Rethinking Wrath
The purpose for this paper is to get clarity on the Biblical meaning of the word wrath. There are several Greek and Hebrew words that have been translated in English as “wrath,” but we will almost exclusively be looking at the Greek word, orge. I would ask you to do your very best at setting aside any preconceived notions you may have. Please, come to the table with an open mind. It is best for us to allow the Bible to interpret itself, and not just our favorite preachers and teachers. This paper will be blunt and bold, with strong smells of frustration. I'm sick and tired of people painting God out to be an angry monster. However, I do extend grace because most of these false perceptions of God's nature derive from perverted interpretations of Bible verses. So much is being lost in translation as scholars are interpreting from the original language into English. The "Angry God" has become much more popular than the loving Father that I believe in. I think much of this stems from a certain twisted theological lens that most translators have when they translate. Everyone has a theological lens, and no one’s is without flaws, but placing a heavy emphasis on God’s “wrath” and not so much on His love makes for some really messed up Bible verses-- such a travesty for believers, unbelievers, and God.
First off, Jesus is the complete representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3). He is "the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)." From these verses we can deduce that NOTHING WHATSOEVER of Father God's nature or character was left unveiled in the life that Jesus lived. In John 14, Jesus makes it irrevocably clear that he and the Father are one and the same. This doesn't mean they are the same exact person without distinction, but they are in perfect unity, having the same will (intent) in mind regarding humanity. Jesus revealed precisely how God feels about us. He left nothing in question. If God has this "wrath complex," why didn't Jesus kill some folks while he was here? He even had a very suitable opportunity when the religious leaders caught the woman in adultery and demanded Jesus judge her (based on the law). Jesus did judge her, but not as they hoped. He declared to have found no fault with her— innocent! But wait! Did God miss His perfect opportunity to show off this so-called boiling rage we call "the wrath of God?"
Importance of Original Meaning
The meaning of words in accordance to their original intent is absolutely critical to our understanding of the Bible and all its complexities. As I've been studying Greek and Hebrew words to do this paper, I've been appalled at how our English translations have gotten so far from the original meanings. It seems like translator's theologies have taken authority over actual meanings of words. Such examples would be with the following English words: repentance, hell, salvation, and eternal.
Here are some helpful definitions, according to Blue Letter Bible...
Orge (most commonly translated wrath): denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice; the natural disposition, temper, character; movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, or any violent emotion, but especially anger.
Orge is rooted in orego (most commonly translated desire): to stretch forth, to stretch oneself out in order to touch or grasp something; to reach after or desire something.
Orge is rooted in oros (most commonly translated mountain). I find this interesting because in the OT, a mountain often symbolized God.
Thymos (most commonly translated wrath): to rush along, or be in a heat, breathe violently. I'm not going to be studying this Greek word in this paper but thought it was worth noting that this is the second most common word we see translated as wrath in the NT (15 times in the NASB). Also interesting, most verses don't have to do with "God's wrath", but rather, man possessing this emotion.
Context
Studying the Bible with context in mind may, in fact, be the most crucial rule of thumb in order to gain an accurate understanding of certain passages. For instance, sarx is a Greek word that Paul used in various ways. Almost always, sarx had one of two meanings: a physical body OR the sin nature (false-self). We see the same with orge: a natural impulse or desire OR fierce anger. Being aware of this is very telling for the way we should take into account the context of surrounding verses, the entire chapter or book, or even the entire Bible. Single verses get hi-jacked when someone tries to translate them devoid of proper context. Rule #1 when studying the Bible or theology is: The revelation of Jesus Christ is the context for everything. A good question to ask when thinking through a verse's meaning is, "Does this verse support or detract from the God that Jesus portrayed?"
Moving on, we now look at the word lust. It's flat out wrong to think that lust only alludes to an evil sexual desire. In its most complete sense, lust is simply, a passionate desire. We can lust for good things just as we can lust after bad things. It can be said, “Christians have lust for God, and addicts have lust for a fix.” Both are proper uses of the word. Wrath is to lust as fierce anger is to sexual desire. In certain uses, fierce anger is a small piece of what wrath CAN BE. Just the same, sexual desire can be a small piece of what lust is. This is not just a play on words. This is Grammar 101. If this sounds a bit confusing, just remember that context often gives way to clear understanding of word usage. Just think logically!
