The Golden Ass

You may have heard it said that God's acceptance of you requires a sacrificial satisfaction of God's "wrath" for your sin.

Of course, the scriptures never say that; it's based on a system of interpretation built up over time since at least the Reformation.

Good News: But the scriptures (actually do) say this:

"By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord one turns away from evil."
Proverbs 16:6

Notably, here, "fear" is reverent awe, not "fear" of pending punishment.

This would mean that the cross is not satisfaction of wrath but the ultimate act of "steadfast love and faithfulness" to the point of death. We aren't "made holy" by the trading of a foreign righteousness for our guilt that is otherwise held onto in wrath. Rather, in faithful love, our original fullness is restored in a act that judges us acquitted of the shame and guilt that would otherwise have us on a path of death on which the image of God in humanity would be that of empty ruins.

Empty ruins are traded for a heavenly city, yes, but that's because, in awe of the beauty of that city, enraptured and captivated, we come to identify with her people, her King, and her land - and we come to act accordingly. The trade isn't a metaphysical or spiritual transaction with God that we understand speculatively in our minds. It's a very visible, visceral, physical, and practical conversion to another Way. A Way founded not on wrath and punishment but on "steadfast love and faithfulness."

Now, what I have presented here so far is a little bit of an over-simplification and doesn't paint the entire picture, particularly regarding what "wrath" might actually mean or entail without the mind-bending speculation of the above noted metaphysical "trade" or "conversion." Others more qualified than myself have already discussed that ad infinum, and a dissertation isn't my purpose here.

It is, however, a question that is vital to the hi-story that I am here trying to tell you. So, please allow me to explain a bit. The basic idea, as far as I'm concerned, is that the death that constitutes "wrath" and that is the end of the path unatoned for with faithful love is a teleological "end" rather than a punishment imposed by an exterior force. Newton and his exterior forces on pool balls don't teach God how to act. Why do you think we imagine the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as an apple when the story in Genesis says or mentions no such thing?

I think, too, that those who hold onto God's "wrath" as an external punishment are concerned that the cross can be made to look like it costs nothing of us. No change, ho hum, everyone just go on your merry way, God is the unltimate hippie. Well, I think Proverbs speaks to that concern, as well:

Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.
Proverbs 14:9
The Lord tears down the house of the proud but maintains the widow's boundaries.
Proverbs 15:25

And, there again, I think we should understand "the Lord tears down" as an indication of the teleological end of the proud fool rather than as an external punishment. A proud Newton was not being punished by gravity for foolishly and stupidly believing in ancient, superstitious, teleological fables. Instead, David - the guy who taught the guy who wrote the above-quoted Proverbs - would be quick to note that not seeing and avoiding death as a teleological end to our path is precisely what defines the proud fool as such.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ...."Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:3‭, ‬5

So, which authority figure do we identify with? David or Newton? Which path do we take? "Choose ye this day..." We see what end came to Goliath.