Goodness, Love and Virtue (Version 3.3)

For the purposes of this paper Satanism is defined as the worship of and Prayer to Satan, and Witchcraft as the invoking, channelling and utilisation of evil spirits.

Not only has much of the Christian Church been blinded by modern materialistic paradigms that are totally inadequate for dealing with spiritual matters, we have been weighed down for centuries by the baggage of a simplistic reading of the scriptures. The church has for centuries been 'culture-blind', and has accepted certain anti-God patterns as 'normal'. Our pedestrian theologies have been easily subverted into accepting totally wrong principals, extending even to Crusades and Inquisitions.

The evil one has easily lured well meaning folk into his field of influence, and has gained disciples from different quarters of the Christian population. Those who carry substantial and unresolved hurts, those who have a tendency towards being self-righteous and judgmental, and those who are attracted to or addicted to power, have all been particularly vulnerable.

Christians have failed to truly understand that God is wholly good, and is a God of blessing.

If Satan walked about dressed in red with horns and a tail he would easily be identified. This seldom happens. Whilst Christians may be able to identify Satanism and Witchcraft in its more overt forms, form is immaterial as long as there is content.

Satanism in the Christian Church

God is wholly good, and is a God of blessing. There is no darkness in God. In failing to understand this, Christians leave a gap, or 'grey area' which those whose hearts are inclined to Satan, are very quick to fill.

Wherever those claiming to be Christians seek or invoke the 'wrath of God' on sinners, they are in fact invoking Satan. There is no wrath in God. Wherever those claiming to be Christians attribute such wrath to their God, one must question which God they are referring to.

Unfortunately it has not been uncommon to hear people within the Church attributing the AIDS virus, and other plagues, accidents and disasters to the God they worship. Nor has it been impossible to find 'Christians' praying for the God they worship to destroy those who are opposed to them either individually or collectively.

I am not seeking to put well-meaning Christians under condemnation. If you have invoked or worshiped Satan under the guise of 'the Wrath of God', you would not be the first well-meaning Christian to have done so.

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, You know not what spirit you are of. For the Son of man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Luke 9:54- 56

If you have been fed a theology that attributes wrath to God through a deficient and superficial understanding of the Scriptures, you should seek out teaching from competent Christian Teachers. Listen only to those who are prepared to give you the assurance that they know and believe in a God who is Good all of the time.

Parts 1 and 2 of this paper map out a basic theology of the Goodness of God and the Love of God.

Witchcraft in the Church

There are differences between Witchcraft and the worship and prayer to Satan. Where Satanism is the invocation and worship of Satan, Witchcraft has primarily to do with the channelling and utilisation of evil spirits.

Modern paradigms have no category for 'evil spirits'. Consequently for all who are subject to a materialist paradigm (as much of the modern Church is) witchcraft is difficult to come to grips with, and virtues and vices are simply rationalised as values, character traits, or emotions.

Jesus was certainly not in bondage to our deficient modern paradigms, and he knew full well that virtues and vices were indeed powerful spiritual forces. In the gospels he gives us an insight into two of the vices - lust and hatred.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28

Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15

Clearly in Jesus mind, these vices were something more than simple 'emotions' or even 'values'.

Witchcraft teaches its adherents a spiritual paradigm, and witches are taught the skills that enable them to utilise vices for power.

There is no need to go into Witchcraft methodology in great depth, suffice to say that a powerful witch is one who can contain within themselves great quantities of a particular vice, without it overtly manifesting or destroying them. To help keep such Vices under wraps a competent operator will generally have some pseudo-virtuous 'cover' (the wolf in sheep's clothing).

This two layer effect of vice beneath apparent virtue, is what the Bible refers to as a double heart. It is a condition prone to loneliness, as others cannot easily know the true person.

A person practising witchcraft accesses vices through sin (either the persons own sin or another's), which are concentrated, usually through 'cultured' physical or psychological hurt or pain that has either been inflicted on them deliberately by their peers, or life events. From this point, with some knowledge, the vice can be channelled strategically as power.

Outside the Church witches sometimes refer to themselves as either 'White' or 'Black'. White witches mistakenly believe that they can utilise these spiritual forces for good, Black Witches don’t. Given the mistaken beliefs of White Witches, it is therefore not strange that those practising the craft inside the Church sometimes even believe that they are serving God.

One of the most graphic examples of Christian Witchcraft I have experienced was at a church meeting where a number of parishioners had gathered to 'deal with' their Pastor. I was sitting next to the man in a circle when one particular parishioner let forth. Her words were bitter, but her words were only part of the assault. This woman had nothing against me, and in no way did her tirade even refer to me, however sitting next to this man, I could feel her words, and the bitter spirit as it flowed from her and impacted the Pastor. She significantly wounded the man.

This woman was subject to Chronic and severe spinal pain, and this was able to serve her focus of the bitter spirit and 'whammy'. This woman sincerely believed that her Pastor was in the wrong place, and in her own mind she was simply addressing the situation as she saw fit. She did not know what she was doing.

Unfortunately his type of situation recurs regularly within the Church.

If you are a well-meaning Christian and you recognise that you may have utilised witchcraft skills in any of your dealings with other people, I am not seeking to put you under condemnation. It is however important that you repent, and ask God's forgiveness. I have certainly needed to.

It is vital that Christians turn from any form of vice and embrace the virtues. The early Church understood this dynamic well, and the subject of Vices and Virtues as spirits will be dealt with in part 3 of this paper.

The Eternal and Sovereign Goodness and Love of God

Part 1 - The Goodness of God

Deep down, I believe that every human heart has a longing for absolute goodness and an unconditional love.

The primary message of the Judeo-Christian scriptures is that God is Good, God is Love, and God is eternal and sovereign.

Christian philosophical arguments for the existence of God posit such a sovereign and good God. But do Christians truly believe their God is purely good?

There are passages in the scriptures that appear to be out of step with the concept of such a good God. To put it mildly, there are passages that can at least cause genuine seekers of goodness and love to pause, and wonder whether Christianity's idea of goodness is something different from what they yearn for. There are passages where attributes such as hatred, jealousy, scorn, wrath, retribution and cruelty are all attributed to God. Attributes that appear to mitigate against 'goodness' as we know it, and that beg the question of whether it is appropriate to use our term 'good' to describe God. (see appendix 3)

Where Christians have had the courage not to just stick their heads in the sand, there have been a number of arguments and sophistries put forward in an attempt to explain away the problem.

Nevertheless the 'difficult' passages in scripture continue to cause many honest Christians to draw back somewhat from their God. Many Christians are left in some confusion, and with a nagging discomfort that can often hinder their ability to open fully to God in worship. These difficulties also compromise the ability of many Christians to freely receive the love of blessing of God, and to share his awesome goodness with others.

And some of us, unable to hear Jesus saying 'you do not know what spirit you are of ' (Luke 9:56) have embraced some very scary attitudes based on a belief that we were emulating an angry God.

The Trinity

For orthodox Christians, the Christian God is a Trinity of Love.

The very nature of an eternal and loving Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is such that God could only be eternally and wholly good and loving.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are a unity of infinite love, each abiding within the other, and all flowing their love freely and eternally between each member of the Godhead. Theologically, this unique unity of relationship is known as Coinherence (each abiding within the other) and Perichoresis (the eternal internal divine flow).

Orthodox Christians would not question this.

Given this is so, it is logically impossible that there could be anything that was not eternally good within the Trinity. I submit that it is impossible to conceive that there could also be an eternal and infinite flow of hatred, jealousy, Wrath, retribution and cruelty within such a God of love.

The Core Issue - the Scriptures

I believe that there is a theology of an eternal and sovereign, good and loving God. I believe that such a theology can do justice the words 'eternal, sovereign, good, and loving', is intellectually sound, and is honest enough to address the core issue at stake here.

The Christian God is indeed good, and there is nothing in God that is less than Good. This is known as true, not because of any subscription to a particular creed, but because of relationship. Through personal experience of his infinite mercy, love and forgiveness and relationship, we KNOW that He is good. No-one who has truly worshipped God, understood forgiveness, and experienced the open heart of Christ could ever report back that he or she discovered anything but goodness and love there.

The core issue as I see it is:

If we proclaim God as truly good, are we then required to substantially deconstruct scripture? and
if we do so, what claim to truth does the text have after such deconstruction?

Whilst I believe the answer to the first question is 'yes', I do not believe that any such deconstruction will adversely affect the scriptures claim to truth.

Before closing off at the thought of a 'heretical' challenge to the Scriptures, be very aware of the issues at stake.

For example, if you believe that the 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo was wrong, why do you believe it was wrong? Is even genocide 'wrong' per se?

Lets not hide ourselves from some stark truths.

Imagine you are a soldier in 'God's army' invading Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. You are sacking and burning Jericho and your Commander points you towards one particular building. You run to it, sword at the ready. The door is barred so you kick it in. Inside you find a pre-school, perhaps a Canaanite girl of eighteen, and a dozen or so 4 year olds in her charge. With a swift thrust of your blade, the older girl is dead, and now the 4 year olds are all huddled in a corner looking at you with well founded fear, their eyes pleading for mercy. (see Joshua 6 20, 21)

Who is your God, and what is 'good'?

A simplistic fundamentalist approach to scripture demands the acceptance that acts of total genocide were 'right' in certain times and under certain circumstances. (Read Deuteronomy 20 verse 16 -18, and the book of Joshua). If such genocide occurred at the direction of God, and God is good all the time, would not such action necessarily also be good?

Jesus attitude to Scripture

On face value the scriptures portray God as a God of Wrath and Vengeance, but then Jesus did not take scripture on face value.

The beatitudes clearly illustrate Jesus propensity for the deconstruction of Scripture.

The formula Jesus uses in the beatitudes in Matthew's Gospel is 'you have heard it said….but I say to you' or 'you have heard it said of old….but I say to you'. Jesus then proceeds to quote scriptures

For example

Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you….

The specific passages are

Matthew 5:21 - Exodus 20:13

Matthew 5:27 - Exodus 20:14

Matthew 5:33 - Leviticus 19:12

Matthew 5:38 - Ex 21:24

Matthew 5:43 - Lev 19:18

It is important to note that there is a clear prelude to the 3 Exodus quotes in Exodus 20:1. "And God spoke all these words, saying…"

Jesus does not even acknowledge this 'God spoke' clause, he merely quotes, and then uses the 'adversative primary particle' - 'but'.

