Issued: 4/16/23

PLEASE NOTE:  Because Bible versions sometimes differ from each other in crucial ways, the version quoted here will be the one that best clarifies the point being made.  For a quick comparison between versions, please go to: http://www.biblehub.com.

   All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.

   The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”  The symbol “↔” is used to connect verses corroborating each other and so establishing doctrinal truths (Matthew 18:16↔2Corinthians 13:1).

   In differentiating between Yahweh of hosts [later Jesus] and Yahweh the Most High God, lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the One and Most High God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from God the Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christians will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

Love is one of those umbrella terms men use to label different emotions and behaviors.   We love family; we love to eat pizza; we love horror movies, etc.  Love is occasionally used as an oxymoron:  We love to hate conservatives/liberals/undocumented aliens/Muslims; we love to kill animals for the sport of it; we love pornography; etc.  The point here is that human love may be rooted in reason, emotion, or admixtures/lacks of either; so for the purposes of this essay, we will call ‘intellectual’ love that understood through reasoning, and ‘human’ love that experienced emotionally.

Intellectual Aspects of…

God’s Love…

   We have previously stated that at its most basic level, the Bible is a tale of unrequited love.  Notice the adjective God uses to describe Himself:  “I am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5); and while this was said in the context of idolatrous worship, Jesus gave it a specific meaning:  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:37-38).

   This tells us that for God worship and love are inextricably bound and mutually inclusive.  After all He is Deity with a deity’s specific needs; so that when Jesus says “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24), he is obviously taking about something different from human love.   However ‘human’ God’s admission of jealousy may sound, there must be more to that term when applied to Him than the messy emotion men experience.  For a Being Whose attributes are all in perfect balance, perhaps the adjective jealous—implying as it does an ‘imbalance’ of sorts—is a concession to the limitations of human understanding, meaning that God has used it to approximate how He feels when men turn away from Him to worship false/man-made gods.  We of course are jealous when our loved ones devalue our feelings by preferring others irrespective of worth and commitment; and that jealousy is an expression of our emotional hurt.  Who is to say that God claims to be jealous in order to preempt His hurt?

   Thus we cannot ascribe human emotions willy-nilly where God is concerned:  We do not know what makes Him ‘tick.’  By and large, men do not love God as deeply as He loves them.  Men are fond of trumpeting John 3:16 and 1John 4:16 as proofs of divine love; but rare—if non-existent—is the human being who prioritizes love of God, as Jesus instructed, above everybody and everything else.  For men human bonds and loyalties come first; the ‘genie up in the sky’ can wait until they have need of Him.

   Be it said in passing that John, with all due respect to him, had a tendency to rhapsodize his own emotions.  Witness his gushing claims in John 13:23, 19:26, and 21:7, which have contributed to an entrenched misunderstanding that Jesus somehow loved John more than the other Apostles.  The Spokesman of a God Who prides Himself in showing no partiality towards anyone (Deuteronomy 10:17; Job 34:19; Matthew 5:45; Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11) could not possibly show preference towards any human being, which Jesus told the Apostles in no uncertain terms (Matthew 20:25-28, 23:8)—letting alone the fact that familiarity was never a factor in Jesus’ ability to love perfect strangers on sight (Mark 10:20-21).

   It comforts us to believe that Jesus and God love us; but though true, we have not the faintest idea about the extents and depths of their love for us.  It was the level-headed Paul who best summarized it:  “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known” (1Corinthians 13:12).  What is Paul driving at?  In life we are incapable of gauging divine love; but after the resurrection, we will be able to know it first-hand.  It will be then that the often-claimed ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ will materially come true:  “To him who overcomes…I will give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows but he who receives it” and Jesus himself (Revelation 2:17 3:12↔the true fulfillment of Genesis 2:19 and Isaiah 65:15).  For His part, God will make up for every tear/sacrifice His worshippers shed/endured for love of Him (Isaiah 25:8-9, 65:19; Jeremiah 29:11; Hebrews 11:6; Revelation 21:4).

