Another issue arises when wrath is necessary in order for love to exist such that love is incomplete without wrath to help define it.
The issue is that the thing that defines carries more power than the thing defined. If love is dependant upon wrath for its definition, then wrath is more powerful than love. If, however, wrath is merely a function of love, then love remains supreme and wrath is its servant.
When I read of God's nature in Scripture it is clear to see that his nature is defined by Love. In fact, He defines himself with that idea. We can also see a world in which love displays wrath. In Hebrews we read that God disciplines those He loves, and in Revelation we see that God will punish those who killed His bride.
It is also clear that wrath is poured out upon sin, because sin destroys God's creation... and love demands the removal of anything that destroys the object of that love.
In the beginning there was God. In the end there will be God + whatever He wishes to create. Sin will no longer exist, because sin corrupts and God is incorruptible. Wrath is a function of love that is required in order for love to be complete (God's love for Himself and His character is the ultimate love). If sin were necessary for God's love to be complete, then I would expect a much different creation story... one in which God created that which was necessary for His glory to be fully revealed.
Think of Jesus speaking in John 10 when He states that He is the good shepherd. Do you think anyone in that crowd would have considered a shepherd "good" if he intentionally slaughtered the sheep? Most likely not, even if they belonged to someone else.
If that same shepherd killed a wolf invading the flock, however, he would be seen as a hero. Love for the sheep demands wrath upon the wolf. Wrath upon the sheep does not make sense. (Of course some will argue that the sheep receiving God's wrath are instead goats, but for this point I am merely looking at the necessity of wrath either as a function of love or a defining factor of love, and one would not attempt to define love for some sheep by destroying other sheep.)
3 comments:
Very interesting Jeff. I really like this series you've been writing about.....it has sent me to several different places in Scripture to seek answers, which is always a good thing.
Your blog today brought to mind an anaolgy that works in my mind at least up until a point. Sin = cancer and God's wrath = chemotherapy. Cells of the body are certainly affected as the chemotherapy attacks the cancer. But that chemotherapy is necessary for ultimate healing.....
I like it, though I would call God's wrath more of a precise surgery... killing the cancer without all the unwanted side effects of chemo :). That may be where I differ from some other Sovereigntyists (yea I just made up that word).
Tomorrow is writing day, I was working on my follow up to this series and... well I wrote way too much. I will try to condense as I can!
Yes, I agree with that.....chemotherapy implies a randomness that does not line up with God's character. The path that God determines is much more deliberate and intentioned than that of chemo therapy.....but there are often still unwanted side effects to His wrath, at least unwanted by the recipient, but certainly not unintended by God.
Post a Comment