FC Articles
The Attributes of Satan
Are we guilty of Satan-worship?
A visitor of F.C recently asked us, among other things, if the Bible teaches anything about the attributes of Satan. According to Christian mythology, Satan is supposed to be the exact opposite of God, something like an anti-god. Consequently it seems appropriate to look at God's attributes and simply state the opposite ones as being those of Satan. For example, if God is good then Satan must be evil, if God is love then Satan must be hate, etc. The problem with this approach however is that it brings into question several Biblical passages that describe God as acting in less than benevolent ways. For fundamentalist Christians who consider the Bible as the "absolute and infallible word of God" this is quite devastating since they are forced to accept Satanic attributes as attributes of God. This of course leads them into blatant Satanolatry (devil-worship) in the guise of Christian worship.
Andrew Moore puts it this way:
"Satanism is defined as the worship of and Prayer to Satan, and Witchcraft as the invoking, channelling and utilisation of evil spirits. Not only has much of the Christian Church been blinded by modern materialistic paradigms that are totally inadequate for dealing with spiritual matters, we have been weighed down for centuries by the baggage of a simplistic reading of the scriptures. The church has for centuries been 'culture-blind', and has accepted certain anti-God patterns as 'normal'. Our pedestrian theologies have been easily subverted into accepting totally wrong principals, extending even to Crusades and Inquisitions"
"The evil one has easily lured well meaning folk into his field of influence, and has gained disciples from different quarters of the Christian population. Those who carry substantial and unresolved hurts, those who have a tendency towards being self-righteous and judgmental, and those who are attracted to or addicted to power, have all been particularly vulnerable. Christians have failed to truly understand that God is wholly good, and is a God of blessing. If Satan walked about dressed in red with horns and a tail he would easily be identified. This seldom happens. Whilst Christians may be able to identify Satanism and Witchcraft in its more overt forms, form is immaterial as long as there is content"
"God is wholly good, and is a God of blessing. There is no darkness in God. In failing to understand this, Christians leave a gap, or 'grey area' which those whose hearts are inclined to Satan, are very quick to fill. Wherever those claiming to be Christians seek or invoke the 'wrath of God' on sinners, they are in fact invoking Satan. There is no wrath in God. Wherever those claiming to be Christians attribute such wrath to their God, one must question which God they are referring to. Unfortunately it has not been uncommon to hear people within the Church attributing the AIDS virus, and other plagues, accidents and disasters to the God they worship. Nor has it been impossible to find 'Christians' praying for the God they worship to destroy those who are opposed to them either individually or collectively"
"I am not seeking to put well-meaning Christians under condemnation. If you have invoked or worshiped Satan under the guise of 'the Wrath of God', you would not be the first well-meaning Christian to have done so: And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, You know not what spirit you are of. For the Son of man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Luke 9:54- 56. If you have been fed a theology that attributes wrath to God through a deficient and superficial understanding of the Scriptures, you should seek out teaching from competent Christian Teachers. Listen only to those who are prepared to give you the assurance that they know and believe in a God who is Good all of the time" (source: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea/agape.html )How can evil fruit come out of a good tree?
In his epistle to the "foolish" Galatians, St. Paul makes the point that the Spirit of God is expressed by such noble attributes as "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance" ( Gal 5: 22-23 ). If this is the "fruit of the spirit", and if "God is spirit", how can it be possible for God to have attributes contrary to "love, joy, peace, etc"?
The Bible, especially the part called "old testament" is filled with descriptions of God that flatly contradict the fruit of the spirit. As it turns out, the God of the Old Testament is a very "fleshly" god since his behaviour exhibits fruit like "murder, hatred, wrath,… and the like", character traits which are explicitly defined by St. Paul as "fruit of the flesh". This huge problem with the Old Testament descriptions of God has always been a problem for Christians. Many, especially during the first centuries of the church, even rejected the Old Testament scriptures denouncing their god as "the prince of darkness". Eventually, the greek fathers of the church dealt with the problem by explaining away all those disturbing referenced to God as crude figures of speech ( anthropomorphisms ), not to be taken literally. The fact remains that however we interpret those dark scriptures, they cannot be accepted as "the inerrant, absolute word of God" if we want to retain our sanity as believers in a benevolent God.
