Romans 5:8

Romans 5:6-9 6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 6. Christus enim, quum adhuc essemus infirmi secundum rationem Temporis, pro impiis mortuus est: 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 7. Vix sane pro justo quis moriatur; nam pro bono forsan aliquis etiam mori audeat. 8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 8. Confimat autem erga nos charitatem Deus quod peccatores quum Adhuc essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est: 9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 9. Multo igitur magis, justificati nunc per sanguinem ejus, servabimur per ipsum ab ira. 6. For Christ, etc. I ventured not in my version to allow myself so much liberty as to give this rendering, "In the time in which we were weak;" and yet I prefer this sense. An argument begins here, which is from the greater to the less, and which he afterwards pursues more at large: and though he has not woven the thread of his discourse so very distinctly, yet its irregular structure does not disturb the meaning. "If Christ," he says, "had mercy on the ungodly, if he reconciled enemies to his Father, if he has done this by the virtue of his death, much more easily will he save them when justified, and keep those restored to favor in the possession of it, especially when the influence of his life is added to the virtue of his death." [158] The time of weakness some consider to be that, when Christ first began to be manifested to the world, and they think that those are called weak, who were like children under the tuition of the law. I apply the expression to every one of us, and I regard that time to be meant, which precedes the reconciliation of each one with God. For as we are all born the children of wrath, so we are kept under that curse until we become partakers of Christ. And he calls those weak, who have nothing in themselves but what is sinful; for he calls the same immediately afterwards ungodly. And it is nothing new, that weakness should be taken in this sense. He calls, in 1 Corinthians 12:22 , the covered parts of the body weak; and, in 2 Corinthians 10:10 , he designates his own bodily presence weak, because it had no dignity. And this meaning will soon again occur. When, therefore, we were weak, that is, when we were in no way worthy or fit that God should look on us, at this very time Christ died for the ungodly: for the beginning of religion is faith, from which they were all alienated, for whom Christ died. And this also is true as to the ancient fathers, who obtained righteousness before he died; for they derived this benefit from his future death. [159] 7. For a just man, etc. The meaning of the passage has constrained me to render the particle gar as an affirmative or declarative rather than as a causative. The import of the sentence is this, "Most rare, indeed, is such an example to be found among men, that one dies for a just man, though this may sometimes happen: but let this be granted, yet for an ungodly man none will be found willing to die: this is what Christ has done." [160] Thus it is an illustration, derived from a comparison; for such an example of kindness, as Christ has exhibited towards us, does not exist among men. 8. But God confirms, etc. The verb, sunistesi, has various meanings; that which is most suitable to this place is that of confirming; for it was not the Apostle's object to excite our gratitude, but to strengthen the trust and confidence of our souls. He then confirms, that is, exhibits his love to us as most certain and complete, inasmuch as for the sake of the ungodly he spared not Christ his own Son. In this, indeed, his love appears, that being not moved by love on our part, he of his own good will first loved us, as John tells us. ( 1 John 3:16 .) -- Those are here called sinners, (as in many other places,) who are wholly vicious and given up to sin, according to what is said in John 9:31 , "God hears not sinners," that is, men abandoned and altogether wicked. The woman called "a sinner," was one of a shameful character. ( Luke 7:37 .) And this meaning appears more evident from the contrast which immediately follows, -- for being now justified through his blood: for since he sets the two in opposition, the one to the other, and calls those justified who are delivered from the guilt of sin, it necessarily follows that those are sinners who, for their evil deeds, are condemned. [161] The import of the whole is, -- since Christ has attained righteousness for sinner by his death, much more shall he protect them, being now justified, from destruction. And in the last clause he applies to