   Now comes the nitty-gritty; and again we owe it to Paul to dispel pious misconceptions about God’s love:  “See then the goodness and severity of God. Toward those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off ” (Romans 11:22).  We find evidence of this severity in Romans 9:13:  Esau prioritized a full stomach over his divine birthrights and God cut him off (Genesis 25:29-34).  We find evidence of this severity in Jeremiah 30:11:  Any transgressor either in ignorance or willingly, no matter how repentant, must undergo some degree of punishment (Leviticus 26:43; Micah 7:9).  We find evidence of this severity in Jesus’ guarded words about fearing God (Matthew 10:28):  You had better take Him at His word or else.  And lastly God’s severity towards anyone who backs down on their sworn commitment to Him:  No second chances (Hebrews 10:26-27,38).

   In point of fact one of the most soul-damning notions deeply-rooted in pseudo-Christianity is the pipe dream that if anyone ‘sincerely’ repents at the umpteenth hour of one’s life, God’s love will forgive him/her.  What God ultimately chooses to do or not in such cases, no one can tell; but on the strength of Scripture, repentance must be followed by willing acts of factual contrition.  This is what both Leviticus 26:43 and Micah 7:9 are about; what Jesus meant when he said to “produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance” (Luke 3:8); and why Paul was put through the wringer for formerly persecuting Christians:  He had to make amends for his misdeeds, even if done in name of God and the religious traditions of his forebears (Acts 22:3-5, 26:5,9-1; Philippians 3:5-6; Galatians 1:13-14; 1Timothy 1:13).

   While it is possible to qualify for forgiveness without knowledge of Scripture, this applies to people who innately acted righteously while alive (Romans 2:12-16); but mitigation does not apply to people who knew of God, had no use for Him while the going was good, yet expect mercy when life’s partying is at an end—no matter how earnestly desired.  Surely God prides Himself more than that; and Jesus, who voiced His Father’s doctrine, made this quite clear (Matthew 10:37-39; John 7:16-17).  Esau regretted his actions and sought mercy with tears—he got none (Hebrews 12:17).  Judas was truly repentant to the point of committing suicide (Matthew 27:3-5)—he was not forgiven.  Moses (Exodus 2:11-12) and Paul were murderers in their respective ways; but because their deeds had been committed with high-minded if misguided intentions, they were given the chance to dedicate the remainder of their lives to God’s service by way of atonement.

   With God no one gets a free pass, least of all people who have never paid their dues to Him.  These dues are part of the “discipline” God allows Satan to mete out against His worshippers, which establishes legitimacy as true sons vis-à-vis ‘uncorrected’ bastards (Hebrews 12:4-8):  There is no chance for legitimization at death’s door.  People who believe this pious crock will be well-advised give it some thought; those who preach it as a fait accompli/article of faith may find themselves with blood on their hands (Ezekiel 3:18). 

   Thus we see that God’s ‘love’ is more complex than what we conveniently choose to believe it is.  Maybe this comes from misunderstanding what Jesus meant when calling God “Father.”  Why is He Father?  Because He is the ultimate Progenitor of everything real or illusory in the universe—and by illusory we mean phenomena that science perceives and quantifies yet Scripture contradicts.  It is true that God empowered Yahweh of hosts, His one and only begotten Son, to be the de facto Creator of Genesis 1:6-31 (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16); ¹ so that it is in this specific sense that Jesus claimed to be surrogate ‘father’ of (Isaiah 8:18) and brother to (Psalms 22:22↔Hebrews 2:10-12) his followers.  And this is no more evident that in the opening words of the Lord’s Prayer:  “Our Father Who art in Heaven…” (Matthew 6:9), where it is obvious Jesus was including himself.

   But God is no parent like His mortal counterparts, people who rally behind their children regardless of their moral and spiritual limitations.  In this parents resemble animals in nature, for which procreation and raising their young are rooted in instinct rather than moral guidance.  God, for example, encourages punishment:  “One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him” (Proverbs 13:24, 22:6; Hebrews 12:10)—excepting those who go overboard and create twisted souls bereft of moral compasses.  Human parents resort to negotiations and time-outs with varying rates of success or failure, rather than consistent and unbending norms of conduct.

