37818
Well-Known Member
Yet [I understand] he affirms Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Wrath of God
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but the father does nothing to Jesus afterwards is His view!
37818
Well-Known Member
What does that mean?
It is anti-Biblical (not only unbiblical in that it is absent from Scripture but it also opposes biblical teaching).
He who knew no sin was made sin for us. He bore our sin in His body.
You are absolutely correct that I affirm Isaiah 53. And you are correct that I also reject the idea that what Christ experienced was God's wrath.
Scripture is pretty clear that it is an abomination to substitute the innocent for the guilty.
This is not true. Scripture tells us that God vindicated Him.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Truthfully, I am unqualified to answer. Theological terms (like PSA) carry vast quantities of nuanced baggage that I am ignorant of. I came to Christ when God laid claim to me and what I know I learned by reading scripture to find Truth. I still search for TRUTH. I ask and listen and weigh everything against what I read in scripture and know from empirical experience. Those are the tools given to me.
“Wrath” carries an emotional motivation that may or may not be appropriate to apply to God when discussing “atonement”. (Or maybe it is appropriate). I went looking for the Scripture examples of God’s wrath. I told you in the OP what I found. I invited others to share what else they knew of to expand the “database” from which to understand Christ as our propitiation and any role that God’s WRATH may have played. There is no example of God’s Wrath directed against an innocent in the verses that I found. There are examples of God’s wrath being turned aside for His beloved.
There is no denial that Christ suffered for our sin, but was that WRATH or something else?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
NASB95.
I agree that disobedience by “children of God” makes Him angrier than disobedience by “pagans”. “From those to whom much has been given, much is expected” I guess.
What I can’t help but wonder is: Is “anger” different than “wrath”?
My “gut” tells me they are different. I worry based on the examples given in the verses in the OP, that “wrath” against an innocent might violate “Be angry and sin not”. God is RIGHT to be angry with US. God is RIGHT to pour out His wrath against His enemies. God certainly has THE RIGHT (He is MERCIFUL and LOVING) to take the punishment for OUR sin. However, is God “RIGHT” to pour His “wrath” on an innocent?
The blood of the animals turned aside God’s punishment for the sin of His people, but did God HATE that animal? Did God pour out His wrath and desire that animal to suffer in place of those sinning people? I don’t get that impression.
I think back to naked Adam and Eve, then God covered them with animal skins. The death of those animals was not about God being angry (with the animals or with the people) … it was a necessary act to cover their nakedness (sin). So what if the blood of animals that flowed from the Temple was also not about WRATH, but was about “covering nakedness”? What if the death of Christ was not about WRATH, but was about “covering nakedness”?
Then this PROPITIATION isn’t about “appeasing anger” but it is about “transforming enemies back into friends”. My problem is that splitting this hair definitively, requires more skill in dead languages than I possess. So I trust in many skilled translators, I ask questions, and I listen to many counselors. Then I trust the Spirit that lives in me to lead me to the truth (or not - sometimes God decides that I just don’t need to know that). [yet?]
The Tabernacle, priesthood and the offerings were allegories of the offering of Jesus. Your answer as to whether or not our sins were judged in Christ lay in the lessons of the sin and trespass offerings.
So much so that he is redefining the Cross.
In another allegory of Christ, in which the world was judged with a flood, the Ark (Christ) was indeed buffeted with the direct outpouring of judgement upon sin, but those in the Ark are spared.
One should note that though the flood, God's judgement, beat upon the Ark, it could not be swept away, because of what it was, a boat. In the same way, death and the pains thereof could not hold Christ, because of the power of an endless life.
In every type and shadow of the work of Christ, Jesus is touched with the judgment of God.
One should note that though the flood, God's judgement, beat upon the Ark, it could not be swept away, because of what it was, a boat. In the same way, death and the pains thereof could not hold Christ, because of the power of an endless life.
In every type and shadow of the work of Christ, Jesus is touched with the judgment of God.
Aph, the Hebrew word most commonly used for 'wrath' (42 times) is also the most common word used for 'anger' (171 times).
Young's Analytical Concordance is your friend.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I agree (and said as much). The question is ... Was it WRATH?
Was the WRATH of God poured out on those animals?
Did they die merely to cover their "nakedness"? (Genesis 3:7, Genesis 3:21)
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... but was God angry at the ark, or was the reason for its buffeting something else?
It was NECESSARY for the ark to suffer the storm to protect those inside it. The "torment" was motivated by love and necessity rather than anger (wrath).
I am allowing Scripture to define the cross, and you are correct that traditional Christianity differs from your view by holding another doctrine of the cross.
But I never cared for neo-Christianity, even if it is 500 years old.
We need to remember that God did not kill those animals. The OT sacrifice pointed to Christ. Sinful men killed the animal for their sins, and this was God's will.
Penal Substitution Theory say the men represent God punishing Christ. But what if the meaning is more literal? What if the sacrificial system represents Christ suffering and dying at the hands of wicked men by the predetermined plan of God? What if this represents men considering Christ stricken, afflicted, cursed by God when instead He was bearing their sin, their burden, sharing in their affliction? And what if God vindicated Him?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53:4-6 [NASB20]
No question from this that Christ SUFFERED (pierced, crushed) BECAUSE OF US (our sins - offenses, wrongdoings) ... PUNISHMENT was laid on HIM, and we were healed by that punishment. That makes the suffering of Christ "necessisary" for redemption, but it does not make it "anger" as the only possibility. It also does not preclude the possibility of WRATH (punishment given in anger).
Isaiah 53:10-12 [NASB20]
Why did the LORD desire to crush Him? Anger/Wrath at our 'offenses/wrongdoings' is a legitimate reading within the context of the chapter. The ultimate result that follows (justify many) is also a possible reason. So which is the TRUE reason?
4 However, [it was] our sicknesses [that] He Himself bore, And our pains [that] He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. 5 But He was pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our well-being [was laid] upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the wrongdoing of us all To fall on Him.
No question from this that Christ SUFFERED (pierced, crushed) BECAUSE OF US (our sins - offenses, wrongdoings) ... PUNISHMENT was laid on HIM, and we were healed by that punishment. That makes the suffering of Christ "necessisary" for redemption, but it does not make it "anger" as the only possibility. It also does not preclude the possibility of WRATH (punishment given in anger).
Isaiah 53:10-12 [NASB20]
10 But the LORD desired To crush Him, causing [Him] grief; If He renders Himself [as] a guilt offering, He will see [His] offspring, He will prolong [His] days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see [it and] be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, For He will bear their wrongdoings. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the plunder with the strong, Because He poured out His life unto death, And was counted with wrongdoers; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the wrongdoers.
This comes closest of anything I have seen to supporting WRATH. Why did the LORD desire to crush Him? Anger/Wrath at our 'offenses/wrongdoings' is a legitimate reading within the context of the chapter. The ultimate result that follows (justify many) is also a possible reason. So which is the TRUE reason?
We should not suppose that God was somehow furious with the animals. He was, and is, furious with our sins (Psalms 7:11), and yet, in His mercy, 'God .... devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.' The bulls, goats and lambs enabled Him to overlook the sins of His people, to 'cover' them if you will, until the time when the true Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world should appear.
In Christ, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalms 85:10).
Once our sins were placed upon Jesus, there was no wrath of the Father towards Jesus, nor any judgement of Him is His view!
Except that when our sins were imputed to the Lord Jesus, it was as if to the father at that time Jesus was guilty as we were !
- Status