Continued from previous page . . .
I am not going to waste any more space debating the issue. Their entire system of Biblical interpretation has been expertly discussed and debunked by others, such as Oswald T. Allis and Loraine Boettner.[1] I will only attempt to answer this question, for it is what is at the heart of the problem: exactly what is God’s wrath?
Let us do some hard thinking about this. Consider, for a moment, two men: one, a citizen of Smyrna in Asia Minor named Polycarp, who lived and died in the second century AD; and the other, an anonymous citizen of Sodom in Canaan, who lived and died in the twentieth century BC. Polycarp was a Christian bishop greatly revered for his holiness, kindness, gentleness, and compassion. The Sodomite was a homosexual and an idolator who practiced human sacrifice.
Both died by the same means: fire. Polycarp was martyred by being burned at the stake; the Sodomite perished in the conflagration that destroyed Sodom and three neighboring cities. Which flame, do you think, was the hottest? or which fire was God’s wrath? A standard answer to the last question has been that the destruction of Sodom was God’s wrath, but the other was man’s wrath.
Small comfort!
A mere glance through Fox’s Book of Martyrs will convince the most skeptical that God’s people have been most horribly and cruelly abused. If this be man’s wrath, then those who experience it fare no better than those who experience God’s wrath. Both kinds result in the same loss of material things, physical suffering, and death. It is difficult to see how the seven last plagues, if they are in fact literal, could result in more intense sufferings than have already been inflicted on the church. It follows that the prospect of escaping them offers little consolation, since it will only benefit at most that small portion of the church that is still alive at the second advent.
In other words, if the dispensationalist’s answer is correct, man’s wrath is every bit as terrible and effective as God’s.
One might then suggest that perhaps God’s wrath is supernaturally inflicted while the tribulations of the saints are due solely to men. One might argue that the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom was ignited by two angels, whereas the pyre that consumed Polycarp was lit by evil men.
Again, so what? Though it is true that some of the catastrophes recorded in the Bible had a supernatural origin, they nearly always took the form of natural disasters—and however it started, Sodom’s burning was a very literal event. By far the greater portion, however, has been caused by men. Probably war alone has done more harm than all the others combined. This argument also ignores the simple fact that most of Israel’s calamities, especially the two destructions of Jerusalem, have been caused by human instrumentalities, yet they were deemed the extreme wrath of God. In fact, as we pointed out above, God called Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, his servant.
But while the two wraths, God’s and man’s, have much in common, a real and very important difference does exist between them. God’s wrath goes far deeper than what can be seen from our limited earthly viewpoint. One must consider that the events of the Old Testament are only “types and shadows” of the true spiritual entities described in the New Testament. The old covenant dealt with a natural people living in a natural geographic area, ruled by natural kings and natural laws. Their kingdom, while it was said to be of God, was strictly a natural kingdom, no different in kind than neighboring Gentile kingdoms. God’s wrath, which was incurred through disobedience, was manifested in the loss of their natural crops, livestock, children, freedom, worship, life, and ultimately, the land itself.
Under the new covenant, however, where God’s kingdom and laws are spiritual in nature, his wrath for breaking these laws shall result in the present loss of joy and peace—the spiritual fruit—and, ultimately, if the sinner does not repent, in the loss of the kingdom of God and eternal life. God’s wrath will be manifested in a spiritual way that has far more serious consequences than the old natural wrath ever had.
I think the key is in something Jesus said: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [or Gehenna, a burning garbage dump near Jerusalem]” (Matt. 10:28).
The distinction Jesus made was between losing the natural life only versus losing both the natural and the spiritual life. God’s wrath may destroy not only the body but the soul. Therefore, in this life, there is no distinction between the two kinds of wrath, for both may cause loss of material possessions and even life itself. It is impossible, based on the physical characteristics of the affliction, to determine whether the victim be saint or sinner.
