Jesus never said; "Unconditional love"

“And he said to the woman; Your faith has saved you. Go in peace” (Luke ch7v50),

A couple of years back, possibly more than once, somebody on one of my threads reacted to talk about judgement by claiming “Jesus says that God gives unconditional love”.

This was easy enough to debunk in the most literal sense. I know the gospels well enough to be able to reply that Jesus never said anything of the kind, and could he show me the quotation? There wasn’t any response.

But where does the claim come from? Does it paraphrase anything the New Testament really does say?

The word itself, “unconditional”, won’t be in the concordances. I’m not even sure how the thought would be expressed in New Testament Greek. The nearest approach would probably be the idea of giving something freely. We say in modern English that a gift is “free” or available “for nothing”. (The modern American expression “for free” is a confused combination of those two idioms. If something is “free”, the “for” is not really necessary.)

All those who thirst are invited to “come to the waters”, where we may “buy milk and wine, without money and without price” (Isaiah ch55 v1). This becomes “the water that I shall give him” in John ch4 v14. But the most relevant New Testament reference is probably the frequent use of the word CHARIS. The origin of the English word “charity”. The traditional translation being “grace”, coming from a time when “gracious” meant “generous”. Freely translated in much modern preaching and writing as “free gift”, which is what it means.

I would imagine that “free gift” in turn gets paraphrased (especially by the Calvinists?) as “unconditional love”. I suppose that’s where it comes from. My interlocutor must have been aware of “unconditional love” as an expression used by Christians, and would have assumed, naturally, that it was being quoted from Jesus.

If the concept of “unconditional love” means that God forgives unconditionally and automatically, that is how it may become an argument against expecting judgement. But does Jesus ever say that God forgives in this way?

The promise of God’s forgiveness must have been part of the teaching of Jesus, but the gospels do not spell it out. We are told about the fundamental message that people must repent. He kept warning them that judgement was coming, In other words, “if you do not repent, you will come under judgement.” The necessary corollary of this kind of teaching is “If you do repent, you will not come under judgement- that is, you will be forgiven.” This makes repentance a “precondition” of sorts.

He pronounced forgiveness to the paralysed man carried by others (Mark ch2 vv1-5), because “he saw their faith”. In effect, this faith was another precondition.

And he told the woman who anointed his feet (Luke ch7 vv36-50) that her sins had been forgiven.

How had her sins been forgiven? Some people read “her sins, which are many, are forgiven , for she loved much”, and jump to the conclusion that her love was the sufficient reason for the forgiveness. But we must read the whole conversation. Jesus is explaining to the Pharisee that her great love is the result of her forgiven state, not the cause. “She loved much” (as shown by her action) is offered as the evidence that “her sins are many”. She is grateful because she already knows that her sins have been forgiven, and the extremity of her gratitude matches, and gives away, the extremity of her original “debt”.

And how did the woman first learn that her sins were forgiven? It must have happened this way; she heard Jesus teaching “If you repent, your sins will be forgiven”, and she believed him. In other words, her forgiveness was ultimately dependent upon her faith, specifically her faith that Jesus spoke with authority. So here again, faith, at least, is a precondition.

Nothing in the New Testament suggests that God forgives entirely without precondition. So the expression “unconditional love” cannot have that meaning. Or if the slogan does have that meaning, it must be regarded as a misleading paraphrase of Christian teaching. It certainly doesn’t come direct from the words of Jesus.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So what about unconditional love for the committed christian?
Yeah, I know, stupid thing to say
I believe if a person is trying to be in Christ, putting in effort at the least, Gods love is unconditional, outside of Jesus, if a person rejects Jesus, they reject His love

a reply to: Raggedyman

Generally agree. Most of the "unconditional love" crowd are people who want to continue to justify the chosen sins and iniquity in their lives.

Goes along with the "many ways to god and heaven" stories.


Good explanation:

The Uncomfortable Subject Jesus Addressed More than Anyone Else

The doctrine of hell is uncomfortable for most of us. However, our understanding of hell shapes our view of the gospel, God’s holiness, and our depravity. If we don’t accept the reality of hell, we won’t rightly understand the glory of the gospel.

Reality of Hell

A friend once challenged me to show her where Jesus talks about hell in the Gospels. Even a cursory read-through shows Jesus talked about it plenty. In fact, Jesus talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible.

Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned about the absolute reality of hell.

Reason for Hell

Jesus has to talk about hell because it is the fate that awaits all people apart from him. Because of Adam’s sin, we’re all guilty and deserve God’s eternal punishment. Contrary to popular belief, hell is not a place where God sends those who have been especially bad; it’s our default destination. We need a rescuer or we stand condemned.

So we’re left with two options: stay in our state of depravity and be eternally punished, or submit to the Savior and accept his gift of redemption.

a reply to: Raggedyman
I can see the phrase being used as a way of emphasising the generosity of the gospel, and I suppose it was coined in that context. I just happen not to have come across it in my own church life. There may be a lot of value in it, when used rightly.

But as a slogan, it might be pressed into situations where it doesn't apply, and this thread is really a belated answer to the person who tried to use it to deny the possibility of judgement.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don’t think universalism is a christian doctrine, God can only accept those who accept Him in my opinion, though, when a person does, tries, lives a life although failing at times, Gods love is unconditional
Though, “I never knew you” is a scripture that does come to mind

a reply to: infolurker

Not sure of the idea of eternal hell for humanity, just can’t find anywhere in the bible that humanity, outside of God are eternal beings
Tree of life was not offered to us

a reply to: DISRAELI

Just the opinion of a recovered Christina, but if God's love was unconditional, people wouldn't need to be "God-fearing."

But to get a little deeper, I think that the claimed gift of eternal life in exchange for truly believing in Him is what people often see as unconditional love. Of course it is stated (or very heavily implied) that all humans are imperfect sinners and that no one is a perfectly pious and obedient believer. It is also stated that forgiveness must be ask for, generally through prayer.

So, if sinning is an unavoidable part of being human (and a part of God's initial plan), and if forgiveness of sins is not automatic, then I would argue that these two things alone are evidence that the love of God is not unconditional, even if there is a promise of eternal life in Heaven awaiting those who are judged worthy.

Honestly, I don't think that it should be unconditional--anything in life worth attaining is worth hard work and effort and dedication, and if heavenly eternal life is a thing that is granted and not automatic, that product of God's love should be accompanied by some pretty tough stairs to climb in order to get there, and there absolutely should be a judgment as to whether or not you climbed enough steps.

Again, just the musings of a former religious person...please disregard if that somehow discredits my opinion.

a reply to: infolurker

I will quibble a little bit. I do believe there are many ways to find God - just listen to the myriad of believers' stories of salvation. They all arrived at God in different ways. Hence, many ways to God.

But once you find Him, there is but one way forward to lead to salvation.

As to the topic:

If God's love was unconditional, then there would never have been any need for the 10 Commandments or most of the OT rules, some of which were clearly set by God.

I would be more likely to believe that God loves like a parent whose child has committed a grievous crime. Such a parent may still love their children even as they watch them suffer the full brunt of the penalties set forth under the law.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DISRAELI

I don’t think universalism is a christian doctrine, God can only accept those who accept Him in my opinion, though, when a person does, tries, lives a life although failing at times, Gods love is unconditional
Though, “I never knew you” is a scripture that does come to mind

There are plenty who speak and act in His name, claim His authority or approbation, but in reality are nothing of the sort.

We can look at the sex scandals of a certain religious institution as an example. How many of those priests were put in that position - to speak and act in His name, to be wise for His flock? And they abused that trust horribly.

I'm sure a few will repent and do so genuinely, but for those who do not or even those who continue in their path, I'm sure they're a few of the ones He will not know.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think we're developing a consensus that the slogan "unconditional love" is ambiguous and should be used with caution.
It may be a way of saying things which are truthful about God and helpful.
Or it may be co-opted into situations where it doesn't really apply, and become misleading. Like slogans in general.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tree of life was not offered to us

Actually those of us who enter the new Jerusalem do get the tree of life (last chapter of Revelation).
But you are right after all, because the tree of life has to be eaten continuously (that is why it bears fruit continuously). It does not give eternity automatically.

a reply to: DISRAELI

"For God so loved (past tense) the world, that he gave his only begotten Son."

I'll have to agree with you here.

Enjoy your threads like weekly Church.

How do you spend so much time analysing incorrectly translated texts without going back to look at the older texts and try retranslate them correctly?

I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm honestly confused

Back in 2012 I became curious about what was in the Bible for the first time in my life

I started reading it and quickly realised there was something wrong with the translation

I could see reoccurring patterns in the text that didn't make sense

I looked at the different versions and realised that everything was paraphrased in versions like the King James Version. Making it pointless to analyze

So I went to the oldest versions I could find in Hebrew and Greek and quickly realised by reading the texts, that they were also incorrectly translated and appeared to have transcribed in some type of algorithm

Words were collectively associated with meanings, even though they are clearly unique and individual words. They can't possibly all mean the same thing, or they would use the same words

The only reason they would do something like this, is if they were transcribing texts they didn't understand from older texts

But where are the older texts they were transcribed from? Why do we know nothing about these versions?

