www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw0CdTRYEGQ
Early Christianity on the
Emotions of God the Father
Post-Apostolic Church
INTRO
This is the thirteenth video in a series on
what the Pre-Nicene Christians believed about the Divinity. And this is
the tenth video about God the Father.
The Christian belief about the emotions of God
the Father has, in the past, been called the impassibility of God the Father. This is the belief that Father God does not
have passions. This is a hard belief to
define because “passion” is word has changed its meaning over time. Today, passion means strong emotion or a strong love for something. But in ancient times, passion had a few
meanings. One ancient meaning was suffering and pain, as in, the
Passion of Christ,* referring to His crucifixion. Another ancient meaning was an intense desire or a craving, especially for
something sexual, as in, two lovers becoming passionate. The impassibility, or passionlessness, of God
the Father was a common belief in early Christianity. Though impassibility was a common belief, the way the Pre-Nicene Christians
approached it varied. And the same varied
approach remains in Christianity today.
Because of these different interpretations of “passion,” any teaching on
the emotions of God can be controversial.
* See
Acts 1:3, “pascho” in Greek; it is rendered “passion” in older translations.
What might the impassibility of God mean? First, it could mean that God the Father does not have any actual emotions,
including joy or sadness or anger or pity.
That is, God does not actually feel at all. So when the Scriptures talk about the
emotions of God, they are only to be understood figuratively. Second, it could mean that God the Father does not suffer from evil emotions,
such as malice, lust, or greed. That is,
God’s emotions are only righteous emotions.
Third, it could mean
that God the Father cannot feel the emotions that come from physical sufferings
(though God the Son has indeed suffered physically). That is, God does not suffer from feelings
like hunger, pain, or sexual desires. Fourth, it could mean that God
the Father cannot be controlled by or affected by His emotions; as humans can
easily be affected, even controlled, by their emotions. That is, God controls His emotions and does
not act or speak based on His emotions. Fifth, it could mean that God’s
emotions are not unstable or fickle, as human emotions are. That is, God does not have mood swings. This is a long list of possible meanings behind the impassibility of God. Of course, none these are exclusive; any one
or more of these things can be true. The
purpose of sharing this list is to get us thinking about this varied and
controversial teaching. This also
explains why this video is so lengthy.
It would be wrong not to give this subject a sufficient discussion.
PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS: GOD IS IMPASSIBLE
(PASSIONLESS)
Now that
we have laid the groundwork, let us look at what early Christianity had to say
about the emotions of God the Father. Again, the impassibility of God
was a common belief among the early Christians.
Aristides wrote,
Wrath and indignation He
does not possess, for there is nothing which is able to stand against Him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in His
nature, for He is altogether wisdom and understanding. (Aristides.
AD 125. ANF, vol 9, page 264.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xiii.iv.html,
“I say, then, that God…”)
Contrasting God to both mankind and the
pantheon of gods, Irenaeus wrote,
If they had known the
Scriptures and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt,
that God is not as men are. And that His
thoughts are not like the thoughts of men.
For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and
passions which operate among men.
(Irenaeus. AD 180. ANF, vol 1, page 374.)
Clement of Alexandria taught that the
impassibility of God is something that mankind should also strive for.
It was said by the
Lord, “Be perfect as your Father, perfectly,” by forgiving sins and forgetting
injuries, and living in the habit of passionlessness. (Clement of Alexandria. AD 195.
ANF, vol 2, page 549.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xiv.html,
“Let the specimen suffice…”)
There are many quotations like these
throughout the Pre-Nicene Christian writings because, as said before, this was
a common belief. All of them believed in
the impassibility of God the Father. But
how many writers specifically explained this belief depended on their own points
of view. Revisiting the various definitions about the impassibility of
God, the points of view of the early Christians that were universally believed were
(1) how the Father does not
feel evil emotions, (2) how
the Father does not have emotions that result from physical sufferings (though
the Son did), (3) how the
Father is not fickle and does not have mood swings, (4) and how the Father is not affected or controlled by
emotions. On these points, the
Pre-Nicene Christians fully agreed. And
these are the points that are most important when it comes to the emotions of
God the Father.
