Richard Hays and John Wesley
I have long thought love the heart of a biblically oriented ethics. But an influential book by New Testament scholar, Richard Hays, argues otherwise.
I suppose the main reason I think love is the heart of Christian ethics comes from my own reading of the Bible. I find the call of love appearing often in Scripture, and biblical writers place supreme importance on love.
Jesus’ two great ethical commands are oriented around love: Love God and love others as oneself. The apostle Paul says all the commandments are fulfilled in love. And while faith, hope, and love remain, says Paul, the greatest is love. Immediately after claiming love is supreme, he adds that we should pursue love.
John Wesley also considered love primary in the Bible. “No scripture can mean that God is not love,” argues Wesley, “or that his mercy is not over all his works.” Wesley says, “Love is the end of all the commandments of God. Love is the end, the sole end, of every dispensation of God, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things.”
Defining Love
Admittedly, what one means by “love” makes a world of difference. One’s definition should at least play a role in deciding whether love is the center of biblical ethics. I define love as acting intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. Love is primarily about doing good in relational response to God and others.
My definition fits very well with the vast majority of instances the word “love” appears in the Bible. “Love your enemies,” says Jesus, by “doing good” to them (Lk. 6:35). Do good even to those who hate you, says Jesus (Mt. 5:44). God loves all others by doing good to them – e.g., sending rain (Mt. 5:45). God was good to us by sending Jesus so we might benefit (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9). Jesus’ Good Samaritan story points to the core meaning of love as doing good.
In my new book, The Nature of Love, I document many more instances in which biblical writers identify love with doing good. In sum, to love is to respond well to God’s empowering call to do good. That may mean being a blessing, being generous, showing compassion, acting self-sacrificial, helping the least of these, etc.
Richard Hay’s Vision of New Testament Ethics
Eminent New Testament scholar, Richard Hays, thinks differently than I do on this issue. In his influential book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, Hays does not choose love as the central theme for biblically oriented ethics.
Instead, Hays chooses three other focal images. He believes these “encapsulate the crucial elements of the [New Testament] narrative and serve to focus our attention on the common ground shared by the various witnesses.”
The three images Hays picks are community, cross, and new creation. Of the first, he says, “the church is a countercultural community of discipleship, and this community is the primary addressee of God’s imperatives.” Of the second, “Jesus’ death on a cross is the paradigm for faithfulness to God in this world.” And of the third, Hays says, “the church embodies the power of the resurrection in the midst of a not-yet-redeemed world.”
Where’s Love?
I personally think all three themes Hays chooses are important. And Hays offers some profound insights in his book. But where’s love?
Hays anticipates my question. “Some readers will be surprised to find that I have not proposed love as a unifying theme for New Testament ethics,” says Hays. He admits that “the letters of Paul, the Gospel of John, and the Johannine Epistle explicitly highlight love as a (or the) distinctive element of Christian life: it is the ‘more excellent way’ (1 Cor. 12:31- 13:13), the fulfillment of the Law (Rom. 13:8), the new commandment of Jesus ( John 13:34-35), and the revelation of the character of God that is to be reflected in the relationships within the community of believers (1 John 4:7-8).”
Despite these important passages suggesting love ought to be a, if not the, unifying theme for Christian ethics, Hays chooses not to include it among his focal images. He offers three reasons for its absence.
Hays says love is not a central thematic emphasis for some major New Testament writers.
Not all New Testament books emphasize love. For instance, “Jesus’ promulgation of the double love commandment [in Mark 12:28-34] stands as an isolated element [in Mark’s gospel],” says Hays.
In Hebrews and Revelation, says Hays, “we encounter only scattered incidental references to love, mostly with regard to God’s love of human beings.” Furthermore, says Hays, “in [Hebrews and Revelation] where love is mentioned, it is closely identified with good works…”
Hays rightly notes that “nowhere in [the Acts of the Apostles] does the word ‘Love’ appear, either as a noun or a verb.”
Instead of love, argues Hays, “the images of community, cross, and new creation more adequately bring these texts into focus along with the rest of the canonical witnesses.”
My Response
I find this argument interesting on a number of levels. Hays uses a word count approach to deciding which themes should be considered central to New Testament ethics. His argument is that the word “love” does not appear in a few New Testament books, and it appears only occasionally in a few other books.
I think a word count approach to formulating central themes for biblically based ethic is of limited use. But even if one were to use it as a dominant tool for deciding focal themes, Hays’s reasons for neglecting love and embracing the other themes do not withstand scrutiny. After all, the word “love” appears more often as a word in the New Testament than “cross,” “community,” or “resurrection.” And the word “love” appears in more New Testament books overall than these other words. If a strict word count were the criterion for choosing focal themes, love should be chosen over the three Hays offers.
