Did Jesus really love the rich young reprobate?

[Matthew1344]

Mark 10:21 says Jesus "loved him", concerning the rich young ruler.

So this post is for those that believe God does not love the reprobate at all. I get y'all's argument. It makes total sense. How is it love if every day they are alive, they are just storing up wrath for themselves. It would have been better if they had never been born. I get it, well at least I think I do, but this verse is in the bible too, and I don't know what to do with it.

The rich young man didn't repent in the text, it gives no indication that he ever did, so I dont think he ever did. When I look at cross references it shows Mary Martha Lazarus and apostle John. And I'm thinking "there is no way he loved them the same!?" But that's what it looks like he he saying.

Please brothers help me out. I want to be faithful to the word! Love you guys. And like I said I an very interested to hear from someone that believes God doesn't love the reprobate at all

 

[Cymro]

God cannot love and not save. Rev John Kennedy.
Because it does not say he was presently saved, that
does not exclude a future repentance after the encounter
with the epitome of love.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Because it does not say he was presently saved, that
does not exclude a future repentance

Some believe that the Rich Young Ruler was actually Barnabas, who of course was later saved.

 

[MarieP]

God cannot love and not save. Rev John Kennedy.

Where is this found in Scripture? It strikes me as hyper-Calvinistic.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course, this is what happens when we absolutize a word (in this case "love") rather than recognizing a semantic range of meaning, to include a colluqial use.

 

[Jash Comstock]

Of course, this is what happens when we absolutize a word (in this case "love") rather than recognizing a semantic range of meaning, to include a colluqial use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the word here a derivative of "agapeo"? Which can also refer to compassion?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The BDAG entry is interesting here:
① to have a warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love

It chooses this:

ⓑ of the affection of transcendent beings

and notes this:

Jesus’ affection for people Ἰ. ἠγάπησεν αὐτον J. liked him or was fond of him Mk 10:21 (displayed affection, caressed him has also been suggested;



As Ben already noted, there is no such thing as an absolute meaning for the word agape. It's been abused so much to mean unconditional love so as to make people actually believe that it's the only thing it can mean.

I think there's also something that we need to guard against and that's a heresy that confuses the natures of Christ. One of the reasons I find the BDAG entry odd is that it refers to this as the love of a transcendent being but Jesus, in his humanity, is human. He is not transcendent even if he's in hypostatic union with a transcendent being. His human nature is very much human.

Would Christ disobey the command to love His neighbor? Are we under the impression that everyone we show love to are also, by definition, elected of God?

We need to get over the idea that Jesus, in His flesh, was a human body with a divine mind. We're even told in the Scriptures that Christ accomplished all through the power of the Spirit and had to learn obedience through the things He suffered. I'm not denying that Christ, the Person, did not love the rich young ruler but there are many ways that Christ could have shown affection for this man (given its semantic range), without requiring us to assume that the man was elect (although that's possible).

 

[Cymro]

The life, service, preaching and writings of John Kennedy, and his instrumentality
in the salvation of many, many souls, reveals that he was no hyper-Calvinist. That would be to
defame the memory of a servant of God. Personally I hold him in the highest esteem, and often
wish that I could have heard the gospel being preached from those lips into which grace was poured.
It said of our Lord, that having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
Which was true of the disciples then, and all those who would believe on his word. John17: 20 . Did he not pray,
I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me out of the world.
If he would not pray for the world how much less would he save the world, and how much less would
He love the world. Prayer is an expression of love.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

The BDAG entry is interesting here:
① to have a warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love

It chooses this:

ⓑ of the affection of transcendent beings

and notes this:

Jesus’ affection for people Ἰ. ἠγάπησεν αὐτον J. liked him or was fond of him Mk 10:21 (displayed affection, caressed him has also been suggested;



As Ben already noted, there is no such thing as an absolute meaning for the word agape. It's been abused so much to mean unconditional love so as to make people actually believe that it's the only thing it can mean.

I think there's also something that we need to guard against and that's a heresy that confuses the natures of Christ. One of the reasons I find the BDAG entry odd is that it refers to this as the love of a transcendent being but Jesus, in his humanity, is human. He is not transcendent even if he's in hypostatic union with a transcendent being. His human nature is very much human.

Would Christ disobey the command to love His neighbor? Are we under the impression that everyone we show love to are also, by definition, elected of God?

We need to get over the idea that Jesus, in His flesh, was a human body with a divine mind. We're even told in the Scriptures that Christ accomplished all through the power of the Spirit and had to learn obedience through the things He suffered. I'm not denying that Christ, the Person, did not love the rich young ruler but there are many ways that Christ could have shown affection for this man (given its semantic range), without requiring us to assume that the man was elect (although that's possible).

