Drawn to Him by His love

[KUWN]

A Coming Attraction: Stay Tuned



Back in the 1800’s Richard Chenevix Trench, D. D., then Professor of

Divinity at King’s College, in London, would often lecture to his students

on Greek synonyms. He then compiled his lectures into a book, which was

published under the name, SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Studies in the

Greek New Testament.



As background, Etymology is the branch of linguistics that studies the

derivation of words. Synonyms are two different words that are similar in

meaning. As Dr. Trench examined the history of words, he looked specifically

for words that were synonyms. What he attempted to do was to identify them

and demonstrate how they differed. Often times, the differences were very

subtle, but that only added to the intrigue.



In fairness, some have questioned Dr. Trench’s approach, claiming he gives

too much emphasis on literary work that is quite removed in time from the

Greek of the New Testament. As you know, words can change in meaning over

time. But this criticism seems childish to me. If two words are clearly

distinguished in the past, why would one assume that their distinction has

been obliterated over time. There may be some erosion of difference, but it

would be poor scholarship to assume the loss of distinction without

compelling reason. Besides, Dr. Trench exercised extreme caution and

reverence when drawing conclusions from his research. He clearly had no

hidden agenda. To me, such criticism is unfounded.



I would like to turn my attention to one of Dr. Trench’s lectures. By way of

introduction, consider this:



Words not normally thought to be similar can actually convey roughly the

same idea (synonyms). For example, we could use the words ‘drag’ and ‘draw’

in similar ways. I might ask you to draw me some water from a well. By that,

I mean to pull or drag the bucket up with the water in it. In this example,

draw, pull, and drag are somewhat describing the same act, and though not

necessarily used interchangeably, they are very similar. In this respect,

they are synonyms. Going a step further, I might ask you to see if you can

draw that child over to us. By this, I mean to allure the child over by

enticing him with, perhaps, some candy. Now, the word ‘draw’ is not so much

used of pulling a physical object, but ‘attracting’ the child with something

that would entice him to draw a little closer to us. If the child refused,

we could always drag him (hehe). With this in mind, let’s look at one of Dr.

Trench’s synonyms.



The Greeks had two words for dragging. They were SUR and ELK.



SUR is a very harsh word. It always conveys a dragging “by force,” and often

violently. SUR brings a meaning to a context. That is, if the context does

not indicate whether or not force is being used in the dragging, by using

the word SUR, the author must have in mind force and, perhaps, even

violence. The reason is simply because SUR, by itself, has no other meaning

than force. Not so with its synonym, ELK. For example, here is an example of

SUR:



“But Saul was trying to destroy the church; entering one house after

another, he dragged (SUR) off both men and women and put them in prison.”

(Acts 8:3)



You could actually use either word in this passage. SUR was chosen, which by

necessity denotes the force and determination by which Saul was carrying off

these believers to prison. The author is painting a picture of abuse and

inappropriate actions by Saul. Hence, the word SUR is used. But if the

context already has an air of abuse and violence, the author could use the

word ELK. But by so doing he is stressing something other than the force

being imposed. He may be showing that the one being dragged was not

resisting. ELK would paint a different picture. It would be used to capture

something other than the force or violence that the context itself implies.



Let’s return to my rather odd example above. I will substitute the Greek

words in order to demonstrate the difference they convey.



“See if you can allure or attract (ELK) that child over here with a piece of

candy. If he doesn’t come, we may need to physically drag (SUR) him over

here. In fact, once you entice (ELK) him over to us, I will then drag him by

force (SUR) until he gives us his money.” (Poor kid)



Thanks to these two mean guys, we can now see a slight difference in

drawing/alluring/enticing, and that of dragging. SUR will always have the

idea of force, while ELK is used to convey something else. ELK is quite

flexible and can be used in various contexts. SUR is one-dimensional; it’s a

harsh word.



The synonym ELK is noticeably different. ELK is a much more relaxing word.

Force or abuse is not inherent in this word, like it is with SUR. ELK can

also, be used in other ways, like one being drawn to a parent’s love, or a

poor and hungry person being drawn to food. Plato was, for example, drawn to

Philosophy. When describing his interest or attraction to Philosophy, he

used ELK. SUR could never be used in any of these contexts.



