Did Christ Experience the Wrath of God?

[agedman]

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal 3:13

What was the "curse of the law?"
Is it the same as the "wages of sin?"

This passage that you quoted is found in context of Galatians 3 discussion of the authority of the law:

10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

Within that passage is a quote from Deuteronomy 21:

“If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."​

What ultimately is the apostle pointing out?

That the curse is from the Law, because none have the ability to conform to every aspect and respect of the Law. That Christ became cursed so that the blessedness that came to "us" (the heritage of the apostle) of the seed of Abraham might also come to the Gentiles, too.

People were hung because they were judged to be in violation of the law. Christ was judged as one who violated the law, but the testimony was tainted by extortion and bribery. Christ was in fact "hung" innocent of any violation of the Law, and yet cursed.

It is in this context that one can demonstrate how the Love of God is demonstrated, for the curse was unwarranted yet imposed as Isaiah 53 states - from out perspective it was God's judgment upon Him - Yet, it was God's will that Christ "hung."

What we as humankind view as a curse, God viewed as love, exemplified.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have asked this before but will ask again. What is the righteousness of God?

The righteousness of God is the righteousness that God gives to sinners and it is found in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).

We need a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20), and it is found only in the Lord Jesus (Romans 3:19-26).

 

[agedman]

I have asked this before but will ask again. What is the righteousness of God?

Is it not. The soul that sins it shall die. No one can die for another for all have sinned therefore their death can only be for themselves. Jesus the Son of God born of a virgin woman was to the moment he said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," without sin. The sin of the world was then placed on him by his Father. He is without sin yet he is being paid the price, death, for our sins. He does not deserve death, the soul that sins, it shall die. He has not sinned, yet for three days and three nights his soul was in Hades, Sheol, dead, separated from his Father, undeservedly so, he the only one born of woman of which that could be said.

What is the righteousness of God? Is it relative to the wrath of God and to the appeasement of God?

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In the OT and NT righteousness is used characteristically in the terms of what is straight and equal. As it applies to God, it is one of the core characteristics. He is never unequal in his treatment, nor in any manner deceitful (straight).

If I have read your writing correctly, you are most correct that He never sinned, yet took upon Himself the sin of all. Therefore, the "wages is death."


For the readers:

The same is as that lamb of the OT sacrifice that was not at fault, had no blemish, no sickness, no evil, yet was sacrificed, the "Lamb of God" was sacrificed. The picture presented to the typical Israeli of that day is somewhat lost upon gentiles who did (do) not engage in that type of worship. It is a profound picture of innocence not just taking the place, but becoming. Christ did not just take our place, but became our place removing from the Law the curse of death.

Such could not be done had he sinned, and because the sacrifice was self imposed ("no one can take my life...") His last statement ("Father, into Thy hands...") shows that the "forsaking" was not a matter of turning one's back or disowning, but a matter of pronouncing a determined outcome.

God, in effect, confirmed the sacrifice, as only He could, by allowing His Son to show by statement that which He was accomplishing. "Why have you forsaken me" is not a statement of rejection, of one turning their back, or disowning, for these are all statements of what humankind would experience. But The Trinity cannot have that as an experience.

Rather, the statement is one of reflecting that the Father acknowledges the work of the Son by silence. For the first time, the Son did not receive from the Father what He longed to hear. He experienced what every believer experiences at some point or more in their own life - the silence of God. Prayers that seemingly bounce back as if met by a wall of brass. This is not something Christ had ever in eternity past experienced. And, yet speaks profoundly of the relationship with the Father.

It was not one broken, not one marred, not one un-pleased, but rather as any parent who remains silent before a child. What that child expresses is dismay. That is (imo) the picture of the statement made at the very focal point of the final sin imposed upon the innocent Christ.

This is important, for even at that moment, Christ was "in all points" showing the victory of trust in the Father and why He could proclaim with that final statement, "Into your hands..."

I trust this is helpful.

 

[percho]

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born fn (or made) of a woman, born under the law, G4:5 NKJV

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. G3:16 kjv

Abraham died not having received the promises. Abraham just like David in Acts 2:29 is still, today, dead. He is dead and buried and has not received the promises.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. ----- Who is that in bold speaking of? God sent forth his Son born of woman born under the law. Who is the very word of God - Heb 1:1,2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

When that Son born of woman said My God My God why has thou forsaken me: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; and then said, Father into your hands I commend my spirit; the wrath of God was put on him. He was dead. Just as dead as Abraham is today and the heir had not at that time received the promises.

