When we bring up the notion of the wrath of God, a range of negative reactions is raised. One can hesitate to speak about it, another can have an aversion to tackle it, yet another can deliberately avoid the topic or treat it even with outright defiance. All of these tendencies can be found in Christianity, and in increasing measure!

No sensible person would dare to claim that it is easy to talk about God’s wrath. Moreover, serious questions can be asked about this topic, or exist in the hearts of those who sincerely believe. It will be evident that I cannot discuss all aspects here in this article, but what I want to do is, first, explore what are the underlying causes as to why there is a hesitation to talk about God’s wrath. Second, the question will be addressed as to why it is necessary that this gets attention in the preaching. And lastly, we confront the matter of, “If we need to speak about this, how do we go about this?”

Causes⤒🔗

An important breeding ground for the aversion of this topic can be found in the ongoing secularization of Western Europe. Faith in a more-or-less comprehensive, rational truth is disappearing. Postmodern people admit to having ever-increasing doubts about the “grand narratives,” so it is said. With just as much justification it can be pointed out that in the Christian tradition the “great words” are constantly eroding. Broad sections of the earlier European civilization still sensed the specific Christian meaning of concepts such as “sin,” “God’s law,” “grace,” and “justice.” But in the last decades such important biblical notions are becoming more and more unintelligible. This certainly holds true for the expression “the wrath of God.” Besides, the word “wrath” is seen to be disappearing in the everyday Dutch language, and is being replaced with “anger,” “fury,” “resentment,” or the like. Possibly it is also an important reason why the New Bible Translation now often speaks of “the anger of God” where it used to read “the wrath” or “sore displeasure of God.”¹

It also has become more challenging to speak about God’s wrath because of changes in the notion about God and who he is. In Roman Catholic theology and spirituality, as well as in broad sections of Protestantism and early evangelical movements, people considered that God is not only the gracious and merciful One, but also that he is terribly angry with our sin (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 4). That last part has become unpalatable for many, both inside and outside of the church. Due also to the influences of the two World Wars and other horrific events, the conviction has grown that “I cannot believe in a God who allows such things to happen, or who is so vindictive about people’s sin.” For many it has become the reason why they said farewell to their faith and to the church. Others continue to believe in God, but see in him only the gracious and merciful Father. To them, the church has always misread what was said about God’s wrath. God only has one purpose: the salvation of all men!²

Not only has there been a change in the notion of God, this is also connected to changing notions about humanity. This process of change has been accomplished in different areas. One thing I want to point out is that people by and large have lost sight of sin as our human guilt before God. It is not the “in-thing” these days to speak of sin in the biblical sense of the word. “People deem it problematic to be identified as guilty. It does not fit well with the awareness of people’s own autonomy. … We also have the greatest difficulty acknowledging our guilt. We rather speak about our fate than our guilt, about our helplessness than about sin.”³ Where this vagueness in our view of sin and guilt continues to have an impact, we also find the wrath of God disappearing from view.

Finally – although there are still more causes one can mention – changing perspectives on the person and the work of Christ are found to be contributing to this process. Classic Reformed theology emphasizes, “Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. Thus, by his suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, he has redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtained for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 37). Jesus Christ’s dying on the cross shows us how great is the wrath of God against sin, but also shows us the richness of grace and forgiveness that God will grant to sinful people. A large number of Christians, however, do not want to know of what has sarcastically been termed as “scapegoat theology,” that is, that Christ bore the wrath of God in our place. People view Christ’s suffering, for example, much more as a sign of God’s solidarity with people who are suffering, burdened by anxieties and feelings of senselessness. Where the doctrine of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ starts to get veiled, our perspective on what constitutes grace will shrivel away from our lives as well.

Of course it is not true that all these motives are playing a role for everyone who challenges the concept of God’s wrath. It may well be that someone has a very important reason for his reservations, or someone is only partially aware of his actual motivation. My only purpose has been to illustrate the current climate in which could arise such antipathy for speaking of God’s wrath.

