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
Joe
I think we need to be careful when we try to creatively use words to describe the nature of God. I do not know the heart of the writer of this song, so I am compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I do not believe that the term reckless (as it is defined in any reputable dictionary) is a term that accurately represents the nature of God’s love. The God of the Bible is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Can we in our finite understanding of God, view some of the things he does as reckless? Sure. But that would be an attempt to hold God accountable to the standards of man. Who can understand the mind of God? (Romans 11:34) I simply believe that this is a questionable (at best), creative attempt to articulate the love of God.
tastywallet
Thanks for your feedback, Joe! Your caution is duly noted. I’ll pray on it and consider revision.
Alex
The Luke 15 context is pretty clear about who the shepherd is. Jesus was with the sinners (the black sheep) and we was there to seek them. The parable is basically, Jesus explaining His actions. It does not have to specifically say that He is the shepherd. When Jesus explained the sower parable to the apostles he expected that they would understand it!
Stephen
I think, while Jesus is the Good Shepherd, he is not the shepherd in the Luke 15 parable. First he starts with “what man of you, having an hundred sheep…”. It seems to me that the shepherd is the hearer. Further, Jesus is not tied to the human limitations of the shepherd described in the Luke 15 parable. Jesus does not have to leave the 99 to save 1. In fact he does not. Otherwise, he would not have promised to “never leave us or forsake us.”
Another challenge I have with the song is that the shepherd really isn’t the point of the parable. The point is the response of heaven to one being found/saved.
Describing God’s love as reckless is the least of this song’s problems for me.
Neal Cruco
Stephen,
I would argue that Jesus is the shepherd in this parable, but this song does not teach that He leaves believers to seek out sinners. Let’s look at the text:
“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.” Luke 15:1-7 (NASB)
In this translation, I see the “what man among you” phrase that you base your interpretation 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. The phrase “in the same way” (sometimes translated as “likewise” or “just so”), further supports this idea of Jesus likening the shepherd to Himself. 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: “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.” The ninety-nine are those who need no repentance. Yet Isaiah 53:6 says “All of us, like sheep, have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way.” How then can any of us fallen humans be part of the ninety-nine? It is impossible! The ninety-nine are righteous and need no repentance! 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.
JM
Neal – This same discussion seems to go round-and-round on this thread. You do provide a compelling take on the Luke 15:1-7, but I wonder if at the end of the day it matters. The idea that God endangers those who are “saved” does seem to be what the author (Cory Asbury) had in mind – and in fact is one of the clearer examples of how God’s love is “reckless” (the verses don’t seem to depict reckless behavior).
You can read from the author here: https://m.facebook.com/coryasburymusic/posts/10158977378510171
“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.”
Neal Cruco
JM,
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.
Regarding the use of the word “reckless”, Vince had some good words in his review of “Kings Kaleidoscope – Defender”:
“There are two sides to the debate:
1. Reckless is a term that means “(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”. There was a lot of thought put into it! It was pre-planned (Revelation 13:8), not careless of consequences. More information can be found in Mike Winger’s YouTube video. (https://youtu.be/79rjZLjh-cI?t=557)
2. Reckless must be understood in its proper context. Jesus showed His love towards us without regard to His life or the consequences that followed: including the beatings, torture, and his death. More information can be found in John Piper’s response. (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-sing-of-gods-reckless-love)
Piper said one other thing that applies to both views: “If you’re in a church that’s basically singing sound and helpful lyrics, and along comes a song with questionable words, then either stop singing if your conscience won’t let you sing, or put a meaning on the words that you are able to affirm.””
I happen to agree with the second point of view here. Despite the extreme emotional anguish that He experienced due to His impending death, Jesus submitted to His Father’s will and carried it out. He knew He was about to suffer a humiliating, torturous, excruciating death, but “because of the joy awaiting Him, He endured the cross, disregarding its shame”. (Hebrews 12:2, NLT) Since “reckless” can mean “without regard to the consequences of one’s actions”, and Jesus is God, it is quite appropriate to describe God’s love as reckless.
Dan
The reason the interpretation of the parable referenced by Asbury’s lyric makes a difference is that whether the 99 are “angels”, as Neal theorizes, or they are just sheep (material possessions) as I surmise is Jesus’ point, the issue comes down to what does *Asbury* thinks.
He obviously believes the 99 are neither literal sheep nor angels but rather, they represent believers. On this point he builds a heresy, which is to say that God is reckless because he leaves 99 believers to go in search of one lost soul – which is preposterous on its face. For to believe this would be to make God a liar in every instance where He says He would never leave us.
As I’ve stated before in this thread, either Asbury believes that God leaves believers in the wilderness and this is why he labels God as “reckless” (which is internally consistent with the rest of his lyric), or Scripture means what it says – that God would never do such a thing. If therefore, God doesn’t forsake the believer, then ergo, He is not reckless – thus the entire point of the song becomes nonsensical.
Isabele Moss
I think that this songs speaks about the intensity of Gods love. Reckless meaning he will go where no “man” will go. As people we tend to judge and believe that a person has to be a “certain way” and fit a “certain criteria” to be fit in the kingdom of God. I believe this song is simply expressing the fact that not matter where you are and how deep you are in your sin God will do everything he can to let you know that even in “this” he still loves you. We have to think about even ourselves when it comes to the love of our children. As many times as they fail the amount of love we have for them will not change and we will be “reckless” in making sure they get back on track. That is due to the unmerited love God has for us which is something he teaches very clearly in the bible. Jesus didn’t care about what the Pharisees’ thought about him not healing on the Sabbath or sitting with sinners. There is nothing or no one that can stand in the way of Gods love for us.
Tim T
I agree with everything you said of God’s Love for us except “reckless” is a word to me that does not fit your definition at all. Not even loosely. There are so many other words that would have been accurate to me. Nice tune, catchy, creative…overall praiseworthy. But reckless is unsettling to me.
tastywallet
Thank you for your feedback! I have been praying about it since Joe brought it up. I can no longer defend the term as Cory Asbury defined it. Therefore, I altered my review and updated the score.
James
I am preparing to lead a study on worship lyrics very similar to what you do on your site (stumbled on this while doing research for another song). I did my analysis of Reckless Love and there is so much commotion about the artists choice of words, and I really do not get what the big deal is, other then people love to argue and we have more legalistic people around then I could have imagined. The fact of the matter is that the heart of the message is all positive. The choice of one word does not take away from the intent. If we want to talk in terms of legality – then intent plays a major role in an analysis.
Lest we forget that we are referring to a bible that has undergone so many translation changes and sometimes there is just not the right words when translating so the translators did the best they could. Look at various modern usage of English words today and you will find it commonplace for a traditionally negative word to be used in a positive (sometimes overwhelmingly positive) manner.
Do a quick google search for “negative words used positively” and you can find some interesting developments in words most of us have no idea of the origin of.
I think the people who get worked up over little things like this should ask themselves if they think God would worry so much about the exact same topic (i.e. does this song bring displeasure or pleasure to God as we worship him through it?)
tastywallet
First, I think that it is awesome that you are leading a study on worship lyrics. It is not something I have ever seen before, so it should be quite the unique experience for your audience!
Second, I did take the time to examine the relevant post is on his Facebook page. I will include this in my post so that future readers can examine both sides and make up their own mind.
Third, I do agree that the heart of the message is positive; however, it also (in my humble opinion) sends the wrong message about God’s actions, as you have seen for yourself. I also agree that some people love to argue; however, in my case, it is about clear communication, not legalism.
Fourth, I do agree that in some cases, what was deemed a negative term has, through societal development, become transformed. “Cross” is a perfect example of this. I have not seen this for the word “reckless”. It still has a dictionary (and legal) definition that carries a negative connotation. Perhaps there is evidence that this term is leading in this direction, starting with Asbury’s usage. I haven’t seen it.
Fifth, my biggest concern regarding “Reckless” is clear communication. Asbury has a right to defend (as you do) his usage and why it communicates a positive message about God. I get where he’s coming from. I just don’t agree with it.
Finally, despite your disagreement regarding my commentary on the word “reckless” and this song’s glorification of God (or lack thereof), I still hope you found my post to be worthwhile and gave you some meat to chew on. Feel free to throw away the bones.
Charles Busada
I have been reading “Winds of Heaven, Stuff of Earth, a biography on Rich Mullins.
Here is some poetic language from Rich Mullins “The Love of God.”
There’s a wideness in God’s mercy
I cannot find in my own
And He keeps His fire burning
To melt this heart of stone
Keeps me aching with a yearning
Keeps me glad to have been caught
In the reckless raging fury ****************
That they call the love of God
Now I’ve seen no band of angels
But I’ve heard the soldiers’ songs
Love hangs over them like a banner
Love within them leads them on
To the battle on the journey
And it’s never gonna stop
Ever widening their mercies
And the fury of His love *********
Oh the love of God
And oh, the love of God
The love of God
Joy and sorrow are this ocean
And in their every ebb and flow
Now the Lord a door has opened
That all Hell could never close
Here I’m tested and made worthy
Tossed about but lifted up
In the reckless raging fury *******
That they call the love of God
So, for me, in the poetic content of Mullins song, “Reckless raging fury” has a place as it describes God’s love as relentless and not always comforting. Context is king.
So, it’s not necessarily “Reckless” that is the problem. Asbury’s usage of “Reckless” in the title is the problem. You cannot unpack the meaning of a word unless it is in context. Mullins gives a rich interpretative background for “Reckless” in his song. Asbury does not. So, for Asbury, our sentimentalities can get stepped on (believers can find the use of “Reckless” as well . . . . reckless in itself.
