Wednesday, September 10, 2014
The Wrath of God
Christians often fall into two camps concerning the wrath of God--those who reject it entirely and those who embrace it with joy. If you listen to many on the left, it would be easy to conclude that Alan Alda was the second incarnation of Christ, the ultimately sensitive male, while many of those on the right, who preach the wrath of God without remorse, paint a portrait of God as one who is very close to a Jekyll and Hyde. These images of God are never easy to harmonize.
For the longest time I tried to be in the first camp because I could not reconcile the wrath of God with the Bible's description of the love of God in Christ Jesus. And the truth is, secretly (and silently), I have always sympathized (though never agreed) with the 2nd century heretic, Marcion, who claimed that the God of the Old Testament was inferior and demonic while the God of the New Testament was superior and a God of love. For anyone who has read the Bible it is not difficult to see why he thought that.
The God of Israel does seem rather evil and capricious at times, commanding the deaths of rebellious children (Dt 21:18-21), adulterers (Lev 20: 10-12), Sabbath-breakers (Ex 31:14) and women who lie about their virginity (Dt 22:20-25) to name a few, while justifying, or at least ignoring, bigamy (Gen 4:19), female oppression, and victims of rape (Dt 22:28-29).
God also seems to lose his patience and his temper at the drop of a hat and without much warning as he did when Moses struck the rock two times instead of one time at Mariah in order to bring forth water. Or like God did with Uzzah when he was carrying the ark of the covenant back to Israel on an oxen cart. When the oxen stumbled Uzzah instinctively reached to stablize the ark and God struck him dead. Apparently no human hands were supposed to touch it.
And maybe worst of all is that God comes across as blood-thirsty and as murderous as any Hitler could be in his continuous commands of genocide concerning the surrounding nations. "Under the ban" is the biblical expression for it--usually the complete destruction of every living thing having to do with an opposing country (Josh 6:17). It all comes under the title of the "wrath of God".
Of course, thank God, there are other ways of interpreting these things without concluding that God is evil but if the truth be told, those answers are not very obvious ones and some of them are not very good either. I have recently concluded again however that if the Bible is to be taken seriously--and it must be by the church-- then God's perplexing wrath cannot be denied or ignored.
There are at least two things that we can conclude from the stories of God's wrath. The first is that God, like C.S. Lewis said of Aslan in the Narnia Chronicles, "is not a tame lion". To be untameable means to be uncontrollable and that makes everyone nervous because Yahweh shatters neat little theologies that define God either too narrowly or too broadly and that, in turn, evokes fear. But fear isn't all bad and the Bible calls fear of God the beginning of wisdom. Maybe it is the beginning of wisdom because we must come to this God as listeners of the Word rather than knowers of the Word and fear often shuts our mouths. Wisdom must listen first and approaching God as untameable means we must always be on guard because God is on the offensive.
Secondly, the stories of God's wrath tell us that because God is uncontrollable, therefore God is also unpredictable and thus in large part, unknowable. Although I prefer to think that life is unpredictable while God should not be, the Bible won't allow for such facile distinctions. As the Psalmist declared...God shrouded himself in darkness, covering his approach with dark rain clouds.... For Christians however, the truest expression of the nature of God is in the cross of Jesus the Messiah and everything else must be interpreted in light of that wonderfully absurd revelation.
I have to admit that I haven't come to the place where I can embrace the wrath of God as I do the love of God and I am not sure that is the proper response anyway. But to the degree that Scripture gives us images of God, that is, pictures of God to compare with one another, then the image of God's wrath, especially in the Old Testament, must be continually held up next to the image of God's dying and undying love in the cross of Jesus Christ In the New Testament.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also struggle with the wrath of God. Maybe it is more about the heart than the actions. I see David and his multiple transgressions. Yes there were consequences to his choices BUT God said He was a man after His heart. Sometimes i think we try to figure out God in ways we never will. He isn't like us and His judgement has reason and is fair. I rather know my God looks at our hearts. That is what our transformation is about for us to change and be more like Him. I am thankful for grace, mercy and love, God does not want us to be afraid of Him but in awe and respect of Him.
ReplyDeleteDede, struggle is a good word to use when pondering God's wrath because it means that some kind of tension is created....and tension is necessary when considering this. The . Problem I have with the opposite extremes in the church is that they have a pat answer and they are very comfortable with it b/c for them the wrath of God no longer poses any struggle or creates any tension at all.
ReplyDeleteHow do you mean that, Larry? A 'theological' tension or a tension in one's individual dealings with God?
ReplyDeleteHmmm; Brrr Dave. in response to DD I was referring to a psychological tension. I think a psychological tension is necessary because there is already a theological tension happening.
ReplyDeleteI don't embrace the wrath of God, rather I'm thankful that Jesus bore God's wrath for me upon the cross, though it was I who deserved it because of my sin. Those that are His will never have to experience His wrath. The terrible sadness is that those who reject His Son will have to experience the full wrath of God for eternity, as they must bear their own punishment for their own sin.
ReplyDeleteThat's strange. It didnt publish my name. Well the above comment was from me, Karen Hansen
ReplyDeleteHey Karen...so nice to hear your thoughts.the understanding of the cross of Christ as satisfying God's justice by His wrath is a very common one today specially among conservative Christians.it is called the satisfaction theory and yes all the different understandings of the atonement are all called theories... Even conservative Christians call them theories because we do not actually know.
ReplyDeletefor the first 1000 years of the church the most common understanding of the atonement what's called the ransom theory, we're seeing put us under the devil's power in Christ ransomed us, that is bought us back exchanging his life for ours. The devil gleefully took Christ life without knowing that the holy magic would bring it back again.
The third view came along around the 12th century and it is called the moral influence theory. Many liberals perfer this one Christ came to demonstrate God's love for us and the power of that demonstration grips individual hearts to transformers them in love.
No wrath necessary per se in those two theories. There is quite good evidence for all three thories in the Bible and I don't think the Bible presents a completely unified view.
What we do know is that "Christ died for our sin according to the scripture"..... I dont think that those "who reject Christ are going to experience the full wrath of God" though. What they may experience is the natural consequence of rejecting Love that us, to live outside of it. That would be sufficient. God does need to make them hurt anymore. This idea is exressed by C.S.Lewis in The Great Divorce.