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

[canadyjd]

No, for transfer does not imply substitution, but transfer, only.

Substitution requires an exchange. Did the animal give anything in exchange?

No, for the animal whether it wanted or not, was sacrificed.

That sacrifice if valid and pleasing to God brought reconciliation on a temporary basis.

You are dancing around the meaning of words. The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution.

The person placed his hand on the animals head, symbolically transferring sin/guilt to the animal. The animal was killed as a substitute for the person, symbolizing the punishment for sin had been paid temporarily, appeasing God’s wrath in judgment.

The entire sacrificial system was a shadow of the sacrifice Christ made for us. It was the symbol and Christ was the substance.

Your disregard for what is clearly taught in scripture, PSA, demeans the work of Christ on the cross and robs Him of His glory.

I understand you disagree. I simply cannot understand how you can redefine words and scripture to disregard what is taught and embrace what is not.

peace to you

 

[agedman]

Agedman, have I not shared scripture? Have I even once fallen on philosophy?
As I have said, I couldn't care less about some term created by a bean counter about Jesus. What I care about is what the Bible actually says. I care that we see how all of scripture points to Jesus and explains what his death was for and how it affects us personally.

This is exactly what @JonC and I are also doing.

We would that Scripture be the total focus, and all understanding come from there.

You and I may disagree, but if we both cling to the Scriptures then the Holy Spirit will convict and convince as necessary.

As our Lord expressed to the religious righteous of that time, you search the Scriptures and they speak of me. (my paraphrased version).

 

[Salty]

Your disregard for what is clearly taught in scripture, PSA, demeans the work of Christ on the cross and robs Him of His glory.

I understand you disagree. I simply cannot understand how you can redefine words and scripture to disregard what is taught and embrace what is not.

Disregard?? or his interpretation??

Lets be very careful when we disagree with someone.

 

[agedman]

You are dancing around the meaning of words. The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution.

The person placed his hand on the animals head, symbolically transferring sin/guilt to the animal. The animal was killed as a substitute for the person, symbolizing the punishment for sin had been paid temporarily, appeasing God’s wrath in judgment.

The entire sacrificial system was a shadow of the sacrifice Christ made for us. It was the symbol and Christ was the substance.

Your disregard for what is clearly taught in scripture, PSA, demeans the work of Christ on the cross and robs Him of His glory.

I understand you disagree. I simply cannot understand how you can redefine words and scripture to disregard what is taught and embrace what is not.

peace to you

Not true. The whole sacrificial system was based upon satisfaction.

Not a single offering could be presented that was not pleasing to the God of the tabernacle/temple. If He wasn't satisfied, the sacrifice was worthless.

This is one area that demonstrates how poorly PSA represents the Scripture truth.

Certainly the "entire sacrificial system was a shadow of Christ, and even the yet to be fulfilled prophecies ultimately concern Him.

However, Hebrews presents:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,e then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
​

I don't read anything concerning substitution in this passage that is directly related to your presentation.

What can be seen is the matter of the satisfaction "by means of His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."
What can be seen is that the blood offered without blemish to God also purifies our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Not substitution, but satisfaction. No exchange was made as one giving and receiving, but a matter of transference in which satisfaction brought eternal redemption.

 

[agedman]

Disregard?? or his interpretation??

Lets be very careful when we disagree with someone.

It is ok, Salty.

The pathway to find Scripture understanding is often littered with some claims that may not be worded just right.

You are welcome to join in and provide Scripture for your own thinking.

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast ,

I am curious as to why you rate posts with which ypu disagree as "funny". We lost many ratings because people (you were one) became childish and abused the system. As an adult, if you are unable to articulate a response, then perhaps it would be best to simply remain silent and consider what was posted until such a time you find yourself able to communicate your disagreement as a man.

When we were children we thought like children, we acted like children. But now that we are men, perhaps it is time to put away childish things.

 

[JonC]

Agedman, have I not shared scripture? Have I even once fallen on philosophy?

The issue is not Scripture. You have shared Scripture, and we all confirm that Scripture.

The issue is in developing doctrine.

With foundational doctrines (really all doctrines, except some things taught are really debatable issues) I believe we have to stick to what is written in God's Word.

Appropriate attire for church, what is modest....what is not...is subjective to an extent. But our redemption is at the very heart of our faith.

The difference between you and I (and I believe @agedman would agree) is what we consider to be a source or test of foundational doctrines. Here I believe it is the text of Scripture, what "is written", God's Word. You, however, base doctrine not on Hod's Word but on what you believe has been reasoned out of Scripture (you dismiss the text of Scripture for what you believe or have been taught that text teaches).

There is a problem with this. Christian sects and even cults base their doctrine not on God's Word but on what they believe Scripture teaches. It becomes subjective. Each sees God as revealing to them truths not actually recorded in the Bible. And each relies on philosophy rather than God's Word.

What you believe cannot be found in God's Word....it is what you (and others since the Reformation) have reasoned out of it. Therefore it is impossible for your faith to be tested against the standard of God's Word. You can only offer passages and philosophical conclusions.

 

[Guido]

Isaiah 53

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53

Amen!!! And Psalm 22.

If we stick to Scripture it is impossible to believe Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.

This is what I have been saying all along. Just believe the Bible.

 

[JonC]

You are dancing around the meaning of words. The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution.

No, it wasn't. The animal was never a substitute for the man. It was always about obedience.

The idea an animal can be sacrificed as a substitute to appease the wrath of a god is pagan.

 

[Aaron]

Disregard?? or his interpretation??

Lets be very careful when we disagree with someone.

It's a disregard. A willful rejection of customary usage, and the assigning of arbitrary meanings in direct contradiction to the message of the Scriptures.

 

[Aaron]

No, for transfer does not imply substitution, but transfer, only.

Substitution requires an exchange. Did the animal give anything in exchange?

No, for the animal whether it wanted or not, was sacrificed.

That sacrifice if valid and pleasing to God brought reconciliation on a temporary basis.

Here you say Christ is not our substitute, and in other places you say He is. Do you really know what you think about this?


The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

And the animal WAS the exchange. It was accepted either has a holy thing, and burned on the altar, or it was rejected from the altar as an unclean thing and burned on the ground. In either case, the animal was the substitute for the Israelite.

 

[JonC]

It's a disregard. A willful rejection of customary usage, and the assigning of arbitrary meanings in direct contradiction to the message of the Scriptures.

It is not a disregard. It is the traditional meaning. What is being discarded is the Reformed customary meaning. The reason is the Reformers were reforming Roman Catholic doctrine and the majority of Christianity (all of Christianity prior to the Reformation) rejects the neo-RCC philosophy.

 

[JonC]

Here you say Christ is not our substitute, and in other places you say He is. Do you really know what you think about this?

View attachment 5959
The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

And the animal WAS the exchange. It was accepted either has a holy thing, and burned on the altar, or it was rejected from the altar as an unclean thing and burned on the ground. In either case, the animal was the substitute for the Israelite.

The difference is context. Scripture speaks of substitution as representation (President Biden is a substitute for every American citizen in the context of international discourse). But you are speaking of substitution differently (as replacement.....Biden is President instead of you).

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Sin is never redeemed.

Justification cannot occur unless the person is dies to the flesh and is made a new creation in Christ.

If redemption was not made. This would be impossible.

Quote the passage speaking of a "Sin debt" and let's discuss it.

Lets discuss redemption and justification apart from the sin debt being paid.

The word trinity is not in scripture. Yet I pray you believe in the trinity.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Again, you are offering a question concerning philosophy and not Scripture.

But let us look first at the position that sin accrues a debt. I don't read that in the Scriptures.

What I read are statements of sin enslaving, such as found in Proverbs 5:22.

As such, the Law of God has decrees that humanity violate and that is related as a debt by Paul:

13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.​

The "record of debt" is not the "price of sin."

It is a record of deeds done. It is seen at the last judgement as "books" opened and the deeds of humankind being displayed.

Some present that sin demands payment.

Yet Sin isn't a employee or customer, but the employer - the owner. The customer pays the employer and the employer pays the employee. The wages the employee, of the employer called "sin," is death. We all die. There is no debt owed sin as one of our culture ascribes that owed.

So, then that issue resolved, let us not forget how the sinner is justified.

The Scriptures state that one who relies upon the Law is alienated from Christ. (Galatians 3 and 4)

So what is Pauline justification:

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
​

It did not take God pouring out His wrath upon the Son to bring both justice and one justified. It was the propitiation BY HIS BLOOD that God put forth.

That same offering portrayed in the OT atonement was there at the crucifixion. No wrath from God for He was satisfied, pleased, and as a result exalted above measure the Son.

The penalty of sin is DEATH

the gift of God is life.

How can the gift be given if the penalty is not redeemed.

 

[JonC]

The penalty of sin is DEATH

the gift of God is life.

How can the gift be given if the penalty is not redeemed.

Because both stand. God is immutable. His declarations are eternal. God does not change. You will die physically and then the Judgment. If in Christ there is no condemnation. If not, you are not forgiven. All judgment is given to Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are dancing around the meaning of words. The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution.

The person placed his hand on the animals head, symbolically transferring sin/guilt to the animal. The animal was killed as a substitute for the person, symbolizing the punishment for sin had been paid temporarily, appeasing God’s wrath in judgment.

The entire sacrificial system was a shadow of the sacrifice Christ made for us. It was the symbol and Christ was the substance.

Your disregard for what is clearly taught in scripture, PSA, demeans the work of Christ on the cross and robs Him of His glory.

I understand you disagree. I simply cannot understand how you can redefine words and scripture to disregard what is taught and embrace what is not.

peace to you

Yes...sadly this appears to be the case.

 

[Iconoclast]

The penalty of sin is DEATH

the gift of God is life.

How can the gift be given if the penalty is not redeemed.

Correct.
The redeemer bought us by paying the price of our sin as our substitute.

 

[AustinC]

No, it wasn't. The animal was never a substitute for the man. It was always about obedience.

The idea an animal can be sacrificed as a substitute to appease the wrath of a god is pagan.

So...the Passover is pagan?

 

[AustinC]

What you shared of the Scripture disproves PSA thinking that God poured His wrath upon the Son.

In the verse, does it not say, “… Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, …”.


Now, it is plain that Scripture support for PSA is totally lacking, and that those that cling to that thinking do not have the support they think they have from the Scriptures.

Sin did not cause the death of the Saviour. He stated that He, alone, had that authority to both lay it down and take it up.

Unlike the sacrifices of the OT which had no choice, the “Christ gave His life a ransom for many.”

God did not pour wrath upon His Son, there was no need. The Blood of the Son cleanses (us) from all unrighteousness.

Christ did not die as a substitute. There was no quid pro quo, exchange that took place, or such would be an earning of our salvation. But we are redeemed by Grace.

Christ presented a pleasing sacrifice to the Father, a satisfying sacrifice, in which the Father may at His determined will redeem those of His choice.

The death angel does not pass over you, for all have sinned and all do die. What Christ did was remove the judgement to follow for believers. The “sting” - inescapable judgement upon the unbeliever, does not impact us. For when the believer walks that valley, it is but a shadow, there is no fear, but perfect Love presenting what is prepared.

No wrath of God at the crucifixion, no condemnation for believers.

It is the shed blood that made and makes all the difference.

I think I understand what you are saying. I don't know if God was filled with wrath toward Jesus. I doubt He was.
The imagery of the Passover is that the father takes a beloved and pure lamb, which the family loved, and slits its throat. He takes the blood, which keeps the death angel from killing. The family eat the lamb and prepare for the wilderness. Jesus, clearly explained that he is that Lamb which is slain when he had the last supper with his disciples.
Exodus 12:3-13
Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. “Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt.