We speak, indeed, of the “wrath” of God. We do not, however, assert that
it indicates any “passion” on His part, but that it is something which
is assumed in order to discipline by stern means those sinners who have
committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called God’s
“wrath,” and “anger,” is a means of discipline; and that such a view is
agreeable to Scripture, is evident from what is said in the sixth Psalm,
“O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy hot
displeasure;”[762] and also in Jeremiah, “O Lord, correct me, but with
judgment: not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me to nothing.”[763] Any
one, moreover, who reads in the second book of Kings of the “wrath” of
God, inducing David to number the people, and finds from the first book
of Chronicles that it was the devil who suggested this measure, will, on
comparing together the two statements, easily see for what purpose the
“wrath” is mentioned, of which “wrath,” as the Apostle Paul declares,
all men are children: “We were by nature children of wrath, even as
others.”[764] Moreover, that “wrath” is no passion on the part of God,
but that each one brings it upon himself by his sins, will be clear from
the further statement of Paul: “Or despisest thou the riches of His
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of
wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” How, then, can
any one treasure up for himself “wrath” against a “day of wrath,” if
“wrath” be understood in the sense of “passion?” or how can the “passion
of wrath” be a help to discipline? Besides, the Scripture, which tells
us not to be angry at all, and which says in the thirty-seventh Psalm,
“Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,”[765] and which commands us by the
mouth of Paul to “put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy,
filthy communication,”[766] would not involve God in the same passion
from which it would have us to be altogether free. It is manifest,
further, that the language used regarding the wrath of God is to be
understood _figuratively_ from what is related of His “sleep,” from
which, as if awaking Him, the prophet says: “Awake, why sleepest Thou,
Lord?”[767] and again: “Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and
like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.”[768] If, then,
“sleep” must mean something else, and not what the first acceptation of
the word conveys, why should not “wrath” also be understood in a similar
way? The “threatenings,” again, are intimations of the [punishments]
which are to befall the wicked: for it is as if one were to call the
words of a physician “threats,” when he tells his patients, “I will have
to use the knife, and apply cauteries, if you do not obey my
prescriptions, and regulate your diet and mode of life in such a way as
I direct you.” It is no human passions, then, which we ascribe to God,
nor impious opinions which we entertain of Him; nor do we err when we
present the various narratives concerning Him, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves, after careful comparison one with another. For those who are
wise ambassadors of the “word” have no other object in view than to free
as far as they can their hearers from weak opinions, and to endue them
with intelligence.
Footnote 762:
Cf. Ps. vi. 1.
Footnote 763:
Cf. Jer. x. 24.
Footnote 764:
Cf. Eph. ii. 3.
Footnote 765:
Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 8.
Footnote 766:
Cf. Col. iii. 8.
Footnote 767:
Ps. xliv. 23.
Footnote 768:
Cf. Ps. lxxviii. 65.