homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » God's Wrath: General or Specific?

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: God's Wrath: General or Specific?
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Paul’s thesis in Romans is that the wrath of God is directed against the gentiles as a whole and that the Jews are just as bad. My question is whether the apostle’s proposition is supported by the gospels.

There is no question that Jesus of the gospels is wrathful: the treatment of the temple money changers is a dramatic case in point, as are the anathemas directed against his religious opponents. There does not seem to me, however, to be evidence that Christ’s anger, and by implication God’s anger, is directed against humanity in general. Rather it is aimed at those who make it difficult for the poor and outsiders to worship God, and such as cause little ones to suffer. The parable of the Lost Sheep, where ninety and nine are safely in the fold, and Christ’s professed mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”, seem to imply that most were already found, and the the Kingdom of God was at hand.

It seems to me that Jesus of the gospels and Paul are at variance regarding the human condition and God’s response to it. If God’s wrath is specific rather than general that clearly has important implications for our understanding of the work of Christ. What say you, shipmates?

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I question whether talking of God's wrath or anger as normally understood is not a red herring.

I will be be open. My understanding was changed when reading C.H. Dodd in his commentary on Romans 1 where the word wrath is highlighted.

For Dodd 'wrath' is used in an almost impersonal way and he notes that (Quote) " Paul never uses the verb 'to be angry' with God as its subject" His exegesis of the use of the word and its contextual development through the Bible is worth pondering.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There does not seem to me, however, to be evidence that Christ’s anger, and by implication God’s anger, is directed against humanity in general.

You mean, aside from that whole Flood thing? Or the many tribes considered collectively guilty of offenses their ancestors committed against God's chosen people? The idea of God assigning collective guilt isn't hard to find in the Bible.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398

 - Posted      Profile for The Midge   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kwesi
Did you stop short of Revelation?

--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.

Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God's wrath is displayed for a reason, and never as a legal compulsion required by the doctrine of original sin, or some such artificial theological construct. When Jesus was angry with, say, the Pharisees, it was not because they were 'sinners' in some vague, nebulous sense as a result of the fall, but because they committed certain clearly defined evils against real people, and the effects of those evils could be clearly seen and felt.

Therefore, the answer to the question in the title of this thread is: specific.

Nothing that Croesos has written contradicts this conclusion. For example, the flood was not sent because "everyone has sinned as a result of the fall", but because the majority of people chose to reject the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (Genesis 6:3) and gave themselves to violence (Genesis 6:11). Having said that, there are sometimes corporate consequences to evil, because parents have a moral responsibility for their children. The suffering of children as a result of the evil of their parents does not imply that God is actually personally angry with the children (and I anticipate the predictable objection: then why did God punish the children? Answer: the children were innocent victims of their parents' evil, who provoked necessary judgment on their community. That's what parental moral responsibility implies, after all.).

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Croesus, Midge, I’m trying to focus the discussion on the attitude to “wrath” and its implications in relation to Jesus and Paul, questioning whether they held similar or contrasting opinions. I think that’s more than enough to be going on with!

Shamwari, thanks for that! It might help if you could expand a little more on Dodd’s exegesis.

EtymologicalEvangelical, so, if the answer is specific, where does that leave Paul’s argument in Romans? How does it impact on our understanding of salvation and the atonement?

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kwesi asked for an expansion on Dodd's views.

His detailed analysis is contained in his commentary on Romans in the Moffat series. I do not propose to recapitulate or summarise that.

My understanding is that he concludes that the 'wrath of God' is impersonal and indirect. Which is to say that, in colloquial terms, God does not get the hell in with sinners and adopt an attitude of " I'll make them pay for this". And then hit them with a punishment out of anger.

It is more subtle than that. God;s wrath is expressed in the consequences of people flouting / ignoring His "laws".

This is clearly expressed in Romans 1 in which Paul says that God's wrath is loosed upon sinners (Gentiles in this case) but is immediately followed by a description of their sin and the refrain " God gave them over".

In other words their sin resulted in certain consequences and God did nothing to stop those consequences working themselves out.

Paul argued that a "moral and spiritual law" is written into the very fabric of the universe as an expression of God's Will and Purpose. He says that creation itself evidences this so that nobody can claim ignorance.

Defy those "laws" and certain consequences ensue. That God does not intervene but allows those consequences to work themselves out is what constitutes His "wrath".

So wrath is not a personal vindictiveness or expression of anger. Those laws built into the structure of the universe are for our good. Defy them and there are consequences. Insofar as God allows these consequences to work themselves out that is an expression of His wrath.

What Jesus expressed in the Temple clear-out was not so much anger as righteous indignation. There was nothing personal in his reaction to the money-changers. They were defiling the House of God, making worship impossible for the Gentiles, creaming off a profit at the expense of ordinary people. Yes he was angry. But not personally and vindictively so.