Critics of Christianity often point out the contradictory views regarding God in the Bible. Rather then denounce such critics as "anti-christs" and as "enemies of the gospel", we should carefully listen to what they have to say. Could it be that the real enemies of the gospel ( good news ) are those of us who insist in defending such views of God that even Satan would envy? How can our good news be good news if we cannot present to the world a truly benevolent God? The only way to do this, whether we like it or not, is to review our approach to Scripture. We should stop regarding those disturbing portions as "the inerrant word of God". The way I see it we are far-far better off with a fallible Bible then with a less then good God. We can live without an infallible Book, but we cannot live without a perfectly benevolent God.Test all things, including the Bible
Let us see what the critics have to say and to humbly learn from them whatever lessons are necessary, always remembering that truth, or God, has nothing to fear from "testing all things, holding on to what is good while rejecting what is evil". One such critic, Mark D. Ball (see www.infidels.org "Best-Selling Errancy", An Essay on Inconsistencies in the Bible, by Mark D. Ball, Ph.D,) writes the following:
"The Bible itself itemizes exclusions from goodness in Gal. 5:19-23, many so-called "works of the flesh". Among them, not surprisingly, are murder, as well as certain attitudes and behaviours that can culminate in murder: hatred, variance (discord), emulations (ambitious rivalry), wrath, strife, seditions, and others. Because murder is listed only as one of several works of the flesh, however, the others are also presumably antipodal to goodness, i.e., goodness excludes them whether or not they culminate in murder. Sharply contrasted with these "works of the flesh" in this passage is "the fruit of the Spirit", comprising several virtues listed in verses 22 and 23: "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, [and] temperance". By collecting goodness and parallel virtues in a passage clearly distinct from the one in which he collects murder and parallel vices, the author of Galatians confirms the irreconcilability of goodness and murder, of good! ness and wrath, etc."
Mark D. Ball then makes the following devastating points for "Bible inerranists":
"The Bible is rife with examples of God's acting in a manner inconsistent with goodness. Revisiting the syllogism above, consider the passage relating the story of Israel's war with Midian (Num. 31), wherein, as I intend to show, God sanctions the very crimes that he should abhor, namely, murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2). Moses and the children of Israel obey: And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. (vs. 7, my italics). The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.". Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and! all the unvirginal women: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)"
"Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (vs. 18). Thus, in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all the Midianite boys and un-virginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such actions as these (with less accord on the issue of war itself), considering them so evil that they must be prevented, even at high cost, and punished when efforts at ! prevention fail. Murder is still a capital crime in many states, imprisonment is the punishment for rape, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids slavery, and convicted child abusers face not only incarceration but also a stigma, arguably deserved, that will follow them perhaps their entire lives""Although the believer must concede God's demanding the war, he or she may still reject the notion that God sanctioned the postbellum savagery of Moses and the Israelites. Whereas verses 1, 2, and 7 state clearly that God ordered the war, the believer may insist that what happened to the Midianite captives after the war was ordered by Moses, not by God. Verses 8-18 do not explicitly implicate God in the atrocities inflicted on the captives -- Moses issues the orders. Nonetheless, it is not less than sanction to intervene in the affairs of Israel and Midian to start the war, while not intervening on behalf of the helpless victims to palliate their pain. If God does intervene in human affairs, and is abundant in goodness, then surely he intervenes not to start wars, but to stop them. Surely he intervenes not to cause pain and suffering, but to end it. Thus, because God was willing to intervene to demand the war, his refusal to intercede afterwards, i.e., his postbellum silence, must be tacit approval of the Israelites' cruelty toward the Midianites…"
