See Proverbs 25:22 and Romans 12:20.
What does this expression mean?
You give your enemies warmth through love? 
Gabe.
These coals of fire are not coals of punishment or torment, but rather conviction. If this was urging us to be kind to our enemies because that would hurt them more than anything else, then that would be violating the context of this verse. Paul is telling us to live peaceably with all men (Rom 12:18) and to render to no man evil for evil (Rom 12:17). God’s kind of love is being promoted, not some scriptural way to hurt those who hurt you.
When we walk in love towards those who hurt us, it heaps conviction on them. They know what their reaction would be if they were in our place and to see us walk in love under adverse circumstances shows them that we have something special that they don’t have.
Well said, my friend!
Aaron37,
That’s one of the best posts I’ve seen you display on this board. Maybe by this you’ll see the broader picture, no? 
and God does the same as He teaches us.
God does not say, “you love your enemies … I’m going to torment mine forever.”
Dondi.
The broader picture is Jesus saves whosoever will believe and receive the gift of salvation.
John.
God does not torment anyone, but He does have an eternal prison that was made for the devil and all who willingly follow him there.
Mama always said, hate stupidity, love stupid.
John.
I agree, it is just plain stupidity to willingly follow the devil to hell, but it happens every second of everyday.
You haven’t got stupid in hell, so now you’re getting some place.
Great post, Aaron. Thank you.
I agree with your take in this verse, and I find especially important your pointing out that the context demands that we understand the expression in question as being in the best interest of our enemies. What I find interesting is that the immediate context (Romans 12:19) concerns us with returning good for evil and letting God take care of vengeance. Indeed, the image of coals falling upon the wicked is a familiar one (Psalms 140:10), and the association of God’s wrath /judgment with the image of burning coals being heaped upon our enemy seems unmistakable here. It would appear, then, that God’s fiery judgment upon our (and His) enemies is purificatory. What do you say?
Gabe.
you said: It would appear, then, that God’s fiery judgment upon our (and His) enemies is purificatory. What do you say?
Aaron37: Gabe, before I answer, could you explain what you are thinking? Thanks.
Aaron37,
I am thinking that you are right in interpreting the image of heaping coals of fire upon the head of one’s enemy as being in the best interest of said enemy. I agree that in returning good for evil, one is bringing upon their enemy a sense of conviction. To me, this suggests that the burning coal is an agent of purification, much as it is in Isaiah 6:6 where the prophet is purified by a live coal. That said, the context (12:19),and co-texts(e.g. Psalm 140:10), strongly suggest that the burning coal represents God’s wrath and judgment upon sin. It would seem, then, that God’s wrath is for the good of those who experience it. Does this make sense?
Gabe.
I see what your saying, but I don’t think that is what the verse is implying. Jesus Christ absorbed God’s wrath and judgment of the world upon Himself. I stand by my original post. God bless.
Aaron37,
I don’t think we are far apart at all with regards to our respective readings of this text.
When you say that Jesus absorbed God’s wrathful judgment of the world, are you meaning to imply that God’s wrath no longer affects people, neither now nor in the future?
Gabe.
Jesus satisfied God’s wrath by being judged for the sins of the world… But the dispensation of grace is coming to an end and people must respond by faith to the gospel of grace or face the wrath to come on the day of the Lord.( Isaiah 24; 2 Peter 3:7)
Passing through briefly to comment, per Gabe’s request:
May I point out that when we “give a place for the wrath” (“of God” is contextually implied), the statement Paul would have us recall is one where, in Deuteronomy, the vengeance leads not only to the utter destruction of God’s enemies (so destroyed that they exist neither as slave nor as free) but does so that they may repent and turn to God and so be saved! Thus, whether it is one way or another, God (as stated just previously in Deuteronomy) not only judges but vindicates (the Hebrew word there) His people–even in His wrath and vengeance.
(The wideness of the scope of who He counts as His people, is not only revealed by the exhortation for the nations to rejoice in the righteous judgment of God along with Israel, but also by Paul’s non-specific application of who counts as our enemy in Romans.)
Consequently, the wrath of God (to utter destruction of His enemies, whether Jew or Gentile) is still loving and seeking their salvation; which is probably why Paul recommends that we, who are sinners and are not perfectly righteous, refrain from seeking revenge: for we may be led by temptation to seek an unloving revenge. Rather, let the coals that we “heap upon the head” of our enemies (Gabe is very correct about this being an OT image of God’s vengeance on His enemies), be overtly loving–not only for their sake but for our own. (Since God has warned us repeatedly that if we do not show mercy, then He shall not show mercy to us; and if we do not forgive those who transgress in rebellion against us, then neither shall God forgive our rebellions against Him.)
