Love in word and in deed

Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

1 John 3:18 (NIV)

The Verse of the Day for February 27, 2015 brings to mind the common expression: “Actions speak louder than words.” This phrase is particularly noteworthy in light of recent discussions regarding the love of God, as reflected in two principal relationships in all of life: we are commanded to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. The Book of 1 John emphasizes the importance of love, for, indeed, God is love. If we say that we love God, we ought also to love another.

When it comes to loving God, there must be a demonstration of our love for Him beyond mere rhetoric, as the poem “The World’s Bible “by J. E. Hamilton reveals:

Christ has no hands but our hands
to do His work today.
He has no feet but our feet
to lead men in His way;

He has no tongue but our tongues
To tell men how He died,
He has no help but our help
To bring them to His side.

We are the only Bible
The careless world will read,
We are the sinner’s gospel,
We are the scoffers’ creed;

We are the Lord’s last message
Given in deed and word,
What if the type is crooked?
What if the print is blurred?

What if our hands are busy
With other things than His?
What if our feet are walking
Where sin’s allurement is?

What if our tongues are speaking
Of things His life would spurn,
How can we hope to help Him
And welcome His return

A recent blog entry spoke of the love of God being “perfected” or made complete or brought to maturity in us when we walk in the steps of Jesus Christ, the ultimate example of perfect love. We must do more than think about love or talk about love; we must demonstrate love by what we do, just as God did in offering His son. We speak of the love of God in manifestation, so clearly demonstrated in one of the most widely recognized verses in the Bible, John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Sound of Music, one of the most popular Broadway musicals of all times, gives us these memorable lyrics from Oscar Hammerstein II:

“A bell is not a bell till you ring it. A song is not a song till you sing it. Love in your heart isn’t put there to stay. Love isn’t love till you give it away.”

The last line reminds us that with love, there must be a demonstration or manifestation to express the reality of that powerful emotion.

I recently came across this anonymous quote: “Love is a verb. Love is doing, saying, showing. Never think just saying you love someone is enough.” There must be corresponding action to show that we love. Another statement reiterates the same point: “Love is a verb. Without action it is merely a word.”

The Verse of the Day reminds us to love God and one another “in word, in deed, and in truth.”

Dimitri Carver offers an upbeat musical version of 1 John 3:18:

Tags: 1 John 3:18, John 3:16, Love is a verb, The World’s Bible

This entry was posted on February 27, 2015 at 8:11 am and is filed under Application of Biblical Principles, Bible, Verse of the Day. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

King James Version Public Domain

Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers.

International Standard Version Copyright © 1996-2008 by the ISV Foundation.

New American Standard Bible Copyright ©1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. All rights reserved. For Permission to Quote Information visit http://www.lockman.org

American Standard Version Public Domain

NET Bible copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. NetBible

Basic English, produced by Mr C. K. Ogden of the Orthological Institute — public domain

Philemon Is about Loving in Word and in Deed

Nathanial Isaacson

Fresno Pacific University

Introduction

Paul wrote a very strong and powerful message in his letter to Philemon. Paul starts with addressing his letter to Philemon, a couple of named individuals, and the general assembly of the church that meets at Philemon’s house. Paul wrote a formal letter to the recipients; therefore, the recipients should seriously consider the letter’s content and message. The purpose of the letter to Philemon is to teach Philemon, his church, and other believers to accept and love their brothers and sisters in Christ as an equal in both word and deed.

Historical World

In the time and place that this event occurred, slavery was acceptable according to the law of the land. Slavery then is different from modern day slavery. The slavery at that time included both compulsory and voluntary enslavement. Each party had rights and responsibilities. For example, a slave had the right to go to a friend of the slave-owner to help resolve a dispute between the slave and the slave-owner. This example is quite possibly the reason or one of the reasons that Onesimus ended up spending time with Paul.

Once a slave-owner released a slave, then the Roman Empire considered the slave as a citizen whether or not the slave was a citizen prior to becoming enslaved. Paul would have known this; therefore, when he asked Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, he was also asking Philemon to make Onesimus a free citizen, which would have granted Onesimus an equal position in society as Philemon. Additionally, it seems that Paul is trying to tell Philemon and all believers that if another believer needs to be restored or brought up to an equal status of all the other members of the Christian community, then they should use their power and authority to do so.

Another aspect in the historical church is the apostles started the first churches by the authority given to them by Jesus. The apostles then had that same power to give power and authority to others too. Therefore, the apostles and those who the apostles gave authority led the churches. Paul had power and authority over the church that met at Philemon’s house. Paul, however, decided to give Philemon power and authority as a partner if Philemon were willing to follow through on Paul’s request. The public address of the letter gives witness to Paul’s offer. Philemon must go through the action of loving Onesimus, as Paul requires in order for Paul to perform the promise made in the offer. This shows that Paul views loving a brother in word and in deed is a requirement for one to be a Paul’s partner, which is a very great honor.

Literary World

Viewing the letter in the literary world, Paul’s most critical piece of his argument is in verse seventeen, “If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.” Paul want Philemon to accept Onesimus as if he was accepting Paul. Paul has already explained in the letter how Philemon accepts not just Paul, but all the saints. In verses five through seven, Paul credits to Philemon the way that he has accepted and loved the saints by his actions. He has now placed his foundation that Philemon already has love in his heart and shows love to the saints, which is the most important virtue that every Christian must develop.

Another critical piece of his argument is in versus eight and nine. Paul sets up his argument based on love, which is what he has already attributed to Philemon. Philemon should consider the rest of the letter as another way to express love. The initial portion of verse nine is the key portion of verses eight and nine, “Yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee…” Paul states that he is beseeching Philemon for love’s sake, which has already been set up. Paul has now tied love to the beseeching, which is important for the rest of the letter as will be seen in verse ten.

The next part of the letter is in verse ten. Paul is beseeching Philemon for Onesimus. Now Paul has tied the virtue of love with Onesimus. Paul can then go into an example of how Philemon can further express love to another, specifically how he can love Onesimus. Paul’s first argument of why Onesimus is deserving of brotherly love is that Paul is the spiritual father of Onesimus; therefore, Onesimus is a believer and follower of Christ. Paul’s second argument is that Onesimus now has a use as a Christian believer. Paul pens down that Onesimus is useful as a brother in verse sixteen. I would venture even further that Onesimus’s conversion allows Philemon an opportunity to show his church and others what it truly means to love another brother by making him as an equal in word and in deed.

Paul fully believes that Philemon will do perform beyond the expectations placed upon him as mentioned in verse twenty-one. However, he does give Philemon an out in verse eighteen and nineteen in regards to any debt that Onesimus may owe Philemon. Yet, it is evident in verses nineteen through twenty-one that Paul does not expect Philemon to exercise the right given to Philemon in verse nineteen, yet he does expect Philemon to forgive Onesimus completely. In fact, if Philemon does exercise the right, then Paul still fulfilled his part in loving Onesimus by freeing him from Philemon by taking on any possible debt owed to Philemon even if Philemon was unwilling to go all the way in his expressing of his love towards both Onesimus and Paul.

Contemporary World

When viewing the text in the perspective of the contemporary world, it seems that Paul is setting a precedent to be used and followed in their time and in the future. Therefore, it seems that Paul’s focus is on a larger group. Paul wants Philemon to set Onesimus free and to love Onesimus as a brother and not treat him as a master to a slave. In order for Philemon to love Onesimus as a brother in word and in deed, then he must free him. This is the basic argument. The next step is that since Paul wants certain named people and the overall group of people meeting at Philemon’s house to hear the message, Paul is wants something from them.

The question comes down to what Paul wants from the church. There are a few possibilities: Paul could want them to keep Philemon accountable. He could want them to learn from the event. He would want them to follow the example in their own lives. At minimum, it puts pressure on Philemon to follow through with Paul’s request. However, since Paul clearly states in verse twenty-one that he has full confidence that Philemon will do this and more, it seems that Paul wants the people to witness that what Philemon is about to do is based on love and as a charge as a believer. Philemon would likely have done this even if the letter were private and not meant to be read publicly. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul had intended the letter to be read publicly for the benefit of the Christian community, so that they will both learn from it and act upon what they learned. Christians should love others in word and in deed.