"Although the believer may still correctly argue that silence is not necessarily endorsement, harder evidence for God's approval comes in verses 25-30, in his directing the distribution of the spoils, which include the captives: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast...And divide the prey..." (vss. 25-27). This explicit command from God punctuates his earlier tacit approval. Instead of rebuking Moses and the Israelites for their violence against the Midianites, he rewards them with the plunder. Clearly, God approves of Moses' treatment of the Midianite captives. Neither God nor Moses has mercy on the most helpless and innocent of the Midianites, the women and children. Such mercilessness cannot be reconciled with Eph. 2:4, which declares that God is "rich in mercy", or with Ps. 145:9, which claims he "is good to all" and which mentions his "tender mercies", or with Ex. 34:6, which calls him "merciful", or w! ith Deu. 32:4, which calls him "just and right". Neither can such mercilessness be reconciled with the spirit of Jesus' own words: ...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Mat. 25:40)"
"…Darkening the scenario further is God's reason for the war, namely, vengeance (vs. 2). To even the score, God initiated a chain of events that would earn for any human world leader the status of a villain. Even though 1 Jn. 4:8 equates God with love, Lev. 19:18 proclaims the irreconcilability of love and revenge: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord. Instead, according to the Bible, love entails forgiveness: He that covereth a transgression seeketh love... [NIV: He who covers over an offense promotes love...] (Pro. 17:9)"
"The pivot point in Lev. 19:18 is the disjunction "but", placing vengeance and love on opposite sides of the line demarcating goodness from non-goodness. This scripture presents love and vengeance as mutually exclusive propositions: one who engages in activity mentioned before the "but" in this sentence is not engaging in activity mentioned after the "but", and vice versa. Of course, the famous biblical passage on love (1 Cor. 13) also plays at cross-purposes with God's role in the Midian affair""With revenge as his motive, God is acting contrary to goodness and peace, at least according to Gal. 5:22. His action clashes thunderously with several unambiguous biblical directives on dealing with one's enemies: ...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... (Mt. 5:44). And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other... (Lk. 6:29). Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:20-21). God's reported behaviour in the Bible is dichotomous. God is love in the New Testament, but does not seem to be so in the Old Testament. He is praised as merciful in some passages, while he withholds mercy in others, even from the helpless and innocent. Finally, vengeance seems to motivate him, notwithstanding precepts to ! the contrary elsewhere in the Bible… the believer may defend God's actions in the Midian affair as inherently good, claiming they were only apparently bad because man, being flawed, cannot discern the goodness in them (i.e., God works in mysterious ways). In effect, then, the believer would be arguing that child abuse may per se be good under some circumstances or may per se be bad but, by leading to some good that only God understands, is sometimes acceptable. Either of these two scenarios is morally obnoxious…."
"Child abuse is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, with both God and his prophets seeming to lack the respect due children in general. God's role in the killing of the Midianite children, and of the children who presumably lived in Sodom and Gomorrah as well, I have discussed already. In Lev. 26:22 God threatens to "send wild beasts among [the Israelites], which shall rob [them] of [their] children...", and in Jer. 6:11 the prophet warns that even children are not exempt from the Lord's wrath: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Lord; I am weary with holding it in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad... [NIV: But I am full of the wrath of the Lord, and I cannot hold it in. "Pour it out on the children in the street..."]. Later, in the 18th chapter of Jeremiah, the prophet angrily urges the Lord to starve, and then slaughter, the children of certain unrepentant wayward Israelites: Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood b! y the force of the sword... (vs. 21). The reasons for Jeremiah's gruesome petition are (a) the refusal of the children's parents to heed the prophet's admonitions (vs. 18), (b) the parents' plotting against him (vs. 18), and (c) the parents' ingratitude for his prior intercession with the Lord on their behalf (vs. 20)."
"The principle that punishment should befall the transgressor's innocent child(ren) pervades the Old Testament, even though the Lord decrees that ...The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Ki. 14:6; also 2 Ch. 25:4). Echoing this passage are Jer. 31:29-30 and the entire 18th chapter of Ezekiel, the essence of which this excerpt captures: ...The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father... (Ezek. 18:20). Speaking to Moses, the Lord himself breaches those very words by promising to punish children for their fathers' evil: ...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (Ex. 34:7). In contrariety to 2 Ch. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, and Ezek. 18 stands Ex. 20:5, in which God ordains vicarious punishment: ...for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."
