“If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII
31 October 2006
Patristic Quote for the Day
“If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Note that this "wrathful" language of St. Cyril's is not about God's being wrathful against us, but saving us "from the wrath which is against mankind" not God's wrath against us, He saved us from our sins, from death. You are right to comment that there is an essential place for forensic and wrathful language against us and against our sin - but it is not God Himself or the Father and the Son's single will would be sundered and we end up tritheists.
Anything else is explained by the reference to God either willing or allowing all things. God allows sin to happen to us, but he does not cause it or participate in it. For instance, God did not will us to die even after eating of the Tree, but he noted that Adam and Eve "would surely die" - they brought their punishment onto their own heads through their actions.
Perhaps a look at Romans 1:18...
Wrath of God, arm of God, backside of God. The true anthropomorphication is in attributing to God a sense of this passion that is not in keeping with the stability and immutability of God as if He is patient and longsuffering now and wrathful and jealous then. He is always the same, we are those who change, corrupt, and experience (truly) the coal as burning and not the coal as purification and righteousness.
The point is mainly a canard. The Lutheran teaching is primarily one of imputing the forensic and legal righteousness of Christ to sinners - this is not forgiveness, it is proxy payment. This is the tenet in Lutheranism upon which the Church stands or falls, it is not simply one of many metaphors - it is the controlling metaphor with the rest as poetry. There is no conflict between John and the Synoptics, nor between Paul and James, neither between a stress on God's wrath and God's love.
Indeed you are correct, there is no conflict between John and the Synoptics or Paul and James. All teach that the wrath of God is an objective reality and that it is what awaits any and all who refuse the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.
John 3:36 is of a piece with Romans 1:18.
And no Lutheran would dispute that God's wrath is NOT a changeable passion. It is His holiness which does not change and which destroys sin.
But as to whether Lutherans, as you have charged, have a controlling metaphor to which they subordinate all others, well, have you read *Just Words* by Preus? I think he disproves your argument. All the metaphors describe the salvation that has been wrought for the human race in Christ and in that sense each is simply the equivalent of the other, but the riches of the Word of God gives us numerous ways of describing the one salvation. Lutherans use the term "justification" both a broad and narrow sense. It seems to me that you think every time it is being used by us, we intend the narrow sense. That is not the case. Not even in the Symbols.
Oh, one more point of interest. The metaphor of justification is not even USED in the Small Catechism for teaching our children what the salvation of Jesus is. What is used instead is the REDEMPTION metaphor.
Post a Comment