Heir? One to whom something is promised? The seed of Abraham, the Son of God? What is he promised, that does not come by the law and that when inherited allows for us to be made the righteousness of God? Galatians 3:21

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. ---- But it wasn't by the law but by the promise to the seed of Abraham, the promise of life.

Jesus, the heir of God, born of woman has received the promise, life from the dead, by which we can be made the righteousness of God.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. --- Jesus is not dead in vain, not dead not having received the promises like Abraham. Jesus of whom we are joint heirs with, was given the grace of God, raised from the dead, the grace of life. 1 Peter 3:7

 

[JonC]

Straightforward question here.

Did our Lord suffer God's wrath in payment for sin?

I posted a similar thread (I didn’t notice this one at the time, but I also wouldn’t want to take it in a direction other than you intended).

My understanding is that depends on what you mean by “wrath.”

If you mean a noun, which I believe is appropriate, then yes. God offered Jesus as a guilt offering, it was his will to “crush” him. This has been understood throughout history - Christ suffered in the flesh in obedience to the will of the Father and was made a propitiation for our sins.

If you mean was God filled with anger and expressed that anger on Jesus, then no. Ezekiel has the Father looking on his Son at the cross as his “Righteous One,” as obedient. Calvin articulated the Reformed position by explaining that God can never be angry, but that this is speech to accommodate our understanding. While I disagree with Calvin (and Aquinas), I do think that they are correct that God’s will to “crush” his Son does not equate to wrath as emotion.

If you mean that God poured out our punishment individually on Christ, then again I believe the answer is “no.” While penal and substitutionary aspects of atonement have existed throughout history, this particular conclusion is foreign to the Church until Calvin’s reworking of Aquinas’ penance system in the sixteenth century.

Reformed theologians often point out that aspects of Reformed Penal Substitution are present throughout history (at least for the most part). Cyril of Jerusalem believed Jesus suffered as a ransom sacrifice paid to God with his wrath in view (313-386 AD). Anselm's theory (the traditional Catholic understanding) has Christ suffering wrath in order to appease God and avert punishment. Aquinas' modification has Christ doing penance on the cross as our substitute. But it was not until Calvin that Christ's death was a legal payment where our sins were imputed and our punishment inflicted.

 

[percho]

I posted a similar thread (I didn’t notice this one at the time, but I also wouldn’t want to take it in a direction other than you intended).

My understanding is that depends on what you mean by “wrath.”

If you mean a noun, which I believe is appropriate, then yes. God offered Jesus as a guilt offering, it was his will to “crush” him. This has been understood throughout history - Christ suffered in the flesh in obedience to the will of the Father and was made a propitiation for our sins.

If you mean was God filled with anger and expressed that anger on Jesus, then no. Ezekiel has the Father looking on his Son at the cross as his “Righteous One,” as obedient. Calvin articulated the Reformed position by explaining that God can never be angry, but that this is speech to accommodate our understanding. While I disagree with Calvin (and Aquinas), I do think that they are correct that God’s will to “crush” his Son does not equate to wrath as emotion.

If you mean that God poured out our punishment individually on Christ, then again I believe the answer is “no.” While penal and substitutionary aspects of atonement have existed throughout history, this particular conclusion is foreign to the Church until Calvin’s reworking of Aquinas’ penance system in the sixteenth century.

Reformed theologians often point out that aspects of Reformed Penal Substitution are present throughout history (at least for the most part). Cyril of Jerusalem believed Jesus suffered as a ransom sacrifice paid to God with his wrath in view (313-386 AD). Anselm's theory (the traditional Catholic understanding) has Christ suffering wrath in order to appease God and avert punishment. Aquinas' modification has Christ doing penance on the cross as our substitute. But it was not until Calvin that Christ's death was a legal payment where our sins were imputed and our punishment inflicted.