"Innocent children suffer not only in Num. 31, discussed above, but also in 1 Sam. 15, where God orders Saul to lead Israel against the Amalekites to exact revenge: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (vs. 3, my italics). The children of froward priests are not safe either: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces... [NIV: Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices...] (Mal. 2:3). In Ps. 109 is still another call for children to suffer for the sins of their fathers. Rather than killing them in this case, though, David wants the children to beg for food in the streets (vs. 10), after they have been made "fatherless" (vs. 9). Another striking example is Ps. 137, wherein the psalmist unabashedly advocates the violent murdering of children as retaliation for their fathers' sins: O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (vss. 8-9)"
"To be sure, this psalm is macabre. The choice of adjective for the man smashing children against rocks in this passage clearly calls into question not only the psalmist's moral values but also his mental health. This scripture, which God himself purportedly inspired, teaches that, at least when righteous indignation is the motivation, happiness can derive from savagery directed against children if their parents consequently suffer. This precept, an affront to decency, is wholly irreconcilable with the notion of God's infinite goodness. As there is a difference between arguing against a position and arguing against the right to hold that position, so there is a difference between looking to scripture as a resource, or even as a guide, and surrendering one's rationality to it. In view of the presence of inconsistencies in the Bible, the believer must decide how to identify the apodictic verses. Furthermore, what other errors might scripture contain? How heavily should one ! defer to the Bible in his or her search for truth? Although these questions lie beyond the scope of this essay, the believer who wishes to evangelize must be prepared to answer the sceptic's concerns about the private and public dangers of placing blind unquestioning faith in a flawed, albeit best-selling, 2000-year-old book that purports to reveal the ultimate truth"
( source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html#introduction )
As hard as they may try, Bible apologists ( not even Glenn Miller in his excellent defence at: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html ) cannot possibly reconcile all those dark scriptures with the lofty scriptures that declare the absolute and infinite goodness of God. The conclusion is inescapable, not all so-called scripture is infallible or inspired of God. Men of God may have been inspired by God to write certain truths as "scripture", but never were they able to write any absolute truths. They saw God only "through a dark mirror", and as a result their understanding was imperfect. For example, the prophets often confused their own feelings with God's spirit. The Holy Spirit may have opened their eyes to see the evils around them but they went on to condemn such evils in their own angry language, for what man can possibly contain "the knowledge of good and evil" without being consumed by it?Why David (and other Biblical authors) didn't always speak by the Holy Spirit
Sure, David ( or whoever wrote the Psalms ) "spoke by the Holy Spirit" when he prophesied about the Messiah, but he ( or whoever wrote the Psalms ) definitely did not speak by the Holy Spirit when he expressed such sentiments as: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones".
The same is true with the authors of so-called New Testament Scriptures. They never implied that their writings were "infallible" or "the word of God". The New Testament is not a text "written by ink", it is instead written in the hearts of people by the Spirit:
"Christianity failed to understand Paul's critique of life "under the law." He did not break with his old existence because it was Jewish. That part to him remained "holy, just and good" The deficiency of the law, according to Paul, lay in its form as "written text." (See Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3 ) No written text can give life, says Paul, not even if it is written by the super apostles in Jerusalem! Not even if it is written with God's own finger like the Ten Commandments! And we might add, Not even if there was a verbally inspired Bible! ( John 5:39) The real new testament, declares Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, cannot be written in ink. It can only be written by the spirit of God in people. That which is laid out in a written text is laid out like a corpse. It may have the form of the truth just as a corpse has the form of a person. This may sound like a harsh judgment, but what it is intended to show is that the written text is an inadequate vehicle for t! he spirit of God. It should never be equated with God's Word which the New Testament says is "spirit and life."
