Is Unconditional Love Biblical? Part 2

     Preface: if you haven't, I highly advise reading my first article on unconditional love before reading this one.

     I write this next entry for the blog after having some good feedback from the first one. Keep in mind, I am still processing the question, "Is unconditional love biblical?" What I am about to write should NOT be read as me arguing for my personal conviction in an attempt to persuade others, but simply my attempt at verbalizing an internal debate I've been having with myself.

     I am NOT convinced that what I understand of "conditional love" is biblical, either. I'm simply testing the idea that the two terms "unconditional" and "conditional" are two extremes in a possibly false paradigm of how we define and interpret "love" within the bible.

     As a reminder of what I wrote in my last post, unconditional love was a term I used as a synonym for "agape" and as a way to distinguish God's love. For me, it meant that God bestows His love towards us without any preconditions from us. He continues to love us regardless of how we love Him.

     In this line of thinking, I reasoned that God's love for mankind is unconditional. Regardless of the condition mankind is in, God still loves him. However, there are conditions people must obey before they can fully receive God's love. God's love is unconditionally extended to us through Jesus Christ, but it is received on the condition of our obedience.

     Now, let's look at Romans 5:8."But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (KJV) This continues to be one of my favorite verses. Not too long ago, this was the first verse that came to mind to support unconditional love. This was my ace.

     But context is king when studying the scriptures. Romans 5:8 comes at the end of an argument of contrast. The full argument reads, "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (NIV). This seemed like a very apparent example of unconditional love to me.

     I mean, when I add Romans 5:6 as the point Paul was making with the above argument... surely, unconditional love is true. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (KJV) We were powerless. We didn't do anything to bring Jesus into the world. Rare are the people who might give up their lives for a righteous man. Rarer still are those who would die for a good man! Men might die for another on the condition that the other has some measure of goodness, but God sent His Son unconditionally to die for us. Right?

     Is unconditional love really an accurate description of what's laid out here? God bestowed His love towards us without any preconditions from us?

     If that's true, what am I supposed to do with God's wrath being mentioned in Romans 5:9? "... being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." 

     I've caught myself in a dilemma, thinking about this. On one hand, I believe God's wrath is still an expression of His love. On the other hand, I thought God loves us unconditionally. Yet, He does not have unconditional wrath against us.
   
     As I looked at Romans 5:8 closer, Paul's point seems to be that there indeed were conditions on our part for why God sent His Son. We sinned. We were powerless. That's what makes his argument of contrast so powerful! Men may sometimes show the great love of self-sacrifice for another, on the condition that the other has some measure of goodness. But God shows forth His great love of self-sacrifice on the condition that we were sinners. God's love is so great, it's even extended on terms that were in opposition to Him.

     What were those terms we laid out for Him that were in opposition to Him? Oh, yeah... sinning against Him to the point of brutally nailing Jesus to a cross and mocking Him as He slowly died of asphyxiation.

     Even then, God met our terms with His love. But, by those same terms, we've also earned for ourselves His wrath.

     The dilemma I mentioned earlier about God's wrath still being an expression of His love no longer seems as strong now.

     If God's love is influenced by conditions, what might those terms be whereby I gain His love? I realized, they were inherent, already at work within me. He loves me because I am a part of His creation. He loves me because I am made in His image. He loves me because I am my own unique soul. He loves me because He has a plan for me. He loves me because He sees my unused and unrealized potential. Really, I could incorporate the endless list of conditions for why God loves me into a simple one. He made me.

     God loves me because He made me.

     He made me with the freedom to sin.

     Therefore, God loves me even when I sin.

     God loves me, because even when I was lost to him, enraptured by my own sin and spiritually-oblivious to Him, He sent Jesus to take that state of being away for me.

     That's the context of Romans 5:8.

     If God lays out the conditions for me to be lovable, then wouldn't that also mean He lays out the conditions for me to be condemned? That seems to fit pretty well with both the contexts of Romans 5:8 and John 3:16.

