Tuesday: He First Loved Us
Even amid rules and regulations in Deuteronomy and all the admonitions warning the Jewish nation that the people must obey “His commandments, His judgments, and His statutes,” they were first and foremost to love God with all their heart and soul and might. Of course, they had good reasons to do just that.
Read Deuteronomy 4:37; Deuteronomy 7.7-8, Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 10:15; Deuteronomy 23:5; and Deuteronomy 33:3. What do these verses teach about God’s love for His people?
Image © Kevin Carden at Goodsalt.com
Over and over in Deuteronomy, Moses told the people about God’s love for their fathers and for them. But more than just words, the Lord revealed this love by His actions. That is, even despite their shortcomings, their failures, their sins, God’s love for them remained steadfast — a love that was powerfully manifested in His dealing with them.
“We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). How does this text help us understand why we should love God?
God’s love for us predated our existence, in that the plan of salvation was in place way before “the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).
As Ellen G. White said it: “The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of ‘the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal.’ Romans 16:25, R.V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God’s throne.” — The Desire of Ages, p. 22.
How fortunate we all are that God is, indeed, a God of love, a love so great that He went to the cross for us, a self-sacrificing love in which “He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). Thus, we today have a revelation of God’s love for us that the children of Israel probably couldn’t even have imagined.
| Instead of being love, what if God were hate or if God were indifferent? What kind of world would this be? Why is the revelation of God’s love for us something that we, indeed, should rejoice about? |
(22)
When Carmel came home from the maternity hospital with our first child, it did not take us long to find out that having a helpless baby was an awful lot of work. They had to be fed (well that was Carmel's job - she had the equipment) and the other end needed fixing up as well. That was my job when I was at home. He would cry in the middle of the night, and we would have to work out why. Sometimes it was a matter of getting up and walking, holding him until he settled down again. There was no let up. He was there every day all day (and night). No holiday from parenting.
We had envisioned love as all that fun stuff; laughter, good feelings, happiness, togetherness. We tried to think of that when we had a sleepless colicky night, or when we were washing out dirty nappies (Yes we used real recyclable cloth nappies in those days - not the throwaway use-once ones that you buy in the supermarket) . And in the midst of all that we learned the meaning of parental love.
Wind the clock forward 13 years and we found ourselves with a teenager, learning to deal with hormonal changes. Mood swings, "I hate you!", doors slammed, sullen silences. Once again our perception of love was challenged by the reality of life.
That is how much God loves us.
From today's lesson:
Have you noticed the 'should' word popping up today again - you will also find again it in the last question being asked at the end of today's lesson. We actually use it a lot in Adventism. While some may think I am being too picky, if you spend time reflecting upon 'should' as a motivation you will likely come to see how problematic it is because it reflects a coercive motivation - even if it seems subtle. Keep in mind that the whole of the mess this world is now in was started by Eve being deceived by a cluster of insinuations suggested by The Serpent that were so subtle, you may have difficulty noticing them. Hence why The Serpent was particularly noted as being more "crafty" than any of the creatures God had created.
The following is not a grammar exercise - but an opportunity to consider how we portray things. How would you rewrite the above question from today's lesson that it asks in response to what 1 John 4:19 is outlining?
Why is the revelation of God’s love for us something to rejoice about? (No should necessary).
It could also be:
Why is the revelation of God’s love for us something we can rejoice about?
Hi Phil, I do not have a problem with the word 'should' as it is being used. Considering that Ecc.12:13 states that our whole duty is to fear God and keep His commandments, I think the writer is using the word in the same manner. I looked up 'should' and found these definitions:
verb
modal verb: should
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
"he should have been careful"
indicating a desirable or expected state.
"by now students should be able to read with a large degree of independence"
used to give or ask advice or suggestions.
"you should go back to bed"
used to give advice.
"I should hold out if I were you"
2.
used to indicate what is probable.
"$348 million should be enough to buy him out"
3.
FORMAL
(expressing the conditional mood) referring to a possible event or situation.
"if you should change your mind, I'll be at the hotel"
(in the first person) indicating the consequence of an imagined event.
"if I were to obey my first impulse, I should spend my days writing letters"
4.
used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings.
"it is astonishing that we should find violence here"
5.
used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose.
"in order that training should be effective it must be planned systematically"
6.
(in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance.
"we should be grateful for your advice"
7.
(in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.
"he'll have a sore head, I should imagine"
8.
used to emphasize to a listener how striking an event is or was.
"you should have seen Marge's face"
emphasizing how surprising an event was.