his own doctrine the comparison between the less and the greater: for it would not have been enough for salvation to have been once procured for us, were not Christ to render it safe and secure to the end. And this is what the Apostle now maintains; so that we ought not to fear, that Christ will cut off the current of his favor while we are in the middle of our course: for inasmuch as he has reconciled us to the Father, our condition is such, that he purposes more efficaciously to put forth and daily to increase his favor towards us. Footnotes: [158] On the argument of this verse, and on what follows to the tenth verse, Professor Stuart makes this remark, -- "The passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to the perseverance of the saints, than almost any other passage in the Scriptures which I can find. The sentiment here is not dependent on the form of a particular expression, (as it appears to be in some other passages); but it is fundamentally connected with the very nature of the argument." -- Ed. [159] Others, as well as Calvin, such as Chrysostom and Erasmus, have connected kata kairon with the preceding, and not with the following words. Pareus, who inclined to the same view, gives this explanation, -- "He distinguishes the former from the present state, as though he said, We who are now justified by faith were formerly ungodly.'" Chrysostom refers to the time of the law, and considers the weakness here to be that of man under the law. This gives an emphatic meaning to "weak," which otherwise it seems not to have, and is countenanced by what is said in Romans 8:3 , where the law is said to be weak, but weak on account of the weakness of the flesh. At the same time it must be observed, that most commentators, like Beza, connect these words, kata kairon, with the death of Christ, as having taken place "in due time," appointed by God, and pre-signified by the prophets, according to what is said in Galatians 4:4 . -- Ed. [160] Calvin has omitted what is said of the "good" man; for whom, it is said, one would perhaps even dare to die. The "just," dikaios, is he who acts according to what justice requires, and according to what the Rabbins say, "What is mine is mine, and what is thine is thine," sly sly vslk slk: but the "good," agathos, is the kind, the benevolent, the beneficient, called tvv in Hebrew; who is described by Cicero as one who does good to those to whom he can, (vir bonus est is, qui prodest quibus potest.) There is here an evident contrast between these words and those employed in Romans 5:6 and 8, to designate the character of those for whom Christ died. The just, dikaios, is the opposite of the "ungodly," asebes; who, by not worshipping and honoring God, is guilty of injustice of the highest kind, and in this sense of being unjust it is found in Romans 4:5 , where God is said to "justify the ungodly," that is, him who is unjust by withholding from God the homage which rightly belongs to him. Phavorinus gives athemitos, unlawful, unjust, as one of its meanings. -- What forms a contrast with "good" is sinner, hamartolos, which often means wicked, mischievous, one given to vice and the doing of evil. Suidas describes hamartoloi as those who determine to live in transgression, hoi paranomia suzon proairoumenoi; and Schleusner gives "scelestus -- wicked," "flagitiosus -- full of mischief," as being sometimes its meaning. But the description goes farther, for in Romans 5:10 the word "enemies echthroi," is introduced in order to complete the character of those for whom Christ died. They were not only "ungodly," and therefore unjust towards God, and "wicked," given to all evils; but also "enemies," entertaining hatred to God, and carrying on war, as it were, against him. -- Ed. [161] The meaning given to sunistesi is not peculiar. It is used with an accusative in two senses, -- to recommend, to commend, to praise, as in Romans 16:1 ; 2 Corinthians 3:1 ; 2 Corinthians 5:12 ; 2 Corinthians 10:12 , 18; and also, to prove, to demonstrate, to shew, to render manifest or certain, and thus to confirm, as in Romans 3:5 ; 2 Corinthians 6:4 ; 2 Corinthians 7:11 ; Galatians 2:18 ; Schleusner refers to this passage as an instance of the latter meaning. That God proved, or rendered manifest, or conspicuously shewed, his love, seems to be the most suitable idea, as the proof or the evidence is stated in the words which follow. The Syriac version gives the sense of shewing or proving. Vatablus has "proves" or verifies; Grotius, "renders conspicuous," Beza, "commends," as our version and Macknight; Doddridge, "recommends;" Hodge, "renders conspicuous." -- Ed.

But God {h} commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet {i} sinners, Christ died for us. (h) He commends his love toward us, so that in the midst of our afflictions we may know assuredly that he will be present with us. (i) While sin reigned in us.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. God commendeth, … — Herein God lays naked to us the tenderest heart of his fatherly compassions, as in an anatomy. A young student in history (saith Polybius) should have the whole history of the world under his view; and should reduce all into one body. υρο μιαν ουνοψεν αγειν και σωματοροιεν God, by giving his Son for us, showed us all his love at once, as it were embodied. All other spiritual blessings meet in this, as the lines in the centre, as the streams in the fountain. If the centurion were held worthy of respect because he loved our nation (said they) and built us a synagogue, what shall we say of Almighty God, who so loved our souls that he gave his only begotten Son, … Christ died for us — "Behold how he loved him," said those Jews, when they saw Christ weep for him, John 11:37 . What shall we say of this love of his beyond compare, in bleeding for us? Ama amorem illius, … Oh love that love of his, and never leave meditating on it, donec totus fixus in corde, qui totus fixus in cruce, till he be wholly fixed in your hearts, who was wholly fastened to the tree for your sakes. (Bernard.)

God commendeth his love toward us; i.e. he declareth or confirmeth it by this, as a most certain sign, he makes it most conspicuous or illustrious: see John 3:16 1Jo 4:9 ,10 . In that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; i.e. in a state of sin, and under the guilt and power of sin. Believers in some sense are still sinners, 1Jo 1:8 , but their sins being pardoned and subdued, they go no longer under that denomination. Sinners in Scripture are said to be those in whom sin dwells and reigns; see John 9:31 . Such we were by nature. Yea, we were not only sinners, but enemies to God, which further commendeth the love of Christ in dying for us: there is no greater love amongst men, than when one layeth down his life for his friends; but herein Christ’s love excelled, that he gave his life for his enemies.

But God commendeth his love towards us,.... That is, he hath manifested it, which was before hid in his heart; he has given clear evidence of it, a full proof and demonstration of it; he has so confirmed it by this instance, that there is no room nor reason to doubt of it; he has illustrated and set it off with the greater lustre by this circumstance of it, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. God's elect were sinners in Adam, in whom they were naturally and federally, as all mankind were; hence polluted and guilty; and so they are in their own persons whilst unregenerate: they are dead in sin, and live in it, commit it, are slaves unto it, and are under the power and dominion of it; and many of them are the chief and vilest of sinners; and such they were considered when Christ died for them: but are not God's people sinners after conversion? yes; but sin has not the dominion over them; their life is not a course of sinning, as before; and besides, they are openly justified and pardoned, as well as renewed, and sanctified, and live in newness of life; so that their characters now are taken, not from their worse, but better part. And that before conversion is particularly mentioned here, to illustrate the love of God to them, notwithstanding this their character and condition; and to show that the love of God to them was very early; it anteceded their conversion; it was before the death of Christ for them; yea, it was from everlasting: and also to express the freeness of it, and to make it appear, that it did not arise from any loveliness in them; or from any love in them to him; nor from any works of righteousness done by them, but from his own sovereign will and pleasure.

Christ died for sinners; not only such as were useless, but such as were guilty and hateful; such that their everlasting destruction would be to the glory of God's justice. Christ died to save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; and we were yet sinners when he died for us. Nay, the carnal mind is not only an enemy to God, but enmity itself, chap. 8:7; Col 1:21. But God designed to deliver from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec 11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it. Again; what idea had the apostle when he supposed the case of some one dying for a righteous man? And yet he only put it as a thing that might be. Was it not the undergoing this suffering, that the person intended to be benefitted might be released therefrom? But from what are believers in Christ released by his death? Not from bodily death; for that they all do and must endure. The evil, from which the deliverance could be effected only in this astonishing manner, must be more dreadful than natural death. There is no evil, to which the argument can be applied, except that which the apostle actually affirms, sin, and wrath, the punishment of sin, determined by the unerring justice of God. And if, by Divine grace, they were thus brought to repent, and to believe in Christ, and thus were justified by the price of his bloodshedding, and by faith in that atonement, much more through Him who died for them and rose again, would they be kept from falling under the power of sin and Satan, or departing finally from him. The living Lord of all, will complete the purpose of his dying love, by saving all true believers to the uttermost. Having such a pledge of salvation in the love of God through Christ, the apostle declared that believers not only rejoiced in the hope of heaven, and even in their tribulations for Christ's sake, but they gloried in God also, as their unchangeable Friend and all-sufficient Portion, through Christ only.