Interestingly, the Matthew 5 :33 and 5:43 occurrences are not straight quotes from Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 does not mention hating ones enemies, and yet addressing this is Jesus main concern. Jesus does not differentiate straight scripture from popular interpretation, he merely says what he has to say, - against it.

Jesus was totally and utterly submitted to his Father in all things, yet in these passages one could certainly infer that there is not an overly exuberant identification with the Elohim of Exodus 21. He does not even justify his alternate view in the context of the New Covenant, he merely states his position as different to the old.

Jesus attitude to these passages was in keeping with Paul's view of the Law as stated in Galatians 3:19, i.e. that the law was ordained by Angels.

We will look further at the 'Elohim' in the next section.

The beatitudes are of course not the only example of Jesus paradigm differing from 'the law and the Prophets'. (See also the treatment of the woman caught in adultery, the treatment of Sabbath, Divorce, ritual cleansing etc).

Jesus often simply attributed the Law to Moses, rather than God. Matt 8 4, Mark 7 10, John 7 19, John 7 22. In the matter of divorce, Jesus refers not to God allowing divorce, but rather Moses - Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8

However he does make an interesting assertion in John 6 and places the law and scriptures in context - the legitimacy of the law and scriptures is purely in their prophetic speaking about Him.

They said therefore unto him, What sign will you show us then, that we may see, and believe you? What will you do? Our fathers ate manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. The Jews were quoting Exodus 16:4 (Then the LORD said to Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; ….) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world. John 6:30 33

The Temptation in the Wilderness can be interpreted not only in terms of Jesus own struggle, but a struggle for the scriptures, (shades of Jude1:9!) which of course, Jesus won.

In the Temptation, Satan did not show any particular aversion for the use of the scriptures. On the contrary, he was at that point clearly quite happy to attempt to claim the scriptures for his own ends.

The foundational lie (of the serpent in the Garden of Eden) was to question the Character of God.

In-so-far as the dominant interpretations of the scriptures have been a stumbling block for humanity seeing that God is only good, one wonders whether Satan is to continuing do the same.

Whilst Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the scriptures, neither did he come to validate the Law or to encourage scripture worship. Rather, he came to fulfil both the law and the scriptures.

Fulfil - (Greek pleroo - translated to fill up, to complete, to consummate)

Indeed he came to declare that the time was fulfilled (pleroo) and that the Kingdom of God was at Hand. (Mark 1 v 15)

Law is a response to sin. It encapsulates all the attributes of God that would be considered to be other than good. Law works on fear and guilt, and dispenses Wrath and death and punishment. Law is totally dependent on Sin for its existence. It too has neither power nor meaning where there is no sin, or where there is forgiveness of sin.

Galatians 3:19 What purpose does the Law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Deconstructing Scripture

In Luke 10 25 A lawyer came to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asked the question 'What does the law say - how do you read it?' The lawyer answered with the great commandment, and Jesus affirmed that he had answered well.

It is interesting to look at the proliferation of different Christian Creeds and denominations all of which are theologically at odds with each other, and all of which are supported by honest but different interpretations of the scriptures.

No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20 , we need Christ to 'open the scriptures' to us (Luke 24:27) through the Holy Spirit. We need to 'rightly divide the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2 v 13). An honest yet non-discriminating face value interpretation of the scriptures, without using Christ as our interpreting paradigm will result in a profound damage to our understanding of God and Goodness.

The fact is that even the most fundamentalist of Christians selectively and subconsciously deconstruct and interpret scripture. Catholics have been quick to point out that whilst fundamentalists affirm scripture must be taken literally, they do not accept the Catholic's literal interpretation of Christ saying 'this is my body' at the institution of the Lord's Supper.

From earliest times Christians have deconstructed the Old testament by 'spiritualising' most of it, and . (much to the annoyance of Jews) by substituting 'the Church' wherever there was a reference to the nation of Israel. When praying with the Psalms most Christians will censor the violence out, on basis of the teaching of Jesus to love our enemies. We certainly don't hear Psalm 137 verses 8 and 9 affirmed with the same gusto as the earlier verses!

We arbitrarily interpret and deconstruct and yet we pretend we don’t. We also fail to notice that even the Old Testament prophets substantially reinterpreted scripture. Isaiah rewrote Deuteronomy 23 verses 1 and 2 in Isaiah 56 3 to 7. In Jeremiah 31 29-30 and Ezekiel 18 2 we see a reworking of Exodus 20 verse 5.

Deuteronomy 23 verse 3, prevented descendants of Moabites entering the congregation of the Lord. Its proper application would have excluded both King David and Solomon. This of course did not happen. The whole book of Ruth is about the righteousness of a Moabitess, who was the Great Grandmother of King David. We read that God Himself picked David as King, in contravention of His own Law.

I do not deny that Scripture is 'theopneustos' or 'God-breathed' (2 Timothy 3:16). But then so is humanity, so is there any reason why scripture, like all of humanity should not pass through the fire of who God is?

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Our foundation is not the scriptures per se, our foundation is Christ who is revealed in the scriptures, and who has revealed God to us as wholly Good. Christ is our interpreting paradigm.

You Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And you will not come to me, that you might have life. "John 5:39-40

Creation, Freedom and the 'problem of evil'

How then do we deal with the fact that a sovereign and good God allows evil to be?

We must look at first things.

When God created, he allowed other than himself to be. As he was all and in all, it was necessary to allow a space within himself where being was free to be other than God. This is our created reality, and it is the fundamental issue of freedom that is the core of both our existence as other than God, and the possibility of Sin.

It is logically impossible for there to be a space for independent and free existence of beings other than God, and yet to still exclude any possibility of a situation arising that was not free to open out in directions other than God's direction. i.e. sin.

Sin was not allowed total freedom however, as the place of freedom was proscribed in time and space, being neither infinite nor eternal.

A creator God who is eternally and infinitely good and loving, seeks to have meaningful and deep loving relationship with his creation. He is not interested in creation kept on a short leash by such a spiritual lobotomy. It is our capacity to live within freedom that gives us our dignity.

To the extent that God enters the space to preclude freedom of will, he would logically proportionally reduce the capacity of those within that space to be free beings, independent of himself, and able to freely relate to him as free beings.

An understanding of this issue of freedom is important in understanding why there is evil in the world, and why bad things happen to good people. Freedom and liberty do not come cheap.

Looking at the Genesis story, we see original man and woman in open relationship with each other and with God, naked and not ashamed. Until the sin infection which brought shame and fear and covering, and the collapse of free relationship .

Being rather centred on ourselves, we look at the story and see that the sin infection damaged humanity, i.e. sin damaged me.

That much is true, but the damage was far more profound. Sin not only infected humanity, sin infected relationship, and infected the relationship between God and Humanity. This relationship was as much a part of God, as it was a part of humanity. Because God's love for humanity was eternal, and God could not simply dissolve the relationship, sin affected God in the area of his relationship with us.

This may sound heretical, but the logic is sound. Perception is part of relationship. We can only see God in the context of relationship, and all human relationships were infected with sin and its consequences. As a consequence we therefore (wrongly) see God Himself as infected by the (retributive) effects of sin.

Infected by sin, the 'entity' that was 'relationship', ceased to be what it was. Humanity was looking at a completely new dynamic, something experienced in a mixed perception of both good and evil. And the God we as humans saw within the context of this infected relationship, was not a purely good God.

There are attributes present in humanity that were not present prior to sin (e.g. shame and fear). But these are not ontologically human qualities. We also perceive attributes present in God, attributes that had not been there before such as wrath, cursing, and law. But not only are these not an ontological part of God, in reality, they only exist in the relational realm 'between' God and us.

Because of the sin infection of relationship, humanity can no longer see God as good, humanity now has a different vision. Previously only seeing Goodness within the protected environment of Eden, now humanity sees a mix of good and evil.

Genesis 3:5 For God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods (elohim), knowing good and evil. And indeed this is how we see God - 'knowing both good and evil'.

But it is important to restate. These 'post-fall' sets of 'sin/consequences of sin' attributes are neither ontologically humanity, nor ontologically God. They do not exist when sin is removed, and both sets of attributes are totally dependent on Sin for their existence. Sin thanks to the cross of Christ, is NOT eternal.

From the perspective of the nature of God, this is an important point. As previously stated, one of the fundamental aspects of God is that he is both infinite and eternal. And unless sin is eternal, these 'new' attributes are not. The attributes are merely the effects of the infection of the relationship, and though we attribute them to God, they have nothing to do with His essence. Goodness and Love are God's essence, Wrath is not. (We will look more at the aspect of relationship in Part 2)

Vices and Virtues as entities

For those who come from a society with a corporate as distinct from an individualistic social focus (e.g. most eastern cultures), goodness, is not generally understood as a separate and discrete reality, but rather it is seen as goodness in a context of, or in relation to. So too with the vices. Evil is not seen as an objective reality.

The influence of Eastern religious paradigms since the 1960s has contributed to a change in the way Western Christians understand the virtues.

The trend away from awareness of the virtues as legitimate spiritual entities had commenced well before this however. By the late 19^th Century the Moral Philosopher Frederick Nietszchke was already rejoicing over the fading star of what he considered to be the Platonic 'invention of pure spirit, and the good in itself'. And the avowedly anti-Christian Philosopher equated Christianity as 'Platonism for the people'.

Certainly, the idea of goodness as a distinct entity or virtue, has more or less been replaced in Western thought with a more amorphous concept. Indeed all virtues as eternal and objective realities have been displaced by relativistic and culturally and subjectively defined 'values'.

In this paper we are not only mapping out an objective realm that is distinctly different from modern Western paradigms and particularly the subjective Western moral paradigms and the idea of behavioural traits, we are also focussing on a distinction between such objective characteristics attributed to God, and his essence.

Essence and Attribute

Essence has to do with the eternal essence or nature of God, and is only Good and loving. Attributes are those aspects 'attributed' to God in the Scriptures and include not only positive attributes, but also entities such as wrath, jealousy, judgement etc. These aspects are purely reactive, and only exist because of sin. They are not eternal. Nor are they eternal as 'potentialities' within God.

If it were to be argued that wrath existed eternally within God's essence as a potentiality, it would need to be admitted that God shares this potentiality with sin itself, as clearly wrath exists as a potentiality within sin. Such a shared potentiality would subsequently constitute the ground of a union between God and sin. This is ludicrous.

Attributes can be understood as spirits or Angels, and can be placed within the context of a cosmology of multiple heavens. We will look at this further in Part 3.

