The attempts by C.H. Dodd, A.T. Hanson and others to reconstruct wrath as an impersonal process must be declared at least “not proven.” To be sure, sometimes the word is used without explicit reference to God, and with or without the definite article, but the full phrase “the wrath of God” is used as well, apparently without embarrassment, by both Paul and John. Without doubt also, Paul taught that God’s wrath is being revealed in the present both through the moral deterioration of pagan society and through the state’s administration of justice. These processes are not identified with God’s wrath, however, but declared to be manifestations of it. The truth that God’s wrath (i.e., his antagonism to evil) is active through social and legal processes does not necessitate the conclusion that it is itself a purely impersonal continuum of cause and effect. Perhaps the reason for Paul’s adoption of impersonal expressions is not to affirm that God is never angry but to emphasize that his anger is void of any tinge of personal malice. After all, Paul sometimes refers to charis (grace) without referring to God. He can write, for example, of grace “increasing” and of grace “reigning” (Romans 5:20-21). Yet we do not on that account depersonalize grace and convert it into an influence or process. On the contrary, grace is the most personal of all words; grace is God himself acting graciously toward us. And just as charis stands for the gracious personal activity of God himself, so orge stands for his personal hostility to evil.

The Cross of Christ - John Stott