Gods wrath

[civic]

Notice it’s never on the innocent , righteous , holy , believers but always on the wicked and rebellious sinners. It’s not once said to be upon Christ from the Father.

Thayers lexicon

ὀργή, ὀργῆς, ἡ (from ὀργάω to teem, denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice (Curtius, § 152); cf.

Latinturgerealicuiforirascialicui in Plautus Cas. 2, 5, 17; Most. 3, 2, 10; cf. German arg, Aerger), in Greek writings from Hesiod down "the natural disposition, temper, character; movement or agitation of soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion," but especially (and chiefly in Attic) anger.

In Biblical Greek anger, wrath, indignation(on the distinction between it and θυμός, see θυμός, 1): Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; James 1:19f; μετ' ὀργῆς, indignant (A. V. with anger), Mark 3:5; χωρίς ὀργῆς, 1 Timothy 2:8; anger exhibited in punishing, hence, used for the punishment itself (Demosthenes or. in middle § 43): of the punishments inflicted by magistrates,

Romans 13:4; διά τήν ὀργήν, i. e. because disobedience is visited with punishment, Romans 13:5. The ὀργή attributed to God in the N. T. is that in God which stands opposed to man's disobedience, obduracy (especially in resisting the gospel) and sin, and manifests itself in punishing the same: John 3:36; Romans 1:18; Romans 4:15; Romans 9:22a; Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 19:15; absolutely, ἡ ὀργή, Romans 12:19 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 594 (553));

σκεύη ὀργῆς, vessels into which wrath will be poured (at the last day), explained by the addition κατηρτισμέναεἰς ἀπώλειαν, Romans 9:22b; ἡ μελλουσαὀργή, which at the last day will be exhibited in penalties, Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7 (others understand in these two passages the (national) judgments immediately impending to be referred to — at least primarily); also ἡ ὀργή ἡἐρχομένη, 1 Thessalonians 1:10; ἡμέραὀργῆς, the day on which the wrath of God will be made manifest in the punishment of the wicked (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 30, 2 a.), Romans 2:5; and ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλητῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ (Revelation 6:17; see ἡμέρα, 3 at the end); ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργή τοῦΘεοῦ ἐπί τινα, the wrath of God cometh upon one in the infliction of penalty (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 40, 2 a.), Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6 (T Tr WH omit; Lbrackets ἐπί etc.); ἔφθασε (ἔφθακεν L text WH marginal reading) ἐπ' αὐτούς ἡ ὀργή, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; so ἡ ὀργή passes over into the notion of retribution and punishment, Luke 21:23; Rom. (Romans 2:8); ; Revelation 11:18; τέκνα ὀργῆς, men exposed to divine punishment, Ephesians 2:3; εἰς ὀργήν, unto wrath, i. e. to undergo punishment in misery, 1 Thessalonians 5:9. ὀργή is attributed to Christ also when he comes as Messianic judge, Revelation 6:16. (The Sept. for עֶבְרָה, wrath, outburst of anger,

 

[civic]

Notice " Gods Wrath " it doesn’t fall on Christ but Jesus protects believes from Gods wrath

Wrath is defined as “the emotional response to perceived wrong and injustice,” often translated as “anger,” “indignation,” “vexation,” or “irritation.” Both humans and God express wrath. But there is vast difference between the wrath of God and the wrath of man. God’s wrath is holy and always justified; man’s is never holy and rarely justified.

In the Old Testament, the wrath of God is a divine response to human sin and disobedience. Idolatry was most often the occasion for divine wrath. Psalm 78:56-66 describes Israel’s idolatry. The wrath of God is consistently directed towards those who do not follow His will (Deuteronomy 1:26-46; Joshua 7:1; Psalm 2:1-6). The Old Testament prophets often wrote of a day in the future, the "day of wrath" (Zephaniah 1:14-15). God’s wrath against sin and disobedience is perfectly justified because His plan for mankind is holy and perfect, just as God Himself is holy and perfect. God provided a way to gain divine favor—repentance—which turns God’s wrath away from the sinner. To reject that perfect plan is to reject God’s love, mercy, grace and favor and incur His righteous wrath.

The New Testament also supports the concept of God as a God of wrath who judges sin. The story of the rich man and Lazarus speaks of the judgment of God and serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner (Luke 16:19–31). John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” The one who believes in the Son will not suffer God’s wrath for his sin, because the Son took God’s wrath upon Himself when He died in our place on the cross (Romans 5:6–11). Those who do not believe in the Son, who do not receive Him as Savior, will be judged on the day of wrath (Romans 2:5–6).

