WRATH. The concept of anger is used in the Scripture in regard to both God and man, and is a major doctrine of both the Jewish and Christian religions.

I. The wrath of God

It is a Biblical principle that the wrath of God is of a totally different order and definition than the wrath of man. Generally speaking the love of man is as far from the wrath of man as the wrath of man is from the wrath of God. The difference in kind between human and divine anger is so great as to be incalculable and human wrath is creaturely and subject to the creation ordinances of God.

A. Divine wrath in the OT. The wrath of God is frequently presented in the OT, both in principle and in historical examples. It has a fundamental place in the presentation of the Biblical ground-motive of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration. The absolute necessity and consequence of redemption after the Fall is centered in the nature of iniquity and the demands and finality of the divine wrath.

1. OT terminology. Historical events and natural calamities in the OT are frequently understood as displays of the divine wrath. Often the principle of God’s anger is presented in anthropopathistic terms; thus the terms indicating the range of human emotions from irritation to fuming rage are applied to the motivations of God. Another class of terms are those used in various contexts and meaning the active reduction of a substance. Thus a large number of terms describing processes are anthropomorphically applied to the actions of God. Following are lists of the two classes of terms: 1. In the first group are a number of common nouns and verbs the most frequent being the noun אַפ֮, H678, an ancient Sem. root cognate to Akkad. appu, “nose,” used metaphorically in the sense of “in sight,” “in the presence.” The primary meaning in Heb. as in Akkad. is “nose”; however, it is secondarily developed to mean “anger,” and the verbal form אָנַף, H647, means “to disdain,” “to be angry,” which has been traditionally explained by the folk etymology that “snorting” or “wheezing” through the nose is indicative of anger. It is even proposed that in Heb. psychology the nose was the center or organ of such emotions. Psalm 18:8 is thus explained as an anthropomorphic image of God’s nostrils smoking with wrath. This is not necessarily a correct explanation, as such expressions are usually dependent upon idiomatic usages. Expressions frequent in Eng. “heartache,” “quaking knees,” “cold feet,” and the like by no means indicated either a physiologic condition or any essential psychologic assumption (noun Gen 27:45, et al.; verb Deut 1:37 et al.). The noun חָרﯴן, H3019, “burning,” is used most often with the noun ’āp̱, and the divine titles in the sense “fierce anger of the Lord” (Num 25:4). In a large number of poetic passages the phrase used is ḥārōwn ’āp̱, often associated with one of the divine titles in the sense of “fierce anger of (divine name).” There is no direct restriction as to its use in parallelistic poetry. It appears with or without the divine name as either “A” or “B” phrase (Ps 78:49; Zeph 2:2, et al.). Often the other parallelistic expression is one taken from the second class of terms mentioned above. A verb commonly appears of the same root as ḥārōwn, חָרָה֒, H3013, which in the Qal stem means to “burn,” “be inflamed with anger.” However it is used exclusively in the sense of “to be kindled” (Gen 44:18). Similar expressions relating to human feelings of “burning” as חֵמָה, H2779, “heat,” “wrath,” “poison” or even “venom” are found (Gen 27:44). The root is common to E Sem. languages, however the semantic range is not totally similar. Less frequently used are other terms for human emotions such as עֶבְרָה, H6301, “excessive,” “violent outburst” and secondarily “fury” (Gen 49:7); and in the sense of “arrogance” (Isa 16:6). The verbal form of this root, עָבַר֮, H6297, used in the Hithpa’el stem, הִתְעַבָּֽר, means “to be irritated,” and in some occurrences “to show oneself infuriated” (Ps 78:21). In this interesting passage which contains a perfect tripartite parallel, three different expressions for “wrath” are found. Another noun קֶ֫צֶפ֒, H7912, “wrath” occurs in Jeremiah 10:10 while the verbal form of the root קָצַף, H7911, “to be embittered,” means in the Qal stem “be wrathful” (Lev 10:6), but in the Hiphil הִקְצַ֛פְתָּ, “to provoke to wrath” (Deut 9:7). The term זָעַם, H2404, is sometimes tr. as “to be angered,” “to rage,” but the proper meaning is “to curse” (Nah 1:6). It may be extended as in Isaiah 10:5 where it is set parallel as the “B” word to ’āp̱, but does not strictly mean “anger.” A similar root is the noun and verb זָעַם, H2404, “indignation” (Mic 7:9). In a more passive sense the noun כַּ֫עַס, H4088, and the variant form כַּ֫עַשׂ, H4089, means “vexation,” “provocation” (Deut 32:19, et al.). The verb is considerably more frequent in usage and has the stronger connotation “to feel a loathing,” as in the incidents of Israel and the nation’s sinning (Hos 12:14, “provocation”). The shade of meaning peculiar to each word is lost in their service as parallel terms. This is esp. true of the verbs where synonyms are difficult to locate. Of the second class of terms a number are drawn from agricultural activities, plowing, Heb. חָרַשׁ֒, H3086, (Jer 26:18); plucking, Heb. נָתַשׁ, H6004, (Jer 12:14, 15); reaping, Heb. קָצַר֒, H7917, (Isa 17:5); threshing, threshing instrument, Heb. חָרוּצ׃֙ (Isa 28:27); winnowing, Heb. זָרָה֒, H2430, does not appear but the concept is frequently used in such contexts (Ps 1:4, et al.); treading, pressing, Heb. דָּרַכְ, H2005, (Isa 63:3); slaughtering, several terms are used the most frequent being Heb. טָבַח, H3180, (Isa 34:2). Other terms used as synonyms and descriptions of the divine anger are taken from the crafts, demolishing, tearing, Heb. טָרַף, H3271, (Job 16:9); smelting, Heb. צָרַף, H7671, philologically, but not semantically cognate to Akkad. ṩarāpu(m) often tr. “refine” in KJV (Mal 3:2, 3); destructive or reducing processes common to certain fabrications, Heb. נָפַצ֒, H5879, (in the Pi’el) shatter, dash (Ps 2:9); Heb. נָתַק, H5998, break, break apart (Ps 2:9). Many other examples could be given, however, another set of terms from the military are also used. Especially important are those words descriptive of battle and combat as the armies of Israel and the nations are often described as the means of God’s vengeance and wrath (Isa 10:5, 6). Most frequently are found the terms for defeating the enemy. It is important to note that nowhere in the OT is Jehovah mentioned as Himself fighting, nor are any supreme weapons mentioned, as is common in the Babylonian and Egyptian annals. The victories won by Israel are won by the might of Jehovah’s will and the onslaught of His messengers. This demonstrates itself very clearly in the fact that many indirect associations are made between God’s anger and Israel’s victories.

