Photo by Christoph Schmid
Cory Asbury is a worship leader from Bethel Church in Redding, California. Back in 2009, he released Let Me See Your Eyes, a collection of indie-pop songs intended to bolster a passion for Jesus and sense His presence. He is also featured on Bethel Music’s 2016 album Have it All with Asbury’s hit single Son of God.
Before Asbury’s album “Reckless Love” released, several artists (including Michael W. Smith, Darlene Zschech, and her HopeUC team) have included track Reckless Love in their worship sets. Smith, specifically, will cover Asbury’s Reckless Love in his own upcoming album Surrounded on February 23, 2018. It seems clear that there were high expectations and hopes for this album prior to release!
Now that it’s out in the wild, Reckless Love has grown immensely in popularity. It is making its way around churches, used for praise and worship! With such powerful lyrics, how will it compare to the Bible? Let’s find out!
Lyrics can be found at https://genius.com/Cory-asbury-reckless-love-lyrics.
Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site! Read About the Berean Test and Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review. I strongly encourage you to consider the potential blessings and dangers of this artist‘s theology by visiting Resources.
1. What message does the song communicate?
The term “reckless” carries with it a negative connotation. According to Merriam-Webster, it means “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences.” Asbury spins this term, speaking to the reckless love of God; however, his usage is unsettling as it suggests God acts without thought and care for His creation. This love God has for us is unending, overwhelming, unearned, sacrificial, without barriers, and prior to our existence. it is a song of praise to Him who loves us. I understand the intent: God recklessly abandons the 99 righteous for the one unrighteous, unworthy, undeserving. Asbury even wrote a facebook post defending his position. That does not change my discomfort in the use of language.
There is much discussion in the commentary regarding the identity of the 99 sheep and the shepherd. I initially believed that God is the shepherd and was convinced by Dan that it was the Pharisees; However, in light of Neal Cruco’s latest comment, I’ve concluded once again that it’s God, leaving behind 99 righteous, angelic beings (see section 2).
I would have liked to see an explanation as to why God loves us so much. The answer, of course, is found within 1 John 4:8: that God is love. It is His nature to love us according to His will and purpose (Romans 8:28).
Score: 7/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
Almost all of it! However, God’s love is not reckless.
[Verse 1]
Line 1: The only reference I could find where God sings over us is in Zephaniah 3:17.
Line 2: In accordance to His will, God does in some instances deal kindly with us as He has done with Israel and the early Christian Church in the past. See Exodus 33:19, Psalm 13:6, Psalm 23:6, Psalm 27:13, Psalm 84:11, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 119:68, Psalm 145:9, Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13, Romans 2:4, Philippians 1:6, and 1 Peter 2:1-3
Line 3: God knew us before we were born and knitted us in our mothers’ wombs (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 49:15, and Jeremiah 1:5).
Line 4: See line 2.
[Chorus]
Line 1: God’s lovingkindness knows no boundaries. See Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 17:7, Psalm 36:5-7, Psalm 63:3, Psalm 69:16, Psalm 117:2, Isaiah 54:8, John 3:16, John 13:34, John 15:13, Romans 5:6-8, Romans 8:37-39, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 2:4-5, Ephesians 5:25, Titus 3:4, 1 John 4:8, and 1 John 4:16-19. However, the term “reckless”, as Merriam-webster defines it, is completely antithetical to the character and nature of God. God is not reckless. Perhaps “passionate” would have been a better term as that is what I believe Asbury was going for.
Line 2: The parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-10 is where Cory Asbury drew his inspiration. I cross-referenced Luke 15 with Matthew 18:1-14 (particularly verses 12-14). Verse 10 tells us that angels “continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven” and Verse 11, “the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”. It’s in this context that Jesus tells (again?) the parable of the lost sheep in reference to the Father’s will that little ones not perish (see Verse 14). So, although as Dan correctly point outs, the players are different, and that the sheep are lost in Luke 15 and wayward in Matthew 18, humans cannot be righteous sheep that require no repentance. Angelic beings make sense, which, in light of Philippians 2:6-11 and Hebrews 2:5-8, means that Jesus left the 99 righteous Angelic creatures, along with His throne and glory, to become temporarily, in position, lower than the angels, for the one lost sheep, which is all of humanity or all the elect in humanity (I won’t turn this into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate). Therefore, Asbury is correct on this point.
Also, this imagery is an example of God’s love fights for us.
Line 3: We are all guilty before God (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23). God gives grace to us, which literally means “unmerited favor” (2 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 12:9 and Ephesians 2:8-9). It is through Christ, who gave Himself away on our behalf (Isaiah 53:1-12, Mark 10:45, John 15:13, Romans 15:3, Galatians 1:3-4, Ephesians 5:2, Philippians 2:5-8, Titus 2:11-14, 1 John 3:16, and Revelation 5:9), that we receive God’s grace because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
Line 4: Repeat of line 1.
[Verse 2]
Line 1: We were enemies of God whom Christ died to save (Romans 5:6-10).
Line 2: Repeat of line 2 in Verse 1.
Line 3: The atoning work of Jesus Christ paid for our sins. See Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:1-12, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, John 1:29, John 3:16, Acts 4:12, Acts 20:28, Romans 5:6-10, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 1:3-4, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 2:14, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:22, Hebrews 9:26, 1 Peter 1:17-21, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:1-2, and Revelation 5:9.
Line 4: Repeat of line 4 in Verse 1.
[Bridge]
External barriers cannot separate us from God’s love for us (Romans 8:38-39).
Score: 7/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
They will get a sense that God is willing to do almost anything to have us. He shows sacrificial love. Given that this is a worship song, without a spiritual background, it will be difficult for them to understand why God loves us. Only that He does, with no explanation.
Score: 7/10
4. What does this song glorify?
The love of God for us; however, Asbury slipped by stating God’s love is reckless, as I already explained in sections 1 and 2.
Score: 7/10
Closing Comments
With such high hopes, Asbury’s track Reckless Love takes what is a negative term and attempts to turn it on its head, without success; However, It does speak to the power and glory of God’s love for us, the lengths and depths God is willing to go through to have us.
While I would have liked to see in the lyrics why God loves us so much, it is overall mostly biblical, positive, and uplifting. Feel free to use this as part of your worship set if you’re not bothered by the word “reckless” as I am; However, understand that some of your parishioners might take exception. Perhaps it would be wiser to choose a less controversial song.
Score: 7/10
Artist Info
Track: Reckless Love (listen to the song)
Artist: Cory Asbury
Album: Reckless Love
Genre: Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)
Release Year: 2018
Duration: 5:31 (4:00 for the radio version)
Agree? Disagree? Don’t be shy or have a cow! Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.
Updates:
07/16/2021 – Per Artist Theology announcement, I expanded the red text to encourage others to study Bethel Music’s theology, which Asbury is a leader.
09/18/2020 – Updated commentary on God’s love fighting until we’re found. This did not affect my rating.
05/16/2020 – Upon prayerfully examining Neal Cruco’s “angel” theory for the 99 sheep in contrast to Dan’s comments, I agree with him and updated my commentary with a mix of earlier edits and fresh ideas, sharply increasing its score from 5/10 to 7/10. I also fixed several spelling and grammatical errors. Finally, I moved all the updates to the end of the review to align with other pages, retrofitting the dates by which I updated this page.
08/25/2019 – I was too harsh on the scoring using Dan’s analysis, focusing on the errors and not giving enough credit for what Ausbury does right. Therefore, I increased the overall score from 2.5/10 to 5/10.
08/13/2019 – Commenter Dan reminded me that the shepherd in Luke 15 are the Pharisees, not our Heavenly Father nor Jesus. Given that the verses and Bridge depend on a correct interpretation of the Chorus, the entire lyrics unraveled, resulting in a sharply lowered overall score from 7.5/10 to 2.5/10.
05/10/2019 – To bring this review in line with my other work, I slightly downgraded section 4, slightly lowering the overall score from 8/10 to 7.5/10.
06/18/2018 – This review originally had a review score of 9/10. I altered it based on much prayer after receiving feedback in the comments.
Comments
Vince Wright
I’m closing comments on this review. The comments are going round and round in circles with the same repeated arguments. This isn’t helpful to anyone.
-Vince Wright
Stephen
Beyond is use of “reckless” to describe God’s love, my largest issue with this song is the assertion that God leaves the 99 to find the one. Can someone show me where in the parable that it says God leaves 99 to save one?
The intent of the parable is to illustrate the rejoicing in heaven over the one who comes to repentance. It never asserts that the physical limitations of the human shepherd in the parable is true of God. He is not limited to being in one place at a time. He is omnipresent. Cory Asbury’s description of God’s love as “reckless” hinges on the idea of God leaving his other children to find the lost child. God does not do that. He will never leave us or forsake us. I recall someone saying that. Oh, yeah, Jesus actually did say that. What Jesus did not say is that God leaves us to save others.
Neal Cruco
Stephen,
That is a valid concern, and it is something I struggled with for a long time. But finally, I realized that the righteous ninety-nine CANNOT represent Christians- because Jesus says they have never strayed away, and we most definitely have. Instead, mankind (saved and unsaved) is represented by the one, and the ninety-nine represent the righteous angels in heaven. For while Jesus will indeed never leave us or forsake us, He did leave the angels in heaven when He came to earth to redeem us.
I made this argument in more detail in an earlier comment, and I have copied part of that comment below. And because Vince happens to agree with me, he makes the same argument in the review.
“Well, if we take the shepherd to be Jesus, who is the ninety-nine? Other commenters have claimed that they represent believers, and that the song is claiming that God abandons the righteous to rescue sinners- clear blasphemy. This was something I struggled with for a long time. No explanation seemed sufficient. Then I had a flash of realization- we Christians are not the ninety-nine. We can’t be! Look at verse 7 again: “In the same way, there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven’t strayed away!” The ninety-nine are those who haven’t strayed away. Yet Isaiah 53:6 says “All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own.” How then can any of us fallen humans be part of the ninety-nine? It is impossible! The ninety-nine are righteous and have never strayed! The only ones who could fit that description are the angels- the two-thirds who have never forsaken Him!
