1. 'J'/te Need of Reconciliation on the part of God. —The siibject has already so far been di-scussed, and passages have been cited both from OT and NT ascribing anger, wrath, indignation, jealousy, and even hate to God (see art. ANGER OF GoD in vol. i. J). 97 tr.). But something may be added to what IS there said of the reluctance theologians have long shown to take such passages seriously. In their recoil from the extreme anthropomorphism of liery writers like TertuUian, they have, from Origen downwards, often nished to the oi)posite extreme, and conceived of God not only as a Being ' without parts,' but also 'witliout pnssi(ms.' But anlhro{>omorphism has at the heart of it a truth of priceless worth, for man was miule in tlio image of God (Gn !*■), and therefore, spiritually considered, I h>ir natures are essentially akin. As we ai>prcci- alo and apply this truth in Cliristology, we make it easier to see the jiossibility of an Incarnation. If the Divine and the human natures were dis- parate, it is hard to see how there could be a union of God and man ; but if they are essentially akin, the dilhculty is at least sensibly relieved. But if this helj) is available for Chnstology, it is available for Theology also. For then, what Edward White calls ' the Buddhism of the West,' according to which God is conceived a« a Being of passionless repose, sublimely raised above all the
fluctuations of feeling to which we are suhject, gives )ilace to a truer conception of IJod, more human and therefore more Divine. (See the Ex- cursus on the ' Sen^ibility of God ' in Ed. White's Life in Cliriit, p. 2.")'), and Bushnell's Sermon on ' the Power of God in Self-.Sacrilice' in Tlic S<:w Life).
We are here concerned, however, not with tlii^ Divine sensibility in general, but with that par- ticular form of it implied in the anger or wrath of God. What is meant by that? Our answer to tiju question will turn in part on the view we take of the way in which God governs the world, and in part on the view we take of our own nature in comjjarison with God's. If we think that God administers a law above and apart from Himscli', as a judge administers the law of his country, we must interpret all that Scripture says of llis anger or wrath in some nun-natural sense, for these are emotions which, even if ho had them, a judge would not betray. Thi; more perfect he is as a judge, the more carefully will lie sup]press them. His decisions will tell us nothing of his personal feelings, but only of his determination to uphold the law of the land. Now tliis is just how the great majority of theologians, from Origen and Augustine down to our own day, have dealt with the language of Scripture about the anger of God. They have taken it in a thoroughly non-natural sense, as if it told us nothing of the personal feeling of God, but only of His judicial determination to punish and put down wickedness (see Simon, Rcdeimitiun of Man, PI). 223-229). But this is not how the Scrip- tures speak, and therefore we may be sure it is not the view they take of God's relation to the world. They give free vent to God's personal feel- ings regarding the cliaracter and conduct of men, from which we may safely infer that they did not regard Him primarily as our Judge, but as our Father, the Father of our spirits, and our Judge in virtue of His Fatherhood ; for as every father is head over his own house, so is God Head over all (1 P 1"). In other words, His relations to us are personal, and His government direct. There is no law over and above Him, or between Him and us. The law He ui)holds is that of His own life, and therefore of ours, for our life is but our linite share in His. llonce His Divine displeasure, when we do anything to disturb it. It is Him and not merely ourselves we grieve, when we fall out of right relations to Him ; and against Him we chielly oli'end, even when we do wrong to others. ' Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight ' (Ps .51''). The nearest human analogue we liave to the moral government of God is that of the family, and the best clue we have to the feeling of (!od when we deliberately do wrong is the bitter disappointment of a father who has loved and lived for his children, when they have rebelled against him, until the filial bond between them is strained almost to the breaking. And the Divine Father feels it the more, because, though we may ceaso in spirit to be His children. He cannot ceaso to be our Father. He cannot con.sent to stand in any lower relation to us, and can only express His astonishment that we should behave as we have done. 'Hear, (> heavens, and give car, O earth, for the Lord liatli spoken: I have nourished and brought up chihlnn, and they have rebelled against mo' (Is V). Thai is what sin means to God. Is it any wonder that He should hate it, and plead with His rebellions children as He dues: 'Oil, ilo not this abominable thing which I hate' (Jcr 41').