My point, so far, is that God’s wrath is coming, and Jesus — whose birth we celebrate at Christmas — is the savior from that wrath. It’s a point a lot of people got because that’s what a savior is — and it’s a point I have made here before, so you were probably with me on it by way of preparation, one way or the other.
Now, the question is: is that enough? That is, if we understand that what we deserve is God’s wrath and what we get is God’s savior, can we now have some ham and some applesauce and some casserole and maybe (in presbyterian and Lutheran homes, of course) a glass of wine, a decent night’s sleep, and then open the presents on Christmas morn after an appropriately-solemn reading of Luke 2? I mean, seriously: enough’s enough.
Listen: Christmas is not about a logical argument, an intellectual affirmation, and then a secular session of either greed or idolatry (or maybe both). Christmas is about God with us.
When the Jews had the Temple, God’s wasn’t “with us”: He was nearby, to be sure, but He was separated ritually and physically from the people. He had a covenant with the Jews, and He gave them the means to sort of “pay up” or “make up” the ways in which they broke the covenant, but here’s what He says about that:
- For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Two little lines in the book of Hosea — a book in which God says that the right way to see the relationship between Israel (the chosen nation) and God is that God is a faithful husband and Israel is a wife who prefers the life of a prostitute to the life of fidelity. But Hosea has to go and buy his wife back out of prostitution to make himself like God in this object lesson prophecy.
The obvious application is that God is coming back for us when we don’t deserve it — you’ve all heard that one, I am sure. But look: when God is spelling it out for Israel in Hosea 6:6, God is saying, “You know: I don’t want you just to think about what I have done this for you, I want you to acknowledge that I have done this for you and act like I am real to you.”
I think that’s a little dazzling, frankly. God doesn’t want to just save us: God wants us to act like a wife bought out of prostitution.
We don’t have to be people who are in it for the money anymore — because the price for us has been paid forever. We don’t have to work off our debt. Now, that sounds like standard christianese, I am sure — and the best way to overcome that is to describe for you in detail what the life of a protitute is like. However, homeschool moms are reading this, and they would probably find that a little much — and they might be right. I’ll sum it up in a sentence: imagine a life in which your own body is not safe from the demands and impulses of others who care nothing about you. If you were stuck in a life where you don’t even own your own body, or have a right to your own flesh, how would you act toward the person who paid the price for your body and set you free from that kind of slavery?
That’s the razor’s edge at Christmas: it’s the place where mental assent doesn’t cut it. We can’t just agree that these things are true for us in some religious metaphor, or maybe in some metaphysical transaction. We have to be in love with the one who has actually done this for us. We have to live as if God is with us. God doesn’t want us to go and offer a dove or a lamb or a bull in the temple: God wants us to love Him above all things because He deserves to be loved above all things. And He should get it right now because He is worthy of it right now — in the same way you love your own spouse right now personally, passionately, and somewhat impulsively.
This Christmas thing — it shouldn’t be about an idea of God: It should be about God. In person. Here with us.
When we prepare for Christmas, we ought to be loving God in a real way — because He is saving us in a real way, and He is here with us. Welcome Him into your family and life as if He was your beloved husband and deliverer from slavery.
December 14th, 2009 | 7:48 am | #1
Dang this reminds me of my first blog post ever. Made a lot of people mad. Especially people who knew me personally. Comments never ended and they were obviously from people who didn’t read it. I was so frustrated after talking to people who only wanted to tell me I was wrong for such a nasty picture it painted, that I quit blogging. Been reading you and Pyro since then. I shouldn’t have ever closed my big mouth.
Todays comments should be fun…
December 14th, 2009 | 8:36 am | #2
Josh:
The Gospel makes people mad. We are the scum of the earth. Expect the worst, rejoice when some (and eventually: many) will be saved.
December 14th, 2009 | 8:55 am | #3
Great reminder on why we should truly celebrate and rejoice this time of the year. Hosea is one of my favorite books and it’s a great accompaniment to Luke this season.
December 14th, 2009 | 9:31 am | #4
OK, now can we open the presents? :)
December 14th, 2009 | 11:06 am | #5
I enjoy reveling in the Divine Service liturgies of the season: Christmas Eve, Midnight Divine Service, Christmas Dawn, Christmas Day…Epiphany, etc. etc.
So much to enjoy from God’s Word and so much to respond to with prayer, praise and thanksgiving.
Merry, CHRIST-MASS, indeed!
December 14th, 2009 | 11:39 am | #6
Thank you, Mr. Turk – you’ve said it with passion and with lots of verve. It’s just what I needed to counteract the frenetic pace I can too easily slip into during this season where friendship with God and lavishing Him with the one thing most precious to me (my time) should be the thing I hunger for the most (not the Shrimp Creole, amazing as it happens to be).