2. Means and ends of the divine wrath. The means of the divine wrath are always some created agency of God’s will, His angelic hosts (2 Sam 24:17), His people of Israel (Ezek 32:9-31), Gentile nations (Isa 10:5, 6) and forces of nature at God’s command (Judg 5:20). Through the valid agency of these forces God brings about His just cause in the history of men and the course of nations. The ends like the means of His wrath are just and right. The end of God’s wrath is twofold: (1) The maintenance of the creation law order which demands justice. (2) Retribution to those who act wickedly. Throughout the activation in history of the divine wrath the objectivity and responsibility of the means are held strictly intact. The wrath of Jehovah is never unleashed for no purpose or for some mysterious outcome; the acts of God in justice are always clearly visible. The divine wrath is equally incensed at all evildoers whether among the covenant people or without among the Gentile and pagan nations. The kings, priests, prophets, tribes and people of Israel are judged and punished as well as the leaders and rulers of the nations (Ps 2:1-3). In the 19th cent., it was characteristic of the scholastic systematics of the time to make a spurious distinction between the sinner and his sinful act, and to then assume that the very real wrath of God was only vented upon the abstract notion of the sinner’s sin. The OT is clear, however, that iniquity does not exist apart from the iniquitous acts of the wicked. The judgment is therefore leveled upon the wicked creature. This is why the means and ends of God’s wrath often take the form of war and carnage. These distinctly human forms of violence and bloodshed are used for God’s glory. The general evolutionary humanism of the late 19th and 20th centuries has found this Biblical concept cruel and unaccepta ble, but its essential truth is seen in the course not only of Biblical but also post-Biblical history.