Conclusion

Paul sent a mandate to Philemon and his church to love one another as equals in word and in deed. It is a mandate, because if Philemon performs the mandate, then Philemon will then confidently be able to consider himself as Paul’s partner. In order for Philemon to prove that he takes the mandate to heart, Philemon must free Onesimus without expectation of any return on any loss he may sustain in releasing Onesimus from his bond. The church needs to follow Philemon’s example in their lives.

If members who love each other in this kind of manner made up the Christian community, then they would be a unified community that loves and forgives one another. It is altogether reasonable that Paul is trying to unify the local churches to make a unified community. However, it would require looking at other books in the Bible to provide further reasoning and justification of this call. Since this essay is using only the book of Philemon, that argument could be reasoned and assumed. However, the text in Philemon, the historical facts, and the contemporary viewpoint posited in this essay strongly supports this essay’s thesis: Believers should love one another in deed and in truth.

Symbol

Even though we have not discussed symbols in this class as the syllabus states, the assignment calls for a symbol that represents the message of the letter. It is shown that it is to be written after the conclusion. The symbol I have created is a heart above broken manacles. The heart represents love. The manacles represent bondage. The heart is above the manacles, because love is above bondage. The manacles are broken, because Philemon is supposed to free Onesimus. Overall, love is more important than control. This goes along with the purpose of Philemon, because Philemon is supposed to show Onesimus brotherly love in word and in deed, which requires Philemon to free Onesimus.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

1 John 3:18

So goes the world…

The world will tell us, “I love you so dearly”!

Yet, this only applies when we do what the world wants, (John 15:19).

As Christians, we should never take on characteristics of the world. Instead, let your “Yea be yea; and your nay, nay,” (James 5:12). This means, whatever we say needs to be reflected in our actions so we remain true to Christ and ourselves.

If we make promises we cannot keep, we have a lack of love and truth within us. The prior verses even explain, if we see a brother in need, and we refuse to help when we are able, “How dwelleth the love of God in” us?

We need further insight…

Love In Deed And Truth

The Great Commandment explains,

• “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”
• “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

If we truly “love the Lord thy God,” then we should treat “thy neighbour as thyself”. If we don’t, we become liars and have abandoned the faith. In fact, “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death,” (1 John 3:14).

Why?

It means we have rejected the Great Commandment Jesus taught us.

If we do not love God, we have sinned, and we do not have life.

Let Your Actions Be Righteous

Christians do not make empty promises as the world does.

Instead, we do as we say, and we uphold the law of God. For this, the world truly hates us.

Why?

The world only relishes in sin and self-gain.

Our world is filled with propaganda that entertains the desires of the flesh. Rarely are we told to look out for our common man, only when there is much self-gain to be had by the world.

Yet, Christians are taught to abstain from such desires and all “filthy lucre,” (1 John 2:15, 1 Peter 5:2).

If not, we become as the world and partake in its sin.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

When we sin, we become a child of the Devil.

When we sin, it means we have joined with Satan and the wicked world he resides over, (Eph 2:2, 1 Jo 5:19, 2 Co 4:4, Act 26:18).

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Naturally, we are born of the flesh.

Spiritually, we are born after God when we accept Jesus Christ and live according to the Bible. Then, we have committed no sin, as Scripture explains, “Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not,” (1 John 3:6).

We may have fallen short and sinned in the past, but through repentance, our sin is erased from the Book of Life, (Isaiah 1:18, 44:22).

God’s “seed” is the Greek word “sperma,” but it simply refers to the spiritually good seed that Jesus planted in the world when He walked among us, (Matthew 13:37).

The last two verses conclude by telling us…

1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

There is our great dividing line.

There we have defined the two types of people in this perverse and crooked world.

As you can see, if we do not stay righteous or love our brother, then we become a child of the Devil. Such an appalling thought to consider.

Instead, we need to reject Satan, including the rich and temporary desires he dangles before us. Especially at the expense of others, unlike the world.

Christians must stand for God by deflecting the “fiery darts of the wicked,” (Ephesians 6:16). We must uplift those around us, providing cover for our brothers, so they can stand too.

Love in Word and Deed

By Scott H.

NOTE:

This essay originally appeared on the blog, No More Strangers.  Click here to read Scott’s original post.

