And Can It Be? (v)

Update & disclaimer: when I posted what's written below, I was under the assumption that Charles Wesley wrote these lyrics with the remainder of the hymn. It has since been revealed to me, thanks to conversation with and investigation by Jonathan Powers, that this verse was not in Charles' composition but must have been added sometime later, which would explain its absence in most publications of the hymn. This verse is included on this page, which has a large compilation of hymns.

Verse 5

Still the small inward voice I hear,

That whispers all my sins forgiven;

Still the atoning blood is near,

That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.

I feel the life His wounds impart.

I feel the Saviour in my heart.

This is the only verse that does not appear in the United Methodist Hymnal. I've a hunch that the reasoning has to do with the fourth line and the language of "hostile Heaven." [Update: it also appears that Wesley didn't write this verse but this was added sometime later.] My friend Jonathan, who is a worship leader and has studied at length about Charles Wesley, said that he doesn't recall ever having heard or recited this verse in worship/song. He was aware of this verse, but was unable to recall the lyrics from memory like he is able to for the other verses of this hymn. We'll get to the more unsettled portion of this verse in a moment, but let's take the images of this stanza in order.

The first picture we have is the gentle voice of assurance that "all my sins [are] forgiven." Here the author combines the Scriptural imagery of Elijah's encounter with God on Mount Horeb in 1 Kings 19 with what appears to be an allusion to the witness of the Spirit ("inward voice"). Sometimes, like Elijah, we expect God to reveal himself in the grandiose (an earthquake, a fire, a thunderstorm), but what we get is a gentle whisper. It's not that forgiveness didn't come at a great and messy cost (the cross), for it did, but forgiveness is often instilled into our hearts gently and quietly. At the heart of the Lord's prayer is a prayer asking for forgiveness. Immediately prior, Jesus tells us to pray in secret. When my son breaks a rule in the house and we get to the point of confronting his wrong, he apologizes and I tell him, "I forgive you" while hugging him. I don't shout it. Forgiveness is whispered because it is told in the midst of embrace.

The atonement takes center stage in the third and fourth lines. Now, I understand the reasoning for omitting this verse because hostility implies a lack of control in today's usage of the term. It conjures up an image of unharnessed rage and destruction. I'm not sure what sort of reception this language of 'hostile Heaven' had in the days of when this verse was added, but what is clear is that the editor here is alluding to the theme of the atonement as propitiating the wrath/anger of God. To clarify, the Wesleys did not contend that wrath was an essential or eternal attribute of God, but was the passion/expression of his justice and its reaction to sin. John wrote in a letter:

Although, therefore, I do not term God, as Mr. [William] Law supposes, 'a wrathful Being,' which conveys a wrong idea; yet I firmly believe He was angry with all mankind, and that He was reconciled to them by the death of His Son. And I know He was angry with me till I believed in the Son of His love; and yet this is no impeachment to His mercy, that He is just as well as merciful.

(Note how love takes center stage and remains God's reigning attribute!) Matt O'Reilly posted recently on the issue of wrath and that we must see that wrath is not solely an expression about the Father's hatred of sin, but that wrath also exists in the other Persons of the Trinity. So, properly speaking, it is not as though the Father is placing His wrath on the Son against the Son's will, but that God is taking the wrath upon Godself (or absorbing it?) in the death of the God-human, Jesus. In that sense, it might be best understood, as Charles puts it in this hymn, that wrath is 'quenched.' The demands of holiness/justice are satisfied because of the sacrificial self-giving of the Son.

This nuance causes me to wonder about the reaction against the notion of God's wrath so prevalent in contemporary theological dialogue. Could it be that certain theologians are reacting more against the implications of a split Trinity (in which the image of a father inflicting his anger upon his son in rejecting him/turning away from him/etc.) than the notion of anger itself? Perhaps not, but maintaining the unity of purpose of the Persons of the Trinity in God's rescue plan that goes through the cross, would be one way of avoiding the pitfalls of many problematic expressions of penal substitutionary atonement. (Click here to see a line from John Wesley that shows the unity of purpose in the Godhead in redemption.)

The final two lines of this stanza return to the inner working of salvation by the editor's appeal to the feeling of new life that the presence of Christ brings when he enters into our hearts. Again we see the beauty of paradox in the picture that Christ's wounds heal us and give us life, an image found in Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2. Wounds that heal. 'Tis mystery all!