Comments

137 responses to “Loving an Angry God”

1. 

   nathan

   January 30, 2009

   Sbdn. Lucas,

   Yes indeed. Many times. It is a good read. Straw men everywhere, but perhaps necessary to “shake up” the other extreme, I think.

   I have tried to construct my comments above such that they fully address Father Kalomiros’ concerns. Quite a bit of thought has gone into them.

   Father, thank you for opening up the comments on the other post. I really appreciate it.

   Yes – I really will not be back until Tuesday now!

   ~Nathan

2. 

   Karen C

   January 30, 2009

   “He usually does this by allowing/permitting other unrepentant sinners to exercise their fleshly (passionate) wrath againts them (punishing one unrepentant person with another), but finally actively does this Himself in human flesh when Jesus appears on the last day, weilding the sword.”

   Nathan, I am sympathetic with a great deal of what you say (or at least why you say it) as I was once very much in your shoes (theologically if not denominationally), but here is where you really lose me and reveal a persistent misconception of the wrath of God spoken of in the Scriptures. I know the images in Revelation of which you speak here. But what truly is “the sword” that Christ wields at His return? How does He do battle? I suggest the answer to that is also found at the Cross, which the whole consensus of the Fathers understands to be the ultimate Weapon that defeats all of God’s enemies.

   If you think Christ needs to exercise some kind of violence to check the violence of sinners, recall how on earth He passed on more occasion from the midst of those who intended to kill or harm Him without so much as a word, and how He said “No one takes my life from Me; I give it willinglly.” and to Pilate that he had no power to crucify Him, except as given by God.

   Of what does this Scriptural metaphor of Christ’s sword speak then? I’m a neophyte Orthodox, and I don’t know what the Fathers say about this passage, but it evokes for me the teaching in Ephesians 6:17, and Hebrews 4:12. This sword Christ wields in the apocalypse is another way of emphasizing Christ as ultimate Truth, before Whom all lives are laid bare. To those who willingly receive Him, the fullness of His Omniscient Presence is a Holy Fire that flames the heart with love for God and brother. For those who have rejected Him, this is a scorching Divine Fire they can experience only with “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” since by its mere Presence it exposes them in all sin’s disfiguration of them in the full light of the real meaning of that sin (but not because God doesn’t continue to pour forth that which He is (Light and Love, all-merciful forgiveness) upon all mankind. The images of the last battle in the Second Coming show that all that is false and evil cannot stand to be before what is Truth, and finds its full exposure in the Light to be torment. It is a warning to all who cherish sin in their hearts, whether or not they call themselves Christians.

   To understand these images otherwise reminds me of the illustration of the young child who is told by his mother, “Daddy’s going to be late–he says he’s all tied up at the office,” and who is alarmed by an image of his father with a gag and rope around him tied to his chair and struggling at his desk. He is relieved, but also disillusioned when his father comes home later safe and sound, and denies having been tied to his chair. Will such a young concrete thinker not think his mother is a terrible liar to have said such a thing? What on earth was she thinking by alarming him so?!

   I think you still have some prayerful, soul-searching to do, Nathan. But as Fr. Stephen has pointed out in many and various ways throughout his blog, this is not a battle that can be fought merely with words and concepts and ideas about what Scripture “obviously means” on its surface. It can only be fought by allowing the fullness of God’s love to enlighten our hearts through experience of Him. If your sense of security in the love of God rests in your Lutheran doctrine, I suggest that is wholly inadequate for the completion of your sanctification. But only the Holy Spirit can reveal to you whether or not that is true. As regards this whole discussion, it has been a demonstration to me of the literal truth of 1 Corinthians 2. 🙂

   Please forgive if I am treading on sensitive toes here! I am thinking kindly of you all . . .

3. 

   Max

   January 30, 2009

   If someone is secure in the Love of God, not based on what a hundred men say, but on what God Himself has clearly stated, isn’t that sufficient as far as security goes?

   Yes, experiencing God’s Love through the indwelling Spirit is different than intellectually assenting to a Creed, a list of theological statements, the statements of church councils, or the writings of church fathers… but experiencing God’s Love through the Spirit comes through hearing, understanding, and believing His Word. A child can do that.

4. 

   William

   January 30, 2009

   Nathan, I grant that there are differences, usually of emphasis, among the fathers, but on most matters, the consensus of the fathers isn’t so hard to discern. First of all, the consensus can be found in the liturgical witness, and secondly, the fathers are usually recognized as fathers because they witnessed to the consensus of the church, which is preserved by the Holy Spirit. One doesn’t have to be a longtime student of all the fathers to get acquainted with this consensus.

