RUMINATIONS ON DANE ORTLUND’ S “GENTLE AND LOWLY”

This article is based on the classic theistic view of God’s attributes, and that the attributes are one in God though experienced distinctly by creatures (see suggested resources at end). All of God’s attributes are equally present in God, do not conflict with each other, and are not out of balance. This holds true for Jesus, of course. No attribute is more “central” or more “natural” to God than another and no attribute overshadows others. God does not have parts and is not divided in himself.

This article is not written to argue for the view of Classic Theism and the attributes, that is beyond the scope of this article and of my abilities, but rather as a response mainly to the Introduction and three chapters (1,2, 15) of Dane Ortlund’s book, Gentle and Lowly, from that point of view.

Ortlund himself acknowledges that he believes in the Divine Simplicity doctrine of Classic Theism, stating that “God is not a sum total of a number of attributes like pieces of a pie making a whole pie; rather, God is every attributes perfectly. God does not have parts” (140). I agree completely which is why I find some of assertions confusing and misleading.

God’s attributes are all one and are all God’s nature. God is his attributes and his attributes are who he is. This we know because of what God has revealed to us.

I want to affirm that many of the chapters in this book are insightful and helpful. I especially like chapters 8 (“To the Uttermost” on the intercession of Christ in heaven for believers) and 11 (“The Emotional Life of Christ”) which discusses the compassion and anger Christ showed in his ministry. I also found his insights in Chapter 17 on Isaiah 55:8 to be very helpful. Each chapter ruminates on a particular verse and theme of Jesus’ ministry. Ortlund liberally quotes Puritan writers and examines these passages in light of who Jesus is.

The Heart

The book starts off with the Introduction about the “heart of Christ.” This phrase, or similar words, is found 11 times in three short pages, and this phrase is used copiously throughout the book. In fact, it is somewhat unusual to find a reference to Jesus without the word “heart.”

The “heart of Jesus” is what is “most natural to him” and “what flows out most freely, most instinctively” (13).

Continuing into chapter one, Ortlund asserts that the “heart” of Jesus is “way down into the core of who he is” (18) and what “animates him most deeply,” “and what is “most natural” to him (19).

Ortlund rightly points out that in regards to man, when the Bible uses the word “heart” it refers to “the center of who we are.” But is there a “center of who Jesus is”? — because Jesus is never presented as having one attribute that is larger or more central than another. He has no “center.” If he did, then where do the other “parts” lie and are they diminished by the “center?” If so, Jesus would be divided in himself and be unbalanced.

Moreover, what does it mean to say that the “heart” of Jesus is “way down into the core of who he is,” is what “animates him most deeply,” and is “most natural” to him? This language is more akin to romantic fiction or sentimental stories. And what Scripture supports such ideas? In light of the Divine Simplicity doctrine Ortlund states he holds to, I found this confusing.

Pulling Back A “Veil”
Ortlund writes that in Matthew 11:28-30

“the Son of God pulls back the veil and lets us peer way down into the core of who he is” (18).

Ortlund concludes from this one verse (seemingly) that

“the posture most natural to him [Jesus} is not a pointed finger but open arms” (19).

That Ortlund claims there is one verse where Jesus “pulls back a veil” is troubling. Has Jesus been hiding something that he now uncovers? Is there a “part” of Jesus not visible without him making this statement? In actuality, the traits of gentleness and lowliness are supported in many ways in the behavior and words of Jesus. There is nothing secretive or hidden about them.

Ortlund also claims that the attributes of gentleness and lowliness are a priority with Jesus and are more “natural” to him than other attributes, such as judgment or condemnation (“the pointed finger”). He makes a rather bold assertion that if Jesus had a website, he would have on the “About Me” page the words “GENTLE AND LOWLY IN HEART”(21; all caps are in the original text).

While it is true that those who have trusted in Christ are not under condemnation (Romans 8:1), that does not mean that any attribute is more “natural” to Jesus than any other. They are all equal in Jesus and are one in him. Jesus added humanity to his deity for the incarnation but his divine attributes are not decreased. As man, he is perfect and therefore not unbalanced in any way.

