Did Jesus take on the wrath of God as propitiation for our sin?

[JonC]

1. The Rock was to be Smitten. "You shall smite the rock" (v. 6). This thought never originated in the heart of man, that salvation could be brought forth by smiting the anointed of God. "But He was wounded for our transgressions, with His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). The sword must awake against the man that was God's fellow. Oh, worship the Lord!

2. The Rock was to be Smitten with a Rod. "Your rod, with which you smote the river, take in your hand" (v. 5). This was the rod of judgment that turned the river into blood, and the sign of God's authority and power. "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief" (Isaiah 53:10). Concerning the sufferings of Christ we may truly say, "This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes" (Psalm 118:23).
Moses Striking the Rock | Precept Austin

You are apparently missing my point.

Israel did esteem Christ stricken by God. They did give Him over to the wicked to suffer and die. This was the will and predetermined plan of God. And through His death man is reconciled to Hod....through His life men are saved...Jesus died in the flesh by the unjust for the unjust. He became a Life giving Spirit.

I have no issue with Mises staff being a judging rod. I agree the Rock represents Christ. And I agree this foretells what was to come....quite literally, in fact.

What is missing from Scripture is the pagan idea that Christ suddered God's wrath instead of us. This is based on the pagan ANE sacrifice system and Roman Catholic doctrine reworked with a focus on wrath rather than merit.

 

[JonC]

“He was pierced through for our transgressions..” “He was crushed for our iniquities”

Do you see any substitution there?

peace to you

No. Christ died for our sins. We agree on that part. As you noted, "for" means "on behalf of" (which does not mean "substitution" but "in one's intrest" or as one's "representative" (like Christ being the "Last Adam".

Now, if you want to redefine Penal Substitution Theory to exclude the idea Christ suffered God's wrath so that we wouldn't I have no problem with that. But you are just calling the view "Penal Substitution Atonement"....and labels don't really matter.

 

[canadyjd]

No. Christ died for our sins. We agree on that part. As you noted, "for" means "on behalf of" (which does not mean "substitution" but "in one's intrest" or as one's "representative" (like Christ being the "Last Adam".

Now, if you want to redefine Penal Substitution Theory to exclude the idea Christ suffered God's wrath so that we wouldn't I have no problem with that. But you are just calling the view "Penal Substitution Atonement"....and labels don't really matter.

Again, we disagree.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

There was in the OT a Bowl of wrath being remembered and stored up by God against all who commit wickedness, did that somehow just disappear then?

According to these men...it has just vanished.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, it doesn’t “just mean” they would die. It means they would suffer and die for the cause of Christ.

peace to you

This is another example of the effort to explain away the meaning of each text. if you observe carefully....the cross they speak of has lost what the bible says it is, and accomplishes.

 

[Iconoclast]

The context of Christ saying they would drink the same cup He was drinking is clearly a reference to suffering and dying for the cause of Christ.

The Isaiah 53 passage says He was “smitten” of God for our transgressions and by His stripe we are healed. That is God punishing Him and “substitution” language.

You can disagree all day, which is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to call PSA “extra-biblical” or a philosophy.

peace to you

Each time he explains away those scriptures given by God, he no longer has God's word.

 

[Iconoclast]

Berkof;https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/berkhof/SystematicTheologybyLouisBerkhof.pdf

IV. The Nature of the Atonement The doctrine of the atonement here presented is the penal substitutionary or satisfaction doctrine, which is the doctrine clearly taught by the Word of God. A. STATEMENT OF THE PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. In the discussion of this view several particulars should be stressed.

1. THE ATONEMENT IS OBJECTIVE. This means that the atonement makes its primary impression on the person to whom it is made. If a man does wrong and renders satisfaction, this satisfaction is intended to influence the person wronged and not the offending party. In the case under consideration it means that the atonement was intended to propitiate God and to reconcile Him to the sinner. This is undoubtedly the primary idea, but does not imply that we can not also speak of the sinner’s being reconciled to God. Scripture does this in more than one place, Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:19,20.