     I appreciate Romans 5:8 on a much deeper level now. There were Judaizers in Paul's day that would say we have to earn Jesus by means of our own merit. Paul doesn't dismiss this claim by introducing a proposition of unconditional love. He actually cuts the legs out from under them with their own reasoning. We already have God's love conditionally, even on the condition of our sinfulness.

     If what I'm seeing is indeed Paul's argument, rather than unconditional love, then what he says later in Romans 6:1 makes more sense as well. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" He has to clarify for His audience, lest they walk away thinking, "I can sin more, so God will show me more love!" No, no, Paul clarifies. Since you have God's love by means of your sinfulness, then use your sinfulness as a reason to come to God on His terms. Have Him take away your sins through union with Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom. 6:2-7). Otherwise, you're going to have God's wrath by means of your sinfulness, and you're still gonna have to answer to Jesus.

     Romans 6:1-7 takes on a whole new irony with this perspective. The very same condition we gave God to love us is the same condition He gave us to love Him.

     However, let's think about Romans 5:8 as if Paul is saying God's love is unconditional. If God loves me without any regard to my condition, then that actually confuses why He pours so much regard into my sinful condition by sending Jesus. And it also confuses why I want to walk in His love by changing my condition (Romans 6). It also confuses why He's intent on pouring out His wrath through Jesus someday.

     The very term "unconditional love" seems self-contradictory. If love is having regard for another, then I cannot really love someone by disregarding the condition they're in. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13, KJV) I can't show greater love to my friend by giving up my life for him, until I first judge that he's in danger.

     God doesn't love unconditionally, with no regard to my condition.

     God is love. Because he loves me, He has total regard for my condition. This train of thought seems more in alignment with 1 John 4:7-21 and Philippians 2:1-11.

     When I first met our dog, Skye, she was the trembling, ugly runt of the litter. There were a dozen other puppies in what some might consider better condition than Skye. These other puppies were cute, playful, and bouncing around joyfully like typical puppies do. But I fell in love with that little, scrawny, trembling, twig in the corner, growling at everything around her. Why? Because I loved what I saw.

      And because I loved her, she filled out, gained confidence under my training, and became playful with other dogs. And you know what? I still love Skye, because she's a dog. I fell in love on the condition of what I saw. I still love on the condition of what I see. And, I will continue to love on the condition that I can no longer see her, when she dies. She's my dog.

     If that's how my love worked for a dog, how much more so does God love me!

     I'm tying a knot on this subject for now. As always, thank you for reading. I appreciate any feedback as I continue to unpack my thoughts.

     Pressing forward... Nathaniel

   

Is Unconditional Love Biblical?

     Recently, while preparing to teach a bible study, I was struck with a simple question - "Is unconditional love really biblical?" I've always presumed God's love is unconditional. So, that question nagged at me. I needed an answer more substantive than a mere presumption.

     Out of curiosity to see what others thought, I posted the question and asked everyone to private message me their responses. It was interesting seeing only two answers that came back as absolute assertions, with one being a yes and the other a no.

     All the other answers I got were somewhere between yes and no. I appreciated everyone's reasoning they gave. I was pointed to different scriptures, and different illustrations were given to help me better understand where someone was coming from.

     But, overall, I found a lack of coherency between everyone's answers. This really peaked my own interest to study the question out for myself. My simple beginning point was to examine my own presumption. Unconditional love was a term I used as a synonym for "agape" and as a way to distinguish God's love. For me, it meant that God bestows His love towards us without any preconditions from us. He continues to love us regardless of how we love Him.

     The two main scriptures that immediately came to mind to defend my presumption were John 3:16 and Romans 5:8-9. However, I believe context is king and trumps my finely-tuned ability to pick cherries from the text.

     As I opened my bible and examined the context for both of those passages, I found myself thinking, "Huh". Why? Well, I saw in both a "because" statement implied. That means a condition is in play. Rather than seeing God lavishing His love towards us regardless of conditions, I instead saw God lavishing us with love due to conditions.