Well, if we take the ninety-nine to be the angels, did God ever leave them? YES. Indeed He did. God incarnate left heaven and came down to earth seeking His wayward sheep- seeking to cross the gap between Him and them, even though they abandoned Him and plodded headlong into destruction. He chased us down. He fought til we were found. He laid down His very life for us wayward sheep.
That is the proper interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep, and that is what Asbury refers to when he says “leaves the ninety-nine”. Jesus is the shepherd. The ninety-nine are the angels- those who have never strayed, never forsaken Him. And the one? The one represents mankind. All of us, both Christians and non-Christians. We are the wayward sheep that God left heaven to find.”
Neal Cruco
“As for God fighting until I am found, I can find no Biblical support for this.”
Vince,
How exactly do you interpret “fights til I’m found”? I simply interpreted it as God doing everything that was necessary to reconcile us to Himself. But you say that the line has no Biblical support, so you must have a different interpretation.
Vince Wright
Neal,
Great question!
Based on my earlier comments, it was in connection with the 99 and the 1, which I already changed my mind on. So, this requires an update.
-Vince Wright
Dan
There is no Biblical support for the lyric, “fights ’til I’m found”. If this were actually the case, then apparently God loses a lot of battles since most people are NOT found. Furthermore, God doesn’t do “everything necessary to reconcile us to Himself”.
In his sovereignty, God has chosen His own and drawn those people to Himself. Fighting until we’re found would be a losing battle absent God’s choice to NOT fight until all are found.
JM
Hey Vince – have you see the alternative (ish) lyrics here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA-gZ5nShDo&ab_channel=JesusWannabeez
Vince Wright
JM,
No, I have not. Thanks for sharing! This is MUCH better!
-Vince Wright
Dan
It’s only marginally better. Okay, it’s now “sovereign love”. Somewhat better though a bit of a stretch theologically.
These new lyrics almost make the song palatable but by leaving the blasphemy of God “leaving the 99” intact in the chorus, it’s still a fail. Absolutely nowhere in Scripture does it say that God would leave or forsake any believer. No. Where.
Get rid of that false teaching from the lyric and then it kinda works.
Neal Cruco
“Absolutely nowhere in Scripture does it say that God would leave or forsake any believer. No. Where.”
Correct. Which is why I argued, and Vince agreed, that the 99 that the shepherd (Jesus) leaves are not believers- indeed it is impossible for them to be so. The 99 are righteous and have never strayed away, and Isaiah 53 (among many others) makes it clear that all of us have strayed away and followed our own path- so we cannot be the 99. Rather, the 99 are the angels who did not follow Satan- and God the Son did leave them in heaven when He came to earth.
Dan
We’ve covered this ground before (the 99 are angles). I maintain that there is no Scriptural justification for this interpretation as it makes no sense in light of Jesus’ point and the nature of his audience.
In context, the 99 are just sheep and that’s it. If Jesus were telling this story to a group of modern day people, he might have said that they lost 99 iPhones or some such thing.
There really can be no other interpretation since the parable is a single story about a negligent shepherd and a negligent woman who have lost something of value to them that they are desperate to find. If the 99 are “angels” then to be internally consistent, the 9 coins are also angels. Which makes even less sense.
No, Jesus tells his audience that THEY are in the role of the negligent and reckless shepherd who leaves their sheep unguarded in the wilderness. The Pharisees wouldn’t interpret Jesus’ words as them leaving 99 angels unprotected and Jesus would have zero reason to try to make this the point of his parable.
The Luke 15 story is all about materialistic people losing items of value and how in contrast, the Father cares for people (the prodigal) not possessions.
Andrea Sauceda
What is your position on translations to other languages that change “reckless” to something else like “unconditional”? Does the original version’s use of “reckless” have an effect on whether we should not consider it biblical even though the translation is?
Vince Wright
Andrea,
That is a great question!
I’m going to assume that the rest of the translation is the same and only this one word is changed.
Insofar as I am aware, an “unconditional love” describes God’s love for us regardless of how we behave. He loves us in that He died for us while we were sinners (Romans 5:6-8). Nothing will separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). He is faithful even when we are faithless (2 Timothy 2:13). Of course, He also allows us to experience eternal separation from Him if that’s what we want (Matthew 18:8, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, Revelation 14:11, and Revelation 20:10). I think this is a suitable alternative to “reckless”.
This brings this song much closer to Scriptural accuracy than Asbury’s original. I still don’t have any Scripture for “fights ’til I’m found”. Therefore, I’d rate Biblical accuracy 9/10 based on this single substitution.
-Vince Wright
Aaron
Ha! I did a YouTube video about this very question. In French it was chosen to translate this song as extravagant love. That is hardly the equivalent word of reckless. Now I’m not French, but the closest equivalent word that I could discover is imprudent. This word has the same meaning in French as it does in English. So they didn’t wanna call the song imprudent love…. But maybe they should have.
Either we believe Jesus was a human being or we don’t. And to ask any one of us human beings to last 33 years without sinning reveals an imprudent love of human beings. And what benefit would it be for you to pull out the “God card” at this moment? The devil tempted Jesus three times. The devil thought it was possible for Jesus to be tempted. And the Holy Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. The point was to expose Jesus to the option of sinning and for him to turn his back on it. It was possible for Jesus to sin. But he didn’t. So God asked a human being to last 33 years without sinning. That sure seems like an imprudent love of human beings to me. But Jesus proved it was actually a prudent love and plan.
Charles Busada
Aaron, you present us with a false dilemma. “Either we believe Jesus was a human being or we don’t.” And then with that leading fallacy you seem to deny the uniqueness of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Certainly Jesus barJoseph (son of Joseph) was a human being. As a matter of fact, he IS a human being. He is a human being who has conquered the grave, protitiated the wrath of God, provided us His perfect righteousness by which we are justified before God and will soon take us as his perfect bride. He is certainly a human being. He is reigning in heaven as the Lamb who was slain, with marks in his hands, feet, and side. He also has a mother and a step father. He has a family, but he is so much more. He is unique.
And, you make another false assumption: you imply that Jesus’ humanity is like ours. We are born in sin; he was not. We are prone to sin; he is not. Sin is NOT an attribute of humanity, it is only an attribute to fallen humanity. At the consummation of this age we will again be clean of sin and without the propensity to sin (yea!).
Now, you’ll likely argue that Adam, a perfect man sinned. Yes, he did. But Adam was not the only begotten Son of God. Adam was a creature.
Orthodox christology puts it simply as this. Jesus is fully God and fully man. His godness and manness are hypostatically united. This means that they are not mixed and that they cannot be separated. Both natures are distinguishable, but not separate. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh and he remains in the flesh in heaven. Again, he is the God-man. He cannot sin.
So, the question is not could Jesus sin. That answer is absolutely no. God cannot lie and God cannot deny Himself. Jesus is God the Son, or “the second Person of the Godhead.” Just as he is fully man, he is fully God. God does not sin.
Sinning is not a necessary attribute to man, and it is impossible for God.
But, temptation is another matter.
In our lives if we give into temptation right away, we don’t suffer much for it. Sure we feel guilt, but we don’t sweat drops of blood. It is when we do not yield to temptation that it hurts. Saints have gone through the fire who would not yield to the temptation to deny Christ. Again, I emphasize that Jesus Christ, the son of God cannot deny himself by his very nature. It is impossible. But, he can hunger, he can grieve, he can feel the pain of abandonment, and know the pain of nails and the humiliation of a naked crucifixion.
Jesus suffered temptations that none of us can ever imagine, for he not just a human being. He is the God-man. He has to be fully man to substitute his life for ours. He has to be fully God to be valuable enough to propitiate against our infinite sins against an infinitely Holy God. This is Amazing love, not reckless love.
I find it so baffling that can even have a debate over the validity or even the worth of a song as Reckless Love. It is such an abhorrent insult to God, and we sing it in His house on His day and we, as a worship band present it to His sheep(!).
OK — all the way now; remove all stops. Someone has to say this. The song Reckless Love, is blasphemous, pompous, and has no place in worship. It is worthless only because the word “Reckless” attributes a weakness to God who is almighty and everlasting. It is illogical and purely heretical. It cannot exist within the realm of orthodox biblical Christianity.
The problem is that our churches have lost the theological savvy to recognize this. Our churches are weak and our music reflects this.
May God grant us repentance in much of what we present before the flock.
And, maybe the next time I write, I’ll tell you what I really think. 🙂
Magdalene Thusheetha
Wow! Finally. Rightly said.
Steve Barhydt
Charles,
We get the fact that you don’t like the word “reckless” in this song. That’s perfectly okay. You’re entitled to your opinion as I am to mine..
Those of us who like this song simply do not see the word “reckless” as “attributes a weakness to God who is almighty and everlasting”
In fact, we see the exact opposite of that.
The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary define the word as such…
“showing a lack of care about danger and the possible results of your actions”
and gives the word usage with the following example…
“She had fallen hopelessly and recklessly in love.”
Romans 5:6-11 (NKJV)
6For when we were still without strength, [d]in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
To me, dying for someone that hates you is reckless in that Jesus didn’t care about the danger to Himself because of the overall outcome, i.e. our salvation.
It is God’s love that is His most praiseworthy attribute. And we see His love is so great that He “who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12;1 (NASB)
Asbury could have, and maybe should have, used a different word but to say that this song is “such an abhorrent insult to God” and “is blasphemous, pompous, and has no place in worship. It is worthless … It is illogical and purely heretical. It cannot exist within the realm of orthodox biblical Christianity.” is, in my opinion, ridiculous and insulting to those of us who have Biblically defended the song.
We sing and fight for the song not because we “have lost the theological savvy” that apparently you have but rather because we interpret the song and the meaning of the songwriter differently.
If you don’t wish to sing this song, fine. But to insinuate that I am insulting God, blaspheming Him, and supporting a heresy when I sing this song is a step too far and comes off as “pompous” in and of itself.
