in a godly fashion without God. They are willing to assert human logic over divine wisdom, calling the veracity of God's principles into question as they ignore confronting the whole idea. Others skirt the issue with, "Well, we do not have to love like God to still love appropriately!" Here it is postulated that loving in a healthy manner is something altogether different than loving in a godly manner. Therefore one allows the latitude to choose between two plausible options, pacifying any guilt for having deprived their loved ones of God’s love. They instead feel justified for having given to them this most visceral version of the spiritual nutrient, hence believing they can love in a quality life giving way without loving as God loves.

Humanity continuously is on a quest to usurp God’s power. People risk all to find the Holy Grail, the Fountain of Youth, and the Ark of the Covenant in order to possess the power and benefits of God apart from submitting their lives to Him. Even now psychology seeks to mine for God’s truth from His Word at the exclusion of Christ Himself. Humanity would storm the gates of Heaven to take from God for themselves if they were able to do so. The Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel offer ample proof that this depiction of the human nature is true.

Love has been seized, interrogated, and exploited for every visage of grace that can be extracted by carnal effort. In that love is treated in such an unloving manner speaks further to the issue that “apart from God, the human heart has no capacity for love.” Rather, such love possesses only a capital desire to steal, kill, and to destroy in like manner as does the mentor of fleshly deeds.

Furthermore, love is seen as the potion of life and is sought with great craft in anticipation of distilling for self that which would provide a living tonic for a dying soul, therefore undermining the concept of love’s sacrificial nature where it gives at its own expense, expecting nothing in return, for the best interest of the other. These musings emphasize the polar agenda that exists in the heart of man versus what exists in the heart of God concerning love.

There are times where both man and God were said to love with phileo type love (seven times collectively in the New Testament between John and Paul – not counting John 21). What is of great significance is the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is there a non-believer being expected to have loved with agapao type love. Agapao love is only shared by those who belong to God and is the exclusive kind of love referred to in John’s first epistle.

Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. Anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love. God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love—not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. Dear friends, since God loved us that much, we surely ought to love each other. 1 John 4:7–11 NLT

A survey of the New Testament would verify that agapao love was used expressively over phileo 143 times over 8 times to delimit the heart and activity of God, of Jesus, and of His children. When defining the type of love a Christian was to exemplify, agapao love was used to set the standard (see 1 Cor. 13:1–8).

While it is taught that phileo and agapao are closely related and therefore used interchangeably, the preponderance of usage within the New Testament works to set them apart. John and also Paul on two occasions use phileo with godly reference, yet only then in a limited capacity to show status of association, associations such as exist between the Father, His Son, and between the professing believer and God. Phileo serves to show the highest order of human love, while agapao serves to show the highest order of God’s love. On the occasion when it was important for Christ to express, using human terms, the great love the Father had for the Son, phileo was employed.

However, in context where God’s heart was expressed concerning the issue of love and when the concept of God’s love was set forth, exemplified, or commanded agapao was used to type the divine intention of God and the uniqueness of agapao love from the love of the human sort. It is not without any small interest that even phileo is seen in the New Testament with godly resolve, only when the human heart was involved with God. All other occurrences were man engaged in a loving association with himself or some other sinful pursuit. Therefore phileo was not an exclusively godly love association as is true of agapao love. In addition phileo had to do with love involving intimate associations that may be godly or not, while agapao was always found to be in active service to God’s heart and sacrifice for His purpose seeking the best interest of another.

Left to our own devices, we offer only a counterfeit version of love laden with self-interest as a means to secure our self-centered pleasures. We strive to attain value and worth through people, positions, and possessions, believing we can find fulfillment apart from Christ. This illicit love masquerades in forms that may look noble, but the chief concern is how something will impact self. The ideal of giving to another has been replaced by the idea of gaining for oneself.

We will evidence the fruit of love when we resign from the self-centeredness that culminates in emptiness and then allow the Holy Spirit to enable us to value others. That which is profoundly of God can only be received from God. No amount of human virtue can create what is foreign to his existence. What is rather notable is that whenever humanity attempts to assert self in virtue, it is soon revealed in vice.

Insight Journal
Do I believe that apart from God the human heart has no capacity for love?
I know I am evidencing God’s love because…

(excerpts included from Desperate Dependency by J. Kirk & Melanie D. Lewis)