God's dealing with His Son on the cross

[Protestant]

Directed at SovereignGrace:

Please stop quoting what men have to say to justify your position...quote Scripture.

Translation:

Although the Lord has wisely placed godly Christian teachers in His Body to help others better understand Scripture, I denounce all those who agree with your position.

From henceforth you are to recognize my interpretation as that which is the only correct one.

Even though you may quote dozens of relevant verses I will systematically deny the validity of them as proof texts for your position.

In summation, attempting to enlighten me to the truth of the matter is a supreme waste of your time which is better spent teaching those who are actually eager to learn and teachable.

God bless.

Translation:

No hard feelings. I am but a lowly, humble servant of Christ whose humility knows no bounds.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Directed at SovereignGrace:



Translation:

Although the Lord has wisely placed godly Christian teachers in His Body to help others better understand Scripture, I denounce all those who agree with your position.

From henceforth you are to recognize my interpretation as that which is the only correct one.

Even though you may quote dozens of relevant verses I will systematically deny the validity of them as proof texts for your position.

In summation, attempting to enlighten me to the truth of the matter is a supreme waste of your time which is better spent teaching those who are actually eager to learn and teachable.



Translation:

No hard feelings. I am but a lowly, humble servant of Christ whose humility knows no bounds.

I did use scriptures and he scoffed at them. He is on ignore now, to rest my eyes from his postings.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings "SovereignGrace",

Did God pour out His anger, His wrath upon His Son, Christ, when He was crucified?

I voted no as God the Father continued to love His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. God was not angry with His Son, "His beloved Son", in whom He was well pleased. Jesus continued to love God, and humbled himself to become obedient to the death of the Cross. The word propitiation in Romans 3:25 (KJV) can be translated or understood in the sense of the mercy seat. Christ died as our representative, not our substitute.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
. . . explain how Christ "expiated Himself."

"I have power to lay down my life."

"to lay down" = "~expiate Himself~".

Hello Gerhard, thanks for the reply, but I am afraid you are going to have to show me how this verse...


John 10:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

...has Christ expiating Himself.


And let's look at the source our friend has used (and I would remind you there is an attempt to prove an "orthodox" view that "God poured out His wrath upon the Son") has to say about expiation:

The act of expiation is a way to atone for something you did that was wrong. It was originally used in a religious context, with expiation the way a person could gain forgiveness from a god.

Let's look at the etymology:

expiate (v.) Look up expiate at Dictionary.comc. 1600 (OED 2nd ed. print entry has a typographical error in the earliest date), from Latin expiatus, past participle of expiare "to make amends, atone for" (see expiation). Related: Expiable (1560s); expiated; expiating.

How about this one:


Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Expiation

Expiation [N]
Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered" by vicarious satisfaction.

The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them.

The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (See PROPITIATION .)


Now, as in the questionable idea that "the Wrath of God was poured out on the Son," so too I would ask you to explain how Christ "expiated Himself," and do this using the original languages of the Bible, not modern secular sources or commentary.

Christ was sinless, and did not atone for Himself, thus could not have "expiated Himself."

Christ was sinless, thus the wrath of God could never be directed at Him, particularly when He took that sin upon Himself freely, and this according to God's own Redemptive Plan.

The wrath experienced by Christ was at the hands of men:



Matthew 16:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.


Matthew 17:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:


Mark 9:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.


Luke 24:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

Jesus "poured out" his blood pouring out, that is, expiating his LIFE upon the 'altar' of his and his Father's OWN WILL.

There was no need for expiation in the Life of Christ.

That is why He was suitable to die in man's stead.

The expiation as well as propitiation is man-centered, we are the ones who needed to be atoned for.

The life of animal sacrifices was poured out in and with their blood, like the life of the man-sinner ought to have been poured out for his sins.

Now wait a minute...what do you mean "poured out in and with their blood"?

That is the very purpose of Atonement through vicarious sacrifice, my friend, that the sinner not die, nor shed his blood, but that a vicarious substitute stands in their place.

But Christ stepped forward in the sinner’s place and poured out his love and very life and soul for him as shed He his own blood in the sinner’s stead.

Correct. Completely innocent of personal sin, that death was not a matter of God's wrath being poured out on Him, but a matter of God's wrath averted for us.

Just prior to His death the Lord stated...


John 19:30

King James Version (KJV)

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


Well...was it or wasn't it?

That sacrifice is said to be the reason for our redemption, not some concept of Christ undergoing some spiritual punishment in Hades, Hell, or elsewhere.

As you say, that blood was spilled for us, that our own deaths not be exacted for our sins, rather than His. While we might say expiation was accomplished, we don't say Christ "expiated Himself," which would imply there was something in the Christ which had to be atoned for. That flies in the face of vicarious death. Not one sacrifice ever offered prior to the Sacrifice of Christ had a sacrifice that was directly guilty.

Not unless we consider animals capable of sin.


God bless.

 

[Reformed]

Greetings "SovereignGrace",
I voted no as God the Father continued to love His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. God was not angry with His Son, "His beloved Son", in whom He was well pleased. Jesus continued to love God, and humbled himself to become obedient to the death of the Cross. The word propitiation in Romans 3:25 (KJV) can be translated or understood in the sense of the mercy seat. Christ died as our representative, not our substitute.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor, you do not understand propitiation either. That the Father always loved the Son does not negate His wrath being poured out upon the perfect sacrifice for sin, His Son. The Son of God was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, even though He never sinned Himself. The Son of God is not our representative, He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a difference.

 

[Darrell C]

Directed at SovereignGrace:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Please stop quoting what men have to say to justify your position...quote Scripture.

Translation:

Hmm, still smarting from our last encounter, eh? I would have hoped you may have grown a little in the meantime.

I guess it is "godly" to speak about people behind their back.

If you have something to say, or something to contribute to the discussion, try to do it with a little more than backbiting.

Although the Lord has wisely placed godly Christian teachers in His Body to help others better understand Scripture, I denounce all those who agree with your position.

Perhaps you might actually read the thread. Then you would see that you have erred completely on what has been said.

I can't help it if people don't have the courage to stand up and defend their doctrine.

I can't help it that some think they can present doctrinal positions without a Scriptural Basis.

And I can't help it that some, like you, are equally prone to defend their friends instead of the faith, hatred for others being their motivation.

But, what I can help is pointing out questionable doctrine, in hopes that someone might consider what is said, instead of spouting out spurious opinions and then trying to justify those opinions without even once presenting a Biblical Basis.

Although the Lord has wisely placed godly Christian teachers in His Body to help others better understand Scripture, I denounce all those who agree with your position.

I would ask you to point out where I have "denounced" anyone, lol.

Simple questions posed to, well, I'll leave it at simple questions posed.



If you think challenging someone to not only back up a doctrinal position, or rebuking someone for being a quitter who gives off arrogance, not godliness or wisdom (for there is nothing wise in an inability to defend a doctrinal view), then...maybe you're right.

From henceforth you are to recognize my interpretation as that which is the only correct one.

Simply can't be found in my posts, only in the hatred in your heart, which stems from pride.

They have done just about as well as you when your doctrinal positions were challenged some months back.

Nothing wrong with trying the spirits. Maybe if you would consider your charge is to make disciples, not friends, you would not involve yourself in making posts like this, but something of substance.

Even though you may quote dozens of relevant verses I will systematically deny the validity of them as proof texts for your position.

I challenge you to present even one relevant verse to "God pouring out His Wrath on His Son."

Just one.

Just as I have challenged your buddies.

And there is nothing, by the way, wrong with the term "proof-text." We use texts to prove our positions.

Well...some of us do.

In summation, attempting to enlighten me to the truth of the matter is a supreme waste of your time which is better spent teaching those who are actually eager to learn and teachable.

Do I come across as one who gives up? Quits, because someone doesn't embrace my views?