About these areas where their points of view
were the same, Novatian said it well, writing,
Moreover, if we read of
His wrath, and consider certain descriptions of His indignation, and learn that
hatred is forced upon Him, yet we are not to understand these to be forced upon
Him in the sense in which they are human vices. For all these things, although they may corrupt
man, cannot at all corrupt the divine power. For such passions as these will rightly be
said to be in men, and will not rightly be judged to be in God. For man may be corrupted by these things,
because he can be corrupted. God may not
be corrupted by them, because He cannot be corrupted.... For when God is angry, [this] arises from no vice in Him. But He is so for our advantage; for He is
merciful even then when He threatens, because by these threats men are recalled
to righteousness. For fear is necessary
for those who want motivation toward a virtuous life, that they who have
forsaken reason may at least be moved by terror.... And thus those things which in men are faulty
and corrupting, since they arise from the corruptibility of the body and matter
itself, in God cannot exert the force of corruptibility, since they have come
of reason, not of vice, as we have said.
(Novatian. AD 235. ANF, vol 5, page 615.)
Now let us move on to the different points of
view the early Christians held. Their
points of view can be divided into two categories: either the Father does not literally feel emotions—the Scriptures
describing emotions figuratively—or the Father does literally feel emotions but
they are very far from being like human emotions. For most of this video, we will take a look
at their reasoning behind each point of view.
PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS: GOD’S EMOTIONS IN
SCRIPTURE ARE FIGURATIVE
The early Christian writer who wrote the most
about the Father’s emotions being figurative was Origen. His point of view on the emotions of God is closely
connected to their belief in the Personification of God. For more information on that belief, see the
video.
Origen can introduce us to his point of view
this way.
Statements are found
even in the parables of the Gospel; as when it is said, that he who planted a
vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, who killed the servants that were sent
to them, and at last put to death even the son, is said in anger to have taken
away the vineyard from them, and to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen
to destruction, and to have handed over the vineyard to others, who would yield
him the fruit in its season.* And so
also with regard to those citizens who, when the head of the household had set
out to receive for himself a kingdom, sent messengers after him, saying, “We
will not have this man to reign over us.”**
For the head of the
household having obtained the kingdom, returned, and in anger commanded them to
be put to death before him, and burned their city with fire.*** But when we read either in the Old Testament
or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally,
but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves
to be thought of. (Origen. AD 235.
ANF, vol 4, page 277-278.)
* Matt 21:33-46, Mark
12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19.
** Luke 19:12-14.
*** Matt 22:5-7.
Next, Origen points out how easy it is to
understand the emotions of God in figurative terms. For example, what about the Scriptural
passages that refer to God sleeping?
Further, it is manifest
that the language used regarding the wrath of God is to be understood
figuratively from what is related of His “sleep.” From which, as if awaking Him, the prophet says: “Awake, why do You sleep, Lord?”* and
again: “Then the Lord awaked as one out
of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouts by reason of wine.”** Then, if “sleep” must mean something else,
and not what the first recognized meaning of the word conveys, why should not
“wrath” also be understood in a similar way…?
Then, it is not human passions which we ascribe to God, nor impious
opinions which we entertain of Him. Nor
do we err when we present the various narratives concerning Him, drawn from the
Scriptures themselves, after careful comparison one with another. (Origen.
AD 235. ANF, vol 4, page
529-530.)
* Ps 44:23.
** Ps 78:65.
Origen spoke about the wrath of God, an
emotion of God that is often talked about today. It appears that an old opponent of the
Christians, Celsus, used the idea of God’s wrath to defame God. Origen responded, writing that any unpleasant
emotion of God is not to be interpreted as malice, but because of love, it is figuratively
describing the Father’s discipline.
Celsus, not
understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic
point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed
to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners. We have to say that…, when talking with very
young children, [we] do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but,
adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge [of parenthood], both say and
do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and
improvement of the children as children….
Indeed, we speak of the “wrath” of God.
However, we do not assert that it indicates any “passion” on His part,
but that it is something which is assumed in order to discipline by stern means
those sinners who have committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called God’s “wrath,” and
“anger,” is a means of discipline; and that such a view is agreeable to
Scripture. (Origen. AD 235.
ANF, vol 4, page 529.)
Origen saw the Father to be of such love and
goodness, he did not believe that the wrath of God was something literal. Instead, the wrath people feel is a result of
their own sins and is not because of God.
Origen also said that true repentance doesn’t come from a fear of wrath
or a fear of threats. Here, Origen makes
the same argument using Scripture.