"Human life too transcends any written code. Millions of laws are enacted, revised, updated and redrafted through the legislative bodies of the world. The task is never done because it is not possible to create a system of law which does justice to the infinite variety of human situations. There will always come a time when carrying out the written code will lead to the neglect or abuse of the neighbour; there will always be a situation when blind obedience to what is written will be without human sensitivity and compassion, even (or especially) when it is God's law. As an old wisdom saying puts it, "Law is for the guidance of the wise and for the blind obedience of fools.". Spirit is always greater than letter. In his epic Chesapeake, James Michener tells the story of how a little Quaker woman was the first to raise her voice against the institution of slavery in the United States. Churchmen tried to silence her with Biblical proof-texts in support of slavery. "Won't you ! agree, - they argued with her, "that you contradict St. Paul. She frankly acknowledged that she did, but said that slavery was clearly contrary to the spirit of the Nazarene Teacher. In the Christian culture of her day, it took a lot of courage and conviction to place spirit in opposition to the written text"
"If living by the law proves inadequate even in civil life where the rule of law is pre-eminently suited, it is even more inadequate in the spiritual life. The regime of a Torah may make a person religious but it cannot make a person spiritual" ( R. Brinsmead, No Living By the Book, The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam Part 8, http://www.quango.net/verdict/index.htm )
As well meaning as they may had been the early Christians, including the authors of all those documents mistakenly called "New Testament" ended up distorting the teaching of Jesus by adding their own ideas and misconceptions:
"Emerging research has revealed that Christianity has seriously distorted the life and teaching of the historical Jesus. Christianity, in forming hierarchical institutions and amassing great wealth, utterly subverts and destroys the essential meaning of the one person who more than any other decried the holding of power over others or holding on to material possessions. The historical Jesus was actually named Joshua Ben Adam (Jesus "Son of Man"). Early followers of Joshua found his radical sharing and egalitarianism simply too subversive to all conventional values, and his companionship with social outcasts too scandalous and embarrassing, so over subsequent centuries they recreated a more respectable version, more palatable for public consumption…"
"…The version of Joshua that Christianity fashioned, the Christian Jesus, is now so full of contradictions that it is worthy of no respect at all. This religious institutional version enables people to escape the responsibility to become human and allows them to continue living and acting like animals. The followers of the Christian Jesus have emphasized certain features of Jesus in a manner that nullifies and renders meaningless the more difficult elements in the life and teaching of Joshua. For instance, the author of the book of Revelation speaks of a King Jesus returning to crush his enemies with an iron fist. The emphasis on this harsh justice effectively nullifies love, mercy and forgiveness. This tough punishing Jesus allows his followers to hold similarly tough, harsh attitudes to all who disagree with them and allows them to believe someday they will dominate and mercilessly crush their enemies (all who disagree with them). But this myth of a tough military Jesus completely subverts and renders meaningless Joshua's refusal to dominate or coerce, his scandalous emphasis on forgiveness of all, and also renders meaningless his teaching that we serve each other as free equals. There can be no mixing of such contradictory things. To be human and to live in God's society, you must become human- giving, sharing, owning nothing and holding power over no one. Any society where some suffer powerlessness and others dominate with more than they need, is not human; it is inhuman and satanic, according to Joshua. The historical Joshua would condemn the Christian Jesus as inhuman and a satanic distortion of God"
( see: Joshua Versus Jesus, by W. Krossa, http://home.istar.ca/~wkrossa/kros25~1.htm )
Even St. Paul failed in several instances to fully appreciate the spirit of Jesus: "St Paul truly experienced a major paradigm shift from his Old Testament wiring following his conversion on the Road to Damascus, (more so than most Jerusalem based Christians) but that's not to say his paradigm shift was complete. For example, Jesus was clearly opposed to cursing, (See Luke 6:28, 9:55 etc) and whilst Paul affirms this principle in Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you: bless, and curse not." He still thought it appropriate to invoke the odd 'anathema' or Curse in his writings" ( Andrew Moore )
How are we then to read the Bible? I would suggest very selectively and very carefully, always bearing in mind the many errors it contains, since it was written by fallible men. On the other hand, we shouldn't necessarily reject the Bible, as it contains a treasure of wonderful truths about God.
Going back to the request made by our visitor regarding what the Bible has to say about the "attributes of Satan", I referred him to the excellent insights offered by Andrew Moore in the following thought provoking article:Have we missed the point on the 'Wrath of God'?
