Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[JonC]

What some seem to be missing is that no one here, thus far, is arguing against penal substitution. What is being argued against, and examined, is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, You are mistaken, friend....you're my mistaken friend.

1. Scripture tells us that Christ presented himself an offering to God (Isaiah 53)
2. Scripture tells us that Christ bore our sins (1 Peter 2)
3. Scripture tells us that Christ tasted death for all men (Hebrews 2)

4. Scripture does not tell us that Jesus endured God's wrath.

You believe all four parts correct. That's 75% biblical, 25% theory.

I agree with the first three (the statements that are actually found in the Bible. That puts me at 100% and I get a big on my report card.

But you get 0% and a big on your theology card because you cannot rightly divide the word of truth..
The thing is, of course, that the Scripture does tell us very clearly that the Lord Jesus endured God's wrath, not against Himself-- He never ceased to be the beloved Son-- but against sin and against sinners.

We learn from 2 Corinthians 5:21 that Christ was 'made sin for us.' How did that happen? Well, Isaiah 53:6 tells us that 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Why did it happen? '[So] that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'

The Scripture also tells us that 'God is angry with sinners every day' (Psalm 7:11), that 'cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the law to do them' (Galatians 3:10), and that He will 'by no means clear the guilty.' What will happen to these guilty sinners? 'These will be punished with everlasting destruction [away] from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9). ''For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down' (Psalm 75:8). This is the cup of God's wrath against sin and sinners (Revelation 14:9-10; 16:19 etc.). Unless someone else drains that cup on our behalf, we must drink it ourselves.

But God [what wonderful words those are!] has laid our iniquities upon the sinless, spotless Christ. He has suffered the pains of God's righteous anger against sin (Isaiah 53:10; 1 Peter 2:24); He has drunk the cup of God's wrath on our behalf (Matthew 26:42) and during the three hours of darkness He endured, as a Man, separation from the presence of His Father and the glory of His power (Psalm 22:1-2; Mark 15:33-34). But now Christ is exalted to the highest place and we with Him, and He declares to the father, "Here am I and the children whom God has given Me" (Hebrews 2:13b). Those given to Him by the Father (John 6:39 etc.) He has redeemed by taking their sin upon Himself and paying the price that God's righteous judgement denands.

All this is 'necessarily contained' in short form in 1 John 1:5-2:2 as I have explained in earlier posts.

 

[JonC]

But you get 0% and a big on your theology card because you cannot rightly divide the word of truth..
The thing is, of course, that the Scripture does tell us very clearly that the Lord Jesus endured God's wrath, not against Himself-- He never ceased to be the beloved Son-- but against sin and against sinners.

We learn from 2 Corinthians 5:21 that Christ was 'made sin for us.' How did that happen? Well, Isaiah 53:6 tells us that 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Why did it happen? '[So] that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'

The Scripture also tells us that 'God is angry with sinners every day' (Psalm 7:11), that 'cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the law to do them' (Galatians 3:10), and that He will 'by no means clear the guilty.' What will happen to these guilty sinners? 'These will be punished with everlasting destruction [away] from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9). ''For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down' (Psalm 75:8). This is the cup of God's wrath against sin and sinners (Revelation 14:9-10; 16:19 etc.). Unless someone else drains that cup on our behalf, we must drink it ourselves.

But God [what wonderful words those are!] has laid our iniquities upon the sinless, spotless Christ. He has suffered the pains of God's righteous anger against sin (Isaiah 53:10; 1 Peter 2:24); He has drunk the cup of God's wrath on our behalf (Matthew 26:42) and during the three hours of darkness He endured, as a Man, separation from the presence of His Father and the glory of His power (Psalm 22:1-2; Mark 15:33-34). But now Christ is exalted to the highest place and we with Him, and He declares to the father, "Here am I and the children whom God has given Me" (Hebrews 2:13b). Those given to Him by the Father (John 6:39 etc.) He has redeemed by taking their sin upon Himself and paying the price that God's righteous judgement denands.