Ortlund acknowledges that Jesus has a “harsher side,” as he puts it, and he points out that the wrath of Jesus is not at odds with his mercy (28, 29). That point should have been expounded on to show that those qualities are balanced in Christ; instead, Ortlund makes many statements that put the traits of Jesus out of balance. Ortlund states that the Scriptures show us this “heart” of Christ and that

“It is impossible for the affectionate heart of Christ to be overcelebrated, made too much of, exaggerated” (29).

There is certainly no problem with celebrating Christ’s love and mercy. But his “heart” includes all of his attributes. Ortlund claims that following the biblical testimony, we will discover “who Jesus most surprisingly is” (29).

Why is this “heart” of Jesus surprising? Ortlund makes several statements implying that Christians have neglected this “side” of Jesus and have viewed him as stern and unsympathetic. I am sure some have done this for various reasons but he seems to assume this is a common problem.

If anything, I think the love of Jesus has been exaggerated to the detriment of Jesus’ condemnation of sin and his atonement for it. Jesus in the culture now and in quarters of the church is a figure who only loves, who does not judge, and who does not condemn anyone.

Is the “pointed finger” less “natural” to Jesus than his love and mercy? I think the Bible would disagree. Jesus was quite harsh with the Pharisees and did not mince words with anyone. He even told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more” . Jesus did not come to judge the first time but will judge in the future:

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5:25-29, also John 5:22

There are several other places in the book where Ortlund uses the term “natural” and ascribes attributes of Christ to be more central or instinctive to him than other traits.

The Yoke

While Matthew 11:28-30 tells us that Jesus is “meek and lowly of heart,” this in a context of a “yoke.”
It seems important to look at the word “yoke” and the phrase “gentle and lowly” in that context because Jesus said that those who are heavy laden should come to him for the reason that his yoke is easy and his burden light. The yoke is thought by some to be a contrast to the laws of Moses which Israel could never obey; and/or a contrast to the Pharisees, who had burdened the Jews with extra commandments; and/or to the burden of sins.

Gill writes on Bible Hub:

Take my yoke upon you,…. The phrase is Rabbinical. The Jewish doctors often speak of , “the yoke of the kingdom of heaven”, and of persons taking it upon them; and which they exhort to, and express in much such language as here; , “take upon you the yoke of the holy kingdom”, every day. They distinguish this from the yoke of the law, and say.
“a man must first take upon him the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and after that take upon him the “yoke” of the commandment.”
…[snip] so those who come to him for life, and believe in him, as the Saviour of their souls, though they are not to trust in, and depend upon any duties performed by them; yet they are not to sit still, or lay aside the performance of good works, or live a licentious course of life, but are always to be doing the will and work of their Lord. And this he calls “his yoke”, in distinction from the yoke of the law of Moses, and of the traditions of the elders.

To take on this yoke from Jesus is to find rest from the law, rest from the burden of the Pharisees’ extra laws. Jesus called the Pharisees “blind guides” in the very same gospel (Matt. 15:14, 23:16, 23:24). Jesus tells the people to “come to me,” not to the religious leaders in charge. His yoke is “easy” and if the yoke is easy, the burden is light.

And this is offered by Jesus because he is “gentle and lowly of heart.” What makes Jesus “gentle and lowly?”

Gentle and Lowly

Jesus humbled himself and veiled his glory to incarnate. He added humanity to his deity and came as a man, being “obedient to the point of death” (Philippians 2:5-8).

When entering Jerusalem as the King of the Jews before the crucifixion, it was on a donkey as prophesied in Zechariah 9:9, “humble and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (fulfilled in Matthew 21:5-7 and John 12:13-14).

As Gill writes, this aspect of Christ was the taking of human nature, partly as an example:

And learn of me, for I am meek, and lowly in heart: respect seems to be had to Zechariah 9:9 where such characters as these are given of the Messiah. The meekness, humility, and lowliness of Christ appear in his assumption of human nature; in his subjection to his Father; in the whole of his deportment and conversation among men; in his submission to the ordinance of baptism; in the whole course of his obedience to God, and in his sufferings and death: and he is to be imitated herein, by all his followers, who may learn many excellent things from his example, as well as from his doctrine…[snip]…his disciples should not think it below them to conform to every ordinance of his, to every branch of his will; for he has set them an example, that they should tread in his steps, and walk even as he has walked.

Another commentary makes the point that Jesus being gentle and lowly illustrates lessons in the Old Testament about how the proud are far off from God versus the humble, who are nearer to God:

The thing to be learned is not merely a moral lesson, humility, but the whole truth about God and righteousness. But the mood of Master and scholar must correspond, He meek as they have become by sorrowful experience. Hence ὅτι πραΰς … τῇ καρδίᾳ: not that, hut for I am, etc. What connection is there between this spirit and knowledge of God? This: a proud man cannot know God. God knoweth the proud afar off (Psalm 138:6), and they know God afar off. God giveth the grace of intimate knowledge of Himself to the lowly. From Expositor’s New Testament on Bible Hub

This theme of humility is reiterated in James 4:6 and other parts of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. Jesus as the perfect Son displayed humility (gentleness is related to this word).

The appeal made by Jesus appears to be to the general crowds he was speaking to. This strikes me more as an appeal to those who did not yet know Jesus. It is not that believers cannot go to Jesus with problems, but believers have rest in Christ already (Hebrews 4). In the context of this passage in Matthew, Jesus is offering the rest in contrast to the Law and to the Pharisees.

Natural, Instinct, Impulse

There are numerous declarations in the book about Jesus’ “natural” inclinations, such as:

“It is what gets him out of the bed in the morning” (23)
“he did it inwardly” (27)
“We are asking who he most deeply is. What pours out of him most naturally” (29)
“his heart refused to let him sleep in” (32)
“his deepest instinct, his most natural impulse, is to move toward that sin and suffering, not away from it” (30)
“first impulse” (31)

Ortlund uses many of these terms about both Jesus and God in the book. In chapter 15, he especially uses these words in relation to some Old Testament passages.

I don’t think that acting “naturally” applies to Jesus. He acted in concert with God’s will, doing everything he came to do in perfect wisdom.

Did Jesus have “impulses?” Impulse is acting on instinct or without thinking something through. Neither God nor Jesus have that trait because God and Jesus act eternally and according to perfect will. An impulse would be in conflict with that.

“Natural” Versus “Strange” Work

In chapter 15, Ortlund discusses primarily Lamentations 3:33 and Isaiah 28:21. Ortlund claims that these two passages show that “something recoils within him [God] in sending affliction” (138) and that in doing so, God is “conflicted within himself when he sends affliction into our lives” (138).

Before continuing, here are the two verses:

“For He does not afflict willingly
Or grieve the sons of men.” Lamentations 3:33, NAS

“For the LORD will rise up as on Mount Perazim; as in the Valley of Gibeon he will be roused; to do his deed—strange is his deed! and to work his work—alien is his work!” ESV (Ortland does not write out this passage in the book but he uses the ESV unless otherwise indicated).

Ortlund writes that sending punishment is “strange work” to God. Mercy is more “natural” to God but when he does just punishment “there is kind of violence done to himself in it” (139). God’s “impulse” is “to do good” (141). He makes several statements along these lines using different wording such as:

“If you catch God off guard, what leaps out most freely is blessing” (140-141).

Of course, God cannot be caught “off guard” because he cannot be surprised, so that assertion is very problematic.

There are two things to look at:

1) What the passages are about

2) How this fits in with what we know of God in the Bible

Lamentations 3

Lamentations 3:33 is much like passages such as Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 where God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and 2 Peter 3:9 which tells us that God does not wish any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

While it is true that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, does that mean it is more “natural” for him to extend mercy? I do not think there are logical or biblical grounds for such a conclusion. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that since God wants all to come to repentance, that punishing the wicked causes a “conflict” within God and that his “impulse” is to do good.

Ortlund also cites Hosea 11 verse 8 where God states “My heart recoils within me” in the ESV. Other versions have God’s heart “turned within me” to show that God is turning from anger to compassion. This is much like the passages that say God “repents” of something. It is an anthropomorphism to show us in human terms what God is feeling or doing. It does not mean God truly repents because God does not change. God is not changing his mind, nor is he in conflict. The passage shows God’s great mercy despite what Israel and Judah actually deserved for their rebellion (death and destruction).

If God is conflicted within himself, we have an imperfect and weakened God. It means that God’s attributes are at war with each other. How can God be the essence of wisdom and peace if he has conflicts within himself? Although Ortlund has claimed the Divine Simplicity view, this idea is in opposition with it.

If one action is more “natural” to God than another, that means another action is less natural or even unnatural. How can God do anything unnatural to himself? It would mean God is inconsistent in his own character.

