It is not, as Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek would have it:
'The Christ showing us what the hatred of one's father looks like.'
And yet in the same breath it is, of course, almost exactly that because it shows God's hatred of the sinful condition, the condition of sin itself - but not the one in whom sin resides. Žižek is almost there for he finds almost all the right words but gets 'one's' and 'The' confused and when this error is corrected provides us with something of extreme value and worth.
For it is The Father's hatred (of sin and its effect) that brings Jesus to that place (the cross) and yes, there is in the crucifixion a satisfaction, some remedy, to be found with regard to the separation and detestation of God towards sin. (Something which we might perhaps contend that the cross does indeed satisfy.)
That Jesus is separated from the Father is without doubt for He has taken upon Himself, and become for us, sin itself in the most unacceptable and unapproachable of manners. And we, in accepting this and His one atoning act, become as one with the Father - no longer abhorrent or separated from Him (The Father) but one with Him.
The act of Jesus on the cross transposes me (you) with Him and in this we don't find rejection of the Son but recognition of His sacrificing of Himself and in doing so experiencing that separation that was ours first hand. The final words of desolation as the distance between God and sin become so obvious and, as God experiences what it is like to lose Himself in its (sin's) noise and no longer hear Himself love, make the cross an even more terrible place than perhaps I have ever imagined. The intellectual knowledge of our separation from our position becomes made real in the God made man, experiential and awful.
Listening to some pontificating over the words from a Christian song, 'til on the cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied,' I found myself wondering about their words: Their protestations that 'God is love - not anger'.
Through them I found myself returning to the thought that although God is indeed love, He must be also able to hate; for if God can only 'do' love then His love is hollow and (sorry God) worthless!
I hear some (spluttering on their morning brew and splurging fragments of toast everywhere) protest with, 'But God is love!' Yes He is, but only because He chooses to be! For God's love to have any meaning then that love has to be a choice made between love and hate - and as God experiences anger (wrath) He too experiences (and is) peace and joy. After all, in John 3.16 we learn that God becomes man to redeem the world and offer eternal life, reconciliation to Himself, through the offering of Himself - learning at the end of that same chapter (John 3.36):
'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.'
God's wrath is not aimed on them but at them. 'What's the difference?' I hear some mutter, 'They are still in God's crosshairs!' And yes they are - because the satisfaction of that wrath, the remedy that is the cross, has not been applied - even though it be but a fingertip away. It's like an oncologist aiming a beam of radiation at a person with the intention of missing them and hitting the cancer; a sniper taking out the person with the RPG and missing the child nearby (God doesn't use drones and neither should we -a subject for another day perhaps?).
There is no collateral damage with God - only accurate. precision, sniping!
And that execution of God's wrath and the destruction of sin is found in the cross - where God shows us what His love of humanity (and of Himself in the Son) looks like and what it does.
Accept Jesus, the Christ, and the life He gave to give and taking up the cross (and all that means) and the wrath is removed, recognition of the precision tactics that are the cross in the battle again the one who is the father of all lies and condemnation.
simples innit?
4 comments:
Vic, why do you think Julian of Norwich saw absolutely no wrath in God? I have my thoughts on this but wondered what yours might be.
I have often reflected upon Julian's Revelations of Divine love and considered the assigning of wrath to humanity and it's inability to forgive and God's reality which is contrary and see this as the pronouncement that 'God is love. (Which of course He is).
The reality is that god must also be able to exercise wrath (for we find this in the Bible) for otherwise His love is worth little and this wrath is surely turned rosin (and logically the author of sin) and found rectified, resolved and satisfied in the atoning act of the Christ.
Julian is comparing our sinful natures with God's perfect nature and so, in the facet being examined (sinful and unforgiving wrath) sees no wrath in God.
be but turn to the facet marked 'attitudes to sin' and we see something very different I fear
HTH makes some sense
Pax
I noted that she recognised that her theology differed from that of the Church at this point, and that she felt obliged to accept both arguments, her own and that of the Church (higher and lower, I think she called them). I don't agree with her, there being many Biblical references to the wrath of God, but did concede that she, being redeemed and clothed in Christ righteousness, therefore experienced none of God's wrath during this "showing". In other words, not that wrath is incompatible with God's character as she believes, but that she was simply not experiencing it in her relationship with Him.
I, being a great fan of the lady, love her insights and own particularly nuanced views on some things. She called people to focus on some things, eschewing others and leaving them very much in the background, a great strength if taken for what it is and not in isolation. She realised and celebrated this in her thinking and lifestyle.
Truly a star :-)
Thank you for bringing her into the mix :-)
Post a Comment