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)
