Chris, I’ve been reflecting on what Origen said distinguishing Judas son of Iscariot and Judas the son of perdition—which you’ve shared on your podcast—using that frame to understand what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians and eternal punishment from the presence of the Lord. Ultimately their persecutors will not share the blessed hope with them, because they won’t be there, but someone else, who has been purified by the fire of love will. This write up you just shared I think confirms I’m headed in the right direction.
I think a lot of my concern about the way the language of wrath/anger has been wielded in either the scriptures or the church, is how frequently it is deployed against virtually anyone/everyone except oneself. But if we first remove the log from our own eye and remember that ‘the line separating good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart’(Solzhenitsyn)), a lot changes for the better, particularly when we know we are held within an irrevocable love. Thank you Chris.
I’ve been thinking about this too—perhaps a spin off from that same talk. When a person reads about the judgements of God in the OT one hears the crying ache for his beloved.
I was having a conversation about the meaning of the 'wrath' of God with a friend recently so this is very timely and helpful. I have forwarded it on to him. Thanks Chris.
In one of the quotes you provided, Origen says that the action of God’s wrath is to rebuke, chasten and improve. When I read the Old Testament, I struggle with applying this to a text like Isaiah 13, where God’s wrath is linked to some truly awful things like parents watching as their baby’s are dashed against the rocks. Given texts like this one, how do I not attribute horrible events in mine or my family and friend’s lives to God’s wrath?
“So, “wrath” refers to something God does, not something God is. Or, better, it refers to something that happens for our good by God simply being God for us.”
I have question about this statement. I’ve been reading the theologian Mastricht for a class and the foundational theological claim he makes to support his doctrine of divine simplicity is that God’s attributes or acts of His attributes are never separate parts of His essence. So if God does good, it is not a part of Him, but simply Him.
Do you think that if God enacts wrath, it can be separated from who God is? Can wrath be a part of the essence of God?
If we want to assert the divine simplicity of classical theism, then we also have to hold that all of God's constituitive acts are also not partite, but are one and the same. Hence why MacDonald can claim that "God's wrath is simply the furthest reach of his love as we're resisting it." His wrath and love are not two separate things, but one and the same. The difference is in how we receive them.
No, wrath is not part of God's essence. And no, what God does is not separable from who God is. That said, what God gets done is brought about by what God does/who God is. I wanted to draw attention to this difference, and my hope was that the second sentence would show its true meaning when contrasted with the first.
I believe I see what you’re saying and I think Tobias answer is a great addition. I think the clarity about what’s God does and what God gets done is also helpful. Mastricht has been in my head all week, and still trying to fully grasp what he argues for.
"But his goodness is shown not in its indifference to evil but in its total opposition to and power over it." This point is where some criticisms of American "liberal" Christianity are well-founded. There is a way of talking about God's love that has so little place for wrath that God ends up seeming passive in the face of evil. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but I think some of it stems from drawing too close a comparison between our wrath and God's wrath. It makes me think of Bonhoeffer's "how" vs "who" point from his Christology lectures.
In a small group last night, we thought about the world revenge or vengeance. Is it possible to think of God in those terms? Moses does on Deuteronomy 32:43, “he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries.” This is in the same chapter Paul quotes on Romans 12, where he urges us not to take vengeance on our enemies.
It seems to me that what Moses calls vengeance cannot simply be payback any more than our “punishment” of our children is simply payback. It is aimed at loving transformation. The other day I was reading George MacDonald’s marvelous sermon called “Our God is a consuming Fire.” In it he depicts a soul before God seeing its self-centered wickedness before the flaming goodness and love of God. This is the the consuming fire, burning away the false self so that the soul may finally be transformed by love into love. The consuming fire feels like wrath, vengeance, payback, but behind it is a love that will never let go.
Chris, I’ve been reflecting on what Origen said distinguishing Judas son of Iscariot and Judas the son of perdition—which you’ve shared on your podcast—using that frame to understand what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians and eternal punishment from the presence of the Lord. Ultimately their persecutors will not share the blessed hope with them, because they won’t be there, but someone else, who has been purified by the fire of love will. This write up you just shared I think confirms I’m headed in the right direction.
