Is sacrifice the definition of love?

This post is motivated as a response to something I recently heard someone say. They said, "Sacrifice is the definition of love." I think that this definition is very easy to disprove Biblically, but I do not just want to say, "That's wrong" without presenting what I consider to be better definitions.

There is an abundance of literature available that discusses love , and I know that I am probably not saying anything too terribly unfamiliar.


Is sacrifice the definition of love?

There are two things that one could mean when one says "sacrifice is the definition of love". They arise from different interpretations of the word "definition". I will explain what these two are, and then show that in neither case is "sacrifice the definition of love".

"Definition" can be used as hyperbole, meaning that the thing referred to is the standard to which all other like things should attain. For example, if one says, "David is the definition of a man," it is unlikely that one means that all men, in order to be men, must be exactly in every way like David, but rather that David possesses qualities that are the standard by which other men should determine whether or not they are true men. This is usually used, as stated above, as hyperbole, to emphasize a point, and not to be taken literally.
An important thing to note about this interpretation is that it is not symmetrical. Saying that "David is the definition of a man," and "A man is the definition of David" do not mean the same thing when the word 'definition' is used in this way.

There is a stricter usage of the word "definition". This is probably quite obvious, but bear with me. The stricter usage is for two synonymous words or phrases, such as "The definition of philanthropy is 'an activity performed with the goal of promoting the well-being of fellow man.' " This meaning implies that if you do"an activity performed with the goal of promoting the well-being of fellow man" you have exactly done "philanthropy" and vice versa. If you have one, you have the other, because they are synonymous. This usage does not make use of hyperbole; the purpose of the dictionary in giving a definition is not the former of these two definitions, but the latter.

So when I heard it said, "Sacrifice is the definition of love" which of these two meanings did the word "definition" take? I would say it was the latter, but let us assume the former:

1) Assume: Sacrifice is the standard to which all love should attain.
This statement is saying that love, without sacrifice, is less than ideal love. If one examines one's love, and sees that it is not in accordance with the love of sacrifice, then one's love is lacking. I will come back to this definition later, and see whether or not it is Biblical, but for now, let us move on to the latter meaning of "definition".

2) Assume: If you sacrifice, you love, and vice versa. The two are synonymous.

This is the interpretation that I have a lot of trouble with, because it clearly goes against Scripture. Consider 1 Corinthians 13:3

"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

What sacrifice! Paul expresses the possibility of giving away all he has, and delivering his body to be burned, i.e. sacrificing, and doing it without love! There is a possibility of sacrificing without loving, so the second meaning of "definition" is unscriptural. "Sacrifice" and "love" are not synonymous, because if two things are synonymous, then one cannot do one without doing the other. The second definition proves false.

Using the same text, let us examine the first definition: the standard to which all love should attain. Remember, this definition is not symmetrical. Let us reverse the statement above, and see which way is according to Scripture: Love is the standard to which all sacrifice should attain. Is this not in accordance with 1 Corinthians 13:3? Paul is writing this chapter in order to show the superiority, excellence, and necessity of love above all other things. The purpose of 1 Corinthians 13 is not to show that love is subordinate to other virtues or actions, but rather that it epitomizes, and is the sum of all other virtues. Biblically, sacrifice is not above love, nor are they equal. The first definition also proves false.

Why is this important?

I am not arguing here for the sake of argument. If the Bible says, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love (agape) the brothers" (1 John 3:14) then it is vitally important to know what love is. And we do not know what Christian love is if our definition can be refuted by 1 Corinthians 13, or anywhere else in Scripture for that matter. I do not want anyone to think they have passed out of death into life because they force themselves to joylessly, bitterly, even spitefully "sacrifice" for another, (it is possible, have you never done it?) simply because they think that kind of "love" to guarantee their entrance into heaven!

Accurate, helpful definitions of love

In "Mere Christianity", C.S. Lewis gives a definition of love that I really like. Another definition that stems from the theology of John Piper is probably my favorite. I think it is useful to keep both of these definitions in mind because I think they lend themselves to application more easily in different circumstances. The definitions from Lewis and Piper¹ are, respectively:

I) Desiring the good of another

II) Delighting in the delight of another



Desiring the good of another as the definition of love

Lewis says, "That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good..." This simple definition of love could change your life, if you read it in the context given below. I think it is worth quoting Lewis at length:

"...we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbor as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?

Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbor' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner... I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself, God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out on our own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves."

A few comments:

1) This whole discourse arose from Lewis' mediation on Matthew 22:39 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." I think this definition is both accurate and helpful in the regards how we are to love other people. Try thinking this way. "God intends us to love all selves... but He has given us the sum ready worked out on our own case to show us how it works."

2) This "wishing his good..." is implied to be a wishing that is coupled with action, not just sentimental feeling. If you had the opportunity to do someone good, and did not take the opportunity, you would not be truly wishing their good. The "wishing" or "desiring" is, however, critical to genuine love; the heart attitude is what makes sacrifice, or any other external action, an action of love.

3) The definition that Lewis gives does not put the non-Biblical restriction of sacrifice as a requirement for love. The love that Lewis describes is a love that is willing to sacrifice, but if one's desires are in accordance with the good of the one who is loved, then the act of loving them is not a sacrifice of one's own desires, but rather is in accordance with them.

4) I think putting sacrifice at the definition level of love is due to the idea that "love is an action, not a feeling" mentality. But I think that we have swayed too far in the opposite direction, and tried to get the action without the feeling, that is why the concept of sacrifice is so prevalent. Lewis' solution is, I think, much better:

But though natural likings should normally be encouraged, it would be
quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to
manufacture affectionate feelings...The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbour; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less.

Placing sacrifice at the definition level of love puts constraints on Christian love that the Bible does not place on it. This is one reason why I think Lewis' definition is both helpful and accurate.

It may seem that I have been bashing the concept of "sacrifice" in general. Next time I will go into the second definition of love that I gave, and with that discuss the role of sacrifice and what it means, and does not mean, in the context of love.

1 Although this is not a direct quote from John Piper, I feel confident that it is in harmony with his theology, as I will discuss in the next post.