If what I have outlined above is correct then the answer to the question in the OP is both general and specific. It is as it is. Sin has inevitable consequences / penalties. If these are identified as God's wrath so be it. But I don't see them as a personal and direct retaliation by God for our sinfulness.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's actually very much in line with the way Swedenborg saw it and is a point of view that I find compelling. If God's wrath refers to the consequences of God's interaction with creation rather than to any motivation or emotion on God's part, then it is completely consistent with the idea that God always acts from the same motivation of a purely altruistic love.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shamwari
So wrath is not a personal vindictiveness or expression of anger. Those laws built into the structure of the universe are for our good. Defy them and there are consequences. Insofar as God allows these consequences to work themselves out that is an expression of His wrath.

What Jesus expressed in the Temple clear-out was not so much anger as righteous indignation. There was nothing personal in his reaction to the money-changers. They were defiling the House of God, making worship impossible for the Gentiles, creaming off a profit at the expense of ordinary people. Yes he was angry. But not personally and vindictively so.

You seem to be assuming that personal anger must be vindictive. I disagree. Jesus is not 'vindictive' (in the sense of being driven by a self-centred need for revenge), but he was clearly personally angry with the Pharisees, as expressed in Matthew, chapter 23:

quote:
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. ... Fools and blind! ... Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! ... For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. ... Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
It's hard to see how this is just an 'impersonal' and calm description utterly uninfluenced by any degree of direct personal anger. Jesus insulted the Pharisees to their face. He angrily and bitterly denounced them. Did He hate them? No, but He hated everything about their attitude and practices. His love for them could only be realised if they repented, and such repentance required an uncompromising knowledge of what God thought and felt about their wickedness. Therefore Jesus' personal anger flowed from His love.

The idea that God is just some kind of depersonalised construct who functions as nothing more than the ultimate guardian of the moral law, and who has no deep personal feelings with regard to evil, is far removed from the testimony of Scripture. One only needs to read large parts of the prophetic books to see this.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi
EtymologicalEvangelical, so, if the answer is specific, where does that leave Paul’s argument in Romans? How does it impact on our understanding of salvation and the atonement?

Good question. I certainly believe in the penal substitionary theory of the atonement (alongside others, which can harmonise with it). But I think that PSA does not necessarily imply that "God's wrath has been satisfied", in the sense that God is personally angry with every individual, but takes it out on his Son as a substitute for those who deserve punishment. Clearly there are people against whom God cannot possibly feel the slightest anger, such as very young children and people who lack much or any capacity to make decisions for themselves (severe cases of what is now termed 'learning disability'). Did Christ die for such people? Did He bear the punishment for such people? I would say 'yes', but only insofar as Christ satisfied the moral demands of the law, such that any evil influence on these people could not bring them under the judgment of God. I suppose we could say that the work of the cross was prophylactic for such people.

I don't accept that Paul teaches God's general wrath against all mankind because of original sin / the 'fall'. Romans 1:18-23:

quote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The bits I have highlighted reveal that God's wrath is a response to particular human activity:

1. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness, on the understanding that God has shown them the truth. Which poses the question: what about people who have always been deceived about the things of God, due to upbringing? How could they suppress the truth they have never known?

2. They are 'without excuse', so no one can claim that God is angry at people simply because of original sin or 'the fall', otherwise they certainly would have an excuse, namely, the excuse of morally contaminated ancestry.

3. They became futile in their thoughts. Well, of course, the word 'became' implies a process of change - in this case moral degeneration - from a state of moral correctness to one of moral decay. This implies that at some point in the lives of these people, they were, in some sense, "right with God". And it is no good anyone arguing that this moral degeneration is not referring to individuals, but to groups of people or humanity as a whole, because then those who are born contaminated have a legitimate excuse, which the passage clearly states they definitely do not have.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's ALL our psychotic projection. All. All us seeing God through our benighted glass.

And if it's not, who cares? That's God's business.

Jesus' wrath in the temple is not wrath in any way shape or form like that of the myths of God non-incarnate. He laid a finger on no one. He did it alone, with vast courage, against the Mafia, possibly twice. One man. If anyone had stood up to Him, He'd have folded His arms and stared them down. Or knelt in prayer. While the Holy Spirit would have intervened.

He did it to include all outsiders at the time, prefiguring His name. Salvation.

If God is in any way as we portray Him outside Jesus, so what? What's that got to do with us? What's that got to do with now? Jesus is our example, our leader in righteousness. Social justice. Good neighbour on out. Good son, good brother, good colleague, good citizen. In anything else? We are not called to be saved from His burning wrath in the Judgement. But to bless. Now. Because it's right. Now. From being the children of wrath, as if we were damned, now.

And Jesus said tough things? Yeah. So? What's that got to do with eternity either. It's for NOW.

I know no 'wrath of God' apart from my alienation from self and others. Nothing worse. There is and can be nothing worse. As others above have implied and more, it is intrinsic to creation. It is our explanation for suffering, which is entirely contingent on being brought in to existence.

It's time to grow up kiddies. What 'wrath'?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools