Book Review – Difficult Doctrine of Love D.A. Carson Pt 2
Here is the second installment of this little series. It’s been a pleasure being able to come to grip with some of the texts that are presenting the Love of God. Please, do not read this without looking at the Biblical evidence and learning from that before assuming i have it right.
Book Review
Difficult Doctrine of Love- DA Carson
God is Love- Chapter 2
John writes, “God is love” (14:8, 16). I wonder what that brings to mind when a verse like this read. For me, I have to stop myself from casting it into a mould that I think is definitive and true. The reason being that my understanding of love is probably pretty bad! What’s more, I have a sneaking suspicion that my understanding of biblical love may be a little less nuanced than what is presented in the Scriptures.
Carson understands this point, we have all have a particular grasp of what we think love means but this may be because we have distorted it according to the experiences we have had with it in relating to this world. Thus we fail to take into account a holistic, biblical understanding of this doctrine.
So how do we proceed? How do we begin to understand John’s idea that God is love without missing the bigger picture? In this chapter he helpfully outlines how not to proceed.
I think we have all heard a sermon, talk or someone speaking about the different Greek words that are used for love, brotherly love etc.
Carson makes the point that in days gone by, older methods of systematic study of the Bible would include a Word study. Taking the word and finding its meaning and thus importing that meaning into whatever text that it appears. This method is discussed in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. His conclusion? This is a false method of understanding various doctrines as it breaks down when we use a wooden definition of a word and import it into various texts with differing contexts. For instance the same word agape in the John passage is used by Paul when describing the love that Demas had for the world (2 Tim 4:20) in the verb form. The problem is apparent, how can the positive love that John sees as inherent to the nature of God be the same love that Demas has for the world and is condemned for by Paul.
Carson’s point? “We cannot begin to fathom the nature of the love of God by something as superficial a methodologically flawed word studies.”
So if this is wrong way to go, what is the right way? Text within context. The simplest and most profound exegetical tool anyone who reads the Bible must understand and master. Keep the passage and the Doctrine within the context that it is placed.
Carson look as at John 15: 16-30 as a case study to make his point. This is partly because essential to understanding Johannine theology is in grasping two important facets of John’s Gospel. Firstly, the Son by his obedience to the Father, doing only what his Father gives him to do and saying only what the Father tells him to say, is a way in which Jesus reveals the Father perfectly demonstrating the nature and the love of God (in our passage of John 15: 16-30). Secondly, this self revelation of God through his Son is not only indicative of the Love that God shows for mankind but demonstrated the immense love He has for His Son. This creates the standard of God’s love and comes to bear upon our minds when John says, “He so loved the World that he sent his Son”. Can you see the connection? The intra Trinitarian love and relationship of the God is the paradigm for which we must understand God’s love. How do we know what that would look like? Jesus reveals it on earth in his life, ministry, teachings, death and resurrection. It is the kind of relationship that Christ demonstrates with His Father that then becomes the bench mark for understanding the nature or God when we say He is love. Carson carries on with the text fleshing out some of the ideas within it, but I’ll leave that to you to work on.
Finally he concludes with two observations. The first is linked to the Father revealing his plans to the Son. Some have argued that there was gradual revelation that the Father gave to Jesus, that in his pre-incarnate state of the Son was not shown all that God had planned. This is linked to a discussion over our passage of the difference between the Incarnate Word and the pre-incarnate Word. This view sees that the title Son was only given to the incarnate Jesus and not before. At the end of this
Carson concludes that the biblical texts show that at no point in the Trinity was there lack or various levels of love: in eternity past the Father loved the Son and the Son loved the Father. There has always been a love relationship within the Trinity expressed in the life of Christ.
The second thing that
Carson brings out is in fact very helpful. Although there is an equal love between Father and Son, there is equal status or being between Father and Son (against Arianism), there is however a marked distinction between the Father and Son. The Father is the One who sends, commands and instructs. The Son in obedience follows all that the Father has shown. This aspect of the relationships never reversed.
This has some interesting implications for Christian discipleship. As God’s people we are to relate to God in a similar manner, our obedience to his will is a demonstration of our love for him, thus our life with God is relational as well as constitutional. God’s self revelation in Christ sets the paradigm for understanding how we relate to God. Thus John picks up on the idea that Jesus sees us not as slaves but as friends (John15:14-15).
It is only be virtue of the intra Trinitarian love of God that worked out its plan of redemption in fullness of time that we are able to call ourselves, Friends of God.
Leave a Reply