Remembering Stan Grenz
The theologian died Saturday at 55.
posted 03/14/2005 10:45 a.m.
On Saturday, March 12, Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz passed away after suffering a brain hemorrhage at the untimely age of 55.
Dr. Grenz was a prolific writer, having authored or co-authored 25 books. He taught at a variety of institutions including Regent College, Baylor University, and Carey Theological College. Grenz was a leading expert on the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, but he was also a favorite theologian of the emerging church network. A brief biographical sketch can be found on his personal website .
Stan Grenz served as a consulting editor for Christianity Today, and in 2004 CT published this meditation about learning to trust God in the midst of our anxieties. We urge you to read it today in his memory.
Stanley J. Grenz was born in Alpena, Michigan, on January 7, 1950, the youngest of three children of the Rev. and Mrs. Richard A. Grenz. Stan is a graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder (Bachelor of Arts with distinction, 1973), Denver Seminary (M.Div. with honors, 1976), and the University of Munich, Germany (D.Theol. magna cum laude, 1978), where he wrote a dissertation entitled “Isaac Backus--Puritan and Baptist” under the supervision of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Stan’s academic excellence as a student was applauded through membership in Phi Beta Kappa (University of Colorado) and by being the recipient of the Robert G. Kay Scholastic Award (Denver Seminary). During his professional career, he has been the recipient of a Fulbright Grant for sabbatical study in Munich, Germany (1987-1988) as well as a Theological Research Fellowship awarded by the Association of Theological Schools (1993), and he was named a fellow with the Henry Luce III Fellowship in Theology program (1999-2000). Stan has also been included in two editions of Who's Who in Religion, as well as in the 2002 edition of Who's Who in U.S. Writers, Editors and Poets.
On June 13, 1976, Stan was ordained into the gospel ministry. He has worked within the local church context as youth director and assistant pastor (Northwest Baptist Church, Denver, CO, 1971-1976), pastor (Rowandale Baptist Church, Winnipeg, MB 1979-1981), and interim pastor on several occasions. In addition he has preached and lectured in numerous churches, colleges, universities and seminaries in North America, Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia.
To date, Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, the latest of which is Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). He has served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to over two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print over a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. These have appeared in journals ranging from Christianity Today and the Christian Century to Christian Scholars Review, Theology Today and the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Several of these essays and books have won writing awards in the USA and Canada.
Stan has served as president of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (1989-90) and as a member of the national board of the American Academy of Religion (1989-90), the South Dakota Committee on the Humanities (1986-90), the editorial board of Perspectives in Religious Studies (1985-88), the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (1983-88), the steering committee of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion (1988-1995; co-chair, 1990-1994), the Ethics Commission of the Baptist World Alliance (1986-2000), the Social Action Commission of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (1994-1996), and the steering committee of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association (1996-2000). Currently, he participates in both the Doctrine Commission and the Theological Education Committee of the Baptist World Alliance, is a consulting editor of Christianity Today, and sits on the advisory boards of several publishing companies and Christian organizations.
For twelve years (1990-2002), Stan held the position of Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver BC. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003 to resume his duties as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA. Prior to his initial move to Vancouver, he was Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at the North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls SD (1981-1990). While in the pastorate (1979-1981), he taught courses both at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL.
Edna Grenz is Minister of Worship at First Baptist Church, Vancouver, where Stan has sung in the choir and played guitar and trumpet in the worship team. Stan and Edna are the parents of two married children, Joel and Corina (Kuban), and one grandchild, Anika Grace Kuban, all of whom reside in the Vancouver area. 

Roy Moore: 'We Have No Morality Without an Acknowledgment of God'
As the Supreme Court decides how to rule after hearing arguments over the Ten Commandments, the former chief justice of Alabama's highest court says removing government religious monuments are like getting a ticket for driving 50 mph in a 55 zone.
posted 03/07/2005 09:30 a.m.

After being removed from his post as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove a six-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments, Roy Moore has taken his fight across the country. He says not only are monuments of the Ten Commandments constitutional, but some acknowledgment of God is necessary for the survival of the constitution. CT online assistant editor Rob Moll spoke with Moore the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments over two Ten Commandment cases, in Texas and Kentucky.
You had representatives attending the oral arguments on Wednesday. Do you have any initial thoughts about the case?
Both of the defendants in these cases, defending the Ten Commandments, are doing so with secular humanism, with our own history, arguing that the Ten Commandments are not relevant today. It's in a museum setting. It's the smallest of the monuments. They make every effort to distance themselves from God, and that is the danger that people do not realize. I hope people will wake up to this.
What we've got to watch here is not what they do, but what they say. If they leave the Ten Commandments or if they take the Ten Commandments and they base their ruling on secular humanism, that is a devastating precedent. It's basically saying you can do something as long as you don't profess it, as long as you don't believe it. That is the danger.
The Court refused my case because we said the monument acknowledges the sovereign God, which is permissible under the First Amendment. They then take these two cases that are argued on the basis of a denial of God's sovereignty, that it's a matter of history. The people that are arguing that position think they're doing right, but I would submit to you that it's a very wrong thing to do because you're bowing down to government.
That is the argument in other cases, that as long as the Ten Commandments or "under God" doesn't mean anything religious, then it's permissible.
One of the most offensive arguments that I've found was in one of the briefs said that any reasonable observer would recognize that this monument is in the town where Madalyn Murray O'Hair lived. During all that controversy, it was a hotbed of litigation, and it was never contested. That argument says that because the prime atheist in our country didn't protest, it should be okay. And that's terrible.
Because so many Christians make historical arguments for the Ten Commandments or other monuments, it may seem strange to hear you say that the government must acknowledge God. What is the legal basis for your argument?
It's the very purpose of the First Amendment. It's what we have the First Amendment for. That is still the right we have, to acknowledge God. It protected us from federal government interference. And that's exactly what's happening. The federal courts are saying we cannot acknowledge God. But they have no jurisdiction. It's the fundamental organic law of our country. God. God's law was the basis which entitles us to have a Constitution and a country.
The court is not even interpreting the First Amendment properly, despite the fact that they have no jurisdiction. When they do have jurisdiction they rule by their feelings, not by law. To properly interpret a law you have to interpret the words in the statute or constitutional amendment. That is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," being the first part of the First Amendment. The courts are not even trying to do that. They're ignoring the words of the statute and ruling by their own feelings and predilections with meaningless tests that have no relationship to law—the coercion test, the endorsement test, and the historical analysis test.
To make that clear, I use an example. Say you were stopped for speeding and given a ticket and go to court in a municipality, and the judge said, "I'm going to have to put you in jail for six months and fine you $5,000." You say, "Why?" "You were speeding." You say, "Judge, I was going 50 miles per hour, the speed limit was 55."
He would stop you and say, "Wait a minute, we can't address the definition of speeding or what speeding is. From the reasonable observer standing on the corner, they said you were going faster than the other cars. It would be endorsing speeding if we allowed this to occur."
You would say, "Judge, I was going 50 and the speed limit is 55."
He says, "No we can't define the speed limit. And furthermore you coerced other drivers to pull over because they weren't going as fast as you."
You say, "That's not speeding. We've got to look at what the speed limit was."
Finally, if he said, "Well because you were going 50 and we've historically allowed people to go 50, we're going to overlook it."
We'll that's allowing you to do something you have every right to do. The speed limit was 55; you were going 50.
So you see what they're doing is ruling by paths that have no relationship when they don't define the words. That's the clearest example I can use to tell you what's happening with the Supreme Court. If you read their opinions, they sound so eloquent, so lofty, but they're meaningless. They're not related to law. The word religion was defined by the United States Supreme Court and by others as the duties which we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it, i.e. it recognized God and it recognized higher laws.
