# WRATH does NOT equal HATRED



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 19, 2010)

Just recently listened to a three-part-series public debate on the subject of common grace on Sermonaudio.com between Ron Hanko (speaking against common grace and maintaining that God never shows favour of any kind to any but his elect) and David Silversides (defending the doctrine of common grace; i.e. that God does show favour to the non-elect in this present life).

Ron Hanko made an interesting point in stating that so many Christians today have the misconception that, when the Bible talks about God's wrath and hatred, they mean the same thing. This is what he said,



> "I don’t believe that the elect are ever hated by God, but I certainly believe that they can be under the judicial wrath of God, and that they often are under it, even after they’ve been brought to salvation, that they can experience the heavy hand of God against them in their sins, as David did, when he sinned with Bathsheba, he records his experience of the wrath of God against his sins in Psalm 32.
> 
> I can be very wrathful with my children, but that doesn’t mean I hate them. I certainly had better not hate them in being wrathful with them. In fact, my wrath with them is my expression of my love for them. At least it should be, and by the grace of God I hope it is. But you see, what I’m saying is, there’s quite a difference between wrath and hatred. God certainly can be angry and when He comes to them and saves them, then He saves them from wrath, and from that deep sense of condemnation that’s part of the wrath of God, to give them peace through His grace. But that does not mean that He hates them. His wrath against them is not a wrath which is rooted in hatred for them, but a wrath rooted in His eternal and unchangeable love for them, even after they’ve been saved, when He reveals His wrath, He reveals it in order to turn them from their sins, and to bring them back to Himself."




Here's the link to the debate, if you're interested:
SermonAudio.com - Sermons on common grace
The debate is entitled "Common Grace: Is it Biblical?"


I, myself, have come up with the following idea:

*Wrath is God’s righteous judgment of the sinner. 
Hatred is God’s just rebrobation of the sinner.

Wrath is God’s means of judging the sinner.
Hatred is God’s decree of the destruction of the sinner.*

I'm certainly not sure, whether this is the true understanding regarding the nature of God's wrath and hatred, or whether there even is a distinction to be made between the two. I have found a way to harmonize this line of thinking by proposing that, when the Bible talks about "the wicked", it refers not to God's elect, but the reprobate wicked, alone. This way of reasoning is undeniably true, when the Bible talks about "the righteous" or those who "do good" (in the sight of God), for the only way of being truly righteous, and of bearing good fruits is _by Christ_ (Phil. 1:11). The problem arises, however, that if by "the wicked" is meant only the reprobate, then how could it be said that Christ died for "the wicked"?
My main intention here is, nevertheless, that I could get a clearer understanding on the words 'wrath' and 'hatred' as described in the Bible. I have a strong feeling that the original thought behind the minds of the Hebrew writers is missing concerning these words.

*WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS ON ALL THIS?* I've been unable to find any antecedent threads concerning the making of distinction between the words 'wrath' and 'hatred' as described in the Bible - *have there been any discussion on this topic before?*


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 19, 2010)

Opinions, anyone???


----------



## Edward (Sep 19, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Opinions, anyone?



In my opinion, Sunday morning US time is probably not a good time to try to get a response from PBers.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 23, 2010)

Edward said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Opinions, anyone?
> ...


 
Oh, I was totally ignorant of the time zones! I live in Finland, so, no wonder I get no responses. But _now_, I'd like to have some deep opinions on what is suggested above concerning the nature of God's wrath and hatred. Be so kind.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

*can anyone, please, respond to this thread?*


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 24, 2010)

Common Grace in my eyes should begin and end with the rain falling on both the Elect and the Non-Elect. When I read PRC theologians on this issue I tend to agree with them in principle over some who argue against their position.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Common Grace in my eyes should begin and end with the rain falling on both the Elect and the Non-Elect. When I read PRC theologians on this issue I tend to agree with them in principle over some who argue against their position.



Common Grace is not the topic here. The question is, *Is there a difference between God's wrath and hatred?*


----------



## Andres (Sep 24, 2010)

I'll bite since you are desperate for an answer... they (hate & wrath) seem the same to me. Perhaps its just an issue of semantics. 

In the quote from the Hanko gentelman (I have no idea who he is), he seems to confuse wrath with discipline. I don't think parents pour out their wrath on their children, but rather they discipline their children when needed. He is correct that parents should never hate their children when disciplining them, in fact proper Godly discipline is an act of love. I actually don't even think a person can be wrathful in the same sense that God can, so that analogy just seems way off to me.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

Andres said:


> I'll bite since you are desperate for an answer... they (hate & wrath) seem the same to me. Perhaps its just an issue of semantics.
> 
> In the quote from the Hanko gentelman (I have no idea who he is), he seems to confuse wrath with discipline. I don't think parents pour out their wrath on their children, but rather they discipline their children when needed. He is correct that parents should never hate their children when disciplining them, in fact proper Godly discipline is an act of love. I actually don't even think a person can be wrathful in the same sense that God can, so that analogy just seems way off to me.


 
So, you think wrath has _no relationship _with discipline. Well, let's just see - I'll present to you some leading questions:

*Why does God or any father discipline their children?* Answer: *because there is something to be corrected in them.*
*What is it, then, that is to be corrected in them?* Answer: *their disobedience, unrighteousness = SIN.*
*What is the object of God's wrath?* Answer: *SIN.*
*How does God discipline His children?* Answer: *by showing them His wrath against their SIN *(this, indeed, He does not _in full measure_).

You still insist wrath has nothing to do with discipline? God's wrath has everything to do with His correction of our way of living. God will let us taste His wrath in this life, while He corrects our ways, but as I stated earlier, He does this "not _in full measure_".


----------



## Andres (Sep 24, 2010)

Dear Samuel:

1) why do you plead for people to answer your questions when you already have your mind made up with an answer? If you simply want to play devil's advocate, then I think you should state so up front. 

2) I still disagree with you.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

Andres said:


> Dear Samuel:
> 
> 1) why do you plead for people to answer your questions when you already have your mind made up with an answer? If you simply want to play devil's advocate, then I think you should state so up front.
> 
> 2) I still disagree with you.


 
Why are you so angry with me? I simply want to discuss this topic with rationality. You still disagree with me? Could you explain to me why you think so in light of what I've stated? Do not understand me wrong, I'm not desiring to play devil's advocate, I'm simply in need of hearing sound Biblical reasoning on this topic of God's wrath and hatred, and if I find something is wrong in your way of arguing, then I'll ask you to explain yourself to me more clearly.


----------



## Andres (Sep 24, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Samuel:
> ...


 
why do you assume I'm angry with you? I'm not.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 24, 2010)

Samuel, I'll admit this is not a question I've given much thought to. Wouldn't the logical place to begin be with a consideration of the Biblical usage? Do the references that contain the words translated as "wrath" or its cognates present an idea that is distinct from those that speak of "hatred" and its cognates? You might already be working on such an investigation; but if not that would be one way to test your idea.

Speaking of these things in relationship to men, Thomas Aquinas writes:


> We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect, between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it.—The second difference is, that both the objects of love are good: since the lover wishes good to someone, as something agreeable to himself: while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable to him. Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of good, viz., vengeance, which it desires to have; and the other object under the aspect of evil, viz., the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged. Consequently, it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.


So Thomas draws a distinction between hatred and anger; but of course the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, and wishes that someone to experience it as evil; but he would seem to conceive it as a good for him, for the other man to experience evil.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Samuel, I'll admit this is not a question I've given much thought to. Wouldn't the logical place to begin be with a consideration of the Biblical usage? Do the references that contain the words translated as "wrath" or its cognates present an idea that is distinct from those that speak of "hatred" and its cognates? You might already be working on such an investigation; but if not that would be one way to test your idea.
> 
> Speaking of these things in relationship to men, Thomas Aquinas writes:
> [quotes]We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect, between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it.—The second difference is, that both the objects of love are good: since the lover wishes good to someone, as something agreeable to himself: while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable to him. Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of good, viz., vengeance, which it desires to have; and the other object under the aspect of evil, viz., the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged. Consequently, it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.





> So Thomas draws a distinction between hatred and anger; but of course the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, and wishes that someone to experience it as evil; but he would seem to conceive it as a good for him, for the other man to experience evil.


