The Question of God’s Wrath
Eastern “Evangelicals” Contra (Orthodox) Universalists
Introduction
The intention behind this post is to demonstrate a sound view of God’s virtue towards humans, whereas rebut the claims affirmed by this Father Lawrence. He seems to suggest that David Hart and Brad Jersak are misleading many from the true faith, but this is an assertion from the fear of the unknown and fear of the indulgence of sin. Perhaps political, or perhaps spiritual. Either way, I am in no way advocating everything that Father Brad or David claim politically and spiritually. I make a case against the claims of this man, that is, Father Lawrence.
Rebutting the Punitive View of God (Italics: Lawrence)
We see all these underlying presuppositions at play in the new idea gaining ascendency in some Christian circles that God has no wrath, and that consequently all will be saved. Whether in the scholarly and multi-syllabic works of David Bentley Hart, or the more popular works of Rob Bell in his book Love Wins, or the tour-de-force of Brad Jersak with his insistence that the God of the Old Testament must be “unwrathed” to be understood in his A More Christlike God, we find the idea promoted that it is unworthy and inaccurate to declare that God has righteous wrath against sin and sinners. The argumentation is often pretty thin and the exegesis often atrocious, but it succeeds because it is based upon presuppositions which go unquestioned in our culture. Of course a God of love could never have wrath towards any of His creation! The Biblical texts which seem to suggest otherwise must be countered by other Biblical texts and then quietly put to one side. Gaps in the argument can be filled in by knocking down straw men (thoughtfully provided by fundamentalists), and by rhetorical flourishes and grand generalizations.
The earliest Christians like the second generation from the Apostles would argue that God is not a vengeful being against sinners or anyone. And the notion that everyone will be saved, even those in Hell is an apostolic doctrine which should not be shunned so swiftly out of resentment against sinners. What motivates these people to imagine a god that passionately rejects their enemies is based on resentment and not righteous anger. A righteous anger is rooted in love for the sinner, and seeks to purge the sinner out of his sin and not his final destruction. This is the nature of God, even if one agrees that God has an angry disposition, but it is not by definition vengeful. A vengeful soul repays evil for evil, but an angry saint overcomes evil with good as Christ exemplified and told us how the Father treats the wicked (Matthew 5:44–45; Romans 12:21). If this is not who the Father is, then neither Him or Jesus can truly be our moral exemplars, and this claim of Christ would be in vain. This person assumes that fundamentalists provide rational data, but oftentimes, they’re basically good at misrepresenting the data of the Bible.
As soon as one emerges from the cultural cocoon of modern thought one sees that the concept of God’s wrath against sin was not regarded by the ancients as an embarrassment to be overcome and denied, but as something to be emphasized and celebrated. That is because the ancients did not share the modern presuppositions which make writers like Bell and Jersak so popular. The ancients also, perhaps more tellingly, did not share our culture’s loss of a sense of guilt, and our consequent squeamishness about declaring God’s wrath against sin.
The ancients before Christ aren’t the type of people we should be emulating, but we should be emulating Christ. The notion of anger might not be an issue, but accepting its vengeful status is not the answer either. This kind of anger is chastised by Christ, and is not something that should ever be emulated by the believer lest it cause resentment (Matthew 5:21–22, 38–39). We need to be discerning and aware that anger rooted in vengeance is often in the false guise of righteous anger; it is a terrible moral issue that one must be careful in discerning. Never confuse righteous anger with resentment; it is easy to be deceived in self-righteousness.
Chrysostom, to cite but one example, believed that a good God must be wrathful against the impenitent who persist in sin and hardened evil. In his sermon on Romans 1:18, he said, “Since in general most men are not drawn so much by the promise of what is good as by the fear of what is painful, [Paul] draws them on both sides. For this cause too God not only promised a kingdom, but also threatened hell…” [To Be Continued]
The most typical manner of quoting John Chrysostom is something I have seen or heard from some Eastern bishops, but what’s interesting is Clement of Rome or Mathetes are never quoted despite the fact both of these people were earlier disciples of the Apostles. Clement states in his epistle to Corinth, “Let us behold Him in our mind, and let us look with the eyes of our soul unto His long-suffering will. Let us note how free from anger He
is towards all His creatures” (1st Clement 19:3). This quote seems to contradict Father Lawrence’s sarcasm of “Of course a God of love could never have wrath towards any of His creation!” When Romans 1:18–32 was written by Paul, it was intended to be a mock debate rather than be rendered as a teaching monologue, because Paul in the next chapter is critiquing the self-righteousness from the Judaic position against pagans or atheists who don’t know God (Romans 2:1–21). He confirms this even by saying, “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality,” and also when he says, “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth — you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?” (Romans 2:9–11, 17–21). It’s interesting how the theme of confusing righteous anger with self-righteous resentment continues to be displayed, even through Romans 1:18–2:21.
“For now [in this age] what takes place is for correction, but then [at the Judgment] for vengeance… Now, for many people, such things [i.e. famines, pestilences, and wars] usually seem to come not of the wrath from above, but of the malice of man. But then [at the end] the punishment from God shall be manifest, when the Judge, sitting upon the fearful tribunal, shall command some to be dragged to the furnaces, and some to the outer darkness and some to other inexorable and intolerable punishments.” Thus far Chrysostom, and his voice was hardly the only one who declared that a loving God will have wrath against those who have insolently scorned His gifts. Chrysostom here simply expressed the common teaching of the Church.
If God is love by nature, and love edifies by necessity, then His judgement is corrective, redemptive, and purgative against sin but never the sinner. It is completely illogical and inconsistent to imagine God teaching His followers to never be vengeful and resentment towards sinners in this life, and yet God acts vengeful and resentful towards sinners in another age, which is clearly not the God that Christ portrayed in His ministry or teachings. Why are trials and earthly disasters intended for moral purgation and correction, but God is only intended for vengeance and permanent destruction? John’s statement is bothersome, because this ironically makes God less moral than earthly disasters and natural consequences, even than the Devil if we consider him as well! Let us reflect what Mathetes says about God, “For God, the Lord and Fashioner of all things, who made all things, and assigned them their several positions, proved Himself not merely a friend of mankind, but also long-suffering [in His dealings with them]. He was always of such a character, and still is, and will ever be, kind and good, and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is [absolutely] good” (To Diognetus 8). Again, I’m still shocked as to why Father Lawrence does not consider any of these patristics I have quoted to be teaching what is true and fair. If the life, suffering, and even death of Jesus was meant to purify the sinner’s heart for redemption, why does every work of God not possess the same moral intention (Titus 2:11–14)? He ends the article by saying, “The Scriptures and the Fathers therefore agree: it is folly and the devil’s fancy to imagine that the Judge sitting upon the fearful tribunal could ever be “un-wrathed”. What we really need is not some happy decryption key by which we can evade the clear and emphatic teaching of the Scriptures, but a humble heart by which we repent, and seek mercy from the Judge before it is too late.” I think it is humble to not seek the final destruction of the wicked, and it is egotistical to believe that sinners should be in perpetual ruin out of resentment. If God tolerates such an attitude of resentful contempt towards sinners, then this inspires believers to not love our enemies as Christ commanded. Either God loves the sinner, or He doesn’t, because love edifies and this same love if manifested as anger must be morally purgative (1st Corinthians 8:1; 1st John 4:8).
The Nature and Identity of the Wrath of God
The wrath of God is not a divine manifestation that pursues the sinner’s ultimate destruction; it is not a vengeful impression of the Divine. It is not retributive, nor does it repay evil for evil lest it contradict the commands and nature of Christ. But if God has any wrath, it is morally corrective and purgative, because it is rooted in His primary essence. The wrath of God is also metaphorical in the sense that God does not inflict ontological evil, but He only gives and deprives ontological good yet only for redemption and purgation. God cannot be the author of evil, nor can He be the administer of darkness. The wrath of God is metaphorical in the sense that He is passive when evil befalls upon evildoers; it is something that we can derive even from the Hebrew scriptures.
Many are quick to assume that God destroys sinners by fire, but forget that the Devil is the destroyer according to Christ. God doesn’t need to destroy or punish sinners because sin and the Devil already fulfill this operation. God even uses the Devil to harm the sinner, in hopes of his restoration unto God (1st Corinthians 5:5). But many quote from Jewish stories like Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence that God punishes and destroys sinners, yet we must realize that the Jews always conflated God with disasters He didn’t generate. For instance, 2nd Samuel 24:1 says, “The Lord was angry with Israel again, and he caused David to turn against the Israelites. He said, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah’ ”. This passage suggests that God incited David to sin if we interpret it as literal; however, many are quick to defend God and by suggesting that He is not the Tempter but it is Satan according to 1st Chronicles 21. On the contrary, the text plainly says that God spoke to David and caused him to act against the Israelites, which is fundamentally a literal contradiction to 1st Chronicles. Ironically, when the text suggests that God tempts people to sin or to act in accordance with pride, fundamentalists try to oppose that notion, but when the text suggests that God destroys our enemies, fundamentalists passionately defend such a notion. This is because their defense is motivated by resentment against their enemies and evildoers in general.
