"Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures

[agedman]

This thread is to explore the wrath of God.

Let me start by pointing out that Ephesians 2, 4, 5, 6 all use the word wrath.

For example: 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

It is not uncommon to read into the word "wrath" terms such as rage, fury, barely or out of controlled anger.

However, that is not (imo) the type of display or the thinking that should be attached to the use of the word "wrath" as it pertains to God.

Rather, the word should be taken as one rising in opposition to a mater (as one may object in court or raise objections to a proposition) and, having risen in opposition, then settle into an fixed passionate indignation when met with obstinacy.

God will prevail, and when He rises in opposition it should cause great alarm. If He settles in passionate indignation, there should be great dread to those whom such wrath is warranted. However, The ungodly tend to only fear the immediate, so the immediate thoughts of pains endured at death may bring a certain avoidance, and often factor into the dramas of retribution, and theatrics of evangelical appeals.

However, God being settled in opposition should bring great dread. But it doesn't. Why?

Could it be that the term, wrath, is not accurately communicated. Or, is it that the immediacy of obligations causes avoidance, not allowing for any consideration and regard to be given the one who has the authority and ability to destroy both body and soul.

The wrath of God allowed Him to be visited by and talk with Satan in Job, to be "tempted" in the wilderness, and provide a place of everlasting torment. None of which fit the term if one uses the thinking of barely controlled fury or rage. Such use is better for the spoiled brats who don't get their way.

 

[HankD]

Sodom and Gomorrah - a model of God's wrath poured out upon the sons of disobedience.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not uncommon to read into the word "wrath" terms such as rage, fury, barely or out of controlled anger.

So who understands God's wrath this way?

 

[agedman]

So who understands God's wrath this way?

I just got back from traveling with a preacher friend. I ask him what he would consider a good working definition or synonyms for the word "wrath" and particularly the "wrath of God" upon the disobedient and unbelievers.

His words: destruction, annihilation, rage, fury.

When I ask what does the concept of "wrath" mean to the typical pew sitting person and person on the street, he responded with the same words, and included the barely controlled or out of controlled anger. The thinking he gave was that the typical person considers the word wrath to be extreme venting of vengeance for some real or imaginary (real to the one imagining) wrong done. That wrath also includes some overt action of retaliation, vengeful response, punishment, ...

So, I included the words you put in bold.

Am I assuming by your response that you would agree with the OP?

 

[Yeshua1]

This thread is to explore the wrath of God.

Let me start by pointing out that Ephesians 2, 4, 5, 6 all use the word wrath.

For example: 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

It is not uncommon to read into the word "wrath" terms such as rage, fury, barely or out of controlled anger.

However, that is not (imo) the type of display or the thinking that should be attached to the use of the word "wrath" as it pertains to God.

Rather, the word should be taken as one rising in opposition to a mater (as one may object in court or raise objections to a proposition) and, having risen in opposition, then settle into an fixed passionate indignation when met with obstinacy.

God will prevail, and when He rises in opposition it should cause great alarm. If He settles in passionate indignation, there should be great dread to those whom such wrath is warranted. However, The ungodly tend to only fear the immediate, so the immediate thoughts of pains endured at death may bring a certain avoidance, and often factor into the dramas of retribution, and theatrics of evangelical appeals.

However, God being settled in opposition should bring great dread. But it doesn't. Why?

Could it be that the term, wrath, is not accurately communicated. Or, is it that the immediacy of obligations causes avoidance, not allowing for any consideration and regard to be given the one who has the authority and ability to destroy both body and soul.

The wrath of God allowed Him to be visited by and talk with Satan in Job, to be "tempted" in the wilderness, and provide a place of everlasting torment. None of which fit the term if one uses the thinking of barely controlled fury or rage. Such use is better for the spoiled brats who don't get their way.

Sin and evil goes against His very nature, against Him being Holy and righteous, and so there is indeed an active wrath of a Holy God towards those things. Jesus said to fear Him who has the power over us after death, and not those who can jsut attack us in this life only, correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

I just got back from traveling with a preacher friend. I ask him what he would consider a good working definition or synonyms for the word "wrath" and particularly the "wrath of God" upon the disobedient and unbelievers.

His words: destruction, annihilation, rage, fury.

When I ask what does the concept of "wrath" mean to the typical pew sitting person and person on the street, he responded with the same words, and included the barely controlled or out of controlled anger. The thinking he gave was that the typical person considers the word wrath to be extreme venting of vengeance for some real or imaginary (real to the one imagining) wrong done. That wrath also includes some overt action of retaliation, vengeful response, punishment, ...

