Where does God's Wrath Go?

[JonC]

There are an accumulation of verses throughout the Scripture that hint at it.

What confirms for me that Christ took our wrath is that Gal. 3:13 tells us that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us.

Then in Rom. 4:15 Paul tells us the Law works wrath. Christ was made a curse for us according to the Law that condemned us, so the curse brought death because we can't keep the Law. Christ was made that curse that carried the wrath of God.

I know it's confusing, but that is the way I see it.

I disagree. But I guess people see hints based on what they already believe.

For example, when I read those verses I do not see a hint that Jesus absorbed Gid's wratg but that He was made like us, but without sin. The Law works wrath, but I do not see Jesus as suffering under the Law (I see Jesus as fulfilling the Law, thereby canceling that certificate of debt against those under the Law). I see Jesus suffering under the bondage of sin and death because of our sin.

But where you end usually depends on where you start, so that can color what we see as "hints" or "implied".

 

[Charlie24]

I disagree. But I guess people see hints based on what they already believe.

For example, when I read those verses I do not see a hint that Jesus absorbed Gid's wratg but that He was made like us, but without sin. The Law works wrath, but I do not see Jesus as suffering under the Law (I see Jesus as fulfilling the Law, thereby canceling that certificate of debt against those under the Law). I see Jesus suffering under the bondage of sin and death because of our sin.

But where you end usually depends on where you start, so that can color what we see as "hints" or "implied".

I can see that the curse of the Law carried God's wrath, and Christ was made that curse.

That's all I need to know.

 

[JonC]

I can see that the curse of the Law carried God's wrath, and Christ was made that curse.

That's all I need to know.

I do not see that. First, the Law brings wrath in that it highlights human sin (kinda like a school teacher). But the curse here is different. It shows that Jesus came under sin and death (our curse). The Law taught this as well (Jesus was hung on a tree).

We have to remember that there is a difference between sin and transgression the Law. Every transgression is a sin, but not all sins are transgressions. Sin was in the world even when the Law was not.

 

[Charlie24]

I do not see that. First, the Law brings wrath in that it highlights human sin (kinda like a school teacher). But the curse here is different. It shows that Jesus came under sin and death (our curse). The Law taught this as well (Jesus was hung on a tree).

We have to remember that there is a difference between sin and transgression the Law. Every transgression is a sin, but not all sins are transgressions. Sin was in the world even when the Law was not.

LOL, I'm not going to argue, JonC, I can only see you reasoning your way out of 1+1=2.

Doctrine is determined by Scripture explaining Scripture, and I see a clear explanation on this.

 

[JonC]

LOL, I'm not going to argue, JonC, I can only see you reasoning your way out of 1+1=2.

Doctrine is determined by Scripture explaining Scripture, and I see a clear explanation on this.

No, not reasoning out but definitely interpreting differently.

I do not believe Jesus becoming a curse for us is a curse under the Law but under sin. The reason is Jesus did not come to redeem people from the Law but from sin and death. I believe Paul makes this clear in Romans 5.

I am not arguing against you. I took it as you offering your interpretation which, perhaps mistakenly, I saw as an invitation for me to offer mine as well.

 

[Charlie24]

No, not reasoning out but definitely interpreting differently.

I do not believe Jesus becoming a curse for us is a curse under the Law but under sin. The reason is Jesus did not come to redeem people from the Law but from sin and death. I believe Paul makes this clear in Romans 5.

I am not arguing against you. I took it as you offering your interpretation which, perhaps mistakenly, I saw as an invitation for me to offer mine as well.

We see the Law differently, the Law condemned man to death, spiritual death, that is the curse that Christ became.

Christ could not spiritually die because He never sinned, but He certainly took our place suffering the wrath of God that we deserved.

We simply disagree.

 

[JonC]

We see the Law differently, the Law condemned man to death, spiritual death, that is the curse that Christ became.

Christ could not spiritually die because He never sinned, but He certainly took our place suffering the wrath of God that we deserved.

We simply disagree.

Yes, we do see the Law differently.
If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions (I do not understand a couple of things about your view).

I do not understand what you mean by the Law condemned man to spiritual death.

Scripture speaks of sin existing and death reigning among those under the Law and those who are not under the Law. Also, Paul made a point of death and sin applying equally to both as well (those not under the Law sin and die, those under the Law sin and die and transgression the Law. The Law did not provide an advantage to those under the Law because they did not merit the blessings.