I still love you, my brother in Christ, but “Someone did not have to say this”
Charles Busada
Hey Steve, I’m glad that you responded and I’m glad that you responded passionately.
I am passionate also and frankly, I felt that it was time (for me) to take off the kit gloves here and call it what it is.
God is holy, infinitely holy. He is transcendent and whenever anyone came close to him, Isaiah, Paul, John, they fell to the ground and pleaded for mercy. “Woe, I am undone.”
God is also imminent. He loves us dearly with an infinite but focused love. His love is found in one place, and that is at the foot of the cross (Jn 3:16). Literally, “In this manner, God loved the world.” The word is hotos in Greek and it can be translated “so” but not “so much” but more like “do it so, or do it in this manner.”
So, God’s love is very direct, and as Jesus Christ was crucified “before the foundation of the world” we see that it was very planned. I see nothing reckless about. And, there was nothing risky regarding Jesus’ death. His death was sufficient to save every man, woman, child who has ever been conceived on this world, and as Luther said, “on any other world also.”
Jesus said it clearly that “all that the Father has given me will come to me and I will in no wise cast them out.”
This atonement was direct and God takes no chances. That would be impossible for God for he speaks and it is.
The etymology of “reckless” is “reckon less” and that means without planning or without thought. Is that what we are to sing to God about his love poured out on us before we were created? In the eternal council before the world, before time, our Triune God covenanted that the Father would send the Son to be the savior of the world. And he did it, “in the fullness of time.”
And, if you want to argue that etymology is not a good argument to define a word’s meaning then let’s look at the colloquial use of the word. It resonates with people to mean “headed toward a wreck” and usually because of not being sober or in a right mind. There is even a song on Youtube called “Wreckless Love.”
Steve, I feel that “reckless” is a gimmick. We are so removed from a theological understand of God and all of his attributes that we so focus on Love. You called God’s love his most praiseworthy attribute. I would agree, but his love does not trump his justice and justice demanded that the Godman die for a dead race. By calling that love “reckless” we take out the deliberate nature of that love right out of it. Jesus, in Gethsemane sweat as great drops of blood. He was counting the cost brother. This is planned, planned from eternity past, and anything but reckless.
The problem with so many of our songs these days is that they are mono-focused on God’s love . . . so much that they have run out of adjectives. And, because novelty is so important in publishing we just have to find something further beyond the pale. I want no part of it and as a follower of Christ I’m (quite obviously) angered by it all.
And, as you quoted Hebrews 12:1 for me I am quite thankful. I was going to quote it myself.
And we see His love is so great that He “who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12;1 (NASB)
Jesus had an object for his love, and that object was his great joy. This is the joy that he would receive as the one who conquered the grave so that “every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is LORD to the glory of God the Father.
For that reason, Jesus “poured him self out.” Literally, and theologians call this the kenosis doctrine. Jesus emptied himself of all his glory, but never emptied himself of his identity as almighty God.
Paul said in Phil 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
How in the world can you call this reckless?
Steve, please read what I am about to write and please realize that I’m “speaking the truth in love.” Really!
I think that you undervalue Jesus’ power. Yes, “while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly.” But, Jesus death is efficacious for all. Jesus did not die so that he might save you Steve. He died to save you. There is no way you could possibly stay in the tomb my dear Lazarus when Jesus called your name.
This is why our song writing has to reboot, well not all of it, but much of the FM radio mainstream stuff.
Consider Wesley,s view of God’s ‘reckless’ love.
He just calls it Amazing and shows that it is such an amazing mystery that even the greatest of the angles can not explain nor understand it.
But Asbury understands it. He calls it reckless.
Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, should die for me!
2 ‘Tis mystery all! Th’Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine!
‘Tis mercy all! let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
Man, I could put all five verses up here, but this one will suffice.
Steve, this is Wesley, you, and me. We were dead in sins but God’s irresistible grace came upon us and just as it did on Lazarus, we will arise. Jesus gets what he wants. He is not a sovereign God that took his death as kome kind of crap shoot.
4 Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth and followed Thee.
I’m am saddened that I insulted you, but not sorry brother. I do this out of real love, but alas, I am but a sinner saved by grace and my love can be . . . well, reckless.
PS, sorry for any grammar and such mistakes. I just don’t have the time to proof this tonight.
Charlie
Dan
A hearty “Amen!” Charlie.
Not only do you provide Scriptural support for your view but also provide the succinct critique of the use of the word “Reckless” as a gimmick, which it most certainly is.
For my part, as I have written here previously, the irony is that the shepherd spoken of by Asbury in this song most certainly IS reckless.
That was part of the point Jesus was making when he told the Pharisees that THEY were the shepherd who left his sheep at risk in the wilderness.
So not only is this song heretical if we are to believe it is about God’s “reckless love” but even more so that worship pastors are, in fact, leading a song based on a parable about greedy and self-absorbed religious leaders who only care about possessions and not people.
Aaron
Charles, this is my point exactly. Jesus is fully human and fully God at the same time. It just strikes me as a seemingly reckless plan that God asks a human being to live 33 years without sinning. None of us could do that! But because Jesus turned away from sin he actually proved that the love/plan of God was not reckless, but a prudent love/plan.
In Matthew 4 it says specifically that the Holy Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be TEMPTED. This is in a stark contrast to the Lord’s Prayer “…lead us not into temptation…”. The point is Jesus had a sin test to pass. He was lead into the desert for this purpose. And we can be sure the devil tried his hardest to get Jesus to sin. Of course, Jesus chose not to sin but the only way to break the curse of sin over humanity was for Jesus, as God and man, to face the temptation of sin and to turn from it.. This is a great example to us as well.. I think we believe the same thing. Look me up in heaven. 😉
Charles Busada
Aaron, I’m so glad that you replied. I know that I was a bit harsh in my answer, but that was not directed to you. That is directed to the church-at-large for even considering “reckless.” You know, the song is fine. It’s just one word that ruins it and that word is so (in my never-so-humble-opinion) blatantly awkward that it ruins the song. And worse, it’s in the title.
So, I’ll explain.
You mentioned the “God Card” in your earlier post. In the Trinity, there is no God Card. The mystery of the orthodox Tri-unity of God is the three persons of the Trinity are separate persons in divine union. So, anything that the father does, so does the son, so does the spirit.
This is why the New Testament so often attributes to Jesus an act that the Old Testament attributes to Yahweh. For example, in John 12, we find that the LORD sitting on his throne that blew Isaiah’s mind was Jesus.
This is why Colossians attributes the creation of the cosmos to Jesus when Genesis attributes it to Elohim.
So, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus took on flesh and yes, he was tempted. Why?
Hosea (and Matthew) tell us that Jesus had to walk through the path of Israel to be the perfect Israel. He had to be born in the promised Land, and then he had to go to Egypt. Then, as Hosea spoke of OT Israel, Matthew attributed this to Jesus . . . “Out of Egypt I called my Son.” And as Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness and yes, he was tempted. Matthew tells us that Jesus was tempted (fiery temptation) but Matthew does not tell us the purpose of this temptation or test. I think that the test was for us. Jesus needed these temptations in order that he could fulfill his office of the Great High Priest. Here is a quotation from Young’s Literal Bible interpretation. It helps to see this:
Heb 4:15.
“for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but one tempted in all things in like manner — apart from sin;”
The word “apart” is χωρὶς (chorus). The beauty of a mandolin, or a 12 string guitar is that each string has a second string. The are sympathetic with each other, but entirely apart. Likewise, the vocal chorus is beautiful from the many distinct voices singing together (symphony) or not so well (caphony). So it is with Jesus, the temptations rattled him, he was deeply moved and hurt by them, but he was apart from them. He could not sin. I’m not pulling the God Card, I’m pulling the Jesus Christ card. Jesus is the anointed one, fully vested with the Holy Spirit of God and fully the Son of God. Nope, no possibility of sin at all. But quite subject to humiliation, hunger, lack of sleep, stupid diciples, legalistic pharisees, wicked sadducees, corrupt Roman leaders, unbelieving family members, and he did it all for love.
Again, Jesus being fully God cannot sin. It is an a priori intrinsic and self evident truth. It’s just an impossibility. If God were to sin we would not be here arguing the case. There would be no world, no universe and NO God. It is against his nature. It’s like you and me flapping our arms attempting to fly, it’s impossible. But, that only makes the temptation worse. The temptations in the wilderness were not for nothing. Jesus was not just shadow boxing. These temptations against his flesh and against his human ego were real. But sin was not an option for Jesus so as to escape the temptations. He had to endure each one. He had to drink each cup to the dregs. His love for his Father, in an infinite trinitarian love would not allow sin to sever that bond.
When temptations come to us from without they are like sparks that light the fires of sinful passions in our hearts. It’s hard for us to resist them and often we cave in. With Jesus, those temptations from without find no fuel in Jesus. Jesus was not only sinless, but he is YAHWEH.
But, with the incarnation we do have something NEW with God. Before the incarnation, God had never become flesh. Now, the person of the Son of God had a different economy. He was working in the flesh and within time. But he never was non-God.
In the incarnation Jesus took on flesh, but he did not take on sinful flesh. He would not sin. He could not sin. So, he had no escape from the temptation except rely on the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit and he wielded it perfectly.
So, “He who knew no sin, became sin” Just as he gave us an alien righteousness, we have him our alien sin.
It was planned out in heaven before time, announced first in Genesis 3:15 and fulfilled on the Cross. The love of God is “perfect.” 1John speaks much of the love of God. It is Perfect Love that casts out fear. Perfect love is the love of God and Perfect does not equal reckless. It’s impossible. It is theologically impossible and it is logically impossible via the law of noncontradiction. A thing can not be x and not x at the same time and same circumstances. Jesus can not have Perfect Love and Reckless love during his life-span in the flesh.
So, Aaron, dear brother. Please ponder this. Please pray to God as I will be an be a Berean :0
Let’s all be passionate about the validity of this song and EVERY other song that we bring before God as a living worshipful sacrifice. Every one.
Charlie
Aaron
I really look forward to sitting around a table with you up in Heaven.
Charles Busada
I would love that too!, and perhaps we can do it on earth also?
I guess that this is not against the rules. Please contact me.
Charlie
Busada@gmail.com
Pricilla C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT_76UWLfpc
starting from around 55:25, Cory Asbury explains his word choice of “reckless” and the meaning of his song.
Neal Cruco
Vince,
I have made my case for describing God’s love for us as “reckless” elsewhere, so I will not repeat it here. I would instead like to talk about another controversial line of this song- “leaves the ninety-nine”. Commenter Dan (and perhaps others; I haven’t read all the comments) claims that the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep is actually the Pharisees, but provides no evidence for this assertion. He merely says “read the parable”. Well, I have, and here it is (NLT):
“Tax collectors and other notorious sinners often came to listen to Jesus teach. 2 This made the Pharisees and teachers of religious law complain that he was associating with such sinful people—even eating with them!
3 So Jesus told them this story: 4 “If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them gets lost, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others in the wilderness and go to search for the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he will joyfully carry it home on his shoulders. 6 When he arrives, he will call together his friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 In the same way, there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven’t strayed away!”
I don’t see anywhere that Jesus likens this shepherd to the Pharisees. I do, however, see where Jesus likens the rejoicing of the shepherd upon finding the sheep to the rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents (verse 7). I also see that Jesus’ motivation for telling this parable was the Pharisees’ complaints that He was pursuing sinners and even eating with them (verses 2-3). You say in the review “It does not say something to the effect of “in the same way, my Heavenly Father” or equivalent phrasing to indicate He would leave the righteous to rescue us.” But it seems to me that Jesus says something very much like that in verse 7! The NLT uses the phrase “in the same way”; other translations that I have checked use “likewise” or “just so”. It seems to me that Jesus is drawing a parallel between Himself and the shepherd after all! Like in other parables, He was using a situation that they understood (a shepherd chasing down a lost sheep at any cost) to explain why He sought company with sinners.
Well, if we take the shepherd to be Jesus, who is the ninety-nine? Other commenters have claimed that they represent believers, and that the song is claiming that God abandons the righteous to rescue sinners- clear blasphemy. This was something I struggled with for a long time. No explanation seemed sufficient. Then I had a flash of realization- we Christians are not the ninety-nine. We can’t be! Look at verse 7 again: “In the same way, there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven’t strayed away!” The ninety-nine are those who haven’t strayed away. Yet Isaiah 53:6 says “All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own.” How then can any of us fallen humans be part of the ninety-nine? It is impossible! The ninety-nine are righteous and have never strayed! The only ones who could fit that description are the angels- the two-thirds who have never forsaken Him!
Well, if we take the ninety-nine to be the angels, did God ever leave them? YES. Indeed He did. God incarnate left heaven and came down to earth seeking His wayward sheep- seeking to cross the gap between Him and them, even though they abandoned Him and plodded headlong into destruction. He chased us down. He fought til we were found. He laid down His very life for us wayward sheep.
That is the proper interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep, and that is what Asbury refers to when he says “leaves the ninety-nine”. Jesus is the shepherd. The ninety-nine are the angels- those who have never strayed, never forsaken Him. And the one? The one represents mankind. All of us, both Christians and non-Christians. We are the wayward sheep that God left heaven to find.
Vince Wright
Neal,
This is fascinating, thank you for sharing! You’ve made a compelling case for why angelic beings would be the ninety-nine and not the Pharisees.
I’d like to take some time to lay out what I compiled as Dan’s strongest rebuttals to this interpretation, based on his earlier commentary. He states that there are four possibilities:
1. The 99 are not believers at all as many assume.
2. The 99 ARE believers and God apparently sometimes abandons us to seek after the lost.
3. The flock is somehow not at risk in the open countryside.
4. The shepherd is not Jesus.
We will explore a fifth possibility, that the 99 are Angelic beings.
A) Scripture doesn’t say that God leaves the 99 righteous to pursue the lost.
If the 99 are Angelic beings, then there is Scripture that informs us that Christ left the 99 righteous. According to Philippians 2:6-11 and Hebrews 2:5-8, Christ left His throne and glory to become man, temporarily made in position lower than the Angelic beings. This implies that Jesus would have left the righteous Angelic creatures in pursuit of the lost, as stated in Matthew 18:11.
B) The sheep were lost in Luke 15 and wayward in Matthew 18.
Sometimes, the best place to start is by consulting a dictionary to see how words are defined. According to Merriam-Webster, the word “lost” means several things! The third definition, “ruined or destroyed physically or morally” is probably the closest fit given the context of Luke 15. What about wayward? It offers three definitions:
1) following one’s own capricious, wanton, or depraved inclinations: UNGOVERNABLE.
2) following no clear principle or law: UNPREDICTABLE.
3) opposite to what is desired or expected: UNTOWARD.
I don’t see how any of these definitions of “wayward” found in Matthew 18 differ from the third definition of “lost” that fits the context of Luke 15. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.
C) “Keep in mind that the parable [In luke 15] is really part 1a/b (the lost possessions), contrasted by part 2 (the father waiting for the spendthrift son). If Jesus is the shepherd who loses the sheep then we have to assume He is also the woman who loses the coin. But if that’s the case, why does Jesus up the ante about how frantic the woman is to find the lost coin? The panic-stricken searching for something she lost is not a picture of God’s character.”
The same can be said about God as the vineyard owner in Luke 20:9-19. Verse 13 makes him appear to not know how the tenants would react, thus, God is not omniscient and cannot be the owner. As Dan stated, there isn’t a one-to-one relationship with all the tenants of a parable. The same is true here, that is, the frantic attitude of the woman is not a good reason to think she doesn’t represent God in this parable.
Finally, I cross-referenced this with the other passage that talks about the ninety-nine, that is, Matthew 18:1-14 (particularly verses 12-14). Verse 10 tells us that angels “continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven” and Verse 11, “the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”. It’s in this context that Jesus tells (again?) the parable of the lost sheep in reference to the Father’s will that little ones not perish (see Verse 14). So, although as Dan correctly point outs, the players are different, and that the sheep are lost in Luke 15 and wayward in Matthew 18, humans cannot be righteous sheep that require no repentance. Angelic beings make sense, which, in light of Philippians 2:6-11 and Hebrews 2:5-8, means that Jesus left the 99 righteous Angelic creatures for the one lost sheep, which is all of humanity or all the elect in humanity (I won’t turn this into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate).
All this to say, I agree with you Neal! Therefore, I’ve updated this review and will restore my scoring for Hillsong’s So Will I.
-Vince Wright
Dan
Further contemplation of the Lost Sheep & Coins parable of Luke 15, upon which Cory Asbury based “Reckless Love”.
Despite the fact that Jesus is not at all cryptic with the subject matter, this is an oft misunderstood set of verses. In previous posts I’ve explained that Jesus plainly tells us the characters and roles in question.
Here Jesus offers a straight-forward explanation of the level of joy experienced in heaven over the repentance of a sinner. That is the focus of his sheep and coin examples. The context tells us this is not about leaving believers alone to fend for themselves while God is off chasing after the unbeliever. I believe the confusion comes because elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus tells two parables involving shepherds where the sheep represent people. As a result, many tend to conflate these stories as if the shepherd is always Jesus and the sheep always represent either believers or the lost (or both). However Jesus, in His own words, makes it clear this is not at all the case.
Let’s look at the three shepherd stories and notice what Jesus is saying:
John 10: The good shepherd who sacrifices his life for the sheep. This is the only parable where Jesus identifies himself as the shepherd. He explains that the sheep in this parable represent mankind, some of whom follow the good shepherd and some who are scattered because the hired hand doesn’t care about the sheep. This is the one parable in the New Testament where Jesus explains that the sheep represent both the saved and unsaved.
Matthew 18: The caring shepherd who is warned not to “despise” the person who goes astray but instead, should draw him back into the fold. This parable is an explanation to the disciples on how they should deal with wayward believers. Note that Jesus does not cast himself as the shepherd but instead places the disciples in that role. Note that all 100 sheep here are believers – though one has wandered off, none are lost. It’s a common error to think this wayward sheep is lost but Jesus is quite specific that this is a believer who has gone astray (Greek: planEthE).
Luke 15: The reckless shepherd who loses (Greek: “apolesas”) one of his sheep (pt 1) and the careless woman who loses her coin (pt 2). If we read a word-for-word translation, rather than a free/dynamic/paraphrase version of the Bible like the NLT, we see right up front who the shepherd is. You can imagine Jesus pointing to the Pharisees and scribes as he says, “What man of YOU…”. Notice he doesn’t say “If a man has 100 sheep…”. That’s Matthew 18:12! This is why we must be careful not to conduct an exegetical study from “dynamic” translations which can lead to improper conclusions.
Note that Jesus specifically states that neither the sheep nor the coins lose themselves or that they have always been lost. It’s not like the shepherd is off hunting wild sheep or the woman was searching for a previous homeowner’s hidden treasure. No, these were items of high value that the woman and the shepherd owned and were later responsible for losing (this is another major indicator that the shepherd isn’t Jesus since Jesus can’t lose us once we are His).
In a modern setting Jesus might have been talking to a group of rich “prosperity gospel” preachers. He would say to them, “Which one of you televangelists, having a MacBook Pro full of critical financial records, contracts, and donor pledges, if you lose the laptop while on the golf course, and realize you failed to make a back-up of the hard drive, would not drop your Callaway clubs, iPhone, and AirPods out in the parking lot and rush back to the course to find your laptop? And when you find it, you call your golfing buddies and say, ‘rejoice with me for you know that laptop I lost that had millions of dollars in financial documents on it? Would you believe I found it under a bench on the 17th green!
Then Jesus would say to the televangelists that when a sinner repents, the angels in heaven have a magnitude more joy than they would in finding their prized laptop containing a fortune in financial files.
Speaking of angels, the text does not support the notion that the “99” left in the wilderness are angels – or even believers (as Asbury implies in his lyric). They are only sheep, one of which apparently happens to be a particularly valuable sheep.
That’s it.
Now, if instead, the debate is over the identity of the 99 “righteous” mentioned at the conclusion of the first part of the parable, those can’t be angels either. In the Greek they are the “dikaiois”, a term used in Scripture of righteous people – not angels.
The larger question to answer here is whether Jesus held two fingers up on each hand to make air quotes as he said “righteous”. If he did, then he was aiming a dig at his assembled audience. Since Jesus casts the older brother in the second parable as representing the self-righteous religious leaders in attendance, we could likewise assume that the 99 “righteous people” spoken of earlier are people like the Pharisees and scribes. I personally tend to think that’s debatable since dikaiois often refers to an “innocent person” but in any case, “dikaiois” doesn’t mean angels. Bob Deffinbaugh does a good job of expounding on this question (article linked and referenced earlier in this thread).
To summarize; the one theological point that Asbury gets right in his lyrics is that the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep in the wilderness is most certainly reckless and I think that was part of Jesus’ point. The Pharisees WOULD behave recklessly upon realizing they lost a possession of extreme value. But that’s as far as Asbury is correct. Because he erroneously casts the 99 sheep as believers and the one sheep that the shepherd lost as the unbeliever, he reads into the story a grievous falsehood. Thus, he ends up blaming God for doing something that God promises He would never do; leave the believer alone in the wilderness.
Neal Cruco
Dan,
Thank you for your challenge. I am very much aware that the NLT is a looser, thought-for-thought translation. As mentioned in my first post, I do flip between multiple translations (currently the NLT, NASB, KJV, ESV, and CSB) when my exegesis is based on a single phrase of Scripture. Since you are arguing from a word-for-word translation of the Bible, let’s look at the parable of the lost sheep in the NASB, the most literal modern translation that I know of:
“Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
3 So He told them this parable, saying, 4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”
In this translation, I see the “what man among you” phrase that you base your exegesis off of. But what you do not seem to be accounting for is the context in which Jesus tells this parable. The Pharisees are complaining that Jesus seeks out sinners and even eats with them. Jesus responds by asking, essentially, “If you were a shepherd and one of your sheep went astray, would you not leave the other sheep and seek it out at any cost? In the same way, heaven rejoices more over the repentance of sinners than over those who do not need it.” He does the same in the parable of the lost coin- a woman who loses one of her coins would not be content with the ones she has left, but would seek out the lost one at any cost. And we see this also in Luke 14, when Jesus heals a man with dropsy (another term for edema). The Pharisees were watching Him closely, trying to find something that they could accuse Him of, and He openly heals the man, sends him away, and says essentially “If your son or ox fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you pull him out at once?”. In all of these cases, Jesus uses a situation that the Pharisees would understand to explain His actions.
Now I will respond directly to specific points from your comment:
“Matthew 18: The caring shepherd who is warned not to “despise” the person who goes astray but instead, should draw him back into the fold. This parable is an explanation to the disciples on how they should deal with wayward believers. Note that Jesus does not cast himself as the shepherd but instead places the disciples in that role. Note that all 100 sheep here are believers – though one has wandered off, none are lost. It’s a common error to think this wayward sheep is lost but Jesus is quite specific that this is a believer who has gone astray (Greek: planEthE).”
That’s not at all what I see.
““What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? 13 If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. 14 So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.” (NASB)
Jesus is telling this to the disciples, true, but where does He equate the shepherd with the disciples? Where does he equates the straying sheep with wayward believers? Indeed, the only substantial difference between this parable and its counterpart in Luke 15 is the scene- mountains vs. open pasture. There is still an explicit heavenly analogue to the behavior of this shepherd. There is still the distinction between the one sheep that strayed and the 99 that did not. And as Vince said in his response, your distinction between “lost” and “wayward/straying” seems to be a distinction without a difference- completely arbitrary. (I was not able to find the Greek word “planEthE” that you refer to. The words that the NASB translates as “straying” or “astray” in this passage derive from “plané”, which Strong’s Concordance defines as “a wandering; fig: deceit, delusion, error, sin” and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines as “a wandering, a straying about, whereby one, led astray from the right way, roams hither and thither”. [https://biblehub.com/greek/4106.htm])
“Note that Jesus specifically states that neither the sheep nor the coins lose themselves or that they have always been lost. It’s not like the shepherd is off hunting wild sheep or the woman was searching for a previous homeowner’s hidden treasure.”
Nor were we always lost. God created humanity (the lost sheep and the lost coin) as righteous, and then we chose to leave Him and pursue our own path. (Again, this is an analogy for humanity, not any individual person or group, so I am not denying the doctrine of original sin.)
“No, these were items of high value that the woman and the shepherd owned and were later responsible for losing (this is another major indicator that the shepherd isn’t Jesus since Jesus can’t lose us once we are His).”
Jesus did not paint either the shepherd or the woman as irresponsible, and as I said earlier, the sheep/coins that are not lost do not represent believers, so the fact that believers cannot be snatched out of Jesus’ hand is irrelevant.
“Now, if instead, the debate is over the identity of the 99 “righteous” mentioned at the conclusion of the first part of the parable, those can’t be angels either. In the Greek they are the “dikaiois”, a term used in Scripture of righteous people – not angels.”
I have not studied Greek, but according to Strong’s Concordance for “dikaios” (https://biblehub.com/greek/1342.htm), it just means “correct, righteous, by implication innocent”. (It is an adjective, not a noun.) Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines the word as “in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God”. That’s it. The term is used both for righteous people and righteous acts, and it certainly applies to the angels who did not rebel against God. To claim “Scripture never obviously uses this word to refer to angels, therefore it cannot refer to angels” is an argument from silence- weak at best.
To summarize, I find no compelling argument for why your interpretation of these parables is superior to mine. (If you believe I have not addressed all of your points, please let me know what I missed.) I am very willing to agree to disagree, both on these parables and on this song. These issues are not essential doctrines of Scripture. But if you were hoping to convince me that my interpretation is unsound, you have not succeeded.
Dan
Neal,
I appreciate your response but candidly, I would challenge both the substance of your arguments and the approach to the passage.
I’ll explain:
AYou say: “…NASB, the most literal modern translation that I know of”.
The NASB is certainly a word-for-word style translation, but because it is based on the work of Wescott and Hort, I have long questioned its general reliability (as we’ll see in a moment).
I don’t want to get into an argument over translations but I only bring this up because of your assertion that the NASB is the go-to translation. Because it’s roots are in Wescott and Hort, I find it less reliable than either the ISV or the NKJV.
B. You say: “Indeed, the only substantial difference between this parable [Matt. 18] and its counterpart in Luke 15 is the scene- mountains vs. open pasture.”
Really, the only substantial difference? I find 7 substantial differences that clearly demonstrate these two are not “counterparts” except at a surface level and there likely more than 7:
1. In Luke he is addressing the Pharisees and scribes. In Matthew he is addressing the disciples.
2. In Luke he equates the shepherd with the aforementioned Pharisees and scribes. “What man of YOU…” (NKJV). In Matthew he says “If a man…”. A passive reference implying that the disciples (and the reader) should consider the following story as illustrative of their own role, vis a vis straying believers. We know from context that Matthew 18 is an encouragement to ALL mature believers in how to treat the “weaker brother” so it makes sense that Jesus does not use the words, “What man of you…” like he does in Luke 15.
3. In Luke, both the shepherd and the woman LOSE the valuable. Whether accidentally, because they were forgetful, or because they were not careful, I don’t really know or care. What is critical is that in Luke He specifically states that the characters in the example lose something, while the opposite is true in Matthew. There, the sheep goes astray. The shepherd isn’t responsible for losing it. BIG difference.
4. There are two examples (sheep/shepherd and coins/woman) in Luke 15. One might torture the text enough to claim the shepherd represents Jesus and the sheep are people who are both unbelievers and saved, but then what of the woman and the coins? Is Jesus also supposed to be represented by the woman and the coins are the aforementioned saved and unsaved? That makes marginal sense to me as a metaphor. In Matthew 18, there is no analog to the woman or the coins.
5. The moral of the story in Luke 15 is to shine light on the level of rejoicing in heaven over repentance. In Matthew, while there is rejoicing by the shepherd, this is not likened to rejoicing in heaven, Instead, Jesus states “It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
Since this is a discussion of Luke 15 I won’t get into the meaning of this somewhat cryptic closing except to say that apparently, Jesus is intimating that a pastor or mature believer could end up ‘despising” the immature or weaker brother and this could lead that immature believer to some kind of destruction. It’s a hard passage to grasp, given that a question is begged: What if the shepherd DOESN’T find the straying sheep? Is he lost in the sense he goes to hell (an Armenian view) or is he lost in that he loses his rewards (the Missler “Overcomer” view)?
6. In Luke, the shepherd leaves the 99 sheep in the open wilderness while in Matthew, they may actually be back in the pasture before the shepherd returns to the mountains to go find the sheep that has strayed. Still, many translations say the 99 sheep are in the hills. This has long been recognized by scholars as a notable difference between these two sheep stories.
Why would Jesus change the setting so dramatically? This goes to one more support that Jesus is putting the Pharisees in the role of the shepherd of Luke 15. Not only does Jesus say that the shepherd loses the one sheep in the first place but the shepherd compounds his carelessness by abandoning the rest of his flock.
7. The context and thrust of Luke chapter 15 is completely different than Matthew chapter 18. Luke 15 is about rejoicing over repentance of sinners while Matthew 18 is about dealing with wayward believers.
As an aside, you use the term, “pasture”. This is a rather clumsy mistranslation in the NASB designed to further the notion that the shepherd in the parable is Jesus. However, the word used by Jesus is, in the Greek, “erEmO” which means “desolate” or “wilderness”. To change the word “wilderness” to “open pasture” appears to be an attempt by the NASB editors to rationalize the imprudent actions of the shepherd. Apparently it’s not so bad if the shepherd leaves the sheep in a “pasture” but he would never leave them in the wilderness. This is just fraudulent editorializing. Most translations use “wilderness”, and for good reason; because that reflects what Jesus actually said.
C You say: “To claim “Scripture never obviously uses this word to refer to angels, therefore it cannot refer to angels” is an argument from silence- weak at best.”
Neal, I’m not sure if you realize you are making the opposite point than you intend. You are saying that just because dikaiois is not used of angles doesn’t mean it COULDN’T mean angels. That, my friend, is an argument from silence – which I agree is weak. Furthermore, I couldn’t find a single version that translates dikaiois as “righteous angels”. Bible Gateway has over 50 translations and if you look through these you’ll notice that nearly all of them use the phrase “righteous persons”. A few don’t include the word “persons” and a few others use the phrase “righteous ones”. So I suppose you could read into those outliers that their lack of identification of who is righteous might allow for angels.
Nevertheless, I don’t actually see the point in trying to shoehorn angels into this passage in the first place. The 99 sheep in the parable are 99 sheep. No deeper meaning than that. The 99 “righteous” could be, by your accounting, literally anyone. It might even mean 99 pagans who imagine themselves as good people. Whatever, read into it what you wish. I have not previously debated who these righteous people are except to point the reader of this thread to Bob Deffinbaugh’s scholarship on the matter. He believes Jesus is digging on the Pharisees at this point.
D You say: “I find no compelling argument for why your interpretation of these parables is superior to mine.”
To this I say that my interpretation takes Jesus’ own words at face value. I also believe the point of the Luke 15 parables has nothing to do with Jesus going out and recklessly trying to save the lost as this is counter to God’s character. My view is that Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees to put themselves in the place of a shepherd and then asks them to imagine how they would feel upon finding something of great worldly value like a prized sheep. Jesus then uses their emotional response to help them appreciate the emotional response of the angels when a sinner repents.
To take this back to the point of this thread, here are my questions for you Neal:
1. Is the shepherd acting recklessly when he leaves the 99 believers alone as he then apparently climbs every mountain, fords every stream, and follows every rainbow to find the one that He lost, as Cory Asbury claims?
2. Is there a difference between a sheep that is lost by the shepherd vs. a sheep that wanders away of its own volition? If yes, then why does Jesus not tell the Pharisees that their sheep went astray rather than them losing it?
3. Is there a reason that Jesus seemingly contrasts the shepherd/woman of Luke 15:3-10 who madly search for their lost worldly possessions vs. the Father of Luke 15:11-32 who patiently waits for his prodigal son to return? No hunting is in view in that parable.
4. Why does Jesus change up the nature of the language between Luke 15 and Matthew 18? Why not tell the story the same way rather than making the 7 key changes I list above? I have my theories on this beyond the fact that he is telling two different stories about two different topics.
5. More to the point, why does Jesus not harmonize his story with his version in say, John 10? He could have started out Luke 15 with, “I am the good shepherd and one day I was out in the wilderness and lost one of my sheep, so I left the rest of the flock in the wilderness to search for the sheep that I lost”.
I would venture to guess that the Pharisees would, upon hearing this, immediately think to themselves, “What kind of ‘good shepherd’ is this guy? LOL. First he loses one of his sheep and then abandons the rest of them in the wilderness to go after the one he lost. That sounds like an incompetent shepherd to me.”
In closing, one thing about the sheep and coin stories that I sometimes wonder is if Jesus’ teaching involved some dialog. There is no recorded exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees once he starts and these are guys who otherwise always seem fairly argumentative. It’s not in the text so I will freely admit it’s conjecture but when Jesus says “What man of you would, after losing a sheep, not leave the rest of your flock in the wilderness to go get the one.”
Don’t you imagine the Pharisees, upon hearing this accusation, saying, “Wait a minute, WE’RE supposed to be the shepherd in this story?” “WE lose one of our sheep?” And Jesus replies, either “yes, you’re the shepherd” or maybe He generalizes and says to them, “it could be you or anyone within the sound of my voice or the people who read this story later”. We don’t know if he clarified and I think the reason we don’t see him saying it could be any generic person is that he is verbally pointing to the Pharisees as He starts the teaching.
– Dan
Neal Cruco
Dan,
To avoid getting lost in the weeds here, I may not respond individually to every sub-point that you’ve made. These arguments are also very long, and I’m not going to keep replying if we keep going in circles. (I have a small taste of, and thus more appreciation for, the effort that goes into every one of Vince’s reviews!)
A. You don’t like the NASB? Okay, I can make my case from the NKJV. I won’t turn this into a translation reliability debate. Let’s see the parable from the NKJV:
“Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.”
This is almost exactly how the NASB translates it, so my argument remains unchanged.
B. 1- Granted, this is a difference I should have mentioned, but I don’t think it helps your argument any. 2- I’m not understanding your argument here. When Jesus opens with “what man of you”, he is equating the shepherd with his audience, but when Jesus opens with “if a man”, dropping “of you”, he’s… still equating the shepherd with his audience? And this distinction is important somehow? 3- You continue to assume one particular definition of “lost”. As Vince said, Merriam-Webster’s third definition, “ruined or destroyed physically or morally” is probably the closest fit given the context of Luke 15. “I don’t see how any of these definitions of “wayward” found in Matthew 18 differ from the third definition of “lost” that fits the context of Luke 15. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.” 4- So Jesus made the same point two different ways on one occasion, and only one way on another. Is that so impossible? Jesus was human just like us- why does this difference completely change His meaning? 5- Granted. Jesus did end this parable differently than in Luke, and I have to wonder why. 6- I don’t know why He’d change the scene, but I fail to see how this helps your argument. I already mentioned this difference. 7- That’s your interpretation of Matthew 18, which I doubt.
As for your aside, the NASB’s choice of words is not nearly as meaningful as you are claiming. The Greek word used is “erémos”, meaning “solitary, desolate”. (https://biblehub.com/greek/2048.htm) It is translated here in a number of ways across different translations- “open field”, “wilderness”, “open country”, “open pasture”, etc. All of these words imply an empty, isolated, uninhabited area, albeit one with plenty of grass for animals. Indeed, Merriam-Webster defines “pasture” as simply “land or a plot of land used for grazing”. There is no agenda by the Lockman Foundation to mischaracterize Jesus’ words here.
C. Either you have completely misread my argument, or you have completely misunderstood the nature of an argument from silence. I’m guessing the former. “You are saying that just because dikaiois is not used of angels doesn’t mean it COULDN’T mean angels.” Absolutely not. I am saying that “dikaios” is an adjective that, in one word, means “righteous”. This can be applied to a person, an angel, an action, etc. It could apply to angels just as well as people. You, on the other hand, are basing your argument (both in your first and second replies) on the ABSENCE OF SOMETHING, saying that because Jesus never obviously uses “dikaios” to refer to angels, it can’t be used in that way. Or because no version translates “dikaios” as “righteous angels”, it can’t possibly refer to angels. That’s an argument from silence- the emptiness is your evidence. It’s not necessary to have a translation that does that anyway- when an adjective is used as a noun, it refers to a group that possesses that trait. “The healthy” means a healthy group. “The poor” means a poor group. And “the righteous” means a righteous group. It could be righteous humans, or it could be righteous angels. Context must tell us who is in the righteous group, and I have already given my argument for it being angels, with Jesus as the shepherd.
Questions:
1. Why are you saying that the 99 are believers? I’m not arguing that, and neither are you, as far as I can tell. No, the shepherd isn’t reckless, because He is Jesus, and His flock isn’t at risk in heaven.
2. Yes, but it doesn’t apply to this passage, because there is no irresponsibility or recklessness on the shepherd’s part. See B3.
3. The first two parables illustrate God’s love by showing the lengths He will go to for us. (As Vince [and you, earlier] said, there is not an exact one-to-one relationship in a parable, so the details may not match up perfectly.) The third illustrates God’s love by showing how unconditional and total His forgiveness is, even in light of our total depravity. There is no contradiction, and the situations given are entirely different.
4-5. Can’t answer that. Maybe those details weren’t so important to Him, and He didn’t bother to tell the story exactly the same way every time. But maybe not. Maybe there’s actually something about Scripture that I don’t totally understand yet. (That was sarcasm. I don’t know God’s Word nearly as well as I would like to.) But why should He be obliged to tell the same story the same way every time, and why should He be obliged to explain His parables entirely? In fact, He was in the habit of not explaining them, except sometimes to His disciples (Matthew 13:11).
To summarize, the only thing I have been convinced of is that I don’t understand all of Scripture. Which I was already convinced of, but this has reinforced it. You are welcome to your interpretation of these parables and this song, even though I believe you are wrong. I am happy to agree to disagree.
JM
Guys – I’m wondering if this is turning into a “can’t see the forest through the trees” situation. The details can be (and probably should be) debated to get to a true understanding of Luke 15 parables – but this isn’t so much the main issue here. Regardless of the correct interpretation of the Luke 15 parables, Asbury does say in his defense of his song that the reason God’s love is “reckless”, is because he could loose the 99.
“His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time. To many practical adults, that’s a foolish concept. “But what if he loses the ninety-nine in search of the one?” What if? Finding that one lost sheep is, and will always be, supremely important.” – Cory Asbury: https://www.facebook.com/coryasburymusic/posts/many-have-asked-me-for-clarity-on-the-phrase-reckless-love-many-have-wondered-wh/10158977378510171/
I’m reading into his wording that the 99 are viewed as believers here (given the prevailing understanding of this parable, I think its a fair assumption). The whole song is built around this idea – that God can loose his people (to Satan / whomever, the song doesn’t say), and that “risk” is what makes his actions reckless to save the 1. That notion can be refuted with the scriptures that say no one will snatch us out of God’s hand (John 10:28-29), and nothing can separate us from the love of God (Rom 8:31-39). Let the song rise or fall on its own interpretation and intent – in this case, it falls flat with a clearly refuted false teaching.
Neal Cruco
JM,
Thank you for mentioning this. Asbury’s intent is certainly worth noting, even if it is a little cryptic. I’d like to know if he seriously thinks God could lose the ninety-nine in search of the one. Still, even if Asbury does think this, it doesn’t matter to me. I judge songs on their own merits- on the lyrics that I’d actually be singing. Background information like this is useful and interesting, but not necessary. I’ve made my case for a biblical interpretation of this song’s controversial lines, and that’s the one I’ll be using when singing this song. Whether it’s the one that Asbury meant… well, I’m not so sure now. But as I said, that’s irrelevant to me. Just like how the false doctrine taught by Hillsong and Bethel doesn’t affect my opinion of their songs with biblically sound lyrics.