Yes! Exactly. Exactly.
I think a lot of my concern about the way the language of wrath/anger has been wielded in either the scriptures or the church, is how frequently it is deployed against virtually anyone/everyone except oneself. But if we first remove the log from our own eye and remember that ‘the line separating good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart’(Solzhenitsyn)), a lot changes for the better, particularly when we know we are held within an irrevocable love. Thank you Chris.
Your second to last sentence. Yes
As Balthasar says in his little book on hope, I must never imagine anyone going into hell ahead of me.
This is really, really well said.
I’ve been thinking about this too—perhaps a spin off from that same talk. When a person reads about the judgements of God in the OT one hears the crying ache for his beloved.
I was having a conversation about the meaning of the 'wrath' of God with a friend recently so this is very timely and helpful. I have forwarded it on to him. Thanks Chris.
In one of the quotes you provided, Origen says that the action of God’s wrath is to rebuke, chasten and improve. When I read the Old Testament, I struggle with applying this to a text like Isaiah 13, where God’s wrath is linked to some truly awful things like parents watching as their baby’s are dashed against the rocks. Given texts like this one, how do I not attribute horrible events in mine or my family and friend’s lives to God’s wrath?
Scott, I'm going to do an entire post in response to this question. It'll go up on Monday.
Thanks Dr. Green!
“So, “wrath” refers to something God does, not something God is. Or, better, it refers to something that happens for our good by God simply being God for us.”
I have question about this statement. I’ve been reading the theologian Mastricht for a class and the foundational theological claim he makes to support his doctrine of divine simplicity is that God’s attributes or acts of His attributes are never separate parts of His essence. So if God does good, it is not a part of Him, but simply Him.
Do you think that if God enacts wrath, it can be separated from who God is? Can wrath be a part of the essence of God?
If we want to assert the divine simplicity of classical theism, then we also have to hold that all of God's constituitive acts are also not partite, but are one and the same. Hence why MacDonald can claim that "God's wrath is simply the furthest reach of his love as we're resisting it." His wrath and love are not two separate things, but one and the same. The difference is in how we receive them.
This is very helpful, thank you! In a way my question seems to have contradicted divine simplicity, but your response is clarifying. Thank you!
No, wrath is not part of God's essence. And no, what God does is not separable from who God is. That said, what God gets done is brought about by what God does/who God is. I wanted to draw attention to this difference, and my hope was that the second sentence would show its true meaning when contrasted with the first.
I believe I see what you’re saying and I think Tobias answer is a great addition. I think the clarity about what’s God does and what God gets done is also helpful. Mastricht has been in my head all week, and still trying to fully grasp what he argues for.
"But his goodness is shown not in its indifference to evil but in its total opposition to and power over it." This point is where some criticisms of American "liberal" Christianity are well-founded. There is a way of talking about God's love that has so little place for wrath that God ends up seeming passive in the face of evil. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but I think some of it stems from drawing too close a comparison between our wrath and God's wrath. It makes me think of Bonhoeffer's "how" vs "who" point from his Christology lectures.
In a small group last night, we thought about the world revenge or vengeance. Is it possible to think of God in those terms? Moses does on Deuteronomy 32:43, “he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries.” This is in the same chapter Paul quotes on Romans 12, where he urges us not to take vengeance on our enemies.
It seems to me that what Moses calls vengeance cannot simply be payback any more than our “punishment” of our children is simply payback. It is aimed at loving transformation. The other day I was reading George MacDonald’s marvelous sermon called “Our God is a consuming Fire.” In it he depicts a soul before God seeing its self-centered wickedness before the flaming goodness and love of God. This is the the consuming fire, burning away the false self so that the soul may finally be transformed by love into love. The consuming fire feels like wrath, vengeance, payback, but behind it is a love that will never let go.
Couldn't agree more, friend. Mere punishment would be failed correction, and love never fails.