We also allow our experiences to define what we think things mean: words like father, discipline, romantic relationships. If you had a good dad, the word father sends pleasant sensations through your body. If you had gentle and loving parents, discipline didn't brand your memory with times of torment and depression. If your last boyfriend abused you, the thought of another romantic relationship might be enough to make you want to vomit. Although it is nearly impossible for us not to let past experiences establish our ideas of truth, it's vital for us to be aware of how our experiences with former religious teachings determine our views on God and His word. We must allow Jesus, and the rightly dividing of Biblical studies, to be our compasses for truth.
To further unpack this messy suitcase, I'll be going through countless verses where wrath is found. My main tools are context, original language, and seeing Father God through the lens of Christ's life on earth.
Romans 4:15 & 5:9
I find these two verses to be monumental in our understanding of what wrath really is. The more I look at different verses, I see just how great the Bible is at translating itself. Romans 4:15 says, "...for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." Seems plain as day, doesn't it? The law produces wrath in our lives, and not God, according to this verse.
I see two possibilities for understanding the intent of wrath in this verse. The least likely being destruction, and what I believe more plausible is natural impulses. We know that a New Covenant believer is not under the law, and most importantly for this application-- the law excites sin in people. Paul is alluding to this reality of imprisonment that one experiences when they try to meet the law's impossible standards. So, when a man tries to keep the law, sin abounds. A man doesn't even have a choice in the matter. The law serves him up as a failure each time he tries to battle against it. There's no winning this battle. Just read a law man’s experience in Romans 7. Even Mr. Religion himself couldn't pull it off.
In Romans 5:9 we read, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." In most of our English translations we see, "OF GOD." But these words are not in the original manuscripts. “Of God” was added in by the translators. Without even breaking down the verse any further, that already makes for a massive shift in the verse's meaning. So now that we know this verse probably isn’t referring to God’s wrath, could it be that Paul is referring again to the wrath from the law? Justification means innocence. When a woman knows that God sees her as blameless, she is without condemnation or fear. So, I think that similar to 4:15, this verse could have two options for the wrath that we are saved from. The first, being the destruction that the law produces in our lives because it causes us to sin. The second, being our incorrect idea of God, and Him desiring to bring harm upon us because of seeing Him in our blindness.
Mark 3:5
Earlier in this paper, I referenced rethinking "God's wrath" in the light of what Jesus revealed to us by his life on earth. I think a wonderful place to get some clarity is in Mark 3:5 where Jesus claims to have felt wrath. "After looking around at them with anger, grieved, at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." Here, we get a crystal clear picture of how Jesus reacts when he felt wrath. The religious leaders' hard hearts led Jesus to feelings of grief, sorrow, anger, and desire. Like we saw earlier in our definition of orge (denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice), Jesus swelled with zealous passions that led him to....kill the religious people? NO WAY! On the contrary, did Jesus say to the man in need, "How dare you desire me to work on this holy day?! You should be ashamed of yourself. This day must be honored!" Nope. Rather, his response to wrath was to break the law by healing on the Sabbath. That's why the religious leaders were so perturbed. We see accounts like this all throughout the gospels. The Pharisees adherence to rules had become more important than a hurting man's well-being. How twisted a law-keeping mentality can make a man? Instead of celebrating this man's restoration, they immediately began plotting Jesus' death. This story should be our litmus test for how we think of "God's wrath" in our present day.
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." I think the GOD'S WORD TRANSLATION nails it: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, he will see God's constant anger." The Greek word for see in this verse, horao, has to do with perception or clear discernment. It's common knowledge in the world of psychology that our ideas of ourselves or a situation affect our emotions much more than the actual truth. The most beautiful woman in the world can still fall short of feeling beautiful if she thinks she's an ugly duckling.