Secondly, love is clearly the focus of Jesus’ own ethical commands in all four gospels. Hays admits this. But it is also the Apostle Paul’s focus for several of his main arguments. By contrast, the foci Hays chooses are not clearly the foci of many books in the New Testament.
Hays commits an error frequently committed by theologians and biblical scholars: he fails to define what he means by love. If Hays had defined love and based his definition on the most frequent meanings of love in the Bible, he may realized that love is central to the biblical witness.
If Hays had defined love based on the dominant meaning of love in the Bible, he may have realized love’s meaning appears even in the few books of the New Testament that don’t include the actual word. My New Testament scholar colleague, Richard Thompson, observes that there are numerous examples of loving others in the book of Acts, even if the word “love” isn’t used to describe them.
Hays says love is not an image. It’s an interpretation of an image.
The second reason Richard Hays gives for not making the love the central focus of his understanding of New Testament ethics pertains to his own method.
“What the New Testament means by ‘love’ is embodied concretely in the cross,” says Hays. “As 1 John 3:16 declares with powerful simplicity, ‘We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.’”
I agree with Hays that the cross reveals love in a profound way. But Hays says more…
“The content of the word ‘love’ is given fully and exclusively in the death of Jesus in the cross; apart from this specific narrative image, the term has no meaning. Thus to add love as a fourth focal image would not only be superfluous, but it would also move in the direction of conceptual abstraction, away from the specific image of the cross.”
My Response
My first criticism of Hays has to do with the method he has chosen. If love is the heart of the New Testament gospel message, why take one’s focal image methodology as so important as to relegate love to an inferior position? In fact, a quick look at the index of Hays’s book suggests that he rarely refers to “love” in his presentation of New Testament ethics. In my opinion, he should have chosen another conceptual scheme to account for the centrality of love.
Secondly, while the death of Jesus Christ is of great importance, it is not true that the cross gives love’s meaning “fully and exclusively.” The New Testament talks about love in other, non-self-sacrificial ways (e.g., friendship, mutual giving and receiving, desire, passion). These ways are not abstract; they emerge in genuine relationships within community and toward those outside the community.
We can preach the cross of Jesus Christ without either thinking the cross is the only expression of love or placing love and the cross in conflict.
Hays says “love” has been debased in popular discourse.
The third reason Hays gives for not considering love central for his presentation of New Testament ethics has to do with the use of love in common parlance. “The term … has lost its power of discrimination, having become a cover for all manner of vapid self-indulgence,” says Hays.
“One often hears voices in the church urging that the radical demands of Christian discipleship should not be pressed upon church members because the ‘loving’ thing to do is to include everyone without imposing harsh demands,” says Hays. Instead, “the biblical story teaches us that God’s love cannot be reduces to ‘inclusiveness’: authentic love calls us to repentance, discipline, sacrifice, and transformation (see, e.g., Luke 14:25-35; Heb. 12:5-13).”
Hays concludes that “in combination with the [first two] considerations, [the popular discourse on love] suggests that love as a focal image might produce more distortion than clarity in our construal of the New Testament’s ethical witness.”
My Response
Hays is certainly correct that the word “love” has been misunderstood and abused in popular discourse. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop calls love a “weasel-word” because of this phenomenon. I think we all realize love is a multi-meaningful word.
Yet, the word “love” remains the central word New Testament writers use to talk about ethics. We can’t ignore this. And we shouldn’t allow popular uses of the word to push “love” from the biblical limelight.
A New Testament scholar should be concerned about the language he or she uses to convey biblical ideas to contemporary people. But such a scholar should deal with that concern in some other way than neglecting a word Jesus, Paul, and other New Testament writers use most often to describe their ideas about ethics.
Secondly, there are no perfect words to use when talking about Christian ethics. Hays’s own choice of words — “cross,” “community,” and even “new creation” — are also misunderstood and abused. Remembering that pop singer Madonna often wears a cross should help us realize that Hays’s preferred images can also be problematic. And the word “community” can mean so many different things.
I think a biblical scholar should provide definitions and meanings for the words he or she chooses. And I think these definitions and meanings should be consonant with the New Testament witness.
Hays correctly notes that New Testament writers sometimes use “love” to talk about discipline, transformation, and sacrifice. I wished he had worked with these words and others to construct a definition of love consonant with the Bible and suitable for his work. Had he done so, the many other insights in his influential book could have been based in an ethic of love framework.
In sum, I remain in agreement with Wesley’s account of biblical ethics. In my view, the greatest of these is love…
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
Implicit in Hays’ rejection of the term “love” is his bias in favor or “narrative” to concepts in his approach to biblical studies. Every concept has behind it a story. His preference for “community, cross, and new creation” reflect this bias. I think it could be argued that the narrative behind all of these might fit under “love” as you define it. Like all talk, “love-talk” is cheap unless it does something. Love that is self-giving (cross) creates the church (community), which participates in the transformed reality God has launched in Christ (new creation). I don’t think the two of you are as far apart as you do.
Thanks for the good comments, George.
I agree that love could be the framework or main storyline for a narrative in the ways you suggest. And at the end of the day, I think Hays and I agree on many basic issues related to New Testament ethics.
But I am noting how remarkably different are the language and themes we raise to utmost importance. Of course, I think the language of love should be front and center. He doesn’t.
I’m very concerned about how we define love and the way we use the word. So long as the meaning of love is vague, I think many will follow Hays’s lead in neglecting what seems to me the dominant language of ethics in the New Testament. Doing so may easily lead us away from the heart of what I think is the New Testament ethic.
Thanks again,
Tom
It seems strange to me that Hays avoids “love” as a unifying principle for his other themes. I think we would all agree that his choice of images helps further define the way NT love is fleshed out (especially as it relates to the Cross) – but Christlike love may be experienced or expressed in countless ways. Why avoid the central concept (word) of NT ethics, just because we’re afraid the world has “captured” it? I say, let’s hang on to the true definition of NT love, as embodied by Christ, and defend it against selfish abuse / misuse by showing the world the Christian alternative.
He that Loveth not, knoweth not God for God is love.
Thanks for your comments on this book. This somewhat echos George’s comment, but I think Hays rightly grounds “love” in these particular expressions in a way so that “love” does not become “untethered” from the story.
I’m nervous that an ethics of love, defined and understood apart from its expressions and revelation in the Christian story, may see the Christian story and participation in the Christian community as dispensable.
I get the impression that argument #3 is actually the main argument. Hence others who do not want to drop the word love, feel the need to add “holy” to it. I’m not much in favour of that, but it is a whole lot better than dropping it altogether!
And I agree that definition is needed.
However, there is also truth in the idea that words can lose their meaning, or even change it. It matters if the context of talking about a “gay man” is 18th century England or 21st century America, to name an obvious example.
I actually like Hayes’ idea to link the concept of love to 1 John 3:16. I agree this is crucial for a proper understanding of love. But as long as we consistently define it in those terms, many of his objections disappear.
Tom,
Well done as usual. I want to thank you for offering a working definition of ‘love’ in your response. Just re-read Hayes again after your prompting and I tend to concur with George in suggesting that Hayes argues as he does precisely because he believes ‘love’ has to be anchored to a ‘narrative’ that gives it meaning, depth and perspective. I can only speak for myself, but I fatigue of the word ‘love’ in literature. It floats out there as a universal catch all allowing readers to fill in their own definitions… Thanks for declaring what you envision the term to mean.
Dr. Oord,
As I read your assessment and responses to Dr. Hays, and Dr. Lyon’s response to you, I had to wonder about the idea of insisting on one view over the other. I doubt this is what you’re getting at, but there’s almost a sense of ‘either or.’ Isn’t there much to learn in the dialogue between two points without necessary deciding that only one is correct view? When we talk about interpreting the Bible we understand that there is not one single correct ‘meaning’ locked away to be distilled out of it, but that there are multiple meanings. Hay’s ‘narrative bias’ and your ‘love bias’ do not necessarily exclude each other. I hope I’m making sense. That Dr. Hay’s chooses to view the study of Scripture through the lens he does, and you choose to view it through the lens of love affects what and how you both see. And that’s okay, because that stimulates dialogue and enriches both perspectives.
John
Tom, you are right in pointing out the danger of word count for formulating biblical themes. Sometimes the lack of a particular word in a writing can say as much as its presence, e.g., no “love” in Acts, or scattered references in Hebrews and Revelation. It could mean that the author already accepts it essentially without question and assumes that the audience does as well, hence there is little purpose in arguing the point.
Hello Dr. Oord,
While I can understand Wesley’s emphasis on love, I have a difficult time accepting that love is the most important topic of the biblical narrative. I tend to agree with Hays in that love is impossible apart from the cross. There are several reasons I take this stance:
1) Creatures, apart from God, do not have the true capacity to love.
2) People who have not accepted Christ as Savior are separated from God by sin.
3) Once a person enters into the regenerative power of the Cross and right relationship with God, they now have the capacity to truly love with the help of the Holy Spirit.
As you may have noticed, I approached this a bit differently from your counterargument, and most of this may differ from Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Regardless of this, I will still attempt to expand upon my thoughts.
When I first read what Hays had to say on love being “fully and exclusively in the death of Jesus in the cross,” my first thought was not that he was referring to sacrificial love. Rather, that love is not possible for us aside from the power of cross.
Furthermore, I have no problem emphasizing that we should love in this lifetime. However, it seems at times that we can overemphasize this concept and try to bring the reasons God does some things or does not do some things to a human understanding. While I think it is important to employ reason to further understand God, I think it is problematic to identify love as the filter through which we interpret all of scripture.
Additionally, if what I say about the Cross and redemptive power of that day on Calvary being necessary for love (which I am sure some will disagree with), then it would stand as reasonable to emphasize the Cross rather than love itself. If it is true that we, as believers in Christ, can now love because of the regenerative power of the Cross, the Cross itself should be our sole message, both to unbelievers to bring them to salvation, and to believers to remind them of the reason they have for abundant life.
I think the main difference between Hay’s agrument and yours is means and end result. Hay’s thinks that love is simply a means for a greater end; it’s a way to know god. You think that Love can be an action and as a way to know god. Love can also be goal of an action.
Love is a fundamental aspect when reading and understanding the bible and its content. The Good Samaritan story is a great example. Richard Hayes should have addressed “Love” as one of the three topics or themes in his book. His point that the cross was a main theme was a bit off. The cross is an important fact that Christ died for our sins. The cross was a symbol of love. The cross is an important symbol for many Christian based religious organizations. The cross should not be replacement for love. The problem seems to circle back to the definition of what love is.
I agree that themes of the New Testament should not be determined by the number of specific words but by the understanding and interpretation of the reader. For example, the old woman who showed faith and compassion to the Lord when she gave her two coins as an offering… she had given all that she possessed. In my eyes, that could be interpreted as an act of love. The woman had an intention of doing good and being faithful to her creator. This clearly demonstrates the differences in opinions and understandings of many texts within the Bible.
Love, community, cross, and new creation are all important themes in the bible. I think it has less to do with which word is said most in the bible and more about taking the time to focus on all of them as a whole. I also see love as a base for everything. Love can be the base of community, the base of cross, and the base of new creation. They are all important matters that the bible presents to us.
I think everyone will depict the scripture of the bible in different ways. Some will have different ideas of what a passage means from another person. I don’t think that means they are wrong. Obviously, Hayes believes the New Testament’s theme is based on the cross, community, and new creation. I agree with you that he should better define what each word means, but then again others will probably think them to mean something else in their eyes.
I feel like Hayes is trying to sum up the meaning of the New Testament with three words. But don’t those three words seem to all have love as a basis to them as well? Jesus died on the cross for the love he had for his father and for us which leads us to the great gift of Christ’s resurection. Even community is centered around love. I must agree with Rob Collins comment that it circles back to the defintion of what love is. It means something different to everyone but at the same time it is very similar as well. I feel that having a different view like Hayes just renforces our own definition of love whether you agree with him or not.
I also agree with John Wesley that love is the basis of Christian/biblical ethics. I feel that Hays did not use very good examples of why love should not be the basis of Christian ethics. He begins saying love is not central because it is not spoken about in certain books of the bible, based on word count. That does not mean love was not expressed in those books, and you make a good point that actually love is mentioned more often than community, cross, and new creation. He also bases his thought off of the misunderstanding and common use of the word love, but again it goes the same way for the other words he used as well. I feel that Hays did not have firm enough points to persuade the audience to say that love should not be the centrality of Christian ethics.
I believe it is fair to say Love cannot be the only focal point of the Bible. It is important to add Community, Cross, and New Creation to the basis of Love. If we were to have Love as the general definition of the Bible, we would be missing several critical keys of what the Bible is trying to teach us. I must confess that after reading this article, I feel that we are trying to tie the Bible down to just a few words to simplify our meaning of the Bible, which I feel is wrong. I sometimes think of the Bible as infinite. The Bible should not be given a definition or focal point because we should all interpret the Bible naturally. Let it be that our opinions may change or even be negative after reading a scripture. The Bible is there to teach us and let us develop our own opinions so we might be more like Him. The Bible is drowned in Love, Community, the Cross, and New Creations. But let us not just bound it down to these four words, interpret it naturally. Read your Bible with an open mind.
I disagree with the word count method used in this instance to exclude love for New Testament themes. Love for me in the Bible does not necessarily mean that the writers should simply state the word. I believe that actions are more important than just word count. When one shows their love through action the impact often has more longevity and meaning than words alone. It seems clear to me that Christ not only spoke about love but showed it with his actions and in turn love is spread throughout the books of the New Testament.
