8

In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since "God is love?" Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal "attributes" of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
  • I'm not sure this can be answered in a way that's consistent with site guidelines. We can say what Scripture says, but this question feels a bit like a "Truth" question as opposed to a common doctrine or common Christian belief question. http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1379/what-christianity-stackexchange-is-and-more-importantly-what-it-isnt – David Stratton Jan 18 '13 at 20:48
  • Well where can I ask this question? –  Jan 18 '13 at 20:49
  • 1
    Do you have a particular citation of Plato in mind? Please provide it if so. Perhaps rewording the question as, "How does God's anger/ wrath (pick one, because they are a bit different) impact humanity?" –  Jan 18 '13 at 20:55
  • 2
    I'm not sure. My gut tells me that this is something that, as phrased, isn't definitively answerable and will lead to answers that all sound good, but are contradictory. I don't think it would be a good fit for any Stack Exchange site. I think the challenge would be for you to think of a way to post this so that it's definitively answerable. Perhaps scoping it with an "According to XXXXXXX, does God have emotions like us." We can answer "Does X teach something" a lot more definitively than "is x true". – David Stratton Jan 18 '13 at 20:56
  • I think it's an interesting question, but the whole debate/opinion issue.. Try the [FAQ] for ideas on how to reformulate it. And see http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-makes-a-good-supported-answer and http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/690/what-makes-a-good-focused-question I have confidence that you can come up with a way to rephrase this that fits the site guidelines. – David Stratton Jan 18 '13 at 20:57
  • 1
    In Neoplatonism, divine beings must be dispassionate. So many fathers thought God was this way and so wrath was just to maintain political order. Some have suggested God has no wrath in his essence but only in his energies –  Jan 18 '13 at 21:02
  • 1
    You know, it's perfectly acceptable to answer your own question - when you post your question. It's encouraged in the [FAQ], and there's even an option that says "Answer your own question. (Share your knowledge Q & A Style)" And it's OK to say "It depends on who you ask.. According to XXX the answer is YYY, according to ZZZ the answer is Q" It sounds like you could reasonably answer this in that context and still be within site scope, and still fulfilling the goal of the site - sharing knowledge and educating about various teachings. – David Stratton Jan 18 '13 at 21:27
  • 1
    Hmm. I think a good generalization of this question and a similar one or two I've seen here: According to tradition X, is God stateful or stateless? To which, from most Christian standpoints, I might argue that God appears stateful from a perspective within time, but in His own frame of reference, He is stateless. – svidgen Jan 19 '13 at 03:44
  • At this point I have answers to the question. So far none seem even remotely aware that this argument occurred in the early church and no one seems to understand eastern theology, but I wanted to hear Western perspectives that's why I asked on this site. Should I bother editing my question at this point since there are good answers? –  Jan 19 '13 at 14:34
  • 1
    I do not think you need to edit the question as I understood what you were asking and gave you a western view. Your last two question are pretty close to this question. There are not a lot of eastern orthodox questions raised on this site but there are some. http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7151/what-are-the-primary-differences-and-implications-of-a-propitiatory-view-of-the/9781#9781 – Mike Jan 19 '13 at 14:54
  • 1
    I would say that "wrath" (in the first sense on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrath?s=t) is what is known in Latin as an affectio, and in English as an "affection." –  Jan 19 '13 at 20:25
  • 1
    I think part of this stems from anger as being described as a burning nose in Hebrew. Does God have a nose? That language was clearly anthropomorphic. –  Jan 20 '13 at 01:45
  • @DanO'Day and theosis: Please reserve the comment section for things directly related to the improvement of this post, and remove or flag them after the post has been fixed. Other conversation should be reserved for the [chat] room. Thanks. – Caleb Jan 21 '13 at 11:51

1 Answers1

6

There is some confusion about the word ‘anthropomorphism’ as it is found in the Bible. The basic idea is that anything that is ‘unworthy’ of being attributed to God, which is a human characteristic applied to God in order for us to understand something higher and nobler, is anthropomorphic. For example when the Bible says Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, the ‘eyes’ are not real physical eyes, but this is an anthropomorphism to say that in God’s perspective Noah was graciously approved.

The Greeks were famous for a different kind of anthropomorphism not found in the Bible. They created gods that seemed like grumpy and resentful children who happened to have a lot of power. This is not the kind of anthropomorphism found in the Bible. The Bible starts 'in the beginning there was God' not man who applied their ideas about themselves to God. God is higher than our nature in every sense and beyond our comprehension in every way. Unlike the Greek god’s created by men, and therefore unholy human traits were projected up to them, God made man and some of our traits are in his image. So we see human traits that are ‘worthy’ of God are not anthropomorphisms but attestations that we are created in his image.

With regard to emotions, such as love and righteous anger, these emotions are not anthropomorphisms. Holy anger is a subset of love, for love hates evil and opposes it. An infinite God who loves without measure must necessarily infinitely oppose sin, or he does not love. Therefore the human affections that we call emotions, at least those that are encouraged in scripture and evident in the life of Christ, are not anthropomorphisms.

Whether God is ‘actually angry’ may mean different things to different people. What is ‘actually’? Is it ‘human’ or ‘real’? We can’t pretend to understand how God feels; we can only know that he wants us to understand him as feeling. The best way to see how God ’feels’ and how God wants our emotions to be like, is to read the gospels and see how God in man felt, and how the Christ's emotions were like. Jesus got angry but was most characteristic as loving - both emotions were real and indicative of how the Father and Spirit 'feel'.

Mike
  • 31,750
  • 20
  • 84
  • 168
  • 1
    The Greek Gods were created by men to exactly the same extent as the Christian God was, to say otherwise is to presuppose the existence of one or the other. To non-Christians, the Christian God is a human creation just as much as Zeus is. Also, there are clear examples of Greek-style anthropomorphisms in the bible, Jehovah's predilection for the smell of sacrificed animals (e.g. Genesis 8:20) for example. – terdon Jul 07 '13 at 19:36