All this is 'necessarily contained' in short form in 1 John 1:5-2:2 as I have explained in earlier posts.

Ah...But you are mistaken. I can rightly divide the Word of God from theory. You do realize why Penal Substitution Theory has "theory" in its title, don't you? You seem unable to distinguish it from Scripture.

What you have done (again) is tried to support your theory by picking out a few verses while ignoring Scripture to the contrary.

I am not opposed to people holding to theories and traditions. It is probably necessary to an extent. But to prove unable to discern Scripture itself from theory is unforgivable and needs correction.

 

[agedman]

I really have no idea how you can claim this when scripture clearly states the following:

Isaiah 53:10

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10 ESV, emphasis mine)
​

The language here in Isaiah is not passive; it is active. God is the one doing the crushing, as seen in the parallelism between the first and second line.

The Archangel

Should this be the only Scripture portrayal of the agenda, then you might find some traction, but it is not. For the crushing being approved, being pleasing, and being ordered, does not mean God was pouring His wrath out upon A part of the trinity

Nothing occurs without the approval of God, remember Job? So of course it was the will of God.

Just as Job endured so did the Christ. Job said, “Even if it pleased God to crush me.” But God did not the crushing. Rather God’s hand of protection was withdrawn. As it was with Job, so to it was with the Christ.

Any time God’s hand of protection is withdrawn (be it individual, group, nation world) the natural destruction and violence of humankind is seen.

It is that seen both in Job, in true believers, and in the crucifixion.

Christ’s own prayer acknowledges that it was the will of God for Him to be crushed.

Yet, to have the wrath of God poured out upon the son, is not portrayed anywhere in Scriptures.

Where in Psalm 22, in which are given the very thoughts of Christ during the crucifixion, does the psalm portray Him as being tortured by The Father?

Where in Revelation 5, where the Lamb emerges as one slain, is it given over to such a portrayal of God pouring out His Wrath?

Not only is such (pouring out by God of His Wrath) not evidenced by statement, but such is also not found in portraits given either by the design specifications of the tabernacle and the temple, nor is such not seen in the daily sacrificial offerings or yearly atonement.

Nice try, but the balance of Scriptures do not support God pouring wrath out upon the Son interpretation of this word in Isaiah.

Questions:
1) if God poured His wrath out on the Son, why would He destroy the city for the crucifixion in 70AD? He would be just as guilty as the people would He not?

2) if God poured His wrath out on the Son, was not all poured out, or perhaps some spilled out, for do not the Scriptures show statements of the Wrath of God yet to come? Perhaps, it is as the RCC teaching, that it was only the wrath stored to date, and why there is some time necessary for all to spend in the flames for that final purging?

3) if it was the wrath of God poured out upon the Son, then it was not our grief and our sorrow that Christ bore? How then can the Scriptures state that He bore our griefs and our sorrows when it was God’s wrath that He endured?

4) ultimately, the question must also concern the viability of the trinity and the hypostatic union. In what manner would God torture Himself, pour wrath upon Himself, be in conflict with Himself? For is that not a great flaw which must be Scripturally answered when one embraces or even considers God pouring His wrath out upon the Son?

 

[agedman]

What some seem to be missing is that no one here, thus far, is arguing against penal substitution. What is being argued against, and examined, is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
And did my Sov'reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Was it for crimes that I have done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkenss hide
And shut its glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker, died
For man the creature's sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While His dear cross appears;
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt mine eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can ne'er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away -
'Tis all that I can do!
(Isaac Watts)
​

The goodness of God leads us to repentance.

​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ah...But you are mistaken. I can rightly divide the Word of God from theory. You do realize why Penal Substitution Theory has "theory" in its title, don't you? You seem unable to distinguish it from Scripture.

It is only there because you have written it there It is in fact the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

What you have done (again) is tried to support your theory by picking out a few verses while ignoring Scripture to the contrary.

There are in fact 14 quotations from Scripture in that relatively short post. How many are there in your reply. How many did you respond to? Just a 'round figure' number will do.