The concept is implicit in the words of Moses: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase . . . .” Although God’s wrath begins on earth, it keeps burning right on down into hell (or Sheol, the grave).
Though no difference in kind or intensity between the two wraths may be discerned in this life, an important distinction will be discovered in the grave. In fact, the wicked often do not suffer, but enjoy almost unlimited prosperity, whereas the righteous are greatly afflicted (Psa. 73), as exemplified in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus’ affliction was such that many people doubtless attributed it to God’s wrath on him for some sin. The rich man, however, lived sumptuously every day. Nevertheless, in the grave it was reversed, and Lazarus was comforted while the rich man was tormented.
We might point out that Jude uses the example of the Sodomites to warn us of the consequences of apostasy; but, oddly enough, he makes no mention of the natural fire that consumed them. He does say, however, that they suffer the expectation of the vengeance of eternal fire. It is as if the natural fire was of little consequence compared to the eternal fire. Both may be God’s wrath, but the everlasting fire is that wrath to be avoided at all costs.
Let us follow the symbol of fire as it stands for God’s wrath a little further. Malachi was probably the last prophet of Israel before John the Baptist. He noted the people’s eager hopes for the soon appearance of the Messiah. He confirmed their expectations but warned them that the Messiah’s advent might not be as pleasant as they anticipated; he asked, “But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand, when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire . . . and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi . . . .” (Mal. 3:2-3).
Malachi’s prophesy was fulfilled something like 300-400 years later. John the Baptist, who heralded the coming of Israel’s Messiah, prophesied that the Messiah would baptize with fire, “whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12).
For both Malachi and John the Baptist, fire was symbolic of purification, of a means to divide the dross from the metal or the chaff from the wheat. Jesus himself said, “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I if it already be kindled . . . Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division . . . ” (Luke 12:49-52). Jesus came to divide the good fish from the bad, to divide the wheat from the tares, and to divide the wise virgins from the foolish.
In none of these texts are limits placed on the fire. In order that the good may be separated from the evil, the fire must baptize all men alike, some to purify and some to destroy. Many references in the New Testament agree that the godly Christian shall suffer persecution and tribulation. But the one that best illustrates the thought here is 1 Peter 4:12-13: “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings . . . ” Peter’s words, “we are partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” contain a hint that points to the answer. The same scholars who so vehemently deny that the church shall experience God’s wrath just as vehemently declare that God poured out his wrath on his Son. For, “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him . . . .” (Isa. 53:4-5). I am trying to point out the inconsistency of the logic of those who would make the passion of Christ the carrying out of the wrath of God, but deny that his servants shall in any wise experience that wrath. Jesus repeatedly warned us that we could expect to be treated the same way that he was, including even crucifixion. As Jesus himself said, the servant is not above his Master; if they hated him, they will hate the servant also. If what Jesus suffered then was God’s wrath, we may also expect to suffer it.
Sometimes we suffer unjustly, the just for the unjust:
“. . . if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, yet take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:20-21).
Peter also indicated that we may suffer at times for our own faults. The writer of Hebrews enlarges upon this thought, emphatically stating that “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” This chastening is not immediately joyous but is rather grievous—afterwards it brings joy and peace (Heb. 12:2-11). Furthermore, he adds, if one will not receive such chastening (of which we are all partakers), he is, quite frankly, a bastard.
We may with assurance declare that all men must come under some form of God’s wrath, for all have sinned. The cross of Christ has not exempted man from the curse of pain and death, naturally speaking. The flaming sword that guarded the way to the tree of life shall pierce and burn the heart of every soul, godly or ungodly. Nor does the wrath of God mean that he despises the one who is receiving it. If that person receives it and makes the indicated correction, he may be assured he is God’s son and well beloved.