Israel before the coming of Christ and the Redemption dealt with a 'mediating' Heaven that included Satan, wrath, law, and judgement. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, and the heaven that Jesus preached contains none of these. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus taught us to pray 'thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven'. The true heaven is in conformity to God's will, and God has an infinite will to goodness.

We deal with a heaven that is purely good, where the only attributes present are those in harmony with God's essence. There has been a change of mediator for us, and our mediator is Christ. Wrath, Law, Jealousy etc have been cut out of the equation through the work of Christ.

God's plan for creation is for it to resonate with the beauty of heaven.

A Change of Mediator

It was said of Moses that he saw God (Yahweh) 'face to face'. (Exodus 33 verse 1). Yet only at one point did Moses 'see' God, and he only partially saw Him, he did not see His Face.

Moses was informed that no man could see God's face and live, and even he who was the giver of the law had only and at one point seen God's 'back'. And its at this point in Exodus 34 verse 6 when Moses has his most intimate view of God we see only goodness. Merciful, gracious, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth.

After Eden and before Jesus coming, we were infected with sin, and God interacted with humanity via the mediation of angels. 'God 'is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity.' Habbukuk 1:13. God is holy and does not interface with evil.

God's only interaction with evil has been through the incarnation and Cross of Christ. Because of sin, prior to this point, humanity, (including the human authors of the Scriptures), HAD NOT properly seen God.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared [him].

Indeed, in preaching the Kingdom of God, Jesus was teaching people 'things that had been hidden from the foundation of the world'. Matt 13 35

The book of Hebrews states:

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2 I these days , he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things, and through whom he created the universe. Hebrews 1 1,2,

The law was a mediation between God and Humanity. We have already seen Paul affirming that the Law came by Angels. Stephen also states the same in Acts 7:53 - Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Paul is clear in Galatians that the Law only had a function until the coming of Christ and the dispensation of Faith. It is with Faith and the work of Christ that we can now directly apprehend God, and we come to know Him as only Good and Love.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Until Jesus Christ revealed God to us in his incarnation and crucifixion, we knew God only second hand via Angels, or the gods. Angels were the relational 'between', the mediator between God and Humanity.

The 'attributes' of God that we see portrayed in the scriptures such as Wrath, vengeance, retribution, jealousy are merely Angelic beings actuated as such by the fall. They were certainly portrayed as attributes or aspects of the Elohim, but they were those aspects of heaven that are as they are because of the sin infection. Again, they are reactive, they are not eternal, they are attributes that are totally dependent on sin for their existence.

We will look at the word 'Elohim' in the next section and see that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is consistent with this concept of mediating Angels.

The Old Testament God

For God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God (or gods) (Elohim), knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:5 is alternatively translated into English as either 'you shall be as gods' or 'you shall be as God, knowing good and evil' depending on the translation.

But God is Holy and does not interface with sin (Habbukuk 1:13) . Wrath, on the other hand, is in constant interface with sin.

Names in the Old Testament were important not only for identification, but more for describing an attribute of character. The latter point is seen in God's frequent 'naming' and 'renaming' of people to align them with a different attribute. Even Christ renamed Peter (rock) from Simon (stone).

There are a number of different names for God in the Old Testament. Names describing different aspects or attributes of God. 'most high', 'our provider', 'of Hosts', 'of Bethel', etc.

Elohim was one of the more common titles of God in the Old Testament. It has also been used generically (e.g. in Genesis 31 when Jacobs wives stole Laban's idols, Laban asked Jacob why he had stolen his 'gods' - his 'Elohim'). The suffix 'im' denotes a plurality in Hebrew (e.g. one cherub, two cherubim). Elohim is a collective noun. The word Elohim has also been translated into English as 'angels'.

Plurality is seen in Genesis 1 verse 26, Where the Elohim says 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion…..'

It is in the face of inferred plurality that we see the Pivotal scripture in Deut 6 v 4. stressing the 'oneness' of God. The name Yahweh, based on the verb 'to be' or being' was seen as unitive.

Hear O Israel the Lord (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) is one Lord (Yahweh). You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart….

This point is important, as I submit the old Testament revelation of God was inclusive of the Angels, not all of whom were or are permanent fixtures.

The scriptures speak of the 'goodness of the Lord' and also affirm that 'God is Good'. The scriptures speak of the love of God and also affirm 'God is Love'. The scriptures may speak of the 'the wrath of God' but I do not read them affirming that 'God is Wrath'.

Until Christ restored humanity's relationship with the Trinity, all the attributes ranging from love to wrath, were seen as 'God' by a humanity trapped within a 'good and' evil knowing.

The Cross and Redemption

The only time the Trinity interfaced directly with sin and evil was through Christ's incarnation and death on the cross.

It was in the crucifixion as he bore the sin of all creation that we understand that Christ experienced the so-called 'wrath of God'. But he clearly did not experience the wrath of his Father, but rather a separation from His Father. Bearing our sin he experienced our separation from God, his 'primal' cry was 'My God My God why have you forsaken me', not 'my God, why are you wrath with me'.

Those who hold to the heresy of the Wrath of God as part of the nature or essence of God have the need to compound this heresy with its bizarre cousin, a twisted view of the redemption. They believe that Christ came satisfy some debt to an eternal infinite Wrath of God within the Father, a Wrath which through humanity’s offending the righteousness of God, raged unplacated within the Father until Christ was sacrificed to satisfy its demands.

Imagine a God who was divided against Himself! Imagine believing the love of God was internally powerless and subservient to other aspects of God until divine retribution had been satisfied and had taken its pound of flesh.

To suggest that the Trinity incorporates those attributes associated with Wrath, and to even suggest that it was the Father's Wrath poured on his Son at the cross is to blaspheme the sovereignly good Divinity.

The Demise of Wrath

And on the cross Christ destroyed all our sin, once for all.

Where there is no sin there is no wrath, and consequently the entity known as 'the Wrath of God' is limited in time and space, and has nothing at all to do with the nature of the Trinity who is eternal. It is neither 'Good' nor 'Eternal', and thus fails the test of divinity.

Sin is not God's only enemy, he is just as concerned with destroying sin's consequences. Sin's wages. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death"

The negative and reactive characteristics in the old covenant revelation of 'God' are simply part of a sealed unit of sin and its consequences, or sowing and reaping, wrongly attributed to the Father, Son and holy Spirit, by humans.

The authors of the scriptures were inspired by God, but they had nevertheless not seen God (John 6 v 46), they had not seen past the separation between the temporal and the eternal. Godly men who had earnestly sought but who had not seen the face of God. Men who had certainly seen aspects of God, but who were unable to penetrate the veil of sin that separated us from seeing that there is nothing but goodness in God. Men sometimes more focussed on the interface between sin and the spirits of wrath and judgement, rather than the eternal goodness of God.

This sealed unit of sin and its consequences, the so-called negative characteristics of God, is akin to walls and the breaking of ones nose. The person who warns another not to run into a wall does not say "I am furious with you for running into that wall, I will now break your nose to teach you a lesson". The wrath experienced in the breaking of the nose is merely part of a sealed unit associated with a stupid action. Where there is no stupid action, there can be no thought of wrath either in the wall, or in the one who warns another not to run into walls.

This is the law of sowing and reaping. The law of sowing and reaping is merely a law, it is not God.

So too, The wages of sin is death Romans 6:23 is also the law of sowing and reaping, and not the judgement of a wrathful Trinity.

But it is even better than that, as the goodness and love of the Trinity eclipses the law of sowing and reaping through the free gift of Christ!

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The New Covenant

It was through his death, that Christ became the mediator of a better covenant. A covenant of direct relationship between humans and a holy, good and loving God.

Hebrews 8:6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The writer of the Hebrews (Hebrews 8:10 -12) goes on to quote the clauses of the new Covenant from Jeremiah 31 verse 31.

For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord;

I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And
they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The first covenant (The Law) came by Angels who mediated between us and God. The new covenant comes through Christ who provides us with direct access to the heart of God. Here we see no possibility of wrath because of the 4^th clause, and clause 3 speaks of no mediators. Christ is the mediator but he is also God!

A covenant is a legal document where one or more parties contract to do certain things, on the proviso that the others do certain other things.

The Old Testament covenant mediated by Angels basically stated that if the Children of Israel kept the Law of Moses, then God would look after them. They did not keep the Law and so broke the covenant. But that was not the end of the story. God makes a new covenant with us WHERE HE DOES EVERYTHING!

The only way we can run foul of this covenant is to not take hold of it, or to opt out of it by failing to extend to our brothers and sisters, the same courtesies God extends to us. We can do this by judging, or by failing to forgive (see Matt 7:2, 18:35), or by coming in between God and our brothers and sisters, and getting in the way of God's covenant relationship with them.

Many churches quote Jesus institution of the Eucharist every Sunday:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink all of it; For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:27 28

Unfortunately some churches don’t tell their people about this New Covenant. Instead of allowing the direct work of the Holy Spirit, they impose laws in breach of the first clause, their ministers continue to act as a mediator between God and his people in breach of the 3^rd clause. And some even threaten their people with a God of Wrath, totally at odds with the 4^th clause!

Satan's link with the Wrath of God

"I saw Satan fall like lightning."

Sin conjures wrath, and sin conjures Satan. Christ came to deliver us from wrath, (1 Thes 1 10) and Christ came to deliver us from Satan.

Just because the term ‘Wrath of God’ is coined in Scripture does not mean that Wrath is an integral part of God's nature. You don’t have to be a brilliant theologian to see this.

The phraseology of scripture may be poetic, but the linguistic structures are consistent with 'the wrath of God' being portrayed as a separate entity.

The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. Psalm 78:31

In the Old Testament an event occurred in the time of King David that was described in the Scriptures in two different passages, one in 2 Samuel, and one in 1 Chronicles. The 2 parallel passages deal with an incident where David numbered Israel, an action forbidden by the Mosaic Law, and an action whose consequence under that law was to bring on Israel the curse of the Law.

The two passages refer to the same event, one refers to the 'Wrath of God' the other to 'Satan'.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 21:2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know [it].

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 24:2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which [was] with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number you the people, that I may know the number of the people.

Satan had a different role BC, and at least at the time of Job was counted as one of the 'sons of God' and appeared in heaven.

In the New Testament Satan is portrayed as a roaring lion wandering around seeking whom he may devour. I would consider it is not unrealistic to see a nexus here, with the Wrath of God which 'seeks out' sin, and devours the unrepentant sinner.

