While we gladly acknowledge that the traditional hell with eternal

conscious torment is not the wages of sin, we must nevertheless faithfully

recognize that such words as anger, wrath, vengeance, terror and figures of

utter destruction, are used throughout the whole range of Scripture, and 'the

days of vengeance' are as Scriptural as is 'the day of salvation'.  The

epistle to the Romans states that in the gospel is revealed the righteousness

of God by faith, but also immediately speaks of the wrath of God that is

revealed from heaven (1:16-18).  If the Cross reveals the mercy and the love

of God for sinners, it most certainly and equally reveals His utter

abhorrence of sin.  The New Testament equally with the Old Testament says

'Vengeance is Mine: saith the Lord, I will repay' (Rom. 12:19; Deut. 32:35).

We mention these things because we have heard the explanation offered that

the omission of the latter part of Isaiah 61:2 by our Saviour when He read in

the synagogue at Nazareth was because by then the people of God had outgrown

the primitive conception of vengeance; all was now mercy, and none need

entertain fear.  The truth is that Christ quoted practically both the words

'The acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God', but

not at the same time.  'Right Division' by keeping truth to its own Divine

compartment, denies not one word of it, consequently we find in Luke 21:22

that 'the days of vengeance' fall to be fulfilled, not at His First, but at

His Second Coming.  Right division demands that 'all things which are written

may be fulfilled', but refuses to confuse the differing times and seasons.

Vengeance is but the other side of the one attitude of the God of

righteousness to sin.  lf it be not righteously forgiven, it must be

righteously punished (Isa. 34:8; 35:4; 59:17).

'The day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed is

come' (Isa. 63:4).  The Kinsman-Redeemer was at the same time the Avenger of

blood, the Hebrew word for either being gaal (Job 19:25; Num. 35:12).  There

is more than this however in Luke 4.  The second occurrence of the word

'acceptable' is in verse 24, where it suggests that the Lord would not be

accepted by that generation, and not only so, but opens up the possibility

that the Gentile stood to benefit by this failure of the chosen people.  The

Saviour gave two instances of Gentile blessing from the Old Testament

records.  There were many widows in Israel in the days of famine, but Elijah

was sent unto none of them, save unto a widow of Sidon -- a Gentile.  There

were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha, but none of them was

cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian -- a Gentile.  So incensed were His

hearers at this invasion, as they felt, of their privileges, that they were

filled with wrath, and would have cast Him down headlong from the brow of the

hill, much as their compatriots waited while Paul rehearsed their deeds until

he came to the word 'Gentiles', upon which they lifted up their voices and

cried 'Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he

should live' (Acts 22:22).  This attitude is set forth in type in Acts 13:6-

13, condemned by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, and is seen ultimately

issuing in the nation's rejection in Acts 28:23-31, no man from that time

'forbidding' the apostle, revealing the attitude of heart of 'this people'

(Isa. 6:9,10; Acts 28:25-27).  In these four chapters of Luke's Gospel we

have observed a number of passages which reveal the distinctive trend of Luke

as compared with that of Matthew.  The two genealogies, the testimony of the

herald angels, the prophecy of old Simeon, the quotation of Isaiah 40:3,4;

and the testimony now reviewed of the Lord's opening ministry.

The structure opposite, has been kindly provided by the late Andrew H.

Morton whose booklet, The Principle of Structure in Scripture is doubtless

known to many of our readers.