The Wrath of God

[JesusFan]

This is not true. Scripture tells us that God vindicated Him.

No, that is what NT Wright and His NPP ilk assert

 

[JesusFan]

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 wraith of the father towards sins is not petty emotionalism nor selfish anger, as its Holy response to unholiness!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

What you choose to call Neo is really Pauline Justification

 

[JesusFan]

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?

God still has a Holy wrath against sins, and upon sinners who reject Jesus to save them, active not a passive one!

 

[JesusFan]

Isaiah 53:4-6 [NASB20]

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?

The wrath of the Father towards Jesus NOT due to Jesus being a sinner, but that he was bearing now as the sin bearer those sins, and as such, was as if was sinness incarnated to a Holy God!

 

[JesusFan]

So much so that he is redefining the Cross.

Still seems to be pretty close to how the NPP defines it

 

[JonC]

No, that is what NT Wright and His NPP ilk assert

I don't know enough of NT Wright to say, but it certainly is the majority view within the Christian faith (with different focuses), except the RCC and Reformed theology.

I just don't think the Latin view sufficient.

 

[Revmitchell]

But he was pierced for our transgressions; = God's wrath


he was crushed for our iniquities; = God's wrath


upon him was the chastisement = God's wrath


For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.—1 Peter 3:18 = substituting the innocent for the guilty

 

[JesusFan]

I don't know enough of NT Wright to say, but it certainly is the majority view within the Christian faith (with different focuses), except the RCC and Reformed theology.

I just don't think the Latin view sufficient.

You use much of their terminology though, especially as in Vindication and the wrath of man and the world!

 

[Aaron]

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)

In the sin offering, the victim is slain and cut up. Some of the internal organs of the sin offering were burned on the brazen altar and rose as a sweet savor, showing that the victim itself was righteous and pleasing to God.

But the body of the victim was taken outside the camp, (Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) and together with the dung, the uncleanness (Jesus was made to be sin), was burned to ash in exile from the dwelling place of God, consumed in fiery indignation.

Our sin was penalized completely in the body of Jesus.

If there is a divine response to sin other than wrath and indignation . . . and note that I said response to sin, not sinner . . . then the question of whether or not Jesus, bearing our sins, was touched with the wrath of God, may be a valid question.

 

[Aaron]

... 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).

The fact remains that the Ark was touched with the judgment of God. And no, the flood and the buffeting were not mercies. The Ark was.

God was not constrained by necessity to deliver Noah with a boat. The Ark is a picture of Christ. And the Ark was touched with the judgement of God upon sin.

 

[37818]

It is anti-Biblical (not only unbiblical in that it is absent from Scripture but it also opposes biblical teaching).

What is absent and unBiblical? Terminology?

 

[37818]

Once our sins were placed upon Jesus, there was no wrath of the Father towards Jesus, nor any judgement of Him is His view!

Does He deny Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8 with Isaiah 53:6, Psalms 22:1 and Isaiah 53:12, ". . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ."?
We need to deal with the specifics.
The fact is some of us believe the same Scriptures. The disagreement is in what those text do not explicitly say.

 

[37818]

Scripture is pretty clear that it is an abomination to substitute the innocent for the guilty.

So in Isaiah 53:6 had God committed an abomination? The one who bore our sins was innocent was He not?

 

[37818]

Once our sins were placed upon Jesus, there was no wrath of the Father towards Jesus, nor any judgement of Him is His view!

Jesus on the cross when He had our sins place on Him, He was forsaken by God per Psalms 22:1 and Psalms 22:6. And it was completed before John 19:28 prior to Jesus saying it, John 19:30, and dying physically for the purpose of His bodily resurrection.

 

[37818]

It is a doctrine some Christians hold, but it is far from Christian doctrine.

Isaiah 53:6 is a penal substution, what is Biblical which includes Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:12 and contexts in our chapter of Isaiah.

 

[atpollard]

The wraith of the father towards sins is not petty emotionalism nor selfish anger, as its Holy response to unholiness!

I agree, but God still appears to punish His People for disobedience while disobedience is almost expected from His enemies.

"It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?" - Hebrews 12:7

 

[atpollard]

The wrath of the Father towards Jesus NOT due to Jesus being a sinner, but that he was bearing now as the sin bearer those sins, and as such, was as if was sinness incarnated to a Holy God!

"WRATH" is a word YOU inserted. It did not appear in the Scripture that I quoted.
(Inserting words makes ME nervous ... I prefer to find them already from the lips of God.) ... Hence this TOPIC to discuss verses and seek more verses (and wisdom).

 

[atpollard]

But he was pierced for our transgressions; = God's wrath
he was crushed for our iniquities; = God's wrath
upon him was the chastisement = God's wrath
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.—1 Peter 3:18 = substituting the innocent for the guilty

Wrath (from Merriam-Webster):

1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement ​

"pierced/crushed/chastisement" = PUNISHMENT (for us) / our punishment ... absolutely no question; Yes.
God's "strong vengeful anger" directed against Christ ... God's "retributory punishment" directed against Christ ... IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

Please show me where it says that God was angry with Christ at the Crucifixion? (Obviously it will NOT be worded like that.)

 

[Revmitchell]

Wrath (from Merriam-Webster):

1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement ​

"pierced/crushed/chastisement" = PUNISHMENT (for us) / our punishment ... absolutely no question; Yes.
God's "strong vengeful anger" directed against Christ ... God's "retributory punishment" directed against Christ ... IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

Please show me where it says that God was angry with Christ at the Crucifixion? (Obviously it will NOT be worded like that.)

OK since you engaged me I will respond so long as you can behave yourself.


You are downplaying what is happening in those verses. It is the equivalent to timeout in the corner, "punishment" and pierced, crushed, chastisement Those are not simply as punishment.