   As for St. Cyril of Alexandria, I’m not sure that he contradicts or presents such a different version of things than the other fathers I quoted. I’m not as familiar with his writings. However, while commenting on the oath God swore to Abraham, he did have something to say about God’s anger not being anger per se:

   “But let no one accustom himself to swear from hearing that God sware unto Abraham. For just as anger, when spoken of God, is not anger, nor implies passion, but signifies power exercised in punishment, or some similar motion; so neither is an oath an act of swearing. For God does not swear, but indicates the certainty of the event,—-that that which He says will necessarily come to pass. For God’s oath is His own word, fully persuading those that hear, and giving each one the conviction that what He has promised and said will certainly come to pass.”

5. 

   Michael Bauman

   January 30, 2009

   Max, certainly a child can know and be secure in the love of God, but as the child grows and sin multiplies, a deeper understanding is often required to maintain the same security.

6. 

   fatherstephen

   January 30, 2009

   Max,

   Sadly, without the guidance of the fullness of Church – the Fathers and the lives lived through the centuries – the faithful witness given to us – people wind up confused, heretics, heterodox, atheists, all kinds of messed up things. Christ established the Church. The Scriptures were confirmed by the Church for the Church. We are Baptized into the Body of Christ (the Church). If all one knows of Church is the loose Protestant affiliations then none of that makes sense. But there is a Church that has persevered for 2000 years, producing the martyrs, affirming and defending all of the doctrine that is the verbal summary of the truth of the faith, and maintained a living, embodied witness to the gospel of Christ in the lives of holy men and women. You cannot do it alone, nor does Scripture teach us that we’re supposed to do it alone. A child cannot do it alone nor are they intended to.

7. 

   William

   January 30, 2009

   Also Max, we come as children but are invited and expected to move beyond a child’s understanding. See 1 Corinthians 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12

8. 

   Max

   January 30, 2009

   As far as security goes, it still comes down to having a confident hope in God’s Promise in Christ which is found in His Word. If you don’t have that first… what do you have?

   We mature, but the simplicity of the Gospel remains. In fact, the struggle is to keep it pure, not to complicate it… to keep it clear, not to obscure it.

   Aren’t the stories endless of Christians who have lost connection with Christ, but have found Him again, remembering Him as the One they knew as a child? They lost connection because they lost the simplicity and purity of faith they had as children, being deceived by pride, the world, and the devil. But, they return and weep for joy, not because they have become knowledgeable about the 2000-year history of the Church (how many Christians really are?) or have learned some deep intellectual argument, but because they are reminded again, through the Grace of God, that Jesus loves them immensely. They see the Cross and the Love of God manifested there and know they are home – secure in Christ’s Love.

9. 

   William

   January 30, 2009

   Max, your points are well taken, especially about the struggle to keep the Gospel pure. But there is the problem that nearly every group or person that argues about some point or another about the Gospel is arguing in favor of what they think is “pure.” Amid the clamor, there is a great deal of “impurity.” It certainly is not complicating the Gospel to turn to the history of Christianity and listen to the voices of proven saints who cleaved close to our Lord, were full of the Holy Spirit and defended the pure faith against the many who, often in all sincerity and concern for purity, were compromising the Gospel. Sometimes, such a defense requires deep arguments because, though the Gospel is simple, its implications are quite profound. In fact, there is nothing more profound. We are invited to explore these depths to whatever degree we wish and are able.

   Few have mastered the history of Christianity. I certainly haven’t, and my patristic quotes are not a claim any deftness on my part regarding history or deep intellectual arguments. They are just offered as the voices of those I trust who have spoken well on the truth and who have been honored by the church (“the pillar and ground of truth”) for their teaching.

   And St. Paul does chide those Christians who wish to remain on a childlike level in their understanding, to concern themselves with nothing other than “elementary principles.” It does not destroy simple faith to mature.

10. 

    Wonders for Oyarsa

    January 31, 2009

    Father Stephen,

    I have a question about the River of Fire. Is the teaching therein representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole, or just one man’s view of it? Are there prominent Orthodox theologians who would take great exception to it?

11. 

    fatherstephen

    January 31, 2009

    It has the weakness of being perhaps too stident about the West and Augustine and it is this that troubles some Orthodox theologians. On the wrath as the love of God – this is pretty standard stuff in Orthodoxy. Stated in different way without the stridency. Even Met. Kallistos Ware teaches it. Fr. Thomas Hopko has taught it, but he’s very creative (in an Orthodox way) and occasionally takes a different approach. I have not read any Orthodox theologian who sees the atonement as the apeasement of an angry God (which is at the root of the matter).

