God is love, but He is also just…

“God is love, but He is also just”…?  What does this mean?  You may hear this saying in a conversation regarding Biblical judgment, punishment, suffering, and a host of other topics including last-day events; however, you usually don’t get a really good idea of the meaning of this phrase.  I believe our language is not quite “there” in terms of being able to explain the enormity of the phrase, and in that, we run the risk of taking away a subtle distortion regarding the character of God.  As boring as grammar may be, let’s use some grade school mechanics to break down the phrase.

“…God is love…”

This phrase is taken from 1 John 4:8, and in context, is extremely profound about knowing God!  But, dealing with the above phrase, God is the subject of the phrase; is is a “linking” verb formed from the verb to be; and love is a noun that renames the subject (a subject complement).  Subject complements can be nouns, pronouns, or adjectives in relation to the subject.  It is important to note that John is using love as a noun, not as an adjective.  John is not saying that God is loving.  That is not very profound since any one of us can be loving at times.  John is stating a grammatical (and theological) equivalence.  John’s thought could be explained as “God = Love” and not lose any meaning.  John is stating the very essence of God.  We are human beings capable of loving one another, but God is love.  Our essence is in relation to our Creator.  We depend on Him.  God, however, does not depend on anyone else; He is…or as He would say, “I AM.”  But, the love that God is is not the same love that we have for pizza.  It is a complete, other-centered love that gives of Himself (1 Cor. 13:5, John 3:16, Gal. 2:20).  John presents this as a completely non-negotiable fact.

“…but He is also just…”

This part of the phrase is completely separate in meaning.  First, the conjunction but is defined as “suggest[ing] a contrast that is unexpected in light of the first clause.”  By using this conjunction we are setting at opposition love and just.  Next, if we use the subject complement rule again, we see that just is renaming He (God).  However, just is not a noun, it is an adjective describing a quality of God instead of declaring who or what He is.  God is described as just in numerous Bible passages, but nowhere is He depicted, in essence, of being justice.  God is also described in the Bible as being righteous, just, mighty, powerful, etc.  He is also described as being my salvation, my power, my strength, sun, shield, etc. in relation to His creation.  But, as for a grammatical or theological equivalence, John seems to be the only author that ventures to equate the essence of God with another noun.  Who am I to argue with John on this?

What this means is that all other subjects regarding God must be “lenses” through which we can see a God of love.  Consequently, all truths about God must highlight the Truth about God.  Not only should what we believe about God be compatible with a God of love, but what we believe should be complementary with a God of love.  Our understanding of judgment, punishment, suffering and even salvation, righteousness and justice should perfectly mesh with a God of love.  If our “lens” (understanding) of suffering does not bring a God of love into view, then what needs to change?  Our lens…we need to refocus.

So what is the risk of taking away a subtle distortion regarding the character of God?  Let’s use a made-up phrase as an example.  Note, this is a completely made-up phrase and example – only use it as far as it helps you.  This is a serious statement because the potential distortion of God’s character is a serious issue.

“Murder is killing, but is also just”

Murder is legally defined as “the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.”  So, murder is, in fact, a type of killing; however, murder is never just.  To make this statement true, you would have to either change the definition of murder or the adjective that describes it.  Obviously, just stands in opposition to murder.  If you cannot change the definition of murder, then the adjective needs to change. 

This is my point.  In our phrase, “God is love, but He is also just,” God does not change!  If we are changing our understanding of God because we are holding to a particular definition of justice, then we are distorting God’s character no matter how well-intentioned we are being.  It would be the same as changing the definition of murder to be compatible and complementary with the definition of just.  God’s love must explain justice, not the other way around.  The subtle distortion is walking away with an understanding of God based on your own definitions.  Here, the object starts to change based upon the lens through which you see fit to view it.  Unfortunately, there was a little horn power in the book of Daniel that committed this subtle distortion, but the devastation of those actions was and is anything but subtle.

As I mentioned a few posts ago regarding wrath, there have been times and there will be times when God will actively intervene in the world for purposes that the Bible describes as judgment, punishment, justice, even protection, and so on; but if our understanding of these terms causes us to look at God in any other light except that of love, our understanding needs to change.  A small distortion now could prove disastrous down the road.

Perhaps the better phrase would be, “God is love, and He is also just,” where just is compatible and complementary to love.