[Anyone will] easily
see for what purpose the “wrath” is mentioned, of which “wrath,” as the Apostle
Paul declares, all men are children: “We were by nature children of wrath, even
as others.”* Moreover, that “wrath” is
no passion on the part of God, but that each one brings it upon himself by his
sins, will be clear from the further statement of Paul: “Or do you despise the
riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that
the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
But after your hardness and impenitent heart, do you treasure up unto
yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God.”** Then, how can anyone
treasure up for himself “wrath” against a “day of wrath,” if “wrath” be
understood in the sense of “passion?” Or
how can the “passion of wrath” be a help to discipline? Besides, the Scripture, which tells us not to be angry at all and which says in
the thirty-seventh Psalm, “Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,”*** and which
commands us by the mouth of Paul to “put off all these, anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication,”**** would not involve God in the same passion
from which it would have us to be altogether free...? Again, the “threatenings” are indications of
the (punishments) which are to befall the wicked. For it is as if one were to call the words of
a physician “threats,” when he tells his patients, “I will have to use the
knife, and apply cauteries, if you do not obey my prescriptions, and regulate
your diet and mode of life in such a way as I direct you.” (Origen.
AD 235. ANF, vol 4, page 529.)
* Eph 2:3.
** Rom 2:4-5.
*** Ps 37:8.
**** Col 3:8.
We have read Origen’s point of view, which is
that the emotions described in Scripture are figurative. And Origen believed that the point of
describing the emotions of the Father in personification was for our benefit. This was so that we can better understand the
Father as our Parent. Lastly, Origen explained,
The word of God appears
to have dealt with the history, aiming for the capacity of the hearers, and the
benefit which they were to receive, and the standard of the appropriateness of
its announcements (regarding Him). And,
generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the
book of Deuteronomy the following: “The
Lord your God bears with your [childish] manners, as a man would bear with the
manners of his son.”* It is, as it were,
[God was] assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men
that the Scripture makes use of such expressions. For it would not have been suitable to the
condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken
by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. (Origen.
AD 235. ANF, vol 4, page 529.)
* Deut 1:31, LXX.
PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS: GOD’S EMOTIONS IN
SCRIPTURE ARE LITERAL
The early Christian writer who wrote the most
about the Father’s emotions being literal was Lactantius. His point of view on the emotions of God is closely
tied to their belief in the Perfect Goodness of God. For more information on that belief, see the
video.
Here, Lactantius explained the differences
between the emotions of mankind and the emotions of the Father, such as the fear
of death and sexual desire. Then he
concludes showing his point of view on the Father’s emotions.
The affection [or
emotion] of fear has a subject-matter in man, but it has none in God. Man, inasmuch as he is liable to many
accidents and dangers, fears lest any greater violence should arise which may
strike, despoil, lacerate, dash down, and destroy him. But God, who is liable neither to want, nor
injury, nor pain, nor death, can by no means fear, because there is nothing
which can offer violence to Him. Also
the reason and cause of desire is manifest in man. For, inasmuch as he was made frail and mortal,
it was necessary that another and different sex should be made, by union with
which offspring might be produced to continue the perpetuity of his race. But this desire has no place in God, because
frailty and death are far removed from Him; nor is there with Him any female in
whose union He is able to rejoice; nor does He stand in need of succession,
since He will live forever. The same things may be said
respecting envy and passion, to which, from sure and manifest causes, man is
liable, but to which God is by no means liable. But, in truth, favor and anger and pity have
their substance in God, and that greatest and matchless power employs them for
the preservation of the world. (Lactantius. AD 310.
ANF, vol 7, page 272.)
Lactantius explained why humans have the
emotions they do. When injustices are
done, the Father feels compassion for the victims and feels anger for the
perpetrators.
Someone
will ask what this substance is. First
of all, when evils befall them, men in their dejected state for the most part
have recourse to God: they appease and entreat Him, believing that He is able
to repel injuries from them. He has
therefore an occasion of exercising pity.