   God’s discipline, however costly, is tailored to the degree of a person’s transgression and his/her capacity to withstand it (1Corinthians 10:13); and there is no question that some have it easier than others [see Parable in Matthew 20:1-16].  What was exacted on Paul (2Corinthians 11:25) was not required of John or Peter, the latter of whom would ask for assistance in his darkest hour (John 21:18-23).  Paul had no delusions about who was ultimately responsible for his floggings and stonings:  “Let no one cause me any trouble, for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus branded on my body” (Galatians 6:17)—not grotesque stigmata, as some believe, but payback for past transgressions.  Through it all, Paul relied on Jesus to strengthen him and prevail (Philippians 4:13).

   It may sound counterintuitive that Scripture talks about fear of God as the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10); but all this means is that God is not to be messed around with; and that having given warning of dire consequences if dismissed and disobeyed, He will not change His tune or desist from what He is committed to do (Numbers 23:19; Matthew 10:28).  To put it in human terms, His word is His bond.

   God is no more loving than merciful, nor more punitive when angered (Isaiah 42:14),² nor more forgiving when justice is at stake, and so on. Every attribute in Him is in perfect balance, so that no one ‘emotion’ predominates over the rest.  Whatever God ultimately is, He is true to His own Self:  He is unchanging and will not deviate a Planck Length from His standards (Malachi 3:6).

…Jesus’ Love…

   In a very real sense, Jesus, the preexistent Yahweh of hosts, was God’s ‘probe’ to explore the human condition.  If Jesus’ human involvement led to his contamination by men’s sins (Isaiah 53:4-6), in the process becoming so abominable to God that on the cross Jesus bemoaned his alienation from Him [Matthew 27:46↔Psalms 22:1], could anyone imagine the Divinity consenting to any form of self-contamination?

   The ridiculous notion that the Most High God and Jesus are the same Person, besides all the Biblical evidence to the contrary, crumbles when considering that Royalty like Him would sully Himself with worldly affairs.  His human counterparts have legions of staff members taking care of their business; why would God not do the same?   That is what angels are for and what Jesus specifically is in God’s divine scheme:  Staff and Steward over His house [i.e., the Church, Jesus’ body (Ephesians 2:19-22, 4:6, 5:23; Hebrews 3:16; 1Peter 2:5)].  Genesis 41:40,44,55 provide the template for this power-sharing arrangement.³  Though Joseph died in Egypt (Genesis 50:26), we are not told when his stewardship ended with respect to the unnamed Pharaoh of Genesis 41; but the Holy Spirit through Paul definitely states that there will an abdication of power on Jesus’ part when this order of things ends (1Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 3:12).

  Jesus could not escape contamination, even if he was created—as he later resurrected—“holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted” in Heaven (Hebrews 1:5-9, 7:26; Revelation 5:5-13).⁴  Jesus would bridge the divide between God and men (1Timothy 2:5); and just like Pharaoh, God would stay out of the daily grind by choosing to live in inaccessible light (1Timothy 6:16).  Yahweh of hosts would keep an eye on God’s holy ones (Zechariah 2:8), attend to their needs, and clash with them when disloyal, all the while being driven to distraction but never to the point of completely giving up on them.  It is this much put-upon Yahweh of hosts who was the Angel God of the Jews in the Old Testament (Genesis 48:15-16; Exodus 3:1,4,6; Isaiah 46:4, 49:15, 54:5; Ezekiel 34:11) and the Jesus Judaism rejects to this day (2Corinthians 3:14).

   In his capacity as proxy God, Yahweh of hosts made errors in judgment, perhaps the reason which justified the bitter cup His Father pressed on Him (John 18:11),⁵ so that God’s ‘discipline’ would teach him the true meaning of unconditional obedience to the Father (Hebrews 5:7-9).  How had he erred in judgment?  By allowing Satan to tempt him (Job 1:7-12, 2:2-6)?  By second-guessing himself/walking back his judgments (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:14; 1Chronicles 21:15; Isaiah 38:1-5; Amos 7:1-6; Jonah 3:4,10)?  How unlike the Most High God Who is slow to anger and holds His tongue, yet is committed to every good or bad word He utters (Numbers 23:19; Psalms 110:4; Isaiah 45:7↔Job 12:16-25, Psalms 33:10; Daniel 4:35; Hebrews 6:17-18)?