Proclamation of God’s Entire Word←⤒🔗

But why then should the wrath of God be addressed explicitly in the preaching? Is it not much more correct and more pastoral to leave this notion quietly in the background? In that way we do not deny it, but neither do we allow the proclamation of the “most joyful message” of the gospel (Canons of Dort, I.3) to become clouded over. In addition, we often hear people say that in these difficult and confusing times they especially need words of comfort and encouragement. The notion of God’s wrath does not fit well for this time. Nonetheless, there are some significant arguments to ensure that the fact of God’s anger over sin features expressly in the regular preaching. I will mention three reasons.

In the first place, preaching is, according to a Biblically-reformed standpoint, ministry of the word of God. This implies that in the regular preaching in the congregation, the entire word, or rather, the complete teaching of Scripture needs to be presented. For everyone who reads the Bible it will be clear that the Scriptures expressly and with great seriousness show God is angry about sin and injustice. This happens repeatedly in the Old Testament, especially in the proclamation of the prophets.⁴ In the New Testament there is no essential difference. Yes, there is a difference in how matters are accentuated, which has everything to do with the transition from the old to the new dispensation. In the New Testament the floodlight is on the revelation of God’s love in the sending of his Son and his work of salvation. After Pentecost, that gospel needs to be proclaimed unabridged and freely to the peoples “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). But that message of God’s love in Christ is embedded in references to the reality of God’s wrath toward those who reject this gospel (John 3:16-18, 36). Under no circumstances do we find in the New Testament any rejection of God’s wrath, or it being pushed into the background on account of the message of God’s love.

Indeed, no one speaks with greater intensity and severity about the wrath of God, the judgment, and hell, than the Christ himself.⁵ Therefore, it should then not surprise us that this theme also received a prominent place in the missionary preaching of the apostles. In the book of Acts we have summaries or reports of their presentations. Salvation in Christ is the central focus. But Peter also mentions that Christ has commanded him and the other apostles to “preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). And Paul emphasizes that God overlooked the times of ignorance, “but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed” (Acts 17:30-31).⁶

Someone might counter this and say, “But this is a missionary situation. This proclamation, this emphasis on God’s wrath, may be justified to those who are foreign to or estranged from the church. But what about the proclamation within the congregation of Christ? Isn’t the covenant community a sanctuary where one is safe from the wrath of God?” Certainly, especially within the church, the way of escape is shown, and “how we can be again received into God’s favour” (HC, Lord’s Day 5). Within the congregation we experience the power of God’s promises and the effect of Christ’s blood that washes away all sin. But nowhere does the Bible teach that the congregation is protected, either by definition or automatically, from God’s anger and judgment. On the contrary, in the New Testament the edge of the wrath of God is directed at the congregation.⁷ The beginning of 1 Corinthians 10 shows this in an impressive way. Paul reminds his readers of an important episode from Israel’s history. All the people, he writes, passed through the Red Sea. In the desert they all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor. 10:1-6).

Preaching: The Key←⤒🔗

The second reason why God’s wrath needs to be incorporated into the preaching lies in the fact that Reformed theology sees preaching as the first and most important key of the kingdom of heaven. The implication is verbalized well in the Heidelberg Catechism. I cite the entire question and answer: “How is the kingdom of heaven opened and closed by the preaching of the gospel?” And the answer is, “According to the command of Christ, the kingdom of heaven is opened when it is proclaimed and publicly testified to each and every believer that God has really forgiven all their sins for the sake of Christ’s merits, as often as they by true faith accept the promise of the gospel. The kingdom of heaven is closed when it is proclaimed and testified to all unbelievers and hypocrites that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation rest on them as long as they do not repent. According to this testimony of the gospel, God will judge both in this life and in the life to come” (HC Lord’s Day 31, Q/A 84).

It is not feasible – and also not necessary – to expand much on what is said in this passage. But a single comment is in place. It is remarkable that here the Catechism speaks about the proclamation of the gospel. That is the true calling of the church, no more but also no less! It is in that framework that the announcement of the judgment for unbelievers is heard.

