Perhaps you know of someone who might like to watch this program. If so, go to the bottom of the page and click on "Email this page." Fill out the short form, and share the good news! There's also a way to share the page on Facebook, Twitter, and other websites.
If you'd like to support this ministry, click here.
If you are interested in learning more about Trinitarian theology, check out Grace Communion Seminary. It's accredited, affordable, and 100 percent online.
Small group discussion guide
Discussion groups might wish to prepare their own topics, request topics from the group, use the following suggested topics, or mix and match all three.
1. Why do you think people assume there is a split between the love and wrath of God?
2. Steve said that everything about God must be understood through the lens of his love. Why?
3. How do you understand, “The wrath of God is an expression of God’s love”?
4. Please comment on Steve’s discussion of the various usages of the biblical word “wrath.”
5. What did you think of the claim that people hate God’s “wrath” unless it is perceived as love?
6. Why is it critical to differentiate between love as an attribute of God and God being love?
7. Please share with us your impressions of Steve’s analogy of the “sin house.”
8. Please comment on the statement, “Grace makes you want to glorify God and say no to sin.”
A few simple guidelines for leading a discussion: 1) Encourage open discussion. 2) Ask questions relevant to the topic. 3) Listen attentively. 4) Encourage divergent views. 5) Encourage everyone to participate. 6) Summarize and paraphrase. 7) Minimize teaching and preaching.
Mike Morrison: Steve, I’m really glad that you could come back again and have another discussion.
Steve McVey: Thanks Mike, I’m glad to be back. I’ve enjoyed this time, these programs with you.
MM: You talked before about the love of God, and I agree with you on that, but I did want to ask you about the other side. The scripture talks about the wrath of God as well. How does this fit in with a God who is love?
SM: People often raise that question, and I will cut to the chase and give the bottom line and then we’ll unpack it. The question suggests that there is a dichotomy between the wrath of God and the love of God, and that would be a mistaken notion, to think that somehow God’s wrath stands apart from his love. Let’s go back to the fundamental essence of God. John said God is love, not God loves, God is love. Love, agape, is not one of the incidental characteristics of God’s personality. Love is the foundational essence of who he is. If you could break down God’s DNA, what you will find is love. Everything we understand about God has to be understood through the lens of his love, or else we’ve not studied it far enough …
Let’s use a syllogism here. God is pure love. Here’s a certain act that is not an expression of pure love. This act then cannot be God, all right? So let’s take wrath. God is pure love. Pure love can only express pure love. Wrath cannot be an expression of anything less than love if it comes from God. And, in fact, the wrath of God is an expression of his love.
This is where we get back into this whole thing of our Western mindset and Augustinian views of theology and all of this. We have had our minds tainted about the very subject of wrath through misguided teaching — some of it coming out of Augustinian thought, some of it coming from extra-biblical sources like Dante. A lot of people, their imagery of hell and the wrath of God is from Dante’s Inferno and not from the Bible. Agreed?
SM: So we’ve got to come back and say, no, wait a minute. Just like I’ve done with other things connected to God and who he is, I’ve had to come back to this whole subject of wrath and say wait a minute, wrath can’t be God being mad, pouring out hate, because then he wouldn’t be pure love. So I came back to that word wrath in the Bible. You’re a seminary professor, so I’m sure you know this more than most of us. Let’s start with the Greek word for wrath, what is it teacher?
SM: All right. The Greek word orge, which is the biblical word for wrath in the New Testament, is an interesting word. Again, let me hit the pause button and say, the definition that we use with words sometimes depends on our preexisting concept of who God is. Words can have more than one definition. For instance, I say I love my wife. I love Mexican food. Nobody thinks I hold Mexican food in the same esteem that I hold my wife. The same is true with biblical words, words like wrath.
If you look in the Greek for the definition of the word, and for the average person who’s not a seminary prof, we have to fall back on more simple things — thank the Lord for the internet because we can go to places like Crosswalk.com or BibleGateway.com and we can click there on certain verses when we want to know a word. Let’s take the word wrath. If I can just put this out there for those that are watching us, go to Crosswalk.com and type in the word wrath and look for it in the New Testament because we’re going to go to the Greek now.
