Ante-Nicene Ressourcement: Interpreting The Anger of God (Part 3 of 4)

Last updated on: October 26, 2016 at 5:54 am by Henry Karlson

Ante-Nicene Ressourcement: Interpreting The Anger of God (Part 3 of 4) 2016-10-26T05:54:49-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is the third of four posts looking to the way various Ante-Nicene Fathers engaged the image of God seen in the Old Testament, with a specific concern on how they dealt with the way God’s anger was represented within it. For the first part, click here, and for the second, click here.

Clement of Alexandria by André Thévet [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

While some Ante-Nicenes desired to engage Scripture in as simple and straightforward manner as possible, others thought the text was written with all kinds of hidden meanings, and the external narrative could be of little to no consequence to the true message of the text. While not wanting to entirely dismiss its apparent historical content, they were not always concerned about it, and believed that the authors behind the texts in Scripture itself were not always concerned about it. This fact they believed could be seen by the way Scripture sometimes presented events which could not have happened as described. When Scripture presented a paradox or an outright contradiction to its audience, this was meant to inform the reader to look beyond the literal reading of the text for its actual, intended message. Those who were concerned with what philosophers could and did know about God wanted to make sure their reading of Scripture did not contradict reason. Noting that Scripture should not to be read as a simple, straightforward text was the means by which they began to harmonize Scripture with philosophy.

Those who came from or were influenced by the Alexandrian Catechetical School were those most likely to consider what the philosophers taught and try to reconcile their wisdom with Christian theology. This was especially true in regards the philosophical position of the impassibility of God. Holding to the value of such a doctrine, they knew they had to provide an alternative reading of Scripture than the one given by St. Irenaeus or Tertullian. Thus, when Scripture was too anthropomorphic in its presentation of God, it had to be interpreted as metaphor. St. Clement of Alexandria suggested that God condescended to have Scripture written in a way which met the immediate needs and abilities of its audience, and so revelation, which came in and through human prophets, would be “enfleshed” by those same prophets:

Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy and pain are passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational elevation and exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and pity as pain for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections are moods and passions of the soul. But we, as would appear, do not cease in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spoke to us; the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men.[1]

In this manner, many agreed with the presupposition that God could not possess human passions because they agreed that God transcended the human condition. But they still supported and defended the Old Testament and its presentation of God, a presentation inspired by God to reach its intended audience and help them to come slowly to a better knowledge and understanding of God. Those who denied the Old Testament did not understand how God could and did condescend to human weakness, and so met people with what limited knowledge they had at the time and from there, slowly directed them to a better understanding of himself. Indeed, he had the text written so that once the letter of the text as understood as being but a casing for the real intended message, the text could then be read and the truths which were placed in it could be revealed. Moreover, those who desired the most pure representation of God, the most transcended understanding of God, failed to understand how and why human language could never be able to establish it and so all representations of the absolute would be but conventions that point beyond themselves and to the God which transcended the imperfections of human speech.

Origen from “Les Vrais Portraits Et Vies Des Hommes Illustres” by André Thévet [Public Domain] via Wikimediacommons

Origen furthered the basic insight of Clement by providing substantial explanation as to how we are to engage Scripture and not be caught up with an overly-literal reading (On First Principles), and then demonstrated the outcome of that method through his many homilies and commentaries. He was far more thoroughgoing at addressing the question of exegesis than those who came before him, which is why many view him as the founder of “Biblical Theology.” He focused on how we could take cues in the Scriptural text which indicated why the text was never meant to be read in a fundamentalist fashion: self-contradictions, he believed, were put in there to alert the reader that there was a hidden meaning to be discerned. The original audience understood the style of the text, and so knew, with the writer, not to engage the text so simply. But given time, this insight was lost, so Origen believed it necessary to be trained in the reading of Scripture and how to take its many cues so as to be led to the correct beliefs about God. While it was often the case that this was much clearer with the Old Testament, Origen pointed out that careful reading of the New Testament often ended up requiring the same exegetical principles. And so, he would conclude, the reasons some Gnostics would use so as to deny the Old Testament could only end up being used to deny the New as well:

And now, if, on account of those expressions which occur in the Old Testament, as when God is said to be angry or to repent, or when any other human affection or passion is described, (our opponents) think that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us, who maintain that God is altogether impassible, and is to be regarded as wholly free from all affections of that kind, we have to show them that similar 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 slew 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.[2]

The problem, then, was not with Scripture. Those believers who followed a simplistic reading of the text gave material support for its critics, for they affirm a poor reading of the text, the same reading its critics also want people to believe so they can justify their rejection of it. Origen, on the other hand, made it clear that Scripture is of value because it is revelation from God, but this could be affirmed insofar as it was read “spiritually,” that is, insofar as it was read according to the higher meaning hidden within the letter of the text:

Now the reason of the erroneous apprehension of all these points on the part of those whom we have mentioned above, is no other than this, that holy Scripture is not understood by them according to its spiritual, but according to its literal meaning. And therefore we shall endeavour, so far as our moderate capacity will permit, to point out to those who believe the holy Scriptures to be no human compositions, but to be written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted and entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who observe things by a right way of understanding, to be the standard and discipline delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down in succession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy Church. Now, that there are certain mystical economies indicated in holy Scripture, is admitted by all, I think, even the simplest of believers.[3]

Origen engaged more than the question of God’s wrath, but all forms anthropomorphic representation of God in Scripture. He showed ways we could understand such representations so that they did not contradict what reason could come to know about God. Philosophers were right in talking about God’s impassibility; any authentic reading of Scripture must be read with a hermeneutical lens that was shaped by this fact. Origen suggested, more than possibly any other at his time, that we must develop proper exegetical tools if we want to understand Scripture. He wanted people to realize Scripture must not to be taken at face value, that it was written for those who seriously wanted to learn what God had to say to them. As for why God had the text written in this fashion, the reason was simple: human psychology. If everything was written out in as simplistic a form as possible, not only would it be unattractive and boring, what was readily given to us would be seen as relatively unimportant. That which we struggle to obtain we appreciate more; so to have within Scripture many levels of truths makes Scripture not only capable of attracting our attention, but will keep us actively engaging it. For as long as we keep finding new and greater truths hidden within it, we will be encouraged to go back and look for them and see how they can help us in our lives.

[1] St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata in ANF(2):363.

[2] Origen, On First Principles in ANF(4), 277-8.

[3] Origen, On First Principles, 357.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

Clement of Alexandria

God

Origen

Scripture

Previous Post

October 24, 2016

Ante-Nicene Ressourcement: Interpreting The Anger of God (Part 2 of 4)

Next Post

October 26, 2016 What should EWTN ask Donald Trump?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz