“At times I am almost pained to be compelled to portray the divine affection of the heavenly Father for his universe children by the employment of the human word symbol love. This term, even though it does connote man’s highest concept of the mortal relations of respect and devotion, is so frequently designative of so much of human relationship that is wholly ignoble and utterly unfit to be known by any word which is also used to indicate the matchless affection of the living God for his universe creatures!” 2:5.11 (40.3)
This captures the struggle of expressing the depth of divine affection using human language, particularly the word "love." The speaker, presumably a spiritual figure, expresses a nuanced concern about the limitations of language in conveying the sublime nature of the relationship between the heavenly Father and his universe children. Despite "love" being one of humanity's most cherished concepts, it falls short in capturing the purity and grandeur of the affection the divine holds for its creations. The term is burdened with the baggage of human relationships, often tainted by selfishness, manipulation, and imperfection, which are wholly inadequate to represent the transcendent love of the living God.
Moreover, the speaker suggests that the term "love" is insufficient to encapsulate the divine affection because it is used to describe both noble and ignoble aspects of human relations. In human experience, "love" can encompass a wide spectrum of emotions and actions, ranging from selfless compassion and sacrifice to possessiveness and manipulation. By employing the same term to describe both the highest and lowest forms of affection, there is a risk of diminishing the sacredness and uniqueness of the divine love, which transcends the flawed nature of human relationships. Thus, the speaker grapples with the challenge of finding a suitable word that can adequately convey the unparalleled affection of the living God without being tainted by human limitations.
In essence, it underscores the inherent difficulty in translating the divine into human language. While "love" may be the closest approximation available, its limitations and potential for misinterpretation highlight the vast chasm between human understanding and the ineffable nature of the divine. It calls for a deeper reflection on the inadequacy of language to capture the transcendent realities of spirituality and the need for humility in our attempts to comprehend the mysteries of existence.