The Catechism says it is “proclaimed and testified” that God’s wrath rests on them. Both words reveal that this statement should not function as a mere token entry or be touched upon in passing.⁸ The whole congregation comes face-to-face with the preaching about judgment: the believers are acquitted, and whoever persists in unbelief will be condemned.⁹ That is the “final seriousness” of the proclamation of the gospel, where the shadows emerge of the future day of the definitive judgment for the living and the dead.

Preaching: An Incentive←⤒🔗

Finally, the preaching of God’s wrath also serves as a stimulus toward sanctification of our lives. One of the admonitions in the letter to the Hebrews reads: “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” The ultimate motivation for it is, “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:14, 29). God’s judgment is not just about us being sinners, or about whether or not our lives are truly hidden in Christ. The judgment also includes our good works.¹⁰ In this connection we can refer to Paul’s discourse starting in 1 Corinthians 3:10. The apostle writes in this passage about the return of Christ and notes that this day will appear with fire. The works of some will be burned up, while the works of others will survive the heat. The distinction Paul makes is not between believers and unbelievers, between people who are saved and people who are lost. It deals with a distinction between believers, where some will have built and contributed good works on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and others have not. Those who have built wrongly will be saved, but their works are lost in the fire.¹¹ The believers offend God with their sins, they grieve the Holy Spirit, and they incur God’s wrath over themselves (cf. 2 Sam. 12:10–14; Canons of Dort, V.5).

The “How”←⤒🔗

Finally, some remarks about the way in which God’s wrath needs to be presented.¹² In the first place, we note that it should always be shown in the light of the Bible (passages) and never isolated from the gospel of God’s grace. With the latter I mean to say that the preaching about God’s wrath and judgment may never degenerate into a one-sided “hell-and-doom” type of preaching. Especially in the past there have been instances of this, although no doubt there is also evidence of some caricatures of this happening today.

Next, we need to address this matter in all seriousness. Jesus as well as his apostles used a style of expression to emphasize the severity of God’s wrath and judgment. This style befits us as well.

We may never use this theme as a means to drive fear into people. In Scripture, the proclamation of the wrath is embedded in the perspective of the urgent call to repentance, faith, and sanctification (Matt. 11:20-24; Rom. 1:18f, 2:5f). Of course, in preaching there are several other motives to appeal to the listeners, but letting the Bible speak implies the proclamation of the reality of God’s wrath, which certainly belongs to it!

In the fourth place, our speaking about this theme should always be discreet and sober. Preachers of doom from the time of the Middle Ages, but also ministers from pietistic or revival movements, spoke about the coming judgment and eternal condemnation, often painting it in bright colours and using a lot of dramatics. There have always been people who have been impressed by this. But this manner of preaching does not result in broken hearts. Only the love of God in Christ can accomplish that. Besides, the necessity to speak soberly and discreetly about the wrath of God is very much in line with Scripture. It is characteristic for the way in which Christ and the apostles introduced this theme.

Finally, it may not be concealed that the Bible places judgment and condemnation in the perspective of the comfort of the believers. By the grace of God they may know that Christ carried the full burden of God’s wrath and that in doing so he has gained for them life eternal (HC, LD 15). It is for that reason that God’s wrath has been turned away from them. In the final judgment they will not be condemned, but share forever in God’s love, and will live triumphantly with Christ (HC LD 19, Q/A 52; BC, Art. 37).

Warning←⤒🔗

Concealing or denying the notion of God’s wrath in preaching is definitely not some innocent or unimportant blind spot. It has far-reaching consequences. To underline this I cite a warning by Trimp, which I endorse emphatically: “Where the preaching of God’s wrath, judgment, and condemnation is being diminished or reduced, there the fear of the Lord will be abrogated and devotion and godliness will be watered down. We may still hear of ‘sin’ but we replace it with ‘grace’ and carry on as before. Such preaching can no longer unsettle us and it does not announce the judgment. It will have lost the solid foundation of which the Catechism speaks in Lord’s Day 31.”¹³

This article was translated by Wim Kanis