A wise friend of mine once gave me this helpful analogy…
“You are at your favorite restaurant with some friends having a nice time. In enters a man waving a gun in the air. You and your friends immediately experience intense emotions of fear, insecurity, panic, anxiety, etc. You are in the corner of the place, but a burly looking guy in his 50's decides to tackle the man with the gun. "Is he brave or just plain old crazy?" Well, come to find out, the gun was just a toy. Now, the gun was a toy the entire time, even in the moment you experienced those frightening emotions; but those emotions were still real. The truth about the gun didn't protect you from an unnecessary experience of terrible emotions.”
The same goes for how we think about God. If we reject Christ out of a false perception of who God is, we will miss out on the fullness of life that He gives. Our experiences will almost always back up our beliefs. Discerning God as angry and unhappy will cause instances to occur in your life where you "think" this false god is simply confirming who he is-- really stinkin' mean. It is not the truth that sets a man free, but the knowledge of it. The mind is a powerful tool. It can hinder or help us. Our search for knowing the truth helps align our experiences with what is actually real.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
"...and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come." For starters, "wait for" should be "abide." Secondly, to come is the Greek word eschomai, which is a verb only used in the present or imperfect (referring to the past and a continual state) tense. This word would not be used for a future event. There is no “wrath to come” in this verse. It would read more accurately if it said, "The wrath that has come." Now that that's taken care of, we need to scan some surrounding verses to determine what message Paul is trying to get across to this church in Thessalonica.
Paul starts off this letter by commending the church for imitating the Lord, and Paul and his comrades. They were living lives worthy of praise, especially for their ability to leave their idols behind and worship only God. This quick framework gets us to verse ten. Paul's use of orge is referring to the consequences that living a sin-filled life produces-- essentially, self-destruction. Living by the life of Christ delivers a man from having law and sin wreak havoc in every single area of his life. Paul is alluding to the cosmic principle of sowing and reaping. You sow seeds of sin, tragedy sprouts up. You sow seeds of love, shoots of blessing seem to appear out of nowhere.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
Most of us have been scared at one time or another by this. Someone says, “You know, ‘For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.’" This verse shouldn’t be a scary one, but it has sadly been painted as such. Let’s look deeper as this verse gives us context for verse nine. I did some studying on this and here's what I think. I see this "day of the Lord" being the arrival of Jesus on planet earth through the virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Like a “thief in the night,” most didn't recognize him as the Messiah that had been prophesied about. They expected an imperial-type Christ. Paul is saying that even though these religious people give lip service to peace and safety, they won't find it in their rules or in their hunger for power. Because the believers have recognized Jesus as God, they have entered into eternal life, which is the way of peace and love. "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." So we see, God has not appointed people to experience their own anger or His, but He has revealed His true nature in giving of Himself. And now, we get to experience continual salvation [from sin and the law] as the free gift that it is. Verse ten is another bombshell..."So that whether we are awake or asleep (dead or alive/aware or blind), we will live together with Him [my parentheses added]." Let that marinate in your mind for a while.
Wrath & Hell
In Western Evangelical Christianity, most people associate "God's wrath" with the idea of eternal torment-- "hell." Sadly, this association leaves people thinking that it's God's wrath sending people to hell. To me, there are several errors in this line of thought.
One very compelling point is that Paul NEVER referenced eternal torment. Not even once. He never wrote "hell" into any of his New Testament letters. He did, however, use orge numerous times, especially in Romans (his most doctrinal book). It's ironic that in modern Christendom, they typically think of wrath sending a person to hell, but Paul never actually made such a claim. I'm not discounting the existence of a hell, but I am suggesting that we need to rethink how wrath relates to hell. I don't want to dive into this rabbit hole of rethinking hell right now, but it's also worth noting that Paul talked a whole lot about being saved and salvation. Again, he did so without ever referencing hell. In fact, out of all the books we have in the Bible that were written by Jesus' apostles, hell is only referenced TWO TIMES-- once by James and once by Peter. Both of these instances can be challenged to whether or not they allude to a place of eternal fiery torment. Interesting stuff, don't you think?