Conversely, human wrath is warned against in Romans 12:19, Ephesians 4:26, and Colossians 3:8-10. God alone is able to avenge because His vengeance is perfect and holy, whereas man’s wrath is sinful, opening him up to demonic influence. For the Christian, anger and wrath are inconsistent with our new nature, which is the nature of Christ Himself (2 Corinthians 5:17). To realize freedom from the domination of wrath, the believer needs the Holy Spirit to sanctify and cleanse his heart of feelings of wrath and anger. Romans 8 shows victory over sin in the life of one who is living in the Spirit (Romans 8:5-8). Philippians 4:4-7 tells us that the mind controlled by the Spirit is filled with peace.

The wrath of God is a fearsome and terrifying thing. Only those who have been covered by the blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross, can be assured that God’s wrath will never fall on them. “Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him!” (Romans 5:9). Got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

Notice it’s never on the innocent , righteous , holy , believers but always on the wicked and rebellious sinners. It’s not once said to be upon Christ from the Father.

So you don't think Christ took the place of the sinner?

Just what was he doin' on that Cross there.

 

[civic]

He was our substitute like I have pointed out ad naseum by quoting what Jesus said about His own death and its meaning. He died to cover and forgive our sins and that His blood cleanses from sin and He is our Passover just as He taught. It’s expiation, not propitiation.

But like I said no wrath on Him at all from God, it was all from sinful and rebellious man.

His sacrifice was from love, Gods love not vengeance , anger, hatred , retribution, wrath.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

NT The OT understanding of God’s wrath is taken for granted by the NT writers. Paul states as axiomatic that God’s wrath is universally revealed, now and always, against human impiety and injustice, inasmuch as these spring from human suppression of the truth concerning God’s eternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:18–21).

This revelation of wrath is an essential aspect of the revelation of God’s righteousness, His justification of the ungodly through the coming of Christ (v 17; 4:5). Paul adduces the vices of the gentile world as signs both of human sin and of God’s abandonment of the human race to sin, which is itself an expression of His wrath (1:24, 26, 28). He also sees wrath as active in relation to the OT revelation: the Mosaic law itself produced wrath by defining transgression (4:15).

The coming of salvation in Christ does not mean that divine wrath has been eliminated. Rather, the gospel proclamation, in calling hearers to repentance, speaks of the wrath to come (Acts 17:30f.; Rev. 14:6f.). The salvation that comes through Christ is salvation from wrath (Rom. 5:9).

The association of wrath and judgment specifically with the eschatological day of wrath is more definite in the NT (e.g., Mt. 3:7; Rom. 2:5; 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17), but wrath is in certain respects already resting on humankind (Jn. 3:36; 1 Thess. 2:16), because the eschaton has already been initiated by the coming of Jesus and the preaching of the gospel. In Revelation the eschatological wrath (thymós) of God is portrayed as wine (Rev. 14:10, 19; 19:15) or a cup (i.e., of wine, 16:19)—an image based on the intoxicating effect of wine which is also found in the OT (e.g., Ps. 60:3 [MT 5]; 75:8 [MT 9]; Jer. 25:15–27)—or as a series of seven bowls to be poured out (Rev. 15:7; ch 16), an image which emphasizes the multiform character of the eschatological sufferings brought on by the wrath of God. ISBE

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

So you don't think Christ took the place of the sinner?

Just what was he doin' on that Cross there.

This from Got ? is another reason I have pointed out many times over the past several years why I reject PSA. I just found this article this morning from another posted who linked it and I read it.

PSA is an assault upon the character and nature of the Tri-Unity of God.

"Perichoresis is the fellowship of three co-equal Persons perfectly embraced in love and harmony and expressing an intimacy that no one can humanly comprehend. The Father sends the Son (John 3:16), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and was sent by the Son (John 15:26)—another example of perichoresis, with the result that God’s people are blessed.

There is nothing that separates the Persons of the Trinity or interrupts the mysterious interchange of perichoresis. It can be imagined as a Venn diagram showing three circles intersecting in the center with each circle intersecting the others perfectly and multi-dimensionally, as they rotate about a common center of divine love."

What is perichoresis? | GotQuestions.org

What is perichoresis? What is the divine dance and how is it related to the Trinity?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Joe]

So you don't think Christ took the place of the sinner?

Just what was he doin' on that Cross there.

Jesus didn't take the place of a sinner. He took His place as the Redeemer who gave His life to purchase us with His own blood.

"Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. " (Act 20:28)

The sinner is given the wrath of God. The Redeemer is given an assembly "because he poured out his soul to death, and was counted with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.".

Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Our Lord never suffered the wrath of God. You will not find anything in the bible that states or implies such a thing. And you will not find one time where the Lord was punished for our sins.

What you will find over and over is that He gave His life as the payment for our salvation. His blood ratified the New Covenant when God "will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

The Lord is the Redeemer; one who sets slaves free by purchasing them.

God Bless

 

[civic]

Jesus didn't take the place of a sinner. He took His place as the Redeemer who gave His life to purchase us with His own blood.

"Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. " (Act 20:28)

The sinner is given the wrath of God. The Redeemer is given an assembly "because he poured out his soul to death, and was counted with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.".

Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Our Lord never suffered the wrath of God. You will not find anything in the bible that states or implies such a thing. And you will not find one time where the Lord was punished for our sins.

What you will find over and over is that He gave His life as the payment for our salvation. His blood ratified the New Covenant when God "will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

The Lord is the Redeemer; one who sets slaves free by purchasing them.

God Bless

Excellent post my friend , well said !!!

 

[civic]

Jesus didn't take the place of a sinner. He took His place as the Redeemer who gave His life to purchase us with His own blood.

"Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. " (Act 20:28)

The sinner is given the wrath of God. The Redeemer is given an assembly "because he poured out his soul to death, and was counted with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.".

Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Our Lord never suffered the wrath of God. You will not find anything in the bible that states or implies such a thing. And you will not find one time where the Lord was punished for our sins.

What you will find over and over is that He gave His life as the payment for our salvation. His blood ratified the New Covenant when God "will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

The Lord is the Redeemer; one who sets slaves free by purchasing them.

God Bless

Joe how do you interpret 1 Peter 3:18 and Isaiah 53:4-6 ? Thanks

1 Peter 3
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the
Spirit

.Isaiah 53
“Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering. . . .
He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all”

 

[Joe]

Joe how do you interpret 1 Peter 3:18 and Isaiah 53:4-6 ? Thanks

1 Peter 3
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the
Spirit

.Isaiah 53
“Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering. . . .
He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all”

Hi Brother,

Thank you for asking.

What has been revealed to us in the bible is God our Father sent His Son to redeem us from the curse of the Law. We get an understanding of this from the OT with the priesthood and sacrificial system. The sacrifice was instituted as the means to make reconciliation for our soul, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement (reconciliation) for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement (reconciliation) by the life."

The OT sacrificial system points to the realities we have been given in Christ; that, firstly, God is the One who must reconcile us to Him for we are completely unable. Therefore, because He loved us, He sent His one and only Son into this world to be the sin offering that removes the sin of the world; that the sinless-spotless Son of God willingly gives up his life explicitly on account of our sins to set us free; that like all atoning sacrifices the purpose of His death was to make reconciliation for the soul that sinned. In the case with our Lord, His single righteous act of giving up His life in love and obedience to His Father and out of love for us permanently reconciles the believer to God forever.

It would be easier to understand by replacing the words that imply someone with something.

1 Peter 3
For the lamb also suffered once for sins, the spotless (righteous) for the spotted (unrighteous), to bring you to God. It was put to death in the body...

.Isaiah 53
“Surely the lamb took up our pain
and bore our suffering. . . .
It was pierced for our transgressions,
It was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by its wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on it
the iniquity of us all”

Jesus is our Redeemer. He purchased us with His own blood, setting us free from slavery to sin. "Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (Joh 8:34-36)

Our Lord bought us out of the old covenant with His sinless life and established a new one where He is the Mediator and Great High Priest. We are no longer under Law, but under grace. And this being true, so then this is too, "where there is no law there is no transgression."

Jesus put an end to sin, brought in everlasting righteousness, and reconciled us to God...All of this is God's doings!

God Bless

 

[civic]

Hi Brother,

Thank you for asking.

What has been revealed to us in the bible is God our Father sent His Son to redeem us from the curse of the Law. We get an understanding of this from the OT with the priesthood and sacrificial system. The sacrifice was instituted as the means to make reconciliation for our soul, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement (reconciliation) for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement (reconciliation) by the life."

The OT sacrificial system points to the realities we have been given in Christ; that, firstly, God is the One who must reconcile us to Him for we are completely unable. Therefore, because He loved us, He sent His one and only Son into this world to be the sin offering that removes the sin of the world; that the sinless-spotless Son of God willingly gives up his life explicitly on account of our sins to set us free; that like all atoning sacrifices the purpose of His death was to make reconciliation for the soul that sinned. In the case with our Lord, His single righteous act of giving up His life in love and obedience to His Father and out of love for us permanently reconciles the believer to God forever.

It would be easier to understand by replacing the words that imply someone with something.

1 Peter 3
For the lamb also suffered once for sins, the spotless (righteous) for the spotted (unrighteous), to bring you to God. It was put to death in the body...

.Isaiah 53
“Surely the lamb took up our pain
and bore our suffering. . . .
It was pierced for our transgressions,
It was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by its wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on it
the iniquity of us all”

Jesus is our Redeemer. He purchased us with His own blood, setting us free from slavery to sin. "Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (Joh 8:34-36)

Our Lord bought us out of the old covenant with His sinless life and established a new one where He is the Mediator and Great High Priest. We are no longer under Law, but under grace. And this being true, so then this is too, "where there is no law there is no transgression."

Jesus put an end to sin, brought in everlasting righteousness, and reconciled us to God...All of this is God's doings!

God Bless

I appreciate the response and I see it the same way as you. I didn’t know for sure if you might have had a different slant on those passages. It looks like you and I are on the exact same page when it comes to the atonement of Christ for sin. Thanks brother for taking the time to explain it here.

 

[Complete]

@civic #2
' The story of the rich man and Lazarus speaks of the judgment of God and serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner (Luke 16:19–31)'

Hello @civic,

We are not told that 'The Rich Man' or 'Lazarus' was an unrepentant sinner: The only things that characterise either, is that the one was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously, and the other was a beggar, full of sores, desiring to be fed with the crumbs falling from the rich man's table (Luke 16:22:19-20). Do either of those descriptions characterise them as unrepentant sinners? I don't believe so. Only their final destinations give us any reason to think this of them. So this is merely an assumption isn't it?

Does this story, directed to the Pharisees by the Lord Jesus Christ, speak of, 'the judgment of God, and the serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner', as you suggest? I don't think so. Rather, it shows the hypocrisy of Pharisaic teaching which denied the testimony of Scripture concerning the state of the dead.

Thank you, which
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[civic]

Hello @civic,

We are not told that 'The Rich Man' or 'Lazarus' was an unrepentant sinner: The only things that characterise either, is that the one was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously, and the other was a beggar, full of sores, desiring to be fed with the crumbs falling from the rich man's table (Luke 16:22:19-20). Do either of those descriptions characterise them as unrepentant sinners? I don't believe so. Only their final destinations give us any reason to think this of them. So this is merely an assumption isn't it?

Does this story, directed to the Pharisees by the Lord Jesus Christ, speak of, 'the judgment of God, and the serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner', as you suggest? I don't think so. Rather, it shows the hypocrisy of Pharisaic teaching which denied the testimony of Scripture concerning the state of the dead.

Thank you, which
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Thanks that was from got questions. I’m in agreement with you

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hello @civic,

We are not told that 'The Rich Man' or 'Lazarus' was an unrepentant sinner: The only things that characterise either, is that the one was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously, and the other was a beggar, full of sores, desiring to be fed with the crumbs falling from the rich man's table (Luke 16:22:19-20). Do either of those descriptions characterise them as unrepentant sinners? I don't believe so. Only their final destinations give us any reason to think this of them. So this is merely an assumption isn't it?

Does this story, directed to the Pharisees by the Lord Jesus Christ, speak of, 'the judgment of God, and the serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner', as you suggest? I don't think so. Rather, it shows the hypocrisy of Pharisaic teaching which denied the testimony of Scripture concerning the state of the dead.

Thank you, which
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Well, I think the story give us basis to think in the rich man as a sinner.
He knew Lazarus, knew his miserable conditionm and had the means to help him out. So this gets in line with the behavior of the "goats" on the left of Mathew 25.
If I don't help a person in big need when I can help him, I am committing a sin.

Besides, the rich man realizes that his relatives should change their ways to avoid hell, and the story let us know that, if his relatives listened to the prophets, they would have to change their ways. So, the story is not neutral in morality.

 

[Complete]

Well, I think the story give us basis to think in the rich man as a sinner.
He knew Lazarus, knew his miserable conditionm and had the means to help him out. So this gets in line with the behavior of the "goats" on the left of Mathew 25.
If I don't help a person in big need when I can help him, I am committing a sin.

Besides, the rich man realizes that his relatives should change their ways to avoid hell, and the story let us know that, if his relatives listened to the prophets, they would have to change their ways. So, the story is not neutral in morality.

'There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:
moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue;
for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things:
but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father,
that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he (Abraham) said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'
(Luk 16:19-31)

Hello @Pancho Frijoles,

Thank you for responding: but with respect this is an assumption: for we are not told that the rich man was acquainted with Lazarus. he desired to be fed from the rich man's table, yes, and lay in his gateway in the hope of receiving crumbs from that table, but the rich man need not himself have been aware of Lazarus or his condition.

Presumably the rich man's relatives had the same lifestyle as the rich man, and therefore fared sumptuously every day. They had their 'good things' within their lifetime, and so could expect to be 'tormented' in the next, according to the words of Abraham to the rich man in this story: and that is the only message that the rich man had to deliver to them!! For no accusation other than that is made against the rich man.

-------------------------------​

The Pharisees shameful treatment of the poor in Israel shows that they loved only themselves and not the people or the country of Israel. Long before the time of Christ the wealthy and ruling classes were taken to task by the prophets for their cruel and unjust treatment of the poor. The pharisees held that the distinctions between poor and rich were part of God's plan, and they made poverty to be a virtue that would be rewarded with wealth in the life to come. It is to them that this story was directed, to expose their hypocrisy.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

'... Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees,
which is hypocrisy.
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed;
neither hid, that shall not be known.'
(Luke 12:1b-2)

'And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things: and they derided Him.
And He said unto them,
Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts:
for that which is highly esteemed among men
is abomination in the sight of God.'
(Luke 16:14-15) .

Hello there,

The Lord Jesus directed the words of the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus to the Pharisees, who were listening to His words and deriding Him.
The Pharisees were a powerful and dominant sect within Israel. They controlled the Sanhedrin, the Priesthood, the civil courts and all Jewish society. They took on themselves the role of the Priests, which was to teach the people.

John called them a generation of vipers (Matt 2:7)
They were not above using falsehood and slander to destroy a persons reputation (Matt. 9:34)
They did not stop short of murder to accomplish their ends and maintain their power (Matt.12:14)
They rejected all 'signs' given by the Lord, then demanded a special 'sign' for them only (Matt. 12:38)
The made void the commandments of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:2)
They were hypocrites (Matt. 23:3)
All their works were done to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5)
They devoured widows houses, then made long prayers in pretence (Matt. 23:14)
They were lovers of money (Luke 16:14)

Having made void the word of God, the Pharisees had adopted most of the platonic philosophy concerning the nature of man. From a mixture of Greek ideas and old Egyptian and Babylonian myths they had developed a doctrine of purgatory and of prayers for the dead. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees taught that every soul is incorruptible, that only the souls of good men pass over into another body, while those of the wicked are punished with eternal suffering. They held that there is an immortal life in souls, and that under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have lived virtuously or viciously in this life.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Studyman]

Notice it’s never on the innocent , righteous , holy , believers but always on the wicked and rebellious sinners. It’s not once said to be upon Christ from the Father.

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me "in that day", Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

It seems important to distinguish between actually pressing towards the prize of being "innocent , righteous , holy", from simply being taught, or convinced by other men that we are "innocent , righteous , holy". And also, shouldn't it be God's Definition of "innocent , righteous , holy" that we are to "Live By" as opposed to the ever-changing religious doctrines and traditions of men?

Jesus warns of becoming deceived by men who "come in His Name".

1818 eksapatáō (from 1537ek, "wholly out/from," intensifying 538 /apatáō, "deceive") – properly, thoroughly deceived ("hood-winked"), describing someone taken in, and enslaved by, Satan (sin, darkness).

A man truly deceived wouldn't know that he is deceived, therefore the danger of being deceived.


Those Christians in Matt. 7 were men convinced they were "innocent , righteous , holy" and when they saw their judgment, made their case to justify their religion.

But Jesus didn't shield them from the wrath of God, even though they claimed to believe in Him. They told others about Him. They did many wonderful works in HIS Name.

This seems important to consider given that even though they "believed" they were "innocent , righteous , holy", and taught others in Jesus' Name, God still considered them as "wicked and rebellious sinners". They didn't think they were this way, because they were deceived.