And finally, I notice how so many posts are concerned about the unbeliever’s understanding of God through a worship song. It just seems to me that this is not our main concern. Jesus said many things that offended unbelievers (eat my flesh, drink my blood). But our worship songs must be clear and understandable as we are speaking to one-another in Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs. They are primarily designed to inform the congregation, in unity, of the attributes and actions of God for the purpose of congregational worship. Just sayin.
Vince Wright
Charles,
Thanks for your comments! This poem is better, but I still think that reckless is a poor word choice to describe God’s love, regardless of its context. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on that front.
I understand if Jesus (or the Christian) says some offensive things to unbelievers, but there is a difference between speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and purposefully offending others. In all my reviews, none to my recollection chose the latter approach. Yet, my main concern is in the area of interpretation. I understand that some do not care what an unbeliever thinks about Christian music, but I care about miscommunication to unbelievers.
-Vince Wright
Diana
“I understand that some do not care what an unbeliever thinks about Christian music, but I care about miscommunication to unbelievers.”
-Vince Wright
I agree with your statement, Vince. Our focus should be on Jesus and telling others the gospel. It seems if the nature of God is misrepresented, then that would be another Christ. Just looking at the synonyms and antonyms for the word ‘reckless’ speaks volumes of how God’s attributes are misrepresented. I understand ‘poetic license’ in the attempt to convey an idea, but that idea still must be agreement with scripture. Reckless is an attribute of Satan not the true and living God.
~Peace
Vince Wright
Diana,
You’re the first in a long time to bring some new ideas into this discussion. Thank you for your compliment!
-Vince Wright
Jason
… or, spend two seconds realizing God is our mighty father, creator of all and to be feared, thus we should be VERY careful how we describe him and worship him with fitting reverence because he is AN ALL CONSUMING FIRE to be respected.
He is NOT reckless. Satan is reckless.
I am a father and if you called me reckless whether with good intentions or not I would tell you to STOP and would be enraged.
If you started telling people enmasse that was a reckless father as Corey has done I’d be extremely hurt.
Whatever the story behind the song, 99 per cent of people don’t know the explanation. They will all get a false perception of God that he acts without care and is a rash, rebellious devil-may-care God. NO. He is totally in control.
Sarah
Awesome reply!
Just think of it as this way… how happy are you when someone says to you, “wow you’re such a reckless driver”.. am sure that’s a super compliment for each of you who think God’s love is reckless.
Victor
Claro q si e desagrada a Dios que lo adoremoa en nuestros términos y no en los de Dios. Mira a Abel.. En la actualidad muchos cristianos argumentan que Dios nos entiende o nos comprende para justificar el introducir costumbres del mundo a la iglesia.. Claro que su palabra importa y el declarar sus atributos como lo enseña la biblia.. Sino seguimos rebajando a Dios a nuestro standard y eso no es correcto.
Edited by Vince Wright – Google translate:
Of course, it does displease God that we adore Him on our terms and not on God’s. Look at Abel .. Nowadays many Christians argue that God understands us or understands us to justify introducing the customs of the world to the church .. Of course his word matters and declaring his attributes as the bible teaches .. Otherwise we keep lowering God to our standard and that is not correct.
tony
one who give up their one and only son, in the hope that the world would accept that huge sacrifice in order for creation to come back to him, could be viewed as reckless. Very view of us would give of our own lives, or the unthinkable, our child, to save a loved one, let alone a complete stranger, or even further removed , a hater of God. And God has done just that: exuded the definition “careless of consequences” to the “T” which ultimately expresses the greatest selfless act ever, in my review.
tastywallet
I hear you; however, as other commenters have pointed out, we have a clear definition on the word “reckless”. Cory Asbury could have used a different term, say, selfless, to describe Christ’s sacrificial love.
You stated that God excluded the definition “careless of consequences”. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Derek
My thoughts exactly.
Brandon
Beautiful!!! I agree with you! This comment was such a blessing to me! @ Isabele Moss
John
You can’t change the definition of a word to fit a description. If intense was proper word, then it should have been used instead.
Denise
I personally believe that the song Reckless Love is speaking about God’s character. God has proven through the Old Testament and the New, time and time again, that there are times when He will change His mind. He has also proven time and time again through the Old and the New Testament that He will do what He desires to do how He desires to do it and that usually, will always be outside of the box we put Him in. I don’t believe the intentions in the song Reckless Love was to say that God is reckless in the abstract sense of the word. I have seen this post roll around and around but yet have not seen one song which I consider to have biggest atrocity of words, criticized! That song having the line You have never “failed me yet”. Does that mean that we are expecting Him to fail us at sometime? I highly doubt that is what the author intended when the song was given to him.I believe he was showing a pattern of consistency in God’s character! I believe that Corey’s way of thinking was more in the vein of this:reckless meaning:
1. doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and the possible results because God loves us so much that he will not concern himself with the consequences because he doesn’t have to, as He already knows them! There is no one more powerful than him when he decides to defend his children. When God says he is on our side that means all of Heaven comes to battle for us. I think many times we throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Just as in an art museum we can all come up with a different definition of the same picture and what it means to us ,God’s word is living and speaks to us in Revelation! I cannot speak for Corey! However, I do believe it is a glorious thing to have a Savior who is so powerful, so loving that he will stop at nothing to come looking 4 and defending his child ! The overwhelming never-ending what appears to the world as ‘reckless’ love of God!
Charles Busada
Denise,
I think that all would agree that God’s love toward us is (whatever word will convey the greatest possible love) as God is the greatest of all beings). The point is the word “reckless” (to me) is in itself reckless and unbecoming of God who knows all things and is all powerful to bring them about..
In 2013, NPR, of all media, addressed Keith and Kristyn Getty about the content of modern worship music.
https://www.npr.org/2013/07/08/200013769/modern-hymn-writers-aim-to-take-back-sunday
Keith Getty responded.
“I think it’s to the church’s poverty that the average worship song now has so few words, so little truth,” he says. “[It] is so focused on several commercial aspects of God, like the fact that he loves our praises.”
But it was Kristyn Getty who said *****”Some of the most popular music doesn’t show God the proper reverence.”*****
“There is an unhelpful, casual sense that comes with some of the more contemporary music,” she says. “It’s not how I would talk to God.”
BINGO
How are we to address God in our worship? We are standing on Holy Ground when we sing in worship. Certainly Jesus is a friend to sinners, but He is Lord and worthy to receive the best of our worship.
.
We have so many songs now that focus on the Love of God. It is if we have run out of adjectives and metaphors to describe Love. But Mr. Asbury has stepped over the line. We have left the biblical sphere of God’s love, with an eternal love that has focused it on His people and paid the price of redemption with His own blood in Christ. We now describe this eternal love as reckless.
We just cannot degrade God in His house, on His day, amongst His people. It’s not only sad but frightfully wrong to do.
So, what does “reckless” mean?
First, consider that, in language, words can have, many meanings; we decipher the meaning of a word by its context.
Also, consider that the meaning of a word can change over time. For example, “peruse” used to mean to “study something in a thoughtful way.” Now it means pretty much the opposite. Then “gay” or “awful”; those words now refer to something quite different than their older usage.
Consider Alicia Keys lyrics in 2007 on her song of the same name (sort of) “Wreckless Love”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5Eej619ZE
Notice even the spelling of the word (she intentionally (?) misspelled ‘reckless’ to ‘wreckless’). That is because the connotation of “Reckless” “without caution” or “without first reconing about the consequences” (bad enough in itself), is now understood as “a wild and crazy action that is heading toward a wreck.” The word is now changing, or has already changed in meaning.
But now, as “reckless” is evolving into “wreckless” is this to be attributed to God?
I did not check into this, but I assume that the etymology of “reckless” is “lacking reckoning before action.” So the root word is “reckon” Is this God? Did not God think this through.
Yes he did, for Jesus tells us in parables or a man who first “counts the costs.” Luke 14. The verse deals with discipleship, but in the argument from the lesser to the greater, this would apply to Jesus as well.
Here are Alicia Keys lyrics.
******************************
Have that wreckless love
That crazy love
That off the wall won’t stop til I get enough kind of love
I need that love
So baby, let’s go
Well, enough.
Charles
Diana
“That song having the line You have never “failed me yet”. Does that mean that we are expecting Him to fail us at sometime?” -Denise
Try as you or anyone might, you cannot redefine the definition of a word to fit an emotional experience. Satan is, by definition, reckless, careless, dangerous.
God is patient, kind, forbearing, wonderful, counselor, thoughtful, wise, planning…
William Dirksen
A very beautiful Hymn called
” The Love Of God ” discribe’s the Love Of God with out using the word reckless . Being reckless can cause serious harm to others like a reckless drunk driver. Song writers should be very carful in words to discribe The Love Of God. I was warned in a dream in 2007 about watching out for words and the symnonyn of the words used in modern contemporary worship music . Also another serious warning after a 21 day Daniel fast. At that time a song writer used the word outrageous to discribe the Grace Of God, also heard the the word crazy to discribe the Love Of God . 2 Timothy 3 warns us of perilous times in the last days. Jesus said For every tree is known by his own fruit . St Luke cp 6:43
jamie
i think he is meaning Gods love is reckless to himself not to anyone else because he is leaving the 99 to go after the 1 who still may not want to be lead back sometimes we get so caught up on trivial things like the use of the word reckless instead of taking the overall meaning of the song God loved us so much he shows us reckless love when we recklessly abandon him he will move mountains he will come after us recklessly to bring us back at whatever cost even knowing we mat stray again.. i think the song is beautiful and i think there is no better word than reckless we could use words like selfless but we all know God is selfless reckless got our attention and made us listen..