In connection with the work of Christ the words under consideration in some instances certainly denote the effecting of a change in the judicial relation between God and the sinner by removing the judicial claim. According to II Cor. 5:19 the fact that God reconciled the world to Himself is evident from this that He does not reckon unto them their sins. This does not point to any moral change in man, but to the fact that the demands of the law are met, and that God is satisfied. In Rom. 5:10,11 the term “reconciliation” can only be understood in an objective sense,

or (1) it is said to have been effected by the death of Christ, while subjective reconciliation is the result of the work of the Spirit;

(2) it was effected while we were yet enemies, that is, were still objects of God’s wrath; and


(3) it is represented in verse 11 as something objective which we receive. e. The terms lutron and antilutron are also objective terms. Christ is the Goel, the liberator, Acts 20:28; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23. He redeems sinners from the demands of God’s retributive justice. The price is paid to God by Christ as the representative of the sinner. Clearly, the Bible abundantly justifies us in ascribing an objective character to the atonement.


Moreover, strictly speaking, atonement in the proper sense of the word is always objective. There is no such thing as subjective atonement. In atonement it is always the party that has done wrong that makes amends to the one who was wronged.

 

[Aaron]

There is a reason you can only "defend" Penal Substitution Theory by theorizing about Scripture and never by Scripture itself.

By the Scriptures all the time. You simply refuse to yield to them.

 

[DaveXR650]

No. Christ died for our sins. We agree on that part.

Jon. It seems like the reformers and the Puritan's that I have read wanted to make sure that it was understood that we have broken God's law as individuals as well as collectively by being in Adam. And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin. When I read the Puritan's, at least the few I am familiar with, as well as the confessions, I see the fact of Christ dying for our sins as the manifestation of the wrath. We misrepresent PSA if we make it seem as you suggest that we are dealing with an out of control, pouting pagan deity where we better start punishing someone until he's sufficiently placated. The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just". That doesn't sound like a honked off pagan deity to me. The WCF likewise is concerned with God's satisfaction of justice and the purchase of reconciliation. "Wrath" doesn't occur in the WCF chapter 8 either.

We believe that sin is a transgression or falling short of God's will for us and we believe there is ample scriptural evidence that this causes a reaction in God that can best be described by us as "wrath". But God's primary motive to us is love and mercy. This plan of salvation satisfies God's justice and at the same time shows God's love toward us. Christ dying for our sins IS a manifestation of God's wrath in itself but the reformed writers I've read and the confessions I've shown here do not make satisfaction of the wrath the primary goal in this. Read them yourself. PSA best describes God's loving plan to save us. It would be a great sin to look at a plan like this and try to reduce God to an angry teenager wanting to punch someone and settling for the bedroom wall.

 

[agedman]

@Iconoclast,

Are you again pitting yourself against the Scriptures?

Where are the bowls of God’s wrath stored?

To whom are the bowls to be pour out upon?

Why will they be poured out?

You know these answers, yet you push against the truth of the Scriptures?

When you want to consider God’s wrath is shown at the cross, where do you find rebelliousness in the Christ?

Is there not a connection aligning God’s wrath and intentional ongoing open rebelliousness?

Was God’s wrath presented at any other time then when people were rebellious?

When Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it, was Moses rebellious toward God? There was no wrath shown, but judgement and restrictions on blessings. Is not that as it is with a believer who disobeys?

In answering these basic questions with Scripture authority, you will (I trust) see the error. Perhaps not.

At not a single post have I diminished the work and effectiveness of the crucifixion.

To state that in some manner God’s wrath “vanishes” is a feeble cry from bias and not from Scripture foundation.

From the beginning, God has collected our tears, and His wrath. It will be poured out. Just when, why, and how the Scriptures state, not how some Philosophy conjured up in error obliges.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jon. It seems like the reformers and the Puritan's that I have read wanted to make sure that it was understood that we have broken God's law as individuals as well as collectively by being in Adam. And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin. When I read the Puritan's, at least the few I am familiar with, as well as the confessions, I see the fact of Christ dying for our sins as the manifestation of the wrath. We misrepresent PSA if we make it seem as you suggest that we are dealing with an out of control, pouting pagan deity where we better start punishing someone until he's sufficiently placated. The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just". That doesn't sound like a honked off pagan deity to me. The WCF likewise is concerned with God's satisfaction of justice and the purchase of reconciliation. "Wrath" doesn't occur in the WCF chapter 8 either.