Rather than looking at penal substitution in that manner in bold, I think it should be for, sin, singular. The sin that brought death to all men.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

For the wages of sin (singular yet extended) death; but the gift of God eternal life (also singular yet extended) in Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[JonC]

I agree completely. That is one reason I believe that on the cross Jesus propitiated our sins rather than literally took upon himself our actual punishment. Historically, the Church has viewed Christ as taking upon himself the human condition, killing sin in his flesh, and becoming our hope for a bodily resurrection through Christ’s death and resurrection. More contemporary is the idea that on the Cross God poured out his wrath in the form of our punishment upon Christ. There is a difference between suffering for our sin and suffering the punishment of our sin.

And lest we forget, the wages of sin is death and it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. We will die, physically. If Jesus took upon himself the punishment for us, for our Sin, then experienced the second death (which is the final and everlasting punishment). I think it more appropriate to stick with the OT sacrificial system as pointing towards God’s “Righteous One” (where man’s punishment is never said to be visited upon the propitiation, or even the sacrifice bearing away Israel’s sins) rather than looking through a sixteenth century lens from a heavenly judicial courthouse rule book.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that on the cross Jesus propitiated our sins

I don't mean to be snarky, but I get fed up with pointing this out to various people: our sins do not need to be propitiated. God requires propitiation on account of our sins.
Once this is properly understood, I think the Biblical doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement becomes much clearer.

'Payment God will not twice demand;
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.'

 

[JonC]

I don't mean to be snarky, but I get fed up with pointing this out to various people: our sins do not need to be propitiated. God requires propitiation on account of our sins.

Once this is properly understood, I think the Biblical doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement becomes much clearer.

I don't think you're being "snarky" at all brother. I understand your comment to be that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, but it is God's wrath that is turned aside. It seems to be that "expiation" would be a better term in this context, but I think I understand your point. My wording was certainly in error, and for that I apologize (I also have a tendency to refer to the book of "Revelations"...bad habit I suppose, but correction was certainly in order and appreciated).

'Payment God will not twice demand;

Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,

And then again from me.'

I am curious, however, as to your quote. If I understand it correctly, then you are suggesting that on the cross Jesus literally suffered our punishment for our Sin as payment to God. If that is correct, then how do you determine that the accounting/legal system is the best system through which to view atonement (as opposed to the sacrificial system and Christ as a "guilt offering")?

 

[agedman]

] If that is correct, then how do you determine that the accounting/legal system is the best system through which to view atonement (as opposed to the sacrificial system and Christ as a "guilt offering")?

Does it have to be one or the other?

Why cannot the atonement be viewed through both a sacrificial and accounting/legal system with equal authority?

 

[JonC]

Does it have to be one or the other?

Why cannot the atonement be viewed through both a sacrificial and accounting/legal system with equal authority?

I think it can, depending on the extent of one's view. Like throughout history we can find substitutionary aspects in other theories, so also are accounting/legal language and illustration used to describe the atonement. Peter tells us we were, for example, bought with the precious blood of Christ. Paul tells us we are not our own, for we were bought with a price.

It is another matter, however, to determine that that price is Jesus suffering our individual punishment as God's wrath on the cross intended for us as individuals. I don't know that it can be 'both, and" when it comes to this point. Perhaps it can (just not by me).

 

[agedman]

It is another matter, however, to determine that that price is Jesus suffering our individual punishment as God's wrath on the cross intended for us as individuals. I don't know that it can be 'both, and" when it comes to this point. Perhaps it can (just not by me).

Perhaps, (imo) the scene of the "suffering," as taken by some, is supposedly to be viewed as something no one else "suffered" when crucified. That the suffering of the cross by Christ was enhanced or extra special.

I don't see that thinking as either historically or Scripturally accurate.

Christ suffered, just as all others before and after who were impaled and for some the way was by the wood itself. Reading the accounts of Vlad was no less disturbing than the accounts of Roman crucifixions. Both were very commonly done. However the physical suffering should never (imo) be the focus of attention - it has its place, but is not (imo) needing the ascendancy some place upon it to draw some emotional response from the listeners.

It was not the suffering that brought the propitiation. It was the blood. The fact that the union of God and man - Christ - suffered is certainly remarkable. The fact that the union of God and man - Christ - poured out the life (blood) to reconcile man to God is essential.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am curious, however, as to your quote. If I understand it correctly, then you are suggesting that on the cross Jesus literally suffered our punishment for our Sin as payment to God. If that is correct, then how do you determine that the legal/accounting system is the best system through which to view atonement (as opposed to the sacrificial system and Christ as a "guilt offering")?