Tam
Hey, I know this is an old comment, sorry. However, I also thought that Cory’s use of reckless was inappropriate, at first. I thought,”Well, God isn’t careless or haphazard.” But I had someone explain it to me in a way that blew me away. I believe that the form of reckless that Cory is trying to use, would be that of “unconcerned with the consequences” to Himself. He chose to love us with so much abandon and so fervently that He tossed the consequences to Himself aside and saved us. He loved us so much that He risked it all, He put His reputation on the line, He allowed His heart to be broken and He submitted Himself to painful, agonizing, brutal death. That’s how He is reckless.
McCel Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_Love_(song)
Steve
“When I used the phrase, ‘the reckless love of God,’ when we say it, we’re not saying that God Himself is reckless, He’s not crazy. We are, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. But what I mean is this: He’s utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His own actions with regard to His own safety, comfort and well-being. … He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself on the line, He simply puts Himself out there on the off-chance that you and I might look back at Him and give Him that love in return. His love leaves the ninety nine to find the one every time and to many practical adults that’s a foolish concept. Well, what if He loses the ninety nine in finding the one, right? What if, finding that one lost sheep is and always will be supremely important? – Cory Asbury”
Yes, if only we as Christ Followers had that same attitude for the lost…
Sage
Hey Steve, I think you should check this review out by Mike Winger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rjZLjh-cI)
I personally use this song in our church still but this review by Mike made me think about the song some more. He specifically talks about the statement Cory Asbury released that you posted.
Thanks!
Timothy King
I am confused as to why a song that utilizes a word that is so contradictory to the description of God AND is so controversial deserves a score of 8/10?
tastywallet
Timothy,
I tried to be fair, balancing the rest of the lyrics, which are highly biblical, with this singular word that carries much weight in controversy. It got 8/10 due to the weight distribution (20/40/20/20) and rounding up.
Upon examination, I noticed that perhaps I scored section 4 too high. This should be 8/10, bringing the overall score down to 7.5/10. I updated it.
-TastyWallet
John Demola
When you say we need to be careful I assume you mean the writer. Unfortunately the writer knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the word would be controversial but chose it anyway in order to attract people to a catchy phrase. I think “we” need to be careful when we hear a song from one of these revenue generating machines. I came out of the inner workings of a mega church where everything they did had to make money. So I am sensitive to the issue and am still detoxing from that world.
Trini Quitoz
You stand correct. The first time I heard it bring sang by my church choir…the word reckless bothered me…for there is nothing that gets close to this disorderly adgetive as referring to God’s feelings of compassion in his determination to save a soul.
Whatever the composer intended…he should surrender to God, accept he used the most IMPROPER adjective and officially CHANGE it to the word PERFECT love of God.
It’s the one right thing to do!
Sheryl Curry
I had a problem with the word,”Reckless” the first time I heard this song. GOD is not reckless. Good intent, but we can’t use this song.
tony
the word i used was Exuded. def.: (of a person) display (an emotion or quality) strongly and openly.
“Mr. Thomas exuded friendship and goodwill”
synonyms: emanate, radiate.
to your point, “selfless” doesn’t always carry a consequence, where recklessness, can. For example, one who lives off 10% of their earnings, and gives away 90%, could be seen by the masses as, reckless. While others (and those who have lived on 10%) might consider say, I am trusting in God to provide….its all His anyway.
another example of “majoring in the minors” …as I believe God would see this song 100% complete worship of him, and not judge the creative license of the word chosen.
One could make the argument that God has a fair amount consequence for reckless acts in the bible . https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Reckless however, none of these examples are descriptive of Love, as in Coreys song. interestingly, here is commentary written 7 yrs before Corey wrote his piece….and a real life example of a church body showing reckless love. http://fpcrochester.org/2010/09/%E2%80%9Cthe-reckless-irresponsible-love-of-god%E2%80%9D-luke-15-1-10/
tastywallet
Ah ok, thank you for the clarification! I thought it was a spelling error. Learned a new word today!
Also, thank you for bringing both sides of the issue with much clarity and brevity than I could ever hope to express. Much appreciated!
Dustin Thompson
The song doesn’t describe God as “reckless.” It is referring to the love of God. As in the examples in the verses of the shepherd leaving his flock of 99 to enter the dangerous wilderness without fear of consequence to find the one sheep. Or the father of the prodigal son who didn’t care how he was perceived and welcomed the son home after the son had shamed him deeply. The love of God is reckless in the sense that he will do anything to reach the lost without fear of consequence.
Ramona Griffith
You cannot separate God from His love. 1John 4:8 says that God is love. Perhaps the intent O of the lyric may be commended, but not the execution
William Dirksen
WORD ORIGIN AND HISTORY FOR RECKLESS. Adj. OLD ENGLISH RECCAN ” careless, thoughtless, heedless”, EARLIER reccileas. From rece,recce “care, heed”, from reccan ” to care” ( see reck (v))+-less. The same affixed form is in German ruchlos, DUTCH ROEKELOS ( WICKED. ROOT VERB RECK ( OLD ENGLISH reccan) is passing into obscurity.
,
tastywallet
Thanks for the lesson in etymology! We need to be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy as language evolves over time. Still, origins are worth examining when it comes to words.
John Demola
Without fear of consequence because there is no fear in God.
There are no negative consequences(which is what I presume you mean) because He is a God of order and is in control of His plan. Which by the way is kind of the opposite of reckless.
Brandon
I disagree with your statements on God’s Reckless Love. The Bible talks about the Good Shepherd, and how he leaves the 99 sheep to go and find that 1 that wandered off. Think of it like this if I was babysitting 100 little kids at my house by myself, and 1 kids got out the door and ran away. If I left the 99 little children home alone while I went and searched for that 1 kid all night, don’t you think I’d have angry moms telling me I’m reckless? Why is The Good Shepherd any different. In this case, for the word “reckless” Cory Asbury is not defining God’s thoughts toward anyone else, it’s that God is selfless, and does not care who says what or what happens on His part, that He will reach you and love you no matter what. God’s Love is extravagant! If I was driving on the road, and started driving everywhere (in the grass, in the other lane, swerving all over the place) one might say that I am a reckless driver. Same rules apply. God’s Love is not afraid to go anywhere. In facts, it’s everywhere! It’s here, it’s there, it’s all over the place. Yes, God does know all. I’m not saying that God doesn’t think or already know what’s to come. I’m saying God’s Love will reach you no matter who you are or what you’ve done. If a well known serial killer came to your house and said, I really am sorry, please forgive me and let me in your house, would you? Uh, NO! But that’s the thing. The Bible says that God isn’t willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. God would let that Killer into his house, dispite the thought and action of it being reckless to let an apologetic serial killer into your house. The Bible says that Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. Our “dictionary definition” of reckless might tell us we’re not letting that killer in our house and that’s man looking on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart and says, he’s truly sorry and he’s broken. Cory Asbury wrote: “The recklessness of His love is seen most clearly in this – it gets Him hurt over and over. Make no mistake, our sin pains His heart. And “70 times 7” is a lot of times to have Your heart broken. Yet He opens up and allows us in every time. His love saw you when you hated Him – when all logic said, “They’ll reject me”, He said, “I don’t care if it kills me. I’m laying My heart on the line.” Which He, an almighty God, layed His life down for some filthy rotten sinners, down in the mirey clay. And if He gets hurt and it saddens Him when people reject Him, or Christians sin, that’s ok, because He still loves us and would still choose to die on the cross for us. All these Christians arguing over a song, and slandering a beautiful song is rediculous! I mean if your gonna preach about a song, Don’t slander Reckless Love, how about preach about the worldly music like “Shape of You” or “Rockstar!” I mean some of this junk in the world has so much filth and yet we don’t blow up until 1 Christian song has 1 dictionary definition that we disagree with. Let this be my prayer to you! God’s Love is more than any of us can comprehend! It is so extravagant! We will never fully understand God, and that’s alright! Focus on Christ, instead of a song, and maybe God will use the song to speak to you!
tastywallet
Thank you for your comments! I understand where you’re coming from; however, I think “slander” is too strong a word in reference to my commentary. Slander is a legal term, which means “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” I do not believe I have done that with my comments. I expressed my discomfort in using this particular word and knocked off a point or two as a result.
Yes, I do criticize the usage of this word, just like I criticize worldly music such as Hozier’s Take Me To Church. There’s no need to explain why a second time.
I do understand where Asbury is coming from; however, I did not express that within my post. I added a new sentence to the “message” section.
Finally, my aim and goal are to focus on Christ; However, this website exists for critical examination. I understand your concern and appreciate your expression of it.
Christian
Asbury citing the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15 as a scriptural reference point saying:
When I used the phrase, ‘the reckless love of God,’ when we say it, we’re not saying that God Himself is reckless, He’s not crazy. We are, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. But what I mean is this: He’s utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His own actions with regard to His own safety, comfort and well-being. … He doesn’t wonder what He’ll gain or lose by putting Himself on the line, He simply puts Himself out there on the off-chance that you and I might look back at Him and give Him that love in return. His love leaves the ninety nine to find the one every time and to many practical adults that’s a foolish concept. Well, what if He loses the ninety nine in finding the one, right? What if, finding that one lost sheep is and always will be supremely important?
– Cory Asbury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_Love_(song)
tastywallet
Christian,
Yes, I am well-aware of Asbury’s intent. I even linked to his Facebook post defending his position in section 1 of this review. Yet, as I said there, that doesn’t change my discomfort in his usage.