"I was in this store when who should I see across the street but Toby"
I was educated under a British system therefore this word is not a negative for me; however, after having to explain myself after using some words in the USA, I understand your issue with the word. 'Should' is one of those old English words that may indicate force or coercion for many; I see it as our duty, and strangely enough, not in a mean or forceful manner.
Thanks Paulette for your reference to Ecclesiastes 12:13. I did some digging into that verse because I wanted to see what the Hebrew word for "duty" actually meant. And what I found is that the original Hebrew text does not contain this word. Instead of saying "this is the whole duty of man", the original Hebrew says "for this is all (ie, the whole) man's".
This verse is Solomon's conclusion to all that he has written in Ecclesiastes where he details his search to try and find life-satisfaction. And his conclusion after having tried unrestrained self-indulgence (Ecclesiastes 2) was there is only one way of life that actually satisfies - the one that is based on aligning with God and the ways He has outlined regarding how life actually works.
Compare the words 'should' and 'must'. They should not be confused.
"Should" is used in reference to an obligation, probability, recommendation, based on specific conditions.
"Must" used in relation to an unavoidable requirement or obligation.
To me, the word 'should' is acceptable.
Agreed. I have similar problems with "obedience", which also appears a lot in the lessons. Obviously others see it differently.
"It is because the minds of men differ and do not comprehend things in exactly the same way. Some truths appeal much more strongly to the minds of one class of persons than to others; some points appear to be much more important to some than to others." 2MCP 424
What is important is Christ and the cross.
Cliff - I would rewrite the question to ask: 'How does this text (1 John 4:19) help us understand that we can/are able to love God?' Answer: because He loved us first.
When I hear the word 'should' I hear a companion word: IF.. ex. It is raining. You should take your umbrella (if you want to stay dry) or You should take your medicine (if you want to get well). In this case I hear: you should love God because He loved you first (If you understand the magnitude of what that means or have a sense of gratitude). The rewrite would look something like this: How has His love impacted your life for the better?
Thank you to each person who contributed to this conversation. As Dana has noted, there is a spectrum of opinion and experience with regard to how 'should' is perceived and experienced. On the one hand, for those for whom 'should' is a positive association, I would not want to take this away from you.
On the other hand, for those for whom 'should' exerts a negative impact (which is a significant proportion of people both within society at large as well as within Christian communities), any 'healthy' statement can be made without the word should being included - as per the great examples that other contributors have provided.
The lesson's question in relation to 1 John 4:19, "How does this text help us understand why we should love God?" could also have been written as "How does this text help us understand why we love God?" Leaving out the word should does not compromise the unpacking of the actual substance of the question - the basis upon which we love God. Again, I am not referring to grammar, but to the intrapsychic impact (ie, exerting an impact within one's mind and internal experience) of the notion of 'should' as a coercive motivator - even in its mildest form.
The non-necessity of 'should' also reflects that healthy responses do not require a person to be motivated by a sense of obligation (in terms of how "obligation" is most typically understood/experienced). And such also accords with God's higher ways (as per Isaiah 55:8,9 principle) whereby He promotes our freedom to choose to do or to not do something. Again, for those for whom 'should' does not have a negative association, this is not an issue. But for the larger group of people who do have that negative association, portrayal of God in this way will risk providing an unnecessary 'stumbling block' to them seeing God's higher way/s.
I agree with you - should makes it an obligation and is not that far from forced, which is not love at all. I never read I John 4:19 that way before. I see it as cause and effect, because God loved us first, we will love Him, if we take the time to truly grasp His love.
The lesson study this quarter is discouraging me with all its obligations and focus on what we must do. I always loved the book of Deuteronomy - it was my favorite Torah book. I also felt it was so heartfelt in displaying God's feelings for His people. But the lesson is just emphasizing obligations.
I am unclear as to why being obliged/obligated is problematic or even why the term should is problematic. You should look both ways before crossing the street or thank someone for doing someting nice for you, but you do not have too. We should love God, but He will not force us to.
With genuine respect, there are various versions of a saying that goes along the lines of "walk a mile in their shoes". Might the sentiments of this saying provide some input into why you might be unclear as to why something might be problematic for someone else?
I am glad for you that you don't have problematic associations - because it potentially suggests you may have been spared from experiencing something that is not good to experience.
Your rather harsh response doesnt help me understand. We all (me included) have trigger words that make us view things negatively. I'm striving to get beyond those triggers and to not apply them to God. If you are offended by my striving (in this case for clarity),I apologize for my comment.
Being obligated may not be a problem, but it is far better to do what we do as a love response to God, rather than out of a sense of duty or obligation. Indeed, there is no other way to be perfected in love, which is the goal of every Christian. If we know and believe the love that God has for us, there will be the highest sense of freedom.
Hi CD
I am genuinely sorry my comment came across to you as harsh. Harsh was the very opposite of what I was trying to convey. I was replying genuinely, not sarcastically.
I was not personally offended by your striving to understand - so no apology needed.
Communication carries risk of being misunderstood at the best of times - and that risk is dramatically amplified when it is in writing alone as we can't see and clarify each other's tone and intent easily to reduce risk of misunderstanding.
In response to your striving to understand, if you would like to restate which particular aspect you are trying to understand, I will try to assist your striving better.
One again, my apology that my comment felt harsh towards you.
Phil I really really appreciate your comments regarding the "should" word popping. I don't think you are being too picky. It does create a sense of condemnation and judgement and can tend to produce hopelessness if one is constantly measuring him or herself.
Thank you Christina and Michelle for taking the time to contribute your perspectives - and for your feedback.
Christina, you are spot on when you note that there is an inherent cause-and-effect relationship reflected in 1 John 4:19. This is not surprising given that God in His perfect knowledge and wisdom has embedded the cause-and-effect principle/constant within the 'DNA' of every facet of true/'abundant' life. This gives life its 'order' (as opposed to chaos) which is absolutely essential pre-requisite for such life.
Hi, Phil. I agree with your observation. Personally, I'd solve the problem by simply omitting the word "should." If the reader doesn't love God, then he or she is left to figure out why.
The comments in this thread above are quite revealing regarding a word that some find sensible while others don't. If we are reacting against a heavily legalistic upbringing/environment, we might see an endorsement differently than one who isn't. I wonder if any would feel coerced by "should" if someone said with enthusiasm: "Wow, you should try THIS...its DELICIOUS!"?
I'm certain that most here would agree that to love God is the very best choice for anyone anywhere anytime. There is simply no better option in existence. Loving God, if we really understand the meaning of "love" in this context, is to completely agree with God, in Whom there is no evil. So to love God would have kept Eve and Adam from taking from the forbidden tree, and thus prevented all the evil which has followed. Today it would keep one from intemperate habits/practices that lead to sickness and death. It would prevent war, ungodliness, slavery...and every evil that could be named.
Yes, every soul "should" love God, which means to deny self when self wants to do anything that would take away from anyone(including self) their perfect peace and happiness without just cause. To not love God is to love self more than all others, and to care less about the negative outcome for others because of selfish actions. All who love self find "no rest day or night"(Rev 14:11), so to not love God is to hate self in reality, as the Proverb tells us: "he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."(Pr 8:36).
Great comments and observations, Robert! Nevertheless, the "should" word does seem to be showing up rather heavily in this lesson, and not necessarily in the enthusiastic sense that you have pictured. This may not be a grievous error on the part of the lesson authors but, in a rather subtle way, it may be far less than the Christian ideal. I think that those who don't see the problem could take a more thoughtful approach, rather than reacting with such needless indignation.
It takes true love not to destroy what you have created God has put his breath in us so great a love for his creative love he loves us with an amazing everlasting love.
I see John's first Epistle as the 'handbook' for a Christian's understanding of himself as a Christian. He expounds on the love of God the Father for mankind, as well as the experience the apostles shared during their time with His Son, Christ Jesus, our Savior.
It explains what it means to be 'children of God', to have 'Love for one another', that 'God is Love', and that "he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
And this is the record: 'that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son'. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath no life." - 1John5:10-12KJV.
I consider this life to be Love. Because, and only due to our Creator loving us first, are we able to love Him - which is Life. By loving us first, He gave us the capacity to love Him and express this as we love our fellow man. The 10 commandments are His guidebook, and all His advice and revelations are His directives for how to apply loving kindness and compassion, instead of the old nature's spiteful covetousness which leads to destruction.
LOVE - using Ellen White's quote - "... It was a revelation of 'the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal.' - Rom.16:25. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne." The Desire of Ages, p.22.
I believe that our God's love goes beyond that which was evidenced by His death on the Cross. At the cross, the body of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus was killed and so released His spirit of love to benefit mankind. True victory was won as He allowed His physical death to occur, for at that moment His 'spirit of Love' was released to give all mankind the capacity/ability to manifest the Creator's spirit of love.
It is His eternal 'spirit of love' which is devoted to giving true Life to His Creation and His creature - man. I consider this to be the ultimate Victory of our Lord and Savior.