The Supreme Court doesn't want to recognize the definition. So as they did in my case in Alabama, they ignore it and say it's impossible to define. Their basic mistake is to assume that government gives you freedom of conscience, when our Supreme Court in 1931 recognized that freedom came from obedience to the will of God. They just lost those concepts.
As you said, those arguing to keep the Ten Commandments are not arguing that government should acknowledge God. You are the only one making that claim. What chance is there that the Supreme Court would recognize that right?
All I can say is it's our responsibility to offer the truth. It's plain, simple fact that the law is the law. It hasn't changed. The acknowledgement of God is basic to our society, to our law, and to our morality. Christianity is in a prime position to wake them up. I can't do it alone, and Christians need to be awakened to what's going on in our country. If we continue to let this happen, what will happen is a complete departure from our constitutional form of government. The basis of our morality is being destroyed. We have no morality without an acknowledgment of God.
Would you prefer the Supreme Court reject the Ten Commandments rather than allow them for only historical reasons?
I think the First Amendment of the United States Constitution doesn't prohibit displays acknowledging God, any acknowledgment of God, whether by state or federal official. My preference would be the United States Supreme Court dismiss the case and say they don't have jurisdiction. The First Amendment tells us to keep out of it. But if you ask how they could rule, I'd say, if they're going to leave the Commandments, they better recognize that nothing prohibits such conduct. But they don't have jurisdiction to rule.
 

When Gratitude Gets Complicated
Thoughts on Saying Thank You at Bethlehem and Desiring God
March 2, 2005 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
When you are in a position of receiving great blessing from many people, expressing gratitude can get complicated. This is our position both at Bethlehem and at Desiring God.
These ministries are sustained by the grace of God through the gifts of people. At Bethlehem this is entirely the case: we depend on God to cause his people to give $6,000,000 this year. We have no other source of income. At Desiring God, we are a not-for-profit ministry that does sell things and use the income to sustain the ministry. But our low prices, and our “whatever you can afford” policy, and our making web, audio, and radio available without cost, means that we depend on God to cause people to give hundreds of thousands of dollars without which the ministry could not do what it does.
God is merciful to do this. He keeps his promises: “My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). Thousands of people give to support Bethlehem and Desiring God. Those of us who lead are deeply thankful. We believe it is fitting to say so. The heart that does not feel thankful and does not feel like saying thank you is hardened by pride. The humble heart is amazed at God’s grace and people’s generosity. The humble heart loves to say thank you.
So we who lead are in a position of loving to say thank you to thousands of people. The situation at Bethlehem and Desiring God are significantly different in this regard. At Bethlehem we are a covenant community and becoming a member of this church involves making a covenant to give. “We engage to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.” Therefore we do not ask for money from anyone outside, but only appeal to the members to support the work of Bethlehem.
Not only that, the leaders of the church do not know how much any member gives. One person, Paul Johnson, the financial secretary, knows that. If a member does not give, Paul should share that with the elders and it would move the elders, in love and patience, to ask why. But the elders do not know what people give. Therefore our expressions of gratitude are broad and general rather than personal and specific. We say repeatedly from the pulpit and other ways, Thank you, Thank you, to God and to our people. I say it again here: Thank you for cheerfully yielding to God’s leading in sustaining this ministry.
At Desiring God things are different. This ministry is not a church and has no covenant membership to support the work. It is governed by a board that is appointed by and accountable to the elders of Bethlehem. So it is under the authority of the church. But it has a measure of ministry independence that sets it apart from the way the church itself functions. Therefore Desiring God depends on gifts from people all over the world.
We do not ask for money on the radio. The reason for this is that we do not view the radio audience as a community of Christian supporters (though some of it is). We view it as the world in general. Our bent therefore is to give not get—to offer not ask. The radio is emphatically not a fund raising device. It is a means of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. Once we have a personal contact from someone, and there is some evidence of interest and common cause, we feel free to ask them privately (usually by mail) for their help.