When Jesus came he destroyed sin, and consequently those attributes that had been included within the dynamic of our relationship with God while sin reigned, ceased to have any place within heaven.

The scriptures speak of Angels being cast out of heaven at a certain point of time. I believe that point of time is where the cross of Christ impacts them. Humanity is lost in sin, so God becomes man, this man Christ Jesus chooses to become sin for us and faces the so called Wrath of God, takes its consequences upon Himself as an alternate 'sealed unit', and comes through victorious. It is not the Father's Wrath, it is not the Father's judgement. He comes to deal with sin and its linked reactive elements. The dynamic is Jesus sent by the Father to destroy both sin AND its consequences.

I submit that wrath is the embodiment of Satan. A body can be likened to a hearing for a word. A place for an entity within a particular realm. Our physical body is a place or hearing for us in the physical realm, a spiritual body is a place or hearing for us within the spiritual realm.

Satan was cast out of heaven. Revelation 12 9. 'Neither was their place found for them in heaven'

Satan is the Deceiver and the Accuser, and was described as being constantly before God accusing us of Sin. Using the paradigm of word and hearing of the word, the word of who Satan was in heaven, was 'accusation to invoke wrath'. Clearly he was not accusing us of sin in order for the mercy of God to hear and respond saying, 'yes they are sinning, they need my help' (which was nevertheless God's response) .

Before there was war in the heavenlies and Satan was cast out, there was a hearing for him. Wrath was his hearing, the source of his 'body', a dwelling for him in heaven. However Jesus came and took all our sins. Jesus and not wrath heard the accuser, Jesus heard the accuser in his body on the cross. The accuser has nothing new to say in heaven. Clearly, his word of deception was never able to be heard there. His word of accusation has been fully heard on the cross, with Christ becoming Sin for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) has made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

There is no longer any wrath in heaven that can hear him, those 'attributes' are gone. Wrath was cast out, there are only virtues in the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus preached. Consequently Satan has no hearing in the Kingdom of Heaven, he has no spiritual body or interface capable of providing him with bodily presence there. Hallelujah

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has only a short time.

At the cross the thing that separated humanity from God was addressed. Christ died for the sins of the WHOLE world. Heaven's relationship with humanity was placed on a totally new footing.

In the Incarnation, where the Second Person of the Trinity is fully man, humanity is offered the option of being IN CHRIST. God who is love has now made a way to reincorporate humanity back into the 'Coinherence' and 'perichoretic flow' of holy love that is the Trinity.

There is no place for any sin in this relationship, neither is their any room for fear, guilt, wrath, vengeance, retribution, jealousy and law. And this relationship is the only eternal reality there is.

1 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

A righteousness given (attributed), not earned.

The 'Job Principal'

It is also important to note the book of Job. There is an important principal in the Book of Job that is a key to an understanding of God as Good.

Job and his friends spend 40 chapters trying to work out why Job was suffering 'at Gods hand'. His friends wrongly insisted that he was suffering because God was punishing him for his sin. The final message to them all is that God is God, he has some very powerful creatures, God does what he likes, and who are we to argue with Him?

Whilst Job accepted his suffering as coming from God, and that God can do what he wants, we the readers are made privy to a little extra information. The very powerful creature responsible for Job's woes was not God but Satan. And the cause of Job's ills was an altercation between good and evil in the heavenlies.

This 'Job Principal' provides a precedent for care in uncritically accepting the term 'God' at face value in other problematic passages of scripture.

God gives his creatures freedom, and with this freedom, there is the (often actuated) possibility of abuse of this freedom. The second aspect of this 'Job Principal' is that God accepts full responsibility for everything his creatures do. In this case, God accepts responsibility for Satan's actions!

A legal analogy on the acceptance of responsibility may be helpful.

A Nuclear power station may have 'leaked' causing death and injury. The owner of the power station then declares himself bankrupt, resulting in the injured and the relatives of those killed having no redress to any compensation. However if the Government steps in and buys the power station, in so doing it also takes on its liabilities. The Government did not cause the deaths and injuries, but by its action it assumes responsibility, and those affected by the nuclear accident now have legal redress. When they 'sue' the Power Station, they now 'sue' the Government, even though the Government did not cause their injuries. The government did not 'have to', it chose to accept responsibility.

Acceptance of responsibility is seen at its most clear form in the Cross-.where Christ 'becomes sin' for us and takes away the sin of the World. The righteous dying for the unrighteous.

Hell and a sovereign Good God

Is hell a place of separation from God? Is hell a place where God torments sinners forever? When space time is finally rolled up what happens to hell?

I submit that if hell is a place of separation from God, then for such a place to exist in eternity means that God is not in fact eternal or omnipotent or omnipresent. Hell -' the place where God was not' would limit God. This is not a viable option. The familiar Christian cliché of hell as a 'Christless Eternity' is an oxymoron. There is no aspect of eternity that is Christless.

And if hell is a place where God tortures sinners forever, what does this say about the goodness of God?

I submit that in eternity, the fires of hell could only be the fires of the love of God. They could be nothing less. Whilst this does not negate torment, (there would be nothing more uncomfortable than to be in the infinite and immediate presence of God's love, if you did not love Him), such torment is purely the responsibility of the person who chooses to so resist and fight against God's love.

The Wrath of God and the Church

The Church from its apostolic days has never quite grasped the plot, and has been loath to turn its back on law, Wrath or Satan. As quoted in the Introduction, Jesus needed to specifically rebuke two of his closest disciples, James and John, for wanting to call down fire from heaven.

It is interesting to note that the disciples knew they had the capacity to call down fire. Indeed they were at a later point given the keys of the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind, and did in fact utilise the so called 'Wrath of God' on a number of occasions. Vis: Peter with and Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:4) Paul and Elymas the Magician. (Acts 13:8). Paul Utilised Satan in Church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and 1 Timothy 1:19. Paul also used the 'anathema' or curse on those who did not love Jesus in 1 Corinthians 16:22 and on those who preached a different gospel in Galatians 1:8, inspiring later generations to do the same.

So from its earliest days, many quarters of the Church have utilised ‘the Wrath of God’, and have utilised Satan.

The Catholic Church has however formally departed from the pronouncement of the ‘Anathema's’ (30 years ago at the Second Vatican Council). Many other Christians are still loathe to give up their claim to utilising ‘the curse’ for the selective delivering of their enemies or the enemies of the Church into the ‘Wrath of God’ and the hand of Satan.

It is interesting to ponder whether, if the Church came to a richer understanding and more powerful experience of the true presence of God as wholly good, it would be feasible to release any claim to the utilisation of the 'Wrath of God'.

Whilst it may be considered pastorally inappropriate and impractical, God's heart is shown in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. The Father in no way proscribed the son's freedom, even though he would have been within his rights. Instead he chose for the son to have a complete freedom that he might explore the furthest reaches of separation from his father and all his father stood for, in order that he might come to his own free realisation of where he truly wanted to be. There was no limit to the Father's grace

It would appear that many Christians do not understand this parable, and instead seem to often seek to proscribe the freedom that cost God so much. Christians appear to be very quick to embrace the tools of Wrath and judgement, law and punishment.

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Whilst God does not exist as an angry deity waiting to burn you when you sin, His people nevertheless do indeed have the spiritual capacity to vanquish sinners to the 'Wrath of God'.

Part 2 The Love of God

God as 'Lover' in the Old Testament

In the earlier section 'Sin and Relationship' it was suggested that humanity's sin not only infected humanity, it also infected God in so far as it impacted on the entity that could be called 'relationship'.

It was also stated that these 'impacted' relational aspects had nothing to do with the eternal nature of God, they were merely a reaction to sin, and like sin they were temporal. Yet they nevertheless impacted on our understanding of who God was, giving the impression that God was less than Good.

These effects on the relational aspect of God were dealt with by the Trinity through the Incarnation and subsequent events. Jesus dealt with not only sin, but also its relational consequences, often known as Wrath, retribution, jealousy, death etc.

Now the key area of interface between God and humanity prior to Christ, was the relationship between God and Israel. The key area of interface between God and humanity subsequent to Christ, was Christ and the Church.

And the key relational concept between God and humanity has of course always been love. Love is the 'between', love mediates.

God is Love

John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' declared 'God is Love' - in both in 1 John 4 v 8 and 1 John 4 v 16.

It is well known to most Christians that the Greek word used was 'agape'.

What is not so well known to most Christians is just what 'agape' means.

As a young Christian I was taught that 'agape' was a new word coined by the early Christians, as they did not want to use any of the existing Greek words for love because of their associations.

This is not true. Whilst Christian 'agape' is a kind of love distinct from any other love in human experience, the noun 'agape' existed prior to its use in the NT texts, and the word and its meaning would have been well known to the New Testament authors.

I was also taught that there were different words for love in the Greek. 'Phileo' meant brotherly love, 'Eros' meant erotic love, and 'agape' meant the love of God. This standard line is pretty much summed up in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the references to both 'Love' and 'agape'.

Love-

In Christian Theology, the principle of God's action and man's response. Of the words used in Greek for 'love', neither philia (dutiful or filial affection) nor eros (passionate emotion) is adequate to the Christian conception, which the NT expressed as 'agape', a word hardly used before except in the LXX……

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

'agape'-

The word which probably first occurs in the Septuagint, is believed to have been coined by the sacred authors from the verb agapao to avoid the sensual associations of the ordinary Greek noun eros.. It is used only twice in the synoptics (Matt 24 v 12 and Luke 11 v 42), but often in St John and Pauline (esp. 1 Cor 13) and Johannine epistles, and always of the love of God or Christ, or of the Love of Christians for one another…..

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

However, in my view, this falls short of giving the full picture.

'agape' and the LXX

The LXX or Septuagint, was the Hellenistic Jews Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. This was the Greek Old Testament around in the time of Jesus and the early Church.

And the LXX certainly does appear to be where the noun 'agape' first appears.

The verb agapao certainly was used in classical Greek literature, and is defined in Liddell & Scott Intermediate Lexicon: -agapaô- [I] of persons, to treat with affection, to caress, love, be fond of.

But other than a few very obscure occasions - one alluding to the Egyptian goddess Isis, (agapê theôn, title of Isis, POxy.1380.109) and another an erotic pet-name of a naked woman on a 5^th century BC earthenware pot, the noun 'agape' was unknown.

