The Wrath of God Poured Out

[JonC]

I would like to resume this thread which seemed to get bogged down somewhat in discussions over N.T. Wright.

May I refer readers to the O.P. and also to @JonC's post #46 and my reply to that in post #65?

Let us reprise for a moment just how serious the state of unredeemed sinners is in the eyes of God. There are several places where one could look, but I'm going to focus on Psalms 5:4-6.

'For thou art not a God who has pleasure in wickedness........' God has no delight in them.

'.......Neither shall evil dwell with thee.' They cannot reside in His presence.

'The foolish shall not stand in thy sight.......' They have no status before Him.

'........Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.' God is in a state of enmity with them.

'Thou shalt destroy all those that speak leasing [i.e. lying]..........' He will pour out upon them the fury of His wrath.

'The LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.' They will be under His indignation forever.
God is not a pussy-cat; not even a tame lion.

Next, let us look at God's standard of justice. It is that of rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. Consider the following texts; please take the time to click on them and read them: Deuteronomy 7:9-10; Nahum 1:2-3; Romans 2:5-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8. God commands human rulers and judges to govern in the same way. Read 1 Peter 2:13-14; Romans 13:4. A ruler is described as 'God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath of him who practises evil.' This is the case even if the ruler is a pagan or an atheist. God expects humans to have the same standards of righteousness and justice that He has.

So if God 'will not at all acquit the wicked' (Nahum 1:3) and if there is a future 'day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God' (Romans 2:5), how shall we escape, seeing that 'There is none righteous, no, not one' (Romans 3:10)?

So judgement is the outworking of God’s righteousness and His hatred of sin. Once Adam and Eve had fallen into sin, it was impossible that God should withhold the penalty that He had threatened in Genesis 2:17, for that would have validated Satan’s claim that God was untrustworthy (Genesis 3:2). So it happened that so many aspects of creation that had been full of blessing – marriage, work, childbearing – are now full of pain and frustration, and end in death Likewise, when God expelled the Israelites from the Promised Land, He was doing no more than He had warned that He would do if they continued in sin.

So what of God’s goodness and mercy? The prayers of Nehemiah, Ezra and Daniel (Nehemiah 1:8-9; 9:32-33; Daniel 9:13-15) all affirm God’s righteousness, justice and covenant faithfulness in bringing disaster upon Israel. Interestingly, they plead for mercy on the basis of the same covenant that promised judgement (Deuteronomy 30:3. If God were to go back on His promise to punish sin on what basis could we believe His promise to show mercy?

So salvation must be a matter of justice: sin must be punished and righteousness upheld. It must also be a matter of illumination, for we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25); it must be an act of liberation: for we are captive to the delusions of our false beliefs and cannot save ourselves; it must be an act of grace from start to finish, because by nature our hearts are set against God, and we do not even want to save ourselves; it must be an act of reconciliation, for the natural mind is alienated from God, and it must be an act of conquest, for we are by nature in thrall to Satan and need someone to rescue us. And all must be done in a way that upholds the truth of God’s word [last two paragraphs partly taken from Pierced for our Transgessions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach]

In 2 Samuel 14:14, we read, ‘God….devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.’ This is a true statement, but in its context, as we read on, we see that reconciliation between David and Absalom was made on a false basis – there was neither retribution nor repentance – and the whole thing ended in disaster. Whatever means God devises must involve justice and righteousness.

So the first thing that Christ must do if He is to save us is to deal with the broken law. God’s law pronounces a curse on law-breakers: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (Galatians 3:10; c.f. Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10). We ourselves are cursed, for none of us have continued in God’s holy law. But, ‘Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law….’ How has He done that? ‘…..having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (v.13; Deuteronomy 21:23). In God’s law it is written, so, as Luther says, ‘Christ hung on a tree; therefore Christ was accursed of God’ (Luther: Commentary on Galatians). We need to modify that somewhat. On the cross Christ bore and suffered the curse due to sinners on account of sin. He was not literally cursed by God.

So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin. He was 'made sin for us' and the Father who is of purer eyes than to behold evil' (Habakkuk 1:13; c.f. Psalms 5:4 again), turned His eyes away from His stricken Son (Psalm 22:1 etc.).

This was also an act of illumination: on the cross we see the love of the Father who did not spare His own Son but offered Him up for us all; we see the horrible nature of sin by the punishment that divine justice prescribed, and we see our own total inability to save ourselves.

It was also an act of liberation: just as we were ‘in Adam’ when he fell into sin, so we were in Christ when He suffered for sin. ‘I have been crucified with Christ…….’ ‘There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus……’ ‘For this purpose Christ was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.’ Christ has taken our sin and the punishment for it upon Himself. God the righteous God sees therefore no sin in us and justifies us (c.f. Romans 8:33-34). ‘Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed’ (John 8:36).