12. 

    Max

    January 31, 2009

    However you see it, be happy today, Christ’s the propitiation all the way.

13. 

    greg

    January 31, 2009

    Father Stephen, can you point to some Orthodox writings that elaborate on this – especially how we should think about both Hell and more specifically the “dread judgment seat of Christ”? Thank you.

14. 

    fatherstephen

    January 31, 2009

    Look on the sidebar for the article by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev and on Kalomiros River of Fire.

15. 

    Karen C

    January 31, 2009

    “. . . but experiencing God’s Love through the Spirit comes through hearing, understanding, and believing His Word.”

    Max, this is only partly true. In 1 Corinthians 2:4, St. Paul said that his preaching of the gospel was based not on persuasive (human) words of wisdom, but on the demonstration of Spirit and with power. This is where the collective witness of the Church, especially its Saints, is also terribly important. We get so focused on the divine “Word” as merely the words of Holy Scripture and our rational understanding of them, we forget that hearing them and understanding (aright) them comes only by the Holy Spirit and by the demonstration of real spiritual power (the power to love like Christ being pre-eminent here). The Scriptures are the word of God and God-breathed. Only Jesus Himself can be rightly called the Word of God.

16. 

    Vincent

    February 2, 2009

    Is Lactantius considered a Father of the Church in the East? If so what is to be said about his work on the anger of God?

17. 

    fatherstephen

    February 2, 2009

    I don’t know.

18. 

    Robert

    February 2, 2009

    The wikipedia entry on Lactantius in interesting, if not conclusive, “He was considered somewhat heretical after his death, but Renaissance humanists picked up renewed interest in him, more for his elaborately rhetorical Latin style than for his theology.”

19. 

    nathan

    February 3, 2009

    Hello all,

    Its Tuesday, and so I’m commenting. I did so here though:

    https://glory2godforallthings.com/2009/01/29/understanding-anger/#comments

    Best to all here.

20. 

    David

    March 6, 2009

    I am very sorry Fr. but I must disagree with much of what the River of Fire paper says about God and wrath. It is very difficult for me to read the Scriptures or the comments on them by the Fathers (Chrysostom comes to mind) and not see that God has wrath (not in an irritated sort of sense) and that in the end He will come and destroy everything that is not right with Him. Plus, Christ is said to be our Hilasmos in 1 John 2:2. The more I look up what this word means in Greek and its Hebrew counter part “atonement” or “sin offering” I cannot help but see Christs death as an offering to God because of sin. It is used in Numbers 5 to describe restitution for wrong doing. This way of thinking is easily seen in Lev. 17:11 and Heb. 9:22 where it is clear that God demands blood for the cleansing of Sin. Also in Hebrews we learn that the blood of animals was unable to cover the multitude of sins so a greater sacrifice was needed which was Christ who in 1 John 2 and Hebrews is the Priest and the Sacrifice. John Chrysostom comments on these verses very clearly and says that Christ’s sacrifice cleanses the temple which is the Church. We are the vessels that need to be purified with a bloody sacrifice. So Christ’s death does not merely represent a Christus Victor model either in the Scriptures or in the Greek Fathers but it also takes on a very clear Sacrificial character. Christ died as a sacrifice to God on behalf of humanity because our sin demanded blood. This is all over the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Services and the Prayers. I have only heard that God does not have wrath from theologians and even then only a few.
    Please do not blow this off by telling me that I need to have an Orhtodox perspective on Scripture before I can understand this. I know this is true and I say the prayers, go to Liturgy, read the Scripture (in Greek and Hebrew), read the Fathers and I have been doing this for a while. I am not claiming to understand, nor am I being prideful, just trying to get past what I have seen as a way for many Priests in the Orhtodox faith to get around people who make good points against what they are saying.
    A sinner in Christ,
    Rdr. David

21. 

    fatherstephen

    March 6, 2009

    David,

    Thank you for your note. The question of sacrifice is quite large indeed. There are very many sacrifices in the OT. Precisely which one (I think all) are prefigurements of Christ. Thus the question becomes quite broad.

    I think that Kalomiros overstates the case, driven mostly by polemicism, but on the question of wrath, I do agree with him, and I think he agrees with the Fathers – in the larger degree. Chrysostomos cannot be viewed alone. Dionysius the Areopagite must be considered, as well as others who had a more Apophatic view than Chrysostomos. The Apophatic view, which is triumphant in the Church’s approval of St. Gregory Palamas’ theology, would certainly see any language of wrath as metaphorical.