So, I included the words you put in bold.

Am I assuming by your response that you would agree with the OP?

No, I have never met anyone who thought wrath meant out of control anger when it is applied to God. This thread is the first I have heard of such an idea so I asked for clarification. I know no one who believes that.

 

[agedman]

Sin and evil goes against His very nature, against Him being Holy and righteous, and so there is indeed an active wrath of a Holy God towards those things. Jesus said to fear Him who has the power over us after death, and not those who can jsut attack us in this life only, correct?

Agreed, however, part of the understanding of the word "wrath" as it applies to God, must show that God is not responding out of a rage and fury. Rather, in every case in which the punishment for evil is visited upon a people (whether saved or heathen) it is the result of their own making. Basically what God has done is stand in opposition, and settle into passionate indignation.

For example, the snakes were writhing through the camp. Those bitten were to die, unless they looked to that which God established as the stake of repentance. The position of God was opposed to that of the people, and His no longer hindering the snakes.

Another example, when the Hebrews crossed Jordan, they were told to destroy the heathen of the land, taking no prisoners, and removing even the animals. When this was not accomplished, the "wrath" of God was to stand in opposition to the full blessings of the land, removing in some manner His hand of protection from both environmental and social unrest, displaying his indignation and passion for righteousness.

You refer to the word "fear." This is not to mean one should run and hide in the closet, rather the word is that of highest respect and honor. For example, "A fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom...." The word "fear" is to be taken as that of giving the most extreme respect being in awe of the Lord. For it is that condition that security and learning begin, and wisdom, understanding, knowledge is experienced.

 

[agedman]

No, I have never met anyone who thought wrath meant out of control anger when it is applied to God. This thread is the first I have heard of such an idea so I asked for clarification. I know no one who believes that.

Perhaps then, you should take a small sampling of both believers and unbelievers about what they consider the word means. Then see if they modify the definition when it comes to the application of wrath by God.

See this picture of how the world consider the word "wrath" being on display. Most focus only upon the widely wide eyed John Brown. But look at the imagery in the background and the messages it communicates. Is Brown shown as standing in opposition and settled in passionate indignation? Or is there greater, almost uncontrollable fury being encouraged?

 

[Revmitchell]

Agreed, however, part of the understanding of the word "wrath" as it applies to God, must show that God is not responding out of a rage and fury.

No I do not agree with that. We will see that during the tribulation period.

 

[HankD]

Often times folks are severely offended by "the wrath of God" because they suspect they are going to be its recipient.

HankD

 

[agedman]

No I do not agree with that. We will see that during the tribulation period.

Revmitchell,

During the tribulation the "bowls of wrath" are most certainly poured out, however, the bowls are not buckets, rather it is taken that they are shallow sort of like large dinner platers. The picture is the serving up of the strong and passionate righteous indignation upon the world as the result of the obstinate rebuff of God's truth.

There is nothing of God responding to events out of rage and furry. Just the opposite.

The reading indicates that the bowls were already prepared and ready to be poured out.

Where is God? He is not the one pouring out the bowls, and there is no indication that He got off the thrown, went into heaven's temple and loudly sounded the command for the angels to get the bowls and pour them out.

The command was given, the bowls gathered up, and each in turn poured out. There is nothing to indicate God acting out of furry and rage.

The bowls are called "bowls of the wrath of God" because that is what they contain. However, do the bowls contain the total collection of the passionate emotional outbursts by God collected into bowls to be dumped as collectives upon the earth? Perhaps there is a different consideration.

But, a word for wrath as used with the bowls is anger, rage, fierce indignation. The bowls are the collection of these.

The bowls are not someone acting out of furry and rage at the time of the pouring, but the pouring out of the collection of anger, rage, fierce indignation.

Now I would present scenario that these bowls are called the bowls of the wrath of God, but do not contain God's wrath.

The thinking resides in the known attributes and character of God.

Because God is God, there is nothing that suddenly catches Him unaware, and therefore the wrath of God is not to be taken as Him expressing disappointment by being furious or enraged over something that He already didn't know would occur.

However, believers do not enjoy such insight and oversight as God. Therefore a case could be made that just as the psalmist asked that God collect his tears in a bottle and record the sorrows in the book that these bowls are not filled with God's indignation, but the rage, furry, sorrows, disappointment and torments believers from all ages have endured. God having completely collected all sorrows of His children in His bowls of wrath, then directs them to be poured all in turn collectively in just retribution for wrongs suffered by His children.

When God says, "I will repay," is it His sorrow, His rage, His furry... or that of the believer's that is taken into account?