THESIS: Rather than being a character trait of our heavenly Father, The 'Wrath of God' is a manifestation of Satanby Andrew Moore
The First Witness - Numbering Israel
The Second Witness - Saint Paul and St John
The Third Witness -'The day of the Lord'
The Fourth Witness - Logic
The Fifth Witness - Personal knowledge of God
The Sixth and Star Witness - The Cross of Christ
The First Witness - Numbering Israel
The Old Testament identifies the Wrath of God with Satan in 2 Samuel 24 verse1, and 1 Chronicles 21 verse 1.
Again the ANGER OF THE LORD was aroused against Israel, and he moved David against them to say 'Go number Israel and Judah'. 2 Samuel 24:1
Now SATAN stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21: 1
Are there other witnesses to support this premise of a link between Satan and the Wrath of God?The Second Witness - St Paul and St John
Don't St Paul's letters legitimise the 'Wrath of God' in the New Testament……And didn't Paul clearly identify Satan as the enemy?
Well, yes and no.
And this is the interesting point. St Paul truly experienced a major paradigm shift from his Old Testament wiring following his conversion on the Road to Emmaus, (more so than most Jerusalem based Christians) but that's not to say his paradigm shift was complete.
For example, Jesus was clearly opposed to cursing, (See Luke 6:28, 9:55 etc) and whilst Paul affirms this principle in Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you: bless, and curse not." He still thought it appropriate to invoke the odd 'anathema' or Curse in his writings.
Furthermore, on reading St Paul, one could be forgiven for thinking that Satan continued to act as a useful Agent or Deputy in God's economy.
1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Destroying the flesh to save the spirit,
preventing pride, and
teaching heretics not to blaspheme.
Could wrath make more noble claims than this?
If you want to legitimise 'the Wrath of God' based on Paul's witness, I believe you must also accept the legitimacy of Satan too!St John
St John was once referred to as one of the 'Sons of Thunder', and was rebuked by Jesus for wanting to call down fire on a city who refused to receive Jesus. 'You do not know what spirit you are of!' Luke 9 verse 55
John mentions wrath once in his Gospel:
John 3:36 He that believes in the Son has everlasting life: and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
This does not legitimise the 'Wrath of God', quite the opposite. It is merely a statement of present tense fact. Those who reject the Son continue to abide under the hand of Satan.
Those St Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 4:4 - where 'the god of this world' has blinded the minds of those who do not believe
The book of Revelation is another matter. Assuming John wrote Revelation we will see in the next section how our thesis holds up against this second mainstay of 'the Wrath of God' in the New Testament.The Third Witness -'The day of the Lord'
In the Judeo-Christian scriptures, the 'day of the Lord' is a recurring metaphor. It is a time of wrath and cruel terror. It is the time of the 'Wrath of God'.
The recurring metaphor is accompanied by recurring motifs. These include
the coming of Elijah the prophet
earthquake
the sun becoming dark,
the moon becoming like blood, and
the stars fading or falling from heaven
Joel 2:10 - 11 The earth quakes before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon grow dark, and the stars diminish their brightness: … for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible. Who can endure it?
This passage was quoted by Peter in Acts 2:20:
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and notable day of the Lord comes
And in Revelation:
Revelation 6:12 -13 And I looked when he opened the sixth seal, and, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of made of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind….. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath has come, and who is be able to stand?
Jesus speaks of this 'day' in an interesting manner in Matthew 24 and Mark 13
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mark 13:25 And the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
Interesting in that He does not go on to say He will come with wrath. He instead speaks of gathering his children.
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
It is now important to give a little more attention to the 'Stars falling from heaven'.
The 'Stars' metaphor is a recurrent theme in scripture as well, Stars refer to Angels, and falling Stars refer to Satan and his Angels.
There is another passage in Revelation repeating the Satan cast out of heaven motif
Revelation 12:7 - 11 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail , nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they did not love their lives to the death.
Interestingly, we see do indeed see Wrath depicted after the stars have fallen and the sun has gone dark, and whose wrath is this?
Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.The Fourth Witness - Logic
Is God a free agent?
Yes, unless you consider Wrath is a part of his character. The Wrath of God is not a free dynamic in relation to Sin. This 'Character trait' acts totally deterministically and is reactionary in response to sin. Its actions are only 'softened' or 'countered' by other contradictory 'character traits' such as mercy or compassion.
This 'Character Trait' theology gives God something of a split personality, suffering a dichotomy and conflict within himself. God's freedom begins to look a lot like our own familiar human condition, where we constantly struggle with incompatible or contradictory desires and/or needs.
Whilst acknowledging this internal conflict, Christians adhering to the 'Wrath' as a Character Trait theory would nevertheless generally acknowledge that God's love ultimately triumphs over his wrath. Interestingly, this is an important point to address for partial redemption adherents, ie Christians who do not acknowledge God's desire and capacity to reconcile all to himself - and who believe in hell as a place of torment for the eternally damned.
Many Partialist Christians consider it quite possible that more humans will perish in eternal hellfire than will be reconciled to God - and this of course begs the question of whether wrath or love ultimately triumphs in eternity.
Love may triumph for some, where wrath triumphs for others. To rework an Old Testament taunt at King Saul's expense: God has gained his millions, but Satan his tens of millions.
Those who believe Wrath is a character trait of God that continues into eternity have a real problem on another level.
If God is a Trinity and his life is a co inherent and perichoretic flow where each member of the Godhead, Father Son and Holy Spirit live within each other, and share in the eternal and infinite giving of and to each other, what happens to God's wrath in his most fundamental existence? If the love flows in infinite freedom between father Son and Holy Spirit, what happens to the wrath etc.?
Does God really have a part of his Character that he must always hide from His loved ones? To whom can He reveal his wrath if there is no sin in eternity to justify the manifestation of such Wrath?
This is why the early Church Fathers (The Cappadocian Fathers) who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity leaned to Universalism.
For those who understand that the Wrath of God is external to Him, God's redemption of humanity is not the result of an internal struggle. It is a whole-hearted free (non-determined) act within the context of his love. The virtues are all free agencies, and they are all exercised freely.
Those who reject the Augustinian view of the Redemption as partial, know that once God has sorted out the sin issue 'The Wrath of God' ceases to exist. Wrath, Sin, and Death are indeed a doomed Trinity!The Fifth Witness - Personal knowledge of God
Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758) the American Calvinist and Philosopher took the doctrine of 'the wrath of God' as a Character Trait of the Father to its bizarre logical conclusion, and expressed it in his Revival meetings.
I submit that anyone who knows God, would consider the following to be out of step with our knowledge of Jesus Christ (who revealed the Father's heart to us), and our experience of the Holy Spirit.
The following are some excerpts from Edwards' sermon 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God':
"The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand! times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.""The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone! to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell. -- And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings? ….O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty."
OK this might be one man's God, but Jonathan Edwards does not speak for me. What sort of character would such a God be building in his children where they consider it bliss that they spend eternity worshipping God as they watch 'the awful spectacle'.
I do not interpret the passage eye has not seen nor has the ear heard what God has prepared for those who love Him in this way.
What pleasure would you get in seeing a child you once knew suffering such torment, and knowing this torment would continue forever? I submit the enjoyment of such suffering it is not a characteristic I would want to imbue in my children. What sort of worship is it that is inspired by that?
I worship God because He is wholly good, and He did not hold back his own life but He Himself chose to take on the very stuff in question - Wrath.
Worship in heaven will be a celebration of the triumph of the Cross, and an infinite enjoyment seeking out the height and depth of the awesomely wonderful and good nature and character of God.The Sixth and Star Witness - The Cross of Christ
Returning to the 'Day of the Lord' metaphor, there is another motif we have not yet addressed, and that is the coming of Elijah prior to that day.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Matthew 17:10 - 13 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? Then Jesus answered them and said, Elijah is truly coming first, and shall restore all things.
But I say unto you, that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of man is also about to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist.
