Originally posted by whodey
Here is the scripture I had in mind when I said what I said.
Matthew 10:37 And Jesus said, "He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
If you think about it, the loved ones in our lives we ...[text shortened]... heir whims. What is best for them and for us is not always painless or the easy road to take.
Luke’s version is even harsher:
> Luke 14:26 "Whoever comes to me and does not
hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
In both these verse,
stauros can mean any stake or pale, with or without a crossbeam. I once heard the Matthean version translated as “pull up your stake”—as in the sense of whatever is keeping you in place so that you cannot move on. The Lucan version can have more the sense removing or carrying away.
But, in any case—
(1) If you were to follow the same line of argument from the Lucan verse, the fact that the mother loved her son at all would be a fault.
(2) “Tough love,” as you mention, is always for the
benefit of the one loved—not for the moral affirmation of the one loving. If a person turns their loved one over to the authorities just because it is “the right thing to do,” that is law, not love.
Here, for example, is St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century; speaking of ‘hell’ ):
“The body is subject to various forms of illness. Some are easy to treat, others are not, and for the latter recourse is had to incisions, cauterizations, bitter medicine... We are told something of the same sort about the judgment in the next world, the healing of the soul’s infirmities. If we are superficial people, that amounts to a threat and a process of severe correction... But the faith of deeper minds regards it as a process of healing and therapy applied by God in such a way as to bring back the being he created to its original grace.” (Gregory of Nyssa,
Great Catechetical Oration)
St. Gregory referred to the
apokatastasis, the return of all things to God as “the final restoration which is expected to take place later in the kingdom of heaven of those who have suffered condemnation in Gehenna.” (
The Life of Moses, II-82-4.)
(3) How much does
agape admit of degrees?
Agape (which has always included
eros) is perhaps that level of love that is always “with all your heart, with all your soul (
psuche), and with all your mind.” (And Mark adds, “with all your power”.)
The radicality of
agape may be hinted at in John 21:15-17, where Jesus asks the question using
agape, but Peter is only able to respond using
philia; until Jesus condescends to Peter’s ability and asks the question the third time in terms of
philia. He did not criticize Peter’s inability to either (a) rise to the level of
agape or (b) affirm that he loved Jesus “more than these.”
But God—at least John’s God—is not just the lover or the beloved, or simply loving or lovable, but love itself:
ho theos agape estin, “this God love is.”
___________________________
In any case, however one attempts to reconcile Luke 14:26, or even Matthew 10:37, with other statements about love—I come down on the side of the love which is greater even than faith, and perhaps entails greater risk as well... (I do not claim to have reached the place where I can love my enemy; I have pretty much been able to lose the hate, however.)
____________________________
EDIT: Luke 7:47-50 presents an interesting love/faith dialectic—or perhaps practical identity...
Luke 7:47 For this reason I tell you that her sins, many as they are, have been forgiven her, because she has shown such great love. It is someone who is forgiven little who shows little love.' 48 Then he said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' 49 Those who were with him at table began to say to themselves, 'Who is this man, that even forgives sins?' 50 But he said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace.' (NJB)
Was it her love or her “faith” (confidence, assurance; here even perhaps “chutzpah” ) that was salvific? Does either/or here even make any sense?
how does this work?
02 Apr '07 02:10
Back to Top