Eph. 2: 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to "the course of this world", according to "the prince of the power of the air", the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Paul too, before his conversion, was of the "children of disobedience" which made him a child of wrath as a Pharisee, just as those "Christians" were in Matt. 7.

Paul speaks to this same thing in 1 Cor. 10, and concludes;

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written "for our admonition", upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.


Great topic.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

'There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:
moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue;
for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things:
but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father,
that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he (Abraham) said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'
(Luk 16:19-31)

Hello @Pancho Frijoles,

Thank you for responding: but with respect this is an assumption: for we are not told that the rich man was acquainted with Lazarus. he desired to be fed from the rich man's table, yes, and lay in his gateway in the hope of receiving crumbs from that table, but the rich man need not himself have been aware of Lazarus or his condition.

Hi!

I am not understanding why you think that the rich was not aware of Lazarus or his condition.

1. Lazarus laid at his gate. If a man would lay at your gate, wouldn't you notice? You may not be aware of the poor and sick person in a refuge camp in South Sudan, but not about the poor and sick person laying at your gate.
2. The rich recognizes Lazarus and asks Abraham to send him. How could the rich be not acquainted of Lazarus and still recognize him?
3. Abraham does not introduce Lazarus as a stranger, but as a person known by the rich. Abraham starts by saying "Remember". How could the rich be asked to "remember" something he never was aware of?

Presumably the rich man's relatives had the same lifestyle as the rich man, and therefore fared sumptuously every day. They had their 'good things' within their lifetime, and so could expect to be 'tormented' in the next, according to the words of Abraham to the rich man in this story: and that is the only message that the rich man had to deliver to them!! For no accusation other than that is made against the rich man.

The rich asks Abraham to send Lazarus to their relatives so that they could repent.
From which sin should they repent? Specifically, from what sin that the rich himself had committed?
You can't repent from being wealthy, because being wealthy is not a sin. So, what was that sin?

 

[Complete]

Hi!

I am not understanding why you think that the rich was not aware of Lazarus or his condition.

1. Lazarus laid at his gate. If a man would lay at your gate, wouldn't you notice? You may not be aware of the poor and sick person in a refuge camp in South Sudan, but not about the poor and sick person laying at your gate.
2. The rich recognizes Lazarus and asks Abraham to send him. How could the rich be not acquainted of Lazarus and still recognize him?
3. Abraham does not introduce Lazarus as a stranger, but as a person known by the rich. Abraham starts by saying "Remember". How could the rich be asked to "remember" something he never was aware of?

The rich asks Abraham to send Lazarus to their relatives so that they could repent.
From which sin should they repent? Specifically, from what sin that the rich himself had committed?
You can't repent from being wealthy, because being wealthy is not a sin. So, what was that sin?

'For the living know that they shall die:
but the dead know not any thing,
neither have they any more a reward;
for the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;
neither have they any more a portion for ever
in any thing that is done under the sun.'
(Ecc 9:5-6)

Hello @Pancho Frijol;es.

Thank you for your response.

So many consider the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be the teaching of the Lord concerning the state of the dead, yet if that were so then it would be a reflection of what is taught in Scripture generally, and not be a contradict of it, as it most assuredly is.

So much is assumed in regard to it's content, and the entry I made that you are responding to, was intended to show that.

In Christ Jesus
our risen and glorified
Saviour, Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[civic]

'There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:
moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue;
for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things:
but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father,
that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he (Abraham) said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'
(Luk 16:19-31)

Hello @Pancho Frijoles,

Thank you for responding: but with respect this is an assumption: for we are not told that the rich man was acquainted with Lazarus. he desired to be fed from the rich man's table, yes, and lay in his gateway in the hope of receiving crumbs from that table, but the rich man need not himself have been aware of Lazarus or his condition.

Presumably the rich man's relatives had the same lifestyle as the rich man, and therefore fared sumptuously every day. They had their 'good things' within their lifetime, and so could expect to be 'tormented' in the next, according to the words of Abraham to the rich man in this story: and that is the only message that the rich man had to deliver to them!! For no accusation other than that is made against the rich man.

-------------------------------​

The Pharisees shameful treatment of the poor in Israel shows that they loved only themselves and not the people or the country of Israel. Long before the time of Christ the wealthy and ruling classes were taken to task by the prophets for their cruel and unjust treatment of the poor. The pharisees held that the distinctions between poor and rich were part of God's plan, and they made poverty to be a virtue that would be rewarded with wealth in the life to come. It is to them that this story was directed, to expose their hypocrisy.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

ditto