God Is Holy

So when we speak of the wrath of God, we imagine that God is irrationally full of rage, ready to “make heads roll” because he is so livid. In the same way that God’s love is not a silly, sappy feeling but rather a consistent desire for the good of his people, so also the wrath of God is not a crazed rage but rather a consistent opposition to sin and evil. God hates sin, we say (not the sinner, however), but even then, the idea of God hating something seems beneath him. We have a difficult time with the concept of God’s wrath and judgment and condemnation because our only examples of these things are so negative.

The solution to the problem is in understanding that in the Bible the wrath of God is pathos and not passion. The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains the difference:

the wrath of Yahweh3 is portrayed somewhat differently from human anger in the Hebrew Bible. In some respects this is essentially the difference between “passion” and “pathos.” Passion can be understood as an emotional convulsion . . . and . . . a loss of self-control. . . . “Pathos” on the other hand, is an act formed with care and intention, the result of determination and decision.

Give an example of the difference between passion and pathos.

The wrath of God is not like human wrath, which is a reckless and irrational passion. For example, God is never described by Paul as being angry. Anger is a human emotion. Wrath is different. God’s wrath is a mindful, objective, rational response. It is actually an act of love. God is not indecisive when it comes to evil. God is fiercely and forcefully opposed to the things that destroy his precious people, which I am grateful for. It is a sign of God’s love: “God’s wrath must be understood4 in relation to his love. Wrath is not a permanent attribute of God. Whereas love and holiness are part of his essential nature, wrath is contingent upon human sin; if there were no sin there would be no wrath.”

Wrath is a necessary reaction of a loving and holy God, a good and beautiful God, to evil. God’s wrath is a temporary and just verdict on sin and evil. As J. I. Packer notes, “God’s wrath in the Bible5 is always judicial,” and is “a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil.”

Packer concludes his point by asking, “Would a God who took6 as much pleasure in evil as he did in good be a good God? Would a God who did not act adversely to evil in his world be morally perfect? Surely not.” And if the Creator of the universe were this indifferent, would the universe be fair? One of the things we humans cannot escape is our longing for fairness and justice. I do not want a universe in which there is no justice, no right and wrong. And I do not want a God who is indifferent to moral evil.

I think the best example of wrath I can find on a human level is the organization known as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). This organization was created by mothers (and I assume some fathers) whose children were killed by intoxicated automobile drivers. For many years the laws against drunk driving that caused deaths were somewhat lenient, considering it involuntary manslaughter. Often the perpetrators were not incarcerated and would drive drunk again. In response, the devastated mothers let their anger fuel their passion to work toward justice. They helped the world see that to drink until inebriated was a choice people made, and therefore these people did not kill involuntarily. Through ad campaigns and grassroots efforts, MADD has helped toughen laws and has changed the way people think and act. In the end, it is safe to say that their efforts—while unable to bring back their own children—have saved the lives of other people’s children.

These mothers’ example is about as close as I can come to understanding what godly wrath looks like on the human level. God really hates the effects that sin inflicts on his children. To say that God is indifferent to child abuse or infidelity or even identity theft is ludicrous. I want no more to do with that kind of god than I do the old, vengeful god who is ready to strike me for missing my quiet time. Both are wrong. God is love, and because God is just, he stands mightily against sin and evil. And I am so glad.

The essence of God is holiness. Holiness is a divine attribute. God is pure. There is no sin, evil or darkness in God. The Bible proclaims the holiness of God throughout:

Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?

Who is like you, majestic in holiness,

awesome in splendor, doing wonders? (Exodus 15:11)

For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. (Leviticus 11:44)

And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;

the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6:3)

Why is the truth that God’s wrath is an action and not an attribute so important? What does the difference mean to you?

Holiness is an essential part of God’s nature. God cannot not be holy in the same way that God cannot not be love. This is not true of God’s wrath, which is not an attribute of God. Wrath is not something that God is but something that God does. While it is correct to say God is holy, it is not correct to say God is wrathful. Wrath is the just act of a holy God toward sin. This is a very important distinction. Many people begin with the notion that God is angry and wrathful, but this is untrue. God is holy and pure. And God’s holiness and purity are a part of God’s goodness and beauty. Holiness is God’s essence. God is not wrathful by nature. Wrath is what humans experience when they reject God. And it is a necessary part of God’s love.

For years I had trouble reconciling the love and wrath of God. A breakthrough for me came when I read the great Scottish writer and preacher George MacDonald. In one of his sermons he wrote these four profound words: “love loves unto purity.”7 The sermon was based on the text found in Hebrews 12:29: “Our God is a consuming fire.” MacDonald merged the concepts of unconditional and unending love with holiness. That is, God loves us so much that he longs for us to be pure and works tirelessly to make us pure. MacDonald points out how God is against sin and thus for humans: “He is always against sin8; in so far as, and while, they and sin are one, he is against them—against their desires, their aims, their fears, and their hopes; and thus he is altogether for them.”

If God’s love were to “burn” something out of your life that is holding you back, what would it be?

God is against my sin because he is for me. And if I am for sin, God stands against those desires, MacDonald is saying, because they cause my destruction. I would not have it any other way. To be sure, I am prone to excusing my sin or rationalizing my weaknesses, but God is not in that business. Though we are now reconciled through Christ, God is not indifferent to my sin. It hurts me, and therefore it hurts God—because God loves me.

