Whose Wrath?

[Cindy_Skillman]

Much more, then, being now (at the present time) right-wised (justified; placed in right relationship within the Way pointed out) within His blood, through Him we will be rescued (saved; delivered) from the personal emotion (inherent fervor; anger; wrath; mental bent or disposition).

For since (if) continuously existing being actively hostile ones (enemies) we were changed from enmity to friendship (reconciled; conciliated; changed to be consistent and compatible; down-exchanged) by God (to God; in God) through His Son’s death, much more, being ones that were conciliated (changed down from enmity to friendship), within His Life we will be rescued (delivered; saved; made whole; cured and restored to health). (Romans 5:9-10 JM-NT)

And here it is in a more readable, if somewhat less thorough translation:

Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! (Romans 5:9-10 HCSB)

I’ve always assumed that the wrath in this passage was God’s, but reading the two verses together, and considering the meaning of “wrath,” I wonder. Does it make sense to suppose that, “having been declared righteous by His blood,” we would then still need to be saved from His wrath? Could it now be our own “inherent fervor; anger; wrath; mental bent or disposition” from which we still require saving?

What do you think? I just discovered this and am still cogitating.

[redhotmagma]

wrath:

orgh orge

Pronunciation: or-gay’
Origin: from 3713
Reference: TDNT - 5:382,716
PrtSpch: n f
In Greek: orgh 13, orghn 9, orghv 14
In NET: wrath 25, anger 7, of wrath 3, retribution 1
In AV: wrath 31, anger 3, vengeance 1, indignation 1
Count: 36
Definition: 1) anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
2) movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent
emotion, but esp. anger
3) anger, wrath, indignation
4) anger exhibited in punishment, hence used for punishment itself
4a) of punishments inflicted by magistrates
from 3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the
mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable)
abhorrence); by implication punishment:-anger, indignation,
vengeance, wrath.

3713 oregomai

1. to stretch one’s self out in order to touch or to grasp
   something, to reach after or desire something
2. to give one’s self up to the love of money
   middle voice of apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary
   (compare 3735); to stretch oneself, i.e. reach out after (long
   for):-covet after, desire.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Thanks, RHM. So which of these definitions do you personally think should apply here, if anyone can tell? And are we being delivered from the wrath of God, or from our own confused, violent, maelstrom of thoughts and emotions?

What also fed into this thought for me was reading in Colossians how we, who were once estranged and enemies in comprehension, He now reconciles . . .
Also the of discussion of how our thoughts are either bound up in the natural realm or the spiritual realm in Romans 8

"For those who walk in accord with this world set their minds on the things of the natural realm and those who walk according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spiritual realm, for the mindset of the natural person is death, but the outlook of the spiritual person is life and peace, for the thought processes of the natural world are hostile to God for they do not support nor submit to the law of God, nor can they, so then they who are of the natural world cannot please God . . . "

I’ve been musing for a long time now that our thoughts are a lot more important than they might at first seem.

[redhotmagma]

I’m just saying the wrath of God is not bad. Our natural mind sees it as death, look at even the word judgement sometimes translated condemnation. We’ve for so many years assumed its ET, or physical punishment. But it means simply to make a judgement. The great white throne is white, not black. All His judgements are just. My favorite views on Gods wrath are

Zeph 3: 8,9
Therefore wait for me,” declares the LORD,
“for the day I will stand up to testify.a
I have decided to assemble the nations,
to gather the kingdoms
and to pour out my wrath on them—
all my fierce anger.
The whole world will be consumed
by the fire of my jealous anger.
9“Then will I purify the lips of the peoples,
that all of them may call on the name of the LORD
and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

Isa 25

On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare (on this mountain is where He executes His judgement)
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.
9In that day they will say,

“Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the LORD, we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

I’m sorry if I’m not answering your question correctly. I’m not saying it may not hurt some, but it hurts so good. And just like in childbirth you have such a wonderful thing afterwards that any pain is overshadowed by joy.

[redhotmagma]

Much more, then, being now (at the present time) right-wised (justified; placed in right relationship within the Way pointed out) within His blood, through Him we will be rescued (saved; delivered) from the personal emotion (inherent fervor; anger; wrath; mental bent or disposition).

For since (if) continuously existing being actively hostile ones (enemies) we were changed from enmity to friendship (reconciled; conciliated; changed to be consistent and compatible; down-exchanged) by God (to God; in God) through His Son’s death, much more, being ones that were conciliated (changed down from enmity to friendship), within His Life we will be rescued (delivered; saved; made whole; cured and restored to health). (Romans 5:9-10 JM-NT)

And here it is in a more readable, if somewhat less thorough translation:

Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! (Romans 5:9-10 HCSB)

I’ve always assumed that the wrath in this passage was God’s, but reading the two verses together, and considering the meaning of “wrath,” I wonder. Does it make sense to suppose that, “having been declared righteous by His blood,” we would then still need to be saved from His wrath? Could it now be our own “inherent fervor; anger; wrath; mental bent or disposition” from which we still require saving?

What do you think? I just discovered this and am still cogitating.

col 3:6 the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience

It seems Paul is talking about the wrath of God in Romans also, since He pretty much says the same thing over and over in each of his letters, or at least has repeating themes. Not to say that the wrath of God isn’t from ourselves. I believe that we place ourselves in our own hell, and our own conscience accuses or defends us.