Find the word, let’s say in Romans, where the word wrath is used a lot. Look it up in the New American Standard Version on Crosswalk.com, or the King James Version, and then when you look beneath that verse you have some options, and one of them is the interlinear version. (You know, and those that watch may not know, but the interlinear version is going to give you the meaning of the Greek words.) So you click on “interlinear” and it will put up that verse with every English word as a link to the Greek. When you click on the link, it will take you to Strong’s and it will define that Greek word.
Now we’ve done that in our minds. We’re talking people through that. We’ve done that, and so we’ve found the word wrath and we want to know what it means. One definition of wrath is going to be an expression of anger. But if you look down at, I think it’s the second definition, maybe it’s the third, you’re going to see that another definition of wrath is “any intense emotion.”
Let’s come back to the Greek itself, the word orge. Orge is an interesting word. Now remember, it’s [often] translated wrath, but it can mean any intense emotion. I’m only using this example because I want to make a clear point here. I’m not using it to be crude, but the word orge is the origin from which we get the English words orgy or orgasm. Those are intense words. Those words in mixed company almost would make you blush to use the words. But I make that point because I want it to be clear to our viewer that the word orge, which can yield the word orgasm or orgy, in that sense it has nothing to do with anger. In that sense it has to do with a very strong passion.
I’m going to come to a pause on this in a minute, but let me finish this train of thought. If you look at the word orge and you go back to the root of that word, because orge is the derivative of the root, and you go back to the root of the word orge, it means to reach out and to strain in a quivering violent way, a shaking way, for something that you long to possess. Having said all that, you know where I’m going.
So the wrath of God…let me put it as a question: What if (and I believe it) the wrath of God is not God pouring out contempt on people in hell, but what if the wrath of God is him pouring out violent love? Grasping, quivering, reaching, shaking, but those who reject it are so adverse and opposed to his love that to them it’s torment. From his perspective it’s not that at all. The love of God is wonderful to those of us who receive it.
It’s like the gospel — it’s a savor of life unto life. But to those who reject it, it’s horrible. It’s hell. It’s the savor of death unto death. James said (I mentioned it on an earlier program, but I’ll say it again for those that might not have seen it), “When you love your enemies, it is as if you were pouring out heaping coals of fire on their heads.” I don’t think that the wrath of God is an expression of contempt. I think the wrath of God is a violent expression of God’s love, and people hate it unless they perceive that love.
MM: So God might intend it for good, but they perceive it as bad?
SM: Absolutely. If I can give an example, let’s suppose I see my little grandson out in my back yard and he’s holding a snake in his hand. I see that snake coiling, and love rushes up in my consciousness for my grandson. So I run as fast as I can toward him. He’s holding the snake and he looks up and he sees on his granddad’s face this look of horror and rage. He’s going to interpret what he sees through the only paradigm he has. He may not understand the danger of the snake. He sees this expression of rage and anger in my face, and it strikes terror in him. I run over to my grandson, and imagine I pick him up and I shake him and I shake him. That poor little boy is going to think he’s never seen me so angry with him in his lifetime. But the reality is I’m not angry with hium. I’m trying to shake something out of his hand.
So do you get the comparison I’m making? Back to the fire. Daniel, I believe it’s chapter 7:10, talks about a river of fire that flows out of the throne of God. I think that’s the white-hot love of God. And as they say, the same sun that hardens clay melts wax. Same with the love of God.
Can I give you a quote? I don’t want to preach a sermon, but I brought a note here. I don’t want to trust my memory on this. I brought a note here. This is Saint Isaac the Syrian, one of the early church fathers. Here’s what he said: “Paradise is the love of God wherein is the enjoyment of all blessedness.” I’ve been going on about hell, here’s what he says, one of the early church fathers. “I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?”
MM: In Romans 1:18, Paul writes (and this is the first use of wrath in Romans): “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppressed the truth by their wickedness.” He’s saying that the wrath of God is being revealed. Doesn’t that sound like God’s kind of irritated by their refusal to accept what he’s doing?
SM: I have to give you credit. When you use the word irritated in connection with wrath, that’s understating it. I think it’s more than irritated. But again, it depends on the lens you use to interpret the scripture. If you start with the fundamental belief that God is love, again I’ll come back and say we have to interpret the scripture in light of everything that comes from God as being an expression of love, or else there’s an incongruence in God that can’t be explained. There’s a conflict. He’s not pure love if something comes from him that is something other than love.
There are those who will say well, then, love is just one of his characteristics, love is just part of what God is. He’s part love, he’s part wrath. Then I would say are you suggesting that God is schizophrenic? He’s love some of the time, he’s hate some of the time? No. Let’s go back to the passage. Let me be clear on this for those who are watching. I’m not suggesting that the wrath of God is not real. The wrath of God is very real. What I’m saying is it’s possible, and in my opinion I think probable, that many of us have misunderstood what that wrath is, the nature of that wrath. Let’s look at the passage you quoted, or you read. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” Think of wrath there as an intense, violent expression of love is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.
Back to the illustration I gave about charging up to my grandson holding the snake. That was wrath. It was an intense expression of love, and it came out as violence because of the contempt that I had in this imaginary story for the snake, but it was love for the child. But the child, if he doesn’t clearly understand my heart, may think that what’s he’s seeing is anger against him, and that’s not what it is.
Notice that Paul talks about in verse 18 of Romans 1, the verse you read, he talks about the unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For them to suppress the truth, the truth is already in them, or they wouldn’t be able to suppress it. To suppress means to push down something that’s already there, and there can’t be any real disagreement with people watching about this, because go down to the next verse. It elaborates and says in verse 19, “Because that which is known about God is evident within them.” Not outside them, within them, for God made it evident. God has put this intrinsic knowledge in us, and when we reject or suppress the truth of his love for us, then you know what he does? He expresses wrath. Let me say it another way. He turns up the fire of his love so that it becomes hotter. You’re not going to beat God’s love, so stop trying, is the way I might say it.
Can I read another quote from Saint Isaac the Syrian that we mentioned earlier? Can I read one more quote from him?
MM: Well, he’s not my favorite author, but…
SM: All right, I think he does a good job expressing the Orthodox tradition on this. Here’s what he said: “The power of love works in two ways. It torments the sinners even as it happens here when a friend suffers from a friend, but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Therefore, the same love of God, the same energy will fall upon all men, but it will work differently.” It’s just what Paul said, the comparison, the parallel. It’s what Paul the apostle said of the gospel. It’s the savor of life unto life for those who believe, but it’s the savor or stench of death for those who don’t believe.
MM: Okay, suppose these people don’t like God’s love. Why does God insist on doing something that he knows that they’ll find unpleasant?
SM: Because he’s sovereign. Because his love is agape, it’s unconditional. He loves whether you love him back or not. He doesn’t love because he anticipates a certain response from us. You see what I’m saying?
MM: He’s going to love whether we like it or not.
SM: He’s going to love because that’s who he is. That’s right. He’s going to love whether we like it or not, and whether we receive it or not. That’s who he is, he’s God. He’s love. God is love. For God to do something other than love would be a conflict of who he is. He’d cease to be who he is if he didn’t love.
MM: And you can’t just ignore it.
SM: Well, you can, but it’s hell, buddy. Right? (laughing) You can, but it’s hell if you ignore it, if you try to resist it. Let’s play this out a minute. I understand you’re the seminary prof., but I want you to play the devil’s advocate, okay? I’m going to walk this out and I’m going to ask you the question that I think maybe the viewer would. Can pure love…is God pure love, first of all? The obvious answer is yes.
SM: If he’s pure love, could anything come from him that’s not loving?
SM: No. Does wrath come from him?
SM: So is wrath an expression of his love?
MM: Somehow, it must be.
SM: It’s got to be. You follow down that trail and there’s just no other way around it. If God is love, and he is, and if pure love can only do what’s loving, and that’s true, and wrath comes from God, and it does, then it has to be an expression of love or else God is not loving. It has to be. People that watch and grapple with this main difference, “oh, I don’t believe that.” Well then, what are you going to believe? How are we going to explain the wrath of God unless we say God is not….
There are those who watch and there are those that I’ve talked to who say, well, love is just one characteristic of God. Oh really? What are the others? Well, wrath. By wrath do you mean hate against sinners? That was the Calvinistic view I held. I thought God hated sinners, reprobates. That was my view when I was a Calvinist. I’m not out of line with mainstream thought when I say that’s the viewpoint many hold. So you’re saying God is part love and part hate? At the least you’d have to admit (I’d say to this imaginary critic) that God is not pure love if he’s part hate.
MM: You need to catch him on a good day.
SM: Exactly. And what is agape? Let’s back it up a step. Not only is he not pure love, but he’s not even agape, unconditional love, because if it’s unconditional, then what would make him hate. If this would make God hate instead of love, then the love that’s left is not unconditional because there was a condition that wasn’t met that caused it to become hate. Am I talking in circles or does that make sense, you think?