God does not make me feel bad or shame me into better behavior. Nor does he use fear or guilt. God’s method of change is the highest of all. God’s holy love burns the dross of sin out of our lives. It is God’s kindness that leads to genuine repentance (Romans 2:4). As MacDonald said, “love loves unto purity.”

As I said earlier, the teddy-bear god is an appealing alternative to the “Marquis de God,” the sadistic and angry god who hates and harms unjustly. But in reality, we don’t want the teddy-bear god because that god is not holy. J. I. Packer asks an insightful question: “Would a God who did not care9 about the difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable Being? . . . Moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection.” A permissive God might say, “Sin is not such a big deal—especially if my creatures are not hurting each other. All humans sin. I’ll look the other way. Sure, they are living as their own gods, but can you blame them? I made them in my image, so they’re taking after me! I can overlook that too. I think they’re trying to do well.”

I may want this teddy-bear god when I’m feeling guilty, when my conscience is bugging me or when I want to rationalize my desire for sin. But I do not want this god in the long run. This god is like permissive parents who let their kids drink and do drugs and have sex without guilt. When we were young, we thought they were cool, but they weren’t; they were lazy and did not really love their kids. Many of their kids went on to do hard drugs, and most of them wrecked their lives before they turned twenty-one. These may be the kinds of parents you think you want when you are fifteen, but you really don’t.

I don’t want a god who says, “It’s cool. Don’t sweat it. Everybody sins, just do it without the guilt, dude. Guilt stinks. Just have a good time!” This god does not love me. Being soft on sin is not loving, because sin destroys. I want a God who hates anything that hurts me. Hate is a strong word, but a good one. Because the true God not only hates what destroys me (sin and alienation) but also has taken steps to destroy my destroyer, I love him. And because this God destroyed sin by making the supreme sacrifice himself, taking all of the guilt and pain and suffering of my sin upon himself, I love him with an everlasting love.

Because God is love, hell—a place of separation from God—is necessary. Love does not demand love in return; it is not coercive. God does everything he can to reach out to us, and yet people are free to reject that love. Hell is simply isolation from God. A person—even a person others think of as decent and upright—who rejects God is experiencing hell on earth.

God will not violate the choices we make. People may choose to bar God from their life. Thus the doors of hell are locked from the inside. In John Milton’s great poem Paradise Lost, Satan boasts, “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.” There is a part of human life that resists relinquishing control to God. If unchecked, this resistance can lead to ruin. C. S. Lewis writes, “It is not a question of God10 ‘sending’ us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud. The matter is serious: let us put ourselves in His hands at once—this very day, this hour.”

God cares deeply about sin because it destroys his precious children. And God longs for holiness in us because it is the way to wholeness.

If God were unconcerned about sin, how might that harm us?

In chapters seven and eight we’ll look at how our holy God makes us holy people. God willingly sacrificed himself to put an end to the problem of sin—breaking its power and taking away our guilt. Then God rose from the dead and transformed us into Christ-inhabited people who are able to triumph over temptation. In book two in The Apprentice Series, The Good and Beautiful Life, we’ll look at how our holy God invites us into his unshakable kingdom and interacts with us in our everyday lives. The Good and Beautiful Life will also explore the struggles we all face (anger, lust, lying, greed, etc.) in our journey toward Christlikeness. The movement toward holiness is urged by a holy God who loves us with a holy love.

This chapter began with a story about a young woman who believed God’s grace and forgiveness means he no longer cares about our behavior. A few months later I had the opportunity to talk with her about how important—and good—God’s holiness is. I explained to her that God does not condone her sinful actions, but not because God is a prude.

“The reason God does not endorse what you’re doing,” I said, “is because you are sacred to God, and your sexuality is sacred to God. God is very ‘pro-sex.’ After all, it was his invention! But sexual intercourse is a sacred act of intimacy that is designed to be shared by people who have made the ultimate commitment—the covenant of marriage. Anything less than that cheapens and diminishes sex, and usually leads to a lot of pain and heartache. You are sacred and special. That’s why people wait.”

“I know what you mean,” she said. “After a while it seemed he was only interested in me sexually, and not as a person. Our relationship is a mess. What should I do?”

“Tell him, no more until you’re married.”

“He’ll say it’s over.”

“Then you’ll know his true colors, and you’ll be better off.”

The next time I saw her, she told me that she had followed my advice, and as expected, her boyfriend did not like it, and they eventually broke up for good. However, she was smiling. She was now focusing on the sacredness of who she was. Two years later she showed up beaming outside my office. She pointed to a ring on her finger and exclaimed, “I am engaged to the most wonderful guy! He truly respects me. We decided to wait until we’re married to have intercourse. Thanks for showing me who I really am.”

I thought about how it had started off so badly, how I had blown it by preaching in such a way that she thought sin did not matter. Then it occurred to me that perhaps she needed first to hear that she was loved unconditionally before she could address the issue of sin. This is counterintuitive, but I believe it is right. We assume that wrath comes before grace, but that is not the biblical way. God’s first and last word is always grace. Until we have been assured that we are loved and forgiven, it is impossible to address our sinfulness correctly. We will operate out of our own resources, trying to get God to like us by our own efforts to change. God’s first word is always grace, as Barth said. Only then can we begin to understand God’s holiness, and ours.