Then comes the unique challenge of how to thank them. We can say thank you on the radio, and we do in careful terms. But that is delicate because oh, how easy it is to slide into using words of thanks as a subtle way of asking for money. But thousands of our donors at Desiring God do not hear the radio program. If we are going to thank them, we must do so through the mail.
Here is where it gets more complicated. Should we send the same thank you letter to the person who gives $5 as the person who gives $5,000? That is, should larger donors get special attention? Should they get, perhaps, a note from Jon Bloom the Executive Director? A note from me? A phone call?
Here is where we presently stand. When Jesus saw the rich putting money in the temple box and then saw a poor widow put in her two coins, he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them” (Luke 21:3). Does that mean that the $5 gift from the poor person should get greater attention from us than the $5,000 gift from the wealthy person, because the sacrifice was greater? Yes, if we know that is the case. But we are not Jesus. We do not know the circumstances of our givers, except in unusual cases.
There are three crucial factors that would create more thanks and more attention if we knew them: 1) the level of sacrifice that a gift represents; 2) the measure of good will in the heart; 3) the degree of trust that a person has in the ministry. None of these can be measured by the amount of the gift. A very large gift may not represent as much sacrifice, good will, or trust as a small gift. We simply cannot know the hearts of our donors.
Does this mean that there should be no special response to very large gifts? There is one factor that we can measure that differentiates a small from a large gift: the ministry expansion potential made possible by the gift. To put it more simply, larger gifts enable us to do more things. This is true no matter what the heart condition of the donor is. We believe that humble leaders should feel a special overflow of joyful gratitude in response to these larger ministry possibilities. And we believe that this special overflow should be expressed in special ways. It would seem strange to us if our hearts leaped up to God because we could now preach the gospel on five new radio stations, but we did not speak a special word to the donor who made it possible with a $50,000 gift.
Please pray for us. You can see the challenges to be biblical and humble and grateful. God sees the sacrifices behind the $5 gifts. Pray that our letters of thanks for them be full of heartfelt love and gratitude. And pray that we never, never schmooze with the rich.
In need of your prayers,
Pastor John
 

Global Suspense
The trick of faith is to believe in advance what will only make sense in reverse.
by Philip Yancey | posted 03/01/2005 09:30 a.m.

Going through a stack of old Time magazines recently, I was astonished at how different the world looks now compared to 30 years ago. Back then Time was running cover stories on "The Coming Ice Age"; now we hear about global warming and devastating tsunamis. World maps showed a large red stain of communism spreading across Indochina and Africa. Economists predicted the end of American dominance and a new global parity among the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and Europe. Of all continents, Africa offered the brightest prospects for growth.
A more recent magazine, from August 2001, reported breathlessly on the latest developments in the mysterious disappearance of a House intern and her affair with a California congressman. I searched in vain for the words al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Somehow, it seems in retrospect, prognosticators missed all the defining political events in my lifetime, including the war on terrorism and the end of the cold war. As I went through the stack of magazines, I tried to remember how it felt at the time, when I truly feared the prospect of nuclear war, when Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, and Lebanon was the most dangerous place in the Middle East.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman once explained that in writing history she tried to avoid "flash-forwards." When a historian writes about the Civil War, for example, he or she should resist the temptation to include "Of course we all know who won" asides. From the early months of the war right through until Gettysburg, it looked as if the South might prevail. Tuchman tried to avoid flashing forward to a later, all-seeing point of view; she sought instead to recreate history for the reader, conveying a sense that "you are there."
Right now, regarding issues like the war in Iraq, the ascendancy of China, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, we truly are "there," unable to predict how history will turn out. Thirty years from now some researcher may pore over a stack of contemporary Time magazines with similar bemusement.