I’m glad I read this today.
December 14th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #7
Excellent. This should be our m.o. year round. I like “skipping Christmas” ala John Grisham. O Come, O Come ( again) Immanuel!! And redeem us from the Christ-less Christ-Mass. Or perhaps we do resacrifice him in a pointed way this time of year. That is, sacrifice as in ” doing away” with Him, not in the way He sacrificed Himself, once for all. God have mercy.
December 14th, 2009 | 3:55 pm | #8
God’s wrath is the fire of His love.
December 14th, 2009 | 4:23 pm | #9
Ortho,
Not to stir this up too badly, but the problem with that is, that I will see eternity in heaven, but I won’t see His wrath, at least not directed at me.
On the other hand, do those who face God’s wrath, full force, do so because He loves them or because His love for His glory is then to be revealed in His anger and hatred toward sin and unrepentant sinners?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that eternity in hell adds up to a different experience of God’s love.
That’s the hope of Christmas, it seems to me, that He sent His Son, so that Jesus would face God’s wrath, so that His chosen and loved people, would not.
December 14th, 2009 | 4:30 pm | #10
God cannot act contrary to His nature. His nature is love, not wrath. Therefore, anything God does is done in love. To say He does something outside of His love is like saying He does something outside of His omniscience or His omnipresence. God is love. He is light. in Him there is no darkness at all. The wrath of God is the ratification of the choices of man’s sin. As Lewis says, the door of Hell is locked from the inside.
December 14th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #11
On the note about God taking out His wrath on Christ, I don’t hold to that view. 2 Corinthians is clear that Christ’s sacrifice was a sweet aroma to the Father.
December 14th, 2009 | 4:48 pm | #12
There is no contradiction between Christ’s sacrifice being a sweet aroma to the Father, and the Father pouring out His wrath on the Son.
And Lewis, is wrong I think. God is imposing His wrath. His love is firstly, for Himself, with us as the beneficiaries. So His wrath displays His love perfectly. He is the Holy one. He loves Himself. He therefore pours out His wrath on those who hate Him, to whom (for His own reasons) He has not chosen to shower with grace.
I think part of the key is understanding that He, Himself, is the primary object of His love, not us.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:00 pm | #13
Daryl,
Your understanding of God seems pagan. You argue that God loves Himself so much that anyone who does not love God deserve to feel His wrath. why would anyone want to love someone simply because that one loves Himself? How is marriage a fitting analogy for the love of God towards man if it really is the case that both parties should love the same one above anything else? Should I as a man love myself more than my wife and expect my wife to do the same? There’s a false dichotomy here. God’s love isn’t divided. The nature of God is love and it is from there that we understand the nature of the Trinity. when we speck of God we are actually speaking about three persons. Does each Person love Himself more than the other two? Can infinite love even be quantifiable? Remember, his cup overflows.
Hebrews says “our God is a consuming fire.” John says God is love. The fire of God’s love is such that sin is torture. Sin is also very boring in comparison with the love that is God.
Do you really believe God came in the flesh just to show how awesome He is? He did it for us! Because He is so awesome He calls all to Himself. His ultimate wrath is the unveiling o His being. To those who are in Him God’s unveiling will be glorious, rapturous, and pleasure beyond belief. To those who choose the light rather than darkness (John 3), the light and love God will burn for all eternity. Remember what the Bible says: “I the Lord change not”, and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” God doesn’t change, but people do.
One day the light will shine and there will be no place to hide. For some that day will be great. Others will burn in agony.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:04 pm | #14
As for the argument about the Father’s wrath on the Son, since you argue that God’s love is primarily for Himself, why would the Father pour out His wrath on the Son if the Son is the primary object of the Father’s love? Keep in mind 2 Timothy 2:13: if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.
God cannot turn His back on God.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:35 pm | #15
“God cannot turn His back on God.”
And yet, He did. Therein lies the wonder of it all. He poured out His wrath on the Son, hence Jesus’ cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Jesus bore the Father’s righteous wrath in my place.
“He who knew know sin, became sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God”
And what does sin deserve, but the wrath of God. If nothing else, the Mosaic Law teaches us that.
Did the scapegoat not experience God’s wrath on behalf of the children of Israel? And if Jesus not our scapegoat?
It seems to me that the wrath of God on sin and then, on the Son for the sake of the elect, is all over Scripture.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:48 pm | #16
OrthoDJ:
I’m interested to know which books of the Bible C.S. Lewis wrote?