I am not opposed to people holding to theories and traditions. It is probably necessary to an extent. But to prove unable to discern Scripture itself from theory is unforgivable and needs correction.

I can always rely on you, when you have no reply from the Bible, to play the man and not the ball. Once again, the temptation to reply in kind is almost overwhelming, but I.....must...... resist.

 

[agedman]

It is only there because you have written it there It is in fact the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

No, it is a theory. SOME assume and hold it as doctrine, but it remains merely one of many theories in which humans have agreed and disagreed.

It is important that as ones foundational ground is threatened, to (as is in this thread) search the Scriptures for answers.

Yet, psychologically, folks tend to hold onto the familiar and reject that which is in their thinking non-conformist or unfamiliar.

 

[JonC]

It is only there because you have written it there It is in fact the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

There are in fact 14 quotations from Scripture in that relatively short post. How many are there in your reply. How many did you respond to? Just a 'round figure' number will do.

No, brother, it really is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and it really is one of several theories. Your post is an example of my complaint that you are redefining things to suit your tradition.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Should this be the only Scripture portrayal of the agenda, then you might find some traction, but it is not. For the crushing being approved, being pleasing, and being ordered, does not mean God was pouring His wrath out upon a [Person] of the trinity

Agedman,
I can see that you have a real concern for the glory of God but in fact that very concern seems to be leading you into error.
Suppose your new neighbour calls on you to introduce himself. In the course of conversation, you learn that his name is Mike and that he loves Grand Opera but hates Gilbert & Sullivan. Imagine how irritated he would be if you persisted in calling him 'Bill' and bought tickets for you both to see the Mikado.

Now the Holy Spirit has said to you, 'It pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]. He has put him to grief.' The text does not say that it pleased the LORD that someone else bruised Him, or that a third party put Him to grief. It is Yahveh who has bruised our Saviour, and He who has put Him to grief. That is what the text says; why can you not accept what is written so clearly?

Also, I have explained several times that the Father never ceased to love the Son; that would be impossible. The cross is the culmination of the great plan of salvation agreed among the Trinity before time began. God's wrath was never against Christ, but against sin. Christ was made sin for us and God punished sin in Him.

When we contemplate Isaiah 53:10, rather than rejecting the clear teaching that Yahveh would be pleased to crush the Christ, we should be filled with wonder and love that the Father should love us so much that He would pour out all His holy, righteous anger against sin upon His beloved Son, and say with Paul, 'If God is for us, who can be against us? he who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?' (Romans 8:31-32).

 

[JonC]

Agedman,
I can see that you have a real concern for the glory of God but in fact you are effectively denying His word.
Suppose your new neighbour calls on you to introduce himself. In the course of conversation, you learn that his name is Mike and that he loves Grand Opera but hates Gilbert & Sullivan. Imagine how irritated he would be if you persisted in calling him 'Bill' and bought tickets for you both to see the Mikado.

Now the Holy Spirit has said to you, 'It pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]. He has put him to grief.' The text does not say that it pleased the LORD that someone else bruised Him, or that a third party put Him to grief. It is Yahveh who has bruised our saviour, and He who has put Him to grief. That is what the text says; why can you not accept what is written so clearly?

Also, I have explained several times that the Father never ceased to love the Son; that would be impossible. The cross is the culmination of the great plan of salvation agreed among the Trinity before time began. God's wrath was never against Christ, but against sin. Christ was made sin for us and God punished sin in Him.

When we contemplate Isaiah 53:10, rather than rejecting the clear teaching that Yahveh would be pleased to crush the Christ, we should be filled with wonder and love that the Father should love us so much that He would pour out all His holy, righteous anger against sin upon His beloved Son, and say with Paul, 'If God is for us, who can be against us? he who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?' (Romans 8:31-32).

Before you accuse a member of denying God's Word you need to provide the passage you believe is being denied and ask that member of he rejects the verses.

Remember that a rejection of your interpretations, traditions, theology, or theories do not constitute a rejection of God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Before you accuse a member of denying God's Word you need to provide the passage you believe is being denied and ask that member of he rejects the verses.