It is worth noting that Paul then goes on to exemplify this unexpected mercy to enemies of God in what must have been, for a Jew, the most shocking way possible: by declaring that the rulers of the Roman empire (of all people!) are appointed by God Himself to do good and to punish evil, and that those pagan Emperor-worshipers are devoted to being servants of God, and that if his readers rebel against them then they are also rebelling against God Himself.
This goes far beyond hoping to be a witness to such enemies-of-God-over-there (though that’s included too, of course). It’s a corrective to any attitudes among Paul’s readers of inherent spiritual superiority vs. those inherently condemned persons over there: a corrective strengthened if readers recalled who was first and foremost (though not solely) in view to receive God’s vengeance back in that quote from Deuteronomy. (Namely, Israel, whom Moses was warning would not be faithful but would be so unfaithful that God would destroy them utterly. We will miss the weight of the point altogether if we answer that observation in terms of, ‘Oh but that was Israel of course; that couldn’t mean us Christians too!’)
But Christ’s Church does not have piles of scripture coming against it and warning of destruction - it’s actually the opposite - nothing can or will harm us. If God wanted to show the world that the Law and self-righteousness brought a condemnation and wrath down on the particular generation who murdered His Son - then let Him show it!
And if Paul wants to say, that in spite of that murder and poured out wrath, all Israel will be saved - then let him say it!
But let us not say that the Gospel is the good news about vengeance on our enemies when it has been poured out already.
What does the world have hanging over it’s head now that the Law has been nailed to the cross with Christ and God is not counting mens’ sins against them? The resurrection, the purifying salting with fire and the confession of Christ in a new world by new men.
There is not an iota of destruction anywhere in the Gospel. It is all constructive. New wine in new wine skins.
I think there’s plenty of material in the NT (not even counting RevJohn) that Christ and the apostles were warning the church of suffering the same destruction coming to (and having previously come upon) Israel; not least of which is Heb 10 (and some prior chapters) where either St. Paul or someone familiar with him is quoting that same verse from Deuteronomy again as a very strong referential warning to “we” who have received the knowledge of the truth, and have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and have been enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit–and then have fallen away into persistently and willfully sinning. The Hebraist clearly hopes for better than this from his readers, but as I said in talking about Rom 12’s application of the “Vengeance is Mine” quote we’ll miss the point if we consider ourselves automatically exempted from that threat–the way the Israelites considered themselves automatically exempted, despite the warning of Moses.
But the punishment of Deut 32, as total as it may appear, is still far from hopeless. Not for the backsliding Christians of Heb 10 (and elsewhere), and not for the enemies of Paul’s congregation in Rom 12 either.
This gets back to a criticism I’ve made in other threads (which I ought to catch up on, rather than debating it here. 
) Namely that if God already poured out His wrath and punishment totally on Christ, and so is not counting mens’ sins against them, then the (more than an iota of) destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE cannot be the condemnation and wrath of God per se. In just the same way that this position attempts to deny a coming pre-resurrection tribulation (and for that matter a post-mortem punishment by God of anyone), so would a coming tribulation on Jerusalem and the Temple be voided: the theological justification for denying one of those will occur (for reason of God’s wrath anyway), denies just as equally that the other would occur (for that reason).
(But as I said, it’s possible that this criticism was answered in other threads that I haven’t caught up on yet.)
I cannot see where God’s wrath was poured out on Christ - any more than wrath was poured out on the scapegoat. Banished, abandoned, forsaken, might be better terms to describe the cross than ‘wrath.’
Be that as it may - I have admitted that 70ad presents a unique problem, viz., how can a propitiated God still be angry?
Depending on how one answers that question will determine how marginalized the cross can become and still mean something significant as far as atonement and sacrifice. What is left to take away His anger? Another sacrifice? Something we add to the atonement because it’s not finished?
The answer I keep coming up with is that all scripture must be fulfilled. The temple had to go and all the rest of those things HAD to happen on that generation.
What’s left to fulfilled? Christ’s return, the resurrection, everyone confessing Him. That’s it. Meanwhile, every crappy thing that happens is God’s fault - including buildings WE build that fall down on fault lines. Or wars. Or hatred. Or the climate going to hell. He’s going to save us from ourselves, not Himself.