Tuesday, December 31, 2019

I. Howard Marshall on the Wrath of God


Many, including some Latter-day Saints, tend to shy away from passages that speak of God  having genuine wrath and the concept of “propitiation.” For a fuller discussion, see Critique of “The Christ Who Heals”. I. Howard Marshall wrote the following points about how to approach God’s wrath which is rather apropos:

5. God’s wrath is not arbitrary, uncontrolled rage. There is a tendency on the part of critics to understanding the divine feeling of wrath by analogy with a human emotion. Human anger may be arbitrary: it may burst out for no reasonable cause, it may be uncontrolled and intemperate and not know when to stop, it may be disproportionate to the offence, and it may be irrational in that it somehow gives satisfaction to the wrathful person, as when I deal with my frustration by shouting at my computer. Whatever we may make of some of the more difficult material in the Old Testament, which I leave to others more competent than myself to discuss, the New Testament does not ascribe such arbitrariness and selfish uncontrolled anger to God. To use such a term as “fury,” although it is found in Scripture, is to run the risk of misunderstanding. When Paul forbids the human activity of taking vengeance and says “leave it to God,” it does not follow that divine vengeance is exercised in the same sorts of ways as sinful, human vengeance would be.

6. It is sometimes said what wrath if not a fundamental to the character of God in the way that loves is. It is true that wrath is kindled as a reaction to evildoers, but it is equally the case that mercy is kindled as a reaction to pitiable people. The criticism arises from failing to observe that love and wrath are not on the same level. The fundamental character of God is expressed in terms of love and holiness (or righteousness). But qualities express themselves in secondary ways in response to human sin, namely grace (or mercy) and wrath. You may say, if you will, that the wrath is called forth only when evil is present and to that extent is not fundamental, but precisely the same thing could be said about God’s grace which is necessitated only when sin causes his creatures to need it. (I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity [London: Paternoster, 2007], 22-23)

Elsewhere, Marshall, responding to those who make a contrast between God striking out in vengeance against sinners and letting people suffer the consequences which are inherent in their own sins, that:

this does not take into account passages that speak of God’s action subsequent to human sin (2 Thess. 1:6-9) or God expressing his wrath (Rom. 3:5), or God wishing to show his wrath (Rom. 9:22), or God’s wrath coming upon disobedience (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6), or the Old Testament language of God swearing in his wrath that is used in Hebrews (Heb. 3:11; 4:3), or God carrying out judgment. The term “vengeance” is not the best one for the holy response of God to sin, but the notion that God does not act in reaction to sin is false. (Ibid., 22 n. 39)