Initial
Date: July 23, 2000; Last revision: July 25, 2000
The question of God's wrath (and
associated images) are a topic of frequent questions, ponderings, and
discomfort for many, and historically, a source of derision and disapproval
from non-Christians. This issue is sometimes stated as a contrast between Wrath
and Love, as this honest questioner notes:
With Galatians as my guide on Gods
Characteristics I do not understand justice that requires a putting aside of
most of the Holy Spirit traits and adopting a trait of the flesh (wrath).Why
must justice do away with Love, Peace, Gentleness, Kindness and adopt the trait
that is considered sinful (wrath)? Why cannot justice be dictated by these
traits instead of abolishing these traits?
Often, of course, the issue is
stated more starkly, with comparisons between God of the bible and angry Greek
deities, capricious (and bi-polar or manic) ANE gods, or the worst sorts of
humankind (those that lose their tempers when they don't get their way).
Unfortunately, the English language
and western culture clouds this issue a good bit, since the concepts involved
in the biblical portrayal of God (passages in which these words are used) are
difficult to translate into single words.
What this means for us, is that we
have to actually EXAMINE the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as
wrath*.*, jealous*, and veng-a-whatever, and see what they mean in context.
The three major terms occur in
various combinations (they seem to be closely related), but Nahum 1.2 is
perhaps representative:
The LORD
is a jealous and avenging God; the
LORD takes vengeance and is filled
with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.
So, let's go through them one at a
time: jealousy, wrath, and then vengeance:
..........................................................................................................................
But one quick piece of prolegomena
(I promise it will be quick, really): the bible consistently portrays God as a
passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief,
delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours
in the extreme. The bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the
Living One, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its
writers.
One scholar put it thus:
"The Bible speaks unashamedly of Yahweh's passion, presenting him as an intense and passionate Being, fervently interested in the world of humans. Not only is there no embarrassment on the part of the OT at Yahweh's possession of emotion, but rather, it is celebrated (see for example, 2 Sam 22:8, 9, 16; Ps 145:8). In fact, his passion guarantees not only that he is intensely interested in the world but that he is a person. This in turn opens up the possibility for communion at the heart of the universe. Therefore, his passion was seen to be continually linked with the implementation of his resolve, and in this, interaction with the world. The God of the OT desired fellowship and interaction with the other persons in his world, and his anger was seen to be part of the actualization of that desire. [NIDOTTE:4.280, s.v. "Anger: Theology"]
[This, I might add, is so fundamental to understanding the bible (and knowing God, obviously!)--although rarified versions of systematic and/or philosophical theology have been (and, are still) known to hold to varied forms of an 'impassible god'. Needless to say, such theological constructs have an interesting challenge in dealing with the wide range of anthropathic language in the bible, and with squaring with our actual experience of a Personal God in our lives. The philosophical issues involved here are not germane--the question at hand is how the biblical data portrays God.]
For all the emotions I can think
of, the bible takes the position that such emotions can be appropriate responses to situations OR inappropriate responses to situations (when
the emotion is deliberately sustained, of course). Pity can be quite
inappropriate (e.g., when it is the dominant emotion controlling how one deals
with active, willful, violent oppressors, instead
of for those being victimized by them), and outrage can be quite
appropriate in situations of moral and human atrocity (e.g., child abuse, rape,
violent crimes against the elderly, vandalism against the poor, extortion of
the helpless).
Likewise, the bible argues that
(like us people) emotions are not 'mutually exclusive and exhaustive' at any
given moment. Just as my mom could have felt affection, anger, compassion,
frustration, confusion, helplessness, hopefulness and despair(!)--ALL AT THE
SAME MOMENT--when I was still a teenager living in her home (embarrassed grin),
so too can we and so too can God. God is frequently described in these terms in
the Prophets--His love for His people Israel (compassion and affection) is
simultaneously experienced by Him as His anger (at their intra-Israel
atrocities) and His hopefulness (that they will 'wake up' to treating one
another better, in keeping with the Covenant contract they "signed"
together as a community!). Hosea 11:8ff is so very vivid (and moving) in
showing the struggles in the heart of God. There is no intrinsic contradiction
in ascribing multiple emotional states to a person, since we consistently
experience these in our lives. And God, as a Person, is apparently no different
in that respect...
For example, God is said to be
"angry with the wicked every day." Since "wickedness," in
biblical terms, is generally related to treachery, atrocity, and oppression, I
would HOPE God would be disturbed by this. But at the same time, the bible says
that God is "patient" with them (hoping they will 'come around' and
re-join the community in love and contribution) and even "nurturing"
(i.e., leading them/influencing them in that direction). His moral anger at
personal evil, of course, has nothing to do with Him being 'caught off guard'
or surprised by it(!), since His response is the treachery involved--NOT the
circumstances of it. Even my experience illustrates this aspect. I know quite
well that in the future I will
read (yet another) story of human atrocity, be it on an individual scale (such as rape, child
abuse, or brutalization) or group
scale (such as ethnic violence, religious persecution, or economic
exploitation), so there is no element of 'surprise' in my response when I
actually encounter the story. I KNOW I will be upset when I read it...