The big difference, then, between the kinds of wrath experienced by the righteous and the wicked lies in the consequences. Those who have placed their trust in God and his Son shall be purged, purified, and chastened by the refiner’s fire. Even though it is the fire of God’s wrath, it will not destroy that trusting soul; it will only purge him and make him pure as fine gold. For the wicked, however, the wrath shall eventually totally destroy that person, body and soul.
Lest I be accused of avoiding a confrontation with those who declare that the church shall never experience God’s wrath__by which is meant the great tribulation and the last plagues__I will briefly discuss a couple or so of their proof texts. The first is 1 Thessalonians 5:9: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” This one is easy: previously in the same epistle, Paul says that Jesus has “delivered us from the wrath to come” (1:10). It is the eternal wrath of God which will be manifest at the last judgment which we are to escape. Paul is consistent throughout all his epistles; it is not this life, it is the next where we shall be free from God’s wrath.
The second proof text often used is Revelation 3:10: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation [mg., trial], which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” The Greek word for “from” means “out of.” We are to be saved out of the trial. Compare this text with one in the epistle to the Hebrews: the writer is speaking of Jesus who “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared” (Heb. 5:7). Jesus was not saved from dying: he was saved out of death. Just so, we shall not be saved from the great tribulation and its plagues (if that is what is meant by the text); we shall be saved out of it.
Finally, what of the seven last plagues? Remember, Israel had not yet left Egypt when the ten plagues were poured out. The plagues affected them and their houses and possessions not at all. Psalm 91:10 says, “There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.” God is just as able now as then to shelter his people from those plagues without having to take them out of the earth. I must remind the reader once more that Jesus said his coming with the angels to gather his people would be immediately after the great tribulation. We also must keep in mind his warnings about those days; the righteous are to flee into hiding places when they see those things begin to come to pass, just as Lot and his family fled Sodom just before the fire fell and consumed that city or as Noah fled into the ark just before the rain began to fall. They did not have to leave the earth to escape God’s wrath, but they did escape it anyway.
Now we come to a subject that has perplexed many, myself included. No less an authority than Paul said that God had hardened the heart of Israel (Rom. 11:7, 25, margin). It is written in Exodus that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Based partly on these texts, certain Protestant denominations teach that God arbitrarily chooses some to be saved and others to be lost. I could never believe that. A God like that is an unjust God whom I would not want to serve. To think that he would create some souls, knowing ahead that they were not one of the elect and whose only reason for existence is to be cast out like so much dung into an everlasting torment. I hope I have put it as bluntly as possible. I simply do not believe that is our God. Our God is One whose mercy endureth forever; he is a God of lovingkindness, a God who so loved the world that he permitted his only begotten Son to die perhaps the most horrible death conceived by man to save it, a God of whom it is said that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and is not willing that any should perish.
So how do we explain those places where it says that God hardened so-and-so’s heart? I have an answer, an answer that has come to me quite recently as I was reading about a prominent Jewish writer whose education included a four-year study of the life of Christ. She is still Jewish, however, and if she is like the rest of her people, she still does not believe Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, or that he physically rose from the dead. Certainly, he is not Israel’s Messiah.
As I read this, I asked, “Could it be that she has sometimes wondered whether the tribulations of the Jews might be due to their rejection of Jesus?” Immediately, the answer came: yes, a thousand times yes, there can be no doubt that she has wondered about it. I feel sure that practically all well informed Jews, and that includes most of them, have raised that question at some time in their lives. Subsequently, I have discovered little by little that the Jews have an enormous knowledge of Jesus and Christianity. They know far more about Christ than we know about them. Many have read and studied the New Testament.
Permit me to relate a personal experience. One time, while serving in the military forces during World War II, I was helping clean the barracks during our weekly field day, getting ready for inspection. I would never have remembered the incident except for what happened next. I was whistling a tune. Another serviceman came up to me and demanded I stop whistling. I said, “Why? I have a right to do that, don’t I?” He said, “I don’t mind your whistling; it’s that tune. I don’t want to hear that tune.” I then noticed for the first time I was whistling the old hymn, “Take the Name of Jesus With You.” I said, “Why don’t you like it? What church do you attend?” He said, “I’m Jewish.” I said, “Oh, then that explains it.” What amazes me even now as I think about it is how did he recognize the tune? Had he gone to a Christian church where it was sung? I warrant not. Nevertheless, he did know.