   Can we say that Yahweh of hosts was willfully disobedient to his God?  No, his loving nature tripped him, and his tendency to say rash words in anger that he would later take back faced with the toll on human suffering.  This is the gist of Ecclesiastes 5:4-7:  Hold your tongue in matters involving God directly or indirectly, because a God demanding commitment (Jeremiah 1:17; Luke 14:26-33↔Hebrews 10:38; Revelation 3:16) does not look kindly on indecisiveness (James 1:6-7).  It was a lesson that the human Jesus learned, taught (Matthew 5:37) and practiced himself (Matthew 17:14).  Once he reassumed plenipotentiary powers (Matthew 28:18), Jesus stopped being the pleading, accommodating God of the Old Testament and reached for the iron rod to deal rationally with nations as they deserved (Isaiah 65:2; Matthew 23:37; 2Corinthians 12:8-9; Revelation 12:5, 19:15).

   It would serve no purpose to rehash Scriptural examples of Jesus’ love in words and actions, for however much we parrot these they but scratch the surface of Jesus’ costly, painful, and largely unsung demonstrations of it.  Let us consider instead a life from ages 1 to 30 spent in tears (Psalms 6:6); prayers (Psalms 18:6, 77:2); fasts (Psalms 102:4-5); ridicule (Psalms 31:11), lack of appreciation, rejection and alienation from others (Psalms 31:11-13, 88:8); loneliness (Psalms 27:9-10); and the ceaseless, nagging demands of the flesh.  If Jesus was tempted in all things like men are (Hebrews 4:15), Jesus’ early life must have been a veritable hell of hope after dashed hope, which he endured to inherit the promise God made to him through Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 22:18↔Galatians 3:16; Matthew 26:54; Hebrews 12:2).

   Not for Jesus the privileges of the nepotism institutionalized amongst the powers that be:  He, the Son of God, unwashed, unkempt, without villas and yachts by the Sea of Galilee, walking on calloused feet all over Judea, and without a home to call his own (Matthew 8:20).  Can anyone of us truly, honestly understand his fathomless sacrifice for love of us, for benefit of us, in view that joy for him could not be possible without us sharing his inheritance, his immortal flesh, in his kingdom of peace and fraternal goodwill?

   Paul shared his rational take on the nature of love (1Corinthians 13:4-8); yet he understood that the enormity of Jesus’ love was beyond human comprehension—at least in this order of things; so that he anguished about departing from it in order to finally understand what made Jesus ‘tick’ (1Corinthians 13:12; Ephesians 3:14-19; Philippians 1:23, 3:8).  The beauty of Paul is that being such a no-nonsense person, he, amongst other Apostles given to gushing professions of love (1Peter 2:11; 2Peter 3:2; 1John 2:1, 4:1,7), would be so mind-blown about the idea of experiencing first-hand the plenitude of Jesus’ love.

  Despite all of this Paul has been accused of being a traitor to Judaism; re-inventing Jesus into someone Jesus never claimed to be (?); and underrated in comparison to Peter and John.  If it is true that he who laughs last, laughs best, Paul will rise up from his grave to meet Jesus in the clouds and find vindication and transcendence in Jesus’ embrace.

…and of Christian Love

   Scripture explains evil in two ways:  as a mind-set and as some sort of spiritual rot.  The first is exemplified by what Scripture calls “hardness of heart” (Lamentations 3:65↔Romans 11:7), which basically means the inability to tell right from wrong once God has remanded recalcitrant sinners into Satan’s custody (Ephesians 2:1-3; 2Thessalonians 2:11-12).  When on the cross Jesus entreated God to forgive his killers because they knew not what they did (Luke 23:34-37), he was not just being noble:  He was telling us that for those God had blinded, the most egregious acts seemed virtuous and justified.