    Personally, I think we already experience God’s wrath whenever we live in opposition to Him. It is corrective, not punitive, because He is a good God who loves mankind. I have stood before such wrath and do not want to be there again. However, the Fathers view it largely as described in Kalomiros. Did you examine his footnotes? I might add that I am not alone among the Orthodox who see God’s wrath in this manner. Fr. Thomas Hopko, Fr. John Behr, Bp. Hilarion Alfeyev, the Elder Sophrony and St. Silouan are among those whom I know to hold this view among relatively contemporary Orthodox. I would never put forward an idea that was somehow unique to myself or not echoed by many others.

22. 

    David Bryan

    March 6, 2009

    Strange…one Reader David piggybacking on another Reader David’s comment.

    I, too, see God as having wrath, both due to the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers and the prayers — God’s “hot displeasure” and all of that.

    The wrath seems not to be something that asks “How could you do this to Me with your sin?” but rather “Why did you do this to yourself?” There will be a day when He will thoroughly purge Creation of iniquity, and He will do this whether or not men are ready for it, fully knowing that they will feel it as hell.

    Father, could this issue be framed in the words of the Psalmist and of St. James, who tell us to “be angry, yet sin not,” and, in the case of the latter author, tells us that the “anger of men” does not achieve what God desires?

    Would it be not so much an issue of whether or not God is angry in any way but rather if said anger was His, pure and purifying anger as opposed to our sinful and destructive anger?

23. 

    fatherstephen

    March 6, 2009

    I do not find the issue of pure anger helpful either. God has no need to punish us, but to purify us. If we will not accept the purification, then we may experience it as punishment, though it is not.

    There is nothing in the language of Scripture or the liturgies that necessitates a literal interpretation of anger and wrath. It creates a very problematic account of who God is and how He is the good God who loves mankind (up to a point?). It does not square with the testimony of the great saints who have entered into the highest prayer for creation. Am I to teach a God whose mercy is somehow limited? Or whose love can only go so far?

    There is no justice that demands such a wrath. And no rules of Orthodox language that require literalism at such points. The remaining point. How do you reconcile the image of the wrathful God with the revelation of God in Christ (who is the definitive revelation)?

    Do we simply declare that St. Silouan was in error?

    Again, I am not alone in this witness.

24. 

    William

    March 6, 2009

    Another very clear witness to the teaching found in “The River of Fire,” in addition to St. Isaac, St. Silouan and the others that have been named, is St. Symeon the New Theologian. There are several others as well, but I find St. Symeon to be a good example because all through his discourses and other writings, he never shies away from using terms like “wrath” and “anger,” “judgment” and “punishment.” But you can make no mistake about how he understands all these things when you read his Tenth Ethical Discourse “On The Fearful Day of the Lord and the Future Judgment.” The teachings in “The River of Fire” are very much in agreement with St. Symeon, who himself is following those who went before him, including St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus and others. This teaching is evident in more seminal form in St. Irenaeus. It’s also clear in some passages of St. Ephrem the Syrian, who also doesn’t shy away from using speaking of God’s “anger,” etc.

    I think we see in the fathers that they do, and we can, if we must, use the words “wrath” and “punishment,” when speaking about God’s activity, but we need to be clear in our own minds and in our way of communicating that these things don’t mean the same thing they mean when we think of human wrath or punishment or retribution. They are words to describe God’s activity, his energies, his grace which are all manifestations of his glory and his love for his creation, a love that does not waver.

25. 

    mary k

    August 8, 2009

    Father Stephen-God Bless You

    Thankyou for your blog.
    Many of the things in the old testament trouble me to be honest like:

    Kings 2:23-24
    23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

    I’ve heard Christians say that that was because they had “touched Gods annointed” and that you shouldn’t touch/disrespect/make fun of Gods annointed & thats why God let the bears come out & kill the children.
    I can only interpret this passage as that God is wrathful
    COuld you please tell your opinion?
    Thankyou very much

26. 

    fatherstephen

    August 8, 2009

    Mary k,

    Good example – particularly because we have Christ’s own reaction to a similar story:

    Luke9:51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54And 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, just as Elijah did?”
    55But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

    The OT always has to be interpreted in the light of Christ (for Christians). What we know and understand of who God is – is known solely through the lens of Christ – “he is the exegesis of the Father” it says in John’s gospel.

