The Father's Undivided Heart

[AbbasChild]

This really blessed me latley. Again, if you feel uncomfortable with the trinitarian hints, just ignore it. I posted it because this topics seems to come up again and again, from time to time.


The Father's Undivided Heart
By C. Baxter Kruger

The ideas that God, the Father needed to be appeased in order to accept us, and that Jesus became human in order to suffer the wrath of his Father on the cross so that we could be accepted, always struck me as terribly wrong. But, growing up in the deep South in the USA, such notions were all one ever heard, and heard repeatedly, and still do. In this atonement theory, the Father is in two minds about us, or, at the very least, there are two sides of the Father, the one being the righteous, just and holy side, the other being the graceful, merciful and loving side. The one thing we knew for sure about God was that he could not simply forgive us and accept us as his fallen creatures. The truth, we were told is that He could not even look upon us vile sinners. His holiness and justice and righteousness demanded satisfaction before forgiveness could become a reality. And so on the cross Jesus bowed as the Father's holiness, justice and righteousness formed into wrath against our sin and was poured out upon him instead of us.

Of course, it is far more complicated than this, or so we were told, but the more I tried to sort through the complications, the more troubled I became. Apart from the fact that in this theory there is no forgiveness at all, only justice, as my friend David Upshaw says, we are left with a divided Father, and a Son who is remarkably different in character and freedom from the Father he reveals. After all, while Father is too pure to look upon sin, his Son is free to become flesh, embrace sinners, eat with them and even become sin for us (2COR 5:21). So, if Jesus' becoming flesh, embracing sinners and becoming sin is not a revelation of the Father, how did we develop our notions of the Father? What happened to, "he who has seen me, has seen the Father" (John 14:9), or "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), or "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3)?

All of this is to say that on a cold March afternoon in 1980 I found St. Athanasius' beautiful little book, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, and as I read a single sentence rocked my inherited, legalistic, quasi-trinitarian world. "As, then, the creatures whom He had created...were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good to do?" (§ 6) What struck me, and still thrills me every time I read this sentence, is Athanasius' assumption about the Father's heart. There is no indifference here, no ambiguity or division in the Father. He loves His creation with an single heart, and is passionate about its blessing. The holiness, justice and righteousness, and the love, grace and mercy of the Father are not opposed to each other, but form an undivided heart, determined to bless us at all costs. Thus, it is unthinkable, Athanasius says, for God to turn his back upon His creation, and to allow us to be destroyed, because it would be "unfitting and unworthy of Himself" (§6).

So the coming of Jesus flows out of the Father's undivided heart, and the lengths to which Jesus goes—willfully bowing to suffer, not the Father's, but the human race's rejection and curse, as we poured our wrath out upon him—reveals the Father's uncomplicated, single-minded love for us. On the cross, the holiness, righteousness, and justice of God are not at odds with the mercy, grace and goodness of God, but form into one self-sacrificing love, which is prepared to, and actually does, suffer dis-honor and grotesque shame in order to reach us and bless us beyond our wildest dreams. The death of Jesus is not about appeasing an angry God. It is about the Triune God doing the impossible—reaching the human race in its terrible darkness and corruption, where the undivided heart of the Father is unimaginable.

"He who has seen me, has seen the Father."

[jabcat]

Hi Floyd.  I had been thinking about this even before your post, and I have a couple of questions that I think you would have looked at too in your research.  What are your thoughts, or as it were, how do you reconcile scriptures such as the following with your stated beliefs/understandings?

1) Jesus as the sacrifice prepared before the foundation of the world...

2) "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (I Peter 1:18,19)

3) "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God's wrath through him."  (Romans 5:9)

Thanks for considering these verses...James.

[Cindi]

Floyd,
Thank you for this short, yet powerful, writing about the atonement.  Having come to Christianity a little over ten years ago...thinking outside the box from the beginning...striving to understand how the standard view of the atonement could be right...I came upon a writing by John Gavazonni called "The Great Misrepresentation" and I realized there was another way of looking at the atonement that did not separate the Father from the son.  God was IN Christ afterall, reconciling the world (and it was the world that needed to be reconciled since God was already conciliated to us)  As to some of the verses mentioned by jabcat to ponder...for starters, Romans 5:9 should really be translated as follows:



Much more, then, having now been declared righteous by his blood, shall we be saved through him from the anger. Emph.


Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.  KJV


Much rather therefore, having been now justified in [the power of] his blood, we shall be saved by him from wrath. Darby


-much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath;  Youngs



Much rather, then, being now justified in His blood, we shall be saved from indignation, through Him. Concordant Version

I also checked it out in my ISA  Interlinear Scripture Analyzer that I have downloaded on my desktop and in the original language it does not say God's wrath but rather

to much THEN RATHER BEING-JUSTIFIED NOW IN THE BLOOD OF him WE SHALL BE BEING SAVED THROUGH HIM FROM MUCH THE INDIGNATION.

So...in the original language, it does not identify the wrath as God's wrath.  His name is not in that portion of scripture. 


or concerning the other verse in jabcat's post but in a different translation (KJV)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;  19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Note it says we were redeemed from our vain conversation.  The Emphasized renders it from your unmeaning behaviour paternally handed down....Young's says were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers....NRSV says from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors.  It does not say that what we are saved from is God's wrath.  Note too that it says he was made manifest "for you".  Does that necessarily mean in our place, instead of...or could it mean FOR you...as in a precious sacrifice...as in...here is a gift for you.  It is referred to often as the free gift, isn't it?  The NRSV renders it "for your sake."  I don't see substitution there.  Perhaps the main purpose of the atonement was to save us from ourselves and not from some obligatory venting of wrath from God.   

Also...Jesus was the sacrifice prepared before the foundation of the world. Scripture does say that...but who was the sacrifice to?  Who was the sacrifice for?  As John G. says in the writing mentioned above:

But you see, the New Testament never speaks of God being reconciled to man. Without exception, it always teaches the reconciliation of man to God, by the death of Christ, to be sure, but there is no teaching in the Bible that would lead us to infer that the reconciling work of Christ was necessary to solve a problem within God, a problem within Himself that would keep God from being conciliatory toward us until He was presented with atoning blood. Such a god was the god Baal (I Kings 16:31-32; 18:26-29; Ps. 106:28; Jer. 11:17; 19:5; 32:35; Zeph. 1:4-5) and the god Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Jer. 32:35) and the gods of the Mayans and Aztecs from whose altars ran a literal river of blood to insure that the demon posing as a god would hear their petitions.
True divine justice does not take an obstinate stance of condemnation until it gets its pound of flesh. True divine justice justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Why? Because at the heart of the message of the cross of Christ is the truth that God takes responsibility for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor. 5:19). God in human form permitted us to murder Him to convince us that He is resolute and steadfast in His love for us. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate friend of sinners.

In the old covenant, we begin to see the meaning of the blood when Jehovah says to the Israelites, "I have given you the blood upon the altar" (Lev. 17:11). We need the blood, not God! The Lord spoke these words to me as He unfolded the meaning of reconciliation. he said, "I am not the god who demands blood. I am the God who gives blood" Oh, precious words!

I've posted this excerpt here before but I don't think it can be said enough....
And John G. is very traditional in his view of scripture, inerrancy and could never be classified as "new age".  AP Adams is another very traditional teacher (from the 1800's I think) who sees the atonement in a very similar way.  Thanks again Floyd....

Cindi......

[AbbasChild]

Hi Floyd

I touched on this in my John studies where I offered that "I and the Father are one" is not a statement of deity but rather a statement of representation.

Once one discovers the true Father's heart, we too can make that claim "I and the Father are one"  It sounds blasphemous as the traditional POV is that Jesus was God incarnate, a problem with the trinity teachings which distanced the Father again after Jesus and even made Jesus' unattainable by making him equal to God, something He never claimed for Himself.

IMO as I have stated, Jesus was a mere man through whom the Father fully revealed Himself (abridged version).  Jesus stated He was the Way to the Father not the destination, and in the statements of "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" is just another way of saying "I and the Father are one."

In fact, with Jesus as the High Priest and Intercessor, religion found opportunity to insert an earthly priestly ordination as another intermediary, thus Jesus became the destination instead of the doorWAY.  The mass of Christendom today is no more than an offshoot of the Judaic system that was in place at the time of Jesus.  The liberty that Jesus taught was soon replaced by a system of rituals denying folk the truth and that was a personal relationship with THE FATHER.

Blessings

Hi Seeker,
as I said I didn't want to offend anyone by discussing the 'Trinity'. I know that not everybody here believes in it.

But since you have mentioned it, let me say, I see the Oneness of Father and Son in the same way as the oneness of believer and Christ, and the oneness of the Body of Christ ("that they may be one as we are one".) Man and woman were made in the Image of God and they are meant to be one flesh.