You would be wrong.

That would be you, amigo, and everyone who is forced to use the ignore feature.

God bless.

Translation:

No hard feelings. I am but a lowly, humble servant of Christ whose humility knows no bounds.

That would actually be an interpretation, wouldn't it? You let me know.

But, if you would like to help your friends, let me give you a little advice: you're not going to help them with posts like this.

You might help them if you could actually verify your statements and present those "dozens of relevant verses" you speak of.

But that's not going to happen, is it, because your Doctrine nor your attitude has the benefit of having a Biblical Basis.

Step up to the plate, Protestant.


2 Timothy 1:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.



God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Trevor, you do not understand propitiation either. That the Father always loved the Son does not negate His wrath being poured out upon the perfect sacrifice for sin, His Son. The Son of God was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, even though He never sinned Himself. The Son of God is not our representative, He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a difference.

Then perhaps you would like to present the Biblical Basis for God "pouring out His wrath upon His Son"?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I did use scriptures and he scoffed at them. He is on ignore now, to rest my eyes from his postings.

Or is it to let your brain thaw out? lol

I saw no Scripture that validates that God poured out His wrath upon His Son.

I have seen no Scripture that teaches Christ "expiated Himself."

Where are these Scriptures you speak of? Please give me the post numbers, perhaps I have missed them.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

From Zane Hodges quoted in Walvoord's and Zuck's commentary, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In recent times there has been much scholarly discussion of the Greek word hilasmos, which the NIV renders as “atoning Sacrifice.” (The word occurs in the NT only here and in 1Jn_4:10.) Some say the term is not the placating of God’s wrath against sin, but rather is an “expiation” or “cleansing” of sin itself. But the linguistic evidence for this interpretation is not persuasive. The view has been capably discussed and refuted by Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, pp. 125-85).
God’s wrath against sin may not be a concept congenial to the modern mind, but it is thoroughly biblical. Hilasmos could be fittingly rendered “propitiation” (cf. the noun hilastērion, “propitiation,” in Rom_3:25 and the verb hilaskomai, “to propitiate,” in Luk_18:13 and Heb_2:17). The Cross has indeed propitiated (satisfied) God and has met His righteous demands so thoroughly that His grace and mercy are abundantly available to both saved and unsaved alike.

Propitiation is simply the legal satisfaction of the demands of God. What were those demands, and how were they met?
All throughout the OT one sees that sin demanded an offering of blood: from a sacrifice for Adam, for Cain and Abel, throughout all humanity:
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
Christ had to shed his blood.

Christ was the Lamb of God chosen before the foundation of the world.
He met the demands of God and paid for the sins of the world by his sacrifice on the cross. The justice of God or the demands of God were met.

 

[Darrell C]

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

From Zane Hodges quoted in Walvoord's and Zuck's commentary, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

In recent times there has been much scholarly discussion of the Greek word hilasmos, which the NIV renders as “atoning Sacrifice.” (The word occurs in the NT only here and in 1Jn_4:10.) Some say the term is not the placating of God’s wrath against sin, but rather is an “expiation” or “cleansing” of sin itself. But the linguistic evidence for this interpretation is not persuasive. The view has been capably discussed and refuted by Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, pp. 125-85).
God’s wrath against sin may not be a concept congenial to the modern mind, but it is thoroughly biblical. Hilasmos could be fittingly rendered “propitiation” (cf. the noun hilastērion, “propitiation,” in Rom_3:25 and the verb hilaskomai, “to propitiate,” in Luk_18:13 and Heb_2:17). The Cross has indeed propitiated (satisfied) God and has met His righteous demands so thoroughly that His grace and mercy are abundantly available to both saved and unsaved alike.

Propitiation is simply the legal satisfaction of the demands of God. What were those demands, and how were they met?
All throughout the OT one sees that sin demanded an offering of blood: from a sacrifice for Adam, for Cain and Abel, throughout all humanity:
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
Christ had to shed his blood.

Christ was the Lamb of God chosen before the foundation of the world.
He met the demands of God and paid for the sins of the world by his sacrifice on the cross. The justice of God or the demands of God were met.

The quote does not, in my view, really address the issue as it has unfolded in this discussion...

Some say the term is not the placating of God’s wrath against sin, but rather is an “expiation” or “cleansing” of sin itself.

I don't think anyone refutes the truth that God's wrath on our parts, or, the wrath rightly directed at us, has been appeased, for we know we have been delivered from the wrath to come.

From my perspective I can't see how we could not both see God's wrath appeased upon our part, or...that cleansing of sin is not a secondary view but part and parcel with salvation itself.

So just out of curiosity, DHK, where do you stand in regards to the view that "God poured out His wrath upon His Son on the Cross."

I can't seem to get anyone who feels He did to actually try to validate that view with Scripture.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Trevor, you do not understand propitiation either.

You might want to first show someone doesn't understand something before making such a sweeping and obscure statement.

That the Father always loved the Son does not negate His wrath being poured out upon the perfect sacrifice for sin, His Son.

So where is your Scripture?

Where do we see this is a truth, and not just another questionable and popular teaching?

The Son of God was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, even though He never sinned Himself.

No-one denies that, and nothing said in the post you responded to intimated the poster denied it.

The Son of God is not our representative, He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a difference.

Anyone who stands in the place of another can be considered a representative. Christ is representative of Humanity itself. He has acted on behalf of Man, because for man to be there themselves would negate what He did on their behalf.

I agree there is a difference, but a good case could be raised to show how Christ represented you and me at the place of judgment. I was not there on the Cross, you were not there on the Cross, and in fact no man was. Only the Father was with the Lord then, as pointed out before in this thread.

So, if you don't mind, I would be greatly interested to see a Biblical presentation of God pouring out His wrath on the Son on the Cross.

And it is not just a matter of debating and someone being right, and someone being wrong, but a matter of this is a view that I have heard numerous times from the pulpits I have sat under, and in numerous Sunday School lessons.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

So just out of curiosity, DHK, where do you stand in regards to the view that "God poured out His wrath upon His Son on the Cross."

I can't seem to get anyone who feels He did to actually try to validate that view with Scripture.

God bless.

That is what I was trying to answer in a round about way.
For example, in the sacrifice provided for Adam and Eve, I don't really see the wrath and anger of God being torn into that animal, being ripped apart in anger, with blood being splattered everywhere. Nor do I see God angry with himself. Nor do I see God angry "angry" with Adam and Eve. Where is the wrath in this picture, which prefigures Christ.

The sacrifice was provided to make an atonement, a reconciliation, a propitiation for sins. So it was all through the OT. And never was there any anger or wrath involved in any sacrifice. Is the Lamb of God angry? Was God the Father angry with the Lamb of God?
More importantly Can God be angry with God?
He was and is and always will be deity.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Reformed,

Trevor, you do not understand propitiation either. That the Father always loved the Son does not negate His wrath being poured out upon the perfect sacrifice for sin, His Son. The Son of God was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, even though He never sinned Himself. The Son of God is not our representative, He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a difference.

I will leave the concept of representative vs substitute to another time. Now the word under consideration only occurs in two places in the NT. Please compare how the KJV, the NIV and the Net translate Romans 3:25 and also the KJV of Hebrews 9:5.
Romans 3:25-26 (KJV): 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 3:25 (NIV): God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

Romans 3:25 (NET): God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Hebrews 9:5 (KJV): And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Romans 3:25-26 is one of the most important parts of Paul’s exposition of the Gospel of Christ. Nowhere in this passage are we given a picture of the wrath of God against Jesus. Rather it shows that by means of the sacrifice of Christ God’s righteousness was declared. This declaration forms the basis of God being able to not only be seen to be just or righteous, but also God can use this as a basis for forgiveness of past sins of those who believe in Jesus.