Well, I hope you had as much fun reading this as I did studying and writing the content. Once again, my study on wrath mostly came through the lenses of: context, original word meaning, and Jesus. You may disagree with many of my points, if not all, but I hope you can appreciate my desire to make God out to be nicer than what most think He is. As I think about my life, if I am err in one aspect, I would want it to be making God out to be better than what He actually is. If I meet Him face to face and He says, "Jed, you sure did make me out to be much kinder than what I actually am," I think I’ll find solace there. I doubt it’s actually possible to exaggerate the goodness of God, but you catch my drift. Some might say I’m perverting the Bible and saying things it doesn’t say, but this is what the Spirit is teaching me. I would be remiss to deny His leading that I feel in my innermost being. As Wayne Dyer famously taught, I’m simply “playing the music” that’s been placed inside of me.
First off, Jesus is the complete representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3). He is "the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)." From these verses we can deduce that NOTHING WHATSOEVER of Father God's nature or character was left unveiled in the life that Jesus lived. In John 14, Jesus makes it irrevocably clear that he and the Father are one and the same. This doesn't mean they are the same exact person without distinction, but they are in perfect unity, having the same will (intent) in mind regarding humanity. Jesus revealed precisely how God feels about us. He left nothing in question. If God has this "wrath complex," why didn't Jesus kill some folks while he was here? He even had a very suitable opportunity when the religious leaders caught the woman in adultery and demanded Jesus judge her (based on the law). Jesus did judge her, but not as they hoped. He declared to have found no fault with her— innocent! But wait! Did God miss His perfect opportunity to show off this so-called boiling rage we call "the wrath of God?"
Importance of Original Meaning
The meaning of words in accordance to their original intent is absolutely critical to our understanding of the Bible and all its complexities. As I've been studying Greek and Hebrew words to do this paper, I've been appalled at how our English translations have gotten so far from the original meanings. It seems like translator's theologies have taken authority over actual meanings of words. Such examples would be with the following English words: repentance, hell, salvation, and eternal.
Here are some helpful definitions, according to Blue Letter Bible...
Orge (most commonly translated wrath): denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice; the natural disposition, temper, character; movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, or any violent emotion, but especially anger.
Orge is rooted in orego (most commonly translated desire): to stretch forth, to stretch oneself out in order to touch or grasp something; to reach after or desire something.
Orge is rooted in oros (most commonly translated mountain). I find this interesting because in the OT, a mountain often symbolized God.
Thymos (most commonly translated wrath): to rush along, or be in a heat, breathe violently. I'm not going to be studying this Greek word in this paper but thought it was worth noting that this is the second most common word we see translated as wrath in the NT (15 times in the NASB). Also interesting, most verses don't have to do with "God's wrath", but rather, man possessing this emotion.
Context
Studying the Bible with context in mind may, in fact, be the most crucial rule of thumb in order to gain an accurate understanding of certain passages. For instance, sarx is a Greek word that Paul used in various ways. Almost always, sarx had one of two meanings: a physical body OR the sin nature (false-self). We see the same with orge: a natural impulse or desire OR fierce anger. Being aware of this is very telling for the way we should take into account the context of surrounding verses, the entire chapter or book, or even the entire Bible. Single verses get hi-jacked when someone tries to translate them devoid of proper context. Rule #1 when studying the Bible or theology is: The revelation of Jesus Christ is the context for everything. A good question to ask when thinking through a verse's meaning is, "Does this verse support or detract from the God that Jesus portrayed?"
Moving on, we now look at the word lust. It's flat out wrong to think that lust only alludes to an evil sexual desire. In its most complete sense, lust is simply, a passionate desire. We can lust for good things just as we can lust after bad things. It can be said, “Christians have lust for God, and addicts have lust for a fix.” Both are proper uses of the word. Wrath is to lust as fierce anger is to sexual desire. In certain uses, fierce anger is a small piece of what wrath CAN BE. Just the same, sexual desire can be a small piece of what lust is. This is not just a play on words. This is Grammar 101. If this sounds a bit confusing, just remember that context often gives way to clear understanding of word usage. Just think logically!
We also allow our experiences to define what we think things mean: words like father, discipline, romantic relationships. If you had a good dad, the word father sends pleasant sensations through your body. If you had gentle and loving parents, discipline didn't brand your memory with times of torment and depression. If your last boyfriend abused you, the thought of another romantic relationship might be enough to make you want to vomit. Although it is nearly impossible for us not to let past experiences establish our ideas of truth, it's vital for us to be aware of how our experiences with former religious teachings determine our views on God and His word. We must allow Jesus, and the rightly dividing of Biblical studies, to be our compasses for truth.