Though there is no direct evidence by Scriptures of the scenario above, there is also no direct support for the bowls to be construed as containing other than God's complete passion and full compassion that the ungodly be deservedly punished for the unholy and ungodly treatment of God and His Children.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell,

During the tribulation the "bowls of wrath" are most certainly poured out, however, the bowls are not buckets, rather it is taken that they are shallow sort of like large dinner platers. The picture is the serving up of the strong and passionate righteous indignation upon the world as the result of the obstinate rebuff of God's truth.

There is nothing of God responding to events out of rage and furry. Just the opposite.

Well I just disagree with the down playing of God's wrath you are taking. The level of destruction that goes on with the bowl judgments is massive. The suffering that goes in during that time will be great and unmatched.

 

[HankD]

The epitome of the several layers of sin of unregenerate man is his fixed hatred of God, His Only Begotten, His creation and His glory.

In the Book of Revelation we see man's unregenerate hatred of God unmasked and stripped of his convenient religion/culture and its shallow politeness, charm and kindness.

Indeed God limits His patience but when the appointed time comes Sodom and Gomorrah will be mild in comparison to the day of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God..

Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Of course "there but for the grace of God..."

HankD

 

[agedman]

Well I just disagree with the down playing of God's wrath you are taking. The level of destruction that goes on with the bowl judgments is massive. The suffering that goes in during that time will be great and unmatched.

Is it that I am "down playing" God's wrath, or perhaps assigning to the bowls the actual cause for the word (wrath) in comparison to that used in Ephesians. The devastation and suffering intensity is unchanged. There is no down playing the effects.

What is changed is removing an assignment of a characterization that is inconsistent with the balance of The Father's revealed character in Scripture, particularly that given by the Ephesian writer.

Consider, for example, the final judgement. If there was a spot in which the Father would surely display the wrath as one might assign to the bowls, would it not be at that appointment when the most vile and wicked stand before Him? Yet, there is no such display.

Most of these viscously wicked aren't around at the time to have the bowls poured out on them, and some most certainly deserve that opportunity. And what is The Father's demeanor at that judgment?

I admit that I seek consistency in the account and in particular as it relates to the character and attitude of the Father. The bowls present an inconsistency if considered to be encassing the furry of the Father. What then is the need for the lake of fire? The bowls are empty, God is no longer furious.

The results to the world and worldly are the same, but it is more consistent that God's bowls of wrath are filled and heaped up with the sorrows endured by His children. God determining the amount each bowl holds, and appropriate time and place each bowl is emptied. Vengeance is His.

 

[agedman]

The epitome of the several layers of sin of unregenerate man is his fixed hatred of God, His Only Begotten, His creation and His glory.

In the Book of Revelation we see man's unregenerate hatred of God unmasked and stripped of his convenient religion/culture and its shallow politeness, charm and kindness.

Indeed God limits His patience but when the appointed time comes Sodom and Gomorrah will be mild in comparison to the day of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God..

Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Of course "there but for the grace of God..."

HankD

Hank, how does God limit Himself?

Can the unlimited be limited?

The problem of consistency begins with the opening of the Genesis. If in deed Christ was already crucified, then such vessels called "the wrath of God" cannot contain wrath from God as some would ascribe. For consistency demands that while the world was yet filled with sinners, Christ died. Consistency fails or the cross fails if God stores up His wrath on platters in the heavenly temple.

Rather, the bowls could, with just as much credibility, be called "the wrath of God" for they are God's to determine the value, the amount, the time and place of dispensing. Yet the contents be the sorrows the ungodly heaped upon the children of God from all ages.

There is no deminished results, and God's character remains consistent.

 

[HankD]

Hank, how does God limit Himself?

His patience, He often does not immediately give us what we deserve.

Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?

Can the unlimited be limited?

Yes in the sense of His longsuffering.

Also think of the kenosis in which the Logos the second person of the Trinity became flesh - a mortal human being subject to mortal death.

NKJV Philippians 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

The problem of consistency begins with the opening of the Genesis. If in deed Christ was already crucified, then such vessels called "the wrath of God" cannot contain wrath from God as some would ascribe. For consistency demands that while the world was yet filled with sinners, Christ died. Consistency fails or the cross fails if God stores up His wrath on platters in the heavenly temple.

Rather, the bowls could, with just as much credibility, be called "the wrath of God" for they are God's to determine the value, the amount, the time and place of dispensing. Yet the contents be the sorrows the ungodly heaped upon the children of God from all ages.

There is no deminished results, and God's character remains consistent.