Are you saying that the wages of sin is physical death (applying to those under the Law and thise not under the Law)but transgressing the Law led to spiritual death?


My second question is the consequences of spiritual death.

We disagree about the punishment of God's wrath. I understand God's wratg against the wicked (for the wicked both under the Law and aoart from the Law) to be at Judgment with the second death (the lake of fire).

I do not understand the additional punishment of spiritual death, mostly because I do not understand whete those who are spiritually dead (those who were never "born of the Spirit") obtained spiritual life.

When were those the Law condemned to the punishment of spiritual death given spiritual life?


Thanks in advance for clarifying. Even though we will not agree, I would like to understand your position on this topic. I believe people often do not take the time to understand one.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, we do see the Law differently.
If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions (I do not understand a couple of things about your view).

I do not understand what you mean by the Law condemned man to spiritual death.

Scripture speaks of sin existing and death reigning among those under the Law and those who are not under the Law. Also, Paul made a point of death and sin applying equally to both as well (those not under the Law sin and die, those under the Law sin and die and transgression the Law. The Law did not provide an advantage to those under the Law because they did not merit the blessings.

Are you saying that the wages of sin is physical death (applying to those under the Law and thise not under the Law)but transgressing the Law led to spiritual death?


My second question is the consequences of spiritual death.

We disagree about the punishment of God's wrath. I understand God's wratg against the wicked (for the wicked both under the Law and aoart from the Law) to be at Judgment with the second death (the lake of fire).

I do not understand the additional punishment of spiritual death, mostly because I do not understand whete those who are spiritually dead (those who were never "born of the Spirit") obtained spiritual life.

When were those the Law condemned to the punishment of spiritual death given spiritual life?


Thanks in advance for clarifying. Even though we will not agree, I would like to understand your position on this topic. I believe people often do not take the time to understand one.

Ok, let me explain my view of the Law according to Scripture. When I use the word Law I'm referring to the 10 Commandments, which are God's standard of righteousness, the moral Law. But the word "Law" can expand to the judicial and and ceremonial Law. All of which is the Law of Moses given to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai.

Paul discusses the Law throughout his epistles. In Rom. 7 he tells us that the Law identifies sin, and says "I had not known sin but by the Law, I had not known lust except the Law had said, you shall not covet."

The Law contains righteousness, but man cannot obtain that righteousness through the Law because fallen man cannot keep the 10 Commandments. So if man cannot attain the righteousness of the Law, how can man be saved from his sin? This is what Paul is discussing in Rom. 7, the Law and sin.

In 7:5 Paul said,

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

If unsaved man tries to live by the Law, tries to earn salvation by keeping the Law, which he cannot do, it will bring forth spiritual death. The Law condemns man to spiritual death because he is unable to keep it. But thank God He sent His Christ to do it for us and by faith in Him, we are delivered from the curse of the Law.

In vs 6 Paul tells us "we are delivered from the Law." The demands of the Law to keep it have been lifted from us by Christ who met those demands of keeping the Law.

Paul said in Rom. 8:2-4

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The righteousness in the Law that we must have is achieved through Christ who defeated "sin and death" on the Cross.

 

[JonC]

Ok, let me explain my view of the Law according to Scripture. When I use the word Law I'm referring to the 10 Commandments, which are God's standard of righteousness, the moral Law. But the word "Law" can expand to the judicial and and ceremonial Law. All of which is the Law of Moses given to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai.

Paul discusses the Law throughout his epistles. In Rom. 7 he tells us that the Law identifies sin, and says "I had not known sin but by the Law, I had not known lust except the Law had said, you shall not covet."

The Law contains righteousness, but man cannot obtain that righteousness through the Law because fallen man cannot keep the 10 Commandments. So if man cannot attain the righteousness of the Law, how can man be saved from his sin? This is what Paul is discussing in Rom. 7, the Law and sin.

In 7:5 Paul said,

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

If unsaved man tries to live by the Law, tries to earn salvation by keeping the Law, which he cannot do, it will bring forth spiritual death. The Law condemns man to spiritual death because he is unable to keep it. But thank God He sent His Christ to do it for us and by faith in Him, we are delivered from the curse of the Law.