We believe that sin is a transgression or falling short of God's will for us and we believe there is ample scriptural evidence that this causes a reaction in God that can best be described by us as "wrath". But God's primary motive to us is love and mercy. This plan of salvation satisfies God's justice and at the same time shows God's love toward us. Christ dying for our sins IS a manifestation of God's wrath in itself but the reformed writers I've read and the confessions I've shown here do not make satisfaction of the wrath the primary goal in this. Read them yourself. PSA best describes God's loving plan to save us. It would be a great sin to look at a plan like this and try to reduce God to an angry teenager wanting to punch someone and settling for the bedroom wall.

yes...this is exactly what they ignore and avoid,

 

[agedman]

There remains a basic problem that those endorsing God poured out His wrath upon the Son have yet to resolve.

Christ is God in the flesh.

Christ has no beginning, no ending, always was, is, and will be God in bodily form.

Is there any presentation by type or statement that God pours wrath upon Himself?

Claim the question is nonsense, but it addresses the very issue in which the PSA supporters refuse to come to terms.

There is no way to avoid this basic Question.

Wrath is ALWAYS toward the UNGODLY.

Did in fact the eternal God in body become ungodly, rebellious, and actively engaged in leading others to sin?

If the answer is no, then wrath did not come from God upon the Son at the crucifixion.

 

[Iconoclast]

By the Scriptures all the time. You simply refuse to yield to them.

yes...by emptying the words of their meaning they no longer have the scripture

 

[Aaron]

Yes, a physical death - the flesh (as @canadyjd proved by offering "having been put to death in the flesh").

You seem discontent with Scripture, with what is written in its text. Why? God does not need the help of RCC doctrine (once removed).

I am discontented, not with the Scriptures, but with your disjointed and fragmented presentations.

Not mere physical death, but the pains of death. Acts 2:24 , Psalms 116:3 . And that's not the mere physical pain. The sting of death is sin. Mere men, pagan men, have marched fearlessly into certain death, and endured tremendous pain with not so much as the blink of an eye.

Was the one Who commanded us not to fear them who can kill the body a coward Himself? Was it the spectre of physical death that brought a sorrow unlike any sorrow upon Him in the Garden? That caused Him to sweat great drops of blood? That caused Him to ask to be spared?

 

[canadyjd]

There remains a basic problem that those endorsing God poured out His wrath upon the Son have yet to resolve.

Christ is God in the flesh.

Christ has no beginning, no ending, always was, is, and will be God in bodily form.

Is there any presentation by type or statement that God pours wrath upon Himself?

Claim the question is nonsense, but it addresses the very issue in which the PSA supporters refuse to come to terms.

There is no way to avoid this basic Question.

Wrath is ALWAYS toward the UNGODLY.

Did in fact the eternal God in body become ungodly, rebellious, and actively engaged in leading others to sin?

If the answer is no, then wrath did not come from God upon the Son at the crucifixion.

You have been given scripture. You simply dismiss it and say, “t’ant what it says”.

Isaiah 53 says He was pierced for our transgressions. Iconoclast just gave powerful explanation of the word “atonement”.

You simply refuse to believe what scripture clearly teaches and then accuse everyone else of believing extra biblical philosophy or some such attack.

That is fine, be convinced in your own mind.

Peace to you

 

[agedman]

Jon. It seems like the reformers and the Puritan's that I have read wanted to make sure that it was understood that we have broken God's law as individuals as well as collectively by being in Adam. And they seemed to insist that God's law is an expression of His nature and that is the reason it cannot be simply annulled by decree or relaxed. It is not a philosophical gyration to look at scripture and see that "wrath" is part of God's reaction to sin. When I read the Puritan's, at least the few I am familiar with, as well as the confessions, I see the fact of Christ dying for our sins as the manifestation of the wrath. We misrepresent PSA if we make it seem as you suggest that we are dealing with an out of control, pouting pagan deity where we better start punishing someone until he's sufficiently placated. The Belgic Confession (A.D.1561) talks about Christ making satisfaction and bearing the punishment of sin by his bitter passion and death. It says that God manifested his justice against his Son when he laid our iniquities on him and poured fourth his mercy on us ...out of love. Actually, the word wrath is not used. I think the reason for this is explained in the confession in that God was "perfectly merciful and perfectly just". That doesn't sound like a honked off pagan deity to me. The WCF likewise is concerned with God's satisfaction of justice and the purchase of reconciliation. "Wrath" doesn't occur in the WCF chapter 8 either.