As I said, surely they must ask themselves sometimes if their troubles might not after all be due to their rejection of Jesus. From the evidence, though, with very rare exceptions, they invariably choose to ignore the problem and continue to assert that Jesus has nothing to do with their troubles—except as certain fanatical Christians make it so.
The narrative of the Exodus states several times that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. But several times it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Well, which was it? Both. As I see it, to say that God hardens a man’s heart simply means that he gives the man the opportunity to decide which way he wants to go. The man may be on the fence and uncertain as to how to commit himself on an issue. God will provide him with an opportunity that will force him to resolve the question one way or the other. In some cases, that person humbles himself down, repents, and begins walking with God. In other cases, because of pride, he will steel himself against the Lord’s chastisement, and turn away from God. Such is the case with Pharaoh. He had ten opportunities to acquiesce, to humble himself before the true God, and to save himself in so doing, but his pride and rebellion wouldn’t let him. He hardened his heart. He made a final and an unchangeable decision to pursue an evil action that had only up to this moment been laying latent in his heart.
The reader may still object, based on Exodus 9:16: the Lord said of Pharaoh, “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power . . . .” Doesn’t that prove that God creates some to be lost? No. It doesn’t say that God created him for the purpose of displaying his power. He raised him up, that is, he placed him on the throne. The man himself was exactly the kind of man God wanted on the throne so that he could reveal his great power in delivering his people. Pharaoh had already become an enemy of Israel’s God, a decision that was strictly his own. God simply provided an opportunity for him to commit himself to his evil nature.
Now we can make sense of what the epistle to the Hebrews is saying about chastisement. If we accept the punishment for our misdeed (or sin), humble ourselves to God’s will, and repent, he is just to forgive us. We have not hardened our heart. But if we resist the chastening of the Lord and refuse to correct our faults, then we have hardened our heart. Or, it could be said that God hardened our heart in that he gave us the opportunity to decide.
I remember on several occasions in my teens meditating on whether or not to accept my father’s discipline. Many times I daydreamed of the possibility of getting even through some act of vandalism. I can remember being tempted with the thought, especially after some severe punishment, “So that’s the kind of father you are? Well, you’ll never change me. I will stubbornly refuse your correction, and just as soon as I get my independence, I will disappear and you will never see me again.” Luckily, I never followed through but always came around to seeing things his way, for I knew deep down that he was right and I was wrong. Those thoughts, I’m sure, occur to many young people. All too many of them yield to their rash impulses, run away from home, and sometimes get so deep into sin and the corruption of the world they are almost beyond restoring. This, I think, characterizes Israel exactly.
The first chapter of Isaiah deals with this subject. He reminds his people they are a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.” Then he asks a very deep and penetrating question:
Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint . . . . your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers (Isa. 1:4-7).
There was no use to chastise them any more; it would only make them worse. They had already refused to be corrected. Therefore, Isaiah says,
But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore (Isa. 57:3).
As the writer of Hebrews declares, if a son does not accept chastisement, he is an illegitimate son. Paul must have had these passages in mind when he said that they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children (Rom. 9:6-7). Or Isaiah’s declaration above that they are the seed of the adulterer and the whore.
What can we say? Simply that fire and brimstone represent, in this life, the wrath of God in the form of chastisement, persecutions, and tribulations. The chastisements will be for our own faults. The persecutions and tribulations will be for the Lord’s sake. There are two Israels experiencing the wrath of God, the natural seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed. One of them is being hardened by the wrath. The other is being purged.
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Pet. 4:17).
Paul explained how we are laborers together with God, helping him construct his building. Paul himself laid the foundation which was Jesus Christ, “for other foundation can no man lay,” while others are building upon that foundation. He cautioned us to use only choice materials such as gold, silver, or precious stones, not wood, hay, or stubble:
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is (1 Cor. 3:13).
Isaiah had already said it:
Hear, ye that are far off [the Gentiles], what I have done; and, ye that are near [Israel] acknowledge my might.
The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil (Isa. 33:13-15).
Finally, to those who believed not, God swore in his wrath, “They shall not enter into my rest” (Heb. 3:11).
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God . . . . Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb. 4:9, 11).
To briefly summarize: two peoples claim to be building a house for the Lord. It is supposed to be a house of rest where its builders may find peace and rest at the end of the day. One group has rejected the chief corner stone provided by the Lord himself, while the other has accepted it. Both houses have been baptized with fire and brimstone. One house, founded only upon the quick sand and made of wood, hay, and stubble, is being consumed even as its builders labor to build it. The other house is purified by the same fire. Eventually, night comes; the builders of both houses die. But only those who built on the sure foundation using gold, silver, and precious stones shall find rest. The builders of the other house will have no rest day nor night, and the fire that consumed their house follows them into the grave.
Since both houses—the house of Babylon and the house of God—are baptized with fire, why is only one destroyed? The citizens of Babylon are building an earthly, political kingdom of things that can be seen, but the people of Christ are building a spiritual, non-political kingdom that is quite invisible. Things which are seen are temporal; but the things that are not seen are eternal (2 Cor. 4:18). If the church errs by building an earthly, political empire, exactly that part will be destroyed with the fire. Truly, there have been many attempts to build an earthly kingdom by misguided preachers and leaders. Only spiritual works—and by spiritual I mean those that are based on love, joy, peace, mercy, justice, judgment, compassion, and the like—will survive the baptism of fire so that what remains is incorruptible and eternal.[2]
To answer the question, what is the difference between man’s wrath and God’s wrath (a poorly worded question), we can say: man’s wrath, terrible though it may be, terminates at death. Men may kill the body, but after this have nothing they can do. But God can destroy both soul and body in hell fire. His wrath, which may begin in the present life and which may itself be caused by men, will never end but will torment the wicked in the grave and in the hereafter. Finally, it should be noted that the seven last plagues of Revelation 16 are, like everything else in Revelation, symbolic of God’s wrath. Exactly what kind of physical phenomena or human activity they represent is not totally clear. I do not believe, however, that they will greatly affect the church—“There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling” (Psa. 91:10). Any fall-out from God’s wrath that might affect the saints will only be temporary; however, for the wicked the plagues represent only the beginning of their reward:
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 (John 3:36).
Thus ends our commentary on Revelation 14. I want the reader to leave this section with the thought that some prophecies have been, and are being, fulfilled in a cyclic fashion. Revelation 14 shows us how the fall of Babylon has been a continually recurring phenomenon. Its fall from God’s point of view was instantaneous, “in one hour,” but her citizens have ever since been trying to rebuild the city and the house only to see it fall into ruin again and again. The recent holocaust in Germany under Adolf Hitler illustrates the thought beautifully. Eastern and Central European Jewery, who were securely ensconced in the culture and the politics of Europe, were all but totally annihilated. The survivors now have repossessed their holy city and a portion of the land that was once theirs. Only time will tell if the present rebuilding of their house will be any more successful than the others.
We now take a guarded look at the future. Our next section will attempt to paint a scenario of the end time when the reign of evil shall at last come to its end.
[1] Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (1947) and Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (1957), both published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.
[2] I am thinking of Jim Bakker and the Christian community he was building for the church so that people could have a place of fellowship with each other without the world to interfere. We all know the outcome of that venture. Bakker has since admitted he made a mistake in theology while in prison. Perhaps he will be chastised and purged, and be saved after all.