More on the Wrath of God as an Attribute
Posted by RazorsKissJan 10
It is sad to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the Divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight, they like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the Divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God’s wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.
Yes, many there are who turn away from a vision of God’s wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the Divine character, or some blot upon the Divine government. But what saith the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong unto Him. His own challenge is, “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, I live forever, If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me” (Deut. 32:39-41). A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; And because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner: Psalm 7:11.
Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if “wrath” were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His “severity” (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.
The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive.
That Divine wrath is one of the perfections of God is not only evident from the considerations presented above, but is also clearly established by the express declarations of His own Word. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18).
Again; that the wrath of God is a Divine perfection is plainly demonstrated by what we read of in Psalm 95:11, “Unto whom I sware in My wrath.” There are two occasions of God “swearing”: in making promises (Gen. 22:16), and in denouncing threatening (Deut. 1:34). In the former, He swares in mercy to His children; in the latter, He swares to terrify the wicked. An oath is for solemn confirmation: Hebrews 6:16. In Genesis 22:16 God said, “By Myself have I sworn.” In Psalm 89:35 He declares, “Once have I sworn by My holiness.” While in Psalm 95:11 He affirmed, “I swear in My wrath.” Thus the great Jehovah Himself appeals to His “wrath” as a perfection equal to His “holiness”: He swares by the one as much as by the other! Again; as in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and as all the Divine perfections are illustriously displayed by Him (John 1:18), therefore do we read of “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16).
The wrath of God is a perfection of the Divine character upon which we need to frequently meditate. First, that our hearts may be duly impressed by God’s detestation of sin. We are ever prone to regard sin lightly, to gloss over its hideousness, to make excuses for it. But the more we study and ponder God’s abhorrence of sin and His frightful vengeance upon it, the more likely are we to realize its heinousness. Second, to beget a true fear in our souls for God: “Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28,29). We cannot serve Him “acceptably” unless there is due “reverence” for His awful Majesty and “godly fear” of His righteous anger, and these are best promoted by frequently calling to mind that “our God is a consuming fire.” Third, to draw out our souls in fervent praise for having delivered us from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).
~ A.W. Pink – The Attributes of God – 16 – The Wrath of God.
4 comments
Comment by Jugulum on January 11, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Incidentally, as one of the people you’re currently interacting with, I can definitively say that I at least am not making an apology for God’s wrath, or “softening” anything about him. Because I’m saying exactly the same thing about his mercy.
If being “merciful” or “wrathful” means something like “is prone to show mercy or exercise wrath”, then I’m completely on board with you that these are eternal attributes. (Though “prone” isn’t the best word.)
But “mercy” and “wrath” are both things that require an object outside God, i.e. creatures. (Love requires an object, too–but love exists between the persons of the Trinity.) They involve God’s interaction with temporal creation–and they require sinful creatures. Whereas attributes like God’s righteousness and love do not require any creation at all, sinful or otherwise.
I’m open to the idea that “wrath isn’t an eternal attribute” isn’t the right way to describe these distinctions. But do you agree that these distinctions are valid?
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I know you aren’t – I just posted the majority of Pink’s section, for contextual purposes.
Take this for a second, and see if it makes sense.
When we argue, from Romans 9:22-23, for instance, that God is *more glorified* by the display of both wrath and mercy – we are incidentally saying something else – but I’ll get to that in a second.
Say an atheist presents the “problem of evil”. First, we take him to who God is, right? The usual response I give is that God is being glorified by both his wrath and mercy, since evil exists, when He wouldn’t have been, otherwise – right? This is a hypothetical, which I wouldn’t classify as a “truly possible” – just to head off a later objection 🙂 Our finite minds view certain things as hypothetically possible (due to our finitude) that aren’t, in actuality. From my Modal Collapse post: “While we can *conceive* of a world in which counter-factuals are “true” – this does not mean such a world is possible. It only means that we are finite, and think in finite terms.”
Since God is thereby glorified perfectly; due to His exercise of wrath and justice toward some sinners, and mercy and grace toward other sinners, my argument (since God is eternal, is immutable, is knowledgeable, is infinite, is perfect, is self-existent, self-sufficient, etc) is that it is not *possible* for an eternal, immutable (et al, for space constraints) God to do otherwise; as it would violate all the attributes previously listed. If (granting that God is all of the above) God purposes, decrees, and knows all things whatsoever that come to pass – perfectly – what He accomplishes is *necessarily* perfect. Since what He *has* done is necessarily perfect, to do less or more is impossible. Does that make sense? I rendered a full argument for God’s ordination of possibility itself in yet another post here: Attributal Argument for God’s Ordination of Possibility. What I’m saying in that post concerning possibility applies, I think, to any conceptualization of what is possible. What is actual, is the *only possibility*, due to who God is. It results in modal collapse, of necessity.
Let’s apply that argument to God’s demonstration of His wrath and/or mercy. Since God *always purposed to create* – since God *always decreed* that things would be exactly as they indeed are – hypotheticals not in accordance with what actually is, when applied to God, are definitionally incoherent. Why? Because – add this line to the argument I listed in the Modal Collapse post.
P1. God is necessary in all possible worlds.
P2. God is necessarily immutable in all possible worlds.
P3. God’s decree is immutable in all possible worlds.
P3a.God’s decree to pour out His wrath on sin to fully display His glories is immutable in all possible worlds.
P4. All possible worlds are identical.
C. Modal collapse results – there is one possible world.
Substitute “to show mercy on undeserving sinners” for “to pour out His wrath on sin” in the above. Does that make sense? I know, it’s not what we usually think of. However, that’s why I went after this subject recently. “Possibility” when applied to God, I believe, is very much equated with how we, as finite creatures, think about the future, and how we are “locked” in time, and change.
Does that clear it up a bit? Since God *cannot* change – since He has *always* decreed, purposed all things whatsoever that come to pass – there *cannot* be alternate possibilities concerning how God decreed to carry out His purpose. There cannot ever be a *different* decree, or purpose *possible*, on pain of a dilemma concerning between God’s immutability and eternity. I don’t like the word “paradox”, personally – and this, I do believe, is indeed something revealed to us. We have tons of books on the attributes of God. Since we know what God is like, we can know things like this about Him. It’s sort of brain melty, I admit – it melts mine more and more – but I’ve been tossing this at #pros for a good long time now, and haven’t had any contra responses thus far.
In other words, there isn’t some artificial distinction that requires us to say “God wasn’t wrathful until there was a creation” – what we CAN say is that “God did not exercise the attribute of His wrath toward sin in His creation *until* the time He had appointed to do so.” However – recall – God *is not within time*. There wasn’t “a time” when God was waiting to exercise His wrath. He is eternal – therefore, His wrath is exercised, from His perspective, as “presently” upon the days of Noah as it is “presently” upon the sinners eternally in the torment of Hell. If nothing else blew my mind, that does. Our problem at this point is attributing temporality to God, and seeing something temporally illogical about an atemporal Being. (Is your brain smoking a little bit yet? Mine is…)
Also; see the comments on the argument’s (linked above) post itself, on Choosing Hats. There’s lots of comments, and more explanations. It really makes my brain hurt – but it made the light bulb turn on for me.
Comment by M Burke on January 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Jug writes: “God’s righteousness and love do not require any creation at all, sinful or otherwise.”
True, however God LOVED the Son before the foundation of the world, so there was a basis for love pre-creation. Just a note. – Micah
Comment by Jugulum on January 11, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Micah,
Read two sentences back. I said that, too. 🙂
“(Love requires an object, too–but love exists between the persons of the Trinity.) “