Vengeance.

 Love and Vengeance. 

Some want to say the two can't go hand in hand because Jesus told us even when we are wronged by someone to turn the other cheek, we are to forgive others over and over not taking any vengeance. Why? 

Rom_12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Psa 94:1  O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 

Nah 1:2  God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. 

Nah 1:3  The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. 

Heb 10:30  For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 

Heb 10:31  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Vengeance belongs to God. You may question why to God and not to us who are experiencing the wrong right then and there? Us, whose hearts are breaking from the agonies caused by others against us in so many ways, don't we have the right to exact vengeance? No, the answer is absolutely, no. 

Why? Because we are sinners. We have done wrong to others maybe not in gross, blatant displays of horror, but even by a thought we may have had- we sin. Our hands are bloody. We are guilty. We can in no way raise up in vengeance against others with our bloody guilt ridden hands except to add more guilt, more blood to them. 

God is pure, just, love. God is all that is good without fault. God alone can exact vengeance because He alone is guiltless and can judge the guilt of man perfectly. 

We must throw ourselves at the feet of our Savior begging mercy, pleading for unwarranted forgiveness, exposing our sinful selves fully and asking to be cleansed by the blood of His the greatest of sacrifices! We cry mercy! Mercy! Because we know our guilt covers us in its filth, its putrid stench that threatens to crush our spirit fully were it not for the hope we cry out for… MERCY! Please, Lord, have mercy on us wretches, so completely undeserving of Your smallest of thoughts. MERCY!

Vengeance belongs to the LORD, not us. As we suffer abuse in all its many forms - from the tiniest abuse to the most terrifying, we must cling to the truth that the pure hands of our Savior will avenge us one day, and on the heels of that thought we must pray… pray and forgive our enemies, hoping they too will come to know the forgiveness of our blessed, loving, all gracious, all worthy LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST!

Amen!

*******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust

By J.H. Waggoner 

CONTINUING STUDY….

'I next appeal to the words of Paul, in Acts 24:15: "And have hope toward God which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 

On this text it may be well first to say, that the translation is as correct as may be; a better rendering, probably, could not be given. Some versions reject the words, "of the dead;" there is some doubt of their genuineness; but Greenfield, following Griesbach, says there is not sufficient evidence to justify their removal from the text. This is not material, as no doubt has ever been raised as to the subject of the remark; all admit, so far as I know, that the subject is the resurrection of the dead.

This text is an exceedingly difficult one for the opposers of the resurrection of the wicked. Eld. Storrs says, "This text would have great weight on the question if there were no opposing considerations." Whether the "opposing considerations" are sufficient to counteract the weight of the text, let the reader judge. 

In favor of the doctrine taught by the text, I have nothing to say. Words cannot add to the force of the passage, as it is so plain that it does not admit of explanation. In this respect it is just such a text as I always love to resort to as a proof text: it needs no labor to make it prove what it is quoted to prove. But a great deal of labor has been spent to destroy its testimony in favor of the resurrection of the unjust. It is claimed that, as Paul is herein laying down the object of his hope, he cannot mean to say that the unjust will be raised, as that cannot be an object of hope.

It is quite gratuitous to speculate on what Paul meant to say, while we have in plain terms what he did say! Greenfield gives the definition expect, as well as hope, to the original; but that  rendering is not necessary; I accept it as it stands.

The hope of the resurrection of the dead is a legitimate hope, and it necessarily includes two parties. The hope of the coming of Christ is a legitimate hope, because it is based on positive revelation; yet the reward of the righteous is no more certain to rest upon that coming than it is certain that the terrible destiny of the wicked is suspended on his coming. The hope of his coming necessarily embraces all the concomitants of his coming, and all these are alike subjects of prophetic promise. 

In regard to the word hope, there is no more incongruity in Paul's words in Acts 24:15, than in Peter's words in 2 Pet. 3:7-9, where he bases the expectation of the melting of the earth and perdition of ungodly men on the promise of God. Let our opponents on Paul's words note this text; it will be difficult for them to apply their rule of exposition to Peter's prophecy. But if they feel compelled to free the words of revelation from such appearance of incongruity, let them try their hand on Psalm 136:10, 15: "To Him that smote Egypt in their first-born; for his mercy endureth forever." "But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea; for his mercy endureth forever:" They might do by this as they do by Acts 24:15: deny that it means so, because there was no mercy in the transaction. But there was mercy to somebody involved, if not to Pharaoh and his host; and so of Acts 24; somebody's hope rests on these facts. But whether it be denied or distorted, there it stands, a decisive declaration of the resurrection of the unjust.

A very weak point is made by the advocates of that theory, of which I am reminded by their comments on Paul's hope. Thus it is said, "If the love of God can raise the wicked to punish them, then only may they be raised; for God is love." Very good for Universalists, but defective in point of fact. Suppose we say, If the love of God will destroy the wicked, then may they be destroyed, but not otherwise. And this is apposite; for Jesus, who raises the dead, likewise takes vengeance. 2 Thess. 1:7, 8; Rev. 6:16, I7. 

2Th 1:7  And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 

2Th 1:8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Rev 6:16  And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 

Rev 6:17  For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? 

If judgment destinies were to be decided by love alone, the revelation which God has made to us would be far different from what it now is. Justice is the ruling attribute in that transaction, for the offer of mercy to the incorrigible is entirely withdrawn before the judgment is executed; and he who loses sight of this fact is poorly qualified to reason on the nature and events of that day.

To be continued…