To further unpack this messy suitcase, I'll be going through countless verses where wrath is found. My main tools are context, original language, and seeing Father God through the lens of Christ's life on earth.
Romans 4:15 & 5:9
I find these two verses to be monumental in our understanding of what wrath really is. The more I look at different verses, I see just how great the Bible is at translating itself. Romans 4:15 says, "...for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." Seems plain as day, doesn't it? The law produces wrath in our lives, and not God, according to this verse.
I see two possibilities for understanding the intent of wrath in this verse. The least likely being destruction, and what I believe more plausible is natural impulses. We know that a New Covenant believer is not under the law, and most importantly for this application-- the law excites sin in people. Paul is alluding to this reality of imprisonment that one experiences when they try to meet the law's impossible standards. So, when a man tries to keep the law, sin abounds. A man doesn't even have a choice in the matter. The law serves him up as a failure each time he tries to battle against it. There's no winning this battle. Just read a law man’s experience in Romans 7. Even Mr. Religion himself couldn't pull it off.
In Romans 5:9 we read, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." In most of our English translations we see, "OF GOD." But these words are not in the original manuscripts. “Of God” was added in by the translators. Without even breaking down the verse any further, that already makes for a massive shift in the verse's meaning. So now that we know this verse probably isn’t referring to God’s wrath, could it be that Paul is referring again to the wrath from the law? Justification means innocence. When a woman knows that God sees her as blameless, she is without condemnation or fear. So, I think that similar to 4:15, this verse could have two options for the wrath that we are saved from. The first, being the destruction that the law produces in our lives because it causes us to sin. The second, being our incorrect idea of God, and Him desiring to bring harm upon us because of seeing Him in our blindness.
Mark 3:5
Earlier in this paper, I referenced rethinking "God's wrath" in the light of what Jesus revealed to us by his life on earth. I think a wonderful place to get some clarity is in Mark 3:5 where Jesus claims to have felt wrath. "After looking around at them with anger, grieved, at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." Here, we get a crystal clear picture of how Jesus reacts when he felt wrath. The religious leaders' hard hearts led Jesus to feelings of grief, sorrow, anger, and desire. Like we saw earlier in our definition of orge (denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice), Jesus swelled with zealous passions that led him to....kill the religious people? NO WAY! On the contrary, did Jesus say to the man in need, "How dare you desire me to work on this holy day?! You should be ashamed of yourself. This day must be honored!" Nope. Rather, his response to wrath was to break the law by healing on the Sabbath. That's why the religious leaders were so perturbed. We see accounts like this all throughout the gospels. The Pharisees adherence to rules had become more important than a hurting man's well-being. How twisted a law-keeping mentality can make a man? Instead of celebrating this man's restoration, they immediately began plotting Jesus' death. This story should be our litmus test for how we think of "God's wrath" in our present day.
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." I think the GOD'S WORD TRANSLATION nails it: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, he will see God's constant anger." The Greek word for see in this verse, horao, has to do with perception or clear discernment. It's common knowledge in the world of psychology that our ideas of ourselves or a situation affect our emotions much more than the actual truth. The most beautiful woman in the world can still fall short of feeling beautiful if she thinks she's an ugly duckling.
A wise friend of mine once gave me this helpful analogy…
“You are at your favorite restaurant with some friends having a nice time. In enters a man waving a gun in the air. You and your friends immediately experience intense emotions of fear, insecurity, panic, anxiety, etc. You are in the corner of the place, but a burly looking guy in his 50's decides to tackle the man with the gun. "Is he brave or just plain old crazy?" Well, come to find out, the gun was just a toy. Now, the gun was a toy the entire time, even in the moment you experienced those frightening emotions; but those emotions were still real. The truth about the gun didn't protect you from an unnecessary experience of terrible emotions.”
