Suffice it to say that this topic is one that brings much confusion and concern amongst us and is one that it is acceptable to grapple with in our thinking and conversation. I think I would be accurate in saying that none of us can fully understand God, or understand His ways, and as such, hopefully none of us take the approach that we know exactly what this all means.
I think that much of our perception of the Gospel and God is based out of the theological frame-work we were raised under, not to mention our own maturity and growth. I find that as I reflect back on my life, that I was quite convinced I knew exactly how things worked together in my 20s and 30s, only to find out that I really understood very little. I am now of the opinion that I need to constantly be learning and revisiting what I think, for often I am finding that my thinking is inconsistent and even disconnected.
Recently I have been doing some reading on the topic of Theology and disability. One of the things that a particular author talks about is revisiting the narratives in the scripture with a different perspective or focus. He speaks about reading the bible from a disability narrative, and revisiting some of the earliest stories and how changing one's focus slightly can open up new understanding and insight into the ways and character of God. This has been very helpful to me in allowing me to step out of my own historical perspective and thought and allowing me to open my eyes to a much broader view of what God is saying and how His words are understood and embraced.
Another personal reading theme has been Eastern Orthodox theology, not because I want to convert, but more to open my eyes to another way to view key themes that we find in scripture, and understanding how there might be alternative views to those I learned under the western Church. The Eastern Church has the exact same roots and scripture, but a whole additional body of literature and centuries of thinking with a slightly different perspective, and I again find this very helpful to me as I revisit my own beliefs and thoughts. I have discovered that I really don't know everything! :-)
So back to the theme of my latest reflections, I was thinking about God and the way His plan and the revelation of His plan has unfolded in time and history. I was thinking about God's primary revelation of Himself, how He describes Himself and how He revealed Himself through Jesus. I was thinking about the Jews and their attempt to follow the Law and their constant struggles and rebellion and such. I was reflecting on how God was definitely not surprised by their inability and constant rebellion and sin. He expected it, and He paid for it all with His life! So, my question is whether God's anger, as described in the Old Testament, is an accurate description of His emotion, or more of a human perception of His feelings?
Let me give an analogy. If I am a teacher and I give my students a very difficult test, one that I know none can pass, let alone accel at, would I be angry if none passed? If my students didn't know me well, and they failed miserably, how would they think I would react? Imagine if I, as the teacher didn't tell them anything about the test being rigged? The students would likely feel like failures, would likely be angry about my hard test, they might even assume that I was angry at their failure. (It is sort of a lame example but the best I can do on one cup of coffee)
Now, I was also thinking about the example of caring for a long-term very sick person. I have worked in a nursing home where we cared for people with a whole range of disabilities, infirmities and struggles, from strokes to Alzheimer's to brain-stem injuries. At times the work was very difficult, and people had many issues that required extreme compassion, caring and mercy, and sometimes I was exhausted and yet required to care for these people. I was never angry with them, for they couldn't help themselves, but I was at times angry about the situation, tired and short of patience. From the outside, I could have been seen as angry. From the patient's perspective, especially those who didn't know me well, might have thought I was mad as I moved them and cleaned up the mess, or dealt with whatever issue required my attention, but Iw as never mad or angry at the patient. For reference, I only worked at this home for a relatively short time, but there were those people that had worked there for many years who definitely could be described as angry, or maybe callused would be a better description. My point is that from a patient's perspective, they would likely not be able to fully comprehend nor communicate my exact feelings and emotions, and possibly would misinterpret my true thoughts and feelings.
One last example, since the Hebrew and Greek words most commonly translated as "sin" have a definition of missing the mark, or missing the way, I was thinking about teaching archery to young campers at a camp I used to work at in Minnesota. Most of the campers had never shot a bow before, nor were they strong enough to shoot the bows I shot. When I would demonstrate the correct form and technique, I would often hit the bulls-eye. The kids would cheer and then try to replicate my technique and form and then shoot at the targets. I don't think a single student ever hit the bulls-eye the first time they tried. In fact hitting anywhere on the target was celebrated! It was only after shooting all week and being constantly corrected and encouraged, that they might hit the bulls-eye a few times per round. I was never angry with them for missing the mark (the bulls-eye) because I didn't expect them to be able to hit the mark. If I had handed them my bow, I wouldn't have expected them to even be able to shoot a single arrow, let alone hit the bulls-eye, and I certainly wouldn't have been angry.
When I think about these themes, I am always brought back to God's description of Himself in Isaiah 55. I know this is somewhat self-contradictory, to question the emotions described in scripture as pertaining to anger (Due to our own human limited perspective), and yet accepting those that describe love, compassion and mercy without question. However, I think that I am focusing mostly on the revelation of the Father as shared by Jesus, which is still recorded by humans, but strengthened by many eye-witnesses, and memories as recorded in the Gospels. So back to the verses from Isaiah where God is describing His response to sinners and the unrighteous - here are the verses found in Isaiah 55:6-9 NIV:
[6] "Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
[7] Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
[8] “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
[9] “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Notice how the theme is encouraging wicked and unrighteous people to turn towards God, and promising an experience of God's mercy and compassion, and pardoning their sin! God (through Isaiah) then goes on to say that this is because His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways His ways. In other words, we would likely not pardon sins, nor embrace wicked and unrighteous people with compassion and mercy. We wouldn't think that was right or just, and we wouldn't act that way! If we were to project our thinking onto God, we would be wrong!
Going back to the verses from Psalm 103 that I was reflecting on a few days back, it is interesting that the Hebrew word that is translated anger (Ps 103:9) is the word 'natar" and its primary definition is "To care for or tend" according to the Zondervan Exhaustive Concordance. My conjecture (or at least my questioning thought) is that those that were translating the Bible, Greek and Hebrew scholars, were reading the original language with a particular narrative in mind, one that they had been raised under and one that influenced their interpretation of what was being said and thus, how to translate those words. In this case the word "natar" could be translated to care for or tend, but a secondary definition "angry" was chosen instead because it fit their narrative.
In summary, I am learning to open my perspective, looking to other theological perspectives to better understand this God whose thoughts are higher than ours! I know that I don't understand even a percent of His character and ways, but I am certain (as I can be) that He loves me! I am very aware of how little I know, and how limited my life experience is regarding God and His sovereignty and power! I know one thing as well, I have never encountered "the Angry God" when I have failed, but rather I am always embraced in love, mercy, compassion, patience and gentleness! I see God the Father in much the same light as Jesus described Him, and that gives me hope!
Blessings - Sam
No comments:
Post a Comment