Remember that a rejection of your interpretations, traditions, theology, or theories do not constitute a rejection of God's Word.

I have the greatest respect for Agedman, On reflection, in order not to cause offense I have amended my post.

 

[JonC]

I have the greatest respect for Agedman, On reflection, in order not to cause offense I have amended my post.

Thank you.

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus died in our stead, He took the sin penalty due to us, receiving the wrath of God that would come towards us!

Great, now get out your Bible and show me where God's Word teaches that.

I keep telling you if you do not do that, all you are is a cheerleader, and not one person is ever going to be edified by anything you say.

I can only imagine you have to replace your keyboard frequently, because you are probably rubbing the ! off of them regularly.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Great, now get out your Bible and show me where God's Word teaches that.

I keep telling you if you do not do that, all you are is a cheerleader, and not one person is ever going to be edified by anything you say.

I can only imagine you have to replace your keyboard frequently, because you are probably rubbing the ! off of them regularly.


God bless.

That's the thing, he can't because there exists no passage (without the addition of the Theory of Penal Substitution) that comes even close to supporting the claim. It's aggravating because that leaves us with no Scripture to discuss.

I am not sure when Peter's explanation in his sermon recorded in Acts became insufficient. It was sufficient for the earliest church (Acts 1-3); it seems that it would be enough for us.

 

[Darrell C]

Questions:
1) if God poured His wrath out on the Son, why would He destroy the city for the crucifixion in 70AD? He would be just as guilty as the people would He not?

While I would not equate the Wrath of God in judgment with Christ's death, we do see that those who will be judged will face that, which is what Christ has caused us not to be headed for.

That God is the One that arranged that which Christ suffered is not a debatable issue:


Matthew 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


John 18:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?


Secondly, I would like to see the Biblical Basis for "God destroying the City because of the Crucifixion."

2) if God poured His wrath out on the Son, was not all poured out, or perhaps some spilled out, for do not the Scriptures show statements of the Wrath of God yet to come? Perhaps, it is as the RCC teaching, that it was only the wrath stored to date, and why there is some time necessary for all to spend in the flames for that final purging?

I don't see a question in this.

Again, God's wrath has been effected on numerous occasions. There is more than one Day of the Lord.

3) if it was the wrath of God poured out upon the Son, then it was not our grief and our sorrow that Christ bore? How then can the Scriptures state that He bore our griefs and our sorrows when it was God’s wrath that He endured?

This has, in my view, particular relevance to the Incarnation, and speaks of His dealing with the weaknesses of the flesh.

He didn't spiritually bear our griefs and sorrows, any more than He spiritually had our sins "poured into Him.

4) ultimately, the question must also concern the viability of the trinity and the hypostatic union. In what manner would God torture Himself, pour wrath upon Himself, be in conflict with Himself? For is that not a great flaw which must be Scripturally answered when one embraces or even considers God pouring His wrath out upon the Son?

I would suggest that just being among men was a form of suffering for God manifest in the flesh.

Again, that God is the One that designed the Redemptive Plan and executed it, there is no conflict with God being seen as the One that arranged the sufferings of Christ.

Using words like "torture" might appeal to the emotions, but the fact is God did arrange for that cup, and for that baptism (of suffering), but the Good News is that He is also the One that drank of it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

That's the thing, he can't because there exists no passage (without the addition of the Theory of Penal Substitution) that comes even close to supporting the claim. It's aggravating because that leaves us with no Scripture to discuss.

Just trying to encourage Yeshua1 with a little goading to start backing up his statements with Scripture.

I really do believe the ! is probably rubbed off his keyboard, though.

I am not sure when Peter's explanation in his sermon recorded in Acts became insufficient. It was sufficient for the earliest church (Acts 1-3); it seems that it would be enough for us.

You would have to be more specific about what it is you see Peter as explaining. Again, I don't usually get involved in debates over doctrines of men.

They can be fun sometimes, though.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

You would have to be more specific about what it is you see Peter as explaining. Again, I don't usually get involved in debates over doctrines of men.