(see, I told you it was quick)
.............................................................................................................................................
First, JEALOUSY...
Jealousy is certainly an "odd" word to use
of God--especially as a self-description (Ex 20.5; Dt 5.9)-- since this word is
generally used negatively in today's culture and modern parlance.
1.
"Jealousy" (in the biblical sense) is essentially a passionate commitment
to someone, and their well-being:
2.
It can be morally good or morally bad, depending on the motive behind the zeal:
"Both Heb. and Gk.
words refer to an exclusive single-mindedness of emotion which may be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy
depending on whether the object of the jealousy is the self or some cause
beyond the self." [New Bible Dict.]
"God is often presented
as a jealous God in the OT (Num 25:11; Deut 6:15; Isa 59:17; Ezek 5:13;
38:18–19). Jealousy in essence is an
intolerance of rivals. It can be a virtue or a sin depending on the legitimacy
of the rival. God would allow no rivals in the covenant between him and Israel.
He bound Israel exclusively to his service and he swore to protect her against
all enemies. [WBC, @Nahum 1]
"The term may be used
in a purely descriptive sense to denote one of the characteristics of living
men (Eccl 9:6), or in a derogatory
sense to denote hostile and disruptive passions (Prov 27:4) or in a favorable sense to denote consuming
zeal focused on one that is loved (Ps 69:9 [H 10]). [TWOT, s.v.
"qana"]
3. It is important to note
that divine jealousy is part of the 'fire' that is ardent love. In the Song of Solomon, for example, the Beloved
desires to be the cause of such jealous zeal:
Place me
like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy
unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty
flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one
were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned.
(So 8.6f)
The Bible Expositor's Commentary described this:
"In Old Testament times
a seal was used to indicate
ownership of a person’s valued possessions. So the beloved asked to be her
lover’s most valued possession, a possession that would influence his thoughts
(over your heart) and his actions
(over your arm). Such a demanding
request required the explanation which she gave in verses 6b-7a.
"8:6b-7a. These verses sum up the nature and
power of the love depicted in the
Song. It is as universal and irresistible as death,
exclusive and possessive (in the sense of being genuinely concerned for the one
loved) as the grave, passionate
(as blazing fire) and as
invincible and persevering as many waters
and rivers. And all this is true
because love is supported by the Creator who possesses all power. The words like a mighty flame are, literally, “like
the very flame of the Lord” (cf. niv marg.).
Thus the Lord is portrayed as the Source of this powerful love.
"8:7b. The final statement about the love depicted in the Song is that it is
priceless. All one’s wealth would be totally inadequate to
purchase such love. In fact such money would
be . . . scorned, because love cannot be bought. Any attempt to
“buy” love depersonalizes it.
If love is priceless, how then can it be obtained? The answer is that it must be given. And ultimately love is a gift from God.
This is a beautiful picture of the love that God has for His companions, and puts 'jealously' into an entirely different light. It is not 'insecurity' or 'self-interest', but rather a powerful emotion in support of loyalty and intimacy.
4.
We often fail to appreciate the
intensity of this yearning of God's heart for us, but the OT
prophets understood. Hosea gives us a disturbing look at the inside of the
heart of God:
"But, besides using the picture of marriage, Hosea also used the picture of a father to describe Yahweh's unfathomable love for Israel, whom he loved in Egypt and drew to himself with bonds of love (11:1 ff.). Israel, however, turned away. So Hosea pictured the struggle, which he saw as going on inside Yahweh himself, as that between the jealous wrath of a deceived father and his glowing love: "How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel? . . . My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come to destroy" (11:8 f.). This description by Hosea of the passionate and zealous love of God is unprecedented in its boldness. For, according to Hosea, the God-ness of God does not express itself in destructive power, but in tender and compassionate love, which precedes any responsive human love, and which suffers through the faithlessness of his people (6:4) and does not hand them over to ultimate ruin. [NIDNTT, s.v. "love"]
5. Too often our English language makes
"jealous OF" the default meaning for
"jealousy"--instead of the biblical "jealous FOR". The "jealous OF"
meaning is tantamount to envy and is NEVER ascribed to God. The "jealous
FOR" (which seems odd to us users of modern parlance) is essentially the
same in meaning as "zealous for protecting/maintaining our enjoyable and
fruitful relationship of intimacy". The "jealous FOR" (in the
context of His love for His people) usage is the one used predominantly of God:
Then the LORD will be jealous for his land and take pity on his people. 19 The LORD will reply to them: ‘I am sending you grain, new wine and oil, enough to satisfy you fully; never again will I make you an object of scorn to the nations. (Joel 2.18, notice the link between jealousy and pity)
Then the
angel who was speaking to me said, “Proclaim this word: This is what the LORD
Almighty says: ‘I am very jealous for
Jerusalem and Zion, 15 but I am very angry with the nations that
feel secure. I was only a little angry, but they added to the calamity.’ 16 “Therefore, this is what the LORD says: ‘I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and
there my house will be rebuilt. And the measuring line will be stretched out
over Jerusalem,’ declares the LORD Almighty. 17 “Proclaim further: This is what
the LORD Almighty says: ‘My towns will again
overflow with prosperity, and the LORD will again comfort Zion and
choose Jerusalem.’” (Zech 1.14, note also the contrast between
"very jealous" and "very angry" and that it is aimed at
mercy and blessing for His people)
Again the
word of the LORD Almighty came to me. 2
This is what the LORD Almighty says: “I am
very jealous for Zion; I am burning with jealousy for her.” 3 This
is what the LORD says: “I will return to Zion
and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of
Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain.”