 
Thank you. I will take these thoughts in consideration in my research of the meanings of 'wrath' and 'hatred'. (At present, it seems to me that 'anger' is most closely related to 'wrath'.)


----------



## Hilasmos (Sep 24, 2010)

I would answer based on the lexical meaning of "wrath" often being equated by the word "anger;" and, based on its usage in Romans 1, I would respond as follows:



> Why does God or any father discipline their children? Answer: because there is something to be corrected in them.



I would add, because something needs to be corrected and he _wants_ it corrected.



> What is the object of God's wrath? Answer: SIN.
> How does God discipline His children? Answer: by showing them His wrath against their SIN (this, indeed, He does not in full measure).



Rather, by _not_ showing them wrath and showing them discipline. As mentioned, I am drawing from Romans 1, where wrath is poured out against unrighteousness and sin, and this outpouring results in judicial hardening; it is to give them over to more sin. Wrath, as seen here, is not restorative like discipline, therefore wrath cannot be applied to God's children, whom he disciplines. There are two different desired outcomes inherent in discipline and wrath.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 24, 2010)

Hilasmos said:


> I would answer based on the lexical meaning of "wrath" often being equated by the word "anger;" and, based on its usage in Romans 1, I would respond as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That "wrath is poured out against unrighteousness and sin" does not imply a judicial hardening. That's your own harsh conclusion. Romans 1 tells us simply that God is angry or wrathful with sinners, and that He's going to make His wrath manifest - not what this manifestation of God's wrath will _result in_. It is judicial hardening to those whom God hates, and discipline to those whom God loves. That's how I see it.


----------



## Hilasmos (Sep 24, 2010)

> *InSlaveryToChrist*: That "wrath is poured out against unrighteousness and sin" does not imply a judicial hardening. That's your own harsh conclusion. Romans 1 tells us simply that God is angry or wrathful with sinners, and that He's going to make His wrath manifest - not what this manifestation of God's wrath will result in. It is judicial hardening to those whom God hates, and discipline to those whom God loves. That's how I see it.



Are you really going to argue that 1:18 is disjointed from what follows? From what disposition of God does this "giving over" come from, if not his wrath as clearly stated in the text. God's wrath is revealed against unrighteousness, this wrath results in this judgment.



> Romans 1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men





> Romans 1:22-24: Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
> 
> [ _Theres the description of the unrighteousness that God's wrath is against_]
> 
> ...






> Romans 1:28-29: And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,



Further, judgment is connected as the manifestation of God's wrath consistently in the book:



> Romans 2:5: But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,






> Romans 3:5-6: But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?





> Romans 9:22: What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?





> Romans 12:19: Never take your own revenge, beloved, but* leave room for the wrath of God*, for it is written, *“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”* says the Lord.



Disagree or not, this is not my "own harsh conclusion."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 25, 2010)

Hilasmos said:


> > *InSlaveryToChrist*: That "wrath is poured out against unrighteousness and sin" does not imply a judicial hardening. That's your own harsh conclusion. Romans 1 tells us simply that God is angry or wrathful with sinners, and that He's going to make His wrath manifest - not what this manifestation of God's wrath will result in. It is judicial hardening to those whom God hates, and discipline to those whom God loves. That's how I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think you must be right... Besides, what I just realized was that it is said that we have been "the children of wrath, even as others," which implies we are no longer under God's judicial wrath. Then, clearly, it cannot be said that God's disciplining of us is a sign of God's wrath toward us because that's not how God sees us anymore - because of Christ. Thus, the purpose behind God's disciplining of us is not that His wrath would be removed from above our heads (because this has already happened), but rather that we would know more about our wickedness and thereby would know more about God's love for us, and that we would in so doing ENJOY GOD FOREVER IN PRAISING HIM, and as _the final purpose_ of all God's acts, TO GLORIFY HIS NAME.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 3, 2010)

This is quite an interesting question Samuel, and might lead to further light on the subject of common and saving grace, and other things. 

As Ruben says, a lexical study would have to be made of all the Hebrew and Greek words for wrath/anger and hatred in the Bible and how they are used, to see how tenable it is.

There is one mistake here:-

*Quote from Ron Hanko*


> I can be very wrathful with my children, but that doesn’t mean I hate them.



The elect aren't truly God's children until they are converted.


----------