MM: It connects with a couple other ideas — but many people think that the wrath of God means that God desires to punish.
MM: And that ties in with what you had said earlier about God not punishing Jesus on the cross. God has no desire to punish us — he wants to rescue us.
SM: He has rescued us, in fact.
MM: Oh. Done deal.
SM: It is finished. I heard that line somewhere before.
SM: It is finished. He has rescued us whether we acknowledge it or not.
MM: Continuing in Romans 1, I find it interesting that Paul describes what God does in his wrath. Paul is eloquent about how bad they are, and in verse 24, “Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity…” etcetera… in other words, he let them do what they wanted.
SM: That’s right. What’s the rest of the verse? So that their bodies would be degraded among them. What’s sin going to do? Left to itself, what will sin do in a person? Those people or any of us, what will sin do? It will…
MM: It hurts.
SM: It hurts. There’s a penalty. We will spiral downward. The wages of sin is still death. But guess what? Once we get down to that place of death, now we’re in a great spot, because guess what? Our God’s grace doesn’t make sick men well, our God’s grace makes dead people live.
MM: Dead men alive.
SM: So for God to raise you up, you have to get dead enough. So does God call sin sinful behavior? Of course not. But again, the grace of God is so big that sin won’t get the last word. Our God will say, let sin give its best shot. And when it’s killed you, I will raise you up, because that’s what I do. That’s my thing — resurrection.
MM: But in a way, Jesus has already killed sin.
SM: He has. You guys do a remarkable job here at Grace Communion International of helping folks understand the difference between union and communion, objective and subjective. There is the objective reality that exists, and it’s real. Hebrews 9:26 says, “At the consummation of ages he’s been manifest to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Jesus, in the objective sense, he’s dealt with sin once and for all. Here’s the wonderful thing. Sin is not an offense to God. It’s not like sin does something to God anymore. God defeated sin. He absolutely vanquished and defeated sin. Sin does nothing to God.
Then somebody might say, then why does God care about sin? Does God not hate sin? Sure he hates it. Why? Because of what it does to you and me. We still live in this little box called time/space. The objective reality is he’s dealt with sin, but in this little box we’re living in called time and space, in the experiential subjective sense, we can still experience the consequence, the penalty, the punishment of sin. God hates it for that reason, because he loves us and doesn’t want to see us hurt. God doesn’t say to us, “Don’t sin because I hate it when people do that. It really just bugs me — I’m holy and righteous and I’m so squeaky clean it just disgusts me to see people do something nasty and dirty and sinful.”
MM: Violating my rules.
SM: Exactly. You’re offending my sensitivities. No, that’s ridiculous. No. God says that same thing he said to Adam and Eve about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Don’t do that because this is going to kill you. Don’t do that, it’s going to hurt you, it’s going to kill you, and I love you, and I hate sin not because of what it does to me, God says, but because of what it does to you. I love you and I don’t want to see you hurt. That’s God’s thing with sin today, in this world we live in. It’s not what it does to him, but what it does to us in the subjective world.
MM: That would explain why we should avoid sin even though we’ve already been forgiven.
SM: That’s right. We avoid sin because sin is drinking poison and God loves us.
MM: What if we really like the taste of that poison?
SM: That’s a good question. And the one who would seriously ask that, would reveal that they don’t know their identity in Christ. Because the truth is, we don’t love the taste of that poison. Here’s the thing — that apple tastes good until it gives you a stomachache, and then you realize yuck, the pleasure of sin is, as the Bible says, for a season. It’s got a sweet taste coming in, but boy does it turn sour on my stomach in a hurry.
The picture I’ve given is a guy walking down the road and he looks over here, and here’s the sin house. He hears music and there’s a party going on, and it looks like they’re having a fun time in there. The guy says, “I’d like to live in that place.” He goes in there, and the minute he walks into the sin house with all kinds of things going on, the guy immediately says, “This is as wonderful and exhilarating and thrilling as I thought it would be,” because there is pleasure in sin for a season. It’s gratifying. Not satisfying, but gratifying.