-TastyWallet
Kim
I was so sad to find several websites condemning this song. This is a powerful visual of God’s love for us and a great tune to go with it. This is the problem with the Church . . . . . . people calling themselves “Christians” get so hung up on their interpretation of a word or a song lyrics that they show their worst side to the public. There are several articles condemning the fact that Cory Asbury was led by the Holy Spirit to choose a word that would reach millions as a powerful visual tool of how much Jesus loves them. Who are you all to judge the power of the Holy Spirit reaching out to the world through a song?
The word reckless is the reason this song is so powerful. It reaches out to the world whether they know Jesus or not and let’s individuals know that they are going to be ok because there is an entity out there (God) that is willing to go to any lengths without regard to His public image for their heart. He loves people that much – enough to embarrass Himself, enough to disregard popular opinion about what He should do, enough to send His own Son to die with no guarantee that anyone would be changed because of that sacrifice. Sounds like the very definition of reckless to me. And what about the visual that gives people that are reckless in this world . . . . . . Reckless people of the world are safe with my God because He is boundless and overwhelming and reckless in the ways He will pursue them. He will meet them anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. Praise God for recklessly pursuing the people of this world (including the naysayers) . . . . . . otherwise we would all be damned to eternal suffering.
tastywallet
Kim,
Not sure if you read the entire review, but I didn’t condemn the entire song. I gave it a fairly positive rating at 8/10 which, if we use the grading scale in school, amounts to a B.
While it is not my job to judge the power of the Holy Spirit, communication is an important subject to me. You may disagree with my view and that is your right; however, I take exception with the word “condemning” when you direct it at my article. Condemn means “to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation” according to Merriam-webster. Had I been condemning the song, I would have given it a much lower rating. Rather, I am uncomfortable with Cory’s usage of the word “reckless” and think a better word would communicate his idea better.
-TastyWallet
Tony Sabin
Actually I will say this in defense of both of you. The concern for the use of the word “reckless” could be misunderstood by just about anyone who hears the song. But in defense of using the word incorrectly I dont believe he was using it to describe God but to describe the “reckless abandonment” that God has for us in the love that He has shown for us, we don’t deserve His love what we deserve actually is death but Jesus showed that “reckless kind of Love” in abandoning everything to fulfill the Fathers Will. He poured Himself out by emptying Himself of everything but that everything was Love the same Love that Jesus knew that His Abba had for Him. As for the consequences there where none since God answers to No One except Himself.
Anthony Jenkins
I see the recklessness of God in the parable of the sewer where the sewer broadcast the seed and ends up in the good soil in amongst the weeds and in the amongst the rocks it is the love of God that brings the gospel recklessly to the people of the Earth and gives them the choice of whether to follow Jesus or not this is where I see the recklessness of the love of God I see in my own dad who continue to recklessly love me when I was so far away and so rebellious that my natural dad was almost driven to distraction with my behaviour, maybe it’s only us the real sinners in the worldThat understand the recklessness of God
David West
I think Mr. Asbury’s use of the word reckless was done with good intentions. Before reading his Facebook explanation I assumed that he we was not using the word “reckless” in its common sense.
However, after reading his Facebook explanation, I think he made the matter a little worse since he ascribes more words to God that generally carry negative connotations; e.g., ridiculous, bankrupted heaven. Heaven was never bankrupted when the Lord Jesus was manifested in the flesh on Earth; nothing in heaven was lost. The danger of being purposely loose with such words or ideas is that we may unintentionally develop an anthropomorphic definition or attribute of God that the Bible does not teach.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Asbury makes a very important statement; i.e., “To many practical adults, that’s a foolish concept.”. I think this should be the basis of his argument and the key to understanding the message that he is trying to convey.
See 1 Corinthians 13
18) NET© For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
21) NET© For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching.
23) NET© but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.
25) NET© For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Let me start with the last verse. Does God have any foolishness or weakness in His character? Certainly not! But to the world; i.e., outsiders, He “appears” foolish and weak.
I wish that Mr. Asbury would have said something to the effect that his use of the word “reckless” or “ridiculous” was like how the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the word “foolish”; in the context of the things of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus; but from the perspective of the world. Accordingly, from the perspective of the world, God’s love truly is reckless.
We know that all words in all languages change over time. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, we will ascribe God’s love, in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, as His reckless love – without any objection.
PastorJosh
As a pastor and worship leader, I have to say that I have no problem with the use of the word “reckless” in this context. Let’s take the definition given in this review of the song: “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences.” Does God love us cautiously? Of course not! There is no caution about loving us because God’s very nature IS love! Does He love us regardless of consequences? Of course He does! Think about it…God is rejected by men all the time, yet He loves them anyways. God was betrayed by mankind in the garden, yet God loves anyways. That love even cost the life of His Son, Jesus…yet God loved anyways. Reckless seems a perfect description of God’s love to me. I’m not sure why people are so quick to harshly judge this song based on their impressions of what a word means rather than the actual dictionary definition of that word. Just my two cents.
David Whitaker
I too have been disturbed by the word “Reckless” in this song. I do think the author has good intentions and I can see both sides of the argument, at least to a point. I am pleased to hear that many churches have substituted a different word and haven’t thrown the song completely to the wind. My concern is deeper that the word reckless however. I am concerned about the words in the Chorus “it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found” and the bridge wording “There’s no wall You won’t kick down, Lie You won’t tear down” that lends the impression that the LORD is some kind of “Iam Neeson” from the movie “Taken” in His effort to reach us. It is not consistent with God’s ways as recorded in the scripture. I think it is an effort to define God’s love for us in some sort of cultural context, but not an accurate context. Overall the song represents a mischaracterization of our LORD.
Andrew Lawrence
The fact of the matter is that those for the use of “Reckless” are trying to find ways for it to fit in and it becomes abstract. If you consider that this song is not just being sung by English natives but Europeans who like to worship in English and do not have the command of the “poetic” language, I find this very dangerous. For me when we sing something and do not mean it in worship it is taking God’s name in vain.
If there is any doubt, it is clear that it was an unfortunate usage of a word. I guess you can argue that God knows what we are thinking when we sing it, so from one person it is OK and the other it is an insult?
God’s love is unconditional, all encompassing but not reckless and for those that say, we are not calling God reckless, let us not forget that we refer to God as love “God is love”, therefore love is God and if love is reckless, you are calling God reckless
james kittrell
For all of you saying negative things about this song. Let me ask you this If you are married and your spouse starts to stray they arent happy anymore are you going to try everything in your power to get them back. How about your kids they have fallen into the trap of drugs and no matter what you do or how much you try to let them know you love them nothing changes. How long are you going to keep reaching out to them how long are you going to let them keep hurting you. you seeing them killing themselves. before finally you do what i am giving it to God i can’t do it but my God can. And he does everytime. How many times do you fall short everytime God forgives us for that addiction or for a foul mouth but we keep falling back into our fleshly ways. yet he never stops loving never stops caring he always comes back for the 1 he will leave the 99 everytime. Because they are so religious they have it figured out he will recklessly seek that 1 lost soul. you see we are spending to much time trying to analize the wording of this song instead of realizing the depth of the words.how many people strung out on drugs lying in wait of death hear this song and realize there is a God and he will Fight for me no matter the cost. Friends if thats not reckless i dont know what is. anyone listening to this song will realize the message being delivered and the message is straight from the bible i love this song. it shows just how far our God will go thats a message of hope and love.
Steve Kuhn
Great comments James, and all of the others who have relied to this song in a positive way. Right now, this is my favorite song! I love it, and I sing it to God all day long. All of this commotion over one word? Has anyone heard the term context? The first time I head “reckless” I didn’t come unhinged over the use of the word. Instead I thought to myself the writer had found a creative expression that shows just how far God will go to love us, and have us love him in return. What a sweet song. Enjoy it for what it is…
Worship Leader CB
Should have written, “perfect” love of God. Maybe wouldn’t have sold as many copies as it the song did, BUT most Christian churches would be singing it.
tastywallet
Worship Leader,
They are already singing it, with the word “Reckless”! At least, mine is…
-TastyWallet
Steve Kuhn
My church sings it as written, and we LOVE it!!!
Linda anglin
I agree with this review of this song. Love the song! But take exception with reckless also! When I sing it, I replace reckless with relentless.. it fits in with the other lyrics.. and is much more accurate..imho..
Dan
I would like to point out that nowhere in Scripture does it say that God leaves the 99 righteous at risk (recklessly) to pursue the lost.
The Luke 15 parable from which “Reckless Love” takes its cues, is not about Jesus as the Shepherd but the PHARISEES as the shepherd. Read the parable! Jesus tells us this plainly. So already the lyric of this song gets the actors wrong.
In Matthew 18 there is also a parable about a shepherd but this parable is about a shepherd who leaves his flock in the protected hills (not on the open country of the Luke parable) to purse the wayward believer – NOT the lost. This further solidifies the assumption that Asbury is using the Luke parable to underscore the recklessness of the shepherd in leaving the righteous believers alone in the wilderness to pursue the unbeliever.
The song is blasphemous for this reason since God promises Christians they will never be abandoned or forsaken.
tastywallet
Dan,
Thanks for posting this! Yes, the context is clear that the shepherd is the Pharisees, according to Luke 15:4, not the Heavenly Father. The takeaway from all three parables, the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the wealthy, spendthrift son (seriously, look up the word “prodigal”) is about rejoicing in heaven over repentance. The reaction of the Pharisees is to grumble and complain rather than to rejoice, prompting Jesus to tell these parables.
I updated my review and gave you credit.
-TastyWallet
Dan
To add to my comment, I find many parts of the lyric to be non-Biblical and therefore, should never be sung in a worship service.
– We know God would NEVER leave the righteous in the wilderness while pursuing the lost. To say He would is to call God a liar since he has promised to “never leave us nor forsake us”.
– We know that God does not “fight ’til I’m found” as stated in the song. If this were true then all would be saved. In fact, while God paid the ultimate price for us, our personal salvation is only manifested when WE turn to Him in acceptance and gratitude and for His sacrifice. The thematic undercurrent of the song is quite different than the Biblical picture of a Father who waits for the prodigal’s return.
– We know that Asbury is mistakenly aligning the Lost Sheep shepherd of Luke 15 with Jesus. This is widely and incorrectly assumed but just because many people think the shepherd in the story is Jesus doesn’t justify writing a worship song promoting this falsehood.
– Asbury has subsequently attempted to defend the lyric by saying:
A.) that “reckless” is just the way that the world sees God (ED: do they really?). If this is true then he is putting words into worship-goers mouths that is a sacrilege cooked up in the pagan mind. How about if we just start writing worship songs promoting every misconception that the world has about God?!
B.) that what he, Asbury, meant by “reckless” is that God “simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.” The HUGE issue with this is that he is describing the heresy of open theism. Open theism rejects God’s omniscience and claims that God doesn’t really know the outcome of our choices. As one critic said of this, “That is not describing reckless love. It is describing a being who has lost the attributes of an infinite God.”
So between the sacrilege of saying a.) God is reckless, b.) the blasphemy of calling God a liar, c.) the false teaching that God will do anything to track unbelievers down, and d.) the misinterpretation of the Lost Sheep parable, Asbury has done everyone a huge disservice.
tastywallet
Dan,
Thanks for the additional information! I appreciate your input and agree with everything stated. I re-wrote the entire review, with the exception of the Introduction.
-TastyWallet
Greg
I think Dan should be promoted to the rank of Berean. He nailed it!
Well done, TastyWallet, for your response.
tastywallet
Greg,
Agreed! He made a compelling case that I had not considered. Interesting how my initial rating started at 9/10 and has shifted into the red. I have so much to learn.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
Sorry guys but you are way off base here.
The three parables are ALL referring to Jesus not the Pharisees.
Jesus started by saying “What man among you?” to make the stories that He was about to tell more personal to them.
Add to that the fact that He tells the second parable from the standpoint of “a woman”. There were no women among the Pharisees!
If the Pharisees are anyone in this story they are the elder brother who stayed home and, yet, missed the blessings of the Father.
tastywallet
Steve,
Personal, yes; However, that is not an argument for Jesus as the Shepherd in the context of the first parable. It also doesn’t address my own argument.
As for the women argument, I am not sure how that relates to my conclusion on the first parable. Jesus starts it with “or what woman”, without using the personal pronoun “you” as He had done in the first.
As for the third, there is nothing obvious that connects the older brother to the Pharisees, though it does seem to me (as it does you) the most reasonable conclusion given the text.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
I have been a Christian for 46 years. I graduated valedictorian from a small private Bible college and have taught my way through most books of the Bible.
I have never, I repeat, never, heard this misinterpretation of Luke 15 saying the Shepherd is the Pharisees before today.
This faulty interpretation renders the three parables meaningless.
I maintain that Jesus uses the phrase “which man among you?” in a generic sense to include them in the story not to make the the “seeker of the lost items”
The complaint of the Pharisees is “Why to you eat with sinners?”
Jesus’ answer is, in essence, “That’s where the lost are.”
If it is the Father’s will in Matthew 18 is that someone (Jesus) go find the lost sheep why would Jesus mix up the players to the parable in Luke 15 and make the Pharisees the Shepherd.
In two of the three there is rejoicing in the natural realm when that which is lost is now found and greater rejoicing in Heaven over a lost sinner.
In the third, Jesus takes the Pharisees to task for their lack of rejoicing.
Dan
Hi Steve,
I don’t doubt your background or sincerity, only that you might consider that it is a misinterpretation on your part.
I would heartily direct you to this study by Bob Deffinbaugh over at Bible.org:
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
Deffinbaugh does a very good job of explaining the central reason for the story: addressing why the Pharisees were grumbling.
Deffinbaugh takes the issue head on when he writes:
“I believe the parable is not primarily intended as a picture of God’s seeking after lost men, but of men seeking after lost things. [snip] Earlier, it was my understanding that the first two parables described God’s heart for the lost. This cannot be the case, for several reasons.”
And then he goes on to explain.
For my part, I know that the shepherd is not Jesus simply because I can’t square God’s promise that He will never leave us nor forsake us, with a shepherd who carelessly leaves his flock in the open countryside. That never made sense to me.
Either:
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.
Of these, only the fourth makes sense.
I should also mention that people tend to think the sheep parables in Luke and Matthew are somehow parallel. Given the context of one talking about the unrepentant lost sinner while the other is about the weaker brother, the takeaways are entirely different.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth Steve, so I’ll ask, do you think the sheep in the Matthew 18 parable are the lost or are they Christians? If they are the lost (as you write in the post above), why does Jesus drop that idea into the middle of a discussion about the weaker Christian brother?
Matthew 18 is a famous chapter on how we relate to each other as believers so it makes sense that Jesus would purposefully say of the sheep in Matthew 18, “one of them wanders away” (which Christians can do) rather than “suppose one of you have a hundred sheep and lose one of them.” as He says in Luke 15.
The two parables relate in the sense that Jesus is using sheep metaphors. But the context, intent of the parables, who the players are, and what the response of the audience should be, are completely different. I understand why people conflate the two stories but upon closer examination, the situations and players are completely different.
tastywallet
Steve,
I appreciate that you have studied Scripture for far longer, with far more degrees to your name than I! You clearly outclass me in terms of academia, but let’s discuss the text in question.
I’m not sure how this conclusion of mine renders the three parables meaningless. I already explained the purpose of these three parables, but it seems we have a disagreement on that front.
I can see why you might say “which man among you?” is generic, though it does depend on the antecedent of “you”. I believe “you” is the Pharisees and scribes given Jesus’ response was directed towards them.
I agree with your general conclusion regarding Jesus’ response to “why do you eat with sinners”.
As for Matthew 18, this is not the same context as Luke 15, so I fail to see how this is relevant to the interpretation of Luke 15. The audience, according to Matthew 18:1, is the disciples of Jesus, not the Pharisees and Scribes.
My review states the Pharisees and Scribes as the shepherd’s identity in Matthew 18, which cannot be correct. So, I updated it.
-TastyWallet
Steve Barhydt
Since the purpose of this website is not for extended theological debates and I’m sure that we could trade the opinions of “authorities” back and forth until the “cows come home” (or in the case, the sheep :)), we will just have to agree to disagree.
I still love the website and, as I have said in other reviews, appreciate that you let each song stand on it’s own and refuse to get mired down in the Bethel/ Hillsong hatred that so many of your commentators are blinded by.
Love you guys in Christ,
Steve
tastywallet
Steve,
Thanks for taking the high road, I value your input in this discussion! I look forward to other commentary you provide that might help me improve my other reviews 🙂
I am glad that you still find my content valuable despite our theological disagreements. Also, thank you for showing appreciation for my approach to separate the questionable theology of Bethel/Hillong with their music. I can understand why some people may not financially support these artists (or worship with their music) due to questionable theology, but that does not automatically mean the lyrics are unbiblical.
-TastyWallet
Dan
Steve,
I’m afraid can’t agree with your assertion here since the text itself tells us that the shepherd is not Jesus. I won’t repeat what I’ve written elsewhere as proof but let me ask you this since elsewhere Jesus uses this same approach in other stories He tells.
For example in Matthew 7:7-12…
Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose one of you goes to his friend at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine has come to me on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him.’
And the one inside answers, ‘Do not bother me. My door is already shut and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.’
And He continues with the story. This is nearly the same format used in the lost sheep parable. Using your logic then the guy inside who says “don’t bother me” is apparently Jesus? If not, why not? Jesus uses nearly identical phraseology as in the lost sheep/coin story.
Jesus is doing the same thing here with His disciples that He does with the Pharisees in Luke 15. He is saying YOU GUYS would take these particular set of actions (e.g. reluctantly opening doors at midnight, etc.). If you, in your human capacity would do this just imagine how the Father would behave (or in the case of Luke 15, how Heaven would rejoice).
Yes, Jesus is making it personal but not allegorically. In neither Luke 15 nor in Matthew 7 are we to assume that it is Jesus who is the central character. Quite the opposite. Jesus is asking his listener to imagine THEMSELVES in these situations and in so doing, He is able to help them understand the larger picture.
It is also important to always note how Jesus starts out HIs parables. He will often make clear who the players are or what the relationship between concepts is.
For example, these are common distinctions:
1. “The Kingdom of Heaven is like…”
2. “There was a man that did X…”
3. “Who among you would not do X…”
The lost sheep parable falls into category 3 where Jesus is helping his listener conceptualize the larger issue by putting THEM, in all their fallibility, into the story.
I hope this makes sense.
Wea
Dan I respectfully disagree! In saying “which man of you” as part of the parable – he’s saying “which man of you would lose a sheep and…”. What he means is very direct – he’s saying what Shepherd would lose a sheep and not go after it? He’s making a point to real life shepherds to get his point across. To tug on their hearts and prove his point. The last verse in the parable explains best the meaning – “more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” the one lost sheep is a sinner! God made everyone in His image (Genesis) and God desires no man should perish (2 Peter). Therefore it’s Gods heart that the 1 lost sheep comes to him.