So then, if we go back to the Septuagint, and have a look at the passages, we should be able to get some context for this word.

And when we do, we find that more often than not, the noun 'agape' refers to sexual love:

(See Appendix 5 for 'agape' quotes from the LXX)

In Hastings. J Dictionary of the Bible under the reference for Love in the LXX we read:

All these varieties of love, human and divine, may in the LXX be expressed by the verb agapao and noun 'agape'. In the story of Samson and Delilah agapao describes sexual relationship (Judges 16 v 4, 15 not to mention Solomon's legalised lust (3 K 11 v 2), besides expressing love in its higher reaches…. In the Greek Bible in the form that it must have been known to the NT writers, agapao does duty for every shade and variety of love, for divine pity and preference for Israel right down to erotic passion. It is true that agapao is not the only verb to express erotic love in the LXX, for there are also pro-aireomai and enthumeomai (Heb hshk ethelo hps); but it is very commonly used to render Hebrew hb when the context makes plain that this very type of love or passion is intended. Nor has agapao the monopoly for rendering what may be described as reasoning attachment; thus the more usual verbs for divine pity are eleeo and oikterio. The noun 'agape' is usually connected with sex, or at least with the love of women; or it is a passion comparable in intensity with hatred; it is not at all a higher love than philia. Indeed in the LXX agapesis may be said to be a higher type of love than AGAPE (c.f. especially Hosea 11 v 4, Zephaniah 3 v 17, Jeremiah 38 (31) v 3)

Why the noun 'agape' for Christian Love?

Why did God or at least the New Testament writers, not do as the modern Christian Church reconstruction has inferred, and truly invent a word that had no sexual connotations, or in the very least use 'phileo' which had a far more 'brotherly love' connotation to it?

The simple reason is that sexual love is a good metaphor for the interface between humanity and God. God's primary metaphor for his relationship with Israel was not so much as a loving Father but as a sexual lover (though not of course in the standard physical sense).

Both Old and New Covenant relationships have predominantly been described in terms of sexual and bride/bridegroom love.

Old Testament

Jeremiah 2 v 32, 3 v 20 , 31 v 32, Ezekiel 13 v 32, 16 v 7-8, Hosea 2 v 2,

New Testament

John 3 v 29, 2 Cor 11 v 2, Eph 5 v 23, Rev 21 v 2

I believe there is a key to understanding the problem of the perception of an 'Old Testament God' in Christ's redemption of the Greek word 'agape'.

Love and the Black List

Now we will specifically look at those negative and reactive aspects that were portrayed in the Scriptures as Characteristics of God, which as argued in the First Section could only be seen as peripheral to the God revealed for the first time 2000 years ago, in Christ.

I so strongly believe that these negative characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity that I will put them forward starkly (and no doubt offensively to those who worship a God inclusive of Wrath). We will place them within a paradigm of Lover and Beloved to show that the resultant picture could not be an eternal loving and wholly good God.

As stated in the First Section, the human heart cries out for love, and a love that goes far beyond our normal experience.

There are men who react dangerously when love does not go their way. These are self-centred, possessive, and often dangerous men without sufficient depth of character to be able to deal with their emotions and work out the issues in the context of a failed or failing relationship, without resorting to violence.

Men who often wind up in our prisons, men who cannot cope with relationship breakdown and who hurt or kill their former lovers because they 'loved' them so much.

If one wanted to describe human male who had been cheated on or jilted by his lover, a man reacting in the flesh without constraint, I believe the following characteristics would certainly be sufficient.

Anger, Wrath, fury, jealousy, revenge, often non-specific and disproportionate retribution, hatred, revulsion, humiliating and shaming, violent, utilising cruelty, dealing in terror, and death.

These are certainly NOT the 'fruit of the Spirit', but they are all Characteristics used in the Scriptures (particularly the Old Testament) to describe God (See appendix 3). They are also in view of the revelation of Christ -clearly nothing to do with Him.

The psychological term is projection. These are deficient human projections due to a damaged perception of relationship, and the nature of true love between.

Humanity has experienced the wages of sin in our relationships and has attributed them to, and projected them onto God.

A new kind of Love

The key work Christ did as mediator was to destroy the enmity 'between' God and humanity. This is a very different situation to an enmity 'in' God and 'against' humanity.

The keyword is between. Christ came to destroy dualisms on all levels, to destroy dualism through love.

Again, lets go back to the beginning. In the garden of Eden, in original innocence, Adam and Eve had been open to each other, naked and not ashamed. After the sin episode, a key symptom of their death (the wages of their sin) was that they veiled themselves and became a dualism. Their love was compromised. Their understanding of love was compromised.

In the pitiful and gross story of relational degradation in 2 Samuel we see hatred only a breath away from 'love'. It is a metaphor of what had happened to relationship within humanity. Amnon 'loved' (LXX - 'agape') his half-sister, he desired union, but after raping her, he hated her. Subsequently Amnon's brother Absolom murders him.

Because of the fall, humans experience separation, an impotent yearning for unity, but only hatred and death in attempting to bridge the dualism outside of God.

But Jesus comes with a redeemed Love 'agape'. And this 'agape' is the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Christ instituted Christianity as a 'love' religion. I believe that Christ and the early Church considered it important to show that fundamental relational 'between' 'agape' which had been corrupted by human sin had truly been redeemed in Christ, and could be fully experienced by humanity without 'the corruption that was in the world through lust'.

In this experienced 'agape' of God it could not only be seen, but also exhibited that there was only love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control. There was no Anger, Wrath, fury, jealousy, revenge, retribution, hatred, revulsion, humiliation, shame, violence, cruelty, terror, or death. The latter traits were not considered to be the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

So the transformation of the Greek word 'agape' through the teaching and actions of Christ, was a metaphor for the revelation that God is only and wholly Good.

It is Christ's key desire to show us the reconciliation, the destruction of the dualism that is ours in sharing the internal love of the Trinity, the Perichoresis and Coinherence of the Trinity. Perichoresis and Coinherence are 'between' words. And it is here we can see the root of the sexual love metaphor.

Man and woman express their love sexually, by yearning to be in each other (Coinherence) and to flow love and life between each other (Perichoresis). This is the pattern of the work of the Holy Spirit both within the Trinity and in our redeemed relationship with God and with each other.

The true 'agape' is the true 'between' or 'mediation'. 'Between' is the work of the Holy Spirit, and Mediator is the role of Christ.

Celebrating God's Love

Beloved let us love one another for love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

1 John 4 v 7

It is in knowing and celebrating God's love or 'agape' that we both see and proclaim God as he truly is. A loving, eternal true and Good God.

The primitive church was perhaps more conscious of this necessity than we are.

Fully open to, and freely flowing love and goodness between each other, the Primitive Christians celebrated God's love both physically and spiritually. Filled with the Holy Spirit, shunning lust, and knowing 'agape' redeemed. Declaring the goodness of God through the birthing his virtues, the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Declaring the resolution of all dualism, and the total goodness of God.

Aspects that were central to the early church, but now rather obscured are predominantly those associated with openness, love and intimacy. They included the kiss of peace, the love feasts, as well as certain more controversial aspects.

Openness and intimacy in the early church deserves a study of its own, however a cursory look at the expression of Love in Primitive Christianity is worthwhile here. It is clear that Christianity was originally an 'agape' religion (See appendix 4 for a short synopsis of early Church Fathers on the Kiss of Peace.)

Since those early days, things have subsequently shifted into the realms of the lukewarm and the intellect. Whenever we fail to move in God's love, we fail to see the power of Christianity exhibited. Failing to rightly divide the Word, failing to truly embrace God for who he truly is as eternally good and loving, we fail to love and show goodness to each other.

We fail to exhibit the true God to humanity, Christianity continues to allow the portrayal of an 'Old Testament' God, and all the while humanity continues to vainly yearn for the revelation of a pure and eternal goodness and love.

Now is the time for Christians show the world who God truly is, and to destroy the intellectual strongholds that have blocked humanity's vision of the true God.

We must turn our back on wrath, law, and judgement, and proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God.

Part 3

Sharing with the Holy Angels - Idea, Sacrament and Virtue

Spiritual Warfare: I would not have you ignorant of his devices brethren

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Spiritual Warfare is not about calling the 'Wrath of God' down on sinners.

God's method is not to interact with or fight evil but to displace evil with good. Light does not fight darkness. God's focus is not on evil.

A definition of true spiritual warfare is more of a definition of love. Our goal is the extension of God's Kingdom, and his kingdom is like his nature - Good.

In spiritual warfare, we do not get angry and fight evil, and we don’t outsmart the devil, nor do we fight on his terms.

Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, nor are the dynamics of spiritual warfare anything like our normal perceptions of warriors. It works this way, and its very simple -

Our victory simply lies in 'a different spirit' and in 'a different word'.

Strip off the vices and put on the virtues. The virtues will transform any dark environment and circumstances, like light. Light simply displaces darkness, it does not fight it. So too do the virtues displace the vices when we choose life.

The enemies devices are demonic, the vices, and the negative ideas leading to a bonding with the dark side. Our weapons are angelic, the virtues, the creative ideas of God and sacramental unity with God. We either participate with either evil spirits (demons) or holy spirits (angels).

Very simple.

If we experience fear we have been hit. If we experience frustration, or if we feel down, we have been hit. If we have any pride we've been hit. If we experience any guilt we have been hit.

A hit by the vices and your mind will pattern out within the confines of that vice. You will not think straight and you will not be open to the ideas of God. Your mind will then be trapped in a treadmill with the same thoughts repeating over and over, wearing out a track within your mind and your memory. When you are in such a 'track' you will feel separated from God. If you are hit with guilt, you may continually play a tape of some sin you have not had resolved in Christ. If you are hit by a spirit of fear you may run over and over the track of the idea of recurring actual fear.

Similar tracks are established behaviourally by sin in our physical bodies, and these are also known as addictions.

The answer is not fighting, the answer is a different spirit and a different idea. God through the infilling of His Holy Spirit will strip the vices from you, thus freeing you from their manifestations (ideas) that haunt your mind and memory, or as sacramental actions (addictions) that haunt your body and your actions.

The Holy Spirit must be given freedom to clothe you with the virtues, to birth the virtues within you, to place God's ideas within your spirit. This enables you to live a new life.

God's plan is simple, we merely need to follow it honestly.

The virtues, Ideas, Sacrament

Virtues

The virtues are not merely emotions, neither are they at their most fundamental form, character traits. They are spirits. Virtues are spirits who are known with the most fundamental aspect of our personhood. They are not simply concepts known impersonally by the mind.

The virtues are the fruit or birthing of the Holy Spirit, they are ours through being 'born of the Spirit', or 'born again'.

Ideas

Good Ideas are not something humans create, good ideas 'come' by 'inspiration', and are embraced.

On earth as it is in heaven. Once we understand the fundamental goodness of true reality, we see that the good patterns on earth, do not just represent the good patterns of heaven, there is in fact a unity.

So too with the vices and dark ideas.

Ideas and virtues together with sacrament are the stuff of reality.

Ideas have traditionally been seen as the stuff of reality for philosophical idealists like George Berkeley and C S Lewis who use a basic paradigm of ideas and the perception of ideas as a base line for reality. All we experience or perceive as persons are ideas and emotions, and the more complex personal forms of which idea and emotion are the constituents.

(See the paper 'A Christian Cosmology' which addresses the principles of Idealism.)

Sacrament

Sacrament, can be understood as the visible form of an invisible reality (St Augustine), the glue that holds reality together. The links between realities that from a material perspective, don't seem to exist (i.e mind and matter etc) can be seen as a unity through an understanding of sacrament. (Sacrament is also sometimes referred to in Charismatic or Pentecostal circles as a 'point of contact'.)

Christ said he who has seen me has seen the Father. Christ was a sacrament of His Father. So too the virtues are a sacrament of their source, the Holy Spirit. If we have a sacramental understanding we can see the Father in Christ, we can see the Holy Spirit in the virtues.

Our actions can also be understood as sacramental. If an action is the manifestation of a virtue, and the virtues are a manifestation of God, then through our actions, people may see God.

"I will show you my faith by my works" (see James 2 14 - 26) need not be seen as putting works above faith.

A ‘physical’ action or a good deed is the manifestation or sacrament of the ‘personal’ virtue (e.g. faith, mercy, love etc.) that inspired it, and the person who co-operated in birthing that virtue in the recipient of the action. (The logic also applies in the negative with vices and evil actions). This means that freed from atheistic, mechanistic dead perception, an action or ‘physical’ good deed motivated by a Virtue, is a speaking or sacrament of that Virtue that can be heard through the physical body.

The (outward) sacrament is a sign of the signifying ’inside’ reality, and a participation in the reality of the inside unseen reality. What is seen is temporal, what is unseen is eternal.

Angels and Fruit

The Word is the source of countless ideas, the Spirit the progenitor of countless virtues. The source of the words and melody forming the song of God's Creation.

The principal Virtues include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, righteousness and truth.

These are described by St Paul as the 'fruit' of the Holy Spirit.

The Greek word for 'fruit' in the New Testament is 'karpos'. In normal Greek usage, the term 'karpos' could also refer to human progeny, as well as to the fruit of fruit trees. To understand the nature of the 'fruit' the context is important - you understand the nature of the progeny by understanding the nature of the progenitor. Jesus was refered to as the 'fruit' of Mary's womb, and the 'fruit' of his ancestor King David's loins, stressing that Jesus was fully human.

In the case of the nature of the Virtues, the progenitor is the Holy Spirit - the third person of the Trinity.

Rather than seeing impersonal emotions or behavioural patterns (the legacy of a western materialist mindset), the Primitive Church quite reasonably understood the virtues to be living spirits, often spoken of as feminine (e.g. Wisdom), and that holiness was vital to cultivating a relationship or communion with them. (see appendix 8 The Shepherd of Hermas)

The virtues could be seen in the context of active combatants of vice in the realm of human experience, as angels

ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to those who will inherit

salvation

Traditionally the Church has also understood the Virtues as one of the 9 choirs of Angels. John Tauler divided the 9 choirs of Angels into three hierarchies.

Ideas sacrament and virtue could be seen as synonymous with Tauler's three angelic choirs of the first hierarchy. (See appendix 7)

The battlefields

For the Christian the three principal battlefields have not changed since the time of the Primitive Church, even though our awareness of our weapons has become somewhat deficient since then.

They are:

each of us as individual persons,
the church,
society at large.

All these battlefields are subject to attack by the vices and dark ideas, and they are subject to the vices and dark ideas establishing beachheads and even taking over or at least influencing the nature of the entire entity they attack. Establishing thought and behavioural patterns. These battlefields can in like manner be liberated by the virtues, and ruled by the virtues.

Humans are also often involved in both processes. For an example a person wittingly or unwittingly practising witchcraft may channel anger or hatred towards an individual, either spiritually or spiritually and with a sacramental physical component of action. Similarly humans for example are commanded by Christ to channel love to both their brothers and sisters and to their enemies, both spiritually, and sacramentally through their actions.

Christ's wisdom is profound! Your love and the ministry of healing can actually go to the heart of the pain that all those who practice such witchcraft need to practice their art, and disarm them. If however you use the weapons of the opposition (e.g. hatred, anger, revenge) you will only intensify the 'pain' centre of such a person, and serve to strengthen that person in their craft.

The entire process of spiritual warfare for the Christian is tactical. It has nothing to do with human strength. It has to do with embracing virtues, and the ideas of God through the Holy Spirit, being filled to overflowing with the virtues in the Holy Spirit, and open to hearing God. It has to do with identification with your specific battlefield, and sacramental identification with God through union with Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. From this place we speak out words, and flow virtues both spiritually, and sacramentally as actions, within that battlefield.

St Paul describes certain virtues (truth, righteousness, faith etc) as a vital part of the armour of God in our struggle against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6 11). Again the clothing metaphor.

Corporate warfare

We were never meant to be undertaking Spiritual warfare alone. Even in the battle for our own body, we find that the love of God and our brothers and sisters is always there. We also find that the ideas and virtues are not dead entities, but we experience love from this source too, the very presence of God within the sacramental nature of true reality, that is the Kingdom of God.

The Person

(An alternate psychology)

How do the virtues and vices play out the battle in individual humans?

An example will assist.

A person assailed by frustration will find that frustration leads to other vices. It does not lead to virtue. Consequently a heart that is frustrated, but not committed to remaining frustrated can surrender to God, and open their heart to his love. The response of God will be his love, and within that love will come liberating ideas and the awareness of specific ministering spirits. For example frustration that has attacked both heart and mind will soon flee a human who in surrendering to God embraces Contentment and Truth.

Given contentment and truth are in fact spirits, fruit of the Holy Spirit, it is helpful to see them and relate to them as spiritual entities within God and not just abstract concepts.

Gentleness and patience are paradoxically also powerful virtues that displace the most ferocious of vices. They will surprise you. Are you feeling the assault of anger or lust? You should not fight it. Embrace God and His gentleness and patience with your heart. Stand back and watch a great mismatch.

In the presence of the Lord there is eternal joy.

Joy is an incredibly powerful virtue. Anxiety and Depression cannot exist in the presence of joy.

A person in good relation to virtues, and who constantly seeks to be free of vices will not experience loneliness. Once one experiences the defeat of loneliness following the principles of Virtuous Christianity one comes to understand the truly personal nature of the virtues. Loneliness is both an absence of personal communion, and a vice. It is only banished by personal communion, and it can also be banished in the flow of virtues. Company that is deficient in the virtues will still lead to loneliness.

The Church

(An alternate ecclesiology)

The Primitive church had a few advantages over its modern sister. Primitive Christianity did not only define itself by mere adherence to a creed. There was more to Christianity than mental assent. As stated in the previous section, Christianity was a love religion, love that manifested itself within a body and the flow of virtues.

All Christians have a personal responsibility to manifest the virtues in their own lives. In the early Church their baptism rite graphically portrayed the process of putting off the old man and putting on the new. Putting off the vices, and putting on Christ and the virtues.

Additionally, those who had been 'consecrated' had a specific spiritual roles and responsibilities.

* NB It is difficult to piece together the clues, so from here on in we enter the realms of the hypothetical.

It would appear possible that early Christians received a new name at 'consecration', that may or may not have been common knowledge

Perhaps Revelation 2 17 was utilising a metaphor that was already known in the early church.

To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no one knows other than the one who receives it.

Christians are referred to as living stones. Stones were what the living temple was constructed of, and the early church understood the virtues had an active role in this construction.

See Appendix 8 ( Shepherd of Hermas circa AD 150)

It is possible that 'a new name' given to a consecrated person by the Church may have been a specific virtue or virtues.

As part of the Life of the Church, the consecrated person would have had the responsibility to manifest such specific virtues as they had received as a 'name' on consecration. Manifesting this and adding it to and within the particular spirit and culture (The Angel of the Church) of the particular group of believers to which they belonged). The church would be powerfully influenced by sacramental lives of virtue, as these people were one with their brothers and sisters and freely flowing and manifesting their virtue for the benefit of all.

It is easy to see that such people would be very helpful if a particular person or indeed a whole body of believers were struggling under oppression from a certain vice or its associated manifestations. Those who were intimate with the particular virtues that were the nemesis of such vices could be called in to provide specialist ministry in the Holy Spirit. This dynamic would have occurred as a complement to those who would have specific 'Word' gifts who could be called in to preach or to speak out the Word which was vital to the specific needs of a particular situation.

All Christians both male and female were expected to speak out the words of God, and to flow and birth the virtues of the Holy Spirit. It appeared however, that in the Primitive church there were specialised ministries with the Word, and the Word sacraments as the focus of the consecrated males, and virtues and the virtue sacraments as the domain of the consecrated females.

With the passage of time we see an unbroken historical tradition of males having responsibility for the Word, and Word sacraments. However, less visible is the virtue thread. We have lost significant knowledge of the full form of the 'consecrated' Virtue ministry today. This is possibly as a result of male domination of the church and the values set because of this (ie that male 'work' is of higher value) and possibly also because the virtue aspects were less 'tangible'

We nevertheless can clearly see an unbroken history of consecrated virgins within the church, with both the world and the church being touched by God through their 'good works', (i.e their ministry within the virtue sacraments).

Society

(An alternate sociology)

Like the Church and churches, every group of people has a spirit or culture, and culture is to a group, what personality and Character is to individuals. Even as personality and character are formed and shaped by ideas, vices and/or virtues, so too is a culture. Cultures are fundamentally ideas and spirits.

