Study Focus: John 17:24; Matt. 22:1–14; John 10:17, 18.
Introduction: God freely loves everyone more than we can possibly imagine. His love is utterly generous and merciful, as He voluntarily chooses to reveal His sacrificial love, even when people are unfaithful.
Lesson Themes: This week’s lesson emphasizes three main themes:
God’s love is not defined by necessity. His love is central to our understanding of His relationship with humanity. Divine love is an expression of God’s spontaneous and abundant benevolence. His love is not caused or necessitated by any action on our part, nor the result of any human potential. God manifests His love without any expectation of obtaining advantage to Himself. He loves each person and does so freely, as in the case of Hosea, Israel, and us.
The scope of God’s love is not to be calculated. God’s love is not based on causal conditions. He voluntary gave Himself for us, and His constant and unfailing love reveals His mercy more fully. His love surpasses all expectation, as He freely grants grace, mercy, and compassion to even the most undeserving of people.
God’s love can be resisted. God offers to us the fullest revelation of His self-giving love but does not predetermine people’s reaction to it. His love is not dominating or coercive but offers us the freedom to accept or resist it.
Life Application: God’s love surpasses all human expectation, as He freely grants grace, mercy, and compassion to even the most undeserving of people. How does this notion of God’s love change our attitude toward those within our sphere who have done nothing to deserve compassion from us?
Part II: Commentary
1. God’s Love Is Not Defined by Necessity.
Freedom is a crucial feature of God’s love. His love is not caused by something else. In the relationship of cause and effect, the effect is the necessary outcome of a cause. However, instead of being defined by the cause-effect logic of necessity, God’s love is remarkably voluntary. This idea is elaborated upon in the experience of Hosea and his unfaithful wife. Through the narrative of their experience, as we shall see, the concepts emerge that God’s love does not imply the necessity for the existence of creation and that God’s love freely gives.
Hosea and the freedom of God’s love: Hosea 14:4 connects God’s promised healing of Israel’s unfaithfulness with His pledge to love His people freely. This promise reiterates the merciful restoration of God’s apostate people, envisaged in Hosea 2:14–23, and as illustrated in Hosea’s own merciful relationship with his unfaithful wife (Hos. 3:1–5). The comparison with Hosea’s biographical experience suggests that God’s love is utterly generous. “This is a love which will not be earned—what could Israel possibly present to Yahweh as an acceptable payment?” Instead, the Hebrew term nedabash, which emphasizes that God will love Israel freely, conveys the idea of a “ ‘voluntary offering’ or ‘offering made out of generosity.’ ”—Douglas Stuart, “Hosea–Jonah,” Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), vol. 31, p. 215. Hence, God’s love is not caused or necessitated by any action performed by Israel. Rather, it is an expression of His freedom and, therefore, completely voluntary. In fact, the language of divine healing in Hosea 14:4 (see also Hos. 5:13, Hos. 6:1, Hos. 7:1, Hos. 11:3) seems to underline the voluntary nature of God’s love, because Israel is incapable of becoming faithful by means of its own strength. Thus, the voluntary nature of this love implies that those being loved by God are truly undeserving of it.
God’s love and creation: The notion that love requires a relationship with the other seems to suggest that God needed to make creatures in order to become a loving God. In other words, creation would be necessary for God’s love. However, this idea is not supported by Scripture, which emphasizes the freedom and autonomy of God. He does not need anything from His creatures (Acts 17:25). Furthermore, divine love eternally existed before the creation of the universe, as Jesus underscored when He stated that the Father loved Him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Thus, the creation of the world was not a necessity for the existence of God’s love. Instead, creation was a divine voluntary activity that resulted from the freedom of His eternal overflowing love.
God’s love freely gives: Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross was a voluntary love offering. He was not merely a victim of violent execution. As Jesus Himself highlights: “ ‘I lay down My life. . . . No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself’ ” (John 10:17, 18, NKJV). Likewise, Paul explains that Christ “ ‘loved me and gave Himself for me’ ” (Gal. 2:20, NKJV). Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus was not a necessity, framed by the evil actions of His executioners. Rather, He voluntarily gave Himself as an extraordinary manifestation of the freedom of divine love.
The Scope of God’s Love Is Not to Be Calculated.
The notion that God’s love does not follow the logic of cause and effect means that it should not be calculated, leading, therefore, to a presumable, reasonable, expectation. Two instances of intercession before God in the Pentateuch exemplify the problem of such a presumption.
The first instance is Abraham’s intercession (Gen. 18:23–33) in the context of the divine judgment announced against Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:20). Initially, Abraham appeals to God’s justice and asks whether He would actually destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it (Gen. 18:24, 25). Arguably, 50 sounded like a reasonable number to Abraham in his invocation of divine justice. However, inasmuch as this number progressively decreases in the persistent continuation of Abraham’s intercession, from 50 to 45 (Gen. 18:28), from 45 to 40 (Gen. 18:29), from 40 to 30 (Gen. 18:30), from 30 to 20 (Gen. 18:31), and from 20 to 10 (Gen. 18:32), he does not appeal to divine justice anymore but rather to God’s mercy (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32). It seems that 50 would be reasonable for justice, but 10 is way beyond a fair expectation. If the beginning of the intercession gives the impression that Abraham was trying to convince God to be just and then merciful, the progression of the intercessory dialogue reveals that such an intention is definitely not the case. Rather, the intercession process actually reveals that God’s loving mercy is higher than could be reasonably expected or presumably calculated.
The second instance of intercession is Moses’ intervention on behalf of the Israelites at Sinai. To be sure, the initial impression is that he was trying to convince God to be merciful toward them (Exod. 32:11–14, 31–33). But again, this is not the case. The climax of the interaction between Moses and the Lord is the revelation of divine glory, which is a remarkable manifestation of God’s love (Exod. 34:6, 7). Besides the affirmation of the divine freedom to be merciful to those who clearly do not deserve God’s love (Exod. 33:19), the acute asymmetrical comparison between “ ‘keeping mercy for thousands’ ” and “ ‘visiting the iniquity . . . to the third and the fourth generation’ ” (Exod. 34:7, NKJV) suggests that, ultimately, the scope of God’s love cannot be calculated, which particularly highlights the freedom of His love.
3. God’s Love Can Be Resisted.
The freedom of divine love also means that it does not predetermine humanity’s reaction to this love. Once again, God’s love is essentially voluntary and does not involve a necessary logic of cause and effect. In His lament over Jerusalem, Jesus sadly reveals unfulfilled desires regarding the salvation of its children. He emphasizes “ ‘how often’ ” He “ ‘wanted to gather’ ” His “ ‘children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but [they] were not willing’ ” (Matt. 23:37, NKJV). The Greek verb thelo is used twice in this passage, but in different ways. The first occurrence depicts Christ’s will regarding those whom He wanted to save, whereas the second instance indicates that they did not share the same desire. Therefore, what divine love offers does not determine a loving reaction on the part of those who receive this offering. Unfortunately, because this loving desire is not reciprocated, it cannot actually be fulfilled.
Another Bible example of resistance to divine love is found in the parable of the wedding banquet, to which many are called, but they reject the invitation (Matt. 22:3). Then the call is extended to others, who indeed come to the wedding (Matt. 22:9, 10). However, even among those who do come, there is someone “ ‘who did not have on a wedding garment’ ” (Matt. 22:11, NKJV). The conclusion of the parable emphasizes that “ ‘many are called, but few are chosen’ ” (Matt. 22:14). In this parable about “ ‘the kingdom of heaven’ ” (Matt. 22:2), the language of being chosen does not convey the idea of a deterministic divine choice (predestination) but is related to the people’s acceptance or rejection of God’s invitation. In other words, “Many are invited; but some refuse to come, and others who do come refuse to submit to the norms of the kingdom and are therefore rejected. Those who remain are called ‘chosen.’ ”—D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), p. 457. Thus, our ability to choose is another indication of the freedom of God’s love, which is open to truly free reactions of acceptance or resistance. We are invited to freely accept it.
Part III: Life Application
Based on the aforementioned perspective regarding the freedom of God’s love, discuss the following questions:
How does the understanding that God’s love is not caused by any action on our part draw us closer to His presence? Give at least one practical example.
What aspects of the fascinating notion that God’s love surpasses reasonable expectation, as He freely shows compassion to the most undeserving of people, could be used in dialogues with unbelievers?
In what practical ways can we, unfortunately, resist God’s love?
Considering that God’s love does not employ coercion, what should we learn from this love as we think about the ways in which we, as Christians, may love others more authentically?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: Hosea 14:4
Study Focus: John 17:24; Matt. 22:1–14; John 10:17, 18.
Introduction: God freely loves everyone more than we can possibly imagine. His love is utterly generous and merciful, as He voluntarily chooses to reveal His sacrificial love, even when people are unfaithful.
Lesson Themes: This week’s lesson emphasizes three main themes:
God’s love is not defined by necessity. His love is central to our understanding of His relationship with humanity. Divine love is an expression of God’s spontaneous and abundant benevolence. His love is not caused or necessitated by any action on our part, nor the result of any human potential. God manifests His love without any expectation of obtaining advantage to Himself. He loves each person and does so freely, as in the case of Hosea, Israel, and us.
The scope of God’s love is not to be calculated. God’s love is not based on causal conditions. He voluntary gave Himself for us, and His constant and unfailing love reveals His mercy more fully. His love surpasses all expectation, as He freely grants grace, mercy, and compassion to even the most undeserving of people.
God’s love can be resisted. God offers to us the fullest revelation of His self-giving love but does not predetermine people’s reaction to it. His love is not dominating or coercive but offers us the freedom to accept or resist it.
Life Application: God’s love surpasses all human expectation, as He freely grants grace, mercy, and compassion to even the most undeserving of people. How does this notion of God’s love change our attitude toward those within our sphere who have done nothing to deserve compassion from us?
Part II: Commentary
1. God’s Love Is Not Defined by Necessity.
Freedom is a crucial feature of God’s love. His love is not caused by something else. In the relationship of cause and effect, the effect is the necessary outcome of a cause. However, instead of being defined by the cause-effect logic of necessity, God’s love is remarkably voluntary. This idea is elaborated upon in the experience of Hosea and his unfaithful wife. Through the narrative of their experience, as we shall see, the concepts emerge that God’s love does not imply the necessity for the existence of creation and that God’s love freely gives.
Hosea and the freedom of God’s love: Hosea 14:4 connects God’s promised healing of Israel’s unfaithfulness with His pledge to love His people freely. This promise reiterates the merciful restoration of God’s apostate people, envisaged in Hosea 2:14–23, and as illustrated in Hosea’s own merciful relationship with his unfaithful wife (Hos. 3:1–5). The comparison with Hosea’s biographical experience suggests that God’s love is utterly generous. “This is a love which will not be earned—what could Israel possibly present to Yahweh as an acceptable payment?” Instead, the Hebrew term nedabash, which emphasizes that God will love Israel freely, conveys the idea of a “ ‘voluntary offering’ or ‘offering made out of generosity.’ ”—Douglas Stuart, “Hosea–Jonah,” Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), vol. 31, p. 215. Hence, God’s love is not caused or necessitated by any action performed by Israel. Rather, it is an expression of His freedom and, therefore, completely voluntary. In fact, the language of divine healing in Hosea 14:4 (see also Hos. 5:13, Hos. 6:1, Hos. 7:1, Hos. 11:3) seems to underline the voluntary nature of God’s love, because Israel is incapable of becoming faithful by means of its own strength. Thus, the voluntary nature of this love implies that those being loved by God are truly undeserving of it.
God’s love and creation: The notion that love requires a relationship with the other seems to suggest that God needed to make creatures in order to become a loving God. In other words, creation would be necessary for God’s love. However, this idea is not supported by Scripture, which emphasizes the freedom and autonomy of God. He does not need anything from His creatures (Acts 17:25). Furthermore, divine love eternally existed before the creation of the universe, as Jesus underscored when He stated that the Father loved Him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Thus, the creation of the world was not a necessity for the existence of God’s love. Instead, creation was a divine voluntary activity that resulted from the freedom of His eternal overflowing love.
God’s love freely gives: Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross was a voluntary love offering. He was not merely a victim of violent execution. As Jesus Himself highlights: “ ‘I lay down My life. . . . No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself’ ” (John 10:17, 18, NKJV). Likewise, Paul explains that Christ “ ‘loved me and gave Himself for me’ ” (Gal. 2:20, NKJV). Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus was not a necessity, framed by the evil actions of His executioners. Rather, He voluntarily gave Himself as an extraordinary manifestation of the freedom of divine love.
The notion that God’s love does not follow the logic of cause and effect means that it should not be calculated, leading, therefore, to a presumable, reasonable, expectation. Two instances of intercession before God in the Pentateuch exemplify the problem of such a presumption.
The first instance is Abraham’s intercession (Gen. 18:23–33) in the context of the divine judgment announced against Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:20). Initially, Abraham appeals to God’s justice and asks whether He would actually destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it (Gen. 18:24, 25). Arguably, 50 sounded like a reasonable number to Abraham in his invocation of divine justice. However, inasmuch as this number progressively decreases in the persistent continuation of Abraham’s intercession, from 50 to 45 (Gen. 18:28), from 45 to 40 (Gen. 18:29), from 40 to 30 (Gen. 18:30), from 30 to 20 (Gen. 18:31), and from 20 to 10 (Gen. 18:32), he does not appeal to divine justice anymore but rather to God’s mercy (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32). It seems that 50 would be reasonable for justice, but 10 is way beyond a fair expectation. If the beginning of the intercession gives the impression that Abraham was trying to convince God to be just and then merciful, the progression of the intercessory dialogue reveals that such an intention is definitely not the case. Rather, the intercession process actually reveals that God’s loving mercy is higher than could be reasonably expected or presumably calculated.
The second instance of intercession is Moses’ intervention on behalf of the Israelites at Sinai. To be sure, the initial impression is that he was trying to convince God to be merciful toward them (Exod. 32:11–14, 31–33). But again, this is not the case. The climax of the interaction between Moses and the Lord is the revelation of divine glory, which is a remarkable manifestation of God’s love (Exod. 34:6, 7). Besides the affirmation of the divine freedom to be merciful to those who clearly do not deserve God’s love (Exod. 33:19), the acute asymmetrical comparison between “ ‘keeping mercy for thousands’ ” and “ ‘visiting the iniquity . . . to the third and the fourth generation’ ” (Exod. 34:7, NKJV) suggests that, ultimately, the scope of God’s love cannot be calculated, which particularly highlights the freedom of His love.
3. God’s Love Can Be Resisted.
The freedom of divine love also means that it does not predetermine humanity’s reaction to this love. Once again, God’s love is essentially voluntary and does not involve a necessary logic of cause and effect. In His lament over Jerusalem, Jesus sadly reveals unfulfilled desires regarding the salvation of its children. He emphasizes “ ‘how often’ ” He “ ‘wanted to gather’ ” His “ ‘children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but [they] were not willing’ ” (Matt. 23:37, NKJV). The Greek verb thelo is used twice in this passage, but in different ways. The first occurrence depicts Christ’s will regarding those whom He wanted to save, whereas the second instance indicates that they did not share the same desire. Therefore, what divine love offers does not determine a loving reaction on the part of those who receive this offering. Unfortunately, because this loving desire is not reciprocated, it cannot actually be fulfilled.
Another Bible example of resistance to divine love is found in the parable of the wedding banquet, to which many are called, but they reject the invitation (Matt. 22:3). Then the call is extended to others, who indeed come to the wedding (Matt. 22:9, 10). However, even among those who do come, there is someone “ ‘who did not have on a wedding garment’ ” (Matt. 22:11, NKJV). The conclusion of the parable emphasizes that “ ‘many are called, but few are chosen’ ” (Matt. 22:14). In this parable about “ ‘the kingdom of heaven’ ” (Matt. 22:2), the language of being chosen does not convey the idea of a deterministic divine choice (predestination) but is related to the people’s acceptance or rejection of God’s invitation. In other words, “Many are invited; but some refuse to come, and others who do come refuse to submit to the norms of the kingdom and are therefore rejected. Those who remain are called ‘chosen.’ ”—D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), p. 457. Thus, our ability to choose is another indication of the freedom of God’s love, which is open to truly free reactions of acceptance or resistance. We are invited to freely accept it.
Part III: Life Application
Based on the aforementioned perspective regarding the freedom of God’s love, discuss the following questions:
How does the understanding that God’s love is not caused by any action on our part draw us closer to His presence? Give at least one practical example.
What aspects of the fascinating notion that God’s love surpasses reasonable expectation, as He freely shows compassion to the most undeserving of people, could be used in dialogues with unbelievers?
In what practical ways can we, unfortunately, resist God’s love?
Considering that God’s love does not employ coercion, what should we learn from this love as we think about the ways in which we, as Christians, may love others more authentically?