The Wrath of God

Yesterday, I wrote about the mercy of God. Today, I turn to a diametrically opposite direction, the wrath of God. Before I dip into the mystery, I must confess that God is an unfathomable wonder. We know that Yahweh is a God of justice but also a God of mercy. However, we have to admit that the limited capacity of our mind is not capable of harmonizing these two apparently contradictory attributes of Yahweh. Yet, that doesn't discourage us from trying our best to explore them.

Many people lament the decline of morality in the society and find themselves helpless in view of the rapidity of the decline. Half a century ago, divorce and homosexuality were frowned upon and were topics of taboo. Nowadays, the mass media openly talk about extra-marital affairs and show sympathy towards homosexuals. Citizens are fed with graphic descriptions of sexual immorality until they are so numbed that in the name of tolerance, they do not feel offended and will not protest against unrestrained public display of obscenity.

Such tolerance is also shown in the way people, especially those working in the mass media, evaluate Judas' betrayal of Jesus. In the second half of the 20^th century, the movie industry in the West has been very sympathetic towards Judas. Basically, the producers/playwrights reasoned that Judas was instrumental in bringing about the arrest of Jesus and thus the subsequent passion and resurrection. Without Judas, it would be unthinkable for Jesus to surrender himself/play into the hands of the Jewish authority who hated this Galilean Rabbi very much. They seemed to defend Judas by arguing why we should condemn Judas when his evil brought about good. This was exactly the kind of false teaching wrongly attributed to Paul and he complained about it here (Romans 3:8).

Romans 3 is particularly difficult to follow. I struggled with it for several days last week without producing any reflection. The problem, I think, lies in Paul's writing style. He asked rhetorically some questions without answering them because for him, the answers were very obvious. However, obvious answers are not so obvious after all. Paul took them up again in subsequent chapters but before we have read the whole epistle, we would be stuck.

Paul began his criticisms with the sins of Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32). Then he turned his attention to the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1, 21-23) who were supposed to know God's laws and were instructors and guides of the Gentiles (Romans 2:17-20). Thus, he had proved that both Jews and Gentiles were under the sin (Romans 2:9, 3:9). But as the Chosen People, the Jews are always the first to receive glory as well as punishments before the Gentiles (Romans 2:9-10). Then Paul turned his attention to God. As a transition, Paul raised the question of the priority of the Jews.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (Romans 3:1)
A few verses earlier, Paul claimed that circumcision was beneficial on condition that the Jews kept God's law (Romans 2:25a). Now, he tried to spell out exactly what that profit was.
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2).
This is not the place to explain the advantages of knowing the oracles of God. Neither was Paul interested in convincing his readers of the advantages. Paul had something else in his mind.

Paul asked rhetorically.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (Romans 3:3)
Shall the lack of faith of the people disable the faithfulness of God. Of course not! (Romans 3:4).
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man (Romans 3:5).
If our unrighteousness shows God's righteousness, is God unrighteous in punishing us?
In other words, if our evil acts instrumentally brings about God's goodness, is God being unfair to inflict His wrath on us?
For Paul, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. God is NOT unrighteous in punishing evil-doers. Otherwise, God would be unable to judge the world (Romans 3:6).
Paul did not stop here. He continued with 2 more rhetorical questions.
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:7-8)
In fact, all 4 rhetorical questions are not at all rhetorical. The answers are not so obvious. They are debatable.

1. Shall our lack of faith make God lose faith in us?
2. If our wickedness shows the justice of God, is God unjust to inflict wrath on us?
3. If our lies show God's truth in high contrast, why are we guilty?
4. Why not do evil so that good may come?

We need to dive deeper into this epistle to locate Paul's answers. Meanwhile, Judas died a terrible death which one can easily interpret as the wrath of God. Evil is evil though it is followed by good. However, if we argue that the evil is the cause of the good, we commit a famous logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Dear Lord, help me understand St. Paul more. St. Joseph, pray for us. Amen.