As Zachariah had prophesied at John the Baptist's birth:
Luke 1:17 And he shall also go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
So the inference here is that the day of the Lord is in fact also understood in terms of Jesus first coming, 2000 years ago.
Luke 10:18 And Jesus said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
And indeed we do see the 'wrath of God' associated, and I would submit, primarily associated with Jesus first coming.
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.
Jesus drank the cup of the 'Wrath of God' for us at the Cross, and in so doing destroyed the power of the Devil.
It was not his Fathers wrath he drank and experienced. His words to the Father after drinking the cup were the anguish of separation from His Father not anguish at the Fathers wrath on him.
So whilst the scriptures go on speaking of the Wrath of God as if were that the Father gets angry, God shows us a totally different picture in the Cross.
As Trinitarian Christians we believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, God the Son. And even as the Father and the Son are one, so if the Father had wrath on Sin, wouldn't the Son also have had the same wrath?
How was the Son's wrath dealt with on the cross?
It is truly God who has taken the wrath upon himself, and not in a schizophrenic way. There was no internal struggle within God where his mercy was crippled by his wrath until he could 'take it all out' on Jesus.
God is eternal. He dwells in a realm beyond time where there is no evil. Evil has never invaded that realm and never will. God invaded the corrupted realm with a view to resolving our corruption through redemption.
If evil never invaded the eternal realm, there could be no consequent corruption or damage to the character and personhood of God, as inferred in the scriptures in the closing paragraphs of this paper.
What we see is only God's separation from the realm corrupted by evil.
We need to gaze at the Cross to see through heaven to our God. He is a God of infinite love. Not a finite love we understand from a non-critical reading of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and the transference of humanity's own internal struggles onto the Holy One.
Like Wrath, all the following negative aspects of the so-called 'Character of God' as outlined in the Old Testament, and sometimes followed by New Testament writers are not part of God, they are not eternal, they are dependent on sin for their very existence:
Anger, Fierce wrath, fury, Exodus 32:10, Psalm 88:16 1 Samuel 28:18 2 Chronicles 29:10
Cursing, Leviticus 26:15 ff
Scorn, derision, Psalm 2:4 Psalm 59:8 Ezekiel 23:32
Jealousy, Exodus 20:5 Ezekiel 23:25
Revenge, Deuteronomy 32:35
Authoring a racist Justice System weighted towards men, and dehumanising slaves Numbers 5 11- 31, Ex 21:21
Returning evil for evil, able to be provoked, Deuteronomy 32:21
Non-specific and disproportionate retribution, Leviticus 26:18 & 27-28 Exodus 20:5 2 Samuel 24:10, Including on children, Psalm 137:9.Isaiah 13:16-18
Genocide, Deuteronomy 2:34
Hatred, revulsion, Psalm 78:59 Psalm 106:40
Humiliating and shaming, Jeremiah 13:25-26 Jeremiah 23:39-40
Utilising violence Deuteronomy 32:42
Cruelty, Job 30:21 Isaiah 19:4 Isaiah 13:9 Jeremiah 30:14
Dealing in terror and death, Leviticus 26:16 Deuteronomy 32:25.
Surely these are the Stars cast out of heaven. They certainly do more than fade where there is no sin to sustain them.In conclusion
Some people find it hard to reconcile Jesus who is seen as good, with the Father who is seen as something of an ogre who is acknowledged as good only out of fear. But this is all wrong. God is One, and is Good, and God is only Good.
It was the Father whose heart Jesus displayed when he rescued the woman caught in Adultery from a certain death, a death proscribed by the Law He allegedly wrote. If the Character of the Father as defined by Jesus who said 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' differs from the character of the Old Testament God, remember that prior to the coming of Christ no one had seen God.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The only interface between God and our separated realm was 'heaven'. Satan and his Angels were a part of the heaven that all humanity interacted with until the coming of Christ. All humanity includes the Old Testament Heroes and Authors.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs from thistles?
In the same way we can know our God. The Holy Spirit is truly God, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit are all virtues. See Ephesians 5 verse 9. Love Joy Peace Patience Kindness Gentleness…..
God bless you!
Andrew ( see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea/good.html )Well said Andrew!