We believe that sin is a transgression or falling short of God's will for us and we believe there is ample scriptural evidence that this causes a reaction in God that can best be described by us as "wrath". But God's primary motive to us is love and mercy. This plan of salvation satisfies God's justice and at the same time shows God's love toward us. Christ dying for our sins IS a manifestation of God's wrath in itself but the reformed writers I've read and the confessions I've shown here do not make satisfaction of the wrath the primary goal in this. Read them yourself. PSA best describes God's loving plan to save us. It would be a great sin to look at a plan like this and try to reduce God to an angry teenager wanting to punch someone and settling for the bedroom wall.

But, this is NOT the wrath posters who support PSA theory are presenting.

I have long shown, from the beginning that God was satisfied, and showed NO wrath at the crucifixion, but watched with pleasure as the wicked did their worse, and while God, took the decrees of the Law that were against us nailing them to the cross (Colossians 2), the Son suffered, bled, and when the time of victory was secured, committed His Spirit to the Father, and proclaimed the end. He laid His life down, no one took it from Him. The Father did not, the Spirit did not, and certainly humans did not kill the Christ.

God’s wrath is not poured out upon believers - not ever!!,

There is therefore NO CONDEMNATION to those in Christ Jesus.

Look at the Scriptures!

WHO, WHEN, and WHY is God’s wrath poured out?

When you have taken Scriptures in hand and laid out each place, THEN you will surely recognize how horrific is the presentation of the PSA theory.

One only has to look at the “laws” of the reformers and the puritans to see inappropriate judgement and investments in all manner of superstition. These who are supposedly heroes to some, had many outlandish beliefs that are not found in Scripture. Why would anyone look at them for establishing right thinking pertaining to the crucifixion?

They judged others out of fear, and oppressed folks who might have disagreed.

This old man would have been burned, quartered, and drowned for teaching the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

You have been given scripture. You simply dismiss it and say, “t’ant what it says”.

Isaiah 53 says He was pierced for our transgressions. Iconoclast just gave powerful explanation of the word “atonement”.

You simply refuse to believe what scripture clearly teaches and then accuse everyone else of believing extra biblical philosophy or some such attack.

That is fine, be convinced in your own mind.

Peace to you

And just WHO pierced Him?

It wasn’t God, it was human hands.

so certainly, I place Scripture as right and the views of those that “Esteem Him Smitten of God and afflicted” as worthless.

For I agree with Peter, “23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.

Do you disagree with Scripture?

Did you nail Him to the cross?

 

[canadyjd]

And just WHO pierced Him?

It wasn’t God, it was human hands.

so certainly, I place Scripture as right and the views of those that “Esteem Him Smitten of God and afflicted” as worthless.

For I agree with Peter, “23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.

Do you disagree with Scripture?

Did you nail Him to the cross?

Have a nice evening and thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[agedman]

I am discontented, not with the Scriptures, but with your disjointed and fragmented presentations.

Not mere physical death, but the pains of death. Acts 2:24 , Psalms 116:3 . And that's not the mere physical pain. The sting of death is sin. Mere men, pagan men, have marched fearlessly into certain death, and endured tremendous pain with not so much as the blink of an eye.

Was the one Who commanded us not to fear them who can kill the body a coward Himself? Was it the spectre of physical death that brought a sorrow unlike any sorrow upon Him in the Garden? That caused Him to sweat great drops of blood? That caused Him to ask to be spared?

Do you really think death was feared by The Christ?

Absolutely not. Such emotionalism is humanistic at best.

Christ knew it all. He had no sorrow for Himself, no fear of the events, no dread.

There was one single focus, and that was to be the pure, spotless, sacrifice.

He knew what it would take, and His human body expressed as history tells of others who experienced some form of hermatidrosis.

The cup Christ drank, every apostle partook except John. Paul said that persecution and slaughter is to be expected by believers. I have meet some who were tortured for the Christ. They made no boast but of the Lord using them and showing Himself faithful in every moment.

It is error for one not to recognize that the fulfillment of prophecy was the crucifixion, that it was part of the many evidences of exactly who was to be identified as the messiah.

“Christ died according to the Scriptures” is a proclaim action of validation concerning identification, not merely some instruction in righteousness.

You are well to be discontented, but not over what @JonC has posted.

 

[Aaron]

Do you really think death was feared by The Christ?

Mere physical death, of course not. That's my point. The pains of death are another matter. Did you even read my post?