James
Are you serious right now how is Luke 15 not talking about Jesus being the ultimate Shepard it is a parable meaning there is meaning behind the story. Meaning that if the Shepard lost 1 sheep he would go back for it as does Jesus go back for his lost. Come on guys you dropped the ball on this one
tastywallet
James,
Thanks for the challenge! The following Luke 15:1-7 quote is from the NASB, emphasis mine.
15 Now all the tax collectors and the [a]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 [b]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.
Did you follow the pronouns? The antecedent of the pronouns “he”, “his” “I” and “my” is “what man among you”, which is directed towards the Pharisees and the scribes. This is the subject of these sentences, the shepherd of which Jesus speaks. Missing is any statement or allusion towards a Heavenly Father or Christ Himself identified as the shepherd in the context of this passage of Scripture.
Yes, there is other Scripture that describes Christ as the “good shepherd”; However, we must read this passage in the context to which it was intended, and the audience to which received His words.
This conclusion becomes more obvious when we consider the point that Jesus makes: that Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents. That is the theme throughout this parable, along with that of the Lost Coin and Spendthrift Son. This third parable identifies the Pharisees and Scribes as the older brother, leaving a cliffhanger ending and inviting them into the celebration for the repentant sinner. They must decide if they will accept the invitation or not.
I hope this makes sense.
-TastyWallet
James
Right but read verse 7 which is the point of the whole story the Pharisees didn’t matter they weren’t the point the point was very clear that Jesus will come after us when we get lost
tastywallet
James,
Verse 7 is a comparison between the rejoicing over the one sinner who repents with the 99 righteous who did not repent. That is the antecedent of “in the same way”, not that the Father (or Jesus) is the Shepherd in this parable. Verse 7 itself is the antecedent of verse 6, which states “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!”.
If we go back to verse 1, the reason why Jesus told these three parables is that the Pharisees and scribes grumbled, regarding Jesus, “This man receives sinners and eats with them”. That sets the context behind all three parables.
-TastyWallet
Dan
Piggy-backing again on TastyWallet’s observation; if we are to accept that verse 7 likens the shepherd to Jesus, should the verse not read, “I tell you that in the same way, that I will go in search of the single lost sinner and leave behind the 99 righteous who need no repentance.”?
My Bible doesn’t say this at all. People twist the parable into a pretzel to try to shoehorn Jesus into the role of the shepherd. I have no idea why they want to do this since, as I said above, the shepherd is careless in his shepherding activities. First he manages to lose track of the one sheep then leaves the rest to find the one. Not smart.
Keep in mind that the parable 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. Further, in part 1b of the parable, there is no parallel of “99 coins”. This omission is likely because the point of the parable is about the rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of the lost not the 99 (other than to drive home the point about how desperate the shepherd was to go out in search of the lost possession.)
The issue with parables in general is that they are not, strictly speaking, allegories. Not everything in the story is one-to-one with a real situation. Sure, there may be hidden meanings and takeaways and I can do that with these stories quite easily as long as I know who the players are.
– The shepherd/woman is/are careless – the Pharisees are probably careless.
– The shepherd/woman love material possessions – the Pharisees love material possessions
– The loss of the material possessions would cause a panic in the shepherd/woman/Pharisees
– The search for the lost possession would cause the Pharisees to make rash decisions in their search just like the shepherd who left the flock out in the open.
– The finding of the material possessions would result in joy in the Pharisees.
And so on. There might be a lot to read-into the story but again, parables don’t have to be read this way. They should ring true and certainly not be internally inconsistent, but to try to relate each element to something in the real world ends up being problematic.
We might also note that Jesus uses the phrase “righteous who need no repentance” which is really a side-ways dig at the Jewish leaders who imagined themselves as the “righteous who need no repentance”. So even here, while it might be easy to imagine the 99 are Christian believers (which is what Asbury asserts in his lyric) this may not be who is in view here, After all, we know that we all need to repent of our sins. There are no believers who “need no repentance”.
If the shepherd and the woman are Jesus then this is one messed up story because we end up with takeaways such as, Jesus is willing to leave us and forsakes and then climb every mountain to track down the lost. We’ll also start assuming that Jesus is reckless/thoughtless in that pursuit and that He doesn’t think things through before putting Himself on the line.
However, if the shepherd and the woman are, in fact, the assembled Pharisees, then the parable makes sense and we don’t end up blaspheming God by putting Jesus in the role of the careless shepherd. The Pharisees were, as we know, lovers of possessions. So Jesus uses livestock and money to drive home the point about how they would be desperate to find a possession they lost and then later how happy they would be to find it.
THAT is the point of the story.
They were materialistic so their frantic search and later happiness makes sense. If the shepherd and the woman are pictures of Jesus, who is NOT materialistic nor negligent in His care for us, then Jesus has apparently made a blunder in how He tells the story.
I would invite people to read the John 10 telling of the sheep and shepherd, the parable where Jesus explicitly likens himself to the Good Shepherd.
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
For some reason, people lift the title of Good Shepherd from this teaching and drop it into the other one – mistakenly so. In a way I don’t fully blame Asbury for not understanding this crucial point since many don’t. Still, I maintain that if you’re going to write a worship song, don’t twist Scripture to your own lyrical ends. It just ends up further perpetuating a misunderstanding amongst those singing the song.
tastywallet
Dan,
To be fair, I hadn’t thought about it until you brought it up. So, I studied the text out for myself, asking the Holy Spirit to guide me, and what you see is my current position on the text.
You have my thanks, Dan!
-TastyWallet
Dan
James,
As Tasty points out, Jesus SPECIFICALLY states that the role of the shepherd (and the woman who lost her coin) is played by the Pharisees. Note that there are three shepherd parables told by Jesus. Only in John 10 does Jesus state that HE is the shepherd in the story. In the other 2 he does not make this connection.
It is more accurate to call the character in Luke 15 the “careless shepherd”. He manages to “lose” one of his sheep (in contrast to Matthew 18 where the sheep [the immature believer] purposefully wanders away). Maybe the shepherd loses the one sheep through inattentiveness or negligence of some kind – Jesus doesn’t say. Only that it is the shepherd himself who manages to lose the sheep. The shepherd then compounds this error and abandons the rest of his flock, at risk in the open countryside, while he goes in frantic search of the sheep he lost track of. My take here is that the shepherd in this story IS reckless, in the proper dictionary sense. So this is the one part of the song Asbury gets right. What he gets completely wrong is that the shepherd isn’t Jesus. Asbury has essentially conflated the evil Pharisees with our Lord.
Jesus’ teaching makes a point to contrast the shepherd (and the woman) who carelessly lose the possession, to the prodigal’s father who ALLOWS his son to make his life choices and patiently waits for his return. The prodigal’s father does not go out in search of his son in the distant land. He continues about his business and when the son returns, he goes out joyously to meet him.
Had Asbury tried to write a song about GOD based on Luke 15 then he should have chosen the parable with the Father/God figure rather than the thoughtless shepherd/Pharisee figure. Of course, had he done that then it wouldn’t have made sense to name the song “Reckless Love”, nor could he have written lyrics claiming that God leaves believers at risk while he goes carelessly off trying to find the one unbeliever that He lost.
Remember, not all shepherds in Scripture are “good” and thus, not all can represent Jesus.
Thushetha
As much as i detest posting in defense of a song that belittles God’s love to being reckless, the context of God being portrayed as the shepherd in the lyrics, or the link that Jesus was talking about Pharisees as being the shepherd, I would not agree with. In any instance, the parables were spoken to the crowd to speak of instances of how God operates in simple terms to the people. If in Luke, the parable referred to Pharisees, it wouldn’t continue to speak of how heaven rejoices over the one that is found again. “7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” The sheep refers to one sinner, and the shepherd is obviously Christ as I don’t see pharisees rejoicing over one sinner that repents from sinning.
The link of prodigal son to the lost sheep is two different ways of expression of God’s love. True, in the prodigal son, the father did not go looking for the son because the son knew who the father was and yet ran away in his own way. Knowing the depth of the father’s love and blessing. The father waited for the son to return, knowing he will return form his rebellion. In the case of the sheep that went astray, literally speaking, the sheep is an animal. It knows not nor doesn’t think. It doesn’t have the capacity to be calculative or remember the way back as a human would.
Ezekiel, could be quoted for the romanticized bridge of the song. Ezekiel 34:11-16 New International Version (NIV)
11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: *I myself will search for my sheep and look after them*. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
I always had a problem with the bridge as I felt it was a poetic expression until i read the above verses in Ezekiel. “so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land.” wow…
The song wouldn’t have been as controversial if the term reckless were substituted with “Unfathomable”.
I doubt when Cory wrote the song he actually meant to disrespect God and wanted to be radical when penning down the lyrics. But distortion of the Truth is rampant in many leading songs and artists these days. I as a worship leader, do not want to endorse or be a part of it. Unless a song speaks truth or His Word I don’t include such songs.
In choosing this song, it boils down to this.. for singing such a song in Church gathering or for corporate worship… If the song means that it brings disruption in the flow of worship or hindrance to one being connected or in agreement with the lyrics / worship, I’d rather not sing it.
Reckless means “marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences”. A human calling God reckless is quite idiotic and him trying to justify the word is even idiotic. God was never careless of consequences. Hello??? we’re talking about God the Father here. He knew what He was doing. He knows the beginning from the end.
Its just this one word that makes the song reckless… the rest of it, it beautifully written.