By the late 1960s, the position of the LDS church towards its black members was becoming increasingly untenable.  The Civil Rights decade was coming to an end, and yet the Mormons had not budged an official inch in their complete prohibition of members of “African descent” receiving the priesthood or participating in saving ordinances of the temple.  Although some outspoken apostles had made official sounding pronouncements providing both supporting rationale and theological inferences for the restriction, there was a surprising lack of direct scriptural or doctrinal support of the ban—a ban, which, until the Civil Rights Movement, was neither unusual  nor remarkable given the level of cultural and institutional racial prejudice in the US—and beyond.

In 1969, Hugh B. Brown of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proposed that the Church’s policy towards black members of the church be reversed, allowing priesthood blessings to be given regardless of race[i].  Perhaps President Brown recognized that the lack of scriptural support or a clear-cut revelation left the church an opening—administrative action to remove an administrative error.  President Harold B. Lee, acting in the stead of a disabled President McKay, called for a vote among the apostles and the measure was defeated.  In December of that same year, the First Presidency issued a statement quoting President McKay as saying that

The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God.[ii]

At the beginning of his administration, President Kimball reiterated this position in a public statement:

[I have given it] a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord. [iii]

These public pronouncements effectively removed the administrative option favored by President Brown.  When faced with the choice of determining whether the ban was of God’s leaders or of God himself, the determination was made that God was indeed its author.  When the priesthood and temple ban were finally lifted in 1978, it was done by revelation, ratified by the quorum of apostles, as President Kimball himself suggested it would be.

While few Mormons would suggest that the church erred in lifting the ban, it is worth considering the ongoing impact on the church from the way it was lifted.  Had the restrictions been lifted through administrative action correcting an administrative error, the membership may have had cause to doubt other prophetic decisions.  Had the restrictions been lifted through a revelation where God was quoted as having “changed his mind about black people” as wryly suggested in The Book of Mormon musical, the church would have been faced with a major theological challenge of a God who lacks omniscience and perfect goodness—a God who made a mistake about how He treats people.  Once church leaders made the determination that prophets perfectly interpreted God’s perfect will, they were left with another conundrum.  Why would a God who loves all his children keep his blessings from some of them because of the color of their skin?  Rather than answer the paradox directly, the leadership of the church affirmed both theological points while sidestepping the apparent contradiction.  Prophets still perfectly interpreted God’s will, and God still loved all his children— however God’s will to the restored Church very clearly included divinely sanctioned discrimination.  Discrimination isn’t wrong in this view of God, it is only wrong when God says it is.  If the ban hadn’t been lifted, it would still be completely acceptable today, so long as God’s prophet says it is.

Over the next several decades, a wide range of people attempted to solve the paradox of a God who both loves blacks and discriminated against them in the modern church.  The most common approach was to justify the ban as being scripturally justified, particularly by the Old Testament.  God discriminated in ancient Israel, so it is okay if he does so today.  There is, of course, a significant amount of scriptural support for a God who loves all his children and yet condones unequal treatment of a particular segment of them, particularly in the Old Testament.  However, it does not seem accurate to suggest that because an Old Testament teaching exists that the gospel restoration would necessarily incorporate it.  For every Old Testament teaching that was adopted in the restoration (temples, priesthood) one can easily point to another that was discarded as having been fulfilled in the Law of Christ (dietary prohibition, blood sacrifices).  By the second decade of the 21st century, the apologetics used to justify the priesthood ban increasingly are seen as unconvincing and in some instances perhaps even embarrassing, much as 19th century pro-slavery apologetics (which similarly relied on early Old Testament teachings) were less convincing post-emancipation.  Today the church has denounced much of this apologia[iv]; however it is easy enough to see how and why these arguments came about as members have attempted to solve the paradox handed to them in Official Declaration 2.