For He is not so unmerciful and a despiser of men as to refuse aid to
those who are in distress. Also, very
many who are persuaded that justice is pleasing to God, both worship Him who is
Lord and Parent of all, and with continual prayers and repeated vows offer
gifts and sacrifices, follow up His name with praises, striving to gain His
favor by just and good works. Therefore,
there is a reason, on account of which God may and ought to favor them. For if there is nothing so befitting God as
beneficence, and nothing so unsuited to His character as to be ungrateful, it
is necessary that He should make some return for the services of those who are
excellent, and who lead a holy life; that He may not be liable to the charge of
ingratitude which is worthy of blame even in the case of (273) a man. But, on
the contrary, others are daring and wicked, who pollute all things with their
lusts, harass with slaughters, practice fraud, plunder, commit perjury, neither
spare relatives nor parents, neglect the laws, and even God Himself. Therefore, anger has a befitting occasion in
God. (Lactantius. AD 310.
ANF, vol 7, page 272-273.)
In another place in his writings, Lactantius
spoke about how, when injustice is done in the world, the Father feels
compassion for the victims and He feels anger for the perpetrators. It is through God’s compassion that He
rescues and rewards people. And it is
befitting of God to be angry at sin and how it pollutes all things.
Lactantius argued that if the Father has
positive emotions like kindness, then also He has negative emotions. But of course, these are NOT to be confused
with evil emotions. Lactantius explained,
For it is not right
that, when He sees such things, He should not be moved, and arise to take
vengeance upon the wicked, and destroy the pestilent and guilty, so as to
promote the interests of all good men. Thus
even in anger itself there is also contained a showing of kindness. Therefore, the arguments are found to be empty
and false, either of those who, when they will not admit that God is angry,
will have it that He shows kindness, because this, indeed, cannot take place
without anger; or of those who think that there is no emotion of the mind in
God. And because there are some
affections to which God is not liable, as desire, fear, avarice, grief, and
envy, they have said that He is entirely free from all affection. For He is not liable to these, because they
are vicious affections. But as to those
which belong to virtue—that is, anger towards the wicked, regard towards the
good, pity towards the afflicted—, inasmuch as they are worthy of the divine
power, He has affections of His own, both just and true. (Lactantius.
AD 310. ANF, vol 7, page 273.)
Within the context of the next quotation,
Lactantius spoke about what anger is and how it was viewed in his day. He very methodically explains the difference
between evil anger and righteous anger.
Seneca [a Stoic
philosopher] enumerated in the books which he composed on the subject of anger.
He says, “Anger is the desire of
avenging an injury.” As Posidonius
[another Stoic philosopher] says, others describe it as the desire of punishing
him by whom you think that you have been unfairly injured. Some have thus defined it: “Anger is an
incitement of the mind to injure him who either has committed an injury, or who
has wished to do so.” The definition of
Aristotle does not differ greatly from ours.
For he says that “anger is the desire of requiting pain.” This is the unjust anger, concerning which we
spoke before, which is contained even in the dumb animals. But it is to be restrained in man, lest he
should rush to some very great evil through rage. This cannot exist in God, because He cannot be
injured. But it is found in man,
inasmuch as he is frail. For the
inflicting of injury inflames anguish, and anguish produces a desire of
revenge. Then, where is that just anger against offenders? For this is evidently not the desire of
revenge, inasmuch as no injury precedes. I do not speak of those who sin against the
laws. For although a judge may be angry
with these without incurring blame, let us, however, suppose that he ought to
be of a sedate mind when he sentences the guilty to punishment, because he is
the executor of the laws…. I speak of
those in particular who are in our own power, as slaves, children, wives, and
pupils. For when we see these offend, we
are incited to restrain them. For it
cannot fail to be [so], that he who is just and good is displeased with things
which are bad, and that he who is displeased with evil is moved when he sees it
practiced. Therefore, we arise to take vengeance, not because we have been
injured, but that discipline may be preserved, morals may be corrected, and addictions
be suppressed. This is just anger. As it is necessary in man for the correction
of wickedness, so manifestly is it necessary in God, from whom an example comes
to man. For as we ought to restrain
those who are subject to our power, so also ought God to restrain the offences
of all. And in order that He may do
this, He must be angry. Because it is
natural for one who is good to be moved and incited at the fault of another. Therefore they [the philosophers] ought to
have given this definition: Anger is an emotion of the mind arousing itself for
the restraining of faults…. But that anger which we may call
either fury or rage ought not to exist even in man, because it is altogether
vicious. But the anger which relates to
the correction of vices ought not to be taken away from man; nor can it be
taken away from God, because it is both serviceable for the affairs of men, and
necessary. (Lactantius. AD 310.
ANF, vol 7, page 274.)