4 This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Once
again men and women of ripe old age will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each
with cane in hand because of his age. 5
The city streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there.” (Zech 8.1, note that this jealousy produces
closeness with God and benefits for His people)
Notice how different this meaning of 'jealousy' is from our modern, negative sense. This is a beautiful, passionate commitment to someone, not a petty, insecure, suspicious outrage.
[There is a distinct possibility that the translation "jealous" for the OT words should be dropped altogether, since the senses are semantically so far apart now: "More frequent are the passages that speak of God's zeal, when it means the intensity, the uncompromising involvement with which God deals with men. Some ETs have retained the possibly misleading rendering 'jealous'" (NIDNTT, s.v. "zeal")]
5. The NT Greek word for
this is a somewhat ambiguous word zeloo
(although this gets to the heart of the passion/energy in this concept). In
Classical Greek, it could be positive or negative, depending on the goals:
"Zelos (from the Attic tragedians on) has zeal as its underlying idea, and means an emotional going out to a person, idea or cause. There are two clear meanings depending on the object of the zeal. Where the goal is good, zelos means eager striving, competition, enthusiasm, admiration, and in suitable contexts praise, glory. In a bad sense, the zeal has had a wrong goal and has become a defect; it then means jealousy, ill-will, envy. Accordingly, zelotes, zealot, can mean one seeking to reach good goals or a jealous man, an envious man. Equally, according to the context, the vb. zeloo can mean be zealous, consider fortunate, strive after or envy, be jealous." [NIDNTT, s.v. "zeal"]
And both senses appear in the NT:
"Both the good and bad senses of the word group are found in the NT. The bad sense of jealousy is found in Acts 7:9 (of Joseph's brothers); 5:17; 13:45; 17:5 (of the Jews' jealousy of the apostles' success, though the concept of zeal for God may be dimly perceived). Jealousy and strife are a deadly danger to the continued existence of a church (Jas. 3:16; cf. v. 14, 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20). A Christian must not show jealousy but is to walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 20) and deal lovingly (Rom. 13:13). The NT takes up a critical attitude not only to ethically reprehensible jealousy but also to zeal for the law. Thus Paul rejects his previous zeal "for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14). It was just this "being zealous for God" (Acts 22:3) that had caused him to become a persecutor of the church (Phil. 3:6). As he looked back, he recognized that he had acted as a pious Israelite who was not enlightened, as was the case with the majority of the Jews in his time (Rom. 10:2).
"But zeal in itself is not rejected. Quite the contrary is true. Paul rejoiced that "godly grief" had produced repentance and zeal (2 Cor. 7:11), and he expressly called men to zeal, for it is good, if it is for Christ's sake, who himself was zealous for God (Jn. 2:17). He expressly praised the missionary zeal which surrounds others with good (Gal. 4:18, RSV "to be made much of"; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2, where Paul speaks of "a divine jealousy"). Especially there is the call to "earnestly desire" (zeloute) the gifts of the Spirit grace (charisma, 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 12, RSV "you are eager" ; 14:39), which can be rightly used in love which is free of jealousy (1 Cor. 13:4). Finally, there is a positive zeal for the welfare of others (2 Cor. 7:7; 9:2), for the right (1 Pet. 3:133) and good works (Tit. 2:14), but here too love must take preeminence over zeal." [NIDNTT, s.v. "zeal"]
What should be clear from this is that Jealousy (biblical usage) is Not the same as Jealousy (modern, English usage). They are two very different meaning-complexes.
So, what we have here is NOT our customary meaning of "jealousy," but rather an expression denoting a passionate commitment, intense ardor, and protective love, in contexts of commitment and intimacy. God's jealousy is a sweet guarantee that His beloveds do not "drift away" into meager forms of life and unfulfilling modes of existence. He is a passionate Good Shepherd (to use the protective image) and totally loving-loyal Spouse (to use the intimate image). This kind of intense and loyal and active and trustworthy love is sought by all hearts...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Second, WRATH.