Back to the Sodom and Gomorrah objection, if one takes a historical-supernatural view, one could decently argue that God didn’t actually destroy it, but the ha Satan. In this case, God removed His angelic protection from the twin cities, and was passive when the satanic angels decimated those people. This view seems rational, because even in the Book of Job, Job’s servants confuse the works of Satan with the fire of God (Job 1:6–17). The servants assume it was the fire of God that murdered his children, but according to the narrative, it was the ha Satan. But one will object to this mode of Christian exegesis and argue that God said to Abraham that He would cause it to perish; on the contrary, we can argue that God spoke to him based on what he understood. This same argument can also be derived from the Book of Job again since God never informs Job about the ha Satan’s existence. God spoke to them based on their limited understanding of the world.
Here’s another paradigm to consider: the historical-mythical view. This may seem to be an oxymoron, but it’s not. It’s more of a mixture or synthesis of the two. The Jews who wrote this story may have derived from some historical truths but wrapped them with a moralistic, mythical element. Rather than assuming God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or any angelic entity to be the cause, it was a rival nation or tribe that destroyed them. But why would the Jews illustrate a human event as a divine wrathful event? Because the Jews perceived God’s wrath or judgement in the form of rival nations oppressing and destroying cities and tribes. Jeremiah writes a scroll that says God will destroy Babylon, which we know wasn’t literally destroyed by God, but by the Mede-Persians according to Daniel (Jeremiah 51:60–64; Daniel 5:26–31). Even in Job 1:17, there were hostile men known as the Chaldeans, which was perceived as part of Job’s misfortune and as “the wrath of God”. Interestingly, even Isaiah 13:17–20 compares the destruction and misfortune of Babylon (i.e. the pride of the Chaldeans) with Sodom and Gomorrah’s demise. “And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans’ pride,
will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isaiah 13:19). How can the demise of the twin cities if it were destroyed by God be replicated by primitive human effort? Why compare a divine wrathful event with a human atrocity? Because that “divine atrocity” was merely a human atrocity. Jeremiah claims that God will literally overthrow Babylon, whereas Isaiah claims the same thing about Sodom and Gomorrah, but neither of these are literal. To be consistent with the data, it is more probable and reasonable to conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by rival cities, tribes, or by nation. As the Scriptures progress throughout time, the portrayal of God changes from God literally destroying cities into a transition where God is passive but rival nations overthrowing other nations is perceived as the wrath of God. Even Jesus warns the Jews of “the wrath of God” as being the Roman soldiers destroying the city of Jerusalem and her temple; in addition, Jesus compares the flood at Noah’s time (which was supposedly God’s wrath) with the wrath of Rome seeking to destroy Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37–39, 24:1–51). The apostle Paul states, “Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:2–4). And yet most Roman soldiers were depraved and still instruments of God, so then, the wrath of God is purely metaphorical in the sense that God allows sin and the devil to harm us, in hopes of ultimate redemption. “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1st Corinthians 5:5).
Final Verdict
If we conceive of God as this retributive and punitive being in our theology, we are more likely prone to doubt His forgiveness over us when we sin since it’s contrary to forgiveness, and we’ll even draw away from Him due to fear, and yet, John told us that if we love maturely, there is no reason to be afraid (1st John 1:18). To depict God as retributive in His anger not only contradicts the apostolic logic of “God is love and love edifies,” but it also compels one to fear this same God. It is purely illogical to assume that God needs to punish evildoers when sin and the demonic realm already follow this principle, and we should also be aware that in Hell, God corrects and purifies the sinner. It is the sinner’s reaction to the truth and fiery love of God that leads to his self-torment. Father Lawrence and every fundamentalist not only contradict the major and antique patristic tradition, but also contradict the logical consistency of Christianity when it comes to the image of God. Clement and Mathetes, who might have held impassibility as a doctrine, read the scriptures in a way that’s worthy of God similar to Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Brad Jersak, and David Bentley Hart. A punitive understanding of God’s wrath is naive, superficial, fallacious, and contrary to God’s benevolent nature. Let no one assume that His love repays evil for evil, because God is the supreme ontological good.