     Consider 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." (KJV)

     There's a "so that" statement in this verse - a purpose behind God sending the Son as proof of His love for us: "...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish..." . This implies a condition, our condemnation. That's clearly identified in the next verse.

     The overall context of John 3:16 is a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus about the world being under condemnation and the means (Jesus being lifted up on a cross) by which the condemned can escape (spiritual) death.

     As I kept reading into vs. 18-19, I realized that the world's condition of condemnation is the example Jesus uses to distinguish God's love. So much so, that Jesus even further unpacks the condition of the world for Nicodemus in vs. 19. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." 

     Here, Jesus now compares the love God has for mankind with the love mankind has for darkness. The Greek form of "agape" used for mankind's love of darkness is the same used for God's love of mankind in vs. 16. I'm no longer convinced that I can on one hand distinguish God's "agape" in vs. 16 as unconditional while clearly man's "agape" is not unconditional in vs. 19.

     That may have been confusing. Let me clarify by saying it a different way. Both "loves" talked about are expressed by Jesus through conditions. If mankind's love for darkness can be understood because his deeds are evil and he doesn't want them exposed by light, God's love for mankind can be understood because mankind is in condemnation and He doesn't want us to perish. Thus, that's why He sent His Son.

     Why is this important to notice God's love conditionally talked about within this context? Simple. If Jesus is making the argument in John 3:16 that God loves the world unconditionally, He's removed the condition for why He Himself was sent!

     Let me illustrate. My brother bought an old, nasty, dilapidated house. He loved what he bought, because of the condition it was in. It was a fixer upper. If he loved it unconditionally, regardless of what it was like, then there would be no reason for him to fix it up before moving in! So why didn't he just move in? After all, when he first bought it, I remember him telling me, "Nathan, I love what I see." What he meant by that is he loves the house because it's a fixer-upper. He had a purpose in mind for it. That nasty house - which I loved helping him gut out - had unrealized and unused potential as a home. Now it's nice, livable, and cozy, even if there's still work to be done.

     I use my brother has an example. But isn't that imagery true when God makes His home in us? He purchases a fixer-upper, guts out all the filth inside, and makes us His home, even if there's still work to be done in us.

     Thank you for taking time to read my ramblings. Mind you, this blog is an avenue for me to process my thoughts. I'm still working through this topic. I intend to continue this topic on Thursday, by examining Romans 5:8-9.
   

Covey, a Head Cold, and an Apology

     One of my resolutions at the start of 2020 was to get back into reading books. I've started by simply rereading books already in my library that I haven't opened for sometime. One of those books is the classic "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey. I'm remembering now why it's a classic.

     I first read this book about six years ago, when I was working in sheetmetal fabrication. At the time, I remember being impressed with it. But now that I find myself married and doing state-side mission work in the Pacific Northwest, I find the book's thesis especially pertinent to me.

     Covey makes a point to begin his book on the importance of one's character and the bedrock of principles upon which said character is established. This theme continues on through the book and is tied to his discussion on the seven habits. But the subtitle on the cover of the book, I believe, is a better title than the actual one - "Powerful Lessons in Personal Change". Powerful lessons, indeed. I'm grateful for the reminder these lessons serve for me during this time in my life.

     It's easy for me to get distracted or discouraged by my life's current circumstances and to become reactive. To blame my circumstances for negative feelings or thoughts rather than taking responsibility. One of the things I've let myself neglect is this blog, and I think I've suffered for it. But that's just one small example.

     Life in ministry is still a new concept for me. Life in Seattle, WA is still new, although I do feel myself finally adjusting somewhat to it. I no longer immediately feel irritable when I get up in the morning only to find that it's still raining! So, that's good. 

     If you haven't read Covey's book, I highly recommend it. It can be a rather convicting read. Covey incorporates biblical examples throughout the book, which I greatly appreciate. For me, reading his book again was a good reminder to reevaluate my priorities, to measure my work based off effectiveness rather than efficiency, and to reexamine the importance of my character.

     Covey's book, along with having a head cold and sore throat combo, reminded me to resume this blog. I'm sorry about my inactivity over the past three months.