8. But God commendeth—"setteth off," "displayeth"—in glorious contrast with all that men will do for each other. his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners—that is, in a state not of positive "goodness," nor even of negative "righteousness," but on the contrary, "sinners," a state which His soul hateth. Christ died for us—Now comes the overpowering inference, emphatically redoubled.

But God commendeth ... - God has exhibited or showed his love in this unusual and remarkable manner. His love - His kind feeling; his beneficence; his willingness to submit to sacrifice to do good to others. While we were yet sinners - And of course his enemies. In this, his love surpasses all that has ever been manifested among people. Christ died for us - In our stead; to save us from death. He took our place; and by dying himself on the cross, saved us from dying eternally in hell.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ‘Commendeth,’ συνίστησι , proves , or renders conspicuous; see Romans 3:5 . What renders the love of God so peculiarly conspicuous, is his sending his Son to die, not for the good, nor even for the righteous, but for sinners, for those who were deserving of wrath instead of love. The word sinners expresses the idea of moral turpitude, and consequent exposure to the divine displeasure. It was for , or in the place of those who were at once corrupt, and the enemies of God, that Christ died.

Romans WHAT PROVES GOD’S LOVE Romans 5:8 . We have seen in previous sermons on the preceding context that the Apostle has been tracing various lines of sequence, all of which converge upon Christian hope. The last of these pointed to the fact that the love of God, poured into a heart like oil into a lamp, brightened that flame; and having thus mentioned the great Christian revelation of God as love, Paul at once passes to emphasise the historical fact on which the conviction of that love rests, and goes on to say that ‘the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us, for when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.’ Then there rises before him the thought of how transcendent and unparalleled a love is that which pours its whole preciousness on unworthy and unresponsive hearts. He thinks to himself-’We are all ungodly; without strength-yet, He died for us. Would any man do that? No! for,’ says he, ‘it will be a hard thing to find any one ready to die for a righteous man-a man rigidly just and upright, and because rigidly just, a trifle hard, and therefore not likely to touch a heart to sacrifice; and even for a good man, in whom austere righteousness has been softened and made attractive, and become graciousness and beneficence, well! it is just within the limits of possibility that somebody might be found even to die for a man that had laid such a strong hand upon his affections. But God commendeth His love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.’ Now, when Paul says ‘commend,’ he uses a very significant word which is employed in two ways in the New Testament. It sometimes means to establish, or to prove, or to make certain. But ‘prove’ is a cold word, and the expression also means to recommend, to set forth in such a way as to appeal to the heart, and God does both in that great act. He establishes the fact, and He, as it were, sweeps it into a man’s heart, on the bosom of that full tide of self-sacrifice. So there are two or three points that arise from these words, on which I desire to dwell now-to lay them upon our hearts, and not only upon our understandings. For it is a poor thing to prove the love of God, and we need that not only shall we be sure of it, but that we shall be softened by it. So now let me ask you to look with me, first, at this question- I. What Paul thought Jesus Christ died for. ‘Died for us.’ Now that expression plainly implies two things: first, that Christ died of His own accord, and being impelled by a great motive, beneficence; and, second, that that voluntary death, somehow or other, is for our behoof and advantage. The word in the original, ‘for,’ does not define in what way that death ministers to our advantage, but it does assert that for those Roman Christians who had never seen Jesus Christ, and by consequence for you and me nineteen centuries off the Cross, there is benefit in the fact of that death. Now, suppose we quote an incident in the story of missionary martyrdom. There was a young lady, whom some of us knew and loved, in a Chinese mission station, who, with the rest of the missionary band, was flying. Her life was safe. She looked back, and saw a Chinese boy that her heart twined round, in danger. She returned to save him; they laid hold of her and flung her into the burning house, and her charred remains have never been found. That was a death for another, but ‘Jesus died for us’ in a deeper sense than that. Take another case. A man sets himself to some great cause, not his own, and he sees that in order to bless humanity, either by the proclamation of some truth, or by the origination of some great movement, or in some other way, if he is to carry out his purpose, he must give his life. He does so, and dies a martyr. What he aimed at could only be done by the sacrifice of his life. The death was a means to his end, and he died for his fellows. That is not the depth of the sense in which Paul meant that Jesus Christ died for us. It was not that He was true to His message, and, like many another martyr, died. There is only one way, as it seems to me, in which any beneficial relation can be established between the Death of Christ and us, and it is that when He died He died for us, because ‘He bare our sins in His own body on the tree.’ Dear brethren, I dare say some of you do not take that view, but I know not how justice can be done to the plain words of Scripture unless this is the point of view from which we look at the Cross of Calvary-that there the Lamb of Sacrifice was bearing, and bearing away, the sins of the whole world. I know that Christian men who unite in the belief that Christ’s death was a sacrifice and an atonement diverge from one another in their interpretations of the way in which that came to be a fact, and I believe, for my part, that the divergent interpretations are like the divergent beams of light that fall upon men who stand round the same great luminary, and that all of them take their origin in, and are part of the manifestation of, the one transcendent fact, which passes all understanding, and gathers into itself all the diverse conceptions of it which are formed by limited minds. He died for us because, in His death, our sins are taken away and we are restored to the divine favour. I know that Jesus Christ is said to have made far less of that aspect of His work in the Gospels than His disciples have done in the Epistles, and that we are told that, if we go back to Jesus, we shall not find the doctrine which for some of us is the first form in which the Gospel finds its way into the hearts of men. I admit that the fully-developed teaching followed the fact, as was necessarily the case. I do not admit that Jesus Christ ‘spake nothing concerning Himself’ as the sacrifice for the world’s sins. For I hear from His lips-not to dwell upon other sayings which I could quote-I hear from His lips, ‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister’-that is only half His purpose-’and to give His life a ransom instead of the many.’ You cannot strike the atoning aspect of His death out of that expression by any fair handling of the words. And what does the Lord’s Supper mean? Why did Jesus Christ select that one point of His life as the point to be remembered? Why did He institute the double memorial, the body parted from the blood being a sign of a violent death? I know of no explanation that makes that Lord’s Supper an intelligible rite except the explanation which says that He came, to live indeed, and in that life to be a sacrifice, but to make the sacrifice complete by Himself bearing the consequences of transgression, and making atonement for the sins of the world. Brethren, that is the only aspect of Christ’s death which makes it of any consequence to us. Strip it of that, and what does it matter to me that He died, any more than it matters to me that any philanthropist, any great teacher, any hero or martyr or saint, should have died? As it seems to me, nothing. Christ’s death is surrounded by tenderly pathetic and beautiful accompaniments. As a story it moves the hearts of men, and ‘purges them, by pity and by terror.’ But the death of many a hero of tragedy does all that. And if you want to have the Cross of Christ held upright in its place as the Throne of Christ and the attractive power for the whole world, you must not tamper with that great truth, but say, ‘He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’ Now, there is a second question that I wish to ask, and that is- II. How does Christ’s death ‘commend’ God’s love? That is a strange expression, if you will think about it, that ‘ God commendeth His love towards us in that Christ died.’ If you take the interpretation of Christ’s death of which I have already been speaking, one could have understood the Apostle if he had said, ‘Christ commendeth His love towards us in that Christ died.’ But where is the force of the fact of a man’s death to prove God’s love? Do you not see that underlying that swift sentence of the Apostle there is a presupposition, which he takes for granted? It is so obvious that I do not need to dwell upon it to vindicate his change of persons, viz. that ‘God was in Christ,’ in such fashion as that whatsoever Christ did was the revelation of God. You cannot suppose, at least I cannot see how you can, that there is any force of proof in the words of my text, unless you come up to the full belief, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’ Suppose some great martyr who dies for his fellows. Well, all honour to him, and the race will come to his tomb for a while, and bring their wreaths and their sorrow. But what bearing has his death upon our knowledge of God’s love towards us? None whatever, or at most a very indirect and shadowy one. We have to dig deeper down than that. ‘God commends His love . . . in that Christ died.’ ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ And we have the right and the obligation to argue back from all that is manifest in the tender Christ to the heart of God, and say, not only, ‘God so loved the world that He’ sent His Son, but to see that the love that was in Christ is the manifestation of the love of God Himself. So there stands the Cross, the revelation to us, not only of a Brother’s sacrifice, but of a Father’s love; and that because Jesus Christ is the revelation of God as being the ‘eradiation of His glory, and the express image of His person.’ Friends! light does pour out from that Cross, whatever view men take of it. But the omnipotent beam, the all-illuminating radiance, the transforming light, the heat that melts, are all dependent on our looking at it-I do not only say, as Paul looked at it, nor do I even say as Christ looked at it, but as the deep necessities of humanity require that the world should look at it, as the altar whereon is laid the sacrifice for our sins, the very Son of God Himself. To me the great truths of the Incarnation and the Atonement of Jesus Christ are not points in a mere speculative theology; they are the pulsating vital centre of religion. And every man needs them in his own experience. I was going to have said a word or two here-but it is not necessary-about the need that the love of God should be irrefragably established, by some plain and undeniable and conspicuous fact. I need not dwell upon the ambiguous oracles which- ‘Nature, red in tooth and claw, With rapine’ gives forth, nor on how the facts of human life, our own sorrows, and the world’s miseries, the tears that swathe the earth, as it rolls on its orbit, like a misty atmosphere, war against the creed that God is love. I need not remind you, either, of how deep, in our own hearts, when the conscience begins to speak its not ambiguous oracles, there does rise the conviction that there is much in us which it is impossible should be the object of God’s love. Nor need I remind you how all these difficulties in believing in a God who is love, based on the contradictory aspects of nature, and the mysteries of providence, and the whisperings of our own consciousness, are proved to have been insuperable by the history of the world, where we find mythologies and religions of all types and gods of every sort, but nowhere in all the pantheon a God who is Love. Only let me press upon you that that conviction of the love of God, which is found now far beyond the limits of Christian faith, and amongst many of us who, in the name of that conviction itself, reject Christianity, because of its sterner aspects, is historically the child of the evangelical doctrine of the Incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And if it still subsists, as I know it does, especially in this generation, amongst many men who reject what seems to me to be the very kernel of Christianity-subsists like the stream cut off from its source, but still running, that only shows that men hold many convictions the origin of which they do not know. God is love. You will not permanently sustain that belief against the pressure of outward mysteries and inward sorrows, unless you grasp the other conviction that Christ died for our sins. The two are inseparable. And now lastly- III. What kind of love does Christ’s death declare to us as existing in God? A love that is turned away by no sin-that is the thing that strikes the Apostle here, as I have already pointed out. The utmost reach of human affection might be that a man would die for the good-he would scarcely die for the righteous. But God sends His Son, and comes Himself in His Son, and His Son died for the ungodly and the sinner. That death reveals a love which is its own origin and motive. We love because we discern, or fancy we do, something lovable in the object. God loves under the impulse, so to speak, of His own welling-up heart. And yet it is a love which, though not turned away by any sin, is witnessed by that death to be rigidly righteous. It is no mere flaccid, flabby laxity of a loose-girt affection, no mere foolish indulgence like that whereby earthly parents spoil their children. God’s love is not lazy good-nature, as a great many of us think it to be and so drag it in the mud, but it is rigidly righteous, and therefore Christ died. That Death witnesses that it is a love which shrinks from no sacrifices. This Isaac was not ‘spared.’ God gave up His Son. Love has its very speech in surrender, and God’s love speaks as ours does. It is a love which, turned away by no sin, and yet rigidly righteous and shrinking from no sacrifices, embraces all ages and lands. ‘God commendeth’-not ‘commended.’ The majestic present tense suggests that time and space are nothing to the swift and all-filling rays of that great Light. That love is ‘towards us,’ you and me and all our fellows. The Death is an historical fact, occurring in one short hour. The Cross is an eternal power, raying out light and love over all humanity and through all ages. God lays siege to all hearts in that great sacrifice. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins ‘according to the Scriptures’ ? Do you see there the assurance of a love which will lift you up above all the cross-currents of earthly life, and the mysteries of providence, into the clear ether where the sunshine is unobscured? And above all, do you fling back the reverberating ray from the mirror of your own heart that directs again towards heaven the beam of love which heaven has shot down upon you? ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and gave His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ Is it true of us that we love God because He first loved us?