What I found interesting about Richard Hays’s three words that he describes as central to New Testament ethics, is that all three of them seem to fall under the umbrella of Dr. Oord’s definition of love. Community is only possible when love (acting to promote the well-being of others) is present. The Cross was God’s ultimate act of love towards us. And new creation; that is what we are because God loved us and redeemed us. Therefore, according to Dr. Oord’s summary of Hays’s book, I feel that it unintentionally claims love as central to New Testament ethic.
Since the beginning of time I feel like the Bible has been interpreted different by different people so it should come to no surprise that people would interpret the word “love” differently. The word love is a central theme in the Bible so it’s only relevant that it would still be used in literature today. But I also believe there are different meanings for the word love.
I found this very interesting because I have always thought and still think that love is what having a relationship with the Lord is all about. We can always use proof texting to find a way to “backup” what we want to believe in the Bible. So that is why I found this to be so interesting.; he used the lack of the word love in some of the books in the Bible to say that love wasn’t the main theme.
I believe love is ever-present in every book on the Bible even if the word isn’t specifically mentioned, and as you stated at the beginning there is proof that love is the most important with these examples from the Bible: “Love God and love others as oneself. The apostle Paul says all the commandments are fulfilled in love. And while faith, hope, and love remain, says Paul, the greatest is love. Immediately after claiming love is supreme, he adds that we should pursue love.”
Hays would have done a great favor to everyone if he would’ve provided definitions to his terms. Nonetheless, I think that you (Tom) and Mr. Hays are not that far from agreement with one another. I’ve read The Moral Vision of the New Testament myself, and it seems to that the difference between you (Tom) and him (Hays) is that you give a specific definition to “love”. On page 202 in the text, Hays writes, “We can recover the power of love only by insisting that love’s meaning is to be discovered in the New Testament’s story of Jesus- therefore, in the cross.” Attached to this sentence is a note from Stanley Hauerwas: “The ethic of the Gospel is not a love ethic, but it is an ethic of adherence to this man [Jesus] as he has bound our destiny to his, as he makes the story of our life his story. As an ethic of love the Gospels would have to be an ethic at our disposal, since we would fill in the context of love by our wishes…” If he would’ve provided a definition for love, perhaps this relativism would be avoided.
After reading the definitions of both Richard Hays and Dr. Oord, I could not help but make a correlation between both. According to Hays, the themes of the New Testament revolve around a community, new creation, and cross yet he does not make a direct correlation to love. I agree with Hays view regarding the main theme of the New Testament; however, without having love any of those things could exist. God through His infinite love sent his only Son to this earth to die on the cross for all of us sinners. Jesus through His teachings and death on the cross seeks to heal the broken relationship that resulted from disobedience of Adam and Eve. Without Jesus’ love and sacrifice none of us would deserve the God’s grace and hope of an eternal life by His side.
I feel that the points that Hay’s made were important and good to think about when thinking of a definition of love. I feel like the word love can mean so many different things to different people. When seeing someone doing good things for people, that can be interpreted as love. I don’t feel like there has to be the actual word love in the Bible to be talking about it. I think that love is a huge theme in the Bible and is a basis for a lot of the things that are written. I think that community, the cross, and new creation all have some aspects of love there.
I find it frustrating that Hays does not think that the Bible necessarily focuses on love in the New Testament, but instead believes that it focuses on elements such as community. I believe that community is a direct reflection of love, and just because the actual word “love” is only seen so many times does not mean that this is not exactly what the NT writers are talking about. Arguably, the Bible is the greatest love story every told, and a guide for us on how it is we must live reflecting that same type of love.
I disagree with Hay’s and agree with Dr. Oord and John Wesley. Love is so important in the Bible and in Christian Ethics. It doesn’t matter how many times the word itself is actually used, the act of love is shown countless times. I feel that the three words Hay’s uses are all heavily related to love anyways. It’s good to read and hear others opinions, especially if they are completely opposite from our beliefs. It challenges us in a constructive way.
My pastor is very good in my opinion, and one thing that struck me as I read this was that Hays said that he had used a word count method in helping to determine the main themes in the New Testament. My pastor does the same thing. When he introduces a word that we will be studying, he usually tells us the number of times it is used. The fact that Hays completely overlooked the number of times that the word “love” was used just because he thinks that the meaning of that word is encompassed in the word “cross”, does not account for the false representation in my opinion. Words can of course be interpreted in differing ways in differing contexts, so I can see how his method is justified, but the word “cross” to me, represents the redemptive agent in love…it does not encompass the whole of the word.
I agree with Dr. Oord that Hays’ use of the word-count method is not the proper way to examine love as it appears in the Bible. I trust that Hays is correct when he claims that the word “love” does not appear in the book of Acts. Even if that were the case, I think there are many accounts in Acts of love lived out. Look at Acts 2:44-46, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need… They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts…” This sure sounds like love to me!
I must disagree with Hay’s when he states the word “love” is given fully and exclusively in the death of Jesus. Certainly I do not disagree that Jesus giving his life for us was an act of love. I believe that the act of giving his life is one of the greatest acts. What I do disagree with is the word “exclusively.” When I interpret the life of Jesus I see love everywhere I look. In almost every act, word, thought Jesus has is grounded in love. If Jesus showed us only one act of love, then Jesus would not have had the same effect as he has had today. Jesus set an example that we can love in many more ways than just laying down our lives for people.
“1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” – 1 Corinthians 13: 1-3
I think all three things Hays mentioned must boil down to love. If we do not love are we really a new creation? Jesus giving his life for us on the Cross was the ultimate expression of his love for us. And apart from love I do not think we can have any sort of healthy community.
The meaning of the word “love” has been no doubt perverted. I agree that “love calls us to repentance, discipline, sacrifice, and transformation.” The word “love” is a very important word in NT. One may argue that the Bible never gives a definition of love. However, the Bible defines love throughout scriptures. Scriptures does not always define it theoretically as some people would like to see it because scripture was designed (inspired) to be not a theoretical book but practical. Love is defined through examples, stories, actions, commandments. Community, cross, and new creation are essential concepts that help us to understand real meaning of love. When one says that to love is to do good to others, what does he means by “good?” In order to love we must do Biblical “good” as God defines it. To know what is “good” is to know God and His ways following them.
I agree with Dr. Oord that the definition of love makes a world of difference. This term is tossed around so carelessly. I have heard it described that the word Love is said too much but never enough. The Bible has many different words to describe different kinds and I agree with Dr. Oord’s statement that love “is about doing good in relational response to God and others.” I believe that it is so difficult to describe because everyone perceives what is “good”
While I was reading this blog post, I could not agree any more that what Dr. Oord said about Richard Hays’ opinion about love in New Testament. I personally think that how many times the word “love” was mentioned in the books of New Testament does not define the importance of love. What it counts is an action. As you know, Jesus came down to the earth as a human form to teach us how to “love” one another. He sacrificed and died on the cross so that our sin can be forgiven. That is love. You do not need to verbalize in order to prove that you love somebody. You can express your love towards other by doing something for others without expecting that you will get benefit out of it. You do something because you really care about them. Personally, I never thought of the fact that love can mean many different things. This class definitely triggers me to think what love is. I enjoyed reading this blog post and definitely helped me understand what love is.
Without the definition of love he is using is very confusing what he refers. but what i want to focus is community. I feel that being in a community is a perfect example of love. Love I believe is what holds a community together. Without it, i do see it being called a community, just another house on a block.
I find it hard to wrap my head around Hays’ 3 central themes of the new testament without involving love. The theme the cross screams love in my opinion. “For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten son…” is a verse I learned by 4 years old and speaks of God’s love as His motive in the cross. I do not feel that there is much debate about Jesus’ motives in going to the cross. As for community, I would not advice living life out in a tight community in the absence of love. Community exampled in the new testament is overflowing with a deep intense love. Without love, it would simply be an experiment at a Utopian society which tends to not work out—because they don’t have the love of God at the heart of their community. The theme of new creation does not scream love as suddenly as the first two themes did to me, and yet it the more I consider this theme the more I see God’s love. Consider the verse, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” -2 Cor. 5:17. The phrase “become new” could refer to many aspects of a new Christian’s life but one of those aspects would be the new covenant Jesus brought in. A covenant of love. I believe Hays chose good themes of the new testament but he missed the point—love.
It is interesting to me that Hays does not provide definitions. Definitions give the readers insight in to what it is exactly he is trying to say. If Hays does not think love is a main theme and then chooses to say why he thinks so, a definition of love would have strengthened his argument. I think that love can be the basis for all things. Love ushers in community. Love was poured out on the cross as Christ died for us. Love is what gives us the choice of being a new creation. The word love may not be used throughout the books of the New Testament but the effects of love can definitely be seen.
One issue I have with Hays’ view of Biblical ethics is that he states his three focal images bring attention to the “common ground shared by the various witnesses,” yet this common ground supposedly nothing to do with love. I do not understand how love could not be considered the essential element to righteous and godly living, as surely it brings together every other good trait a human could possibly have.
I find it a bit confusing why Hays does not include love in his analysis. Community, cross, and new creation all could be seen as manifestations on love. These three “themes” need not be chosen at the exclusion of love, but as examples and manifestations. Love, though not always stated, is present throughout the New Testament and when it is mentioned, there is no room left for doubt: “…but the greatest of these is love.”