Lactantius
says that anger is a necessary feeling when a wrong has been done. The
only times when anger is not felt at a wrong is either: when there is a
possibility that the person is innocent or when the wrong was not witnessed.
What need
is there, they say, of anger, since faults can be corrected without this
affection? But there is no one who can
calmly see any one committing an offence. This may perhaps be (275) possible in
him who presides over the laws, because the deed is not committed before his
eyes, but it is brought before him as a doubtful matter from another quarter. Nor can any wickedness be so manifest, that
there is no place for a defense.
Therefore, it is possible that a judge may not be moved against him who
may possibly be found to be innocent.
And when the detected crime shall have come to light, he now no longer
uses his own opinion, but that of the laws.
It may be granted that he does that which he does without anger. For he has that which he may follow. Undoubtedly, we, when an offence is committed
by our household at home, whether we see or perceive it, must be
indignant. For the very sight of a sin
is unbecoming. (Lactantius. AD 310.
ANF, vol 7, page 274-275.)
While Origen saw from Scripture that anger is
something that God tells mankind to be rid of, Lactantius sees anger as a
God-given emotion and also uses Scripture to support his point of view.
[Someone might say,] “God
is not angry for a short time, because He is eternal and of perfect virtue, and
He is never angry unless deservedly.” But,
however, the matter is not so. For if He
should altogether prohibit anger, He Himself would have been in some measure
the censurer of His own workmanship, since He from the beginning had inserted
anger in the liver of man, since it is believed that the cause of this emotion
is contained in the moisture of the gall. Therefore, He does not altogether prohibit
anger, because that affection is necessarily given, but He forbids us to
persevere in anger. For the anger of
mortals ought to be mortal [that is, temporary]. For if it is lasting, hostility is
strengthened to lasting destruction. Then,
again, when He commanded us to be angry, and yet not to sin,* it is plain that
He did not tear up anger by the roots, but restrained it, that in every
correction we might preserve moderation and justice. Therefore, He who commands us to be angry is manifestly Himself angry. He who commands us to be quickly appeased is
manifestly Himself easy to be appeased.
For He has commanded those things which are just and useful for the
interests of society. But because I had
said that the anger of God is not for a time only, as is the case with man, who
becomes inflamed with an immediate excitement, and on account of his frailty is
unable easily to govern himself, we ought to understand that because God is
eternal, His anger also remains to eternity.
But, on the other hand, that because He is endued with the greatest
excellence, He controls His anger, and is not ruled by it, but that He
regulates it according to His will.
(Lactantius. AD 310. ANF, vol 7, page 277.)
* Ps 4:4, Eph 4:26.
PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS’ POINTS OF VIEW
Now that we have seen the point of view of
Lactantius, it sounds like he is strongly rejecting the things Origen taught. At least, it sounds that way. Yet, I’m very curious what Origen would say
about Lactantius’ point of view on the emotions of God. Even though they approach this topic very
differently, it is possible that Origen and Lactantius would agree with each
other’s point of view. For example…
Lactantius wouldn’t describe it as Origen does but could understand why Origen
described God’s emotions as figurative.
And Origen wouldn’t describe it as Lactantius does but could understand
Lactantius’ meaning about how God is still perfectly righteous in His
emotions. It is very probable that that
each of them understood things differently, describing it in very different
words, but neither of them being wrong.
Keep in mind that this difference between the
points of view of Origen and Lactantius is, truthfully, really minor. This video has gone into some minute details about
the emotions of God, which may make it seem like Origen and Lactantius were
opponents. But please remember that when
it comes to the belief in the impassibility of God, both Origen and Lactantius fully
agreed with it. From the quotations we
have read, they both agreed on the important things: (1) God IS NOT affected by emotions as mankind is; (2) in no way are emotions a
weakness of God, though they are easily weaknesses of every man; (3) any anger displayed by God is
actually love and kindness, an act of discipline, as a parent would discipline
their child.
SCRIPTURES: GOD’S EMOTIONS ARE NOT LIKE
MANKIND’S
What do the Scriptures say about the emotions
of God? When looking at the Old
Testament, it depends on which family of manuscripts you are looking at. English-speaking Christians today use an Old Testament that is translated from
the Hebrew Masoretic. In those Old
Testament manuscripts, there are far, far more occurrences of God having
emotions. The Pre-Nicene Christians used an Old Testament called the
Greek Septuagint. In those Old Testament
manuscripts, there are far fewer occurrences of God having emotions. This may be one of the reasons why the
Pre-Nicene Christians did not write many details about the impassibility of
God, except for Origen and Lactantius who went into the details from their own
points of view. For the early
Christians, the topic of the emotions of God the Father was not a controversial
one. Because Old Testament families of
manuscripts differ on this topic, this increases the controversy today. (For more information about the Septuagint,
please check out that video series.)