As I reflected on our poor record at predicting the future, it struck me that the Bible often centers on the act of waiting. Abraham waiting for just one child. The Israelites waiting four centuries for deliverance, and Moses waiting four decades for the call to lead them, then four more decades for a Promised Land he would not attain. David waiting in caves for his promised coronation. Prophets waiting for the fulfillment of their own strange predictions. Mary and Joseph, Anna, Simeon, Elizabeth, and Zechariah waiting like most Jews for a Messiah. The disciples waiting impatiently for Jesus to act like the power-Messiah they longed for. (Even cousin John flagged: "Are you the one, or must we wait for another?")
Still we wait. The nuclear threat from the U.S.S.R. has faded, along with the U.S.S.R. itself, but now we worry about "dirty bomb" attacks from terrorists. We no longer fear glaciers, except as they melt. A massive earthquake in the Indian Ocean proved a lot more damaging to Southeast Asia than did the SARS virus. How will all these crises turn out? Still trapped in the "now," we simply do not know.
Jesus' final words at the end of Revelation are "I am coming soon," followed by an urgent, echoing prayer, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." That prayer remains unanswered in an era of history perilously suspended between his first appearance, as a baby in a manger, and his second, as the one with blazing eyes described in one of Revelation's many flash-forwards.
In the last days, said Peter, some will scoff at the prospects: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." Peter himself believed that "the end of all things is near." After two millennia of waiting, scoffers rule the day.
In a German prison camp in World War II, unbeknownst to the guards, the Americans built a makeshift radio. One day news came that the German high command had surrendered, ending the war—a fact that, because of a communications breakdown, the German guards did not yet know. As word spread, a loud celebration broke out.
For three days, the prisoners were hardly recognizable. They sang, waved at guards, laughed at the German shepherd dogs, and shared jokes over meals. On the fourth day, they awoke to find that all the Germans had fled, leaving the gates unlocked. The time of waiting had come to an end.
And here is the question I ask myself: As we Christians face contemporary crises, why do we respond with such fear and anxiety? Why don't we, like the Allied prisoners, act on the Good News we say we believe? What is faith, after all, but believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse?
 

God’s Wrath: Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay, Says the Lord

God’s Wrath: Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay, Says the Lord
February 27, 2005 — Sermons Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Here we have in verse 19 the phrase “wrath of God.” “Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Last time we focused on the psychology of this verse and how it works to free us from the burden taking justice into our own hands. We focused on implications of the word “for” in verse 19: “Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Since God is going to take up your cause and see to it that justice is done, you can lay it down. You don’t have to carry anger and bitterness and resentment and revenge. Indeed you dare not. Jesus warned that an unforgiving heart will destroy you in the end (Matthew 6:15; 18:35).
The Reality of God’s Wrath
But today I want to focus not on the psychology of the verse but the divine reality that makes the psychology work, namely, the reality of God’s wrath. Paul says in verse 19, “Leave it to the wrath of God.” Then the wrath of God is defined further as God’s vengeance, “Vengeance is mine.” So wrath is connected with God’s response to something that deserves vengeance. And then it says, “I will repay.” So God’s wrath is treated as a repayment to man for something man has done.
So just taking this verse alone, with its pieces, we could venture a definition of the wrath of God like this: the wrath of God is God’s settled anger toward sin expressed in the repayment of suitable vengeance on the guilty sinner.
Four Characteristics of the Final Wrath of God
The reason I use the word anger to define part of what wrath is that the two words (orge and thumos) are used over a hundred times in the Bible side by side. Some of them are parallel so that you can hardly distinguish them. For example, Psalm 6:1, “O Lord, rebuke me not in your anger, nor discipline me in your wrath.” Psalm 90:7, “We are brought to an end by your anger; by your wrath we are dismayed.” Hosea 13:11, “I gave you a king in my anger, and I took him away in my wrath.” Romans 2:8, “For those who are self-seekingand do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury [anger].”
When you try to distinguish these words the closest you get is something like this from A. T. Robertson: God’s anger (thumos) is his vehement fury or boiling rage. His wrath (orge) is his settled indignation or his settled anger. In other words, in God’s anger the emphasis falls on the emotional, boiling intensity of it. And in God’s wrath the emphasis falls on the controlled, settled, considered direction and focus of its application. But we dare not draw a hard line between them. God’s anger is never out of the control of his wisdom and righteousness, and his wrath is never cool or indifferent, but is always a wisely directed fury. The wrath of God is never less than a perfect judicial decree, but is always more than a perfect judicial decree because it is always full of right and fitting fury.
And then we see from the word “repay” and “vengeance” that God’s wrath is his response to sin. God does not take vengeance on the innocent. When he repays with vengeance, we know there has been sin—there is something to repay. And since he is meticulously just, that repayment will be a suitable vengeance, a proper vengeance. It will not be more or less than his perfect justice demands. So here is the definition again: The wrath of God is God’s settled anger toward sin expressed in the repayment of suitable vengeance on the guilty sinner.
What shall we say then about this wrath? Perhaps in the limits of one message we can take note of four things. If we focus on the wrath of God that falls on human beings at the final judgment, we can say at least these four things about it: 1) It will be eternal—having no end. 2) It will be terrible—indescribable pain. 3) It will be deserved—totally just and right. 4) It will have been escapable—through the curse-bearing death of Christ, if we would have taken refuge in him.
1. The final wrath of God is eternal—having no end.
In Daniel 12:2 God promises that the day is coming when “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Jesus spoke of the eternity of God’s wrath in numerous ways. Consider three. In Mark 9:43-48, he said,
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
So twice he calls the fires of hell “unquenchable”—that is, they will never go out. The point of that is to say soberly and terribly, that if you go there, there will be no relief for ever and ever.
Second, in Mark 3:29 Jesus says, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” This is a startling statement. It rules out all those thoughts of universalism that say, even if there is a hell, one day it will be emptied after people have suffered long enough. No. That is not what Jesus said. He said that there is sin for which there will never be forgiveness. There are people who will never be saved. They are eternally lost.
Third, in Matthew 25 he told the parable of the sheep and the goats to illustrate the way it will be when Jesus comes back to save his people and punish the unbelievers. In verse 41 he says, “Then [the king] will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” And to make crystal clear that eternal means everlasting he says again in verse 46, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” So the punishment is eternal in the same way that life is eternal. Both mean: never-ending. Everlasting. It is an almost incomprehensible thought. O, let it have its full effect on you. Jesus did not intend to speak this way in vain.
After the teaching of Jesus, the apostle Paul put the eternity of God’s wrath this way in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9:
The Lord Jesus [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away fromthe presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
Destruction does not mean obliteration or annihilation, any more than the destruction of the enemy army means the defeated soldiers do not exist any more. It means they are undone. They are defeated. They and stripped of all that makes life pleasant. They are made miserable forever.
Finally, the great apostle of love, the apostle John, who gives us the sweet words of John 3:16, used the strongest language for the eternal duration of the wrath of God: “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night” (Revelation 14:11). And Revelation 19:3, “The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.” These are the strongest phrases for eternity that Biblical writers could use.
So the first thing we must say about the wrath of God at the end of the age that comes upon those who do not embrace Christ as Savior and Lord, is that it is eternal—it will never end.
2. The final wrath of God will be terrible—indescribable pain.
Consider some of the word pictures of God’s wrath in the New Testament. And as you consider them remember the folly of saying, “But aren’t those just symbols? Isn’t fire and brimstone just a symbol?” I say beware of that, because it does not serve your purpose. Suppose fire is a symbol. Do people use symbols of horror because the reality is less horrible or more horrible than the symbols? I don’t know of anyone who uses symbolic language for horrible realities when literal language would make it sound more horrible.
People grasp for symbols of horror (or beauty) because the reality they are trying to describe is worse (or better) than they can put into words. If I say, “My wife is the diamond of my life,” I don’t want you to say, “Oh, he used a symbol of something valuable; it’s only a symbol. So his wife must not be as valuable as a diamond.” No. I used the symbol of the most valuable jewel I could think because my wife is far more precious than jewels. Honest symbols are not used because they go beyond reality, but because reality goes beyond words.
So when the Bible speaks of hell-fire, woe to us if we say, “It’s only a symbol.” If it is a symbol at all, it means the reality is worse than fire, not better. The word “fire” is used not to make the easy sound terrible, but to make the exceedingly terrible sound something like what it really is.
So Jesus says in Matthew 13:41-42, “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (see verse 49). Then he adds at least three more terrible images of God’s wrath besides fire.
He pictures it as a master returning and finding his servant disobeying his commands, and he “will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 24:51). The wrath of God is like cutting someone in pieces.
Then he pictures it as darkness: “The sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12). The wrath of God is like being totally blind forever.
Finally he quotes Isaiah 66:24 and says “Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48). In Isaiah 66:24 God says, “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
In Revelation 6:15-16, the apostle John adds that the wrath of God—indeed the wrath of Jesus himself—will be so terrible that every class of human beings will cry out for rocks to crush them rather than face the wrath:
Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slaveand free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb."
The last picture of horror that I will mention is the final one of the Bible, namely, the lake of fire. It is called the “second death” in Revelation 20:14, “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” Revelation 2:11 says that those who conquer—that is, believers in Jesus—“will not be hurt by the second death,” implying that those who do not believe will be. Revelation 20:15 makes that explicit: “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Then verse 10 adds, “They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Therefore, I consider it a gentle understatement to say, “The final wrath of God will be terrible—indescribable pain.” And putting the first and second truths together: This terrible, indescribably painful wrath will last for ever. There will be no escape. Now is the day of salvation. Now is the day of God’s patience. After you die, there will be no offer of salvation and no way to obtain it.
3. The wrath of God will be deserved—totally just and right.
Paul labored to show this in the first part of this letter to the Romans. Let me remind you of how he said it: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). Wrath does not come without warrant. It is deserved. The truth of God is known (Romans 1:19-20). And the truth is suppressed. And the fruit is ungodliness and unrighteousness. And on that comes wrath (Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6).
He says it even more explicitly in Romans 2:5, “Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” We are responsible. We are storing up wrath with every act of indifference to Christ. With every preference for anything over God. With every quiver of our affection for sin and every second of our dull affections for God.
Then he says it once more in Romans 3:5-6, “If our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” Nothing was clearer for the inspired apostle than that God is just and God will judge the world in terrible wrath.
And lest you think that your sins do not deserve this kind of wrath, ponder these four things:
It was one sin alone that brought the entire world under the judgment of God, and brought death upon all people (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12). And you have not committed one sin, but tens of thousands of sins.
Consider James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Not only have you sinned tens of thousands of times, but each one had in it the breaking of the entire law of God.
Consider Galatians 3:10, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’” The wrath of God’s curse falls on us for not obeying all that is commanded. One failure and the curse falls.
Consider that any offense and any dishonor to an infinitely honorable and infinitely worthy God, is an infinite offense and an infinite dishonor. Therefore, an infinite punishment is deserved.
Which leaves one last point to make. And Oh, how crucial it is! How precious it is. How infinitely beautiful it is.
4. At the end of the age, when the full and final wrath of God is poured out, it will have been escapable.
That means it is escapable now. You do not have to spend eternity under the wrath of God if you will receive God’s Son as your Savior and Lord and Treasure. Why is that? How can that be? Because God so loved the world that he sent his own infinitely valuable Son to absorb the infinite wrath of God against all who take refuge in him. Listen with trembling wonder and gratitude and faith to this precious statement from Galatians 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'"
Christ bore the curse of God’s wrath for all who come to him and believe in him and glory in the shelter of his blood and righteousness. Come. Come. He is infinitely worthy.