Brigitte - can you give a reference for the release of Christ’s “spirit of love” statement above? I’m having trouble reconciling that concept with what I understand about the nature / relationship between body and soul
Melinda - I appreciate your request to clarify my comment. To describe the 'spirit of love', the best reference I can give you is 1John, Ch.4, since I base my conclusions/findings on the context of many related Scripture references.
For example, the Scriptures refer to a 'ruler of this world' - John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11; 2Cor.4:4; Eph.2:2, influencing the not-redeemed by his spirit.
The redeemed are influenced by the spirit "who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God." - 1Cor.2:12; 1Cor.1:20-21.
Gen.2:7 states that "man became a living soul". I understand this to mean that man in his fullness represents/is a living soul. The nature of the believing, redeemed, living soul has received access to the wisdom of the heavenly 'spirit of Love' as taught by the Holy Spirit and walks in it by faith.
The 'Work of Redemption' was completed in Christ which we accept by faith. Since His completed work was to benefit all mankind, the Holy Spirit, being essential for man to find and walk the Way of Life by God's Truth and Light, was gifted to all mankind after the ascension of our Savior Christ Jesus.
I call Christ's spirit - His essence - 'spirit of Love'; it is the same spirit which expresses the Father's Will. All Their actions are the perfect expression of the same 'spirit of love' - The essence of their 'nature's' disposition is Love .
Redeemed humanity expresses the Redeemer's 'spirit of Love' as he is taught by the Holy Spirit the 'Wisdom of God's Love' - "the unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's Throne" - see Ellen White's quote.
Christ Jesus, as man in the flesh, expressed this fundamental Love as He walked with his fellow man, exemplifying this 'spirit of love'. Now He lives/works/expresses His 'spirit of Love' in/from our heart, leading/motivating us to conduct our new nature according to His 'spirit of Love'.
Therefore, I see Christ's physical end to be the beginning of the manifestation of the 'spirit of love' in all who find their Rest in Christ, who's Way is the 'spirit of Love'.
Phil, I agree, this verse, Ecc 12:13 is Solomon's conclusion - there is only one way of life that actually satisfies - the one that is based on aligning with God and the ways He has outlined regarding how life actually works.
I believe that the LORD outlines the way life actually works because that is how He designed it to work and how He maintains the mechanics of life in all its forms.
Act 17:24-28 MKJV The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, (25) nor is served with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives life and breath and all things to all. (26) And He has made all nations of men of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth, ordaining fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwelling, (27) to seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though indeed He is not far from each one of us. (28) For in Him we live and move and have our being.
Col 1:17; Heb 1:3;
Hi Shirley
I do not disagree that God designed things a certain way and maintains them in accordance with that way. At the same time, have you contemplated why God designed things to work that particular way - and not some other way?
I understand that this question may seem irrelevant, but it actually has direct relevance to one of Satan's key insinuated allegations within the 'Great Controversy/Cosmic Conflict'. It is therefore a very important part of the bigger picture. And it is why I worded my statement the way I did.
Hi Phil, In the UK as mentioned earlier by another contributor the word ‘should’ does not necessarily convey an obligatory command. Eg ‘l should like to have a drink of water’ expresses a desire not an obligation. Thus we should love GOD in many minds expresses a desire to love GOD in response to His wonderful love.
Also your statement ‘But for the larger group of people who do have that negative association’ how accurate/truthful is that statement? Where is your evidence to justify it’s accuracy?
Hi Marcia
Thank you for your feedback and input.
I can appreciate what you are saying regarding the UK usage of should when a person is using the word to express their own personal desire. Is that how the word should is used predominantly in the UK? Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of many other countries that use the word should in that way. Usage of the word in the examples contained in the lesson is not expressing personal desire - and therefore use of the word 'should' in that context is performing a different function.
In regard to your question of supporting evidence, I am not sure what kind of evidence you are referring to. Maybe the proportion of articles on the internet regarding the negative impacts of the word should compared with those outlining the positive impacts? Maybe the widely acknowledged problems vs benefits of the word within the relevant human-services fields? Maybe the relative proportion of readers that have responded one way vs the other here? But at the end of the day, what really matters to each person is how they are fully persuaded in their own mind (Romans 14:5 principle).
Which brings me back to, if 'should' is a positive word for you, then I won't take that away from you. And I would hope you would allow me the same freedom to speak up for those for whom it does genuinely exert a detrimental impact. This is not just an issue of 'political correctness'. But if you happen to have evidence that for most people the word should has a positive intrpsychic impact most of the time, the I will happily revise what I am saying.
We should not let the word should take us away from the joyous topic of this lesson. God first loved us even before He created this world. As evidenced by the revealing of the plan of salvation initiated before the foundation of this world.