He gets a rush out of it, but then after a while he’s in the sin house and he starts thinking, “This is getting old. I don’t know.” But the thing of it is, he finds out he can’t find his way out. And the longer he’s trapped in there, the more he hates it, until finally the place that he couldn’t wait to get into, now that he’s in it, he finally, in fact soon, reaches a place where (because it’s not his nature to live in that house), from the depths of his being he finds his heart crying out, “Dear God, get me out of here. I don’t want to be in here.” Why do we like the taste of sin? The answer is, we don’t. We only think we do. It’s got a momentary flavor that appeals to us, but it will quickly turn on you.
MM: The perception is the key element in all of it.
SM: Well, it’s not our nature to like sin. Sin is resident in us. Paul said in Romans 7, “So now if I’m doing the thing I don’t want to do, I’m not doing it, but sin which dwells in me.” He said that in two verses in Romans 7, within three verses apart. He was drawing a distinction between his authentic self, his true identity in Christ, and the power of indwelling sin, which he says again and again in Romans 7 is “in my members.” It’s not who I am.
I jokingly tell people the first time I went to London, England, I had a kidney stone, but I never asked anybody to call me Rocky. It was in me, but it didn’t define me. In the same way, there’s the power of indwelling sin that’s in our members, but that’s not who we are. Let me tell you who we are. Who we are is that we’re righteous, called, holy, set-apart people who, if we will get out from under the lie — and how do you do that? You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. (And by the way, the truth is a person named Jesus, and when we really come to know him, we will understand I don’t want to live a life of sin.)
Back to the verse in Titus we’ve referenced a number of times, “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires.” It doesn’t teach us to sin. Grace doesn’t make you want to sin, grace makes you want to glorify the Lord and say no to sin.
MM: To me it says we desire the divine life more because of the grace, and this other part and these other things aren’t part of the divine life. It’s like there’s no attractiveness there.
SM: Right. There’s an inconsistency. There’s a momentary appeal to it. Let’s not talk as if there’s no attraction to sin. But the fact that sin is pleasurable doesn’t say something about our nature, it says something about the nature of sin. Do you see what I’m saying? That speaks of the nature of sin, not our nature. It’s not natural for us to live in sin because that’s not our nature. I can teach your dog to walk on its back legs, but it will never be comfortable doing it, because it’s not his nature to do it, nor, Peter the apostle said in 2 Peter 1:4, “We’ve become a partaker of divine nature.” We sin, but there’s always this internal conflict when we commit sins, because something deep within us, namely the Spirit, the new man knows that’s not who I am. It might gratify, but it won’t satisfy, because I’m not living out of my core. I’m not living out of my authentic self when I do that.
MM: I wanted to go back to your image of this person trapped in the house of sin.
MM: How real is…they think they’re trapped.
SM: Good point.
MM: How real is that house?
SM: It’s all an illusion. They’re not trapped.
MM: It’s all a hologram.
SM: It’s like the elephant at the circus. You come outside the circus tent and there’s this 2-ton elephant standing there with a chain link this long and he’s hooked to a little post in the ground that big. That elephant could drag a Greyhound bus down the road, but he thinks that thing’s holding him there. Why does he think that? Because when he was a baby elephant, they put a big chain around his leg and put the other end on something he couldn’t drag, and he lived that way day after day until he began to be conditioned, “I cannot move when this chain is on my leg.” So he becomes this huge elephant, and he could drag a bus down the road, but when they put the chain on his leg he stands there thinking he can’t move.
What holds him in that spot? Is it the chain? No, what holds him there, it’s a lie. It’s a faulty perception that holds him there. That’s what keeps people in this imaginary sin house. They think they’re trapped. They believe the lie that they can’t get out. But the truth is, sin has no power over us. When we understand the grace of God, we’ll know what Paul meant when he said, “Sin shall no longer have dominion over you because you’re not under law but under grace.” We understand that when we lock in on what grace really is — unconditional love and acceptance, divine enablement for us to be all that we’ve been called to be and do all we’ve been called to do. Then we can walk out of that house just that quick. It’s a mirage. It’s not even real.
MM: A lot of people walk out of that house and kind of want to go back in sometimes.
SM: Then they didn’t stay long enough.
SM: I’m serious. Martin Luther said this: “When thou sinnest, sin boldly.” That green apple didn’t give you a stomachache? Eat three more and watch what happens. They hadn’t hit bottom, in other words. They haven’t hit bottom. I’m not advocating sinful behavior, but I’m telling you one thing. Let sin run its course, and the wages of sin is death, and you won’t want to go back there again.