It was also an act of grace: ‘For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly’ (Romans 5:6). It was also an act of reconciliation: ‘For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son…….’ (Romans 5:10). It was also an act of conquest: ‘……having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it’ (Colossians 2:14-15). And finally, of course, it was an act of love (John 3:16)

And in it all, the truth of God’s word is upheld and dignified. Our sins have indeed been laid upon God’s Suffering Servant and it is by His wounds that we have been healed (Isaiah 53:5-6). The guilty have been punished, for Christ was made sin for us, and the righteous have been justified for we have become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21)..

I am not sure if you are arguing against a strawman or simply making a statement.

I do not know of any here who reject the idea that God's wrath is against all unrighteousness, that Christ suffered the "wages of sin" for us, or that we are "reckoned righteous in Christ". I have yet to see anyone deny that it was God's will for Christ to suffer, that "it pleased" God "to crush Him", that He bore our sins, became sin for us, and by His stripes we are healed.

I do see one verse where you were accused of emphasing God not acquitting the wicked while minimizing the remainder of the verse about not convicting the righteous (that both are abominations).

But other than that, I have yet to see a disagreement that the passages are applicable to any soteriological view.

Is there a verse you had in mind?

 

[JonC]

If you think it easier, @Martin Marprelate , just list the passages and see if anyone objects or tries to qualify them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not sure if you are arguing against a strawman or simply making a statement.

The purpose of the thread was to consider God's wrath: how it is tied inseparably to His justice, and how that affects the atonement. If you have nothing helpful and edifying to add to that topic, please don't feel obliged to post for my sake.

However, I'm pleased to learn that you are in full agreement with these two extracts:

On the cross Christ bore and suffered the curse due to sinners on account of sin.

So what does it mean to be ‘accursed of God’? Let Paul answer first: ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And then the Lord Jesus: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell” (Luke 12:4-5; c.f. Matthew 25:41). So what does hell feel like? Well, we may think of darkness, pain and, according to Paul, separation from the presence of God, save perhaps for His abiding wrath. We may add, perhaps, the mocking and abuse of others (c.f. Isaiah 14:10-11). All these things came upon the Christ. Of the pain it is hardly necessary to speak, save to note that it could not be diminished in any degree. Our Lord was offered wine mixed with myrrh, but He would not take it (Mark 15:23); it was an analgesic, but He must suffer the full agony of sin and the wrath of the Father against sin. He was 'made sin for us' and the Father who 'is of purer eyes than to behold evil' (Habakkuk 1:13; c.f. Psalms 5:4 again), turned His eyes away from His stricken Son (Psalm 22:1 etc.).

I seem to recall that in the past you opposed the teachings that Christ was 'made sin' and that the Father forsook the Son during the time on the cross. If you have changed your mind about these things in line with the clear teaching of the Bible, I am delighted.

 

[37818]

It is the one event referred to in Revelation 6:16-17, Revelation 11:18, Revelation 14:10, Revelation 16:19 and Revelation 19:15.

Matthew 24:29 is the same event referred to in Revelation 6:12.

 

[JonC]

The purpose of the thread was to consider God's wrath: how it is tied inseparably to His justice, and how that affects the atonement. If you have nothing helpful and edifying to add to that topic, please don't feel obliged to post for my sake.

However, I'm pleased to learn that you are in full agreement with these two extracts:




I seem to recall that in the past you opposed the teachings that Christ was 'made sin' and that the Father forsook the Son during the time on the cross. If you have changed your mind about these things in line with the clear teaching of the Bible, I am delighted.

Your recollection is poor, bro.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation). I agreed with the passage and said that I did not believe that God literally became evil (God is Holy). I did not realize you had an objection there.

 

[JonC]

I appreciate @Martin Marprelate 's confession that we accept the same Scripture. This means our differences are not scripture itself but the human reasoning that goes into interpretation.

But before other false accuations surface I think this would be a good time to suggest people take the effort to read what their opponent posts to include its context. There is no need to argue strawmen arguments when our posts are avaliable. It is an integrity issue.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your recollection is poor, bro.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation). I agreed with the passage and said that I did not believe that God literally became evil (God is Holy). I did not realize you had an objection there.

I have done a bit of rooting about, and came up with this. It is not unique; I'm sure I can find several more if you want.

And, either Jesus was literally made to be evil (made sin) or he suffered for the consequences of our sin (he was made a sin offering). Habakkuk denounces the former interpretation.

This is a clear denial that Christ was made sin (contra 2 Cor. 5:21). It is on the ''Forsaken' in Matthew 27:46' thread dated 12th March 2017 on the Baptist Theology etc. thread.
I always try not to misquote people and will always apologize if, inadvertently, I do. I trust that you keep the same standards.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your recollection is poor, bro.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation). I agreed with the passage and said that I did not believe that God literally became evil (God is Holy). I did not realize you had an objection there.

You do not hold that the Father poured out His wrath upon Jesus, nor that Jesus was really forsaken by Him, correct?

 

[JonC]

I have done a bit of rooting about, and came up with this. It is not unique; I'm sure I can find several more if you want.

This is a clear denial that Christ was made sin (contra 2 Cor. 5:21). It is on the ''Forsaken' in Matthew 27:46' thread dated 12th March 2017 on the Baptist Theology etc. thread.
I always try not to misquote people and will always apologize if, inadvertently, I do. I trust that you keep the same standards.

The problem is that you assume that your understanding of my view is correct (i.e., if I say it is not a "clear denial" you insist it is). That, of course, is a fools errand on your part (you have already said, repeatedly, that my view does not make sense to you).

God did not literally make Jesus sin. That is a truth that I will stand on because it is biblical (it is actually in many passages taking about the nature of God). God does not author evil. Jesus is not evil.

Do you believe that Jesus literally became evil? No, of course you don't You already told us you believed it to mean that God looked upon Christ as if He were sin because He bore our sins. But that is not what the verse says. Were arguing dishonestly then, and are now on this point.

Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. I never denied that. If you believe so, well...who cares? That only shows your lack of understanding. I never claimed that Jesus was not forsaken. I claimed Jesus was not forsaken in your view of the word. I provided instances where "forsaken" does, in fact, not mean "separated from" but a refusal to deliver or to allow to remain in a situation or circumstance (I can't use the word "leave" because you only understand one meaning of these words).

Let's not argue from ignorance. Let's argue from truth. The truth is that I never denied any of those passages. What I deny is your interpretation of those passages. If this is a principle you cannot grasp then it is just beyond your grasp. You can't be helped.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is that you assume that your understanding of my view is correct (i.e., if I say it is not a "clear denial" you insist it is). That, of course, is a fools errand on your part (you have already said, repeatedly, that my view does not make sense to you).

God did not literally make Jesus sin. That is a truth that I will stand on because it is biblical (it is actually in many passages taking about the nature of God). God does not author evil. Jesus is not evil.

Do you believe that Jesus literally became evil? No, of course you don't You already told us you believed it to mean that God looked upon Christ as if He were sin because He bore our sins. But that is not what the verse says. Were arguing dishonestly then, and are now on this point.

Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. I never denied that. If you believe so, well...who cares? That only shows your lack of understanding. I never claimed that Jesus was not forsaken. I claimed Jesus was not forsaken in your view of the word. I provided instances where "forsaken" does, in fact, not mean "separated from" but a refusal to deliver or to allow to remain in a situation or circumstance (I can't use the word "leave" because you only understand one meaning of these words).

Let's not argue from ignorance. Let's argue from truth. The truth is that I never denied any of those passages. What I deny is your interpretation of those passages. If this is a principle you cannot grasp then it is just beyond your grasp. You can't be helped.

Jesus stay the sinless Son of God, but while upon that Cross as the Sin Bearer, he became for our sakes the One who received our sins and also took the due wrath of God we deserved for those sins! And he experienced the aloneness all sinners in hell do, devoid of the very presense of God!

 

[JonC]

Jesus stay the sinless Son of God, but while upon that Cross as the Sin Bearer, he became for our sakes the One who received our sins and also took the due wrath of God we deserved for those sins! And he experienced the aloneness all sinners in hell do, devoid of the very presense of God!

I do not believe that you think Jesus literally became sin. I was mentioning it because @Martin Marprelate pretends those who believe this verse means that God gave Christ as a "sin offering" and lay our sins upon Christ take a less literal approach while his view that God looked upon Christ as if he were sinful is a "literal rendering". I was pointing to the hypocrisy, not making an accusation anyone believed Christ literally became sin.

When faced with an impossible statement like that (where God literally becomes an evil or anyone can literally become an action) it is best, IMHO, to allow Scripture to define Scripture. That is how you get people like D.A. Carson and John Piper interpreting the passage as Jesus becoming a "sin offering". You have two main options, but what does other passages say? Do they say that God offered Christ as a "sin offering" or that God "looked upon Christ as if he were a sinner"?