1. The first thing to note is that W is not primarily (or
even generally) an emotion, when ascribed to
God in the OT:
"But even though
analogies are drawn from human anger, the wrath of Yahweh is portrayed somewhat
differently from human anger in the Hebrew Bible. In some respects this is
essentially the difference between 'passion'
and 'pathos' (see Heschel, A. 1962. The Prophets. 2 vols. New York and San
Francisco, vol. 2, esp. chap.
1).
"'Passion' can be understood as an emotional convulsion which makes it
impossible to exercise free consideration of principles and the determination
of conduct in accordance with them. Although the OT discusses human anger much
less frequently than divine wrath, it tends to portray human anger as such as a
loss of self-control and then censures it, particularly in the wisdom writings
(Prov 14:29; 16:32; 19:19; 29:22; 30:33; Eccl 7:9; cf. Sir 1:22–24; 28:3),
thereby echoing Egyptian wisdom teachings (cf. also Gen 49:7; Amos 1:11)...'Pathos,' on the other hand, is an act formed
with care and intention, the result of determination and decision.
It is not a “fever of the mind” that disregards standards of justice and
culminates in irrational and irresponsible action; it is intricately linked to
'ethos' and approximates what we mean by 'righteous indignation' (Heschel 1962,
2: 5, 63). The wrath of God tends to be portrayed in this way in the OT,
especially in the prophets; it seems not to be an essential attribute or
fundamental characteristic of Yahweh’s persona
but an expression of his will; it is a reaction to human history, an attitude
called forth by human (mis)conduct. (ABD, s.v. "Wrath of God")
2. Wrath is used of ANE deities/rulers in both these senses:
The gods/rulers of
the ANE sometimes were examples of the "passion" meaning of this (ABD
again):
"The most blatantly
“mythological” texts of the ANE focus primarily upon the divine world and the
interrelationships of the gods. In such texts, the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic
portrayals of the gods tend to be especially heightened: deities become drunk,
or sexually aroused, or frightened, or surprised, or overjoyed, or sullen and
resentful, etc. Because of the apparent popularity of such myths in the ANE,
there is good reason why deities in the various cultures surrounding Israel are
often represented as aimless, fitful, and arbitrary, acting without purpose' (Albrektson,
B. 1967. History and the Gods.: 89), and why those gods could often be
portrayed as becoming angry 'for no
good reason.' In such mythological portraits, the wrath of the pagan gods
approaches a malicious and uncontrolled type of 'passion' which is often
characteristic of an implacable personality (cf. Sophocles and Herodotus, who
attributed to the Greek gods an almost whimsical inclination to harm mortals
gratuitously, and Aeschylus and Pindar, who detailed the sexual passions that
gripped Zeus and Poseidon)."
Examples cited:
·
"In
the Myth of Atrahasis (ANET,
104–106), the distemperate gods, led by Enlil (the storm-god), decide to
obliterate humanity by means of a flood because the human race had multiplied
to the point that its noise kept the gods (and particularly Enlil) awake at
night.
·
"In
the Epic of Gilgamesh (ANET,
72ff.), it was Enlil who, 'unreasoning, brought on the deluge' and who was
'filled with anger' when he saw Utnapishtim’s boat and realized that his plans
had been thwarted (XI: 168, 171). Indeed, in a recurrent ANE mythological
type-scene, the angry god (in this case, Enlil) must be calmed down by other
deities who fear that his anger is getting out of control (XI: 180ff.). Also in
the Gilgamesh Epic, the goddess Ishtar (goddess of love/war) is portrayed as a
spoiled adolescent who, when spurned by Gilgamesh, angrily yet tearfully implores
her father Anu to destroy Gilgamesh because, in her words, 'he has heaped
insults upon me (by) calling attention to my odious behavior' (VI: 80f.).
·
"The
Egyptian gods also had their passionate tirades. In the Contest of Horus and
Seth (ANET, 14–17), the goddess
Neith vows to get angry and cause the sky to collapse if her favorite (Horus)
is not chosen to succeed Osiris; furthermore, the god Re-Har-akti goes off to
brood when another god reminds him that no one worships at his shrines anymore.
In yet another myth (ANET,
10–11), the bloodthirsty goddess Hathor/Sekhmet goes beserk and almost
annihilates the human race which is saved when other gods intervene, tricking
her into believing that red-colored beer is human blood. In fact, in Egyptian
mythological texts the god Seth is so vividly portrayed that he came to be
known as 'the raging one' whose irrational anger against the ideal order
(implied in the myth of Horus and Osiris) seems to represent all the chaotic
aspects of the world (Te Velde 1967: 23–24, 101).