In vs 6 Paul tells us "we are delivered from the Law." The demands of the Law to keep it have been lifted from us by Christ who met those demands of keeping the Law.

Paul said in Rom. 8:2-4

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The righteousness in the Law that we must have is achieved through Christ who defeated "sin and death" on the Cross.

So (to make sure I understand correctly) you view the Law as the 10 Commandments and as an expression of God's moral standard (or moral law) and therefore applicable to the entire human race.

Of I understand correctly, then I have a question about that first sin

When Adam are of the fruit he did not technically break one of the 10 Commandments. Eating a piece of fruit is not an immoral act.

I view it as obedience vs disobedience, sin being setting one's mind on the things of the flesh vs the things of the Spirit (the fruit was appealing to the flesh).

I think the disagreement we have is more in our use of words abd terms (like the Law with a capital "L").

Where I view the Law as a whole (under the Law eating pork was just as disobedient as Adan eating the fruit) you equate it to the law of sin and death (which I view as a more encompassing law).

I do not understand where you conclude that those who break the law will be punished with spiritual death. Are not men already spiritually dead?

 

[Charlie24]

So (to make sure I understand correctly) you view the Law as the 10 Commandments and as an expression of God's moral standard (or moral law) and therefore applicable to the entire human race.

Of I understand correctly, then I have a question about that first sin

When Adam are of the fruit he did not technically break one of the 10 Commandments. Eating a piece of fruit is not an immoral act.

I view it as obedience vs disobedience, sin being setting one's mind on the things of the flesh vs the things of the Spirit (the fruit was appealing to the flesh).

I think the disagreement we have is more in our use of words abd terms (like the Law with a capital "L").

Where I view the Law as a whole (under the Law eating pork was just as disobedient as Adan eating the fruit) you equate it to the law of sin and death (which I view as a more encompassing law).

I do not understand where you conclude that those who break the law will be punished with spiritual death. Are not men already spiritually dead?

JonC, man is spiritually dead because the Law has condemned him to spiritual death.

Paul said that sin in not imputed where there is no Law, but the sin of Adam and Eve were under the Law of God, not the Law of Moses that was yet to come, but under the direct Law of God to Adam and Eve when He said, "Thou shalt not..."

Do you see how the Law of God has condemned man? But thank God we can be delivered from that curse through faith in Christ.

 

[JonC]

JonC, man is spiritually dead because the Law has condemned him to spiritual death.

Paul said that sin in not imputed where there is no Law, but the sin of Adam and Eve were under the Law of God, not the Law of Moses that was yet to come, but under the direct Law of God to Adam and Eve when He said, "Thou shalt not..."

Do you see how the Law of God has condemned man? But thank God we can be delivered from that curse through faith in Christ.

OK. I think I understand what you are saying.

We do disagree, but thank you for explaining your view.

 

[Charlie24]

OK. I think I understand what you are saying.

We do disagree, but thank you for explaining your view.

Yes, we disagree but that's ok.

God doesn't demand correct doctrine, He demands repentance.

 

[JonC]

Yes, we disagree but that's ok.

God doesn't demand correct doctrine, He demands repentance.

Yep.

I believe that God's Word is perfect, and that we must test all doctrine against "what is written," (this is the only standard Scriptire commands us to use).

BUT I do not believe we are yet perfect. We see through a glass, dimly.

So we should always be examining our views, our understanding, and our doctrine.


Discussing my views, snd the views of others, is something I find helpful. Another set of eyes on my positions helps me to re-evaluate them. Doing so either strengthens my position or helps me to correct any errors.

In this lifetime, however, I do not actually look for agreement. Disagreement actually proves more of a benefit.

For example, @Martin Marprelate and I have disagreed for two decades (we still do). But he, through his disagreements, has help solidify my own position more than any person (either online or in person) as his arguments continually drove me back to Scripture. God used him in my life, and although he and I will never agree on most things and the "iron sharpening iron" may have been one sided, I am grateful for the interactions we have had.

I hope with all my heart that my understanding tomorrow is not my understanding today, that God will refine and build upon my knowledge of His Word and relationship with him. A stagnant faith is a dead faith.

And I appreciate you for taking the time to disagree with me. It drives me back to consider the role of the Law, the law of sin, and the law of Christ (something I am now reading about in the Bible).