Cultures have moral strengths and weaknesses depending on how they are in relationship to vices and virtues. Ideas are also the mark of a culture, both the ideas a culture embraces, and the ideas they reject. Some ideas will be immediately embraced by some cultures, which will be shunned by others, and vice versa. Good or Bad Ideas can be seen as seizing people or cultures, depending on their readiness via their links to specific related virtues and vices and their sacramental links. Sacramental links in the outworking of the actions of a culture, and in the culture's links with either the light or the darkness.

Victory is won in society at the level of the conversion of individuals. 'No man is an island'. A blessing to one person blesses all, and a curse on one person hurts all. Certain individuals and groups within society are more strategic than others in regard to the influence and impact they have on others. Sometimes they are visible leaders, but not necessarily. Societies change as their people change. Strongholds of vice and sin cease to control a city, where those who were formally bound by such vice and sin, have been embraced by a better idea and have begun to enjoy flowing in virtues.

Nothing is gained by the individualistic self-righteous affirmation that I am good and others are bad, or by criminalising the bad element. This changes nothing. Society must take ownership of its collective problems, and not just marginalise them. The fact is that we are one humanity, not just a collection of individuals.

In a culture where people hate, a murder is a manifestation of that disease. In a culture where everyone is consumed by greed, theft is a manifestation of that disease. In a culture where people are consumed by love and generosity we would see sacramental manifestations of a different kind.

The answer to all society's ills is conversion. Virtues displacing vices. Bad ideas displaced by good ideas.

The virtues of the Holy Spirit can easily flow where Christians have

an intimate relationship with God and
a commitment to flow out his goodness to all.

The ideas of God are not to be imposed like law, they are simply to be spoken out. You cannot legislate to stop hungry people eating bad food, when bad food is the only food they know. The ideas of God for any given situation will be creative, they will be new and fresh and attractive. People will not want to eat bad food if there is better food available.

There will also be sub-cultures within a society, and these need to be understood as separate spiritual entities, with their own idea/virtue/sacramental dynamic needs and vulnerabilities.

It is within the 'Angelic' dynamic of good and bad ideas, vices and virtues, and their sacramental links that we see the battlefield for spiritual warfare in society. Christians can flow in the Holy Spirit, in Word and in Virtue ministry. In His battle plans, God uses the principle of creation. The spirit broods, then the word is spoken. All warfare is co-ordinated by Christ and in the Holy Spirit, and is certainly not the job for individual 'lone rangers'.

On the idea front we see in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

We see the damage that sacramental manifestation of vice does to virtue in a culture in. Matthew 24:12

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold.

Conclusion

But now you also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Colossians 3:8 - 10

God not only wants us to put off wrath, we are told that in doing so we are being renewed in His image! There is no wrath in God. There is no judgement in God. Wrath and Judgement truly exist, but they exist external to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the key to understanding wrath and judgement , and love and goodness. Love and Goodness are within God, Wrath and Judgement are without.

Put simply, we could call this the 'Inside/Outside' paradigm, and the key is to be 'inside' Christ.

We are warned not to traffic in anger, and we are warned not to traffic in judgement.

Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall not be condemned: forgive, and you shall be forgiven:

Luke 6:37

We cannot take fire into our bosom and not be burned. No matter which side of judgement and wrath we are on, if we traffic with either, we traffic in death.

You may say 'Its not fair! I have been injured, and I demand judgement! I can quote chapter and verse to claim my right for justice and judgement on those who have hurt me!' Aren't the souls under the altar in Revelation calling out for Justice?

This may be true, but it is uncontested in all of Christendom that if the person who hurt you asks you to forgive him or her, then you must forgive, and he or she ceases immediately to be a candidate for any judgement. The scriptures also indicate that a refusal to forgive in such circumstances will place you as an unforgiving person on the wrong side of the Inside/Outside line.

Are you going to pray that the person who hurt you does not come to repentance?

I believe that we are faced with a challenge in acknowledging God as wholly good and truly loving. In this acknowledgement, we will need to totally reconstruct not only our ways of thinking, but also our relationship paradigms. Rethink our relationship with God and also with all other persons, both corporately and individually.

God's love is perfect, and Perfect Love casts out fear. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

If you believe there are parasites in your water supply, and believe that each time you drink there is a possibility you may imbibe such a parasite, you tend to be very careful about your drinking.

We will be a different people when we can drink freely from the streams of living waters, without reticence or fear that our next draft may contain a Wrath that we believe we deserve, and that deep down exists within the substance and nature of God. We will be on the first steps to a life functioning wholly in the Virtues.

We will not hold back on blessing others, wondering whether perhaps God wants to punish or judge them for their sin, or to teach them using cruelty, pain and suffering. We will know that God conquers evil with good.

We will drink and drink of God without any thought of holding back. We will enter the realms of infinite blessing. We will look at our neighbour and freely bless, knowing that blessing is the will of God for them.

We will know that the only thoughts that God has for us are goodness and love, - and we will not have some perverted view of goodness or love.

We will be a very different people.

The template or paradigm for interpreting scripture is the eternal love and goodness of God as seen and experienced in the incarnation, the cross and resurrection of Christ, and in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. God's goodness and love overtake and exceed our expectations of the words 'goodness' and 'love'. They do not fall short.

In the incarnation, with Christ coming as man, a way was made for the incorporation of humanity into the life of the Trinity. In the Cross, sin was destroyed. In the destruction of sin there is the consequent destruction of all response, consequence, reaction to, and Wrath against sin. In the resurrection the eternally good and loving God's sovereignty is displayed. Through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts.

The nature of God is clearly seen in Christ, in the description of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and in the description of God's Kingdom. There is nothing other than goodness and love here, and God makes it very easy to take advantage of His provision of love and goodness. We repent of our sin and we embrace and are embraced by Him and we share in His life. We are born again of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit is our spiritual body, and our interface with the Kingdom of God.

When we worship and love him, and we love our neighbour as ourselves, we will see the victory.

We will see the Kingdom of God come.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Ephesians 5:9 For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

I believe that God is asking us to let go of our fear of Him, and replace it with a holy awe.

I believe the challenge is to face the flames of hell in the sure knowledge of God's eternal goodness, and to be happy to leap in, knowing that all we will experience is the glorious, sin burning, holy 'agape' of God in all its beauty.

We will no longer be afraid to love or to be loved.

Appendix 1

Love

Romans 8:39 Neither height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 5:5 And hope does not make us ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto us.

1 John 4:7 - 9 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not knows not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1 John 4:16 -18 And we have known and believed the love that God has to us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgement: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4:12 No man has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Appendix 2: William Law - excerpt from 'the Spirit of Love'

William Law was a contemporary of John Wesley, and in his later life was influenced by A German Mystic by the name of Jacob Boehme. Jacob Boehme was seminal in William Law's formulation of a Theology which excluded wrath from the nature of God.

[Love-2.1-85] But I still ask, what must I do with all those scriptures which not only make God capable of being provoked to Wrath and resentment, but frequently inflamed with the highest degrees of rage, fury, and vengeance that can be expressed by words?

[Love-2.1-86] Theophilus. I promised, you know, to remove this difficulty, and will be as good as my word. But I must first tell you that you are in much more distress about it than you need to be. For in the little book of Regeneration, in the Appeal, in the Spirit of Prayer, etc., which you read with such entire approbation, the whole matter is cleared up from its true ground, how Wrath in the scriptures is ascribed to God and yet cannot belong to the nature of the Deity.

[Love-2.1-87] Thus you are told in the Appeal, after these two falls of two orders of creatures (that is, of angels and man), the Deity itself came to have new and strange names, new and unheard of tempers and inclinations of Wrath, fury, and vengeance ascribed to it. I call them new because they began at the fall; I call them strange because they were foreign to the Deity and could not belong to God in himself. Thus, God is said to be a consuming fire. But to whom? To the fallen angels and lost souls. But why, and how is he so to them? It is because those creatures have lost all that they had from God but the fire of their nature, and therefore God can only be found and manifested in them as a consuming fire. Now is it not justly said that God, who is nothing but infinite love, is yet in such creatures only a consuming fire? And though God be nothing but love, yet they are under the Wrath and vengeance of God because they have only that fire in them which is broken off from the light and love of God and so can know or feel nothing of God but his fire of nature in them. As creatures, they can have no life but what they have in and from God; and therefore that Wrathful life which they have is truly said to be a Wrath or fire of God upon them. And yet it is still strictly true that there is no Wrath in God himself, that he is not changed in his temper toward the creatures, that he does not cease to be one and the same infinite fountain of goodness, infinitely flowing forth in the riches of his love upon all and every life. (Now, sir, mind what follows as the true ground, how Wrath can and cannot be ascribed to God.) God is not changed from love to Wrath, but the creatures have changed their own state in nature, and so the God of nature can only be manifested in them according to their own state in nature. And, N.B., this is the true ground of rightly understanding all that is said of the Wrath and vengeance of God in and upon the creatures. It is only in such a sense as the curse of God may be said to be upon them, not because anything cursed can be in or come from God, but because they have made that life which they must have in God to be a mere curse to themselves. For every creature that lives must have its life in and from God, and therefore God must be in every creature. This is as true of devils as of holy angels. But how is God in them? N.B. Why, only as he is manifested in nature. Holy angels have the triune life of God as manifested in nature, so manifested also in them, and therefore God is in them all love, goodness, majesty, and glory, and theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[Love-2.1-88] Devils have nothing of this triune life left in them but the fire or Wrath of eternal nature broken off from all light and love; and therefore the life that they can have in and from God is only and solely a life of Wrath, rage, and darkness, and theirs is the kingdom of hell.

[Love-2.1-89] And because this life (though all rage and darkness) is a strength and power of life, which they must have in and from God, and which they cannot take out of his hands, therefore is their cursed, miserable, Wrathful life truly and justly said to be the curse and misery, and Wrath, and vengeance of God upon them, though God himself can no more have curse, misery, Wrath, and vengeance than he can have mischief, malice, or any fearful tremblings in his holy triune Deity.

[Love-2.1-90] See now, Theogenes, what little occasion you had for your present difficulty. For here, in the above cited words, which you have been several years acquainted with, the true ground and reason is plainly shown you, how and why all the Wrath, rage, and curse that is anywhere stirring in nature or breaking forth in any creature is and must be in all truth called by the scriptures the Wrath, and rage, and vengeance of God, though it be the greatest of all impossibilities for rage and Wrath to be in the holy Deity itself.