I find your comment funny because we have covered the Biblical case for the impending wrath of God both from the OT and the NT already in this series. Christ defines Himself as a King who will have his enemies made as his own footstool and put to death before Him; Malachi defines God’s ultimatum to Israel as the warning that either they will obey Him, or He will burn them to the ground like the stubble after the harvest.
God’s wrath is part of His holiness, which is not somehow opposed to His love. And Christ dies not because it’s quite a spectacle, but because He receives the wrath of God intended for those who will believe.
How can one make any sense of the cross at all except but acknowledging the wrath of God?
December 14th, 2009 | 6:58 pm | #17
The biggest problem I see with the idea of Hell being locked from the inside, is the necessary insinuation that God couldn’t save those inside, even if He wanted to.
But we were essentially inside, when Christ died to save us. We were His enemies, unwilling to be saved, when He saved us.
That gate (of Hell) is as much under His lordship as any other created thing ever was.
December 14th, 2009 | 7:22 pm | #18
Frank, I really enjoyed this post. Just wanted to thank you for writing it. Hope you won’t mind if I link to it over at my place.
Daryl, well-put, brother. All of it. The key to understanding God’s love toward people is recognizing that the most loving thing He could do is love Himself. Therein He demonstrates that He esteems what is most worthy of esteem, regards what is most worthy of regard, loves what is most worthy to be loved: Himself. To do anything different would make Him an idolater.
Isn’t it crazy how a God-centered worldview and a man-centered worldview are just viciously opposed to one another?
Anyway, thanks for commenting. Your comments encouraged me.
December 14th, 2009 | 7:42 pm | #19
Mike,
Thanks brother. I appreciate it.
Good to see that you’re reading around here as well.
December 14th, 2009 | 8:01 pm | #20
As an Orthodox Christian who has personalized her catechisis and baptism, I have to say that this is a nice posting. I know this sentence personally resonated with me: “We have to be in love with the one who has actually done this for us.” I am in love with Christ, and I want to know more about Him and to feel His presence in my life.
And are you sure CS Lewis didn’t write any part of the Bible? He is pretty important, you know!
December 14th, 2009 | 8:08 pm | #21
Alison,
Actually, some scholars believe that Lewis played a role in writing the Book of Hesitations, and small portions of Hezekiah.
December 14th, 2009 | 11:15 pm | #22
Jugulum (#21), you know, that’s really not fair. But you’re entitled :-)
December 15th, 2009 | 3:43 am | #23
CS Lewis is a patron saint in the blogosphere, so we have to give him that. And I also freely admit that our family has a giant ocean of a good time reading the Chronicles of Narnia together in spite of the end of the last book. I’m a particular fan of the baptism of Eustace, which I am certain will make many people blog.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:42 am | #24
Lewis didn’t write any part of the Bible. Neither did I. Neither did you. Neither did John Calvin. Nor did augustine. Nor did Thomas, Mary, or John the Baptist. Who cares? Truth is truth no matter who says it.
Here’s what Jesus did say:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
Jesus says people would not. No where does He say “I would not”.
As for Jesus bearing the Father’s wrath in our place. please quote me a verse that says that. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says Jesus became a sin offering, not sin itself. No one can actually be sin. It’s not possible for someone to be the abstract concept sin. Even if one could, it stands to reason that God could not. If He cannot sin, he certainly could not be sin.
It’s merely an interpretation of the text to say that when Jesus says “Why have You forsaken me” that He is actually saying “Why have You forsaken me by pouring out Your wrath on me…” The Bible nowhere says that Jesus uttered hose words because the Father had forsken Him. I quoted 2 Timothy in an earlier blog where Paul says God cannot forsake God, yet Paul’s words don’t seem to matter much. J. Oliver Buswell did a good job in his work of systematic theology showing that Christ was quoting the first line of Psalm 22 in order to demonstrate that He was fulfilling Psalm 22.
Turk,
How is wrath an intrinsic part of God’s nature? You said it is part of His holiness. If God’s wrath is exclusively directed at sin and disobedience, and if His holiness is an essential part of His nature, and if wrath is an essential part of His holiness, then doesn’t it stand to reason that God must eternally have an object of wrath? That His nature is love is grounded in His own being, namely the concept of the Trinity. How do you explain His wrath as an essential element of His nature? If it isn’t essential, then it must be derivative of something that is essential to His nature yet directed at something outside Himself. In other words, His nature does not change but beings outside of God respond differently to God. Who changes, man or God?
December 15th, 2009 | 4:03 pm | #25
OrthoDJ had some neat questions:
Yes indeed. Consider the first time it is mentioned in the NT — Mat 3:7. God’s wrath ought to be fled by those who are a “brood of vipers”. It doesn’t seem to me that this is someplace to warm your feet by the fire.
When Jesus describes it in Luke 21:23, he says God’s wrath will cause “great distress”.
John — the guy who says, “God is Love” — says that the wrath of God remains on those who do not believe in Jesus. (John 3:36)
And all of these references (there are about 2-dozen more in the NT) point to God’s action toward the unrighteous, not something which is somehow nice. Because God is holy, He has wrath agains the unrighteous. Rom 9:22 says as much, so this is not an inference or a point of systematics.
You could ask the souls in hell how they feel about that. I am sure they’d give you a few hundred words on that fact.
God does not change, of course. And the only men who change are changed by God.
The problem for you is that God does express His wrath eternally on those in hell. Somehow that doesn’t enter into it for you.
December 15th, 2009 | 4:45 pm | #26
Thanks…for not answering my question. Are you saying God eternally has an object of wrath? All of God’s attributes make sense in and of themselves, but wrath seems to only make sense if there is on one whom God can direct His wrath?
Also, do you believe it is possible that God’s love is actually terrifying to sinners?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:14 pm | #27
I did say, “You could ask the souls in hell how they feel about that. I am sure they’d give you a few hundred words on that fact.”
I’ll say it this way to be clear: God directs His wrath eternally on those in Hell.
I reject the idea that God’s love is terrifying to sinners. You cannot substantiate that with any passage of Scripture.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:29 pm | #28
So people were in Hell from eternity past? That’s interesting.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:55 pm | #29
God’s punishment for sin is certainly eternal, but where is it stated in the Bible that God’s wrath is eternal? Once sin has been dealt with, either forgiven or found guilty, what is God’s motive for continuing His wrath towards sinful people? His judgments are justified, and are eternal, but I can’t remember reading where His wrath is eternal.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:18 pm | #30
Paul,
His wrath will be eternal because hell, being the ultimate picture of His wrath, is eternal, and, those in hell will never repent, continuing to hate God, continuing to call His eternal wrath down on their own heads.
If they are unrepentant in life, how will they repent after-death, and how can God turn His just wrath away from the eternally unrepentant?
December 15th, 2009 | 11:38 pm | #31
So people were in Hell from eternity past? That’s interesting.
God’s wrath is an expression of his eternal justice, which is an aspect of his eternal holiness. Specifically, wrath is the expression of his justice against sin and sinners. God is eternally just, but only expresses his justice as wrath in response to sin.
This isn’t the only aspect of God’s nature that’s like this. God’s mercy, for instance, is an expression of his love in help to those who are helpless.
December 16th, 2009 | 10:22 am | #32
Daryl,
Doesn’t eternity include the past as well as the future? Why would God invoke His wrath since eternity past? God in the trinity was complete in his glorious fullness before creation. Perhaps I’m wrong, but if we talk about eternity we have to include eternity past as well as eternity future.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:19 am | #33
God in the trinity was complete in his glorious fullness before creation
Yes. But did he express all of his glorious fullness before creation? Did he express his mercy, for instance? How?
December 16th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #34
rebecca,
I should have read your first reply before I responded to Daryl. I stand corrected thanks, your are one smart cookie.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:34 am | #35
It would be, if that’s what I said.
If you want to draw things in absolutes, you might consider what it measn to deny absolutely that God’s wrath is punishment, and unending. It renders all the passages I have offered you so far, and the end of Revelation, completely unintelligible.
You want to say that God has during all his existence been pouring out wrath on someone or something, or else he has changed in some way — he’s not unchanging. The problem, of course, is that God has to deal with men who are constantly changing. So for example, he makes a covenant with Israel (blessing) and then punishes them when they break it (cursing). The Psalmist and Jeremiah lament when God turns his back on Israel.
Did God change for that to happen? Yet it is the plain narrative of Scripture. The reasoning you are using does not account for the fact that an eternal and unchanging God must interact in some way with finite and fallible men.
December 16th, 2009 | 12:35 pm | #36
Frank,
I thought rebecca’s response captured it well. It’s not quite that wrath is an intrinsic, eternal part of God. Justice and holiness is, and wrath is an expression of that.
To put it another way, “being prone to wrath in response to sin” is eternal & intrinsic to God. “Being wrathful” isn’t.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:05 pm | #37
In the same way that God’s mercy is an expression of His love. No?
December 16th, 2009 | 1:15 pm | #38
Daryl,
Right. (Rebecca pointed that out.)
December 23rd, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #39
Sinclair Ferguson preached on this exact topic at the Ligonair Conference 2009. He did a good job explaining the wrath of God.
Rebbecca did a good job explicating it though.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact