Weekly reflection on “The Good and Beautiful God” Chapter 6 God is Holy

Notes from the book:

God is love. God even loves sinners. However, the fact that God loves sinners is usually followed with, “But God still hates sin.”[1] Today, many people have abandoned the “angry God” narratives: you are just as likely to hear a person tell you that their god is a cosmic, benevolent spirit who never judges, does not punish sin, and sends no one to hell. This “teddy bear” god has become a very fashionable alternative to the wrathful god of days gone by. The narrative of a god who does not care about sin naturally undermines the entire Christian story. God demonstrates wrath toward sin: there is judgment in God’s kingdom, and there is a need for Jesus to die on a cross. The teddy-bear god seems inviting at first. But when you look at our world or look deeply into your own heart, you see a darkness that is unmistakable[2]. The nonwrathful god is powerless against this darkness[3]. Words like condemnation and wrath are not often associated with Jesus, but we cannot overlook the fact that he spoke so often about these things (John 5:28; Matthew 12:36-37; Matthew 16:27; Luke 21:23; John 3:36)[4].

When we think of love we think of an emotion or a feeling that is often irrational. Most of the love songs we hear on the radio describe a torrent of emotions a person feels about their beloved, so much so that they would climb every mountain and swim every sea just to be with him or her. In actuality, they wouldn’t. So we hear that “God is love” and make the assumption that God is crazy in love with us. But love, particularly the Greek word agape, has a different definition. To love is, in the words of Dallas Willard, “to will the good of another”; it’s not primarily an emotion. Love is a desire for the well-being of another, so much so that personal sacrifice would not stand in its way. It is not that God’s love is dispassionate, it’s just that God’s love is a lot more like a parent’s love toward a child than the “love” between infatuated teens[5].

The same is true of the word wrath. When we hear this word we imagine someone in a fit of rage who has lost all reason and control. So when we speak of the wrath of God, we imagine that God is irrationally full of rage, ready to “make heads roll” because he is so livid. In the same way that God’s love is not a silly, sappy feeling but rather a consistent desire for the good of his people, so also the wrath of God is not a crazed rage but rather a consistent opposition to sin and evil. The solution to the problem is in understanding that in the Bible the wrath of God is “pathos”, and not “passion”. “Passion” can be understood as an emotional convulsion, and a loss of self-control. “Pathos” on the other hand, is an act formed with care and intention, the result of determination and decision[6]. God’s wrath is a mindful, objective, rational response. It is actually an act of love. God is not indecisive when it comes to evil. God is fiercely and forcefully opposed to the things that destroy his precious people. Wrath is not a permanent attribute of God. Whereas love and holiness are part of his essential nature, wrath is contingent upon human sin; if there were no sin there would be no wrath[7].  

Holiness is an essential part of God’s nature. God cannot not be holy in the same way that God cannot not be love. This is not true of God’s wrath, which is not an attribute of God. Wrath is not something that God is but something that God does. While it is correct to say God is holy, it is not correct to say God is wrathful. Wrath is the just act of a holy God toward sin[8]. In reality, we don’t want the teddy-bear god because that god is not holy. J.I. Packer asks an insightful question: “Would a God who did not care about the difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable Being? Moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection.” The teddy-bear god is like permissive parents who let their kids drink and do drugs and have sex without guilt. Young kids might think these types of parents were cool, but they weren’t: they were lazy and did not really love their kids. Many of their kids went on to do hard drugs which wrecked their lives[9]. Being soft on sin is not loving, because sin destroys[10].

Because God is love, hell, a place of separation from God, is necessary. Love does not demand love in return it is not coercive. God does everything he can to reach out to us, and yet people are free to reject that love. Hell is simply isolation from God. A person, even a person others think of as decent and upright, who rejects God is experiencing hell on earth. There is a part of human life that resists relinquishing control to God. If unchecked, this resistance can lead to ruin. C.S. Lewis writes, “It is not a question of God ‘sending’ us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it’s nipped in the bud. The matter is serious: let us put ourselves in His hands at once, this very day, this hour.”[11]

Reflections:

To love is “to will the good of another,” according to Dallas Willard[12]. When this understanding of love comes in contact with our sin, the result is God’s wrath, because “God is fiercely and forcefully opposed to the things that destroy his precious people”[13].

If a friend wanted to understand how a loving God could be wrathful, I would explain to my friend that we need to make a few definitions first in order to get a clearer picture. When we think of love we think of an emotion or a feeling that is often irrational, like the love songs we hear on the radio. But love, particularly the Greek word agape, has a different definition. To love is, in the words of Dallas Willard, “to will the good of another”; it’s not primarily an emotion, but a desire for the well-being of another. It is not that God’s love is dispassionate, it’s just that God’s love is a lot more like a parent’s love toward a child than the “love” between infatuated teens[14].

The same is true of the word wrath. When we hear this word we imagine someone in a fit of rage who has lost all reason and control. In the same way that God’s love is not a silly, sappy feeling but rather a consistent desire for the good of his people, so also the wrath of God is not a crazed rage but rather a consistent opposition to sin and evil[15]. Holiness is an essential part of God’s nature. God cannot not be holy in the same way that God cannot not be love. This is not true of God’s wrath, which is not an attribute of God. Wrath is not something that God is but something that God does. While it is correct to say God is holy, it is not correct to say God is wrathful. Wrath is the just act of a holy God toward sin[16]. Being soft on sin is not loving, because sin destroys[17].

Bibliography:

Smith, James Bryan. The Good and Beautiful God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010.

Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings. Last modified April 25, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.

---

[1] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 115.

[2] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 116.

[3] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 117.

[4] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 117-118.

[5] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 119.

[6] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 120.

[7] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 121.

[8] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 122-123.

[9] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 124.

[10] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 125.

[11] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 125.

[12] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 119.

[13] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 121.

[14] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 119.

[15] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 120.

[16] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 122-123.

[17] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 125.

What does the Great Commission have to do with the book of Luke?

Abstract:

This sermon explores into the themes, characteristics, and purposes of the book of Luke in order to understand the importance of the Great Commission, which is to spread the gospel to all nations. Salvation for all is the central theme of this Synoptic Gospel, and the Great Commission is happening through the work of the Holy Spirit. The authorship of Luke, a Gentile physician, missionary and theological historian, is well supported by external and internal evidence. This book is both a literary masterpiece and a historiography which seeks to reassure new Christians that the message about Jesus is reliable.

Title:

What does the Great Commission have to do with the book of Luke?

What is the Great Commission? What does it have to do with the book of Luke? We are all called to the Great Commission, which is to spread the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15). Therefore it is very important for us to know the Synoptic Gospels. A good place to begin our exploration of this is the Book of Luke, where the arrival of God’s salvation, available for all people, is the central theme.[1]

First, let’s look at the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. Consider the following illustration: Three blind men are brought before an elephant. They are allowed to touch the elephant and are asked to describe the elephant. Each will come up with a different description, depending their individual perceptions and which body parts they felt. Nevertheless, the features they describe are all true of the elephant.

(dunno if I'm going nuts or what, but doing this assignment makes me feel Jesus is like the elephant in this music video! Plus the people with boat, people touching elephant, and elephant walking on water scenaries as well as major cities around the world scenaries!)

Have you noticed the striking similarities when you read through the three Synoptic Gospels? At the same time, they are far from mere copies of each other. The question of the relationship between these three Gospels has been termed the synoptic problem.[2] Most New Testament scholars view that Mark was the first of the Synoptics written and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke, because though Matthew and Luke differ considerably from one another, 93% of Mark is found in one or another.[3] However, Mark alone cannot account for all the Synoptic material, so additional sources has been proposed.[4] Most scholars believe that Luke used at least three sources.[5]

Character portrayal differs in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of God suffering obediently as the Servant of the Lord.[6] Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.[7] Luke’s portrait of Jesus is multifaceted but the best summarising description is the Saviour for all people.[8] In Mark, the centurion sees Jesus’ death and declares him to be “the Son of God.” In Luke the centurion announces Jesus is “innocent” or “righteous”.[9] The disciples in Mark appear as failure, in Matthew as having little faith, and Luke as “Apostles in training” where the negative scenes of the disciples’ failings are softened.[10] The religious leaders are also portrayed differently: In Matthew, they are evil to the core, with no hope of redemption. In Luke, their primary trait is self-righteousness, resulting in foolish rejection of God’s invitation to salvation. But because their failure comes from foolishness, there is still hope. In fact, throughout Acts, Paul goes from synagogue to synagogue, calling out a faithful remnant.[11]

The gospel writers were interested in more than just reporting to their communities anecdotes about Jesus. Each writer shaped the narrative development so that it addresses concerns that were current to his community.[12] Even if there seems to be a few apparent contraindications, the general trustworthiness of the Gospels could easily remain untarnished because the student who takes time to read any three reliable historians’ accounts of other ancient figures or events will frequently find much more variation among them than he encounters in the Synoptics.[13]