I’ll never include this song in anyone my sessions simply cause of the word “reckless”. The song cannot be appreciated simply cos that one word derails the whole purpose of worship and glorification of His name. Plainly put, that one word distorts the Truth itself.
Dan
I’m encouraged to hear you won’t use this song, even if only just because Asbury gets it wrong on his use of the word “reckless”.
As for what I see as your misinterpretation of the parable, did you read Bob Deffinbaugh’s excellent exegetical look at the parable’s mentioned in an earlier post?
https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32
If the shepherd is Jesus then the 99 must represent believers. If that’s the case then a.) God truly IS reckless for abandoning His own and b.) Asbury is calling God a liar, which I personally think is worse than calling him reckless.
The context of the first two parables is about man’s love of material possessions while the third is about God’s love of people.
There are a couple of nice lyrics in the song but Asbury gets his theology so wrong on multiple points that it doesn’t surprise me that people are confused.
Thushetha
Hey Dan,
That’s where Ezekiel steps in… and God clearly says He goes out to the ends to find His sheep…. and there’s no word that clearly interprets His heart better than His word..
Thushetha
Actually read the whole Ezekiel 34th chapter.. it makes more sense.
Dan
Yes, Ezekiel 34 further strengthens the message of the parable where the shepherd is clearly being negligent in not caring for the 99 sheep, leaving them at the mercy of the “wild animals”.
The Pharisees to whom Jesus was telling the lost sheep parable knew that Jesus was telling them that THEY were the careless shepherd in his story.
And of course, Ezekiel’s “flock” represents the nation of Israel and So Ezekiel was calling out the negligent shepherds/leaders of his day.
The key message of Ezekiel 34 is that they are not taking care of the entire flock PLUS not seeking after the lost.
Bottom line, it’s a major stretch to align the Luke 15 parable to Ezekiel but to the extent it can be, the shepherd in the parable is the one who abandons his flock.
Steve Kuhn
Dan, I can se you and others are heavily invested in explaining Mr. Asbury’s intentions concerning the lyrics of this song. I would guess only the writer knows for sure. Myself, as well as others on this site happen to like the song. In fact it has gotten some well deserved accolades, such as being #1 on the Christian equivalent to Billboard top 40. And it has been on that list for over a year!
I heard the song first in my church, and we just love it! When I heard “reckless” I didn’t come unhinged over the use of the word. Instead I thought to myself the writer had found a creative expression that shows just how far God will go to love us, and have us love him in return. In no way shape or form do I think God is offended by this song. But He might just be disappointed in how folks on this site are reacting to it.
You folks have had you say, and that is mine. I am disappointed to see tastywallet reduce the song’s score to 2.5. I feel he has succumbed to what I consider bullying. And that, my brothers and sisters in Christ is sad. For those of you who disagree with me, and am sure there are plenty – don’t bother responding because this is the last time I will look through comments concerning this song…
Dan
I feel I’ve laid out the argument against this song fairly well and have yet to see a rebuttal that makes any exegetical sense. Certainly saying that because the song is a popular #1 Christian song can’t be a serious theological argument but maybe this is what passes for a defense of songs like this in this day and age?
I’m always saddened when I see people do a hit and run post like Steve’s. People resort to ad hominem, calling others bullies, and then leave in a huff. I suppose that’s fine – people believe what they want to believe. Nevertheless, I tend to doubt that TastyWallet thinks he’s been bullied but I’ll leave that response to him. I’m simply here on a forum that is well-read to point out that this particular song is not at all what it appears and that the fact that it’s popular is all the more reason to debate the issues involved with it.
Grounded Christians are commanded to call out heresies when we see them. This song is so obviously heretical, when the facts are listed, that I hardly consider it to be “bullying” to point this out.
What is interesting with regard to the debate around this song is that the lyrics are clearly divisive and that in itself, should be a red flag to worship pastors. A lot of people discern the obvious problems while others, like Steve, find no issue in singing a song that calls God careless and a liar. Personally, I would not attend a church where the leadership allowed people to raise up their voices to God and then call Him a liar. I just can’t abide that.
I appreciate that TastyWallet has prayerfully studied the issues and come to realize that not only is the word “reckless” a serious problem, but the underlying theology is even more questionable.
As for Asbury, I believe he figured he found a clever hook and managed to leverage it to get a top billed song. He was successful in this despite his spurious claim in the lyric that Jesus would abandon his flock to chase after the lost, or his subsequent defense of the lyrics of the song through an appeal to Open Theism.
However you look at it, whether good intentions or intentional false teaching; the song should still be pulled from the worship lexicon in any Bible-believing church.
Vince Wright
Dan,
I do not feel bullied, but I did recently increase the score to 5/10. I felt that I did not give Asbury enough credit for the things he gets right.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed yet, I switched to using my real name.
-Vince Wright
Dan
This is fine Vince. Since he gets it half right, I guess 5 out of 10 is one way to approach it.
I would still maintain that a song that calls God careless and a liar should get zero out of 10 but it is your blog after all. ;-/
Cheers.
Joy
Hopefully, this will help https://www.gotquestions.org/leave-the-99.html
Filip Larsson
With all due respect, brother. I love your website and usually agree with you. I agree that the word reckless doesn’t fit well in a worship song. I get what Cory Asbury tries to say (I mean, in some sense, through our human perspective, the love of God is foolish – Paul even uses that kind of language) but I don’t think it actually says what Cory wants it to say. He should have gone for another word.
BUT i have a few concerns about this review. I hope that you will read and think through what I’m about to write. With love:
1. I think you’re missing the point of both Luke 15 and Matthew 18. The parable (like the two following parables in Luke 15) is a direct answer (!) to the Pharisees questioning that Jesus hangs out with sinners. To answer he points out something the Pharisees themselves would do, and explains that the “heavenly priorities” are the same.
Mt. 18:14:
“So [that is, in the same way that it is not the shepherd’s will that the sheep should perish] it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
In other words: Jesus lines up the fathers will for his “little ones” right next to the shepherds will for his sheep.
In Luke 15 he continues with the parable of the lost coin and the parable of the prodigal son. Two parables on the exact same theme, to answer the same question (Why would Jesus dine with sinners?). The point is not that the shepherd does not care for the 99 sheep, nor is it that the woman does not care for the 9 coins, and it is absolutely not that the father does not care for the older brother.
The father’s answer to him: “Son, you are always with me” goes for the 99 sheep and the 9 coins as well. The point of the story is not that they are left alone, but that the shepherd, the woman, the father – like God – rejoices when the lost sheep, coin, brother or sinner is found.
These three parables are Jesus way of saying to the Pharisees: “See what I’m doing right now? I’m off searching for the lost sheep, looking for the lost coin, welcoming the lost son. The father, together with all of heaven, rejoices when the lost are found. Yes, even when one single sinner repents.”
Combine what I’ve just pointed out with the passages where Jesus outright talks of himself as a shepherd and us as the sheep, and it is actually not that far fetched to talk of God as a shepherd who would leave the 99. And to be fair (especially towards Cory and this song), that interpretation has been commonly used through out all of Church History.
If you still chose to not interpret the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep as a metaphor of God, then you should at least be consistent and apply that same interpretation on the other two parables, including the father of the prodigal son.
2. You say that you cannot find any biblical evidence for God fighting until you are found, or his love fighting for you. But is that really so? I mean, even if the language isn’t explicitly used, I believe the overarching themes are there. It is not as if good and evil is fighting on equal terms, not at all. But still:
a) David, fighting Goliath on behalf of the Israelites is an amazing prototype of Christ fighting sin, death and devil on behalf of his people.
b) Salvation is throughout the New Testament described with military language, it is described as Christ overcoming, conquering, disarming, etc. For example: Col 2:15, Jn 16:33, 1 Cor 15:55.
c) It is appropriate language, since he actually took on human flesh and died on a cross, bearing the sins of the world, to defeat both Satan and my flesh. Isn’t that a fight? Isn’t that his love fighting for us?
I get that it might not be the clearest way to express it, since it requires some knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology. But isn’t that the case with many hymns and worship songs?
I still wouldn’t sing this song in my church, but it is important to be fair.
God bless you, keep up the good work!
Vince Wright
Filip,
Thanks for your thoughts. In terms of the three parables, this has been thoroughly explained in https://bible.org/seriespage/50-lost-and-found-luke-151-32.
As for fighting until found, these passages are about God’s protection of His people, not “fighting until I’m found”.
Regarding God’s love fighting for me, there is ample Biblical support for this in Exodus 14:14, Deuteronomy 3:22, Deuteronomy 20:4, Joshua 1:9, Joshua 23:10, Psalms 44:5, and Romans 8:31. However, what I meant is within the context of the 99 and the 1. I slightly altered the language to make this more clear.
-Vince Wright
Dan
Candidly, I’ve never really understood the desire to shoehorn Jesus into the role of the shepherd in Luke 15 when Jesus Himself tells us who the shepherd actually is. When people misinterpret this parable what happens is that they get confused and end up writing songs like “Reckless Love”. Ironically, Asbury is not wrong that the shepherd that leaves the 99 is indeed, “reckless”. For what else would you call a shepherd that leaves his sheep out in the open countryside at risk as anything BUT reckless?
Asbury’s error is in thinking that the shepherd represents God and the sheep left out in the open represent Christians. As Bob Deffinbaugh explains in his article over at Bible.org regarding the parable of the lost sheep/coin/son, this cannot be true:
Excerpted from Lost and Found (Luke 15:1-32) by Bob Deffinbaugh
While I appreciate Filip Larsson’s thoughtful post, I believe he makes several errors and if he’ll allow, I’ll explain…
FL: “The parable (like the two following parables in Luke 15) is a direct answer (!) to the Pharisees questioning that Jesus hangs out with sinners.”