I'm not sure what your complaint is but in any case what do you do with the state of the unregenerate who will suffer eternal punishment and separation from God? is that not an expression of the wrath of God?

An eternal demonstration?

Are you a universalist?

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Is it that I am "down playing" God's wrath, or perhaps assigning to the bowls the actual cause for the word (wrath) in comparison to that used in Ephesians. The devastation and suffering intensity is unchanged. There is no down playing the effects.

What is changed is removing an assignment of a characterization that is inconsistent with the balance of The Father's revealed character in Scripture, particularly that given by the Ephesian writer.

Consider, for example, the final judgement. If there was a spot in which the Father would surely display the wrath as one might assign to the bowls, would it not be at that appointment when the most vile and wicked stand before Him? Yet, there is no such display.

Most of these viscously wicked aren't around at the time to have the bowls poured out on them, and some most certainly deserve that opportunity. And what is The Father's demeanor at that judgment?

I admit that I seek consistency in the account and in particular as it relates to the character and attitude of the Father. The bowls present an inconsistency if considered to be encassing the furry of the Father. What then is the need for the lake of fire? The bowls are empty, God is no longer furious.

The results to the world and worldly are the same, but it is more consistent that God's bowls of wrath are filled and heaped up with the sorrows endured by His children. God determining the amount each bowl holds, and appropriate time and place each bowl is emptied. Vengeance is His.

What I see you have done is created a characterization of peoples perceptions of God's wrath and then out of the air created an argument based on that which is not yet proven. I know of no one who sees God's wrath as uncontrolled.

Saying the bowls are not buckets is down playing His wrath. Such a characterization is not necessary for your position nor mine. The level of devastation is the determining factor here. I see nothing inconsistent with God's character or His word.

 

[agedman]

What I see you have done is created a characterization of peoples perceptions of God's wrath and then out of the air created an argument based on that which is not yet proven. I know of no one who sees God's wrath as uncontrolled.

Saying the bowls are not buckets is down playing His wrath. Such a characterization is not necessary for your position nor mine. The level of devastation is the determining factor here. I see nothing inconsistent with God's character or His word.

Go to your language sources and see the use. The bowls are not buckets. Look online at some of the artifacts of the temple, and the "bowls" used for pouring. They are not buckets, but specifically designed that what is being poured isn't sloppily done. Was it missed that these bowl came from the heavenly temple?

Each bowl of the temple has a very specific target and designed for the purpose fitting for delivery of the contents to that target.

Next, you persist in stating I down play the matter is incorrect.

The effect upon the world isn't deminished in the slightest, but what is enhanced is the authority of God to collect the wrongs done to His children, and bestow vengeance for them.

There is no other place in the Scriptures were God's vengeance for the wrongs suffered by His own (especially in this age of grace) is completely repaid, and He is the one who promised vengeance was His to attend.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the bowls of the wrath of God are filled with the sorrows of his own children being poured out as vengeance.

As far as what characterizations I may have or not done, I was merely giving response to your questioning of the perspective associated with the word, wrath.

 

[Revmitchell]

Go to your language sources and see the use. The bowls are not buckets. Look online at some of the artifacts of the temple, and the "bowls" used for pouring. They are not buckets, but specifically designed that what is being poured isn't sloppily done. Was it missed that these bowl came from the heavenly temple?

What I means is the size of the bowls are irrelevant. Not sure why you are focusing on it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is it that I am "down playing" God's wrath, or perhaps assigning to the bowls the actual cause for the word (wrath) in comparison to that used in Ephesians. The devastation and suffering intensity is unchanged. There is no down playing the effects.

What is changed is removing an assignment of a characterization that is inconsistent with the balance of The Father's revealed character in Scripture, particularly that given by the Ephesian writer.

Consider, for example, the final judgement. If there was a spot in which the Father would surely display the wrath as one might assign to the bowls, would it not be at that appointment when the most vile and wicked stand before Him? Yet, there is no such display.

Most of these viscously wicked aren't around at the time to have the bowls poured out on them, and some most certainly deserve that opportunity. And what is The Father's demeanor at that judgment?

I admit that I seek consistency in the account and in particular as it relates to the character and attitude of the Father. The bowls present an inconsistency if considered to be encassing the furry of the Father. What then is the need for the lake of fire? The bowls are empty, God is no longer furious.

The results to the world and worldly are the same, but it is more consistent that God's bowls of wrath are filled and heaped up with the sorrows endured by His children. God determining the amount each bowl holds, and appropriate time and place each bowl is emptied. Vengeance is His.

Did Jesus suffer the wrath of God directed towards sinners then. while upon the Cross?