    Thus every OT story has to be subjected to what we know of God in Christ. It certainly may not be used to “correct” something we see or know in Christ – but the other way around. This is part of what it means to accept Christ as God incarnate.

    Interestingly, St. John Chrysostom is critical of Elijah’s wrath (in another story) and sees him as abusing (to some extent) his prophetic authority and being corrected by God. It is wrong to curse children and have them eaten by bears. There are things to be gleaned from the Elijah story – but not that God’s wrath sends bears to eat children (at least a Christian should not so interpret the story).

27. 

    mary k

    August 8, 2009

    Thankyou Father,

    How though can we say though that the bears came out except by the power of the Lord?(or satan?)

    Could maybe God be wrathful and done this because in the story where King Davids wife mocks/despises him she then is not able to have children so it seems maybe God punishes people who “touch” his annointed-that because God was pleased with them he had wrath at anyone who disrespected them and Him in turn?

    Also with the other story about the fire story,i don’t understand why in OT God told Elijah to call down fire & it consumed the false God worshippers but in NT Jesus told them “you don’t know what matter of spirit you are of” when they asked should they do the same thing.
    Was it because now it is a gospel of grace where before it was gospel of punishment-some Christians told me it was something like that.
    That God had change of heart with new testament.Wouldn’t that then mean God is changable but isn’t he always the same?
    Thankyou

28. 

    fatherstephen

    August 8, 2009

    There is no change of heart with the NT. But the OT cannot be read except through the New – which certainly changes how many stories must be seen and understood. The fathers frequently read stories as typological, or allegorical, etc. in order to read them in a Christian fashion. Another approach sees the OT account as “shadow” not completely or correctly understanding God and that this view is corrected by the NT. We have to be careful not to become “Marcionite” about the OT, seeing it as speaking of a different God – but it has to be read in a manner that makes this possible.

    Protestant use of the Scriptures has so married itself to the literal, or historical, that it has made for odd theological developments – such as “Dispensationalism” – to account for the difference between OT and NT. Christ seemed to have no difficulty confront a text and saying, “Moses said… but I say…”

29. 

    mary k

    August 8, 2009

    Thankyou kindly Father Stephen

30. 

    Robert

    March 25, 2010

    There is something to be learned here, the clash of the “east/west” division is so apparent. One year later, and a clear point of reference remains elusive. Is effective communication even possibel? If so, how?

31. 

    fatherstephen

    March 25, 2010

    Robert,
    It gets difficult unless one is working hard at communication – which means that differences have to be recognized (not agreed upon) but recognized. I think that on the topic of the angry God (and I do not speak for a dogmatic Orthodox position – there are Orthodox who have a different take on the wrath of God) the method of how Scripture is to be read (I believe very strongly that the dominant form of reading should be “allegorical” in the largest sense of that word, with the Gospel at the primary story used to understand and discern the allegorical meaning of other material. This is not a denial of the literal character that much Scriptural material possesses, but a recognition that the “allegorical” dominates in the writings of the father, in the opinion of Fr. Andrew Louth, a noted Oxford-trained, Orthodox patristics scholar (lest someone think I was making that generality up).

    But there is frequently so much distinction between East and West (not always) that communication can be difficult. Patriarch Bartholomew actually once described the difference as “ontological” which I think was perhaps an ill-chosen word.

    Robert, looking back at how long the conversation lasted on this post last year, I was almost afraid to reference it. But the article still works for the question that was asked.

32. Hell and God’s Love: An Orthodox View « Orthocath

    September 18, 2010

    […] Loving an Angry God Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)One View from the East on the PapacyAfter the Chrism DriesThe Five Senses in WorshipNT Wright Nails It […]

33. 

    jeff phillips

    January 1, 2012

    If god is angry with us, to hell with him. he should be angry with himself.
    Maybe he should have done a better job.

34. 

    Andrew

    January 2, 2012

    Jeff

    If I may. I know of no God who is angry.

35. 

    fatherstephen

    January 2, 2012

    Jeff, I hope you found the article itself to be helpful. Your comment, interestingly, sounds angry.

36. God’s impassibility, how do you understand it and explain it? – Page 2 – Christian Forums

    December 9, 2013

    […] article. I posted it because it is relatively short and he says things much better than I could. Loving an Angry God[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Glory to God for All Things Could you comment on some of the things Father touches on in this […]

37. 

    Dan

    January 11, 2021

    Fr. Stephen,
    Thank you. I have followed your blog for several years, and if you don’t mind me saying, the more I read, the more I understand just how little I truly know. But this, it calms my heart, even if for a moment.