   Hardness of heart is an integral part of human endeavors, especially in politics where partisanship is the agar nurturing anti-Christian sentiment—especially amongst politicians whose mouths are full of God.⁶  This mindset is found in Scriptures like Psalms 64:5; Proverbs 2:14, 10:23, 29:12; Ezekiel 8:12; Zephaniah 3:3, etc.; and has become so entrenched in contemporary politics that not a day goes by without news of egregious behaviors both in word and deed.  Naturally, it is always advantageous to add sprinklings of religious spin, as for example referring to Jesus’ arrest by way of stoking public anger when corrupt leaders are hauled to court.  As Paul remarked from personal experience, “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted” (Titus 1:15).

  The type of evil that concerns us here is spiritual rot, which is graphically portrayed in Isaiah 1:2-6.  In these verses leprosy is the metaphor Yahweh uses to depict Israel’s spiritual malady, which runs the gamut from iniquity to depravity (1:4).  It does not take rocket science to hark back to Leviticus 14:33-57, where the walls of houses showing leprous spots were ‘treated’ with cleansing rituals involving water and blood, whereas those re-contaminated after scraping and re-plastering had to be destroyed.  Let us be imaginative and think of people as human-stones in God’s house (Ephesians 2:19-22; Hebrews 3:16; 1Peter 2:5); some whose spots of spiritual rot can be treated with baptism and the blood of Jesus and so be cleansed; whereas others similarly treated but going back to their diseased ways are scraped off and destroyed (Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:38-39; 2Peter 2:20).  We keep forgetting that Mosaic Law is underpinned by Christian doctrine; and that its sole purpose was to be our guardian until Christ (Galatians 3:24); or to extrapolate from Paul’s arguments, the milk that helped us transition from spiritual infancy into spiritual maturity (Hebrews 5:12-14).

   Going back to Isaiah, what is the treatment prescribed in verse 1:6?  Oil, which is a symbol for what?  The Holy Spirit, the “anointment” Jesus pours over us so that we are able—without human teachers—to learn what we must know to be healed (Jesus 16:13; 1John 2:27).  All of which means what?  That we may be rotted with sin, diseased in God’s eyes, but that Christian ‘medicine’ is available if we want to be cured.  Which is the reason why Jesus said, “Physician, heal yourself” (Luke 4:23); for all that is required is the willingness to begin the spiritual regimen that will make us well:  Christian love.

   Once again as complex a notion as its human counterpart; yet summarized in Jesus’ second greatest commandment inevitably linked with love of God:  “You will love your neighbor as yourself—there is no other command greater than these” (Mark 12:31).  If we once more return to Isaiah 1, what is the course of medication God prescribes?  Continuous commitment to Jesus’ cause, which does not call for hallelujahs or professions of faith in church (Isaiah 1:11-15), but doing good, defending the oppressed, tending to the emotional/material needs of orphans and widows, clothing and feeding the poor (Isaiah 1:16-17; Matthew 19:21, 25:35-40)—in short love in action, for as faith without works is dead, so is the love that will not prove itself  (James 2:14-17; 1John 3:17-18).  Talk is always cheap; but righteous acts done out of faith and love alone neutralize spiritual rot (Isaiah 1:18).

   And this brings us to the crux of the matter:  That Christian love is no mere human emotion, but a state of mind, a philosophy of life.  We love others not necessarily by becoming emotionally entangled with them, but by taking care of their needs as far as we are capable.  We apply the Golden Rule:  We treat them as we would like to be treated, even if taken for granted or repaid with ingratitude, yet always with our eyes on the prize:  Imitating Jesus’ lead to prove we are sinners a notch above the garden-variety.  The latter would remain submerged in the swamp; we peek out of the gunk to bask in Jesus’ light.

   This is the kind of love we are enjoined to show our enemies; nobody can seriously believe that ‘loving one’s enemies’ means showering them with affection.  When Paul says, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads” (Romans 12:20), he is telling us that whereas they would hate us, we prove better than them by checkmating their hatred with Christian love (Romans 12:21), so that they are judged more deserving of the raging fire that will consume sinners at Armageddon (Hebrews 10:27; Revelation 20:9,13-15).  And however difficult or against the grain of our vengeful natures this Christian love may be, it is the onus God places on us just as He placed it on His own Son (Isaiah 53:10; Romans 12:19; 1Peter 2:20-23).  Again the Lord’s Prayer:  Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us (Matthew 6:12).  You will be measured by the measure you mete out (Matthew 7:2); but unlike Mosaic tit for tat, the ‘meting out’ is informed by a spiritual mindset, not by rote obedience to the letter of the law (Matthew 23:23).

   Which brings us to Matthew 19:24: “It is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God.”  Why contrast a glaring scientific impossibility against a spiritual notion?  Because for Him to Whom all things are possible (Matthew 19:26) subverting His own physical laws to pass a camel through the eye of a needle is child’s play; not so for hoarders of wealth whose lack of Christian love consigns billions of human beings to languish in squalor and misery.  The love of God 1John 3:17-18 speaks of is not in them; they have no use for it; can reap no benefit from it;⁷ and see no point in it.  As Jesus taught us, the rich always give out of their surplus (Mark 12:41-44); his followers pool resources to meet each other’s needs (Acts 4:32-35; 2Corinthians 8:12-15; Galatians 6:10).

   OK, so things are now more complicated than in Jesus’ time, which is not to say that God’s expectations can be adapted to individual needs/particular times; otherwise Jesus would have made cameo appearances throughout history with Gospel updates.  The choice to do and to give is binding upon us for the remainder of our lives; and not just when Jesus is the ‘reason/excuse for the season/ruse.’  Every little generosity helps; and as Jesus showed, giving one’s two bits (Mark 12:41-44) is a far greater way of ‘loving’ God than trumpeted philanthropy (Matthew 6:2-4)—though for Jesus giving away one’s whole kit and caboodle was not off the table (Mark 10:21).

‘Human’ Aspects of Divine Love

   We conclude, then, that God, Jesus and the love they preach in part relies on the intellect to be effective and on the mark.   Jesus hinted at this in John 4:23-24:  God was to be worshipped/loved spiritually, a far cry purely emotional love.  And in saying that the time “was coming” when God would be worshipped as was His wont, Jesus was also stating that prior to the moment he uttered those words Jews had never done that.  We have Ezekiel’s (Ezekiel 20:25) and Paul’s (Romans 9:30-32) testimonies that the bartering approach of Mosaic Law did not engage God, for Jews sought material rewards rather than genuinely please Him by doing as He asked—actually a very ‘human’ need on His part, for pleasing loved ones is what feels genuine and rewarding to us. Still for all their egregiousness Jews are loved on account of their fathers (Romans 11:28). 

Also Jewish elitism stood in the way of transcending the ethnic, racial, social, and sexual barriers which is only possible in Jesus (Galatians 3:28).  Peter’s focus on Judaism (Acts 10:28; Galatians 2:14) shows us that not even years-long exposure to Jesus taught him to see the larger objective that Paul so effortlessly grasped.  Still Peter is considered Jesus greatest Apostle.  Go figure.

   Having said all this, there are human components to God’s, Jesus’, and Christian love we can all relate to:  The joy of sharing, being with, and fulfilling the emotional needs of our loved ones.

   For His part, God has prepared a City and a Kingdom for those who prefer Him to this order of things (Hebrews 11:14-16).  He has plans to gratify every human need (Jeremiah 29:11); to exchange every tear shed in life for an eternity of joy (Revelation 21:4); to captivate His beloved ones’ imagination with unthinkable wonders (1Corinthians 2:9); to restore nature to its pristine conception (Isaiah 65:25) in a new earth and under new heavens (2Peter 3:13); and go the extra mile by forgetting past transgressions and vituperations heaped on Him across the centuries (Isaiah 65:17; Hebrews 10:17).

   All of this for the very ‘human’ need of merging with His beloved (Ephesians 4:6) and of spending time in their company (Isaiah 66:23); no longer distant in inaccessible light (1Timothy 6:16) but illuminating all within His glory (Revelation 21:23, 22:5↔Isaiah 60:19).  He will not be a bosom buddy we pat on the back, anymore than her loyal subjects expected ‘high fives’ from the late Queen Elizabeth, who by the way lived inaccessible in castles out of bounds to them—except during guided tours when she was elsewhere.⁸   Why should God not be given the reverence He deserves as a Deity but which we are willing to lavish on ‘blue-blooded’ mortals like ourselves?

   This time around, though, not the virus of ‘free will’ (Deuteronomy 12:8), but a new heart incapable of alienating Him (Ezekiel 36:26-28); more fitting for souls who have learned first-hand the costly mistake of seeking independence from the One all creation draws sustenance from.  And to what avail, when all the unachieved hopes and aspirations of mankind will be handed them in the proverbial platter?

   With Jesus it will be different.  No longer Archangel, he is now man (Luke 24:39) with ‘human’ objectives in mind:  Serving the needs—spiritually—of his family in faith (Hebrews 9:24, 10:19-21); keeping them close to him (John 14:3); providing them with room and board out of his inheritance (John 14:2; Romans 8:17); enjoying quality time in their company (Mark 14:25; Luke 12:37); and establishing a one-on-one relationship with every single one of his redeemed (Revelation 2:17↔Isaiah 65:15).  With Jesus we will have the sort of intimacy that is impossible with God; yet through Jesus, we will be able to get the closest possible to God.

   And finally, the ‘human’ side of Christian love, the love that constrains us to reject the fun and temporal delights of this world in empathy for those who suffer without recourse or resources.  We should not have to be told to clothe the poor, or plead for orphans, or to do justice for widows:  These things should be second nature of us, at least for those of us who profess to love Jesus and seek to honor him and God by being instruments for good (Luke 17:10).  We would not think of partying while mourning for loved ones, or having good times when they are in the grip of suffering; but of rejoicing together when all are well and provided for (1Corinthians 12:26).  This is the meaning of loving one’s neighbor, which is to say ‘kinfolk’ in the sense Jesus meant—surely no great mystery, but a notion patterned after the ways of men from the best to the worst.

Closing Words

   It would be presumptuous to assume that this short essay has succeeded in examining all the intricacies of love—divine or human.  The objective, as always, has been to stimulate reflection; and to present Scripture from a different perspective than the verse-by-verse pap that passes for Christian ‘wisdom’ in the Web.  When Scripture says that God’s wisdom is “hidden” (Deuteronomy 29:29; Jeremiah 33:3; 1Corinthians 2:7,10-14), it means more than consulting human disciplines to argue whether the Hebrew or Greek equivalent of any word in any interpretation could mean this or the other.  When Moses killed the Egyptian, it does not matter if the Hebrew verb could be interpreted as ‘beating’ or ‘striking,’ the latter suggesting that Moses intended not to cause death.  Point of fact is that Moses looked around to make sure he was not being watched and then buried his victim (Exodus 2:12), both of which imply premeditation.  And when he was exposed, he went on the lam (Exodus 2:14-15).

   Moses murdered:  He drew blood as surely as Cain spilt Abel’s; and that is the sin.  Apologists for the Bible are always trying to show Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles in the best possible light; but the reason that the Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:20-21), following God’s instructions (John 16:13), chose to portray them warts and all is to tell us that in matters of sin we are all indistinguishable.  This is the argument James made about Elijah in James 5:17-18; and Judeo-Christians apologists do all parties involved a disservice by whitewashing the truth—other than going Athenian by trying to impress others with their erudite arguments (Acts 17:21).  It is always possible to find receptivity in God if one but harkens to His instruction alone (1John 2:27).

   In the final analysis, God and Jesus are the gatekeepers to this “hidden” wisdom; so that if they do not see in our hearts that our faith and desire to learn are genuine, we will not make head or tails of what we hear and read (Mark 4:12; Acts 16:14).  And so it is with the understanding of divine love in all its intricacies.  Abstract though love is as a concept, it is anything but when felt and acted upon.

  Extrapolating from Peter’s journey from darkness to dawn (2Peter 1:19↔Proverbs 4:18), love’s journey stretches from flickering ember to blinding supernova; so that when it burns at its brightest, we need not avert ours eyes but be healed and transformed by its cleansing flame.

¹ John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 are in agreement that Yahweh of hosts created all things on heaven and earth; so that if the Darkness of Genesis 1:4 refers to the creation of Lucifer/Satan, even he was created by Jesus.