Of primary importance is the fact that God holds the objects of His wrath responsible for their sins and therefore justly delivers them up for destruction. Because of this last fact many commentators reject the portrayal of God in the OT, as cruel and capricious. In such judgments, they lose sight of the ends of God’s wrath which are the restitution of the law spheres which have been violated by the design of the wicked. In this sense the covenant operates without question, the usurpation of God’s authority by men or angels brings about their swift and sure destruction in the face of God’s wrath. The very holiness and transcendence of God are such that they must be approached with fear and awe. To blaspheme His sovereignty through resistance to His revealed will, the law and Scripture, is to invite and demand His wrath. One central consideration is that the apostasy of Israel in accepting the world views of the Gentile nations and worshiping their pagan idols is a direct cause of social inequity and political disruption. Against both of these God’s wrath is ignited. The law of the prophet Moses and the warnings of the great prophetic voices are binding alike upon Israel and the Gentiles. Since the OT declares the threefold promise of God’s people in their own land, to be the source of God’s blessing to all mankind, it is obvious that the wrath of God is to be kindled against those both within and without Israel who attempt to frustrate the divine plan (Num 11:1; Deut 1:26-36; 13:2, 6, 13 et al.; Josh 7:1; 1 Sam 28:18; Ps 2:1-6; 78:21, 22).

3. The divine wrath and the atonement. The wrath of God works in two ways simultaneously, in that it delivers the oppressed (1 Sam 15:2, et al.) and condemns the wicked (Deut 7:4, 5). However, a basic part of the Biblical teaching concerning the wrath of God is that an atonement is offered to remove the wrath and justify the ungodly. This atonement in the OT is appropriated by the keeping of the law and trust in God’s promises (Ezek 36:22-32). Since the nations of the world are required to come to the covenant people of Israel for grace, the OT demands that Gentiles follow the law of Israel for mercy. The wrath of God then acts as a warning and an encouragement to human obedience. One special factor of the atonement in the OT is that it is consistently futurative. It presents the final removal of God’s wrath and the preservation of the atoned in terms of the great final day or days of God’s judgment. This eschatological aspect is associated with the OT teaching about the culmination of history in the “day” of God. The day of the divine visitation is primarily a day of wrath (Isa 2:12), but the same divine proclamation which shall bring damnation to the wicked will bring salvation upon His people (Isa 2:2-5). The most important term for this time is the Heb. בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים, “in the latter days,” the false hope of the wicked in their idolatries will prove futile (Ps 7:6-10).

The removal of the divine wrath upon satisfactory repentance or obedience is called by a number of Heb. terms, the most common being, שׁוּב֒, H8740, “turn,” “return” (Ps 85:3, 4) and Heb. נָחַם, H5714, “repent” (2 Sam 24:16). This diverting of the divine wrath is usually associated with the calamity of natural catastrophes, the common method of God’s judgment in history. It has been assumed by recent writers that the rituals of the Tabernacle and Temple in some magical way turned away the wrath of Jehovah, but this is not supported by the text. All of the rituals and cultic practices of Israel were confirmed in the eschatologic expectation of the great and final “blessing.” This would be brought to fulfillment by the “servant of the Lord” (Isa 49:7, 8; 53:10-12). The love of Jehovah was shown in His supplying free, unmerited grace sufficient for the needs of Israel’s atonement. A common mistake is to interpret the expiation of Israel’s guilt by some suffering or activity undertaken by Israel and with which the demands of Jehovah’s justice were satisfied; but there is nothing of this in the OT. The people of Israel were not redeemed from Egypt because of their faithfulness, but by the sustaining of the covenant by God. It is God who sets forth and provides the keeping of His covenant in spite of the sins of His people. In fact, the special elective place of Israel among the nations of the world carries with it a vastly increased responsibility before the face of God (Amos 3:2). The demands of God’s law are rooted in His justice, the provision for its keeping in His love. In the end it is the motive of love which the OT seeks (Ps 1:2, et al.), and which brings all of Jehovah’s blessings upon His people. This blessing and the promise of its certainty are based upon the app earance of the heavenly exemplar of the blessing, the Messiah. The final completion of both the wrath and mercy of the Old Covenant came to pass in the advent of the Lord Christ, in whose person both Judge and Saviour are one (Mark 1:14). In His coming all the promises and prophecies of the OT were fulfilled.

