A More God-like Christ Part 2

This is a continuation of my review of Bradley Jersak’s book, “A More Christ-like God”:

Jersak goes into great detail about spiritual maturity in the book, explaining that those who take such things (examples of God’s wrath in the Bible) literally are child-like in maturity, it seems that Jersak has had a different journey than some of us who are apparently quite underdeveloped in our understanding of God.   For me, as I view maturity, I’ve come to admire those who try less to explain the more difficult passages with metaphor (or dogged literalism), but rather humbly receive the Word planted in their hearts.  They seem to learn to love who God is, not just what we want Him to be.  I would even suggest, acknowledging that I see through a glass dimly, that we need to mature beyond the simplistic understanding that if God is personally involved in judgement to persons or nations in anger this somehow makes him immoral or monstrous.  Instead we need to acknowledge the mystery of His incommunicable attributes.  Teaching that if He does what the Scriptures say He does in the Old Testament he is a moral monster is anthropomorphizing Him to the maximum degree.  I would also suggest that we are not the ones ascribing to Him a petty temper that plays itself out in heinous acts of violence.  We are bowing to the mystery of His almighty power…  He is slow to anger, but not ever-ceasing from it.  Yet His anger is so different than human anger and the tendency of immaturity then is to attribute our human means of anger to His, which is where the blasphemy really is, in my view.  His anger and vengeance is real, but can only be compared with ours in an extremely limited way, most of how He executes His is beyond our comprehension

It is telling that Jersak on page 192 suggests that Old Testament writers “sometimes” wrote from the perspective of mythic-literalism, presumably when he doesn’t agree with their views of God.  What is amazing to me about Jersak here however is that he acknowledges that Jesus Himself says, “this is how my Father will treat you if you do not forgive from your heart” in Matthew 18, referring to handing the offender over to be tortured.  Yet Jersak insists that this too is only metaphor.  It appears that Christ Himself must be interpreted through Jersak’s lens.

As to his writings of the source of the “Wrath” in Romans 5:9 it seems like double-speak.  That we are saved from “the wrath” must somehow be explained away by Jersak, even though 5:9 is informed by 1:18 that the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, by 2:5 that the disobedient are storing up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, by 2:8 that where He will give eternal life to those who seek Him, there will be wrath and fury for those who disobey the truth, and by 9:22 where he bears with great patience the objects/vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction; all of these clearly attributed to God as having wrath towards mankind.  Why would wrath be different in this verse when it is attributed to God in all the other verses of Romans?  It’s difficult not to think of Paul’s statement in his book to the Ephesians: “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”  (5:6 ESV).  Who is doing the anthropomorphizing here?

From Chapter 12 on the atonement it is interesting that the word the NIV translates as “atoning sacrifice” for Paul and John in their letters is properly translated “propitiation” because the Greek word is defined as “appeasing the wrath of”.  Paul and John could have chosen a different Greek word, but they didn’t.  In the Hebrew context that is a good translation for the atonement that God gives His people.  When Phineas made atonement for Israel in Numbers 19, it appeased the wrath of God; when Moses circumcised his son he made atonement for his family; at Mt. Sinai God wanted to protect the people from His own wrath, so He told them not to even touch the mountain.  That is a Father heart that knows when sin comes into the pure Presence of Holiness it must be destroyed/cast away, but He wants the offender to not suffer wrath, but rather to be saved.  Clearly then to suggest that Paul did not have punishment of sin by God in mind when he wrote of atonement is quite disputable, in fact I will argue the opposite…

(Next Part 3)