The quote is from a hymn by Augustus Toplady.

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord was charged on Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost Thou hast paid
Whate'er Thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood?

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine;
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding surety's hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, my soul, unto thy rest!
The merits of thy great High Priest
have bought thy liberty;
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

I know nothing of a 'legal/accounting system;' my hope is in my Saviour paying the price for my sin. If He has not taken my sins upon Himself, they are still on me. Substitutionary atonement is all over the Bible. What exactly is your problem with it?

 

[JonC]

I know nothing of a 'legal/accounting system;' my hope is in my Saviour paying the price for my sin. If He has not taken my sins upon Himself, they are still on me. Substitutionary atonement is all over the Bible. What exactly is your problem with it?

I don’t have a problem with substitutionary atonement. As I said, substitutionary atonement is found throughout history. What is not found is the notion that Jesus actually took the wrath of God in the form of our individual punishment for our sin. Insofar as that goes, I still don’t have a problem with it…I am just wondering why it is the most common view today although it was essentially unknown until a few centuries ago.

You state that you know of no “legal/accounting system,” and that is fair. For me, I grew up in the SBC denomination (and am still here). I have listened to doctrine teaching that on the cross Jesus took our punishment, that divine justice demanded our sin debt be paid in full and that is exactly what happened. I listened to sermons that when Jesus cried “My God, my God…” it was because God turned his back on Jesus as Christ became sin for God has too pure of eyes to look upon sin. I’ve listened to preachers teach that there was, at the cross, a separation between the Father and the Son, that this was Jesus taking our punishment onto himself. It was actually long after graduating from a bible college, and after graduating seminary, that I started to realize that none of that was actually in the Bible. You, my brother, have an advantage over me because I grew up with a view that presupposed what I had been taught.

So I am not rejecting substitutionary atonement at all. The early church believed that God presented Jesus as a guilt offering, and Jesus took upon himself the bodily consequences of human sin and was resurrected thereby becoming our hope. I am, however, rejecting the notion that God inflicted Jesus with the punishment due us individually.

 

[agedman]

Allow me to give an opinion:

I don’t have a problem with substitutionary atonement. As I said, substitutionary atonement is found throughout history. What is not found is the notion that Jesus actually took the wrath of God in the form of our individual punishment for our sin. Insofar as that goes, I still don’t have a problem with it…I am just wondering why it is the most common view today although it was essentially unknown until a few centuries ago.

In the last few centuries, there was a specific turn by those we might consider "evangelicals" toward the free will system of thinking. As a result, more and more of the presentation had to appeal in some manner to the emotions and play upon the desires, at times (imo) even to the neglect of presenting correct doctrines. Hence, great oratory about the suffering of the Savior.

Prior to that, there was the emotional appeal by the Papists for centuries, in the bid to raise money and to control kingdoms of people, of rescuing family and friends from the flames by payment. Such messages were often grand emotional appeals, not unlike some I have heard from preachers in the modern times.

Prior to that, there was the ....

See the problem being that emotional appeal is so very easy. It isn't hard to move an audience to respond when their emotions are stirred. That is precisely the mode and methods behind the modern media.

You state that you know of no “legal/accounting system,” and that is fair. For me, I grew up in the SBC denomination (and am still here).

Hanging around modernist will do you no good. Decades ago, I was SB, and after seeing the corruption of the programs and schools, fighting for the system to stand on the Scripture principles, I finally had to leave.

I have listened to doctrine teaching that on the cross Jesus took our punishment, that divine justice demanded our sin debt be paid in full and that is exactly what happened. I listened to sermons that when Jesus cried “My God, my God…” it was because God turned his back on Jesus as Christ became sin for God has too pure of eyes to look upon sin. I’ve listened to preachers teach that there was, at the cross, a separation between the Father and the Son, that this was Jesus taking our punishment onto himself. It was actually long after graduating from a bible college, and after graduating seminary, that I started to realize that none of that was actually in the Bible. You, my brother, have an advantage over me because I grew up with a view that presupposed what I had been taught.