Dan
This is precisely correct JM. True, the discussion can get into the weeds.
To make things clear, there are 3 possible scenarios being discussed:
1. Asbury’s interpretation (with which many on this thread agree) is that Jesus is the shepherd who leaves the 99 believers alone in the wilderness to search after the lost one (note: the parable says that the shepherd loses the sheep rather than the sheep just getting lost on its own or was always lost.) His lyric ignores that Jesus plainly states that it is shepherd who is responsible for losing the sheep.
Asbury implies that leaving believers behind to go after a lost soul is why he says the shepherd (Jesus) could be labeled as “reckless”.
2. Neal’s interpretation is that Jesus is the shepherd who, if I’m understanding what he is saying, leaves 99 angels in heaven to search for lost souls on earth. Like Asbury, Neal does not believe the shepherd loses the sheep but rather, the 100th sheep was always lost. Neal disagrees with Asbury vis a vis the risk of leaving the 99, stating that since Jesus left the 99 safely in heaven He wasn’t being reckless at all.
Setting aside this angel theory, the fact remains that Jesus clearly states that the shepherd loses (according to Neal, “ruined or destroyed physically or morally”) the sheep. I would only comment that any person who “physically or morally destroys” another person is being kind of reckless. Jesus might say this of the Pharisees but certainly not of Himself.
3. My interpretation is that, as Jesus clearly states up front, the Pharisee is in the role of the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep. These sheep, like the coins, represent things of high value to them. Jesus says they lose one of their sheep and upon realizing this, leave their flock in the wilderness to search after the one sheep they lost track of.
In this interpretation, like the previous two, the shepherd is negligent in one way or another. They lost one of their sheep and/or then compounded the error by leaving the 99 alone on the wilderness. The Pharisees would have perceived that Jesus was insulting them for leaving the flock at risk while searching for the sheep they lost. In this respect, there is an undertone to the teaching that reinforces Jesus’ attitude toward Jewish leaders of the day who had a history of abandoning their flocks in favor of their own selfish desires. That said, the primary thrust of the parable is to demonstrate the joy in heaven over the repentance of the sinner.
Bottom line, no matter which interpretation you adopt, the shepherd most certainly is reckless (but, I might interject, not in a loving way).
Neal Cruco
“Neal’s interpretation is that Jesus is the shepherd who, if I’m understanding what he is saying, leaves 99 angels in heaven to search for lost souls on earth. Like Asbury, Neal does not believe the shepherd loses the sheep but rather, the 100th sheep was always lost. Neal disagrees with Asbury vis a vis the risk of leaving the 99, stating that since Jesus left the 99 safely in heaven He wasn’t being reckless at all.
Setting aside this angel theory, the fact remains that Jesus clearly states that the shepherd loses (according to Neal, “ruined or destroyed physically or morally”) the sheep. I would only comment that any person who “physically or morally destroys” another person is being kind of reckless. Jesus might say this of the Pharisees but certainly not of Himself.”
You still are not properly understanding my argument, which makes responding to your rebuttals troublesome. Are you just not reading them properly, or am I just that bad at writing?
The one wayward sheep was not always lost. It represents mankind, and Genesis clearly states that God created the first humans perfect, sinless, without fault. Then we strayed away. We chose our own paths over God’s (Isaiah 53:6). So Jesus came after us, seeking to return us to the flock.
Furthermore, Jesus does clearly state that the shepherd loses the sheep, but He never says that this was due to recklessness. Indeed, He never states that the loss was the shepherd’s fault at all! There are many definitions of “lose” and many definitions of the Greek word “apollumi”, and they do not require fault on the shepherd’s part. You are completely misapplying the definition of “lost” that Vince and I are using.
Dan
Neal, if you wish to make the argument that man was once perfect (and not just “very good” as it says in Genesis) and then later not, we’ll just have to disagree. I don’t think there is any Scriptural basis for anyone other than Christ Himself being a perfect man. Was Jesus fallible? Nope. Was Adam? Absolutely.
Secondly, if you want to posit that the shepherd didn’t “lose” the sheep (as Jesus plainly states was what happened) that’s also your choice. Jesus used a verb not an adjective. Jesus does not say, the shepherd went in search of a lost sheep. Not at all.
Personally, I don’t really care how the shepherd came to lose the sheep since Jesus doesn’t tell the Pharisee’s how this happened. He just simply states that the shepherd did the deed. I previously said that it could have been accidental, due to absent-mindedness, or the shepherd was reckless. We don’t know which.
Jesus, I believe, purposefully uses “loses” to convey that the shepherd was negligent in some way. If we take Jesus at His word that He is placing His audience in the role of the shepherd, then this phraseology makes sense since Jesus often criticized the Jewish leaders for caring more about themselves than others. Otherwise, the use of the word makes zero sense.
Since Jesus states that the shepherd is responsible for losing the sheep, this is the second clue to remind us that Jesus is not the shepherd here.
The context of the entire teaching is that the shepherd and the woman are materialists who care about things more than people. Jesus contrasts the Pharisees’ materialism vs. God’s care for people as seen in the Parable of the Prodigal.
Please re-read Bob Deffinbaugh’s insightful study on the the meaning of the Lost Sheep/Coins contrasted to the Prodigal. You will then see why the sheep/coins must necessarily represent worldly items (of value to the shepherd/Pharisee) vs. God the Father’s love of people.
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
Best regards,
Dan
Aaron
God lost Adam and Eve to sin. He sent Jesus to get us back. And then why was Jesus tempted by the Devil unless the carnal flesh of Jesus had the capacity to sin? Jesus choose not to sin…otherwise it was just semantics encased in a failsafe plan. However, neither you nor I know if it truly was possible for Jesus to sin… But if Jesus could haved sinned, sending Jesus here to earth in human flesh for 33 years was a risky or even reckless plan.
Chris.
I’m not sure if this (very long ,sorry!) comment will be seen by the writer (or anyone else) since this review is a couple years old now. I just wanted to say that I love this song and I love it (probably) for some of the exact same reasons that people DON’T like it. Not that it’s out of spite or trying to be controversial, but because I believe that this song has true, honest emotions and feelings inside of it that often are missing in most Contemporary Christian Music. I am a musician, and I (without trying to sound egotistical) often can’t stand listening to CCM. To me, it relies heavily on buzz-words and clichéd phrases. Phrases are obviously clichéd for a reason, but there is an apparent lack of creativity among CCM and it often uses the same pattern of repetition, building, 4 to the floor kick pattern and essentially turning a 4 minute song into 12 minutes.
This is where I feel like Reckless Love breaks that pattern. Of course it still has a lot of the tonal and stylistic characteristics of CCM, but the raw, tangible emotion touches me in a way that not many worship songs do, and that to be honest, more secular songs do than Worship. There is something so visceral about the language used that sticks out and GRABS me so much that I can’t ignore it. The emotion that is tied into those words makes me FEEL.
When I’m at church, I often try to put myself in the shoes of a non-christian friend who I’ve been thinking of bringing to church, often they would be a musician and songwriter themselves. I try to imagine the whole service as if I were new and had never experienced church before. When I imagine myself as a non-christian during worship, I just can’t get past how stupid it feels to repeat “Amen” for nearly 2 minutes, relatively early in the song (see: ‘The Blessing’). We can’t expect for every song to be aimed at newcomers or be incredible songs on a global scale, but where is the creativity that God has given us? Where is that raw emotion that we can see in David’s songs throughout the Psalms? That’s where I feel Reckless Love fills a gap. Sure it might not be legalistically perfect, but analysing a song like that is like analysing every single minute detail in a film of book á la English class in high school (“The curtains were blue, meaning the director thought..” etc etc.).
There is room for worship in churches to also be personal, raw, visceral, artistic. That doesn’t mean it’s ‘blasphemous’. By trying to make sure everything is ‘congregational’ we lose the special parts in order to fit a giant mold and excuse the gross imagery but a lot of CCM conjures the image of a dog eating its own vomit.
I know for 100% sure that if *I* had written Reckless Love, there’s absolutely no way it would’ve ever been sung in my church, but I’m grateful that my church does play it because it came from Bethel, and it absolutely deserves to be sung in churches.
Vince Wright
Chris,
Thank you for your thoughts! I don’t always respond to commentary; However, I read every comment that comes in.
I am glad that you find this song a blessing in your life!
-Vince Wright
Adrianna
I think the song has an overall great meaning, and some words can easily be changed!
Like the word Relentless instead is Reckless fits in! Or “leaves the 99” changed to “never leaves behind”
You can always play around with a song if lyrics make you uncomfortable and it’s still a great song!
Vince Wright
Adrianna,
Thank you for your comment! Yes, you can play with its lyrics; However, should we be forced to do that? That ought to tell us something about the lyrics in question.
-Vince Wright
Tony Morton
Hi,
I love the concept of what you are doing with this website. Whilst many have thought the term Reckless to be negative and your dictionary quote shows why. I think there is another aspect of Reckless that in my culture (Kiwi) that seems very appropriate. Here bravery is recognised as the “reckless disregard for there own safety” essentially not concerned with their own personal suffering which would describe what Jesus did quite well. I also feel that the parable of the sower also shows God acting in a manner that appears (to us as reckless), scattering seed everywhere instead of only sowing it on good soil. Any way thank you for the opportunity to state my view, I give the song a 9/10 🙂
Charles Busada
Tony,
Excellent comment. I had to look up “Kiwy culture” on Google to read about it. What a wonderful culture it is! And, from your comments, it would seem that churches in New Zealand do, and should, examine every hymn or song that they play to see if the songs and tunes are appropriate for worship and glorify God. Apparently in New Zealand “Reckless Love” is a go.
