Featured The Winepress of the Wrath of God.

What does the New Testament tell us about God's wrath?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

This passage is not necessarily prophetic, rather it is prescriptive. God's wrath is revealed, i.e. unveiled. It is a picture of the heavenlies as God's wrath is made known against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. This should cause men to recognize their peril and repent, but we know that is not usually the case.

There are times when God acts upon His wrath in time. God may act directly against certain sins of men and nations. The Bible also tells us that God is patient and longsuffering. But even though God may display restraint, for the time being, there is a coming day when He will pour out His wrath upon those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness".

 

I was thinking of a Scripture example to validate this statement, and took it from the viewpoint of immediacy and not presenting the long-suffering.

I was drawn to the scene of Leviticus 9 and 10.

Here is an example of God taking direct action.

Most of the examples of the display of God's wrath are when he withdraws protection from a person or people and allows the enemy to destroy.

Perhaps a NT example would be the pronunciation by the Lord that caused the tree to die in a single day.

Are there others in which immediate direct action was taken by God, without the use of anyone else?

How about the death of Ananias and Sapphira, or the death of Herod when the worms were crawling out of him before his head hit the cement? Are these examples?

More often the Scriptures give God using natural disasters, human armies, diseases, emotional destress ... to display his disapproval.

More often the Scriptures use the displeasure and disapproval of God in terms of His withdrawing support then in actually taking direct action.

The accounts of direct action seem to be when His own holiness is challenged in an overt direct affront at a time when all holiness is to be given to Him.

 

Jude 1:6 comes to mind when angels did not keep their own domain. Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly, Ananias and Sapphira as well as Herod. How about Nebudchadnezzer? Daniel 2:21 says that God establishes and deposes kings. Consider God's judgment on Jezebel and Ahab. I am sure we can come up with quite a few more examples.

 

Ultimately, when God withdraws His hand of protection and support it results in a terrible time.

However, not all such are the results of the wrath of God.

Job is an example of when God is not merely testing His own, but proving Himself faithful.

The Lord's Prayer has this phrase, "lead me not into temptation and deliver me from evil."

It is evident that such was included because there is a time that God is testing and proving the "metal" to his servant.

Did not that preacher long ago rightly state, "It is fearful to fall into the hands of an angry God."

Did not John ask the religious righteous, "Who told you to come out here and flee from the wrath to come?"

If the believer is scarcely saved, what will the ungodly do?

 

Agreed. However, some are. But whatever measure of God's wrath that is displayed this side of eternity pales in comparison to the wrath He will pour out at the final judgment.

 

This is interesting, because at the final judgment I don't see God pouring out wrath.

Isn't the final recorded wrath that of the bowls that are titled the bowls of God's wrath?

That final judgment seems to be a matter of casting into the eternal flames those that are condemned already.

It is as if God truly states, depart because I never knew you, and they are flung away from His presence. Why should He care? Why should he be enraged?

Has he not prepared the place of torment for such?

Does that place of torment carry the title God's ultimate wrath or some such?


For the reader, I am in no manner diminishing the torture nor the eternal suffering of the lost. I am merely reflecting upon the use of the word wrath and how it is applied to that final judgment.

 

How about Psalms 7:11:

God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.

Romans 2:5?

But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Didn't Jesus die for our sins because without bloodshed there is no forgiveness of sins?

I mean what of Romans 5:9?

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

I'll just link this website as if anyone bothers to read a tenth of it, they will fearful of the LORD.

What Does the Bible Say About Wrath Of God?

 

One's eschatological position effects how they view God's wrath being dispensed. There is a judicial aspect of God's wrath and a practical aspect. There is also a soteriological aspect when referring to penal substitution, but let us not open THAT can of worms.

 

I am assuming that at the final judgment you see God's wrath in a judicial aspect?

That may be, but what I see it as him unresponsive.

An example may be that pictured by the ancient emperors who when an uninvited guest came into the throne room the king would either acknowledge their presence by lifting his scepter in approval, or ignoring them at which point the uninvited would be dispatched and cast out of the kings presence. (Story of Ester)

The book of life is searched for permission to approach, and those not written are cast out of the presence into that final lake of fire (which is the second death).

Why would the God be enraged and have wrath? The judgment is already upon the lost. The punishment determined. The final estate of His wrath prepared.

 

Scriptures also state to us that when he returns, jesus will have his mighty angels deal out fiery torment and judgement on those who rejected Jesus Christ.

 

God is personally involved with dealing with sin, as he is not just idle against it!

 

I think the parable of the Ten Minas sheds some light on Jesus' perspective to those who did not want him ruling them as Lord.

Luke 19:20-27

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”


Like an angry king against a rebellion, Jesus will have those confined to hell thrown into the Lake of Burning Sulfur.

 

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

What city?:

20 And the winepress are trodden without the city, and there came out blood from the winepress, even unto the bridles of the horses, as far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs. Rev 14

 

Icon ask, "Does the wrath still abide on the unsaved?"

This presents a problem with those who embark on defending the PSA theory, more particularly those who are not reformed and do not hold to a limit of the blood atonement being only for the chosen.

For if (as they do teach) the blood was shed for all, then the wrath of God is exhausted and there remains no more wrath. Therefore, they must mark out some other wrath poured out in the seven bowls of the revelation then God's wrath.

The reformed who hold to the blood being limited to only the chosen don't face the problem because the blood was insufficient to exhaust all the wrath of God, and was deficient in being able to forgive all sin. The reformed do not like to admit to such, but it is never-the-less what they must agree by placing the limit upon the blood.

Knowing that both views are frightfully poor, there is a growing group of Biblical scholarship that has come to terms with the issue by presenting a better and more Scripturally aligned view.

In the essence of space, it is briefly this:

1) They recognize the statements of the gospels and the letters as factual, that the blood was for all sin irrespective of whose sin, the amount of sin, and the burden of the sin. All sin was forgiven by the blood.

2) They recognize the single evidence which is the determiner of everlasting estate is encapsulated in the word "belief."

3) They recognize the Revelation bowls are the wrath (passion) of God are yet future and are judgments the world and people of the world will yet experience.

4) They recognize that because there is yet this wrath, that the crucifixion did not have God's wrath poured out upon the Son.

5) They recognize that more and a continuation of discussion and discernment of the Scriptures must take place that what is the final resolve is built upon Scriptures alone.

6) They recognize the atonement was not only the blood, but all facets involved in the acquiring, delivering, and the objects and objectives.


The question that Icon ask would then be obliged to be answered in the affirmative.

 

Well, I came back and had to remove the agreement.

The blood shed on the cross was not a "covenant death" for the lack of blood did not cause the death. Christ caused his own death, he gave His life, it was not taken from Him by the events, nor the suffering, nor the lack of blood (which on the cross was little compared to other places).

The blood sprinkled upon the OT covering was for all the people in the land irregardless of whether they were jews or not, or whether they even considered the yearly sacrifice important.

By type, the blood was shed for all creation (John 3) without regard.

However, the death is a completely other matter. For it is by His death and resurrection that the believer sees the repeated message in the NT.

The emphasis of the redeemed is not just the blood - that importance is not diminished.

The emphasis of the redeemed is upon the death and resurrection - that is what the writers emphasized.

Now, I realize that some of the reformed still cling to the limit of blood as the limit of atonement. But just as back in the most ancient OT, it was not the lack of blood, but the lack of belief that separated the eternal estate.

Blood was shed for all, but not all believe.

That is evidenced in how John 3:16+ flows. The emphasis is not the blood but belief.