I think that love is what centers the entire religion and brings all aspects of it together. Without it the Bible becomes an ideology on how to live a good life. Love is what it is trying to set apart from the world. After looking at the “definition” of love and relating in closer to the Bible I think there is a issue. The issue lies in that it has to promote the overall well-being. However God gave us free-will, which promotes suffering and all other sorts of issues in the world. I think therefor that either the definition can only apply to humans or a new definition must be reached that allows love to be both counter-productive and productive, because I do believe that giving free-will is a tremendous act of love.
(This is the second time i tried to post)
After reading the blog this week I think I agree with Professor Oord. Richard Hays makes several valid points such as how the misuse of the word “love” can cause confusion or ambiguity. Today in modern culture, when people view the word it can lead to more confusion than clarity. However; I do not agree that the N.T. them of love should be ignored as Hays suggests. I believe that the three words he mentions are important to the New Testament but are not necessarily completely distinct from love. If anything I would say that the three themes are all founded or formed by love. With love as the foundation for the three themes, I don’t see how it can be reasonably ignored.
I do find it hard to agree with Hayes’ perspective on love not being part of the central themes of the New Testament. I find it hard to believe that those three themes described of community, cross and new creation do not contain the concept of love. Perhaps this to comes from his lack of a definition of love as Dr. Oord described or perhaps he does have a definition of love that does not include those things. If that were so, I think there are some key Biblical references overlooked. Also, I think Dr. Oord kind of hit on this notion being a big fight over semantics or the words used to define the New Testament. How does he mean these three concepts exactly? I do not know, because I did not read his book.
I would argue against Hays’ statement “The content of the word ‘love’ is given fully and exclusively in the death of Jesus in the cross…” because I do not think this is the only example of love in the New Testament. I believe he did not choose love as one of his examples because his definition of love seems to be dependent of the act of the cross. While this may be the most beautiful and strongest example of love in the Bible, it is not the exclusive example. God sending his son to earth was an act of love, his forgiveness of sins before his death, and his challenge to the disciples to feed his sheep. All of these things are acts of love, making it a more central theme than Hays acknowledges.
I think its weird that Hays talks of community, cross and new creation without talking about love. It seems to me that love is intertwined in all three of those topics in one way or another. I have love for my community. I have love for the cross because it is a symbol ect. The word love may be misused but that is no reason to not use it; its more of a reason to show how to use it correctly!
I agree with Wesley,I find that love appears often in Scripture, and from my point of view the bible places supreme importance on love. Jesus said to love other as oneself and to even love our enemies. I feel that Hay’s point of views are very interesting but i am not sure if i understand or agree with his views. For example, when he said “community is the primary addressee of God’s imperatives”. What does he mean by this? Is
he trying to guess what god was thinking?
I do not agree with Hays because I believe that both the new and old testament were based on love. For example in the old testament God created us because he loved us and he created us to love him. In the new testament Jesus died out of love for us so I do not see how someone can say that the new testament’s highlights and purpose is not surrounding love. I agree with John Wesley in that the entire Bible is centered around God’s love because God is love. To focus only on community cross and new creation is missing one of the main themes of the Bible which is Love. That explains many concepts and arguments and I believe without it, the Bible would be incomplete.
I do not know all that much about the Wesleyan tradition, as I am not Nazarene and had never heard of him before coming to NNU. I do agree that love is the greatest of the commandments and to leave it out of a book about New Testament Ethics altogether seems weird. However, I am less interested in the reasons he gave for not including love than I am about why he picked community, cross, and new creation. I would prefer those concepts be elaborated on before I’d decide if Hays or Wesley had a better grasp on the topic. Perhaps he gave great reasons for focusing on those three, but based on this review I’d never know. I do believe love should be included; I’d just be more interested in hearing his side.
I have never thought of trying to sum up the whole of the New Testament in only a few words. If I had to choose a few I would likely put obedience, transformation, community, and love as the key focal points of the New Testament. Hayes’ term “New Creation” seems to cover the transformation idea well. I agree with Dr. Oord that the cross is not a complete picture of love. I would sooner put the whole figure of Christ as the symbol of love in the New and Old Testament. I think Hayes correctly put community as one of the main focuses of the Bible.
I’m curious what other points Hays writes about in his book. While I don’t agree with his decision to throw love out of the center of Christian ethics, I do wonder what he says about community, the cross and new creation. I believe community and the cross are both fundamental to Christian living, but I also believe that love is the deepest root for both of these concepts. I also question how Hays believes a word count of “love” can exclude it from his images, but he neglects to account for the great lack of his images word-wise throughout the New Testament. Another aspect of Hays I don’t understand is why he believes “love” has to be present as a term in order to exist as a concept. Much of the love I’ve experienced has been in the form of action, often wordless with no terminology required.