·
"In
the Telepinu Myth of the Hittites
(ANET, 126–28), the god Telepinu
becomes so angry that he cannot put his shoes on the correct feet before
running away from home. The consequence of his anger is clear: drought and
famine throughout the world. The reason for his anger, however, is not clearly
stated, although it may have been prompted by a disagreement with his father.
Regardless, his anger was only intensified when a bee found him asleep and
stung him to awaken him.
·
"In
Canaanite mythology, Anath appears
to resemble Hathor as a goddess whose bloodthirst can scarcely be sated. In the
Myth of Baal’s Defeat of Yamm (ANET,
129–31), the god Baal, worried that he may be required to become subservient to
the god Yamm, scornfully rebukes those gods who bow down to Yamm’s emissaries;
when El orders him to submit to Yamm, he becomes so enraged (Ug <ansû) that he impulsively grabs a
knife to slay Yamm’s emissaries. Significantly, he has to be restrained by
Athtartu/Ashtoreth.
These gods,
however, also could demonstrate the "pathos" side as well (ABD):
"However, other ANE
texts—particularly those that (like the Bible) attempt to relate historical
events to divine will—often portray the wrath of the gods as a type of 'pathos'
legitimately occasioned by human offenses
against the righteous will of those gods. In these texts, the
anthropomorphisms are more restrained, and the anger of the pagan deities comes
close to approximating that of the Israelite god Yahweh. The matter can be
summarized as follows:
“If a defeat or the fall of
a dynasty is regarded not only as the manifestation of divine anger but as
anger at some transgression or negligence, then this implies also the view that
the universe is in some way governed according to the laws of justice: it rules
out the conception that the god’s actions are nothing but arbitrariness and
whimsicality. . . . In Mesopotamia, as in Israel, the idea of historical events
as a revelation of divine wrath or mercy for sins or godliness presupposes both
that the deity acts in history and that the universe is ruled with justice”
(Albrektson 1967: 103).
"In these texts, two
types of human transgressions tend to provoke a
god’s legitimate and 'official' wrath."
3. In the
ancient world (both ANE and Greeco-Roman), this 'wrath' --the pathos type--was
a divine responsibility.
The god was obligated to 'do wrath' on occasion:
"orge"
(wrath) however, is also one of the most prominent
characteristics of the Gk. divinities. The idea of wrathful gods is one of the
basic factors of the majority of religions. (Mazdaism is an exception.)...
Their anger was directed either against their own kind (e.g. Hom. Il., 8, 407) or against human beings (e.g.
Hom., Il., 5, 177 f.; 24, 606). It was provoked as a rule by violation of one of the
fundamental demands of life, morals or law. 'By it order is restored, assertion made good and
destiny achieved. Hence the wrath of the gods is not just blind
rage. It is seeing anger, and even in regard to man, via negationis, it confers dignity on him by marking him out
or putting him in the limits set for him, thus making him what he is' (H. Kleinknecht, TDNT V 385) [NIDNTT, s.v. "Anger, Wrath (orge)"]
4. As such, 'wrath' could be appropriate for those (humans)
with community responsibility, but inappropriate for the common person.:
"Thus in Dem., Orationes, 24, 118, orge appears as the attitude which is particularly appropriate for a judge. It is positively evaluated as being in the service of righteousness. For the rest, however, anger is mainly seen as a character defect, which man should strive to lay aside. For anger as the expression of unrestrained passion stands in contradiction to reason, gnome (decision on the basis of knowledge), and logos (Word) and conflicts with the image of the wise man." [NIDNTT again]
" ojrghv, which already in tragedy is always seen to be protecting something recognised to be right, becomes in the political life of the following period the characteristic and legitimate attitude of the ruler who has to avenge injustice" [TDNT, s.v. "orge"]
5. In
the case of the ANE deities, 'wrath' as pathos can be seen as their official duty, even though the texts
themselves differ in character from the OT accounts. Thus, wrath (as pathos)
looks like the responsibility of the deity,
to his/her/its/their community:
"There is a strong
formal similarity between these ANE depictions of divine pathos and that of
Yahweh, who in the OT prophets and historical narratives is portrayed as being
angry at Israel for its repeated violation of its covenant obligations.
