“God’s anger is not limited to the Old Testament. Even Jesus got angry, furious, and enraged” [Mark 3:5 is cited as a reference for Jesus' anger, fury, and rage.]–Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, 258
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 27th, 2010 at 12:07 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
30 Comments(+Add)
God does exhibit anger. However in the New Testament, and especially through the prism of Christ’s life, it is a decidedly subordinate manifestation. It may accurately be described as extremely rare.
“For his anger endureth but a moment…”
“The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.”
And when we attempt to mirror His anger, it usually is of the flesh. We are exhorted to show love and mercy, and avoid anger. Driscoll’s statement is not surprising since he is looking for an excuse for his own boorish behavior. Using one obscure verse to plant a doctrinal flag is self serving and careless Scriptural analysis.
We are to avoid anger? Are we not to be angry toward what Jesus was angry at, namely self-righteous religion, pride, abominable church practices, and the like? Anger has a righteous place, don’t dismiss it as needless or avoidable if possible.
“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
It is my experience that anger is more widely used than is spiritually supported. The wrath of man works not the righteousness of God, and usually is void of redemption.
Coming from one who brags about beating up a recalcitrant elder, and who advocates insisting your wife present to you her anus in times of menstruation, I find his anger teaching as deeply self serving.
He also finds fault with the Na’vi in Avatar because they are pagans, but refuses to criticize the “American-like” earthlings who will sacrifice those pagans in order to cull out minerals to support their lifestyle. Anger should be very rare and always accompanied by a thick shell of humility.
We can find almost anything in Jesus’ life to support almost anything. Jesus destroyed a fig tree therefore we can justify raping the earth. Etc., etc..
BTW – I try to avoid being angry at those who are angry at
“self-righteous religion, pride, abominable church practices, and the like”. Oh yea, we all have our finger on the trigger but no one wants to die.
Ironically, Jesus mostly got angry with people like Mark Driscoll…
Seriously, though, it’s hard to see what Driscoll is getting at without seeing some more context around the quote. Of course Jesus got angry. In that passage, though, the thing that angered him was the people who were supposedly God’s representatives on earth misrepresenting God. Even when asked a simple question about the Sabbath, the Pharisees refused to cede that Jesus may be right.
It is easy to see what Driscoll is getting at. His favorite movie is “Fight Club” and he portrays Jesus as a macho man. Of course God gets “angry”, which is at odds with the “God’s Are not Angry” concept.
But Driscoll’s quote is designed to move people’s perception of Jesus toward a more angry model. There is coming a day when Jesus returns angry, but until then we should be thankful that He operates today in grace and redemption.
Indeed!
Interestingly enough, this quote is taken from the chapter called, “Cross: God Dies.” Specifically, it comes from a sub-section in the chapter called ‘Propitiation.’ Here’s a little more context:
“The Bible is filled with examples of God getting angry at sinners and of his anger as hostile, burning, and furious [here, he cites Lev. 26:27-30; Num. 11:1; Deut. 29:24 as evidence]. Because God is holy, good, and just, he not only feels angry about sin but also deals with it in ways that are holy, good, and just. Because God is perfect, his anger is perfect and as such is aroused slowly, sometimes turned away, often delayed, and frequently held back.” (257)
Then our quote appears…
#7 – Better. I still suggest that in the Jesus age divine anger is rare and fleeting. I wonder if Driscoll subscribes to the penal substitution theory.
Rick I know you’re just paraphrasing what Driscoll said, but really, where’s the eye-floss when you need it? Breakfast is ruined.
This reminds me of gabe lyons’ book “next christians” in which he speaks of christians being “provoked” into action. Though in his thesis, the action is not s culture war.
#9 – I know. There is quite a menu of inappropriate quotes from Driscoll. Among other things he is a major league controller and rules his church with an iron fist.
i’m going to use the dreaded “B” world again — Balance. There is a time and purpose for everything under heaven. There is a time for righteous indignation, but I’m with Rick in that the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God and our indignation is rarely righteous though we think it so.
Which reminds me how cool Ecc 3 is:
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Neil,
Did you read Next Christians? I did, wrote a review of it too. Did you like it?
On balance, I thought it was a bit stuffy, but I thought the overall message of provocation was dead on.
jerry
Mark Driscoll is a significant enigma. He claims to be an orthodox Calvinist and yet his ministry resembles more of a seeker/emergent model. He preaches for Piper and Schuller. He advocates a heavy handed “women submit” theology, and regularly resorts to shaming by calling men “wimps and cowards” when their wives run the show.
re 14: i am just about finished with it. i did not read his first book, so i have nothing to compare it to in that manner. i found it interesting, and i liked his distinctions… but i did not find it all that profound or challenging.
in fairness to lyons, i approached the book with specific hopes and expectations – that it did not fulfill these to my liking is not his fault.
rick,
i would not have pegged driscoll as either a seeker or emergent model… then again, i have not paid that much attention.
The only time Scripture says that Jesus got angry is in Mark 3.5, where He heals somebody in the same verse. Now there’s an example of righteous anger. We assume Jesus was angry when he overthrew the table of the money changers, but we base that on what we would be experiencing if we did that, not on what Scripture says.
Hi Billy, welcome where angels fear to tread!
I understand what you are saying, but I think it is safe to assume that Jesus was angry in the overthrowing of the tables based on His actions and what He said to the moneychangers. Just say’n.
However, our anger is rarely righteous.
Billy,
I agree with you that we read that into the text. John Hughes and I have disagreed about this in the past. It simply isn’t in the text and as John points out in #19 it assumed by those that subscribe to it.
I really don’t think Jesus overturning the table in temple courts was a spontaneous act of indignant anger. He may have felt some anger, that I don’t deny. I think Jesus’ action was more likely meant as a forethought prophetic act. It was a small demonstration of the judgment that was coming to the temple and to Jerusalem in the near future. It’s no mere coincidence that this happens right after the triumphal entry in Matthew 21.
Yes, but…us christians need Jesus to be angry jussstttt once if we are to be justified in our own ‘righteous indignation’.
Just saying…
Anyone whio supports the teachings of Rob Bell is deceived.
Did I miss something somewhere? What does Rob Bell have anything to do with what anything anyone has said in this thread?
#23. Rick was that a swipe at me?
#23, John does Rick know you are using his account to post comments?
All I know is that when mom took a whip to me she was usually pretty angry at something I did.
This again goes to the complaint held by Biblical literalists regarding some not taking into account the whole counsel of scripture. “Love” (however that is defined) becomes the **only** attribute God/Jesus is allowed to possess and all His “negative” attributes (wrath, anger, punishment, judgement, etc.) are explained away or outright ignored/denied.
There is a perfectly logical and acceptable synthesis of God’s love / kindness / holiness / judgement / anger / wrath etc., which does not require the elemination of any specific attribute. Clue: Calvary.
Love is more than an attribute of God – it’s His essence. Things like omniscience, omnipresence, faithful, etc. are attributes. So when someone describe God in a way that doesn’t square with His essence of love, I question it.
In this specific instance, I think the point that Driscoll is making is rather oblique given the Scripture he’s referring to.
I agree Phil. Love is God’s essence. But God does not love everything. There are some things that He hates. Holiness is also a part of God’s essence. Light is also God’s essence. There is a balance