   Three Scriptural facts argue in favor of this interpretation:

   a) the Most High God could not possibly have created anyone who would in time become evil (Ezekiel 28:15).  Being All-Wise He must have known about this outcome; thus, in the context of time [i.e., Day One↔Psalms 2:7], He entrusted the rest of Creation to His created Son (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14), as well as Man who would in time follow Satan’s lead (Genesis 6:5; Ecclesiastes 7:29).

   This is why Genesis 1:26—using the Hebrew plural, Elohim—suggests a plurality of Gods, when in reality Yahweh of hosts was stating he was going to shape Man in the image he and the Most High shared [see Daniel 7:9↔Revelation 1:14]; and why both in Genesis 1:27 and 5:1 one God creates Man in the likeness of another God:  Not that the Most High created Man in His likeness, but that proxy God #2 created Man in the likeness of Highest God #1.  Keep your Job 5:13 always in mind:  God loves to prove unbelieving scholars and Biblical interpreters wrong (1Corinthians 3:18-21).

   b)  Notice how Light—meaning Jesus—is deemed good, but no assessment is made about Darkness; yet Darkness is separated from Light.  This was later replicated in the creation of the Sun to rule over the day, and the Moon, which reflects light not its own, to rule over night.  These Scriptural facts gave rise to a plethora of related Christian teachings; to wit, Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:10-16; John 1:7-11, 8:12; 1Thessalonians 5:4-8; Revelation 12:1↔Genesis 3:15, to name a few.

   c)  It is possible that this is what Isaiah 14:12 is implying when calling Lucifer ‘son of the morning star.’  Now ‘stars,’ like the one guiding the Magi to Jesus’ manger, are symbols for angels, clearly seen in Revelation 1:20; in Revelation 8:11, referring to Satan’s fall to earth; Revelation 9:1,11, again identifying Satan as the fallen star who is given the key to deploy his imprisoned angels (Jude 1:6; 1Peter 2:4) against evildoers at end times; and in Revelation 12:3-4,9, the scarlet dragon whose tail sweeps a third of the angelic host and casts them to earth following his defeat in Heaven.

   If in Revelation 22:16 Jesus identifies himself as “the bright morning star,” and he is the creator of all beings on heaven and earth (Colossians 1:16), does it not follow that Lucifer is the son of that morning star rather than some Sol-Venus connection?

² Which has a counterproductive effect:  “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

³ Even down to the 30 years of age when Joseph assumed power and Jesus began his ministry (Luke 3:23).  And just like Jesus, Joseph was sold by his envious brothers for pieces of silver (Genesis 37:11,28).  So that when Joseph states, “God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance” (Genesis 45:7), who is Joseph a precursor of?  Jesus of Nazareth.

⁴ In terms of Jesus’ innumerable progeny examine the links between Genesis 15:5, Isaiah 53:8; Galatians 3:14-16; Revelation 5:11, 7:9-14.

⁵ No one is above God’s law and no one escapes punishment (Numbers 14:18; Jeremiah 46:28).

⁶ Paul profiled them in Titus 1:16:  “They profess to know God, but they deny Him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good work.”

⁷ Except as tax deductions for charity contributions and/or philanthropic endeavors; human accolades [see John 5:41 for Jesus’ stance on this issue]; and the ego-tripping satisfaction of giving funds or denying them to suit personal biases/agendas.

⁸ In 2020 Buckingham Palace, the Queen’s London residence, was opened to the public to raise funds for a devastating fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 that caused $62 million in damage.  Neither taxpayers nor a public fund could be relied upon to foot the bill; and the royal family would not touch their considerable holdings.  In 2021 Elizabeth’s net worth was estimated at between $480 and $500 million.

   Within a week, three years’ worth of tickets had been sold:  Subservience seems to be ingrained in the human genome.  Tours were to take place during a 10-week summer period, while Elizabeth was at her Scottish residence, Balmoral.  With the COVID pandemic came virtual tours of Buckingham, Windsor and Holyrood Place in Scotland.

   In contrast, the Heavenly Jerusalem will be open to all free of charge.  Both King and Heir will remain eternally accessible to their subjects.