B. Divine wrath in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. The Apoc. and Pseudep. continue the theme of destruction upon the Gentile nations which have persecuted Israel (Pr Man 10ff.). The histories of the Apoc. look forward to a political messiahship and a restoration of the Davidic state. The Lord is the protector and victor for Israel (2 Macc 15:17-36.) The wisdom lit. is more eclectic and demonstrates certain syncretistic characteristics, so much so that Aristeas says: “It is necessary to acknowledge that God rules the whole world in the spirit of kindness and without anger of any sort” (254). But this is not typical of the older more traditional records. In the Apoc. and Pseudep. the wrath of God is more often than not directed in an almost mechanistic sense against some human oppressor (Jub 36:10) although in some passages the older prophetic message of God’s judgment upon an iniquitous Israel lingers on (4 Macc 4:21). An interest in the possible return of famous Biblical personalities is a feature of the Apoc. and Pseudep. generally and the mediatorship of Moses, Elijah or an angel in diverting the wrath of God is noted (Wisd Sol 18:21). No new interpretive ideas are added in either the Apoc. or the Pseudep.

C. Divine wrath in the DSS. The same pattern of interpretation found in the Apoc. and Pseudep. is carried through in the DSS with some minor extensions, the main one being in the cursing of the nations by the Jews and the expectation of an outpouring of divine wrath. The “day of wrath” is seen as the day of the ultimate triumph of the armies of Israel. In effect, the whole of the scroll 1 QM is concerned with the ordering of the Lord’s army for the outpouring of wrath. In such scenes the Romans replace the Hel. kings as the accursed objects of God’s anger. The division between the blessed, the Jews, and the damned, the Gentile nations, is complete in the DSS with none of the redemptive promise of the OT, and little of the threats against the apostasy within the covenant. In fact, the institutional temple is also castigated because of its fealty to Rome. The wrath of God has become political retribution. This warlike pervasive nationalism utilizes the imagery of the crafts more than the emotional terminology. Terms for smelting, refining and dividing predominate (1QS 1:16; 4:20; 8:4; et al.). Here and there in the scrolls the Gnostic view of the secret, irrational induction to truth can be detected. The elaborate rituals, the dualistic concepts of the blessed and the accursed are basic to the coming of the “day of wrath” for the initiates will then be vindicated. There is nothing of this in either the OT, or the NT.

D. Divine wrath in the NT. The NT supposes from its very beginning the end and fulfillment of the OT covenant. Therefore the wrath of God is understood with the ancient doctrines, but with a wholly new emphasis. The emphasis is that of obedience or submission to Christ. The anger of the final judgment is the anger of Christ. The nationalistic protection of the Jewish commonwealth by threats of divine wrath is totally absent from the gospel narratives. The reason is that the threefold promise has been kept and the Messiah of Israel is at hand. In this role Jesus Christ takes on the titles and many of the images of the OT.

1. NT terminology. Since the NT is considerably shorter than the OT and lacks the necessities of parallelistic poetry, the NT vocabulary is short. The common Koiné word for wrath is Gr. ὀργή, G3973, “anger,” “indignation,” “wrath” used in the LXX to represent a number of Heb. terms. It is used without distinction for all aspects of wrath as defined by the OT. A verbal form, ὄργιζω, also occurs but less than 1/10 as frequently as the noun. In the NT it is exclusively passive and accompanied by the dative of person. An adjective, ὀργίλος, G3975, is found infrequently in the LXX but only in Titus 1:7 in the NT, “not short tempered” (KJV “not soon angry,”) and an adverbial form, ὀργίλως, is found only in the NT apocryphal writings. The term is used of Christ only in the confrontation with the Pharisees (Mark 3:6), at the synagogue of Capernaum. However, the threat of God’s wrath resulting in eternal damnation is so central that the contention attributed to Marcion, a Gnostic heretic of the 2nd cent., that a dichotomy existed between the “loving heavenly Father” of Jesus’ discourse, and the wrathful Jehovah of the OT is without warrant. The use of the notion of the wrath of God is terrible in the NT because it is not applied to the political sphere in the sense of the victory or defeat of an alien power but has in view the soul destruction and eternal punishment of the wicked (Mark 9:43-48, et al.). There are no terms in the NT describing the wrath of God in anthropopathetic form. The images drawn from the OT of the wrath of God are those from the crafts and to these a new stylization is added, the use of OT images and known locations to signify the results of God’s wrath (Luke 12:5) and the cascade of images in Jude 11-15. Of the OT images thus used the most frequent are those common to Isaiah and the Psalms. Many of Christ’s parables deal directly with the wrath of God and portray it as the recompense, not alone for thwarting the nation of Israel and its destiny, but for rejection of the Messiah (Matt 7:13-27). Only in a few contexts are the judgments of God’s wrath associated with physical or natural calamity as is common in the OT. In Luke 13:4, 5, the suddenness of the fall of the tower of Siloam appears to be more important than the death of the eighteen victims. In fact, the teaching of our Lord is explicit in warning not of physical calamity, but of the punishment of the soul (Matt 5:21, 22; 10:28ff.). Aside from the indications of anger, slightly less violent emotions are attributed to Jesus in the contexts of His encounters with human sin and hypocrisy. He is described as ἀγανακτέω, G24, “aroused to anger,” “indignant,” “displeased” in the context of the disciples’ rejection of the children (Mark 10:14), but this is only a mere suggestion of the extremity and severity of the divine wrath.