Rich, outstanding points--especially regarding the hypostatic union. We've seemingly de-emphasized, or forgotten, that The Christ was, is and will always be fully human as well as fully divine. Also, on the semantic range of the use of agape in this text, which, I think, an earlier respondent noted.
Also, to the OP: how do you know the Rich Young Man was reprobate? The text tells us nothing of his future life on this planet--only that he walked away from The Christ after that particular encounter. The real import of the passage is the sin of loving material wealth/things and the high hurdle this particular sin places to the unregenerate in receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the gospel. You could also make a solid argument that, from an historical perspective, the vast majority of "middle-class Westerners" can be placed under the rubric of "rich". Stocked refrigerators, stuffed closets, multiple motor vehicles, indoor plumbing, electrical amenities, cell phones etc. etc. etc. are taken as "necessities" by many of us in the West, when, in reality, many would consider them lavish luxuries. We often complain about long lines at the grocery store or a fast food joint when, in fact, millions of persons would openly fight us for the scraps of food we hurl into the garbage can with unmitigated contempt and nerve. I've always shuddered at this passage; and I grew up "poor", but never went hungry or unclothed.

 

[MarieP]

It said of our Lord, that having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
Which was true of the disciples then, and all those who would believe on his word. John17: 20 . Did he not pray,
I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me out of the world.
If he would not pray for the world how much less would he save the world, and how much less would
He love the world. Prayer is an expression of love.

But how does this prove that God does not in some sense love the non-elect? As J. I. Packer put it, "God is good to all in some ways and is good to some in all ways." Isn't this making the same mistake as the Arminians do by saying that God loves everyone in the same exact way?

For starters, if we are to love our enemies and thus prove we are His children, it seems that this means God loves His enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Luke 6:35-36 adds, "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."

 

[KGP]

It's all in the semantics; as has rightly been mentioned before

Another big issue here is that this question is dangerously close to an accusation against God and Christ of being UNloving. When we recall that God has declared himself TO BE love, then "Does God REALLY Love...." suddenly sounds like a serpent's question; not a servant's question.

Many have forsaken the second great commandment on account of mishandling this question. I certainly have in the past. As with all things, consider whether this is something he would have you occupy your mind with at this time. If you tend to get lost in your mind, this is the wrong question to be lost in.

Whatever Jesus did, whether it was eating with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:11), giving life to whom he pleased (John 5:21), it was always done out of love for God first and love for neighbor second. Those two commandments sum up the law and the prophets; Christ fulfilled them. To say that and then turn around and say he never loved the reprobate is unfitting.

Did he love them? Yes. Qualify it as is proper, (He loved them according to the will of God, He loved them, but not savingly as he has the elect, etc.) but the short answer simply must be yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MarieP]

Many have forsaken the second great commandment on account of mishandling this question. I certainly have in the past.

Same here! Actually, this was the trigger for the shift in my thinking on this whole issue. I have a cousin who is in prison for life, and he calls my parents once a week. In early 2008, I was at their house when he called, and we all got on the phone with him. As the call ended, my parents said, "We love you!" And I hesitated (and missed the chance to say it) because, I thought to myself, "he might not be elect." I've thoroughly repented of that!

 

[fralo4truth]

Would Christ disobey the command to love His neighbor?

I appreciate this point very much. If Jesus was "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4) does that not imply that he complied with the second commandment?

 

[Gforce9]

It's all in the semantics; as has rightly been mentioned before

Another big issue here is that this question is dangerously close to an accusation against God and Christ of being UNloving. When we recall that God has declared himself TO BE love, then "Does God REALLY Love...." suddenly sounds like a serpent's question; not a servant's question.

Many have forsaken the second great commandment on account of mishandling this question. I certainly have in the past. As with all things, consider whether this is something he would have you occupy your mind with at this time. If you tend to get lost in your mind, this is the wrong question to be lost in.

Whatever Jesus did, whether it was eating with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:11), giving life to whom he pleased (John 5:21), it was always done out of love for God first and love for neighbor second. Those two commandments sum up the law and the prophets; Christ fulfilled them. To say that and then turn around and say he never loved the reprobate is unfitting.

Did he love them? Yes. Qualify it as is proper, (He loved them according to the will of God, He loved them, but not savingly as he has the elect, etc.) but the short answer simply must be yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kaleb,
This is only partly a semantic problem...with respect the definition of love. The conflating or confusing Christ's natures is not semantics, however, as Rich so excellently pointed out. It is what divdes us from Nestorians, Monophysites, JW's, and all those who deny two distinct natures of Christ in a hypostatic union. Here is Chalcedon:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Vere homo, vere Deus;

 

[Matthew1344]

Thank you guys for your responses. I am sorry if I have come off wrong. This question was birthed from me reading Death of Death a few months back. It seemed as John Owen did not believe that God loved the reprobate. Maybe I did not understand his points very clearly (which would not be a stretch, I'm not the brightest) and that's my fault. I'm not trying to judge or condemn anyone, I'm only looking for guidance and rest for my soul in Christ. And as I do my best, I try to try to know the true God of the bible and not one of my own imagination. So when I felt that Owen proposed something contrary to the love of Christ that I knew, I started studying.

Again thank you for your responses. I greatly apprise them.

And to reply to the man who asked "why do I assume was reprobate", my answer is I never saw him repent. He could have. Honestly, I have no clue. I did see where someone said that the rich young ruler night have been Barnabas. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!! But yes, I don't know, I just assumed. I hope he did repent. Sorry I I was reading to much into it.

And to the last post. Thank you for the advise. I try to with everything that's in me to pray that and mean it

Thanks guys