The very expression “Mercy seat” conveys this concept, that there is established a basis for mercy. Jesus has been set forth to declare God’s righteousness, and the explanation of this is “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus”

If God was angry with His Son, where does this demonstrate the righteousness of God. If I commit a sin, what right has my father to be angry with my brother and punish him for my sin? And how could my father then say to my brother, now that my wrath has abated I forgive you your sin and “justice” has been done.

Please also note that the same word translated propitiation in the KJV of Romans 3:25 occurs in Exodus for the mercy seat:
Exodus 25:17 (KJV): And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
Exodus 25:20 (KJV): And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exodus 25:21 (KJV): And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk

More importantly Can God be angry with God?
He was and is and always will be deity.

No, but He can be angry at Man, do you deny the Manhood of Christ ? Do you deny His Manhood was different from His Deity ?

 

[Darrell C]

dhk



No, but He can be angry at Man, do you deny the Manhood of Christ ? Do you deny His Manhood was different from His Deity ?

Do you deny that Christ was God?


God bless.

 

[savedbymercy]

Do you deny that Christ was God?


God bless.

No He is Both, so do you deny that as you deny that His Death alone failed to save them He died for?

 

[blessedwife318]

Its very clear that this whole discussion hinges on what does "propitiation" mean. Or even more accurately what does the Greek word "hilasmos"mean in the 1st century. I did a little research and found this quote about its use in Classical Greek lit.

the uniform acceptation of the word in classical Greek, when applied to the Deity, is the means of appeasing God, or averting His anger; and not a single instance to the contrary occurs in the whole Greek literature.

Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 455, cited by Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 126.

Now I can already hear the argument that who cares how the pagan Greeks used the word. But I would remind everyone that every word in the Bible is inspired by God. He had John use the Greek word "hilasmos" for a reason, and as with any difficult word the best way to understand it is to look at contemporary usage.

Now to those who say that God is not wrathful, I found this useful article by John Walvoord that has this to say:

Morris goes on to demonstrate that the wrath of God is an important doctrine of the Old Testament, finding over five hundred eighty occurrences of this concept. He summarizes the Old Testament concept of the wrath of God in these words: “There is a consistency about the wrath of God in the Old Testament. It is no capricious passion, but the stern reaction of the divine nature to evil in man. It is aroused only and inevitably by sin, which may be thought of in general terms (Job 21:20; Jer 21:12; Ezek 24:13), or may be categorized more exactly as the shedding of blood (Ezek 16:38; 24:8 ), adultery (Ezek 23:25), violence (Ezek 8:18), covetousness (Jer 6:11), revenge (Ezek 25:17), afflicting widows and orphans (Exod 22:23 f.), taking brethren captive (2 Chron 28:11-13), etc. Wrath comes upon Israel because of the evil of Jeroboam as repeated by Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:3), and because of the evil of Manasseh (2 Kings 23:26), while Moses feared that the desire of the two and a half tribes not to pass over Jordan would have a similar effect (Num 32:14). Profaning the sabbath arouses wrath (Neh 13:18), which comes also upon men who ‘have not told the truth about’ God (Job 42:7, Moffatt), and Gideon feared that his repeated testing of the Lord would also cause God’s anger (Judges 6:39).”

Link

Leon Morris summarizes his extensive research in the doctrine of propitiation in the Septuagint by agreeing on the one hand with “the verdict of such scholars as Westeott and Dodd in their demonstration that in the Old Testament there is not the usual pagan sense of a crude propitiation of an angry god.”4 On the other hand, he feels they have gone too far when they say in effect “when the LXX translators used ‘propitiation’ they do not mean ‘propitiation,’ it is surely time to call a halt. No sensible man uses one word when he means another, and in view of the otherwise invariable Greek use it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the ἱλάσκομαι group without conveying to his readers some idea of propitiation.”5

Link

“Where there is sin, the Old Testament teaches, that there is wrath; but this does not mean that all men are to be consumed, for that wrath is the wrath of a loving father Who yearns for His children to come to Him.”

Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 159

Even in the NT we can see that God's wrath is still there. Its not like there is two different gods one in the OT and one in the NT although that is a a popular idea in this day and age.
Just a few examples of God's wrath in the NT

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 3:7

And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Mark 3:5

Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.

Luke 21:23

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 3:36

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Romans 9:22

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:6

6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming.[c]

Colossians 3:6

Pulse basically the entire book of Revelation but I think you get the point. Wrath is not unknown to God.

John Walvoord continues on his article look at the use of the word in Romans 3:25

whom 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.

He says this:

The meaning of Romans 3:25, therefore, must stand upon its immediate context. The argument begins in Romans 1:18, and upon the revelation of sin, the doctrine of redemption and propitiation in Romans 3 is erected.

The argument of Paul in this section is an expansion of the doctrine of justification by faith. He points out the necessity of it being based upon the wrath of God against sin in all forms which is developed in Romans 1:18-3:20 . The conclusion is that there can be no justification apart from faith. The doctrine of justification itself then is unfolded beginning in Romans 3:22 where it is revealed to be “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.” Justification is through redemption (v. 24 ) accomplished by Christ. In this connection, Christ is presented as “a propitiation” made effective through faith by or “in his blood.”

link
Bold mine


Read the whole article, Walvoord makes some very good points about Jesus being our Propitiation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did God pour out His anger, His wrath upon His Son, Christ, when He was crucified?

Yes, for during that time, He experienced eternal seperation from the father, just as all sinners will in the end...

It pleased God to crush him, in order to be able to freely and forever justify and redeem those whom come to Jesus, and Jesus was a willing partner to that!

 

[DHK]

Read the whole article, Walvoord makes some very good points about Jesus being our Propitiation.

He does make some very good points.
The conclusion in his article is:

Taken as a whole, the doctrine of propitiation as revealed in these New Testament references seems fully to sustain the orthodox concept that Christ in His death on the cross through the shedding of His blood and the sacrifice of His life constituted a satisfaction of divine justice which God accepts on behalf of the sinner making possible the manifestation of His love toward men and bestowal of righteousness through justification by faith. The necessity of such a propitiation is demonstrated by the sin of the race (Rom 3:9, 23; 5:12 ), the righteousness of God (Ps 119:137; 145:17 ; Rom 3:25-26), and the historic fact that Christ actually died for sinful man (Isa 53:5-6; 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4; 3:13 ; Eph 5:2; Heb 9:22, 28; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 2:24 ; Rev 1:5).

There is nothing here mentioned about the wrath of God, particularly about the wrath of God upon the Son. It is about the justice of God not his wrath.
The death of Christ satisfied the divine justice of God. He accepted it on behalf of all mankind making it possible for the sinner to obtain justification through faith.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again "SovereignGrace",

The concept that God was angry with Jesus in the crucifixion seems to me to be like some of the pagan deities, where they offered their children as a substitute to be burnt and consumed to appease the deity, for example Moloch.

The Law typified the sacrifice in the various offerings, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Burnt Offering and the Peace Offering. Accompanying the Peace Offering were the Meal and Drink Offerings. The Law also specified when and how these were to be offered acceptably, and some were punished for offering strange fire, Nadad and Abihu, or entering the Temple to offer incense Uzziah. The only blood that entered the Most Holy was on the Day of Atonement, and the body of this sacrifice (I need to check this detail) was burnt outside the Camp. This showed in a sense that all the other offerings were ineffectual. The Passover Lamb also typifies Christ. But none of all these typical offerings could be said to depict an angry God, whose anger must be appeased by a substitutionary sacrificial victim. Each offering was given and offered to represent the individual, and this pointed forward to the fact that only the voluntary sacrifice of the sinless and holy Christ would find acceptance before God.

The representative nature of the crucifixion is also suggested by the following:
Luke 9:23 (KJV): And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Romans 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

To be a disciple we must follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is not our substitute, otherwise we would not die. He is our representative, the captain of our salvation and we need to follow his lead.

Kind regards
Trevor