2. Christ and the divine wrath. Christ plays a double role in the operation of the divine wrath. He is at one and the same time the heavenly judge and the primal sinner under judgment. No king, prophet or priest in the OT is ever mentioned as having the divine authority of judgment except as a messenger or servant of God. It is in this office that He is introduced by John the Baptist (Matt 3:11, 12; Luke 3:16, 17). The image of the supernal gleaner with his flail separating the righteous and the impious is repeated throughout the OT (Ps 1:4, et al.). In His parables Jesus repeats the description of the Lord of heaven as a judge (Matt 13:24-30). The specific threat of this future violence culminating in the “coming of the Son of man” (24:29-39) He applies to Himself. The very title “Son of man” is never associated with the human nature of our Lord, but with the place of His fulfillment of the OT expectations of the “latter days” and the “day of God.” The vicarious assumption of the guilt of sin by Christ so that He could receive the judgment of death is the most profound mystery of the Christian faith. The picture given us in the trial and crucifixion of the Messiah, Servant of God suffering before the human tribunals the outpouring of the wrath of God defies all description and silences speculation. The gospel narratives rely completely upon the terminology of wrath displayed in the OT, the “outpouring of the cup,” “drinking from the cup” and other such phrases. In the explanatory epistles the full meaning of Christ’s sacrifice in the atonement for sin and the expiation of the divine wrath is made clear (Rom 5:9; 8:1; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13 and many other passages). One final expansion of the wrath of God remains in the NT and that is the apocalyptic usage in Jude and Revelation. Although the OT “day of God” is complete with the coming of the Messiah, yet the terminology and meaning of the prophetic visions are carried over to apply to the parousia, the culmination of history in the final wrath of God, in the return of Christ. The most complex and involved prophecy of the end time is that in Revelation. The complete possibilities of the OT language are repeated. A brief list of some repetitions indicates the extent of dependence: burning (Rev 18:9); fire (Rev 8:7); fight (Rev 12:7); reaping (Rev 14:15); breaking (Rev 2:27, et al.). In the Ap. Lit. of the NT another aspect of the execution of the divine wrath is introduced. This is the judgment of bondage with unceasing torment (Jude 13; Rev 20:1-3; et al.). Over all the scene of horror thus recorded in the Revelation the once slain Messiah rules over the final culmination of God’s wrath (Rev 5:6; 9; 12; et al.).