Without getting lost in all the details, the
truth is that Scripture does speak of the emotions of God. The question at hand is whether those
emotions are to be understood literally or figuratively. Sadly (pun
intended), the Scriptures do not explicitly give us the answer. We can only gather the important, general truths
that Scripture does reveal. One of the Scriptural truths
about the impassibility of God is that the Father’s emotions are not like
mankind’s emotions.
God is not a man who
lies, or a son of man who changes His mind.
(Numbers 23:19, HCSB)
God changed His mind at least 12 times in the
Scriptures.* It’s not that God doesn’t
change His mind, it is that God doesn’t do it like man does. Because of this analogy, it seems that
Lactantius would be more correct than Origen—though both points of view can
still be true. Num 23:19 is different in
the Septuagint. Maybe if this verse
appeared like this in the Septuagint, Origen would have considered it.
* Ex 32:14, Deut
32:36, 1Sam 15:35, 2Sam 24:16, 1Chr 21:15, Jer 18:8, Jer 26:3, Jer 26:13, Jer
26:19, Jer 42:10, Amos 7:3,6, Jonah 3:10
With Him there is no
variation or shadow cast by turning.
(James 1:17, HCSB)
There are so many Scriptures that speak about
the Father’s emotions.
God regretted because
He made mankind upon the earth, and He considered it. (Genesis 6:6, LXX)
The Lord was greatly
angered against Moses. (Exodus 4:14,
Brenton)
The Lord hates six
things; in fact, seven are detestable to Him.
(Proverbs 6:16, HCSB)
You have rejected me,
says Jehovah, you have gone backward: therefore have I stretched out my hands
against you, and destroyed you. I am
weary with repenting. (Jeremiah 15:6,
ASV)
Your new moons and
your appointed feasts my soul hates.
They are a trouble unto me. I am
weary of bearing them. (Is 1:14, ASV)
[God] does not hold on
to His anger forever, because He delights in faithful love. (Micah 7:18, HCSB)
And then there are the Scriptures that speak
against anger.
All bitterness, anger
and wrath, shouting and slander must be removed from you, along with all
malice. (Eph 4:31, HCSB)
Cease from anger and
forsake wrath. Do not provoke yourself
toward evil. (Ps 37:8, LXX)
But now you must also
put away all the following: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and filthy language
from your mouth. Do not lie to one
another, since you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on
the new self. (Col 3:8-10, HCSB)
Now, are these Scriptures to be taken
figuratively, as Origen did, or literally, as Lactantius did? Origen said that the Father’s emotions are figurative. For example, why would the Father become
tired, or weary? And why would the
Father literally feel anger when He tells us to put it away? Lactantius said that the Father’s emotions are literal. He said that they are temporary, and that, for
God to have delight in righteousness, He would also have anger in
unrighteousness. Why would God have
compassion and not anger? In conclusion, both Origen’s and
Lactantius’ points of view appear to be grounded in the Scriptures. And this is why their beliefs have been
called points of view throughout this video.
Different points of view may not be the same, but there is a sense of truth
within each one.
CONCLUSION
To finish this video, here are two encouraging
messages from Lactantius and James.
If His anger had been
altogether immortal [or never-ceasing], there would be no place after a fault
for satisfaction or kind feeling, though He Himself commands men to be
reconciled before the setting of the sun.* But the divine anger remains forever against
those who ever-sin. Therefore, God is
appeased not by incense or a victim, not by costly offerings, which things are
all corruptible, but by a reformation of the morals. And he who ceases to sin renders the anger of
God mortal [or temporary]. For this reason,
He does not immediately punish everyone who is guilty, that man may have the
opportunity of coming to a right mind, and correcting himself. (Lactantius.
AD 310. ANF, vol 7, page 277.)
* Eph 4:26.
My dearly loved
brothers, understand this: Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and
slow to anger, for man’s anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. (James 1:19-20, HCSB)
Blessings and so forth.