See, I told you hanging around modernist will do you no good. You just verified it. Get away from them! Thanks be to the God of all Creation in heaven and earth that you have come to a bit of the truth of their typical teaching.

So I am not rejecting substitutionary atonement at all. The early church believed that God presented Jesus as a guilt offering, and Jesus took upon himself the bodily consequences of human sin and was resurrected thereby becoming our hope. I am, however, rejecting the notion that God inflicted Jesus with the punishment due us individually.

Someone needs to show me Scripture that appoints the Lord Jesus Christ as the "scapegoat." Hebrews 9 - 10 is a profound writing of the sufficiency of the blood.

I have heard sermons saying Christ was crucified "outside the camp." That doesn't cut the butter. For the "scapegoat" was not slain.

I have also heard sermons saying Christ burial and resurrection in some way was the "scapegoat." That doesn't warm the knife to cut butter any better. For the "scapegoat" was never buried, or carried to the burial, dead.

So, were is the "scapegoat?" Is Christ the "scapegoat?"

I would (imo) say no. For then he would carry the redemption for EVERY person in the world. Not happening. That is not the purpose of the cross.

The closest appointment as a scapegoat I can find is the work of the sole mediator that Christ does before the Father. In that capacity he is as a scapegoat, and because he is the mediator of ONLY the redeemed, then it does fit the picture of the scapegoat being "outside the camp" - in heaven and not on earth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I wrote a reply to JonC, but it ended up on the other thread. We now have two threads on precisely the same subject. Heigh-ho!

 

[percho]

What exactly is the anger, wrath, indignation of God? How is it manifested?

Now Romans 5:9 says the blood declared us righteous and because of that, I assume, we will be (future) saved from anger, wrath, indignation.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:16,17

Why would we still be in our sins if Christ, the only one to be raised from the dead, had not been raised from the dead? He was dead, the blood had been shed Why would we still be in our sins?

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, (not by grace) then Christ is dead in vain.

BTW I am assuming the wrath is death without new life, eternal.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What exactly is the anger, wrath, indignation of God? How is it manifested?

The wrath of God is one of His divine attributes and therefore one of His perfections as much as His faithfulness, power or mercy.

' The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of the just sentence which He passes on evil doers.' A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God.

http://www.godrules.net/library/pink/249pink1.htm The chapter on 'wrath' is right towards the end. Unfortunately there are no chapter division here so you have to root about.

 

[percho]

The wrath of God is one of His divine attributes and therefore one of His perfections as much as His faithfulness, power or mercy.

' The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of the just sentence which He passes on evil doers.' A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God.

http://www.godrules.net/library/pink/249pink1.htm The chapter on 'wrath' is right towards the end. Unfortunately there are no chapter division here so you have to root about.

Thank you for the link. I am still reading but want to ask:

From the link

But above all, the wrath of God was revealed from heaven when the Son of God came down to manifest the Divine character, and when that wrath was displayed in His sufferings and death, in a manner more awful than by all the tokens God had before given of His displeasure against sin. Besides this, the future and eternal punishment of the wicked is now declared in terms more solemn and explicit than formerly. Under the new dispensation there are two revelations given from heaven, one of wrath, the other of grace.

Now it appears to me Pink considered that when the Father, laid the iniquity of us all upon the Son, the beloved Son gave his life, died the death. The wrath of God, the Father, was revealed, in the sufferings unto death of his only begotten Son. And the Father was satisfied. Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

And we know he was satisfied because of, the grace of life. Because he raised the Son from the dead.

Is that a misunderstanding on my part and if so, why?

As Pink said one of wrath and one of grace and both were toward the beloved Son.

The Father set forth the Son, propitiation, through the faith in the blood of him.

For, obedience of faith. Faith of the Father in obedience of the Son unto death? I believe the following proves that obedience of faith> Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb 5:7,8 ?A real fear of death?

Back to the link.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And we know he was satisfied because of, the grace of life. Because he raised the Son from the dead.

That would be my understanding.

Did the Son have a real fear of death? As a man, yes He did. On a night when it was cold enough to need a fire in the High Priest's courtyard, our Lord sweated great drops as if it were blood. That is the psychosomatic response of man to impending trauma. He was real man as well as real God.