MM: A little aversion therapy.
SM: Yeah. That’s the good point. We found out that the new man, which is who we are in Christ, does have an aversion to sin. Read Romans 7, verses 16 through the end of the chapter where Paul says, “I don’t understand myself at all. I’m going the things I hate and the things I want to do I don’t do.” Read the text. Does that sound like a man who wanted to sin? Not at all. It is our nature, when we understand who we are in Christ, to hate sin. It is our nature to hate sin. We don’t want to live that way. If we think people are going to do what they want, let them, they’ll hit bottom. I think we’re overly sin conscious in the modern church. If we were as Christ-conscious and taught others to be Christ-conscious as the Bible says we can be, sin would become a moot point.
Here’s a passage in Hebrews (I love talking about the Old Testament sacrifices). Hebrews 10, starting in verse 1, “The law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, it can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near” [NASB]. Let’s stop there. Paul said the law cannot perfect …the sacrifices of all could not perfect people. Look at verse 2, “Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered?” Why? “Because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sin.”
SM: Paul, or whoever wrote Hebrews, says that if the old covenant sacrifice had been a perfect sacrifice and those people had been permanently cleansed, they wouldn’t have even thought about sin anymore. He goes on and says, “But,” verse 3, “in those sacrifices there’s a reminder of sin year by year.” The implication is, we come over to the new covenant and Jesus is the perfect sacrifice and we have been cleansed completely, past, present, and future, so we don’t need to live with sin consciousness. We need to live with Jesus-consciousness.
MM: Focus on the positive.
SM: Focus on Jesus. I often tell about how I loved basketball when I was a teenager, and I played every weekend. On Fridays I played till late at night, because I didn’t have to go to school. If you had said the Friday will come, the time will come you can’t play basketball on Fridays, I would have argued and said you’re crazy. But one Sunday I went to church and on Sunday morning in Sunday School a girl came in that I had never seen, and when I met that girl I thought, “I want to ask her out.” I ended up asking that girl to go out on a date, and I went out the next Friday night with her.
The next morning on Saturday my friends came over banging on my door and said, “Where were you? You know we play basketball every Friday night.” 16-year-old boy, I said, “I was with a chick. I didn’t have time for basketball.” I dated that girl every Friday for three years and I ended up marrying her, and I’ve been married to her now since 1973, and I cannot tell you when I played basketball on Friday night. Why? Not because I disciplined myself to give up Friday night basketball, but because I found something I wanted more. That’s the thing about sin. We don’t live with sin consciousness — we fall so in love with Jesus that sin loses its grip over us and we just walk out, because we’re holding hands with Jesus and walk away from it without even thinking about it, without struggling against it.
MM: That is great.
SM: Isn’t it great? I think of the old song we used to sing when I was a teenager — you’re my age, I bet you remember this one song we sang that said, turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full into his wonderful face. Do you remember the next part? No? You lived a sheltered life didn’t you?
MM: I did. I didn’t go to church.
SM: You didn’t go to church? There you go. No wonder.
MM: I didn’t have TV, didn’t go to church.
SM: You were spared some things and you were deprived of others, and I won’t say which is which, but I’ll let you figure out which one you were deprived of and which one you were spared from, but there’s the old song that says, turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full into his wonderful face, and the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace. And that’s it.
God’s not mad, God’s delivered us from sin, back to what we started out with — the wrath of God, that even that is an expression of his love. Let’s get it down in our minds once and for all — God is love. And if you ever hear, read, see anything that seems to contradict that, then let’s step back away from it a minute and say, wait a minute, I must be misinterpreting what I’m hearing, seeing, or reading, because God is love. Let’s settle that once and for all. Let’s not have to put God on trial every time something comes along we can’t make sense of and say, is God really love? No. Let’s settle that.
We may not have answers for everything. We won’t, but that’s okay. We don’t have to have answers for everything. Our God is a mystery, so we push up to the edge of our understanding as far as we can push and then we stop and say okay, all I know is that in the fog there beyond what I can see, there’s a God who is love, and we live with that assurance even we can’t make sense out of it whether it’s hell, wrath, the sin house, anything else.
MM: That’s great. It’s been a pleasure having you here today.
SM: Thank you. I’ve enjoyed these programs with you, Mike, it’s been my pleasure. Thank you for what you guys are doing at Grace Communion International. I point people your way.