Lamentations 3 is emphasizing that God will have compassion despite afflicting. The writer of this book (perhaps Jeremiah) is lamenting the sins of Israel, that they have “transgressed and rebelled” (v. 42) and now suffer for it. In the depth of this despair, the writer points to God’s mercy, that although God has sent this punishment, God will also have compassion (v. 32). The writer acknowledges

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that good and bad come? v. 38

Isaiah 28

It is Isaiah 28 that gives the word “strange” cited by Ortlund. But in the NAS, verse 21 reads this way:

For the LORD will rise up as at Mount Perazim, He will be stirred up as in the valley of Gibeon, To do His task, His unusual task, And to work His work, His extraordinary work. NAS 1995

While the CSB has this:

For the LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim. He will rise in wrath, as at the Valley of Gibeon, to do his work, his unexpected work, and to perform his task, his unfamiliar task.

Neither version uses the word “strange” (some versions other than the ESV do use “strange”).
So what is the story with “strange?” The context gives us the meaning. The verse alludes to David’s slaughter of the Philistines at Baal Perazim (2 Samuel 5:20; 1 Chronicles 14:11) as well as to David’s victory at Gibeon where God went out before David and struck down the Philistines (1 Chronicles 14:14-16).

In both cases, God brought about victory for the enemies of Israel. The word for “strange” is used for foreigners, those outside of Israel. Now the word is being used ironically because Isaiah 28 is God announcing he will now bring punishment to his own people, not to strangers. So God’s punishment is “strange” and “unfamiliar,” not to God — but to Judah, who will suffer the consequences of God’s justice as do the foreigners.

“The “Mount Perazim” of this passage is probably the same as the “Baal-Perazim” of 1 Chronicles 14:11, where David completely defeated the Philistines by the Divine help. This victory is connected with another over the same nation in the valley of Gibeon (1 Chronicles 14:13-16). Now, however, God was to be on the side of the enemies of his people, who were to suffer as the Philistines had suffered in the olden time. This punishment of God’s own people by the sword of foreigners was strange work on God’s part – a strange act from the viewpoint of Israel. But it was their strange conduct which caused God’s strange action. They had become as it were, Philistines. Isaiah 28:21.” From Pulpit Commentary on Bible Hub on Is. 28:21

The NET Bible comments:

God’s judgment of his own people is called “his peculiar work” and “his strange task,” because he must deal with them the way he treated their enemies in the past.

Ortlund ends the chapter by stating that “judgment is his strange work” (144). That is taking the unusual word “strange” used in Isaiah 28 about a particular situation (God comparing his destruction of the Philistines with having to judge his own people) and applying it to all of God’s judgments and punishments. That is erroneous to say God’s judgment on wickedness is “strange.”

If God seems to do something “strange” it is due to our viewpoint, not God’s. God does everything perfectly and in concert with his nature, so he cannot do anything that would be strange to himself.

God cannot be conflicted.

I find the idea of a God who is conflicted in himself and whose just judgments on sin are “strange” to be very disturbing — more disturbing than the idea of the judgment itself. The reason we can count on God’s judgment and justice and mercy and lovingkindness to be perfect is because those attributes are never in conflict. God’s judgment is a result of his justice.

The “Heart” of Jesus

The constant use of the phrase, the “heart of Jesus,” in my view diminishes Christ. It implies that the “heart” of Jesus is something other than or maybe more than the rest of Jesus. It implies parts of Jesus are more or better than others.

Ortlund uses the term in almost a romantic way (romantic in the sense of its use for the Romantic era), implying that that part of Jesus is the “good” part that overcomes the “unnatural” part of judgment.

Why not just say Jesus? Why say “the heart of Jesus” or “God’s heart?” I do not see any reason to use this word this way or to use it as though it is a better side or part of Jesus. Everything in God is perfect and harmonious.

I understand why many have commented that they found the book odd or disturbing. Most said they could not put their finger on why it bothered them. If they were troubled because of why it troubles me, then at least I have been able to hopefully explain that.

The fact so many do like this book and that it is popular does not surprise me, nor does that fact mean the points written about in this article are wrong or moot.

We are to examine all teachings about God and Jesus according to Scripture. I hope that that is what I have done.

Christian Answers for the New Age