However, these ANE texts have obvious ideological functions that the OT lacks:
they are self-serving documents written by kings seeking to legitimize their
policies. In other words, in the Bible no
political entity ever profits from the wrath of Yahweh. But the
important point of similarity is
that in these portrayals the 'personal'
feelings of the god are not the force driving the anger; the driving force is
rather the god’s 'official' duty to uphold the moral foundation for human
political and social life. [ABD]
In other words, personal emotion
(inward-focused) could only play a small
part in the equation/action--the main emotion was supposed to be a passion for re-instating the
community peace and health (an outward-looking emotion)
6. When we compare the 'wrath' of YHWH with the 'wrath' of kings in the ANE (instead of only deities), the responsibility aspect can be
seen more clearly [also present in deities functioning as kings]:
"But a comparison of
Yahweh with other ANE kings may lead to some important nuances in our
understanding of divine emotion. For example, on several occasions Sargon II is
said to have acted “in a sudden rage” (ANET,
286), and a rather stylized expression repeated by Ashurbanipal was “I became
very angry on account of these happenings, my soul was aflame” (ANET, 294, 296). In these and other
(especially Neo-Assyrian) royal inscriptions and annals, “anger” is depicted as a royal prerogative essentially
synonymous with “exercise of sovereignty.” The same can be said of
the rage of the Egyptian Pharaoh, who “is Sekhmet against those who transgress
his command” (ANET, 431). Yet
even though the subjects here are all mortal kings, still we are cautioned
against taking too literally these references to anger. “Wrath” is not necessarily the king’s personal
disposition but instead often appears to be a figure of speech referring to the
king’s unapologetic intent to extend his domain into hostile territory.
Royal “wrath” is not necessarily a personal or idiosyncratic emotion but rather
a programatic orientation and, indeed, duty;
it is a matter more of official policy than
of private sentiment...Indeed, some references to the wrath of pagan
deities seem to make sense in this regard—these ANE gods could also exhibit a type of pathos
legitimately linked to their “official” responsibilities for maintaining the
just government of the universe. Thus, Jacobsen has noted that already
in the 3d millennium b.c. 'the
gods, seen as kings and rulers,
were no longer powers in nature only, they became powers in human affairs—in
history' (1963: 479; emphasis added). In other words, their ragings were no
longer analogous simply to that of the unpredictable and violent storm, fire,
plague, war, or emotion; now they could be analogous as well to the calculated and disciplined control over human
affairs. [ABD]
7. This would make the
Wrath of God into a duty of His, related to His commitment to His people. Wrath
would thus be something at the end of an 'investigation' and 'legal process',
as opposed to some sudden rage:
"Divine wrath does speak of his emotion, but it is not presented as mere feeling. Of the nearly 300 pericopes that speak of his wrath, only Exod 4:14 speaks of it as an emotion only. Generally, his wrath is synonymous with the implementation of his terrible judgment. This judgment is not presented as the angry responses of a powerful deity, but as judgment proceeding from a just, legal context.
"The preoccupation of
legality in these texts can be seen in a number of ways. The Wisdom portions of
the OT exercise great care in making sure that the individuals calling on God
for judgment are themselves on the side of righteousness (e.g., Ps 7:9, 10,
12). In Job, Yahweh's wrathful justice in the world is celebrated as a just and rationally understood
response to the evil actions of humans
"In the prophetic corpus, form critics have long noted that the reasons for judgment consistently accompanied the prophetic threat (especially in the written stage of tradition history, cf. Gunkel). In addition, though there is a heterogeneity of genres employed where Yahweh's wrath is mentioned, there is a consistent role for the place of divine wrath. His wrath always comes at the end of a clear legal procedure that makes it the implementation of judgment. There is often a summons, presentation of evidence (using a variety of means: accusation, lament, disputation, etc.), verdict (or pronouncement of judgment), and finally wrath, which always implies Yahweh's action (for examples see, Isa 42:18-25; Jer 6:9-15; Hos I 1: I -I 1; Zech 7:8-14). (Narrative literature follows this same procedure. Yahweh's wrath is justified with motive clauses; however, there is debate whether all pericopes can be justified)
"In addition to the justification of Yahweh's wrath, the motive clauses have another essential aim: They evidence rationality. They function to help the reader understand why Yahweh is angry. It is necessary to know why he is wrathful so as to know how to escape the consequences. This predictability was crucial for the encouragement of moral order and for a working philosophy of life that warded off despair and disillusionment. It freed humans of anxiety, while at the same time providing motivation for proper behavior. Order was understood to be at the foundation of existence, in part because judgment from Yahweh was neither capricious nor unpredictable [tn: compare the capricious nature of other ancient deities]. If there is unpredictability in Yahweh, it is in his extension of grace, not judgment. [NIDOTTE, s.v. "Anger: Theology", vol. 4]
8. And the dominant reason for this type of
"government intervention", concerns how people treat other
persons--often, a response to atrocity, cruelty, arrogance,
and oppression:
"Almost all of the pericopes containing divine anger have some type of justification found with the expression of wrath, and these motivations can be divided into two basic categories. The first category, comprising nearly 51 percent of these pericopes, entails the wickedness of human beings in their behavior towards one another, or at least mentions the breaking of the statutes and ordinances of Yahweh that govern the interrelationship of humans. In the second category, close to 75 percent of the time, the motivation given is direct rebellion against Yahweh's person in the form of pride, syncretism, or blatant idolatry. Also, 33 percent of the time, both oppression of other humans and disloyalty or disrespect to Yahweh himself are found in the same motive clauses
"Several insights can be drawn from these statistics. First, though both major categories can be found together, Yahweh can be angry solely because of human cruelty (Exod 15:1-18; Mic 6:10-16). That Yahweh can be angry because of humans disregarding their natural sense of justice demonstrates that he cares about how people treat people. He is passionately concerned about the lives of human beings and whether justice takes place among them. These texts witness to an interfacing of ethics and theology.