Let’s go a step further.



The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew. But as time went on, the

Jews slowly began to succumb to the Greek culture. Soon, many Jews were

unable to read their Bible. So, about seventy scholars got together and

translated the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. The result of

this endeavor was the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament).

This is a valuable piece of work because it helps Greek New Testament

students see how the Greek words were used in the years immediately

preceding our Lord’s birth.



Notice how the translators translate a phrase in Jeremiah:



“That is why I have drawn (ELK) you to myself through my unfailing

kindness.”



Since the idea of force or violence is far removed from this gracious act of

God, the translators avoided the word SUR. In fact, SUR can not be used in

this context.



But where I want to take us is to a couple of passages in the New Testament.

These passages beautifully illustrate the character of our Lord. They are

both statements from our Lord Himself and both found in John’s Gospel. They

are:



“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”



“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”



Can you guess which word would be used here? Bear in mind that we are born

spiritually dead. How else could we be drawn to the Lord, if not by force?



The word used here is ELK, not SUR! Here is how Dr. Trench responded to

this:



“But how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour draw all men unto

Him? Not by force, for the will is incapable of force, but by the divine

attractions of his love.” (Dr. Trench)



That is what the gospel is all about. It’s about the love of God. And this

love compels Him to reach out to all people. So, what is the coming

attraction? God’s love. Though not completely comprehended, it was this love

that drew us to Him.



It was this same John who wrote:



“We love… because he loved us first.”

 

[KUWN]

A different article on God's Love

As created, and therefore, finite people, we are significantly limited in

our capacity to comprehend the infinite and eternal Nature of God. Our

ability to approach these characteristics is further hindered by sin. To

some extent, when contemplating these absolute and eternal dimensions of

God, we can only describe them by means of negative or opposite concepts.



For example, God is infinite. “Infinite” is the negative or opposite of

“finite.” Hence, God is “not finite.” This word actually does not describe

what God is, as much as is describes what He is not. Obviously one can not

exhaust the infinite and eternal Nature of God with any words, no matter how

complete. As created beings, we are severely restricted by the diminutive

expanse of our finite, yet far reaching, thoughts.



Another example of describing a characteristic of God with a negative term

is His love. God’s love is “unconditional” toward the believer. Which, as

you can see, is saying that God’s love has “no conditions.” Once again, when

trying to describe one of God’s characteristics, we are somewhat forced to

the opposite end of an ‘eternal’ spectrum.



Although Paul may not be able to understand Christ’s love to its fullness in this life, he was certain of many aspects of it. One of Paul’s most passionate attempts at describing this unconditional and eternal

love is found in Romans 8:



“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers,

nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor

depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the

love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”



Simply put, God’s love is unconditional and eternal. It will never fail.

God’s love can not fail because God Himself can not fail, and God is love.

As humans, we can only long for such a love. In fact, we were created with

this very need. Notice again that Paul looks at love from what can not

happen, since any attempts to define God’s love must make use of a language

ill-equipped to explain the very Nature of God.



Created in the image of God, all individuals were also created with an

ultimate need for unconditional and eternal love. We intuitively know that

life has no ultimate meaning or purpose apart from being the recipient of

this kind of love. And no human is capable of attaining or demonstrating

such. We can only be the beneficiaries of it.



And it is this love of God to which I would like to turn our attention. Each

of the New Testament writers recognizes that God’s love is beyond full

description. And each writer has his way of describing it, to the extent he

can. In fact, on the Cross, we got a glimpse of the love of God, but only a

distant and distorted glimpse, far from a grasp of it.



And it is this inability to grasp the love of God fully that creates within

us wonderment and mystery. All attempts to define God’s love will fall

short. For now, though Scripture describes God’s love in various ways, we can only imagine and speculate on its eternality.



Each writer of the New Testament expresses profound joy and anticipation of

this love that we will one day experience face to face with the Lord,

indeed, in His very presence. But until then, we too must wait with great

anticipation.



As only an individual writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could

do, the Apostle Paul records these words on the love of Christ. The paradox

is apparent. Although we understand, to a limited degree, His love for us,

we also must acknowledge its infinite reach.