II. The wrath of man

A. Human wrath in the OT. Although on restricted occasions, men are commanded to carry out the necessities of God’s wrath in the OT (Josh 9:20), unbridled fits of rage are judged by God as presumptuous of the divine authority (Ps 37:8, 9). The commands of God’s design were to be carried out without irritation (Num 20:11) and the fury of passionate anger is forbidden and rejected from Israel (Gen 49:5-7). Cruel and barbaric punishments are a sure subject of godly anger and the cunning of certain Gentile nations in inventing suffering brings upon them God’s destruction (Nah 3:1-4). Even the execution of criminals was to be without anger or malice (Deut 21:22), and an immediate burial was to follow. Often the heathen nations are used by God to bring about the suffering of wicked Israel in the times of her idolatry (Isa 10:5, 6), but the raging of the barbarous Gentiles was itself judged. The OT makes a clear distinction between warfare, the commitment of the state, and assault or murder, the fury of human anger. The command in the decalogue (Exod 20:13) is directly applied to murder by an individual. In the narratives of the OT the acts of anger mentioned are frequently the basis of judgment by God (Gen 4:5, 6; 34:13). Even the wrath of God is recognized as unfavorable (Num 18:5), but absolutely necessary, and nowhere does God take joy from the misery of the wicked, only joy at the triumph of His righteousness (Ps 2:4) which saves His covenant people. The OT principle is very clear that God alone has the authority to take vengeance (Deut 32:35; Ps 94:1).

The OT allows no such thing as “righteous indignation” except in the clamor of battle. Unlike the other documents of antiquity, the spokesmen of the OT take no joy in human agony. The deprivation of the wicked and the captivity of the conqueror is lauded and the imprecatory psalms and poems are frequent enough, but the bloodthirsty recitations of the kingly conquests and the details of the tormenting of the captives, so much a feature of Assyro-Babylonian annals are totally lacking. The wrath of the OT is satisfied with the deprivation of life and the removal of the body to a place of burial, the ultimate vindication of righteous wrath lies beyond the grave and out of the realm of human realization (Job 13:15).

B. Human wrath in the NT. If anything the prohibitions against human anger and its exercise are even stronger in the NT. The central teaching is Christ’s discourse on the mountain (Matt 5:9, 21, 22) wherein Jesus warns against even the pronunciation of wrath upon another man. This warning is repeated in almost all the epistles (Rom 12:19; 2 Cor 12:10; Gal 5:19, 20; Eph 4:26-31; Col 3:8; James 1:19, 20).

The ultimate goal of the atonement is the glorification of the believer, but an essential part of its application is sanctification. Certain passages in the NT make it clear that lack of sanctification is the subject of divine wrath (Rom 6:1; Heb 10:29). The need for sanctification is put in terms of salvation from the wrath of God itself (Jude 23) and the position of the Christian is often likened to that of the people of Israel who in their travels in Sinai often turned their backs upon Jehovah and so fell under His wrath (Heb 3:14-4:1). It is made equally clear that sanctification is accomplished in the atonement and is applied by God’s grace through faith in Christ (Rom 7:13-25). It is in this latter regard that the few references to “justifiable anger” are made in Scripture. In the effort to obey the law of God and emulate the love of Christ, anger must be immediately reconciled. To be sure anger generated in a genuine hatred of evil is approved (Ps 97:10 et al.), and this theme is apparent in the NT writers. Certainly Paul’s remarks about his detractors (Gal 1:8 et al.) are prompted by anger. However, in its most justifiable state anger is still reprehensible and subject to the judgment of God.

C. The concept of wrath in the Early Church. One of the major documents to survive from the period of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers is the treatise of Lactantius (a.d. 260-320?) entitled, De ira Dei, “The Anger of God.” The argument of this small work deals with the problem of whether God can properly be “angry,” in the light that human emotions cannot be attributed to the Creator. He answers this with a discussion of the creatorship of God and the fact that to allow sin without retribution would be unthinkable. His works are scholastic and prolix and the general judgment of the ages has been contrary to his method, but approving of his motives and goals. The question was reasserted in the writings of the Medieval scholastics but fell again into a lesser interest in the post-Reformation period. Like other similar doctrines of the Christian faith it has been a center of attention in times of political turmoil and religious persecution and largely ignored in seasons of tranquility and relative well being. In the present cent. of total war its veracity and importance has again come to the fore.

Bibliography Lactantius, “De ira Dei,” CSEL pt. 1, 2 (1897); R. V. G. Tasker, The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God (1951); J. Gray, “The Wrath of God in Canaanite and Hebrew Literature,” Journal of the Manchester University Egyptian and Oriental Society, xxv (1954) 9-19; A. T. Hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb (1957); B. T. Dahlberg, “Wrath of God,” IDB vol. 4 (1962), 903-908.