(hint....it states only one of those)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The truth is that I never denied any of those passages.

I'm afraid the truth is that you have. And worse still you have denied it and effectively accused me of lying. There is no disgrace in changing your mind. You continually brag about having done it once, so doing it again won't hurt you.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation).

And, either Jesus was literally made to be evil (made sin) or he suffered for the consequences of our sin (he was made a sin offering). Habakkuk denounces the former interpretation.

You have two main options, but what does other passages say? Do they say that God offered Christ as a "sin offering" or that God "looked upon Christ as if he were a sinner"?

Now you know perfectly well that I have never suggested that Christ was made evil. I have insisted over and over again that He was never a sinner. But now, tell us: was Christ made sin, or was He made a sin offering? Two years ago you were denying the former and insisting upon the latter. There are several more posts that I can find which prove that. What do you say now?

 

[JonC]

I'm afraid the truth is that you have. And worse still you have denied it and effectively accused me of lying. There is no disgrace in changing your mind. You continually brag about having done it once, so doing it again won't hurt you.



Now you know perfectly well that I have never suggested that Christ was made evil. I have insisted over and over again that He was never a sinner. But now, tell us: was Christ made sin, or was He made a sin offering? Two years ago you were denying the former and insisting upon the latter. There are several more posts that I can find which prove that. What do you say now?

He was obviously not "made sin" (an immoral act). I believe He was "made to be sin" as a "sin offering" (i.e. He bears our sin).

Do you believe God was made "an immoral act"?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He was obviously not "made sin" (an immoral act). I believe He was "made to be sin" as a "sin offering" (i.e. He bears our sin).

Do you believe God was made "an immoral act"?

Which do you mean? Was He made sin or was He made a sin offering?

 

[JonC]

Which do you mean? Was He made sin or was He made a sin offering?

I was asking if you believed He was made "an immoral act" (sin).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was asking if you believed He was made "an immoral act" (sin).

I was asking you first whether you believe Christ was made sin or a sin offering. You know quite well what I believe because I have told you many times, not least in the extended article I linked recently which you told me you had read twice.

Now, do you believe that Christ was made sin or a sin offering? Or are you afraid to tell us? Or do you not know? Your replies which I listed in post #132 rather suggest that.

 

[JonC]

I was asking you first whether you believe Christ was made sin or a sin offering. You know quite well what I believe because I have told you many times, not least in the extended article I linked recently which you told me you had read twice.

Now, do you believe that Christ was made sin or a sin offering? Or are you afraid to tell us? Or do you not know? Your replies which I listed in post #132 rather suggest that.

Don't be silly.

No. I do not believe Christ was literally made an immoral act (sin). Sin is an abstract noun. No one can literally "be made sin".

I believe "become sin" refers to God laying our iniquities upon Christ and offering Him as a guilt offering (Christ bearing our sins).

Do you believe God literally made Christ an immoral act (sin)? If not what is your interpretation?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I was asking if you believed He was made "an immoral act" (sin).

When the Christ was in Gethsamane, thrice He prayed, “Let this cup pass from Me...” Now, what was this cup He was praying about?

For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, and the wine foams; It is well mixed, and He pours out of this; Surely all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink down its dregs.[Psalms 75:8]

In the garden, the Christ drank that cup, which was Him taking the sin of His sheep upon Himself, and in this act, the wrath of God was meted out unto Him.

He became sin so that He could die His sheep’s death in their stead. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.[Isaiah 53:5] It was His giving His life for His sheep, so that His sheep could gain His life.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 6 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't be silly.

No. I do not believe Christ was literally made an immoral act (sin). Sin is an abstract noun. No one can literally "be made sin".

I believe "become sin" refers to God laying our iniquities upon Christ and offering Him as a guilt offering (Christ bearing our sins).

Do you believe God literally made Christ an immoral act (sin)? If not what is your interpretation?

Right you have made yourself clear. When the Holy Spirit wrote 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.....' (2 Corinthians 5:21), you believe that He meant that God did not make Christ sin.
Now in my post #120 I wrote:

I have yet to see a disagreement that the passages are applicable to any soteriological view.

And when I wrote:

I seem to recall that in the past you opposed the teachings that Christ was 'made sin'

You replied:

Your recollection is poor, bro.

I never objected to Christ "being made sin" (that is a false accusation).

Yet it is not a false accusation because you do object to Christ "being made sin," despite that being the very clear declaration of Scripture. The fact seems that you do not know what you believe and are wriggling like a fish on a hook and are not above accusing people of making false accusations when they point this out.

Clearly a new thread is necessary on the subject of 'Christ made sin.' I will start one as and when I have time..