To understand Luke’s work, we need to know about the author, initial audience, as well as the circumstances that gave rise to this literature.[14] Who was Luke? The only “Luke” we know from the New Testament was an associate of Paul, described to as one of his “fellow workers” and “our dear friend Luke, the doctor”.[15] It’s widely recognised today that not only are Luke-Acts written by the same author but they are a literary unity: a single two-volume work. Luke’s the longest book in the New Testament. Compared with the other synoptics, it begins earlier with John’s birth and ends later with Jesus’ ascension.[16] A curious feature of Acts is that the narrative, normally in the third person, switches abruptly to the first person at several points, suggesting that the author himself was present.[17]

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? On one hand, there’s evidence he was not familiar with some aspects of Jewish life. On the other hand, his desire to cast his characters as faithful Jews shows a deep veneration of Judaism.[18] Luke appears in the list of Paul’s non-Jewish associates following Colossians 4:11.[19] The most likely solution is that Luke was probably a God-fearer: a Gentile worshipper of the God of Israel.[20] If that’s the case then he’s probably the only non-Jew author in the New Testament.[21]

What is Luke’s literary style? While the prologue of Luke’s written in the classiest literary Greek of the entire New Testament[22], the birth narrative has a strong Semitic style befitting its Jewish context. So he’s clearly a skilled literary artist, able to adapt style to fit the occasion. How about the genre? Whereas Mark and Matthew fit the broad characteristics of biography[23], the genre of Luke is a historiography,[24] as Luke provides a clear statement of intent in 1:1-4, that he carefully investigated these events himself, and dates the Gospel with reference to Roman history. Interestingly, many events are not arranged in chronological order.[25] Luke was not just a chronicler of events, but a man with a message.[26] He was a theological historian interested in disclosing to us the plans and purposes of God.[27] The best term to sum up Luke’s essential message is salvation.[28] 

Who is Luke addressing? He seems to be addressing a certain Theophilus.[29] The name means “one who loves God,” so some claim Luke is writing generally to believers. More likely, Theophilus was an individual, probably the patron who sponsored Luke’s project, as the writing of a book of this length was an expensive endeavour in the ancient world. The address “most excellent” suggest Theophilus’s high social or political status, and “things you have been taught” suggest that Theophilus was a new Christian.[30] The diversity of Luke’s work suggests that he was writing for a variety of reasons: to teach believers about the origin of their faith, to defend Christianity against its opponents, and to establish a firm historical foundation for the gospel now advancing around the world[31]: that the message about Jesus is reliable[32]. It’s all very relevant to Christians today too. How about the date of writing? The arguments are complex, but in summary AD64/65 best fit the evidence.[33]

Let’s look at the themes. The central theological theme of Luke is Salvation for all.[34] Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, but Luke’s goes back to Adam, which fits with his emphasis on the universal application of the Gospel: Jesus is the Saviour of all humanity.[35]^,[36] Though all the Synoptics describe the mission of the Twelve, only Luke records a second mission involving seventy of his disciples (10:1-20). The number seventy probably represents the nations of the world, since seventy names are listed in the “table of nations” in Genesis 10.[37]

The most unique structural feature of Luke’s Gospel is the extended journey to Jerusalem, or travel narrative, from 9:51 to 19:27. Luke takes ten chapters to treat a period which in Mark occupies a single chapter. Many of the famous Gospel parables and narratives, such as the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, and Zacchaeus appear during this period,[38] which are concerned with God’s special care for the poor and outcast, so this section has sometimes been called the “Gospel for the Outcast. All of these in some way carry the theological theme of reversal: humble “outsiders” receive blessings or commendation, while prideful “insiders” suffer rebuke or loss.[39] Indeed, Mary praises God for exalting the humble and bringing down the mighty in the birth-narrative hymn, and Jesus mingles with people from all positions in life.[40] In fact, compared to the other Synoptics, the theme of Jesus’ association with sinners is even more prevalent in Luke. Furthermore, Luke speaks more of Samaritans than the other Gospels do, and puts more emphasis to the women, referring to thirteen women not mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels.[41] In contrast, the religious leaders’ “self-righteousness” results in foolish rejection of God’s invitation to salvation.[42]

The travel narrative also demonstrates the theme of how Jerusalem plays an ambivalent role in Luke, representing both the glorious place of God’s salvation and the nation which rejects salvation. The Gospel begins and ends in the temple in Jerusalem (1:9; 24:53). Jerusalem’s the place where God’s presence dwells from which his salvation will be achieved (9:31), yet it’s also a symbol of God’s stubborn and foolish people (13:33-34). In much of Luke, Jesus journeys toward the cross[43] to Jerusalem and weeps over the city for her rejection of him and for the rejection which will follow.[44] Then at the end of the book, salvation is achieved with Jesus’ ascension and the message now goes forth from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.[45]

The importance of the Holy Spirit in the writings of Luke has been long and widely recognised.[46] Another key theme is that the coming of the Spirit heralds the dawn of the new age. The activity of the Spirit appears in three distinct periods: Firstly, the birth narrative, where John, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon were all filled with the Spirit.[47] Secondly, during Jesus’ ministry, whereby he was “anointed” by the spirit at his baptism and “filled with the Spirit” to accomplish his task.[48] Thirdly, following his ascension to God, Jesus pours out the Spirit to empower his followers to accomplish their commission.[49] There’s also the theme of prayer and intimate fellowship with the Father, as Luke lays special emphasis on Jesus’s prayer life.[50] He records nine prayers of Jesus, of which only two appear in the other gospels.[51]

In summary, the authorship of Luke, a Gentile physician, missionary and theological historian, is well supported by external and internal evidence.[52] This book’s both a literary masterpiece and a historiography which seeks to reassure new Christians that the message about Jesus is reliable[53] and God’s salvation is for all.[54] The Great Commission’s happening through the work of the Holy Spirit and all Christians are called.

Bibliography:

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007.

France, R. T. Luke, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Nickle, Keith F. Preaching the Gospel of Luke, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Nickle, Keith F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

O’Harae, Ian. “Introducing the Synoptic Gospels.” Lecture Notes, Morling College, March 18, 2015.

O’Harae, Ian. “Luke.” Lecture Notes, Morling College, April 1, 2015.

Strauss, Mark L. Four portraits, one Jesus, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Twelftree, Graham H. People of the spirit: exploring Luke's view of the church, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings. Last modified April 23, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.

---

[1] Mark L. Strauss, Four portraits, one Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 284.

[2] Strauss, Four portraits, 46-47.

[3] Strauss, Four portraits, 50. Most of Mark (93%) is found in Matthew or Luke, suggesting either that Mark abbreviated both Matthew and Luke, or that Matthew and Luke used both used Mark. As Mark’s individual stories tend to be fuller in detail than theirs, this suggest they have abridged Mark’s accounts rather than vice versa.

[4] Strauss, Four portraits, 51.

[5] Strauss, Four portraits, 262. Mark, Q, and L.

[6] Strauss, Four portraits, 206.

[7] Strauss, Four portraits, 254.

[8] Strauss, Four portraits, 281.

[9] Strauss, Four portraits, 279.

[10] Strauss, Four portraits, 282-283.

[11] Strauss, Four portraits, 283-284.

[12] Keith F. Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 166.

[13] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007), 195.

[14] Graham H. Twelftree, People of the spirit: exploring Luke's view of the church, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 5.

[15] France, R. T. Luke, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1-2. 2Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:14.

[16] Strauss, Four portraits, 261. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16.

[17] France, Luke, 2. None of this amounts to proof of Luke’s authorship but that seems the most adequate explanation of such data as we have.

[18] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 6. eg. Luke 2:22 cf. Lev. 12:4, 6.

[19] France, Luke, 2.

[20] Strauss, Four portraits, 290.

[21] France, Luke, 2.

[22] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 138.

[23] Ian O’Harae, “Introducing the Synoptic Gospels,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College, March 18, 2015), 4.

[24] Strauss, Four portraits, 262. Luke 1:5; 2:1-3; 3:1-2.

[25] Strauss, Four portraits, 263.

[26] France, Luke, 6. Luke is a sophisticated writer who knows how to tell a good story, and putting the elements of the story in chronological order may not always be the most effective way of presenting it, as there exists other types of order, such as thematic order.

[27] Keith F. Nickle, Preaching the Gospel of Luke, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 3.

[28] France, Luke, 6.

[29] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 10.

[30] Strauss, Four portraits, 290.

[31] Strauss, Four portraits, 291.

[32] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 9.

[33] France, Luke, 4.

[34] Strauss, Four portraits, 284.

[35] Strauss, Four portraits, 268.

[36] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 156.

[37] Strauss, Four portraits, 285.

[38] Strauss, Four portraits, 263.

[39] Strauss, Four portraits, 274.

[40] Strauss, Four portraits, 286. Luke 1:51-53

[41] Strauss, Four portraits, 287.

[42] Strauss, Four portraits, 283.

[43] Ian O’Harae, “Luke,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College, April 1, 2015), 2. Luke 9:51; 18:31-34; 19:11, 41-44.

[44] Strauss, Four portraits, 287. Luke 19:41-44.

[45] Strauss, Four portraits, 288. Luke 24:47.

[46] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 13.

[47] Strauss, Four portraits, 285.

[48] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 151.

[49] Strauss, Four portraits, 286. Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18; 10:21.

[50] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 156.

[51] Strauss, Four portraits, 289. Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 9:28; 11:1; 23:32; 23:34; 23:46.

[52] Strauss, Four portraits, 293.

[53] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 9.

[54] Strauss, Four portraits, 284.