Very interesting stuff. I am not sure that I need to disagree strongly with either you or Hays. I noticed that you affirm all three of Hays’s themes as important, and Hays recognizes that love has importance too. The discussion then boils down to one side saying that these three things are central and love is important too, and the other side saying that love is central and these three things are important too. Is this debate really a major deal? I am not trying to say the discussion is useless; I thought the article was a very interesting read. But I can make a good case that all four of these are central to Christianity without a whole lot of disagreement with either you or Hays. None of them should be ignored and I don’t think either side of the debate is saying they should.
I agree on both sides. I agree love is a central theme of the Bible, but community, cross, and new creation have love intertwined into these themes. I do agree with Hays on the simple fact the most important theme in the Bible is the sacrifice of God’s son, through the cross. I believe this is the most important piece of the Bible because it shows the ultimate sacrifice or love that God has for us. Also, he did this so we might be able to spend eternity with Him.
When it comes to discussing these types of issues I have a hard time taking sides. Although I do not completely agree with Hays perspective I also believe that people are entitled to their own opinions and ways of thinking. I agree with the statement that was made in this conversation where it was said that a term such a “love” should not be determined by how many times it appears or is mentioned. I believe love is a crucial part of the bible but as I said before each individual have their views and sometimes there is just no changing that.
I think for Hays to not recognize love as being the central theme of the New Testament of the Bible is crazy. While I agree with him that community, cross and new creation are incorporated and important, all those things would not exist without the LOVE of Christ. I believe that love is the most important aspect and definition of what if means to be a Christian and without it, all other things in the faith could not exist.
Love is so subjective that what one means by love does makes a world of difference. I lack a lot of knowledge about the bible so I do not want or can make an accurate and clear comment. But isn’t it dangerous to use the words scriptures, from any type of religions, to define love? Scriptures are rather abstract, symbolic and can be understand in numerous ways you want to choose. This is why extremist have a very easy time to retreat young man to do what they want them to do?
War can get started very easily if one applies scriptures – of course in a strict applications sense. The act is intentional; they can say they talk to God and this is what God wants, and it is to promote the well being of other – so that they can get more lands, more economic freedom, more wealth into their pocket…etc. What Exactly is GOOD in relation response to God?
Love is so subjective that what one means by love does makes a world of difference. I lack a lot of knowledge about the bible so I do not want or can make an accurate and clear comment. But isn’t it dangerous to use the words scriptures, from any type of religions, to define love? Scriptures are rather abstract, symbolic and can be understand in numerous ways you want to choose. This is why extremist have a very easy time to retreat young man to do what they want them to do?
The act is intentional; they can say they talk to God and this is what God wants, and it is to promote the well being of other – so that they can get more lands, more economic freedom, more wealth into their pocket…etc. What Exactly is GOOD in relation response to God?
If I understand Hays correctly, it sounds to me that he is focusing on the covenant that Jesus revealed and sealed with his death on the cross. I do think Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and in doing so showed the up most astounding act of love, but I don’t think the formation of the covenant and the body of Christ are the only places one sees love in the Bible. As implied above by Tom Oord, one’s definition of love has to be taken into consideration prior to taking a stand on whether love is the central theme of the Bible or not. Even so, I think most would agree that the act of love is intended to enhance another’s well being and this is seen in the Old testament as well as the New testament prior to Jesus’ death. Another point I would like to make is, the number of times a word appears in the Bible does not make it any less or more significant. If the word love only showed up once, it would still be significant to me as if it were in the Bible 10,000 times. I would also like to point out that the Bible is full of actions of love and the basis of love is dependent on the action and not so much the word.
I have to disagree with your second critique. Jesus says to love as he loved. Jesus loved by death and resurrection. Without the resurrection love as Jesus loved means nothing at all. Hays is correct in saying love is encapsulated in the cross. The central message of the New Testament is Jesus but even the messiahship of Jesus isn’t important without the cross. In other words everything Jesus commanded and did is encapsulated in his death and specifically in his resurrection.
Prof Oord –
As always, you make your points brilliantly. But a few thoughts: Love is a watery word. It is unbounded and undefined both in a good and bad ways. Does the racist love his/her people? Don’t we love our dog as well as that great ice cream flavor? I think Hays point is that the Gospel Good News means very specific things that form the foundation of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. It clearly involves community. It is centered in the resurrection of Jesus and the ultimate defeat of sin and death. And it means that we are witness to this resurrection/transformation. yet, just as clearly Love is indeed central. The analogy that comes to mind is that Hays describes the bones and foundation of Christian Ethics whereas you describe the skin and perhaps even the breath of Christian Life. So, I think in this way we can reconcile both views. I think Hays has defined the basis of Christian Ethics, but without Love it is a thought experiment. With Love it becomes something that can change, and has changed, the World.