The same goes for how we think about God. If we reject Christ out of a false perception of who God is, we will miss out on the fullness of life that He gives. Our experiences will almost always back up our beliefs. Discerning God as angry and unhappy will cause instances to occur in your life where you "think" this false god is simply confirming who he is-- really stinkin' mean. It is not the truth that sets a man free, but the knowledge of it. The mind is a powerful tool. It can hinder or help us. Our search for knowing the truth helps align our experiences with what is actually real.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
"...and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come." For starters, "wait for" should be "abide." Secondly, to come is the Greek word eschomai, which is a verb only used in the present or imperfect (referring to the past and a continual state) tense. This word would not be used for a future event. There is no “wrath to come” in this verse. It would read more accurately if it said, "The wrath that has come." Now that that's taken care of, we need to scan some surrounding verses to determine what message Paul is trying to get across to this church in Thessalonica.
Paul starts off this letter by commending the church for imitating the Lord, and Paul and his comrades. They were living lives worthy of praise, especially for their ability to leave their idols behind and worship only God. This quick framework gets us to verse ten. Paul's use of orge is referring to the consequences that living a sin-filled life produces-- essentially, self-destruction. Living by the life of Christ delivers a man from having law and sin wreak havoc in every single area of his life. Paul is alluding to the cosmic principle of sowing and reaping. You sow seeds of sin, tragedy sprouts up. You sow seeds of love, shoots of blessing seem to appear out of nowhere.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
Most of us have been scared at one time or another by this. Someone says, “You know, ‘For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.’" This verse shouldn’t be a scary one, but it has sadly been painted as such. Let’s look deeper as this verse gives us context for verse nine. I did some studying on this and here's what I think. I see this "day of the Lord" being the arrival of Jesus on planet earth through the virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Like a “thief in the night,” most didn't recognize him as the Messiah that had been prophesied about. They expected an imperial-type Christ. Paul is saying that even though these religious people give lip service to peace and safety, they won't find it in their rules or in their hunger for power. Because the believers have recognized Jesus as God, they have entered into eternal life, which is the way of peace and love. "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." So we see, God has not appointed people to experience their own anger or His, but He has revealed His true nature in giving of Himself. And now, we get to experience continual salvation [from sin and the law] as the free gift that it is. Verse ten is another bombshell..."So that whether we are awake or asleep (dead or alive/aware or blind), we will live together with Him [my parentheses added]." Let that marinate in your mind for a while.
Wrath & Hell
In Western Evangelical Christianity, most people associate "God's wrath" with the idea of eternal torment-- "hell." Sadly, this association leaves people thinking that it's God's wrath sending people to hell. To me, there are several errors in this line of thought.
One very compelling point is that Paul NEVER referenced eternal torment. Not even once. He never wrote "hell" into any of his New Testament letters. He did, however, use orge numerous times, especially in Romans (his most doctrinal book). It's ironic that in modern Christendom, they typically think of wrath sending a person to hell, but Paul never actually made such a claim. I'm not discounting the existence of a hell, but I am suggesting that we need to rethink how wrath relates to hell. I don't want to dive into this rabbit hole of rethinking hell right now, but it's also worth noting that Paul talked a whole lot about being saved and salvation. Again, he did so without ever referencing hell. In fact, out of all the books we have in the Bible that were written by Jesus' apostles, hell is only referenced TWO TIMES-- once by James and once by Peter. Both of these instances can be challenged to whether or not they allude to a place of eternal fiery torment. Interesting stuff, don't you think?
Well, I hope you had as much fun reading this as I did studying and writing the content. Once again, my study on wrath mostly came through the lenses of: context, original word meaning, and Jesus. You may disagree with many of my points, if not all, but I hope you can appreciate my desire to make God out to be nicer than what most think He is. As I think about my life, if I am err in one aspect, I would want it to be making God out to be better than what He actually is. If I meet Him face to face and He says, "Jed, you sure did make me out to be much kinder than what I actually am," I think I’ll find solace there. I doubt it’s actually possible to exaggerate the goodness of God, but you catch my drift. Some might say I’m perverting the Bible and saying things it doesn’t say, but this is what the Spirit is teaching me. I would be remiss to deny His leading that I feel in my innermost being. As Wayne Dyer famously taught, I’m simply “playing the music” that’s been placed inside of me.
Comments
Post a Comment