Even before I came itno UR I understood that the Father and I are one as well. After all Christ said that when the Spirit comes we would know that we are in Him and He is in the Father, and so on. So I don't think that's blasphemous at all.

Also I was one of the first ones, even on the old board that pointed out that it is all about the Father and that He is the goal, while Jesus is the Way. The 'Trinity' (a term I don't like by the way as you know) if properly understood, does not establish a religious sacrificial system but renounces it, because it is about the Son coming and bringing His relationship with His Abba into our humanity.

The eastern orthodox church for example has always rejected the idea the Christ died to appease Divine wrath and has a different view of the 'Trinity' than what you might have learned in protestant theology, that heavily leans on the roman-catholicism of the western tradtion.

I know I might have opened up a can of worms here, but if we want to debate this again we can do this.

But however one sees this, the Father and the Son were in total agreement on the cross, and that's what I wanted to point out, since more and more people come to the awareness that 'satisfaction doctrine' is false.

:HeartThrob:

[AbbasChild]

Hi Floyd.  I had been thinking about this even before your post, and I have a couple of questions that I think you would have looked at too in your research.  What are your thoughts, or as it were, how do you reconcile scriptures such as the following with your stated beliefs/understandings?

1) Jesus as the sacrifice prepared before the foundation of the world...

2) "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (I Peter 1:18,19)

3) "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God's wrath through him."  (Romans 5:9)

Thanks for considering these verses...James.

Hi Jabcat,

1) He is the sacrifice prepared for us, not the Father.

2) His Life (for the life is in the blood) redeems us from the life in Adam and replaces it. Recognice that this were written to jews and that Peter calls the way (religion)-with all its saccrifices- of their forefathers futile. By this He fulfilled the law prophetically. FOr Grace was already interwoven into it.

3) Cindi already gave the correct translation to this verse. The question is what is this wrath?

First of all there is no scripture that says that Father punishes anyone, it says He judges, no not even that, all judgement has been handed over to the Son Who came to not condem but to save the world (cosmos). The judgement of the world was on the cross, and it was its salvation.

Rather we reap corruption from the flesh. Now check this out:

(quote)

God's "Wrath"

The first problem we must address is that the translators have taken great license with the translation of various words in the Bible. "Wrath" and "anger" are no exceptions.

In the New Testament, two Greek words are both translated "wrath." They are orge (#3709 in Strong's Concordance) which means desire, or violent passion and thumos (#2372) which means passion, breathing hard, or fury.

The translations in the Old Testament are much more varied. Each number on the right in the list below is for a different Hebrew word. But they ALL are translated "wrath." The Hebrew language is very precise. Each word has a specifically different meaning. This shows that the translators arbitrarily chose to translate all of these different words as "wrath." But they do NOT all mean wrath

The Hebrew word aph (#639) means rapid breathing in passion.

Chemah (#2534) is defined as hot with passion

Ebrah (#5678) means outburst of passion

Qetseph (#7110) means, literally, a splinter or "chipped off". Freely translated it means to be displeased, to fret or possibly to burst out.

Kaac (#3707) - to be grieved or sorrowful, to be troubled.

All these words have specific meanings which denote a passionate displeasure or a sorrowful troubled spirit, yet they are ALL translated "wrath." This, of course, makes God appear violent, frightening and vengeful, apparently the way the translators chose to present God to the world, a "ferocious" God that agrees with their own theology. A more accurate translation is that God is passionately sorrowful or troubled.


God, Himself, Defines His "Wrath."

Human beings define wrath as "intense anger, rage fury, vengeance" according to Webster's New World Dictionary. But God defines His wrath in a totally different way.

Look at Romans 1:18: "For the wrath (Greek word orge) of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness." Then verses 24, 26 and 28 tell us how God demonstrates His wrath:

Verse 24: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves."

Verse 26: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change (exchange) the natural use into (for) that which is against nature."

Verse 28: "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate (debased) mind, to do those things which are not convenient (fitting)."

So we see that God's wrath is just giving us up to our own sinful ways to reap what we have sown. He doesn't punish us. He doesn't harm us in any way. He just let's us go the way we have chosen. We then punish ourselves by our wrong decisions.

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?

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!

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 coinherent 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!

A God of Wrath is a temporal God.(end quote)

[jabcat]

Thanks for answering Floyd.  I'll study this more closely.  God's blessings.