It took me one night analysing the Bible, to realise it wasn't correctly translated and I needed to retranslate it, if I had any hope of understanding it

Not long after, I realised that all the "names" used in the Bible are not actually meant to be read as people's names. You are supposed to read them as a word, which has the shared meaning with the name

For example, the word "Philip" in the Bible, really means "Purpose" and should be read as such. It doesn't refer to a person. The definition of Philip is supposed to be "lover of horses", but this is a misunderstanding of its true meaning. "Lover of horses", is that which drives you. Your "purpose"

All the names in the Bible are the same

It's something I refer to as "The Nominum Touch", where they applied "names" in algorithm to hide and encode true meaning in the Bible

The Hebrew and Greek versions aren't even correct (this took me a little longer to realise). They appear to have been used as "bridge languages", to help encode the text

Greek "Kakos" is said to mean "Evil", when it really means "Conclude/End"

"Nephilim" really means "Nepotism" and refers to elite or what we call "the 1%" today, but was somehow interpreted as literal Giants, rather than giants of society

I don't understand how it's possible for anyone to study the Bible, in depth, for years and years, and not see the encoding and/or realise that it's incorrectly translated

There is no point analysing the veil texts

That's like chewing a wrapper to taste the candy bar

Interesting that someone commenting on this thread has D.N.A strand as their profile pic

Because this is honestly the best way of explaining the Bible encoding. Around 1.5% of it is right. The rest is unknown (junk) coding

They are directly related, Bible and D.N.A. Hence the keys on the Vatican logo

You are meant to correlate, correct and unlock the "junk"

Or, if the lock won't yield to your keys, you are supposed to write your own compendium to replace the Bible

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, if sinning is an unavoidable part of being human (and a part of God's initial plan), and if forgiveness of sins is not automatic, then I would argue that these two things alone are evidence that the love of God is not unconditional, even if there is a promise of eternal life in Heaven awaiting those who are judged worthy.

Your logic only falsifies the dogma that exists in todays christianity. God gave us free choice. If it is our "desire" to live in sin. Then we shall exist in sin until its our "desire" not to live in sin. The purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (aka lake of fire) is to experience growth. When we eventually see emptiness in all things, then and only then, will we "believe" in God and nothing else (aka If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.).

Gods love is unconditional. If God's love blinked for even a second our very existance would end that very instant.

a reply to: Compendium

This is going to be out of place here, as I haven't posted on these forums in years....but I can't pass up the opportunity to know if you have access to a version that in your opinion, is the unlocked version of biblical knowledge? I would be VERY interested in this information.

a reply to: Compendium
This being a thread on a specific issue, I'm not going to spend time arguing on points not bearing on the topic.

I will say only that I routinely follow the RSV, and look at other translations and original Greek and Hebrew if I think a translation issue might be relevant.

On the variable meanings of words, I find that modern literalists are prone to underestimate two things;
a- The extent to which a single word may vary in meaning according to circumstances and the person using it.
b- The extent to which different words are used as synonyms, so that people keep creating unnecessary and artificial distinctions (e.g. between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven").
You sem to be offering a doctrine which encourages the second mistake.
If you want to talk about Bible translations in general, please do so in a thread which is actually about Bible translations.

a reply to: Aedaeum

The knowledge? Yes

A full, translated and correct version of the Bible? No

I have pieces of it though. Parts of some books. Enough to know the Vatican have a far "more correct" version they keep from the public

For instance, the word "Lucifer" means "Universe". That's how it correlates to baring light, and falling to Earth

The Vatican are very aware of the true translation of the word, which is why they named the Vatican Observatory telescope "Lucifer"

The other problem is that the algorithm they applied means that there are "layers" of possible (hidden) meaning

I have very specific and (far more) correct translations of certain words in the Bible I've worked out by correlating older Egyptian, Viking and Sumerian words

I can give you some alternative translations of the Bible, if you want them

I can share in messages if you like as not to hijack this thread any further

All the best DISRAELI

a reply to: DISRAELI
Unconditional means without condition......prior to conceptualisation.
Labels are judgements......
Labels are idolising.
Labels fragment and divide the whole.

Words/labels don't really divide the whole, the divine.....but it is veiled, concealed in plain sight.

You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the ....en.m.wikibooks.org...#

The belief and worship of things.

Those that have ears hear... those that have eyes see.

Deliberately meaningless gobbledegook for the sake of self-entertainment is another problem I sometimes have on these threads.

a reply to: DISRAELI
The present is the free gift.

This that actually is........ there is nothing other.

By being obsessed with working things out the mark is missed.