They can be fun sometimes, though.


God bless.

Acts 2:22-36 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.' Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's aggravating because that leaves us with no Scripture to discuss.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. That's all we get. You post passages about Christ bearing our sin, passages we all affirm, and then pretend it proves what you add to those verses.

The challenge remains open. Just using Scripture (no commentary, no adding "bore God's wrath", etc.), prove Penal Substitution Theory.

It's just outside your grasp, Τάνταλος, but only because you stand under the wrong tree.

 

[agedman]

Now the Holy Spirit has said to you, 'It pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]. He has put him to grief.' The text does not say that it pleased the LORD that someone else bruised Him, or that a third party put Him to grief. It is Yahveh who has bruised our Saviour, and He who has put Him to grief. That is what the text says; why can you not accept what is written so clearly?

You assume that I do not accept what is written, yet did you not see the reference to Job? The same word is used with the same sense. Now, who was allowed to grieve Job?

The matter is HOW was the Lord bruised, wounded, put to grief? It was allowed. It was not by direct action of a God incensed by the Son bearing sin and the retribution of pouring wrath upon Him.

Ultimately, what manner of wound, bruise, chastisement was not inflicted by human hands upon the Christ?

Isaiah does not state that God poured out his wrath upon the son, and the historical evidence is that He allowed such injury by human hands who were performing what they considered (most of them anyway) the desires of a holy God.

Therefore, in what manner then do you see Isaiah stating God's wrath was poured out upon the Son? For I just do not see such even in looking at the original language.

Also, I have explained several times that the Father never ceased to love the Son; that would be impossible. The cross is the culmination of the great plan of salvation agreed among the Trinity before time began. God's wrath was never against Christ, but against sin. Christ was made sin for us and God punished sin in Him.

You were doing very well in statement until that last sentence.

I will use a human example:

You owe the banker money. Will the banker be thankful the money is paid, or be extremely angry?

Christ gave His life as a ransom (a purchase - NLT) for all people. (1 Timothy 2:6)

Often when one considers Christ bearing sin (taking sin to Himself) the folks seem to bring retribution into the portrayal. However, because Christ never became sinful, that is He never sinned, then the demand of God shown upon sin, iniquity - evil - is not part of that portrayal.

A problem is also in the conflict with Romans 4, where it states that "The Law brings wrath..." Did Christ come to break the law or to fulfill it?

As a one who fulfilled the law, there was no wrath when bearing the sin.

Romans 7 states:

7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.​

Now, this is important to note:

Christ was the Law. He said, to the rulers, look at the Scriptures "39You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5).
And in another place John says, "In the beginning was the Logos (the Word).

Therefore, the Law which would pronounce judgement as a sinner to the writer of Romans cannot do so to the Savior. For as both the author of the Law, and the one who justifies those under the law, the law had not hold, and bore no rebuke when He took upon Himself and bore our sin, and not only ours (as John states) but the sin of all - the whole world.

Again, because of the purity of the sacrifice, their could not be the wrath of God poured out upon it which follows that type of all the yearly atonement offerings.

When we contemplate Isaiah 53:10, rather than rejecting the clear teaching that Yahveh would be pleased to crush the Christ, we should be filled with wonder and love that the Father should love us so much that He would pour out all His holy, righteous anger against sin upon His beloved Son, and say with Paul, 'If God is for us, who can be against us? he who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?' (Romans 8:31-32).

Do you not see Romans 8 as validating that God did not pour out His wrath upon the Son?

What does Romans 8 say?

"...did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all..."

What else does this portion of Romans 8 state concerning the matter?

3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He (God) condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.​

​

God did not form the Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh (fully God and fully human) and for sin" (that is the very purpose and design was made to satisfy the law), then the Crucifixion allowed God to condemn the sin in the flesh, that is our sin, for Christ never was sinful and therefore could not be condemned by God.

This then conforms to the statement of Christ that He came to "fulfill the law..."

There is no reason to see the writer suggesting that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Son.