[Love-2.1-91] The scriptures therefore are literally true in all that they affirm of the Wrath, etc., of God. For is it not as literally true of God that hell and devils are his, as that heaven and holy angels are his? Must not therefore all the Wrath and rage of the one be as truly his {rage and--in Stanwood, but not Spencer} in them, as the light and joy and glory of the other is only his goodness opened and manifested in them, according to their state in nature?

[Love-2.1-145] Depart from this idea of God as an infinity of mere love, wisdom, and goodness, and then everything in the system of scripture and the system of nature only helps the reasoning mind to be miserably perplexed, as well with the mercies as with the judgments of God.

Appendix 3: Problematic Scriptures

Problematic Old Testament scriptural examples where 'goodness' is substantially different from the normal understanding of the word. (NB there are also examples in the New Testament).

Anger, Fierce wrath, fury, Exodus 32:10, Psalm 88:16 1 Samuel 28:18 2 Chronicles 29:10

Cursing, Leviticus 26:15 ff

Scorn, derision, Psalm 2:4 Psalm 59:8 Ezekiel 23:32

Jealousy, Exodus 20:5 Ezekiel 23:25

Revenge, Deuteronomy 32:35

A Justice System weighted towards men Numbers 5 11- 31

Returning evil for evil, able to be provoked, Deuteronomy 32:21

Often non-specific and disproportionate retribution, Leviticus 26:18 & 27-28 Exodus 20:5 2 Samuel 24:10, Including on children, Psalm 137:9.Isaiah 13:16-18

Genocide, Deuteronomy 2:34

Hatred, revulsion, Psalm 78:59 Psalm 106:40

Humiliating and shaming, Jeremiah 13:25-26 Jeremiah 23:39-40

Utilising violence Deuteronomy 32:42

Cruelty, Job 30:21 Isaiah 19:4 Isaiah 13:9 Jeremiah 30:14

Dealing in terror and death, Leviticus 26:16 Deuteronomy 32:25.

Appendix 4: The Kiss of Peace

The history of the Kiss of Peace within the Church is indicative of the paradigm shift from physical intimacy that finally saw the restriction and subsequent forbidding by the Church of the Love Feast. It also saw a return to the spirit/body dualism.

The primitive usage in the Church was for the "holy kiss" to be given freely between the sexes. Later (Const. Apostol., VIII, xxix) men of the laity saluted men with the kiss, while women kissed women.

This latter manner of giving the peace among the laity seems to have been maintained till the thirteenth century, when a substitute for the actual kiss was introduced in the shape of a small wooden tablet, or plate of metal. Recently a 'sign of peace' has been reinstated within the Mass with the advent of Vatican II.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia,

The Kiss of Peace, referred to in scripture was a key element of the life and love of the early church, and was one of the central modes of the physical communication of 'agape' by Christians.

Whilst the primitive Christians reserved much of their central experiences to secrecy, in the intimations of the texts that we have, we see an experience of beauty and depth of love and holy intimacy described, that many humans would not experience in sexual intercourse.

In the kiss, the action of the Holy Spirit enabled Christians to meet in divine and boundless love.
The kiss was freely given between all members of the church, both male and female, it was given on the lips, and was described as mystical, a uniting together and a merging of souls.
Christian women would creep into prisons to 'kiss a martyrs bonds', and the kiss shared by martyrs before death was seen as a consummation of their martyrdom. Christians had an expectation of receiving the kiss in fullness on a saints reception in heaven after death.
Shared Prayer and the sacraments were considered to be incomplete without the exchange of the kiss. The kiss was the seal of prayer. There were warnings about repeating a kiss merely to replicate the pleasurable feelings elicited, and warnings that the kiss should be given carefully and without defilement of thought.
By the kiss the strength of love was impressed. The mystery of the kiss was that it was the kiss of the heart and soul, and it could not be given without faith and love. The kiss had a sweetness through faith, love, and affection. The kiss soothed and levelled.
The kiss supernaturally gave grace and made peace. The kiss was a fuel for love, kindling a love in relationships implanted by spiritual grace, much stronger than the love associated with relationships implanted by nature.
The kiss was of a different character to kisses given in public by common friends. The kiss blended souls one with another, and courted forgiveness for them. The kiss spoke of souls mingled together, and the banishing of all remembrance of wrongs.
In the kiss souls were bound to each other. After an absence Christians would kiss each other, their 'souls hastening to mutual intercourse'. It was in the kiss that the workings of the soul were declared most clearly.
In kissing a brother or sister a Christian was sacramentally sharing in the Church's kiss of Christ. The Church had kisses as a bride. This kiss was described as a pledge of espousals and the prerogative of wedlock.

Athenagoras 177 (legat pro Christian 32)

Clement of Alexandria Paedagog lib iii cii)

Origen (in Roman lib x 33)

Tertullian (ad Uxon lib ii c4) (de orat c18)

Bona (Rer Liturg. lib ii c xvi 7)

Tertullian 'To his wife'

Cyprian to Sergius, Rogatianus, and the Other Confessors in Prison.

Cyprian in a letter to Moysius and Maximus

St Chrysostom homily 31

St Ambrose a letter to his sister XLI

The passion of the holy martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas

The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark

Cyprian to Fidus On the baptism of Infants

Cyril of Jerusalem Lecture 23 to the newly baptised

St Chrysostom Homily 30

Appendix 5: Some 'agape' quotes from The Septuagint

Jeremiah 2:2

I remember you, the kindness of your youth, the 'agape' of your betrothal, when you went after me in the wilderness in a land that was not sown…

2 Samuel 13:15

kai emishsen authn amnwn misos mega sfodra oti mega to misos o emishsen authn

uper thn agaphn hn hgaphsen authn kai eipen auth amnwn anasthqi kai poreuou

Then Amnon hated her exceedingly, and the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the 'agape' with which he had loved her…..

Song of Solomon 2:4

eisagagete me eis oikon tou oinou taxate ep¢ eme agaphn

he brought me to his banqueting house and his banner over me was 'agape'

Song of Solomon 2:7

wrkisa umas qugateres ierousalhm en tais dunamesin kai en tais iscusesin tou

agrou ean egeirhte kai exegeirhte thn agaphn ews ou qelhsh

I adjure you, Oh daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the Roes of the field do not stir up or awaken 'agape' until it pleases.

Song of Solomon 3:5

wrkisa umas qugateres ierousalhm en tais dunamesin kai en tais iscusesin tou

agrou ean egeirhte kai exegeirhte thn agaphn ews an qelhsh

do not awaken 'agape' until it pleases

Song of Solomon 8:7

udwr polu ou dunhsetai sbesai thn agaphn kai potamoi ou sugklusousin authn ean

dw anhr ton panta bion autou en th agaph exoudenwsei exoudenwsousin auton

many waters cannot quench 'agape' nor can floods drown it

Appendix 6: The 'Wrath' of Christ?

Some have argued that Christ exhibited a 'holy Wrath', therefore validating Wrath as a Character trait of God.

The passages usually quoted to back this contention include Jesus' Cleansing of the Temple (in John 2), and Christ's 'woes' to the Pharisees (in the latter part of the gospel of Matthew etc). Revelation also refers to the 'Wrath of the Lamb'.

We will address some of the misconceptions about these episodes and show there is a stark contrast between the spiritual dynamic involved in these episodes, and the so called 'Wrath of God'.

To be clear from the start, in both these episodes Christ shows himself strong and determined in asserting the ground he claims as his own, he is certainly not a weak man. However strength and determination do not infer Wrath.

The ground Jesus claims on both counts has to do with his Father's House, which is synonymous with the Kingdom of God. The traders and moneychangers in the temple were desecrating a sacrament of the Kingdom of God. The attitude of the Scribes and Pharisees was one of gatekeepers of the Kingdom of God who did not enter in themselves, nor did they allow others.

Jesus was not passive in the face of this travesty. However he resisted in a manner that could be compared to Ghandi's resistance of the British at the time of India's independence from the British Empire. Though Ghandi did not to take up arms against the oppressor, Ghandi's principle was that evil was to be strenuously resisted. His strength however did not lie in the use of force. (Interestingly Ghandi's handbook for his use of passive resistance was Tolstoy's 'The Kingdom of God is within you' - and Tolstoy sourced this from the gospels!)

…and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of your house has eaten me up.

John 2:14 - 17

Jesus was totally outnumbered when he drove out the traders from the temple, and he was not relying on physical or psychic strength to achieve his goals. Had he so wished he could have spoken a simple curse such as the one uttered over the deceptive fig tree. (Mark 11 v 13 ff.) The traders and moneychangers would have been as dead as the fig tree in seconds. But though he clearly had the power, that was not Jesus' way, Jesus did not curse people. He was relying purely on the righteousness of his position as a man with responsibility for his household.

It is also worth noting that, in the passage ' when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen' the Authorised Version wrongly translates the Greek word 'te' as 'and'. As a consequence we have for centuries had the specious inference that Jesus was using the whip he made on the humans too. The passage actually reads ' when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep, and the oxen'.

In the case of the 'Woes', again we are suffering from deficiencies in translation giving an inference that Jesus was cursing the Pharisees. This is not the case. The term 'Woe to You' is in fact not the curse it appears to be in English. The 'woe' - or 'ouai' in Greek is simply a statement of fact, and a primary exclamation of grief, not the calling down of 'woe' upon someone.

Mark 13:17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Can you imagine Jesus cursing pregnant women, and mothers with small infants?

Again if Jesus was cursing Pharisees, or laying the 'Wrath of God' upon them, they would not have stood a chance. By the end of his ministry there would have been no Scribes or Pharisees! Instead they clearly had what had previously been unproclaimed sin made clear to them, and as a consequence had an opportunity to repent. In the state they were in, and oblivious to their predicament, they would have been reaping Wrath as a simple result of cause and effect.

Likewise, it is ridiculous to accuse Christ of hating the Scribes and the Pharisees. Had he done so, under his own terms, he would have been guilty of murder.

By the end of his ministry there were still both Scribes and Pharisees, and at the end of his ministry Jesus had in fact born the penalty for their sin. Absorbing (should they take advantage of his free gift), the entire consequences of the sin he had denounced in them. His final prayer was 'Father forgive them, they dont know what they are doing'.

The pattern of the so-called 'Wrath of God' is clear, and it is foolish to consider attributing this in any way shape or form to Christ .

Sin results in Wrath, which in turn results in destruction. The Wrath cannot be separated from sin nor can it be separated from destruction, the three are an unholy unity.

In neither the cleansing of the temple nor the 'Woes