As Deffinbaugh points out, the parable is about the Pharisee’s love of things compared to God’s love of people. In the first two he illustrates their materialism while in the the third parable (the Prodigal) he CONTRASTS God’s patience in waiting for the return of the lost son and the rejoicing that came thereafter.
However, this is not my main criticism of Filip’s first point. My concern is the second part where he conflates the subject matter of the Luke 15 parable to that of Matthew 18.
While the story has SIMILAR CHARACTERS it has major plot differences and is clearly intended to teach a different point.
A. The audience members in Matthew 18 are the disciples not the Pharisees – so we already know that Jesus is taking on a different issue than He was in Luke.
B. The shepherd is not analogous to the Pharisees as in Luke 15 but simply “a man”. Jesus makes no attempt to liken Himself to this particular shepherd (as he does for example, in the sheep parable in the book of John.) This “man” may be analogous to the disciples in His audience much like the Pharisees are the shepherd in the Luke story.
C. The flock in Matthew 18 are BELIEVERS in contrast to the flock as generic possessions of Luke 15 (the Part B to the parable about coins is our clue that Jesus is talking about “things” not people).
D. In Luke 15 the shepherd LOSES the sheep and the woman LOSES the coin. This implies negligence on their part. Meanwhile, in Matthew 18 Jesus very pointedly tells his disciples that the one sheep WANDERED AWAY implying volition on the part of the sheep/weaker brother and nothing to do with the negligence of the shepherd.
This is a huge difference between the two stories. Jesus is making a completely different point with the wandering sheep parable, which is why it should NEVER be conflated with the Luke 15 parable. Matthew 18 is about the weaker brother and the relationship between believers. Luke 15 is about men’s love of things vs. God’s love of people.
E. The shepherd leaves his flock in the protection of the hills in Matthew 18 rather than out in the open countryside as in Luke 15.
Jesus is changing up the story in important and maybe subtle ways, but clearly, the context of Matthew, chapter 18 as a whole tell us that this parable is entirely different than the one in Luke 15.
FL: “Combine what I’ve just pointed out with the passages where Jesus outright talks of himself as a shepherd and us as the sheep, and it is actually not that far fetched to talk of God as a shepherd who would leave the 99….”
Certainly Jesus does speak of Himself as the shepherd in several places – but be careful here. Some places shepherds are good and some places they are bad so obviously all shepherds can’t be Jesus. I would reiterate that Jesus told three sheep parables in the NT and in only ONE of them does He liken Himself to the shepherd in the story. In the others He unambiguously does not.
FL: “…And to be fair (especially towards Cory and this song), that interpretation has been commonly used through out all of Church History.””
I’ve already stated earlier in this thread why I believe Asbury should not be accorded any leeway on this matter regardless of past misinterpretation of this parable. He’s the one who wrote the heretical lyrics and despite its divisiveness, continues to defend them. My point is that we must consider the whole counsel of Scripture which clearly states that God would NEVER leave us as opposed to what Asbury is claiming.
FL: “If you still chose to not interpret the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep as a metaphor of God, then you should at least be consistent and apply that same interpretation on the other two parables, including the father of the prodigal son.”
Candidly, I don’t understand this argument at all. I choose NOT to shoehorn God into the role of the reckless and materialistic shepherd/Pharisee and therefore, the woman can’t be God either. Since the 3rd parable is in CONTRAST to the first two, then we SHOULD place God into the role of the father who patiently waits for his son’s return. The three parables can only be understood as a contrast between the behavior and attitude of the Pharisees vs. God the Father.
FL: “You say that you cannot find any biblical evidence for God fighting until you are found, or his love fighting for you. But is that really so? I mean, even if the language isn’t explicitly used, I believe the overarching themes are there. It is not as if good and evil is fighting on equal terms, not at all. But still:
[And then Filip gives a few examples].
I believe Filip is offering an undeserved defense of Asbury’s underlying rationale for why he chose the word “reckless”. Asbury is clearly using the parable of the lost sheep as the basis for his lyric. The shepherd recklessly leaves the bulk of his flock to go in search of the one lost lamb. What Asbury is NOT using as a basis for his lyric are stories like David and Goliath or other military adventures found throughout Scripture. And no, I don’t see Jesus sacrifice on the cross at all like David & Goliath or other military imagery found elsewhere in Scripture. If anything, the opposite is true.
Jesus willingly gave himself WITHOUT a fight. Peter pulled his sword but Jesus chastised him for doing it. The father WAITED and when the son returned, he welcomed him gladly while the brother (the Pharisee analog) was unhappy with the attitude of the father. No “fighting” in view here.
FL: “I get that it might not be the clearest way to express it, since it requires some knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology. But isn’t that the case with many hymns and worship songs?”
It DOES require knowledge of the Bible and Christian Theology to determine what hymns and worship songs are good and which are bad (or heretical). Theologically, one should always look at Scriptural context in these situations. This is why the parables of these various sheep in Matthew, Luke, and John have to be considered as separate teachings about divergent subjects. The fact that sheep and shepherds are used is simply a reflection of how His audience would relate to what He was about to teach. It doesn’t mean the metaphors are the same in these various stories just because he is referencing livestock in each. And to be clear, I am not saying that Asbury is conflating the Matthew and Luke sheep parables. I’m only saying that in defending “Reckless Love”, many people are.
FL: “I still wouldn’t sing this song in my church, but it is important to be fair.”
Have I been unfair with Asbury? I haven’t spoken to his INTENTIONS. I can’t know what they are, whether fame, popularity, profit, or a sincere desire to get a catchy worship song into the lexicon. That is not my point. Rather I only note that it is HE who wrote a song placing Jesus in the role of the reckless and materialistic shepherd. Asbury is the one who is saying that despite countless Scriptural references saying God would NEVER leave us, that apparently when in search of the lost He DOES leave us. Plus, is it not Asbury who has himself, defended this song by saying that from the unbeliever’s point of view God can appear reckless? As I wrote earlier, the secular and pagan world thinks a lot of wrong things about God but since when should we put their wrong thinking into our worship songs?
I would remind all who have read my earlier critique of this song, that I don’t even think the use of word “reckless” is the worst aspect of this song. My major problem is Asbury claiming that God would leave the 99 despite all his promises to the contrary. To say God would do this is to call God a liar and THAT is the key reason this song should never be sung in a Bible-believing church.
Best regards,
Dan
Jodi Schulteis
Well stated Filip! You put together many of the same thoughts and citations I have running through my mind, specifically about “shepherd” representing Jesus in this parable. In fact, my study Bible says “The lost sheep represents the sinner, while God, especially the Son, is the shepherd. The found sheep is every Christian, rescued and delivered by God. The neighbors are the saints and angels who rejoice together. The emphasis is not on neglecting the flock, but on seeking the lost. In the first of 3 similar parables, Jesus uses the devotion of a shepherd to illustrate God’s willingness to find the wayward sinner. God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.” The Lutheran Study Bible -LCMS
As for the comment mentioned by someone, that Luke 15 has nothing to do with Ezekiel, I point out in fact Ezekiel 34:4 and 6 are cross referenced for Luke 15:4!
I close with thankfulness that we have the opportunity to dig into the Word and open our hearts and minds to listen to how the Holy Spirit is speaking to us, which is pleasing to Him. To God be the glory!!
Charles Busada
But sister Jodi. . . I think that the verse you refer to (1 Cor:25) says the opposite of what you claim.
Paul writes: “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” … [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
So, in no way is Paul saying that God’s love is foolish (reckon-less), or His word for that matter. We know this as Paul links God’s foolishness with God’s weakness. Certainly Paul would not refer the the Almighty, Everlasting God etc. as having any weakness. That is unfathomable, for it would be saying that God is not God (and I’m told that this is against the logical “law of non-contradiction.”)
And, to boot, we see that the “foolishness” of God is only foolishness to the non-believer, not to the lost sheep. For to the believer, God’s Word (love) is the power of God unto salvation. This Word, this Love is not reckless, it is quite well thought out, don’t you think?
Sorry, I guess that I’m a hardliner. Now, this is pure speculation, but I wonder if the modern industry driven worship song, that many songs are saying the same thing (love is a quite common theme, wrath not so much). So, it seems that we are running out of adjectives to describe love. And, it probably brings more attention to your song if you give it some shock value in the title. I’m not saying that brother Asbury did this consequently. But I would wager that his song got a lot more attention due to that title.
And we must remember that “reckless” does not mean ‘foolish, out of control, or heading for a crash. “Reckless” means “recon-less” It means doing something without thought. The shepherd who left his sheep for the lost one might have well thought out the consequences and still left the fold for the lost one because his love for the lost one was so strong.
Jodi Schulteis
Charles,
I am NOT in fact referring to 1Corintians:1:25! If you re-read my post, I am quoting my study Bible’s comments directly from Luke 15:1-7 here it is once again “In the first of three similar parables, Jesus uses the devotion of a shepherd to illustrate God’s willingness to find the wayward sinner. God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.”
I hope that clarifies my comment.
Charles Busada
Jodi, I’m sorry. I did not mean to offend. You are correct, you did not refer to 1 Cor 1.25. But, your commentary seemed to allude to it.
Your commentary ended with, “God does not abandon us to our foolishness but seeks us out, calling us to repentance and to faith in the Gospel.””
This appeared to me as a conflation of 1 Cor 1.25 and 2 Cor 7:10.
Sorry again!
Charles
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
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.
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 ♡
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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