We now see the lessons of 1978 being applied to the treatment of the LGBT community inside and outside of the church.  The amount and degree of divinely sanctioned discrimination is, thankfully, on the decline.  In the 1970s, gay Mormons were entrapped and jailed at BYU[v]—today they aren’t.  In a church pamphlet distributed to the Aaronic Priesthood of the church in the 1980s, Elder Boyd K. Packer seemed to suggest that physical violence against gay missionaries was acceptable. Today that pamphlet is available online as a .pdf but is no longer printed and distributed by the Church[vi].  In 2008, the church turned ward meeting houses into anti-marriage equality canvassing centers in California[vii].  In 2012, no ward meeting houses were used to canvass against equality measures in four other states[viii].

These changes do not represent an admission of error on the part of the prophets.  God hasn’t “changed his mind about (gay) people.”  The entrapment, violence, and church-directed political action were not wrong then, they just are not right today.  God may yet again choose to direct and condone specific acts of discrimination against LGBT individuals.  God’s prophets will stand ready to let God’s chosen people know what level of discrimination is expected and permitted at any given time.  And if God can discriminate against people and still love them, then so can we as members.

This, then, is perhaps the most dangerous of all the lessons of the Church’s handling of the priesthood and temple ban for blacks and its repeal.  Most Mormons I know, like most non-Mormons I know, are genuinely good people who want to help and not hurt others.  However, by making both love and discrimination divinely compatible, we enable people to hurt others and to feel good about doing so.  The new church website, www.mormonsandgays.com, begins with the word “love” and repeats it another 23 times.  In the text of the website and in the three video presentations given by Church Apostles we are told how to love gay people in only the most general of terms but how to discriminate in the most specific of terms.  Nowhere are parents told explicitly not to kick their children out of their homes.  Nowhere are Bishops told to exercise restraint in excommunicating vulnerable gay youth.  However, we are reminded that we can’t countenance gay marriage inside or outside the church; that church members in loving, long-term same gender relationships are subject to discipline; and that parents of gay children are morally justified in asking them not to come around if they won’t leave their loved one behind.  The general sentiment of love seems belied by the specifics of discrimination, and I can’t help but wonder if there was an attempt by the authors of the website to overindulge in expressions of love in an effort to counterbalance the heavy weight of specified hurt.

I’ve noticed today many members of the church similarly feel compelled to be overly effusive in the sentiment of love, right before they offer up their support of measures and policies that deny full fellowship and legal equality to LGBT individuals (thankfully, many members of the Church today do support fellowship and legal equality).  One hears echoes of Elder Mark Peterson’s comments about the priesthood ban when he said:

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?[ix]

The attempted kindness grates the ear in 2013 and reads of thinly veiled condescension and contempt. It may be that this type of sentiment was extreme for the time even among Mormon leadership and membership; however, it is instructive that Elder Peterson was able to make this statement to a large audience of members with impunity and without public sanction.  Will today’s statements from Mormons that couple generalities of love with specific measures of discrimination toward LGBT individuals be viewed some day with a similar level of chagrin?  I think they will, and sooner than many think.

1 John 3:18

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue
Which though it holds good of love to God, and to Jesus Christ, yet here is to be understood of love to the brethren, as the context shows; and so the Syriac version reads, «let us not love one another in word» that is, without the heart, or with a double heart; speaking one thing with the lip, and designing another thing in the heart; speaking peaceably with the mouth, and with the heart laying wait; or we should not love in this manner «only»; and so the Arabic version of De Dieu adds. It is very lawful, and right to express our love to one another, and to all men in words, to give good words, and use courteous language, and speak in a kind, tender, and affectionate manner, and especially to persons in distress; but this should not be all, it will be of no avail to say to such, be warmed and filled, and give them nothing but these good words, nothing to warm and fill them with; see ( James 2:15 James 2:16 ) ;

but in deed and in truth;
for true love is a laborious and operative grace, hence we read of the work and labour of love; it shows itself by the saints serving one another, in spirituals; as by bearing one another’s burdens, forbearing with, and forgiving one another, praying for each other, and building up one another on their most holy faith; exhorting each other to the duties of religion, and not suffering sins upon one another, but admonish in love, and restore with meekness; and in temporals, distributing to the necessities of the saints, ministering: to them of their worldly substance, and supplying their daily wants: and this is loving «in deed», or «in work»; this is actual love, love in fact, and what is apparent and evident: and it is «in truth», when it is in reality, and not in show only; and when it is cordially and heartily done, with cheerfulness, and without grudging.