 

[Charlie24]

Yep.

I believe that Hod's Word is perfect, and that we must test all doctrine against "what is written," (this is the only standard Scriptire commands us to use).

BUT I do not believe we are yet perfect. We see through a glass, dimly.

So we should always be examining our views, our understanding, and our doctrine.


Discussing my views, snd the views of others, is something I find helpful. Another set of eyes on my positions helps me to re-evaluate them. Doing so either strengthens my position or helps me to correct any errors.

In this lifetime, however, I do not actually look for agreement. Disagreement actually proves more of a benefit.

For example, @Martin Marprelate and I have disagreed for two decades (we still do). But he, through his disagreements, has help solidify my own position more than any person (either online or in person) as his arguments continually drove me back to Scripture. God used him in my life, and although he and I will never agree on most things and the "iron sharpening iron" may have been one sided, I am grateful for the interactions we have had.

I hope with all my heart that my understanding tomorrow is not my understanding today, that God will refine and build upon my knowledge of His Word and relationship with him. A stagnant faith is a dead faith.

And I appreciate you for taking the time to disagree with me. It drives me back to consider the role of the Law, the law of sin, and the law of Christ (something I am now reading about in the Bible).

Oh I totally agree! I enjoy discussing doctrine and learning from others their aspect that I haven't considered, it's educational.

My point is though we disagree in doctrine, it does not effect our salvation, as that comes by repentance and faith in Christ.

 

[JonC]

As near as I can figure it's based on implication, Jon;
Not declaration.

I do not think it is implication but inference.

I offered you what I believe, and as far as I can tell you have no objections. But every part can be weighed against Scripture and pass that test. We can't do that with inference.

 

[Aaron]

I disagree. But I guess people see hints based on what they already believe.

For example, when I read those verses I do not see a hint that Jesus absorbed Gid's wratg but that He was made like us, but without sin. The Law works wrath, but I do not see Jesus as suffering under the Law (I see Jesus as fulfilling the Law, thereby canceling that certificate of debt against those under the Law). I see Jesus suffering under the bondage of sin and death because of our sin.

But where you end usually depends on where you start, so that can color what we see as "hints" or "implied".

The law was added because of transgression...hence transgression pre-exists Sinai. Sin and transgression are the same thing. Always have been.

But Christ suffered as a sinner on the Cross. There is no lawful or doctrinally sound denial of that fact. There is only Peter's denial.

 

[JonC]

The law was added because of transgression...hence transgression pre-exists Sinai. Sin and transgression are the same thing. Always have been.

But Christ suffered as a sinner on the Cross. There is no lawful or doctrinally sound denial of that fact. There is only Peter's denial.

I agree in part.

The Law (the Mosaic Law) was added - given to a specific oeople at a specific time in history (to their children, not to their forefathers). It was like a schoolmaster showing oeople their sins. And Christ fulfilled the Law.

But the law of sin and death existed even where the Law did not. Those from Adam to Moses sinned. They died. "Sin begats death", "the wages of sin is death".

Where I disagree is saying that the law of sin and death is like the Law. There is nothing to transgress witg the law of sin and death. The wages of sin is death.

Paul even claimed that death reigned even where there was no transgression (because there still was sin)

 

[Brightfame52]

In Scripture God's anger is based on the condition of the people. His anger is against the wicked. His anger (or wrath) does not change, but the people can change so that they are no longer object's of God's wrath.

The vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction will always be objects of Gods wrath, they are presently under His wrath and shall never see life, eternal life Jn 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You may say, well thats because they dont believe. Correct, they cant believe because they are under Gods wrath, and condemned.

 

[JonC]

The vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction will always be objects of Gods wrath, they are presently under His wrath and shall never see life, eternal life Jn 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You may say, well thats because they dont believe. Correct, they cant believe because they are under Gods wrath, and condemned.

I have no issue with that (I would, however, note that the verse you quote was in context the inclusion of Gentiles and God's purposes being accomolished).

 

[Brightfame52]

I have no issue with that (I would, however, note that the verse you quote was in context the inclusion of Gentiles and God's purposes being accomolished).

It includes jews and gentiles as vessels of wrath, just like it includes jews and gentiles as vessels of mercy who are called Rom 9:22-24

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?