“so that, by being rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to

comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and

depth, and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that

you may be filled up with all the fullness of God.”



To whatever extent we understand and experience the love of Christ, this we

know: ultimately, Christ’s love surpasses that. If we make a lifetime

pursuit of understanding His love from every dimension, the result will

still be the same: His love will surpass our highest expectations.



I like a response I heard on the radio some years ago on the question, “So

what does God’s love have in store for us?” Although God has revealed much

to us regarding our eternal destiny, we must still await our final

glorification before we can begin to grasp it. The answer I heard is

actually, a quote from the Apostle Paul:



“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,

Not have entered into the heart of man

the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”



Words are not capable of communicating what God has prepared for us. In

fact, our human minds are equally incapable of taking it in. Notice the many

uses of “not.” One gets the impression that the love of God can only be

partially understood, and even then, by the use of negative concepts.



However, the Apostle John may have recorded one of the most unusual

descriptions of God’s love. It is on this description that I would like to

focus. Here is the passage found in 1 John 3:1:



“See WHAT SORT OF love the Father has given to us: that we should be called

God’s children— and indeed we are!”



Under consideration here is the phrase “what sort of.” This phrase seems at

best vague. Once again, God’s love seems to defy explanation. To understand

this description John uses, we can actually look at Matthew’s gospel where

the same word is found, but in a different context.



Here is the famous passage of Matthew that uses the word:



“As he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And a great storm

developed on the sea so that the waves began to swamp the boat. But he was

asleep. So, they came and got him up saying, “Lord, save us! We are going to

die!” But he said to them, “Why are you cowardly, you people of little

faith?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became

perfectly calm. And the men were amazed and said, “WHAT SORT OF person is

this that even the winds and the sea obey him?””



The phrase (What sort of) is actually one word in the Greek. It is the same

word used by John when reflecting on God’s love.



Here, Matthew records for us the confusion that the disciples experienced

when they saw the winds and sea obey Christ’s command. Surely no mere mortal

could actually command the elements of nature so that they would immediately

respond.



Matthew uses this word to capture the disciples’ question of Christ’s

earthly origin. In essence, the disciples were wondering if Christ was some

kind of “alien,” for no human could do the things He did. Remember, it took

a long time for the disciples to realize that Christ was indeed none other

than God.



This word seemed to have the idea of “foreigner” when used to distinguish

one nationality from another. It could be used in this fashion: WHAT SORT

OF, WHAT KIND OF nationality are you?



But when used in a context like here, there is no comparison being made to

other men, but to another kind of being. To the disciples, Christ was like

an “alien.” Certainly, He was not from this planet. To some extent, this is

using the word in a negative sense again. In other words, Christ was clearly

“not human.”



Here is another use of this word found in Luke 1:



“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee

called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a

descendant of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. The angel came to her

and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was

greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind WHAT SORT OF

greeting this could be.”



The angel Gabriel caused “great trouble” for Mary. Undoubtedly, she

understood that this was no human making this divine announcement. Luke uses

this word to capture this encounter with an angelic being. Apparently to

Mary, Gabriel resembled, as it were, an “alien” of some kind, or at least no

mortal that she had ever seen. By “resemble,” I do not mean in physical

appearance, but simply that Gabriel had a presence and disposition unlike

any human. In other words, Mary understood this to be an angelic being, sent

from the very presence of God.



In the passage of 1 John 3:1 we can now see a somewhat unusual description

of God’s love. To John, God’s love has no human counterpart. No human love

parallels God’s love. So, God’s love is, to some extent, alien or foreign to

us.



We can certainly get glimpses of His love throughout Scripture. But a love

that is eternal and unconditional will always remain elusive to us while in

this life. How could it not?



How elusive is this love? To John, God’s love is foreign to us. And one day,

we will rest in His presence as beneficiaries of this indescribable and

eternal love, a love that has no correspondence to any love we have ever

experienced in this life or among our loved ones. To put it another way, we

have no idea (negative concept) just how fantastic it will be in heaven.

Whatever our hopes, God’s love will surpass (positive concept) them.