"Since a large number of times rebellion against his will motivates Yahweh's wrath, Yahweh obviously takes his own person seriously, and it is dangerous for human beings not to do so (see e.g., Exod 32:7-14; Num 22:21-30; Isa 63:1-6).
"That these two basic motivations are mentioned so often together shows that Yahweh's concern for himself and for the human race are hard to separate (i.e., 2 Kgs 21:1-9; Isa 42:18-25; Jer 2:33-37).
"Moreover, the pericopes
of Yahweh's anger against foreign nations, where
the most prominent motivation is human cruelty, demonstrates that
non-Israelites are judged on what they know and, therefore, can be justly held
responsible for. [NIDOTTE]
9. Which leads us to the
GOAL and PURPOSE of God "carrying out the judicial sentence"--i.e.,
fulfilling His duty to His subjects/community, to intervene in support of the
community welfare and moral stability of the group.
In a nutshell, the purpose for which royal wrath is performed (it is the execution of a sentence, remember) is to re-instate the moral/civil/just order, by a restructuring event (or series of events), primarily dealing with removal of power (or existence) of the oppressors/treacherous.
Consider:
·
"Various
means are used to depict God’s wrath, but it always threatens the existence of those concerned. [TDNTlittle,
describing mostly internal Israelite oppressors of the poor]
·
"The
final aim of divine wrath is total destruction in the form of historical defeat and banishment from the
land. [TDNTlittle, dealing with internal and nearby oppressors]
·
"It
is perhaps significant that the first OT occurrence of God exhibiting anger
appears in passages intimately tied to Yahweh’s deliverance of the Israelites
from Egyptian bondage. Yahweh’s anger ( is
kindled for the first time against Moses when the latter attempts to back out
of his special calling as deliverer (Exod 4:13–14), and subsequently God’s rage
() is celebrated poetically as
the force that simultaneously consumed the pursuing Egyptians and delivered the
fleeing Israelites (Exod 15:7). Thus divine anger first appears as Yahweh’s
response not to generic human sinfulness but
to whatever would impede efforts to free the Israelites from Egyptian
enslavement. [ABD, note that the restructuring is aimed at freedom
for the oppressed Israelites. Once that is done, the wrath is no longer
'active' or needed.]
·
"The
failure to provide the social justice
implicit within the stipulations of the covenant also makes Israel liable to
divine wrath (Ps 50:21–22; Isa 1:23–24; 42:24–25; Amos 8:4–10; Micah 6). [ABD;
note that the wrath is designed to 'lift up' the poor and needy of the land.]
·
"Thus,
God’s wrath is righteous because it destroys
the wickedness that impedes deliverance (Isa 34:2), and for that
reason psalmists repeatedly yearn for it (Pss 59:14 [—Eng 59:13]; 79:6). [ABD,
note that it is a means to an end--not an on-going state. The goal is deliverance.]
· "His anger is always a lawful reaction to the violation of a law or to opposition against his historically-determined activity, in which he not only requites the violation or opposition, but also wills to effect the restoration and maintenance of the order set between himself and man." (S. Plath, Die Furcht Gottes, 105; cited in NIDNTT, s.v. "orge"; note the 'restoration' intention)
10. God's attitude toward the actual
performing of this duty is one of reluctance:
"God is often portrayed
tempering his anger against Israel with compassion and love (Exod 32:12–14; Isa
54:7–8; Hos 11:8; Mic 7:18). It is important to note that Yahweh is depicted as
having the desire to restrain his own anger,
in contrast to the depictions of the various ANE deities, whose ragings often
must be restrained (sometimes forcefully) by the intervention of other deities.
An ancient liturgical formula that apparently does intend to describe the persona or “personality” of Yahweh extols
Yahweh as “slow to anger and abounding
in steadfast love” (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Ps 103:8; Jonah 4:2). Despite its
tragic necessity, however, anger is not
depicted as an emotion God delights in; instead, it grieves God to be angry (Lam 3:33) and
God would prefer to avoid it altogether
(Isa 27:2–3; Hos 11:9). [ABD]
"Yet God does not give free rein to
wrath but is long-suffering (Ex. 34:6-7; Num. 14:18, etc.). He warns
the people to repent, as the prophets bear witness. He is quick to show clemency. He can even exercise restraint in the case of Nineveh,
to the disgust of Jonah (Jon. 4:2). " [TDNTlittle]
"God is not presented as a frustrated deity who finally loses patience, but rather as someone who is slow to anger. [NIDOTTE]
And even the verse we began the discussion with from Nahum:
The LORD
is a jealous and avenging God;
the LORD
takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
The LORD
takes vengeance on his foes
and
maintains his wrath against his enemies.
is followed by statements of
(a) His slowness to anger; and (b) His purpose in wrath on Nineveh as being
'refuge' and 'care' for Israel--a restructuring motif:
3 The LORD
is slow to anger and great in
power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished.
