God's Wrath and Love

While I don't wish to argue with my friend Van because he is my brother, I don't want the issues he's raised to go unanswered.  I don't have time to fully answer each one (he's raised a book's worth), but I can at least illuminate one major point where I think much of the disagreement arises.  I am a learner, too, and I have modified my own views to take into account several Scriptures I hadn't considered closely enough previously before.

The primary disagreement between us seems to be about God's dealing with mankind throughout the ages.  But in essence, it is a disagreement about the very nature of God.  Does God deal with man primarily in wrath or love?  Is the propitiation of Jesus for everybody, or just for the elect?

Surely Van and I both agree that, as a perfect, eternal being, God does not change–His character is consistent.  So if His dealings with mankind have changed, it is not because God has Himself changed.  We know that God is good.  There are hundreds of verses about God's amazing love (Ps. 145:9; Lam 3:22ff; John 3:16; John 15:9; Eph 3:18-19; 1 John 4:8, 16, and 19 to list just a few).  We also know about God's His burning wrath from hundreds more scriptures (2 Chron 36:16; Neh 13:18; Ps. 7:11; Is 51:20; Nah 1:2; John 3:36; Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Thes 2:16; and most of the book of Revelation to list a few). But these two characteristics of God are harmoniously integrated in God's personality.  His wrath is an outworking of His great love.

If I love someone with a deep and passionate love, I must also hate anything that would hurt him or her.  God's greatest love is His own Self.  This is perfectly proper for Him because He alone is God and worthy of adoration.  This implies that He must absolutely hate and destroy anything contrary to His nature and character.  His love implies hatred for all that is not consistent with His own character.

Love requires wrath whenever the object of love is threatened.  And true, burning wrath requires love for its heat.  Love-inspired wrath will vigorously defend its dominion. In a very small and imperfect illustration of God's wrath,  I get angry at my children when I see characteristics in them that would destroy them.  In essence, I wish well for them, but sometimes my well-wishing takes the form of correction, and anger (properly placed) is quite appropriate.  When my son was little he didn't believe me when I told him that I spanked him because I love him.  He thought I hated him when I disciplined him.  Now that he is older, I think he really believes that I correct him out of love.  But he will not fully understand it until he has children of his own that he loves dearly and who stray from the safe path.  Then he will understand better the relationship of love and wrath.

John 3:16 tells us that God loves the world. Verse 17 tells us that God's purpose in sending His Son, Jesus was specifically not to condemn the world but to save it.  We were already under condemnation; we had already sold out to God's enemy, and God's wrath was already revealed (Rom 1:18).  But God loved the world He had made, and His love constrained Him to save it.

In fact, you could say that God's very integrity was at stake.  If He didn't send His Son to die (like a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, Rev 13:18) He would be inconsistent.  This is because God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil in the universe.  He is not responsible for the acts of evil, but He allowed it into His perfect world for His own (difficult to comprehend) purposes.  Sin could never have taken place if God had not created creatures with the capacity to sin.

Can we then blame God for all this?  No.  Because all the evil that God allowed in, He also paid for.  Every bit.  If there were some part of it He did not pay for, His justice would be in jeopardy.  In fact, because He is infinite and perfect, His self-sacrifice more than paid for the finite amount of evil in the world.  In my previous post titled, "The True Gospel" I mistakenly said that even the people who go to Hell go there with their sins "forgiven."  I should have said "paid for."  I have corrected this error, and I am grateful to Van for pointing it out. The point is that God's part in the process is done.  Now we must respond and receive what He has done.  Our sins are paid for, but forgiveness is incomplete (or perhaps ineffectual) until we accept it.

Because of Christ's sacrifice, God is able to deal with us in love rather than anger.  Previously, I wrote "now that Christ's sacrifice has been received by God as total propitiation for our sin and the satisfaction of God's righteous anger, God is not angry with anyone anymore."  That was a very informal way to say that God's anger has been completely satisfied by Christ's atonement, and everyone is potentially covered by this atonement.

Because God has essentially done His part and now it is our turn to do ours, I contend that God does not, in general, act in anger toward people until they make a final choice to reject God's remedy.  We see this in Scripture in at least two ways:

1. Immediate judgment triggered by a conscious choice of a sinful lifestyle
2. Final judgment when the time of God's favor expires

We see immediate judgment in many cases in the Old Testament, before the sacrifice of Christ.  But in the New Testament, we see very few.  One example is Herod who was killed by an angel of the Lord (Acts 12:23).  I think this is what is meant by statements like "filling up their sins to the limit." (1 Thes 2:16). There is a limit, perhaps known only to God, when a person has evidenced complete and final decision against acceptance of God's grace.  At this point, probably out of love and to limit the required punishment, God employs immediate judgment.  There's a fair amount of supposition here, but it makes sense, and I believe this is in line with what the Scripture says.

Final judgment comes after the age of grace where we now live.  Van takes issue with the Dispensationalist phrase, "age of grace" as unbiblical.  But I disagree that the concept is unbiblical.  Jesus makes a clear distinction between His ministry and judgment in Luke 4:17-21:

“The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.' Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.'” Luke 4:17-21, NIV.

Note that Jesus only reads part of the quote from Isaiah.  Isaiah, goes on to say:

“to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendour.” Isaiah 61:2, 3, NIV.

Why does Jesus leave off the day of vengeance?  The clearest interpretation I can see is because He has not come to fulfill that.  But He does refer to a future date, known only to the Father, when He will return as Judge and avenger.  During His trial before Caiaphas, Jesus pointed out that although they stood in judgment of Him now, He would at last sit in judgment of them, and they would see it.  I think the Scriptural support for an "age of grace," so called, is sufficient.  And during this time, although men do wrong, the books have not yet been opened, and final judgment has not yet fallen.

We must also separate the concepts of judgment and correction.  Correction is a gracious influence on the creature to choose God's way and abandon evil. Judgment is an expression of God's love for Himself by casting off all that is contrary to His character. God does not act in judgment toward His children. But he does promise to chasten them (Heb 12). Conversely, God neither chastens nor judges the world at this time.  But the time will come, and God will show Himself absolutely just in condemning all those who have not accepted the propitiation of Christ.

So, I believe the very consistency of God's own nature constrains Him to act according to wrath and love in perfect harmony.  He must take certain courses of action and avoid others, not because of some external influence, but only because He cannot deny Himself.  His wrath is an expression of His love, but for a time, His love overshadows His wrath because of Jesus completed work.  Others may disagree, even my dear brothers, but I find this the clear reading of the Word.  I pray that it blesses you.