But in western culture we are still very influenced by Aristotle’s ethics. He looked at virtues and vices and came to the conclusion that we should look for a “golden mean.” To get to the point, Courage is the golden mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. Courage, then, would be a character trait that is developed and mature in a rational being.
So, for we westerners, “reckless” in in the foolhardiness range of courage. It’s sort of a “damn the torpedoes, CHARGE” thing to do, and it is not a complement. So, to attribute this to God is not glorifying at all; it is demeaning.
This goes for all hymns and songs. Long ago, the Hymn entitled “How Sweet and Awful is this place” was appropriate to sing in church. Not so anymore, but the simple change of the word “awful to “awesome” fixed it up! I think that is what “Reckless” needs in the west; it needs a simple change in one word, and this is a title word.
Dan
“Changing one word” would certainly fix the problem with the song being sacrilegious and divisive. So that would be a start.
Two other more problematic issues would remain however.
1. The song is blasphemous in that Asbury claims that the Lord abandons believers to seek after the unsaved. There is nothing in Scripture that says that God will leave us like this song claims He does. Quite the opposite. He PROMISED he would never leave us. Asbury saying otherwise is to call God a liar.
2. The song focuses on the false teaching of the manner in which God draws people to Himself. He doesn’t climb every mountain or light up every shadow or kick down walls to come after us. This is completely contrary to His nature. If this were the case then ALL would be saved. Otherwise, it could be claimed that somehow, God was unable to light up every shadow or kick down every wall in certain circumstances.
Like the father in the Prodigal Son parable, God actually waits patiently for the return of the repentant. This is the theme of the Bible. Sure, God prods people through circumstances to consider Him as an alternative but when Jesus sacrificed His life, he did so knowing that many would not choose to accept the gift of salvation and further, that He wasn’t going to force them to.
So sure, change “Reckless” to maybe, “Abundant”. Step 2: remove the blasphemy about the Lord leaving the 99. Step 3: remove all the nonsense prose about God climbing every mountain and kicking down every wall to come after the unsaved.
When done, you might have a decent song that wouldn’t be claiming things about God that aren’t true. Of course, the song would then have only two verses and no chorus, but at least it wouldn’t be the disaster it is now.
Charles Busada
Wow Dan, I never ever thought that I would defend this song. But, if the two theologically problem verses were removed we would have a totally Calvinistic song. As Piper pointed out, the first verse is thoroughly Calvinistic whether Asbury meant to write it or not.
As far as leaving the 99, if you take the parable to be about Jesus as the Shepherd, I assume that if would go without saying that he would not leave his sheep in danger. As far as looking under every rock (or whatever) I took this as God is the Hound of Heaven, or thought of Psalm 139:7 and following. And with modern tunes it seems that we most always have to help out the song writer 🙁
7 Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
So with this attitude God is not necessarily to “climb every mountain” (every time I hear that line I think of “The Sound of Music!) but God is already there.
Enough, I may regret my words.
Charles
Dan
Charles, Thanks for your thoughts.
Please take a moment to read my explanation above as to why the parable of the shepherd who leaves his 99 sheep cannot be about Jesus. Jesus Himself bluntly states at the outset that the shepherd in that parable is played by the Pharisees that he was talking to. That’s why it’s best to call the main character in the parable, the “Careless Shepherd” since he DOES leave the 99 unprotected in the wilderness.
AS for your second point, I do love that Psalm and it is a definite reminder that God is always with us. Of course, Asbury is not writing about God’s omnipresence per se so we should be careful not to conflate the 2 issues here.
We know that God doesn’t hunt us down no matter what like the lyric says. That gives a completely wrong impression of how God seeks to draw us to Himself.
Charles Busada
Agreed Dan. Also I did read your post on the parable and found it persuasive. But, I’m so happy. I have finally “met” someone who is stricter (more careful) on lyrical content on songs than I am! No one in my band thanks anyone exists who is more rigorous than me. They think that I am a killjoy because “everyone loves these songs and don’t care if they have errors that only I can find.”
Now, someone has to start a discussion on the invasion of the “millennial whoop” in our current music. I can hear it a mile away. Google it if you need to.
Dan
Charles, I generally avoid making a huge deal about the weaknesses of worship and praise lyrics these days. Ever since the passing of the age of hymns in the early 70s, worship songs have not exactly been a place we can expect strong theological statements. So my expectations are low. But I do have a floor for those expectations.
That said, most modern worship songs, while weak on the teaching end of the scale, at least aren’t outright wrong or blasphemous like “Reckless Love” is. I know that songs like “Oceans”, for example, only barely teach/inform but at least they aren’t outright wrong in their messaging. There would be way too much to criticize these days if we expected theological meat in the lyrics of every song we sing.
I’ve talked to our church leadership about this issue and they are trying to be more on the ball with regard to weeding out songs that are marginally Biblical (and at least one of our pastors agrees that RL is indeed a serious problem from a theological perspective.) At our church, the creative team is given a fair amount of leeway in what music they select and the teaching team is somewhat loathe to meddle. And of course, the Creative team is entirely comprised of Millennials who are generally without a strong seminary background. So they lean toward Hillsong and Bethel since those are the orgs that are churning out the most popular worship music these days.
On the plus side, we are also singing more Jason Ingram songs so that is a definite plus.
Charles Busada
Dan, really, I am fully with you. I feel exactly as you do. Most of the songs are vacuous, and a good number of them have awkward melodies and are very hard for people to sing.I have been with my band for two years now. Finally they are hearing me out. You mentioned millennials; Not only are they theologically weak (by generations of topical preaching) but they think that all music was created in 1985. They are unaware of names such as Keith Green, Rick Mullins, Michael Card, etc. I mean, even, “In Christ alone” needed to be reworked into the industry formula. It needed a face lift by an acoustic buildup to power magna guitar and pads, and . . . even added a chorus. I mean the song is only 20 years old!
But anyway Dan, I am fully with you. I just wish we would only play great songs and hymns. There are so many thousands of them spanning 2000 years, old and new. Awwww there I go.
Ella
I think you should have stuck to Your original Instinct which was purely from the Spirit of God, I to feel the same way about Reckless when it could have easily been RELENTLESS in its place because, God is never Reckless and, never ever ever will that be the case, because his word stands pure and strong, the people need to read it more instead of relying on man as it’s stated in the word, rely on noone and test everything!
My God bless you all Brother’s and Sister’s ♡
Kevin
The comments are on fiyah!
Yep, gonna weight in… Everyone in my circle has issue with that 1 word in this song: “reckless” which sets the tone for the entire song to be interpreted in that context.
Yes, we could change it to “boundless” or “tender” or “deep, deep” or whatever. It could still be a beautiful song. But Cory Asbury loves the word “reckless” in this place and chose to keep it there, even amid much criticism. Hearing his own comments about it, I think the issue with many Christians is theological:
Reckless, as Asbury states, indicates risk. Risk on God’s part. To which any good Calvinist will state: God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and by nature cannot take risks. This is the end of the argument for many Christians and I respect that position fully. To sing the song as is would be offensive.
However, I also respect the position of believers who understand that our omnipotent God humbled Himself to the place of limiting His power in order to allow us free will to choose Him or not. Therein lies the potential risk that Asbury writes about. If nobody received Christ’s offer of salvation and forgiveness, then His actions would have been pretty reckless. Opponents of predestination see this as that high-risk action taken by our own God.
These two diametrically and virtually irreconcilable viewpoints are the subject of much heated and often vicious debates, and will be the reason many believers cannot accept this song.
Joseph Walsh
C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe … If ever any love could be deemed as reckless, it was the love Christ displayed for us in being willing to die
C.S. Lewis, Let us ask God to awaken such a abandoned and reckless love to come alive in us…
If you debate for even one second when God has spoken, it is all over for you. Never start to say, “Well, I wonder if He really did speak to me?” Be reckless immediately— totally unrestrained and willing to risk everything— by casting your all upon Him. You do not know when His voice will come to you… Oswald Chambers- My utmost for His Highest June 18
Christian workers fail because they place their desire for their own holiness above their desire to know God. “Don’t ask me to be confronted with the strong reality of redemption on behalf of the filth of human life surrounding me today; what I want is anything God can do for me to make me more desirable in my own eyes.” To talk that way is a sign that the reality of the gospel of God has not begun to touch me. There is no reckless abandon to God in that. God cannot deliver me while my interest is merely in my own character. Paul was not conscious of himself. He was recklessly abandoned, totally surrendered, and separated by God for one purpose— to proclaim the gospel of God (see Romans 9:3).
My utmost for His Highest Jan. 31 Oswald Chambers
Are you debating whether to take a step in faith in Jesus or to wait until you can see how to do the thing yourself? Obey Him with glad reckless joy Oswald Chambers March 21 My Utmost For His Highest
Are you debating whether to take a step in faith in Jesus or to wait until you can see how to do the thing yourself? Obey Him with glad reckless joy
Faith is the heroic effort of your life, you fling yourself in reckless confidence on God. May 18
Jun 13, 2019 – By Oswald Chambers … realizes that it is God Who engineers circumstances, consequently there is no whine, but a reckless abandon to Jesus.
Jun 21, 2019 – … of the Inner Life. By Oswald Chambers … Launch out in reckless, unrestrained belief that the redemption is complete
Jan 31, 2019 – … sign that the reality of the Gospel of God has not begun to touch me; there is no reckless abandon to God. … Wisdom From Oswald Chambers.
I agree with Oswald Chambers and deeply appreciate breaking through the venire of our everyday language to make the message come alive. He probably is using the term “reckless” in a way that was more common in England during the 1800s. But then most of us let King James English pass . He in no way is encouraging us to be careless- not caring. He explains in his context be reckless meaning- unrestrained, willing to risk everything for God, casting your all on Him, abandon yourself to God, totally surrender, be separated by God for one purpose. His definition is highly biblical. Let’s take the word in context and not just compare it to our everyday language or dictionary.
Jesus …”was recklessly abandoned, totally surrendered, and separated by God for one purpose” to go to the cross so that sinful people like me could be saved… fling yourself in reckless confidence on God. May 18
Let’s all obey Him with glad reckless joy… Joseph