His way is
in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.
4 He
rebukes the sea and dries it up; he makes all the rivers run dry.
Bashan and
Carmel wither and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.
5 The
mountains quake before him and the hills melt away.
The earth trembles
at his presence, the world and all who live in it.
6 Who can
withstand his indignation? Who can endure his fierce anger?
His wrath
is poured out like fire; the rocks are shattered before him.
7 The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble.
He cares for those who trust in him,
8 but with
an overwhelming flood he will make an end of Nineveh;
he will pursue his foes into darkness.
11. "Royal restructuring wrath"
is thus historical, finite, and catalytic.
The biblical witness discusses two "times" of wrath: that within 'normal' history, and that at the end of time ("eschatological wrath"). Israel (and selected individuals in biblical history) experienced "normal" historical wrath (esp. as a consequence of Blessings/Cursings of Deut). But the OT prophets and the NT writers speak of a future "day of wrath", an 'eschatological' restructuring, in which the violent and malicious are banished from the Son's kingdom, and the "meek inherit the earth." Jesus, as that eschatological judge, restructures reality--and reassigns people to their 'rightful state'. In the biblical sense of 'wrath', its final manifestation is a finite process at the end of 'normal' history, that (a) restructures the universe into a New Heavens and New Earth; and then (b) FORCEFULLY rescues/recompenses the abused and FORCEFULLY banishes the treacherous and malignant from that New universe. When this powerful intervention occurs, "the wrath of God is ended" (Rev 15.1). Divine wrath--in biblical usage--is the catalyst to creating the eternal 'configuration' of reality. Wrath produces the 'reversal of fortune' that characterizes several biblical themes. Once this is done--once for all--it doesn't seem to show up again. (see the discussion in "why did God go ahead with the plan?" relative to the Revelation 'torment' passages).
So, Stephen Travis (ABD):
"Hence wrath is associated not so much with final judgment as with the expression of divine judgment within history".
And TDNTlittle:
"The anticipation of eschatological wrath means that there is a present state of wrath (Jn. 3:36). This does not eliminate the eschatological element, but it raises the question whether wrath will finally be eternal. Greek thinking accepts this, the OT seems to question it in Jer. 3:12, and Judaism is uncertain. In the NT many passages support an eternal duration (Mt. 3:12; 18:34; Rev. 14:10), although the reference is to the punishment rather than the wrath."
[Eschatological wrath is still actually historical and earth-focused, and seems to end at the final judgment on earth. Judgment does not REQUIRE wrath per se--there are plenty of judgments in Genesis, but "wrath" is never used to describe those. Wrath MAY BE what 'sentences' us to our respective eternal states, but it is never mentioned in connection with any on-going events within eschatological hell. Whatever hell is like, its only biblical connection with 'wrath' is via the act of sentencing (Rom 2.8?).]
12. Human wrath/anger too
easily becomes destructive, and so it is the subject of numerous OT/NT
warnings. However, in itself anger--as an emotion--is not sin, but can easily
become such (cf. Eph 4.26). According to Paul, divine wrath will come upon humans
who develop, harbour, and attempt their own wrath (Col 3.5-9, cf. Rom 12.19:
"Do not take revenge, my
friends, but leave room for God’s wrath"), sorta like "taking the law into your
own hands". This is best left in the hands of a 'slow to anger' and 'only
wise' God...
The semantics, therefore, end up similar to
that for jealousy: the biblical words seem quite different from the modern
usages:
Wrath
(biblical) maps to (1) moral outrage at atrocities against people/community
(modern); and more frequently maps to (2) vigorous and powerful intervention in the status quo, aimed at overthrowing
oppression and treachery (modern). Neither of these would be very close to the
modern English usage of wrath
("extreme anger") unless the minor meaning in scripture (#1)--moral
outrage at atrocity-- could be seen as a legitimate and positive response on
the part of moderns.
So, what we have is that (a) the emotional
component of SOME wrath/anger expressions amount to "moral outrage at true
atrocity" [which I hope EVERY reader of this has!]; but the dominant
biblical usage of 'wrath' is (b)
the vigorous and welfare-motivated intervention by the Royal God, in breaking
oppression and delivering His "dependents", by forceful removal of
the habitually and aggressively treacherous from their lives, and by a
re-structured reality, characterized by blessing and peace for the good. This
is indeed the hope of the abused, the exploited, the victimized, the violated
everywhere...that the good-hearted God would see all this in history, and say
once again--with reference to a wider group-- "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them
crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their
suffering. So I have come down to
rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that
land into a good and spacious land"...
..............................................................................................................................................................................